http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Prohibition Sun, 19 May 2013 11:56:20 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Prohibition Sun, 19 May 2013 10:47:28 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ace_1368971649 copkyle420 Adam Kokesh and N.A. Poe Kidnapped by the fed. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ace_1368971649 copkyle420 Smoke Down <span class="highlight">Prohibition</span> V n.a. poe adam kokesh philadelphia smoke down prohibition v Sat, 18 May 2013 18:31:07 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fde_1368916164 bigpzone Adam Kokesh getting arrested at Smoke down Prohibition V ALERT! Adam Kokesh ARRESTED! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fde_1368916164 bigpzone ALERT! Adam Kokesh ARRESTED! adam kokesh, arrested Tue, 14 May 2013 22:21:08 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=493_1368584221 snoopAhLoop THE FIRST unmanned fighter jet has been launched from the deck of a United States Navy aircraft carrier. The robotic aircraft was catapulted from the USS George H.W. Bush in the Atlantic Ocean overnight Australian time. The advanced aircraft has launched into growing concerns over the legality of escalating drone surveillance and lethal strikes. Called the X-47B , the bat-winged robotic combat drone is considered particularly valuable because it's the first that is designed specifically to take off and land on an aircraft carrier, allowing it to be used around the world without needing the permission of other countries to serve as a home base. "I can confirm it was successfully launched at 11.18am (1518 GMT)," Navy Lieutenant Katie Cerezo told media. The aircraft carried out several low approaches to the carrier before landing in Maryland at the US naval air station at Patuxent River after a 65-minute flight, the Navy said. The test flight marked the first catapult launch of a robotic, unmanned plane from a carrier at sea, and Navy officers called it a "milestone". "This historic event challenges the paradigm of manned carrier landings that were first conducted more than 90 years ago," Rear Admiral Mat Winter, who oversees unmanned aviation for the Navy, wrote on the service's website. The experimental aircraft, which looks like a smaller version of the B-2 stealth bomber, is supposed to clear the way for a new line of drones that would carry out bombing raids from a carrier. There has been increasing pushback against the use of drones from some nations that say the strikes cause widespread civilian deaths and operate with only limited oversight, eroding the US image overseas. Navy officials say the drone will provide around-the-clock intelligence, surveillance and targeting capabilities. The X-47B took off successfully and made two low approaches to the ship before heading back toward land. The test aircraft isn't intended for operational use; instead, the military is using the information it gathers during these demonstrations to develop the drone program. The Navy already operates two other unmanned aircraft, the small, low cost ScanEagle , which does not carry weapons, and the armed Fire Scout which is built more like a helicopter. Both the military and the CIA use armed Predator and Reaper drones in surveillance and strike operations around the world. The military uses them routinely in Afghanistan and other warzones, while the CIA has conducted frequent strikes in the border region of Pakistan - most often secret operations that trigger sharp criticism from the government there. The X-47B can reach an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000m), has a range of more than 2100 nautical miles (3400km) and can reach high subsonic speeds, according to the Navy. It is also fully autonomous in flight. It relies on computer programs to tell it where it to go unless a mission operator needs to step in. That differs from other drones used by the military, which are more often piloted from remote locations. Some critics have said the military's use of drones, furthered by Tuesday's tests, create concerns over the development of systems that could become weaponized and have less and less human control over launching attacks. Human Rights Watch has called for a pre-emptive prohibition of the development and use of any unmanned systems that carry weapons and are fully autonomous. While current models, like the X-47B, retain some level of supervision over decisions whether to use lethal force, the group predicts that fully autonomous weapons could be developed within decades that select and engage targets with no human intervention. Tuesday's tests show the trend toward greater autonomy "is not one that is going to be stopped," said Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch. "For us, the question is where do you draw line?" Goose said. "We're saying you need to draw the line when you have a fully autonomous system that is weaponized. We're saying you must have meaningful human control over key battlefield decisions of who lives and who dies. That should not be left up to the weapons system itself." The Department of Defense issued a directive last year that said it would not pursue fully autonomous weapons, at least for the next few years . The US is the only country with such a directive, Goose said. Before the planes can become commonplace, however, the military has to prove they can operate in the harsh conditions aboard an aircraft carrier at sea. The aircraft used a steam catapult to launch, just like a traditional Navy warplane does. "These are exciting times for the Navy as we are truly doing something that has never been done before - something I never imagined could be done during my 29-year naval career," Rear Adm. Mat Winter, the Navy's program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, wrote in a Monday blog post. While the tailless plane won't land on the aircraft carrier on Tuesday, the Navy plans to conduct those tests soon. Landing on a moving aircraft carrier is considered one of the most difficult challenges Navy pilots face. Following the test launch, the plane will make a series of approaches toward the aircraft carrier before landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. Earlier this month, the Navy successfully conducted a landing at that air station where the X-47B used a tailhook on the aircraft to catch a cable and suddenly stop, just as planes landing on carriers have to do. In the 2014 fiscal year, the Navy plans to demonstrate that the X-47B can be refueled in flight. The program cost is $1.4 billion over eight years. Northrop Grumman was awarded the primary contract in 2007. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=493_1368584221 snoopAhLoop X-47b Carrier Launch X-47b, X47b, USA, UCAS-D, Carrier Launch, Unmanned Aircraft, Drone, UAV Mon, 13 May 2013 23:41:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1368502690 Detroit Iron By Juliet Eilperin and Zachary A. Goldfarb , Updated: Monday, May 13, 8:09 PMInternal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. IRS officials at the agency's Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show. IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of "social welfare" groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists. Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were undertaken by "front-line people" working in Cincinnati to target groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names. In one instance, however, Ron Bell, an IRS employee, informed a lawyer representing a conservative group focused on voter fraud that the application was under review in Washington. On several other occasions, IRS officials in Washington and California sent conservative groups detailed questionnaires about their voter outreach and other activities, according to the documents. "For the IRS to say it was some low-level group in Cincinnati is simply false," saidCleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firmFoley &amp; Lardner who sought to communicate with IRS headquarters about the delay in granting tax-exempt status to True the Vote. Moreover, details of the IRS's efforts to target conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency in May 2012, far earlier than has been disclosed, according to Republican congressional aides briefed by the IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration -(TIGTA) on the details of their reviews. Then-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee who stepped down in November, received a briefing from the TIGTA about what was happening in the Cincinnati office in May 2012, the aides said. His deputy and the agency's current acting commissioner, Steven T. Miller, also learned about the matter that month, the aides said. The officials did not share details with Republican lawmakers who had been demanding to know whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups, Republicans said. "I wrote to the IRS three times last year after hearing concerns that conservative groups were being targeted," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Monday. "In response to the first letter I sent with some of my colleagues, Steven Miller, the current Acting IRS Commissioner, responded that these groups weren't being targeted." "Knowing what we know now," he added, "the IRS was at best being far from forth coming, or at worst, being deliberately dishonest with Congress." As new details emerged Monday, Democrats and Republicans alike decried the agency's actions as an unacceptable abuse of power. In a news conference Monday, President Obama said he learned of the investigating in media reports on Friday and has "no patience with it." "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous," Obama said. "And there's no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable." White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday that the White House counsel's office learned of an upcoming IRS inspector general's report on April 22 as part of a routine notification but had not received access to the report. On Capitol Hill, two Senate panels - the Finance Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - announced Monday that they will investigate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have been looking into reports of IRS attempts to single out organizations on the right for heightened scrutiny. Ways and Means has called IRS officials to testify Friday. "These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). "The IRS will now be the ones put under additional scrutiny." Separately, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) introducedcompanion bills Monday that would require the IRS to fire any employee found "willfully" violating "the constitutional rights of a taxpayer," according to statements by both lawmakers. The bills also would make them criminally liable for their actions. Even as Obama vowed that his administration "will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this," however, the IRS offered no new information on how it selected which groups to single out for scrutiny. The White House is legally barred from contacting the IRS about a tax matter, under a prohibition adopted after the Watergate scandal. And although it can contact the Treasury Department about tax issues, neither Treasury nor the IRS can disclose specific taxpayer information. The IRS can release information about a petition for tax- exempt status only after it has been approved. Obama is not in a position to remove Lerner, a career official who can be terminated for cause only under normal civil service proceedings. The IRS has two political appointees: the commissioner, who serves a five-year term, and the chief counsel. As the IRS came under broader political attack Monday, more details surfaced on how the exempt-organizations division struggled to determine which nonprofits should receive "social welfare" status after the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling. That decision, which allowed corporations and unions to raise and spend un-limited amounts of money on elections, opened the door for groups to accept undisclosed contributions as long as their "primary purpose" was not politics. In a Jan. 9, 2012, letter to the Richmond Tea Party, IRS specialist Stephen Seok asked questions including "the names of the donors, contributors and grantors," as well as the size of the contributions and grants, and when they were given. Richmond Tea Party President Larry Nordvig, whose group applied for tax-exempt status in December 2009 and received it in July 2012, said the extended inquiry had "a very chilling effect" on how much money the group could raise because its donors preferred anonymity. The Wetumpka Tea Party of Alabama experienced a two-year delay after submitting its initial application. Becky Gerritson, a 44-year-old stay-at-home mother and the group's president, said the IRS sent a questionnaire asking for the names of all volunteers, donor identification and contribution amounts, the names of any legislators its members had communicated with directly or indirectly, and the contents of all speeches its members had made, among a long list of other details. "I was outraged," Gerritson said. "Being an election year, I felt like it was intimidation." The group did not provide the information. Approval came only after the group sought help from the American Center for Law and Justice, which threatened a lawsuit against the IRS, Gerritson said. Although some of the groups were explicitly labeled "tea party" or "patriot," others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act - known by many as Obamacare - or the integrity of federal elections. In a June 3, 2011, letter to the IRS, Mitchell questioned the agency's motivations for delaying recognition of one of her clients who had filed nearly two years earlier, writing, "Is the opposition to Obamacare and the takeover of America's healthcare system by the government the reason that this application has been held up and not approved?" Catherine Engelbrecht, president of the Houston-based True the Vote, first filed for tax-exempt status in July 2010. At one point, Engelbrecht - who is still awaiting a determination from the IRS regarding her voting rights organization and a separate tea party group, King Street Patriots - said an IRS employee informed her: "I'm just doing what Washington is telling me to do. I'm just asking what they want me to ask." The IRS did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Josh Hicks and Julie Tate contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story_2.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1368502690 Detroit Iron IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups IRS, Obama Mon, 13 May 2013 07:05:48 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b90_1368442730 Detroit Iron By Salena Zito - May 12, 2013 BELLE VERNON, Pa. -- The owner of a small gun shop here sits on a wooden stool behind a glass-topped counter filled with handguns. The only thing folks talk about when they come into this store is what Washington will do next to attack gun owners, says the man, dressed in a crisp white shirt, dark blue pants and a ballcap from a local paint store. "The story that is not being told is how afraid folks really are," he says, refusing to have his name published. He has lived through the turbulent '60s and '70s and served in Vietnam, he says, but none of that compares to the fear he sees in today's customers. "When you have not one, not two, but dozens of women well over 70 come in here to buy a gun, something is going wrong out there," he says. "It's not just little old white women - it's young people, white and black, affluent and struggling, who are worrying about the (government's) overreach and the need to protect themselves." As if on cue, a middle-aged black man walks in and is greeted with a hearty handshake. The man says he came in to pick up a gun he ordered the week before. The 65-year-old shopkeeper says everyone who walks through his door is concerned that the latest push for stricter gun laws will return to the congressional agenda, perhaps within weeks, despite his belief that Americans do not support the legislation as much as the Obama administration claims they do. His newest customer nods in agreement. President Obama made gun control a priority after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. After months of speeches that demonized the National Rifle Association, the gun bill failed in the U.S. Senate last month. Obama called that defeat "a pretty shameful day for Washington." Yet the overwhelming public outrage that he anticipated simply never materialized. A poll released by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center one week later showed only 47 percent of respondents were "disappointed" that the Senate failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. Part of the problem is how the bill was pushed by Obama and his political arm, Organizing for America: People who own guns were condemned in shrill, strident terms that puzzled people who own guns, and even those who don't. One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., insists he hasn't given up; he does near-daily cable news interviews, hoping to bring a gun bill back up for a vote. And Michael Bloomberg, New York's billionaire mayor, is dumping money into Pennsylvania for a television ad pressing folks to "demand" that their legislators support such a bill. Yet, last week, when Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns organization held a rally in Beaver County, fewer than 20 people attended; most were organizers of the event. It's not unusual for members of Congress to misread public opinion, either from personal bias or a simple cultural lag. Obama and the Senate's majority Democrats clearly did on this issue, for both of those reasons. Among history's more spectacular examples of this phenomenon was the repeal of Prohibition, according to historian David Pietrusza. "The 'driest' Congress ever was elected very late in the game, in 1928," he recalled, "but within two years, the tide had turned dramatically ... by November 1932, 98 'dry' House members and seven 'dry' senators met defeat." Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political scientist, theorized that it is in Republicans' interest to keep the gun issue alive for its potential value as a wedge issue in 2014 "and maybe even 2016." The gun shop's door opens to another customer, filling the air with the blare of an oncoming freight train's sequenced horn - long, long, short, long blasts, warning motorists of a train crossing Belle Vernon's Main Street, a few blocks away. Customers come and go from different walks of life, different ages, different genders, different ethnicities - a virtual social melting pot passing through one small gun shop, all echoing the same concern: fear that their way of life will be under attack again, and soon. Salena Zito is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/12/obama_democrats_misfire_on_guns_118376.html#ixzz2TAa9u248 Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b90_1368442730 Detroit Iron Obama, Democrats Misfire on Guns Democratic Party, Gun Control Sun, 12 May 2013 18:02:40 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ece_1368395217 dcmfox by Evan McMurry 12:53 pm, May 11th, 2013 Real Time with Bill Maher 's panel Friday night tackled "The Liberator," the 3-D plastic gun that can be printed based off plans published online. 100,000 copies of the blueprint were downloaded this week before the State Department stepped ordered Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson to remove the plans. Maher introduced the technology: "You could make a doorstop, or jewelry, or a sex-toy, I guess, a 3-D object. Of course, this is America, we made a gun." "This is something that could change the equation on guns," Maher said, noting that a home gun-production facility bypasses any and all restrictions on gun purchases, and a plastic gun could potentially evade metal detectors, meaning it could be brought into courthouses or government buildings. "I think it also changes the equation on our civilization's ability to keep up with the technology that we're developing," said Zachary Quinto , who plays Spock in the Star Trek reboot, and whose primary expertise on the topic seems to be that a 3-D gun printer is the type of device they'd have on the Enterprise. "Look where we are with actual guns," Quinto said, "and our ability to mitigate that debate. Where do you go with something that is so far beyond our capacity to even understand it?" "We need to forget that it's a gun for a second," said Charles Cooke , who then went on to miss the difference between prohibition and regulation in classic conservative fashion. "This is not just a Second Amendment issue. Libertarians should be freaked out by the prospect of the government getting involved...What other liberties are going to get in the government's crosshairs? You gonna stop people sharing files? That's a huge First Amendment problem." "You can't stop it," Cooke said. "Well, of course you could," Maher said. "You can never stop people from breaking the law. That's a ridiculous argument. Then we would have no laws for anything." Maher widened the debate to the corrosive culture surrounding guns, one predicated on an almost pathological dedication to the specter of tyranny. "The NRA had their convention this week," Maher said. "There's this palpable sense that they're whipping up their brethren into some sort of armed confrontation." "The NRA has gone from being an advocacy of sportsman and hunters, etc, to saying we need to arm ourselves for armed conflict with the government against tyranny," Joy Reid said, noting that Wilson is a self-proclaimed anarchist. "It's always been like that," Cooke said, before rattling off the titles of various American documents. Glenn Greenwald came to his rescue: "There's always been a strain in America that has said that the project of America is to protect ourselves, the citizenry, from abuses of power by the government, and that's why we need arms. You can say it's crazy and disturbing and dangerous, and its all those things-" "It's also a fantasy," Maher said. "It's a ridiculous fantasy," Greenwald agreed. "The problem is, what powers do you want to give the government to be able to do something about this? Do you want them to be able to search homes? Do you want them to be able to prevent people from sharing information on the internet that's human knowledge about how you make these recorders, and give them power over the internet? "There's a huge cost of freedom in letting people talk about how you print these plastic guns, or letting them say these things about arming for tyranny. There's also a cost to letting the government say, 'These ideas can't be expressed.'" Quinto finished by pointing out that the plastic guns must contain one titanium piece, otherwise they can't be fired, and thus the guns might set off metal detectors after all. Having a guy from a sci-fi film paid off! Watch the whole video here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ece_1368395217 dcmfox Maher, Greenwald &amp; Joy Reid Battle Over Regulating 3-D Guns: They 'Feed Dangerous NRA Fantasy Bill Maher, charles cooke, Glenn Greenwald, Guns, Joy Reid Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:18:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ff_1366895559 john1054 The man who tried to save Tennessee from the evils of demon rum. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ff_1366895559 john1054 Ben Walter Hooper History, Ben Walter Hooper, Tennessee, Alcohol, Prohibition, Moonshine, Marijuana, Drugs Sun, 12 May 2013 07:32:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b09_1368357496 Shireen Said Was Syria 'nuked'? File photo shows damage caused by an Israeli airstrike near Damascus on May 5, 2013. Striking evidence of the use of American EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapons) nuclear weapons in Syria has come to light. Experts say the proof is irrefutable. Dramatic video footage from Syria has revealed startling evidence that counters Israel's claims of "surgical strikes" on weapons headed to Lebanon. What were said to be air strikes is now proven to have actually been artillery, something easily discernible to even an untrained observer. What happens next is shocking. While artillery shells rain down on Syrian army positions, mobile Israeli artillery in direct support and even accompanying rebel forces inside Syria, a huge explosion occurs. After analysis, it had become clear, Syria had come under attack by Israel using, not just nuclear weapons, but an American nuclear bunker buster bomb, one of several supplied to Israel to use against Iran, one of the last acts of the Bush/Cheney administration. Submitted for analysis, the footage was compared with tests of the 37,000-pound MOB (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), designed by Boeing to be used against Iran's underground facilities. There was no similarity whatsoever noted between the Syrian "event" and a conventional "bunker buster" including the GBU 57, the largest conventional weapon every to be used. More Proof Colonel James Hanke, former Defense Attach'e and Liaison between the Pentagon and Netanyahu's government , reviewed the footage. He indicated that the GBU 57 is considered too high a risk for use because of its danger to the earth's crust. The Syrian/African fault line spreads into Israel. Were it to be subjected to this kind of explosive power, the threat of an earthquake doing significant damage in Israel is a reality. The nuclear bunker busters have far less penetrating power and, I am not saying that this was a nuclear device, not until more evidence is in, but the 'event profile' shows striking similarities. The other problem with the GBU 57 is delivery. Only two aircraft are capable of delivering this weapon, the B-52 and B-2 Stealth Bomber. Israel does not have these aircraft. Collapse of UD Air Force Command Structure, Again Thus, if a MOP where used, it could have only been delivered by the United States Air Force, an organization reeling from recent disasters within its own ranks after a second lapse in nuclear weapons security in a five-year period was discovered at Minot Air Force Base in South Dakota. Seventeen officers have been removed, a "house cleaning" of unprecedented scale. Back in 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered a restructuring of America's nuclear security command after a 2007 incident at Minot. A B-52 was loaded with thermonuclear weapons and flown off the base, violating 84 separate authorization protocols. The plane was later recovered over 1500 miles away under circumstances that have never been adequately explained. What is also not clear is whether the entire nuclear payload was recovered, complete and intact. Nuclear Use in Iraq Proven The most important consideration is whether any command organization, be it Israeli, American or any other, would be willing to use nuclear weapons. There is little question that their use has been advocated by both political and military leaders. The prohibition has been the ability to conceal their use. Events in Iraq have proven such concealment to have worked effectively and when conclusive proof of nuclear weapons use was offered to the media and world scientific community, it was quickly "contained." On December 31, 2010, Dr. James Fetzer interviewed Dr. Chris Busby, a bio-medical studies professor at the University of Ulster, engaged in research on the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) in relation to birth defects in Iraqi children. What Dr. Busby found was startling: The interesting thing about the uranium was that we were able to measure the isotopic ratio because we were interested to see whether it was, you know, natural uranium or was it DU, which is what we thought it would be. But in fact it turned out to be slightly enriched uranium , so, that is to say, it was manmade enriched uranium. Now enriched uranium is a material that should only be found in a nuclear power station or inside an atomic bomb. So to find it in the hair of the parents of these children with congenital malformations was really astonishing. So we then went to look to see how this could be, and to cut a long story short, we concluded from various patents from the US patent office that we received from physicists, that it was quite entirely likely that there was a new secret weapon being used, an anti-personnel weapon of some sort which contained enriched uranium or else generated enriched uranium. ...the alternative - which is sort of science fictional and which is entirely possible - I have to say, which is that they have developed a sort of neutron device which uses enriched uranium as part of its components to generate neutrons. And the way it does this is to dissolve tritium in uranium powder... What Dr. Busby is describing is an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW) or Neutron Bomb. Other variations in America's secret nuclear arsenal included Minimal Residual Radiation (MRR) weapons. Evidence of use of "special weapons" has been found at the scenes of more than one terror attack, Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center (9/11), Bali and several others. The first hard evidence published by qualified scientists involved Fallujah. However, use of nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, is said to be relatively common. Israel's Bomb Inventory Scandal One of the greatest "non-secrets" of recent years involves the placement of Israel's weapons inventory. In 1986, Israeli nuclear weapons technician, Modechai Vanunu, was kidnapped from Italy and taken to Israel where he has been held for over 25 years. His crime; reporting on Israeli's secret nuclear program at Dimona. Cables released by Wikileaks revealed that the United States had, in 2006, allowed Libya to build a new chemical weapons facility. What has not been "Wiki-leaked" is that, when the facility was discovered after the fall of the Gaddafi government, it was found to have been run by the Israeli government. Since those initial reports, nothing more has been mentioned. It is very likely that this illegal facility, inside Libya, is still in Israeli hands. In June 2010, the USS Grapple, an American naval vessel with an "unspecified" foreign crew, docked at the port of Poti, in Georgia. Ten Israeli torpedo boats, similar to those that attacked the USS Liberty, escorted it. The ship's cargo was bombs, including runway and area denial weapons along with the enhanced version of the BLU 113 "Super Penetrator," a conventional bunker buster weapon weighting 4700 pounds. Azerbaijani Ploy These munitions were then transferred to weapons bunkers at a former Soviet airfield inside Azerbaijan where Israel had managed to sequester a number of attack aircraft. These planes had flown on to Azerbaijan after taking part in joint operations between the Turkish and Israeli air forces. After their presence was discovered, we have been told the Israeli planes returned home but there is no evidence that the munitions had been repatriated to either Israel or to the United States, their place of origin. Conclusion We know and can prove that advanced nuclear weapons have been used in the United States. We have evidence of their use elsewhere in recent years. We also know that methodologies to conceal their use and manage press leaks have been very effective and have created a combat environment where the "nuclear option" is always "on the table." We also have film and photographs from Syria showing something we have no other explanation for. Would Israel use such weapons? Do they have the means? Do they have a motive? Have they had the opportunity? Do they have sufficient control of press organizations to encourage this kind of blatant recklessness? I think we all know the answer. GD/NN Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. More Press TV articles by Gordon Duff Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/10/302772/was-syria-nuked/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b09_1368357496 Shireen Said Was Syria 'nuked'? Syria, Nuked, Israel, Zionists, Nuclear Weapons, Use, In, Iraq, Already, Proven, Neutron Bomb, Gordon Duff Wed, 08 May 2013 10:00:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=192_1368021144 omniradar It is quite a long piece, but very informative indeed. Was the Syria Chemical Weapons Probe "Torpedoed" by the West? By Adam Larson Global Research, May 02, 2013 Region: Middle East &amp; North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR? Since the perplexing conflict in Syria first broke out two years ago, the Western powers' assistance to the anti-government side has been consistent, but relatively indirect. The Americans and Europeans lay the mental, legal, diplomatic, and financial groundwork for regime change in Syria. Meanwhile, Arab/Muslim allies in Turkey and the Persian Gulf are left with the heavy lifting of directly supporting Syrian rebels, and getting weapons and supplementary fighters in place. The involvement of the United States in particular has been extremely lackluster, at least in comparison to its aggressive stance on a similar crisis in Libya not long ago. Hopes of securing major American and allied force, preferrably a Libya-style "no-fly zone," always leaned most on U.S. president Obama's announcement of December 3, 2012, that any use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Assad regime - or perhaps their simple transfer - will cross a "red line." And that, he implied, would trigger direct U.S. intervention. This was followed by vague allegations by the Syrian opposition - on December 6, 8, and 23 - of government CW attacks. Nothing changed, and the allegations stopped for a while. However, as the war entered its third year in mid-March, 2013, a slew of new allegations came flying in. This started with a March 19 attack on Khan Al-Assal, a contested western district of Aleppo, killing a reported 25-31 people. Dramatic imagery run by state news agency SANA and from a Reuters photographer showed people - including children - suffering breathing problems, some already deceased. The Syrian government and related sources were the first to report it, blaming "terrorists" as usual. In an equally predictable answer, rebels accused the Syrian military of launching the attack. Syria demanded an investigation into the event by the United Nations, and everyone else agreed. A team was assembled, but then in early April Syria blocked them, for reasons that come across as mysterious. Soon, the world was hearing unprecedent recognition that perhaps Obama's "red line" had been crossed - not by "terrorists" but by the Assad regime - somewhere, at some times since December. The deadly nerve agent sarin is increasingly specified for reasons that aren't entirely clear. All this has kicked off a renewed drive for intervention based on intelligence assessments of WMD dangers, evoking widely-noted memories of the bogus U.S. case for war on Syria's ally Iraq one decade ago. Although the latest developments cast doubt on the imminence of outright military involvement - yet again - the danger persists, and the purported reasons deserve scrutiny. It's only been six weeks since this saga began, but they were weeks of the whirlwind sort. Considering where all the twirling has left us - horribly confused, if not on the brink of war - I offer this article towards unspinning the record to discover just what happened in that time. Three Highlighted Chemical Weapons Allegations At the start of the six weeks was the March 19 incident in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo and Syria's dramatic charges over it. But before considering that or the investigation saga, it might be useful to briefly outline the three reported attacks forced now into question, as they are confused. The investigation model now prevailing, first prposed by the Bristish and French governments on March 21, involved three incidents singled out; Khan al-Assal and a same-day incident in the Damascus area, as well as another one in the city of Homs, on December 23, 2012. The opposition Local Coordination Committees (LCC), drawing on front-line fighters, reported the incident at Otaybah (Ateiba) near Damascus, in their daily summary of March 19. (interestingly, this mentions two CW incidents, while failing to mention the Aleppo incident. In its place they mentioned a possible gas attack in Baba Amr, Homs, which no one else has repeated since). The LCC said "fierce shelling with chemical rockets targeted Ateibeh town today," causing "a large number" of people to suffer breathing problems, nausea, and "hysteria," as well as causing the death of some "martyrs." The number of fatalities is not stated, here or anywhere easily found. Otaybah is reported to have been a rebel-held area, but very near Syrian military positions, adding plausibility to the report. Also of interest is that SANA and the Syrian government had nothing immediately to say on the incident there. There would be further CW allegations in the east Damascus suburbs: Aadra March 24, Jobar April 6, and Otaybah again April 9, at least. All came with some evidence but slim details, and are sure to increase interest in investigating there. One or more of these sites would allegedly yield soil samples with possible traces of sarin gas (see below). The December Homs Attack listed in the Anglo-French letter was talked about at the time, in many dramatic news reports. A handful of videos from a clinic in the Al-Bayada district show patients gasping horribly for breath. All victims seem to be rebel fighters in civilian dress. The death toll was said to be six, with as many as 100 people exposed. People took this charge seriously, but it was dismissed by mid-January as not a CW attack. CNN reported then on a State Department investigation that found it was probably a riot-control gas used in the wrong concentration. Further, CNN hear that Turkey also looked into this case "but found the claims to be unsubstantiated." The methodology was not explained, and the dismissal is not certain. Now the incident is back in the limelight, thought by the British and French to require urgent scrutiny. Khan Al-Assal But however important those other cases are, all this investigation drama began immediately after the well-documented incident in Aleppo. Little about the event is agreed on by both sides, but where the strike happened is one commonality. Khan al-Assal has been in rebel hands, but almost everyone agrees to consider it government-held by the 19th (aside from a rebel-occupied police academy). Channel 4's Alex Thomson heard that authorities only re-established full control two days before the attack (he also heard it was a predominately Shi'ite district.) Rebels say the regime hit its own area either on accident, or to make it look like rebels did it. That Syrians were killed in moderate numbers is not contested. The early reports specified 25-26 fatalities, with some rebel estimates lower, and the government tally later adjusted to 31. In the images publicized, some victims are civilians, including women and children, and some are fighting age males in Syrian army uniforms. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), an opposition group but with a variety of sources, reported a "rocket" (no mention of gas) causing 26 fatalities - ten civilians, 16 soldiers. SANA said the rocket hit "in a region populated by civilians," but only 300 meters from a Syrian Arab Army post. No one disputes the date. This itself is a clue, coming as it does after several events that invited a crossing of Obama's "red line." From March 15-18, the rebellion's second anniversary passed, the U.S. treasury freed citizens to finance Syria's opposition, NATO reminded everyone they were prepared for war, and a U.S. citizen from Texas was elected prime minister of the Syrian National Coalition. When Ghassan Hitto was chosen on March 18, the Syrian-American Council "said the decision should assuage the Obama administration's concerns about who would lead Syria should President Bashar al-Assad be deposed." Why Damascus would decided to test Obama's chemical ultimatum on the morning of the 19th, of all times, is difficult to understand. Further, the approximate time of that test is one more undisputed point: around 7:30-8:00 am by all accounts. But just about everything else is disagreed. Various chemical agents have been suggested by rebels and their supporters, but sarin is not one of them; the later talk of that seems to surround soil from one of the Damascus area attacks. However, an industrial accident has been suggested, along with "super strength tear gas" and something with "traces of cyanide." Israeli DEBKA file heard from "Western military sources" an educated guess that chlorine, phosphorous, and a nerve agent (BZ or Agent 15) were used in "the Scud B rocket which exploded in the Aleppo neighborhood of Khan al-Assal." Perhaps most intriguingly, the U.S.-based Syrian Support Group intriguingly cited "echothiophate" for both March 19 attacks, Damascus and Aleppo. Widely used as a treatment for the eye ailment glaucoma, this could be a clue that president Bashar Al-Assad, a former eye doctor, personally made the poison choice. Besides these, there seem to be no other concrete guesses as to what hit Khan al-Assal. The way the gas was delivered comes across in opposition reports, vaguely, as something rebels don't have. At least two alleged witnesses cite fighter jets, one specifying that they missed their target by about 5 km. The more widely accepted explanation is a surface-to-surface missile, probably a Scud. But this too has problems; CNN spoke to "a senior State Department official" who said there was no radar or satellite data to "indicate there was a launch of a missile at the time Syrians say the alleged attack occurred." That's the same time rebels say an alleged Scud was launched, so whether he meant to or not, the official contradicted the rebel claim here. In contrast, the government claims a smaller homemade rocket, armed with a chlorine and saline warhead, was fired on their forces. Supporting the chemical claim, the first reports had noted that residents said they could smell chlorine in the area following the attack. And consider that the launch of a smaller projectile like this should probably not show up in the data CNN referred to, meaning that clue (if it's even true) does not coflict with the government version, the way it does the rebel one. One issue working against the Damascus version is the two firing locations specified. First SANA reported the rocket came from Kafr Dael (Kafr Taal on Wikimapia, 13 km west of Khan al-Assal). Later Alex Thomson heard that al-Bab, 47 km northeast, was the suspected origin. While no more than one of those can be correct, either is entirely plausible. Rockets that could reach from al-Bab are rare, but one improvised model launched on video, near Damascus in February, was said by its handlers to have a range of 60 kilometers. This, or some equivalent weapon, could work from either specified locale the following month. As for the chlorine, it's known to be held by rebels in large amounts. CNN's Aryn Baker related how the reported smell of the attack stood out to "the owner of Syria's only chlorine-gas manufacturing plant," Mohammad Sabbagh. He had fled to Lebanon, and spoke to Baker in Beirut. He says the plant, just east of Aleppo, was taken over by Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) in August 2012. "There is no other factory in Syria that can make this gas, and now it is under opposition control," he says." He hears that the plant is not operating now, but Sabbagh "has no idea what has happened, if anything," to the one-ton tanks of chlorine gas, roughly 400 of which once stored there. Sabbagh is supported in his account by a head of the Aleppo Chamber of Industry. Passing through Beirut, he told Baker "we warned back then that chemical components were in the hands of terrorists, but no one listened." At play then are: plenty of chlorine, rockets with range, expertise obtainable to serious terrorist networks, and many basing areas within range of loyalist-held Khan al-Assal. Given all that, it's little comfort to hear as a denial, from opposition spokesman Louay Meqdad,"we have neither long-range missiles nor chemical weapons. And if we did, we wouldn't use them against a rebel target." Syria, in contrast, swears if they had CW, they would never use them against their own people at all. As we examine the battle over an investigation, it should be noted from the start that the case for a rebel attack in Aleppo is stronger and clearer than most realize. In fact it seems clearer by a healthy margin than the version rebels have so far offered. Yet that narrative and that attack in general have been effectively sidelined, in favor of whole other alleged attacks. Conflicting Urgencies at the U.N.: The Battle Over Scope Both initial versions of the gas attack on Khan Al-Assal, reported by the warring Syrian parties, came with moral denunciation of the perpetators on the other side, and these were echoed by outside supporters along unsurprising lines. Russia's foreign ministry, for example, said "the use of chemical weapons by the armed opposition ... (is) a new and extremely alarming and dangerous turn." They added "we are extremely, seriously concerned by the fact that weapons of mass destruction have gotten into militants' hands." The demand for an investigation began with Syria's government, the day after the attack. Their representative at the U.N., Dr. Bashar Al-Ja'afari, on the 20th requested the Secretary-General to form a "mission to investigate the use by the terrorist groups operating in Syria of chemical weapons yesterday against civilians." He specified that the effort should be "technical" "independent," and "neutral." Russia supported that, with deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov saying "we expect that the UN secretary general will promptly react to Syria's request." Iran backed the call, and continued pressing various nations and leaders, with little success, to condemn the attack as an opposition one. Western powers always publicly doubted rebels were behind the incident, but agreed it was worthy of investigation; every party was clear that they wanted the truth. Both sides agreed on using terms like "impartial" and "urgent" to describe their solutions, yet the best approach was consistently disagreed on. Both Russia and Syria complained on the 20th, the same day Syria first asked for a probe, that the UK and France had blocked it, in a "stalling" measure. The Western powers used the stall to explain, in a letter from France and the UK on the 21st, why the U.N. should instead "launch an urgent investigation into all allegations." In particular, they added the Otaybah attack, Reuters heard, "and one in Homs in December." On hearing a demand to investigate the Otaybah incident, representative al-Ja'afari said he'd never heard of it, proposing that it "was set up on purpose to torpedo the investigation on the real use of chemical weapons which took place in Aleppo." Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin voiced suspicion that "this was really a way to delay the need for immediate, urgent investigation of allegations pertaining to March 19 by raising all sorts of issues." This "unjustified step" of widening the probe, Russia's foreign ministry warned (perhaps with some hyperbole) "wrecks the investigation of concrete information." U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon first seemed favorable to Syria's position; he announced on March 21 that "I am of course aware that there are other allegations of similar cases involving the reported use of chemical weapons," but the probe would focus on "the specific incident brought to my attention by the Syrian government." However, he announced on the 25th that it might be broadened, and asked for more information from everyone. Reuters was given letters between U.N. Disarmament director Angela Kane and Syria's Ja'afari, discussing the investigation's terms. In one, Kane said Aleppo would be the main focus, but "we must remain mindful of the other allegations that chemical weapons were used elsewhere in the country." It was apparently the U.N. end that leaked the conversation; an April 6 letter had Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem complaining to Secretary-General Ban that the leaks "left the impression of a lack of seriousness on the part of the (U.N.) secretariat on cooperation in good faith." That too was shared with Reuters. Syria's stern and narrow insistence on its initial request is clearly part of the impasse that resulted. Given the risks of war, it would seem unwise to refuse cooperation, and the exact reasons they didn't are not widely or clearly understood. There is the pride issue, and other considerations, like signs of bad faith (leaking letters), and of deeper duplicity. For example, it was promised that the Khan al-Assal portion of the probe would be handled "initially" and/or "primarily." But a Western diplomat told Reuters on March 27 that the U.N. team would be based in Beirut, Lebanon. That's clear across Syria from Aleppo, but quite near the sites around Damascus and Homs, which were the "primary" interests, it seems. Rather than blocking the investigation they requested, Damascus held open the door to Khan Al-Assal this whole time. Foreign minister Moualem even modified the offer on April 6, as a Reuters reported suumed it up, "the inspectors should go first to Aleppo and if they are seen to be impartial, the possibility of visiting Homs could be discussed." The Jerusalem Post reported that "Western delegations" didn't like this; they "said the Syrian response of April 6 was unacceptable and that the chemical weapons team must have assurances now that it can visit both Aleppo and Homs." (And also the Damascus area, presumably.) Whatever suspicion about what would happen afterwards, one site could be agreed to by all and investigated without delay. As the U.S. representative to the U.N., Susan Rice, said on the 21st, as Aleppo seemed to be the priority: "the United States supports an investigation that pursues any and all credible allegations ... as swiftly as possible." But Secretary-General Ban re-affirmed in a public statement of April 9 that it could wait. He said: "It is a matter of principle that when there is an allegation, whether it is one or two or multiple allegations, all these allegations should be investigated. Only then will we be sure that there was or there were uses of chemical weapons. Without that nobody can be sure." He does not explain why investigators needed to knowing what happened at x number of other sites in order to know what happened in Aleppo. But without bending to that inexplicably holistic philosophy, and its growing list of interlocking allegations, Syria would get no U.N. investigation at all. Perhaps for dramatic effect, as Ban noted, "an advance team was in Cyprus, ready to go to Syria within 24 hours. ... All we are waiting for is the go-ahead from the Syrian government ... to determine whether any chemicals weapons were used, in any location." It was quite an impasse. Syria's request, it could be argued, had been torpedoed. Rejecting Regime Change Maneuvers Besides the issue of which incidents to study, the Russian foreign ministry felt there was a shift from Syria's request for help to increasingly invasive demands on the government. They stated that the shift came "under pressure from Western members of the (security) council," and might represent "attempts to drag this issue out and turn an investigation under the aegis of the United Nations ... into an additional element of pressure for regime change." Russia said that for geopolitical balance, all permanent five (P5) members of the Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) should send experts for the probe. Secretary-General Ban answered by banning scientists from all P5 members, as well as from other involved parties, like Gulf Arab states and Turkey. Syra thought they should have a say in staffing the investigation, but the U.N.'s Ban reserved the right. However, Ban decided the probe would instead be staffed by varied scientists from elsewhere, selected by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). As nice as that sounds, the OPCW's director-general is Ahmet "Uz"umc"u, a Turkish career diplomat with possibly compromising links to his belligerent nation. According to his Wikipedia entry, "Uz"umc"u was previously Turkey's consul in Aleppo, as well as ambassador in Israel and the permanent representative of Turkey to NATO. This could hardly help Syria to feel anything other than threatened; the selected scientists would be, in effect, deciding if they could turn up justification for the US/NATO to openly join in the war against Syria, waged most fiercely so far from Mr. "Uz"umc"u's home nation. From the outset, there were signs that the West and the U.N.'s leadership intended the requested investigation(s) to lead into Iraq-style inspections of Syria's closely-watched CW stockpiles. Ban Ki Moon insisted that the investigation would require "unfettered access" to locales not clearly defined, and cryptically noted "It is my hope that the mission would contribute to ensuring the safety and security of chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria." He didn't specify how a narrow, blame-free, technical mission to investigate what happened in one or even three locations would help make Syria's alleged CW more secure. That it would become a sneak inspections regime in the Iraq vein, however, might explain that strange hope. Syria's decision-makers can hardly have missed these further clues that this was the plan: 1) The investigation, staff, mandate, etc. was to be negotiated between Syria and, specifically, the U.N.'s office for Disarmament Affairs. 2) Swedish scientist Ake Sellstr"om was put in charge. He had previously been a chief inspector for UNSCOM, the U.N. inspection team of the 1990s, and worked with UNMOVIC in 2002, which found no basis for the claims on which the war on Iraq was launched anyway. 3) The "investigators" as originally tasked were increasingly referred to as "inspectors." More important yet were signs of invasive intent. Ban specified, publicly even, that the U.N. would have to investigate "in any location." Russia's foreign ministry announced on April 6, as a Reuters report summed up, that the U.N. "was seeking overly broad access for investigators to facilities and individuals (note: not crime scenes) in Syria and wanted to use aircraft for transportation. "This approach brings to mind the line taken over an investigation into the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq, which was based on deliberately false data and led to well-known consequences," it said, ... "We consider such actions unacceptable and inadmissible by any party and moreover by the leadership of the U.N. Secretariat."" While the full details remain unclear, Russia's accusations in this area remained dramatic and troubling. Foreign ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich told RT on April 27 that: "The management of the UN Secretariat demanded that Damascus agree to the establishment of a permanent mechanism for inspection throughout Syrian territory with unlimited access to everywhere. ... The proposed scheme of inspections is similar to those used at the end of the last century in Iraq, which, unlike Syria, was under UN sanctions." Syria's information minister, Omran al-Zouabi, told RT that one of the goals of the investigation as configured "is to repeat Iraq's scenario, to pave the way for other investigation inspections. To provide, based on their results, maps, photos of rockets and other fabricated materials to the UN, which as we know, opened the way to the occupation of Iraq." It was just after all of this was established that access was explicitly denied. Just as Ban and the West made it most clear by April 8/9 that the inspection must be all-or-nothing, Damascus announced, essentially, that it would have to be nothing. Syria's foreign ministry on April 8th said Ban has "suggested a supplementary mission to deploy throughout Syrian territory" and placed "additional tasks" that would constitute a "violation of Syrian sovereignty." He did so, they said, under "pressure exercised by states known for their support for the shedding of Syrian blood," and which intended to kill the investigation. And so, they announced, "Syria cannot accept these maneuvers from the UN's Secretariat-General, taking into account the truth of the negative role it played in Iraq." Most Western media reports blame the impasse on Syria. They did in fact block the U.N. team's entry into Syria. However, as this article shows, there were several questionable actions (and alleged actions) by the other side determining what the "no" came in response to. And most reports cite the scope of attacks to investigate as the only dispute. But these inexplicably invasive aspects seems to be the straws that broke the camel's back, and were laid more quietly, right before the audible snap. Therefore, they deserve more scrutiny and explanation. Consider this: if the government had been demanded to surrender and disband before any inspection, no one could blame them for refusing. That extreme example set one end of the scale on which Damascus' decision was made. On one end is a design to force Syria to reject its own investigation in a way that can be easily blamed on them alone. On the other end is a regime so desperate to conceal its patterns of abuse that it blocked the most reasonable of demands. U.S. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell took this view, saying "if the regime has nothing to hide they should let the UN investigators in immediately so we can get to the bottom of this." After strongly suggesting they did have something to hide, Ventrell threatened that all options - including military ones - remained open. Sarin After the Failure: Confusion Yields to "Confidence" To be clear, the investigation was not quite fatally sabotaged. In lieu of in-country investigation, the U.N. says Sellstr"om's team was working on Cyprus, investigating what they could from there. Spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press briefing "you need to be able to go into Syria to be able to do that investigation properly on site, but in the meantime ... information is available without actually visiting Syria." Hypothetically, this could still expand into something more substantial, but past events leave little room to suspect it will. For more on-the-ground work, independent alleged investigations took over. British intelligence MI6 secured soil samples from Aleppo, the Sunday Times reported, and gave it to analysts at Porton Down military research institute. They dismissed the incident there as from "super strength tear gas," after looking at videos but before studying the dirt. This cursory guess effectively played the incident down, while Syria was pursuing an investigation. After the 8th, the mood of the science changed. The Times of Israel reported on the 13th that other soil MI6 collected, from "a neighborhood on the outskirts of Damascus," shows signs of "some kind of chemical weapon." The scientists wouldn't say which, but specified "it can't definitively be said to be Sarin nerve agent," suggesting perhaps that it was. Perhaps based on this, Britain and France wrote separately to the UN on or before April 18, more sure than ever that the Syrians were using chemical weapons, repeatedly, since December. Rebels have offered help quite publicly, with Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Mekdad, offering to collect "testimony" and physical samples. The Americans might be trying get their own samples in the more clandestine manner of MI6, according to rebel commander "Majid," from the eastern Damascus suburbs where four recent CW attacks have been reported. He told the New York Times that the CIA wanted him to collect soil samples there, but he was actually in Jordan, and said it would take a while before he could get back on his home turf to help. In Israel, numerous actors in the military and intelligence arenas made a coordinated surprise push on April 23, recorded in a detailed report by the New York Times. This included information sent to Washington, "briefings earlier on Tuesday," where "the Israelis said they believed that the attacks March 19 involved the use of sarin gas," and dramatics dropped on Defense Secretary Hagel during his visit. Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, Israel's senior military intelligence analyst, said that Syria "has increasingly used chemical weapons. ... without any appropriate reaction," which "might signal that this is legitimate." General Brun cited "different signs" of this, including photographs of people "foaming at the mouth." An anonymous Israeli military official also told the Times' David E. Sanger that the Israeli opinion was based "mainly on what he described as publicly available photographs of victims, but said there was also corroborating "direct evidence" that he would not detail." Israel's intent here was clearly to influence the US into action (or at least into greater threat of it); the unnamed official said "if somebody would take any reaction" against Syria, maybe it would deter them from using it again." And the ominous inverse is that a failure to act would all-but guarantee a repetition. American officials refused to be instantly convinced, and made a few good points in explaining why. With British-French-Israeli collusion to attack a resistant Arab nation, and the U.S. holding back, President Obama almost seemed to be channeling Eisenhower in the Suez crisis. But it was apparently short-lived. On the 25th, CNN reported, the White House and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that U.S. analysts now felt, "with varying degrees of confidence," that Syria has used chemical weapons including at least sarin, "on a small scale." The report noted there was still caution, especially over "chain of custody" issues, but this is the closest the Obama administration has come to saying its red line is crossed. Questioning the "Confidence" As we hover at this dangerous juncture, questions emerge. An informative April 25 report from McClatchy news service heard from unnamed but authoritative sources that the U.S. intelligence findings for sarin "were of "low or moderate" confidence," and that investigators "found trace amounts of a byproduct in soil, but there are also fertilizers that give out the same byproduct," the person said. "It's far from conclusive." This is especially so, as the chain of custody is far from certain and that the opposition forces likely involved in collection are notoriously dishonest. The Telegraph reported on senior members of UK parliament saying better evidence will be needed to escalate, and noted that the Ministry of Defence "said it would not publish details of the tests, an indication that it did not have full confidence in what it had found, analysts said." On the basic logic front, Max Fisher helpfully pointed out for a Washington Post blog "three important caveats" as we speak of red lines. One was on the danger of intervention Syria would face, noting "it's hard to imagine that using a "small amount" of chemical weapons would do the regime forces enough good to merit the risk." He also cited chemical weapons expert Ralf Trapp asking "why would the regime just put it on a grenade here or a rocket launcher there? It's just not the way you'd expect a military force to act." The picture of does fit, however, with a false flag provocateur. Let's consider again those who suffer little to no such risk - unknown opposition brigades who may have been behind the last Aleppo gas attack - alongside a mid-April repeat in Aleppo's sprawling Sheikh Maqsoud district. This time it looks better in that rebels had just conquered Sheikh Maqsoud for the first time, and were absorbing some attacks. Rebel sources blame a regime helicopter, not one of their own mortars, for dropping the unidentified gas early on the morning of April 13. The attack reportedly poisoned 16 people non-fatally, and killed two women and two young children. The CW victims "foaming at the mouth," as cited by Israel's General Brun , might refer to a horrible photo from this incident, released by the SOHR, of an apparently dead woman with mucous bubbling out of her mouth and nose. Brun said that image was consistent with sarin exposure, and the Centers for Disease Control (U.S.) cites runny nose, drooling, and more as signs of low-level exposure. But Mohammad Sabbagh's stolen chlorine should have effects at least as consistent, as it did in World War I: "a profuse exudation of a thin, light yellow, albuminous fluid by the bronchial mucous membrane." It would seem some enabled party was again gassing people in Aleppo, perhaps with regime "tear gas" again, just as the threat of discovering the truth there evaporated like the morning fog. The U.S. embrace of sarin use was apparently based on the "intelligence" Israel had sent - opinions, public images, and something secret - plus tests of unreliable samples yielding traces that could be fertilizer byproducts. This possibly fake "best guess" thrives in the climate of ignorance following the all-but fatal sabotage of the U.N. investigation. (That this unsound approach is applied to issues of war and national soverignty - at the United Nations, even - is a related problem with its own complex causes we shall not try to address here.) Growing "confidence" is troubling; that word is the origin of the "con" part of a "con job," where the confidence of the lie tricks the victim into giving away something unwarranted (belief, first and foremost). Perhaps this war drive is not so dissimilar from the deceit-greased build-up to war in Iraq ten years ago. Added here is the twist, perhaps a charade, of the U.S. being dragged into it reluctantly by allies. But that a mighty nation allows itself to be dragged into echoing the sarin rumors suggests, as does so much else, that they are not truly averse to this endeavor. The moral load of any possible war against Syria will also have to include the potential disgrace of punishing the victims of real-life, deployed and used weapons of mass destruction. Much credible evidence suggests the documented chemical warfare so far has been by the rebels, against soldiers and supporters of the same government slated to be blamed. Then it's slated to be attacked by what might well be the real criminals, enabled with air support, with the intent of total victory. To borrow Israeli general Brun's statement, it's not hard to see how this rewarding of terrorism "might signal that this is legitimate" and encourage more of the same - at least, so long as it suits Western interests. Postscript Syria's Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi seems at least reasonably justified in saying, as SANA reported on April 26, "the Western sides ... want now to hide behind this "fabricated and false" talk to justify their silence on failing the investigation mission requested by Syria and to exonerate the terrorists." Al-Zoubi was speaking to RT, who quoted him as saying the West's aims include, first, "to cover those who are really behind use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal," where many or most of the dead were government soldiers. And on that same day, there was an unconfirmed report from the Bazreh neighborhood of Damascus, that entrenched rebels gassed attacking army soldiers. Breaking News (Syria) reports medical sources for an unstated number of "martyrs, who have died due to inhalation of chemical gases," which causes an exudation of "white substance from their noses and mouths." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=192_1368021144 omniradar US &amp; Israel Duplicit In Attemted Downfall Of Syria ! US &amp; Israel Duplicit In Attemted Downfall Of Syria ! Fri, 03 May 2013 00:56:18 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03c_1367556816 ghastlyghost "Look jackass," Bloomberg retorted, his anger boiling, "I fucking skipped breakfast this morning just so I could eat four slices of your pizza. Don't be a schmuck, just get back to the kitchen and bring out some fucking pizza, okay." News Story: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was denied a second slice of pizza today at an Italian eatery in Brooklyn. The owners of Collegno's Pizzeria say they refused to serve him more than one piece to protest Bloomberg's proposed soda ban,which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city. Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal. Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered. "Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?" Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito. "I'm sorry sir," he replied, "we can't do that. You've reached your personal slice limit." Mayor Bloomberg, not accustomed to being challenged, assumed that the owner was joking. "OK, that's funny," he remarked, "because of the soda thing ... No come on. I'm not kidding. I haven't eaten all morning, just send over another pepperoni.""I'm sorry sir. We're serious," Benito insisted. "We've decided that eating more than one piece isn't healthy for you, and so we're forbidding you from doing it." "Look jackass," Bloomberg retorted, his anger boiling, "I fucking skipped breakfast this morning just so I could eat four slices of your pizza. Don't be a schmuck, just get back to the kitchen and bring out some fucking pizza, okay. "I'm sorry sir, there's nothing I can do," the owner repeated. "Maybe you could go to several restaurants and get one slice at each. At least that way you're walking. You know, burning calories." Witnesses say a fuming Bloomberg and a bemused Liu did indeed walk down the street to a rival pizzeria , ordered another slice and finished their meeting. New York's so-called "soda ban" would have limited the size of sweetened beverages served in restaurants to 16 oz (0.5 liters). The plan, backed by Mayor Bloomberg, is currently being held up by a U.S. district court. Bloomberg has been the mayor of New York City since 2002. Theretofore he was the CEO of Bloomberg LP, the world's leading financial data firm. His personal fortune is estimated at around $27 billion. SOURCE EDIT: For all of you with your panties in a bunch this story is a HOAX and I KNEW IT BEFORE POSTING. It's illustrating a point. Now go troll somewhere else and make yourself useless. http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/bloombergpizza.asp http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03c_1367556816 ghastlyghost NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Denied 2nd Slice Of Pizza &quot;For His Health&quot; @ Collegno's In NYC And Goes Apeshit bloomberg, hypocrite, idiot, politics, New York, NYC, manhattan, Collegno's Pizzeria, soda ban, ghastlyghost, 2013 Fri, 03 May 2013 00:44:42 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a4_1367555503 RaiderNations http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-20130502,0,5559910.story California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons owned by people who acquired them legally but are now disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness. (Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times / February 10, 2013) By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles TimesMay 1, 2013, 9:05 p.m. SACRAMENTO - The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday. The plan received the green light Wednesday, when Gov.Jerry Brown signed legislation providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons known to be in the hands of about 20,000 people who acquired them legally. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness. The bill is the first of more than a dozen gun measures introduced by California lawmakers after the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. "This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor. California is the only state in the nation to operate a database that cross-references gun owners with those who are subsequently disqualified from owning firearms. But budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the list, which grows by 15 to 20 names every day, officials said. The new funds will allow the department to hire 36 additional special agents and support staff, with the first officers expected to hit the streets in July, said Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. The money comes from a surplus in fees paid for background checks by people purchasing guns. The new agents will work primarily in cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Riverside, which have requested additional help, Gledhill said. The effort is expected to take three years. "Our reinvestment in this tracking program gives us the opportunity to confiscate" guns from those who should not have them, said state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), author of the legislation. Opponents of the measure include the National Rifle Assn. of America and Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, who said any confiscation campaign should be paid for by the state general fund. "Going after criminals is a good thing, but the way they are paying for it is grossly unfair," Paredes said. "They are putting the entire burden on the back of law-abiding gun purchasers." Paredes said some gun owners may not know that they are disqualified from possessing guns for reasons that include, for example, a restraining order in a domestic violence case. He said an education campaign urging people to turn in weapons would be less costly and safer than sending out armed agents. Some Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, SB 140, because they too objected to tapping money not intended for the new purpose. Other Republican legislators supported the allocation, helping to give it two-thirds approval in both houses. Of the gun owners on the prohibition list, 32% were disqualified by conviction on a felony or a violent misdemeanor, Gledhill said. About 30% were disqualified for mental health reasons, including court determinations that they are dangerous; 20% are the subject of an active restraining order for cases including domestic violence; 18% are wanted by authorities for violent crimes. The existing squad of 33 special agents investigated nearly 4,000 people and seized about that same number of weapons, including 300 assault weapons, during the last two years, officials said. "California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety by taking guns away from dangerous, violent individuals who are prohibited by law from owning them," Harris said in a prepared statement. The California Legislature is still considering measures that would require ammunition purchasers to pay for a permit, close loopholes on the existing assault rifle ban and impose a nickel-per-bullet tax to pay for mental health programs. The Democratic governor, who has said he owns guns, has not taken a public position on the remaining bills. patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a4_1367555503 RaiderNations Bad boys, bad boys what you gonna do when they come for you? Guns, police, crazy, mental health, WTF Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:49:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=538_1366814700 Moron Watch After the September 11th attacks, many Americans wondered, "why do they hate us?" President George Bush gave his now famous explanation: "They hate our freedoms." Radical Islam, we are told, is to blame . When someone dares counter this argument by pointing out that "Muslim rage" is due to U.S. foreign policy, accusations of disloyalty quickly abound. We all remember what happened to Ron Paul when he had the audacity to claim that they didn't hate us for our freedoms, but rather "they attack us because we've been over there ." In other words, they terrorize us because we've been terrorizing them. Ron Paul was booed and his explanation was dubbed "absurd," to the glee of the audience. Yet, the terrorists themselves consistently explain why they attack us. Osama bin Laden himself responded to George Bush: Contrary to what Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" ... Bush is...misleading you and not telling you the true reason. The real reason, explained Bin Laden, was that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children ... Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked. Subsequent terrorists have consistently confessed similar motivations, whether it be the Times Square bomber or the Fort Hood shooter. Time and time again, the terrorists give the same explanations: they attack the United States because the United States is attacking Muslims. With the Boston Marathon bombings, once again Americans repeat Bushian explanations. The vapid radio personality Adam Carolla explained: They hate our culture. They hate our way of life. Why Americans simply can't fathom that it is U.S. foreign policy that motivates terrorists is understandable: it would be too difficult on the American psyche to admit fault--to admit that our own foreign policy is criminal and the source of the legitimate grievance. It is far easier to lay the blame on another religion. So, once again, we are told that the Boston Marathon bombers were "motivated by religion." This is what "anonymous U.S. officials" told the media, who then unthinkingly regurgitated it: Two U.S. officials say preliminary evidence from an interrogation suggests the suspects in the Boston Marathon attack were motivated by their religious views but were apparently not tied to any Islamic terrorist groups. The two brothers, from southern Russia, practiced Islam. The U.S. officials spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. Notice that the U.S. officials "were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation"--but they discussed it with reporters anyways. This is typical of the U.S. government-media relationship: journalists grant anonymity to government officials, who can then freely spread their propaganda while at the same time hiding behind the wall of anonymity when challenged. ( Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on this practice.) And so, Americans will continue to believe the myth that the terrorists attack us simply because of their religious views. This successfully shrouds the real underlying reason: U.S. foreign policy. "Muslim rage" toward the United States has to do with the fact that the United States has been continuously bombing, invading, and occupying multiple Muslim countries. This is a process that began in the early 1990's--over two decades of U.S. warmongering in the region. (And actually, U.S. interference in the Middle East begins way before that.) The Tsaernev brothers may well have been becoming more religious. But, that's only half the story--and it's the half that's less important. The more important half is what the government and media isn't telling. The Tsaernev brothers were ethnically Chechen. As has been pointed out by many in the media, Chechens don't necessarily have a particularly antagonistic view towards the United States. Why should they? Their "beef" is with the Russians. However, the Tsaernev brothers were becoming more religious. As such, it is only natural that their affiliation and self-identity became closer tied to Muslim. Once they started identifying themselves more as Muslims, they naturally grew closer in affiliation to the Muslim community worldwide (the Ummah). This sensitized them to conflicts in the Muslim majority world, including the U.S.-led incursions in the region. Therefore, the turn to religion did facilitate their eventual commission of the terrorist attacks, but only because it caused them to identify with the people who are being attacked by the United States. It is true that the Koran commands believers to come to the defense of other Muslims: And why should you not fight in God's cause when defenseless men, women, and children are being oppressed and cry out, "Lord, rescue us from this land whose people are oppressors! By Your Grace, give us a protector and give us a helper." (Koran, 4:75) But, is this not a universal moral principle? Few people, aside from extreme pacifists, would argue that it is immoral to defend "defenseless men, women, and children who are being oppressed." That the Tsaernev brothers would respond to this call means that they identify the United States as the oppressor. It is less that the religion itself caused the Tsaernev brothers to plan these attacks, and more the fact that the U.S. is bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands. If this weren't the case, the Tsaernev brothers would hardly have identified the U.S. with the oppressors mentioned in the Koranic verse. Islam does advocate fighting oppressors to save the oppressed, but this is hardly something immoral. Rather, it would be immoral to deny the right of the oppressed to defend themselves against the oppressors. Where the Tsaernev brothers left the Koranic injunctions and Islamic tradition was in their targeting of civilians instead of military targets. The Koran declares: Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression, for surely, God does not love aggressors. (Koran, 2:190) The Prophet Muhammad is said to have explicitly forbidden the targeting of non-combatants, specifically women and children. Islamic extremists like the Tsaernev brothers are not following the Koran or Islamic teachings when they commit acts of terrorism against innocents. Rather, they areflouting long-held Islamic prohibitions against targeting non-combatants. The extremists justify this departure from Koranic and Islamic law by claiming that the times are so exigent that an emergency suspension of this prohibition must be declared, i.e. the only way to stop them from killing our civilians is by killing theirs. This twisted logic is the same used by many in the West to justify nuclear warfare. Other Muslims counter the Islamic extremists by invoking Koranic and Islamic injunction, declaring such suspension of the religious law to be religiously baseless. So, it is misleading to say that the Tsaernev brothers were motivated by religion and just leave it at that. Islamic extremists like the Tsaernev brothers follow the Koranic injunction to come to the defense of the innocents (at least in their minds that's what they are doing), but they suspend and flout the religious laws regarding the conduct of such defensive war. In other words, they uphold (part of) the Islamic jus ad bellum (right to wage war) but refuse to follow the Islamic jus in bello (conduct of war). It is thus important to remember that: (1) the right to wage war that these Islamic extremists invoke is rooted in not just Koranic scripture, but is part of universal moral principles (and is enshrined in the Just War Theory). (2) The U.S.'s actions, not religious scripture (since, as discussed in point #1, it is a shared universal moral principle), are the ultimate cause of inspiration for terrorists. If, for example, the Koran still existed but the U.S. hadn't been continuously bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands, it is very unlikely that the Islamic extremists would have selected the U.S. to target. (As Osama bin Laden asked, "Why did we not attack Sweden?") On the other hand, if the Koran and Islam never existed, the people in the Muslim world would still seek to defend themselves against U.S. aggression, the only difference being that their resistance would be colored in national or ethnic instead of religious colors. (One could reasonably argue that religious motivation instills greater fanaticism to resistance movements, but nonetheless, people of any or no religion would seek to defend themselves against invaders.) (3) The Tsaernev brothers may have been motivated by religion, but they ignored that same religion when it came to the conduct of war, which reinforces point #2: resistance is colored by religion only, but really it is a universal human desire to fight back against invaders. Of course, it's more reassuring to Americans to think that these terrorists keep attacking us because of their religion. It's far easier to point the finger at some other extrinsic cause rather than at oneself. This makes us feel good about ourselves: we are the good guys being attacked by the bad guys. It's hard to accept that the pan-ultimate motivator for why they attack us is our own actions in their lands: bombing, invading, and occupying them for over two decades. One could argue that I don't know for certain that U.S. foreign policy is the ultimate motivator for the Tsaernev brothers because this information has yet to be released, but it's a matter of such obviousness--and it has been proven over and over again once the motivations of previous Muslim terrorists were revealed--that I say it with utmost certainty. It's a simple answer to the question "why do they attack us", as opposed to the simplistic answer that they hate us for our freedoms or because of their religion. The Boston Globe declared: " It doesn't matter why they hate us, they just do ." If fellow Americans really don't think it matters why they hate us--or think "they just do" for no legitimate reason at all--we shouldn't expect an end to such horrific terrorist attacks, and we can't just keep claiming to be absolutely flabbergasted when the next attack comes. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=538_1366814700 Moron Watch Bomber Motivated by Religion?: Media Regurgitates Government Propaganda US, Islamic Attacks, Causes