More on today's 'World Security State' hot spots. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
*DEEP INSIDE THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE * ** *In a blockbuster report this morning, /Russia Today/ interviews former Pentagon official Michael Maloof <http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-rebels-have-sarin-980/>, who cites classified documents alleging that al Qaeda and al Nusra in Syria are getting serin gas from Iraq and Turkey. They also report that Russia has been given further evidence <http://rt.com/news/russia-syria-un-politicized-992/> from Damascus that Syrian rebels were responsible for chemical attacks in Syria. * *Still, the Obama regime seems intent on going to war while refusing to present evidence that the Syrian government committed the act. They even assume they have the power under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to use force against Syria should the Syrian government be found not in compliance with disarmament plans as seen by the USA, although Russian foreign minister Lavrov says they do not <http://rt.com/news/syria-un-resolution-lavrov-968/>. This morning Russia denounced U.N. investigators' findings on the poison gas attack in Syria as preconceived and tainted by politics <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE98H08X20130918>. * */Pro Publica/ has a piece this morning showing that the Obama administration helped kill legislation which would allow transparency in military aid. As things stand, citizens and their Congressional representatives are largely kept in the dark about where the money goes (often to the Nuclear Mafia <http://luvnews.info/Mafia.htm>), who's being armed (including terrorists) and under which accounts the money is authorized. * *With all the talk of war leading from Syria to Iran, Russia is once again considering sending S-300 air defense systems to Iran <http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/17-09-2013/125680-iran_s_300-0/>. These systems are capable of defending from attacks by aircraft and cruise missiles.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *ARE YOU EATING YOUR MINIMUM DAILY ALLOWANCE OF POOP? * ** *The US Dept. of Agriculture has plans to privatize the inspection of meat <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/17-7>. This will endanger workers as production lines move faster, and result in declining food safety, as more disease and, frankly, more manure is added to what passes for "meat" these days. * *Not to worry, the rich, who own nearly all of the investments, will get richer, the primary function of our government today, and the rich won't be eating any of the poop, thank you, or any of the other "food" their factories produce for the masses at great profit, since they have organic food shipped to their kitchens. * *For decades, the government has allowed what it sees as an acceptable amount of rat feces in hot dogs. /Bon appetit/.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **I'm aware that many /LUV News/ readers avoid corporate media, and I think that's probably good for their mental health. As a /LUV News/ editor, I feel a responsibility to watch it each day on TV and I also suffer through my local corporate newspaper (part of the Tribune Co. empire). ** **I get angry watching it, particularly the TV talking heads and their guests, who so casually embrace war, as though it were a game. I've seen several of them say they want a prolonged war in Syria, with rebels and government forces killing each other off. As a combat veteran, I would not wish war on any people, for any reason. It has long been my belief that we must change the definition of the word "civilized" to include, "those who do not participate in war." ** **The corporate-produced history books with which our children are propagandized, glorify war, suggesting reasons why wars are fought, after the fact. But when you see the suffering, as I have, more than just the broken bodies and blood-- the homelessness, hunger and other consequences that turn populations into hopeless refugees, you know our leaders are either ignorant or heartless to participate in it. ** **If the Civil War had been fought to free the slaves, the Northern army would have been called the emancipation army, rather than the Union army. Two years before that war was to end, Lincoln said he would keep slavery if he could hold the union together. But freeing the slaves makes it sound so nice that all those thousands died. ** **Contrast this, for the sheer hypocrisy, to when the establishment embraced the breakup of the Soviet Union, saying that those particular states, unlike our own, have the right to be free. ** **President Obama is having a difficult time finding a reason to attack Syria that will inspire citizens to line up at the military recruiting centers waving flags. "Assad is evil" he tells us, but Obama doesn't really want regime change, because then jihadists would be in charge and the nation would be out of control. He wants to go in and bomb the Syrian government's assets, so that Syrian rebels will become more equal in the fight, and the war can go on bleeding both sides until the Israeli government is content that both sides are severely weakened as they move more settlers illegally into the Golan Heights, recognized internationally as belonging to Syria. In the eyes of the mad designers of this war, if it lasted for centuries it would be successful. ** **Meanwhile, there is no concern for the Syrian people who endure such war. The pretended humanitarian interests do not include suffering humans --Jack Balkwill ** Humanitarian Murder <http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/17/humanitarian-murder/> *by DAVID SWANSON* *This past Sunday night on "60 Minutes" John Miller of CBS News said <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50155078n>, "I've spoken with intelligence analysts who have said an uncomfortable thing that has a ring of truth, which is: the longer this war in Syria goes on, in some sense the better off we are."* *Now, why would that be uncomfortable, do you suppose? Could it be because encouraging huge numbers of violent deaths of human beings seems sociopathic?* *The discomfort that Miller at least claims to feel is the gauge of our moral progress, I suppose, since June 23, 1941, when Harry Truman said, "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."* *On Monday, /Time /magazine's Aryn Baker published an article <http://world.time.com/2013/09/16/syrias-rebels-turn-on-each-other-and-thats-not-a-bad-thing/?iid=tsmodule> under the headline "Syria's Rebels Turn on One Another, and That's Not a Bad Thing." Baker's point wasn't that more would die this way, but that this would allow the U.S. to escalate the war (which of course would mean more dying).* *Remember that President Obama's reason <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWTDUyuPJSg> for wanting to attack Syria is to "confront actions that are violating our common humanity." How is it that support for mass killing rarely seems to violate our common humanity if it's that other 96 percent of humanity getting killed, and especially if it's this 4 percent doing it? Why is the excuse to kill more people always that people are being killed, while we never starve people to prevent them from starving or rape people to protect them from rape?* *The uncomfortable "60 Minutes" interviewer addressed his remarks to a former CIA officer who replied by disagreeing. He claimed to want the war to end. But how would he end it? By arming and aiding one side, just enough and not too much --- which would supposedly result in peace negotiations, albeit with a risk of major escalation. While nobody ever works to extend peace in order to generate war, people are constantly investing in war in the name of peace.* *As this man may be very well aware, arming one side in this war will encourage that side's viciousness and encourage the other side to arm itself further as well. But suppose it were actually true that you could deescalate a war by escalating a war. Why are the large number of people who would be killed in the process unworthy of consideration?* *We've seen lawyers tell Congressional committees that killing people with drones is either murder or perfectly fine, depending on whether Obama's secret memos say the killings are part of a war. But why is killing people acceptable in a war? We've just watched public pressure deny Obama missile strikes on Syria. Those strikes were optional. Had they happened that would have been a choice, not an inevitability. What of the immorality involved?* *The best news is that we're beginning to feel uncomfortable.* ** http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/17/humanitarian-murder/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *If you wish to be removed from this list, please let us know* ** *To join the Liberty Underground news service go here: http://luvnews.info/Join.htm* ** *You may also join our talk group athttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyundergroundtalk/ <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyundergroundtalk/>if you would like to participate * **or join our Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/461619557192964/ * email: libert...@hotmail.com* ** *Tell your friends about /LUV News/ because some people just don't get it* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
