The Truth Of Iraq’s City Of Deformed Babies

[In our fear, we authorized the use of nightmare weapons upon this generation of Iraqis and Afghanis, neither knowing nor caring what the result of raining pulverized (low-level) uranium into the life-giving air being breathed by both the guilty and the innocent alike.  In our worship of military power, we rejoiced in our capacity to kill and destroy.

Are we still rejoicing?  Has our fear for our very lives been replaced by a fear of the loss of our own humanity?]

The Truth Of Iraq’s City Of Deformed Babies

Sky News

33-truth-iraq-s-city-deformed-babies.jpg

September 1, 2009

An Iraqi doctor has told Sky News the number of babies born with deformities in the heavily-bombed area of Fallujah is still on the increase.

Fifteen months ago a Sky News investigation revealed growing numbers of children being born with defects in Fallujah.

Concerns were that the rise in deformities may have been linked to the use of chemical weapons by US forces.

We recently returned to find out the current situation and what has happened to some of the children we featured.

In May last year we told the story of a three-year-old girl called Fatima Ahmed who was born with two heads.

When we filmed her she seemed like a listless bundle – she lay there barely able to breathe and unable to move.

Even now and having seen the pictures many times since I still feel shocked and saddened when I look at her.

But the prognosis for Fatima never looked good and, as feared, she never made it to her fourth birthday.

Her mother Shukriya told us about the night her daughter died.

Wiping away her tears, Shukriya said she had put her daughter to bed as normal one night but woke with the dreadful sense that something was wrong.

She told us she felt it was her daughter’s moment to die, but of course that does not make the pain any easier.

Fatima’s father had taken his little girl’s hand but it was cold.

“She is gone,” he had said to his distraught wife.

Another girl we met last year was Tiba Aftan who was born with a huge growth across her face.

Now she is a toddler her future is looking brighter having gone to neighbouring Jordan to have it removed.

The growth had covered half of Tiba’s forehead and was invading one of her eyes – and it was getting bigger as she got older.

Although the operation was a success Tiba will need more surgery and the last trip cost her family almost every penny they have.

But since our original investigation, we have built up a new dossier of cases of deformed children in Fallujah born in the last eight months.

There are a wide range of problems – from abnormalities of the abdomen to facial disfigurements.

We have also seen pictures of all kinds of deformed foetuses which have not survived.

There is no precise explanation as to what has caused the deformities and there are no figures to compare cases with those a decade or more ago as records were not kept during the time of Saddam Hussein.

All of our evidence is anecdotal, but repeatedly people tell us they believe the deformities must be linked to the heavy bombardment of Fallujah – a Sunni insurgent stronghold – by America in 2004.

People want an independent investigation into the impact of the kinds of weapons used – including controversial white phosphorus.

Yet even since we first started to give a voice to the calls for help from the people of Fallujah things seem to have got worse.

Dr Ahmed Uraibi, a specialist paediatrician in Fallujah, told us that the number of deformities he has dealt with has increased in the last year.

The people of Fallujah want to know how many more deformed babies there will be before someone sits up and takes notice of them.

Iran nuclear threat ‘hyped’: ElBaradei

Iran nuclear threat ‘hyped’: ElBaradei

WASHINGTON: Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the UN atomic watchdog, called the threat from Iran “hyped” and said there was no evidence that the Islamic republic will soon have nuclear weapons.

In an interview released Tuesday, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hit back at critics who accuse the Egyptian of covering up Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped,” ElBaradei told the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a Chicago-based magazine critical of nuclear weapons. “Yes, there’s concern about Iran’s future intentions and Iran needs to be more transparent with the IAEA and international community,” he said.

“But the idea that we’ll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn’t supported by the facts as we have seen them so far,” he said.

In a report last week, the IAEA said that Iran had slowed production of enriched uranium, which can be used to make a nuclear bomb, and agreed to tighter monitoring of its enrichment plant.

The United States downplayed the report, saying that Iran was still not cooperating fully with the UN inspectors.

Israel’s Haaretz newspaper said that the IAEA report did not include a classified annex incriminating Iran. Israel has long been critical of ElBaradei and asked in 2007 that he be fired.

ElBaradei, who along with the IAEA as an institution won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, rejected the criticism.

“About Iran, I’ve been told, ‘Mind your own business; you’re a technician.’ And yet, at other times, on other matters, I have been told that I’m the custodian of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — sometimes by the very people who tell me to mind my own business when it comes to Iran,” he said.

“I don’t put much stock in either designation. I’m neither a custodian nor a technician; I’m merely someone who is trying to do his job,” he said.

ElBaradei steps down at the end of November, handing over to Yukiya Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomat.

Obama – The Choice Of Military And Political Suicide

Obama – The Choice Of Military
And Political Suicide

By William Pfaff
8-31-9
PARIS -­ The Nation magazine’s Robert Dreyfuss has just published a fascinating account of Washington establishment opinion about the war in Afghanistan.
The four speakers at a Brookings Institution discussion were Bruce Riedel, advisor to the President (and believer in the catastrophic international consequences of a loss of the war in Afghanistan); Michael O’Hanlon, an adviser to General David Petraeus; Tony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Kim Kagan, head of the Institute for the Study of War.
The unanimous gloom expressed by these four speakers, and the apparent absence of any sunlight shining from the attending (and largely professional-political) audience, seems clear confirmation that Barack Obama and his chosen advisors have wasted no time in placing themselves and the country — in a mere five months! — into the same desperate situation that it took the combined Johnson and Nixon administrations ten years to arrive at in the case of Vietnam. This view would seem widely shared today — without visible influence on Obama policy.
This is scarcely believable. Dreyfuss summarizes the speakers’ shared views: 1. “Significant escalation” is essential “to avoid utter defeat.” 2. If “tens of thousands” of new troops were sent to Afghanistan, it would be impossible to know whether this reinforcement changed anything until another eighteen months had elapsed. 3. Even if the U.S. “turns the tide,” no American troops could be withdrawn before at least another five years.
However the most dramatic unanimous opinion of the four experts was this one: “there is no alternative to victory.”
Where have we heard that before? From Douglas MacArthur, speaking to Congress on April 19, 1951, almost six months to a day after his combined U.S., R.O.K. and UN army’s drive to the Yalu river was defeated by China’s intervention in the Korean war. The Communists’ complete reconquest of North Korea followed.
Two months after MacArthur spoke, the United States renounced the military objective of reunifying Korea and expressed interest in an armistice roughly along the 38th parallel, the prewar border. That was the alternative to American victory.
In Vietnam, the alternative to victory was the 1973 subterfuge of “Vietnamization” of the war, with withdrawal of the last American troops in March of that year. Saigon fell on April 30, 1975.
Why is there no alternative to American victory in what the president calls “AfPak”?
When President Obama took office he might have said that the Bush administration had made a dreadful mess of Afghanistan, but that he was resolved to save America, NATO and Afghanistan itself, from this Bush-era folly. He intended to put the U.S. on a new track towards peace and reconciliation with the forty million Pashtuns of Central Asia — who provide the potential recruiting pool for the angry young men of the Taliban.
He could also have said that it makes no real difference to the United States whether the Taliban do or do not rule Afghanistan, or whether Osama bin Laden is or is not in that country. Afghanistan is on the other side of the world, surrounded by tough people who can look after themselves. Terrorists do not need “safe havens” in Afghanistan. The world is full of empty “safe havens.” The terrorists are being defeated by policemen and security forces in all of the western countries, while Osama bin Laden releases largely ignored videos to Arab television.
The people of Afghanistan have themselves defended their country against all foreign interference since the time of Alexander the Great. It wasn’t the U.S. or NATO that defended them. They did it themselves ­ as an energetic minority of them are doing now — but, unhappily, against U.S. and NATO interference in their country.
The Afghans have already experienced Taliban rule, from 1996 until the U.S. invasion in 2001. A great many of them did not like it. If they don’t want the Taliban, with their obscurantism, oppression of women, and brutal interpretations of Islamic law, to come back again and install their despotic rule, let the Afghan people defend themselves. The U.S./NATO intervention simply gets in the way. As a foreigners’ invasion, it is objectively a source of support for the Taliban.
Instead of reading ecology and novels on his vacation, the president should read Charles DeGaulle. He ended the dreadful insurrection in Algeria that brought him back to power in France in 1958. And Algeria was legally a part of France itself, possessing energy resources that could have made France energy self-sufficient, and it had a large colonial population that wanted Algeria forever French.
So did a part of the French army. A conspiracy of officers tried to assassinate DeGaulle and overthrow his government. This wasn’t a puerile problem of armed bullies shouting abuse at congressmen.
DeGaulle ordered peace negotiations, stopped the war, brought the colonists and the army home, and turned to rebuilding France after its generations of crisis.
Please, President Obama: take a lesson in success. Don’t kill tens, or hundreds, of thousands more people in still another search for a useless American victory that ends in defeat — and ruins your presidency.
© Copyright 2009 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.

Turkmenistan Gas Pipeline Explosion – The Larger Context

Turkmenistan Gas Pipeline Explosion – The Larger Context

on 11 April, 2009 13:35:00 | 1429 times read Adjust font size:

nCa Analysis

Ashgabat, 11 April 2009 (nCa) — It is both sad and funny how a rupture in a single pipeline has exposed the weakness and vulnerability of the Russian economy and its heavy dependence on natural gas supplies from Turkmenistan.

A new dimension of the composite challenge of energy security for producers and end users has also come to surface.

At 0130 am on 9 Apr, an explosion occurred in CAC-4 pipeline, reducing the Turkmen gas supplies to Russia by almost 90%. CAC-4 is one of the five main trunks that constitute the Central Asia-Centre pipeline network for transportation of Central Asian gas to Russia and onward to Europe.

The cause of the accident and the way Russia handled it are a source of concern for everyone, especially the consumers in Europe.

Turkmenistan is working on repairs. Supplies would resume soon but hard questions would remain; questions that Russia must answer with full honesty.

The relations between Russia and Turkmenistan will not suffer any permanent damage because of the unpleasantness caused by this accident because broad-based bilateral relations cannot be hostage to a single incident.

Turkmenistan has explained that the explosion occurred because of insufficient notice given by GazpromExport for sharp reduction in gas volumes it buys from Turkmenistan. GazpromExport is the Gazprom subsidiary that handles purchase of Turkmen gas.

GazpromExport informed in the evening of 7 Apr about its intentions to cut down the volumes it receives from Turkmenistan. On 8 Apr at 11 am, in less than 12 hours after giving the notice, the GazpromExport had already decreased its intake from Turkmenistan to a bare trickle.

In another 14 hours or so, while Turkmenistan was scrambling to respond to the situation suddenly created by GazpromExport, tremendous pressure built in the pipeline because the tap was almost shut at the export exit point, and a main pipe burst open between the compressor stations Ilyaly and Deryalyk compressor stations on 487th kilometer of the Daulatabat-Deryalyk pipeline.

In order to understand the significance of such a short notice, and why it led to the accident, we need to bear in mind certain facts:

  • In a large caliber, medium pressure, pipeline such as CAC-4, the natural gas travels at 30 kilometers per hours during the peak season. The speed is less when less volume is being pumped; reduction in speed is proportional to reduction in volumes being sent through the pipe. The peak season is from November to March. Gas flow is rather slow from April to October.
  • Natural gas is a gas after all – its molecules are not as strongly attracted to each other as in liquids and solids. That is why so many compressors and boosters are required to keep the gas flowing through a long pipeline. It is not possible to stop the flow of gas by turning off a single tap.
  • Natural gas is buried several thousand meters under ground and comes out from the wells with considerable pressure. The flow in the pipeline cannot be reduced without first reducing the input from the wells that are feeding it.
  • Large diameter pipelines cannot be fed by a single well. There are dozens of wells giving their combined output through a complex system of pipes and compressors to feed a main trunk.

Looking at these factors one can clearly see that less than 12 hours of notice was inadequate for taking proper action because: 1. The gas fed into the trunk from Daulatabat a day before receiving the notice was still traveling in the territory of Turkmenistan; 2. The adjustment in well output at Daulatabat takes 24 to 36 hours to register at Deryalyk metering station; and 3. Drastic reduction in outflow at Deryalyk without appropriate adjustments in the entire system was bound to create one or more pressure points for the pipeline to burst.

Under ordinary circumstances, Turkmenistan would have taken this irresponsible act of GazpromExport gracefully and restored the system without making any fuss.

However, the way Gazprom preferred to handle it, shifting the blame to Turkmen side publicly, and the grey noise immediately created by the Russian analysts and media were absolutely baseless and out of context. There is probably something more out there than meets the eye

And, that has compelled us to scrutinize closely the motives of the Russian side.

In order to construct a set of possible scenarios, we shall pose some questions and try to answer them:

Was it negligence?

Such a short notice by GazpromExport cannot be dismissed as mere negligence. A company that handles several hundreds million dollars of business every day has no room for negligence. In fact, the internal discipline of Gazprom hardly allows any chance for negligence.

Was it professional incompetence?

Together with negligence, incompetence is also not a possible reason for this lapse. Gazprom has the largest pool of gas experts in the world and there is no reason to assume that none of them could foresee the consequences of drastically reducing the intake from Turkmenistan at such a short notice.

Was it irresponsibility?

Was it irresponsibility, not by Gazprom as an institution but by some employees of Gazprom?

This may or may not be the case. In case it was, it reflects poorly on Gazprom’s ability to meet steadily the obligations toward its clients in Europe.

Following the proper procedures is an integral part of the commitment to maintain energy security.

One can imagine the consequences for European consumers if this thing had happened in the middle of a severe winter.

Was it an emergency situation?

There is no way to justify a short notice like this as the consequence of an emergency situation.

Agreeably, European demand of gas has dropped considerably during the past few weeks. It is not a sudden drop and Gazprom knew in advance about it. Therefore, diminished demand in Europe cannot be cited as a reason for suddenly cutting down imports from Turkmenistan.

Similarly, the pipeline blast that took place in Moldova on 1 Apr leading to reduction of Gazprom supplies to Balkan by 40% can not be presented as an emergency situation. The blast occurred on 1 Apr, and if Gazprom was going to reduce intake from Turkmenistan to adjust for crippled capacity for exports, there was ample time to give fair notice to Turkmenistan.

Was it fear? Was it anger?

Turkmenistan recently announced plans to build East-West pipeline that will be about 800-100 kilometers in length, connecting all the major gas fields of the country to a single network. This will allow for feeding multiple pipelines without being dependent on a single field or cluster.

Was it Gazprom’s fear that the East-West pipeline will brighten the chances for Nabucco? Was it anger at Turkmenistan’s attempt to make room for multiple export routes?

Even though there is no evidence to support this assumption, the overall record of Gazprom and Russia suggests that it is a possibility that cannot be dismissed easily.

Was it a warning shot?

Was the insufficient warning that was bound to cause a serious accident, a warning shot for Turkmenistan?

Quite possibly, this may have been a way by Gazprom to tell Turkmenistan that it should look no farther than Russia for export of its gas, or else.

Was it an attempt to mask Russia’s inability to pay for gas?

The fact that Russia has been hit hard by the current financial and economic crisis is not a secret.

Russia’s ability to meet weekly timetable for payments of Turkmen gas is questionable.

Demand of gas in Ukraine and Europe has fallen dramatically and Russian gas storage facilities are already full to the brim with surplus gas. Gazprom admitted a few days ago that the crisis will force Gazprom to maintain 10% cut in output over the next 4-5 years from its peak last year. The overall output of Gazprom this year would be 492 bcm (billion cubic meters) this year, compared to 550 bcm in 2008; this is more than 10% decrease.

It means that in order to maintain its liquidity, Gazprom will first sell its own gas to Europe and provide only the leftover capacity in the pipes for Central Asian gas. However, that leftover capacity would be of little use as more European demands could be met through Gazprom’s own production.

Russia is probably unable to pay for the entire contracted volumes of Central Asian gas and causing an accident in the system of the main provider could be a convenient way to get rid of its obligations as a buyer.

Was it a deliberate attempt to halt supplies without facing contractual consequences?

There is a ‘pay or use’ clause in the contract, binding Gazprom to draw contracted volumes from CAC. In case it defaults on this commitment, it must pay for the unused capacity of the pipe. However, if the system is down for repairs, this clause could perhaps be subject to legal interpretations.

The contract also stipulates that payments must be made very week for the gas that leaves Deryalyk metering station. Non-supply for gas supplies because of technical problems could give Russia an excuse for not receiving the volumes for several weeks, and consequently not making any payments for the blank period.

The contract says that at least one week’s notice must be given for change in volumes. There is no escape from this clause except in genuine emergencies.

Was it an attempt to transfer some of the effects of financial crisis to Turkmenistan?

Russia is in the grip of the financial crisis more than it is willing to admit. Putin said during a recent cabinet meeting that we should consider putting automatic lamps and lights in government buildings that should switch off when no one is in the room. It may be a small matter but it shows the severity of crisis for Russia.

On the other hand, Turkmenistan remains unaffected by global unraveling of economic and financial systems. If the accident in the pipeline was deliberately engineered, it may have been a way of transferring some of the financial crisis to Turkmenistan, to pull Turkmenistan into the ‘club.’

Conclusion

Gone are the days of Rem Vyakhrev when Gazprom could abruptly refuse to buy Turkmen gas, and brag about it.

Turkmenistan is obliged under a long-term contract signed in May 2003 to supply certain volumes to Russia; Russia is obliged to purchase those volumes under the same contract. The obligation is mutual and binding.

Trying to deflect the blame to the infrastructure of Turkmenistan is meaningless. Compressor station for compressor station, kilometer for kilometer of pipeline, and processing facility for processing facility, Turkmenistan has spent, in comparative terms of GDP, more than any other CIS country including Russia to upgrade and modernize its entire gas extraction, processing and transportation system.

Since negligence and incompetence for giving such a short notice are not conceivable we are left with only two options: Either it was an act of irresponsibility or it was a deliberate attempt to halt Turkmen supplies temporarily.

If it was an act of irresponsibility, what was the size of that irresponsibility? Had it happened in the middle of winter, millions of citizens in more than a dozen of countries would have been affected directly. When the temperatures are in double digits below zero, it is not merely a matter of comfort; it is the question of life and death for many.

If the short notice was given with exactly this kind of outcome in mind, it puts into question Gazprom’s commitment to its consumers and its integrity as a partner.

The Golden Rule that has remained unaltered since the dawn of time is: Do to others as you wish others do to you.

A more diplomatic version of this rule is: Equality and mutual respect.

Russia is a key player in the global energy equation.

For the foreseeable future Gazprom will remain the chief supplier of natural gas to Europe.

These are undeniable facts and no one is happy about the financial woes of either Russia or Gazprom.

As a matter of fact, the countries and entities linked to Gazprom through the supply and demand chain are more than willing to lend a helping hand in these hard times.

What is equally visible is that Gazprom is heavily dependent on Turkmen volumes to maintain its own liquidity. Had that not been the case, it would be openly asked for discontinuation of supplies for a few weeks. This fact should be considered together with Gazprom’s efforts to sign more supply contracts with European countries and Iran, its recent arrangements with BP and its breakthrough in entering the LNG market of the United States.

Gazprom also needs to understand that whatever little leverage it still has over gas exports of TurkmenistanChina pipeline comes into operation. and other Central Asian countries will evaporate by the end of this year when the

Basic Information on CAC Network

[The following information is copyright to ITAR-TASS]

Central Asia – Centre is a Gazprom controlled system of natural gas pipelines, which run from TurkmenistanUzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Russia. The eastern branch consists Central Asia – Centre (CAC) 1, 2, 4 and 5 pipelines, which start from the south-eastern gas fields of Turkmenistan. The western branch consists of the CAC-3 pipeline and a project to build a new parallel Caspian pipeline. The western branch runs from Turkmen Caspian Sea territories to the north. The branches meet in western Kazakhstan. From there the pipelines run north where they are connected to the Russian natural gas pipeline system. via

The system was built between 1960 and 1988. Construction began after discovery of the Dzharkak field, and the first section was completed in 1960. CAC-1 and 2 were commissioned in 1969 and CAC-4 was commissioned in 1973. In 1976, two parallel lines were laid between Shatlyk and Khiva. CAC-5 was commissioned in 1985 and in 1986-88, the Dauletabad-Khiva line was connected through a 1,420-mm pipeline. The western branch (CAC-3) was constructed in 1972-1975.

In 2003, the late President of Turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov proposed to renovate existing systems and construct a new parallel pipeline to the western branch. On 12 May 2007, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan signed a memorandum for renovation and expansion of the western branch of the pipeline. On 20 December 2007, Russia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan finalized an agreement on the construction of a new Caspian pipeline parallel to the existing CAC-3 pipeline (Bekdash-Europe pipeline).

Almost all Uzbek and Turkmen natural gas is delivered through the CAC pipeline system, mainly through the eastern branch due to location of production sites and poor technical condition of the western branch. CAC-1, 2, 4 and 5 pipelines are supplied from gas fields in the South-East of Turkmenistan, mainly from the Dauletabad gas field. The eastern branch starts from the Dauletabad field and continues through the Shatlyk gas field east of Tejen to Khiva, Uzbekistan. From there the pipeline system transports gas northwest along Amu Darya to the Kungrad compressor station in Uzbekistan. From Kungrad, most of the gas is carried via Kazakhstan to the Alexandrov Gai gas metering station in Russia. At Alexandrov Gai CAC pipelines meet with Soyuz and Orenburg-Novopskov pipelines. From there two lines run northwest to Moscow, and two others proceed across the Volga river to the North Caucasus-Moscow transmission system. The diameter of most pipelines varies between 1,020-1,420 mm. Current capacity of the system is 44 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year. An agreement is in place to increase capacity to 55 bcm per year by 2010 and through modernization there is potential to increase capacity to 90 bcm per year.

The western branch originates at Ekarem, near the Turkmen-Iranian border and runs north. It is supplied by gas from fields scattered along the Caspian coast between Okarem and Nebit Dag. It continues via Uzen in Kazakhstan to the Beyneu compressor station, where it meets the eastern branch of the CAC. South of Cheleken, the western system consists of 710 mm diameter pipeline, and between Cheleken and Beyneau 1,220 mm diameter pipeline.

On 20 December 2007, Russia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan agreed to construct a new Caspian pipeline parallel to the existing CAC-3 pipeline. The pipeline will be built between Belek compressor station in Turkmenistan and Alexandrov Gai compressor station. The capacity of the new pipeline will be 20 bcm a year. The construction of the pipeline will start in the second half of 2009.

Pipeline Explosion Raises Tensions Between Turkmenistan, Russia

[Dual pipeline accidents level economic playing field for Gazprom.  SEE: Russian pipeline blasts in Moldova, gas supplies to Balkans suspended]

Pipeline Explosion Raises Tensions Between Turkmenistan, Russia

Berdymukhammedov and Medvedev. Are friendly relations on the way out?

April 14, 2009
By Bruce Pannier

Turkmenistan’s President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov is calling for talks with Russia as part of efforts to repair a damaged natural-gas pipeline and, more importantly, damaged Turkmen-Russian relations after last week’s pipeline explosion.

Berdymukhammedov said he is prepared to call for an independent investigation into the cause of the April 9 explosion that struck the Central Asia-Tsentr-4 pipeline that connects Turkmenistan to Russia.

Turkmenistan’s immediate reaction was to blame Russia’s Gazprom for the blast, saying Gazprom’s subsidiary in Turkmenistan, Gazpromeksport, decreased the amount of gas it was drawing from the pipeline without informing Turkmen officials.

Turkmenistan’s Foreign Ministry called the action “reckless and irresponsible.”

Russian officials have remained diplomatic about the issue, leaving Russian media to take the lead in directing blame toward Turkmenistan.

On April 9, Anatoly Dmitrievsky, director of the Institute for Oil and Gas Issues at Russia’s Academy of Sciences, appeared on the Russian television program “Vesti.” In comments that were widely publicized by Russian print media, Dmitrievsky blamed Turkmenistan’s aging pipeline system for the blast, saying it was “built in the late 1960s and start of the 1970s, is rather worn and in need of repair and reconstruction.” Dmitrievsky said it could also have been the fault of Turkmen dispatchers monitoring the pipeline.

The Turkmen government website, turkmenistan.ru, responded to Dmitrievsky’s comments the following day, saying the Russian academic’s comments “did not correspondent to reality,” and rejected the academic’s comments as an “attempt to negatively portray the work of the dispatcher service of Turkmenistan.”

Standing Up To Moscow

Regardless of the cause of the blast, one thing appears clear: the fact that gas has stopped flowing between Turkmenistan and Russia seems to suit both sides.

Michael Laubsch, an expert on Central Asia and the head of the Bonn-based Eurasian Transition Group (ETG), says Turkmenistan may be sending a signal to the West by showing it is standing up to Moscow.

“At the moment one can definitely say that the relations between the two countries are a little bit troubled,” Laubsch said. “It’s a typical signal of the Turkmen government to play its pendular politics again, showing the West that it’s now a powerful nation and it also wants to struggle with the big Kremlin.”

There may be other reasons for the sudden fall-out between Turkmenistan and Russia. On April 6, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko expressed his dismay that Turkmenistan had not set a follow-up meeting with Russia after President Berdymukhammedov’s late March visit to Moscow. Turkmen and Russian media reported ahead of the visit that Berdymukhammedov and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev were to sign a number of agreements, but at least one of those, construction of the East-West pipeline in Turkmenistan, was left for a later meeting. Shmatko said the Russian side was ready to sign the remaining agreements, but Turkmenistan had not communicated about any future meeting.

The Russian newspaper “Kommersant” reported on April 13 that Turkmenistan may now feel its position is strengthened since the pipeline explosion “could be a topic of speculation at a conference on the reliable and stable transit of energy pipelines” to be held in Ashgabat on April 23-24. “Kommersant” wrote that discussions on the pipeline explosion “could continue at a summit for the Nabuccco gas pipeline project…which will take place in Prague on May 7.”

The Russian daily “Vremya novostei” reported on April 14 that the pipeline rupture is actually good for Gazprom. It stated that Gazprom’s agreement last year with three Central Asian states to pay “European prices” for their gas now appears to have been a “mistake.” Gazprom made the deal with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan when the price of gas was rising to record highs; now the price is falling and, according to “Vremya novostei,” Gazprom “lost more than $1 billion purchasing gas in the first quarter” of 2009.

Gazprom Struggles

Falling prices are accompanied by declining purchases. Much of the Turkmen gas that Gazprom buys goes to Ukraine, but “Vremya novostei” reported that Ukraine’s state gas company Naftohaz bought only 2.6 billion cubic meters in the first quarter of 2009, paying only $940 million.

Demand further west in European Union countries is also declining, making it difficult for Gazprom to absorb the large amounts of gas it is contracted to buy from Central Asia.

President Berdymukhammedov again blamed Gazprom for the pipeline rupture.

“We see the Turkmen-Russian gas pipeline disorder as a result of external factors, not as a result of any internal disorders,” he said. “Why I am saying this? Because Russia’s Gazprom company disseminates false information in the Russian media saying the pipeline is worn out and [denying its own] technical errors.”

Berdymukhammedov ordered Deputy Prime Minister for Oil and Gas Tachberdi Tagiyev to meet with Gazprom officials and outlined Turkmenistan’s next steps if talks with the Russian company fail.

“Unless Gazprom admits its faults, then we will invite independent experts to examine the causes of the blast,” Berdymukhammedov said. “If we are responsible for the disorder, then we will fix the damages. If Gazprom is responsible for the blast, then they have to pay for the repairs and compensate Turkmenistan for pipeline damages.”

On the day of the pipeline explosion, the Turkmen government said it would take two to three days to repair. But as the dispute with Russia and Gazprom drags on, and both sides wait for the other to accept blame, there are no reports that repair work is being done.

RFE/RL’s Turkmen Service contributed to this report

Turkmenistan plans Caspian naval base

Turkmenistan plans Caspian naval base

By Marat Gurt

ASHGABAT, Aug 31 (Reuters) – Turkmenistan announced plans on Monday to build a naval base on its Caspian Sea coast, an area at the centre of a territorial dispute with Azerbaijan over oil and gas fields.

The dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan could jeopardise Turkmen plans to join the EU-sponsored Nabucco gas pipeline that bypasses Russia because gas from Turkmenistan would need to pass Azerbaijan to enter the pipeline.

“We are already buying military ships equipped with missiles,” President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov said in televised remarks to the national security council. “Naval exercises should be held regularly”.

Turkmenistan, Central Asia’s biggest gas exporter, and Azerbaijan are at loggerheads over a number of large oil and gas blocks in the Caspian Sea.

Berdymukhamedov last month ordered his government to take the dispute to an international court.

Iran, another energy-rich Caspian state, has opposed dividing the sea into sectors, an approach favoured by ex-Soviet republics Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

The Turkmen leader made it clear however that the navy would not be used to settle such disputes and would instead protect his nation from external threats.

“We have no territorial claims,” he said. “There are international terrorist groups which, it should be said, would like to disturb the Turkmen people’s peaceful life.”

Berdymukhamedov did not specify how large the Turkmen navy would be but said it should be complete by 2015.

Turkmenistan has shown particular interest in joining Nabucco since April when Russia stopped buying Turkmen gas in a row over supply terms.

The row followed a pipeline explosion blamed by Ashgabat on a sudden cut in gas intake by Russia’s Gazprom (GAZP.MM: Quote, Profile, Research). Russia used to buy about 50 billion cubic metres of Turkmen gas a year, making it a key source of Turkmenistan’s export revenues. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov: Editing by Angus MacSwan)

By Marat Gurt

ASHGABAT, Aug 31 (Reuters) – Turkmenistan announced plans on Monday to build a naval base on its Caspian Sea coast, an area at the centre of a territorial dispute with Azerbaijan over oil and gas fields.

The dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan could jeopardise Turkmen plans to join the EU-sponsored Nabucco gas pipeline that bypasses Russia because gas from Turkmenistan would need to pass Azerbaijan to enter the pipeline.

“We are already buying military ships equipped with missiles,” President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov said in televised remarks to the national security council. “Naval exercises should be held regularly”.

Turkmenistan, Central Asia’s biggest gas exporter, and Azerbaijan are at loggerheads over a number of large oil and gas blocks in the Caspian Sea.

Berdymukhamedov last month ordered his government to take the dispute to an international court.

Iran, another energy-rich Caspian state, has opposed dividing the sea into sectors, an approach favoured by ex-Soviet republics Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

The Turkmen leader made it clear however that the navy would not be used to settle such disputes and would instead protect his nation from external threats.

“We have no territorial claims,” he said. “There are international terrorist groups which, it should be said, would like to disturb the Turkmen people’s peaceful life.”

Berdymukhamedov did not specify how large the Turkmen navy would be but said it should be complete by 2015.

Turkmenistan has shown particular interest in joining Nabucco since April when Russia stopped buying Turkmen gas in a row over supply terms.

The row followed a pipeline explosion blamed by Ashgabat on a sudden cut in gas intake by Russia’s Gazprom (GAZP.MM: Quote, Profile, Research). Russia used to buy about 50 billion cubic metres of Turkmen gas a year, making it a key source of Turkmenistan’s export revenues. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov: Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Saudi- Iranian War fought in Sa’ada

Saudi- Iranian War fought in Sa’ada

*
Hakim Almasmari
With every day that passes, we come close to believe that the war in Sa’ada is a Saudi-Iranian war, not a Yemeni one.
Both foreign countries are desperate for more regional power while both are also worried of losing greatly. Saudi Arabia does not want Houthis controlling northern parts of Yemen for one main reason; southern Saudi has a large number of Shiite’s which could make them turn against their country as well. Saudi also fears that Shiite’s already have a militant group in the north of Arabia (Hezbollah), and are now looking for one in the south of Arabia (Houthis). Saudi Arabia paid billions of dollars to keep Hezbollah out of rule in Lebanon and somewhat came out victorious for the meantime, and is doing the same in Yemen.
On the other hand, Iran is trying to expand its Persian Empire even further after great success in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, and not mention keeping the estimated 15 million Sunni Iranians in check and with no power whatsoever. The famous Hezbollah satellite channel Al-A’lam has been reporting news about Houthi successes around the hour, and as if it was a Houthi channel. Houthis have until now managed to get strong media attention, which in result makes its struggle international after it was a local problem for more than six years.
Yemenis are dying for the sake of foreign agendas. Killing each other to please an outside party is what both Houthis and the government have been doing over the last six years. Is a Yemeni citizen so cheap in front of its leaders?
Over 5000 people have died in the ongoing war in Sa’ada, 45,000 have been injured and more than 200,000 displaced and living in tents, eating charity food, and sleeping through cold nights.
Saudis and Iranians have convinced the Yemeni government and Houthis to fight each other for nothing.

Saudi- Iranian War fought in Sa’ada

*
Hakim Almasmari
With every day that passes, we come close to believe that the war in Sa’ada is a Saudi-Iranian war, not a Yemeni one.
Both foreign countries are desperate for more regional power while both are also worried of losing greatly. Saudi Arabia does not want Houthis controlling northern parts of Yemen for one main reason; southern Saudi has a large number of Shiite’s which could make them turn against their country as well. Saudi also fears that Shiite’s already have a militant group in the north of Arabia (Hezbollah), and are now looking for one in the south of Arabia (Houthis). Saudi Arabia paid billions of dollars to keep Hezbollah out of rule in Lebanon and somewhat came out victorious for the meantime, and is doing the same in Yemen.
On the other hand, Iran is trying to expand its Persian Empire even further after great success in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, and not mention keeping the estimated 15 million Sunni Iranians in check and with no power whatsoever. The famous Hezbollah satellite channel Al-A’lam has been reporting news about Houthi successes around the hour, and as if it was a Houthi channel. Houthis have until now managed to get strong media attention, which in result makes its struggle international after it was a local problem for more than six years.
Yemenis are dying for the sake of foreign agendas. Killing each other to please an outside party is what both Houthis and the government have been doing over the last six years. Is a Yemeni citizen so cheap in front of its leaders?
Over 5000 people have died in the ongoing war in Sa’ada, 45,000 have been injured and more than 200,000 displaced and living in tents, eating charity food, and sleeping through cold nights.
Saudis and Iranians have convinced the Yemeni government and Houthis to fight each other for nothing.

Russian tanks to plough the Saudi sands

Russian tanks to plough the Saudi sands


Saudi Arabia is also looking at the procurement of 150 T-90s.

Saudi Arabia to buy Russian tanks and helicopters in $2 billion weapons deal

05:40 GMT, September 1, 2009 defpro.com | Saudi Arabia is close to buying Russian arms and military equipment worth some $2 billion (€1.4 billion), a Russian defence industry source confirmed, as quoted by Interfax on Saturday. The news agency reported that the unnamed source said “work is nearly completed on a set of contracts on the delivery of Russian arms and military technology to Saudi Arabia.”

The major weapons deal with Rosoboronexport State Corporation, Russia’s state-owned arms export monopoly, may include up to 30 Mi-35 attack helicopters and as many as 120 Mi-171B, the export version of the Mi-17 Hip multi-purpose helicopter, which is in service in some 80 countries. As defpro.com reported earlier this month, Russia has concluded talks with Saudi Arabia on the helicopter contract (see: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/9365/).

Russian tracked vehicles and tanks on Saudi Arabia’s shopping list

Beside the helicopters, the deal also comprises some 150 T-90S main battle tanks (MBTs) and approximately 250 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). Furthermore, several sets of Russian state-of-the-art S-400 Triumf air defence systems are part of the multi-billion dollar contract.

The advanced S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) allegedly has no equivalent in the West and is said to have outflanked the US MIM-104 Patriot. The system is designed to intercept and destroy airborne targets at distances of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles), twice the range of the Patriot. Defence experts believe that the system may be able to encounter cruise missiles and ballistic missiles as well as most stealth aircraft. The Interfax source said that Saudi Arabia is interested in “several dozen” S-400 systems, each including at least eight launchers with 32 missiles and a mobile command post. Besides Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Iran have shown strong interest in the Russian air defence system.

With this deal, the Russian Federation’s T-90 – including India’s licenced T-90S production programme – has become the most successful tank for export, in terms of foreign purchases, showing once again that the days of US and European domination over new production are long-gone in the international market for primary battle tanks.

The BMP-3, nicknamed “Troyka” and one of the most heavily armed infantry fighting vehicles in service, is already an old model, having been first built in 1987. However, it found its way back into the market as several nations are looking, again, at heavier armour and protection as well as more effective state-of-the-art weapon systems. A dozen countries have already integrated this vehicle into their armed forces, among them Saudi Arabia’s neighbours, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Greece is also preparing a possible purchase of 420 of these tracked fighting vehicles.

According to Interfax, Riyadh may sign contracts for the tanks and helicopters as early as this year. In a number of the contracts, which are part of this major deal, both sides have already agreed upon the key technical and financial details while other contracts are still being negotiated, according to the unnamed source.

Saudi Arabia taking the lead in Middle East defence spending

Riyadh traditionally bought exclusively Western, mainly US-made, military equipment. However, in 2008 Saudi Arabia and Russia signed a “framework agreement for military cooperation” that opened the way for Saudi Arabia to buy Russian arms. In July 2008, as Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal, visited Moscow, a Russian newspaper reported that several deals, including the procurement of military equipment, had been discussed with a total value of some $4 billion. Finally, this year Saudi King Abdullah received a delegation that included a top Kremlin advisor and an official from Rosoboronexport.

The new orientation of Riyadh towards a different principal weapons supplier may result from difficulties which the Arab countries experienced in recent attempts to buy military equipment from the West since 11 September 2001.

Saudi Arabia’s defence budget currently exceeds $33 billion and is expected to reach $44 billion in 2010. In a recently published report, Frost & Sullivan predicts that defence expenditures in the Middle East will cross the $100 billion mark in the coming five years. The fear that Iran’s nuclear programme may destabilise the entire region is suggested as one of the key reasons for the recent push on the Arabian Peninsula.

The bulk of spending in the region is to come from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Israel. In terms of spending, Saudi Arabia is taking the lead in the region with Israel in second place, the latter being expected to spend some $13 billion by the end of 2009, according to the report.

Iran to fight enemy’s “soft war,” parliament told

irancabinet-ap

[At this most critical juncture in Afghanistan, when US and NATO forces stand on the precipice of a complete rout without the help of either Iran or Russia, Iran has one month to capitulate to US/Israeli demands or face either military action or "crippling sanctions."  Russia is defending its southern flank in Asia from insurgents/terrorists, who are described in the Western media as "Islamists."  Obama will not pursue a truly diplomatic course to a new peaceful coexistence, instead, he will follow the fool's course, set by brilliant men like Brzezinski, straight into the trap that the Zionists have been preparing for us.]

Iran to fight enemy’s “soft war,” parliament told

By Reza Derakhshi and Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s proposed new intelligence minister pledged on Monday to “confront the enemies’ soft war,” but one

conservative member of parliament said he lacked experience for the post.

Heydar Moslehi was one of several of Ahmadinejad’s cabinet nominees to address the assembly in a bid to secure its support in voting scheduled for Wednesday — a test of the president’s grip on power after his disputed re-election.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who will retain his job if parliament backs him, said Iran had successfully defended its “nuclear rights” against Western demands to halt such activity.

“Those who used to give us warnings on possible (military) strikes … now they say it is not possible to attack Iran. Is this not a success?” Mottaki said. “Now they are begging for Iran’s help to solve their problems in the world.”

Ahmadinejad’s nominees need parliament’s approval and some deputies have criticized the hard-liner for naming several ministers without the necessary background, including Moslehi and the proposed education minister, Sousan Keshavarz.

The legislature is dominated by conservatives, but some of Ahmadinejad’s supporters have abandoned him since the June election. His reformist foes say the poll was rigged, an accusation authorities deny.

Ahmadinejad has already signaled tougher foreign and nuclear policies in the next four years, after Iran accused its Western foes of inciting unrest that erupted after the vote.

“NO EXPERIENCE”

Germany said on Monday it would host high-level talks this week with the United States, China, France, Britain and Russia on Iran‘s nuclear program, which Iran says is purely peaceful.

The United States, Germany, France and Britain have threatened Iran with harsher U.N. sanctions over work that they suspect is aimed at making weapons.

Iranian officials often accuse the United States and other Western countries of seeking to overthrow clerical rule through a “soft” or “velvet” revolution with the help of intellectuals and others inside Iran, and have portrayed the huge opposition protests after the presidential election as part of this drive.

Moslehi, a former official in the elite Revolutionary Guards representing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he would “improve the intelligence capacity to confront the enemies’ soft war.” He did not elaborate.

Rights groups say thousands of people, including senior pro-reform politicians, have been detained since the election, accused of fomenting the unrest. Many are still in jail.

Lawmaker Jamshid Ansari said Moslehi “does not have a minimum of experience of intelligence work, and therefore his presence in this complicated system would not be fruitful.”

But other MPs defended his candidacy, saying his background with the Guards made him a suitable choice.

Some have also questioned the nomination of Commerce Minister Massoud Mirkazemi as new oil minister, but MP Vali Esmaili said there was a “high possibility” he would be confirmed. Iran is the world’s fifth-largest crude exporter.

Analysts believe parliament will eventually approve the cabinet. But a stormy process, less than three months after the election plunged Iran into its deepest internal crisis since the 1979 Islamic revolution, could damage Ahmadinejad politically.

(Additional reporting by Dave Graham in Berlin; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Greenpeace Israel–Rehabilitating the Image of the Fascist Zionist State

Greenpeace Mediterranean, Home

Greenpeace operates in Israel as if it doesn’t matter. I called them up about it and they gave the predictable “we also operate in China” excuse. It might be worth it to write to them requesting them to pull out of Israel:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

FireShot Pro capture #100 - 'Google Translate' - translate_google_com_translate_js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww_greenpeace_org%2Fisrael%2F&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state

Apparently, Greenpeace is working very hard to portray the Zionist heartland as a wholesome place, populated by “regular people,” just like you and me.  You and I would never contemplate doing what these colonizers gather on hillsides to cheer on, the Israeli “Superbowl.”

more about “גרינפיס ים תיכון“, posted with vodpod

The Doctrine of Atrocity: U.S. against “them” — a tradition of institutionalized brutality

The Doctrine of Atrocity: U.S. against “them” — a tradition of institutionalized brutality

By Nick Turse
May 4, 2004

“Kill one man, terrorize a thousand,” reads a sign on the wall of the U.S. Marines’ sniper school at Camp Pendleton in California. While the marines work their mayhem with M-40A3 bolt-action sniper rifles, most recently in Fallujah, a different kind of terror has been doled out in Iraq by the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib prison, where, according to an army probe first reported by Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” were the order of the day between October and December of 2003. One of the many questions arising from the Abu Ghraib scandal is how widespread is the brutality and inhumane treatment of Iraqis.

Just last month, the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing a series of brutal war crimes committed by American troops during the Vietnam War. It took more than 35 years for the horrors committed by a “Tiger Force” unit to be fully exposed, but the Blade got more ink in the national press and TV for winning the Pulitzer than the stories themselves got when they were published last fall. The paper detailed the army’s four-and-a-half-year investigation, starting in 1971, of a seven-month string of atrocities by an elite, volunteer, 45-man Tiger Force unit of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division that included the alleged torture of prisoners, rapes of civilian women, mutilations of bodies, and the killing of anywhere from nine to well over 100 unarmed civilians. The army’s inquiry concluded that 18 U.S. soldiers committed crimes including murder and assault. However, not one of the soldiers, even those still on active duty at the time of the investigation, was ever court-martialed. Moreover, as the paper noted, six soldiers were allowed to resign from military service during the criminal investigations specifically to avoid prosecution. The secretary of defense at the time that decision was made, in the mid ’70s, was Donald Rumsfeld.

But even the Blade‘s powerful stories didn’t put the Tiger Force atrocities in context; the paper portrayed them largely as an isolated killing spree carried out by rogue troops. The Tiger Force atrocities were not the mere result of rogue G.I.’s but instead stem from what historian Christian Appy has termed a “doctrine of atrocity”—an institutionalized brutality built upon official U.S. dicta relating to body counts, free-fire zones, search-and-destroy tactics, and strategies of attrition, as well as unofficial tenets such as “shoot anything that moves,” intoned during the Tiger Force atrocities and in countless other tales of brutality.

While the U.S. military has never been alone in the commission of atrocities, in Iraq or elsewhere, the illegal acts of others serve as no excuse for an American disregard for the laws of war. We are only now, more than three decades after the fact, beginning to grasp the true scope of American war crimes in Vietnam. Will it take us that long to know to what extent the doctrine of atrocity is being applied in Iraq?

In Vietnam, the doctrine of atrocity was built not only on official U.S. policies but also on such macabre principles as the “mere gook rule,” which cast all Vietnamese as subhuman, and its attendant dictum: “If it’s dead and Vietnamese, it’s VC.” These standard operating procedures led to many acts of mistreatment and killing of noncombatants by U.S. troops that, while illegal under the laws of war, were tacitly encouraged, unofficially condoned, and rarely punished in a severe manner.

Appy, a former Harvard and MIT professor most recently known for his 2003 book, Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides, explained the “doctrine” in his 1993 history of American combat troops in Vietnam, Working-Class War. “American military policy,” he wrote, “did not . . . make atrocities by individual soldiers inevitable, but it certainly made it inevitable that American forces as a whole would kill many civilians.” Thus, a history of brutal behavior, official and unofficial doctrines that encourage a patent disregard for human life and well-being, as well as a persistent failure to publicly recognize prior misdeeds and effectively deal with them has fostered an environment of tacit approval of atrocities in the military.

The Toledo Blade articles, some of the best reporting on a Vietnam War crime during or since that war, tell only a small part of the story. As a historian writing a dissertation at Columbia University on U.S. war crimes and atrocities during the Vietnam War, I have been immersed in just the sort of archival materials the Blade used to flesh out one series of incidents. My research into U.S. military records has revealed that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of analogous violations of the laws of war.

The Blade said the Tiger Force’s seven months of brutality was “the longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War.” Unfortunately, this was not true. According to formerly classified army documents, for instance, a military investigation disclosed that from at least March 1968 through October 1969, “Vietnamese [civilian] detainees were subjected to maltreatment” by no fewer than 21 separate interrogators of the 172nd Military Intelligence Detachment. The inquiry found that, in addition to using “electrical shock by means of a field telephone,” the MI personnel also struck detainees with their fists, sticks, and boards, and employed water torture. The documents indicate that no disciplinary actions were taken against anyone implicated in that long-running series of atrocities.

The declassified documents reveal that the Tiger Force atrocities—and the resulting lack of punishment, which amounted to tacit approval—were merely the tip of the iceberg. In September 1967, for instance, an American sergeant killed two Vietnamese children, executing one at point-blank range with a bullet to the head. Court-martialed in 1970, the sergeant pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, unpremeditated murder. According to military documents, “he was sentenced by the court to no punishment.” One of the most notorious incidents of the Vietnam War was the My Lai massacre (another story first reported by Seymour Hersh, in 1969). But the now declassified military documents reveal that it was hardly an isolated incident. On February 4, 1968, for example, just over a month before U.S. soldiers tortured and raped My Lai villagers and killed hundreds of them, a soldier in the same province and from the same division (Americal) gunned down three civilians as they worked in a field. He later admitted to his commanding officer, men in his unit, and others that he had done it, and he was charged with premeditated murder. But the soldier requested a discharge, which was granted by Americal’s commanding general in lieu of a court-martial.

As the case of the 172nd MI unit demonstrates, U.S. troops in Vietnam not only beat enemy prisoners and civilian detainees but also used a wide variety of brutal methods, including a particular torture in which water was forced down a person’s throat until he or she passed out or drowned—what U.S. troops had called the “water cure” during their battle against Filipinos in the early 20th century. One particularly heinous method was known among U.S. soldiers in Vietnam as “The Bell Telephone Hour,” in which a hand-cranked military field telephone was used to generate electrical shocks through wires to hands, feet, nipples, and genitals.

In Iraq, only when the stunning photographs, including one of a prisoner who was apparently threatened with electrical torture, surfaced late last month on network TV did the press take notice in a major way, but even then, CBS News, at the behest of General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held the pictures back for two weeks and only decided to release them when prodded by Hersh’s New Yorker article.

The army itself described “wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib prison, and there have been numerous other reports of brutality since the invasion of Iraq, demonstrating that the doctrine of atrocity is still functioning.

During the Vietnam War, a U.S. officer infamously announced that a town had to be destroyed in order to save it. Today, the same logic is used in Iraq. “With a heavy dose of fear and violence . . . I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them,” U.S. battalion commander Nathan Sassaman was quoted as saying in a New York Times article in December 2003. The quote was buried deep in the article, but recent reports indicate that Sassaman’s tough talk may have been backed up by wanton acts of terror. On April 5, The Washington Post reported that Sassaman, a lieutenant colonel, was recently punished for impeding an army investigation of the alleged killing of an Iraqi detainee, adding that it “marked the second time in recent months that a battalion commander in the Fourth Infantry Division has been disciplined in connection with mistreatment of Iraqis.”

Underlying attitudes apparently haven’t changed either. Captain Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, told the Times late last year, “You have to understand the Arab mind. The only thing they understand is force. . . . ” Nearly 40 years earlier, in Vietnam, another U.S. captain told The New Yorker‘s Jonathan Schell, “Only the fear of force gets results. It’s the Asian mind.” That thinking has long been evident in U.S. campaigns against racial and ethnic “others,” from the Indian Wars to the Philippine-American War and occupation; the terrorizing of people in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Haiti; on to more conventional wars against the Japanese and Koreans; and perhaps most spectacularly in Vietnam. And now in Iraq—and not only at Abu Ghraib. Late last year, at another detention center, it was reported that Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West allowed his soldiers to beat an Iraqi prisoner as a method of interrogation. When the illegal thrashing failed to induce the prisoner to talk, West threatened the man with death, forced his head into a sandbox, and conducted a mock execution, firing a shot next to the Iraqi’s head. West confessed to the abuse, but he was not court-martialed; instead, he was simply allowed to retire.

Then, as now, U.S. officials defend their soldiers’ actions. President Richard Nixon, Rumsfeld’s old boss, once pronounced that “throughout the war in Vietnam, the United States has exercised a degree of restraint unprecedented in the annals of war.” Similarly, today’s U.S. military claims that its recent assault on Fallujah has been marked by a “judicious use of force” by marines “trained to be precise in their firepower” and that “95 percent of those killed were legitimate targets.”

According to on-the-ground reports by journalists, aid workers, and medical professionals, writes The Guardian (U.K.), U.S. troops in Fallujah, supported by gunships and fighter-bombers, have opened fire on ambulances, targeted civilians, and blasted homes into rubble. As a result, it has been reported that over 350 women and children of the city have died in the carnage—including an elderly woman found to be clutching a white flag, a six-year-old boy who was crushed under debris after a U.S. missile strike on his home, and the little boy’s mother, who was shot to death while hanging laundry out to dry.

Find the original article in The Village Voice here.

The Zionist Attack Team–911

[Outstanding compilation!  Most of the names, dates and photos.  This article "Zionist Attack Team--911" will be posted permanently on front page, right-hand sidebar.]

The Siamese twins CIA/MOSSAD, AMAN/DIA did 9/11 wall to wall….


The Siamese twins CIA/MOSSAD, AMAN/DIA did 9/11 wall to wall….

Here is the clear evidence that Israel, its Mossad, and the broader Jewish mafia planned, orchestrated, covered up, and benefited from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:

Who leased the WTC only seven weeks before 9/11?

Larry Silverstein– Explains his reason for purchasing the towers as “I felt a compelling urge to own them.” Larry had breakfast in “Windows on the World” restaurant every single morning. On 9/11 he never showed up. Neither did his daughter who worked in building 7.

Silverstein was personal friends with key player in Zionist controlled media Rupert Murdoch, Former Israeli President & infamous Zionist war criminal Ariel Sharon, as well as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Silverstein-Netanyahu Telephone

Silverstein was such good friends with Bibi Netanyahu that he would receive a telephone call from him every single sunday.

(referenced in last section that of article)

Frank Lowy — Owner of Westfield America. In May 2001, Westfield paid $US127 million for a 99-year lease on the retail area beneath the New York World Trade Center. Lowy was a member of the Golani Brigade, and fought in the Israeli war of independence. Lowy steered clear of the WTC on 9/11.

Who authorized the lease of the WTC complex to Silverstein?

Lewis Eisenberg — Chairman of the New York Port Authority.

All three men are high ranking Jews in the Anti Defamation League and United Jewish Appeal.

silversteinlowyeisenbergADLUJA


Who pushed the WTC for privatization?

-Ronald S. Lauder

He was on the board of directors of the NY board of privatization. He is the key individual who lobbied for the privatization of the WTC, but he also got Stewart Airport, formerly Stewart AFB, to become privatized. Oddly, the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged directly over this airport.

Lauder is active in the following organizations:

-Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

-Jewish National Fund

-World Jewish Congress

-American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee

-Anti-Defamation League

-Jewish Theological Seminary

Lauder has funded a school for the Mossad in Herzliya, Israel.

Lauder is the key Sayanim involved in the setting up of 9/11.

Who ran security at all three airports of “alleged” hijackings?

ICTS International / Huntsleigh USA (wholly owned subsidiary)

Owned by Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon. Both Israeli Jews.

It is run by “experts” in the security and intelligence field. Israeli intelligence that is. Most employees were ex- Shin Bet agents.

Is this airport security company, who ran the security at Dulles, Logan, and Newark, really that shotty to allow 19 arabs on board 4 different planes with boxcutters, mace, and even a gun, or is there something else going on here?

Menachem Atzmon was involved in an Israeli political scandal involving Ehud Olmert and other Likudnits in Israel.

ICTS was also in charge of airport security when the shoe bomber Richard Reid boarded a plane with a shoe bomb(allegedly).

A few hours before the Patriot Act was voted on, it was edited to make foreign companies in charge of security on 9/11 immune to lawsuits. This would prevent American courts from demanding that ICTS provide testimony or hand over the missing surveillance videos from the airports.

Who was on board flight 11?

-Daniel Lewin

Lewin, an Israeli Jew, was confirmed to be a member of the special Israeli commando unit, the Sayeret Matkal, which specializes in “anti-hijack” takeovers and assassinations. Originally, Betty Ong pointed to his seat, 9B, as the one shooting people with a gun and leading the hijacking. It was later changed to him being shot, later revised to him being stabbed.

Who had the contract to run security at the WTC?

Associates, owned by…

Jules Kroll – Jewish

Kroll was run by…

-Jerome Hauer

Hauer was also the guy chosen to run Mayor Rudy Guiliani’s office of emergency management from 1996 to 2000.

Jerome Hauer is also Jewish. Hauer’s mother, Rose Muscatine Hauer, is the retired Dean of the Beth Israel School of Nursing and the Honorary President of the New York Chapter of Hadassah, the Daughters of Zion movement that is one of the central Zionist organizations involved in the creation and maintenance of the State of Israel.

Hauer, however, told journalist Sander Hicks in a phone conversation that Larry Silverstein hired a “private” security team on his wtc complex. I wonder who manned this “private” security team, since they are the lead suspects in the placing of explosives.

Were Jews forewarned of the attacks?

Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo, admitted that two of its employees received instant messages warning of an impeding attack 2 hours prior to the first plane hitting.

This warning was not passed on to authorities, which could have saved thousands of lives.

Odigo has a feature on its service that allows the passing on of messages through a search feature based on nationality, such as Israeli. Knowing these two particular Jews were forewared, it is very likely they passed the message on to other Jews considering that out of the 4000 Israeli Jews believed to work in the trade towers, only ONE died that day.

Odigo has offices in New York, and in Herzliya, Israel. Herzliya happens to be the Head Quarters of Mossad. Do the math.

Odigo was later bought up by another Israeli company called Comverse. The CEO of Comverse was Kobi Alexander, “dual” Israeli-US citizen, with connections to Mossad. He has been charged on several counts of fraud.

Goldman Sachs Forewarned

– On Sep 10, 2001, the Tokyo branch of Goldman Sachs warned its American employees to steer clear of American buildings.

Israeli ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Forewarned

- ZIM, an Israeli company, vacated its office (10,000 square feet) in the North WTC tower a few days before 9/11, breaking its lease. 49% of this company is owned by the Israeli government. The lease ran till the end of 2001, and the company lost $50,000 by breaking the lease. Later, FBI agent Michael Dick, who was investigating Israeli spying before and after 9/11 and looking into the suspicious move, was removed from his duties by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Michael Chertoff.

Israeli espionage around 9/11

– Shortly before 9/11, over 140 Israelis had been arrested for suspected espionage. Some of them were posing as Art students. These suspects targeted or penetrated Military bases, DEA, FBI, Secret Service, ATF, U.S. Customs, IRS, INS, EPA, Interior Dept., U.S. Marshal’s Service, various U.S. Attorneys Offices, Secret government offices Unlisted private homes of law enforcement/intelligence officers. Most of the suspects served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units.

Dozens of Israelis were arrested in American malls kiosks selling toys, acting as a front for a spying operation.

60 detained suspects worked for the Israeli company AMDOCS which provides most directory assistance calls and almost call records and billings services for the U.S. by virtue of its contracts with the 25 largest telephone companies in the U.S.

All alleged 9/11 hijackers had fake IDs. During a joint FBI-CIA operation against the lead patsy hijacker Mohammad Atta in Fort Lee, NJ in 2001, the operation was photographed by Israeli agents and thereby compromised. These Jews were providing cover for the future patsy hijacker teams.

Fox News – Israeli Spy Scandal 4 Part Series:

Mossad agents were living next to the said “hijackers” in Hollywood Florida, thus “handling” them.


More Israelis caught after 9/11 — 60 of them!

After 9/11 – More detentions of Israelis

Following 9/11, over 60 Israelis were detained either under the Patriot anti-Terrorism Act or for immigrations violations. Some of them were active Israeli military personnel. A number of them failed polygraph examinations when questioned for surveillance activities against the U.S. Some of them were found to have been spying on Arabs.

This includes the “dancing Israelis” who were caught in multiple places filming, and cheering the attacks. These men admitted being mossad agents.

Their names were Sivan & Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Schmuel, Oded Ellner, & Omer Marmari.

They later appeared on an Israeli talk show and claimed to be “documenting the event”. CIA agent Robert Baer confirmed their cameras were set up BEFORE the first plane struck.

Another group of Israelis were caught attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

A third group of Jews were caught with a van that had a mural painted on the side literally depicting the 9/11 attacks.

(artist dramatization)

All of the white vans were working for the Mossad front company called “urban moving systems” under direction of Dominic Suter, a Mossad agent, who fled to Israel right after 9/11.

ALL of these Jews were sent back to Israel under direction of Michael Chertoff.

Don’t think Israel could disable Norad? THINK AGAIN!!

Ptech Software systems – computer control backdoor

Most national security computerized systems that would have scrambled jets in the event of national emergencies such as multiple hijackings were running on Ptech software.

Jew Michael S. Goff was marketing manager at Ptech and also worked for Isareli database company Guardium (Director Amit Yoran); Guardium has been funded by Mossad fronts. Ptech was funded by Lebanese and Saudi Americans, but why did Goff leave a well-paying job at a Jewish law firm for the dodgy startup Ptech? Goff was obviously working as a sayanim.

MITRE corporation (computer software)


MITRE – major defense contracting organization headed by former Director of Central Intelligence Jew James Schlesinger.

Ptech was with the MITRE corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11. Their specific job was to look at inter-operability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency.

This software was installed on the computers of most U.S government agencies, including the military.

Precision guided plane anyone?

The plane hitting WTC North Tower

The first plane to hit the WTC (North Tower) hit the computer room of Jewish-owned Marsh & McClennan owned by son of Jewish AIG owner Maurice Greenberg. Precision guidance equipment in office?

Who could possibly remote control planes into the towers? Ask DOV ZAKHEIM!!


Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation – remote airplane control technology

The SPC Corporation provided the flight termination system and command transmitter system, the technology that allows planes to be remote controlled should the pilots be incapacitated or the plane hijacked.

Who quickly shipped off the WTC metal overseas?

- Alan D. Ratner’s Metals Management and the SIMS group. Ratner is Jewish. Ratner merged with the SIMS group and the Hugo Neu corporation, and they made a handsome profit. Ratner sold over 50,000 tons of crime scene evidence steel to a Chinese company at $120 per ton; Ratner had obtained them for $70 per ton.

9/11 Investigation in Jewish hands from the start!!

Jews were appointed the chief judges:

Alvin K. Hellerstein – a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been involved in several high-profile 9/11 related cases including consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton’s airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners, and Boeing Co., the aircraft manufacturer

Michael B. Mukasey- This Jewish judge oversaw the litigation between Larry Silverstein and insurance companies after 9/11. Silverstein was awarded billions.

Michael Chertoff – In charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department. Essentially responsible for the 9/11 NON-investigation.

Kenneth Feinberg set up the victim’s compensation fund ($7 billion); the Jews managed to get 97% of the victims’ families to take the money in exchange for not demanding a legal investigation of 9/11. The minority of family members demanding an investigation had to deal with a special mediator: Jewess Sheila Birnbaum. Nothing happened though.

Benjamin Chertoff – (cousin of Michael Chertoff) wrote the 9/11 hit piece in Popular Mechanics debunking ‘9/11 conspiracies’ using ridiculous strawmen.

Stephen Cauffman – Leader of NIST coverup of WTC 7 destruction. These lowlifes continued to maintain that fire brought down WTC 7, a physical impossibility.

Who wrote the fraudulent 9/11 commission report?

-Philip Zelikow (Jewish Dual Citizen of Israel)


Jews in the Right Positions!

Rabbi Dov Zakheim – Co-author of the PNAC paper on rebuilding America’s defenses advocating the necessity of a Pearl Harbor-like incident to mobilize America. Served as Pentagon comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. Two large sums of money disappeared from the Pentagon under him. In the beginning $2.3 trillion was reported missing by Donald Rumsfeld (September 10, 2001) and later Zakheim was unable to account for another trillion dollars. Zakheim also had squads of American F-15s and F-16s sold as surplus to Israel at a fraction of their value.

Michael Chertoff – Assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the Justice Department; later, Director of Homeland Security.

Richard Perle – Chairman of Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. He was expelled from Sen. Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970s after the NSA caught him passing highly classified documents to Israel.

Paul Wolfowitz – Was Deputy Defense Secretary and a member of the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon.

Douglas Feith – Headed reconstruction in Iraq. Effectively in command, with Wolfowitz, of War Department on 9-11; Undersecretary of War for Policy. Fired from National Security Council in 1976 due to suspicion of passing classified documents to Israel. “Dual Citizen” of US-Israel.

Created the “Office of Special Plans” shortly after 9/11 which was where all of the fake intelligence accusing Iraq of developing WMD’s came from.

Eliot Abrams — Key National Security Council Advisor. Associated with criminal Zionist / Pro-Israel thinktanks: AEI, PNAC, CSP, and JINSA. Closely associated with other criminal Jews Perle, Feith, Wolofwtiz, and Bill Kristol. Convicted of lying to congress in the Iran/Contra Affair but was later given a pardon by Bush.

Marc Grossman — Under Secretary for Political Affairs on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on or shortly after 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel

Ari Fleischer — White House spokesman for Bush on 9-11; Harlined Iraq WMD lies to the press; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; connected to the extremist group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics

More traitorous Jewish personalities can be seen HERE.

Israel caught creating fake Al Qaeda shortly after 9/11!!!

First Ariel Sharon attempts to spew propaganda that he thinks Palestine is harboring “Al Qaeda” so as to justify attacks on it…

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon … said that al-Qaeda militants were operating in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. “We know that they are there. We know that they are in Lebanon, working closely with Hezbollah. We know that they are in the region,” he said. BBC News 12/5/2002

Then Palestinian officials arrested the fake “al qaeda” poseurs who were actually Mossad agents.

“Officials from the Palestinian Authority have accused the Israeli spy agency Mossad of setting up a fake al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Gaza. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said that Israel had set up the mock cell in order to justify attacks in Palestinian areas.” [BBC News - 12/8/2002]

The BBC’s Jeremy Cooke says that the Israeli Government is keen to demonstrate to the Americans that they are facing a common enemy.


Mossad Agent posing as Al Qaeda, AGAIN!!

Adam Gadahn, pictured above, is the so called Al Qaida spokesperson who released videos of himself preaching Al Qaida goals and ideology on numerous occasions. The FBI even have him on their most wanted terrorists list.

It turns out he is a Jew named Adam Pearlman, from California. Adam’s grandfather, Carl Pearlman, was a prominent surgeon and on the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation League!


Fake Al Qaida videos come from Jewish sources!!

These fake “Al Qaida” Pearlman videos are conveniently always obtained first by a U.S gov’t contractor called Intel Center. This company is owned and run by Ben Venzke, a Jew. IntelCenter is an offshoot of of IDEFENSE, which was staffed by senior PSYOP officer, Jim Melnick(Jewish), who worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld for a time. Intel Center is probably getting these “Jihad” videos straight from Mossad HQ in Herzliya, Israel.

Another “intel gathering” company is called Site Intel Group which states its purpose is…

“Studying the primary source propaganda, training manuals, and chatter of terrorists offers insight into terrorists and their activities that can not be obtained anywhere else. To fulfill this need, the SITE Intelligence Group offers its Monitoring Service, which provides numerous daily translations of terrorist propaganda and multimedia from primary source terrorist websites.” – SITE

The director and founder of SITE Intel group is Rita Katz.

It turns out that Rita Katz is an Iraqi Jew! Her father was a Jewish businessman in Iraq and was sentenced to hanging after being caught SPYING FOR ISRAEL in the 1967 war. After her father was hung, Rita and her mother fled to Israel where she served in the Israeli army, which is compulsory, and went to university in Tel Aviv!

Who was related to one of the “alleged” 9/11 hijackers?

- Still image from “laughing hijackers” video showing Ziad Jarrah(left), and Mohammed Atta(right), allegedly making their martyrdom video just before 9/11, all the while laughing hysterically about it!

Ziad Jarrah’s cousin, Ali Al Jarrah(pictured above), was recently discovered by Lebanese authorities of being a Mossad Spy for 25 years!! Coincidence? I think NOT!

Anthrax Letters sent out by a ZIONIST!!

Immediately blamed on Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Later proven to have been come from U.S army weapons lab USAMRIID, Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

Anthrax letters framed up Muslims!! “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is great”

These attacks were subsequently blamed on a one doctor Bruce Ivins who was conveniently suicided before his case could be brought to trial.

He didn’t send the letters, he was a convenient scapegoat and dupe.

A man named Dr. Philip Zack was caught on a security video two months after being fired entering without authorization a lab where anthrax samples went missing.

Just prior to this he had been FIRED from this same weapons lab for the harassment of an ARAB co-worker named Dr. Assad!

“Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, [lab technician Charles] Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad, who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.”

He and some other people at the lab formed a gorup called the “Kamel Klub kids”. Clearly he is a racist Zionist Jew.

The Anthrax was originally sent out from New Jersey. NJ was the BASE of Mossad operations through “Urban Moving Systems” moving van front company which was run out of New Jersey.

Two Israeli terrorists caught trying to blow up Mexican Congress!!

As reported by La Vox De Atzlan, two men posing as press photographers, but in reality being Israeli Mossad agents, were arrested INSIDE the Mexican congress on October 10, 2001 armed with 9mm pistols, 9 grenades, explosives, three detonators, and 58 bullets, but were RELEASED from cusoty because of pressure from the Israeli embassy.

“We believe that the two Zionists terrorist were going to blow up the Mexican Congress. The second phase was to mobilize both the Mexican and US press to blame Osama bin Laden. Most likely then Mexico would declare war on Afghanistan as well, commit troops and all the oil it could spare to combat Islamic terrorism.”

The Jewish terrorists names were Salvador Guersson Smecke(retired Israeli I.D.F. colonel), age 34, and Saur Ben Zvi, age 27.

These terrorists were released because of a very high level emergency meetings took place between Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Jorge Gutman, General Macedo de la Concha and a top Ariel Sharon envoy who flew to Mexico City specially for that purpose. Jorge Gutman is of the Jewish decesnt.