the blood of the palestinian children, you let die, will come over
you, your wife and your two daughters !!!!!!!!!!!!
atta

the blood of the palestinians, the you-essers let die, will make a
river of destruction all over the u.s.
atta.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024976.html

Get your shit together for the shit storm.

http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135

New Delhi: India has proof of the involvement of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence agency in last week’s terrorist attacks in
Mumbai but will not level a public accusation because the ensuing tension
in bilateral relations would play into the hands of those responsible for
the incidents, authoritative sources claimed here on Thursday.

Asked for the sort of proof linking the ISI to the attacks, the sources
said investigators had "the names of the handlers and trainers, the
locations where the training was held, and some of their communication
through Voice over Internet Protocol have addresses that have been used by
known ISI people before."

The sources also clarified that contrary to media reports in India and
Pakistan, the demarche which was handed over to the Pakistani side earlier
this week did not contain the list of 20 most wanted terrorists that had
first been given to Islamabad in 2000.  Once the media started saying
India was demanding the immediate handing over of the 20 fugitives, of
course, the Government could hardly contradict these reports since their
return has been a long-standing Indian demand, the sources added.

The demarche made only a pro forma reference to the return of unnamed
fugitives but was otherwise exclusively focused on the Lashkar-e-Taiba and
its leader Hafiz Saeed, whom New Delhi regards as the perpetrators of the
Mumbai terror strikes.

The sources said that India did not believe the civilian government in
Pakistan was involved in the incidents.  Asked about the Pakistani Army
chief’s potential role, they said it would be surprising if the ISI were
able to operate without the military leadership’s knowledge.

Describing Pakistan as a country with a fragmented power structure, the
sources said India’s response to what has happened in Mumbai could not
be the same as in December 2001, when a terrorist attack on Parliament
triggered the offensive deployment of troops on the border and the
suspension or downgrading of transport and diplomatic links.  "Then, we
were dealing with one Pakistan.  There was Musharraf and that was it.
Today, the situation is different."

The Pakistani Army would very much like a military crisis on the border
with India because that would relieve the pressures it was facing on the
Afghan front.  "Our dilemma is that we don’t want to play their game–
we want them to continue being engaged in the fight against terrorism in
the west because that’s also our war.  But we can’t give them a pass
either.  The perpetrators have to be fixed."

It was because of this complexity, the sources added, that India’s
public response has been very limited.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/05/stories/2008120558260100.htm

And what makes the Indian politicians involved think that a "very
fragmented power structure" in Pakistan with an "Army [that] would very
much like a military crisis on the border with India because that would
relieve the pressures it was facing on the Afghan front" is going to be
waging effective war on the Taliban, or al Qaeda, or Lashkar-e-Tayyaba?
where do they see any sign of that in the past, or that it’s going to be
any different in the future?

Strangely, however, the Indian Communist Party has pointed out the next
best thing to demanding action and then if not getting it (which seems
likely) going to war, even a limited series of strikes against LeT
enclaves and so on:

NEW DELHI: Attacking the Bharatiya Janata Party and a section of the media
for advocating a U.S.-type response to the Mumbai terror attacks, the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Thursday said such a move would only
result in what terror outfits such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) wanted.

Observing that after the attack on the Twin Towers, the Bush
administration had waged a war against Iraq which had "nothing
whatsoever" to do with the terror strike [they seem to've missed the war
on Afghanistan that, however reluctantly and ineffectively, came first],
the party said military strikes against targets in Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir (PoK) "will surely provoke a war" with Pakistan.

"The result would be exactly what the extremist outfits like LeT want,"
CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said.

In an editorial in the latest issue of People’s Democracy, he said what
was required was not to go to war with Pakistan "but to ensure that
strong action is taken against terrorist organisations and personnel in
that country."

Noting that the issue was to get the Pakistani government act against
extremist groups, Mr. Yechury said all evidence collected should be
presented to that government which should be asked to act promptly.

"If they do not respond, then India should take the matter to the U.N.
Security Council under its Resolution 1373 which asks all States to take
steps to prevent commission of terror acts, deny safe havens to those who
finance, plan or support these activities," Mr. Yechury said.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/05/stories/2008120561141200.htm

I think a variant on this would be better, that instead of presenting the
evidence privately to the Pakistani government (so that they can’t lie
about it like they did the list of suspects already handed to them), I
would publish– web– every last shred of it, documents, recordings ‘n’
all, with English translations where needed (so that the American
government can’t lie to its own people about it among other things), and
then if no action is taken by Pakistan go to a Security Council already
long familiar with the evidence and with the fresh evidence of Pakistani
inaction to add to it.

–

Allah has told us to make atom bombs.

< Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Pakistan

US DRUG POLICY IS A POLITICAL LIE NOT A REALITY

Fact is that the US government has no interest in stopping illegal
drug traffic.

That fact is supported by statistics. Drug use has increased. Drug
traffic has increased. Drug popularity has increased. The types of
substances being used has diversified and expanded.

The fact is that Illegal drugs make people easier to control, and
serve to eliminate much of the potential dissent as well as serving to
reduce the capacity for effective action and for critical thinking
which would otherwise challenge government.

If the US government were honest they would legalize most types of
illegal drugs, within a controlled system to assure that high risk
jobs are closed to addicts. (For instance it is not good for an
ambulance driver to be on cocaine or hashish. Similarly it is not good
for a brain surgeon operating and performing demanding surgical
procedures. Clearly there are many occupations that need drug testing
and screening out of addicts who would be considered impaired in
regard to their occupational responsibilities. The current system is
simply a lie and illegal drugs are largely a means  of selective
prejudice which can be directed against selected users,  and  they are
a means of social control.

More often the "aid" given to foreign countries, allegedly for the
purpose of stopping the illegal drug trade, is in fact diverted to
maintaining social and political order against potential insurgency
and possible political overthrow of the government in the region where
the aid is provided. The alleged "battle against the drug trade"
provides an easy  means for the US government to provide significant
financial means, that it otherwise could not provide and could
not gain approval for, to police states, and totalitarian regimes whom
it chances to favor or seek favor from.

It is time that a more European understanding and rational, fact
based, approach, replaced the right wing political drug policy lies
that America has been living for many, many, decades.

Cheers.

Robert Morpheal

(PS. I am not in any way connected with the drug trade, nor am I an
illegal drug user. I have no drug habits of any kind. That is a matter
of my own personal choice. However, we need to end the lie and allow
those who feel the necessity to use illegal drugs, much more of a free
choice, even if that choice has consequences which they are willing to
accept.)

Israel enforced its own laws tonight and evicted settlers illegally
occupying Palestinian land since last March. This was politically
dicey and took courage.

The essential problem is a conflict between secular values and
religious ones.

Secular common sense says people who have occupied a territory for
centuries have a right to continue to do so, unless generously
compensated to leave.

Religious values say Jews are the master race, especially favoured by
God, and hence have a right to take anyone else’s real estate if they
want it.

Oddly, the real estate in question is not the whole earth just a
rather large chunk of the middle east shown on this map.

http://mindprod.com/image/politics/israelpromisedland.png

Israelis assert a land claim on the “promised land” mentioned in their
bible. It consists of Egypt east of the Nile, Iraq west of the
Euphrates, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the northern part of Saudi Arabia
and Israel. They based this claim on the fact they are one of 20
groups who historically held part of this region and on the religious
belief they are God’s chosen people, superior to all others. There
have been 13 groups who have held the territory now called Israel
since. Oddly the Zionist Jews making the claim are Ashkenazy Jews who
descended from Eastern Europeans, who converted to Judaism, not
descendants of the original Sephardic Jews. I consider the claim
outrageous, preposterous and bogus. It is also insane in the strict
legal sense of not being able to distinguish right from wrong.
—
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
"Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment
 whose ultimate consequences could be second only to global nuclear war."
~ Environment Canada (The Canadian equivalent of the EPA on global warming)

Washington State Republicans want to pass a bill to muzzle the
Atheists who have a placard up along with Christian and Jewish holiday
season displays in the Washington State capitol.

One Republican stated "Freedom of speech does not mean hate speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean bigotry" in defence of banning the
atheist placard.

You can see the placard in question in this photo:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-enlarge_photo/story/554980…

It says:

——————

"At this season of the winter solstice
may reason prevail.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition
that hardens heart and enslaves minds."

—————–

Given the reaction, the placard has proved its point.

The sentiment sounds a bit like the John Lennon song, Imagine, you
often hear.

Hate speech means encouraging people to harm some group, by either
killing them, beating them up, denying them civil liberties, denying
them the right to vote, marry, live where they please etc.  It does
not mean disagreeing with them.

Basically the placard says the claims of all the religions are harmful
BS, just as the Christians claim evolution is harmful BS.  Nobody is
asking anyone to harm Christians or evolutionists.

I am amazed that Christians are so insecure in their faith the feel
the need to stomp out even one placard in opposition. They are as nuts
an the medieval clergy who burned books and people they felt were not
sufficiently Christian.

What I find most amusing, is almost nobody would have seen the Atheist
placard until the Christians tried to ban it. Now tens of thousands
have. They are SO stupid.

The constitution is clear. The government can’t make laws on religion.
They CAN’T legally make a law favouring one religion over another, no
matter how popular the dominant pro-censorship religion is.
—
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
"Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment
 whose ultimate consequences could be second only to global nuclear war."
~ Environment Canada (The Canadian equivalent of the EPA on global warming)

Jobless rolls at 26-year peak, factory orders drop

Reuters
Thursday, December 4, 2008

URL: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Number-of-workers-on-jobless-rb-1374590…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     What Would the U.S.A.’s Founding Fathers Do?

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which
they draw their gains.
  — Thomas Jefferson

 I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to
a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and
 silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
  — George Washington

  If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
forms of government … The citizens must rush tumultuously to
arms, without concert, without system, without resource;
except in their courage and despair …

  The natural strength of the people in a large community, in
proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater
than in a small … the people, without exaggeration, may be said
to be entirely the masters of their own fate.
  — Alexander Hamilton

  We in America do not have government by the majority.
We have government by the majority who participate.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
conscience to remain silent.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of
the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe
depositories.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now
let us show them we can fight like men also.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  Don’t talk about what you have done or what you are going
to do.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the
Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will
delineate and define you.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies.
  — Thomas Jefferson

  Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.
  — Thomas Jefferson

The absence of a solid anti-war voice on Obama’s national security
team means that US foreign policy isn’t going to change

December 1 2008

Barack Obama has assembled a team of rivals to implement his foreign
policy. But the main battles will not be between Obama’s staff, but
rather against those who actually want a change in US foreign policy,
not just a staff change in the war room.

The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe
Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for
the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic
policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that
stretches from George HW Bush’s time in office to the present.

We were told repeatedly during the campaign that Obama was right on
the premiere foreign policy issue of our day – the Iraq war. "Six
years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was
politically risky to do so," Obama said in his September debate
against John McCain. "Senator McCain and President Bush had a very
different judgment." What does it say that, with 130 members of the
House and 23 in the Senate who voted against the war, Obama chooses to
hire Democrats who made the same judgement as Bush and McCain?

On Iraq, the issue that the Obama campaign described as "the most
critical foreign policy judgment of our generation", Biden and Clinton
not only supported the invasion, but pushed the Bush administration’s
propaganda and lies about Iraqi WMDs and fictitious connections to al-
Qaida. Clinton and Obama’s hawkish, pro-Israel chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, still refuse to renounce their votes in favour of the war.
Rice, who claims she opposed the Iraq war, didn’t hold elected office
and was not confronted with voting for or against it. But she did
publicly promote the myth of Iraq’s possession of WMDs, saying in the
lead up to the war that the "major threat" must "be dealt with
forcefully". Rice has also been hawkish on Darfur, calling for "strik
[ing] Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets".

It is also deeply telling that, of his own free will, Obama selected
President Bush’s choice for defence secretary, a man with a very
disturbing and lengthy history at the CIA during the cold war, as his
own. Time magazine described him as "the man who led the Marines
during the run-up to the war – and failed to publicly criticise the
operation’s flawed planning". Moreover, Jones, who is a friend of
McCain’s, has said a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, "would be against
our national interest".

But the problem with Obama’s appointments is hardly just a matter of
bad vision on Iraq. What ultimately ties Obama’s team together is
their unified support for the classic US foreign policy recipe: the
hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of US
militarism to defend the America First doctrine.

Obama’s starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of
his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the
ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush’s
Brain", called Obama’s cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself
is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain
campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these
appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a
President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and
the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month
timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with
dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama
campaign."

Boot added that Hillary Clinton will be a "powerful" voice "for
‘neoliberalism’ which is not so different in many respects from
‘neoconservativism.’" Boot’s buddy, Michael Goldfarb, wrote in The
Weekly Standard, the official organ of the neoconservative movement,
that he sees "certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in
how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to
continue the course set by Bush in his second term."

There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of
the Obama foreign policy apparatus.

And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US
foreign policy.

He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan
Washington insiders are gushing over Obama’s new team. At the same
time, it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in
some epic betrayal. Of course these appointments contradict his
campaign rhetoric of change. But move past the speeches and Obama’s
selections are very much in sync with his record and the foreign
policy vision he articulated on the campaign trail, from his pledge to
escalate the war in Afghanistan to his "residual force" plan in Iraq
to his vow to use unilateral force in Pakistan to defend US interests
to his posturing on Iran. "I will always keep the threat of military
action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel," Obama
said in his famed speech at the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee last summer. "Sometimes, there are no alternatives to
confrontation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/01/barack…