It’s finally prompted me to post this (there have been a number of draughts spurred from various ‘The Truthseeker’ posts over the years)
Rixon. I wish you would stop constantly talking up the Iranian “threat”. You’ve been doing it for years, never seeming to lack energy to warning us of imminent war that’s going to occur which uncomfortably for you, keeps defying your warnings.
With regards to Iran and secretive stuff: So little of what you say contains what most people would constitute as strong proof. You give me thr impression you’re a fan of game theory; Are you?
This latest article of yours – which has the same theme of presenting Iran as the ‘big bad’ – is so full of holes that it would make a Swiss cheese blush. For instance, don’t you think it’s kind of peculiar that the Iranians have no clairvoyant that tells them US intelligence knows about your smuggled dirty bombs?
I would say it is very irresponsible of you to keep banging on about the “threat” Iran poses, especially at a time when hundreds of thousands of Iranian people are in the cross-hairs of the Coalition of the Killing.
To quote:
Ayatollah Khamenei: “the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin.”
and then completely ignore it saying
Nonetheless, they are being kept as weapons of last resort. The Americans know this, and now they are preparing to exploit it in a truly diabolical double-cross.
Is simply ridiculous on many fronts, as have many of your articles on ‘big bad Iran’.
Just one stumbling block along your esoteric revelations is that If Iran had these weapons and would use them ‘as weapons of last resort’ why the hell would the US and shitsrayhell attack them?
What exactly is your game?
In general you do a good job at making people think but stop pimping for a war against Iran will you.
Think about this:
Two men are floating on a shared log raft in the middle of the ocean. One constantly plays a drum. The other asks him “why do you keep playing that drum?” “To keep away the lions” “But there are no lions here” “Exactly” said the man, continuing to drum.
It is impossible to not comment on Ahmadinejad’s iron balls declaration that many around the world are suspicious that the 9-11 was an inside job. (I’m paraphrasing)
It was, of course.
The accumulation of all the evidence allows us to arrive at that decision. As it does regrding the crime of the war against Iraq.
It is noteable at who walked out… Largely ‘white-scum-nations’, you know, the centres of power that have brought untold misery to the good ordinary people of this planet for more centuries than I’d like to count, while having the chutzpah to calim they are the most righteous states that have ever been.
*puke*
The history of these obnoxious bastards lying, conducting black-ops/false-flags is undenyable, and the reaction of those devils who went along with these dasterdly events reveals perfectly that they have not the slightest bit interest in the truth.
Daniel Ellsberg, David Shayler, Craig Murray, the leaker of the Collateral Damage video, etc etc etc… were all subject to to hostilities by the state when they pubically exposed the states can-of-worms. The same has (obviously) happening to Jaddie babes.
The walk-out Ahmadinejad got for pointing the spotlight on the crown jewels which these scum-states use for the lawlwss slaughter from Sept 2001 into the forseeable future, actually gives some vindication to what he said at the UN on behalf of millions across the world.He did the same thing about the other crown jewels… what some dubb the holohoax (or as Finklestein said of it: shoah business / holocaust industry).
According to the IBBC (Israyhelli British Broading Corporation), the delagates that walked out were the US, UK, all other EU states, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Costa Rica. Most of them being those scum-states which don’t give a bluebottles gonad about slaughtering millions.
In the age of lies, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
This is a dangerous game. Any UN ‘team’ will be studded with sabateurs, just like the original one was with that very slippery American Israyhelli Phillip Zlikow. So be careful Mahmood! You might get something that might thicken the muddy waters.
On a dad note: Marwan Bishara, an otherwise excellent journalist and intelligent man is acting like your commoner garden presstitute, saying of Ahmadinejad:
“So you can now say President Ahmadinejad is both a 9/11 denier and a Holocaust denier.” – source
Ridiculous!
Not to mention the fact Marwan is making the news here, tagging ‘value added’ properties onto the story, not reporting it or as journalists should do, challenge ahmadinejad on his claim and pick them apart. Marwan is an utter fool if he believes the 9-11 Commission Report. But hey, perhaps that’s why he’s precisely where he is.
Please note: In NONE of the Al Jazeera English reports is NO ONE including US citizens who agree with a new investigation is necessary, or wven those USans who believe their government did 9-11, or well known figures like the “(New)Jersey Girls”
In Their Own Words:
9/11 Press For Truth:
Al Jazeera English’s reportage here is certainly not to their credit. It is a very clear and display of operating firmly within the box of permitted dissent.
Light entertainment, OK forgiveable. News and political analysis? Lordy you’ve got it bad. You know, sometimes after eating your greens you get home and catch your own reflection in the mirror. “Why the hell didn’t someone tell me I had that dark dreen spinach lodged im my teeth. I must have looked like an ass.” Well I am here to tell you just that. If you are watching the BBC Newz (‘newz’ cos it sure aint’ news!) you’ve got not just spinach in your teeth, but you’ve got cat litter on your cheek too, and your flies were down or you tucked your skirt in your undies.
The methodology of the BBC Newz can be sussed out by lifeforms highter than the water nymph genus, with the exception of the leming. If you are a leming, and most people are, or a life form equal or less than that of the water nymph, then get Media Lens’s book “Newspeak” and you will learn something and give the evolutionists a chance to spin out another hipottysis.
I’ll give you the lowdown: They, the Beeb, are pretty consistent in their reporting methodology. It therefore has become established. They incessently refer to themselves as balanced/unbiased and not opinionated (complete lobbox, of course). but you know what happens when a lie is repeated often enough – it works for Nazis {although strangely enough, not that well for bLiar nazi. He must have been horrified when he kept repeating the same old shit and yet a significant body refused to believe it. No woonder Megadeath bLiar had heart flutters. P.S. If he dies before me, I seriously intend to dance on his grave! Who wants to join me? lets make an event out of it – Seriously!}
Very few have enough exposure to show what a sack of spuds the BBC claim really is. So the BBCs lies stick. Its reporting ‘style’ gets entrenched into the mind, beguiling you to the desired effect that you believe the BBC claims of fairness and unopinionated reportage are just that.
Trouble is, their style is opinionated, and very much so! It gives copious positve/supportive opinions, suppositions and grace without any serious or meaningful challenge when, what one may call ‘western orthodoxy’ (i.e. hegemony} is at issue, yet it smears and opinionates you into hostility towards things alien to the aformentnioned orthodoxy. So then, that style is the benchmark (or the norm if you like me have never liked that silly ‘benchmark’ phrase) which remember is ‘fair and balanced’. When (as rarely happens) that orthodoxy does get a fair challenge, then because it’s out of the established norm and there said to be biased.
See how it works? Look at a few BBC articles about the US and then compare them with Palesine and see if what I am saying doesn’t ring true.
Guess what? here’s the bitter part: YOU are partially to blame! Yes YOU! You who have abdicated individual responsibility to hold the BBC accountable by employment of your own critical faculties and innate sence of honesty and justice to make the BBC really live up to what it claims itself to be. YOU sit there unperterbed while the BBC beams it’s mind warping crap into your head. Like I said, entertainment – ok, who honestly doesn’t need trivial catharsis from time to time. But when it comes to (real)news and current affairs, then boy, you’ve got some ‘splainin to do {as Nancy Sinatra might say}
If you’re life is comfy you probably won’t care about this, as the instinctive humanity is probably entombed by the mindset others have imparted unto you. Are you sniggering? Then my point is made as you are unlikely to have with real honesty, contemplated these words.
OK. I’m gonna stop bashing you now, not because I’m worried about my stats which are doing nicely in the footsteps of the dodo, but because the point has been made and it’s YOU and you alone who bears the responsibility to look at yourself and start asking yourself the difficult and necesary questions – and believe you me, if you are honest in answering those questions, the liberation it should being is, to borrow a phase a highlt repseced Professor said when giving a lecture on solid state ionics talking about his first publication: “better than sex”.
You may not be ready yet to do that so I’ll get back to the point… The BBC.
There is a reason why the BBC is this way. It didn’t just start being this way one crisp spring morning, and actually, the BBC is a general reflection of what can genuinely be described as the corporate mainstream media. That media and the orthodoxy it protects (mentioned earlier) is heavily interlaced with this capatilist insanity that sees 1/6th of the population go hungry each day and is busy toxifying the world. (Not with trivial CO2 – I’m talking about ACTUAL pollution – chemical, pharmaceutical, biological and nuclear waste! The BBC with all its resources should do what Michael Moores’s Corporate chicken used to do: expose corporate crime! Unless you’ve taken some time out to examine corporate crime, You probably don’t appreciate it’s depth.
Misha Glenny investigates global crime networks
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1Me-MY-Q0
The problem is a toxic rotten fruit coctail of western orthodox politics, the media, corporatite organisted crime, and of course, those at the top of all that pulling (and allowed to pull) those strings. No cigar in guessing who and any particular beliefs they may hold, but for many the line stops at greedy bankers, which is a bit like going for a walk in the Gloucestershire countryside in July’s heavy summer, only to see sticks and mud.
So here, (finally), is some REAL news, the kind of stuff the BBC should spend significant amounts of time bringing to your attention to get you off your chair and demand an end to this peverse capitalism.
–
You know it makes sence to bury this BBC rubbish and use media that isn’t a corporate whore.
More news worthy of your consideration that you wont find on the BBC…
Here’s a partial screenshot of todays (Mon 28th Dec) BBC Middle East page. Note: my previous blogpost pictured yesterdays BBC’s frontpage pic.
–
Do you notice anything? Look at my post from yesterday and then look again at this one.
It’s the same guy!
So? Well it’s quite possible the BBC is just using smaps taken in one session – the background does look similar, but look at the dudes right hand. In yesterdays pic there is no red patch AND there is no green band either. Where did that red colour come from? The immediate impression is that the red colour is blood. But it seems to me that it’s probably bene painted on. In which case the BBC is showing a misleading picture without any discussion as to what’s going on. The cameraman is pretty keen on this guy so it’s likely the cameraman knows whether the red is real or not (It’s my contention that it’s paint).
what does yesterdays pic and todays pic actually show us? One guy in what seems like a pretty isolated spot. The second pic with the red paint has much higher flames in the background, more smoke AND is of a narrower angle, focusing more on the guy.
Is all this not an act of manipulation? Worse still, it lends itself to the suggestion that the BBC is actually aiding the unrest in Iran in a deliberate context.
Given the disgraceful record of the politicised BBC News and Current affairs departmant and the lack of public awareness of its ”Governers’, I think that last possibility cannot be discounted.
This is a call to all British people the world over to rise up and destroy the BBC before it’s too late! Why? – You are being prepped for yet MORE WAR. Here’s what the ascupulous BBC have on their main page as I type:
I added the second pic of the guy holding two stones which is in a sequence with the first pic at the top. It is important to note the BBC’s words:
“Iranian security forces kill at least four protestors”
becasue it goes to prove my point. and I’ve saved a copy just in case the BBC decide to edit it. I have an early edition. The main link entitled: Iranian protestors die in clashes is linked to here. People with a memory might well recall this…
Notice the words now… A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the pround.
Do you see any difference there? The man died – words which ‘naturalise’ the death, just as 85 year old people die in their sleep. He died during the G20 protest. Actually it seemed Mr Tomlinson had nothing at all to do with the protest other than the fact that the police themselves had shut off various streets becasue of the protest that others were participating in, and because of this police action, they had prevented Mr Tomlinson from just seemingly trying to go home. the BBC say he wasn’t protesting, but they have previously made the associaton (innocently or not) of Tomlinson with the protest. I might come back to expand on the BBC’s shameful role in this latest pile of Horeshit ‘jounalism’ later, but the point is, when it comes to UK domestic issues involving the police the BBC almost ALWAYS make to appear as thought the police are innocent bystanders when people are killed in the presence of the police.
However with IRAN, the BBC (once again getting that all important first impression into you mind) that the Iranian forces killed people. Yes those nasty Iranians – you know, that country that launches pre-emptive illegla murderous wars killing tens of millions of ordinary people for over 100 years, fixes it’s intelligence around the police, actually has nuclear weapons and uses them against innocent people. OOOPS! sorry, that isn’t Iran at all! In fact, it’s the Unites Snakes and its pal the UK. Yes, that’s right, Iran is the total opposite, it does NONE of those things.
Yet here we have the BBC that has conducted a coroner and police investigation, taken eye witness statements, cross-checked witnesses, recorded and analysed the forensic evidence at the scene, including ballistics tests, conduced the courtroom trial and all this within a few hours, and arrived at an unbaised and clear judgeemt that the Iranisan security to be 100% guilty of murder.
And to answer the bipolar-ites (bipolites), No, I don’t “love” Iran (or Russia or China) because I hate the British establishment, however it MUST be said, the Iranian government hardly resister on the ‘crappy country/governments’ league table compared to the scum that is the US and UK.
That the BBC does these dirty mind games, is well documented, for example in the Media Lens book: “Newspeak in the 21st century”
The “horse shitometer” has been reading higher than usual recently. From Sudan to the Philippines the War OF Terror goes on and the next most important part of it is the likely Pakistan civil war seeing USUK military invention, and Israyhell/US/UK (USUKZ) initiating war against Iran.
So How to destroy the BBC?
Violence in this case is stupid. Instead, simply don’t but a TV licence and don’t let any supposed TV licence inspectors to enter your house. Not watchin the telly is probably better. If you see an advert on the BBC persuade yourself that the adversts you see on the BBC would actully transpire to make you NOT buy that product – a kind of reverse adverting strategy if you will.
If you don’t destroy the BBC this monstor of a mind warp will continue to eat away at you’re sence of justice.
DESTROY THE BBC, Don’t watch/listen/read it’s rubbish.\
1) Schedule/Programme (**updated Nov 8th 2009 Programme booklet scans [jpg] embedded in powerpoint**) 1.0) Opening video…
1.1) Dr Mahatir’s speech (Video link) and text **updated Nov 6th 2009 ** 1.2) George Galloway MP speech (Video link) **updated Nov 6th 2009 ** 1.3) Cynthia Mc Kinney’s speech (text only, but video on the Criminalise war YouTube link above)
The inbedded media (in bed with the filthy politiians, corporations and those who control them) have done a ‘good’ job at being silent about another step to drag some justice, kicking and screaling out of this world.
The Conference to Criminalize War and War Crimes Tribunal was held over four days in the Putra World trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur.
KL is well known for it’s efforts for global peace as is the movements head – ex primeminister Tun Dr. Mahatir Mohammad.
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
Peace and Justice
• Tan Sri Sanusi Junid (Former International Islamic University, President)
• Hana Bayati (Freelance Film Maker)
• Muhammad Umar (Ramadhan Foundation)
• Question and Answer Session
Moderator: Tun Dr Siti Hasmah
3.45 pm PANEL SESSION
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
Panel Session, to be chaired by YAB. Tun Dr. Mahathir
• Dato Seri Utama Rais Yatim (Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Malaysia)
• Michel Chossudovsky (Prof of Economics, University of Ottawa)
• Hans Von Sponeck (Former UN Secretary General)
• Denis Halliday (Former U.N Secretary General)
• George Galloway (British MP)
• Cynthia McKinney (Former U.S Congresswoman)
5.45 pm Group Photography Session
Ends 6.00 pm Press Conference
++++++++++++++++++
Oct 30th, 2009
(Venue: Tun Dr Ismail Hall, Level 2, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
9.30 am –1.00 pm Witness from Iraq Testimonies (7 witnesses)
1.00 pm LUNCH
2.00 pm – 5.00 pm Continuation of Testimonies
++++++++++++++++++
Oct 31st, 2009
(Venue: Tun Dr Ismail Hall, Level 2, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
9.30 am – 1.00 pm Continuation of Testimonies
Further testimony of witness.
1.00 pm LUNCH
2.00 pm – 5.00 pm Tribunal Deliberations
Hearing and decision of an Application for An Advisory Opinion filed by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to determine if a Head of State or Government can unilaterally exempt itself from complying with any provisions of any International Treaties/Conventions duly ratified by the State without first abrogating the relevant treaty/convention.
++++++++++++++++++
Oct 28 – 31st, 2009
10.00 am – 6.00 pm EXHIBITION (Expose War Crimes – Criminalise War: Failure of International Law)
SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT THE CRIMINALISE WAR CONFERENCE AND WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL 2009 AT PUTRA WORLD TRADE CENTER, KUALA LUMPUR ON WEDNESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2009
WAR AND CRIME
1. As one of the convenors of this conference on the Criminalisation of War, I must express my appreciation for the number of people who have shown enough interest to attend it.
2. I hope and pray that we can take yet another step towards a war-free world, toward making war no longer a solution for disputes between nations, by making it into a crime instead, making those who resort to aggressive war as criminals who must be punished for the crime of the mass killing of people, which is what war is about. If the killing of one person is murder, a crime deserving of the most severe punishment, why must we regard the mass killing of people as legitimate and proper? There is something wrong in a creed that regards the killing of one person as different from the killing of people in their thousands and millions of people. The thousands and millions are made up of single individuals in the final analysis. The mass killing in war cannot be regarded as anything other than the mass murder of individuals who make up the masses. Since individuals are being killed, the fact that the individuals are killed together doesn’t alter the fact that individuals are killed and therefore the killing must still be regarded as the killing of individuals which constitutes murder. And those responsible for the murder of these individuals must therefore be murderers and must be regarded as criminals and punished accordingly.
3. But the vast majority in this so-called modern civilization of ours still distinguish between the killing of an individual and the killings of millions of individuals in the situation called war.
4. One very intelligent individual when asked to join the movement to make war a crime, replied that we have had war for 7000 years and therefore we must accept wars. It is mind-boggling that there can be intelligent people who believe that since something had been done for 7000 years, then it should continue to be done.
5. There must be a lot of things which we have been doing for thousands years which we don’t believe should be done now. Abuse of human rights in its various forms are now not acceptable. Discrimination against women, child labour, public execution, the gibbets, torture, slavery etc etc are no longer acceptable now.
6. It is admitted that there are places where some of these practices are still carried out but generally the civilized world rejects them even if they had been common for thousands of years of their history.
7. So why cannot we reject war? Why cannot we make war a crime, a dastardly crime deserving of the most severe punishment.
8. Because we do not regard war as a crime, the mass killings have not stopped. In the 1st and 2nd World Wars 70 million people were killed. But the world today accepts this with equanimity. They were wars, so the killings were justified.
9. And today we are still seeing people being killed in wars, as the great military powers resort to it to resolve any problem, big and small which they may have with other countries, especially those which are no match for them.
10. 7000 years ago the number of people killed in any war must be very small. This is because the capacity to kill was limited. The weapons would be wooden clubs or sharpened sticks.
11. Then the more “civilized” began to invent new weapons. From stick to stone to ever harder metals. Knives, swords were invented. Sharp edges or points made killing much easier.
12. Bows and arrows followed, extending the reach of the weapons of war. The Chinese invented gun-power but not for killing. Mostly the explosives were for chasing imaginary devils and dragons, which threaten to swallow the moon.
13. The Europeans came across the gun-powder and immediately thought that it could be used in war for throwing projectiles a longer distance than the catapult or bows and arrows.
14. From then on the search for ways to hurl weapons further and further has never stopped. Apart from that the killing power of the missiles had been enhanced continually.
15. Now we can literally throw, shoot or rocket the most destructive weapons right round the globe and beyond. We now have the capacity to literally blow up this whole planet and every living soul on it.
16. The search for the most powerful weapon should really be over. Everyone should now know that a war can actually exterminate the whole of humanity, including the very people who use the nuclear weapons. Using it would amount to mass suicide. Both the victors and their victims would perish. War would therefore be totally counter productive.
17. Imagine a nuclear war with bombs and nuclear warheads being hurled at each other. If there are survivors, radiation would kill them all.
18. Truly war should no longer be an option in the settlement of disputes between nations.
19. But the fact is that the powerful nations of the world were not affected by the devastations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mostly they see nuclear weapons as deterrents against attacks against themselves. Far from outlawing nuclear weapons as they did with poison gas, they began developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
20. As a result the United States and Soviet Union, France and Britain rushed to acquire the knowledge and the capacities to produce nuclear weapons. During the Cold War years the United States and USSR built up huge arsenals of nuclear warheads. Between them there are more than 20,000 nuclear warheads sufficient to destroy the whole world many times over. China, France and Britain also have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons.
21. Germany and Japan are not allowed to posses nuclear weapons. But Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities.
22. There seems to be some basis for the idea of nuclear deterrents. Although the United States appeared ready to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban crisis, in the end it decided to compromise by removing its nuclear missiles in Turkey which was obviously threatening Russia.
23. It was fortunate that both the leaders of these two nuclear powers came to their senses in time. Otherwise the world would have been devastated by nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two countries.
24. We cannot afford to have this kind of brinkmanship. We cannot live in fear of one or two persons destroying this world and its 6 ½ billion people. We cannot allow our civilization to be terminated by some crazy President.
25. A nuclear deterrent is just too risky and too very dangerous. Maybe it was this thought that prompted the idea of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
26. But all these international resolutions were non-starters because the big nuclear powers blatantly ignored them. As a result we see other countries developing their own nuclear weapons. There is much ado about these countries having nuclear weapons. These countries would be mad to use the few primitive nuclear weapons that they have. Should they do so the powerful nuclear countries would wipe out these countries from the surface of this earth?
27. The real danger is still from the rich and powerful nuclear powers. It is they who must reduce and finally eliminate their nuclear weapons if they want to have the moral ground to enforce the non-proliferation treaty.
28. Unfortunately these great nuclear powers are still developing, testing and producing more nuclear weapons. They talk of safe nuclear bombs, of small nuclear bombs and tactical nuclear bombs. Already they are using depleted uranium in their bombs and missiles which are causing diseases like cancer to spread among hundreds of thousands who had survived their attacks.
29. But they are not stopping there. They have developed bombs to penetrate deep into the ground so that bomb shelters buried deep in the ground would provide no protection.
30. New weapons are being developed as the industrialists see profits in the research and developments of weapons. In this their military has cooperated and played a big role as they would be the only organisation to need and use the new weapons.
31. The industrialists not only produce sophisticated new weapons but they invariably follow up with the defences against the weapons they have developed. Nations, rich and poor have been forced to buy and equip their armed forces with these offensive and defensive weapons or systems.
32. After this the industrialists would come up with a new weapon that could penetrate the defence system they had sold previously.
33. Should the country refuse to buy these the producers would hint at offering the weapons to the potential enemy of the country. Fearing the enemy would posses the weapon, which could penetrate its defence, the country would be forced to acquire the new weapon.
34. Then the industrialist would come up with a new defence system against the weapon they had just sold. Again the buyer would be forced to buy this defence system.
35. And so this would go on endlessly. The industrialist would wax rich even if the weapons would not be used. This is not my imagination. It is happening now even to Malaysia. We have to buy expensive aircrafts and submarines although we don’t expect to go to war with anyone. And we have to upgrade them every now and then.
36. The weapons merchants would try to create an arms race between neighbouring countries or rival countries in order to be able to sell the arms that they produce. The arms race would create fear and tension between countries, yet fearing mutual destruction few of these countries would go to war with each other. Not being used the expenditure on arms would be wasted. The urge to try out these weapons in real life situation would be irresistible. And so proxy wars and wars against weaker nations would be started.
37. But the countries of the world never learn. They would upgrade their weaponry continuously even though they know they have very seldom any use for the weapons.
38. Along the way the industrialists and the military have developed a symbiotic relation. Always desirous of becoming more and more powerful, the military would build a case for the need to develop new weapons against the possibility of attacks by potential enemies whose weapon might be superior.
39. Unable to recoup the money spent the industrialist marketed their weapons to the world. They work hand-in-hand with their Governments, the military, the banks and the media. Together they and their sales talk would be irresistible.
40. The weapons trade has developed and grown until it has become a big part of world trade. The effect of this trade is to impoverish countries which have to continually upgrade their weaponry at considerable cost and the arms race which invariably follows as neighbouring countries compete in upgrading their weaponry.
41. The weapons producing countries are still spending trillions of dollars conceiving, inventing, developing, testing and producing weapons. This is being done at the behest of the military, but often the defence industries would come up with frightening scenarios which could be handled by their latest multimillion dollar weapons. It is not the defence of their countries which they care about. It is the money to be made.
42. Any new scientific discoveries would be thoroughly studied for use in weapons. Thus firecrackers, noxious gases, bacteria, chemicals, metal alloys, new metals, lasers, radio waves, electrical and electronic devices, composite material, carbon fibres, and just about anything would be examined, analysed, studied, tested for applications in weapons, to make the killing of people more efficient.
43. Almost without exception some application would be found for use in killing people. Radio control toy cars and model aeroplanes have now evolved into remotely controlled, unmanned aircrafts, land and sea vehicles to deliver bombs and other explosives and even biological and chemical weapons without risking the lives of the attackers.
44. The technology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) which could carry cameras and radio transmitters has now been applied to full-size military aircrafts. The pilot would be on the ground facing their numerous consoles, monitoring and controlling the aircrafts by radio, programming their flight and releasing their murderous cargo of bombs or firing their rockets. The pilots are not exposed to any danger by the bombs and rockets they fire from hundreds and thousands of miles away. Without the risk of being killed the urge to war and kill is enhanced.
45. The pilot of Enola Gay had to fly his plane thousands of miles to be over Hiroshima city in order to drop his beloved Little Boy to kill 100,000 people and destroy the whole city. He ran the risk of being attacked by enemy fighters and being shot down and killed.
46. The modern pilot can now fly the more sophisticated radio controlled bombers from his base in his country to drop the atomic bomb precisely over the target city. 100,000 people or even a million people would be killed and the whole city totally destroyed, just as was done by the pilot of Enola Gay. And all this can now be done between games of cards or watching a football match over a glass of beer. The pilot risks nothing at all yet the men, women, children, the aged, the sick and the disabled would all be killed and many thousands more wounded, losing their arms and legs, having their abdomen ripped open and their guts spilling on the ground.
47. Hospitals, schools, markets, shopping complexes and buildings of all kinds would be pulverised. Fires would start and a fire-storm would suck up all the oxygen, suffocating the survivors.
48. Even if no nuclear material is used, the power of modern explosives and the size of the mega bombs – each weighing more than 15 tons would do enough damage to devastate whole cities.
49. There would be nowhere to hide. The new bombs and rockets have the ability to pierce through earth and concrete to great depths before exploding so that those in bomb shelters would no longer be safe, be protected from the new weapons.
50. Noxious gases and radiation would kill rescuers, and would be blown for hundreds of miles, killing and spreading diseases of all kinds.
51. The great military powers have all these destructive weapons and delivery systems. They know that they don’t need huge armies to launch their attacks. All they need is a few men manning the consoles and they can literally wipe out hundreds of thousands or millions even of people, devastate whole countries and render them no longer habitable.
52. They have this capacity, they have this power. But they are still researching, developing, testing and producing more and more lethal weapons, gleefully predicting their use in future wars. They cannot conceive of a world at peace.
53. They believe that only they can be trusted with these weapons. The world need not fear them. They are reasonable people, caring people whose respect for human lives cannot be questioned. But are they?
54. They may not use the nuclear weapons and other WMD in their possession yet. But knowing that they have and knowing that no one would dare to attack them, they have shown their willingness to provoke weaker nations and to attack them with their so-called conventional but no less destructive weapons.
55. They claim their use of the power to kill people indiscriminately as making the world safe for democracy. They seem to think that only they as democrats have a right to live, to be safe and secure. It is right and proper to make those who are not democratic unsafe and insecure. It is proper to kill other people in order to promote democracy.
56. They fail to appreciate that the people who are not democratic are also people, are human beings whose right to live are no less than those who are democratic. The people who would be killed are innocent of any crimes against the democratic people, even if their leaders may be dictators. To deprive them of their rights to life must constitute as heinous a crime as the deprivation of the rights to life of innocent democrats.
57. Human rights is not for democratic people only. Every human life is sacred; every person has a right to live. Those who say that only democrats have a right to live in security are no less authoritarian than the dictators the democrats condemn. In fact in many cases authoritarian leaders or rulers have given their people a better life than some democrats whose countries have been made unstable and insecure because of the weaknesses and uncertainties of the democratic systems.
58. What I am saying is sacrilege of course. But if we look at recent events we would not fail to notice that it is the democratic countries which have been quick to use violence, who have violated international laws and shown disregard for the very human rights they so strongly advocated. It is they who resort to wars, to killing people to achieve their national agenda. Truly they are hypocrites.
59. Irrespective of whether the warmongers are democrats or not, we must regard war as a crime. No matter how just may the cause be, wars of aggression must still be regarded as crimes, crimes on a grand scale for that is what war means.
60. I am aware that in struggling to make war a crime we are calling for a radical change in the human mindset and value system. War had been with us since prehistoric times. Whenever human communities came into conflict with each other, they would resort to what we call “war” to resolve their conflicts i.e. they would kill each other so that one of the other of them would be defeated or cease to exist.
61. The primitive people of the past knew no other way but to kill and exterminate the opponents.
62. But today we claim to be no longer primitive. We claim to be civilise. We look upon killing as a heinous crime. We want every country to uphold human rights and the Rule of Law.
63. Besides today the population of the world is ten or more times bigger than the primitive populations of just a few centuries ago. Modern wars kill vast numbers of people. In the two World Wars 70 million people were killed. The number of seriously wounded and maimed for life is countless. And the devastation wrought is beyond imagination as whole cities were wiped out.
64. In the wars of the past, battles were fought on battle fields. The people killed were largely soldiers who had been trained to kill and were equipped to defend themselves.
65. Today everyone, combatants and non-combatants, male or female, the old, the young, the children and the new born, the sick and the incapacitated – all of them would be killed and wounded. They have no means to defend themselves.
66. They may not seek shelter underground even because diabolical new bombs have been designed to penetrate deep into the earth, to pierce concrete and to explode and to destroy the shelter and all in it.
67. Besides killing everyone, the whole country would be devastated, reduced to rubble. Water pipes, barrage and dams, power lines, and power generating plants would all be destroyed.
68. Those who survive the bombs and the missiles would have no food and water, no electricity, no toilets and no shelter of any kind. Disease would spread to decimate more of the survivors.
69. Truly modern war is total war sparing nothing and no one. Our capacities for killing and destroying have passed the limit that the world and its population can bear. We are now capable of wiping out the whole human race and render this planet uninhabitable.
70. Even if the war is limited i.e. confined to a pair of countries or region, it would still be inhuman as in most instances the aggressors would have such superior capacities to kill and destroy that gross injustice would be done. The weaker countries would not be able to defend themselves. Frequently they would be the only one to suffer while the aggressors continue to live in peace and security.
71. And when the war ends with victory for the powerful, only the vanquished would be blamed and punished. The victors would demand reparations although the vanquished had suffered more.
72. There is a need, to uphold justice, a need for the people including the leaders who launch the wars to be made accountable for the death and destruction resulting from their decision, their instruction and their command. It does not matter whether the aggressors win or not. They must be regarded as guilty and their leaders must be tried and punished, punished severely. Only this would deter the aggressive from resorting to war.
73. The United Nations was set up by the victors of 60 years ago and they still control and direct the Untied Nations today. Even the courts are under the control of the victors, in particular the veto powers.
74. For so long as the United Nations and its agencies are under the direction of the victors of 60 years ago, we cannot expect fairness and justice from them for the crimes of killing people in wars.
75. We can only expect fairness and justice if the agencies, in particular the Security Council and the international courts are made up of truly neutral people with no stake in the matters being decided. In particular the courts must be free and independent and must hear all complaints by both the victors and the vanquished without fear or favour.
76. Because we are not going to see such an independent court in the foreseeable future PGPO (the Perdana Global Peace Organization) has taken the initiative to set up a tribunal. We may be accused of being biased but we find reluctance on the part of neutralists to participate in our initiative. There is evidence that even those who are neutral fear retaliation by the powerful.
77. Since we cannot wait for the neutralists the tribunal we have set up is made up of judges who have been trusted to be impartial, fair and just. They will act in accordance with the rules and regulations which have been drawn up and be subjected to international laws as well as natural justice.
78. If the accused persons fail to present themselves then they may appoint counsel to represent them or failing that we will appoint counsels for them.
79. The proceedings of the courts will, as far as possible follow the usual court procedures under the British Common Law System.
80. The Commissioners will determine whether there is a case to be heard. Only if they find that there is will they submit their findings to the Tribunal. Then the victims or their proxies and representatives will present their cases.
81. The rest is up to the tribunal.
82. We may not be able to carry out the sentence passed by the Tribunal. But we hope Governments and NGO’s world wide will take note and try to make the punishment meaningful at least by ostracising the guilty ones.
83. We seek moral force as physical force will not be available to us. But the important thing is to make people everywhere appreciate the horrors of war and the criminal who without fear of any retribution have so carelessly issued orders for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be killed, many to be tortured and for whole countries to be devastated.
84. We believe that eventually the peoples of the world will come to accept that war is a crime and will condemn the warmongers and regard them as criminals. And when this happens we may see the world becoming a more peaceful place.
85. That is our hope. It will take time for the mindset of the denizens of this planet to change with regard to the nature of war.
86. We may not see this happen in our lifetime, at least for most of us.
87. But the fact that we are not likely to see it in our lifetime must not stop us from this noble struggle. As Confucius said, a journey of thousand miles begins with the fist step. Without taking the first step the journey will never be made at all.
88. What we are doing is to take that first step.
89. God willing other steps will follow. Man must come to their senses some day. It will be a journey worth starting even if it takes a thousand years.
90. May God give us strength to struggle to eliminate the killing of people in the quest for solutions to human conflicts.
91. May Allah help us make war a crime, the worse crime that the human race can be guilty of.
Cynthia McKinney
Flouting International Law and the Failure of International Institutions
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
October 28, 2009
To all of you here, I continue to be amazed by Tun Dr. Mahathir and Tun Dr. Siti for their vision, understanding of politics in the real world, and their willingness to confront the purveyors of evil in order to make the world better for all of us.
This Conference and Tribunal are the culmination of thousands of hours of hard work and is an incredible investment on behalf of justice.
Everyone in this room today is hungry for justice. We are impatient for peace.
War is criminal and leaders who take their countries to war must be held accountable.
But sadly, we need Dr. Mahathir’s leadership even more than ever now because of the abject failure of national and international institutions to hold accountable those who have the power to call nations to arms.
It was Haris Silajdzic who said, “”If you kill one person, you’re prosecuted. If you kill ten people, you’re a celebrity; if you kill a quarter of a million people, you’re invited to a peace conference.”
That, I believe is an indication of the total and complete collapse of the system of accountability that is supposed to mark the progress of man. Rogue operators are able to foment death and destruction, murder and torture, and general sociopathic recklessness and get away with it.
Sometimes, those rogue operators are Presidents and Heads of State.
What are the people to do when their justice system fails to render justice?
I believe we have seen a proliferation of People’s Tribunals because it is clear that many national justice systems and our international justice system rarely deliver justice.
Shortly after the outbreak of the “War on Terror,” the people of Japan came together and correctly saw that, amid the failure of international institutions to hold the United States accountable for war crimes in Afghanistan, they, themselves would have to do it. So, the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan was born.
The Japanese Tribunal found President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms and also issued recommendations for banning depleted uranium munitions and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people. The Tribunal recommended compensating the victims in Afghanistan and reforming the United Nations for its failure to stop the U.S.-led operation there.
Even in the domestic setting, those seeking justice seldom find it inside U.S. courts. In the U.S. setting, injustice is all too often reserved for those without money, without power, and without white skin.
One need only look at the plight of Hurricane Katrina survivors who still want to go home, but they have no right of return. That’s because the developers, facilitated by weak or ineffective elected leadership, swooped in early and quickly and staked their claim to the people’s land. Only the financial crisis has slowed the pace of the organized theft.
Consequently, Hurricane Katrina survivors, themselves, organized a People’s Tribunal to try U.S. elected leaders for committing multiple crimes against their own people. I was a Co-Convener of this Tribunal, and we found all levels of government, including President George W. Bush’s Executive Branch of government guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.
The Brussels Tribunal, about which we will hear more later, has filed a brief in Spanish courts against U.S. Presidents and other Heads of Government responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq. Unfortunately, under tremendous pressure from the rich and the guilty, Spain is in the process of changing its universal jurisdiction laws and that removes that venue that was available for the people to get even a hearing.
So, rather than survey the juridical landscape with despair, some have gone one step further and attempted to serve warrants on the obviously guilty in their capacity as citizens. One such individual is John Boncore, also known as Splitting-the-Sky.
Splitting-the-Sky is a Mohawk, member of the American Indian Movement, that was targeted by the United States government in its infamous and illegal Counter-Intelligence Program, known as COINTELPRO. On March 17th of this year, Splitting-the-Sky was arrested in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where he tried to serve a citizen’s warrant for the arrest of President George W. Bush who had been invited to Canada to give a speech. Splitting-the-Sky has asked me to testify at his March 2010 trial and I intend to be there.
In the advent of this War on Terror, it is clear that governments are straying far away from the wishes of the very people who elect them. I served twelve years in the United States Congress and while I was there, I:
1. Filed articles of impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice;
2. Voted against every Pentagon appropriation, considering it immoral to spend so much money on war when millions of our children go to bed hungry every night;
3. Wrote legislation to ban the use of depleted uranium munitions;
4. Was the first Member of Congress to ask the Bush Administration of the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States, what did it know and when did it know it;
5. Led the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, defying President Bush’s boycott.
In December of 2007, I tried to take humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza after the outbreak of Operation Cast Lead and the Israeli military rammed and destroyed our Free Gaza boat.
In June of this year, I tried to take crayons to the children of Gaza and the Israelis hijacked our boat, kidnapped us, took us to Israel, where I spent seven days in an Israeli prison because I wanted the people of Gaza to live–as I have been given life.
George Galloway finally got me into Gaza with Viva Palestina, U.S.A.
But my point of view was a decided minority in the powerful halls of Washington, D.C.
I left Washington, not because I chose to, but because the Israel Lobby inside the United States targeted me. They targeted me because I dared to believe that all human beings, including Palestinians, have human rights.
In 2007, at a peace rally in front of the Pentagon, I declared my independence from a national leadership that had caused my country to become complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.
I joined the Green Party and in 2008, ran for President of the United States. I traveled the length and breadth of my country and went around the world carrying the message of truth, justice, peace, and dignity.
That is how I arrived here. Because people who want peace are drawn to Kuala Lumpur. The people of Malaysia long ago learned that there can be no peace where there is no justice.
As the coup in Honduras unfolds, and countries are able to kill, maim, and attack other people with impunity, we must not give a pass to the new President of the United States whose slogans were “hope” and “change.” Sadly, “Yes We Can” has become “But he didn’t mean that he would.”
The people of the United States await action on jobs, the economy, the war, the budget, education, and health care. Yet, President Obama is responsible for overseeing the largest and swiftest transfer of wealth out of the hands of the middle class in the history of mankind: over $12 trillion gone and another commitment for an additional $12 trillion whenever the bankers need it.
Meanwhile, the people of the U.S. scrape by on food stamps, unemployment, while they pray not to get sick, because that will bankrupt them.
The situation continues to deteriorate even as Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama waits to announce his decision to increase the already 68,000-strong U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan.
Adding insult to injury, President Obama has sent his Justice Department officials into courtrooms across America to defend the illegal acts of the Bush Administration. I have warned the President that he risks becoming an accessory to Bush’s crimes if this continues. Now, the New York Times has picked up on the theme headlining: “Bush’s Cover-Up of Abuse Turning into Obama’s Cover-Up.”
But, it was President Kennedy who reminded us that we do not want a Pax Americana enforced by U.S. weapons of war; he said, “What we seek is a genuine peace, that makes life on earth worth living—the kind of peace that enables nations to grow and build a better life for their children.”
If we had democracy in the U.S., we would not have war.
All of this is why we are now in Kuala Lumpur. If Kuala Lumpur is the peace capital of the world, then it is to here that we must come for justice.
I’d like to introduce a song now that has been banned in South Africa, but that deserves to be heard all over the world. It is a song about war and Gaza.
Thank you.
(The song can be found on the internet on youtube at: www.youtube.com/
Notes on International law pertaining to the execution of war crimes by Bush, Blair et al.
Some of these notes are patchy. sorry about that, they will remain so until I have time to fully expand upon all of them.
Carl von Clausewitz theory of war. Frankfurter. When the judiciary engage in illegal acts, the only appeal is to the conscinece and condemnation of the people. War OF Terror torture victim said to his captors, I don’t know what you want of me. “We’ll fill in the blanks, you just sign the confession document’ said his captors. In Guantanamo a War OF Terror torture victim was brought a written confession and was told if he didn’t sign it he would be executed. He signed the confession as that he may get to a court (intested of being stuck in the current torture camp). He said there was no end to this. A physchaitrist went to him and gave him detailed instructions as to how to commit suicide. Tazi to the dark side – a movie includes US soldiers testimony about the things they did to their victims. Musharraff’s book ‘in the line of fire’ said he received millions in payment of counties from the capture and selling of al Quaida / Taleban ‘suspects’. The psychological effects {of torture} were worse than the physical effects. Every 6 months we were forced to take injections. They didn’t know what was in them but they were told it was influenza jabs. They felt drowsy, lazy and sleepy. Sami al Hajj: After injections they became dizzy, some when insane. They promised him american citizenship and care(/education?) for his family if he agreed to work for the CIA. Abu Graib female torture victim (Ms. Abas Hamidi?) was arrensted for apparently being linked to (funding) the Iraqi Resistance. Offers of clothing was used for leverage for compliance by the Americans. They had women and children at Abu Graib which they attempted to keep hidden from the occasional media ‘tour’ then Abu Graib became known. She was placed at the open doors of a US helicopter on the way to Abu Ghraib and was told it was so that if there was any firing on the helicopter they would be hit and not the US soldiers. The US tried to get info from her about Dr. Huda Hamash.
1977 treaty covered the supression of terrorist bombings. Judge F. Boyle, Judge Shad Saleem. 1984 Torture convention says NOBODY can be subjected to torture. 1977 treaty protocol 1 and 2 dealt with terrorism < Judge F. Boyle. Female judge = Niloufer Bhagwat. Proceedings from London peace conference 8th August 1945. US Army field manual. Nuremberg may have been ‘victors justice’ but after Nuremberg, the law used in Nurembers was unamamously (globally) agreed upon.
Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prQhHTOLPK4
Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgIKKZGFZ5Y
Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nozlh404EAw
Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ilK37I-hs
9)World Tribunal On Iraq – The New York Hearings”… http://www.blip.tv/file/293217(something similar to the KL conference to Criminalize war) Special thanks to George Dutton, on Craig Murrays website Synopsys:http://www.deepdishtv.orgPart of Deep Dish TV’s extensive video coverage of the war on Iraq. See also our 12 part series “Shocking and Awful” and our coverage from the final session in Istanbul of “The World Tribunal on Iraq” at http://www.deepdishtv.org. Have leaders of the United States committed war crimes in Iraq? The evidence is beyond doubt or questiiom. The verdict is YES. The World Tribunal on Iraq was a global citizens inqiry of conscience that examined the charges of criminality in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Modeled after the Satre-Bertrand Russell Vietnam War Tribunal, the WTI held 16 sessions around the world and assembled outstanding panels of jurists and witnesses to expolre and expose the ugly reality and intentionality of the American destruction of Iraq. Hearings were held in Genoa, Rome, Barcelona, Seoul, Mumbai, Brussels, Hiroshima, Copenhagen, New York City, with the concluding session in Istanbul, Turkey. In New York witnesses included Peter Weiss, Ayca Cubukca, Roger Normand, Mike Hoffman, Jenifer Ridah, Dr. Gert Van Moorter, Asil Bali and John Buroughs. Jurists included Eve Ensler, Hamdi Dabashi and Ibrahim Ramey. The film is overwhelming. Do not be complicit with the U.S. goverments war crimes. Show this evidence to as many people as possible.
The recent ‘Iran thing’ has lead to an escalation in rabid anti-Iranian propaganda and fantasies.
Neal (of Iron Clay, http://www.iron-clay.com) has for a couple of years now been naming the date in which ‘the attack’ will happen, and I find his analysis, (but obviously not his dates), holistically more credible than the rest, although I differ from him in the longevity of the Israyhelli state. I’m of the opinion it has yet to declare itself the power centre of the world from the fact it’s global e-money is administered from imposter Israel.
IAEA calls on Israel to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty
For the first time in 18 years, Israel, the United States and the Western powers were unsuccessful at preventing passage of a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There has been yapper about the US not allowing Israeli aircraft from over flying Iraqi air space to make the attack on Iran as well.
However Israel is intending to use Saudi airspace for the job.
I’ve also said that France will be involved in the Iran attack … and here it is again
Iran has 3 months to stop uranium enrichment:
“But we are to make it absolutely clear that our window of opportunity will not remain open
indefinitely,” Frattini told a group of reporters on the sidelines of the United Nations General
Assembly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/un_un_g8_iran
I’ve also said that US and UK will be involved.
I’ve said that after the attack … which Israel will carry out to begin with mostly on it’s own, because of the civilian carnage and willful destruction the world will finally realise who these people are and turn to attack them.
Allison Loudermilk.
Your writing here is utterly disgraceful. It reeks of example of political Xenophobia verging on the imperialist supremacy.
Is it in your job specification on this site to rub your crystal ball and reveal the actual intent of the Iranian powers that be?
You said
“But how can they tell the Iranian operation is intended to make nuclear weapons rather than nuclear power? Secrecy, of course is a big clue. If the facility is above board, then there’s no point in hiding it”
That is a disgraceful accusation that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons.
So you 0.2 second armchair analysis trumps the CIA, NSA and IAEA amongst others.
I’d be tempted to advise you to go back to Wallmart and return your super discount acetate ball, but that would be putting the emphasis for wishful quazi-factoids on the ball, and not you, whereas it is no one other than YOU who are responsible for this drivel.
And you even ‘apparently’ contradict yourself in mentioning the plant is operating yet.
If I was able to probe your political perspective and ‘values, I wonder how many cigars I’d win.
The argument ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have no reason to do something in secret’ is utterly bogus and discredited fallacy, and is best left to the murky realms of your own dark fantasy.
Seeing as you quote Obama, Brown and Sarkozy without question, I have the compulsion to do the same for (the largely ceremonial President) Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“We don’t have any problems with inspections of the facility. We have no fears,” said Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referring to calls for immediate access to the site by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog.
He countered the Obama/Brown and Sarkozy’s accusations of concealment saying there were no international requirements to declare any nuclear facility until 180 days before fissile material was introduced into it.
“Mr Obama is not a nuclear expert. We have to leave it to the IAEA to carry out its duties” he added.
You also said
“Iran might even let the U.N.’s nuclear detectives inspect it occasionally, rather than bar them and stockpile plutonium as North Korea has done.”
There is no night about it. Iran HAS allowed IEAS inspections of its facilities. You portray it as something that’s in the offing, and shovelling North Korea as a benchmark to Iran is preposterous.
Iran’s supreme leader has declared nuclear weapons as anti-Islamic. The authorities in Iran have said numerous times they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
Most industrial militarised countries around the world have secret facilities. Do they draw your fire? Not to mention The US and Israel who use illegal white phosphorous weapons against civilians as demonstrated in places like Fallujah and Gaza.
Channel Four – Mark Thomas: Weapons Inspector
Mark takes on the role of UNTHOM weapons inspector, and sets out to find WMD – not in Iraq – but in Britain and the US http://www.indybay.org/uploads/unthom.rm
What a miserable sloppy and unprofessional article you wrote. I feel the compulsion to review your other ‘articles’ to see what lurks within them, and your morbid cander with nuclear weapons
Really! How anti-scientific of you.
Now, lets look forward to you writing of nuclear issues in the context of the US/UK/Russia/France/china/India/Pakistan and Israel – the former five being in breach of the NPT by constantly upgrading their weapons systems, and lets not forget, the first of those is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons – on civilians – TWICE!
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments