It should be an exciting day, so I hope you all can make it!
There has also been the suggestion of perhaps doing an informal hacking day to celebrate GNU's 30th birthday. Stay tuned to the free-software-melb mailing list if this interests you, and feel free to suggest a venue if anyone has any ideas.
We're a group who meet monthly to discuss free software and related issues. Our aims are to:
- Connect people interested in free software issues
- Share knowledge and experience, eg. understanding free software licensing
- Support and encourage free software advocacy
- Work together on solving issues local to Australia, eg. that software by the Australian Tax Office is proprietary
We're non-technical and fill a niche that complements more technical GNU/Linux user groups like the Linux Users of Victoria or the Melbourne Linux Users Group.
Join our mailing lists
Join our announcement list (archives) to hear about upcoming meetings and events. Join our discussion list (archives) to hear from and talk to other members of the free software community.
Attend our monthly discussion group
Each month (third Thursday), we meet to discuss one or more free software issues. It is a relaxed "sit around and chat" type event. No prior knowledge is expected.
VPAC Head Office Training Room
Level 1, Building 91, 110 Victoria Street
Carlton South
Mr Thomson received the strongest two-party vote of any Labor candidate in Australia in Labor's disaster 2013 election results. Inside a you-tube interview with Kelvin Thomson where he talks freely about what went wrong in recent government (among other things - seeking a 'messiah') and says that he will not recontest the front bench because he does not want to be muzzled (editorial word) from commenting on the massive issues of our times - species extinction, ecology, war, overpopulation, democracy ... Kelvin Thomson is known for his democratic consultation of his electorate and his reflection of their concerns. He is widely in touch with Australians everywhere and responsive to their issues of ecology, democracy, and population. Politicians everywhere should take note. Mr Thomson did not have to rely on pleasing Mr Murdoch, but Mr Murdoch still likes to report him because he makes too much sense and is too democratically influential to ignore.
Statement on Labor Frontbench, Labor's Future, Leadership, Policy & Wills Electorate
Thank you to the Wills Electorate
http://www.youtube.com/embed/5dqL5ErigKw?feature=player_detailpage
First I want to say a heartfelt thank you to the people of Wills, and to my campaign team, who have given me wonderful support throughout this election campaign, and indeed the months and years leading up to it. The Electoral Commission figures reported in this morning’s newspapers show that I have the strongest two-party preferred vote of any Labor candidate in Australia. These outcomes can change of course depending on final vote counting and preference distribution, but it is a great honour to have such a strong level of support, and I am determined to work hard in the next Parliament to be a vigorous and forceful advocate and representative of the people of Wills.
Labor Frontbench
As I told my campaign team on Saturday night, I will not be a candidate for the Opposition frontbench. I was a Shadow Minister for 10 years prior to 2007. I have been there and done that. It is my experience that being a Shadow Minister brings with it obligations not to speak outside your portfolio, and to have everything you do say cleared and approved by the Leader of the Opposition’s office. For me these limitations are simply too great in a world and an Australia which I believe is facing massive challenges.
The world is being damaged, perhaps irreparably by rapid population growth, climate change, unchecked rainforest and other habitat destruction, poverty, war and terrorism. Australia is not immune from these challenges. Many of our unique and beautiful birds, plants and animals, are on the brink of extinction. Our young people can’t afford to buy a home of their own, and their jobs are insecure, while pensioners and retirees battle rapidly rising electricity, gas and water bills and council rates.
I need to be able to speak out about these things, and I intend to. Anyone who thinks my decision to return to the backbench means that I am looking to lead a quiet life and slip out the back door is very mistaken. On the contrary, it is a necessary pre-condition for being active in the debate about the issues which are of greatest importance to the world and this country.
Labor’s Future
Labor’s election loss was not a function of poor economic management. We delivered low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, a triple A credit rating, and low public sector debt. We are the envy of other countries right around the world. It was a function of poor political management.
There are two key aspects of this- leadership and policy.
Leadership
Over the years we have seen a steady, relentless drift of power away from the electorate, away from political party members, away from Members of Parliament, away from Ministers and Shadow Ministers, towards Party Leaders.
This is fundamentally undemocratic. Ordinary voters have plenty of opportunities to catch up with me and other Members of Parliament and make their views known to us. They have no hope of accessing Prime Ministers and Premiers.
And the trend to leave everything to a Messiah leads to poor decisions which have been made by a small group of people, and not submitted to proper scrutiny. On the floor of the Victorian Parliament is written “Where no counsel is the people fail, but in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom”.
In the last Parliament there were numerous botched policy announcements which had not been subjected to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Labor Party, certainly not scrutiny by Labor Party Branch members and the electorate, and in some cases not even by Ministers.
My advice to the next Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party is twofold:-
1) Do less. Avoid the trap of the 24/7 media cycle, and don’t try to do everything. Don’t suffocate your Ministerial and Parliamentary colleagues by constantly dominating the airwaves. Giving them more say means giving voters more say. It also gives you more time to see that decisions are properly implemented, and helps save you from the trap of trying to do too much. We don’t need to announce something everyday; what we need to do is to get right the things we do announce.
2) Give the Parliamentary Party, and the voters, some real power, by taking proposals there first, AND leaving them for consideration at the next meeting. Many decisions are announced without consulting the Caucus at all, while others are presented as a fait accompli to a Caucus Meeting. MPs have no opportunity to consult with their constituents or interested parties about the proposal. It would be far more democratic, and lead to far fewer stuff-ups, if proposals were taken to the Parliamentary Party and left there for proper consideration.
Party Branches and Policy Committees are largely moribund, and Party Conferences and the Caucus have been acting as a rubber stamp. The leadership needs to stop taking and announcing decisions without consulting them, and thereby resuscitate and breathe life into them.
Policy
We need our policies to be in touch with the views of voters. I am all in favour of us being a middle of the road party, but some in our party interpret middle of the road as doing what big business wants. I believe being middle of the road is doing what voters want.
If we did what voters want, on issues like population growth, migration, planning, foreign ownership, live animal export, rather than what big business wants, we would do a lot better.
For more than two years, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been demonised by the Western presstitute newsmedia as a brutal dictator, a mass murderer, corrupt and, most recently, a chemical war criminal.
Unlike the serial liars Barack Obama and John Kerry, who have yet to face real questioning by the western 'journalists', Syrian President President Bashar al-Assad, for a brutal and corrupt dictator, has shown himself remarkably willing and able to face critical and probing interviews.
On 3 September 2013, he was interviewed by the French daily Le Figaro. On 6 Jun , he was interviewed by the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. On 5 April 2013, he was interviewed by a Turkish television station. On 23 February, he was interviewed by a German television station. In all of these interviews, the claims made against his government were put to him and he was able to convincingly refute them. It is hard to conceive of how President al-Assad could have appeared so calm and credible if there were any factual basis to the allegations made against him.
On 9 September 2013, as the United States was preparing to strike Syria, President Assad was interviewed by Charlie Rose of CBS News, a station which has been presenting lying propaganda as news about the Syrian conflict. Although not a native English Speaker, President al-Assad, calmly and clearly put his case and answered the unsubstantiated claims aginst his government including the claim that his government had used poison gas against Syrian civilians.
CBS News Presenter
CBS Interview Charlie Rose
President Bashar al-Assad calmly putting his case and refuting mainstream media lies.
CBS commentator, who labeled President al-Assad's words 'propaganda'.
Following the interview, viewers were dissuaded from forming their own judgment, when President al-Assad's words were labeled 'propaganda'.
During the interview President al-Assad neither confirmed nor denied that Syria had chemical weapons. He pointed out that Israel, from which his country had faced invasion on a number of occasions, as well as Syria, was not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nevertheless, his government wished to see chemical weapons abolished and had taken initiatives to ensure that they were. This was brushed aside after the interview concluded, when one female commentator asserted that "Syria has a very large stockpiles of chemical weapons according to multiple intelligence communities around the world."
Update, 15 August 2015: The full video of length 56:28 minutes can be watched here on YouTube in place of Part 1 and Part 2 on this page. - Ed
Charlie Rose: Mr. President thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you at a very important moment because the President of the United States will address the nation this week and, as you know an important conversation is taking place in Washington and important things are happening here in your country. Do you expect an airstrike?
President al-Assad:As long as the United States doesn't obey the international law and trample over the Charter of the United Nations we have to worry that any administration -- not only this one -- would do anything. According to the lies that we've been hearing for the last two weeks from high-ranking officials in the US administration we have to expect the worst.
Charlie Rose: Are you prepared?
President al-Assad: We've been living in difficult circumstances for the last two years and a half, and we prepare ourselves for every possibility. But that doesn't mean if you're prepared things will be better; it's going to get worse with any foolish strike or stupid war.
Charlie Rose: What do you mean worse?
President al-Assad: Worse because of the repercussions because nobody can tell you the repercussions of the first strike. We're talking about one region, bigger regions, not only about Syria. This interlinked region, this intermingled, interlocked, whatever you want to call it; if you strike somewhere, you have to expect the repercussions somewhere else in different forms in ways you don't expect.
Charlie Rose: Are you suggesting that if in fact there is a strike; there will be repercussions against the United States from your friends in other countries like Iran or Hezbollah or others?
President al-Assad: As I said, this may take different forms: direct and indirect. Direct when people want to retaliate, or governments. Indirect when you're going to have instability and the spread of terrorism all over the region that will influence the west directly.
Charlie Rose: Have you had conversations with Russia, with Iran or with Hezbollah about how to retaliate?
President al-Assad: We don't discuss this issue as a government, but we discuss the repercussions, which is more important because sometimes repercussions could be more destroying than the strike itself. Any American strike will not destroy as much as the terrorists have already destroyed in Syria; sometimes the repercussions could be many doubles the strike itself.
Charlie Rose: But some have suggested that it might tip the balance in the favor of the rebels and lead to the overthrow of your government.
Any strike will be as direct support to Al-Qaeda
President al-Assad: Exactly. Any strike will be as direct support to Al-Qaeda offshoot that's called Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. You're right about this. It's going to be direct support.
Charlie Rose: This is about chemical warfare. Let's talk about that. Do you approve of the use of chemical warfare, the use of deadly chemicals? Do you think that it is an appropriate tool of war, to use chemicals?
President al-Assad: We are against any WMD, any weapons of mass destruction, whether chemical or nuclear.
Charlie Rose: So you're against the use of chemical warfare?
20130910-065004.jpg
President al-Assad:Yes, not only me. As a state, as a government, in 2001 we proposed to the United Nations to empty or to get rid of every WMD in the Middle East, and the United States stood against that proposal. This is our conviction and policy.
Charlie Rose: But you're not a signatory to the chemical warfare agreement.
President al-Assad: Not yet.
Charlie Rose: Why not?
President al-Assad: Because Israel has WMD, and it has to sign, and Israel is occupying our land, so that's we talked about the Middle East, not Syria, not Israel; it should be comprehensive.
Charlie Rose: Do you consider chemical warfare equivalent to nuclear warfare?
President al-Assad: I don't know. We haven't tried either.
Charlie Rose: But you know, you're a head of state, and you understand the consequences of weapons that don't discriminate.
President al-Assad: Technically, they're not the same. But morally, it's the same.
Charlie Rose: Morally, they are the same.
President al-Assad: They are the same, but at the end, killing is killing. Massacring is massacring. Sometimes you may kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands with very primitive armaments.
Charlie Rose: Then why do you have such a stockpile of chemical weapons?
President al-Assad: We don't discuss this issue in public because we never said that we have it, and we never said that we don't have it. It's a Syrian issue; it's a military issue we never discuss in public with anyone.
Charlie Rose: This is from the New York Times this morning: Syria's leaders amassed one of the world's largest stockpiles of chemical weapons with help from the Soviet Union and Iran as well as Western European suppliers, and even a handful of American companies. According to American diplomatic cables and declassified intelligence records, you have amassed one of the largest supplies of chemical weapons in the world.
President al-Assad: To have or not to have is a possibility, but to depend on what media says is nonsense, or to depend on some of the reports of the intelligence is nonsense and that was proven when they invaded Iraq ten years ago and they said "Iraq has stockpiles of WMD" and it was proven after the invasion that this was false; it was fraud. So, we can't depend on what one magazine wrote. But at the end, I said it's something not to be discussed with anyone.
Charlie Rose: You accept that the world believes that you have a stockpile of chemical weapons?
President al-Assad: Who?
Charlie Rose: The world. The United States and other powers who also said that you have chemical weapons.
President al-Assad: It isn't about what they believe in, it's about the reality that we have, and this reality, we own it, we don't have to discuss it.
Charlie Rose: Speaking of reality, what was the reality on August 21st? What happened in your judgment?
President al-Assad: We're not in the area where the alleged chemical attack happened. I said alleged. We're not sure that anything happened.
Charlie Rose: Even at this date, you're not sure that chemical weapons -- even though you have seen the video tape, even though you've seen the bodies, even though your own officials have been there.
President al-Assad: I haven't finished. Our soldiers in another area were attacked chemically. Our soldiers - they went to the hospital as casualties because of chemical weapons, but in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations. We're not there; our forces, our police, our institutions don't exist there. How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidence? We're not like the American administration, we're not social media administration or government. We are a government that deals with reality. When we have evidence, we'll announce it.
Charlie Rose: Well, as you know, Secretary Kerry has said there is evidence and that they saw rockets that fired from a region controlled by your forces into a region controlled by the rebels. They have evidence from satellite photographs of that. They have evidence of a message that was intercepted about chemical weapons, and soon thereafter there were other intercepted messages, so Secretary Kerry has presented what he views as conclusive evidence.
Kerry reminds about the big lie that Collin Powell said in front of the world on satellites about the WMD in Iraq
President al-Assad:No, he presented his confidence and his convictions. It's not about confidence, it's about evidence. The Russians have completely opposite evidence that the missiles were thrown from an area where the rebels control. This reminds me - what Kerry said - about the big lie that Collin Powell said in front of the world on satellites about the WMD in Iraq before going to war. He said "this is our evidence." Actually, he gave false evidence. In this case, Kerry didn't even present any evidence. He talked "we have evidence" and he didn't present anything. Not yet, nothing so far; not a single shred of evidence.
Charlie Rose: Do you have some remorse for those bodies, those people, it is said to be up to at least a thousand or perhaps 1400, who were in Eastern Ghouta, who died?
President al-Assad: We feel pain for every Syrian victim.
Charlie Rose: What about the victims of this assault from chemical warfare?
President al-Assad: Dead is dead, killing is killing, crime is crime. When you feel pain, you feel pain about their family, about the loss that you have in your country, whether one person was killed or a hundred or a thousand. It's a loss, it's a crime, it's a moral issue. We have family that we sit with, family that loved their dear ones. It's not about how they are killed, it's about that they are dead now; this is the bad thing.
Charlie Rose: But has there been any remorse or sadness on behalf of the Syrian people for what happened?
President al-Assad:I think sadness prevails in Syria now. We don't feel anything else but sadness because we have this killing every day, whether with chemical or any other kind. It's not about how. We feel with it every day.
Charlie Rose: But this was indiscriminate, and children were killed, and people who said goodbye to their children in the morning didn't see them and will never see them again, in Ghouta.
President al-Assad:That is the case every day in Syria, that's why you have to stop the killing. That's why we have to stop the killing. But what do you mean by "indiscriminate" that you are talking about?
Charlie Rose: Well, the fact that chemical warfare is indiscriminate in who it kills, innocents as well as combatants.
20130910-065057.jpg
President al-Assad: Yeah, but you're not talking about evidence, you're not talking about facts, we are talking about allegations. So, we're not sure that if there's chemical weapon used and who used it. We can't talk about virtual things, we have to talk about facts.
Charlie Rose: It is said that your government delayed the United Nations observers from getting to Ghouta and that you denied and delayed the Red Cross then the Red Crescent from getting there to make observations and to help.
President al-Assad:The opposite happened, your government delayed because we asked for a delegation in March 2013 when the first attack happened in Aleppo in the north of Syria; they delayed it till just a few days before al-Ghouta when they sent those team, and the team itself said in its report that he did everything as he wanted. There was not a single obstacle.
Charlie Rose: But they said they were delayed in getting there, that they wanted to be there earlier.
President al-Assad: No, no, no; there was a conflict, there was fighting, they were shooting. That's it. We didn't prevent them from going anywhere. We asked them to come; why to delay them? Even if you want to take the American story, they say we used chemical weapons the same day the team or the investigation team came to Syria; is it logical? It's not logical. Even if a country or army wanted to use such weapon, they should have waited a few days till the investigation finished its work. It's not logical, the whole story doesn't even hold together.
Charlie Rose: We'll come back to it. If your government did not do it, despite the evidence, who did it?
President al-Assad:We have to be there to get the evidence like what happened in Aleppo when we had evidence. And because the United States didn't send the team, we sent the evidence to the Russians.
Charlie Rose: But don't you want to know the answer, if you don't accept the evidence so far, as to who did this?
President al-Assad:The question is who threw chemicals on the same day on our soldiers. That's the same question. Technically, not the soldiers. Soldiers don't throw missiles on themselves. So, either the rebels, the terrorists, or a third party. We don't have any clue yet. We have to be there to collect the evidences then we can give answer.
Charlie Rose: Well, the argument is made that the rebels don't have their capability of using chemical weapons, they do not have the rockets and they do not have the supply of chemical weapons that you have, so therefore they could not have done it.
President al-Assad:First of all, they have rockets, and they've been throwing rockets on Damascus for months.
Charlie Rose: That carry chemical weapons?
President al-Assad: Rockets in general. They have the means - first. Second, the sarin gas that they've been talking about for the last weeks is a very primitive gas. You can have it done in the backyard of a house; it's a very primitive gas. So, it's not something complicated.
Charlie Rose: But this was not primitive. This was a terrible use of chemical weapons.
President al-Assad:Third, they used it in Aleppo in the north of Syria. Fourth, there's a video on YouTube where the terrorists clearly make trials on a rabbit and kill the rabbit and said "this is how we're going to kill the Syrian people." Fifth, there's a new video about one of those women who they consider as rebel or fighter who worked with those terrorists and she said "they didn't tell us how to use the chemical weapons" and one of those weapons exploded in one of the tunnels and killed twelve. That's what she said. Those are the evidence that we have. Anyway, the party who accused is the one who has to bring evidences. The United States accused Syria, and because you accused you have to bring evidence, this first of all. We have to find evidences when we are there.
Charlie Rose: What evidence would be sufficient for you?
President al-Assad: For example, in Aleppo we had the missile itself, and the material, and the sample from the sand, from the soil, and samples from the blood.
Charlie Rose: But the argument is made that your forces bombarded Ghouta soon thereafter with the intent of covering up evidence.
President al-Assad: How could bombardment cover the evidence? Technically, it doesn't work. How? This is stupid to be frank, this is very stupid.
Charlie Rose: But you acknowledge the bombardment?
President al-Assad: Of course, there was a fight. That happens every day; now you can have it. But, let's talk... we have indications, let me just finish this point, because how can use WMD while your troops are only 100 meters away from it? Is it logical? It doesn't happen. It cannot be used like this. Anyone who's not military knows this fact. Why do you use chemical weapons while you're advancing? Last year was much more difficult than this year, and we didn't use it.
Charlie Rose: There is this question too; if it was not you, does that mean that you don't have control of your own chemical weapons and that perhaps they have fallen into the hands of other people who might want to use them?
President al-Assad: That implies that we have chemical weapons, first. That implies that it's being used, second. So we cannot answer this question until we answer the first part and the second part. Third, let's presume that a country or army has this weapon; this kind of armaments cannot be used by infantry for example or by anyone. This kind of armament should be used by specialized units, so it cannot be in the hand of anyone.
Charlie Rose: Well, exactly, that's the point.
President al-Assad: Which is controlled centrally.
Charlie Rose: Ah, so you are saying that if in fact, your government did it, you would know about it and you would have approved it.
President al-Assad: I'm talking about a general case.
Charlie Rose: In general, you say if in fact it happened, I would have known about it and approved it. That's the nature of centralized power.
President al-Assad: Generally, in every country, yes. I'm talking about the general rules, because I cannot discuss this point with you in detail unless I'm telling you what we have and what we don't have, something I'm not going to discuss as I said at the very beginning, because this is a military issue that could not be discussed.
Charlie Rose: Do you question the New York Times article I read to you, saying you had a stockpile of chemical weapons? You're not denying that.
President al-Assad: No, we don't say yes, we don't say no, because as long as this is classified, it shouldn't be discussed.
Charlie Rose: The United States is prepared to launch a strike against your country because they believe chemical weapons are so abhorrent, that anybody who uses them crosses a red line, and that therefore, if they do that, they have to be taught a lesson so that they will not do it again.
President al-Assad: What red line? Who drew it?
Charlie Rose: The President says that it's not just him, that the world has drawn it in their revulsion against the use of chemical weapons, that the world has drawn this red line.
We have our red lines: our sovereignty, our independence
President al-Assad:Not the world, because Obama drew that line, and Obama can draw lines for himself and his country, not for other countries. We have our red lines, like our sovereignty, our independence, while if you want to talk about world red lines, the United States used depleted uranium in Iraq, Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, and nobody said anything. What about the red lines? We don't see red lines. It's political red lines.
Charlie Rose: The President is prepared to strike, and perhaps he'll get the authorization of Congress or not. The question then is would you give up chemical weapons if it would prevent the President from authorizing a strike? Is that a deal you would accept?
President al-Assad: Again, you always imply that we have chemical weapons.
Charlie Rose: I have to, because that is the assumption of the President. That is his assumption, and he is the one that will order the strike.
President al-Assad: It's his problem if he has an assumption, but for us in Syria, we have principles. We'd do anything to prevent the region from another crazy war. It's not only Syria because it will start in Syria.
Charlie Rose: You'd do anything to prevent the region from having another crazy war?
President al-Assad: The region, yes.
Charlie Rose: You realize the consequences for you if there is a strike?
President al-Assad: It's not about me. It's about the region.
Charlie Rose: It's about your country, it's about your people.
President al-Assad: Of course, my country and me, we are part of this region, we're not separated. We cannot discuss it as Syria or as me; it should be as part, as a whole, as comprehensive. That's how we have to look at it.
Charlie Rose: Some ask why would you do it? It's a stupid thing to do if you're going to bring a strike down on your head by using chemical weapons. Others say you'd do it because A: you're desperate, or the alternative, you do it because you want other people to fear you, because these are such fearful weapons that if the world knows you have them, and specifically your opponents in Syria, the rebels, then you have gotten away with it and they will live in fear, and that therefore, the President has to do something.
President al-Assad: You cannot be desperate when the army is making advances. That should have happened -- if we take into consideration that this presumption is correct and this is reality -- you use it when you're in a desperate situation. So, our position is much better than before. So, this is not correct.
Charlie Rose: You think you're winning the war.
President al-Assad: "Winning" is a subjective word, but we are making advancement. This is the correct word, because winning for some people is when you finish completely.
Charlie Rose: Then the argument is made that if you're winning, it is because of the recent help you have got from Iran and from Hezbollah and additional supplies that have come to your side. People from outside Syria supporting you in the effort against the rebels.
President al-Assad: Iran doesn't have any soldier in Syria, so how could Iran help me?
Charlie Rose:Supplies, weaponry?
President al-Assad: That's all before the crisis. We always have this kind of cooperation.
Charlie Rose: Hezbollah, Hezbollah fighters have been here.
President al-Assad:Hezbollah fighters are on the borders with Lebanon where the terrorists attacked them. On the borders with Lebanon, this is where Hezbollah retaliated, and this is where we have cooperation, and that's good.
Charlie Rose: Hezbollah forces are in Syria today?
President al-Assad: On the border area with Lebanon where they want to protect themselves and cooperate with us, but they don't exist all over Syria. They cannot exist all over Syria anyway, for many reasons, but they exist on the borders.
Charlie Rose: What advice are you getting from the Russians?
President al-Assad: About?
Charlie Rose: About this war, about how to end this war.
President al-Assad:Every friend of Syria is looking for peaceful solution
President al-Assad: Every friend of Syria is looking for peaceful solution, and we are convinced about that. We have this advice, and without this advice we are convinced about it.
Charlie Rose: Do you have a plan to end the war?
President al-Assad: Of course.
Charlie Rose: Which is?
President al-Assad: At the very beginning, it was fully political. When you have these terrorists, the first part of the same plan which is political should start with stopping the smuggling of terrorists coming from abroad, stopping the logistic support, the money, all kinds of support coming to these terrorists. This is the first part. Second, we can have national dialogue where different Syrian parties sit and discuss the future of Syria. Third, you can have interim government or transitional government. Then you have final elections, parliamentary elections, and you're going to have presidential elections.
Charlie Rose: But the question is: would you meet with rebels today to discuss a negotiated settlement?
President al-Assad: In the initiative that we issued at the beginning of this year we said every party with no exceptions as long as they give up their armaments.
Charlie Rose: But you'll meet with the rebels and anybody who's fighting against you if they give up their weapons?
President al-Assad: We don't have a problem.
Charlie Rose: Then they will say "you are not giving up your weapons, why should we give up our weapons?"
President al-Assad: Does a government give up its weapons? Have you heard about that before?
Charlie Rose: No, but rebels don't normally give up their weapons either during the negotiations; they do that after a successful...
President al-Assad: The armament of the government is legal armament. Any other armament is not legal. So how can you compare? It's completely different.
Charlie Rose: There's an intense discussion going on about all the things we're talking about in Washington, where if there's a strike, it will emanate from the United States' decision to do this. What do you want to say, in this very important week, in America, and in Washington, to the American people, the members of Congress, to the President of the United States?
President al-Assad: I think the most important part of this now is, let's say the American people, but the polls show that the majority now don't want a war, anywhere, not only against Syria, but the Congress is going to vote about this in a few days, and I think the Congress is elected by people, it represents the people, and works for their interest. The first question that they should ask themselves: what do wars give America, since Vietnam till now? Nothing. No political gain, no economic gain, no good reputation. The United States' credibility is at an all-time low. So, this war is against the interest of the Untied States. Why? First, this war is going to support Al-Qaeda and the same people that killed Americans in the 11th of September. The second thing that we want to tell Congress, that they should ask and that what we expect them to ask this administration about the evidence that they have regarding the chemical story and allegations that they presented.
I wouldn't tell the President or any other official, because we are disappointed by their behavior recently, because we expected this administration to be different from Bush's administration. They are adopting the same doctrine with different accessories. That's it. So if we want to expect something from this administration, it is not to be weak, to be strong to say that "we don't have evidence," that "we have to obey the international law", that "we have to go back to the Security Council and the United Nations".
Charlie Rose: The question remains; what can you say to the President who believes chemical weapons were used by your government; that this will not happen again.
President al-Assad: I will tell him very simply: present what you have as evidence to the public, be transparent.
Charlie Rose: And if he does? If he presents that evidence?
President al-Assad: This is where we can discuss the evidence, but he doesn't have it. He didn't present it because he doesn't have it, Kerry doesn't have it. No one in your administration has it. If they had it, they would have presented it to you as media from the first day.
Charlie Rose: They have presented it to the Congress.
President al-Assad: Nothing. Nothing was presented.
20130910-065134.jpg
Charlie Rose: They've shown the Congress what they have, and the evidence they have, from satellite intercepted messages and the like.
President al-Assad: Nothing has been presented so far.
Charlie Rose: They have presented it to the Congress, sir.
President al-Assad: You are a reporter. Get this evidence and show it to the public in your country.
Charlie Rose: They're presenting it to the public representative. You don't show your evidence and what you're doing and your plans to people within your own council. They're showing it to the people's representative who have to vote on an authorization to strike, and if they don't find the evidence sufficient...
President al-Assad: First of all, we have the precedent of Collin Powell ten years ago, when he showed the evidence, it was false, and it was forged. This is first. Second, you want me to believe American evidence and don't want me to believe the indications that we have. We live here, this is our reality.
Charlie Rose: Your indications are what?
President al-Assad: That the rebels or the terrorists used the chemical weapons in northern Aleppo five months ago.
Charlie Rose: And on August 21st?
President al-Assad: No, no, no. That was before. On the 21st, again they used it against our soldiers in our area where we control it, and our soldiers went to the hospital, you can see them if you want.
Charlie Rose: But Ghouta is not controlled by your forces, it's controlled by the rebel forces. The area where that attack took place is controlled by rebel forces.
President al-Assad: What if they have stockpiles and they exploded because of the bombardment? What if they used the missile by mistake and attacked themselves by mistake?
Charlie Rose: Let me move to the question of whether a strike happens, and I touched on this before. You have had fair warning. Have you prepared by moving possible targets, are you moving targets within civilian populations, all the things that you might have done if you have time to do that and you have had clear warning that this might be coming?
President al-Assad:Syria is in a state of war since its land was occupied for more than four decades, and the nature of the frontier in Syria implies that most of the army is in inhabited areas, most of the centers are in inhabited areas. You hardly find any military base in distant areas from the cities unless it's an airport or something like this, but most of the military bases or centers within inhabited areas.
Charlie Rose: Will there be attacks against American bases in the Middle East if there's an airstrike?
President al-Assad: You should expect everything. Not necessarily through the government, the governments are not the only player in this region. You have different parties, different factions, you have different ideologies; you have everything in this region now. So, you have to expect that.
Charlie Rose: Tell me what you mean by "expect everything."
President al-Assad: Expect every action.
Charlie Rose: Including chemical warfare?
President al-Assad: That depends. If the rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have it, this could happen, I don't know. I'm not a fortuneteller to tell you what's going to happen.
Charlie Rose: But we'd like to know more, I think the President would like to know, the American people would like to know. If there is an attack, what might be the repercussions and who might be engaged in those repercussions?
President al-Assad: Okay, before the 11th of September, in my discussions with many officials of the United States, some of them are Congressmen, I used to say that "don't deal with terrorists as playing games." It's a different story. You're going to pay the price if you're not wise in dealing with terrorists. We said you're going to be repercussions of the mistaken way of dealing with it, of treating the terrorism, but nobody expected 11th of September. So, you cannot expect. It is difficult for anyone to tell you what is going to happen. It's an area where everything is on the brink of explosion. You have to expect everything.
Charlie Rose: Let's talk about the war today. A hundred thousand people dead. A million refugees. A country being destroyed. Do you take some responsibility for that?
President al-Assad: That depends on the decision that I took. From the first day I took the decision as President to defend my country. So, who killed? That's another question. Actually, the terrorists have been killing our people since the beginning of this crisis two years and a half ago, and the Syrian people wanted the government and the state institutions and the army and the police to defend them, and that's what happened. So we're talking about the responsibility, my responsibility according to the Syrian constitution that said we have to defend ourselves.
Charlie Rose: Mr. President, you constantly say "it's terrorists." Most people look at the rebels and they say that Al-Qaeda and other forces from outside Syria are no more than 15 or 20 percent of the forces on the ground. The other 80% are Syrians, are defectors from your government, and defectors from your military. They are people who are Syrians who believe that their country should not be run by a dictator, should not be run by one family, and that they want a different government in their country. That's 80% of the people fighting against you, not terrorists.
President al-Assad: We didn't say that 80%, for example, or the majority or the vast majority, are foreigners. We said the vast majority are Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda offshoot organizations in this region. When you talk about Al-Qaeda it doesn't matter if he's Syrian or American or from Europe or from Asia or Africa. Al-Qaeda has one ideology and they go back to the same leadership in Afghanistan or in Syria or in Iraq. That's the question. You have tens of thousands of foreigners, that's definitely correct. We are fighting them on the ground and we know this.
Charlie Rose: But that's 15 or 20% of this. That's a realistic look at how many.
President al-Assad: Nobody knows because when they are dead and they are killed, they don't have any ID. You look at their faces, they look foreigners, but where are they coming from? How precise this estimate is difficult to tell, but definitely the majority are Al-Qaeda. This is what concerns us, not the nationality. If you have Syrian Al-Qaeda, or Pakistani Al-Qaeda or Saudi Al-Qaeda, what's the difference? What does it matter? The most important thing is that the majority are Al-Qaeda. We never said that the majority are not Syrians, but we said that the minority is what they call "free Syrian army." That's what we said.
Charlie Rose: Do you believe this is becoming a religious war?
President al-Assad: It started partly as a sectarian war in some areas, but now it's not, because when you talk about sectarian war or religious war, you should have a very clear line between the sects and religions in Syria according to the geography and the demography in Syria, something we don't have. So, it's not religious war, but Al-Qaeda always use religions, Islam - actually, as a pretext and as a cover and as a mantle for their war and for their terrorism and for their killing and beheading and so on.
Charlie Rose:Why has this war lasted two and a half years?
President al-Assad:Because of the external interference, because there is an external agenda supported by, or let's say led by the United States, the West, the petrodollar countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, and before was Qatar, and Turkey. That's why it lasted two years and a half.
Charlie Rose: But what are they doing, those countries you cited?
The West wanted to undermine the Syrian positions
President al-Assad: They have different agendas. For the West, they wanted to undermine the Syrian positions. For the petrodollar countries like Saudi Arabia, they're thinking undermining Syria will undermine Iran on sectarian basis. For Turkey, they think that if the Muslim Brotherhood take over the rest of the region, they will be very comfortable, they will be very happy, they will make sure that their political future is guaranteed. So they have different agendas and different goals.
Charlie Rose: But at the same time, as I said, you used Hezbollah and got support from Iran, from Russia. So, what is happening here. Is this a kind of war that exists because of support from outside Syria on both sides?
President al-Assad: This is cooperation, I don't know what you mean by support. We have cooperation with countries for decades. Why talk about this cooperation now?
Charlie Rose: Then you tell me, what are you receiving from Iran?
President al-Assad: Political support. We have agreements with many countries including Iran, including Russia, including other countries that are about different things including armament. It's cooperation like any cooperation between any two countries, which is normal. It's not related to the crisis. You don't call it support, because you pay money for what you get. So, you don't call it support, it's cooperation, call it whatever you want, but the word "support" is not precise. From Russia for example, we have political support, which is different from the cooperation. We have cooperation for 60 years now, but now we have political support.
Charlie Rose: Well, the Russians said they have ongoing support for you, but beyond just political cooperation. I mean they have treaties that existed with Syria.
President al-Assad: Exactly.
Charlie Rose: And they provide all kinds of defensive weapons.
President al-Assad: You said treaties, and a Russian official said; we have not agreement... contracts, that we have to fulfill, and those contracts are like any country; you buy armaments, you buy anything you want.
Charlie Rose: But do you believe this has become a conflict of Sunni vs. Shia'a?
President al-Assad: No, not yet. This is in the mind of the Saudis, and this is in the minds of the Wahabists.
Charlie Rose: And in the minds of the Iranians?
President al-Assad: No, no, actually what they are doing is the opposite. They tried to open channels with the Saudi, with many other Islamic entities in the region in order to talk about Islamic society, not Sunni and Shi'ite societies.
Charlie Rose: Was there a moment for you, when you saw the Arab spring approaching Syria, that you said "I've seen what happened in Libya, I've seen what happened in Tunisia, I've seen what happened in Egypt, it's not gonna happen to Bashar al-al-Assad. I will fight anybody that tries to overthrow my regime with everything I have."
President al-Assad: No, for one reason; because the first question that I ask: do I have public support or not. That is the first question that I asked as President. If I don't have the public support, whether there's the so-called "Arab spring" -- it's not spring, anyway -- but whether we have this or we don't, if you don't have public support, you have to quit, you have to leave. If you have public support, in any circumstances you have to stay. That's your mission, you have to help the people, you have to serve the people.
Charlie Rose: When you say "public support" people point to Syria and say a minority sect, Alawites, control a majority Sunni population, and they say "dictatorship" and they do it because it because of the force of their own instruments of power. That's what you have, not public support, for this war against other Syrians.
President al-Assad: Now, it's been two years and a half, ok? Two years and a half and Syria is still withstanding against the United States, the West, Saudi Arabia, the richest countries in this area, including Turkey, and, taking into consideration what your question implies, that even the big part or the bigger part of the Syrian population is against me, how can I withstand till today? Am I the superhuman or Superman, which is not the case!
Charlie Rose: Or you have a powerful army.
President al-Assad: The army is made of the people; it cannot be made of robots. It's made of people.
Charlie Rose: Surely you're not suggesting that this army is not at your will and the will of your family.
President al-Assad: What do you mean by "will of the family?"
Charlie Rose: The will of your family. Your brother is in the military. The military has been... every observer of Syria believes that this is a country controlled by your family and controlled by the Alawites who are your allies. That's the control.
President al-Assad: If that situation was correct - what you're mentioning - we wouldn't have withstood for two years and a half. We would have disintegration of the army, disintegration of the whole institution in the state; we would have disintegration of Syria if that was the case. It can't be tolerated in Syria. I'm talking about the normal reaction of the people. If it's not a national army, it cannot have the support, and if it doesn't have the public support of every sect, it cannot do its job and advance recently. It cannot. The army of the family doesn't make national war.
Charlie Rose: Some will argue that you didn't have this support because in fact the rebels were winning before you got the support of Hezbollah and an enlarged support from the Iranians, that you were losing and then they came in and gave you support so that you were able to at least start winning and produce at least a stalemate.
President al-Assad: No, the context is wrong, because talking about winning and losing is like if you're talking about two armies fighting on two territories, which is not the case. Those are gangs, coming from abroad, infiltrate inhabited areas, kill the people, take their houses, and shoot at the army. The army cannot do the same, and the army doesn't exist everywhere.
Charlie Rose: But they control a large part of your country.
President al-Assad: No, they went to every part there's no army in it, and the army went to clean and get rid of them. They don't go to attack the army in an area where the army occupied that area and took it from it. It's completely different, it's not correct, or it's not precise what you're talking about. So, it's completely different. What the army is doing is cleaning those areas, and the indication that the army is strong is that it's making advancement in that area. It never went to one area and couldn't enter to it - that's an indication. How could that army do that if it's a family army or a sect army? What about the rest of the country who support the government? It's not realistic, it doesn't happen. Otherwise, the whole country will collapse.
Charlie Rose: One small point about American involvement here, the President's gotten significant criticism because he has not supported the rebels more. As you know, there was an argument within his own counsels from Secretary of State Clinton, from CIA Director David Petraeus, from the Defense Department, Leon Penetta, Secretary of Defense, and others, that they should have helped the rebels two years ago, and we would be in a very different place, so the President has not given enough support to the rebels in the view of many people, and there's criticism that when he made a recent decision to give support, it has not gotten to the rebels, because they worry about the composition.
President al-Assad:If the American administration want to support Al-Qaeda - go ahead. That's what we have to tell them, go ahead and support Al-Qaeda, but don't talk about rebels and free Syrian army. The majority of fighters now are Al-Qaeda. If you want to support them, you are supporting Al-Qaeda, you are creating havoc in the region, and if this region is not stable, the whole world cannot be stable.
Charlie Rose: With respect, sir, most people don't believe the majority of forces are Al-Qaeda. Yes, there is a number of people who are Al-Qaeda affiliates and who are here who subscribe to the principles of Al-Qaeda, but that's not the majority of the forces as you know. You know that the composition differs within the regions of Syria as to the forces that are fighting against your regime.
The American officials should learn to deal with reality
President al-Assad:The American officials should learn to deal with reality. Why did the United States fail in most of its wars? Because it always based its wars on the wrong information. So, whether they believe or not, this is not reality. I have to be very clear and very honest. I'm not asking them to believe if they don't want to believe. This is reality, I'm telling you the reality from our country. We live here, we know what is happening, and they have to listen to people here. They cannot listen only to their media or to their research centers. They don't live here; no one lives here but us. So, this is reality. If they want to believe, that's good, that will help them understand the region and be more successful in their policies.
Charlie Rose: Many people think this is not a sustainable position here; that this war cannot continue, because the cost for Syria is too high. Too many deaths - a hundred thousand and counting, too many refugees, too much destruction; the soul of a country at risk. If it was for the good of the country, would you step down?
President al-Assad: That depends on the relation of me staying in this position and the conflict. We cannot discuss it just to say you have to step down. Step down, why, and what is the expected result? This is first. Second, when you're in the middle of a storm, leaving your country just because you have to leave without any reasonable reason, it means you're quitting your country and this is treason.
Charlie Rose: You say it would be treason for you to step down right now because of your obligation to the country?
President al-Assad: Unless the public wants you to quit.
Charlie Rose: And how will you determine that?
President al-Assad: By the two years and a half withstanding. Without the public support, we cannot withstand two years and a half. Look at the other countries, look what happened in Libya, in Tunisia and in Egypt.
Charlie Rose: You worry about that, what happened to Gaddafi?
President al-Assad: No, we are worried that rebels are taking control in many countries, and look at the results now. Are you satisfied as an American? What are the results? Nothing. Very bad - nothing good.
Charlie Rose: There was a report recently that you had talked about, or someone representing you had talked about some kind of deal in which you and your family would leave the country if you were guaranteed safe passage, if you were guaranteed that there would be no criminal prosecution. You're aware of these reports?
President al-Assad: We had this guarantee from the first day of the crisis.
Charlie Rose: Because of the way you acted?
President al-Assad: No, because of the agenda that I talked about. Some of these agendas wanted me to quit, very simply, so they said "we have all the guarantees if you want to leave, and all the money and everything you want." Of course, you just ignore that.
Charlie Rose: So, you've been offered that opportunity?
President al-Assad: Yeah, but it's not about me, again, this fight is not my fight, it's not the fight of the government; it's the fight of the country, of the Syrian people. That's how we look at it. It's not about me.
Charlie Rose: It's not about you?
President al-Assad: It's about every Syrian.
Charlie Rose: How will this war end? I referred to this question earlier. What's the endgame?
President al-Assad:It's very simple; once the Western countries stop supporting those terrorists and making pressure on their puppet countries and client states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey and others, you'll have no problem in Syria. It will be solved easily, because those fighters, the Syrian part that you're talking about, lost its natural incubators in the Syrian society - they don't have incubators anymore; that's why they have incubators abroad. They need money from abroad, they need moral support and political support from abroad. They don't have any grassroots, any incubator. So, when you stop the smuggling, we don't have problems.
Charlie Rose: Yeah, but at the same time, as I've said before, you have support from abroad. There are those who say you will not be able to survive without the support of Russia and Iran. Your government would not be able to survive.
President al-Assad: No, it's not me, I don't have support. Not me; all Syria. Every agreement is between every class and every sector in Syria; government, people, trade, military, culture, everything; it's like the cooperation between your country and any other country in the world. It's the same cooperation. It's not about me; it's not support for the crisis.
Charlie Rose: I mean about your government. You say that the rebels only survive because they have support from Saudi Arabia and Turkey and the United States, and Qatar perhaps, and I'm saying you only survive because you have the support of Russia and Iran and Hezbollah.
External support can never substitute internal support
President al-Assad: No, the external support can never substitute internal support, it can never, for sure. And the example that we have to look at very well is Egypt and Tunisia; they have all the support from the West and from the Gulf and from most of the countries of the world. When they don't have support within their country, they couldn't continue more than -- how many weeks? - three weeks. So, the only reason we stand here for two years and a half is because we have internal support, public support. So, any external support, if you want to call it support, let's use this world, is... how to say... it's going to be additional, but it's not the base to depend on more than the Syrian support.
Charlie Rose: You and I talked about this before; we remember Hama and your father, Hafez al-Assad. He... ruthlessly... set out to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you simply being your father's son here?
President al-Assad: I don't know what you mean by ruthlessly, I've never heard of soft war. Have you heard about soft war? There's no soft war. War is war. Any war is ruthless. When you fight terrorists, you fight them like any other war.
Charlie Rose: So, the lessons you have here are the lessons you learned from your father and what he did in Hama, which, it is said, influenced you greatly in terms of your understanding of what you have to do.
President al-Assad: The question: what would you do as an American if the terrorists are invading your country from different areas and started killing tens of thousands of Americans?
Charlie Rose: You refer to them as terrorists, but in fact it is a popular revolution, people believe, against you, that was part of the Arab spring that influenced some of the other countries.
President al-Assad: Revolution should be Syrian, cannot be revolution imported from abroad.
Charlie Rose: It didn't start from abroad; it started here.
President al-Assad:These people that started here, they support the government now against those rebels. That's what you don't know. What you don't know as an American you don't know as a reporter. That's why talking about what happened at the very beginning is completely different from what is happening now - it's not the same. There's very high dynamic, things are changing on daily basis. It's a completely different image. Those people who wanted revolution, they are cooperating with us.
Charlie Rose: I'm asking you again, is it in fact you're being your father's son and you believe that the only way to drive out people is to eliminate them the same way your father did?
President al-Assad: In being independent? Yes. In fighting terrorists? Yes. In defending the Syrian people and the country? Yes.
Charlie Rose: When I first interviewed you, there was talk of Bashar al-al-Assad... he's the hope, he's the reform. That's not what they're saying anymore.
President al-Assad: Who?
Charlie Rose: People who write about you, people who talk about you, people who analyze Syria and your regime.
President al-Assad: Exactly, the hope for an American is different from the hope of a Syrian. For me, I should be the hope of the Syrian, not any other one, not American, neither French, nor anyone in the world. I'm President to help the Syrian people. So, this question should start from the hope of the Syrian people, and if there is any change regarding that hope, we should ask the Syrian people, not anyone else in the world.
Charlie Rose: But now they say -- their words -- a butcher. Comparisons to the worst dictators that ever walked on the face of the Earth, comparing you to them. Using weapons that go beyond warfare. Everything they could say bad about a dictator, they're now saying about you.
President al-Assad: First of all, when you have a doctor who cut the leg to prevent the patient from the gangrene if you have to, we don't call butcher; you call him a doctor, and thank you for saving the lives. When you have terrorism, you have a war. When you have a war, you always have innocent lives that could be the victim of any war, so, we don't have to discuss what the image in the west before discussing the image in Syria. That's the question.
Charlie Rose: It's not just the West. I mean it's the East, and the Middle East, and, I mean, you know, the eyes of the world have been on Syria. We have seen atrocities on both sides, but on your side as well. They have seen brutality by a dictator that they say put you in a category with the worst.
President al-Assad: So we have to allow the terrorists to come and kill the Syrians and destroy the country much, much more. This is where you can be a good President? That's what you imply.
Charlie Rose: But you can't allow the idea that there's opposition to your government from within Syria. That is not possible for you to imagine.
President al-Assad: To have opposition? We have it, and you can go and meet with them. We have some of them within the government, we have some of them outside the government. They are opposition. We have it.
Charlie Rose: But those are the people who have been fighting against you.
President al-Assad:Opposition is different from terrorism. Opposition is a political movement. Opposition doesn't mean to take arms and kill people and destroy everything. Do you call the people in Los Angeles in the nineties - do you call them rebels or opposition? What did the British call the rebels less than two years ago in London? Did they call them opposition or rebels? Why should we call them opposition? They are rebels. They are not rebels even, they are beheading. This opposition, opposing country or government, by beheading? By barbecuing heads? By eating the hearts of your victim? Is that opposition? What do you call the people who attacked the two towers on the 11th of September? 2 Opposition? Even if they're not Americans, I know this, but some of them I think have nationality - I think one of them has American nationality. Do you call him opposition or terrorist? Why should you use a term in the United States and England and maybe other countries and use another term in Syria? This is a double standard that we don't accept.
Charlie Rose: I once asked you what you fear the most and you said the end of Syria as a secular state. Is that end already here?
President al-Assad:According to what we've been seeing recently in the area where the terrorists control, where they ban people from going to schools, ban young men from shaving their beards, and women have to be covered from head to toe, and let's say in brief they live the Taliban style in Afghanistan, completely the same style. With the time, yes we can be worried, because the secular state should reflect secular society, and this secular society, with the time, if you don't get rid of those terrorists and these extremists and the Wahabi style, of course it will influence at least the new and the coming generations. So, we don't say that we don't have it, we're still secular in Syria, but with the time, this secularism will be eroded.
Charlie Rose: Mr. President, thank you for allowing us to have this conversation about Syria and the war that is within as well as the future of the country. Thank you.
President al-Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.
1. ↑ This incorrectly presumes that the rulers of the New World Order would be threatened by terrorism. In fact, terrorism has helped the ruling elites far more than it has threatened them. In the 19th Century, when bombs thrown by police provocateurs at Haymarket in the U.S. the police were given the excuse needed to shoot protesting strikers. In the late 20th Century, terrorist acts by supposedly 'radical', 'left-wing' groups, such as the Italian Red Brigades and the German Baade-Meinhof gang, have provided the respective governments convenient excuses to spy on opposition political groups and to enact legislation to take away citizens' democratic rights.
The only contexts in which terrorism would make any sense at all is in contexts where formal democracy has been abolished These include Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Latin American dictatorships of the 20th Century. Conceivably, if the current Syrian government were to be overthrown and replaced by the sectarian theocratic dictatorship that the opposition terrorists are fighting to establish, terrorism could be an appropriate form of resistance. But such a future outcome is hardly a reason for the U.S. and its allies to fear the consequences of the overthrow of the Syrian Government.
Sadly, the other additional terrorism, from anti-Western Islamist ideologues, that would result from the defeat of the Syrian government, of which President al-Assad warns, would be a win-win outcome for the NWO.
2. ↑ On 8 September 2011, Russia Today released a video report (since also embedded here on candobetter) which presented much of the evidence that senior figures within the U.S. administration of President George W. Bush, including the President himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz had been complicit in the death of 2,977 American residents on 11 September;2011. They did so to contrive an excuse for the United States to wage wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and, now, Syria, in which hundreds of thousands have died, by blaming the crime on 19 alleged hijackers who were allegedly sent to the U.S. by the government of Afghanistan. Whilst it has been known for years that the Official U.S. Government account of 9/11 was a lie, this exposure of the truth about 9/11 by a mainstream news outlet like Russia Today lifts the whole profile of the struggle for truth and the search for justice for the crime of 9/11. President al-Assad should be advised that his case against the U.S. Government war criminals would be made stronger still, if he were tell the world more directly the facts about 9/11.
Guest column by the distinguished commentator and radio host Stephen Lendman:
Syria has agreed to the Russian proposal to give up its chemical weapons, but the war criminal and totally isolated obama regime, the scum of the earth, says it will attack Syria regardless.
How will the world respond to the Amerikan Third Reich, the worst threat to truth, justice, peace, and humanity that the world has ever experienced? Will the world submit to rule by an outlaw state whose corrupt government represents no one but the Israel Lobby?
September 09, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Russian Foreign Sergei Lavrov wants peace. He's going all out against war on Syria. He's doing it responsibly.
Important world leaders back him. So does overwhelming global anti-war sentiment.
"We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said.
"We have passed our offer to Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer."
Al-Moallem pledged "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." Lavrov promised Moscow's support.
He's trying to broker a diplomatic solution. In return, he wants Obama to cancel attack plans.
He cited John Kerry saying Assad "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."
"Turn it over, all of it without delay and allow (a) full and total accounting, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."
Doing it would avoid military intervention, Kerry said. Damage control followed his statement. State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki reinterpreted his comments.
He "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons," she said.
"His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."
Reinterpreting Kerry's statement shows Obama's true intention. Falsely blaming Assad for using chemical weapons is cover for long planned regime change.
War is Obama's option of choice. Lavrov's best efforts may fall short. He forthrightly pursued them throughout months of conflict. He's not about to stop now.
He faces long odds. Obama didn't wage war on Syria to quit. He won't do so no matter what Lavrov, Moallem, Assad or other Syrian officials pledge. Rogues states operate that way. America's by far the worst.
Moallem's doing his best anyway. So is Lavrov. From Moscow, he said:
"We have agreed on practical steps to be taken bilaterally and in cooperation with other states for giving the political settlement a chance."
"No matter how serious the current situation may be, our Syrian partners and we are confident that possibilities remain for a political settlement."
"Russia has been staying in touch with all (Syrian) opposition groups without an exception in the recent years and we will carry on our efforts to try to convince them that there is no alternative to an international conference."
"If our contacts express that this (conference) may help, then we do not rule out the possibility of an invitation to Moscow of all who are interested in peace and a political settlement in Syria and reject the military scenario."
"What are the real interests of the US behind launching this aggression," he asked?
"Obama is not listening to Americans, Europeans, and UK Parliament. We thank American people for standing against striking Syria."
"We admire the American people who voice their protest against military intervention," added Muallem.
"What are the real interests of the United States behind launching this aggression? Why does US want to help those who are behind 9/11?
Washington "will be wrong to destroy (Syria's) army and help Al Qaeda. We're confident Russian efforts on peace talks will stop strikes."
Lavrov replied, saying:
"UN inspectors should return to Syria to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons."
"The alleged chemical attack on August 21 was orchestrated." Anti-Assad elements bear full responsibility.
"We must consolidate government and rebels to evict terrorists. We are taking active moves to prevent devastating strike. Every report on chemical arms use must be closely studied."
"Syria is open to Geneva-2 peace talks with no pre-conditions. We call on US colleagues to focus on talks, not on strikes."
"Syria strike will only enable terrorism. Russia believes no group should monopolize peace talks."
"Dialogue is necessary among all Syrians. It's the only solution. UN inspectors must go back to Syria, but some powers are obstructing."
He left no doubt which ones he means. They're headquartered in Washington. Obama's a warmaker. He deplores peace. He's going all out to prevent it. He plans war to do so.
"Russia is well-supported in the view that military action in Syria will provoke rampant terrorism," said Lavrov.
Moallem said his government is ready for Geneva II with no preconditions. "We are still ready to do that. But I do not know what may happen after an act of aggression by the United States. Probably a missile will fly over and thwart this.
America sides with terrorists, he added. It plans to be Al Qaeda's air force.
"But if such aggression against Syria aims, as we suspect, to considerably weaken the military potential of the Syrian army in the interest of al-Qaeda and various affiliated groups, then we will raise our objections," he stressed.
"Then we have the right to ask a question about the genuine interests of the United States that wishes to unleash an attack on the behalf of Jabhat al-Nusra and similar groups."
"We've come here just as the US is sounding war drums. Our feeling is that Russia plays an important role of staving off aggression."
"That is where Russia's moral ground lies, since a peacekeeper is always stronger than a warmonger."
"Mr. Assad has sent his regards and said he was grateful to Mr. Putin for his stand on Syria both before and after the G20 summit."
"Russia plays an important role in preventing aggression."
Lavrov added that Russia's "stand on Syria is unwavering and does not permit a military solution of the Syrian conflict, especially foreign intervention."
"The position of Russia is well-known. It is immune to change and varying circumstances."
"This position says there is no alternative to peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the Syrian conflict, especially not a military solution employing foreign intervention."
"On the background of the unfolding campaign calling to use force against Damascus, Russia is taking steps to prevent a pernicious situation in the Middle East."
"There cannot be any deals behind backs of the Syrian people from the Russian side in what refers to the policies Russia is following."
He added that force against Syria would cause a wave of regional terrorism. Perhaps that's precisely what Obama intends.
He needs pretexts to intervene. Peace and stability defeat his agenda. It requires violence and destabilization. He plans lots more ahead.
He faces stiff world opposition. On September 9, Reuters headlined "Analysis: Obama growing isolated on Syria as support wanes".
"White House efforts to convince the US Congress to back military action against Syria are not only failing, they seem to be stiffening the opposition."
He's making more enemies than friends. He's doing so at home and abroad. Skeptics way outnumber supporters.
Hindsight may show he shot himself in the foot. Peace activists hope so. He'll give it another go Tuesday night. He'll try enlisting support for what most people reject.
They're tired of being lied to. They want peace, stability, and jobs. They want America's resources directed toward creating them.
They want leadership representing everyone equitably. Obama's polar opposite. He supports wealth, power and privilege alone. He spurns popular interests.
He chooses war over peace. He's less able to sell what most people reject. Odds favor he'll attack Syria anyway.
Pretexts are easy to fabricate. They're longstanding US policy. Expect another major one if Ghouta's Big Lie falls flat. It's likely planned ready to be implemented if needed.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html - Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
A few years ago I was introduced to Dr. Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, population and energy" lecture recorded at the University of Colorado , (Boulder) U.S.A. To me, the message was so clear, engaging and logical that no-one could fail to understand it and hopefully none would fail to see the significance.
– He was saying that what may look to be ample reserves , for example, 500 years of coal still in the ground will not last anywhere near that as the demand for that resource increases with exponential population growth.
He was talking to a lecture theatre of students and I thought, "That's good. They cannot fail to understand the significance of exponential growth combined with the use of a finite resource and the implications. I read that Prof. Bartlett has given this lecture 1,600 times since 1969 http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html to average audiences of 80 people. That is 128,000 who have heard his lecture live. One of the You Tube videos of this talk has had 37,720 views. Someone in that large audience over those 4 decades must have realised from them that humanity is in real trouble over finite energy resources and an ever growing population!
Today I heard that Al Bartlett has died. There will be no more lectures to students in Universities, but we can still hear the important and clear message from Prof. Bartlett by going to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU. Believe me, you will not be bored, you should be spellbound.
As the world approaches the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attack of 11 September 2011 (9/11) which destroyed the World Trade Centre Twin Towers and a third tower, the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7), Russia Today has released a video, presented by Daniel Bush (pictured), which tells the truth about (9/11). Informed and honest people have for years tried to show that the official US government account of what occurred was impossible. As one of many examples, WTC7 could not have collapsed at free fall speed, if fire alone had been the cause. There is no other way known to engineers to cause the collapse of a steel framed building at free fall speed unless its supporting steel structure had been removed with demolition explosives. Many witnesses have attested to having heard explosions. This is is also confirmed by much of the video footage of the 'collapsing' Twin Towers. In recent years, PressTV, Russia Today and other newsmedia with integrity, have begun, more and more, to challenge the Official 9/11 lie. This report by a broadcaster with the profile of Russia Today on the eave of the 12th anniversary of 9/11, will make it impossible for the Mainstream presstitute media to continue to conceal the truth of 9/11 from the public.
A copy of a video by the western backed anti-government jihadists 'explains' to viewers how Bibles seized from Syrian Christians pose an even greater threat than the chemical weapons1 allegedly used by the Syrian government:
"O nation of Muhammed, wake up! For there are things even more dangerous than chemical weapons. Beware the Christianization campaigns." (sign in arabic displayed near the star of the video)
...
"They exploit the needs of Syrian citzens in order to spread Christian thought."
...
"Very large quantities of evangelization and Christianization books ..."
"... that are brought in by Western organsizations to support the needs of Syrian citizens"
...
Syria was amongst the very first countries to adopt Chrstianity
In fact, Christianity was never "brought in" from the west. Syria, along with neighbouring Palaestine, was one of the first areas to adopt Christianity in the very early years of the first Millenium, well before Islam was founded in 622AD. Christianity was spread from Syria, as well as Palestine, to the west and the rest of the world. The ignorance of hitory and culture in this video is striking.
by Jamison Maeda. First published on Clare Daly's web site (http://claredaly.ie) on 7 Sep 2013. (Emphasis not in Original.)
Bradley Manning was a 25 year old intelligence analyst in the US Army, who was arrested in 2010 for leaking hundreds of thousands of confidential, government and military documents to the public via Wikileaks. Manning claimed his objective was to remove "the fog of war and reveal the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare." Manning accomplished much more.
Manning was believed to be responsible for the Wikileaks release of 38 minutes of cockpit gun sight footage of an American airstrike in Baghdad in 2007. The video shows a United States Army AH 64 Apache helicopter killing a group of men including a Reuters journalist and photographer, and a civilian man who stopped to assist the wounded. That man's two children were also wounded in the attack. (Preventing those who attempt to assist wounded in battle is a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and considered a war crime.)
Also, Manning was believed to have provided Wikileaks with video of the Granai Airstrike of a B-1 Bomber in 2009, also known as the Granai massacre. Between 86 and 147 civilians, mostly women and children, were killed during the strike in the Farah province of Afghanistan. (Deliberately directing an attack on a civilian population or on individual civilians not taking part in direct hostilities is considered a war crime.)
Nearly 780 formerly secret documents known as the Guantanamo Bay File Leak, also attributed to Manning, revealed the detention of over 150 innocent Afghani and Pakistani farmers, drivers, cooks, and a 14 year old boy held for several years without being charged of a crime. There was also evidence of sexual abuse and torture. The UK Court of Appeal ruled former prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, a citizen of the United Kingdom, was the victim of "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment by the United States authorities" and awarded him compensation in the amount of £1 million.
Documents known as the War Logs also allegedly provided to Wikileaks by Manning showed much larger civilian casualties than previously reported by the United States. The reports from the Iraq War Log recorded the deaths of 66,000 civilians. The Afghan War Log reported the deaths of over 91,000 civilians.
In addition to the videos, the Guantanamo Bay Files and the War Logs, 251,287 diplomatic cables were leaked, exposing US spying on the United Nations as well as allied nations from 1966-2010. It was also revealed that the US State Department backed giant corporations like Nike and Nautica who blocked a proposed increase in the Haitian minimum wage in 2009, a country long ravaged by poverty and famine.
But arguably the most horrifying of the crimes leaked by Manning was the alleged involvement of US contractor DynCorp in child trafficking and providing children as entertainment for a sex party for Afghan security recruits. In multiple reports, boys between the ages of 8-15 were forced to dance for men and afterward were purchased for sex. The Guardian reported that two Afghan policemen and nine others were arrested for "purchasing services from a child." Dyncorp faced similar allegations in 1999 in Bosnia when whistle blower, Kathryn Bolkovac, a UN Police Monitor accused Dyncorp employees in Bosnia of selling and having sex with minors. She was fired by DynCorp but filed an unfair dismissal case in Great Britain and won.
Manning was convicted on July 30, 2013 of 17 charges including espionage and theft, but acquitted of aiding the enemy. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
On August 22, 2013, Manning released a statement saying that she is a transgender person and considers herself to be a woman. She requests that she be referred to as Chelsea Manning going forward.
Within minutes American mainstream media, in an obvious attempt at sensationalism and ratings grabbing began asking people on the street if they thought taxpayers should have to pay for Chelsea's hormone therapy. Not a single person was asked their opinion on tax payer funded torture, the detention and massacre of innocent civilians, or the sex trafficking of children. Instead, the mainstream media chose to focus on the personal life of Chelsea Manning, who as one of the over 700,000 transgender Americans now finds herself in possibly the most vulnerable group in America, second only to whistle-blowers it seems.
It is incorrigible for politicians and so-called journalists to distract the world with Chelsea Manning's personal situation when Americans urgently need to address the issues Chelsea brought to light, and to consider the fate of the whistle-blowers whose sacrifices do not endanger, but ensure our freedom. She gave up her freedom to expose horrible atrocities upon human beings that demand investigation. And for that, she is a hero.
Paul Craig Roberts explains that the serial liars U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are finally being held to account by world public opinion for the death and destruction they have inflicted upon Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, unless they are tried for their crimes at the International Criminal Court at the Hague, there can be no enduring peace.
Editorial comment
Unlike what occurred on past occasions when the U.S. Government launched wars against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, much of world public opinion, including majorities within the U.S. and within many countries, whose governments are allied to the U.S., are opposed to its planned war against Syria and have organised effectively to prevent it 3
Also, there are a number of honest and principled world leaders, who have substantial resources and who are willing to use those resources to stand up to the world's bullies. One is Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, who has been supplying Syria with many of the armaments necessary to defend itself against the West's proxy terrorists and threatened invasion by Western Nations.
Others include the leaders of Iran and the BRICS nations including many governments of Latin America.
That Putin was able to expose U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry before the world for the liar that he is 5 was because of his profile and that the Russian and other Governments have set up media outlets which are able to tell the truth to a large proportion of the world's population who would otherwise have their views largely moulded by presstitute media.
The Australian government has acted barely less shamefully
Much of what Paul Craig Roberts has written of Barack Obama and John Kerry is also true of Australian 'Labor' Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Senator Bob Carr, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Australia's role in inflicting harm on the peoples the world in recent years has been largely overlooked. As an example, nowhere in former U.S. Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney's book about Libya4, is Kevin Rudd's shameful role in starting the NATO invasion of Libya in 2011. 6 As 'roving' Australian Foreign Minister in the Middles East in March 2011, Kevin Rudd called for the establishment of the "no-fly" zone, because it was deceitfully reported the Libyan Air Force was indiscriminately bombing civilians.
Since then Kevin Rudd and Bob Carr have done much to help start a new war against Syria They have also spread lies similar to those told by Kerry and they have taken diplomatic initiatives to help start the war. Fortunately for Syria and the world, their hard efforts appear to have come unstuck thanks to the weight of world public opinion in support of Syria.
Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or "America will lose face"?
The obama regime's lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.1"
When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.
The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.
How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.
Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.
As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria. 2
The obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.
If the obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister david cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington's puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister's unsubstantiated belief.
Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?
Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.
If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.
3. ↑ Many, who are opposed to war, nevertheless still accept many of the lies fed to them by the presstitute media. To the extent that they do, their opposition to the war can only be muted. As one example, many accept the unsubstantiated view atrocities are being committed by both sides of the conflict. Others choose to promote the view that President Bashar al-Assad is corrupt, but invariably fail to provide evidence when challenged. In time, more and more people will come to understand that these views are wrong.
4. ↑The Illegal War on Libya (Clarity Press, 2012) by Cynthia McKinney.
Despite being officially launched in 2010, it's the 7th of September 2013 that will see the real birth of the 'population party'. William Bourke, the leader of the Party, says, "We champion a difficult but critical cause - misunderstood by some, and misrepresented by others. Despite the huge challenges of running a national campaign on a shoestring budget, our grassroots community party has collectively run an honorable and professional campaign. We have much to be proud of."
Australia's sustainable choice
Tomorrow Australians face a critical decision.
Either they allow the tri-partisan population explosion that's pushing Australia to 40 million people by 2050, or they vote to slow down and stabilise at around 26 million.
Australia has a chance to lead by example on this critical global issue, and to partner and support other nations for our collective benefit.
The Stable Population Party offers a sensible and responsible path that will permit Australians to fulfil their primary and overwhelming moral responsibility - to pass on a sustainable Australia.
How-to-vote card
Please print and share our national how-to-vote card: CLICK HERE
Please also forward this article to relevant people in your network (via BCc rather than an open email), to help build awareness for the Stable Population Party, and particularly for the Senate vote in all eight states and territories.
Every single Australian has a choice to Vote [1] Stable Population Party for The Senate.
A sustainable Australia starts with a stable population.
"Growth isn’t always progress: Our planet is not an inflatable ball & has limited resources. It’s great to watch our children or income grow, but every growth has a limit. Beyond it lie greed, overpopulation, environmental destruction, conflict & misery. Ever-growing population & industries wouldn’t make life better, but surely lead to imminent catastrophe. Unlike many mad/blind economists & politicians, I’ll work for preserving the current population levels & the development of cleaner, sophisticated & sustainable steady state economy."
Inspired by the new on-line voting sites that allow you to practice and research your vote before the big day, I've been looking at what's on offer in my own electorate, which is Dunkley. I will, of course, be voting below the line for the Senate, but I am keen to find some alternative to the usual suspects. In previous years I've not found any joy in the choices, however this year there is an independent running in Dunkley for the House of Representatives who seems interested in kindness to other creatures, conserving natural amenity and in containing growth. For this reason I am publicising his blog, which you can connect to here: https://www.facebook.com/156682354535525/posts/156906901179737 and I have transcribed it below:
Vote for real change - Federal Elections 2013
August 20 at 2:40am ·
Dear voter
Like most of us, I’m appalled by the impotence of the major political parties and their inability to bring anything but more taxes, bureaucracy, spin, back flips, backstabbing & nonsense. I’ve watched this show for decades, but now realize that if we don’t challenge it, it may never change. While I’m seriously interested in social reform, I’m by no means a career politician or lawyer. I’m an engineer. From my purely technical point of view our current political system is no better than a steam engine. It makes lots of noise, fire & smoke but has less than 10% efficiency. It’s outdated!
If elected, I’ll do my best to build a prosperous, progressive & peaceful nation led by caring, modern government.
Below are some of the key issues I strive for:
The republic
I’ll promote a fair referendum & do my best to dump the monarchy as obsolete & useless form of government. We’re one of the very last colonies in the world, but surely mature enough to be an independent nation & govern our lives without the “help” or the exuberant bills of the royals.
Abolition of the states
A tiny nation, the size of big Asian city doesn’t need states, territories & armies of bickering, often useless politicians. Having too many governments doesn’t make our life any better. Exactly the opposite: disorganized, very expensive & often wasteful. One & only federal government having less than half of today’s politicians will be infinitely more expedient, efficient, fair & affordable.
Five years government terms
Big social, environmental & engineering projects take many years to complete. They’re only successful if a team of dedicated people can manage them from start to completion. Our government is in charge of these projects, but has no time to focus. Minister or expert - it takes some time to learn a new job. Then usually comes the next party leadership challenge & the compulsory cabinet reshuffle - back to the beginning, one more time... By the time the ministers know what they’re doing - it’s election time again. Time to forget the big projects & focus on getting votes for another term. No wonder that here it takes half a century to deliver projects that in other countries are accomplished in just a few years. Increasing the terms of government to 5 years will vastly improve the efficiency of our government & bring us in line with the rest of the modern world.
Unicameral parliament
The two-house parliament we have now is modeled on the early Westminster, where lords & aristocrats could overrule the commoners any time they liked. If we’re to really embrace 21-st century’s definition of equality, we have to assume that everyone (member of the public, MP or senator) is equal. Merging the 2 houses of parliament (i.e. abolishing the senate) will make the whole legislative process much quicker, far more efficient, fair & definitely less costly. Parliaments have to make laws, not shows...
Foreign affairs
Many politicians still can’t learn that sending our troops to invade foreign lands doesn’t help democracy but only brings death & misery for all. Alliances, empires, armies, war, aggression & conquest would never set anyone free, nor make this planet a better place. Countless lives & billions of dollars were wasted in the name of British & American imperialism (think of Gallipoli, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...). Enough! Now is time to give peace a chance!
I’ll work for harmony & cooperation, not confrontation or dominance. Our world shall be governed by UN, not superpowers, NATO, Pentagon, Bilderberg, CIA or Wall St.
Healthcare
Everyone who ever needed medical care knows that our healthcare is not yet “world class”. I believe that the following measures will make us healthier & happier nation:
• Provide free dental care covered by Medicare
• Strengthen the Medicare system & stop pushing people into private health insurance
• Provide free ambulance service for everyone in need
• Build new hospitals &/or increase the number of beds in existing ones in areas where they’re needed
• Support better pay & work environment for health professionals – doctors, nurses, etc.
• Encourage organ & blood donation, medical & health literacy, education, research & technology
• Legalize euthanasia (covered by Medicare)
• Introduce affordable capped govt. medical indemnity cover for all health professionals
• Promote Zero drugs tolerance & random drug & alcohol testing in schools, work places, etc.
• Discourage drinking, smoking & obesity by ads, bans, restrictions & higher taxes
Education
We’ll never become a smart & prosperous nation while our schools are hampered by outdated thinking & poor standards. I’ll support the following solutions which will give our children the wisdom to build a brave new world:
• National curriculum & education standards with focus on work, science, humanities & technology, not just sport, entertainment or dogma
• Free university/tertiary education (ATAR-based)
• Equal funds for every student (nation-wide)
• Free text books for primary & secondary students
• Support national tests, school assessments & ratings
• Introduce flexible school terms & holidays
• Canteens offering healthy food at affordable prices
• Promote higher standards & fair pay for teachers
• Improve discipline & eradicate bullying
• Free pre- & after school care (07:00 – 19:00)
Environment
I’ll do my best to protect Mother Nature by:
• Retiring all dirty coal power stations within a decade & build cleaner, economically viable alternatives
• Stop logging in old growth forests
• Ban exploration by hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
• Protect our parks, rivers & seas from disposable glass & plastic packaging by introducing bottle deposits
• Commit to realistic global CO2 reduction targets
• Reduce car registration for small & fuel-efficient cars
• Protect all wildlife & limit animal farming, racing, pet trade, cruelty & slaughter
• Reduce our dependence on animal & forest products
• Expand marine & national parks, remove all entry fees
Defense
Global peace, democracy & prosperity will never be a reality if we continue to arm, train & keep armies, navies & air forces. Burning our hard-earned tax dollars by acquiring new, trillion $$ fighter jets, frigates, submarines & the likes will never make us more secure or “friendly” nation, but shall only bring us a step closer to the end of the human civilization. Instead of digging our graves & lining the pockets of arms producers & dealers, our money can sponsor much more humane initiatives outlined in other paragraphs. As a devoted pacifist I’ll work for:
• Drastically reduce & soon eliminate our exuberant military expenditure
• Quit NATO, ANZUS and similar military alliances
• Close military training institutions & soon (within few years) disband army, air force & navy
• Close espionage & secret security agencies such as ASIO, ASIS, DIGO, DIO, IGIS, ONA, etc.
• Provide ex-defense & intelligence staff with peaceful civilian jobs (e.g. build a capable Federal Emergency Service able to fight natural disasters like bush fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.- home or abroad)
Law & order
Over the last century our society made a tremendous leap from one of the worst places on earth to a developed & civilized nation. Despite this huge achievement there is a lot of work to be done until we uproot the crime culture inherited from the penal colony days. For this to happen we need to close the loopholes in our legal system & change our attitude towards crime. Our laws are still very lenient & convoluted, while jails & courts are outrageously expensive. Instead of fixing these problems our governments & police are much happier to book each of us for driving at 3 km/h over the limit, rather than chasing real criminals. We also have to stop the suffocating violence invading our media, movies & computer games before it’s too late. Lawlessness, bike gangs, hooligans, drug dealers, graffiti & vandalism also pose huge problems which need tough & urgent countermeasures
Taxation
Our tax system is incredibly hungry, complex & ineffective. I’ll encourage a simpler & fairer system that will:
• Promote (by lowering the company tax rate to 25%) socially & environmentally responsible businesses
• Discourage socially corrosive industries such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, tattoos, sex, etc
• Plug loopholes allowing many billionaires to pay less tax than factory workers
• Freeze the overall tax rate & reduce the number of taxes
• Increase the tax-free threshold to $25 000
• Increase the tax rate for incomes > $1M to 90%
• Promote health by abolishing the Medicare levy for people who have a healthy lifestyle (e.g. use no drugs, alcohol, tobacco & aren’t overweight)
• Make ATO exclusive (sole) tax & rates collector
Growth isn’t always progress
Our planet is not an inflatable ball & has limited resources. It’s great to watch our children or income grow, but every growth has a limit. Beyond it lie greed, overpopulation, environmental destruction, conflict & misery. Ever-growing population & industries wouldn’t make life better, but surely lead to imminent catastrophe. Unlike many mad/blind economists & politicians, I’ll work for preserving the current population levels & the development of cleaner, sophisticated & sustainable steady state economy
Welfare
I’ll work for a fair, efficient & helpful system based on:
• Providing real (govt. & private) jobs for everyone who wants to work (think of Roosevelt’s (FDR) New deal)
• Reform Centrelink & hugely reduce staff, queues, size, bureaucracy, time & career-wastage
• Get rid of parasites, useless formalities, job clubs, networks, agencies & “training” institutions
• People who still have no job (despite the above) shall get the dole in their bank accounts without queuing/reporting
• Ensure that dole isn’t used for gambling, alcohol, smokes & similar unwise products or services
• Make welfare benefits independent of marital status – the current system unfairly penalizes families/couples by providing more benefits for singles
Industrial reform
It’s no secret that with just a few exceptions most of our industry is in crisis. In order to get it out of the doldrums, increase productivity & attract more investment we need to consider radical improvements like:
• Introduction of 7 day working week where individuals & businesses can decide if & when they want to close or have their 2 or more weekly days off (incl. flexible holidays letting each of us to celebrate different occasions on different days of the year) These will allow most businesses to operate 365 days/year
• Complete overhaul of the 457 Skilled Working visa often used to undermine established wages & conditions
• Ease the burden of excessive red tape, costs & bureaucracy of compulsory insurance, licensing & OHS
Retirement
Our retirement age is amongst the highest in OECD but many politicians are openly talking of 70 or more.
Would there be any retirement after another decade or two? Can we work until death? I’ll do my best to bring retirement age back to 65, provide equal benefits for all retirees (disregarding of sex & marital status) & let older people enjoy their hard earned retirement.
Last but not least
You may call me radical, heretic, or a dreamer, but I’m certainly not a spin doctor or hypocrite. I use plain English, simple maths & sharp pencil. None of the above solutions is based on running a budget deficit, borrowing money or selling the country to a wealthy neighbor. They can be a reality tomorrow if you have an open mind & can think outside the square. Unlike professional politicians, I have no sponsors pulling the strings behind the scenes. I pay my bills & fight for our ideas. Together we can build a better world and your vote will bring us a step closer!
Thank you
Election day volunteers wanted – please contact me on
Mob 0421 328 629 * [email protected] * 4 Wilson Gv Seaford 3198
For the first time ever right across Australia ( except NT and Tas) Australians will at this election have the opportunity to vote for a party dedicated to animals. At a recent presentation by the AJP in Victoria, I found out that their principle policy is 'kindness'.
You may know the recently formed Animal Justice Party from their efforts to stop the kangaroo slaughter in the ACT or other actions such as opposing the live trade. They were however formed to enhance the lives of all animals as can be seen from the policies on their web site Animal Justice Party.
If you want to know how AJP preferences work for the Senate please read their explanation below:
1. The AJP has preferenced other parties on the Senate Group Ticket so as to maximise its chances of having candidates elected. This is the best way you can use your vote to help animals.
2. We are required by the AEC to preference every party. Giving minor parties the highest preference gives us the best chance of winning when the votes are counted.
3. Parties that have policies that support animals have been preferenced highest by the AJP. Parties with policies and practices that support animal cruelty have been preferenced lowest by the AJP.
4. AJP preferences vary in each jurisdiction according to the performance of each party on animal cruelty matters. For example, we have put the Greens last in the ACT because of their active support of kangaroo brutality in that jurisdiction. On the other hand, we have put the Greens mid-field in Western Australia and South Australia because of their active support for banning the horrendous live trade in farm animals.
5. In all cases except in the ACT we have preferenced Greens ahead of the major parties.
6. If you want to vote above-the-line for the AJP, then simply follow the AJP Senate How to Vote Card (vote 1 above the line). Of course you can always vote below-the-line for the AJP if you want to preference the other parties and candidates in a different way.
I watched her at the Supreme Court Case over Orrong Towers and admired her ability to sit unpaid through hours and hours of barrister-speak for the pure benefit of her community. Such a contrast to observing the antics of our paid, mosty male, parliamentarians.
Margot Carroll gets Mayor’s Award of the Year 2013 for outstanding voluntary service to the community
Margot is a long-term resident of Stonnington who has been actively involved in community issues for about 30 years. She is extremely passionate about preserving Melbourne’s Heritage and livability from inappropriate developments.
One of her biggest battles in recent times was to stop the over development at 590 Orrong Road in Armadale. (See "http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3257.")She has worked tirelessly to ensure the community’s voice on this issue was heard. The battle is now in its fourth year, and throughout the entire time, Margot has demonstrated exceptional leadership and negotiation abilities – and was not prepared to give up.
Under her skillful leadership, Margot has helped prove that the Stonnington community is serious when it comes to protecting the character of the local area and shopping inappropriate development.
Margot has helped bring the community together over the issue, and is prepared to keep fighting until a favourable result is received."
Margot's importance and example extends well beyond Stonnington.
The Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) funds mental health nurses to work collaboratively with GPs and psychiatrists to support people with severe and persistent mental illness. This is a very economical and efficient collaboration, funded by Medicare and bulk-billable. It usually costs patients nothing, in contrast to the unaffordability of consultations with psychiatrists and the limited availablility of funding for psychologists. The Australian College of Mental Health Nurses (ACMHN) welcomes the release of Government and Coalition election policies on mental health, but College President Prof Wendy Cross has expressed concern that the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) was not mentioned by either party. The ACMHN calls on whoever forms the next Australian Government to match the funding committment of the Greens, who put the figure of $210 million over three years.
“The MHNIP is a successful program that keeps people with complex mental illness out of hospital. It helps them live productive, self-directed lives” says Prof Cross.
A re-elected Labor Government will commit $83 million to address mental health priority areas, which it says are headspace, Lifeline, and supporting new and existing workplace mental health and suicide prevention initiatives.
Should the Liberal Party get elected, they will establish a National Centre for Excellence in Youth Mental Health, task the National Mental Health Commission with evaluating all existing mental health programs, continue to support the expansion of headspace centres and provide the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre with $5 million to establish an e-health platform that will bring together a wide range of existing services.
Neither party mentions the MHNIP in their plans, which the ACMHN finds disconcerting and illogical, considering the successful outcomes identified by the government’s 2012 evaluation.
The MHNIP funds mental health nurses to work collaboratively with GPs and psychiatrists to support people with severe and persistent mental illness. The Program was capped in May 2012 and access for new medical practices has been limited. Current funding allocations in the forward estimates are insufficient to meet existing service levels.
“The Greens committed $210 million over three years towards the MHNIP. An extra $70 million per year will allow the services provided to be accessible to many more vulnerable Australians”, CEO of the ACMHN, Adjunct Associate Professor Kim Ryan said.
“We repeat our call for all major parties to commit to the continuation and growth of this vital program”, said Ms Ryan. “We call on whoever forms the next Australian Government to match the funding commitment of the Australian Greens”.
Source: Media release: Kim Ryan, CEO Australian College of Mental Health Nurses 02 6285 1078
In 1996, on the sixtieth anniversary of the last Tasmanian tiger’s death in Hobart Zoo in 1936, 7 September was declared ‘National Threatened Species Day’ — a time to reflect on what happened to the thylacine and how similar fates could await other native plants and animals unless appropriate action is taken.
Image: Numbat, Perth Zoo, Western Australia
Image: Thylacines at the Beaumaris Zoo in Hobart, 1910.
On the same day as the Federal Elections, it is perhaps significant that conservation and biodiversity programs are at risk.
In the central highlands of Victoria, about an hour and a half drive away, are the remnant mountain ash forests where the state’s Fauna emblem lives – the endangered Leadbeaters Possum, currently being assessed for upgrading the status as critically endangered. Who we elect to govern us after Threatened Species Day could well determine the future survival or extinction of species.
Leadbeaters Possum, Victoria's faunal emblem, could be extinct in 20 years unless logging pressure is removed. The Helmeted Honeyeater, our Victorian State bird emblem, is also under threat from loss of habitat. The Yellingbo and Tonimbuk reserves (where this species lives) are slowly dying from changed water flow regimes.
Australia's landscapes and species have been severely impacted by over 200 years of habitat loss and fragmentation. The impacts of land development, introduced plants and animals, grazing, salinity, changed fire regimes, pollution, and a changing climate all place additional pressure on our threatened species and their shrinking habitats.
National lists of threatened species, threatened communities, threatening processes and the recovery plans that are supposed to underpin action are out of date and inconsistent. Too often, governments turn their failure to properly monitor species decline into an excuse to do nothing on the grounds that they do not have sufficient information.
Conservation Council of WA Director Piers Verstegen said, “Right now, the WA Government’s logging agency is completely exempt from both State and Commonwealth laws designed to protect endangered wildlife such as numbats and black cockatoos.
“This leaves us in the appalling situation where the logging industry can clear fell whole forests with no legal protections for the endangered wildlife that depends on them for survival.
“The numbat is WA’s state mammal emblem and yet there are fewer than 1,000 left in the wild , which is around half the number of surviving giant pandas. We can’t afford to lose any more numbats or black cockatoos to the highly destructive logging industry.”
Australia is grossly underfunding biodiversity conservation. The carbon pricing package that Julia Gillard negotiated with the Greens and independents included the establishment of a $1 billion fund for biodiversity programs. Rudd recently axed A$213 million for biodiversity conservation in the carbon price shake-up.
Coalition environment spokesperson Greg Hunt has announced the appointment of a Commissioner for Threatened Species if his side is elected, but no additional biodiversity funding. The Coalition is also promising to give away Commonwealth power to the states via a one-stop shop for all environmental approvals. Without power and resources, the commissioner is window-dressing.
WWF-Australia Director of Conservation Dr Gilly Llewellyn said that (2012) “It’s now over 70 years since the last Tasmanian tiger died in captivity and we are witnessing the possible winding back of crucial environmental laws, which will leave our threatened species even more vulnerable to the impacts of major projects like dams, coal-ports, mines and greenfield housing developments.”
Australia has 55 extinct animal species, 42 extinct plants and 1694 nationally threatened species. Australian species currently on the Critically Endangered list include:
• The orange-bellied parrot – reduced to less than 50 birds in the wild;
• The eastern grey nurse shark – reduced to around 500 individuals left in the wild;
• The bridled nailtail wallaby – estimated to be between 400 and 600 left in the wild;
• The speartooth shark – reduced to less than 250 individuals in the wild;
• The Gilbert's potoroo – reduced to less than 50 individuals in the wild.
Ironically, the National Threatened Species Network that inaugurated the day is itself extinct. It was de-funded in 2006.
Since then, the federal government seems to have lost interest in threatened species. Successive state of the environment reports have highlighted the continuing decline of native plants and animals, and pointed to the glaring lack of systematic, long term monitoring – a concern echoed by the independent review of the federal environment laws.
A report in 2011 by three conservation groups, aptly titled Into Oblivion : the disappearing mammals of northern Australia, found that even in the vast and seemingly natural landscapes of northern Australia, mammals like quolls, bandicoots, possums and smaller wallabies are headed for extinction in the next 10-20 years unless we take action.
"It is now increasingly apparent that the conservation security assumed for or offered by northern Australia is rapidly eroding. Evidence of decline comes from a range of sources, including broad-scale inventory and comparison with historical records, large-scale formal monitoring programs,
extensive documentation of Indigenous knowledge, and targeted studies of individual species".
Of 1232 Australian bird species and subspecies, one-quarter would do badly when exposed to the effects of climate change later this century, the report finds.
It calls for funds now, for what would eventually be a $940 million program to safeguard birds from Cape York to Tasmania.
''A billion dollars over 50 years for conserving Australia's birds in the face of climate change is paltry compared to the cost of biodiversity loss,'' the 'Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Australian Birds' report states.
The Animal justice Party supports the establish a new and fully funded National Endangered Species Program underpinned by a National Endangered Species Recovery Fund.
In the lead up to the Federal Election the major political parties have had the opportunity to provide their responses to Humane Society International questionnaire on environmental (and animal welfare) policy matters – click here to see how they responded.
President John F. Kennedy, Arabist and renowned for his support for Algerian Independence struggle
President Johnson, who colluded with Israel in its unsuccessful attempt to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt
Editorial Introduction: This article, by Laurent Guyénot, first published on Voltaire Net on 2 May 2013, covers critically important historical events which commenced with John F. Kennedy's Presidency (1961-1963) and ended with the 6 Day War of 1967. On 8 June 1967, the fourth day of the Six Day War, even though the United States was an ally of Israel, Israeli warplanes bombed the intelligence ship, the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea and began strafing sailors in the water in an attempt to ensure that there were no survivors. The clear intention was to blame the sinking of the USS Liberty on Egypt and use that as a pretext for the United States to join Israel in its war against Egypt and other Arab nations.
The sinking of the USS Liberty was intended to be a classic false flag terrorist attack like 9/11 and in the mould of the Operation Northwoods proposal which had been put to former President Kennedy in March 1962 and rejected. However, the presence of witnesses on a nearby Soviet warship prevented the Israeli warplanes from finishing their work and foiled Israel's plan to attribute this crime to Egypt. This was done with the active collusion of U.S. President Johnson, who subsequently attempted unsuccessfully to cover it up. A war on a much larger scale -- potentially even an all out nuclear war -- was thus prevented. The criminality of the current President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry, who was recently caught out lying about Syria, has more than one chilling precedent 17 in the actions of President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ).
Exactly fifty years ago a crucial episode took place in the history of "U.S. democracy"; an epic struggle whose outcome would influence the future of the entire world. Laurent Guyénot revisits those events and recalls what was at stake at that critical historical juncture.
Kennedy and the AIPAC
In May 1963, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations opened an investigation into the covert activities of foreign agents on U.S. soil, focusing in particular on the American Zionist Council and the Jewish Agency for Israel. 1 The investigation was prompted by a report from the Chairman of that standing Committee, Senator J. William Fulbright, written in March 1961 (declassified in 2010), stating: "In recent years there has been an increasing number of incidents involving attempts by foreign governments, or their agents, to influence the conduct of American foreign policy by techniques outside normal diplomatic channels." By covert activities, including "within the United States and elsewhere," Fulbright was referring to the 1953 "Lavon Affair" 2 , where a group of Egyptian Jews was recruited by Israel to carry out bomb attacks against British targets, which were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood so as to discredit Nasser in the eyes of the British and Americans.
The Senate investigation brought to light a money laundering racket through which the Jewish Agency (indivisible from the State of Israel and a precursor to the Israeli Government) was channeling tens of millions of dollars to the American Zionist Council, the main Israeli lobby in the United States. Following this investigation, the Department of Justice, under the authority of Attorney General Robert Kennedy, ordered the American Zionist Council to register as "agents of a foreign government," subject to the requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, involving the close monitoring of its activities.
This attempt to counter Israel's growing interference in U.S. politics undoubtedly enjoyed the support of the President. At the time when he was still a young journalist covering the United Nations inaugural conference, John Kennedy was troubled by Israel's ability to buy politicians, up to and including the President himself. By recognizing the State of Israel on May 15, 1948, (just ten minutes after its official proclamation) despite the unanimous disapproval of his government, President Harry Truman not only gained a place in biblical history ("Truman's historic act of recognition will remain forever inscribed in golden letters in the 4000-year history of the Jewish people", declared the Israeli ambassador), he also pocketed two million dollars to revitalize his re-election campaign. "That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast," Kennedy told his friend novelist and essayist Gore Vidal 3
In 1960, John Kennedy himself received a financial aid offer from the Israeli lobby for his presidential campaign. He decoded Abraham Feinberg's proposal for his journalist friend Charles Bartlett in the following terms: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy." Bartlett recalls Kennedy's promise that "if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it4 Between 1962 and 1963, he submitted seven campaign finance reform bills but all were defeated by the influential groups they sought to restrain.
All government efforts to stymie the corruption of American democracy by Israeli agents were stopped short by Kennedy's assassination and his brother's replacement at the Department of Justice by Nicholas Katzenbach. The American Zionist Council evaded foreign agent status by dissolving and renaming itself American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Ten years later (April 15, 1973), Fulbright commented on CBS: "Israel controls the U.S. Senate. [...] The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. -- somewhere around 80 percent -- are completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants Israel gets." AIPAC continued the same practices, dodging any sanction even when its members were caught red-handed in acts of espionage and high treason. In 2005, two AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were acquitted after having received from a member of the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, Larry Franklin, documents classified as Secret-Defense which they transmitted to a senior Israeli official.
In 2007, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt demonstrated in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that AIPAC and less prominent pro-Israel lobbies were the main cause of the war in Iraq and, more broadly, the determining factor in the foreign policy of the U.S. in the Middle East. Considering that nothing has changed, there is no reason to believe that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu will not also obtain from the United States the destruction of Iran that it consistently clamors for.
On October 3, 2001, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was reported by Kol Yisrael radio to have said to his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres that "We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." His successor Benjamin Netanyahu gave a demonstration of that on May 24, 2011, before the U.S. Congress, when members of both houses stood up to cheer him 29 times, in particular after each of the following remarks: "In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers"; "No distortion of history could deny the 4000- year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land"; "Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967"; "Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel."
Kennedy, the bomb and Dimona
Had Kennedy lived, Israel's influence would most certainly have been curbed on yet another front, that of nuclear weapons. By the early 1950s, David Ben Gurion, who combined the functions of prime minister and defense minister, had engaged his country in the secret manufacturing of nuclear weapons, diverting the Atoms for Peace cooperation program, naively launched by Eisenhower, from its intended goals. Briefed by the CIA about the real purpose of the Dimona facility as soon as he moved into the White House, Kennedy put heavy pressure on the Israelis not to pursue it. He demanded that Ben Gurion open up Dimona for regular inspections, at first in person in New York in 1961, then through formal and increasingly insistent letters. In the last one, dated June 15, 1963, Kennedy urged that a first visit should take place immediately, followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise "This Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized5." The reaction to this message was astonishing: Ben Gurion resigned on June 16, thus avoiding receipt of the letter. As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963.
Kennedy's intention was not to deprive Israel of a power which was reserved to the United States and its NATO allies. The President's approach was part of a much more ambitious project, which he had announced on September 25, 1961, nine months after taking office, before the General Assembly of the United Nations: "Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be inhabitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. [...] It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race - to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved6." The message was well received by Nikita Khrushchev, who responded favorably in a 26-page confidential letter dated September 29, 1961, delivered through secret channels. After the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the nuclear war that was narrowly avoided thanks to their composure brought the two heads of State even closer to the awareness of their shared responsibility to liberate humanity from the nuclear threat. Khrushchev sent Kennedy a second private letter in which he expressed the hope that at the end of Kennedy's eight years of presidency, "we could create good conditions for peaceful coexistence on earth and this would be highly appreciated by the peoples of our country as well as by all other peoples7." Despite other crises, Kennedy and Khrushchev continued this secret correspondence, now declassified, comprising a total of 21 letters in which the intention to abolish nuclear weapons was a prominent concern.
In 1963, negotiations led to the first limited test ban treaty prohibiting nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater, which was signed on August 5, 1963, by the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom. Six weeks later, on September 20, 1963, Kennedy manifested his pride and hope before the United Nations: "Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed and was willing to sign a limited test ban treaty. Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: 'Give me a place where I can stand and I shall move the world.' My fellow inhabitants of this planet, let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if, in our own time, we can move the world to a just and lasting peace8." In his last letter to Kennedy, handed to U.S. Ambassador Roy Kohler but which was never forwarded to the addressee, Khrushchev also took pride in this first historic treaty that "has injected a fresh spirit into the international atmosphere." He formulated other proposals, borrowing Kennedy's words: "Their implementation would clear the road to general and complete disarmament and, consequently, to the delivering of the peoples from the threat of war9."
For Kennedy, the nuclear weapon was the negation of all historical efforts to civilize war by sparing civilians. He said to his friend and assistant Kenneth O'Donnell during his campaign for the Test Ban Treaty, "I keep thinking of the children, not my kids or yours, but the children all over the world." In his televised speech on July 26, 1963, he reiterated: "This treaty is for all of us. It is particularly for our children and our grandchildren, and they have no lobby here in Washington10."
In the sixties, nuclear disarmament was a realistic goal. Only four countries had a nuclear weapon. There was a historic opportunity to be seized, and Kennedy was determined not to pass it up. "I am haunted by the feeling that by 1970, unless we are successful, there may be ten nuclear powers instead of four, and by 1975, fifteen or twenty11," he uttered prophetically during his press conference of March 21, 1963. While all NATO member states and countries of the communist bloc were following the example of the USA and the USSR and taking a first step towards nuclear disarmament, Israel was acting secretly on its own, and Kennedy was determined to prevent it.
Kennedy's death a few months later eased the pressure on Israel. Johnson chose to turn a blind eye on the activities at Dimona. John McCone, the CIA director appointed by Kennedy, resigned in 1965, complaining of Johnson's lack of interest in the subject. Israel acquired its first bomb around 1967, without ever admitting it. Nixon was just as unconcerned as Johnson, while his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger privately expressed his satisfaction at the idea of having friendly Israel as a nuclear ally. Nixon, who ushered the "deep state" into the White House so to speak, played a double game: at the same time as he publicly supported the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (which was not a U.S. initiative), he sent a contradictory top-secret National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM-6) saying: "There should be no efforts by the United States government to pressure other nations [...] to follow suit. The government, in its public posture, should reflect a tone of optimism that other countries will sign or ratify, while clearly disassociating from any plan to bring pressure on these countries to sign or ratify12."
According to 2011 figures from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), there are today across the world about 20,000 nuclear bombs with an average power 30 times that of Hiroshima, which equals 600,000 times Hiroshima. Of these, 1,800 nuclear warheads are on alert, i.e. ready to be launched in only a few minutes. With less than 8 million people, Israel is the world's sixth nuclear power.
"If the President had his way, there would be a nuclear war each week13," Kissinger was reported to have said. In the 1950s, Nixon had recommended to Eisenhower the use of the atomic bomb in Indochina and Korea.
It was not until 1986, with the publication in the Sunday Times of photographs taken by Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu inside Dimona, that the world discovered that Israel had secretly developed the atomic bomb. After being kidnapped by the Israeli secret services, Vanunu was convicted of the charge of "betraying state secrets." He spent 18 years in prison, including 11 in complete isolation. Since his release in 2004, he is prohibited from leaving Israel and communicating with foreign countries.
Kennedy would not be remembered in Tel Aviv as a friend of Israel. In addition to his attacks against the outrageous lobbying activities of Israel and its nuclear power ambitions, Kennedy defended the right of return of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees expelled from their neighborhoods and villages in 1947-48. On November 20, 1963, his delegation to the United Nations called for the implementation of Resolution 194 crafted for this purpose. Kennedy probably never got the chance to read Israel's hysterical reactions in the newspapers: two days later, he was dead. Johnson's rise to power was greeted with relief in Israel: "There is no doubt that, with the accession of Lyndon Johnson, we shall have more opportunity to approach the President directly if we should feel that U.S. policy militates against our vital interests," considered Israeli newspaper Yedio Ahoronot. Far from reproaching Israel for its ethnic cleansing, Johnson fully embraced the myth of "a land without people for a people without a land", even going so far as to compare in front of a Jewish audience, "Jewish pioneers building a house the desert" with his own ancestors colonizing the New World - which, in fact, unintentionally underscored the equivalence between Israel's denial of its ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the denial by the Americans of their own genocide history.
While Kennedy had cut down aid to Israel, Johnson increased it from 40 million to 71 million and to 130 million the following year. While the Kennedy administration had authorized the sale of a limited number of defensive missile batteries to Israel, under Johnson more than 70% of the aid was earmarked for military equipment, including 250 tanks and 48 Sykhawk offensive aircraft. Military aid to Israel reached 92 million in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined. Conversely, by denying them U.S. aid, Johnson forced Egypt and Algeria to turn to the Soviet Union to maintain and upgrade their defense systems. In June 1967, Johnson gave Israel a "yellow light" for its so-called "preventive" war against Egypt, by a letter dated 3 June, when he assured Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol of his determination to "protect the territorial integrity of Israel [...] and provide as effective American support as possible to preserve the peace and freedom of your nation and the area."
Kennedy's death deeply affected the Arab world, where his portrait graced many homes. "Now, De Gaulle is the only Western head of state on whose friendship the Arabs can rely," said Gamal Abdul Nasser. While reducing aid to Israel, Kennedy had generously provided grain to Egypt as part of the Food for Peace program. For that country, the short-lived presidency of John F. Kennedy will have been an enchanted interlude, a dream shattered all too soon. In 1954, under Eisenhower, Egypt had been the target of false flag terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel in order to "break the West's confidence in the existing Egyptian regime [and] to prevent economic and military aim from the West to Egypt14," according to the very words of the head of military Intelligence (Aman) Benjamin Givli in a secret, today declassified, telegram. The accidental ignition of an explosive device led to the exposure of the conspiracy, sparking the scandal which became known as the "Lavon Affair" after defense minister Pinhas Lavon, a scandal which was quickly stifled by Israel and the United States. Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, who advocated a moderate brand of Zionism, respectful of international rules, acknowledged at that time (but only in private) the irresistible rise of extremists, among which he included future President Shimon Peres, who "wants to frighten the West into supporting Israel's aims"and that "raises terrorism to the level of a sacred principle15."
Kennedy's death gave free rein to this Machiavellian terrorism which Israel has developed into an art form. Two days before the end of the Six Day War, the Israeli army launched against the USS Liberty the most famous and disastrous of its false flag attacks. On the sunny day of June 8, 1967, three unmarked Mirage bombers and three torpedo boats flying an Israeli flag bombed, strafed and torpedoed for 75 minutes this NSA (National Security Agency) ship -unarmed, floating in international waters and easily recognizable - with the obvious intention of leaving no survivors, machine-gunning even the lifeboats. They only stopped at the approach of a Soviet ship, after killing 34 crew members, mostly engineers, technicians and translators. It is assumed that if they had succeeded in sinking the ship without witnesses, the Israelis would have attributed the crime to Egypt, so as to drag the United States into war on the side of Israel.
According to Peter Hounam, author of Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III (2003), the attack on the Liberty was secretly authorized by the White House as part of the project labeled Frontlet 615, "a secret political arrangement in 1966 by which Israel and the U.S. had vowed to destroy (Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser)." The orders issued by the White House that day, which delayed the rescue mission by several hours, suggest that Johnson not only covered up the Israelis post-facto, but also conspired with them. Oliver Kirby, the NSA Director for Operations at the time, reported to journalist John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune (October 2, 2007) that the communications transcripts from the Israeli planes intercepted by the NSA and sent to Washington immediately, left no doubt as to the identity of the attackers, and about the fact that they were aware it was a U.S. target before the attack: "I'm willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew [that it was a U.S. ship]." Unmasked, Israel claimed it was a case of mistaken identity and offered its apology, which Lyndon Johnson meekly accepted on the grounds that "I will not embarrass our ally." When, in January 1968, Johnson received Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to Washington and then invited him to his Texas ranch, relations were cozy.
Israel will have drawn a lesson of impunity whose influence on its future behavior should not be underestimated: the price for failure in a false-flag operation against the United States is zero. In fact, failure is impossible, since the Americans will themselves step in to cover up Israel's crimes. Better yet, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting any restriction on military equipment: weapons and U.S. aircraft immediately flocked to Tel Aviv, soon turning Israel into the top customer of the U.S. military industry.
17. ↑ Another precedent was President Johnson's war against the people of Vietnam, in which Australia participated. The false flag pretext, used to justify the escalation of the war and the aerial bombardment of Vietnam in 1964, was the fraudulent claim that the Destroyer USS Maddox had been attacked by Vietnamese warships off the coast of Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Legal advice provided by deputy Senate clerk Richard Pye confirms the Senate has ''undoubted power'' to force Infrastructure Australia to hand over the documents, which the state government insisted must remain secret to protect delicate commercial negotiations.
The state government provided a cost-benefit analysis to Infrastructure Australia for the East West link, but it won't be available for public viewing because it's "commercially sensitive"
Transport Minister Terry Mulder patronisingly said making this information available to the public would affect the government's ability to negotiate the best outcome for taxpayers. Is he assuming the voting public do not understand finances, and what's best for their own hip pockets, and city?
According to Mulder, the east west link will be a major corridor for the movement of freight, which is forecast to increase by 50 per cent by 2020, along with the growth of people wishing to travel across the city. No doubt, this priority towards businesses and corporate supply chains makes the cost benefit analysis "commercially sensitive".
The Greens, who will continue to hold the balance of power in the Senate until at least the middle of next year when the term of the Senate expires, are battling to retain the seat of Melbourne where the east-west link is a key issue in Saturday's election.
''The east-west tollway is likely to be Victoria's next desalination project, with vast sums of taxpayer funds propping up a loss-making venture,'' Mr Bandt said.
The Greens fall down for not having an implementable and realistic population policy. The rapid growth in human numbers means we are in ecological overshoot with regards to fresh water supplies, and the energy and costs of the existing desalination plant is to cater for "projected" population growth - and property development. It's predicted that freight will increase by 50% over the next few years, due to population growth and demands. The tolls for using these freeways is because they are overly costly and over-budgets.
The Greens are failing the electorate by failing to address the cause of greenhouse gas emissions, pressure on natural resources, congestion hampering productivity, and budget blowouts. There's a big abyss of inconsistency in their idealist and borderless policies.
The Age newspaper, owned by Fairfax Media limited, reported on 4 September that Roger Corbett, 4 chairman of Fairfax Media said that Julia Gillard should have remained Prime Minister in preference to the "discredited" Kevin Rudd.
Mr Corbett said, "His colleagues sacked [Kevin Rudd] because they judged him to be incapable as Prime Minister."
The article continued:
'Referring to the damaging cabinet leaks that so badly derailed Ms Gillard's 2010 election campaign, Mr Corbett said: "[Mr Rudd], it's alleged, was active against the government during the elections. May be true, may not be.
'"I think that had a terrible effect upon Labor."
'The leaks led to a collapse in Labor's vote, which led to a hung parliament and forced Labor to enter into coalition with the Greens to form power. The Labor-Greens alliance has been a "very limiting factor" in the past three years, Mr Corbett said.
'And while this was going on, Mr Rudd himself had "destabilised" the Gillard government behind the scenes.'
Mr Corbett also praised Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. "[Mr Abbott's] a very sincere, nice type of human being, and I think he'll be very dedicated, focused in the job," he said.
Tony Abbott, whom Roger Corbett considers "a very sincere, nice type of human being", with less three days before polling begins and 10 hours before the pre-election media news blackout began at midnight on Wednesday, had still not released the costings for his policies, 1 plans to sack 7,000 Federal public servants. He also plans to give approval to the horrifically destructive East West Link project. 2
Candobetter and a number of other credible commentators can only agree with Roger Corbett's praise for Julia Gillard (if not with his praise for Tony Abbott).
June 2013: The now 'discredited' Kevin Rudd ousts Julia Gillard in Age-orchestrated putsch
"It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy. The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.
"The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, ..."
Editor-in-Chief Andrew Holden, who wrote the editorial, also appeared in a short broadcast video (2:33) on the same page. He made the curious claim, with no supporting evidence. that it is necessary for Julia Gillard to stand aside "so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again."
Evidently, Andrew Holden does not wish for the debate to embrace the support given by Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr and the Age newspaper to the United States' proxy terrorist war against Syria, which has cost, according to one estimate reported3 in the Age, 100,000 Syrian lives since March 2011.
Why the Age newspaper itself could not have enabled the debate it claimed to have wanted, without meddling in the internal politics of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Caucus, was not explained.
The above argument was repeated in different guises:
"... [We are saying] Ms Gillard should stand aside ... because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position. ...
"A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. ..."
Much of the editorial, in contrast to the self-fulfilling prophetic value judgements above, provided compelling reasons why Gillard should have remained Prime Minister and not been cast aside for Kevin Rudd :
'We ... [recognise] that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms ...
'The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged "because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work". ...'
As Age Editor-in-chief Andrew Holden had demanded, Julia Gillard was subsequently ousted on 26 June and replaced by Kevin Rudd, but the promised improvement in Labor's approval rating never eventuated.
Age readers still to be given explanation
The Age is entitled to change its views, and is even entitled to promote views which may, through the course of events, prove to be mistaken. However, the public is entitled to be informed that what Roger Corbett said less than 3 days before the forthcoming Federal election is contrary to what the Age said on 22 June and why.
Unless this explanation is forthcoming, voters are entitled to assume that Roger Corbett's statements, ostensibly in support of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, so late in the election campaign, are no more than a ploy to harm Labor's electoral prospects.
The Agereports, "Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey will unveil the Coalition's election costings on Thursday, leaving voters just hours to digest the numbers while also refusing to say when the budget would be back in the black under his management."
"The timing of the Coalition's costings announcement comes after the electronic media blackout starting at midnight on Wednesday, which applies to all election campaigns. Labor will not be allowed to broadcast any television or radio commercials attacking cuts that may be contained in the documents." (emphasis added)
A poll in the Age article Hockey's 11th-hour costings asked "Should the Coalition have given voters more time to digest its costings?". The results of 5188 votes taken at 9:05AM were:
Yes: 69%
No: 27%
Not sure: 4%
Footnote[s]
1. ↑ The Herald Sun reported at 12:46PM on Wednesday, 4 September 2013, "The federal coalition is releasing its final policies on Wednesday (today) and will reveal its full costings 'very, very soon', Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says." Voters won't have sufficient time to digest the information and understand how it will affect them before they cast their vote on Saturday. (See also: Update of 9:10AM, Thursday 5 September, above.)
2. ↑ The construction of the East West Link would require the destruction of much of what remains of Melbourne's iconic Royal Park as well as many surrounding homes and will make Melbourne commuters even more dependent on private vehicles than they already are. It is not possible for the broader public to see the business case for the East West Link and compare it with the known business case for additional public transport because of "commercial in confidence" provisions in the East West Link contract.
3. ↑ As shown in Media Lies Used to Provide a Pretext for Another "Humanitarian War": Protest in Syria: Who Counts the Dead? of 25 Nov 2011 by Julie Lévesque in Global Research, the Western news media may have been exaggerating the number of dead for its own propaganda purposes. But, surely those opposed to war need to be able to accurately convey to the public, how many have been killed as a result of the support provided to the terrorists by Western nations? Nowhere on Global research could I find this figure. It certainly was not included in Professor Michel Chossudovsy's otherwise excellent Online interactive I-bookSyria: NATO's Next "Humanitarian" War? of 11 Feb 2012. Given that death toll of the Iraq wars since 1990 is certainly at least many hundreds of thousands and, according to one estimate could be a many as 3,300,000, including 750,000 children, the figure of 100,000 dead may not be such a great exaggeration, after all. Certainly should Barack Obama and John Kerry achieve their goals, the eventual death toll will be much higher than 100,000.
4. ↑ Roger Corbett subsequently admitted he was a member of the Liberal Party.
It's good that Get-up is criticising the absence of diversity of ownership in the Australian press and the tendency of that press to promote the government that it wants.
Get-up is asking for people to promote the ad on facebook and twitter to show the mainstream press that it cannot have it all its way.
There's an excellent article by the ever-reliable McClatchy News, analysing the various 'inconsistencies and hinges' in the Obama administration's 'red line' case against Syria. In the light of the latest allegations by French intelligence services, it raises several unanswered and often unasked questions:
by Matt
1. Why would Syria carry out a chemical weapons attack in its capital, within 72 hours of the arrival of the UN Inspection Team, which it had invited to the country to investigate the earlier alleged use of chemical weapons?
2. Which of the UN Security Council members agreed to limit the mandate of the Weapons Inspection team to investigating whether chemical weapons attack had taken place, but not their provenance?
3. According to the case presented by Kerry, the US had 'collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence”' that showed the Syrian regime preparing for an attack three days before it took place. Why didn't the administration issue a public warning beforehand in an attempt to prevent it?
4. Why did the US immediately seek to undermine the UN Weapons Inspection team when news of the Ghouta attack first became public, by declaring that any further investigation would be irrelevant and 'too late'?
5. Sarin gas traces can last not only for months, but for years. Why have the US, Britain and France insisted that any evidence at Ghouta will have been destroyed by the regime or become 'degraded' and therefore useless to the UN Inspectors - a barefaced, flat out lie?
6. The US and France claim to have collected traces of sarin in samples of hair and blood from first responders that were 'provided to the United States.' How were these samples collected and why were they provided to the US and not the UN?
7. What explains the huge discrepancy between the alleged casualty figures provided by the US, Britain and France?
8. Why has the US insisted that the rebels have no chemical weapons capability, even though Carla del Ponte, a senior member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria claimed in May that UN investigators in May had found ' strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof' that rebel forces may have used them?
9. Is there any truth in the reports by the MintPress News that Saudi-backed rebels may inadvertently have set off a sarin gas explosion?
10. Do the US and its allies actually want a full, scientifically-based, independent investigation into what happened at Ghouta, or are they merely ignoring any contrary facts that contradict their allegations and using stitched-up 'intelligence' information as a pretext for 'humanitarian' bombing?
Climate change appears to be promoting the spread of crop pests throughout the world as regions once too cold to sustain them begin to warm.
Some species are being driven to extinction, but currently 10-16% of global crop production is lost to pests, and the spread of beetles, moths, bacteria, worms, funghi etc in a warming world may increasing.
The Brown Marmorated stink bug can be an agricultural pest, threatening apples, pears, peaches, figs, mulberries, citrus, persimmon and soybeans.
"If crop pests continue to march polewards as the Earth warms the combined effects of a growing world population and the increased loss of crops to pests will pose a serious threat to global food security," co-author of an research article in journal Nature Climate Change, Dan Bebber of the University of Exeter, said in statement.
Co-author Sarah Gurr, also from the University of Exeter, international government officials must pay greater heed as to what crops they allow to cross their borders. It flies in the face of the concept of a global food trade.
The spread of pests is caused by both human activities and natural processes but is thought to be primarily the result of international freight transportation. Observations over 50 years revealed that the movement of pests north and south towards the poles, and into new previously un-colonised regions, corresponds to increased temperatures during that period.
The study included fungi, such as wheat rust,is devastating harvests in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The mountain pine beetle is destroying trees in the US, as well as bacteria, viruses and microscopic nematode worms. The organisms can only take hold in new areas if the conditions are suitable, and the researchers believe that warming temperatures have enabled the creature to survive at higher latitudes.
The paper also acknowledges, future global food security depends on a number of physical and socio-economic factors i.e. population growth.
Predications around food production indicate that food growth will need to increase by 70 to 100 percent over the next 30 years to meet demand.
"The task of feeding the world's growing population will become harder with rising natural resource constraints, declining crop productivity, and more frequent extreme weather events. One in eight people go hungry in the world today, and even more in Africa".
GM crops are being made to be healthier for us and the environment by becoming more salt tolerant, harder to be eaten by pests (and consequently less pesticide is used) and having increased yields.
According to World Vision, allergic responses may occur due to inserting material from a food – such as peanuts, wheat or egg – that already causes allergic reactions in some people. Toxins are already present in many widely consumed foods, but GM plant breeding to develop a particular characteristic (such as pest resistance) could increase the toxicity of a plant or reduce its nutritional value.
A recent study conducted by Australian and US researchers found that pigs that were fed a diet of genetically modified grain showed significantly higher rates (20 percent) of stomach inflammation than pigs who were fed conventional feed. The study, which was published in the Journal of Organic Systems, was conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial piggery located in the US.
Our own Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says that:
"Continuing population growth and limited land and water resources, particularly in the Asia–Pacific region, have made food security a priority for many governments. As the economies in our region grow, and per capita incomes rise, consumers will increasingly demand safe, high-quality, high-protein food".
Considering our own population growth is politically engineered, why don't this type of information reach the politicians intent on growth at all costs?
Dwindling resources
Prof Paul Ehrlich warns us that “Global food and nutrition security is a major global concern as the world prepares to feed a growing population on a dwindling resource base.."
Prof David Attenborough says that "Since I first started making TV programs there are over three times as many human beings on earth as there were. And we all need food, we all need houses, and we all need schools... and we all therefore make huge demands on what was the natural world.
"So there's less and less space for wild animals," he says.
It would be a remarkable irony if some of the smallest creatures on the planet continued to be “successful” and spread, and thanks to anthropogenic climate change, were able to reproduce at a rate outpacing human population growth – eating crops before they were supposed to secure our food supplies!
The “challenges” of the future could come from some of the Earth's smallest inhabitants, and be a constraint to human overpopulation.
Our politicians assume that Australia is immune from global patterns and threats, and the major parties have no environmental policies that future-proof Australia's food bowls.
Geoff Brown the Stable Population Party candidate for the marginal seat of Lindsay is calling on the media "to challenge Fiona Scott and Tony Abbott about comments made on Four Corners last night by Ms Scott, the Lindsay candidate for the Liberal Party, that the traffic congestion plaguing the people of Lindsay is caused by 50,000 boat people." In the light of criticisms of Bob Katter for demographic ignorance, the silence on the same ignorance in the major parties is deafening.
The Big Distraction
Comment from candobetter.net: Indeed, it is staggering that politicians continue to be let get away with the pretense that all immigrants arrive here as asylum seekers, when far more people than 50,000 arrive each year and most of them are not 'boat people'. The Stable Population Party calls this 'the big distraction'.
Total Overseas Immigration figures dwarf asylum seeker numbers
To clarify, over 300,000 legal immigrants arrived - mostly by plane - in 2008 and 235,900 in 2009, which is the latest statistic available due to changes in the way these things are now counted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Many of these legal migrants were invited by various state governments, which all have websites promoting immigration to Australia for professionals, tradespeople and investors, who then have the right to bring the balance of their families here.
Geoff Brown defends Lindsay voters against redneck assumption
“Fiona Scott has just cemented in the minds of all that watched Four Corners last night that the people of Lindsay are a bunch of ignorant rednecks. It was embarrassing to hear such divisive, politically cynical drivel being peddled as fact” said Geoff Brown.
“Fiona Scott in trying to defend her comments implied that the 50,000 boat people that have arrived since 2007 somehow all drive cars and live in western Sydney. Ms Scott went on to say that the 50.000 boat people was twice the size of Glenmore Park, a large Penrith suburb”
He said that the media needs to challenge Fiona Scott and Tony Abbott over these divisive comments about 'boat people'.
Pop growth 1000 day of which 2% are asylum seekers
"50,000 boat people over 6 years averages out to just 24 arrivals per day. This is dwarfed by the real cause of traffic congestion in western Sydney, population growth, which is running at over 1000 per day. The major parties, specifically the Coalition, are whipping up the voters of Lindsay into a frenzy about being invaded by 24 boat people per day to distract voters from the facts about population growth. As exemplified by Ms Scott they are using misinformation about the numbers of boat people to confuse and strike fear into voters to avoid scrutiny of their population policies”.
“If the voters of Lindsay want to take real steps to alleviate traffic congestion then they need to thing better not bigger and vote for the Stable Population Party”, Mr Brown concluded.
Let’s ask why Greens, Liberals & Labor suppress the population issue: Stable Population Party - The party says it will reveal all in a front-page ad in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday. The Stable Population Party points out that, despite a ‘massive thumbs down for big Australia’, [1] with 70 per cent hoping the population does not hit the 40 million mark projected by 2050, no major party will raise population as a campaign issue.
Tri-partisan undemocratic push by Lib/Lab/Greens
They say that this is because there is a tri-partisan undemocratic push for our unsustainable population growth of
over 1000 people per day, or well over a million people every three years – the size of Adelaide!
William Bourke, the leader of the Stable Population Party said today,
"Despite holding the balance of power in both houses of parliament, not once did The Greens question Julia Gillard regarding her broken promise to “not hurtle down the track towards a big Australia.” [2]
Yet our rapid population growth is the single biggest environmental threat we face.
Why exactly are the major parties pushing rapid population growth?
The Stable Population Party say that they are about to reveal two key reasons, and that they have taken the extraordinary step of placing a post-it note advertisement on the front of every Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday September 3.
“By standing Senate candidates in every state and territory, the Stable Population Party is the only
party providing a choice on the biggest issue facing Australia – population growth,” said William Bourke, President and NSW Senate candidate for the Stable Population Party.
“Population growth is now the underlying issue linked to all of Australia's major problems."
Bourke says that there are six key reasons to vote for a stable population.
A stable population will help:
- Relieve overstretched infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, roads and public transport;
- Ease cost of living pressures, including housing, energy, water and transport;
- Protect our environment, including food, water & energy resources, and animal habitats;
- Promote education and training, to increase job opportunities for all Australians;
- Minimise overdevelopment, including high-rise and sprawl; and
- Create a more resilient economy, to sustain and enhance prosperity.
“Population is not a single issue, it is the everything issue, and we need a choice. We won't resolve
any of Australia's major problems until we first stabilise population. We must think better, not bigger," says William Bourke.
Challenge to the Media
“Let’s spark this boring election campaign into life. We challenge the media to question the major
parties on why they won’t stop Australia’s population hitting 40 million by 2050 - and then sit back
and watch the pollies squirm,” said Mr Bourke.
War criminals and serial liars, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, and their Australian accomplices, Prime Minster Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Bob Carr
This coming Saturday 7 September, most Australians will be forced to make the unpalatable choice between, on the one hand, the Opposition Liberal Party and the ruling Labor Party. The Liberal Party is resolved to destroy 7,000 public service jobs, remove the right of trade unions to enter workplaces and give the Green light to destructive and horrifically expensive projects such as the East-West Link and the Phillip Island industrialisation project. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as well as promoting rampant population growth and section 457 visas has, on the international stage, facilitated military aggression against Libya in 2011 and has done his utmost to repeat the exercise with Syria. Fortunately for Syria and the rest of the world, President Obama's war plans against Syria have been defeated by international and domestic opposition as described in the included article of 30 Aug 2013 by Paul Craig Roberts. It is vital, if peace and democracy are to survive that Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott be held to account for their support for the U.S. Government's criminal actions.
Editorial comment
In recent days world public opinion prevented war criminals and serial liars, U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and French 'socialist' President François Hollande from launching a war against Syria on the pretext of the laughable allegation that the Syrian Government had killed between 300 and 1,400 of its citizens with poison gas. Whilst evidence supporting that claim was non-existent, a body of evidence that implicated the U.S.-sponsored anti-government terrorists was growing day by day. In site of the lack of evidence and the sheer implausibility of the allegation that the Syrian Government, which even NATO admits, enjoys the support of 70% of Syrians, would attempt to murder its citizens, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Bob Carr were quick to give their strident support to President Barack Obama against Syria.
Fortunately, world public opinion, which had already been twice deceived by similar lying allegations against Iraq, saw through these lies and opposed the war. Opinion polls in the U.S. showed only 11% supported war. In the U.K., in response to overwhelming public opposition, the U.K. Parliament voted to not participate in the planned war. Over the following days, Francois François Hollande also decided not to participate in the planned war. left on his own and faced with overwhelming domestic opposition, President Barack Obama has decided to delay the war until after he has put his case to the U.S. Congress.
The likelihood that the 'evidence' that Obama and Kerry say they are going to present will stand up to the vast amount of evidence to the contrary is close to nil.
“A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history ...”
A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.
Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US "superpower," the "exceptional" and "indispensable" country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.
But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington's rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.
What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?
“Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime.”
Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone--not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored--a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these "approvals," they remain war crimes.
“But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself ...”
But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself without orchestrated cover from the UN or NATO or a cowardly US Congress. It is up to Obama, they insist, to establish for all time that the President of the United States is above all law. He, and he alone is the "decider," the Caesar, who determines what is permissible. The Caesar of the "sole superpower" must now assert his authority over all law or Washington's hegemony over the world is lost.
“As I noted in an earlier column today, if Obama goes it alone, he will be harassed for the rest of his life as a war criminal who dares not leave the US.”
As I noted in an earlier column today, if Obama goes it alone, he will be harassed for the rest of his life as a war criminal who dares not leave the US. Indeed, a looming economic collapse could so alter the power and attitude of the United States that Obama could find himself brought to justice for his war crimes.
Regardless, the United States government has lost its credibility throughout the world and will never regain it, unless the Bush and Obama regimes are arrested and put on trial for their war crimes.
Obama's destruction of US credibility goes far beyond diplomacy. It is likely that this autumn or winter, and almost certainly in 2014, the US will face severe economic crisis.
The long-term abuse of the US dollar's reserve currency role by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, the never-ending issuance of new debt and printing of dollars to finance it, the focus of US economic policy on bailing out the "banks too big to fail" regardless of the adverse impact on domestic and world economies and holders of US Treasury debt, the awaiting political crisis of the unresolved deficit and debt ceiling limit that will greet Congress' return to Washington in September, collapsing job opportunities and a sinking economy all together present the government in Washington with a crisis that is too large for the available intelligence, knowledge, and courage to master.
When the proverbial hits the fan, the incompetent and corrupt Federal Reserve and the incompetent and corrupt US Treasury will have no more credibility than Obama and John Kerry.
The rest of the world--especially Washington's bullied NATO puppet states 1 --will take great delight in the discomfort of "the world's sole superpower" that has been running on hubris ever since the Soviet collapse.
The world is not going to bail out Washington, now universally hated, with currency swaps, more loans, and foreign aid. Americans are going to pay heavily for their negligence, their inattention, their unconcern, and their ignorant belief that nothing can go wrong for them and that anything that does is temporary.
“Two decades of jobs offshoring has left the US with a third world labor force employed in lowly paid domestic nontradable services, a workforce comparable to India's of 40 years ago.”
Two decades of jobs offshoring has left the US with a third world labor force employed in lowly paid domestic nontradable services, a workforce comparable to India's of 40 years ago. Already the "world's sole superpower" is afflicted with a large percentage of its population dependent on government welfare for survival. As the economy closes down, the government's ability to meet the rising demands of survival diminishes. The rich will demand that the poor be sacrificed in the interest of the rich. And the political parties will comply.
Is this the reason that Homeland Security, a Nazi Gestapo institution, now has a large and growing para-military force equipped with tanks, drones, and billions of rounds of ammunition?
How long will it be before American citizens are shot down in their streets by "their" government as occurs frequently in Washington's close allies in Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain?
Americans have neglected the requirements of liberty. Americans are so patriotic and so gullible that all the government has to do is to wrap itself in the flag, and the people, or too many of them, believe whatever lie the government tells. And the gullible people will defend the government's lie to their death, indeed, to the death of the entire world.
If Americans keep believing the government's lies, they have no future. If truth be known, Americans have already lost a livable future. The neocons' "American Century" is over before it begun.
Update: I have heard from educated and aware friends that the presstitute media on the evening news are beating the drums for war. This shows what paid whores the US media is and their total disconnect from reality. Anyone who wastes their time on the US media is a brainwashed idiot, a danger to humanity.
Update 8:52 PM August 30: Is the White House idiot going to be a victim of his own careless presidential appointments?
Does he have no one to tell him how to escape the dilemma his moronic Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have put him in? Someone needs to tell the WH Fool that he must say that he accepts the conclusion of the world
community that there is not sufficient evidence for launching a military attack on Syria and killing even more people
than were killed in the alleged, but unproven, chemical attack, and that he awaits further and better evidence.
God help the moron and the unfortunate country that the fool represents.
Why have were updates included in the first place? Why were they moved out of the teaser and into this appendix?. I was motivated to include so many updates, because I knew it was not possible to publish enough material, whether original or reposted, to inform readers about the Syrian conflict. One alternative was to link directly to news about Syria from the front page. However, this became unwieldy due to the large number of news items. As an alternative, visitors our now advised which are the most prominent web-sites carrying truthful news about the Syrian conflict on the main front page.
Another goal was to show visitors links to deceitful mainstream media (other) web pages about Syria, so that they could be compared to the other articles, which are supported by evidence and logic (informative). The sites that lie about Syria include ABC News, the Age, SBS News, the Sydney Morning Herald and Rupert Murdoch's Australian (behind a paywall). - GT
1. ↑ Unlike the leaders of the European NATO member states, Australia's 'Labor' rulers, particularly Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Bob Carr have stridently taken the initiative towards initiating military aggression against Syria, just as Kevin Rudd had previously succeeded in achieving war against Libya. In March 2011, Kevin Rudd, then a 'roving' Foreign Miniter in the Middle East took a number of initiatives to start the invasion of Liby. This included calling for a "no-fly zone" under the fraudulent pretext that the Libyan Air Force was deliberately bombing unarmed civilians. See Rudd, PM Split On Libya No-Fly Zone of 10 Mar 2011 in the Age, Julia Gillard Denies Rift With Kevin Rudd Over Libya of 11 Mar 2011 in the Age.
Sustainable Population Australia, Green Wedges Coalition, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and Planning Backlash are four of the peak planning and environmental groups that have produced a Sustainable Population Charter for Victoria because the government seems unable to do so. It recommends that net overseas migration be reduced from the recent 232,000 immigrants in a year to 70,000 net per annum. See "Peak Community Groups advocate for Population size as an election issue."
This useful democratic initiative could save Melbourne from chaos, but it has been reported in a slanted kind of way by Murdoch's Herald Sun, which gives quite unmerited authority to a disrespectful and ill-informed response from the government.
Government response irresponsible and disrespectful
Planning Minister Matthew Guy's response, as quoted below from the Herald Sun, seems to show a shameful disregard for the facts of a problem for which he is responsible by switching to questionable and irrelevant figures from the 1950s and 60s in response to a clearly emerging overpopulation crisis today in Victoria. In so doing, he has thumbed his nose at respected women community leaders who have stood up to represent concerned citizens in the absence of any fair representation from Mr Guy or his ilk on population. Instead of having the honesty to admit what is happening, Mr Guy raised an irrelevancy that is almost impossible for the average person to prove or disprove or sensibly situate in the debate.
“Planning Minister Matthew Guy said that the state's population growth was higher in the 1950s and 1960s and migrants should not be singled out by community groups." (The Herald Sun)[1]
Check the facts for your self in the graph above, which takes figures from Australian Government year books and the ABS from 1945 to 2009. Does it look to you like immigration was higher in the 50s and 60s? No, of course not. And figures continue to climb since 2009. Between 2006 and 2011 immigration has contributed 60% of Australia's population growth. No-one is 'singling out' migrants.
In the face of the environmental planning groups' carefully worded and researched document, Mr Guy has referred vaguely to conditions in the 1950s and 1960s (when world population was between 2.5 and 3.5 billion instead of its current size of 7.1 billion and energy resources were hardly tapped.) What kind of intellect are we dealing with here?
He did not bother to provide the figures he claimed to be alluding to, nor did he say why they were relevant. He failed to take on board that it is the duty of citizens to form alliances to restrain his government from its constant attack on democracy, property and environment. And that it is his duty to respond rationally and democratically.
"We are living longer, we are having more children, there are a whole range of factors in population growth," said Mr Guy.
Well, yes, of course there are a 'whole range of factors in population growth', but immigration is the biggest and a multiplier of fertility opportunities. (See Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: The rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2012.) Mr Guy also does not say that the few people and corporations pushing for higher population growth derive the narrowly focused but huge financial benefits that the rest of us pay so dearly for in the loss of parkland, in homelessness, in lack of education and jobs.
Politically intimidating put-down
"Simply targeting overseas migration is simplistic and it won't solve population growth problems," Mr Guy reportedly said.
This put-down of the careful work that the peak planning and environment groups have actually done looks like an attempt by a powerful politician to intimidate democratic and highly relevant comment by slurring its spokeswomen.
The graph showing immigration from 1901-1944 shows our earlier immigration patterns, where during both World Wars and during depressions, more people left the country than came in.
This is not 'good management'
"Mr Guy said growth had to be well managed which was why the Government was pushing ahead with the East West Link and a metropolitan planning strategy.” [1]
If that is good management, then why is Melbourne's oldest park (Royal Park) targeted by the growth lobby to receive a concrete horrendoplasty and why are there protests on the steps of parliament, as even usually tame councils call for a sane alternative in rail? See "Melbourne Protestors demand: Trains not Tollroads!"
Mr Guy's 19th century ideas similar to Ethiopia's Mennilik II
Mr Guy reminds me of Mennilik II in Ethiopia, who decided to develop the country in the late 19th century, when the population was only 4 or 5 million and people lived in stable economies among clans on their own land. After Mennilik's modernisation programs, which included massive land 'reforms' - driving people off their own land into cities - Ethiopia's population climbed to 10 million. In 1950, as development continued, the population climbed to 18.3 million. In the 1970s there were more huge land reforms. In the 1980s there were mass government resettlements. Now in 2010 Ethiopia's population is 83 million and climbing rapidly still.
Mr Guy is pushing the very same process as his government promotes more bad laws to prevent people from having any say over how they live and what is done around them in their own country. Like the Ethiopians, we are being rounded up for the sake of economic ideologies of benefit to a very few. Those who dare to protest are attacked with lies about numbers, fatuous pronouncements about living longer and having more children, and innuendo such as 'don't blame immigrants'. But Mr Guy, who is not deaf, blind or illiterate, knows that his government constantly advertises for immigrants and that Australia's population is growing mostly because of immigration, which is now so high that it is driving the destruction of local ammenity in the form of unwanted and costly infrastructure that his government is imposing on its constituents, just like some primitive dictatorship.
In 1994, when I began to research what drove population growth, Australia's population was 17m and our net overseas immigration numbers averaged about 80,000. We did not need desalination plants and homelessness was an unusual problem. But the Murdoch and Fairfax Press and corporate Australia were already baying for growth. By 2013 we have already reached well over 22million - a dangerous growth rate that has caused cost of living to skyrocket and quality of life to deteriorate.
Mr Guy says, "Simply targeting overseas migration is simplistic and it won't solve population growth problems."
The fact is that the Murdoch and Fairfax Press promote politicians who make misleading statements like that one by Mr Guy because Murdoch and Fairfax have huge investments in population growth.[2] ABS figures show that stopping high overseas immigration would go a long way to solving population growth problems because it is the major driver of population growth in Victoria and Australia.
[1] John Masanauskas, "Don't blame migrants on suburban boom, warns Planning Minister Matthew Guy," Herald Sun, August 30, 2013.
[2] The mainstream press are part of the corporate lobby. As well as both the Murdoch and the Fairfax press owning huge property dot coms (realestate.com.au and domain.com.au) and constantly beating the populate or perish drum, owners, board members and their associates can position themselves to benefit from the influence of journalistic reporting on the value of resources, commodities, and manufactures, as well as influencing who gets elected by choosing who and what gets publicity. By the way, David Williamson's new play, "Rupert", does a magnificent job of showing how this happens.
Whilst the UK Parliament has acted to prevent that country's armed forces from participating in the planned act of war against Syria, the United States is apparently still prepared to take action "on its own" in the face of the evidence and ovewhelming domestic and international opposition.
We must act to stop this outrage!
Where: Outside State library, 328 Swanston St, Melbourne When: 2:00PM, Sat 31 August. Be there!
Saturday 31st Melbourne Syria Protest military attack plan
Dear AMRIS and friends,
There will be a rally on Saturday 31st at 2pm outside the State library, Melbourne (328 Swanston St Melbourne VIC 3000 - Cnr La Trobe St) to protest the planned military attack on Syria. Various groups will be involved. Layla will be speaking on behalf of AMRIS.
Please circulate this, an update on my previous email, in which the Mother Agnes link didn't work. Also a second article from today by Alastair Crooke, and below that a message from Robert Bekhazi on the dangers to Christians in particular from the threatened attack, and the assistance it will give to Takfiri groups:
She asks some important questions about the children killed in the 'chemical attack' last week. Where did so many children come from when that area had lost a lot of its population after the 'rebels' took over? I was disturbed by the fact that there were virtually no signs of women - mothers and grandmothers, aunts etc - showing care for the children or lying beside the children, also killed by the chemical attack. If the children had been in a normal family situation when there had been a chemical attack, then where were their mothers? It raises the question: had the children been kidnapped from Lattakia, for example, for this attack? The men around the bodies show little to no anguish. Is this because they are the children of 'infidels'? (This is a news report from Syria showing interviews with relatives of people killed by Takfiris in villages around Lattakia earlier in August. They show the enormous heart-felt grief one would expect from family members in this situation.)
Alastair Crooke, ex-MI6, warned against war in Afghanistan decades ago and has been warning about the use of propaganda for war purposes, the information war. His article, Straining Credibility, is an excellent reference.
He has also just written this article on the US committing an 'Act of War', which succinctly exposes the false pretext being used by the West, as well as the evident culpability of the 'rebels'. : US Attack on Syria Would be Illegal 'Act of War'.
Dr Jeremy Salt, Australian ME expert who spoke at the last AMRIS information night, presents an analysis of the current crisis, "The Guardian of what? The Media and War Propaganda"
On the AMRIS Youtube page, there is an interview with Jeremy about the media and war propaganda.
In this save the birds campaign, Paul Sullivan, the Chief Executive Officer of Birdlife Australia, writes of how frustrated he is that the major parties are just ongoing standing by while birds and other creatures go extinct. He argues (as if it should be necessary) that it would cost very little money to save each threatened species. He does not mention how overpopulation, overdevelopment and agriculture are eating up habitat, but you know...
[Does anyone know the name of th pictured bird? It is on the Birdlife Australia website as an endangered species but has no label. Please write in and tell us.]
We’re frustrated. The environment and threatened native species have barely rated a mention in this election. Help us get threatened species firmly on the agenda of the major parties.
Some of the 20 birds listed as critically endangered are at extremely high risk of extinction on the next Australian Government’s watch.
Until now, both major parties have completely ignored the issue.Last week , the Coalition announced that it would fund a Commissioner for Threatened Species if elected in September. Whilst this was a welcome addition to the national conversation, it’s an empty promise unless backed by a strong fiscal commitment to fund individual species recovery programs.
The ALP too, have yet to commit to a fund dedicated to implementing recovery plans.The issue is finally getting some attention.Now we need your help to build on this momentum.
Both of the major parties must step up and make a commitment to funding for threatened species recovery plans. We’re not asking for a big commitment. We estimate it would only cost an average of $380,000 for each of our most endangered bird species. And we know funded recovery plans work – they save birds. BirdLife Australia can only do this with your help. We need you to add your voice to our call. Please sign this petition, get involved and join our campaign to receive regular supporter updates. Please share this note as widely as you can with your friends, family and social media networks. Ask them to get on board and give threatened birds a voice.
Over the past eight years all the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing have conceded that they entered the Iraq war on false information.
May our leaders consider what is really at stake in escalating the current crisis in Syria and may they protect not just the interests of the 23 million people of Syria, but also the long-term interests of Australia.
May our leaders have the moral strength and clarity to resist an Orwellian chant: we must destroy Syria in order to save it.
There are powerful voices in the United States who have spoken against war propaganda and military intervention in Syria, while others have adopted a hawkish push for war. Australia must find its own way.
In concurrence with almost all tribal leaders and religious authorities of every faith in Syria, AMRIS supports reconciliation in Syria. The long-planned Geneva 2 talks can provide the political solution needed. Western leaders must not give up on diplomacy for war based on flaky assertions of Islamist militias made less than one week ago.
As Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire suggests, it would be illogical for the Syrian government and army to use chemical weapons, particularly as UN inspectors have just arrived in the country. Moreover, as one AMRIS member has explained, most Syrians have family members in the army and the army represents all faiths in Syria. The army would lose its support base if it attacked its own people with chemical weapons. The use of chemical weapons by the government would invite the military intervention that sections of the armed opposition have demanded, which suggests it could be a false flag. Analysis is vital. Time is needed for the investigation. Research for the truth and diplomacy are vital for peace.
Despite their having been some extraordinary claims about the Syrian army using mass rape as a weapon of war, these claims have not led to calls for intervention. This may be because they can be refuted after serious investigation. What is more, investigating them might bring attention to the situation for women in the rebel held areas in contrast to the rights and opportunities women have in secular Syria.
It is ironic that while Syria is a secular society, the main allies of the US, the UK, and France in the venture to destroy the Syrian government have been Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saudi Arabia has not only provided financial support and condoned young Saudi suicide bombers going to Syria, but it has also released prisoners on death-row if they agreed to go to Syria to fight the government there. At the same time, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera has provided war propaganda and broadcast the chilling fatwas of extremist clerics. Already, tens of thousands of Christians have been forced to flee their homes in Syria and many priests have been killed or kidnapped. Yet the West is aligned with Saudi Arabia which hosts at least one Syrian extremist cleric and whose mufti has called for the destruction of all churches in the Arabian Peninsula.
In the meantime, while the EU has lifted its arms embargo on militias fighting the Syrian regular army, it hasn’t removed the crippling sanctions which can impoverish the country and impact on the lives of millions. In Syria, internal opposition groups eschew violence and support the regular army. Like Ang San Suu Kyi, some of the most prominent of these have suffered imprisonment for their dissent. However, a majority of the militarized opposition are radical Islamists, many supportive of the ideology of Al-Qaeda. ASIOS reports suggest there are hundreds of Australian Muslims fighting in Syria and are being radicalized by this conflict. And the existence of a united alternative moderate FSA army is an illusion.
Thousands of non-Syrian jihadists have flooded into Syria with the objective of not merely toppling the Syrian government but replacing the secular state with a caliphate, a radical Islamist society without borders. Many of these foreign fighters are Takfiri militants, who believe they can kill infidels and heretics with impunity. Minorities are their first target. However, ‘moderate’ Sunni Muslims are also targets. Terror is used as a weapon of this war; the intense fear it creates can lead to the silencing of a population.
Yet, into this quagmire, the US and the UK are considering international military intervention. What is apparently influencing this decision are reports from Médecins Sans Frontières . Because working in rebel held areas in Syria is too dangerous for Westerners, MSF recruits local doctors. Local doctors who volunteer to work in a rebel controlled hospital treating wounded fighters are presumably sympathetic to the rebel cause, so their reports to MSF must naturally be treated with caution. (NB: a co-founder of MSF became French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs under President Sarkozy.)
It is estimated that more than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria since March 2011, and from 30,000 to 40,000 of those killed have been soldiers in the Syrian Army, targeted since almost the very beginning of the crisis. Research indicates that opposition to the government has been expressed in a violent manner by provocative elements within the protest movement since the start of Syria’s “Arab Spring”.
The international media has presented a highly selective narrative of the crisis in Syria and by pushing a sectarian view of the conflict they are helping release a slow time bomb that can have catastrophic repercussions for decades, not just in Syria. People who murder Christians, Druze or Alawis are welcomed into the rebel forces the West supports.
Unverified reports placing responsibility for atrocities on the government and regular army are highlighted in our media. While well-verified reports of massacres committed by jihadists have largely been ignored. This month, the inhabitants of Alawite villages on Lattakia's outskirts were targeted. One month prior to the massacre, a member of the Syrian National Coalition, a body recognized by the Australian government as the legitimate representative of the Syrian state, called for the killing of Alawi Muslims. In some of these villages, all of the inhabitants were massacred. Before the chemical weapon attack, the UN inspectors were due to investigate this massacre.
There has been mass murder and ethnic cleansing, beheadings and hangings perpetrated against both Syria's civilian population and regular soldiers in rebel controlled areas. Syrians of all faiths who have not supported the ideology of the particular armed opposition in their area have been assassinated. This has included university professors and other public servants.
In Duma where the chemical attack reputedly took place, militia have issued fatwas permitting the confiscation of the property of Christian, Alawi Muslim and Druze minorities and others who ‘let down’ the radical Islamists.
AMRIS categorically opposes international military intervention in Syria. Intervention would favor the ideology and brutal practices of the predominantly Islamist forces fighting the regular army on the ground. A no-fly zone would provide them cover to continue to slaughter and persecute minorities and others who do not adopt their beliefs. The ramifications would be horrific.
International intervention and no fly zones have proven ineffective in the region. In Libya, to save thousands, such policies resulted in the deaths of many more thousands, the destruction of infrastructure, the fragmentation of state, and the placing of the country in the hands of extremist Islamists.
By researching events in Syria, we can own our understanding of the war. That enables us to take an independent stand for peace and diplomacy and to stop fueling violence and sectarian hatred in Syria.
Australia will take up the presidency of the Security Council next week, which will give our government a chance to take the world away from the path to war. AMRIS supports the Prime Minister’s decision to act in a "calm and measured" way in the face of calls for the US to lead a military strike at President Bashar al-Assad and his forces.
AMRIS urges the government to support a political solution to the conflict through the Geneva 2 peace conference.
AMRIS urges Australians, including those in the media and in all faith communities, to research Syria. To imagine that the people in Syria are like us - they want peace in their country – and to respond to that natural wish as best we can.
*****************************************************************************************
AMRIS unites people with a range of political views and religious and ethnic backgrounds. Many of us have family or friends in Syria. Many of us can say from the heart, “I love Syria”. Syria does not exist for one ‘regime’ or one president. It is not an exclusive Syria; it is a very diverse society which has welcomed millions of refugees from different faiths in the past 100 years. As Australians we have the ‘responsibility to defend Australia should the need arise’. Assuming Syrian citizens also have the same responsibility to defend their country, who should they fight, the regular Syrian army composed of people from every religious and ethnic background or rebels funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, and dominated by people promoting the ideology of radical Islam? (For the vast majority of Syrian women, this would not be a difficult decision.) Should they fight military forces from the US, the UK and France which enter their country? Genuine efforts for peace, freedom and political reform rely on an unrelenting search for the truth and the ability to open your heart to the ‘enemy’. The heroes of the 20 th century - Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Ang San Suu Kyi – must be our guide into the 21 st century.
An Australian political hero for many was Prime Minister John Curtin. During the Second World War, he determined it wasn’t in Australia’s interest to follow Britain blindly. Peace in the 21 st century may require similar radical independent action and courage. We must not lose our moral compass, our intellectual rigor, our imagination, and the courage needed to act for a better world. Only with those, can we help prevent a war. It is our choice.
Governments are creating a great fear of an "ageing population" and population decline. While asylum seekers are shunted off to PNG, there are over 1000 people legally imported into Australia each day - as skilled migrants or under the family reunion scheme – to alleviate our “ageing population”.
Our cities and infrastructure are buckling under the heavy weight of population growth, to alleviate our "ageing population"! We have constant "shortages", cut backs and austerity measures due to population pressures. Young people are at risk from being lost to unemployment, and debt, as our economy lags behind population growth. Mug shot of Charles Ponzi (March 3, 1882 – January 18, 1949). Charles Ponzi was born in Italy and became known as a swindler for his money scheme.
Increasing spending on welfare
With total government spending at $485 billion, spending on the welfare state accounted for a majority share—or 65% of the total. It is astounding that of the $316 billion that the government spent on welfare, approximately half, or $158 billion, was due to tax-welfare churn (The process of levying taxes on people and then returning those taxes to the same people in the form of income support payments and welfare services simultaneously or over the course of an individual’s lifetime).
When combined with the fiscal pressures of an ageing population and expected lower tax revenue growth, it is clear the Australian welfare state is unsustainable on current trends.
Target30 propose that superannuation be used to buy annuities, pension assets tests should include the family home, and aged pension and preservation ages be raised and aligned.
Social security and welfare spending accounted for A$138 billion in the latest budget, a rise of nearly 14% per year over the past decade. Assistance to the aged has risen to almost A$55 billion, a rise of 22% per year since 2003-04. In 2003-04 A$26 billion were payments to the aged, while families with children received A$21 billion.
Health expenditure expected to nearly double as a proportion of GDP over the next 40 years and aged-care spending projected to increase as a proportion of GDP from 0.8 per cent in 2010 to about 1.8 per cent in 2050.
The aged pension is predicted to cost $37 billion this year rising rapidly to $45 billion by 2015-16. It is estimated another 220,000 older Australians will start drawing down an aged pension in the coming four years.The greatest risk to prosperity come from sustained increases in spending, especially in health. Over the past decade health expenditure rose by over $40 billion in real terms. According to a Grattan Report the ageing population was not the prime cause. Rather, people of any age saw doctors more often, had more tests and operations and took more prescription drugs.
After welfare, the second biggest chunk of the federal budget is healthcare. This is "burdened" by the ageing population. The health budget is set to escalate to $71 billion by 2015-16.
In third place in the budget comes education spending at almost $30 billion a year, including funding for universities, non-government schools and some funding for public schools (although states still pick up most of the tab for public schools).
No doubt the best solution would be to ensure that older people were eliminated, by voluntary euthanasia, after they finished contributing economically to our society.
Ageing migrants
Despite many older people living long and healthy lives, and being financially self-sufficient, they are are being exaggerated as a threat. Migrants are ageing too. Professor Graeme Hugo AO, Director of the Australian Population and Migration Research Centre at the University of Adelaide, says the issue of ageing migrants is important to a range of policy areas in Australia. The last Census showed that 32,000 aged pensions are being paid every year direct to Greece and Italy to migrants who formerly came to Australia over the decades in the 20th century, and have now retired.
It's assumed that young migrants are the "silver bullet" to our ageing workforce, but migrants age too!
We need to end the stigma and discrimination of the aged in the work force and tap into their wisdom and experience. Japan has an ageing population, and still their economy is strong and growing - due to production and skills.
Importing young migrants only temporarily keeps our population "young" anyway, as everyone ages at the same rate. Rather than a constant flow of foreigners, many of whom are now facing higher rates of unemployment than Australian born, employers need to be flexible to allow part-time work, and tap into the experience and abilities of older workers.
Immigration only temporarily relieves ageing population
NSW Treasury Long-Term Fiscal Pressures Report answer to the fiscal ‘challenge’ of Australia’s ageing population is to increase immigration, restrain public sector pay, and – the quote here is direct – through “lowering community expectations” of services. There’s no Get Up! outrage over humdrum issues like 10 year-long queues for public housing, or ballooning hospital waiting times, or the fact that only 2% of rents in Sydney-Illawara are affordable for very low income workers. Deniers avert our attention to asylum seekers and gay marriage,"McMansions", big cars and over-consumption.
Population growth is also the lazy way to grow GDP (as opposed to GDP per capita) and make Treasurers look good. If this wasn’t enough, big business also has enormous influence on our major political parties through donations.
Young people remain longer in education before they take on full-time jobs in an economy increasingly based on knowledge and skills, and older people may often experience difficulty in finding employment. In 2011, 36% of Australia's older people were not born in Australia, a substantially higher proportion than the 24% of people under 65 years who were overseas-born.
In the Productivity Commission 2010 report titled Population and Migration: Understanding the Numbers, the Commission concluded that "Realistic changes in migration levels also make little difference to the age structure of the population in the future, with any effect being temporary, since immigrants themselves age."
Where does population growth end? We might be able to temporarily dilute, by a fraction, the proportion of people aged over 65, but in the long term the next generation will inherit a bigger "ageing population" to compensate for - but how?
“Realistic changes in fertility can have little impact on the age structure of the population in the short to medium term. While they have a greater effect in the longer term, they cannot stem the ageing of Australia’s population. Realistic changes to fertility could have some effect in the long term, but the proportion of older Australians will still grow from current levels. ”
End to the Age of Entitlements
The nation's peak welfare body has backed Joe Hockey's call for an end to the age of entitlement, arguing that people have "learned to expect new things from government" and tax reform is needed to transform the system. Australian Council of Social Service senior policy officer on tax and economics Peter Davidson said slowing growth and an ageing population meant the tax and welfare system was unsustainable.
Baby Bonus, Schoolkids Bonus and a Seniors Bonus are all "wasteful". Acoss says that taxes should be as simple, transparent and predictable as possible.
The Age of Entitlement is over. We should not take this as cause for despair. It is our market based economies which have forced this change on unwilling participants. Government spending on a range of social programs including education, health, housing, subsidised transport, social safety nets and retirement benefits has reached extraordinary levels as a percentage of GDP, and in an age of slowing growth and ageing population, are simply unsustainable.
It's an admission that our "growth" will inevitably lower our standards of living, and we will be less for our taxes. It's pure Ponzi economics!
Two decades of economic growth and we are being strangled economically.
“The reality is that despite more than two decades of strong economic growth, fault lines are emerging in our economic and social foundations that we simply cannot continue to ignore.
“There are major holes in our social safety net that the next government will have to address – in affordable housing, education, disability, mental and dental health, and community controlled services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples..." In reality, 22 years of "economic growth" has left us worse off, and poverty is increasing with 2.2 million people living below the poverty line.
Australia has long been one of the countries which has most enthusiastically pursued growth through immigration. But as the fertility rate fell – it has been below replacement rate for more than 30 years – that Big Australia goal became ever more reliant on imported people.
With no policies on slowing immigration levels, the flow of migrants to the western suburbs will hardly slow at all.
Lower fertility rates mean older, less innovative and productive workforces. More importantly to the Ponzi economic order, older, stable or declining populations consume less. So growth requires either importing people, or exporting stuff, or a combination of the two. Orthodox economics simply can’t cope otherwise.
“Economic growth” Ponzi economics
The Economy is meant to serve us, not “grow” to detrimental levels and deny its very purpose – to care for our health, education, children and seniors, and be a safety-net when emergencies strike.
“We’re certainly operating a Ponzi scheme in Australia,” says Dr Bob Birrell, an economist and migration expert from Monash University.
“Our growth is predicated on extra numbers… [and] more of our activity is going into city building and people servicing, which do not directly produce many goods that can be traded in overseas markets".
There are limits to growth, and Ponzi pyramid growth schemes always collapse and leave the participants worse off - except for the capital owners at the summit. What we need is a circuit-breaker to the growth/ageing population/"economic growth" mentality that is destroying our environment, vilifying older people, and causing hardship and increasing budgetary austerity.
A few years ago I was introduced to Dr. Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, population and energy" lecture recorded at the University of Colorado , (Boulder) U.S.A. To me, the message was so clear, engaging and logical that no-one could fail to understand it and hopefully none would fail to see the significance.
– He was saying that what may look to be ample reserves , for example, 500 years of coal still in the ground will not last anywhere near that as the demand for that resource increases with exponential population growth.
Despite being officially launched in 2010, it's the 7th of September 2013 that will see the real birth of the 'population party'. William Bourke, the leader of the Party, says, "We champion a difficult but critical cause - misunderstood by some, and misrepresented by others. Despite the huge challenges of running a national campaign on a shoestring budget, our grassroots community party has collectively run an honorable and professional campaign. We have much to be proud of."
"Growth isn’t always progress: Our planet is not an inflatable ball & has limited resources. It’s great to watch our children or income grow, but every growth has a limit. Beyond it lie greed, overpopulation, environmental destruction, conflict & misery. Ever-growing population & industries wouldn’t make life better, but surely lead to imminent catastrophe. Unlike many mad/blind economists & politicians, I’ll work for preserving the current population levels & the development of cleaner, sophisticated & sustainable steady state economy."
For the first time ever right across Australia ( except NT and Tas) Australians will at this election have the opportunity to vote for a party dedicated to animals. At a recent presentation by the AJP in Victoria, I found out that their principle policy is 'kindness'.
You may know the recently formed Animal Justice Party from their efforts to stop the kangaroo slaughter in the ACT or other actions such as opposing the live trade. They were however formed to enhance the lives of all animals as can be seen from the policies on their web site 
A candobetter.net article written in 2011 
The Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) funds mental health nurses to work collaboratively with GPs and psychiatrists to support people with severe and persistent mental illness. This is a very economical and efficient collaboration, funded by Medicare and bulk-billable. It usually costs patients nothing, in contrast to the unaffordability of consultations with psychiatrists and the limited availablility of funding for psychologists. The Australian College of Mental Health Nurses (ACMHN) welcomes the release of Government and Coalition election policies on mental health, but College President Prof Wendy Cross has expressed concern that the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) was not mentioned by either party. The ACMHN calls on whoever forms the next Australian Government to match the funding committment of the Greens, who put the figure of $210 million over three years.
“The MHNIP is a successful program that keeps people with complex mental illness out of hospital. It helps them live productive, self-directed lives” says Prof Cross. 
President John F. Kennedy, Arabist and renowned for his support for Algerian Independence struggle
President Johnson, who colluded with Israel in its unsuccessful attempt to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt
Andrew Holden, Age Editor-in-chief 
It's good that Get-up is criticising the absence of diversity of ownership in the Australian press and the tendency of that press to promote the government that it wants.
Geoff Brown the Stable Population Party candidate for the marginal seat of Lindsay is calling on the media "to challenge Fiona Scott and Tony Abbott about comments made on Four Corners last night by Ms Scott, the Lindsay candidate for the Liberal Party, that the traffic congestion plaguing the people of Lindsay is caused by 50,000 boat people." In the light of criticisms of Bob Katter for demographic ignorance, the silence on the same ignorance in the major parties is deafening.
Let’s ask why Greens, Liberals & Labor suppress the population issue: Stable Population Party - The party says it will reveal all in a front-page ad in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday. The Stable Population Party points out that, despite a ‘massive thumbs down for big Australia’, [1] with 70 per cent hoping the population does not hit the 40 million mark projected by 2050, no major party will raise population as a campaign issue. 
Sustainable Population Australia, Green Wedges Coalition, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and Planning Backlash are four of the peak planning and environmental groups that have produced a Sustainable Population Charter for Victoria because the government seems unable to do so. It recommends that net overseas migration be reduced from the recent 232,000 immigrants in a year to 70,000 net per annum. See 
In this save the birds campaign, Paul Sullivan, the Chief Executive Officer of Birdlife Australia, writes of how frustrated he is that the major parties are just ongoing standing by while birds and other creatures go extinct. He argues (as if it should be necessary) that it would cost very little money to save each threatened species. He does not mention how overpopulation, overdevelopment and agriculture are eating up habitat, but you know...
[Does anyone know the name of th pictured bird? It is on the Birdlife Australia website as an endangered species but has no label. Please write in and tell us.]
Military escalation in Syria cannot defuse the crisis, limit the casualties of war or produce peace. Instead, some believe it can lead to a world war.
Recent comments