March 9, 2003 Today's edition of Brought to You by The Bush Junta, Produced and Directed by the CIA, based on an original script by Henry Kissinger, with a cast of billions.... The "Greatest Shew on Earth," no doubt, and if you don't have a good sense of humor, don't read this page! It is designed to reveal the "unseen." If you can't stand the heat of Objective Reality, get out of the kitchen!

CIA - Attacks planned on US soil. The Central Intelligence Agency has warned that terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces inside the country after any invasion, The New York Times says in a story on its Web site, prepared for its Sunday editions. The Times cites government counterterrorism officials. Comment: Again we see that this seems to be exactly what the US administration wants. This information makes a mockery of the idea that war with Iraq is about creating a peaceful world. I mean, hello?! Is anyone else getting this? The events in Nazi germany and the second WW were a dress rehersal for what is to come, except this time Hitler is being played by George Bush, and the final scene includes a cast of billions.

"Earth: R.I.P." Good morning, class. We're here to discuss your next assignment in abstract imagination. First, I'll give you the background.

Early in what is called the twenty first century, the planet Earth entered its darkest period. Up to that point, the history of mankind had been filled with war, conquest, enslavement, brutality on massive scales -- all interspersed with incredible progress, astounding acts of humanity and intelligence, boundless creativity wrought by the human spirit. While many people assert that it officially began to come apart at the seams on one day in November 2000 (Earth year), the downfall actually began many years earlier.

Our historians have tried to piece together where the breakdown started but arriving at a definitive point has proved elusive. Much of the record was sanitized or destroyed by the masters of the day, trying to hide what they had done, from their people, and much was lost in the massive conflagration that followed. The records that have survived were clearly not meant to tell the truth although they appear to have been the popular form of news dissemination at the time; it seems that people were easily persuaded that trust and integrity were the same thing as pretty faces and good hair styles so they easily assimilated the official information released by the writers of history.

We know from the history of other worlds that the story is usually written after the events but on Earth history was often being scripted before the occurrence and very quickly rewritten if something didn't go quite according to plan. [...] But on that November day in 2000, the most powerful of all the political entities on Earth (they were called countries), chose to put their fate and their trust in someone who has come to be known to history as The Village Idiot. That appears to have been the final straw in a long series of misadventures that had plagued the history of the planet.

That man, or VI as I like to call him, was only really the mouthpiece for a cabal of some of the most evil men ever to have graced Earth. It is hard to tell if he was a willing pawn or just plain stupid but he let those evil men lead the world to the beginning of its final days. He picked a vicious fight for no reason other than the fact that he could, and the resulting conflagration put the whole thing up in smoke. Battle after battle erupted everywhere and all those weapons that they had all been building for so many years finally got to do what they were made to do: kill everybody.

I know you have seen the pictures of the planet as it is today and have been shocked by the devastation these people brought upon themselves. But there was a time when it was green and blue, things grew, it was full of animals and fish of all kinds. Now, there are ruins and uninhabitable areas; scrabble and scrub is the only vegetation; the predominant species is the insects. The few humans who survived the last war are pathetic. Read more Comment: I would like to mention something here about the "end times" as are talked about in the bible and just about every other "religious" text. Most people agree that, whether it is preordained or part of a grand cycle of human expereince or not, the idea of the "end of the world" is something that is altogether possible. Okay so our scientists tell us that the earth is not due for natural death for 5 billion years, but no one will deny the fact that there are many other ways that we can all go to "meet our maker" and it is not so much about the end of the world anyway but rather the end of our individual or collective lives since to each of us the cessation of physical existence is tantamount to the "end of the world", for us anyway. The question I would like to ask is, if the "end of the world" were "nigh", and by this I mean the imminent destruction of vast numbers of humans on earth, how would we know? Could we predict it? How much advance warning would we need in order to attempt to prepare ourselves or even change the outcome? Without doubt we would need to be on the lookout for any "signs of the end times" as it were. If we give any credence to what is said in the bible we can expect it to come as "a thief in the night", with us not knowing "the day or the hour". With this in mind I suggest we all take a moment and suspend wishful thinking and look objectively as just what is being setup right now with the impending war in Iraq and the likely domino effect it will have, and ask ourselves if it is possible that what we see happening now is in fact exactly what is alluded to in the many religious texts .

'Mr. Bush goes for the kill' Mr. Bush is right, Saddam Hussein is a nasty man and nobody I know has the least objection to Mr. Bush killing him. It's just the way he proposes doing it that worries me. Dropping 3000 bombs in 48 hours on Baghdad is going to kill a lot of other people who, as far as I am aware, are not nasty at all. That's the bit of the 'moral' argument I don't follow. It's a bit like the police saying they know a murderer comes from the south of England so they are going to execute everybody in Epsom.

Then again why does Mr. Bush need to drop 3000 bombs on Saddam Hussein? I would have thought one would have been enough to take him out, if he knows where Saddam is. And if he doesn't know where he is, what on earth is the moral justification for dropping any bombs at all? Doesn't Mr. Bush realise they are dangerous things and tend to kill people when they land?

Or does Mr Bush simply enjoy the idea of taking out a lot of Iraqis? I appreciate Mr. Bush's argument that because Saddam Hussein has refused to take any notice of the UN, Mr. Bush should teach him a lesson by dropping a lot of bombs on him. But now he's telling us that if the UN won't give him permission to do it, he's jolly well going to drop a lot of bombs on Saddam anyway. In which case won't Mr. Bush be guilty of the same thing he's accusing Saddam Hussein of? Apparently not because, according to the President's advisers, if the United Nations won't give him permission to drop a lot of bombs on Saddam Hussein, it will have ceased to be a Responsible World Organization and therefore he doesn't need to take any notice of it.

But doesn't the same thing go for Saddam Hussein? If the United Nations ceases to be a Responsible World Organization how can the fact that Saddam Hussein has refused to take any notice of it be something so evil that it justifies dropping bombs on the poor people living under his heel? And that's another thing - everyone seems to be very certain that dropping a lot of bombs on Baghdad will get rid of Saddam Hussein. But will it? - any more than devastating Afghanistan (and killing maybe 20,000 people) got rid of Al-Qaeda? A recent UN report reckons that if and when the US starts bombing as many as 100,000 Iraqis will die.

I can't really believe that the President of the United States gets his rocks off by having people killed. That's more like Saddam Hussein. And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?

Back in 1988 Saddam killed several thousand at once, in the town of Halabjah. Since then he's been carrying on the good work, but on a piecemeal basis. In fact, for all I know, since his 1988 spree, he may not have killed any more of his own citizens than George W. Bush did as Governor of Texas. When Mr. Bush became Governor in 1995, the average number of executions per year was 7.6. Mr. Bush succeeded in quadrupling this to a magnificent 31.6 per year. He must have had the terrible chore of personally signing over 150 death warrants while he was Governor. I suppose the advantage of killing Iraqis is that you don't have to sign a piece of paper for every one of them. Just one quick scribble and - bingo! You can kill a hundred thousand and no questions asked! What's more, nobody is going to quibble about some of them being mentally retarded or juveniles, which is what happened to George W. Bush when he was Governor of Texas.

I'm not saying that George W. Bush shouldn't be allowed to kill as many people as he wants. After all he is the unelected leader of the most powerful country on earth, so if he can't do anything he likes, who can? And, in the years to come, we can confidently look forward to a lot more killing all over the world - certainly a lot more than ever Saddam Hussein managed in his own country. Comment: Plenty planned for the mainland US too. Comment: Check out these facts relating to the US and Iraq

Eight people were shot and others were stabbed and trampled early Sunday when fighting broke out inside a nightclub above a Times Square arcade, police said.

March 8, 2003 Today's edition of Brought to You by The Bush Junta, Produced and Directed by the CIA, based on an original script by Henry Kissinger, with a cast of billions.... The "Greatest Shew on Earth," no doubt, and if you don't have a good sense of humor, don't read this page! It is designed to reveal the "unseen." If you can't stand the heat of Objective Reality, get out of the kitchen!

North Korean Has More Than 100 Nuclear Bombs and Will Make More: North Korea's unofficial spokesman, Kim Myong Chul, disclosed at a professional luncheon at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan yesterday that North Korea has more than one hundred nuclear bombs and will likely declare its nuclear-power status sometime this year unless the Bush Administration agrees to hold bilateral talks with North Korea.

Kim Myong Chol is a Japanese-born Korean whose impoverished parents from Cheju-do immigrated to Japan. Kim received a PhD from Kim Il Sung University for his research on North Korea's military doctrines. He is close to Kim Jong Il's inner circle, and his writings and speeches are required readings for North Korea's elite. A year ago, he correctly predicted that North Korea would withdraw from the IAEA and start up its nuclear facilities.

Kim said that the strategic goal of Kim Jong Il is to neutralize and remove the American influence from the Korean Peninsula. He said, “The dream scenario for the achievement of the goal is to have a peace treaty concluded with the United States. The second best scenario is neutralizing the American nuclear threats by acquiring nuclear capability.”

He also stated that North Korea will soon have the capacity to rain ballistic missiles loaded with weapons of mass destruction down upon most cities in the United States. The US and South Korean armies are currently holding massive war games near the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas, and North Korea sees the exercises as the initial phase of the US invasion of North Korea.

Kim warns North Korea will retaliate if Bush mount "surgical strikes" against North Korea's nuclear facility at Yongbyon. North Korea will mount an immediate retaliation against the US homeland, leaving "Washington, New York and Chicago aflame." He states: "North Korean missiles can reach any part of the United States of America. There is no safe place for Bush to hide." But if Bush agrees to talk, Kim Jong Il will accept US-led inspections and the eventual reunification of Korea, which inevitably will lead to a democratic, unified nation. After unification, Kim Jong Il will step down and let the people of Korea elect their national leader. Kim says what Kim Jong Il wants is to unite Korea and kick out US troops from South Korea; Kim Jong Il does not need or want any US economic aids. Comment: The common consensus as to just why the Bush is taking such an agressive stance towards Iraq is that he wants the oil and the economic supremacy that this would give the US, but is that really all there is to it? Can that really justify the extreme agressiveness and belligerance that we see the Bush administration displaying? For most of the last century the US has waged a secret war on the world and maintained its economic dominance without pushing the world towards armageddon. So why the change of tack now? Why does the US seem hell-bent on making enemies of just about every other nation on earth, and throwing the world into a "war without end". We assume that Bush knows very well that the likelihood of an attack on the mainland US is much greater if he pursues his current agenda. North Korea has nukes a plenty and we cannot rule out that Saddam has some nukes stashed away, perhaps outside of Iraq, just waiting to unleash them when he is pushed into a corner by the US. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that Bush is making the world safer by picking fights with everyone he pleases, obviously the opposite is true. Might then we to conclude that it is fully part of the US government's plan to provoke such attacks by other countries on US cities and towns? Or perhaps is it to provide a pretext for clandestine groups within the US to perpetrate such attacks themselves as has been suggested was the case with the 9/11? For sure there have been plans in the making for years with PNAC group giving the clearest description of just what is in store. Yet this still does not answer the question as to WHY this would be desired. Why would those in power in the US want to kill thousands if not millions of US citizens? The first thing that comes to mind is Kissinger's plan for "depopulation". The second significant benefit is fear. Bush and Co have benefitted greatly from the instillment of fear among the US population as a whole. It has allowed them to pass draconian laws such as the patriot act that wipes out, with a stroke of the pen, fundamental civil liberties that have been sacrosanct since their inception. Fear also provides support for a "war without end" from a bewildered public who protest that "something must be done" about this apparent threat to their lives. There are "others" that apparently have a vested interest in the fear given off by masses of people also, and this is discussed further on this site. Yet we must again ask the question "why?". The conclusion I come to is that in some way, for some reason the ground is being prepared for the introduction of a radically different world than the one we know now. It seems to me that the current world events are designed to, and will, lead to the overt and complete enslavement of the human race, and in true machievellian style it will be at their own request. Just what lies in store for us after this plan is complete is not yet fully undestood, but the signs will surely become increasingly clear over the next few years, and it is for each to decide whether to choose to see what IS and prove they see by acting, or continue to sleep, believeing the lie. If you opt to continue the dream then you do so at your peril.

"In Germany, they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't in a union. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no
one was left to speak up". --Pastor Martin Niemoller Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

US lets N. Korea get nuclear data Transfer pact stays in effect The Bush administration has not suspended or revoked the authority of Westinghouse Co. to transfer documents related to nuclear technology to North Korea, despite the fact that the Asian nation has admitted that it violated terms of a nonproliferation agreement it signed with Washington in 1994, US Department of Energy documents show.

Some Republicans have blamed the Clinton administration for the nuclear standoff with North Korea, arguing that the 1994 agreement calling for an end to the North's nuclear program in exchange for food and fuel was hopelessly optimistic and naive. But Department of Energy documents released yesterday to Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Malden, indicate that the Bush administration quietly worked under that agreement and rejected a chance to repudiate it in May 2001, when the Department of Energy extended for five more years the authority for Westinghouse to transfer nuclear technology to North Korea. Read more Comment: Here we have evidence that the idea that the Bush adminsration actually WANTS a nuclear conflagration on its own soil, is very likely the case! So in the case that our own government is working against us what chance do we have!?

Can you "see" any sociopaths around you? If not, this will help you "spot" them! "See" any similarities? Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people if the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of another mental disorder. Antisocial Personality Disorder is chronic, beginning in adolescence and continuing throughout adulthood.

There are ten general symptoms:

not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness

People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior. They may not work. If they do work, they are frequently absent or may quit suddenly. They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or rights. They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal pleasure or profit.

They may default on loans, fail to provide child support, or fail to care for their dependents adequately. High risk sexual behavior and substance abuse are common. Impulsiveness, failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness, irritability, irresponsibility, and a reckless disregard for their own safety and the safety of others are traits of the antisocial personality. Socioeconomic status, gender, and genetic factors play a role. Males are more likely to be antisocial than females. Those from lower socioeconomic groups are more susceptible. A family history of the disorder puts one at higher risk.

There are many theories about the cause of Antisocial Personality Disorder including experiencing neglectful parenting as a child, low levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, and belief that antisocial behavior is justified because of difficult circumstances. Psychotherapy, group therapy, and family therapy are common treatments. The effects of medical treatment are inconclusive. Unfortunately, most people with Antisocial Personality Disorder reject treatment. Therefore, recovery rates are low.

Salim Hoss compares George W. Bush to Hitler Former Premier Salim Hoss on Friday compared US President George W. Bush’s conduct towards Iraq with that of Adolf Hitler during World War II. A statement by Hoss accused Bush of showing sympathy toward Israeli suffering and justifying the Israeli backlash against the Arabs, but failing to do the same for the Palestinians. After the bus bomb in Haifa Wednesday, the US president condemned the Palestinians. However, the “Israeli massacres that followed the bombing are described by Bush as justified,” Hoss said, yet “Bush describes the Israeli Premier as a man of peace.” The former premier said that “if that is not excessive racism, what is?”He accused the United States of being “not only a supporter of Israel, but also a partner in crime.” He said that Bush was acting like Hitler, “who conquest of Europe was motivated by a superiority complex.”

Mind Our Own Business How would you feel if you woke up one morning and all the TV news outlets were blaring that Russia and China, in a joint declaration, had said that America's weapons of mass destruction were a threat to world peace, and unless they were destroyed, Russia and China would disarm the United States and change its government?

I expect it would make your cornflakes taste sour.

Now, it's very hard to say anything good about the government of North Korea. If ever a government mimicked the totalitarian nightmare described by George Orwell in his novel "1984," it is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Even its name is Orwellian, since it is neither democratic nor a republic. The people are controlled and indoctrinated every waking hour from the cradle to the grave.

Even so, we have no right to tell North Korea that it can't develop nuclear weapons. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, North Korea has every legal right to withdraw from it. There are provisions in the treaty for just such an event. As a sovereign nation, it has every right to develop any kind of weapons it wants.

When the United States, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, India and Israel developed nuclear weapons, they did not ask the world's permission. As sovereign states, they did what they thought they had to do.

You know what's wrong with this world? We're trying to run it. Sometimes we act unilaterally, sometimes we use the United Nations as a cover, sometimes we use NATO, but the bottom line is we presume the right — simply because we are powerful — to intervene and to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. So long as this remains true, there will never be peace in the world, and Americans will continue to lose their liberty as the country metamorphoses into a permanent war state.

Don't laugh at the North Koreans. Unless we reverse this trend, future Americans will be goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue and shouting praises for their own Great Leader. Status quo is a myth. Governments are always moving either in the direction of freedom or in the direction of more power and more control. I don't have to tell you that there are no libertarians in the Bush administration.

This is not a new position for me. Back in 1991, I opposed all the restrictions imposed on Iraq. It would have been proper to exact a promise from Iraq to respect Kuwait's boundaries and even to pay reasonable reparations for actual damage done. But to tell Iraq what kinds of weapons it could have infringed on Iraqi sovereignty. It is from that infringement of Iraqi sovereignty that all the subsequent conflict — and now, it appears, a new war — flows. It was not then, and it is not now, any of our business what kinds of weapons Iraq has.

We have only one right in regard to other nations: the right to self-defense. Period. There are no more. Thus, our correct position would be to say to other nations: Build whatever weapons you want, but if you use them on us or threaten us with them, you'll wish you hadn't. It's none of our business what kind of government another nation has. The communist government in North Korea doesn't cause us any harm, nor does Saddam's dictatorship. Those are internal problems of the Korean and Iraqi people, respectively.

Even humanitarianism is not a legitimate excuse for intervention. Politicians being what they are, even that excuse will always be distorted by propaganda, as it was in the Balkans. No matter what somebody else is doing to somebody else, it is none of our business, and we have no right to interfere. Our government exists to serve our people and our land and no other.

If you want peace, if you want freedom, then you're going to have to force the American government to mind its own business. Otherwise, our future will not be a happy one, because, as my pappy used to say, the problem with being a tough guy is that, sooner or later, you run into somebody who's tougher than you are. It should be noted that there are still nuclear and other weapons installations in Russia that no American is allowed to see, agreements to the contrary notwithstanding. Comment: to all Americans thinking that they are safe and that this war is happening to others people. The war will soon be on your doorsteps.

Dictator Bush and his wimpy quisling suckups at the New York Times, CNN, and Fox have proved that Adolf Hitler's strategy was right - if you tell a lie enough times it soon becomes the truth in the public mind.
And we see how this technique has now come full circle in this prerecorded nondebate about bombing Iraq into a deeper level of oblivion. Remember late autumn 2002, when from seemingly out of nowhere Bush pulled the long-dormant Iraq issue out of nowhere? At the time the U.S. media were awash in stories about how many Americans would die from the president's ill-considered order to vaccinate the entire population for smallpox. That the president's father had just acquired a substantial interest in the company that was to make the vaccines never quite managed to make the front page.

The unsolved anthrax murders had already dissapeared as a story from the mainstream media, once the trail of suspicion led straight to the U.S. government's door. A permanent rigor mortis had already set into the 9/11 probe and the unsolved sudden murders of more than 3,000 Americans. But Enron and Halliburton's troubles seemed to be percolating a bit, as many business executives who had stolen millions from innocent but greedy Americans seemed to be headed for embarrassing questions in various courts. It was not until later that a Bush-appointed appeals court judge's order would take the heat off Cheney for engineering that whole deal that stole billions in energy costs from the people of California. Cheney never liked California; he's a Wyoming boy. What the criminal administration needed was a distraction from all this consternation, and Iraq has been that and more.

Now, not one of those overpaid media succubi who smirk on the TV screen every night and tell you America is going to win this war against Iraq has the gonads to tell their dictator that his planned invasion of that bomb-pocked nation breaks every law known to man and signed by the United States: the Geneva Accords, the Nuremburg agreements and every treaty civilized people have endorsed since the Romans bugged out of Britain " it is illegal to attack someone if they're not attacking you. A pre-emptive war is not allowed by civilized people.

Hey, why would they ask such a question? It's only the reason why there's any peace in the world at all, that's why. You don't go around gunning down your neighbors because you think they're going to do something bad to you sometime in the future. Only a criminal psychopath would do something like that.
But the current president of the United States knows something more than all the diplomats in human history put together. After all, he says he's a religious man. And Jesus did say he brought not peace but a sword. That's George W. Bush's kind of religion. I'm sure you could convince him that somewhere in the Bible it says it's OK to obliterate anyone you suspect of having weapons of mass destruction even though you can't prove it. Wasn't that the rationale of the Biblical Israelites when they wiped out all those other tribes?

Or if it's not in the Bible, maybe those sophisticated designers of the Project for the New American Century, the ones who wrote America needed "a Pearl Harbor-type event" shortly before the World Trade Center came crashing down, can get it put in. Maybe in a new version of Deuteronomy 28:56-58, that part where God says mothers will have to eat their own children if they don't obey God's holy law, maybe Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz can change that to it's OK to nuke innocent families because their leader didn't obey orders from their masters to give them all the oil they wanted.

Probably most Christians wouldn't even notice the change. It's all about the collection plate, anyway.
Or I guess some religious people like the singing. Onward Christian Soldiers, marching off to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before. Amen.

I heard the crosses they're taking to Iraq are made out of depleted uranium, too. A lot harder than gold. They can really smite the enemy with them, just like our drug czar, that Barry McCaffrey guy. You know he used to be a general and he was in charge of the operation that gunned down all those Iraqis trying to run away from Kuwait after the first Gulf War. They called it the "Highway of Death." A lot of American pilots thought it was just like a shooting gallery at an amusement park. I don't know if they got points for it or not. McCaffrey became real famous for killing all those people who didn't have a chance, driving rusted-out trucks trying to escape American jets. He's a true American hero.

Yep, America's really going to put on a show. The American armed forces have the coolest high-tech weapons ever, and they've been saying " especially that Rumsfeld fellow " that they're going to use some new weapons nobody's ever seen before. I'll bet they'll be on TV, too. I wonder if CNN will make up a jingle like "Showdown with Iraq" to go along with Rumsfeld's plans to use "calmative agents" on the population of Baghdad, so as to reduce the resistance to American forces, y'know.

I can just imagine the new logo on Fox: "Gassing the masses." The ratings will probably be good.
Calmative agents. I like that term. Just like the Russians used on those Chechen terrorists who tried to hijack that Russian theater awhile back. Just shot the gas in there and they all went to sleep. I think that's a big improvement in warfare, and Americans should be proud to use stuff like that. I mean, instead of dropping all these humongous bombs on people and blowing them to bits, just spread a little cloud of chemical smoke over them and put them all to sleep. That's a real improvement in warfare, and Americans should be real proud to use something like that. It makes war a lot more civilized. Just put 'em to sleep instead of blowing 'em to bits.

'Course the problem in Russia was that a lot of 'em didn't wake up.

But there'll still be bombs. Plenty of bombs that we'll watch on TV. Cameras right in the tips of the bombs. Ride 'em right down to the target. See all those buildings blow up. Cool. 'Course they don't show the people being blown up. They won't show the searing heat from those heralded U.S. laser-guided bombs incinerating the crinkled skin of already-sick Iraqi children. Try to imagine the sound that crackling would make and think of something appropriate for a U.S. military recruiting poster.

That wouldn't be right on TV. Hell, if you showed that, bodies flying apart and heads being blown off, the skin of little children crackling in flames, people wouldn't want to go to war at all, would they? Hell, we can't have that.
They also were going to use some kind of fancy bomb that knocked out everybody's electronics in the area it was used, but I think they ditched that idea when they figured it would also probably make all their own airplanes fall out of the sky. But the best part, I think, the most effective form of warfare, is the depleted uranium ammunition, the gift that keeps on killing year after year after year.

Could anything be more illustrative of the top leadership in America being completely and certifiably insane than using ammunition that guarantees a bitter harvest of disease and death among its own troops for years to come. Consider the casualty factor from the first Gulf War. Only 147 American personnel were killed during combat, a substantial number of those from accidental (we hope) friendly fire. But now, the Gulf War death toll 13 years later is around 10,000 Americans (if you check around on the Internet), with another 140,000 afflicted with really nasty diseases that are passed to those wives and children who manage to survive for any length of time.

Sure, you get the standard argument from the psycho U.S. government that these maladies are caused by other things, like the oil well fires (now alleged by some veterans to have been set by American personnel) and poison gas attacks. But the two main suspected carcinogenic culprits continue to be depleted uranium ammunition and strange vaccinations about which the U.S. government never would say and won't to this day what was actually in them. Go wave your damned American flag about that one, buddy.
America kills it own soldiers just by using DU ammunition. People get rich selling nuclear waste to ordnance manufacturers. And American soldiers die because of it. You can't deny it. There's too much evidence, everywhere.
Now we must return to the lead of our story: lies told often enough that they become the truth in the minds of an addled and distracted populace that wishes the whole story would just go away.
It is not Iraq that has weapons of mass destruction and uses them against its neighbors. It is the United States.

Compare the two nations. How many nations has Iraq invaded under its present leadership?
Answer: Two. First Iran, with the eager backing of the United States, which supplied it with chemical and biological weapons (and now proposes to use the same weapons to attack Iraq for using chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction). Second, Kuwait, which was stealing Iraqi oil, and anyway, the claim that it is a part of Iraq is legitimate; Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were all created arbitrarily by the oil companies (as was Saudi Arabia).

Then, how many countries has America invaded and used weapons of mass destruction against during the same time period?

Answer: Try 13. Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets), Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Iran 1987, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-2000, Somalia 1993, Bosnia 1994, 1995, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia 1999. (Thanks to William Blum, "Rogue State.")
So when those mostly white men (they're all white at heart) gather around the table at the United Nations and make their judgment that Iraq needs to be invaded, they're just pulling out the same story that the Western powers have used ever since the Crusades were started to go and loot the dark-skinned natives. The lie is so colossal that it just makes me want to throw up.

When Americans " otherwise intelligent and kind " say Iraq should be invaded because they are connected with the 9/11 attacks " there is no recognized shred of evidence that this is so " it makes me want to throw up as well.

And when the world's media feigns hysteria about Iraq being a menace to its neighbors " at the same time when not far away Israel is perpetrating one of the great genocides in human history, the erasing of the entire nation of Palestine, and because most newspapers are owned by Jews, no one is saying a word " it makes me want to ... well, you know. The world is, in fact, mad. Willfully and deliberately so. People of principle need to assert themselves now. A poison has spread around the entire globe. Every echo of every thought emanating from virtually every radio station, television channel and major newspaper throughout the entire world (well, certainly the Western world, anyway) is a lie. And for this lie, thousands of people are being murdered every day.

The United Nations itself, consisting of representatives of all the countries on Earth, looks with favor on this newest lie, that Iraq is the threat to the world and needs to be divested of its leaders and its resources. So, the whole world agrees to participate in this lie, presumably in exchange for future political advantages from the aggressor government that seeks, as is its usual custom, to perpetrate this particular lie for its own geopolitical and financial gain, yet couches its motives in phrases of perfunctory and insincere nobility.
The big news in this is that the whole world is agreeing to participate in the slaughter of innocents because the most powerful country wishes to perpetrate its continuing campaign of dishonest, imperialistic gambits in order to increase its wealth. There is no other reason. The alpha dog wishes to destroy an entire nation, and the subservient pups that all other nations have become gather round, hoping to steal leftover scraps from the slaughter.

In all this, where are the principles of a free society of free people living in a free world? Where is the compassion that supposedly distinguishes humans from other animals? Where is the basic integrity of members of any society who agree to be civilized and not kill other people except in self-defense?
I'll tell you where they are. They're gone. Of this event, our posterity will calculate the loss of our humanity and our honor, but in sociological terms, this complicity of the entire world to participate in this latest vigilante lynching of Iraq may well signal for us as a species the end of evolution and the beginning of entropy ... and the long, slow slide toward an ignominious extinction. The future of the whole world is mortgaged to the vicious caprice of the American police state. Honest men cower in their castles and calculate the cost of their betrayal of the human race. The dream is in flames.

Bin Laden sons' arrest denied Pakistani and US officials have denied reports that two of Osama Bin Laden's sons have been wounded and captured in a clash on the Afghan border.
As he emphatically dismissed the claim, Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat also denied reports that Osama Bin Laden was hiding inside Pakistan. His denial was echoed by an official in Washington who, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP that claims about the sons' arrests were untrue. "We have absolutely no information to substantiate that," the official said.

Earlier, Sardar Sanaullah Zehri, the Home Minister of Balochistan - the region at the centre of the search in Pakistan - told the BBC US forces were engaged in operations across the border in Afghanistan. Comment: More lies from the Bush Cabal

Bush: Clap me or no EU speech. George Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation. Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome. A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address. "His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling. "I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen." Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters. It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe. The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help." Comment: this would be hilarious if he wasnt the president of the most powerful, bloodthirsty and destructive government on earth. As it stands it is very frightening that there appears to be a psychopath in the whitehouse.

Countdown to war, er, massacre begins. You know what I feel like? I feel like one of those passengers on those doomed jets that were hijacked on 9/11. I don't mean to belittle that tragedy, or the fate of those passengers. I don't think I'm personally facing imminent death, and hope that doesn't happen until I'm good and ready. The same goes for you, dear reader.

However, I do very much feel like the unlucky passenger in a jet that has been hijacked, and piloted for over two years now, by religious maniacs who, I am gradually concluding, are on a path to kill us all -- along with a great many other innocents on the ground -- on the way to fulfillment of their obscure religious and political agenda. That's what it feels like as all signs point to a massive United States military invasion of Iraq, possibly a week away, perhaps more, perhaps less. Should this attack takes place, there will without any question at all be at least four immediate results:

1) A great many Iraqis will die, probably more than we'll ever know. It is a number the current U.S. administration has good reason to not be interested in, and for a long time nobody else will have access to count the bodies. The U.S. is also likely to be uninterested in the number of its own soldiers who die in the coming years, irradiated or psychically wounded by their experience.

2) The government of Israel will launch a brutal new round of attacks against the essentially defenseless Palestinians in their bantustans. It scarcely matters whether the "crackdown" will be unprovoked or ostensibly in response to demonstrations or terrorist acts prompted by the U.S. invasion. The end result will be the same.

3) Hatred of the United States will sweep the world, among not just ordinary citizens but whole governments, composed of those countries' ruling elites. Alliances will become former alliances; business as well as political relationships will be irrevocably damaged. In the Islamic world, with relatively few exceptions, "fury" will be the moderate reaction; fuel for decades' worth of terrorist activity, against the U.S. and its corrupt, brutal puppets, lies at the other end of the spectrum. The patient groundwork that the Bush Administration has laid over the past two years to make the United States an international pariah will be fulfilled. We will no longer be one nation among many, but an empire, with vassals; often, what we want we will only be able to obtain by force.

4) The economy, both globally and in the U.S., will also be badly damaged. It's already worsened dramatically in the last year, a fact obscured by all the Bush talk of Iraq. Investors are horrified, international trade is taking a backseat to global lockdown, and the world's biggest economy is retooling itself for permanent wars it cannot possibly afford; things are, by almost every serious economists' reckoning, likely to be made far worse.

The economic fallout -- far more than any concern over mere human lives -- is why so many of the world's political and business elites stand opposed to the Bush folly. And yet, on this as on each of these other points, the political and media giants of the U.S. appear to be in a state of delusional denial. Read more

Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org
Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.