Daily Archives: May 7, 2007

Babes in bikinis tell it like it is

 The oldest trick in the book is make an enemy
Of phony evil, now the government can do its dirt
And take away ya freedom lock and load, beat and search

– “What Would You Do?” Music performed by Paris

Up until recently, truth was uncool, because after all, you can’t buy bling with it. But as you can see, truth is gaining in popularity because people are getting hungry for real knowledge after being fed a steady diet of junk. If you really want to be cool and gain some cred, study 9/11 and know what really happened on that day of deceit when the Skull and Bones Freemason kill committee did it’s dirt.



Palestinians ‘routinely tortured’ in Israeli jails

The Guardian | May 7, 2007

Palestinians detained by Israeli security forces are routinely tortured and ill-treated, according to a new report published by Israeli human rights groups yesterday. The ill-treatment, which includes beatings, sensory deprivation, back-bending, back-stretching and other forms of physical abuse, contravenes international law and Israeli law, the report says.

The Centre for the Defence of the Individual and B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, compiled the report after interviewing 73 Palestinians who had been arrested in 2005 and 2006.

The report found that almost 50% of detainees who were arrested in raids or at random were beaten by the army or police before they were handed over to the Shin Bet security agency for interrogation. The prisoners were interrogated for an average of 35 days and spent most of their time in tiny cells in solitary confinement. They were interrogated from five to 10 hours a day. More than half did not see a lawyer or representative of the Red Cross for the whole period of interrogation.

The report found that prisoners were effectively starved by being offered food designed to appear rotten or unappetising. Their only exercise was the walk from the cell to the interrogation room during which they were shackled, handcuffed and blindfolded. In some cases more extreme treatment was used. One in five detainees were deprived of sleep for up to three days and a quarter were beaten by their interrogators.

Out of more than 500 complaints against Shin Bet since 2001, not a single one has been upheld. Israel’s justice ministry said Shin Bet interrogations were carried out in accordance with the law, although it declined to comment on the “interrogation techniques” detailed in the report.

In 1999, the supreme court banned the torture of suspects but left several loopholes which allowed it to continue.

Torture a Kabul speciality

Toronto Sun | May 6, 2007

Ottawa’s deal to inspect prisoners shows it hasn’t learned from war history in Afghanistan

How did Canada, one of the world’s most respected, law-abiding nations, become a party to the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan and a violator of the Geneva Conventions?

The story begins in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

The Soviet KGB created a mirror-image secret police for its Afghan puppet government, KhAD.

Having been pursued by KhAD agents, I can speak with personal knowledge of this subject.


KhAD sought to eradicate all opposition to the Communists. It also ran the education system and religious establishment. KhAD quickly became notorious, even in a famously brutal society, for its cruelties.

All political prisoners — that is, anyone who opposed the Communists — were subjected to systematic tortures. These ranged from garden variety beatings, pulling of fingernails, near-drowning and electric shocks to more refined cruelties.

Prisoners were flayed alive, thrown into vats of sulphuric acid, blinded, buried alive, burned with gasoline, or slowly frozen in refrigerated rooms.

Psychological tortures — sleep deprivation, long isolation in darkness, sound assault, mock executions and psychotropic drugs — were also used by KhAD under KGB supervision. The same tortures, known as “enhanced interrogation,” are routinely used today by the CIA.

The Communists killed two million Afghans. Canada turned its back and refused to aid the mujahedeen battling Soviet occupation. After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the newborn Taliban movement drove the remaining Afghan Communists — rebranded the Northern Alliance — into the far northeast.


In 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, allied itself to the Northern Alliance, and overthrew the Taliban. A figurehead, Hamid Karzai, was put in power. Real power, however, was held by the Communist-dominated Northern Alliance.

Once the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the KhAD, rechristened NDS, was quickly re-established. The old Communist torturers and war criminals went back into business.

Today, an estimated 60% of NDS personnel are former KhAD agents. Canadian and U.S. forces fighting to pacify southern Afghanistan have been routinely handing captives and suspects over to the NDS secret police — in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

This dirty secret was finally exposed to Canadians by a major Globe and Mail investigation.

It exposed Ottawa’s childish claims of having assurances from the Afghan Communist secret police — which had murdered or maimed tens of thousands of victims — to treat prisoners humanely.

How did Canada get into this mess? Conservative politicians in Ottawa saw a chance to win new voters by whipping up jingoism in a jolly little war against “evil” Muslims that was supposed to be a slam dunk.

Chest-thumping generals leapt before they looked. The men in Ottawa responsible for getting Canadians stuck ever deeper in this ugly conflict had no knowledge whatsoever about Afghanistan, its tribal politics, or history.

Senior officers and politicians who claim not to have known they were handing over prisoners to the Afghan secret police for torture are either stunningly ignorant or lying.

I guess they never read Rudyard Kipling’s famous admonition to British soldiers fallen wounded in Afghanistan, “save your last bullet for yourself.”

This writer, who has covered many guerrilla wars in Asia, Africa and Central America, repeatedly warned in recent years that the longer Canadian troops stayed in Afghanistan, the more they would become brutalized and involved in war crimes. Such is the nature of all guerrilla wars. Has no one in Ottawa ever studied Algeria, Lebanon or Vietnam?


Canadians who still believe the fairy tale that their forces in Afghanistan are “nation building” or doing social work should reflect on the grim fate of prisoners their soldiers handed over to the mercies of the Afghan secret police.

Ottawa’s deal this week with Kabul for inspection of NDS prisoners is a sham. The KhAD had the same empty “agreement” with human rights groups in the 1980s.

It’s bad enough Canada’s troops are defending Afghanistan’s warlords who run its booming heroin industry. Now Ottawa is hand in glove with the Communist Party’s veteran torturers. Well done, Ottawa.

U.S. expects rise in troop casualties

LA Times | May 7, 2007

If you are still stupid enough to support this stinkin war (and you are in a tiny minority now), then you must love to see our troops getting their arms, legs and heads blown off. You deaf, dumb and blind war-lovers make decent people sick to their stomachs because you are anti-life, anti-peace, anti-troop and anti-America. You disgust me because your heads are full of putrifying puss, your hearts full of darkness and evil.


General says toll will grow as more forces deploy in security plan. Eight Americans die in three separate attacks.

A U.S. Army general on Sunday warned that American casualties would rise in the coming months, a prediction underscored by the deaths of six soldiers and a foreign journalist in a roadside bombing north of Baghdad. Five other American troops died elsewhere over the weekend.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said casualties would climb as American troops went deeper into enemy territory as part of a stepped-up military operation ordered by President Bush in January. Lynch, who oversees a swath of territory to the south and east of Baghdad, gave his bleak prediction on the heels of the deadliest month so far this year for American forces in Iraq.

In April, 104 U.S. troops were killed, only the fourth time since the beginning of 2005 that U.S. deaths have exceeded 100 in a single month. At least 25 troops have been killed so far in May, a grim start to a month in which Democrats are expected to keep up pressure on the White House to plan a withdrawal from Iraq.

At least 3,376 American troops have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, according to the website icasualties.org, which tallies casualties.

The latest American deaths came on a bloody day for Iraqi security forces and civilians as well. At least 58 Iraqis died in a string of attacks, including 42 killed when a car bomb tore through a market in the Baghdad neighborhood of Bayaa.

North of the capital, in Samarra, 12 police officers died when a suicide bomber rammed a car into the police headquarters.

Witnesses said scores of vehicles filled with people waving black flags representing the Islamic State of Iraq, an Al Qaeda-linked Sunni Arab insurgent group, cruised menacingly through the city before the attack. The occupants fired on police stations, killing one officer before the car bomber struck.

Samarra’s police chief, Col. Jaleel Nahi Hassoun, was killed in the blast.

In February 2006, Sunni insurgents destroyed Samarra’s Golden Mosque, one of Shiite Islam’s most important shrines, in an attack that unleashed fierce sectarian warfare.

Bleak assessment

In his comments, Lynch echoed previous warnings that insurgent groups linked to Al Qaeda were escalating attacks in hopes of fueling sectarian violence.

Al Qaeda is “out there looking for another Golden Mosque,” Lynch said.

He gave a bleak assessment of the situation on the ground. In coming months, as the remainder of 28,500 additional U.S. troops move into place to enforce the security plan launched Feb. 13 at Bush’s command, Lynch said, American casualties will go up.

“There are going to be increased casualties during this surge because we’re taking the fight to the enemy,” Lynch told journalists.

He said troops in his area of operation were facing a “thinking enemy” that had been on the ground far longer than most U.S. soldiers and had adapted techniques such as planting roadside explosives deeper to thwart high-tech equipment.

“He dominates that terrain,” Lynch said, adding that 13 of his troops had been killed since coming to Iraq in March. His region includes the provinces of Najaf, Karbala and Babil and soon will expand to Wasit, which stretches to the Iranian border. Lynch said most of his troops had died as a result of armor-piercing roadside bombs that U.S. officials allege are coming from Iran.

Lynch repeated U.S. assertions that agents from Shiite-ruled Iran were providing weapons to both Sunni and Shiite insurgents to add to the chaos. He said evidence in his area indicated “Iranian influence” on both sides of the sectarian divide, in terms of weaponry, training and technology. He would not go into detail.

“I think it’s naive to think they aren’t reaching out to the Sunni extremists as well,” Lynch said of the Iranians.

Iran has denied involvement in Iraq’s unrest.

Lynch praised the progress of Iraqi security forces being trained to take over from U.S. and other foreign troops, but said the forces — particularly the Iraqi police — needed more time.

Large families are eco-criminals according to population control group

The Guardian | May 7, 2007

Condoms represent a “spectacular” carbon offest return?? Yeah right. Add the Chinese one-child policy to the long list of extortionate demands by global warming advocates, ie the Bilderberg Group, using their useful idiots to create a global system of tyranny. Never mind that it is all based on lies, just as 9/11 and the War on Terror are lies to be used as pretexts for this New World Order. This is all neofuedalism. If you have even two brain cells left in your head, figure it out! Don’t be a frothing neurotic follower of Bilderberg kings, queens, bankers, politicians and CEOs, because that is exactly what you are if you believe the global warming hype.


Having a large family should be regarded as an eco-crime, according to a report published today.

The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) said a lower birth rate would help cut carbon dioxide emissions and warned that each UK citizen creates nearly 750 tonnes of carbon dioxide in a lifetime.

Stopping at two children was the cheapest and most effective personal strategy for tackling climate change, the campaign group claimed, and having larger families should be frowned upon as an eco-crime just like leaving lights on, making unnecessary car journeys and throwing away plastic shopping bags. It claimed having a third child increases a family’s carbon footprint by the equivalent of 620 return flights between London and New York.

The OPT estimated that, based on a “social cost” of carbon dioxide of £42.50 a tonne, the climate cost of each Briton was roughly £30,000. This, according to OPT, would put the cost of a projected 10 million increase in the UK population by 2074 at more than £300bn.

A condom for 35p therefore represented a “spectacular” potential return.

“The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children. The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population,” the group said. “Couples making decisions about family size do so in the belief that it is a matter for them and their personal preferences alone.”


The Great Global Warming Swindle


Fixing climate carries big costs

USA Today | May 6, 2007

Global warming’s demands on human ingenuity, and pocketbooks, will take center stage Friday in the latest international report on climate change.

Whether humans bury greenhouse gases, blunt them with new technology or buy them off with tax incentives, banishing the emissions responsible for global warming will take quick action, experts conclude in advance of the report.

The latest International Panel on Climate Change report, “Mitigation of Climate Change,” examines fixes — or “mitigation” in climate lingo — to global warming, both technological and economic. The report will underline the environmental and financial benefits of quick action to cut emissions, says report co-author John Drexhage of Canada’s International Institute for Sustainable Development.

But fixes also come with costs explored in the report. If governments, for example, impose fees on carbon dioxide emissions, it would raise the price of electricity for businesses and homeowners alike. For that reason, the USA and China, major users of coal, have objected to calls in the panel’s draft report for quick action on just such a move, says Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense, an environmental research and advocacy organization.

Problematic visions of the future

In the first of two reports earlier this year, the World Meteorological Organization-sponsored panel, which features thousands of climate scientists reviewing studies, included a best estimate that average surface temperatures will rise roughly 3° to 7°F this century. In the second report, the panel concluded that environmental impacts of warming were already apparent in migrating species, earlier springtimes and sea-level rise. The summary warned of a future of increased droughts, floods and species extinctions.

“We have three choices: mitigation, adaptation or suffering,” says Harvard’s John Holdren, co-chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy. “And we are already starting to do a little of each one.”

A summary of the third and latest report’s scientific chapters will be released in Bangkok after review by political representatives of more than 100 nations, including the United States.

The key debate in Bangkok, Drexhage says, will center on a simple chart. The chart shows ways that fast economic moves worldwide, both in technology and in imposing taxes or fees on emissions, would limit global warming. The key goals are keeping this century’s average surface temperature rise roughly below 3.6°F, he adds. That’s the point where many dangerous impacts, such as declining grain yields in Africa and the spread of tropical diseases toward the poles, almost certainly loom.

The report evaluates mitigation from a number of angles:

•Technologies ranging from better building design to nuclear power to carbon sequestration, which shunts greenhouse gases from smokestacks into underground rock formations.

FORUM: Should we rely on nuclear energy as a way to combat global warming?

•Future emission “scenarios,” ranging from a “business as usual” world in which fossil fuel use continues unabated to ones with strict limits on greenhouse gases.

•Economic estimates from combinations of technologies, policies and scenarios.

A ‘monumental’ task

“The truth is we are facing a monumental challenge in climate change” tied to humanity’s widespread reliance on fossil fuels for energy, says Vicki Arroyo of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Combined with cement production, which requires heating immense amounts of limestone in a process that releases carbon dioxide, that dependence adds more than 6 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere annually. The next climate report, Arroyo says, “will make clear there are costs of not acting, and there are costs of acting, to deal with it.”

Money, not science, becomes the point of debate over climate change with the release of the mitigation report, says report co-author Anthony Patt of Boston University.

On one side, Patt suggests, some will take the position outlined in February by Newsweek pundit Robert Samuelson that significantly changing emissions “would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular.” Others will agree with last year’s Stern Review, an economic review of global warming’s implications headed by the United Kingdom’s chief economist, which argued that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would lower economic growth modestly this century, while inaction would trigger global recession by 2050 because of the environmental effects of runaway climate change.

“In my view, I think the report will make plain that a lot of avenues exist” for addressing climate change, Patt says.

No one technology or policy will address climate change by itself, Holdren says. The energy commission he co-chairs, for example, released an April report calling for charging businesses a steadily rising price per ton on carbon emissions, combined with government incentives and technology developments to lower emissions. “People are starting to notice climates changing, see it in their real lives,” he adds. “It’s too late to stop global warming. The real question is whether we can prevent catastrophic (man-made) interference with climate.”


The Great Global Warming Swindle


Phones studied as attack detector

USA Today | May 6, 2007

The government is researching whether the best defense against a chemical, biological or radiological attack might one day be right in everyone’s hands — or on their ears.

Homeland Security officials are looking into outfitting cellphones with detectors that would alert emergency responders to radiological isotopes, toxic chemicals and biological agents such as anthrax.

“If it’s successful, it’ll change the way chemical, biological and radiation detection is done,” says Rolf Dietrich, deputy director of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, which invests in high-tech solutions to secure the nation against terrorist attacks. “It’s a really, really neat thing.”

Dietrich says it’s way too early to know whether the idea would work, and department officials are just beginning talks with phone companies and privacy advocates. If it does work, he says, it could be a “game-changer” in how the nation recognizes and responds to a deadly attack.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the government has spent billions of dollars putting sensors along borders, at airports, in subway stations and any other crowded place that might be a terrorist target. The idea is to detect an attack as soon as it happens, evacuate people quickly and get them the antidote or medicine they would need to survive.

Fixed sensors can’t be placed everywhere. “If the intent is to have ubiquitous detection, there’s nothing quite as ubiquitous as a cellphone,” Dietrich says.

The Homeland Security Department says the program, called Cell-All, might work this way: Detectors would be placed in cellphones, most of which are already linked to the Global Positioning System. If a detector recorded a hit, the GPS would transmit the location and time to local emergency responders and Homeland Security’s operations center.

The responders would go to the scene; Homeland Security would issue warnings and inform police departments and FBI offices across the country.

If there was just one hit, it could be a false positive and there wouldn’t be much cause for concern, Dietrich says. But multiple hits from the same area would prompt an immediate response.

There are bound to be hurdles along the way, including privacy concerns. Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies, a non-profit civil liberties group, says the government should invest in intelligence officers instead of “pie-in-the-sky technologies that aren’t proven to work.”

Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says he’s wary of any program in which “consumer products become surveillance devices for the government.”

Dietrich stressed that the program, first reported in the security industry newsletter Homeland Defense & Security Monitor, would be voluntary. “Not all people would want to play in this game,” he says.