From ths at psalience.org Mon Jan 23 20:32:05 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:32:05 +0100 Subject: [THS] Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120123203016.06aa3988@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/keller-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=1&comments#permid=46 Op-Ed Columnist Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran? By BILL KELLER Published: January 22, 2012 O.K., Mr. President, here?s the plan. Sometime in the next few months you order the Department of Defense to destroy Iran?s nuclear capacity. Yes, I know it?s an election year, and some people will say this is a cynical rally-round-the-flag move on your part, but a nuclear Iran is a problem that just won?t wait. Bill Keller Our pre-emptive strike, designated Operation Yes We Can, will entail bombing the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan, the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water reactor at Arak, and various centrifuge-manufacturing sites near Natanz and Tehran. True, the Natanz facility is buried under 30 feet of reinforced concrete and surrounded by air defenses, but our new bunker-buster, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, will turn the place into bouncing rubble. Fordo is more problematic, built into the side of a mountain, but with enough sorties we can rattle those centrifuges. Excuse me? Does that take care of everything? Um, that we know of. Civilian casualties? Not a big deal, sir, given the uncanny accuracy of our precision-guided missiles. Iran will probably try to score sympathy points by trotting out dead bodies and wailing widows, but the majority of the victims will be the military personnel, engineers, scientists and technicians working at the facilities. Fair game, in other words. Critics will say that these surgical strikes could easily spark a full-blown regional war. They will tell you that the Revolutionary Guard ? not the most predictable bunch ? will lash out against U.S. and allied targets, either directly or through terrorist proxies. And the regime might actually close off the vital oil route through the Strait of Hormuz. Not to worry, Mr. President. We can do much to mitigate these threats. For one thing, we can reassure the Iranian regime that we just want to eliminate their nukes, not overthrow the government ? and of course they will take our word for it, if we can figure out how to convey the message to a country with which we have no formal contacts. Maybe post it on Facebook? To be sure, we could just let the Israelis do the bombing. Their trigger fingers are getting itchier by the day. But they probably can?t do the job thoroughly without us, and we?d get sucked into the aftermath anyway. We might as well do it right and get the credit. Really, sir, what could possibly go wrong? The scenario above is extracted from an article by Matthew Kroenig in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. (The particulars are Kroenig?s; the mordant attitude is mine.) Kroenig, an academic who spent a year as a fellow at the Obama administration?s Defense Department, apparently aspires to the Strangelovian superhawk role occupied in previous decades by the likes of John Bolton and Richard Perle. His former colleagues at Defense were pretty appalled by his article, which combines the alarmist worst case of the Iranian nuclear threat with the rosiest best case of America?s ability to make things better. (Does this remind you of another pre-emptive war in a country beginning with I?) This scenario represents one pole in a debate that is the most abused foreign policy issue in this presidential campaign year. The opposite pole, also awful to contemplate, is the prospect of living with a nuclear Iran. In that case, the fear of most American experts is not that Iran would decide to incinerate Israel. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does a good impression of an evil madman, but Iran is not suicidal.) The more realistic dangers, plenty scary, are that a conventional conflict in that conflict-prone neighborhood would spiral into Armageddon, or that Iran would extend its protective nuclear umbrella over menacing proxies like Hezbollah, or that Arab neighbors would feel obliged to join the nuclear arms race. For now, American policy lives between these poles of attack and acquiescence, in the realm of uncertain calculation and imperfect options. If you want to measure your next president against a hellish dilemma, here?s your chance. In the Republican field we have one candidate (Rick Santorum) who is about as close as you can get to the bomb-sooner-rather-than-later extreme, another (Ron Paul) who is at the let-Iran-be-Iran extreme, and Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in between. Of particular interest is Romney, who has performed the same rhetorical trick with Iran that he did with health care. That is, he condemns Obama for doing pretty much what Romney would do. Although much about Iran?s theocracy is murky, a few assumptions are widely accepted by specialists in and out of government. First, for all its denials, the Iranian regime is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, or at least the capacity to make them quickly in the event of an outside threat. Having a nuclear option is seen as a matter of Persian pride and national survival in the face of enemies (namely us) who the Iranians believe are bent on toppling the Islamic state. The nuclear program is popular in Iran, even with many of the opposition figures admired in the West. The actual state of the program is not entirely clear, but the best open-source estimates are that if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered full-speed-ahead ? which there is no sign he has done ? they could have an actual weapon in a year or so. American policy has been consistent through the Bush and Obama administrations: (1) a declaration that a nuclear Iran is ?unacceptable?; (2) a combination of sticks (sanctions) and carrots (supplies of nuclear fuel suitable for domestic industrial needs in exchange for forgoing weapons); (3) unfettered international inspections; (4) a refusal to take military options off the table; (5) a concerted effort to restrain Israel from attacking Iran unilaterally ? beyond the Israelis? presumed campaign to slow Iran?s progress by sabotage and assassination; and (6) a wish that Iran?s hard-liners could be replaced by a more benign regime, tempered by a realization that there is very little we can do to make that happen. This is also the gist of Romney?s Iran playbook, for all his bluster about Obama the appeaser. How About Not Bombing Iran? In his blog, Bill Keller expands on what a deal with Iran might entail. In practice, Obama?s policy promises to be tougher than Bush?s. Because Obama started out with an offer of direct talks ? which the Iranians foolishly spurned ? world opinion has shifted in our direction. We may now have sufficient global support to enact the one measure that would be genuinely crippling ? a boycott of Iranian oil. The administration and the Europeans, with help from Saudi Arabia, are working hard to persuade such major Iranian oil customers as Japan and South Korea to switch suppliers. The Iranians take this threat to their economic livelihood seriously enough that people who follow the subject no longer minimize the chance of a naval confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. It?s not impossible that we will get war with Iran even without bombing its nuclear facilities. That?s not the only problem with the current ? let?s call it the Obamney ? approach to Iran. The point of tough sanctions, of course, is to force Iranians to the bargaining table, where we can do a deal that removes the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. (You can find some thoughts on what such a deal might entail on my blog.) But the mistrust is so deep, and the election-year pressure to act with manly resolve is so intense, that it?s hard to imagine the administration would feel free to accept an overture from Tehran. Anything short of a humiliating, unilateral Iranian climb-down would be portrayed by the armchair warriors as an Obama surrender. Likewise, if Israel does decide to strike out on its own, Bibi Netanyahu knows that candidate Obama will feel immense pressure to go along. That short-term paradox comes wrapped up in a long-term paradox: an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran?s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent. From ths at psalience.org Thu Jan 26 21:25:40 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:25:40 +0100 Subject: [THS] Psychedelic mushroom trips point to new depression drugs Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120126212442.04b08ea8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/psychedelic-mushroom-trips-point-to-new-depression-drugs#.Tx3tAUjybF4.email Psychedelic mushroom trips point to new depression drugs Wed, Jan 25, 2012 LONDON (Reuters) - The brains of people tripping on magic mushrooms have given the best picture yet of how psychedelic drugs work and British scientists say the findings suggest such drugs could be used to treat depression. Two separate studies into the effects of psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, showed that contrary to scientists' expectations, it does not increase but rather suppresses activity in areas of the brain that are also dampened with other anti-depressant treatments. "Psychedelics are thought of as 'mind-expanding' drugs so it has commonly been assumed that they work by increasing brain activity," said David Nutt of Imperial College London, who gave a briefing about the studies on Monday. "But, surprisingly, we found that psilocybin actually caused activity to decrease in areas that have the densest connections with other areas." These so-called "hub" regions of the brain are known to play a role in constraining our experience of the world and keeping it orderly, he said. "We now know that deactivating these regions leads to a state in which the world is experienced as strange." In the first study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal, 30 volunteers had psilocybin infused into their blood while they were inside magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, which measure changes in brain activity. It found activity decreased in "hub" regions and many volunteers described a feeling of the cogs being loosened and their sense of self being altered. The second study, due to be published in the British Journal of Psychiatry on Thursday, involved 10 volunteers and found that psilocybin enhanced their recollections of personal memories. Robin Carhart Harris from Imperial's department of medicine, who worked on both studies, said the results suggest psilocybin could be useful as an adjunct to psychotherapy. Nutt cautioned that the new research was very preliminary and involved only small numbers of people. "We're not saying go out there and eat magic mushrooms," he said. "But...this drug has such a fundamental impact on the brain that it's got to be meaningful -- it's got to be telling us something about how the brain works. So we should be studying it and optimizing it if there's a therapeutic benefit." "FUNDAMENTAL IMPACT" The key areas of the brain identified -- one called the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and another called the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) -- are the subject of debate among neuroscientists, but the PCC is thought by many to have a role in consciousness and self-identity. The mPFC is known to be hyperactive in depression, and the researchers pointed out that other key treatments for depression including medicines like Prozac, as well as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and deep brain stimulation, also appear to suppress mPFC activity. Psilocybin's dampening action on this area may make it a useful and potentially long-acting antidepressant, Carhart-Harris said. The studies also showed that psilocybin reduced blood flow in the hypothalamus - a part of the brain where people who suffer from a condition known as cluster headaches often have increased blood flow. This could explain why some cluster headache sufferers have said their symptoms improved after taking the psychedelic drug, the researcher said. The studies, which are among only a handful conducted into psychedelic substances since the 1960s and 1970s, revive a promising field of study into mind-altering drugs which some experts say can offer powerful and sustained mood improvement and relief from anxiety. Other experts echoed Nott's caution: "These findings are very interesting from the research viewpoint, but a great deal more work would be needed before most psychiatrists would think that psilocybin was a safe, effective and acceptable adjunct to psychotherapy," said Nick Craddock, a psychiatry professor from Cardiff University. Kevin Healy, chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' faculty of medical psychotherapy said it was interesting research "but we are clearly nowhere near seeing psilocybin used regularly and widely in psychotherapy practice." (Editing by Robert Woodward) From ths at psalience.org Sun Jan 29 00:09:51 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:09:51 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Glenn_Greenwald=3A_The_Human_Rights_=93Succe?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ss=94_In_Libya?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120129000921.03c96420@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30369.htm The Human Rights ?Success? In Libya By Glenn Greenwald January 27, 2012 "Salon" -- It quickly became ossified conventional wisdom that NATO?s war in Libya to aid rebel factions in overthrowing Moammar Gaddafi was a clear human rights victory. But the reality in post-Gaddafi Libya has long been in tension with that claim, and that?s true today more so than ever: Doctors Without Borders is halting work in detention centers in the Libyan city of Misrata because detainees are ?tortured and denied urgent medical care,? the international aid agency said Thursday. The agency known by its French acronym MSF said it has treated 115 people with torture-related wounds from interrogation sessions. Some of the patients treated were tortured again after they were returned to detention centers, according to the agency. ?Some officials have sought to exploit and obstruct MSF?s medical work,? said Christopher Stokes, the agency general director. ?Patients were brought to us for medical care between interrogation sessions, so that they would be fit for further interrogation. This is unacceptable. Our role is to provide medical care to war casualties and sick detainees, not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture sessions?. . . . Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, voiced similar concerns about torture in Libya. This is not the first report of serious, systematic abuses in Libya. In July, Human Rights Watch accused NATO-backed rebels of widespread looting, arson and abuse of civilians. Throughout the latter part of 2011, there were numerous reports of black migrant workers being detained without charges, tortured and even executed en masse. In October, a U.N. report detailed widespread lawless detentions and torture; the same month, an Amnesty International report documented ?a pattern of beatings and ill-treatment of captured al-Gaddafi soldiers, suspected loyalists and alleged mercenaries in western Libya. In some cases,? the report continued, ?there is clear evidence of torture in order to extract confessions or as a punishment.? The incoming President of the U.N. Security Council, South African U.N. Ambassador Baso Sangqu, accused NATO of exceeding the scope of the U.N. Resolution on Libya and called for an investigation into human rights abuses by all sides, including NATO bombers and rebel forces. The situation is quite redolent of the celebratory claim that Freedom was brought to Iraq by the U.S. invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders released its annual ranking of worldwide press freedom, and the Liberated and Free Iraq came in 152nd place (in 2002, the year before The Liberation, Iraq ranked 130th, albeit with fewer nations ranked). This week, Human Rights Watch issued a report detailing that ?Iraq cracked down harshly during 2011 on freedom of expression and assembly by intimidating, beating, and detaining activists, demonstrators, and journalists? and that ?Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism as its security forces abuse protesters, harass journalists, and torture detainees.? It further explained that ?Iraq?s Shiite-led government cracked down harshly on dissent during the past year of Arab Spring uprisings, turning the country into a ?budding police state? as autocratic regimes crumbled elsewhere in the region.? Indeed, reports of systematic human rights abuse and torture by the Malaki government have been legion for some time. Obviously, the Gadaffi and Saddam regimes were horrible human rights abusers. But the point is that one cannot celebrate a human rights success based merely on the invasion and overthrow of a bad regime; it is necessary to know what one has replaced them with. Ironically, those who are the loudest advocates for these wars and then prematurely celebrate the outcome (and themselves) bear significant responsibility for these subsequent abuses: by telling the world that the invasion was a success, it causes the aftermath ? the most important part ? to be neglected. There is nothing noble about invading and bombing a country into regime change if what one ushers in is mass instability along with tyranny and abuse by a different regime: typically one that is much more sympathetic to the invading regime-changers. That last point underscores the other key lesson from these types of invasions. They are almost always sold by appeal to human rights concerns ? Iraqi babies pulled from incubators and Saddam?s rape rooms ? but that is very rarely their actual objective. When the West invokes human rights concerns to justify an attack on a dictator whom it has long tolerated (and often even supported), that is rather compelling evidence that human rights is the packaging for the war, not the goal. The fact that it is not the goal means more than just another war sold deceitfully based on pretexts: it means that human rights concerns will not drive what happens after the invasion is completed. The material interests of the invaders are highly likely to be served, but not the human rights of the people of the invaded country. It is still early in the post-Gaddafi age, but those who supported the war in Libya ? which (like the war in Iraq) included numerous people who did so out of a genuine, well-intentioned desire to see a vile tyrant vanquished ? have a particular responsibility to ensure that the same tyranny is not replicated by the forces supported by the invading armies. All of these points are particularly worth keeping in mind with the mounting sanctions regimes and other forms of attack aimed at the two countries that just so happen to be those which most thwart the interests of the U.S. and Israel in that region: Iran and Syria (indeed, some of the most vocal supporters of the Libya intervention are now calling on the same to be done in Syria). Obviously, the regimes in both of those countries are serious human rights abusers, but no more so (and, when it comes to Iran, less) than some of the U.S.?s closest allies in that region. Although it will be easy to sell, the U.S. is not interested in regime change in those two countries because of human rights or democracy concerns; its steadfast support for the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other repressive tyrants conclusively proves that. That?s not an argument against opposing the regimes in Syria and Iran, but it is an argument for separating fact from fiction about what the real aims are. Convincing well-intentioned people to support a war in order to depose a wretched tyrant is an easy thing to do ? alas, it?s probably too easy to do, since it?s usually what leads to great mischief, human suffering, and even more tyranny under a new name. * * * * * In that just-released Reporters Without Borders ranking, the United States ? the Land of the Free ? ranked 47th: tied with Romania and Argentina, just ahead of Latvia, and behind El Salvador, Tanzania, and Slovenia, among others. That 47th ranking is 11 spots below where the U.S. finished in 2008. The organization cited the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests? as most responsible for this decline, and in prior years has cited U.S. treatment of journalists in war zones as well as the imprisonment of journalists at Guantanamo. * * * * * Foreign Policy asked nine people, including myself, to assess President Obama?s foreign policy after his first three years in office; the analyses can be read here (mine is the last one). Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.More Glenn Greenwald Copyright ? 2012 Salon Media Group, Inc From ths at psalience.org Sun Jan 29 00:10:49 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:10:49 +0100 Subject: [THS] Alison Weir: Bush & Obama? Israeli assassinations and US Presidents Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120129001018.06fcde10@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30362.htm Bush & Obama? Israeli assassinations and US Presidents By Alison Weir January 26, 2012 "CNI" -- On January 13th the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to ?order a hit? on the president of the United States. In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to ?give the go-ahead for U.S. based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.? The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state ?obliterate its enemies.? Adler writes that it is highly likely that the idea ?has been discussed in Israel?s most inner circles.? Numerous Jewish leaders quickly condemned Adler, who has now apologized for the column, resigned, and there are some reports that he plans to put the newspaper up for sale. An Israeli columnist noted that the hatred being stirred up against Obama is similar to conditions in Israel that led to the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist. Many of those criticizing Adler claim that he had defamed Israel by suggesting that it would ever do such a thing. Abe Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) proclaimed: ?There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn?t even belong in fiction.? In reality, however, Adler?s expectation that Israel?s inner circles have explored such a course of action, and would be willing to undertake it, may be entirely accurate. The fact is that Israel has killed and plotted to assassinate people throughout the world; a number have been Americans. One alleged plot was chillingly similar to Adler?s suggestion. Secret Service warned of Israeli assassination plans There is evidence that in 1991 an Israeli undercover team planned to assassinate a U.S. President. The intended victim was George Herbert Walker Bush. The first person to write of the plot was a former 11-term Republican Congressman from Illinois, Paul Findley. In a 1992 article in the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, Findley described the alleged scheme and how it was revealed. Findley writes that the U.S. Secret Service had received a warning that elements of Israel?s spy agency might target Bush when he went to Madrid for the opening day of the peace conference to be held that year. According to Findley, a former Mossad agent named Victor Ostrovsky who had written a book exposing Israel?s spy agency told a group of Canadian parliamentarians that he had received secret intelligence suggesting that the ?the Mossad's hatred of Bush ? and support for Vice President Dan Quayle ? might lead to an attempt on the president's life.? Israel considered Quayle much closer to Israel than Bush. Bush had particularly angered Israel by attempting to pressure Israel into ending its illegal settlement expansion on confiscated Palestinian land by withholding loan guarantees until Israel ended this practice. Findley writes that Ostrovsky?s statements were relayed to Findley?s friend and former colleague Paul ?Pete? McCloskey, a prominent former Republican Congressman from California who had recently been named by Bush to the National and Community Service Commission. McCloskey, a decorated Marine veteran and graduate of Stanford law school who had at one time been considered a presidential contender, flew to Ottawa to debrief Ostrovsky in person and evaluate his information. Findley reports that Ostrovsky told McCloskey that the Mossad wanted "to do everything possible to preserve a state of war between Israel and its neighbors, assassinating President Bush, if necessary." Ostrovsky said that a PR campaign was already underway in both Israel and the United States to "prepare public acceptance of Dan Quayle as president." Convinced that Ostrovsky was legitimate and his information significant, McCloskey jumped on the next flight to Washington, where he reported Ostrovsky?s intelligence to the Secret Service and State Department. The apparent plot never went forward, perhaps because Ostrovsky and McCloskey had given it away. Ostrovsky gave more details about the plot two years later in his 1994 book, ?The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda,? published by HarperCollins. In the book Ostrovsky writes that an extremist group within Mossad was responsible for the plan. He says they kept the plan secret from then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, though they believed that Shamir would have ordered such a hit himself if he hadn?t been constrained by politics. In the lead-up to Israel?s 1948 founding war, Shamir had headed up a terrorist group known for its assassinations. In his review of Ostrovsky?s book, Ambassador Andrew Killgore, a retired career foreign service officer and publisher of the Washington Report, called the book an ?insider's probing expos? of some Middle East realities that have been hidden too long from all but Israeli eyes.? Ostrovsky writes that the Israelis planned a ?false flag? operation in which they would pin the assassination on Palestinians. They kidnapped three Palestinian militants from Beirut who were to be the scapegoats, took them to Israel's Negev desert, and held them incommunicado. ?Meanwhile,? Killgore writes, ?Mossad-generated threats on the president's life, seemingly from Palestinians, were leaked. These were designed to throw suspicion on the organization of rogue Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. Names and descriptions of the three terrorists were leaked to Spanish police so that, if the plot was successful, blame would automatically fall on them.? Ostrovsky reports that after the assassination plot was eventually cancelled, the three Palestinian prisoners were ?terminated.? Targeting Americans If the plot had gone forward, this would not have been the first time that Israel targeted Americans for death. Nor would it be the first false flag operation. In 1954 the Mossad planned to firebomb American installations, libraries, and other gathering places in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was to be blamed for the attacks, thus causing American animosity toward Egypt. An accidental early detonation of one of the devices caused the plot, known as the Lavon Affair, to unravel before it could kill or mutilate the intended Americans. In 1967 Israeli air and sea forces perpetrated an almost two-hour assault in which they tried to sink a US Navy ship with a crew of 294. While the attack failed to sink the ship, it succeeded in killing 34 Americans and injuring 174. Some analysts have conjectured that this was also a false-flag operation; it is highly likely that Egypt would have been blamed for the attack if the ship had gone down. In 1973 Israeli fighter pilots were ordered to shoot down an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane (at the time the U.S. was delivering massive weaponry to Israel to prevent it from losing the ?Yom Kippur? war with Egypt and Syria). While the Israelis were unable to reach the altitude of the U.S. plane, they did manage that same year to shoot down a civilian Libyan airliner that had strayed over Israeli territory, killing 104 men, women, and children. One was an American. In 1990 a Canadian-American scientist and father of seven, Gerald Bull, was assassinated in Belgium. All indications are that it was an Israeli Mossad hit team that drilled five bullets into the back of his head and neck. (Israel has assassinated a number of scientists of various nationalities. The most recent is a 32-year-old Iranian father with a young son.) In 2003 it came out that Israeli leaders had officially decided to undertake assassination operations on U.S. soil. An FBI spokesman, queried about the Israeli plans, said only: "This is a policy matter. We only enforce federal laws." In recent years a growing number of American peace activists have been intentionally killed, maimed, and injured by Israeli forces, including 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, 21-year-old Brian Avery, 37-year-old Tristan Anderson, 21-year-old Emily Henoschowitz, and 21-year-old Furkan Dogan. All of this has been minimally reported in the U.S. press. While major news media from England to Israel to Australia covered the Jewish Times? apparent endorsement of a possible Israeli assassination of a U.S. President, the scandal has been largely missing from U.S. media. Even Atlanta?s AP bureau inexplicably initially decided not to write a report on it, only finally sending out a story many days later. Such news omissions concerning Israeli partisans are not rare. In 2004 a fanatic Israel loyalist wrote a letter saying that he was going to burn down Presbyterian churches while worshippers were inside (he was furious at the Presbyterian Church?s decision to divest from companies profiting from the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land). This grisly threat also received minimal media play. Despite Israeli violence against Americans (even while American taxpayers have given Israel far more of our tax money than to any other nation) American presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, continue to vie over who is most devoted to Israel. It is ironic that Adler considers Obama so bad for Israel, given that Israeli analysts have rated him second only to Mitt Romney in his fidelity to Israel. And Obama has now released a seven-minute video that may catapult our first African-American president into first place in pandering to an apartheid nation. But perhaps he?ll be safe from assassins. From ths at psalience.org Sun Jan 29 00:17:25 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:17:25 +0100 Subject: [THS] Fidel Castro: The Fruit that Did Not Fall Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120129001137.06fe5b40@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30361.htm The Fruit that Did Not Fall By Fidel Castro January 26, 2012 "Information Clearing House" ---Cuba found itself forced to fight for its existence against an expansionist power located a few miles off its coast that had declared the annexation of our island and that believed our destiny was to fall into their lap like a piece of ripe fruit. We were condemned to cease to exist as a nation. Jose Marti was among the glorious legion of patriots who throughout the second half of the 19th century fought against the loathsome colonialism brandished by Spain for 300 years. Marti most clearly foresaw such a dramatic destiny and expressed this view in the last lines he would write prior to engaging in tough combat against a well-equipped and battle-hardened Spanish column. He declared that the primary objective of his struggles were ? preventing in time, by Cuba?s independence, that the United States should expand through the Antilles and pounce with that added strength on our lands of America. Everything that I have done up to now and will do in the future shall be done for this purpose.? Today one cannot be a patriot or a revolutionary without thoroughly understanding this profound truth. Without a doubt, the mass media, the monopoly of technical resources, and the substantial funds earmarked for misleading and making the masses mindless today represent considerable but not insurmountable obstacles. Cuba showed that ?despite being a factory of Yankee colonialism with widespread illiteracy and generalized poverty? it was possible to stand up to the country that threatened to definitively takeover the Cuban nation. No one can argue that at the time there was a national bourgeoisie that was opposed to the empire. In fact, the Cuban bourgeoisie at the time had developed such close ties to the empire that, shortly following the triumph of the Revolution, it sent 14,000 unprotected children to the United States based on the horrendous lie that Cuba was to abolish parental authority. History would come to remember this event as Operation Peter Pan and as one of the worst manipulations of children for political ends ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere. Barely two days after the triumph of the Revolution the national territory was invaded by mercenary forces ?made up of former Batista soldiers and sons of landowners and the bourgeoisie? armed and escorted by the United States with ships from the US Navy fleet including aircraft carriers with equipment ready for action. The defeat and capture of almost the entire force of mercenaries in less than 72 hours, and the destruction of their planes that were operating out of Nicaraguan bases and naval transportation means, represented a humiliating defeat for the empire and their Latin American allies who had underestimated the Cuban people?s capacity to fight. Responding to the stoppage of oil supplies from the US, the previous total suspension of traditional Cuban sugar quotas in the US market, and the ban on trade in place for more than 100 years, the USSR began to supply fuel, to buy our sugar, to trade with our country and, finally, to supply the arms that Cuba could not acquire in other markets. The idea of a systematic campaign of pirate attacks organized by the CIA, sabotages and military actions by groups created and armed by the US, before and after the mercenary attack and that would culminate with the United States? military invasion of Cuba, gave rise to the events that pushed the world to the brink of total nuclear war that no sides or even humanity itself would have survived. Those events no doubt cost Nikita Jruschov his job. He had underestimated his adversary, ignored opinions and information, and did not consult his final decision with those of us who were in the frontline. What could have been a significant moral victory became a costly political setback for the USSR. For many years the US continued to commit the worst crimes against Cuba and many, such as its criminal blockade, are still carried out today. Jruschov made extraordinary gestures to our country. At the time I did not hesitate in strongly criticizing the agreement reached with the United States without consultation. But it would be ungrateful and unjust to not acknowledge his extraordinary solidarity at difficult and decisive junctures for our people in their historic battle for independence and their revolution in face of the powerful US empire. I understand that the situation was extremely tense and that he did not want to lose a minute when he made his decision to remove the missiles and the Yankees, very secretly, agreed to not carry out their invasion. Despite all the decades that have passed and make up more than half a century, the Cuban fruit has not fallen into Yankee hands. Current news from Spain, France, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, England, the Malvinas and several other parts of the planet are serious and all foretell political and economic disaster due to the foolhardiness of the United States and its allies. I will limit myself to just a few topics. I must point out that the campaign to select a Republican candidate as the possible future president of this globalized and far-reaching empire has become ?I say this in all seriousness? the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been heard. But as I have things to do, I cannot dedicate any time to this topic. I knew it would be like this. I prefer to analyze some other press dispatches that show the incredible cynicism generated by the decadence of the West. One of these reports, with amazing tranquility, tells the story of a Cuban ?political prisoner? who, according to the article, died after a 50-day hunger strike. A journalist from Granma, Juventud Rebelde, radio or any other [Cuban] news agency might make a mistake writing on any given topic, but they would never make up a news story and fabricate a lie. The article published in Granma confirms that the 50-day hunger strike did not take place. The prisoner was in jail for committing a common crime and sentenced to four years for an assault that left his wife?s face battered. The man?s own mother-in-law went to the police to request their help. All family members were aware of all the procedures taken regarding the medical care he received and were thankful of the efforts carried out by the specialist doctors who attended him. The article goes on to say that he received care at the best hospital in eastern Cuba, as any other citizen would have received. He died as a result of secondary multiple organ failure associated with an acute respiratory infection. The patient had received all the available medical care from a country that possesses one of the best medical systems in the world and that provides these services free-of-charge, despite the empire?s blockade against our country. It simply represents a duty in a country where the Revolution proudly respects, as it always has for more than 50 years, the principles that gave it its invincible force. Given their excellent relations with Washington, it would be best if the Spanish government went to the United States to take a look at what happens in Yankee prisons, their ruthless treatment of millions of prisoners, their electric chair policy, and the horrors committed against prisoners and public protesters. On Monday, January 23, Granma published a full-page, hard-hitting editorial entitled Cuba?s Truths. The article details the exceptional degree of shamelessness in the latest campaign of lies launched against our Revolution by some governments ?traditionally committed to anti-Cuban subversion.? Our people are well aware of the standards that have governed over the irreproachable conduct of our Revolution since the first combat and that has never been sullied throughout more than half a century. They also know that they can never be pressured or blackmailed by their enemies. Our laws and regulations will invariably be abided by. This is worthwhile to point out with total clarity and openness. The Spanish government and the beat-up European Union, in the midst of an acute economic crisis, should know what to abide by. It is a disgrace to read declarations from both regions in news reports that are full of shameless lies attacking Cuba. Try to save the Euro first if you can, try to resolve chronic unemployment that increasingly affects young people, and respond to the indignados who have only received attacks and constant beatings from the police. We cannot ignore that those who currently govern in Spain are admirers of Franco, who sent members of the Blue Division along with SS and SA Nazis to kill Soviets. Close to 50,000 of them participated in the bloody attacks. In the most cruel and painful operation of that war, the Leningrad Blockade where one million Russian citizens died, the Blue Division were part of the forces that attempted to strangle the heroic city. The Russian people will never forgive that horrendous crime. The rightwing fascists led by Aznar, Rajoy and other servants of the empire must know about the 16,000 fatalities suffered by their predecessors of the Blue Division and the Iron Crosses that Hitler awarded the officials and soldiers of that division. It is not a surprise then to see how the Gestapo police are treating the Spanish men and women who demand the right to work and bread in the country with the highest unemployment in Europe. Why do the mass media outlets of the empire lie so shamelessly? Those who control those media outlets are determined to deceive and make the world mindless with their gross lies, maybe believing that they represent the main recourse necessary to maintain the global system of domination and plunder, especially against those victims close to the mother country ?the close to 70 million Latin Americans and Caribbean people who live in this hemisphere. The fraternal republic of Venezuela has become one of the main targets of this policy. The reason is obvious. Without Venezuela, the empire would have imposed its Free Trade Agreement on all of the people of the continent living south of the United States; an area that holds the planet?s largest reserves of land, fresh water and minerals as well as great energy resources, which, when managed in solidarity with the other people in the world, constitutes resources which cannot and must not fall into the hands of transnationals that impose a suicidal and despicable system. It is enough, for example, to look at the map to understand the criminal dispossession carried out against Argentina of a piece of its territory in the far south. In the Malvinas, the British employed their decadent military apparatus to assassinate inexperienced Argentine recruits dressed in summer clothing in the middle of winter. The United States and their ally Augusto Pinochet shamelessly supported England in this endeavor. Currently, with the London Olympics on the horizon, British Prime Minister David Cameron is once again proclaiming, as did Margaret Thatcher, his right to use nuclear submarines to kill Argentines. The British government is unaware that the world is changing and that the disdain felt in our hemisphere by the majority of the people against the oppressors is growing with each day. The case of the Malvinas is not alone. Does anyone know how the conflict in Afghanistan will end? A few days ago US soldiers committed outrages against the bodies of Afghani combatants, killed by NATO drone aircraft. Three days ago a European news agency published an article stating that Afghani President Hamid Karzai gave his support of a negotiated peace settlement with the Taliban, stressing that it must be resolved by citizens in his country. Hamid Karzai added that the peace and reconciliation process belongs to the Afghani nation and that no foreign country or organization can take away this right from Afghanis. An article in the Cuban press written in Paris reported, ?Today France suspended all its military training and support operations in Afghanistan and threatened to move up the date for the withdrawal of its troops after an Afghani soldier killed four French military officers in the Taghab valley in the province of Kapisa Sarkozy gave instructions to Defense Minister Gerard Longuet to immediately travel to Kabul, and warned of the possibility of an early withdrawal of troops.? When the USSR and the Socialist Camp disappeared, the United States government thought that Cuba would not be able to support itself. George W. Bush had already prepared a counterrevolutionary government to preside over our country. The same day that Bush began his criminal war against Iraq, I requested that our authorities stop with the policy of tolerance towards the counterrevolutionary leaders in Cuba that had been hysterically calling for an invasion of Cuba. In reality, their actions constituted an act of treason against the Homeland. Bush and his stupidities reigned for eight years at a time when the Cuban Revolution had already lasted for more than half a century. The ripe fruit has never fallen into the lap of the empire. Cuba will never become another force used by the empire to expand over the people of the Americas. Marti?s blood will not have been shed in vain. Fidel Castro Ruz - January 24, 2012 - 7:12 p.m. From ths at psalience.org Sun Jan 29 00:20:58 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:20:58 +0100 Subject: [THS] Iran Set to Turn Off Oil Supply to Europe Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120129002004.06fe28c8@mail.messagingengine.com> Retaliation for EU Sanctions: Iran Set to Turn Off Oil Supply to Europe: The European Union embargo on Iranian oil will only come into effect in six months, but the leadership in Tehran wants to act first: Exports to Europe are set to be halted immediately. It is a move which could mean added difficulties for struggling economies in southern Europe. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,811507,00.html#ref=rss 'No one can sell oil if Iran cannot': "In the absence of Iranian supply, oil prices will go up and they (the Western states) know it; However, Iran will never allow itself to be in a situation in which it cannot sell oil but other regional states can," Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, told Press TV http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223193.html Halt in Iran oil could push crude up 30%: IMF: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned on Wednesday that global crude prices could rise as much as 30 per cent if Iran halts oil exports as a result of United States (US) and European Union (EU) sanctions. http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/12096 U.S. to deploy more warships to Gulf in March: The U.S. plans to deploy a third convoy of warships led by USS Enterprise to the Gulf in March. http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/26/64665940.html 'Massive' Blockade Needed to Stop Iran Threat, Israeli Finance Minister : - A "massive" aerial and naval blockade of Iran, reminiscent of the 1962 U.S. quarantine of Cuba, is needed to stop the Islamic regime from pursuing nuclear weapons http://buswk.co/wC1ogB From ths at psalience.org Sun Jan 29 21:30:28 2012 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:30:28 +0100 Subject: [THS] Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran... Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20120129212958.04f74da8@mail.messagingengine.com> Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn?t trust Obama posted by Adam Horowitz translated by MW contributor Shmuel Mondoweiss, January 22, 2012 111 http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/report-israel-to-give-us-only-12-hour-warning-before-attacking-iran-because-netanyahu-doesnt-trust-obama.html Originally published in Hebrew in the Israeli newspaper Ma`ariv http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/329/028.html?hp=1&cat=875 Sunday Times reports that Israel told Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff it would give only twelve hours` warning, for fear that Obama would try to prevent [an attack]. Maariv NRG, 22/1/12 Israel informed Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, during his visit over the weekend, that it would not request US authorisation for an attack on Iran, and that it would give only twelve hours warning before launching such an attack, according to this morning`s Sunday Times. According to the report, Netanyahu does not trust Obama and believes the President might do everything [in his power] to prevent an attack if informed in advance, for fear of rising oil prices in an election year. Recently, Obama called Netanyahu asking for clarifications regarding [a possible] attack [against Iran]. According to the Sunday Times report, the conversation was strained, and the Prime Minister explained his position, insisting that he would refuse to share details with the White House, should such an attack be launched. According to the report, the differences between the two sides increased further in the wake of Dempsey`s meeting with Defence Minister Ehud Barak at the weekend. Times reporter Uzi Mahnaimi adds that outwardly, Israel and the United States are trying to downplay the crisis, but the two countries would appear to be on a collision course. For example, Dempsey claimed that Israel and the United States had agreed to postpone the scheduled joint military exercise and that the postponement would serve [the interests of] both sides. The fact is however, a defence source told the Sunday Times, that this is false. `We were shocked`, said the source. `The exercise had been planned for two years.`