Martial Law: Imminent Arrival?

[Greg Burnham]

The first ten words of the "Exodus" lyric sum up the problem.

Agreed. Religion and Real Estate do not mix.

[Keith Millea]

I thought I was,as Lauren would say "so totally done with this thread",but now I want to post this new article about Gordon Duff and "Veterans Today".It's my guess,now that this has gone "international",and a light being shined on VT,that Press TV and Russia Today,will have second thoughts before having "journalists" such as Gordon Duff,and his associate journalist Jim Fetzer as talking heads on their shows.At least if they value their credibility....

October 02, 2012


Off His Onion
Breaking News: Julian Assange Mossad Agent!

by ISRAEL SHAMIR

Iran is a great country for kebab; their pretty if well-covered girls are fine; but sense of humour is just not their forte. Their state media repeatedly broadcasted items lifted from the Onion, a satirical magazine taking them for literal truth. The Onion ran a story about American farmers who would rather have a drink with Ahmadinejad than with Obama, and their Fars news agency duly reprinted it. The Onion faked an interview with Mark Zuckerberg, and Iranian state-owned Press TV took it for a real thing.



And now, a new faux-pas. The same Iranian state-owned Press TV published an attack on Julian Assange with a bombastic claim: "Exclusive: Assange-Mossad ties unveiled". A brief check shows an identical piece appeared on The Veterans Today site. Both pieces are identical, both "exclusive" and both written by the same person, a Gordon Duff, wearing two hats, that of "the chief editor of VT" and that of a "columnist of Press TV". Oy, it would be better to stick to the Onion.

Not only it is not "exclusive", there is no "revelation" either. In his column, Duff claims that "Assange, an intelligence asset of Israel, as Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out on December 2, 2010 on National Public Radio in an interview with Judy Woodruff, one tasked with supplying a platform for Israeli intelligence to insert carefully crafted "pointed intelligence" wrapped in "Wikileaks." A very strong claim! Who would know better than Zbigniew Brzezinski, whether Assange is an intelligence asset or not? If he says so, it is certainly true. But alas, it is not so. In the interview, or anywhere else, or on any other occasion Zbigniew Brzezinski did not say anything similar about Julian Assange.

So, does Duff brazenly lie? No, he cheats the reader. Brzezinski explained what "intelligence asset" is, and Duff built the sentence so a careless reader would think Brzezinski related it to Assange. Crafty trick! He could say: Assange, a vile paedophile, as the head of London police said, one who lusts after small children, and we would think that the Head of Scotland Yard confirmed criminality of Assange. He should be a lawyer, this Duff, and make good money.

The centrepiece is the absurd claim that by accusing President Obama of seeking to exploit the Arab spring revolutions for political gain, Assange "supported Romney, just like Netanyahu". This is too silly even for the Onion! Julian Assange called upon Obama to cease persecution of Wikileaks and of Sergeant Manning, and he said that Obama's vocal support for freedom of expression had not been translated into action. All that is true: Obama was and is a big disappointment for his voters. He uses drones to kill people more often than any US president. He used and derailed the Arab Spring for the imperial benefit. He was beastly to the Wikileaks. But nothing whatsoever would justify Duff's daffy assertion that "along with Netanyahu, Assange has tried to insert his way into the American election on the side of a losing candidate whose platform is simply war with Iran."

He could say the same about any critic of Obama, including the CounterPunch late co-editor Alex Cockburn. Duff goes on: "this week, from his balcony at the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange unleashed his program, carefully coordinated with the world's druglords, his "bankster" friends and, closest of all, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, his strongest supporter, one to interfere in the American election on behalf of Mitt Romney." Is there any basis for this wild accusation? None whatsoever. Neither druglords, nor banksters nor Netanyahu neither Romney never expressed a single positive assessment of Julian, neither he of them. Probably Romney would kill Assange by now if he could, and so would bankers, as he published some Bank of America data.

Every line in this lengthy article is zanier than the preceding one. Duff writes: "We got to know Assange initially with his video of a US helicopter killing civilians in Iraq. The problem is, of course, Assange supported the war in Iraq, supported a US attack on Iran for Iraq (whatever this means ISH), supported war with Pakistan, supports US interference in Syria and, where he stands apart from most well informed people of the world, is a lead figure in suppressing an investigation of 9/11."

Duff forgot to mention that Assange started World War One and World War Two, supported the Inquisition and is a leading figure behind the global warming (or cooling, or both). For the sake of innocent readers who just now hatched from an egg in rural Kentucky, let it be added, that Assange was and is strongly anti-war, and his publications were instrumental in recognising the sheer criminality of the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"Assange, living as a princeling for years" he writes of a man who is locked up for two years for no crime and who hardly had had money for a bus ride. "Assange is a pure Islamophobe" no reasons given, but believe Duff, he knows. Or even better one: "Julian Assange is the darling of Europe's ultra-nationalists and "anti-immigration" crowd, seemingly a genetic twin to Andrew Breveik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 77 children of party members who supported the Israeli boycott." Any proof? A quote from Julian, or a quote from Breivik, or at least a quote from "anti-immigration crowd"? Expectedly, none whatsoever. Assange is very far removed from all the nationalist scene, he never was interested in them, or they in him. I do not know why Duff failed to mention that Assange is Jack the Ripper.

Here is another daffy assertion: "When, back in early 2011, it was exposed to the world that all Wikileaks were filtered through Israel and then the "pop culture" mainstream media before release, meaning there is no more censored source of information than Wikileaks, he fell from grace." Was it exposed? By whom, I pray? From whose grace Julian fell? Actually, I know the answer. It is Duff, who wrote that Wikileaks work from Israel. And then, I presume, Julian fell from grace with Duff's readers. Was there any basis for it? Again, for the same Kentucky's chicken benefit, none whatsoever. Julian Assange did not write the cables: the US diplomats did. As I explained on the CounterPunch site, the State Department cables are not overtly critical to Israel, for the US diplomats know that it would jeopardise their career.

One can go on forever, for every single sentence in the lengthy article is a sheer lie and baseless invention. So it was a year ago, and two years ago; as long as I am aware of Mr Duff's daffy writing. As a man who professionally works on the very edge of the loonies' cyberspace, I know of him, of his ilk and of his readers. They are mainly the guys who see the Mossad behind everything, including sunset and sunrise. They are the softest target for cheating, Duff style. Just tell them "It is Mossad", and they will ask no questions. Tell them Ahmadinejad or Putin is a Jew, they would never doubt it.

I am rather fond of the loonies and almost-loonies: they are seeking answers, and it is not their fault that they can't find them. It does not matter for me what makes Mr Duff tick. Is it a result of his many wounds and contusions acquired during his military service, or is it his innate daffiness, or his friendship with some Pakistani intelligence officers, or does he cover the loony edge for the careful CIA operators who think that even the loonies should be infected with hate to Julian Assange like the feminists were thanks to Anna Ardin and the Jews thanks to the Private Eye? Who knows, who cares…

It never occurred to me to debunk his nonsense, like one does not debunk Grey Aliens and Lizardpeople. So why now?

It is because Iran should be taken seriously, and it should take itself seriously. Whether they want to have a nuclear weapon or not, if such a possibility is ever been pondered, they should watch over what they say and over what their state media reports. Judging by this publication, Iranians profoundly failed, and this failure is worse than one of Siemens booby-trapped equipment. Their discourse can't rely upon the Onion nor upon those who are gone off their onion.

Israel Shamir lives in Moscow. He can be reached at: adam@israelshamir.net

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/...-mossad-agent/

[Magda Hassan]

The Duffer has been banging on about this for some time. As unreliable as much of his other dubious stuff. Plenty around saying that Duff is an intel tool himself. His good friend George Tenet supposedly.

[Peter Lemkin]

Appeals Court Restores NDAA's Indefinite Detention Provisions
3rd October 2012

An appeals court has rejected a previous judge's ruling that the government be barred from enforcing the NDAA provisions

By John Glaser

AntiWar.com, October 3, 2012

A federal appeals court of three Obama-appointed judges has rejected a previous ruling barring the government from enforcing the indefinite detention provisions in a recent national defense bill.

Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act last year, which includes provisions codifying indefinite detention for individuals suspected of allying with or supporting al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest last month blocked the government from enforcing those particular statutes on grounds that they violate Constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process, in a case brought against the government by journalists and academics including Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and Noam Chomsky.

The Obama administration immediately appealed Forrest's ruling, asking for an "immediate stay," or suspension of the case's proceedings. When Forrest denied the request, the government went to the Second US Court of Appeals in Manhattan and asked another judge for an emergency stay, which Judge Raymond J. Lohier granted.

The latest appeals court extended the stay, undermining Judge Forrest's ruling that the government should be barred from enforcing the law.

"We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government's motion for a stay," Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney wrote in a statement on their ruling.

The appeals court ruled that, since the government has promised that citizens, journalists, and activists are not in danger of being detained as a result of this law, it is unnecessary to block its enforcement.

Both parties in the case have been directed by the court to file reply briefs in the next few months, through to December, after which a new calendar date will be scheduled to argue the case again. So, at least for the next few months, the NDAA's detention provisions are in effect.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/03/appea...rovisions/

[Magda Hassan]

In honor of Daniel Pipes, I offer this rendition from the theme from Exodus.

Soon it falls into the Mediterranean Sea the better. This is whose land it is.
[video=vimeo;50531435]http://vimeo.com/50531435#[/video]

[Lauren Johnson]

You do so seem to be on a mission, though. Good luck with that--whatever it is. You obviously have deep passion regarding this subject. It shows you care. Having said that, the "myth" to which you have been alluding does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it singular. They are multiple and they permeate BOTH sides of the debate.

Agree. Although I want to make it clear that what I call myths are in fact inevitable with good and bad consequences. For example, I came to realize that my core myth comes from when my family sat down to hear Bible stories and my favorites came from the Old Testament. I was most impressed by the stories of the prophets exposing lies. And certainly my favorite stories were about David who finally was caught stealing another man's wife and sending him to his death. Psalm 51 is in response to David's confrontation with the prophet Nathan.

It was only in the last few years that I came to realize how important these Bible stories were to me. The stories of the prophets quietly live within me. They have become a part of my own myth. It's just that I now embrace them.

Sorting out truth from myth is not everyone's cup-of-tea, nor is it within the analytical abilities of many who do feel strongly about it. Passion is not necessarily accompanied by reason. Effective myth busting is often instigated by the wisdom of the poet rather than by the analysis of the belligerent.

I would say that myth busting needs to be proceeded by becoming clear on the myths that motivate one to bust myths. I have no time for myths that champion one group over another. The myth of redemptive violence is ubiquitous and should be seen as self negating.

Therefore, some myths need busting; some need embracing and nurturing. Passion at the risk of belligerence is inevitable.

I guess what I am saying is to agree with your last paragraph in my own language with a slight alteration. The wisdom of the poet gives one the strength and courage to endure the rigors of myth busting.

All the best.

[Greg Burnham]

Fair enough.

P.S. I have personally chalked up ALL religious teachings involving prophets and the like to either be derived from necessity (psychological defense mechanism against fear or trauma)
or from the concerted efforts of those who would will to power at the expense of reality and the well being of their fellow man. But, that's just me.