Oldie But Goodie

Osama Bin Laden is dead, according to the US government. Whether or not it's true, we can only speculate.

That's why it is only fitting to revisit a little-noticed discrepancy about which the majority of people in the US, and the world, have no knowledge of.

The US government has covered up facts regarding Osama Bin laden's part in planning, and knowledge of, the events of 9/11.

The startling thing about this discrepancy is that it was actually out in the open for anyone to see, courtesy of the US government itself.

That more people did not notice it is a testament to the ignorance, laziness and the brainwashing of the American public.

But as they say, sometimes the best place to hide something is out in the open, and this seems to be true about this most glaring omission.

What is the discrepancy that virtually the entire world missed out on?

Look at the wanted poster below. Read through it very carefully and see if there is something missing.

This is an official FBI wanted poster of Osama Bin Laden I downloaded directly from the FBI website in 2006.

If you read through the poster carefully, especially the CAUTION section, you by now have noticed that the event of September 11, 2001 is not listed anywhere on Bin Laden's OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT rap sheet.

But why is that significant event, which overshadowed any act of terror Bin Laden might have been a part of in the past, and the greatest terror attack on US soil, not listed on Bin Laden's litany of terror?

Detractors will most likely excuse the absence of 9/11 as an entry on Bin laden's official FBI rap sheet as besides the point, that it's "common knowledge," that Bin Laden planned these attacks and mentioning it any further is just redundant, or that the line "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" is just as good as saying he is responsible for 9/11.  

Any and all such rationalizations are mere cop-outs.

Read this!

The truth is that when it comes to Bin Laden's involvement in the events of 9/11, a suspect is all he ever was - officially according to the US government itself - until his death (supposedly) at the hands of US commando goons.

So with these thoughts in mind, and after reading the article above, how can anyone believe the gargauntan torrent of lies, deception and obfuscation concerning Bin Laden and the events of 9/11 put out incessantly by the US government and the mainstream media?

If there is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11, then how can the subsequent invasion and occupation of Afghanistan be seen as legal and justified and right? 

How can all the drone bombings, torture, rape and mayhem visited upon the Afghan people by the western military onslaught be anything but a gigantic war crime? 

The world has not been told the truth about 9/11. The discrepancy I pointed out is just the tip of the iceberg. Do your research and you will see that there are many others.

I for one think that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the US government, intelligence and military branches to create an excuse to take away peoples' rights and force the world into the US neo-liberal capitalist corner at gunpoint. 

Osama Bin Laden only played the role of a patsy and scapegoat.

I have seen, heard and read enough in the last 12+ years about the events of 9/11 to convince me that this was a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by the people who hold power in the US.

If you want to call me a conspiracy nut, go ahead!

But didn't the pro-war crowd ten years ago also call those who said Bush was lying about the reasons for invading Iraq conspiracy nuts?

In the end, who turned out to be the nut?

Ten Years of Hell

Dead US soldier in Iraq

Today is the 10^th anniversary of the criminal US invasion of Iraq. This is the day that will forever live in infamy.

I remember screaming at the TV and cursing the low-lifes that perpetrated this act of evil while watching the bombs fall on Baghdad. It was a disgusting spectacle, for months and years to come to watch the US destroy a country which once was one of the most modern and secular in the Mideast.

All those who warned the US about the consequences, all those who protested, all those who screamed “LIARS!” as Bush and Co. regurgitated absurd lie after absurd lie, fake evidence after fake evidence, have been 100% right and vindicated.

Those narrow-minded and hopeless idiots who cheered this Iraqi atrocity and swallowed the fraudulent propaganda of the US and Israel, are complicit in causing the misery in Iraq; and I’m not just indicting the masterminds like Bush, CondoSLEEZa Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and the other sub-human Neo-Con filth who were the architects of that satanic killing spree ten years ago. 

I’m also indicting and blaming all the flag-waving patrIDIOTS out there in every rural nook and cranny and trailer park from sea to stinking sea in this utterly failed and broken land of fat-asses and contradictions. 

Every semi-literate grandpa hick out there, every toothless Joe Billy Bob and their fucking hairy overweight, light beer-swilling genetically deficient red-white & blue redneck mutant gun-toting uncle out there, all have blood on their hands.

It is now official that all the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, were all fraudulent. There were no nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, no 45-minute attacks by the Iraqi army on London as Tony BL-IAR said. 

The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not bring democracy, freedom, peace, stability or anything else worthwhile. 

The invasion has resulted in high cancer rates due to the use of WMDs by the US, from chemical compounds to depleted-uranium munitions. It has resulted in child malnutrition, trauma, poor health, lack of education, lack of drinking water, electricity, everyday violence and bombings, wholesale destruction of infrastructure, roads, factories, sectarian killings, the killing/kidnapping/exodus of Iraqi intellectuals, scientists and teachers, destruction of schools and universities.

These are the so-called accomplishments of the US. They beg question what the aim of the US in Iraq really was/is.

But bring this up to a typical American idiot, and they will fire back with the only defense they have left, albeit a poor one: “But we got rid of Saddam Hussein.”

That’s all, folks. After the destruction of the land, the death of a million Iraqis and 2 or so million who were forced to flee to Syria and elsewhere to avoid US-sponsored death, this is the only excuse these freaks can come up with, that Saddam Hussein is dead. This alone they think was worth the effort.

But was it worth it? HELL NO! NEVER! 

Iraq is worse off now than it was ten or even twenty years ago. There is no question about this. If all this killing and destruction was done to take out Saddam Hussein, then it was all a spectacular waste of time, because it made things much worse than they ever were, or would ever be, if Saddam Hussein was still there. 

Many Iraqis long for the stability and peace of the Saddam era. It was a golden age to them compared to the misery and long-term destruction they faced for the last ten years and will continue to face. This is not some leftist opinion, or anti-American tirade, this is true.

The US has set Iraq back culturally, economically, developmentally and in every way, back decades. Multiple generations have to live with the unnecessary trauma and negative consequences of criminal and genocidal US actions. Their environment has been poisoned for millennia.

But the fault for this illegal, immoral and unethical and criminal act does not only lay at the feet of the criminal mafia which ran, and continues to run this country; the craven media were in lock-step and spread unbelievable absurd lies and fabrications to back up this war. The media journalists and their bosses also have blood on their hands. Their behavior while covering the Iraq war has been shameful and subservient, and for that they share the consequences of that invasion.

The media this week has been reflecting on the Iraq war and its legacy, and filling the airwaves of stories of dead soldiers, and other members of the military who lost so much. Very little is said of the true damage done to Iraq and to its people. On NPR I heard some feel-good story about some Iraqi interpreter who immigrated to the US after the invasion and is so thankful to be in the US. If this story is indeed true, then that Iraqi is a despicable idiot and a traitor. How can he be happy about living in the country which destroyed his? Sounds like this guy may have suffered some brain injury. 

These pathetic PR stories are just a lame and desperate attempt by the mainstream media to try to gloss over the Iraq war crime, and make the sacrifices of the soldiers worthwhile with all kinds of sorry excuses, self-serving, guilt-coating rationalizations and nonsensical explanations. But this is just scraping the bottom of the excuse barrel.

All US soldiers who took part in the Iraq invasion are war criminals. They are not heroes. Invaders and occupiers are not, and never will be heroes. Bush, Obama and the dime-a-dozen generals out there can make all the piss-poor excuses they want, but it will never change the fact that they are the bad guys, not Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi insurgents, not the anti-war protesters. Nothing they say can get them off the hook: they are war criminals, period!

The American people, majority of which were too willfully-ignorant to know any better and too lazy and inept to do research on their own and cheered on this ultimate war crime, are also guilty. Hopefully they will now know better than to believe absurdities and concocted fakery about other concocted boogeymen the next time the government and the pathetic main stream media start beating the war drums against another hapless nation.

The Iraq war was really all about the strategic control of vital energy resources and possible energy routes. Iraq itself sits at a critical juncture when it comes to the transportation and supply of energy, ie oil and gas.It was also about getting rid of any states that continue to be Russian clients from the Soviet period. Gen. Wesley Clark, the ex-NATO commander, has said as much in an interview. Look for it on You Tube.

The Iraq invasion was never about democracy. Democracy cannot be brought to anyone by force and by the barrel of a gun, never. This should have been the first clue for everyone who was stupid enough to think that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

But nevertheless, there is a silver lining to this act of barbarism:

1.       It embarrassed the US, who was relentlessly attacked by the Iraqi insurgency. This proved that the US cannot handle asymmetric warfare.

2.       It bankrupted the US, as the costs of the Iraq invasion and occupation skyrocketed. The majority of the money spent was either wasted or “lost.”

3.       It taught the US that they are unable militarily, technically and financially to carry on multiple wars, or even another ground-based invasion after the debacle they suffered in Iraq

4.       It opened the world’s eyes to the true treachery and deceit that lies under the fake US propaganda rhetoric of democracy, freedom and human rights. Now people, and other governments, are less trusting of the US and its government’s intentions, making it hopefully harder, if not impossible, for the US to initiate more wars based on lies.

Also, why are the main planners of this illegal invasion still at large? Why is Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and all the other goons 3walking around free, collecting hefty paycheck in “speaking fees” and conspiring against other nations from the safety of their offices at right-wing think-tanks and corporations? 

Why have these people not been brought to justice for their horrible crimes? They should all be either rotting in jail for life or already faced execution for waging an illegal and unnecessary war of aggression. 

Until this happens, Iraqis will not see true justice.

Another False Hope

The Vatican Conclave has just elected a new Pope, Argentinian Jorge Mario Bergoglio, known as Francis I.

Many see him as a humble and pious man and as a reformer who could clean up the Catholic Church’s image as a corrupt institution of money laundering, pedophile-sheltering, and secret gay prostitution rings.

But a peek into this new pope’s past shows that this man has some pretty nasty skeletons in his closet. 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship of General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).

During that time, he became the bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to a Cardinal in 2001.

During the military junta’s rule, any and all enemies of the regime were hunted down, killed and disappeared during what was known as the “Dirty War.” 

This war on any elements which the regime saw as enemies was part of the greater “Operation Condor,” supported by the US.  Numerous priests and nuns who opposed the military regime of Videla were assassinated.

The Argentinian military junta was pro-US and Wall St. friendly. It appointed Alfredo Martinez de Hoz as minister of the economy, who was a close friend of David Rockefeller.

The vulture capitalist economic policies imposed on Argentina by the military government were a carbon-copy of the ones adopted by Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile.

During this time, the Catholic hierarchy, together with the wealthy elites of Argentina, supported the junta. Cardinal Bergoglio  was accused of forcing priests who showed leftist tendencies and who criticized the military regime to leave their pastoral work, and may have been involved in the apprehension and death of two members of the Society of Jesus, Jesus Francisco Jalics and Orlando Yorio.

The church was well-aware of murders the military junta was perpetrating but did not do anything against it. They lent the junta public support as guardians against communism.

That this same junta was supported by the US government and Cardinal Bergoglio has major implications. This new pope is a blessing for the US, since he shares their world view, condemned Liberation Theology and is willing to look the other way while people are slaughtered by the powers-that-be and their allied regimes.

Cardinal Bergoglio has of course denied the charges leveled against him, has refused to appear in court on earlier occasions, and up until his election as Pope was due to testify in a trial to consider the crimes committed under Operation Condor, coordinated by US-backed American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to apprehend, torture and kill tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes. This trial opened on March 5, 2013, a week before Bergoglio was appointed Pope. This is quite convenient for him, to say the least.

But when confronted with his shady past, Bergoglio and his defenders will immediately deny his involvement with the military junta, or will try to excuse his behavior by saying that the Cardinal was afraid for his life and had to cooperate, even though he did not want to. This itself is just a cop-out, or an outright lie.

For proof of the invalidity of Bergoglio's arguments, one not need look further than Cardinal Raul Silva Hernandez in Chile, who publicly condemned the Pinochet dictatorship, thereby curbing some of its violent excesses. Nothing happened to Cardinal Hernandez. He was not threatened or locked up or killed. 

So Cardinal Bergoglio's excuses are either false, and he willingly colluded with the junta, or he at the very least is a spiritual and moral coward for not having the courage to stand against the Argentinian junta. Whatever the case, he is not someone who is fit to be Pope.

Considering these black marks on Cardinal Bergoglio’s record, it is safe to say that the world should not expect any meaningful reforms under his reign.

He claims his place with Pius XII and the recently-resigned Pope Benedict XVI; one a Fascist sympathizer and apologist and the other an ex-Hitler Youth member. Pope Francis I is in good company.

His austere habits and humble persona may be just a PR front to make him appear down-to-earth and endearing to the public, so as to cover up his past complicity in kidnapping and murder.

Those who see in this new Pope any hope of change or a champion of major reforms within the church need not look further than the last king of false hope and change, Barack Obama. He promised so much but delivered nothing of any substance to anyone, except the rich and the Wall St. vultures.

The Vatican is an ancient institution. It has been around for 1,300 years. It has its own customs, traditions, laws and mentality, closed off from the rest of the world and surrounded by enormous wealth (most of it ill-gotten). It is set in its ways, by which it has survived for over a millennium. To think that they will do anything to change its culture would for them be nothing less than capitulation.

Any true reform or change would expose the rot and corruption hidden within the Vatican and risk its survival. The Popes, Cardinals and Bishops who rule that place will never let it happen, for they are the beneficiaries of this system. Their number one priority is to protect and perpetuate it, AS IS! If they try to change it, they will end up shooting themselves in the foot.

The biggest losers from this whole Papal charade are the naïve fools who worship the Pope and mass on St. Peter’s square to see him.

With the election of Pope Francis I, the US government also has a spiritual ally in one of the most powerful posts in the world. If he dances to their tune, I won’t be surprised.

Farewell Chavez!

 
On March, 5, 2013, Hugo Chavez, the revolutionary leader of Venezuela, died of cancer. 

The dramatic outpouring of support and admiration for the late Venezuelan leader has solidified his status as a maverick among world leaders. 

 His achievements for the betterment of the Venezuelan people have been significant and he has led them out of the dark morass of neo-colonial western subservience.

But those evil forces who plotted against him in the capitals of western countries, and their miserable henchmen in Venezuela, never gave Chavez a moment's peace. 

They demonized him, plotted against him, ridiculed him, and may have in the end killed him. The vitriol coming out of the filth-ridden inbred mouths of US congressmen has been nauseating, as Chavez was called a dictator, autocrat, a communist, a Stalin. He was accused of ruining the economy, of being corrupt and undemocratic.

 But who are these people who hate Hugo Chavez so much, and why do they hate him?
It is worth taking a look at them.

1. The US government- It treated Venezuela as it has treated the rest of Latin America, as its strategic and economic "backyard." Venezuela was forced to toe the Washington party line. Neo-liberal free market dogma and the privatization and 
exploitation of any valuable Venezuelan natural resources for cheap was priority #1. 

2. Oil Companies-The concessions given to US and other foreign-owned oil companies in Venezuela resulted in the majority of wealth from oil extraction and sales going overseas or to the corrupt pro-US oligarchs who ruled the country. The majority of the people saw no benefits from their own natural resource.

3. The Oligarchs-These wealthy and corrupt clowns were the US right-hand in Venezuela, faithfully adherents to free-market dogma and took US orders like the rest of the US lapdogs out there. They were greedy, corrupt and arrogant. They consigned their fellow citizens to non-existence. They cared nothing about the poor, the uneducated and did nothing to help them.

 Venezuela before the election of Chavez was mired in corruption, cronyism, poverty, illiteracy and huge disparities in the standard of living.

In a documentary I once saw about Hugo Chavez, a map of Caracas was shown from before the Chavez era with vast swathes of green expanse. It looked like those areas were just fields or forests or undeveloped land.
 
But in truth, those were barrio slums where the poor lived. Obviously the pro-US ruling elite did not even bother showing anyone these people even existed!

After Chavez came along, he put an end to this situation. He removed the Pro-US and pro-Wall St. oligarchs from power, took control of the oil, took over land which was unused and gave it to the people so they can do something with it, introduced food subsidies, literacy programs, built better housing, opened many schools and programs to uplift the young poor of Venezuela from the pit of despair into which US vulture capitalism consigned them to.

He created missions and gave money directly to communities so they can make their own decisions as to what's best for them. He encouraged direct participative democracy by the people. 

He also sold fuel discounted to the tune of 40% to poor neighborhoods in the US so that people could stay warm during the winter.

In return for fuel to Cuba, Cuban doctors flocked to Venezuela and setup remote clinics to serve people who were too far away from urban areas to get proper medical care.
Does this guy still seem as a dictator to you?

 The era of sucking-off of valuable resources by foreign corporations and their scummy oligarch cohorts came to an end.

That is where the campaign against Chavez started. He was called all sorts of vile names by US government representatives, US corporate bosses and their pathetic paid think tank shills.

To this day the wealthy Venezuelan oligarchs whine and cry about being victimized by Chavez. But these are all crocodile tears and bullshit whining because they lost their privileged control over Venezuela, which they treated as a cash cow for their personal aggrandizement.

There is no lack of democracy in Venezuela today. There is actually more of it now that before Chavez.

 In 2002, the US government together with their allies inside Venezuela tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez. The pro-US and pro-business media got in on the act and proclaimed that Chavez is gone and that most people want him gone. Pro-Chavez rallies were shown as anti-Chaves demonstrations. Police-provoked violence in the streets was blamed on those who supported Hugo Chavez.

 But the coup failed. The sheer numbers of Pro-Chavez protesters demanding the reinstatement of Chavez and some loyal army officers and soldiers rolled back the illegal coup attempt and after 48 hours Chavez was back in power.

 This event was a significant failure for the US and they have not forgotten this. After wards, Chavez was given the "Hitler" and "Stalin" treatment.

 But the man was not a coward. He went of the offensive, criticizing the US and the west and calling Bush the devil and standing up to the status quo. He called the US and Europeans thieves and imperialists and accused them of causing great damage to Latin America, which they did.

 But the vilification from the west never stopped. Chavez was called a dictator and a tyrant. 

 But let's take a look at some of the facts about this Venezuelan tyrant:

1. He was elected president three times in a row with overwhelming majorities (something Obama can only dream of!), in the most transparent election system in the world.

2. In 2004, he faced a recall election organized by the opposition. He faced it and won once again, fair and square

3. After the 2002 coup, there were no mass arrests of everyone who took part in it. The media oligarchs were left alone and only a handful of ringleaders (those who did not flee to Florida), were arrested and tried, as they would be for such acts in any country

4. He put major decisions to popular referendums. When he tried to gain more constitutional powers 3 years ago, he lost the referendum and accepted it

5. Huge throngs of people turned out for his funeral and to mourn him. Tyrants do not get such treatment
     
 All those things the US and their opposition henchmen in Venezuela accuse Chavez of, are actually what they themselves and the pro-US neo-liberal regimes of the past did. 

True, Venezuela still has problems with corruption and institutional inefficiencies, but these were problems which existed before Chavez came along, but the man did fix some of it, and today the situation is better.

 It is also strange that the US never whined about corruption in Venezuela when it served their economic and strategic interests, but it only became a problem for them after Chavez came along.

It is also strange that the US would call Chavez a dictator and tyrant while it supports true autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar and elsewhere. But these autocracies are business-friendly for the US, and that's what it's all about for Uncle SCam.
 
Chavez was a great leader. He ended Venezuela's subservience to the west, uplifted its people out of poverty, made them matter again, significantly reduced illiteracy and created a truly brighter future for Venezuelans. He was better than any of these fake reformers like Obama, of some pseudo-revolutionary shill like Lech Walesa, whose main aim was/is to submit to neo-liberal capitalist rape of their countries and people.

He also inspired other regional South American countries to throw off the US yoke and take an independent course in their economic, political and diplomatic affairs.
Chavez was a true uniter.

The US government, the multinational corporations and Wall St. did not like him simply because he refused to take their orders and refused to sell Venezuela cheap to the lowest bidder.

He also had the gall to actually pay off the IMF loans with which Venezuela was saddled with and controlled by the US. Today Venezuela's level of debt is one of the lowest in the world. As a result, the country and its institutions are not held hostage by foreign debtors, and can chart their own independent course forward.

The US does not give a damn about democracy or whether some foreign leader is a tyrant or not, as long as they faithfully submit to the neo-liberal capitalist system.

Chavez called the opposition pigs and rightly so. These traitors aligned themselves with forces which were destroying Venezuela. Those who jumped ship and fled to Florida may as well stay there!  Good riddance to them! They are dead weight.

Hugo Chavez also turned the tables on the US and the west. He made them look and feel like shit, just like they did to Venezuela for way too long. He was not afraid of them and knocked away their thieving hands off Venezuela's resources and turned them over to the people.
 
All those who revile Chavez and accuse him of being a dictator are immoral imps and the useful idiots of the US. They are at the very least ignorant fools who do not know the facts, but in this day and age this should no longer be an excuse!

As far as Chavez's death, there is talk of him having been poisoned. While this may sound like some paranoid conspiracy theory, let's look at some precedents:

1. Around the same time, Dilma Roussef, Lula Da Silva and Kristina Kirchner, all Latin American leaders who defied the US, were all diagnosed with cancer.

2. The US has assassinated or overthrown numerous democratically-elected Latin American leaders in the past and replaced them with compliant pro-US regimes which brutalized their people

 So clearly the possibility, as well as the intent is there for the US to kill any leader who does not show due obedience. This is not as far-fetched as people think.
Those leaders who defy the US must be extra careful. Those who have died mysteriously, like Arafat, must be re-examined thoroughly for foul play of any kind.

 Hugo Chavez is a giant. Lying sell-outs like Obama, or any other western or pro-western leader, are not even fit to lick Hugo's shoes! 

 He was the flashlight and the US and its cohorts are the roaches.

 May he rest in peace for a job well done, and may the Venezuelan Revolution continue!