Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category

Obama’s Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold?

January 25, 2012

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
4th Media

January 23, 2012

“The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus”

The New York Times announced that the Obama Administration had sent an important letter to the leadership of Iran on January 12, 2012. [1]

On January 15, 2012, the spokesperson of the Iranian Foreign Ministry acknowledged that the letter had been delivered to Tehran by way of three diplomatic channels:

(1) one copy of the letter was handed to the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Khazaee, by his U.S. counterpart, Susan Rice, in New York City;

(2) a second copy of the letter was delivered in Tehran by the Swiss Ambassador to Iran, Livia Leu Agosti; and

(3) a third copy went to Iran by way of Jalal Talabani of Iraq. [2]

In the letter, the White House spelled out the position of the United States, while Iranian officials said it was a sign of things as they really are: the U.S. cannot afford to wage a war against Iran.

Within the letter written by President Barak Hussein Obama was a U.S. request for the start of negotiations between Washington and Tehran to end Iranian-U.S. hostilities.

“In the letter, Obama announced readiness for negotiations and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” Ali Motahari, an Iranian parliamentarian, told the Mehr News Agency. [3] According to another Iranian parliamentarian, this time the Deputy Chairperson of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Hussein Ebrahimi (Ibrahimi), the letter went on to ask for Iranian-U.S. cooperation and negotiations based on the mutual interests of both Tehran and Washington. [4]

Obama’s letter also tried to assure Tehran that the United States would not engage in any hostile action against Iran. [5] In fact, in the same timeframe, the Pentagon cancelled or delayed major joint drills with Israel. [6]

To the Iranians, however, the gestures are meaningless, because the Obama Administration’s actions with Iran have always contradicted its words. Moreover, Iran believes that the U.S. has not attacked, because it knows that the costs of a war with an opponent like Iran are too high and its consequences far too risky.

This, however, does not mean that an Iranian-U.S. showdown has been avoided or will not eventually happen. The currents can go either way, so to speak. Nor does this mean that the Obama Administration is not currently waging a war against the Iranians and their allies. In fact, Washington’s bloc and Iran’s bloc have been fighting a shadow war from the digital arena and television airwaves to the valleys of Afghanistan and the bustling streets of Beirut and Baghdad.

The War Against Iran Started Years Ago

The war in Iran did not start in 2012 or even 2011. Newsweek Magazine even stated the following on a cover title in 2010: “Assassinations, cyberattacks, sabotage – has the war against Tehran already begun?” The actual war may have started in 2006.

Instead of attacking Iran directly, the U.S. has started a covert and proxy war. The covert dimensions of the war are being fought by intelligence assets, cyber attacks, computer viruses, secretive military units, spies, assassins, agent provocateurs, and saboteurs. The kidnapping and assassination of Iranian scientists and military commanders, which started several years ago is a part of this covert war. In this shadow war, Iranian diplomats in Iraq have been abducted and Iranians visiting Georgia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been detained or kidnapped. Syrian officials, various Palestinian figures, and Hezbollah’s Imad Fayez Mughniyeh have also all been assassinated in this shadow war.

The proxy wars started in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon with the intention of expanding the war against Syria. The road to Damascus goes through Beirut, while Damascus is on the way to Tehran. After their failure in 2006, realizing that Syria was the lynchpin of the Resistance Bloc, which Iran dominated, the U.S. and its allies spent the next five to six years trying to de-link Syria from Iran.

The U.S. is also fighting Iran and its allies on the diplomatic and economic fronts through the manipulation of international bodies and proxy states. In the 2011 to 2012 context, the crisis in Syria on a geo-political level is a front in the war against Iran. Even the Israeli-U.S. drill Austere Challenge 2012 and the U.S. deployment of troops were primarily aimed at Syria as a means of combating Iran.

Syria in the Eye of the Storm

What Washington is doing is exerting psychological pressure on Iran as a means of distancing it from Syria, so that the United States and its cohorts can go for the kill. Up until the start of January 2012, the Israelis have continuously been preparing to launch an invasion of Syria in a rematch of 2006, while U.S. and E.U. officials have continously tried negotiating with Damascus for a deal to de-link from Iran and the Resistance Bloc. The Syrians, however, have always refused.

Foreign Policy, the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article in August 2011 stating what was on the Saudi King’s mind about Syria in context of attacking Iran: “The King knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.” [7] Whether the above statement genuinely came from Abdul Aziz Al-Saud or not, this strategic outlook is representative of the reasons for the targeting of Syria. Obama’s own security advisor has also said the same thing, just a few months after the piece by Foreign Policy was released, in November 2011. National Security Advisor Donilon gave a speech saying that the “end of the Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region – a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran.” [8]

The Kremlin has also made statements that corroborate that Washington wants to de-link Syria from its Iranian ally. One of Russia’s highest security officials has announced that Syria is being punished, because of its strategic alliance with Iran. The Secretary of the National Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai (Nikolay) Platonovich Patrushev, has publicly stated that Syria is the subject of Washington’s pressure due to geo-political interests tied to cutting Syria’s ties with Iran and not due to any humanitarian concerns. [9]

Iran has also given signals that should the Syrians be attacked, it will not hesitate to intervene militarily to come to Syria’s aid. Washington does not want this. The Pentagon would much rather swallow Syria first, before turning its full and undivided attention to Iran. The Pentagon’s objectives are to fight its targets piecemeal. Despite the U.S. military doctrine of fighting simultaneous wars in multiple theatres and all the Pentagon literature about it, the U.S. is not ready yet to wage a conventional regional war against both Iran and Syria or risk an expanded war with Iran’s Russian and Chinese allies yet. The march to war, however, is far from over. For now the U.S. government will have to continue the shadow war against Iran and intensify the media, diplomatic, and economic war.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He Specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He Has been a contributor and guest discussing the Broader Middle East on numerous international programs and networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. His writings have been published in more than ten languages​​. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow.

NOTES

[1] Elisabeth Bumiller et al., “US sends top Iran leader warning on Hormuz threat,” The New York Times, January 12, 2012.
[2] Mehr News Agency, “Details of Obama’s letter to Iran released,” January 18, 2012.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Yakkov Katz, “Israel, US cancel missile defense drill,” Jerusalem Post, January 15, 2012.
[7] John Hannah, “Responding to Syria: The King’s statement, the President’s hesitation,” Foreign Policy, August 9, 2011.
[8] Natasha Mozgovaya, “Obama Aide: End of Assad regime will serve severe blow to Iran,” Haaretz, November 22, 2011.
[9] Ilya Arkhipov and Henry Meyer, “Russia Says NATO, Persian Gulf Nations Plan to Seek No-Fly Zone for Syria,” Bloomberg, January 12, 2012.

Israel Lobby launch new Super PAC effort to bring down Ron Paul

January 23, 2012

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
January 23, 2012

For decades, lobbies and special interests have ruled Capitol Hill, with PACs effectively steering the outcome of every major political campaign by injecting money and buying influence. Now we find out that Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul has been targeted by a new breed of PAC – this time with foreign backing.

In recent years, activists and advocates have won back some ground in terms of placing limits and disclosure on campaign donations from individuals, businesses and have attempted to rein in some of the financial influence of political action committees (PACs). Just when one dragon was slayed, another, more menacing one was born. Enter the world of the Super PAC.

Following the tragic ruling of US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, corporations won the same rights as humans, and thus are now about to pump as much money into political campaigns via the unregulated new ‘Super PACs’.

As 501c organizations, Super PACs take advantage of recent election funding rulings which allow corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to operate totally independently – and spend as much as they wish on election campaign media packages. Super PACs can also hold fundraisers to solicit money from donors – with no limits. The rise of the Super PAC has meant a complete runaround of any campaign ethics, or campaign finance regulation.

Where the game was often played according to how much special interests could buy a candidate, the game has now shifted into darker areas, namely, how special interests can take down, and eliminate a candidate during the early part of an election cycle. South Carolina residents are currently being slammed with a record number of Super PAC-funded TV adverts, some of which are negative in nature. More shocking is the fact that all these Super PAC ads are being paid for by just a handful of wealthy donors and establishment syndicates.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post this week, David Donnelly, National Campaigns Director for the Public Campaign Action Fund revealed, “There are probably fewer than 100 people who are fueling 90 percent of this outside money right now.” The report also adds:

In total, these new and unrestrained political action committees spent more than $15 million supporting GOP candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire and are now outspending the official campaigns in South Carolina by 2 to 1, according to advertising and expenditure data.

Out of this small handful of mega-rich donors, the Israeli lobby is represented heavily. The Washington Post adds here:

And casino magnate Sheldon Adelson recently dashed off a $5 million check to a group backing former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), marking what may be the largest single political contribution in U.S. history. Adelson is well known for supporting hard-line policies favoring Israel while also advocating measures that would benefit the gambling industry.

This level of allowable interference in US campaigns has seen Super PACs propping up certain alternate horses in the political race, in order to take votes away from the any serious rival to Establishment’s front-runner of choice. Based on election results and major polling, Mitt Romney’s only serious rival coming out of New Hampshire would be Ron Paul, yet, large sums of money are still flowing elsewhere in the field. Why?

In terms of the remaining GOP field, one could not find a more unappealing and unpopular candidate to commit millions in PAC funds for the duration of the primaries than Rick Santorum. Similarly, a complete non-runner and failure in all polling, John Huntsman, managed to bag a cool $2.5 million late in the game from the Super PAC, ‘Our Destiny’, which floated his campaign through Iowa and New Hampshire. Both men have secured some heavy backing, but skeptics should really be asking after these primaries have concluded, how a candidate with no real national support base could continue through the primaries – at such a great expense.

Likewise, the career of Newt Gingrich has long since peaked, with many mainstream political pundits even categorizing him as ‘unelectable’, but his recent record-breaking PAC donation from the Israeli lobby establishment figure Sheldon Adelson now begins to make sense. Note that Adelson is also an active financial supporter and media arm for Benjamin Netanyahu’spolitical career in Israel.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who is not overtly ‘pro-Israel’ in the popular neoconservative sense. On January 13, in the run-up to the pivotal South Carolina GOP primary, the Emergency Committee for Israel, run by neoconservative thinker William Kristol, released an ad in which its Director Gary Bauer makes a plea to voters – not endorsing any candidate, rather, telling conservatives that they must reject Congressman Ron Paul as their GOP candidate, deriding his foreign policy views with respect to America’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel, and fighting the War on Terror – concluding that, “We can do better than Ron Paul”. See their advert here:

In reality, Ron Paul has broadcast a consistent message over the years, one which firmly places America first, and foreign entanglements last. He is the only GOP candidate who pledges to bring the troops home, cut off foreign military aid to countries overseas and lastly, he is not supporting any form of military showdown with Iran. For these reasons, his platform comes into direct conflict with the state of Israel – who is advocating the opposite, making him a target of this latest foreign interest Super PAC attack.

From this event, one can state as fact – not theory, that Israel and its supporters in the US are actively working to derail Ron Paul’s race towards the GOP nomination, and the Presidency. This fact alone, should be cause for alarm from even the most moderate of public corridors:

Israel’s lobby in America, AIPAC, is the only foreign agent in America that does not have to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Almost every major American politician in the last decade has either met with AIPAC or flown to Israel to receive approval before running a campaign. Many of America’s congressman have admitted that they constantly ask how Israel feels about a bill before voting on it.

Should a foreign country, in this case Israel, be allowed to buy a significant influence through the media in American democratic elections? Should candidates be allowed to accept donations – even indirectly, from foreign interest PACs or agents thereof, thus creating a serious conflict of interest, and threat to national security?

Democracy for hire?

Once the GOP primaries are finished and the opposition nominee is selected, you will then see the pro-Democratic Super PACS sprung into action. President Obama’s hands will remain clean until that time, but the Democrats could very well fall on this same sword should public outrage in America reach significant levels.

With such an over-arching umbrella of influence determining its outcome, one can only conclude that the American democratic system of elections has been manipulated and twisted to such a degree by powerful special interests, that major elections in the US cannot be classed as either free or fair. Rather they have warped into cynical, stage-managed events, engineered by the few in order to achieve a particular outcome.

What does this say about the state of America in 2012? To this point, Donnelly sums it up: “When you think about the amazing impact that this small number of people have on deciding the election, on the information that people will have on who to vote for, it’s mind-boggling.”

Surely, the American people cannot be a winner in this current climate of campaign high finance and open corruption. Much worse however, in this current set-up the true winner of a genuine democratic race – can never be known.

Many will be understandably outraged to know how this game is being played behind the scenes. If there was ever a time for election reform, it is 2012.

-

SYRIA PREPARING TO RESIST GLOBALIST AND NATO REGIME CHANGE PLANS

August 23, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
August 24, 2011

With globalist restructuring plans for the Middle East and North Africa looking to be nearly complete, one major hurdle remains. After a relatively easy path to victory in Tunisia and Egypt, and with the project to dismantle and re-privatise the Libyan state nearly complete, only Syria remains as the last serious contender for resistance against a globalist effort to dominate the greater region.

According to a report yesterday in USA TODAY, the Syrian leader, President Bashar Assad is ”not worried” about the security of his country, and also warned NATO against any foreign military operations against this country. The report continues by stating:

“I am not worried about the security situation right now, we can say the security situation is better… It may seem dangerous, but in fact we are able to deal with it,” Assad concluded.

NOT ROLLING OVER: Assad's Syria will be one of the globalists most difficult regime change operations.

Led by the globalists’ top PR spokesperson Barack Obama, the West, without question has long set its sights on Syria. Western media consumers can firstly expect a trial by media of Assad, followed by more Western-backed provocateur actions within the country designed to sway international opinion in favour of the  following:
  
1. International sanctions
2. UN Resolution
3. No Fly Zone
4. A long, protracted NATO bombing campaign
5. “Regime change

This is the current formula(above) being employed by the US, UK and its ‘Coalition’ partners to win control of a country. After the US over-step in Iraq in 2003, the acceptable diplomatic technique is now done whereby the US/UK will work through the UN by pushing a vague resolution, and using NATO as the quasi-legal enforcement arm of a UN-backed NO FLY ZONE. Certainly, this has worked so far with Libya.

Globalist think tank The Council on Foreign Relation (CFR), officially called for “regime change in Syria” on August 18th. This should be as clear an indication as any that plans have already been drawn up to restructure the country.

The story by now, should be a familiar one. As with Libya, top analysts have concluded that the recent Syrian unrest was planned many months ago, and has since been seized upon by the western media. It is not surprising here that unrest in that country has been both financed and driven mainly by a foreign agents of influence, and not true reform seekers as is depicted in the western mainstream press.

As with the technique used in Libya, the western PR machine will then spin the story that Assad’s forces opened fire on “peaceful protesters” and therefore render him(in the eyes of western media consumers) illegitimate as the ruling government in that country. Another humanitarian intervention- it’s a formula that has apparently worked thus far in Libya, and to a lesser degree in both Egypt and Tunisia. This PR effort is then helped along by digital trending using social networks like Twitter, with the majority of regime change activity being posted in English language format.

As we have seen in the final stages of the fall of Libya, not only are western-backed rebels receiving heavy arms and NATO air support, Britain’s M16 have been on the ground directing military activities in the country, as well as known terrorists being shipped in and used by western intel agencies during the final stages of the civil war. The same can be expected in Syria should the country descend into an artificial civil war.

Western intelligence openly active in supporting and directing “rebel” forces in Libya.

Clearly, Assad is unlikely to resign from power, which creates the ideal media conflict between him and his western detractors.

Predictably, and once again, in this situation President Barack Obama‘s calls for sanctions against Syria and for its leader President Assad to “step down” from power are all part of a PR and diplomatic process designed to soften the ground for an impending NATO, or “coalition” group military intervention in Syria.

The US have already scrambled its military assets in the region of Syria, and have been conducting manuevers there for a number months already, through Operation Sea Breeze 2011 and other similar exercises.

Few would deny the strategic importance of Syria on the grand chessboard. It’s bordering neighbors include no less than Israel, Turkey, Lebanon and most importantly now, Iraq. It is a given that all of those neighbors, with a possible exception of Lebanon, will do the USA’s bidding when is comes to cooperating in an operation against Syria. But Syria is also a natural political ally of Iran, a trading partner with Russia and China, and is still aligned firmly with the region’s last remaining effective, independent militias- Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.

To break Syria, and then bring it under the globalist umbrella would be a key jewel on the globalist crown in their effort to control the entire Middle East and Central Asian region. In addition, Syria is one the region’s most economically independent sovereign states and possesses an incredible basket of natural resources. For all these reasons, Syria is a very high priority for globalist economic privatisation and dismantling of the state that is currently in place.

Israel’s stake in Syrian regime change is first and foremost- land. The remainder of the Golan Heights, as well as its formerly occupied prize in the form of South Lebanon will be firmly within Israel’s grasp if the country should eventually come under US and European globalist control.

LAND IN QUESTION: Israel has its sights set on both the Golan Heights and South Lebanon.

Unlike Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Gaddafi in Libya, President Assad’s confidence in Syria’s ability to overcome the current western-backed coup is not misplaced optimism. Unlike other soft targets in the surrounding region, Syria maintains one of the largest, most loyal, and well-trained standing armies and air force operations in the region. They have state-of-the-art anti-aircraft defense systems in place, and a very sophisticated and well-oiled intelligence network, one which has given its near neighbor and traditional adversary, Israel’s IDF and Mossad, a difficult time penetrating over the years. 

The report further states that:

“Assad warned against Libya-style military intervention, saying “any military action against Syria will bring repercussions that (the West) cannot tolerate.” There have been no serious international plans to launch such an operation, in part because the opposition has said it does not want Western countries to interfere.

Assad declared to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday that military and security operations have stopped in Syria. Despite that pledge, the government’s offensive has continued, although on a smaller scale.”

The western globalist effort to absorb Syria in its fold will be by anyone’s estimation, a long, expensive and very difficult process to install a US-Euro-Israeli compliant regime to replace Assad’s government. Time is not on their side. It is doubtful that despite their recent victories in North Africa, the US-Euro-Israeli Axis will be able to withstand the domestic political and economic pressures which face the ruling regimes at home.

If there is a country that can, and are prepared to hold out, despite globalist PR and political pressures- it is Syria. In addition, tempting the wand of fate with Syria also risks pulling Iran- or Russia, into a wider regional conflict, the results of which, war game planners in Whitehall and the Pentagon are already studying and preparing scenarios for.

For those reasons, the coming months may reveal a series of successive western moves which planners in Washington, London and Tel Aviv hope will accelerate destabilisation of the country leading to regime change. This may include pre-emptive measures, like an early assassination attempt on President Assad using  western or Israeli intelligence operatives already in play in the region.

A successful NATO operation in Syria would probably come at a high cost, but it would in effect remove the Middle East’s last remaining strong and independent states from the chess board, paving the way for a unified, geopolitical globalist grip over the greater region. 

-

Doctor: Israel are using new weapons against Gaza

August 23, 2011

Maan News Agency
August 23, 2011

GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — The head of an emergency ward in a Gaza City hospital said Monday that Israeli forces were using new, more brutal weapons against residents of the Gaza Strip.

On Thursday, Israeli forces began a four-day bombarded the coastal enclave killing 14 Palestinians and wounding dozens more in a series of airstrikes and drone attacks.

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL: Israel has been testing illegal weapons on native Palestinians

Dr Ayman As-Sahbani said patients were admitted with horrific injuries and that some bodies delivered to Al-Shifa Hospital were so badly burned they were unrecognizable.

He said Israeli weapons made no distinction between women, children and the elderly, pointing out that a two-year-old toddler and a 13-year-old boy were among those killed in the latest escalation.

WARNING: CONDITIONS ARE RIPE FOR A COMING NUCLEAR WAR

August 19, 2011

By Andrew McKillop
21st Century Wire
August 19, 2011

It is perhaps difficult to understand why our leaders and mainstream media have not fully recognized and discuss openly the real and present danger that nuclear weapons and facilities pose to our communities worldwide.
 
It is possible that political elites know, but they are perhaps too stupid, or too reckless and arrogant, so they simply ignore what it all means.
 
We are currently entering the hot zone. The nuclear fuse can easily be lit now with Syria and Iran as prime NATO and Israeli targets. Just like “Mad Dog” Gaddafi suffered a trial by media, few western spectators will have much sympathy for Syria’s Basher el Assad.
 
Those in the US and Europe who are sworn to protect Israel’s ‘security’ will also have you believe that Iran does have quite long-range missiles.

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT: Elites know, but do want to talk about the iminent danger of nuclear material and the predictable use of these weapons.

But what they will not tell you is that Iran could also take out the Dimona bomb-making factory the Zionist militarists are so terribly proud of. Any day of the week, weekends too. The same works in reverse as Israel could also target a nuclear power facility in Iran.  Who would blink first?
 
The same applies to Hezbollah. They aren’t going to like their el Assad “patron” going down the tube. In theory, they could deploy a Scud-type missiles with enough range to hit the Dimona facility.
 
The environmental and economic blow-back from any such incident would be huge, and in most cases, the regions involved would not be able to recover- ever.
 
So what are all these massive nuclear arsenals for, if not for military use? Why has depleted uranium already been sprayed via US, NATO, and Israeli munitions across the Middle East and North Africa? Still, no one in the MSM or in our halls of government seems to take the asymmetric nuclear war threat seriously – so far.

TOO LATE FOR NON-PROLIFERATION

The venerable and creaking NPT Treaty, first signed by only 3 States in March 1970 (US, USSR, UK), which now has 189 member state signatories, but even more than in 1970 the treaty- on its face, has no meaning.

Only explosive nuclear weapons, that is conventional nuclear weapons, are covered and theoretically limited by the treaty.

The treaty makes no mention of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons, or the vast Dirty Bomb targets of civil nuclear power reactors. This in no way prevents these “Doomsday Machines” being the most daunting nuclear weapons we face, taking account of their annual nuclear waste production, their in-reactor nuclear materials, their fuel rod stores and reprocessing centres, uranium mining wastes, reactor assemblies and nuclear fuels used on the world’s 1100 submarines and surface ships powered by the atom, and the ever-growing numbers and amounts of lost or stolen nuclear equipment and materials.

Taking only the world’s presently operating 430-odd civil power reactors (about 441 before Japan’s Fukushima disaster), their annual production of nuclear wastes is around 30 000 tons per year, to be sure much of it defined as low-level, relatively low risk in radiological terms and relatively low risk in chemical toxicity terms. Although exact data is secret, Depleted Uranium weapons production is a major value-adding spinoff from civil power reactor wastes, producing weapons with proven and high carcinogenic effects, and chemical toxicity effects on both humans and animals, but as already mentioned these weapons are not covered by the NPT Treaty.

DU – YOU ARE DEAD

Annual production of Depleted Uranium weapons, mainly anti-tank ordinance but including others, is as noted secret, but estimates suggest the main producers – the USA, Russia, France, China, the UK (ironically, the five declared nuclear weapons states as defined by the NPT), Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and an increasing number of other countries – manufacture about 4000 tons of DU ordnance per year. Stocks are high and rising, due to low and limited use, although the two Gulf wars against Iraq (1991 and from 2003) and the war against Afghanistan (since 2001) have used an estimated 3000 to 3500 tons of DU weapons to date. Small and limited amounts of DU weapons utilisation are reported in the NATO war against the Gaddafi regime of Libya. Cancer deaths due to these radioactive and chemically toxic weapons, especially in Iraq, are estimated to be as high as 10 000 to date, and deaths will certainly continue for decades ahead.

Make no mistake: DU is a killer.

EFFECTS OF DU: Many military and medical workers can tell you first-hand the shocking effects of DU on humans.

DU weapon stocks in the USA alone are estimated to be more than 25 000 tons, and world stocks are likely well above 70 000 tons.

The so-called attractiveness of DU weapons is directly linked to their origin – wastes from so-called civil nuclear power, used to make weapons of war. The basic material, uranium alloys with various levels of radioactivity and chemical toxicity is above all cheap. Secondly, it has major technical characteristics making it almost ideal for producing anti-tank and anti-building weapons. Uranium metal is heavy and dense. It is easily machined. Being radioactive, it is easy to trace and track, for example during weapons testing and through the industrial production process. But perhaps its main trump card is its incendiary nature – that is very easily catching fire and liberating large amounts of heat, triggering secondary fires, for example in tank and armed vehicle fuel reservoirs, and wall claddings and flooring of targeted buildings.

This incendiary, heat-liberating characteristic explains the acronym for the biggest single type of DU ordnance: anti-tank shells and missiles. These are called HEAT ordnance, for High Energy Anti Tank.

The usual type of shell or missile is called “discarding sabot”, designating a machined uranium sheath or nose cone on the shell, behind which a titanium or iridium high-strength metal dart is positioned, with the explosive “military payload”, for example pentrite or TNT, placed further behind. When the shell hits the armour of the targeted tank, the uranium alloy cone or sheath explodes, liberating fine dust particles which instantly ignite. The heat liberated massively weakens the armor, through which the dart penetrates, breaching the tank hull, enabling the conventional explosive ‘stage’ of the shell to enter and explode. Typical times needed for this sequence are around 400 milliseconds (0.4 seconds).

To be sure, all kinds of other dust particles can also be incendiary – for example rice or wheat dust, able to totally explode and destroy 65 000-ton cargo ships in worst-case explosions, phosphates as used in home-made bombs, and aluminium, magnesium or iron dust and filings as used in fireworks and in weapons, but uranium is extremely incendiary. Also to be sure, generous amounts of the uranium dust do not catch fire, are transported by wind, fall to earth with rain, and enter the food chain and water table – causing decades-long cancer epidemics in most affected areas. Our democracy-loving, human rights-defending political deciders with clean finger nails and a clean conscience, who order the use of these filthy weapons would apparently be unconcerned about that.

  The image of the mushroom cloud has become part of our cultural lexicon.

CIVIL POWER REACTOR DIRTY BOMBS

As we know from the Fukushima disaster, and the Chernobyl disaster any industry standard 900 MW light water or other type of reactor using uranium fuel contains a “radiological inventory” roughly equal to 150 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs. Each reactor.

Fuel rod stores, and dumps, can radically increase this equivalence, when spent fuel rods are stored, or buried on-site, usually only a few metres under the soil. Depending on the age and type of the reactor, its operational history, and other parameters like spent fuel rod inventories on-site, one single industry standard civil power reactor can be considered equivalent to as much as 250 or 350 Hiroshima-sized bombs in its capacity to kill by radiation poisoning, and totally sterilize hundreds of square kilometres of land – becoming a Total Exclusion Zone for decades ahead.

Using HEAT ordnance, or in fact any kind of conventional military ordnance, or unconventional ordnance such as drone airplanes with stand-off missiles, or simply a 50-kilogram explosive charge, no conventional civil power reactor’s core shielding will resist. Attack also targeting the reactor’s cooling systems, and its IT and control centre, will assure almost 98% “target acquisition” as the military jargon puts it, in restricted-audience advertising and promotion of HEAT ordnance. The myth of nuclear deterrence, and the fatuous irrelevance of the NPT Treaty is shown by this. All component parts of the civil nuclear power system are equally vulnerable to conventional military attack, especially spent fuel production and reprocessing, even using 1914-1918 war ordnance, Somali “Technicals” or home-made drone bombs.  No country with conventional civil nuclear power has any meaningful national security

Of one thing we can be sure: no leading politician in any country using civil nuclear power will admit this basic truth. This curious primitive-minded and schizophrenic separation of civil nuclear power, from military nuclear weapons, is all the more hypocritical and evil when it concerns Western leaders almost proudly using DU weapons against Afghans, Iraqis, or Libyans. This is an open and permanent challenge to attacked people and nations to hit back using “asymmetric” and devastating weapons already positioned in the Oppressor’s country: their civil nuclear Dirty Bombs.

When we wake up to a successful asymmetric nuclear weapons attack – to be sure described as an industrial accident, and then later on as a terrorist attack – it will be much too late to whine “but we didn’t know”.

Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have provided all we need to know about the weapons potential of so-called civil nuclear power. Thousands of victims of DU-caused cancers in Iraq and Afghanistan can explain to the educated middle class voters of the countries producing and using DU weapons that these are genuine nuclear weapons – which kill by cancer.

Understandably, one single case of using this asymmetric nuclear weapon in the Aggressor countries will be worth millions of words and online rantings, and those who voted for producing and using these weapons – either knowingly or not – will have paid the price of their destructive democratic decision.

So when will the discussion begin? It should begin now, before it’s too late.

-

War Inc – Inside the Pentagon’s Psychological Operation to Suck the Masses into Their War Machine

August 15, 2011

By Alexander Higgins
August 15, 2011

From games to movies, the Pentagon spends billions to entice the American youth into giving up their lives in the name of military service.

As the U.S. economy remains on a consistent downward spiral, one thing the U.S. Government is never shy to invest endless cash in is the Pentagon. While the masses suffer pension cutbacks, 46 million Americans live off food stamps  and Americans across the nation are relegated to living in “tent city” homeless camps the government pumps trillions of dollars into illegal perpetual wars. Perhaps even more inexcusable is the the pumping millions of dollars into luring in the young population of America into enrolling into the military, all to support the political corruption of globalist’s international banking cartel.

RT’s Anastasia Churkina looks at some of those mesmerizing techniques, and what kind of effect they have had on those fit to serve

Here’s another example of how the war machine’s propaganda is being used to target our children…

                      Mike Huckabee’s 9/11 Cartoon Movie

Curious how the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history will be taught to future generations? Here’s a clue via presidential candidate Huckabee, who’s hawking an educational 9/11 cartoon at $9.95 a pop. No mention of the two wars we entered into in the aftermath or even Osama bin Laden’s stated reason for the attacks (the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). Refinery29 writes:

“There’s now a 9/11 cartoon movie courtesy of Mike Huckabee, co-founder of Learn Our History, a for-profit company whose mission is to get kids excited and educated about history. The first initiative, an animated DVD series, has flicks on subjects like the American Revolution, and, perhaps more tellingly, “The Reagan Revolution.” The September 11th cartoon really explains, according to the literature, “How the ongoing War on Terror protects Americans at home and American ideals abroad.”

‘Millions in Harlem March’ Aims to Stop US, NATO War-making in Libya

August 4, 2011

By Saeed Shabazz
FINAL CALL
August 4, 2011

NEW YORK (FinalCall.com) - Activists representing a broad coalition of anti-war organizations, the Nation of Islam, the political left, Islamic organizations and a plethora of grassroots community organizations recently stood together on the stage of the Assembly Hall at the Riverside Church, proclaiming that “all roads lead to Harlem” for the Aug. 13 “Millions in Harlem March” to stop the bombing of Libya.

There is a huge gap between Western Media reports in Libya and what is actually going on there.

“Where are we going to be on Aug. 13?” asked Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center, the main sponsors of the Riverside Church event. “In Harlem!” the standing room only crowd shouted back.

“President Barack Obama never believed that his actions against Libya could galvanize the movement that will be in the streets of Harlem on Aug. 13”, said Abdul Akbar Muhammad, the international representative of the Nation of Islam, in response to a question from The Final Call. Marching alongside of the Nation of Islam the second Saturday in August will be members of the “White Left and other progressives, Pan Africanists, Black grassroots organizations and national Islamic organizations,” he added.

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan will be the keynote speaker at the Harlem march. “Min. Farrakhan will deliver a dynamic speech from 110th Street to 125th Street,” said Mr. Muhammad. The march will start at 110th Street.

The United Nations Security Council March 17 passed resolution 1973 by a vote of 10 in favor with five abstentions, authorizing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to begin a “no-fly zone” over Libyan air space, alleging President Muammar Gadhafi was targeting civilians in the North African nation.

Some Libyans had begun anti-Gadhafi demonstrations in February in the city of Benghazi, which turned into armed rebellion. The UN offered no proof Libya’s leader was killing unarmed civilians, though he vowed to fight those who had taken up arms against the government.

INNOCENT? There is still no evidence that Gaddafi had "gunned down innocent protestors" back in Feb 2011.

The U.S. and France March 18 started bombing so-called military targets, but the damage done by a “peace effort,” according to some observers, was more costly than what the Libyan leader had been accused of. Then came attacks on personal compounds that killed Libyan officials as well as a son of Col. Gadhafi and his grandchildren. NATO bombs hit the home of Libya’s leader at least twice as Western nations declared he had to go, pushing a policy of regime change.

Cynthia McKinney, a six-term former congresswoman from Georgia, was the keynote speaker for the Riverside Church rally. She told The Final Call she agreed with Mr. Muhammad’s assessment. “This will galvanize public opinion, as people see this as being important to them. Obama certainly stumbled this time,” referring to the president’s continued support for the NATO bombing of Libya. According to news outlets, the Obama administration is sending $10 million a day to NATO for the bombing of Libya.

Ms. McKinney had been on an 11-city tour telling packed audiences about her experiences in Tripoli in the early days of the NATO/UN aggression.

“There is definitely a buzz in the streets around Aug. 13,” said Larry Holmes of the Newark-based Bail Out the People Not the Banks movement. “Expect people to be in the streets of Harlem in numbers,” he said.

Information about the street mobilization for the march may be found at www.millionmarchinharlem.com. There are organizing teams in all five New York boroughs that have saturated neighborhoods with green posters announcing the march.

“The people are very excited about the march, and Min. Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker is great. We are going to fill up Malcolm X Boulevard,” said one volunteer.

During a June 15 press conference at a hotel across the street from the United Nations, Min. Farrakhan told the media the “United Nations, U.S.-sponsored, NATO-led bombing of the North African country of Libya” was the work of “a coalition of demons,” governments who have joined together to assassinate Col. Gadhafi.

But even some who voted for the initial resolutions and allowed the resolutions to pass have expressed reservation, if not outright regret. The African Union, in particular, has been calling for and working for a negotiated settlement only to be disregarded by Western nations intent on putting a new Libyan government in place.

The South African ambassador to the UN, Baso Sangqu, told the 15-member Security Council July 28 that his country’s delegation “echoes the African Union demand for an immediate pause in the fighting and in the NATO bombing.”

“We have noted the calls that ‘Gaddafi must go.’ We maintain that such statements do not bring us closer to a political solution,” the South African ambassador said. South Africa is occupying a rotating seat on the Security Council and supported the initial resolutions.

In a speech that was not widely covered by the media, Ambassador Sangqu said, “South Africa remains concerned about the implementation of resolutions 1970 and 1973. Taking sides in an internal conflict situation to institute regime change in Libya sets a dangerous precedent that will surely damage the credibility of the Security Council.”

“Clearly action focused on a military solution has not had its intended purpose, instead it has worked to destabilize the country even further,” he added.

Gabon and Nigeria also initially voted yes on resolutions 1970 and 1973, but the African Union has strongly condemned the bombing of any African nation.

The UN Secretary General’s special envoy to Libya announced July 26 through a press office that the “two sides remain far apart on reaching agreement on a political solution.” The two sides are the Gadhafi government and the rebel Transnational Council, which the U.S., France, Italy, Britain have recognized as the legitimate government of Libya.

The two sides, however, “have reaffirmed their desire to continue to engage with the UN in the search for a solution,” said special envoy Abdel-Elah Al-Khatib, a member of Jordan’s parliament. Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi Al-Mahmoud reiterated his government’s previous positions against the NATO air strikes and against the removal of Libya’s president.

“There comes a time when people have no alternative but resistance,” Viola Plummer, co-founder of the December 12th Movement one of the sponsoring organizations for the Harlem march, said July 30.

“This march will revitalize the Pan African movement. It will broaden our people’s world view and demonstrate the need for Africans to unite in our own political and economic interests internationally,” she added.

“We must expose the UN Security Council machinations, Western imperialism; the attack on Black people in the U.S. and all collaborations at every turn,” Ms. Plummer said.

March organizers say the Harlem event has garnered worldwide attention. One dignitary supporting the march is Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockman, a former Nicaraguan foreign minister and the 63rd president of the UN General Assembly.

During his speech at the press conference announcing the march, Father Brockman said the event was important in light of how the media “systemically deceived” the American people.

Meanwhile the killing of a major rebel commander by compatriots raised questions about how the group could stay together and raised again reports that elements of Al-Qaeda were heavily involved in the rebel effort. (See related story on page 12.)

The Chinese news service Xinhuanet reported July 31 NATO’s claim of bombing three satellite dishes in Tripoli to “stop” what was labeled “terror broadcasts” by President Gadhafi. However, there are Twitter messages, also July 31, that say Libya television is still on the air.

Just before the Aug. 1 start of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting and prayer, NATO bombs struck Tripoli, and officials in Brussels would not rule other more strikes—though they were worried about a possible backlash in the Muslim world about strikes during the sacred month. “Tripoli shook with the sound of several explosions as NATO warplanes roared overhead doing what they have been doing since March, striking at what are supposedly Al Qathafi strategic infrastructure, particularly in the Libyan capital, Tripoli,” the Tripoli Post reported. “In normal times, much of the economy in Muslim countries world-wide shuts down as everyone enters a 30-day period of all-day fasting, prayer and the strict avoidance of conflict. But for Libyans this year it is an altogether different proposition. Libyans worry about sanctions and NATO strikes during this month.”

“There is an ongoing armed internal conflict as the rebels from the eastern part of the country battle on in order to reach their aim, of toppling or forcing Libyan leader Muammar Al Qathafi to step down from his high chair. They are involved in a battle that is barely making progress at the best of times, and with NATO forces, attempting to bomb Al Qathafi out of office,” the English language publication said.

“The NATO alliance thought it could finish it off before the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in time for a new government to take shape. They failed and this month could become a perilous black hole threatening to undermine their whole campaign,” the Tripoli Post observed Aug. 1. “Muslims are not allowed to fight amongst themselves during Ramadan; they are also not allowed to attack another nation. However, they will fight back if they are attacked first, they are allowed to do that.”

     EDUCATIONAL FILM: The Process of “De-Demonizing” Gaddafi

-

-

Norway Hate Attacks Make Anti-Islam Taboo Cause as Labor Surges

August 4, 2011

By Josiane Kremer
Bloomberg
Aug 3, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik’s efforts to galvanize anti-Islam sentiment in Norway after last month’s hate killings have given the ruling party he sought to destroy its biggest tailwind in more than a decade.

Support for Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s Labor Party, targeted by Breivik in the July 22 bombing and shootings that left 77 dead, soared to more than 40 percent, two polls showed this week. If a vote were held today, that would be the best result since the 1985 election. Approval of Stoltenberg’s handling of the crisis is at more than 90 percent, polls show.

“It’s the first time in Norway that the popularity rating of an elected politician is higher than that of the King,” said Frank Aarebrot, a politics professor at the University of Bergen, in a phone interview. Since the attacks, Labor’s policies mean it enjoys “the strongest legitimacy. My guess is that the effect will last a couple of years.”

Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto, published a few hours before his killing spree, railed against the “Islamization” of Norway and Europe, a trend he said he would try to halt through his terror acts. Yet the anti-immigration Progress Party that Breivik had sought to champion now faces a backlash as a key campaigning point is stigmatized ahead of local elections on Sept. 12. That’s left the group, Parliament’s second-biggest, with an identity crisis.

‘Low Profile’

“They will try to keep a low profile on immigration, immigrants, threats from the Muslims,” Anders Todal Jenssen, a political science professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, said by phone. Without the attacks “they would have focused on immigration as a very important issue,” he said.

Backing for Labor, which was re-elected in 2009 on pledges to improve welfare without raising taxes, surged 11 percentage points in the month through July 30 to 41.7 percent, the highest result since September 1998, according to a Synovate poll. A TNS Gallup poll for TV2 showed a 9.2 point rise in support for Labor to 40.5 percent, a 12-year high. The opposition Conservatives slipped almost five points to 23.7 percent in the Synovate poll, while the Progress Party, of which Breivik was a member from 1999 to 2004, dropped three points to 16.5 percent.

Since the killings, more Norwegians say they now embrace multiculturalism, according to an Aug. 1 InFact AS poll published by Verdens Gang. Twenty-six percent of those questioned said they were more positive toward a multi-ethnic Norway than before the attacks. Nine percent were more negative and 49 percent said they hadn’t changed their opinion.

‘Lost Its Legitimacy’

“The anti-Islam argument has lost its legitimacy,” said Johannes Bergh, a political scientist at the Institute for Social Research in Oslo, in a phone interview. “You can’t make the type of arguments that the Progress Party has been making in terms of Islam being a danger to society or a threat to Norwegian culture. You just can’t say that anymore.”

The prime minister’s party is now poised to win next month’s local elections. Polls before July 22 had shown it was set to lose.

Stoltenberg isn’t the first leader to see his approval ratings rise following attacks against his citizens. Support for former U.S. President George W. Bush jumped to 90 percent after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Gallup. Backing later fell below 30 percent at the end of his second term.

Stoltenberg has won admiration from voters for avoiding traps that risk polarizing the debate in Norway. He has even urged lawmakers and media not to vilify anti-immigration policies.

‘Witch Hunt’

“We should not start a witch hunt against those opinions that we don’t agree with,” he told reporters on Aug. 1.

Bush, by contrast, in 2001 pledged to hunt down those responsible for the September attacks, and said he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.”

Siv Jensen, who as the leader of Norway’s Progress Party has warned of “sneak-Islamization,” said Breivik’s attacks shouldn’t silence the immigration debate.

“In the time that lies ahead, we need even more freedom of expression,” Jensen said in an Aug. 1 interview. “It is important to me that we all can combine freedom of expression with dignity and I think we will manage that, even if it is a new terrain for us.”

Still, the party may need to modify its tone in the debate, Jensen told reporters this week.

Immigration

“We’ve all changed our behavior and we won’t be the same as before,” Jensen said.

Before Breivik’s attacks, the Progress Party had risen in popularity as voters, like their Nordic peers in Sweden, Denmark and Finland, reacted to a rising intake of immigrants.

Norway received the second-highest number of new asylum- seekers per inhabitant after Sweden last year, according to a survey of 44 industrialized nations by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Non-western immigrants and their children last year accounted for 9.4 percent of Norway’s population. In Germany, non-western immigrants made up 6 percent, data from the national statistics offices of each country show.

Voters upset with this trend should be free to say so, Stoltenberg told reporters on July 27.

“We have to be very clear to distinguish between extreme views, which are completely legal and legitimate,” he said. “What is not legitimate is to try to implement those extreme views by using violence.”

-

NORWAY MASSACRE CATALYST FOR REALIGNMENT OF EUROPEAN RIGHT WING MOVEMENTS

July 29, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
July 29, 2011

The Norway Massacre has grabbed the lion’s share headlines around the world, but not solely due to the human tragedy element of the event. A larger ripple effect is because Anders Breivik’s allegedly authored a 1,500 page idealogical “manifesto”, one which is currently being dissected by the media, political institutions, law enforcement and academics throughout Europe and contains the new seeds for an extemist Far Right movement.

What is important to note here is that the conclusions and perceptions drawn from his modus operandi will have a fundamental effect of the position of Far Right and Left Wing extremist movements in the near future.

Both genuine terrorist and false flag terror events will always redefine the genre. There exist many different definitions of “terrorism”, most have these contain premeditated, politically motivated violence or the threat of violence, targeting civilians, being perceived as a non-state actor, all in the hopes of ”sending a message” to the general public or a government.

We’ve already established that the mass shooting in Norway was no mere random attack, as those student victims were specifically targeted, making it a clear case of political assassination on a mass scale not seen before in recent history. By anyone’s measure, such an event can be classed as a ”game changer” in terms extremist political agendas.

In this case, it was the Young Protestant Labour Party of Norway, who only days before publicly condemned Israel’s apartheid system, opting instead to recognized a bona fide Palestine State. Politically, Norway was poised for a complete withdraw of any support for Israel, including divestment and academic boycotts . Breivik responded with a violent massacre of that party’s future generation. 

Hence, Anders Breivik has not been classified as a terrorist in the vain of an Al Qaeda or an IRA, rather he has already been labeled by the media as a Right Wing “political extremist”.

What is traditional Right Wing Extremism? The old board looked as follows: nationalism, racism, anti-immigration and xenophobia, fascism and a strong self-sufficient state. As a result, of the many-sided concept of ‘right wing’, it consists of many different factions, groups and organizations. The same can be said for the Left Wing.

So is Europe returning to the days when its cities and towns were being ravaged by a cacophony of real terror and state sponsored terror groups like NATO’s own Operation GLADIO, The Red Brigades, IRA, Red Army Faction, Action Directe, Black September, and the PLFP?

Out of that chaos came order. Are we looking at a new, reordering of the political landscape, a New Order? In Europe, as in the wider world, it certainly looks that way, and big changes are afoot.

The European Common Market and Union was introduced by European elite bureaucrats in order to attain stability and forge new alliances. Following the Cold War and the tumbling of the Berlin Wall, the EU came in with a bang and enjoyed a brief honeymoon up until the long, protracted recession which became evident in 2007. Currently, the once solid Eurozone is  fraying at the edges, as the International banks have been preying shamelessly on many of its fledgling economies, including Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Poland and Iceland. The result of this economic trend is a marginalisation of the middle class and the ever-widening gap between the lower classes and the financial and bureaucratic elite.

This of course, is a recipe for fomenting the worst aspects of Right Wing extremism, as well as Left Wing- in case anyone hasn’t noticed, previously banished anarchists are currently back in fashion in Greece and Spain. Breivik’s manifesto, like it or not, will be a centre of influence, particularly for young Right Wing foot soldiers, for the sad reason that they will be inspired by his armed action and bravado. Interestingly enough, Breivik’s supposed support of Israel and Zionism will garner sympathy from previously stringent anti-Jewish Neo Nazi affiliates, and this is potentially the most massive shift on the chess board of the Far Right. Pro-Israeli Right Wing extremists and Neo Nazis.

Although at its early stages, recent events like this will have a massive impact in the near future and should be monitored. These shifts in alliances and groups will also be fueled by the mainstream media’s typically lazy and surface-oriented take on events and political score keeping. All the while, real changes brew under their radar.

Far right politics also push the belief that both superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups, normally rejecting the liberal tenet of social equality. Extremists often support segregation, like we have seen with Breivik’s reaction against multiculturalism. This is not surprising from the right, and although Europe enjoyed a brief respite from its ugly head over the last 20 years, the destruction of the economy and the state’s eventual inability to deliver its social benefits to the growing ranks of unemployed will certainly allow the xenophobic card its chance to return to the political table.

On many levels, this is a recipe for civil unrest in Europe, and many activists will unfortunately be looking for the greatest impact- or the biggest bang for their buck. Breivik succeeded here- hitting his ideological enemies in the heart.

What this space, watch the moves on the political chess board.

-

NORWAY GUNMAN BREIVIK COULD BE PUT IN MENTAL INSTITUTION IF FOUND INSANE SAYS EXPERT

July 28, 2011

RIA Novosti
July 28, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik, the principal suspect in the twin terror attacks in Norway last Friday, may undergo compulsory medical treatment following a medical examination, a Swedish law expert said on Wednesday.

Lawyer Bernt Birkeland said if the medical exam proves that Breivik was insane, he would be put into a mental institution for compulsory treatment, but if he was mentally stable he could be sentenced to life in prison.

INSANITY PLEA? Breivik could be institutionalised if deemed insane by court.

Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said on Tuesday that “this whole case indicated that he [Breivik] is insane.”

Norwegian Prosecutor Christian Hatlo said on Tuesday that if charged with crimes against humanity, Breivik could face up to 30 years in prison. In line with the laws in Norway, a court’s verdict could be revised as many times as possible and therefore the prison sentence could be prolonged as well.

During a closed hearing at a Norwegian court on Monday, Breivik, 32, admitted to carrying out a bombing in Oslo that killed seven people, and a mass shooting at a Labor Party youth camp on the nearby island of Utoya.

Police have now revised the death toll from both attacks from 93 to 76.

The Norwegian Telegraph Bureau reported on Wednesday that Brevik was a member of a gun club in Oslo between 2005 and 2007 and from June 2010 until recently.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 286 other followers