CommonSense Interview with RT and the uprisings in the Arab World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w2J07bWaGs

Top US Official on OBL

"Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack".

http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag.html

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead - Again!

Americans are at their most vulnerable 

They are vulnerable because they are gullible

They are gullible because they are ignorant

They are ignorant because they are deliberately misinformed.

When Obama announced OBL dead, it was established as a fact - the truth.   Where truth is concerned, it clearly matters where you were born - or else the truth does not matter.

In a 2007 interview, a former Pakistani born president (twice) and a leading opposition candidate favored to win the 2008 general Pakistani elections,  Benazir Bhutto, claimed that Omar Sheikh had murdered OBL in an extraordinary interview (see link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg),  she did not get [re] elected -- she was assassinated.    Her allegations were buried by the mainstream media along with her.   Without a doubt, the American-born  US President's announcement of OBL's death will extend Barak Obama's occupancy of the White House for another four years.   Neither Bhutto nor Obama produced a corpse to back their claim, yet it appears that nationality has its privileges -- that of establishing the truth.      

A pertinent question arises:  Why would the U.S. put an expiration stamp on the Osama card when it had served the empire so well?

Inarguably, OBL had proven his value.   Even in his 'death', he continues to serve the American Empire.    We have been duly warned that "U.S. intelligence officials believe Osama bin Laden made a propaganda recording shortly before his death and expect that tape to surface soon." (see here)     The possibility of a future tape, puts the Obama administration in the comfortable fall-back position and enable false flag operations when necessary.   What dedication.   Is it any wonder that OBL was granted his dearest wish --  to die in battle (and not murdered by a fellow Moslem, or sickness, or ..)?   

Although OBL was with our consciousness well before 2001,  the events of September 11 gave him a new prominence - and for years thereon,  he knew when to be silent and when to speak out (apparently the trend will continue after his death).    Admittedly, this inordinate ability to speak or be silent took some training - or persuasion.

For three years after 9/11, OBL denied being behind the attacks stating:  "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," (CIA FBIS: Usama bin Laden Statements 1994-2004 , Wikileaks, September 14, 2008).    Perhaps the pounding of Afghanistan and Iraq deafened him into submission - or substitution.   

In October 2004, a videotape of OBL is broadcast in which he assumes responsibility for 9/11.   (The still photo from the 2004 video is worthy of scrutiny.  It closely resembles the still image presented alongside Obama on today's C-Span.   Although the hair coloring varies, there are two consistencies:  the same wide and uncharacteristic nose and the same exact outfit see link - minute 5:25).     After three years of only audio messages, in 2007 (after his first publicly announced death), a new videotape of OBL emerged -with a dyed and trimmed beard to please his global audience (see link).  This picture is an exact duplicate of the two above mentioned pictures.  It was this incredible image of OBL that prompted me to write my first article about the man.  I could not fathom a man devoted to a vigorous practice of fundamental Islam defying the Islamic ideology pertaining to vanity - especially while living in his snug cave.   His black trimmed beard was unorthodox.   Although he sported a shorter beard, he had set his sight far -- he was  analyzing and criticizing the US Democratic Party's moves.

On January 6, 2008, I wrote a second and brief article  questioning OBL's absence in the face of Israel's massacre in Gaza.   I should have been more patient.   Eight days after my article was posted on various sites,  a recording accompanied by a still photo of Bin Laden superimposed over the al-Aqsa mosque was delivered.   It was heartwarming to know that Gaza had not been forgotten.  OBL's audiotapes continued to surface.   The man truly kept abreast of current events.  In 2010,  OBL even asked for the boycott of American goods for not addressing climate change.  Way to go OBL! 

Contrary to the latest revelations about OBL's living conditions in luxury and probably with the knowledge of Pakistanis, it had always been thought that OBL sent audio messages because he was in a cave or on the run.   Now at least, with his demise, we are shown pictures of his corpse.   Regrettably, it has been brought to light by The Guardian that the picture of the corpse presented as proof of his demise seems to be old, recycled pictures.    Notwithstanding this shortsightedness, we have been deprived of further photo opportunities in an attempt  to respect Islamic rituals.    US intelligence tell us that OBL's body was dumped into sea in accordance with Islamic burial demands of a 24 hour burial time frame.   It is always refreshing to hear that Islam is respected after the many wars against Islamic countries.    

So back to the main question:  Why did the United States decide to expire Osama bin Laden at this juncture?

It would be naive to think that the  logic behind the expiration stamp is restricted to promoting the incumbent president and uniting a dissatisfied nation (two thirds dissatisfied or angry with the government see link) and rally the people around the flag.   It is equally naive to think that the world needed to be distracted from the reality that an attempted assassination of a foreign leader which led to the murder of his family members was a factor.  Nor can one attribute this event to the justification of the illegal and immoral CIA-drone killings in Pakistan.   There must be more than meets the eye! 

Perhaps for the time being, America is so confident in its latest lethal weapon - the pro-democracy cyber dissidents, that it decided to trade the 'war on terror'' with humanitarian imperialism brought about with the help of its cyber dissidents.    Such grand gestures of 'humanitarian intervention' to promote democracy require the public consensus.   Write OBL's death certificate  and the 'good' against evil fight is back on - confident that 'good' will prevail.    

Cyber warriors and the call for 'humanitarian intervention imperialism':

The World Movement for Democracy  was initiated by George W. Bush in which he told CIA front National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that his administration’s democratization initiative [America must approve the outcome of elections] would focus first on the Middle East - starting with Iraq.  This movement has been zealously followed by Obama.  Lest we should be inclined to hold Bush to account for all the changes, we  ought to be reminded that in 1999,  the 'dovish' Jimmy Carter and neocon Paul Wolfowitz penned and article  ("Don't Take Democracy for Granted", WSJ, July 21, 1999) praising Ronal Reagan's establishment of NED to spearhead America's ''nongovernmental" (covert psyops) efforts to 'assist' democratic movements around the word. 

More importantly, we must revisit the historical aspects of "democracy" and what it means to America.

President  Theodore Roosevelt claimed: "Democracy has justified itself by keeping for the white race the best portion's of the earth's surface."   The need to justify 'democracy' further, led to capture of more of earth's surface,  which no doubt explains the remarks by  General Arthur MacArthur, (father of Douglas) when he said:  "America's wonderful thrust into Asia was the destiny of the magnificent Aryan people."  After the brutal takeover of the Philippines,  Senator Beveridge claimed: ...." [J]ust beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-admiration. No, he has made us the master organizers of the world...that we may administer government among savages and senile peoples...the Philippines are ours forever...and just beyond the Philippines lie China's illimitable markets...We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee under God, of the civilization of the world...China is our natural customer. The Philippines give us a base at the door of the East.. it has been  charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. Senators, remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals." (source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25996.html).   

No doubt the renewed thrust of the empire into the Middle East to justify democracy, assassinate, and plunder is not new; but the method is novel - democracy's cyber warriors.

Part II of this article will elaborate on the method and the targeted countries.

Shirin Ebadi

The Nobel Laureate and I: A Response to 'Shirin Ebadi Prepares for the End'

Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi's belief that the regime's days in Tehran are numbered is based on optimism; but regrettably, the interview belies her habitual style of distorting reality to her advantage.  It was this unattractive trait that turned the pride I felt in being her interpreter in January 2006 to disappointment, disbelief, and displeasure.

It is curious that once again Ebadi, this 'human rights' lawyer, should get herself involved in Iran's nuclear program and opine that the 'leadership is not negotiating in good faith'.  It was her very assessment of Iranians and her source of information which dumbstruck me in 2006 when she stated that the Iranian people didn't support the nuclear program and the supporters we witnessed on television were the 'paid Basij'.   

Contrary to this misinformation, the uniting factor in Iran is the nuclear program.  A 2004 poll showed that 75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear program including the full fuel cycle.  A fact confirmed in a 2007 poll conducted by the U.S. Institute of Peace.  The latter elaborates that: "Even with the crackdown on liberties, free press, and the increasing oppression in the country, the poll found that 64% of those polled said that US legislation repealing regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to give up the nuclear program and full fuel-cycle".

Ms. Ebadi contends that the United States should only deal with a government in Tehran that respects human rights.  It is true that there is human rights violations in Iran.  To deny it, would be unforgiveable.  And to justify it based on the fact that the United States commits, or causes to  be committed,  the most appalling human rights violations witnessed in modern history, is wrong.  However, it is worthy of mention that in spite of the dismal human rights record of the United States, all countries in the world 'talk' to it.  One can therefore conclude that power and not respect for human rights sets the agenda for 'talks'.  

What is most surprising is that this recipient of a Nobel prize, a lawyer, is totally ignorant of international treaties, although she can be forgiven for not knowing the American Constitution.   Ms. Ebadi recommends that the United States continue its blatant violation of the Algiers Accords -- a bilateral agreement concluded between Iran and the United States, and  use VOA and Radio Farda to reach Iranians inside Iran 'to convince them  that the sanctions are targeted at the regime and not the ordinary Iranians'.

If Ms. Ebadi has been 'harassed' by officials in Iran, its perhaps her total disregard for law.   Point I.1 of the Algiers Accord states: “The United States pledge that it is and from now will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”  Per Article VI of the Algiers Accords, the violated party, Iran, has the right to refer the matter to the Tribunal at Hague, the Netherlands, where the International Court of Justice will have jurisdiction.    

Further, the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the United States and Iran, which due to its 2/3 majority approval was signed into law.  The linchpin of the Treaty is free trade between the two countries.  Neither party has called to dissolve the Treaty.  Yet, in spite of the Treaty being in full force, sanctions have been imposed on Iran and Ms. Ebadi is encouraging the United States not only to dishonor its domestic laws, but to violate the bilateral Algiers Accords. 

This promoter of human rights, who has taken it upon herself to speak on behalf of Iranians, states:  'Iranians will endure considerable hardship if they think the endgame is greater respect for human rights'.  Is she suggesting that Iranians, like Iraqis, be subjected to considerable hardship if they can have respect for human rights - a respect that has yet to be translated into reality on the ground after hundreds of thousands have died.    

It is a coincidence that this indistinguishable figure who was proud to be a judge during the Shah's era, a period of dictatorship when the more fortunate dissidents were subjected to SAVAK's torture techniques while others disappeared,  is now hailed as the champion of human rights endorsing meddling in Iran's affairs by the American propaganda machine.  Almost too much of a coincidence.  What made her stand out against all the other activists not only in Iran, but around the globe who worked so hard towards the  'liberties'  that the Western perspective could  recognize and relate to? 

It is curious that in interviewing Mr. Ebadi, Jeffrey Gedmin of Foreign Policy should mention Vaclav Havel.  A new wave of liberal thinking emerged which endorsed the idea of promoting 'democracy'  ("liberal Imperialism")  in places of interest, i.e. Iraq and Iran through an individual  "And even more important, one could point to the success of leaders like Kim Dae Jung, Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel....."  It was also believed that transition to 'democracy' required focusing on "political strategies" and introducing "indeterminancy" and "uncertainty" into the process of political change which in itself was ground for cautious optimism that democracy could catch on.

In 2006, when Ms. Ebadi was being praised for her "bravery" and asked how it was that she was not afraid to go to Iran, she responded: When I got my Nobel prize and went back to Iran, there were over one million people at the airport waiting for me.  They [the government] wouldn't dare touch me.".   One has to wonder why she would be afraid to come back with her one million supporters?  Or perhaps it is the hardship she is encouraging for the Iranians that keep her away from the land which will no doubt reject interference, including all those who solicit them. 

An Obituary in the London Times

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and Maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Who Are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?

An excellent article by  Peter Dale Scott
Global Research

UNSC Role Change - Again!

Four years ago, I wrote about the misdeeds of the UNSC in an article entitled UN Security or Gang Rape (see link here).  With the passing of the no-fly resolution against Libya, it has proven itelf to be a simple toolbox for major powers.  The current resolution is a tool for regime change. 

When it comes to 'humanity' and 'defending civilians', the UNSC gang pick and choose carefully.  While most of their shortcomings has been mentioned in the above link, it is worthwhile mentioning some of the more outrageous and current ones to give us a basis for comparison.

Even after decades of warring and mass murder between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, the UN failed to pass a resolution.  The massacre of the Tutsis started in the 1960's, but Africa was not sexy then.  During 90-91, thousands of Tutsis were  massacred as the UNSC watched.  In April 1994, as the slaughter began, UN forces washed their hands and watched the massacre.  On April 30th, after hours of discussion of Rwanda situation, the UNSC failed to call it what it was - genocide; because it do not want to take action.   It was not until weeks later that the UNSC was obliged to say "act of genocide may have been committed.'    Clearly, the UNSC was not in the business of 'defending' human civilians.

 

Although the Sudan murders were referred to as genocide, there was no inclinaiton to intervene.  No doubt the oil deals and the arms trade was too lucrative for the Chinese and Americans to think of 'defending' innocent lives.  

Nor was the UNSC in the business of 'defending' the innocent when Palestinians were massacred by Israeli forces.  Where was the 'no fly zone'?  Nor is the UNSC in the business of defending civilians when the Bahrain government brutally cracks down on the protestors an the Saudi army kills them.  But Libya -  How can the powers resist all that oil?  Time for  the UNSC to be the tool for regime change - feigned humanity.   Why was the oil in danger?

 As far back as 2000, it was thought that Qaddafi's revolution was rapidly disintegrating. Libya's economic ossification has led to the rise of an Islamic opposition movement with a claim that a return to religious values could satisfy demands for economic and political regeneration.  Libyans were turning to religion as a uniting factor and a path to defiance.  Islam had been the ideology which had fought colonizers.   What was 'alarming' for the UNSC powers was the possibility of an alliance between the armed forces and the 'Islamists'.

Indpendence is as dangerous as the mad dog that rules Libya.  Bomb them all.

CommonSense prompts us to understand a country's history in order to grasp why the 'international community' - the UNSC gang, responds to situations the way that it does.