Top-secret, deadly chemical tests done in St. Louis during the Cold War by Army prove deadly years later

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

As new details begin to surface about secret chemical tests performed on American citizens in St. Louis during the 1950s, we here at Natural News can only shake our heads in disgust and ask the obvious question: How many more of these kinds of tests were done without our knowledge? In 1955 when she was still just a baby, Doris Spates’ father passed away suddenly, she recalled in an interview with The Associated Press recently. Since then, she says, she has survived cervical cancer while watching four siblings die from various cancers. After finding out that, as the Cold War heightened throughout the 1960s, the U.S. Army conducted secret chemical testing in her downtrodden St. Louis neighborhood. And rightly so, Spates wonders if her government is responsible for the carnage her family has endured.

“In the mid-1950s, and again a decade later, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, at schools and from the backs of station wagons to send a potentially dangerous compound into the already-hazy air in predominantly black areas of St. Louis,” the AP reported. At the time, local officials were told by the military that the Pentagon was testing a smoke screen that would shield St. Louis from aerial observation in case the Soviet Union launched an attack. It was a lie. Nothing but silence from the government In 1994, the federal government fessed up, saying the tests were part of a biological weapons program. St. Louis was chosen, it turns out, because some of its neighborhoods resembled Russian cities that the U.S. might attack in response. “The material being sprayed was zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder,” said AP.

New research is now calling into question the implications of those tests. Studies by Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociology professor at St. Louis Community College-Meramec, raises the possibility that the Army was conducting radiation testing by combining radioactive particles with the zinc cadmium sulfide – a possibility given the fact that both sides during the Cold War prepared for nuclear exchange – though she says she has no direct proof. Still, the report she released in September was alarming enough that both U.S. senators from Missouri, Republican Roy Blunt and Democrat Claire McCaskill, have demanded answers from John McHugh, the Army secretary. So far, all they have heard in response is the chirping of crickets.

In documents obtained by Martino-Taylor via a Freedom of Information Act request, the Army described the area of testing as “a densely populated slum district,” of which three-quarters of residents were black. Spates, who is 57 now and retired, was born inside her family’s apartment, which was located on the top floor of the long-demolished Pruitt-Igoe housing development, in 1955. Her family was not aware that on the roof, the Army was intentionally spraying hundreds of pounds of the zinc compound into the air. Three months after she was born, her father died. Another four of her 11 siblings would die of cancer as well, all at relatively young ages. Chemtrails part of ongoing testing?

“I’m wondering if it got into our system,” Spates told the AP. “When I heard about the testing, I thought, ‘Oh my God. If they did that, there’s no telling what else they’re hiding.’” Exactly. Others also wonder, including Mary Helen Brindell, 68. Her family also lived in a working-class neighborhood of mixed race where spraying took place. The Army says it only used blowers to spread the chemical, but Brindell recounted to AP that one summer day when she was playing baseball with other kids in the street, a squadron of green Army planes flying close to the ground released a powdery substance. She says she went inside where she lived, washed it off her arms and face and went back outside to continue playing. Over the years, she has had bouts with four types of cancer: breast, skin, uterine and thyroid. “I feel betrayed,” Brindell, who is white, told AP. “How could they do this? We pointed our fingers during the Holocaust, and we do something like this?”

(Infowars)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

The War on Words and Facts

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

 

If you control the language, you control the argument

 If you control the argument, you control information

 If you control information, you control history

 If you control history, you control the past

 He who controls the past controls the future.” – Big Brother, 1984.

The deepest form of social control is to govern what a human being believes is true and false, right and wrong. When you short-circuit a person’s critical faculty and moral sense, he will obey authority with no need for force because authority has defined who he is.

Such control requires the monopolization of information. That is why totalitarian states establish compulsory state schools, throttle freedom of speech and the press, broadcast propaganda, legislate the Internet, and obsessively monitor what people say to each other. They need to eliminate any competition in the ‘truth business’. And, so, those who know the “Emperor has no clothes” are silenced by various means.

The control of what is true and false can be called the democratization of reality. ‘Facts’ are manufactured by those who control information and, then, they are broadcast widely to unquestioning people who believe them because the ‘facts’ spew from authorities or the media. If enough people believe the heavily gerrymandered stats on unemployment and inflation, then the economy is not so bad. If the media is upbeat about the economy, then consumer confidence will turn things around. If enough people believe the police “serve and protect,” then those who cry ‘brutality!’ become troublemakers. If politicians are viewed as “public servants,” then they cease to be masters. Thus, what is reality becomes established by consensus.

There are many ways through which reality is democratized. An important one is through the control of language.

In his essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946), George Orwell wrote, “[The] decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes…. [To] think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous.”

A vigorous war on words is being waged. Whether you call the process political correctness, cultural Marxism or thought control, certain words have become crimes; they have become hate speech. Thought-crime legislation prohibits the expression of specific ideas, including religious ones and ones that ‘bully’, while encouraging the expression of sanctioned ideas. It is also illegal to indicate an intent to commit violence – for example, posting that Obama needs to be shot or the government should be overthrown through violence; it is illegal even if you take no action and have no means to do so.

In other words, some of the pamphlets that sparked the American Revolution would now be illegal. Or they would be rewritten, as school textbooks currently are, to eliminate politically wrong words and ideas.

The attack on words is an attack on your ability to think. Try an experiment. Chose a belief that you have never expressed orally or in writing. Construct an argument for it in your mind and, then, express it out loud. Usually what seems clear in your mind will be clumsy on your tongue because the spoken word is a refinement of thought that reveals fuzziness. Now write the argument down; the written word is also a refinement of thought. Then express the argument to other people. Their response will quickly expose any sloppy definition of terms, counter-evidence, or other flaws in your thinking. This process of refinement begins with having the words with which to think.

Another way to destroy words is through ‘doublethink’ by which a word or term is also used to mean its opposite. An example is “affirmative action”; because it is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender, universities and employers give preference to people based on skin color and gender. Another example is “diversity”; because differences within human beings are to be celebrated we must eliminate objectionable differences.

The driving force behind the banning of words and doublethink is ideological. Consider radical feminism. The movement views language as a source of women’s oppression. Indeed, language is sometimes viewed as the source. Thus, they consider it an insult to be called “Madam Chairman”. They insist on replacing the generic “he” with the ungainly “he/she” or merely with “she.” History becomes herstory. There is a concerted drive to include feminist, lesbian and gay characters in literature and schoolbooks. History is re-written and taught to exclude prominent white males while including the voices of women, even if those voices were comparatively insignificant.

Words are deemed to be so powerful that they become acts in and of themselves. For example, pornography becomes an act of violence against women.

How did words become actions?

One place to look for an explanation is within academia where the idea of social constructs took root some decades ago. A social construct is commonly defined as “a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society” through which thoughts and action are organized.”

Where does the concept come from? In his influential work Les Mots et Les Choses (Words and Things) French philosopher Michel Foucault (1928-1984) introduced the idea that all of reality is a social construct. He argued that history and culture are indispensable in understanding reality. This hypothesis is not a controversial one. But then Foucault introduced the idea of an “episteme” which means “knowledge” in Greek. The episteme of a culture is its self-enclosed totality that includes its language. The episteme is the way that a specific culture or era approaches the world.

As history progresses, one episteme replaces another. That of the Middle Ages is replaced by that of the Renaissance and, then, a new era is said to dawn. The change in episteme literally changes  the basic facts of a culture. Consider the human body. Most philosophers assume that there is a pre-cultural human body. In other words, they assume that history and culture do not alter the permanence of man’s makeup. But for Foucault, the human body lived in the episteme and, so, was defined by it. The human body was constructed by society, including aspects that medical science might consider to be permanent physiological ‘givens’. Foucault devoted an entire treatise, The Birth of the Clinic, to the study of what he called the “medical gaze.” The medical gaze objectifies the body and converts it into a well-ordered thing that medicine then seeks to control through surgery, diet, drugs, and so forth. But the medical gaze of the eighteenth century was different from that of the twentieth century because the episteme was different. Therefore, the eighteenth century human body was literally different from the twentieth century one. The body itself is redefined by each society that examined it. Biology is shifting sand with no lasting definition, no lasting ‘fact’. Thus, there is a total historical relativism.

The most important factor in establishing an episteme is the texts of society – its words. As a way of understanding this point, consider the Victorian era’s repressed sexuality. A common approach to examining it is to look at the contemporary plays and literature, songs and newspapers; in other words, to examine the texts of Victorian society and conclude those texts reflect a sexually repressed culture. Foucault saw exactly the opposite. He believed that the society reflected the texts. The text caused the society, and not vice versa.

It is important to stress: Foucault did not say that society is influenced by the words and images that flow through it: he claimed that the texts created the episteme, which embodied the society itself. He claimed that speaking and writing about a repressed sexuality caused the repression of sexuality. Words construct our world and, so become the key to power over it.

Relativism and subjectivism have had a devastating impact on the status of facts. In a world that is socially constructed, there are no eternal facts; there is only the reality that is constructed by words and that reality can be shifted. The way to alter the reality is to alter the language and the texts. And, so, the task of changing the world involves deconstructing texts; for example, excluding words from Huckleberry Finn to make it politically correct. Then the work of social reconstruction begins by which words are banned, history is rewritten and thoughts are criminalized. An entirely new set of ‘facts’ become the social reality.

Foucault’s ideas have entered academia and society in a somewhat watered down form but they cause harm to words and the very concept of ‘a fact’ wherever they arise. As words become illegal, as words lose their meaning, our ability to think is impoverished. As facts are obscured and purposefully mistated, our ability to reach conclusions based on evidence is diminished. And, if reasoning is a defining characteristic of human being, then we become slightly less human.

(war is crime)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Former Reporter Amber Lyon Exposes Massive Censorship at CNN

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

I saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.(Amber Lyon)

The Amber Lyon story is just the latest in a series of articles that expose the total Joseph Goebbels like censorship rampant in mainstream media today.  The first one I posted several weeks ago exposed how the NY Times basically just regurgitates whatever government officials tell them, while the other showcased how an NPR reporter covering D.C. had to leave and do her own thing out of frustration.  This is precisely why alternative media sites are taking off.  They provide the only outlets left for genuine journalism.

So back to Amber.  Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring.  Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage.  As Glenn Greenwald of the UK’s Guardian writes in his blockbuster article from today:

In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives’ abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime.

Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.

Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”

After Lyon’s crew returned from Bahrain, CNN had no correspondents regularly reporting on the escalating violence. In emails to her producers and executives, Lyon repeatedly asked to return to Bahrain. Her requests were denied, and she was never sent back. She thus resorted to improvising coverage by interviewing activists via Skype in an attempt, she said, “to keep Bahrain in the news”.

In March 2012, Lyon was laid off from CNN as part of an unrelated move by the network to outsource its investigative documentaries.

“At this point,” Lyon said, “I look at those payments as dirty money to stay silent. I got into journalism to expose, not help conceal, wrongdoing, and I’m not willing to keep quiet about this any longer, even if it means I’ll lose those payments.”

Amber Lyon, I salute you.

Please forward this post to everyone you know.  I for one want to live in a country with some real and free press. Not some CIA propaganda arm that pretends to be a reliable source of news.

(PakAlertPress)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Satellite Study of Asian Mountains Show That Glaciers Are Gaining New Ice

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

Huge glaciers in the area between Pakistan and China are puzzling scientists – and disproving the doom-laden predictions of some climate experts.

The glaciers in the Karakoram Range between northern Pakistan and western China have actually grown, rather than shrinking.

Unlike most mountain glaciers, the Karakoram glaciers, which account for 3 percent of the total ice-covered area in the world, excluding Greenland and Antarctica, are not shrinking.

A team of French glaciologists has recently confirmed that these glaciers on average have remained stable or may have even grown slightly in recent years.

The new study used data from satellites to study the Karakoram Range of northern Pakistan and western China.

The researchers found that the ice had actually increased in thickness by 0.11 (plus or minus 0.22) meters per year between 1999 and 2008.

Experts cautioned that the gain is so small that the glaciers might not actually be growing – but what is clear is that the glaciers are not shrinking, according to a report published in Nature Geoscience.

Etienne Berthier, a glaciologist at the Université de Toulouse in France says, ‘Not all glacial regions are changing in the same way.

A Nasa study earlier this year using the gravity-sensing GRACE satellites hinted that ice loss in the high Asian mountains might be far less drastic than earlier predictions.

Previous estimates of ice loss in the high Asian mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons a year, according to the University of Colorado Boulder University’s Professor John Wahr.

Previously, it had been claimed by the UN that Himalayan glaciers would have melted to a fifth of current levels by 2035, leading to sea level rises and drought.

Those predictions used ground-based measurements; whereas the new study measured the effect of gravity on twin Nasa satellites to give an accurate measure of the mass of ice being lost.

‘The results in this region really were a surprise,’ said Wahr.

‘One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and were extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers.’

‘But unlike the lower glaciers, many of the high glaciers would still be too cold to lose mass, even in the presence of atmospheric warming.’

Around the world, melting has been overestimated. Earth’s glaciers and ice caps are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually – up to 30 per cent lower than predicted.

The researchers used satellite measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE,, to calculate that the world’s glaciers and ice caps had lost about 148 billion tons, or about 39 cubic miles of ice annually from 2003 to 2010.

Traditional estimates of Earth’s ice caps and glaciers have been made using ground-based measurements from relatively few glaciers to infer what all of the unmonitored glaciers around the world were doing, he said.

Only a few hundred of the roughly 200,000 glaciers worldwide have been monitored for a decade or more.

‘The strength of GRACE is that it sees everything in the system,’ said Wahr. ‘Even though we don’t have the resolution to look at individual glaciers, GRACE has proven to be an exceptional tool.’

The total does not count the mass from individual glacier and ice caps on the fringes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets — roughly an additional 80 billion tons.

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Confirmed: Fox News makes people dumb

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

After a study published last year labeled viewers of Fox News as grossly misinformed, the researchers who conducted the poll have expanded their work and now confirm, again, that the network’s audience might want to consider changing the channel.

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University conducted a study last year that yielded some inarguably unsurprising information about Fox News’ viewership.

At the time, researchers concluded that, based off of a study that sampled residents of New Jersey, people that only watch Fox News are less informed on current events than people that don’t watch cable news at all. Now only months later, the school’s researchers have published their finding of a similar study that calls on a sample of participants from coast-to-coast and, according to the results, confirm that their earlier report wasn’t a fluke.

According to the latest study, Americans who watch only Fox News to learn about current events are indeed less informed than most everyone else.

The report reveals that, on average, American’s are able to correctly answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on international news and 1.6 of 5 questions when quizzed on domestic issues. For those that disregard the television for taking in daily newscasts, they averaged 1.22 answers correctly.

Fox viewers, of course, were a different story.

“[S]omeone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly – a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all,” reveals the study.

“On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.”

In last year’s New Jersey-centric study, the same researchers revealed that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news.

"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News

that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all,” Fairleigh Dickinson Professor Dan Cassino explained in an accompanying statement at the time back in November.

By broadening the study, though, can the university conclude that people that get theire news from Comedy Central are more informed that Fox viewers? The short — and for now, seemingly indisputable answer — is yes.

And that, you see, is comedy.

(rt)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Army denies involvement in Gilani’s Ouster

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

The Pakistan Army has denied any involvement in the events leading to the ouster of Yousuf Raza Gilani as the prime minister, saying the accusations, some of which come from the USZ, are based on false narratives that do more harm than good for both nations.

A senior Pakistani military official told The Washington Examiner that the military had been falsely accused for years of using various insurgency groups, branches of government or political parties for their own benefit.

Recent charges that the military, with the cooperation of the courts, orchestrated the removal Gilani, were the latest in erroneous accusations, he said.

Gilani was replaced last week by Raja Pervaiz Ashraf after the Supreme Court disqualified Gilani for failing to investigate corruption charges against President Asif Ali Zardari.

“At first we were being accused of being in cahoots with the government - and now with the Supreme Court - to have the government removed,” the military official said.

“We are not loyal to an individual but to the Constitution of our country. Don’t place us in a camp because it suits the narrative of others for us to be placed in that camp.”

“Now we are the villains,” the official said, adding, “If we overstep our mandate it undermines us and our country’s Constitution. We did not do this.” 

Still, some senior USZ military and government officials contend that Pakistan’s military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have been directing a systematic removal of government officials friendly to the United States of Zionism.

Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has advised the last four presidents on South Asia and the Middle East, said, “The army and the court wants to remove President Zardari and have tried one tactic after another.”

“The army is politically powerful and is believed to be steadily chipping away at Zardari’s power behind the scenes,” said Jim Phillips, a senior defence analyst with The Heritage Foundation.

The Army, added Phillips, would be happy to undermine the current government to prevent its civilian leaders from threatening its power and privileges.

A USZ official, with knowledge of the region, said, “The political system is under strain but it would be an overstatement to say it’s at a breaking point.”

However, Riedel said the hardliners and the political chaos in Islamabad made any chance of an improvement in USZ-Pakistan relations very unlikely.

“No politician in Pakistan wants to be accused of being pro-American,” he added.

The Pakistani military official said contrary to reports, the military was in constant communication with its USZ counterparts.

“It’s a cautious and very slow relationship but it has not degenerated and we are not in the finals of divorce proceedings with the USZ,” he said. “It’s painful but we’re working through it.”

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Poisoning Americans Daily: Genetically-Modified Soda, Tofu, Chips, Meat

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

Americans are poisoning themselves daily and they don’t know it. Americans are eating genetically-engineered foods every day and they don’t know it. That’s why they don’t know they’re poisoning themselves. In the United States of Zionism, 88 percent of the corn, 93 percent of the canola, and 94 percent of the soybeans are genetically-modified. Genetically modified tomatoes, pork, and salmon, among many other foods, are also in our stores. In 2011, the country had 69 million hectares (170.5 million acres) of GM cropland.

Are you a vegetarian who uses textured vegetable protein (TVP) or tempeh in your recipes? TVP and tempeh are derived from soybeans. If the package didn’t say organic, then you’re probably eating genetically-modified products. As for soy milk, tofu, and miso . . . well, you get the idea.

For babies allergic to dairy, there is evensoy-based infant formula.

Livestock feed for cattle, pigs, chickens, and aquaculture catfish is dominated by corn and soy . . . genetically modified corn and soybeans. In fact, 98 percent of the American soy crop is used in livestock feed. So, when you eat meat, you’re eating a GM product.

Approximately 75 percent of the processed food in American grocery stores has genetically-engineered ingredients. High fructose corn syrup, for example, is found in most sodas, many snack foods, ketchup, and even commercial bread and that syrup usually comes from GM corn.

If the food label has words like ascorbate, lysine, maltodextrin, modified food starch, or xanthan gum than you’re probably eating GM-derived food.

What do GM foods have to do with poison?

They are poison. Literally.

Genetic engineering has produced toxins never seen before, and those toxins are in the GM foods we’re eating. It has increased the level of allergens in GM crops, altered the composition of protein and other nutrients, and increased the GM crop’s absorption of pesticides and other chemicals. It doesn’t matter how much we wash an ear of corn. We’re eating those pesticides and chemicals, too.

Scientists have linked microRNA (ribonucleic acid) to cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, among other illnesses. It is found in GM crops, like rice, and in the blood and organs of people who eat those GM crops. Recently, Chinese scientists found that microRNA survives the human digestive process and affects, among other things, our cholesterol function.

GM scientists now propose splicing microRNA into more seeds to block the function of specific genes in insects, so that the GM crops can better resist pest infestations. Unfortunately, humans and insects share a lot of the same DNA. Thus, the microRNA in a GM crop would undoubtedly impact human genes as well when it is eaten.

In independent laboratories from the USZ. to Russia, animals fed GM foods suffered damage to their kidneys, livers, hearts, adrenal glands, spleens, and the haemotopoietic (blood-forming) system. They slowed immune response times, provoked often severe inflammatory (allergic) responses, and altered testicles and sperm cells in males. Infant size and weight dropped. Infant mortality rates skyrocketed to over 50 percent.

In a 2011 published study of human consumption of GM foods, scientists found that the genetic material inserted into GM soybeans transferred into bacteria living inside human intestines, stayed there, and continued to function.

Traces of Bt toxin from Monsanto Bt corn were found in the blood of 93 percent of the women studied and in 80 percent of their umbilical cord and fetal blood.

In Europe, the German chemical company, BASF, moved its GM plant-science headquarters from Germany to Raleigh, North Carolina. Widespread opposition from citizens, farmers, and politicians to its GM crops, like the Amflora potato, meant that BASF had no market for its GM seeds.

GM giant Monsanto has stopped developing genetically-engineered crops to be grown in Europe, because most European countries refuse to allow them to be grown.

In America, however, the Food & Drug Administration’s Deputy Commissioner for Food Safety is a former Monsanto executive. In February 2012, the USZ Department of Agriculture sped up the approval process for genetically-modified foods.

When he was campaigning for the presidency in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama promised to introduce legislation mandating the labeling of GM foods. So far, he’s done nothing. So, grassroots movements in several states like California and Florida and Vermont are putting GM labeling bills on their ballots.

If they pass, people will at least have the information they need to decide whether to poison themselves or not.

Fatma Muhammad

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

An open letter to American Troops by Americans: "You're not defending our freedoms"

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Website

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

The USZ Army

Memorial Day — some people asserted, once again, that you are “defending our freedoms” overseas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater jeopardy.

Consider your occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked the United States (of Zionism), making it the defender in the war and the United States (of Zionism) the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had

nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Yet, the countless victims of the USZ invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks against Americans.

Pray tell: How does that constitute defending our freedoms? It was no different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people. It worked. For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See “America’s Peacetime Crimes against Iraq” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll recall USZ Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it”!!

PCF Recommendation: Disastrous Situation of Children in Iraq

By “it” she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You will recall that he was a dictator who was the USZ government’s ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States (of Zionism) was furnishing him with those infamous WMDs that USZ officials later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion of Iraq. The truth is that 9/11 furnished USZ officials with the excuse to do what their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a USZ-approved regime. That’s what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about — to achieve the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed all those children had failed to achieve.

No, not mushroom clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change. In the process, all that you — the troops — have done with your invasion and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United States (of Zionism) by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched their country be destroyed. In principle, it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that 99% of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Why did you invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order you to do so? No, not because the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take place.

President Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan — and, of course, kill Afghan citizens in the process — because the Afghan government – the Taliban — refused to comply with his unconditional extradition demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to an independent tribunal to stand trial upon the receipt of evidence from the United States (of Zionism) indicating his complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

USZ soldiers committing heinous war crimes in Iraq

Bush responded to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the process, USZ officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt, and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by which he has supposedly been elected to office. In the process of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most of whom never attacked the United States (of Zionism) on 9/11 or at any other time.

They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the record that USZ officials considered these types of “bad guys”, as well as Osama bin Laden and other "fundamentalist Muslims", to be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops from Afghanistan.) Was there another way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route, which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

That’s right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists — Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 — were ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan. In Yousef’s case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought back to the United States (of Zionism) , prosecuted, and convicted in federal district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary. No invasions, no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people, no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their families, and friends. In bin Laden’s case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

How in the world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq defended our freedoms here at home?! Indeed, how have the assassinations and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else defended our freedoms? All these things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist retaliation here at home. As I have pointed out before, the USZ military — that is, you, the troops — have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history. Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental, ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage.

USZ soldiers committing heinous war crimes in Iraq

That’s the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the USZ Empire stopped what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing of USZ troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money and armaments to the Israhelli regime), Americans would be increasingly subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately. (See Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.)

How does the constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when you — the troops — are responsible for engendering the anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you are doing to people over there? Consider also what the USZ government does to our freedoms here at home as a direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops, are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean — the fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism — all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists — that is, the people you all are producing with your actions over there.

In other words, if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings, and Gitmo, the USZ government — the entity you are working for — would no longer have that excuse for taking away our freedoms. This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried an article about American wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s a pointless war”, she said. That lady has her head on straight.

She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every USZ soldier who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam. Please don’t write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re “patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms, you are jeopardizing them.

Sincerely,
Jacob G. Hornberger – President – The Future of Freedom Foundation


Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Afghan(non-CIA) Taliban blast America's negotiation charade

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

If empty words and hypes were ever to yield results as Washington and Kabul are trying to prove, then by now, the Islamic Emirate and the occupation forces would have reached a tangible outcome. However, when actions are opposite to words, then it becomes merely a deception game. The same is the case concerning negotiation the White House has been harping on so much. Instead of following a pragmatic and sincere approach to solution of issues, the United States of Zionism sets the highest example of hypocrisy of modern times by terrorizing nations under the name of eliminating terrorism, and occupying them in the name of emancipation.

Nowadays, we hear two hot topics: the negotiation between the Islamic Emirate and USZ and the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. But unfortunately, America wants to pave way for elimination of the current armed Jihad and resistance under the name of negotiation and further ensconce themselves in Afghanistan under the pretext of drawdown. These ploys can be read on the faces of the top brass of Pentagon, the rulers of the White House and their caressed surrogate Karzai. Contradiction of words and intention are clear from the tone of their rhetoric.

In the first place, one could question the presence of tens of thousands of foreign troops and sophisticated weapons in Afghanistan. Is it not irrational, that you invade my country, then you kill me and accuse me of being a terrorist, then impose your conditions on me, that if I want to live in my land, I have to surrender to you and accept all your conditions. Still more to presume that I am free and live an honorable life as any free man. It is the same scenario in Afghanistan. The bully does not intend to leave but puts forward gestures of reconciliation with an aim to further loot the country and enslave you. This is the meaning of “a Just War” in the NeoCon dictionary.

If the United States of Zionism is really serious in negotiation, it should adopt diplomatic solution of the Afghan issue as a policy not as a hype or a ploy. But first of all, there should be confidence-building measures before any negotiation. How is it possible, that on the one hand, American Special Forces kill innocent Afghans during night raids on wrong reports, thousands of best sons of the Afghans have been festering in the open and secret jails of America and, on the other hand, they put forward peace overtures. All partners of the coalition invading forces under the leadership of America, must initially accept, the current Afghan resistance as a genuine resistance force against the foreign occupation.

Furthermore, the Afghans should have all the rights the UN Charter bestows on free people, including formation of a regime according to their will and aspirations and having an independent and sovereign country. Lets be pragmatic. Biased and emotional approaches have landed America in quagmire of trillions of dollars of debt and hasty invasions. America has committed the most horrendous violations of human rights while it was supposed to protect them and be a standard-bearer of justice and fair play in the world. But the human rights violations committed by American troops in Abu Gharib, Guntanaomo and Bagram jails are some of the gruesome crimes that even Genghis of the yore has not perpetrated. If American wants to regain its image, it should reverse all its approaches that has put the world on fire.

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter