Monsanto isn’t going to like this | Featured |Axisoflogic.com

By Paul Richard Harris, Axis of Logic

Axis of Logic exclusive

Thursday, Jun 9, 2011

A new report written by some top scientists has stated – without caveats – that Monsanto’s Roundup brand herbicide causes birth defects.

Monsanto’s business model is based entirely on Roundup – including the genetically modified (GMO) crops that are dominant in the United States and, to a lesser degree, Canada. So far, Europeans have been slow to adopt the so-called Frankenfoods; but Monsanto owns the Third World.

The recent report was prepared by a diverse group of scientists from various countries and their findings are damning. The report is very long, so it is not reproduced here, but a link is provided below. Some of the key accusations in the report include:

• Monsanto (and other providers) have known since at least the 1980s that glyphosate (the active ingredient in this stuff) causes malformations in test animals when used at high dosage. They’ve also known since 1993 that these same deformities can occur at low and mid-level doses
• The government of Germany has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The European Union Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew as early as 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The EU Commission itself – not just the scientists – has known about this since 2002

The new report, entitled Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?, includes technical detail to show how regulators went out of their way to discount the studies that produced those early findings, and to make it appear there were no problems with Roundup.

Part of the problem is that governments have frequently relied on testing conducted or sponsored by manufacturers themselves. The studies are done as cheaply as possible, so they use only a few test animals and very high doses. Companies like Monsanto can then claim the doses were so high that ‘of course there would be toxicity, but there is no evidence of toxicity at low doses’. That’s similar to the tobacco companies arguing their products are safe because of all the smokers who don’t die from them.

So how much of an issue is this? Well, in North America Roundup and Roundup Ready crops are everywhere. Substantial residues have been detected in various crops, farmworkers are exposed in the fields, homeowners who try to have golf-green lawns expose themselves and their neighbours, roads departments spray it in ditches to control weeds.

Farmers use Roundup Ready seeds because they are less work than conventional seeds. Despite Monsanto’s advertising, the crop yields aren’t any greater, just less work for the farmer and more profit for Monsanto. Of course, Monsanto doesn’t mention in their advertising that superweeds have already developed immunity to Roundup.

For the full report – highly recommended reading – click here. In the meantime, you might want to put some effort into trying to convince the agri-industry shills – like the Monsanto-infested Obama administration – to rethink their support for companies like Monsanto.

Paul Richard Harris is an Axis of Logic editor and columnist, based in Canada. He can be reached at paul@axisoflogic.com

Read the Biography and additional articles by Axis Columnist, Paul Richard Harris

© Copyright 2012 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

Monsanto isn’t going to like this | Featured |Axisoflogic.com

The Assange Case Means That We Are All Suspects Now | Human Rights |Axisoflogic.com

By John Pilger. JohnPilger.com.

The John Pilger Website

Thursday, Feb 2, 2012

This week’s Supreme Court hearing in the Julian Assange case has profound meaning for the preservation of basic freedoms in western democracies. This is Assange’s final appeal against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct that were originally dismissed by the chief prosecutor in Stockholm and constitute no crime in Britain.

The consequences, if he loses, lie not in Sweden but in the shadows cast by America’s descent into totalitarianism. In Sweden, he is at risk of being “temporarily surrendered” to the US where his life has been threatened and he is accused of “aiding the enemy” with Bradley Manning, the young soldier accused of leaking evidence of US war crimes to WikiLeaks.

The connections between Manning and Assange have been concocted by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, which allowed no defence counsel or witnesses, and by a system of plea-bargaining that ensures a 90 per cent conviction. It is reminiscent of a Soviet show trial.

The determination of the Obama administration to crush Assange and the unfettered journalism represented by WikiLeaks is revealed in secret Australian government documents released under freedom of information which describe the US pursuit of WikiLeaks as “an unprecedented investigation”. It is unprecedented because it subverts the First Amendment of the US constitution that explicitly protects truth-tellers. In 2008 Barack Obama said, “Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal.” Obama has since prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as all previous US presidents.

With American courts demanding to see the worldwide accounts of Twitter, Google and Yahoo, the threat to Assange, an Australian, extends to any internet-user anywhere. Washington’s enemy is not “terrorism” but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience within its militarist state and those journalists brave enough to tell their stories.

“How do you prosecute Julian Assange and not the New York Times?” a former administration official told Reuters. The threat is well understood by the New York Times, which in 2010 published a selection of the WikiLeaks cables. The editor at the time, Bill Keller, boasted that he had sent the cables to the State Department for vetting. His obeisance extended to his denial that WikiLeaks was a “partner” -- which it was -- and to personal attacks on Assange. The message to all journalists was clear: do your job as it should be done and you are traitors; do your job as we say you should and you are journalists.

Much of the media’s depiction of Bradley Manning illuminates this. The world’s pre-eminent prisoner of conscience, Manning remained true to the Nuremberg principle that every soldier has the right to a “moral choice”. But according to the New York Times, he is weird or mad, a “geek”. In an “exclusive investigation”, the Guardian reported him as an “unstable” gay man, who got “out of control” and “wet himself” when he was “picked on”. Psycho-hearsay such as this serves to suppress the truth of the outrage Manning felt at the wanton killing in Iraq, his moral heroism and the criminal complicity of his military superiors. “I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy,” he reportedly said.

The treatment handed out to Assange is well-documented, though not the duplicitous and cowardly behaviour of his own government. Australia remains a colony in all but name. Australian intelligence agencies are, in effect, branches of the main office in Washington. The Australian military has played a regular role as US mercenary. When prime minister Gough Whitlam tried to change this in 1975 and secure Australia’s partial independence, he was dismissed by a governor-general using archaic “reserve powers” who was revealed to have intelligence connections.

WikiLeaks has given Australians a rare glimpse of how their country is run. In 2010, leaked US cables disclosed that key government figures in the Labor Party coup that brought Julia Gillard to power were “protected” sources of the US embassy: what the CIA calls “assets”. Kevin Rudd, the prime minister she ousted, had displeased Washington by being disobedient, even suggesting that Australian troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

In the wake of her portentous rise ascent to power, Gillard attacked WikiLeaks as “illegal” and her attorney-general threatened to withdraw Assange’s passport. Yet the Australian Federal Police reported that Assange and WikiLeaks had broken no law. Freedom of information files have since revealed that Australian diplomats have colluded with the US in its pursuit of Assange. This is not unusual. The government of John Howard ignored the rule of law and conspired with the US to keep David Hicks, an Australian citizen, in Guantanamo Bay, where he was tortured. Australia’s principal intelligence organisation, ASIO, is allowed to imprison refugees indefinitely without explanation, prosecution or appeal.

Every Australian citizen in grave difficulty overseas is said to have the right to diplomatic support. The denial of this to Assange, bar the perfunctory, is an unreported scandal. Last September, Assange’s London lawyer, Gareth Peirce, wrote to the Australian government, warning that Assange’s “personal safety and security has become at risk in circumstances that have become highly politically charged”. Only when the Melbourne Age reported that she had received no response did a dissembling official letter turn up. Last November, Peirce and I briefed the Australian Consul-General in London, Ken Pascoe. One of Britain’s most experienced human rights lawyers, Peirce told him she feared a unique miscarriage of justice if Assange was extradited and his own government remained silent. The silence remains.

For more information on John Pilger, visit his website.

Source: JohnPilger.com






















The Assange Case Means That We Are All Suspects Now | Human Rights |Axisoflogic.com

Targeting Iran | Featured |Axisoflogic.com

By Ghali Hassan. Axis of Logic exclusive

Axis of Logic

Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012

In addition to sanctions and a series of state-sponsored acts of terrorism and sabotage directed against the people and the nation of Iran, the U.S. and Israel are threating Iran with unprovoked aggression. Iran is unfairly accused of having an “ambition” to develop nuclear weapons and posing a “threat” to world peace and stability. Of course, Iran is legally obliged to defend itself against any foreign aggression.

To begin with, the allegation is a U.S.-Israel manufactured pretext promoted and disseminated by the mainstream Zionist media, including the main propaganda organs (BBC, the Murdoch media, Al-Jazeera, abc, New York Times, CNN, etc.). For years, Iran has been the target of a vicious and hostile media campaign of distortion and demonization, including the demonization of Islam. The media coverage is the second front of the U.S.-Israel war against Iran – a propaganda war –mirroring the media coverage in the lead-up to the U.S. aggression against Iraq.

Both the U.S. and Israel possess large arsenals of nuclear weapons. The U.S. is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against the civilian populations (Japan and Iraq). Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty (NPT) and its nuclear program is a clandestine production of nuclear weapons. The Americans tell Iran: “You don’t have a right to have a nuclear weapon”, but turn a blind eye to Israel’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. Israel’s extensive nuclear weapons program is deliberately ignored by Western leaders and the mainstream Zionist media. The aim is to deflect attention away from the grave danger posed by Israel and no one seems abashed by the hypocrisy.

The proposition that Iran is a “threat” to world peace is outright false propaganda. Iran has not attacked or threatened to attack any country. In fact, Iran is surrounded by hostile U.S. forces and is confronting the menace of Israel’s nuclear missiles and U.S. warships. We do know that Israel has several hundred nuclear bombs and a large modern army, financed and armed by U.S. tax payers. Israel has often threatened, invaded (Lebanon 5 times) and attacked Arab nations with unconditional U.S. support. The Israeli army continues besieging the Palestinian people, occupying their land by force and building illegal colonies (‘Jewish settlements’). In fact, successive Israeli leaders made it clear that Israel’s existence depends on continuous war and violence, not on peace. Have we forgotten the 1,400 innocent Palestinians, including 360 children, that the Israeli regime massacred over Christmas 2008? The Israeli regime is the most violent and morally corrupt regime in the world. The regime espouses a Nazi-like racist ideology to create a “Greater Israel” using military force.

In a recent poll of Arab public opinion (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and UAE – all U.S.-backed despotic regimes) conducted by the University of Maryland in conjunction with Zogby International, respondents were asked to “name two countries that are the biggest threat to you”. The results: 88% named the U.S. and 77% named Israel. Only 9% chose Iran. According to a Eurobarometer poll for the European Commission, Israel is the greatest threat to world peace and humanity. Therefore, it is Israel, not Iran that should be subjected to sanctions and pressure to give up its nuclear weapons. Moreover, Israel is using this manufactured Iranian “threat” not only to acquire new weapons from the U.S. and other Western nations but also to divert attention away its colonisation of Palestinian land.

There is no evidence that Iran is engaged in a clandestine program to develop nuclear arms. The Pentagon and 16 major U.S. intelligence agencies supported by the National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) confirmed that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons and poses NO military threat. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), a U.S.-controlled imperialist tool, has failed to provide hard evidence to prove that Iran is engage in developing nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine (June 06, 2001) explained; “Despite years of covert operations inside Iran, extensive satellite imagery, and the recruitment of many Iranian intelligence assets [spies], the United States and its allies, including Israel, have been unable to find irrefutable evidence of an ongoing hidden nuclear-weapons program in Iran, according to intelligence and diplomatic officials here and abroad.” In short, all of Iran’s nuclear material is fully accounted for peaceful and legal use for energy and medicine.

Despite all the evidence to substantiate the legal – according to NPT provisions – and peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, Iran is subjected to sanctions and threatened with military aggression by the U.S. and Israel. Because the main issue has never been whether or not Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons; the aim has always been to keep the region backward and dominated by the U.S. and Israel. The nuclear weapons issue is a criminal pretext to justify war on the Iranian people. It is a déjà vu of Iraq, using the same “experts” and the same false propaganda campaign to rally the American people for war against Iran. The hype about the threat posed by Iraq’s non-existent “Weapons of Mass Destructions” (WMDs) is replaced by the hype about the threat posed by Iran’s non-existent nuclear bomb.

For more than a decade, the Iraqi people were subjected to the most criminal genocidal sanctions and aerial bombings by the U.S. and Britain. More than 2 million innocent Iraqi civilians, including some 600,000 infants under the age of 5, were murdered. The death of these infants was justified by U.S. official as “the price we think is worth it”. It was a deliberate genocide. The Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was accused of possessing WMDs and threating the world.

The accusation was a blatant forgery and lies concocted by the U.S., Israel, and Britain to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The propaganda was massive and the mainstream Zionist media played a criminal role, demonising Iraq and manipulating public opinion to justify a bloodbath.

From the outset, the aim was to destroy Iraq as a nation. After nine years of murderous Occupation, the “new” Iraq is a colonial dictatorship in ruins, ravaged by the U.S. and still under U.S. occupation. Western academics called it, the “demodernization” of Iraq. Every Iraqi institution, including the army and police was dismantled. The healthcare services and the education system were destroyed, and remain so. The nation’s infrastructure, including roads, bridges, electrical plants, water purification plants, museums and schools were destroyed and left unrepaired. In addition, the U.S. sowed the seeds of division, violence and corruption. The aim is to keep Iraq divided and under the control of U.S. Zionist- imperialist agenda. At least 1.5 million innocent Iraqis, mostly women and children have been killed and more than 5 million Iraqis have become refugees. It was a premeditated barbaric aggression against an entirely defenceless population. Only Nazi Germany had committed similar war of aggression and war crimes in the past. The perpetrators of the war on Iraq and their minions should stand trial for planning and launching a war of aggression.

After the criminal destruction of Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have just completed the destruction of Libya and set it on the road to backwardness and poverty. Tens of thousands of innocent Libyans have been murdered by U.S.-NATO bombings and Western-sponsored mercenaries, terrorists and criminals. Why?

The Libyan model of destruction – using Western-sponsored armed insurgents, terrorists and criminals – is being implemented, but not without some difficulties. Syria is not Libya. Playing the sectarian card has always been the U.S. method of sowing violence. The Syrian government is obliged to defend the nation again Western-backed armed insurgency. What will the U.S. government do if one day it will face an internal armed insurgency?

Like Libya under the late Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi, Syria is accused by the U.S. and its allies of what they call: “violations of human rights”. It is an irony, and every U.S. politician should be ashamed of even mentioning the phrase “human rights”. The U.S. is a cesspool of flagrant violations of human rights. The U.S. is beset by repression, sadistic torture, state violence, inequality, injustice and racism. In addition, the U.S. government has a history of supporting illegitimate and despotic regimes around the world. The U.S. is not in a position of moral authority to criticise other nations.

Finally, the war on Syria is a proxy war against Iran. Both Syria and Iran are on the U.S. list of “rogue states” that are targeted for military intervention. Hence, an attack on Syria is an attack on Iran. The removal of the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad will isolate Iran and allows the U.S. and Israel to consolidate their Zionist dominance of the region and intensify their aggression against Iran.

If the U.S. and its allies are concern about nuclear weapons, they should seriously support the establishment of a nuclear free Middle East that includes Israel. If the U.S. and its allies are really concerned about human rights, they should; (1) end the bloodbaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and lift Israel’s genocidal military siege on the Palestinian people in Gaza; (2) stop interfering in other nations’ affairs; and (3) stop the violence and stop sponsoring terrorism.

The world is witnessing the emergence of a powerful U.S.-led military force aimed at dominating the world through violence and state-sponsored terrorism. It is of utmost importance to support Iran’s right to self-defence and to oppose any U.S.-Israel aggression.

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia.

© Copyright 2012 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

Targeting Iran: featured |Axisoflogic.com

Canada's 'honour killings': Where is the sense of honour? | Critical Analysis |Axisoflogic.com

By Eric Walberg (essay)
Les Blough (commentary). Axis of Logic

Axis of Logic

Thursday, Feb 2, 2012

Editor's Comment: Across the decades, public schools in the United States have been teaching young children negative, distorted ideas and images about Muslim people whom the same children have never had an opportunity to meet. The images of Muslim/Arab people burned into my mind and memory by public school books and the television media were few but powerful. I was taught that Muslim men have many wives and that Muslim women suffer in life; that that if a Muslim were caught stealing at the market they would cut off his or her hands; that Muslims bury women with only their heads above the surface of the ground and then stone them to death; that Muslims are a warring, violent, uncivilized people and are to be feared by the rest of the world.

These ideas and images were reinforced by the religion of my youth backed by stories and teachings of the Hebrew Old Testament. They continue to be reinforced by selected "news" stories on US television. When children learn these things about Muslims during early development - they remain in the child's consciousness throughout life unless debunked by independent reading and learning and/or by actual direct contact with Muslims.

In recent years, especially since 9/11/01 the western media has pummeled us with similar impressions of Muslims depicting them as terrorists who are on a mission to dominate the world.

In his essay published below, Eric Walberg tells the story of a family convicted of the "honor killings" of four Muslim women in Canada by their family members, based on circumstantial evidence. Eric doesn't spend time or text examining the guilt or innocence of those family members. Rather, his brilliant analysis shows the utter hypocrisy of western regimes and their servile media related to these convictions.

One additional thing that might be clarified regarding Eric's use of the term, "mujahideen." Generally, the western media has corrupted the meaning of "jihad" and "mujahideen," keen to associate the term with terrorism. The following explanation of "mujahideen" and "jihad" is offered by SantaBanta*

The Real Meaning of Jihad and Mujahideen "Jihad" in Arabic The Arabic word "jihad" is a noun. Its singular past tense verb is "jahada" (masculine) or "jahadat" (feminine). The singular active participle of "jihad" is "mujahid" (masculine) or "mujahida" (feminine). The root of the word "jihad" is "juhd" which means "effort." Another related word is "ijtihad"which means "working hard or diligently." Jihad is simply the process of "exerting the best efforts," involving some form of "struggle" and "resistance," to achieve a particular goal. In other words, jihad is the struggle against, or resistance to, something for the sake of a goal. The meaning of the word is independent of the nature of the invested efforts or the sought goal. Contrary to common belief, the word "jihad" does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone "war" and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly, "jihad" as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious contexts. The Qur'an uses the verb of "jihad" in its generic meaning of "exerting the best efforts against something" in the following two verses: And We have enjoined on man goodness to parents, but if they jahadaka (do jihad against you) to make you associate [a god] with Me, of which you have no knowledge [being a god], do not obey them. To Me is your return [O people!], so I shall inform you of your past deeds (29.8). And We have enjoined on man to be good to his parents; his mother bears him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years; and that [you must] be grateful to Me and to both your parents. To Me is the eventual coming (31.14). And if they jahadaka (do jihad against you) to make you associate [a god] with Me, of which you have no knowledge [being a god], do not obey them, but keep company with them in this world kindly; and follow the way of he who turns to Me. Then to Me is your [O people!] return, then I shall inform you of your past deeds (31.15). Jihad in the verses above refers to actions taken by non-Muslim parents against their Muslim offspring to force them to worship other than Allah. This goal goes against the message of Islam which teaches the oneness of God, Allah; obviously this kind of jihad is not Islamic. The verses above also confirm the already mentioned fact that jihad is not necessarily an act of violence. It is worth noting that the verses above command the Muslims to remain kind and caring toward their parents, but to resist any attempt by the latter to force them to give up the Islamic tenet of monotheism in favor of some polytheistic belief. (*read more at the end of this article*

The worldwide media war, a war of words and ideas has lead the way for the imperialist conquest to dominate the world. Since our founding in 2003, Axis of Logic's mission is expressed in the words of our motto: "Finding Clarity in the 21st Century Mediaplex." Eric Walberg's essay goes a long way toward finding clarity.

- Les Blough, Editor

---

Canada's 'honour killings': Where is the sense of honour?
by Eric Walberg

As Canada continues to pour troops and money into American wars and intrigues in the Muslim world, the media focusses on so-called honour killings, notes Eric Walberg

Afghan immigrants Mohammad Shafia, 58, his wife Tooba Mahommad Yahya and their 21-year-old son Hamed were found guilty in a Canadian court Sunday of first degree murder in the 2009 “honor killing” deaths of four female family members, and sentenced to life imprisonment. These were not poor, uneducated people, but upstanding members of Canada's economic elite. The enterprising Mohammad escaped to Pakistan as “free Afghanistan” descended into civil war in 1992, before emigrating to Australia and then Dubai, where he made his fortune in its hot real estate scene, finally settling in Canada in 2007.

Rona Amir Mohammed, 50, Zainab Shafia, 19, and her two sisters, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13. The four women were found dead, apparently by drowning, in a vehicle submerged in a canal just outside of Kingston, Canada on the northern tip of Lake Ontario on June 30, 2009.

Judge Robert Maranger called the crimes “heinous”: “The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honour. It’s a sick notion of honour that has no place in a civilised society.” Mohammad Shafia replied: “We are not criminals. We are not murderers. We didn’t commit murder. This is unjust.” “I am not a murderer. I am a mother,” echoed Tooba Yahya.

The three defendants were found guilty of the deaths of the couple’s three daughters and Shafia’s first wife. The bodies of the victims were found in a car submerged in a canal lock near Kingston, apparently an accident, but wire-taps of the father revealed he showed no remorse for their deaths because they had damaged the family’s reputation by wearing revealing clothes and otherwise rebelling against tradition. This and other circumstantial evidence convinced the jury that the father had arranged their murder, using their brother as an accomplice.

History of "Honor killings" in all cultures

Since 2002, Canada has suffered about 6000 murders, 13 of which involved “honour killings”, defined as a homicide of a member (female or male) of a family or social group by other members, for bringing dishonour upon the family or community. Whether or not the accused here carried out the crime, such drastic resolutions of a family conflict are surely reprehensible, though a tradition that has been part of all cultures -- European and American included -- until the recent past. “Shotgun weddings” are just one form, as are “shotgun divorces”. A third of all women murdered in the US are murdered by boyfriends or husbands. Both East and West, statistics show that most murders are by family members.

The main difference between the very few honour killers in Canada’s legal history and the overwhelming number of whiter, more “civilised” home-grown murderers is that the latter do not justify their actions by a sense of morality however “twisted”. They are usually acts of revenge, hatred, drunkenness -- both behind the wheel and through drink-induced madness.

But what about the other homicides which Canadians are increasingly indulging in? Canada is slogging through its 11th nightmarish year of occupying Afghanistan in the name of freedom. Statistics about Afghan “casualities” are notoriously poor, as the occupiers say they’re too busy to compile them. How many innocent Afghans, not to mention freedom fighters, have Canadian soldiers and mercenaries killed since 2002? Surely many thousand times the 13 deaths attributed to honour killings on the home front.

And just why are the Shafias with their un-Canadian ways even living in Canada at all? It is a direct result of the destruction of their homeland which the US fuelled starting in 1979 by arming and funding mujahideen. Without that truly gruesome political event, the Shafias would have been living in a peaceful Afghanistan, where compliance with social norms by their children would have been the case, and no thoughts of this ultimate punishment would have entered their stern father’s head.

But no. And just as Canada enthusiastically jumped onboard the USS Mission Civilatrice in Afghanistan a decade ago fighting those very mujahideen, it is a high profile participant in the propaganda campaign to convince Canadians that Afghans are barbarians and that exterminating them is a Boy Scout’s duty.

The shameful, very noisy trial of the Shafias distorts the real news about Canada's relations with Afghans, a perfect metaphor for the high-tech imperial centre presenting itself (through the embedded media) as the world’s sole source of progress and reason, even as it drags that world down into chaos and destruction. The colonial periphery is depicted as savage and cruel, whereas it is in fact the victim of immeasurable violence at the hands of the empire. The handful of “honour killings” and hand cuttings for various crimes (especially popular in US ally Saudi Arabia), however deplorable, are a drop in the ocean of imperial violence, and have actually increased due to Western meddling.

Murder Rates and Other Crimes in Muslim and Western Countries

The reality is best revealed by statistics. Muslim countries have far lower murder rates than Western countries. As empire-central, let’s focus on the US, where the murder rate is 5.2 per 100,000, seven times higher than Egypt’s 0.8 (sorry, no stats available for poor Afghanistan). The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world bar none -- seven times that of Canada and nine times that of Egypt. US prisons are notorious, where rape and drug addiction abound.

The flip side of honour crime is rape. The incidence of rape in the US is 300 times that of Egypt (Egypt 0.1 per 100,000 vs 30 in the US and 1.5 in Canada). The incidence of rape in Afghanistan was once upon a time also negligible. It is now an epidemic far more horrible than the isolated honour killings there (or by hapless Afghan emigres) -- and directly a result of the occupation’s 150,000 killer-invaders and the chaos they have brought. For better or for worse, we must conclude from these statistics that old-fashioned honour killing is a powerful disincentive to rape.

Also for better or for worse, it is a fact that second generation Muslim immigrants often discard their religion and customs, seduced by the overt sexuality and commercialism of Western culture. The Shafias went that route. But at the same time, other immigrants become more devout and angrily reject the alluring trappings. What happens to them?

Aafia Siddiqui convicted in US Court

A famous case is Aafia Siddiqui, a brilliant American-educated Pakistani cognitive neuroscientist, who donned the niqab and showed sympathy for the likes of Al-Qaeda and other groups resisting the US onslaught on the Muslim world. She paid the price by being given a life sentence for supposedly trying to murder her US interrogators in Afghanistan. Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan criticised the conviction and the judicial process saying it was carried out by a kangaroo court, though curiously Amnesty International has not championed Siddiqui's cause.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistan neuroscientist studied at MIT in Cambridge, MA. She was abducted by the US and held incommunicado for 5 years in Afghanistan before being taken to New York for trial.	Dr. Siddiqui, after her shameful arrest and torture during imprisonment and interrogation by US authorities. She is now languishing in a US prison, sentenced to a term of 86 years.

Women and Values in Muslim and Western Societies

Not only Muslim immigrants find solace in traditional Islam. According to a survey conducted by Swansea University, Wales, nearly two-thirds of the 100,000 recent British converts to Islam were women, more than 70 per cent white, with an average age at conversion of 27. They identified alcohol and drunkenness, a “lack of morality and sexual permissiveness” and “unrestrained consumerism” as their motivation.

Current NGOs and Western media blithely exhort Afghans and other unfortunates to adopt Western standards with nary a word about how they might be serving the West’s implicit imperial agenda. This is rank hypocrisy in the eyes of Muslims. Take for instance the Independent Republican Institute, which was active in overthrowing the Honduran government in 2009. It was just last week caught with its finger in the cookie jar in Egypt, much to the feigned shock of US President Barack Obama, who threatened to cut off US bribes (excuse me, funding) to Egypt unless all charges against the IRI functionaries and other intriguers (excuse me, altruists) were dropped immediately.

The Islamic world broadly disapproves of what it sees as the collapse of morality in the West. While Western critics accuse Muslims of having an “obsession with the purity of women”, for Muslims, naked ladies on magazine covers, legalised prostitution -- not to mention the alarming incidence of rape in the West -- do not represent liberation of women. On the contrary, they see much of Western culture as undermining any genuine sense of dignity for women.

Following the verdict against the Shafias, Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson called honour killings a practice that is “barbaric and unacceptable in Canada....This government is committed to protecting women and other vulnerable persons from all forms of violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts.”

The only riposte possible is to condemn Nicholson’s own endorsement of Canada’s “barbaric and unacceptable” involvement in US imperial wars which kill thousands of “women and other vulnerable persons", and to demand that he “hold perpetrators accountable”. Fat chance.

(photos and related text added by Axis of Logic)

---

READ BIO AND MORE ESSAYS BY ERIC WALBERG

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly You can reach him at his website. His Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games is available at Clarity Press.

*Jihad con't: Aside from its use of the term "jihad" in its generic meaning in the two verses above, the Qur'an uses "jihad" in another twenty eight verses in a specific meaning. In this case, the phrase "fi sabili Allah", which means "in the way of Allah" or "for the sake of Allah", either follows "jihad," or one of its derivatives, explicitly, or is implied by the context. For reference, Appendix A lists all thirty verses that mention the term "jihad" or any of its variations.

Contrary to the common belief that is embodied in the misinterpretation of "jihad" as "holy war," Islamic jihad does not refer solely to fighting in the way of Allah. This, in fact, is a special case of jihad. The Qur'anic concept of jihad refers to exerting efforts, in the form of struggle against or resistance to something, for the sake of Allah. This effort can be fighting back armed aggression, but can also be resisting evil drives and desires in one's self. Even donating money to the needy is a form of jihad, as it involves struggling against one's selfishness and inner desire to keep one's money for one's own pleasures. Jihad can, therefore, be subdivided into armed jihad and peaceful jihad. Armed jihad, which is the subject of Chapter 4, is only temporary and is a response to armed aggression. Once the aggression has ceased, armed jihad comes to an end. Armed jihad, thus, can take place only when there is an aggressive, external enemy.

Causes of peaceful jihad, on the other hand, are always existent, which is why this form of jihad is permanent. One major form of peaceful jihad is the war of the Muslim against his "nafs," an Arabic term that may be translated as the "lower self," and which refers to the individual's inferior drives and evil motives. This most dangerous enemy never disappears, hence this war knows no end.

The other form of peaceful jihad involves every act of peaceful struggle undertaken by the Muslim against external sources of evil. Preaching the message of Islam in a hostile environment, opposing an evil act, and all such peaceful good actions are instances of jihad because they involve some form of resistance and struggle to achieve a good goal. For instance, the Prophet's patience at the accusations and abuse that the disbelievers directed at him for preaching the Qur'an was peaceful jihad: Therefore [O Muhammad!] be patient with what they say, and glorify your Lord by praising Him before the rising of the sun and before its setting, and during hours of the night do also glorify [Him], and during parts of the day, that you may be well satisfied (20.130).

It is interesting to note how the terms "jihad" and "Islam" relate to each other in Arabic and in the Qur'anic sense. Linguistically, the general term "jihad," which refers to "struggle" and "resistance," has almost exactly the opposite meaning of the general term "Islam," which means "surrender" or "submission." The Qur'anic "jihad," however, which is about resisting the lower self and other sources and forms of evil, is the route that the individual must take to attain the state of Qur'anic "Islam" or "submission to Allah."

Source: SantaBanta

© Copyright 2012 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

Canada's 'honour killings': Where is the sense of honour? | Critical Analysis |Axisoflogic.com

How can we Stop Harper's Foreign Policy? Debating 'Canada on the World Stage' | rabble.ca

How can we Stop Harper's Foreign Policy? Debating 'Canada on the World Stage'

By Derrick O'Keefe

| February 12, 2012

• 

In the past month, there are been several blockbuster stories that suggest NATO's intervention in Afghanistan is continuing to unravel. Afghans are turning their guns on their NATO trainers with increasing frequency, former top US generals are openly talking about the massive body counts, and France has announced it will withdraw its 'training mission' a year early in 2013. Even the US now claims it will 'wind down' combat operations a year early, in 2013.

None of this has been seriously debated in the Canadian media. This despite the fact that Canada's current mission, which will see nearly 1,000 Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan until the end of 2014, was pushed through undemocratically (and underhandedly) by the Conservatives and Liberals back in 2010. For years, Harper had insisted that Canadian troops would leave in 2011. But then, in June 2010, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae came to the rescue, insisting that Canada had a responsibility to stay the course and to make some kind of ongoing military contribution to the occupation of Afghanistan. The Liberals served this one up on a tee for Harper -- the third time they helped Harper extend Canada's participation in the war. This is not surprising, because it was the Liberals who first sent troops to Afghanistan and who made the decision to take on the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar (see this article for some disturbing speculation about just how many Afghans that Canadian troops may have killed).

This afternoon, in Quebec City, we will get a chance to see if any of the NDP leadership candidates plan to return the issue of Canada's role in Afghanistan to a prominent place in this country's political discussion. The debate starts at 2pm EST and you can watch it live here.

The Canadian Peace Alliance has recently submitted a questionnaire to all the candidates. I've included the questions below, so you can get a sense of the priorities of the anti-war movement in Canada. It was not easy to keep it to five questions. The Harper government's foreign policy has made us the Ugly Canadian on the world stage. Stopping and reversing this foreign policy will require a vigorous and sustained public debate, not to mention the renewal and building of the anti-war movement.

I'll be writing up my impressions after the debate. And I'll try to follow some of the discussion today on Twitter.

*

The Canadian Peace Alliance has sent the following questions to the federal NDP leadership candidates.

Questions for New Democratic Party leadership candidates

Advertising

1. Military Spending – The CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY earmarks $480 billion for military spending by 2025. This is the largest increase in military spending since WWII and makes Canada the 13th largest military spender in the world. Simultaneously, the government of Canada is calling for austerity and plans an $11 billion cut to public services in their next federal budget. The Canadian Peace Alliance has launched a campaign called Peace and Prosperity - NOT - War and Austerity to redirect that spending. Question: What would you do to counter this imbalance and call for a redirection of money, allocated for the military to public services, health, veteran rehabilitation, education and environmental programs?

2. Afghanistan – The Government of Canada has extended Canada's troop presence in Afghanistan until 2013. This is the third time they have extended Canada's participation in the war. In poll after poll, the majority of Canadians have shown that they want all of our troops removed from Afghanistan now. Question: What would you do to as leader of the opposition to raise this issue and to call for the immediate removal of all Canadian troops including troop trainers from Afghanistan?

3. Sanctions and war on Iran – There are signs that the US, Israel and other NATO countries not only are planning a fifth round of severe sanctions but also a possible nuclear military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Any use of military force against nuclear installations in Iran will be dangerous and illegal under international law. As was the case with Iraq, sanctions and war created a humanitarian crisis with more than 1.5 million dead and a country in ruins. Question: Would you oppose further sanctions and a military attack on Iran?

4. Civil Liberties – The Conservative government has a record of attacking those who dissent - in particular, criminalizing Muslims as so-called 'Islamists' and criminalizing Aboriginal people who try to assert control over their traditional territories. Now the government has said it will reintroduce anti-terror legislation which had expired in 2007 including clauses in bills c-36 and c-42 which suspend the rule of law and allow for people to arrested and detained without charge. Question: What would you do to stop the Conservative’s plan to set back civil liberties in Canada and work to rescind those elements of bills c-36 and c-42 that have been extended?

5. NATO - The NDP is on record calling for Canada to withdraw from NATO. Canada’s NATO membership has resulted in our armed forces being embroiled in conflicts, such as the war in Libya, during which NATO far exceeded its regional and military mandate. The Libya mission, under NATO, morphed from a call for a limited mission into an aggressive war for regime change. Question: Do you think Canada should continue to be part of NATO? If yes, why? If no, why?

Source: Rabble.ca


















How can we Stop Harper's Foreign Policy? Debating 'Canada on the World Stage' | rabble.ca

Maan News Agency: UN rapporteur slams Israeli policy of 'Judaization'

	UN rapporteur slams Israeli policy of 'Judaization' Published yesterday (updated) 12/02/2012 22:09 A protester holds a Palestinian flag during clashes with Israeli forces outside Ofer prison February 11, 2012.(Reuters//Mohamad Torokman) BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- A United Nations Special Rapporteur said Sunday that Israel is systematically implementing a discriminatory policy of housing and planning in Israel, East Jerusalem and the Occupied West Bank. "From the Galilee and the Negev to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli authorities promote a territorial development model that excludes, discriminates against and displaces minorities, particularly affecting Palestinian communities," Professor Raquel Rolnik, UN rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, said on Sunday. During a two week visit to Israel and the Occupied West Bank, Rolnik has met with both Israeli and Palestinian Authority officials, together with international agencies and local NGOs, a statement said. Speaking at the conclusion of her trip, Rolnik said she had witnessed the effect of Israeli policies in East Jerusalem which "severely restrict Palestinians from building legally." "Israel has not provided Palestinians with the necessary planning framework to ensure that their basic housing and infrastructure needs are met," she added. The UN rapporteur also slammed Israeli policies in the West Bank where a "Palestinian presence was progressively limited in parallel to a disproportional support to the expansion of Jewish communities." Bedouin communities in the Negev and Jewish settlements in Area C and in Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are the "new frontiers of dispossession of the traditional inhabitants, and the implementation of a strategy of Judaization and control of the territory," Rolnik said. A report detailing all findings of her mission will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2013.

Maan News Agency: UN rapporteur slams Israeli policy of 'Judaization'

Iran Escalation: All the Elements for War Are Coming Together

Global Research, February 12, 2012
Antifascist Calling...
With all the bluster of late in Western media that President Obama is assiduously working to "restrain" Israel from launching a preemptive attack on Iran, recent developments should put paid the lies of this dog-and-pony show. Last Sunday during an interview with NBC News, the president made it clear that "all options" regarding plans for a joint U.S.-Israeli attack "are on the table." Far from distancing his government from the strident rhetoric emanating from Tel Aviv, Obama added that the administration is working "in lockstep" with Israel to "prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." Never mind that unlike Israel, which is estimated to possess upwards of 200 nuclear weapons, as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Iran is perfectly within its rights under international law to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Indeed in December 2003, the Islamic Republic signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of their nuclear facilities and have expressed a willingness to negotiate an end to the Western-manufactured "standoff." In our Orwellian Empire however, "diplomacy" is a convenient cover--and political talking point--for war and regime change. "Again," Obama told NBC News, "our goal is to resolve this diplomatically. That would be preferable. We're not going to take options off the table, though." The president followed-up his threats on Monday when he signed an executive order freezing "all Iranian government and financial institutions' assets that are under U.S. jurisdiction," Bloomberg News reported. According to the White House, Obama took the additional step towards cratering Iran's economy and cited "'deceptive practices' of the Iranian central bank in hiding transactions of sanctioned parties and its failure to prevent money laundering, concluding that Iran activities pose an 'unacceptable risk' to the international financial system." If only Obama's "neocon-lite" regime had taken similar measures to rein-in the fraudulent and patently "deceptive practices" of the big Western capitalist financial firms that continue to pose an "unacceptable risk" to the economic and social well-being of the global proletariat! Nigel Kushner, the CEO of the London-based Whale Rock Legal told Bloomberg that "the practical impact is less important than the message it sends to Iran." The analyst went on to say that the new executive order is "a declaration of economic warfare, to the extent that it's not already been declared," Bloomberg averred. Accordingly, the asset freeze blocks "all property and interests in property belonging to the Iranian government, its central bank, and all Iranian financial institutions, even those that haven't been designated for sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department," and is one more sign that "hope and change" fraudsters in Washington have taken these steps as deliberate provocations. This is spelled out quite clearly by neocon Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the oxymoronic Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has rightly been described as the successor organization of the infamous Project for the New American Century. Last summer, an exposé of the organization by Eli Clifton at Think Progress revealed that FDD's über-rich donors include individuals who, like Obama, march "in lockstep" with Israel's Likud party. According to Clifton's research, FDD sugar daddies include: U.S. Healthcare CEO Leonard Abramson, the head of the Abramson Family Foundation ($822,000); Edgar M. and Charles Bronfman, heirs to the Seagram liquor fortune (($1,050,000); Home Depot cofounder Bernard Marcus ($600,000); mortgage backed securities "pioneer," Lewis Rainieri ($350,000); "hedge fund mogul" Michael Steinhardt ($850,000) and Ameriquest owner and former Bush administration ambassador to the Netherlands, Roland Arnall ($1,802,000). "Most of the major donors," Clifton wrote, are active philanthropists to 'pro-Israel' causes both in the U.S. and internationally," who "helped promote the 'Bush doctrine' which led to the invasion of Iraq" and are doing so today with the ginned-up crisis over Iran. Dubowitz told Bloomberg that Obama's new executive order was "the logical next step in the 'administration's economic war on the Iranian regime'." He gloated that "freezing assets of Iran's central bank and its government institutions, including the National Iranian Oil Company, makes them 'subject to much tougher enforcement by the U.S. government and the global financial sector'." In response, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast told Tehran Times Tuesday, that "the issue of sanctions pursued by Western countries and U.S. officials is not a new issue. The issue... is regarded as a hostile measure and indicates that officials of Western countries, particularly the Americans, have not yet come to know our great nation." "If illogical pressure and inhumane methods are used to hinder the progress of the country and to prevent it from achieving its rights," Mehmanparast said "they (countries that impose sanctions) will definitely not receive a pleasant response from our nation." Military Build-Up Accelerates War is not pursued by economic means alone, however. On the military front, Navy Times reported last week that the "essence" of a massive war game carried out along the U.S. east coast, "Bold Alligator 2012" was "planning, staging and getting them here--and not a few platoons, not a Marine Expeditionary Unit but an entire Marine Expeditionary Brigade that could number upwards of 14,500 Marines and sailors." According to the right-wing Israeli publication Debkafile, the "Bold Alligator" drill "is the largest amphibian exercise seen in the West for a decade, staged to simulate a potential Iranian invasion of an allied Persian Gulf country and a marine landing on the Iranian coast." As part of the exercise, three Marine Corps gunship carriers that practiced an amphibious landing and attacked a "hostile" mechanized enemy division which had "invaded its neighbor." Practicing alongside their U.S. counterparts, "French, British, Italian, Dutch, Australian and New Zealand military elements are integrated in the drill." Debkafile reported that "Bold Alligator" is "led by the USS Enterprise nuclear carrier with strike force alongside three amphibian helicopter carriers, the USS Wasp, the USS Boxer and the USS Kearsage." "On their decks," the Israeli publication averred, "are 6,000 Marines, 25 fighter bombers and 65 strike and transport helicopters, mainly MV-22B Ospreys with their crews. Altogether 100 combat aircraft are involved." Coinciding with naval exercises currently underway in the Persian Gulf, when the "Bold Alligator" war games end, "the participants are to be shipped out to Persian Gulf positions opposite Iran. Altogether three American aircraft carrier strike groups, the French Charles de Gaulle carrier and four or five US Marines amphibian vessels will be posted there," Debkafile's military sources report. As war drums beat louder, researcher Rick Rozoff at Stop NATO revealed that during a January 30 meeting, President Obama "met with his Georgian counterpart Mikheil Saakashvili in the Oval Office at the White House for an unprecedented private meeting between the heads of state, a tête-à-tête initiated by Washington." Rozoff reports that "Obama had summoned the ambitious and erratic Georgian leader to Washington to propose a quid pro quo: The use of Georgian territory for American attacks on Iran in exchange for the U.S. exercising its not inconsiderable influence in Georgia--with a population of only 4.7 million the third largest recipient of American foreign aid--to assist in securing Saakashvili's reelection in next year's presidential poll." The move was denounced by former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, "who was overthrown by Saakashvili's self-styled Rose Revolution in 2003," a U.S.-financed "civil society coup" that installed an American-educated puppet in power in Tbilisi. Shevardnadze warned, "I don't rule out that to retain the [presidential] chair Saakashvili may join a military campaign against Iran, which would become a catastrophe for our country." "Georgian analysts and opposition party leaders seconded Shevardnadze's suspicions, specifying that the Saakashvili regime would provide air bases and hospitals, of which a veritable proliferation have appeared in recent months, for such a war effort." "A Georgian opposition analyst estimated that 30 new 20-bed hospitals and medical clinics were opened last December and that new air and naval sites are being built and modernized, military air fields in Vaziani, Marneuli and Batumi most ominously," Rozoff wrote. Similarly, The Jerusalem Post, citing a piece that appeared Saturday in The Times, reported that Azerbaijan, which shares a long border with Iran, "is teeming with Mossad agents working to collect intelligence on the happenings within the Islamic Republic." "This is ground zero for our intelligence work," an anonymous Mossad intelligence operative told The Times. "Our presence here is quiet, but substantial. We have increased our presence in the past year, and it gets us very close to Iran. This is a wonderfully porous country." One might say, a "wonderfully porous country" for staging terror attacks, as NBC News revealed last week. According to Richard Engel and Robert Windrem, "deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran's leaders." That group the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department, enjoys considerable support amongst Washington's power elite as The Christian Science Monitor disclosed last summer. Indeed, "a high-powered array of former top American officials," from Rudy Giuliani to Howard Dean, "have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK." While Obama administration officials have tried to distance the U.S. secret state from the Mossad's assassination program, as Richard Silverstein noted on the left-wing Tikun Olam web site: "One aspect of this report, however, is misleading. The U.S. officials who confirm Mossad involvement in these plots carefully note that the U.S. is not participating. That, unfortunately is not quite true. The Bush administration allocated $400-million for this black ops war against Iran. A good portion of this is suspected of funding Israel's efforts. So it is highly likely that we are the paymasters for this effort and our denials ring hollow." But the Iranian terror cult's connections to the CIA don't stop there. In fact, "law enforcement officials have told NBC News that in 1994, the MEK made a pact with terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City," Engel and Windrem wrote. "According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Yousef built an 11-pound bomb that MEK agents placed inside one of Shia Islam's greatest shrines in Mashad, Iran, on June 20, 1994. At least 26 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 200 wounded in the attack." Yousef, the nephew of reputed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammad, was the top bombmaker for Osama Bin Laden's Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as Al Qaeda, who had a long history of close collaboration with the CIA and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency before "going off the reservation" in the early 1990s. These connections, and links, to Western destabilization operations are hardly historical relics of Washington's anticommunist jihad against the former Soviet Union, as Peter Dale Scott pointed out in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus last summer. Scott noted that "Americans have used al-Qaeda as a resource to increase their influence, for example Azerbaijan in 1993. There a pro-Moscow president was ousted after large numbers of Arab and other foreign mujahedin veterans were secretly imported from Afghanistan, on an airline hastily organized by three former veterans of the CIA's airline Air America." And today, with foreign fighters flooding into Syria, including Libyan jihadist elements armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, it should hardly come as a shock that Al Qaeda's "emir," Ayman al-Zawahri, in a reprise of Islamist-backed efforts in alliance with the CIA in Afghanistan during the 1980s "urged Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to come to the aid of Syrian rebels confronting Assad's forces," Reuters reported Sunday. Western operations against Syria are viewed as a prelude to an all-out attack on Iran as Michel Chossudovsky and other analysts describe in a new series published by Global Research. Indeed, U.S. war planners have presented regional military commanders with a target list that include "beyond Iran's nuclear facilities, communications systems; air defense and missile sites; Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities; munitions storage facilities, including those for sea mines (remember the Strait of Hormuz); airfields and aircraft facilities; and ship and port facilities, including midget submarines, missile boats and minelayers," The Washington Post disclosed. "Aircraft employed," the Post averred, "would include B-2 stealth and B-52 bombers, fighter-bombers and helicopters, along with ship-launched cruise missiles." In other words, Washington is contemplating a massive air and sea bombardment followed by a land invasion, as the "Bold Alligator 2012" drill suggests, with the express purpose of forcing "regime change" in Tehran. As analyst Peter Symonds pointed out in the World Socialist Web Site, "While the US and its allies insist that Iran must satisfy 'international concerns' about its nuclear programs, the demands for 'clarification' are endless." "IAEA inspectors visited Iran on January 29-31 and are due to return for further discussions later this month," Symonds wrote. "No report has been released, but the US and international media nevertheless accused Tehran of 'obfuscation' and 'time wasting'." Ominously, Haaretz reported that a new dossier "to be issued next month by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program is expected to be harsher than the last one, which the IAEA released in November." According to Haaretz, "the agency's board of governors is scheduled to convene on March 5 in Vienna, the same day on which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to give a speech in Washington at a meeting of the annual policy conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Netanyahu is also scheduled to meet with Obama where talks on the "international response" to the "threat from Tehran" will take center stage. Isn't that a coincidence! "The reality," the World Socialist Web Site noted, "is that nothing short of complete capitulation to all Washington's demands--not only on the nuclear issue, but its relations with the Syrian government and groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as its alleged 'interference' in Iraq and Afghanistan--would end the US build-up to war." "In short," Symonds observed, "Washington is pressing for a regime in Tehran that bows to American economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia on every significant issue." "For all the talk about 'diplomacy' and 'sanctions,' the World Socialist Web Site warned, "the US is recklessly setting course for a war with Iran that threatens to engulf the Middle East and spread internationally." The clock is ticking... Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.
Tom Burghardt is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Tom Burghardt

Iran Escalation: All the Elements for War Are Coming Together