Sunday, June 22, 2014

356 Lets kill, just out of precaution...

This blog: 

The jewish religion has many extremist aspects.
One of them is: A Jew may kill a non-jewish child if he has good reason to believe that this child will grow up to be an enemy of the Jewish people. ( King's Torah)
Under one condition: the murder should not lead to anti-jewish actions.

Since the Neocons are responsable for American politics, their policy has some extremist aspects.
One of them is: pre-emptive strike.
America may attack an enemy if America believes that this enemy will do bad things in the near future to America (a terrror attack) or to his own people (Ghadaffi will throw bombs on civilians). In the last case it can be called: pre-emptive Responsability to Protect.

The good part of pre-emptive striking.
If you are really sure that an enemy is preparing to attack you, then the best thing to do is attack him first. ( If diplomacy or other good plans fail).

The bad thing of pre-emptive striking.
It allows the attack and destruction of  'peaceful entities'  with the help of the masses who are led to believe that they attack 'bad entities'. The masses do not know of the hidden agenda, which is supposed to be 'American Empire Building' but often comes down helping Israel to become Greater Israel.

In our time plain offensive wars have become unthinkable.
So if you want to eleminate other 'entities' you must accuse the other of planning to attack you.
They do not have to be a danger in reality.
You just have to make believe that they are dangerous. For instance:  that they have weapons of Mass destruction. ( Or plan to build a nuclear war, or work together with Al Qaida, or can throw a bomb on London in 40 minutes)

A pre-emptive nuclear war.
From 1946 to 2014 the threat of the atomic bomb caused peace in the world: Each party was afraid that the other would retaliate by throwing an atom bomb, which would destroy both parties.

This situation has changed in two ways.
The Americans uses Nato in an agressive way, and if they can re-posess the Crimea, Russia's possibility to retaliate would be very low, which leaves the possibility for America to throw an atomic bomb on Russia without being punished for it.  Knowing them, I am sure they will do it.
So now they begin to talk about the possibility of throwing a pre-emptive atomic bomb!
This is very dangerous NEW  idea. ( Paul Craig Roberts)

Sheikh Imran Hussein's vision.
In 2003  Sheikh Imran Hussein held a speech in which he predicted the Arab Spring.  But he predicted more at that time. He said: It's Israel's strategy to have extremists in power in Arab countries. And when thes extremists decide to take on Israel and threaten Israel, then they will have an excuse to throw their atomic bomb and kill millions of arabs. That is their strategy....  ( 8 min, video with Imran Husseini , 2003)   So far the Sheikh's predictions are correct...  (For a summary of the speech: see below)

Pre-emptive prosecution.  
Already around 1985 Neocons like Richard Perle began to bring money muslim countries in to Eastern Europa for building madrassa's. From these students the more extreme elements were recruited  to form a jihadist army whiuch would later be used to destroy Islamic stated with more secularised governments. All acoording to the Yinon Plan.  Sibeld Edmonds has described the whole story.

Then 911 was made to happen, and since that time muslim-bashing is big bussiness.
Muslims are the new Russia: the new ennemy that makes wars possible. And made the Patriot Act possible. And makes surveillance of all people all over the world possible ( Snowden: NSA).

But to make the muslim-thread a credible idea, you have to show some threats every now and then.

A study has recently shown that from about 400 arrests for terrorism, 94% were pre-emptive. In short: the accusations were false.

Here is the report: Inventing Terrorists.  ( Below you will find a summary of this report.)

The law is used as if it is an asset to make warfare with: Lawfare.


Summary of Sheikh Imran Husseini's 2003 speech.
Sheikh Imran Hussein:  in2003:
Israel wants a big war against the muslim World. But Israel does not want to look like an agressor, It wants to look like a victim that acts out of self defense.  But muslims do not know how bad Palestinians are treated.  So Al Jazeeera was created, and Al Jazeera shows how the Palestinians suffer. This will make the arab people very angry.  The governments in the Islam World will fall.  Authentic muslims will take power.  
Then they will also  become hostile to Israel.
Israel will tel the World that they are threatened. That they wiull all be killed.
Israel will use this as  the legitimation  to commit a pre-emptive strike.
It wil be real armageddon. The rest of the World will protest, but that is all.

Then Israel will controle the oil fields and has power over the World.  

Summary of 'Inventing Terrorists'.  

This study, sponsored by two national organizations, Project SALAM (Support And Legal Advocacy for Muslims) and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), focuses on post-9/11 claims by the U.S. government that it keeps the county safe from terrorism by arresting hundreds of so-called “terrorists” who were about to strike the U.S. until the FBI foiled their plots. In fact, this study shows that there have been remarkably few actual terrorism threats to this country in the last decade. The vast majority of arrests in the war on terror have consisted of
    • the FBI foiling its own entrapment plots; or
    • the government arresting people on material support for terrorism
    charges that effectively criminalize innocent conduct, such as
    charitable giving and management, free speech, free association,
    peace-making, and social hospitality; or
    • inflation of minor or technical incidents into terrorism events, such
    as immigration application inaccuracies, old weapons charges, or inaccurate statements to governmental officials The study shows that the war on terror has been largely a charade designed
to make the American public believe that a terrorist army is loose in the U.S., when the truth is that most of the people convicted of terrorismrelated crimes posed no danger to the U.S. and were entrapped by a preventive strategy known as preemptive prosecution. The theme of the study links preemptive prosecution to the metaphor of “lawfare,” the use of the law as a weapon of war, in this case the war on terror.
Statistically, the study asks how many of the individuals who appear on theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) 2001–2010 list of “terrorism and terrorism-related convictions” (Appendix A) represented real terrorism threats, and how many were cases of preemptive prosecutions. The study then categorizes the cases of the individuals on the DOJ list as one of three types of cases: preemptive prosecutions, cases that contained elements of preemptive prosecution, or cases that were not preemptive prosecutions/represented real terrorism threats.
The statistical analysis shows that 72.4% of convictions on the DOJ list represent cases of preemptive prosecution that were based on suspicion of the defendant’s perceived ideology and not on his/her criminal activity. Another 21.8% of convictions on the DOJ list represent people who began on their own to engage in minor, non-terrorist criminal activity but whose cases were manipulated and inflated by the government to appear as though they were “terrorists”; these cases are referred to in the study as “elements of preemptive prosecution” or “elements.” Overall, 94.2% of all the terrorism-related convictions on the DOJ list have been either preemptive prosecution cases or cases that involved elements of preemptive prosecution.
The study defines preemptive prosecution, gives background on the origin of the concept, discusses the tactical patterns that characterize its use by the government, and provides a methodology for determining the categorization of a case. The study then shows, for cases on the DOJ list, the percentages for each categorization of a case, as well as percentages for the tactical patterns used in each categorization. The study concludes that the government has used preemptive prosecution to exaggerate the threat of Muslim extremism to the security of the country, and presents some hypotheses as to why the government has done this, without taking a position on which possibilities may be correct. The study also makes recommendations to change the present unfair terrorism laws.


No comments:

Post a Comment