And they want peace, yea right. Who are the Israelis fooling ? oh that's right us!



August 20, 2006
Truce Strained as Israelis Raid Lebanon Site
By ROBERT F. WORTH and JOHN KIFNER

BOUDAI, Lebanon, Aug. 19 — Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos landed near the Hezbollah stronghold of Baalbek on Saturday and engaged in a lengthy firefight in what the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, called a “flagrant violation” of the cease-fire brokered by the United Nations.
The United Nations issued a statement that Secretary General Kofi Annan also considered the raid a violation and was “deeply concerned.”
The Israelis said “the aim of the operation had been to disrupt terrorist activities against Israel and to prevent arms from being transported to Hezbollah from Iran and Syria.” Any such resupply effort would itself violate the Security Council cease-fire resolution.
The raid took place overnight under the cover of sonic booms from Israeli jets flying overhead, which occur often over Lebanon. But this time they masked the sound of helicopters bringing in the commando unit and two Humvee vehicles. Villagers said the soldiers were dressed in Lebanese Army uniforms.
The success of the effort was a matter of dispute. One Israeli special operations officer was killed and two commandos were wounded, one seriously, but an Israeli Army spokesman in Jerusalem said the “objectives had been attained in full.”
Villagers said otherwise. “They failed completely,” said Sadiq Hamdi, 36, a scrap-iron dealer. “They were still on the road when the Hezbollah came upon them. They did not take 1 percent of what they were trying to do.”
The Israeli Army said it would continue such raids until “proper monitoring bodies are established on the Lebanese borders,” another task for the United Nations forces in Lebanon. On Friday, a top Israeli commander warned that Israel would halt any resupply efforts and vowed to kill the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. [Page 6.]
Lebanon’s defense minister, Elias Murr, said that if Israel carried out any more raids, he would ask the cabinet to halt the Lebanese Army’s deployment in the south. That deployment — now being bolstered by United Nations peacekeeping forces — is the cornerstone of the cease-fire, and ending it could end the delicate truce between Israel and Hezbollah that has held since Monday.
Suleiman Chamas, 38, the mayor of this village about 10 miles west of Baalbek, gave the following account.
The disguised commandos landed in the eastern foothills of the Mount Lebanon range, loaded into Humvees and drove east on a road called Ayoun Semman, where they encountered a roadblock guarded by local Hezbollah fighters.
The commandos shouted in Arabic, “Peace be with you, we’re one of yours,” and tried to pass the roadblock without stopping. The guerrillas started shooting and chased them. The commandos turned onto a dirt road, and a gun battle broke out, drawing more villagers.
“The whole village came down, both those who could shoot and those who cannot,” Mayor Chamas said.
Fighter jets and helicopters fired rockets and, within about 40 minutes, evacuated the commandos, he said. Left behind were two fresh craters in the rich red Bekaa Valley soil, signs of casualties — large bloodstains, syringes and surgical masks — and what the villagers said was some kind of device to guide the helicopters. Villagers reported no casualties on the Lebanese side.
Yahya Ali, 30, wearing a red shirt and carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, was one of a number of villagers who said the Israeli commandos had been dressed like Lebanese soldiers.
He said they had been wearing the mostly green woodland camouflage uniforms that are standard issue for the Lebanese Army, along with olive-green flak jackets and green helmets, also standard issue. Israeli soldiers wear a solid brownish uniform with brown body armor and helmets.
Mr. Ali said he could see the uniform clearly because in the rescue the helicopters and Humvees had bright lights turned on.
The boldness of the raid during the truce suggested the Israelis might have had some major objective in mind, perhaps the rescue of their two captured comrades or the capture of a major Hezbollah figure. Boudai is the home village of Sheik Muhammad Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah leader and member of the group’s Shura Council. The Israeli Army later said it had not captured him and denied his capture was the objective, The Associated Press reported.
The village was the scene of a funeral Friday for a Hezbollah guerrilla, Mahmoud Ahmed Asef, who had died fighting in Bint Jbail. Such funerals sometimes draw leaders.
In Israel, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said, “If the Syrians and the Iranians continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo.”
But in a statement on the United Nations Web site, Mr. Annan’s spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said the secretary general considered the raid a violation of the resolution and it followed “several air violations.” Such violations, he said, “endanger the fragile calm.”
Hours before the raid, Mr. Annan appealed to Europe in particular to supply troops for the newly expanded United Nations force, which is supposed to grow to 15,000 from about 1,990 and help the Lebanese Army patrol southern Lebanon.
The appeal, the raid and the alleged renewal of arms supplies also underscore the tenuous condition of the cease-fire, which seemed to conclude a 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah with an international commitment to exclude the Hezbollah militia from Lebanon south of the Litani River and to disarm it.

The numbers speak for themselves; why is this not on the evening news? What went wrong? Have we been lead so far off course that we can no longer stand up for what is right? How can we just stand back and allow these atrocities to happen and just look the other way?
I wonder - if an invader landed on our shores, I am sure that most of us would die for this country. The question is, would we be called insurgents or freedom fighters?


12000 US Dead in Iraq, 25000 Seriously Wounded
Brian Harring – TBR News.org August 15, 2006

Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The actual death toll is in excess of 10,000. (See the official records linked at the end of this piece.) Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded (and a published total of 25,000 wounded overall,), this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 2,000+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, <>at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted<>, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate over12,000 dead, over 25,000 seriously wounded and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers, rapes, courts martial and so on – The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages) are shipped home, to Dover AFB. This, we note, was the overall policy until very recently. Since it became well known that many had died at Landstuhl, in Germany, the DoD began to list a very few soldiers who had died at other non-theater locations. These numbers are only for show and are pathetically small in relationship to the actual figures. You ought to realize that President Bush personally ordered that no pictures be taken of the coffined and flag-draped dead under any circumstances. He claims that this is to comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep the huge number of arriving bodies secret. Any civilian, or military personnel, taking pictures will be jailed at once and prosecuted. Bush has never attended any kind of a memorial service for his dead soldiers and never will. He is terrified some parent might curse him in front of the press or, worse, attack him. As Bush is a terrible physical coward and in a constant state of denial, this is not a surprise. Continues with Official Casualty List for August, 2006 at the link below: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2474.htm
Last updated 15/08/2006

How much more can we take? who is looking out for our well being? not Israel and it seems not Congress ether, so I guess it's up to us. We have to take back our country kick the lobbys to the curb and start anew, we need people who eat, sleep, Mom, Baseball and Apple pie, one people one flag, people we need to put our house in order.


Flashback: Did Israel Attack The United States With Chertoff's Aid?

Phillip Yardley
Portland Indymedia 11/02/2005

It is a little known, but historical fact that Israel has attacked the United States several times. Yet, we now know that our New Homeland Security Chief helped Israel to do so. In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring. Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by "anti-Semites". But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli's Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, although it appears that he was himself the victim of a frame-up by the real authors of the bombing project, code named "Operation Susannah." On June 8, 1967, thirty-four fine young American boys died while defending the U.S.S. Liberty against a sustained air and sea attack by the armed forces of the State of Israel. Yes, during the Six Day War between Israel and the Arab States, the American intelligence ship USS Liberty was attacked for 75 minutes in international waters by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. Thirty-four men died and 172 were wounded. The U.S.S. Liberty was damaged beyond repair and scrapped. Survivors and many key government officials including Secretary of State Dean Rusk and former Joint Chief of Staffs Chairman, Admiral Thomas Moorer say it was a deliberate act of war. On June 15, 1986, The United States attacked Muammar Khadaffi. But according to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad defector now living in Canada, Ronald Reagan was tricked into bombing Libya by means of a radio transmitter smuggled into Tripoli by the Mossad, which broadcast messages designed to fool the United States into thinking Libya was about to launch a massive terror attack on the west. On the basis of this fake evidence, the US bombed Libya, killing Khadaffi's daughter. Is Victor Ostrovsky correct? More recently, the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and DEA found the most significant foreign espionage ring ever discovered in the history of the United States. It was a huge spy ring of hundreds of Israelis who penetrated the highest echelons of American intelligence agencies and the American military as reported by Carl Cameron on Fox News Network's Brit Hume Show, December 12, 2002. In a corresponding broadcast on MSNBC, titled U.S. Busts Israeli Spy Ring, March 5, 2002, it was reported that approximately 200 Israeli agents were apprehended for attempting to penetrate the Justice Department, the U.S. judiciary system, several military bases, the FBI, the DEA, the INS and the CIA. And it was our new Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, hand-picked by President Bush, who set them free without being charged. Why? Was it because Michael Chertoff's American patriotisms are subordinate to Zionist sympathies? It is true, if I may respectfully say so, that many Jews appear to hold such ancient allegiances. And, it is also true that Jews salute the Israeli flag; I've discovered this upon conducting secondary research (writings found in the library) and primary research (in-person interviews with Jews who are American citizens who regularly salute the Israeli flag). Does Micheal Chertoff salute the Israeli flag? Nevertheless, for many months, members of this Israeli spy ring shadowed half of the September 11th hijackers as well as their leader, Mohammed Atta. In fact, five of these Israeli spies were so carefully watching Mohammed Atta that they actually resided on the same street where he lived in Hollywood, Florida. It is also known that Israeli intelligence penetrated the entire telephone network of the United States. And, in a brazen act of treason, an Israeli company was given the contract to conduct official wiretaps of all U.S. Government surveillance. Yes, as amazing as it seems, an Israeli company directly funded by the Israeli government and with ties to Mossad, Israel's spy agency the motto of which is "Winning Wars Through Deception", was given the contract to provide all the surveillance and wiretaps conducted by the United States Government. This gave Israel the technical ability to wiretap virtually any telephone in the United States including phone lines of U.S. law enforcement officers. Indeed, records reveal that a powerful Israeli drug organization in the United States escaped prosecution because of this Israeli control of our phone systems because the Israelis tapped the telephone conversations of the law enforcement personnel who were investigating them. This was also reported by Carl Cameron on the Fox News Network during the Brit Hume Show that aired December12, 1002. What is more, during the September 11th attack, five men were caught standing on their van with binoculars focused on the World Trade Center while their companions videoed and enthusiastically celebrated the tragedy. They were apprehended by the FBI, discovered to be Israeli agents in possession of false passports, large sums of cash and a number of box cutters. The FBI held them for months during which time each and every one failed lie detector tests. After their release by Michael Chertoff, our new Homeland Security Chief, they fled to Israel. Now, what would cause these Israeli spies to cheer upon seeing what was a nightmare for others? To hear about the attack of September 11th or to see it televised put most of us in mild shock. But they saw it in person and from only a few miles. Yet, for them, it caused glee. Why? Why would government agents of our closest ally to whom we have freely given $90 billion, far more than any other country, along with unqualified friendship and unqualified protection find joy in our darkest hour? There can be no question that their behavior was inspired by specific and pertinent knowledge attached to the event. To be sure, they must have known who was responsible and who would benefit. They certainly appeared to be celebrating a victory. Apparently, they believed that the September 11th attack would be good for Israel, for it would make their enemies our enemies; we would become allies to them in their war against the Arab world, particularly, their greatest threat, Iraq; and as a byproduct of our war mentality, it would be easier for Israel to prosecute its war against Palestine. I feel it is fatuously obvious this was the cause of their celebration atop that van. It is also more than a little peculiar that no Israelis died in the World Trade Center attack. Although the President, in his State of the Union Address shortly after September 11th, stated that 130 Israelis died in the attack, he was incorrect. For not a single Israeli citizen died in the World Trade Center. This in spite of the fact that, on the morning after the attack, the Jerusalem Post reported 4,000 Israelis were believed to be in the area of the World Trade Center. Please see the September 11, 2001 Jerusalem Post article titled, Thousands of Israelis Missing Near WTC, Pentagon. Then on September 22, 2002, The New York Times later reduced the 130 casualties to one single casualty in an article by Eric Lipton titled, Estimates of Toll May Be Too High. Presently, most reports state that no Israelis, whatsoever, died on that awful day. No Israeli casualties in the World Trade Center would be simply impossible, it seems, unless the Israeli Government received prior warning of the attack and, in turn, relayed the warning to some of the Israelis at the World Trade Center. Ten days after Bush's State of the Union Speech, the FBI confirmed that warning messages of the impending attack were, in fact, received by an Israeli firm, Odigo, at its offices located in both Israel and in the World Trade Center. The article titled, Odigo Says Workers Were Warned of Attack, written by Yuval Dror was published in the September 29th, 2001 edition of Ha'aretz, one of Israel's most prominent newspapers. The evidence appears to be unambiguous. Israel must have known of the World Trade Center attack well in advance, and then in a startlingly act of murderous betrayal warned its nationals while letting Americans die horrific deaths. Yes, apparently Israel cold-heartedly stood by as Americans died while it could have easily warned them. But then, evidently, that is what Israel wanted. As mentioned before, Israel wanted the September11th tragedy for it would garner American support for Ariel Sharon's agenda against Islamic nations, especially Palestine, Iraq and Iran. That is why the Israeli spies were rejoicing at our countrymen's death on September 11th. Is this a formula? Is September 11th related to the Iraqi War as is the Lusitania to World War I and Pearl Harbor to World War II? To be sure, many historians now believe the sinking of the Lusitania and the attack of Pearl Harbor were staged with Roosevelt's and Churchill's knowledge. Was September 11th another case of an Israeli terror attack upon the United States like the Lavon Affiar and the attack of the U.S.S. Liberty? Of course, the Israelis are using our money, our weapons and the lives of our young men to achieve their agenda. Ten thousand of our finest people have been maimed for life and well over one thousand have died in Iraq. Yet, unlike Israel, Iraq has, paradoxically, never committed an act of war or terror against the United States. And, Michael Chertoff is keeping watch over us. Or is he just watching us?


The following link is rather long but I thing it would be a very good read, the more you understand about this unholy union the better.

This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

NOT one race of people

Does Haile Sellassie look like the typical European Jew? He happens to have a direct lineage to King Solomon and the Queen Sheba--THE ORIGINAL JEWS!!!





This is something that really needs to be known, most pepole do not realize what is going on.The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia are the only Jews in "modern day" Israel who can trace their Biblical roots. The original Jews still remain in Africa.The Falasha are said to be from the tribe of Dan, which is impossible since they are from the stock of Judah, but the Ashkenazi's could not admit they are not Jews, so they themselves assigned the tribe of Dan to the Falasha of Ethiopia.
From the book the Kebra Nagast, one of the holy books that Rome refused to Canonize into the Bible. Solomon is shown in a dream that the glory of Israel was fading. He should give his new son Menelek the Ark of the Covenant and a priesthood to carry on the traditions of Judaism in the land of his fathers (Kush) Ethiopia. That is one of the reasons the Ashkenazi from the Israel (1948) went to get the Falasha from Ethiopia so they would have a claim on the original heritage and the Ark. The Falasha are isolated in Ethiopia with the African Diaspora. The rest of the original Hebrews did not adhere to the tradition of the Talmud. When they got to Israel it was found their traditions were pure, and another problem arose from that truth.
The Talmud is a European document used to solidify the false heritage of the German Jew. It is like the Book of Mormon to the Mormons. It takes precedence over the Bible, and it is the commentary of different Rabbis over the centuries. It may have started out innocence but now promotes racism that occurred by the 2nd and 3rd Century after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the original peoples. The Greeks, Romans (Europeans) took to writing and re-writing scripture. This is where the Talmud came into being. By the 6th century Christianity and Judaism was essentially European. After that the Turks, Germans, English added to the confusion


There are two distinct groups of Jews in the world and they come from two different areas of the world -- the Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazi Jews come from Eastern Europe. The Sephardic is the oldest group and it is they, if any, who are the Jews described in the Bible because they lived in the area described in the Bible. They are blood relatives to the Arabs -- the only difference between them is the religion.
The Ashkenazi Jews, who now compromise 90% of the Jews in the world, had a rather strange beginning. According to historians, many of them Jewish, the Ashkenazi Jews came into existence about 1200 years ago. It happened this way:
At the eastern edge of Europe, there lived a tribe of people know as the Khazars. About the year 740 A.D., the Khazar king and his court decided they should adopt a religion for their people. So, representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, were invited to present their religious doctrines. The Khazars chose Judaism, but it wasn't for religious reasons. If the Khazars had chosen Islam, they would have angered the strong Christian world. If they had chosen Christianity, they would have angered the strong Islamic world. So, they played it safe -- they chose Judaism. It wasn't for religious reasons the Khazars chose Judaism; it was for political reasons.
Sometime during the 13th century, the Khazars were driven from their land and they migrated westward with most of them settling in Poland and Russia. These Khazars are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar Ashkenazi Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really Jews -- at least not blood Jews.
Throughout their history, these Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Jews practiced communism/socialism and worked to have their ideas implemented in these countries.
By the late 1800s significant numbers of these communist/socialist Jews were found in Germany, the Balkans and eventually all over Europe. Because of their interference in the social and governmental affairs of Russia, they became the target of persecution by the Czars. Because of this, migration of these communist/socialist oriented Jews began. Some went to Palestine; some to Central and South America; and a large number of them came to the U.S.

When this man was shot down like a dog in the streets we all heard about it, all the news papers all the TV news shows FOX, MSNBC, ABC and so on gave all those highlites which spoke about his dress (the big black coat) strings hanging out, him fleeing the police, the hold nine but when the truth came about no lights, no news no anything. Why is it that it's so easy to not only tell the big lie but to keep telling it even when it all breaks down, and what's worst is that we, no you still believe them. What other lies are we being force upon us?

De Menezes Shooting: All the facts point to a cover up
Steve Watson/Infowars August 27 2005

The London Metropolitan Police force is desperately scrambling around trying to cover up the botch job assassination they perpetrated on Jean Charles De Menezes on the London Underground almost five weeks ago. More and more facts are being leaked every day, faster than the Police force can cover them up.
The latest leak came yesterday in the London Guardian. It has emerged that an eyewitness statement made to the investigators, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, immediately after the shooting states that armed police officers fired eleven shots at Jean Charles de Menezes, evenly spaced for over 30 seconds. At the time only the eyewitness reports that were made public stated five or six shots were fired, this then changed up to eight a few days later, now it's eleven.
The account from Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist from south London, gives new detail of the shooting and of the terror witnesses endured. "I recall hearing gunshots... The shooting was coming from the carriage to the left of me. When I heard the gunshots I thought it was terrorists firing into the crowd. I thought about getting behind a seat... After the initial first shots... I left the carriage."

















She also says the key detail she gave of the number of shots and the interval between them was missed from her final statement until she insisted it be included. This indicates that the cover up has extended into the IPCC investigation itself.
This is further evidenced by the fact that the IPCC director John Wadham last week spoke of the Metropolitan police's "resistance" to the IPCC running the inquiry. Furthermore it has been announced today also that an inquiry into the leak of IPCC findings about the death of the Brazilian has been demanded by both the Metropolitan Police Federation and the Police Federation.
The two federations last week sent letters to the Home Office calling for a person independent of both the police service and the IPCC to investigate the "unauthorized disclosure" of the documents.
The leaks are continually bringing out facts that directly contradict EVERYTHING the public has been told about the murder of an apparently innocent man. Is it any wonder then that the police want to find out the source of these leaks and cut it off. These leaks may be the only chance to ever discover the truth about what really happened on the 22nd July.
The inquest into 27-year-old De Menezes' death has been adjourned until 23 February to allow the investigators to collate all the evidence and complete their inquiry. As we have seen in the past with the Hutton and Butler inquires, and with the 9/11 commission, these so called independent inquiries are always overseen by the Government and used as a way of ironing out any glaring inconsistencies that have arisen since the event.
CCTV
Reports earlier this week suggested that Police officers and station managers were at odds over the existence of CCTV-footage of the shooting. Police documents submitted to the IPCC stated that "None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working"
Firstly, if that is the case then how can they explain this?:




The police stated that there was no CCTV because disks had been removed to aid the police investigation into suspects in the failed 21 July attacks. But in addition to this they stated that:
"It has also been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists."
How could all four cameras around the platform have failed at the same time? Also, if the cameras had failed, why did the station log book contain no details of the fault? In a statement to The Mail on Sunday, Tube Lines said: "We are not aware of any faults on CCTV cameras at that station on that day. Nothing of that nature has been reported to us."
There is absolutely no doubt that the police are lying in this instance unless the above picture is a fake. There have been no denials of the authenticity of the above picture. Furthermore, the original leaked document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entering Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on an escalator.
The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat. This suggests that cameras ALL OVER the station were working.
Two days ago an IPPC spokesman said "There is CCTV footage in existence. It is interesting and it will be shown in court one day. I am not speculating about the content."
First it was mysteriously missing and now it's turned up again after public furor. However, parts are still erased from the tape. Would those parts happen to show the brutal murder of an innocent man who the police KNEW was not a suicide bomber? And would those parts further push the real question that no one seems to be asking, if they knew he wasn't a terrorist then why did they kill him?
Members of the Brazilian delegation that has wound up it's flying investigative visit, revealed that some of the CCTV cameras that would have filmed Mr de Menezes being shot may have been out of order. "Apparently there are parts of the film which do not exist," said Ambassador Manoel Gomes Pereira. Also despite being "perplexed" by leaks from the inquiry that contradicted early police and eyewitness reports, the delegation has decided in four days that there is no cover up and has gone home. It seems that the visit was nothing more than a publicity stunt to appease the thousands of angry protesters in Brazil.
Still there's no cover up, just shut up and believe whatever they tell you the latest is. Isn't it cute when the overwhelming benefits of CCTV is rammed down our throats whenever they catch a bad guy but whenever the police get caught covering up their own criminal activities the fantastic cameras mysteriously malfunction! It's just one big coincidence, just like all the cameras strangely malfunctioning right as Diana's Mercedes entered a Pont D'alma tunnel crawling with MI6 agents!
Lies Lies So Many Lies
Sir Ian Blair has lied so many times he has contradicted himself over the issue of the shooting. Blair gave an interview on August 21st in which he admitted he did not know his officers had killed an innocent man until a day after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station. Yet THREE DAYS EARLIER on August 18th, it emerged that Blair himself "tried to halt an independent inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes just hours after the innocent Brazilian's death".




Why would he do this if he knew nothing about it? Sir Ian rejected claims that his attempted blocking of the IPCC was part of a cover-up by saying: "It is important that Londoners hear this: if you were going to define how to do a cover-up you would not write a letter to the permanent secretary of the Home Office, copying it to the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the chairman of the IPCC."
That's precisely what you would do to cover your tracks! Then when the truth surfaced you would use those previous actions to defend yourself, just as Sir Blair has done. He has been unrelenting over the defence of himself and his officers, saying that "Tragic as the death of Mr Menezes is, and we have apologised for it and we take responsibility for it, it is one death out of 57." Yes it is, one unnecessary death.
We Also know that the officers who shot De Menezes KNEW he wasn't a threat at the time they accosted him:
A police source said: 'There is no way those three guys would have been on the train carriage with him [de Menezes] if they believed he was carrying a bomb. Nothing he did gave the surveillance team the impression that he was carrying a device.''
Ian Blair gave a press briefing just after 3.30pm on the day Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead, on the morning of July 22 at Stockwell station, south London. Separate sources told the London Guardian that by the afternoon of the shooting, senior officers had strong suspicions that the man killed was not a terrorist or connected to attempted attacks on London the previous day.
So why wasn't the Chief of Police immediately told that the man his officers had shot had not been a threat? Why was it over 24 hours before the man in charge of London's entire Police Force was informed of De Menezes' identity?
Now it has emerged that De Menezes' parents were offered £15,000 in compensation for the loss of their son, pointing towards an attempt to buy them off. Initial press reports suggested the figure was much higher, possibly close to half a million pounds. Why would that amount of compensation be offered BEFORE an inquiry has even been completed? Police have denied such offers were made.




The Main discrepancies and false information
If we go back over the main evidence and consider the facts, every indication suggests that a cover up has been perpetrated.
The BBC compiled a comparison of the details made public in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, on 22 July, at Stockwell Tube station in south London, with those that have emerged from the leaked documents. Here it is again to clarify the discrepancies and false information.

IDENTIFICATION
Initial accountSir Ian Blair said on the day of the shooting that it had been "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation".
The man was under observation because he emerged from a block of flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, where police believed a man connected with the four attempted bombings on the London Tube and bus network on 21 July was staying.
They followed him during his bus journey to Stockwell Tube station, where a Scotland Yard spokesman said his "clothing and behaviour" added to their suspicions.
Leaked evidence, Police staking out the flats, where Mr Menezes lived, decided he matched the description of one of the suspects they were seeking, according to the documents.
One officer reportedly said he "checked the photographs" and "thought it would be worth someone else having a look". However, he was unable to video the man for subsequent confirmation because he was "relieving" himself at the time.
By the time Mr Menezes reached Stockwell station, armed police received "positive identification" that the man they were following was one of the suspects.

CLOTHING
Initial accountOne eyewitness, Mark Whitby, said Mr Menezes was wearing a thick padded jacket, despite the warm weather, which could have been used to conceal something underneath.
Another witness said he had a black baseball cap and blue fleece.
Scotland Yard had said on the day that his clothing had added to suspicions but had not elaborated further.
Leaked evidence. Some of the leaked documents and accompanying CCTV footage suggest Mr Menezes was wearing a blue denim jacket.
This is also referred to by a member of the police surveillance team who observed him on board a Tube train.

PURSUIT
Initial accountMetropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said after the shooting: "As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."
One eyewitness said at the time that Mr Menezes had vaulted over the ticket barriers just inside the entrance to Stockwell station as he was being pursued.
Leaked evidenceCCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train.
He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a seat facing the platform.

THE SHOOTING
Initial accountAlthough police would not give details of the incident because of the independent investigation, they did say shortly after it happened that officers had shot a man dead in Stockwell station.
The following day Scotland Yard admitted Mr Menezes had been shot by mistake and apologised to his family for the "tragedy".
Met chief Sir Ian Blair said his officers had tried to get Mr Menezes under control before shooting him.
A witness spoke of a man jumping on to the stationary train and grabbing a man sitting opposite. As the witness ran off the train he heard four "dull bangs", which he realised were shots.
Another said he saw Mr Menezes run on to the train, "hotly pursued" by what he took to be three plain-clothes police officers. He said they pushed him to the floor and shot him five times.
At the opening of the inquest into his death, police told the coroner Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
Leaked evidence, In one of the leaked documents, said to be a statement from one of the police surveillance team, the witness describes hearing shouting - including the word "police".
The statement says Mr Menezes stood up and advanced towards the witness and armed police.
He adds: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side."
He said he pushed the man back into his seat.
It was only after he had restrained him that he heard a gun shot.
The documents say that a post-mortem examination showed Mr Menezes had been shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but that three other bullets had missed him.
Of course the main evidence came from the leaked documents of August 17th. Yet there were rumblings of contradictions to the official version of events weeks before this.
As Green authority member Jenny Jones has pointed out, the police did nothing to stop the circulation of false information. In fact they were the ones putting it out.
As The De Menezes family solicitor, Harriet Wistrich has asserted "The police must have been partly responsible for that because it was the information that was given to the pathologist who performed the postmortem examination."
One witness in the carriage, Mark Whitby, 47, said shortly after the shooting that he saw a man who looked Pakistani "hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plain-clothes police officers" and wearing "a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket". How could this witness have thought a denim jacket was a heavy winter coat? And does Jean Charles De Menezes really look like a Pakistani man?
Whitby said the man "looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox" and "absolutely petrified" when he got on the train. These are clearly lies, as it has been revealed that De Menezes walked calmly onto the train and sat down. This witness must have been either very wrong or he was an intelligence plant, deliberately putting out false information.
I can clearly remember Mr Whitby's account as it was one of the only ones recorded and played and replayed over and over on all the news channels all day long. He also made it very clear that there were five shots fired, again this is not true, there were at least eleven. Mr Whitby has since refused to comment on the latest disclosures.
Incompetence? Not likely



Whilst everyone is distracted by the "cover up", questions still need to be asked concerning the identity of Jean Charles De Menezes.
As we know, the police who followed him were a separate group to the SO19 officers who executed him. The apparent reason he was followed was that he was living in the same block as one of the suspected 21/7 failed bombers. Why would the police Surveil the building for 24 hours without investigating the flat where the bomb suspect lived?
Why would they let a suspect leave? On many other occasions after the bombings we saw how police raided and evacuated areas they believed were home to suspects. In one bizarre raid a man was forced into a "clean suit" on the street. If they thought suspects were in De Menezes' block, why not go in and get them?
Furthermore, why would police allow a bus/tube suicide bombing "suspect" to leave the area, board a bus, then board the tube before confronting him?
At his press conference Sir Ian told reporters: "This operation was directly linked to the ongoing terrorist investigation." This may not have been untrue. On top of all the other supposed "botch ups" concerning De Menezes, are we really to believe over and over that the police and special forces are this incompetent?
Did De Menezes know or see something he was not supposed to? On 7/7 there was contradiction between the statements of the Transport Police, Metronet and the National Grid. The former two declared there WAS a power surge which "caused the explosions". The latter - the National Grid, DENIED there was ever a power surge. Menezes was a contract electrician. Could he have been involved in some sort of work on the London underground?
With the reports of the the bombs UNDER the trains or ON the rails, is it possible that they were detonated by a calculated & engineered power surge? That would explain reports of a power surge along with survivors' reports of an "electrical like discharge" before the explosions themselves.
We may never know the real facts, but one thing is clear, Special forces do not go around in public killing people considered not to be an immediate threat without a good reason.



London Bombings: Electrical Surge Connected to Menezes Shooting?
F Napoli/Prison Planet August 3 2005
1. The 21/7 attempt was an inside job too. In order to connect "home-made" bombs, which surprise surprise did not explode (all 4 of them), to the ones used on 7/7, which were actually of military origin.2. We need to find out in which locations Jean Charles worked at recently. He was not shot seven or eight or nine times in the head as a "mistake". Understand? He was allowed to get onto a BUS, before being herded and THROWN inside a tube carriage PACKED with passengers so they would have an excuse TO kill him. I have made various attempts to inquire from journalists where he worked at recently and all I've been told is - "no information regarding that at the moment".He was killed because of what he saw or learned.Some tips - the contradiction between the Transport Police, Metronet and the National Grid. The former two declared there WAS a power surge which "caused the explosions". The latter - the National Grid, DENIED there was ever a power surge.Menezes was a contract electrician. See my point?Where did Menezes work at prior to his murder?THAT is what we have to find out. And since I live overseas in Gibraltar, I cannot do that. Even though I've been doing my best to get in touch with his cousin, in vain.This is my hypothesis - the bombs UNDER the trains or ON the rails, were detonated by a calculated & engineered power surge. That is WHY reports of a power surge along with survivors' reports of an "electrical like discharge" BEFORE the explosions themselves, originated early on. Remember - the truth usually comes out in the first half an hour of an event like this one.Why would they do it like this? For the simple reason that in this manner, they could have utmost control over the exact time AND location of the blasts, something which could not be achieved with timers, since something might go wrong, a train could be delayed for whatever reason and blow up in the wrong place, for example.Moreso, because in this manner, no timers tracing back to the real culprits would ever be found. i.e. There were none. The perfect plan & execution (of the train explosions anyway).Another related matter is Richard Jones, the lying witness who claims he saw the "suicide-bomber" on the bus. If you need more info about his lies, please let me know, I'd be happy to send you material on the subject.So we need to find out who this Richard Jones really is and where Menezes worked at recently. He did not have a fixed employment but worked contract jobs, remember.

Wake up people, did you hear the white house say anything about turning over Afghanistan? NO! That was a nice move, while no one is watching the old bait and switch. Did the administration just give up on Osama, maybe he's cutting wood down on the ranch with his uncles. And lets not forget the war crimes that are slipping past as well, people quit being blind a*& sheep, where are the American people? Are the lights on but everyone's gone fishing? Come on people how many laws will Bush and co. Break, you may not have noticed but we are now living in a dictatorship. More and more of our rights are being stripped away as we follow Israel blindly, who's looking out for the home front? Israel dam sure is not and will not, but when they say jump we say how high. People get a grip.




NATO Forces Take Over in Afghanistan
BY AHMED RASHID - The Daily TelegraphJuly 31, 2006

LAHORE, Pakistan A British general will command American troops for the first time since World War II when NATO takes charge of the mission to pacify southern Afghanistan today.
Lieutenant General David Richards, Britain's most experienced officer in developing world arenas, assumes control of a merged NATO and American force that will grow to 18,000 from 9,000.
It is one of the largest and toughest missions that the alliance has faced, covering six southern provinces and extending its authority to almost all of the country. At a press conference in Kabul on Saturday, General Richards said NATO will bring a new strategy to the fight.
Instead of chasing down the Taliban, NATO forces will garrison key towns and villages. It wants to bolster the weak government of President Karzai and win the support of local people by promoting much-needed development.
The general said he hoped there would be "secure zones" in the volatile south in three to six months.
The direct approach pursued under American command, particularly by British troops, has claimed the lives of some 700 Afghan fighters more than a third of them Taliban and 19 Western troops, including six British soldiers. American-led coalition forces and Afghan police killed 20 suspected Taliban on Saturday, following an attempted ambush in the Shahidi Hassas district of Uruzgan province.
Since the Americans launched Operation Thrust two months ago, allied forces have been surprised by the ferocity of the Taliban counteroffensive, while there is growing evidence that more Afghan tribesmen, disillusioned with the lack of jobs and reconstruction and the corrupt government, are supporting the rebels.
General Richards emphasized that the opium trade was to blame for a major part of Afghanistan's violence. "That very evil trade is being threatened by the NATO expansion in the south," he said. "This is a very noble cause we're engaged in, and we have to liberate the people from the scourge of those warlords." It is unclear to what degree leading drug runners will be targeted.
NATO will control security in 75% of the country in the west, north, and south while the American-led coalition still leads the fight in the eastern provinces along the border with Pakistan. In the south, the force will comprise mainly British there are already 4,300 British soldiers Dutch, and Canadians.
NATO also will command 13 provincial reconstruction teams and take on more responsibility from the Americans for training the Afghan National Army and police.
The European Union representative in Kabul, Francesc Vendrell, told the Daily Telegraph: "The European countries will need to face the fact that sending forces to the south is going to be dangerous, and I am convinced they are ready to take losses, although we want to minimize them."
The head of the U.N. mission, Tom Koenigs, told the U.N. Security Council last week that 2,000 Afghans had been killed this year and that there were 54 suicide bombings carried out by extremists. These were unknown in the country until January, when they were introduced after Taliban and Al Qaeda members received training in Iraq.
"The violence is four times what it was in 2005 ... at no time since the fall of the Taliban have the prospects for security been more bleak," Mr. Koenigs said.
NATO also has to deal with the sensitive issue of Pakistan's support for the Taliban. Mr. Koenigs told the United Nations that "the cross-border character of this insurgency is no longer a matter of debate."
There is also the danger that just as the Iraq war distracted the West from giving more money and troops to Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2001, the crisis in Lebanon will have the same effect.


Ambulances are hit by Israeli forces

This is not me telling you about it see for yourself, follow the link above.




US - Israeli UN Resolution Hypocrisy
by Stephen Lendman
31 July 2006
Two nations stand out above all others as notorious serial abusers of UN resolutions - the US and Israel. Over the last half century, the US has used its Security Council veto many dozens of times to prevent any resolutions from passing condemning Israel for its abusive or hostile actions or that were inimical to Israeli interests. It's also voted against dozens of others overwhelmingly supported by the rest of the world in the UN General Assembly. By its actions and with 6% of the world's population, the US has thus arrogantly ignored the will of nearly all the other 94% to support its client state even when Israel had committed war crimes or crimes against humanity the rest of the world demanded it be held to account for. In the words of one UK observer using a baseball analogy: "Only the USA could have a World Series and not invite the rest of the world." The Israeli record on UN resolutions over that same period is far worse. With full US support for its actions, it's flagrantly and with little or no pretense routinely ignored over five dozen UN Resolutions condemning or censuring it for its actions against the Palestinians or other Arab people, deploring it for committing them, or demanding, calling on or urging the Jewish state to end them. Israel never did or intends to up to the present, including the mass slaughter and destruction it's now inflicting on the people of Lebanon and the Palestinians in their Territories that Israel illegally occupies and attacks whenever it wishes. It does so with impunity using any contrived pretext it can get away with to deny the Palestinians any chance ever for a viable sovereign independent state and to avoid a political solution with them it won't ever tolerate. UN Resolutions As Examples of US and Israeli Hypocrisy Consider now three UN Resolutions as examples of gross hypocrisy - one Israel and its US paymaster and benefactor support and two others both countries do not so they ignore them. In September, 2004, the Security Council passed UN Resolution 1559, cosponsored by the US and France, that called on Syria to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon and stop intervening in the Lebanese political process. It also demanded all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias (aimed mainly at Hezbollah, of course) disarm and disband (meaning surrender). Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, in February, 2005, Syria bowed to international pressure and complied fully with the resolution by April. In so doing, it ended its 29 year occupation of the part of the country it controlled which excluded the rest in the South under Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) control that Israel maintained after its invasion of Southern Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982. Hezbollah's military resistance wing did not comply. Had it done so, it would have left itself and the Shia third of the Lebanese population dependent on it defenseless against the Israelis. The Lebanese government and its small and weak security forces had no power to force Hezbollah's compliance and were unable to do it. Hezbollah was born out of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the oppressive occupation that followed. It's a popular resistance movement, much like and in the same spirit as the French Resistance freedom fighters the Nazis called terrorists, formed to resist their illegal occupiers and expel them. Ever since, it's continued as an effective resistance force against the Israelis that finally withdrew from Lebanon in May, 2000 but maintained its occupation of the 25 square kilometer area of South Lebanon known as Shebaa Farms it never relinquished after seizing it in the 1967 war. Hezbollah, the Lebanese people and its government demand Israel give it back as well as cease its frequent hostile cross-border incursions, unjustifiable abductions, repeated violations of the country's airspace as well as end its current brutal assault and invasion of their country once again. To continue being an effective resistance force, Hezbollah remained armed, has every right to do so in its own self-defense whatever resolutions the UN passes, and will continue resisting Israeli oppression until it ends. It's now doing it against a vastly superior IDF invasion force in South Lebanon far more effectively than the Israeli government is willing to admit. Now consider UN Resolutions 465 and 476. The Security Council unanimously adopted UN Resolution 465 in March, 1980 that addressed Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. Among other provisions in it, it condemned Israel's policy of "setting parts of its population and new Immigrants in those territories (and said doing so constituted) a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East." It called on the government of Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease....the establishment, construction and planning of (new) settlements in the Arab territories since 1967, including Jerusalem." In the last 26 years, Israel has flagrantly violated this resolution and still continues to build new settlements illegally in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The US supports and funds the Israeli government enabling it to do it, and the UN and world community have taken no action to bring Israel into compliance which it could do by imposing sanctions severe enough to force Israel to stop new settlement construction, dismantle the existing ones and make restitution to the Palestinians and Syrians for the harm caused them. The Security Council also passed Resolution 476 in June, 1980. Like Resolution 465, it, too, reaffirms the necessity to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories ongoing since the 1967 war. It went on to condemn Israel for its continued refusal to do it or to comply with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions demanding it does. It repeated provisions detailed in Resolution 465 and reaffirmed its determination in the event of Israeli non-compliance to examine practical ways to get it to do so. Israel never complied, and the UN never took action to see that it did. Also, by its reinvasion of Lebanon now and its unending occupation of the Shebaa Farms area it's held since 1967, Israel is also in violation of UN resolution 425 and nine additional ones demanding the withdrawal of its forces from South Lebanon. The net effect of UN action - many relevant and high-sounding words and speeches amounting to nothing, at least when it concerns Israel. The Hypocrisy of the US Congress Now consider a further gross hypocrisy. On July 20, the US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly 410 - 8 to unconditionally endorse Israel's illegal aggression against the Palestinians and people of Lebanon. Earlier in the week, the US Senate passed a similar resolution by voice vote, but added a worthless and outrageous clause that "urges all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure." The House version showed no such disingenuous delicacy, and in language Orwell would love, actually praised Israel for "minimizing civilian loss" ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary. Along with its arrogance, the Congressional resolution violated the UN Charter by unjustifiably claiming Israel has the right of self-defense guaranteed it under Article 51 and thus has just cause to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure and kill innocent civilians to do it. Once again, Orwell would approve. These House and Senate resolutions are compelling evidence of both parties' unconditional support for Israel whatever it does. They also show the Bush administration's utter contempt for all international laws and norms and its unconditional endorsement of Israel when it violates them as it did so egregiously in its outrageous attack on a civilian target in Qana on July 30 killing 60 or more innocent men, women and at least 37 children. The Congressional resolution also unjustifiably accused, and by implication condemned, Lebanon for failing to observe UN Resolution 1559 by not disbanding and disarming Hezbollah and allowing it instead to amass thousands of rockets and other weapons. It also criticized the legitimate integration of Hezbollah into the Lebanese government where it's represented by 11 democratically elected lawmakers in the Parliament and two ministers in the country's cabinet. The Congressional resolution ignores the fact that UN Resolution 1559 calls only for Hezbollah's armed militia to be disarmed and disbanded, regardless of how unreasonable that demand is. For Lebanon's failure to enforce UN Resolution 1559, including provisions not even in it, the US Congress, in effect, gave Israel its approval to destroy the country and kill many hundreds of its people. At the same time, Israel never complied with UN Resolutions 465 and 476 demanding it withdraw from the Occupied Territories and Golan Heights it holds illegally, UN Resolution 425 and nine others making the same demand it remove its forces from all Lebanese territory, and all the dozens of other UN resolutions Israel routinely violates or disregards. The US Congress, UN, world leaders and most Arab states remain committed to Israel overtly or tacitly. They've done it despite Israel's many violations including the crime of aggression in its ongoing brutal assaults on Lebanon and the Occupied Territories that it falsely and disingenuously claims to be a justifiable response to the capture (not kidnapping) of three of its soldiers, a minor provocation at most. At the same time, the Congress and world leaders remain silent refusing to condemn Israel for its failure to comply with UN Resolutions 465, 476, 425, nine similar ones. and all the other UN resolutions against it for the past half century. The message is clear. When it comes to the UN, the US runs the show, and no substantive or significant action can be taken with teeth unless it approves - especially when it applies to Israel, in part, because of the power of the Israeli lobby in the US. Also, all actions of a valued US client state are quite acceptable, even when they violate the UN Charter and international law, so long as they serve Washington's interests. Israel's illegal aggression in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories clearly do. In spite of it, the US, as de facto ruler of the world, has given the Israelis carte blanche to run amuck and commit the supreme war crime with impunity. In the kind of world Orwell understood, Israel's mass killing and destruction is in the US's imperial interest, especially in the strategically important Middle East where oil is central to all else, so its scorched-earth policy is quite acceptable and may go on unabated and end only when the two allies decide to stop it. It doesn't matter what the law is or that the innocent are paying the supreme price for its violation. Peacekeeping Hypocrisy A brief word about still more hypocrisy. The US, UK and Israel have called for a robust international military force (Israel appears to want a NATO run one) to serve as "peacekeepers" in South Lebanon once Israel ceases its aggression and allows it to come in. No one is considering the wishes of Hezbollah, the people of South Lebanon it serves or the Lebanese government. Only Israel and its US and UK allies are to be allowed to decide or whatever other countries Israel is willing to allow in the decision-making loop. It's also undiscussed publicly what Israel really has in mind, how oppressive the Christian South Lebanon Army (SLA) was when it acted as Israel's occupying enforcer after 1978 or how ineffective the current UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been since it was first put in place in 1978 and never succeeded in establishing peace or security. So what's really going on? After just days on the ground inside Lebanon, the IDF is finding the going very rough. It's already admitted to taking significant losses with dozens of its soldiers killed and hundreds more injured in intense fighting with a determined and resilient Hezbollah force as committed now to expelling an invading Israeli force as it was in the 1980s and 1990s when it succeeded in doing it. Clearly the IDF is struggling and taking more losses than it's willing to continue sustaining. So it wants instead to have a proxy army it can control come into South Lebanon, again act as its enforcers, engage Hezbollah in confrontation if necessary and have it do its killing and dying for it. Will Hezbollah and the people of South Lebanon now allow it in when they were unwilling to accept their SLA and UNIFIL occupiers in the past? Not a chance, Israel and the US know it, and yet both countries are going through the charade of trying to convince the world, the Lebanese people throughout the country, and its government that they will. Once the fighting ends, the IDF likely will withdraw and an occupying force acceptable to Israel will move in to serve in its place. It will be as unwelcome as the others that preceded it and eventually it will be driven out. But before it is, many more will die and suffer, and the long struggle of the Lebanese people and Palestinians as well in the Occupied Territories will go on unresolved. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Comment on this Editorial


Peers vowed to kill him if he talked, soldier says
Commander gave orders to kill all male insurgents, he adds at hearing
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:24 a.m. ET Aug 2, 2006

TIKRIT, Iraq - A U.S. soldier testified Wednesday that four of his colleagues accused of murdering three Iraqis during a raid threatened to kill him if he told anyone about the shooting deaths.
Pfc. Bradley Mason, speaking at a hearing to determine whether the four must stand trial, also said that their brigade commander, a veteran of the 1993 Black Hawk Down battle in Somalia, told troops hunting insurgents to kill all of them. Mason is not one of the accused.
The alleged killings May 9 near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, have dealt another blow to the reputation of U.S. soldiers over their conduct in Iraq and fueled anger against their presence.
U.S. soldiers and Marines have been accused of a string of civilian deaths in Iraq, including the alleged massacre of dozens in Haditha. Another hearing is scheduled later this month over allegations that five U.S. soldiers raped and killed a 14-year-old girl.
Mason testified that Spc. William B. Hunsaker threatened him a day after the alleged killings. He said he was accosted by Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard and Pfc. Corey R. Clagett on May 29 when he was on his way to the Criminal Investigation Division.
Asked what was said that was of a threatening nature, Mason replied that Girouard told him: If you say anything, I'll kill you. I took them pretty seriously.
Girouard, Hunsaker, Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the shooting deaths. The first three are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill Mason.
The accused soldiers and Mason are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.
'Kill all the male insurgents Mason said that before they embarked on the search mission, the rules of engagement were explained and clearly spelled out by brigade commander Col. Michael Steele.
He (Steele) just said that the rules of engagement were that we get to kill all the male insurgents, Mason said.
Kill all of them, Mason quoted Steele as saying. When asked who those people were, Mason said insurgents, terrorists.
He (Steele) said that this was declared a hot area and that some special forces had been there before, and they got knocked out, so they sent us in, Mason said.
Describing the events of May 9, Mason testified that he was with the four accused during a raid on a house with an objective to catch all the bad guys. On entering the house, the unit found and detained three men hiding behind two women.
He said soldiers found one handgun, one AK-47 automatic rifle, and many gun parts and bullets.
Mason quoted Girouard as saying that Clagett and Hunsaker were going to kill the three detainees.
They just smiled, he said.
I told him (Girouard) that Im not down with it. Its murder, he said. Immediately afterward, he heard gunshots, he said.
Competition for kills?Clagetts civilian lawyer, Christopher Bergrin, has said he intends to call Steele to testify during the hearing. Steele has apparently signed a statement invoking his right not to testify.
Steele, then a captain, took part in the 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, that killed 18 U.S. troops the basis for the Black Hawk Down book and movie and led to the failure of a U.N. peacekeeping mission there two years later.
Mason said the squads 1st sergeant would tell soldiers they did a good job if they killed an Iraqi. Mason said he believed it was a competition for kills.
I know he said good job after we killed one of them, he said.