Monday, July 23, 2007

What? Are We In Slow-Mo here?

So I'm reading today that the USA is going to strike at bin Laden in Pakitsan, where the "alleged architect" of the 911 "attack" has "found a safe haven."

Pakistan rejects 'Bin Laden raid'

"Alleged architect?!?" What does that mean?

First, I thought that bin Laden was the "mastermind." Now we are told that
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the "mastermind" and bin Laden is the "architect." What exactly are the definitions of these terms? Are there different penalties for terrorist architecture, as opposed to terrorist master-minding? If bin Laden is not the mastermind, why are we looking for him still? Who is in charge, the architect or the mastermind?

"Found a safe haven?!" Instead of the movie version of events that you are asked to believe, try to imagine the supposed events
on the ground in real-time:

Imagine you are bin Laden. You are running this "insurgency," or "jihad," or "war of terror," or whatever the hell it's called now... and you are doing your best to attack US troops as well as hide. (Let's not complicate things by including annoying real-wrold detials sucj as the facts that you have renal failure and need dialysis, or that you died several years ago).
Now, you have been waging war from giant Dr. No-style underground, 10-story mountain bases. Oddly, you choose to do useless attacks of only a few men at a time, or pointlessly set roadside bombs.
But the US is looking for you. You need to move. Would you take
six years to find an acceptable spot?!? Would you just slide on over a few feet to the right into Pakistan? I mean, how obvious can you get? Supposedly, Al-Qaeda is a hydra-like, all-powerful, cell of highly-trained, expert terrorists capable of defeating the entire US military more or less at will.

We are being asked to believe that, for six years the US knew where bin Laden was: he was in Afghanistan, in mountain complexes. Yet , with their unlimited resources, they could not find him (many newspapers and the CIA had no trouble finding him, though). Why does it take years for bin Laden to move to a new base? Is he moving in slow-mo?
How does America know where he is
again? Obviously it doesn't even matter if the US knows where he is. They knew for years where he was and could (would) not apprehend him.

So I ask, are we in slow motion here? It is inexplicable how the (supposedly) greatest armed force in the history of creation, and the (supposedly) international terrorist enemy could be moving so bloody slowly!

The truth most likely is: bin Laden is dead and has been for years. The bin Laden's are the Bush's closest Saudi friends. They hatched a deal with them to use Osama's face and name (either because he's dead or because he's a family black sheep). There is no terrorist enemy at all. There are actually terrorist friends of the Coalition's national intelligence agencies, launching false-flag attacks on a perfect schedule to make the situation seem grave enough for us to give up oour liberties and continue to prosecute the most brazenly illegal war since WWII.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Sneak Oil

Why Peak Oil Is Wrong

Yet another stunning effort by the venerable Greg Palast.

If those shills that pose as "journalists" in the mainstream media had to even come close to matching Palast's standards of research, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Who Should Lead the Mounties? Why, A Non-Policeman, of Course!

Well, I guess it's the end of the Mounties as we knew them.

Government draws new RCMP head from civilian ranks

Although, that might be over-reactionary... the RCMP was probably "over as we knew it" when CSIS was created to take over foreign security from the RCMP Foreign Liaison desk. While some bristle at one agency handling both domestic and international security and intelligence, I, and many others, actually preferred having the RCMP in charge of both. All we need to do is look to the States, who supposedly split up their security into the FBI (domestic intelligence & security) and CIA (foreign intelligence & security) immediately following WWII with their National Security Act.

All this did was to create the idea that the FBI would not act on foreign soil and the CIA would not spy on its own people. The FBI and CIA, in fact, continued to do both - except after the Security Act, it could now be considered "conspiracy theory" to even suggest that the CIA would, say, spy on its own people.

With the creation of CSIS in Canada, we received our own CIA. Unlike the States, CSIS is free to act as it sees fit domestically and abroad, as long as it can produce the slightest evidence of a "national security threat;" that classic phrase that has greased the war machines and coffers of the military/industrial complex and filled concentration camps for centuries.

With its latest move, Canada's Harper government (think George W. Bush, except not as much fun) has filled the head seat of the national police force with a man who has no police experience. In fact, the opposite: he's a lawyer! William Elliot has served as chief-of-staff to the Deputy Prime Minister during Brian Mulroney's (think George H. W. Bush with a bigger chin) reign of terror. This being the same Mulroney who secretly sold Canada's sovereignty to the US in the NAFTA agreements.
Elliot also served as National Security Adviser to the previous Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin. This point
is brought up by the current, Conservative, government to show that Elliot is fair and balanced. He has worked for both Liberal and Conservative governments, after all.

We all know by now this is hooey. Here in Canada, politicians switch parties like underwear - whichever party is most likely to get them elected, they will jump to that one; only to leave after one term to take a lucrative lobbying/CEO job right after (Belinda Stronach anyone?) In the US, this rarely happens, though by now most of us can see that there's simply no reason to: the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable.

Specifically, Paul Martin's government was, in most standard ways of measuring such things, if anything, more conservative than the Conservatives; showing far less concern over national sovereignty and dignity than do the
Conservatives. So there is no reason to think Elliot somehow immune to political pressure - in fact, the opposite: he's been granted a post politically! Now that the RCMP Comission is just another political appointment that can be filled by anyone, why wouldn't he feel political pressure?

William Elliot being posted as commissioner of the RCMP is like making Henry Kissinger head of the FBI. Or Tony Blair Chief of Scotland Yard.

When I checked with my ex-RCMP friends, I was told that this is "the beginning of the end of the force as we know it," because the commissioner has the power to appoint senior officials all the way down the chain of command. Hmmm.... what does that remind you of? Sure reminds me of der fuhrer's SS.

I would like to thank the RCMP for all the work they have done to keep this country one of the safest (if not the safest) in the world. You've done well, but no (earthly) institutions last forever, it seems.

Live Earth: Raising Fearness

Live Earth is a series of concerts held today to "raise awareness" of "climate change."

When I try to raise my awareness of something, I look into the issue from all angles, gather the best, most verifiable facts, and form an opinion based upon those facts. Isn't that "awareness?"

I'm starting to react negatively to anything that is supposed to "raise awareness" of an issue. Think about it: what have been the major "awareness raisings" that we've had over the last couple of decades?

AIDS: When all facts are in, there is actually NO proof that HIV causes AIDS; no definitive proof that it is viral in nature, and, even if it is a virus, that the virus was deliberately inserted into both African and Gay populations (the smallpox and hepatitis B vaccines, respectively). There is certainly no proof whatsoever that AIDS can be transferred by heterosexual relations. Yet how many ribbon and concert programs and ads have we been subjected to for decades telling us the exact opposite?
BTW: With AIDS, the medico-pharma complex is guaranteed an average of $USD100,000 per AIDS victim before their inevitable painful, and tragic deaths (which starts immediately upon starting these cursed drugs - many too toxic to have been approved the last time they were up for federal approval). At 930,000 American AIDS diagnoses by 2003 and rising, that equals $USD93,000,000,000. That is 93 billion dollars in twenty years.

DRUGS: While Reagan and Bush Sr. declared their unprecedented War On Drugs; hammering us over and over with "Public Service Announcements" featuring A-List Hollywood stars, it has been conclusively proven, through internal documentation, that the CIA's major source of "black" (i.e., off-the-books) financing has been illicit drug trafficking. This cannot be disputed anymore. Major, "respectable" media outlets in America itself have published many articles proving this already.
So, while black men in America are getting life sentences for selling a couple grams of coke, Bush Sr. and Clinton were running thousands of tons of cocaine into Arkansas! The CIA was not simply skimming a little off the top of corrupt foreign dictators' sales of drugs to foreign citizens, but rather was the major conduit for domestic illicit drug supply! Drugs like crack cocaine - formerly unknown in most of the USA - became an epidemic in its cities.
Obviously, there was no "War On Drugs," just a war on America.

CANCER: After so many decades of the "War On Cancer," where are we really? It turns out that researchers can't even agree on what cancer is - some say it is viral some say environmentally caused, some say other causes. At the end of the day, Cancer-as-a-virus is a theory and nothing but a theory.
As we pour billions upon billions of dollars into such NGOs as the American Cancer Society, what have they done with these almost governmental levels of funding? They've managed to triple the cancer rates across the board in all countries that they operate out of! They've had their 5-6 decades to help - and it's only gotten worse.
Any amount of research shows that these NGOs all operate side by side with the mind-numbingly huge pharmaceutical industry - who benefit directly from sales of "chemotherapy" and "radiation therapy" drugs and machines to the tune of (again) $USD100,000 per cancer victim. It would actually be in the American Cancer Society's worst interests to ever find a cure. The CEO of the American Cancer Society makes over $USD750,000 per year! Why would this guy ever give up such a sinecure?

BTW: Cancer is the ultimate payout for the medico/pharma complex. While it is hard to gauge an exact average cost for cancer patients, $100,000 for all but the simplest cancers is fair, as costs can soar far above these levels for, say, bone marrow transplants. Cancer has incidence rates in the millions per year. Millions times hundreds of thousands = 100s of billions per year.

Which brings me to "raising awareness of Earth climate change."

It is indisputable that humans are making a massive mess of the Earth. Dioxins are found in seal meat at the North Pole. Huge clouds of smog sit over cities. Entire ecosystems are destroyed forever to build more houses and strip-malls than we could ever need. The impact of this mindless growth is devastating to the World over the long term. These and so many other issues need to be addressed. And the sooner the better, I say.

Yet, after decades of arguing vociferously, all of a sudden the news media and big business are now suddenly unanimously united behind the humans-are-creating-a-greenhouse-effect line. Since we know that nothing gets continuously reported in the news media unless there is a beneficial angle for those who own the media, we have to ask: What happened?

Only two years ago, it was normal to see a piece attacking global warming advocates as "conspiracy theorists" or "kooks." Expert after expert was paraded out to prove that there was nothing to global warming. Then, right in time for Gore's big comeback, ALL TV stations and newspapers changed their tune and a massive campaign has been underway ever since to establish as an unassailable fact that human consumption of fossil fuel is the only reason the Earth is warming up.

I used to believe this - until my studies took me into alternate history research, such as Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods. It turns out there are many different mechanisms at play in our universe, and many different ways that the Earth can experience climate change. That fossil fuels are causing all of the observed changes is, simply, a theory. Other theories include natural shifts in our planet's orbit, natural Jet Stream/Gulf Stream changes, magnetic pole reversals, etc.

It is too soon to judge objectively what is causing the supposed rampant changes in our environment.

Besides, we've got some much more intense problems on our plate. Let's start with white collar crime: crime that is stealing billions of dollars every year and corrupting our political processes! And let's stop killing citizens of foreign, sovereign states!

What good will "raising awareness" do when all mechanism for changes are owned by the global elite?

Instead, like all the other "good causes" that have come before, the only "awareness" that they wish to be raised is the awareness of how scary the world is and how much you will need their help and their rules to save you.

You will also need their cures and their solutions - just like their "solutions" for AIDS, CANCER, and DRUGS. I guarantee that they will cost far more than their considerable price tags.

Don't Worry... They'll Run Out Soon

After looking at some stats:

I have good news: all the "coalition" forces have to do in Iraq is... nothing! Just sit back and wait. Even though the stakes are high, and obviously, there are some "insurgents" in Iraq that are willing to strap explosive devices to themselves (to what end, who knows), there could only be so many that will be willing to do this.

Therefore, they will run out of people. And soon.

I mean, even in a society as axiomatic and organised as Imperial Japan was during WWII, they were only able to come up with so many kamikazes. They had, at most liberal estimate, 2-4000 kamikazes available. And they started to run out in the last year of the war. This from a population of many millions.

The "insurgents" in Iraq & Afghanistan are supposedly from at least four distinct and competing groups: Sunni, Shia, Taliban and/or Al Qaeda... plus in Afghanistan, we have dozens of local warlords, each staking their claims.

One thing is for sure, there aren't many of these people. They are small by military standards; surrounding themselves with only their trusted best and few. They run small, one-time guerrilla operations against the "coalition" forces. The never amass for battle as an organised force (which is strange... this is how one defeats one's enemy in an insurgency/guerrilla war. It was these large-scale offensives which brought the US to its knees in Vietnam). If there were more than just a few scattered thousands of each, they would amass and both take control of territory and launch effective strikes against the "coalition forces."

But they do not.

Instead, they send their best troops, one after the other, to blow themselves up. They send an incredible (in the truest sense of the word) amount of their soldiers to their useless deaths. By my count, there have been almost one thousand five hundred of these "suicide bombings" in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. And this is simply a quick overview. The real number is probably far higher.

That is over 30 individuals blowing themselves up every month for four years! Has a single suicide bombing ever produced any result other than escalation of troop presence and greater repression and cruelty? Are we to believe that these crafty devils - the same ones who planned for and defeated the mighty US Air Force on 911 - cannot come up with anything more effective than running screaming into the streets to blow themselves up? Knowing that their deaths will obviously be completely in vain?

What, do you think, is a fair percentage to assign to the success of recruiting suicide bombers? Do you think that 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 would agree to horribly shred themselves to death, in public, leaving their loved ones and family to fend for themselves?
I would tend to think that only the very hardest-core of the hardcore would even entertain this as an option. I would pick 1 in 1000. Of course, the "coalition" leaders would like to pick 1 in 10. Let's meet in the middle and pick 1 in 100 "insurgents" being talked into becoming screaming, fanatical suicide bombers.

It's simple math: 1500 x 100 = 150,000 insurgents. Since the suicide bombing don't seem to be anywhere near being over, there must be many more than the 1500 who have already blown themselves up. If there are that many again, we're looking at 300,000 insurgents.

I don't care how angry, how incensed, how outraged, a people can get: these people are humans. Humans are scared to die. Under some circumstances, people can be ideologically motivated enough to get over these fears, but not without hope to motivate. Suicide bombing will go down in history as the least effective war strategy in history!

If we take the far more reasonable number of 1 in 1000 people being talked into becoming suicide bombers, we end up with the mind-numbing figures of 1,500,000 - 3,000,000 insurgents. This is pure fantasy, of course. This is the population of several Iraqi cities put together. We can see from "news" images that, obviously, most Iraqis are trying to get on with life the best they can (bless their souls) and can't possibly be signing up en masse for "insurgency."

The "insurgents" have managed, through word-of-mouth and impromptu planning, since the start of the insurgency, to sign up 1500 suicide bombers - almost as many as the kamikazes in WWII. This is truly impressive. Imperial Japan had complete control of its home territory throughout the war, retaining airtight control over all media and propaganda, with recruiters and offices all over the country and a perfectly structured and organised military leadership with which to control their personnel. They were able to make 2000, perhaps 4000 kamikaze pilots from a huge standing army.
"Insurgents" in Iraq have managed to make 1500 attacks (so, 1500 suicide bombers) to date. There must be that many again ready to go, or their strategy would have changed by now. Problem is: they're going to run out of people. Obviously there aren't 3 million insurgents. There aren't even the 150,000 that the low-end of the math dictates!

So don't worry, "coalition forces," the end is in sight. The enemy is obviously intent on blowing itself to kingdom come - for nothing.

Sit back, have a smoke and don't worry, they'll run out soon.