The Third Terrorist ...

.
Started reading Jayna Davis' "The Third Terrorist" finally ...

Was immediately put off by use of the word "Arab"

"The bombing and murder of innocents was a classic operation of Arab terrorists, and the method conformed to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia."

While all that is undisputably true, why should "Arab terrorists" bother me, you might ask.

To answer that, first I would ask, "Why Arab ?"
- why not Egyptian, or Persian, or ... ?

Truck bombing IS and has been "a classic operation of Arab terrorists" and of others.

Where did "Arabs" learn such tactics ?

Right now if you do a google search for "first truck bomb" you will see that term used in so many ways, and every item on the first page relates to "arab terrorists"
... but you will still not know.

What WAS the first truck bombing incident ?

Again, history begins too late for too many Americans who do not study history.


wikipedia offers a "List of terrorist incidents"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents


Enlightening, but not enough by itself - of course there were no trucks until the Twentieth Century, but the same could have been accomplished with a horse-drawn wagon.

"The Wall Street bombing was a terrorist incident that occurred at 12:01 p.m. on September 16, 1920, in the Financial District of New York City. It was the deadliest bomb attack on American soil for seven years, until the Bath School disaster. Thirty-eight were killed and 400 persons were injured by the blast.[1]

"At noon, a horse-drawn wagon passed by lunchtime crowds on Wall Street in New York City. The wagon then stopped across the street from the headquarters of the J.P. Morgan Inc. bank at 23 Wall Street, on the Financial District's busiest corner. Inside, 100 pounds (45 kg) of dynamite with 500 pounds (230 kg) of heavy cast-iron slugs exploded in a timer-set detonation, sending the slugs tearing through the air. The horse and wagon were vaporized. Scores of bodies littered the street, and the bomb caused over $2 million in property damage, wrecking most of the interior spaces of the Morgan building. An automobile was hurled into the air, and glass was shattered for blocks (the damage can still be seen on the buildings today [1]). Word soon spread that another bomb was nearby, creating further panic."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Bombing


No mention of "Arabs" there at all as I can see.


1933 October 10: A Boeing 247 is destroyed in midflight by a nitroglycerin bomb. All seven people aboard are killed. This incident is the first proven case of air sabotage in the history of aviation.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Chesterton_Crash

Ctrl F on that page for "arab" produces no results.


1946 July 22: Bombing of King David Hotel, the British Military HQ in Jerusalem, by the Zionist group Irgun, with 91 deaths
- a mix of military and civilian

"The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun — a militant Zionist organization.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

The attack on the King David Hotel was NOT the same sort of "classic (truck bomb) operation" to be sure, though milk cans were delivered by truck.

Did the incident set an example for a tactic that could be improved ?


1954: Lavon Affair – Mossad agents bomb targets in Egypt, attempting to discredit the Egyptian government.
The account of the Lavon Affair does not mention "Arab" except that the "affair" related to "Arab-Israeli conflict · History"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair


Basques and Puerto Rican nationalists may have used tactics similar to truck bombings in the 70's

The first "car bomb" incident I found in that list was:
March 30: A car bomb explodes in the Palace of Westminster car park killing the driver. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility for the killing. (see Airey Neave)"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents


1984 April 18: U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63.
That is the first mention I find of a "suicide bombing" which was "detonated in a delivery van driven by a suicide bomber, carrying about 2000 pounds of explosives"
... yet even that report nowhere includes the word "Arab" because ...

"A U.S. District court judge ruled in 2003 that the attack was by what had been at the
time been a new organization called Hezbollah supported by the state of Iran."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_US_Embassy_bombing


1985 March 8: Car bomb explodes in Beirut, killing 80, injuring 175; reportedly planned and executed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[21]


Today, you can talk with just about anyone in the U.S. and mention of "car bomb" or "truck bomb" seems to immediately equate to "Arab terrorist"

WHY IS THAT ???
.

is "globalization" good for you ... ?

.
Whether "globalization" is *good* or not is something we can attempt to decide another day, or perhaps leave to our descendants to decide.

What I think we can agree on today is that, whether or not "globalization" benefits us or our families personally, today, depends perhaps on where we are geographically, BUT ...

"globalization" is not a choice for any of us - not something we were asked, or were given opportunity to vote on, to approve - not even to comment.

"globalization" is the product of a small group of deciders who concluded what they believed was the best course for humanity (all human beings), and who then set about to implement their decisions - not all at once, but incrementally, attempting to work within legal structures of various nations and societies, and even religions, so that changes they intended would not be so obvious that any population would raise serious objections to those changes.

As long as a frog is still in water, the frog feels fine though water temperature continues to rise.

As long as a "consumer" has "choice" of "21 different shaving systems" he ignores the fact that he has to shave in order for his family to eat and his children have an education beyond the "public system"

As long as a "tax-payer" has a "choice" to voluntarily sign up for a social security card she ignores the fact that every transaction she makes is recorded by someone, somewhere, for purposes she may never agree to if she knew about them because she is allowed in that way to have a bank account and credit (debt), allowed to work, and to feed her children.

As long as an author agrees to make certain "small changes" to make a book more "saleable" that writer ignores that some finer points were lost on the trip through the publishing house as long as the advance check clears the bank.


Personal Sovereignty - the simple right to choose one's own course in life - is left behind as national sovereignty is also diminished - to make the world safer - as long as we are accepted by, are "acceptable to" our friends and co-workers, as long as our compliance with increasing regulations continues to allow us the chance to "get ahead in life" - opportunities for promotion and "success"


"globalization" helps some people in poor countries live a better life, while most people in those countries continue much the same as before.

The trade off, which was understood as one of the purposes of "globalization" to begin with, is that some people in richer countries have less opportunity, less work, less income, and so in theory, the world becomes a "level playing field" - which of course it does not.

"globalization" is one of many devices which cause whole populations to be divided within, citizen against citizen - causes one population to be seen by another as "taking our jobs" and eventually as enemy so that it is also a device to keep the entire world population divided and in conflict.

Conflict results in more offense, more defense, more weapons sales, more slaughter, more reallocation (massive theft) of resources.


"globalization" was never meant by those who term the poorest of the poor (who are no less human beings than any others) "useless eaters" because they are so poor they represent no "economic faction" which can be *exploited for profit* - THEY DO NOT EARN ENOUGH TO QUALIFY AS CONSUMERS.

So those very poor "useless eaters" are exploited for profit in other ways - used to "better understand" how the human body and the human reproductive system and other human functions react to the toxic chemicals, how they respond to the use of Depleted Uranium in the environment (which also has a profit motive, since as it turns out, "weaponizing" DU is the least costly way to dispose of that toxic material).


Please let me say that I hope "globalization" is something good for you and yours in your lives today.

Sincerely
.

should any one decide the future of everyone ?

.
Johnny Silver Bear did a good job explaining how House of Rothschild came into being and what it has "achieved" in this world during the almost two centuries of its existence. Tthe article was historically concise and did not include the innuendo I so often see included with that subject.

"The Illuminati and the House of Rothschild"
- http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/redshield.html

The author tied everything together well, and I have to say, if I had not know much about what he included, I would be at least skeptical rather than believing it straight out; however, I have read all that before many times, and most often with a lot of rumour and nonsense included, so I am better able to sort fact from fiction as regards HoR and Bank of England and Federal Reserve, etc.


Yesterday I also read the entire wiki page on Aurelio Peccei - stunned to find out he was president of Olivetti when I worked for Olivetti, went through their training and all ... stunned I say because my estimation of Mr. Peccei was not high before I read that wiki article, and I am asking myself, "Is it higher now ?"

A challenge with wikipedia is that not everything there is "proven" - and who has time to prove every fact ? - like with the HoR piece, who has time to follow up every item to be sure it is correct ?

In defense of wikipedia, even though some items are marked "needs citation" and are in that sense opinion, those opinions are moderated, and if someone adds something which is simply outrageous, it is edited out or at least challenged, perhaps marked for removal, as I have done myself - the point being that what is available in wikipedia is generally a "collection of knowledge" which presents a moderate view of a subject and at least gives readers enough information to follow up with their own research.


What is disturbing me after yesterday's reading is not new to me, but more pointed now. I have my own ideas of "the way things should be" as I am sure you do also, and we each have "one vote" as it were. I am sure those minds, like Aurelio Peccei's and even Meyer Bauer's (or Mayer Rothschild), were good and capable minds, and in the case of the former at least, had good intentions for the future of the world ... but should any one person, or even a small group, actually decide the future of everyone ?

Should they ?

Reading about the Club of Rome yesterday was not the first time I have seen the "products" of their thinking described so positively - more often I have read quite negative reviews of CoR activities, and it is hard for me to decide whether all the negativity and pessimism about Club of Rome and like organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are simply people who think more like I do, that each of us ought to have a vote in what our futures will be.

Are there enough "responsible" human beings willing to take charge of their own lives, live and work honestly as "just good people" ... or is there really such a need for overall supervision of everyone's lives on this planet ?

Can CFR and the like actually keep nations out of conflict with each other by imposing some "superior authority" (force) on them in exchange for those nations giving up some of their sovereignty, or being forced to relinquish it if they are a "belligerent" nation, or will that turn out to be just a ploy to control all nations without actually ever *delivering* any improvement in the quality of life and living for human beings generally ... kind of like what the Untied Nations seems to have accomplished so far ?

What about you ? Would you yield control to these "think tank" groups and hope for the best, or would you rather keep your own vote for your own future, teach your children to think the same.

As I look at how far some of these organizations have progressed toward their stated goals, and they do raise some valid points, I wonder if I am just wasting my time with all my blather about Personal Sovereignty and freedom of choice, etc.

Is there any future in it do you think ?
.

we are a nation divided ...

.
My response to a reader:
_


Without yet knowing nearly enough about me, as freely as you use the word "hate" you have said of me:

You on the other hand have nothing but criticism for the Iraq War and its errors and unlike the greatest generation want to surrender Iraq to the enemy.

What praise ought I have for the illegal occupation of Iraq by U.S. military forces ?

Yes, I opposed this "war" which is NOT a war since before it began, since before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

Under *rule of law* the atrocities of September 11, 2001, should have been investigated the same as any other criminal act of murder, the same as any other destruction of property - public or private, the same as any other airline hijackings, AND the same as ANY OTHER *abuse of power* by corrupt United States government "officials"

Yet it was not - none of it.

Even a visitor from another planet, once familiar with our language, would easily recognize names of those "responsible" for "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" as being not only complicit in "failures" leading up to September 11, but also that some of those names for decades have been associated with "trademark" false flag operations conducted all around this world by the corporate United States government

The "911 commission" was a hand picked crew chosen not only to save their own backsides (and promotions and pensions) personally, but to make sure only *selected* evidence was produced to avoid the hard questions which still need to be answered about *what happened* on September 11, 2001

As I have said before, the U.S. government has no difficulty at all retrieving wreckage of aircraft and of ships from the bottom of oceans, and yet all the evidence of criminal acts on September 11, evidence which was on dry land and easily accessible, were hauled away and buried or recycled as quickly as possible with no real forensic examination of any of that evidence allowed.

Why IS that do you suppose ?

Yes - I very well KNOW that you do not want to entertain such *nonsense*

Neither did I, Sir - neither did I

I just reached a point where I could no longer ignore the evidence.

Yes - I well enough understand the social and financial hardships you would face were you to begin to "see" beyond what "appears to be true" in your current view.

We are a nation divided, just as we were so often cautioned against in our "school days"

Ain't it grand ?
_

.

Internet 'could change beyond all recognition' ...

.
Worldwide: Amnesty warns that Internet 'could change beyond all recognition' unless 'virus of Internet repression' is tackled

Posted: 06 June 2007

" Amnesty International today (6 June) warned that the Internet 'could change beyond all recognition' unless action is taken to stop the 'Virus of Internet repression' eroding freedom of expression online.

The warning comes ahead of a globally webcast event at Amnesty's UK HQ from 6:30 tonight, 'Some People Think the Internet is a Bad Thing: The Struggle for Freedom of Expression in Cyberspace' sponsored by The Observer. Featuring Internet entrepreneur Martha Lane Fox, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and victims of Internet repression from around the world, thousands are expected to watch the event online at www.amnesty.org.uk/webcast

Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock said:

'The virus of Internet repression is spreading. The 'Chinese model' - of an Internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy - is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers.

'Unless we act on this issue, the Internet could change beyond all recognition in the years to come. More and more governments are realising the utility of controlling what people see online. And major Internet companies, in an attempt to expand their markets, are colluding in these attempts.

'At the moment we turn on our computer and assume we can see all that there is online. The fear is that we will only be able to access what someone wants us to see.'

The human rights organisation highlighted increasing reports of 'Internet filtering' around the world, where governments block access to specific sites or sites featuring particular words or themes. The latest Open Net Initiative (ONI) Report on Internet filtering shows that at least 25 countries now apply state-mandated net filtering including Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand and Tunisia.

Amnesty research has also found that companies like Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! have been complict in suppressing freedom of speech in China by censoring web content, releasing personal data leading to arrest and providing filtering hardware.

But filtering is only one aspect of Internet repression - politically motivated closure of websites and Internet cafes, as well as threats or imprisonment, are reported far more widely, said Amnesty. Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, a 22-year-old Egyptian blogger, was sentenced to four years imprisonment in February this year for 'contempt of religion' and 'defaming the President of Egypt'. His imprisonment sends a clear message to Egypt's burgeoning blogging community.

The event examines the future of Internet freedom, including governments' attempts to repress freedom of expression and information online - with the help of global IT companies - and how web users are harnessing the power of the Internet to resist them. It also includes contributions from jailed US blogger Josh Wolf and Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software movement.

'Some People Think the Internet is a Bad Thing' marks the first anniversary of irrepressible.info, an Amnesty International campaign to combat the repression of Internet users around the world, launched in The Observer in May 2006. Amnesty is relaunching the new http://irrepressible.info website, featuring a news aggregator that will turn the site into an information hub for anyone interested in the future of Internet freedom.

The irrepressible.info campaign seeks to harness the power of the Internet, mobilising web users to take action against governments who are censoring and blocking sites or imprisoning web users.

Tim Hancock added:

'Web users have been both victims of human rights abuse and successful campaigners against it.

'The Internet is the new front in the battle between those who want to speak out, and those who want to stop them.'

Amnesty is calling for governments and companies alike to respect people's right to freedom of expression online. However the organisation recognises that there are some limits to free speech, such as stopping sites promoting racial hatred, violence or child pornography.

Sami Ben Gharbia, Tunisian blogger and cyber activist said:

"The Internet is a bad thing for two groups: for governments who are realising that they are losing control of information and are trying to restrict the use of the Internet; and for the victims of those governments, individuals who are imprisoned for simply using the Internet to post and share information." "

Sami Ben Gharbia, lives in The Netherlands as a political refugee. His blog 'fikra' (which means 'idea' in Arabic) has been censored in Tunisia since 2003. Sami now works for Global Voices as Advocacy Director.

- http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17366
.

unprovoked attack on unarmed USS Liberty

.

June 8, 1967 - United States Naval History:

"Never before has the U.S. Navy ignored eyewitness testimony of American military to accept on faith the story told by their attackers."

Liberty survivors were ordered by Admiral Isaac C. Kidd to forget about the attack, talk about it with no one - not even among themselves or family
- or they would face court martial proceedings.

Thirty-four US servicemen were killed and 171 injured by a well-coordinated, multi-wave assault which included the use of napalm.

The attack was downplayed in U.S. media coverage and KIA and injured numbers reduced.


This is IMO the best-detailed film yet released regarding the unprovoked attack on USS Liberty ... and even better is hearing survivors speaking out publicly.

- http://planetquo.com/The-USS-Liberty-America-s-Most-Shameful-Secret


"George Ball, the brilliant and courageous Undersecretary of State at the time of the '67 War, wrote about the attack on the Liberty subsequently. He said:

"The ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack was that it had
far more effect on policy in Israel than in America. Israel's
leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend
the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America's leaders
did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant
murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their
American friends would let them get away with almost
anything." "

- Ambassador James Akins

- http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/18.html

.

politics as an artifact ...

.
Another way in which politics has become an artifact in the technological age is that the more "electable" political candidates become, the more they are caricatures of the human beings they would otherwise have been.

The same expertise, the same sort of mindset or "world view" which devotes "heart and soul" one day to creating a need in consumers' minds for brightly packaged boxes of a certain chemical compound "guaranteed" to whiten
... is hired of another day to likewise package - and create a need for (sell) - a human being as an "electable" candidate for "public office"

That "candidate" is no more than another commodity any political consumer can select (and purchase) from a virtual supermarket shelf.

There is no more place for meaningful issues in a "political campaign" (a technological war waged primarily through television) because what is required for a successful "campaign" is to keep viewer's attention, which is accomplished through technical tricks - providing what is unexpected, which is why so-called "attack ads" are more effective in getting votes.

Any focus on actual issues is boring content, just the same as any other television content - none of which makes "good television" (a producer's term).


Within the limitations of the technology of television itself, "political debate" has a level of relevance or status equal with the soap opera, the sit-com, or late-night comedy or a sci-fi serial: All are "filler" to keep viewers watching - until the next commercial.


It seems to follow that ANY "candidate" for public office, once elected through this "modern" process, can have no real surety WHY he or she is IN office, because the actual needs of the country, and of The People, or the world, are never a focus within the process of "being elected" or reelected.

Even when someone running for office HAS or feels some mission to serve the public at the beginning of a campaign, that mission or purpose is extremely difficult to keep in one's "mind's eye" in the face of the technical business of defeating an opponent.

The extraordinary individual who CAN maintain such devotion to "mission" must nevertheless negotiate the limitations of "appearances" (image) through television, without which that person has no chance of defeating opposing candidates who ARE using "televised appearances" - which means the successful candidate must raise enough MONEY to PAY for the "appearances" (air time), and that money is not received freely - people or groups do not just give a candidate money because they are "good people"

So whatever is a candidate's "original mission" it has been much softened up by the time an election is won.

Last time your car was in a wreck, it was similarly "softened up" was it not ?

Remember how it looked then compared to when you saw it in the "showroom" ... or on TV ?

.

will to develop clean energy ...

.
We are making progress developing clean energy, I agree - nothing like what we ought be seeing now 40 years on from when I studied solar energy and such, but "progress" ... for which in Oregon we are now having to replace, at $5000 a unit, solar "batteries" used in remote locations to power monitoring devices or to light signs at night, etc. ... because the same folks who steal our guard rails and light poles, and copper from *live* substations, for recycling to buy crack need more crack I guess - never enough ...

... but we are making better progress exporting that technology to Africa, where a village clinic can make a choice whether to run a computer or to keep the refrigerator in which their medicines are stored plugged in while they think REAL hard about how they will ever be able to afford enough "alternate energy" technology to power any sort of *industry* that will provide jobs that will grow their economies so they do not need so many clinics.

Which reminds me (the sort of mechanism by which the U.S. economy would be damaged) that as long as two decades ago, Chrysler or Ford or GM could have retooled any ONE of their money-losing assembly plants to produce *windmills* (which are not much more than a car without wheels) and kept their pension plans afloat and their employees working and America's air cleaner and maybe even increased their *profits* - except it would have eaten into oil profits (and there is that creepy shadow of the World Bank again).

If only we still had the will to do the right thing.

.

conservative vs liberal 'debate' ...

.
Simply continues a *non-debate* of an artifactual sort, which is:
*American politics*

Something which has long since been superseded by transnational corporatism, which dominates governments.

All governments.

Including yours.

Made irrelevant.

Used to keep you divided among yourselves, from yourselves.

Incapable of any effective action.

Negates your "respresentation" and renders it fit for display in museums.

As it does your (and MY) Constitution, and Bill of Rights, unless ...

Unless YOU wake up to the facts of this "modern age" and turn off the television.

Start reading again.

Comprehend.

Remember how to think, and how to make effective decisions, and take action.

There MAY still be time, but only if you awaken from your collective apathy.

Do not do it for yourself, because it is too late for you.

Do it for your children, and for theirs, for the unborn
- do it for life itself.

.