Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

Noam Chomsky is by far my favorite commentator about world events. First of all, he is an extremely humane person, who has always sought to help those who value and treasure the sanctity of human life: About the Osama bin Laden "adventure", he cautions "our" president, who 'desperately' needed Osama's death, whether real or faked. Based on my experience as Advisory Team Leader in Vietnam, I honestly believe that the whole story, from its macabre beginning to its 'unhappy end' was faked, in order assure Obama's questionable re-election! There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition, except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that 'profess' some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to a fair trial. I stress "suspects". In April of 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could only say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only 'believed' in April 2002, they obviously did not "know" 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban, to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with even 'questionable' evidence - which, as we soon learned - Washington didn't have! Thus, Obama was simply lying when he said in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda." WRONG AGAIN! In fact, they were carried out by Siverstein, the Jewish owner of all of these buildings, who was too cheap to pay a company to strip the dangerous asbestos from the buildings which he owned! Check on the web for videos on 9/11, which tell the whole sordid story.

Rick Rozoff: NATO Transitions To Terror Bombing of Libya

On the evening of April 30, a Libyan government spokesman announced that an air strike by NATO had killed Muammar Gaddafi's 29-year old son Saif al-Arab, three of the former's grandchildren, all under twelve years of age, and several friends and neighbors. The attack followed by only a few hours a television address by Gaddafi, in which he appealed to NATO nations for a ceasefire and negotiations after six weeks of bombings and cruise missile attacks against his country. His comments included the questions: "Why are you attacking us? Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure?" As he spoke, NATO warplanes struck government buildings near the broadcasting facility where he was speaking, with the transmission going out on three occasions. The government accused NATO of attempting to kill Gaddafi in the attack! It was the latest in a steadily mounting series of air attacks on or near the Libyan capital, including a bombardment on April 20 that killed seven civilians and wounded 18 in a suburb of Tripoli, and an air raid that targeted Gaddafi's compound among strikes on several military and civilian locations two days later, killing three people and destroying the leader's office in his Tripoli residence. A Libyan official informed journalists of what was self-evident: "It was an attempt to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi."

F. William Engdahl: Framing Libya and Reframing War!

The most remarkable facet of NATO's war against Libya is the "fact" that "world opinion", that ever so nebulous thing, has accepted an overt military aggression against a sovereign country guilty of no violation of the UN Charter in an act of de-facto neo-colonialism, a "humanitarian" war in violation of basic precepts of the laws of nations. The world has accepted it without realizing the implications if the war against Gadddafi's Libya is allowed to succeed in "forced regime change". At issue is not whether or not Gaddafi is good or evil. At issue is the very concept of the civilized law of nations and of just or unjust wars. The Libya "campaign" represents the attempt to force application of a dangerous new concept into the norms of "accepted international law." That concept is what is termed by its creators "Responsibility to Protect". UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has stated that the justification for the use of force in Libya was based on "humanitarian grounds", and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect, "a new international security and human rights norm" to address the international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. An American President, Barack Obama, has invoked this novel new concept as justification for what is "de facto" an unlawful US-led military war of aggression and acquisition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Presidential candidate in 2008, said about the concept: "In adopting the principle of the responsibility to protect, the United Nations accepted the principle that mass atrocities that take place in one state are the concern of all states". Nice words, but also highly dangerous!

NATO Massacres Civilians in Libya!

Finally, the truth about the massacres of civilians has come out of Libya. While the armed forces of Colonel Al-Qathafi are fighting against Islamic terrorists, NATO is distinguishing itself by slaughtering civilians. Just recently, seven children were murdered by a "heroic" NATO pilot, who enjoyed seeing the blood of slaughtered children on the arid desert sand. Thus, seven children, four girls and three boys were blasted to pieces by a NATO bomb near Brega, according to a local doctor, who had to give the sad news to the childrens' grieving parents. Among other atrocities, a hospital and a civilian home was attacked in Mizdah in western Libya, and several civilians, including an old lady with a baby were murdered by NATO missiles. Then, according to the Vatican, 40 civilians were slaughtered in Tripoli. The massacres began when CIA agents, operating in collusion with Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy, began the slaughter without realizing that the so-called "rebels" they were targeting, still have links with Al-Qaeda, which was admitted by their leader, Hakim Al-Hasidi, who enjoyed the game of fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan, saying: "It's just something to do".

Dr. Coldwell: Thirty Little Known Facts About America!

The IRS is NOT a Government Agency. It IS an Agency of the International Monetary Fund. The United States has NOT had a "Treasury" since 1921. The US Treasury is now the IMF - see Presidential Documents Volume 29, No.4, page 654. The US Treasury IS now the IMF -Presidential Documents, Volume 29, No. 4, page 113-22 USC 285-288. The US does NOT have any employees, because there is no longer a United States: No more reorganizations. After 200 years of bankruptcy, it is finally over - See Executive Order 12803. The FCC, CIA, FBI, and NSA were never a part of the US Government, even though the US Government held sock in these alleged "Agencies". Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN - United Nations - through the IMF. The application for a Social Security number is the SS5 form. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them, while the older forms state they are for "our" Department of Treasury. There are NO Judicial Courts in America, nor have there been any since 1789. Judges do NOT enforce Statutes and Codes - That is done by Executive Administrators. (FRC v. GE US 464, Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 US 428 1 Stat.138-178. According to GATT, you MUST have a Social Security Number . House Report 103-826. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that New York City is the Capital of the world. For once, he told the truth. CFR Chap. 111 subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2). Social Security is NOT insurance or a contract. Nor is there a "Trust Fund". Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis, 301 US 548.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: The Agendas Behind The Bin Laden News Event

The US government's bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered: Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The "fierce firefight" did NOT occur. Osama bin Laden did NOT hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, "was not armed." The firefight story was instantly suspicious since not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as "the most dangerous, best trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth." Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn't bin Laden's wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALS, but his son Hamza. Carney blamed the changed story on "the fog of war", but there was no firefight, so where did that fog come from? The White House has also had to abandon the story that "President" Obama and his "national security team" watched tensely as events unfolded in real time, with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEAL's helmets. If Obama had, in effect, been watching, he might have noticed that there was no "firefight", and thus, no "kills" during such so-called firefight.

The Media War on Libya - Justifying War through Lies and Fabrications!

The Violence in Benghazi: The epicenter of the violence in Libya is Benghazi, located near the boundaries of the coastal region of Cyrenaica or Barqua. According to our US government's sources: On the evening of February 15, the demonstrations began, when several hundred people gathered in front of the Benghazi police headquarters to protest the arrest of an attorney and human rights activist Fethi Tarbel. As the February 17 "day of rage" neared, protests escalated in Benghazi and other cities, despite reported police attempts at dispersion with water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons. There were multiple reports of protesters setting police and other government buildings on fire. The maelstrom erupted in Benghazi after a group of protesters entered into a local barracks to take the weapons in the armory. When this happened, the Libyan forces in the local garrison reacted by firing upon the protesters. From there, the situation in Benghazi escalated and things spiraled out of control. A pause is in order, and has to be taken here. This is where critical analysis is needed: There are two ways to perceive the events in Benghazi: One perspective is from the viewpoint of a revolutionary, and the other is from the perspective of the state and the soldiers. If all biases are put aside, both perspectives will have their adherents.