Syrian Rebels Ransack Christian Churches

Syrian Rebels Ransack Christian ChurchesNATO-backed thugs desecrate places of worship Paul Joseph Watson Propaganda Matrix Wednesday, June 27, 2012         Shocking images have emerged which show the aftermath of Christian churches ransacked by NATO-backed Syrian rebels, illustrating once again how western powers are supporting Muslim extremists in their bid to achieve regime change in the middle east. A photograph provided to us by a Christian woman in Homs, scene of some of the bloodiest clashes of the conflict, shows a member of the Free Syrian Army posing with a looted Catholic cross in one hand and a gun in the other while wearing a priest's robe. "Everyone knows simply removing these garments from the church is a sin. The priest is the only one who wears them too. They even pray before putting them on. Him posing in front of the funeral car as well is disgusting to the max," our source told us. "They destroyed the church and went in to film it. I know this for a fact." "The Robes can only be worn by Deacons or Priests or Sub-Deacons, and they a Christian man wouldn't hold a Cross in one hand and a gun in another," the woman adds. Another image shows a ransacked church in Bustan al-Diwan (Old Homs). While Syrian rebels busy themselves ransacking Christian churches, they also rallying around the Al-Qaeda flag just as their counterparts did in Libya. This video shows Syrian “activists” flying the Al-Qaeda flag during an anti-Assad protest in the northern Syrian town of Binnish. In another clip, armed Syrian rebels address the camera standing behind a table draped with the black Al-Qaeda flag. Last month we highlighted a photo published by French news agency AFP shows a Syrian rebel wearing the Al-Qaeda flag on his arm accompanying UN observers in the village of Azzara. Why are western governments who are supposed to be engaged in a ‘war on terror’ against radical Muslim terrorists handing those very same terrorists control over entire countries? A third image sent by our source shows another place of worship, Church Um Al Zinar, with part of its roof missing thanks to Syrian rebels who have been portrayed by the international media as saints despite their involvement interrorist bombings and massacres. The latest terror attack carried out by rebels occurred earlier today when gunmen stormed a pro-government TVstation, bombing buildings and shooting dead three employees. The sight of NATO-backed rebels desecrating Christian places of worship is becoming a recurring theme. Back in March we reported on shocking video footage which showed Libyan rebels desecrating Christian and Jewish graves at a cemetery. The clip shows Libyan rebels breaking apart headstones while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. The men later try to smash up a large Christian cross statue with sledgehammers.

US Army to smite enemies with Tesla-like lightning bolts?

Published: 24 June, 2012, 22:55
Edited: 28 June, 2012, 20:23

 

In the era of remote-controlled drones, invisible planes and microwave guns, no military innovation should come as a surprise. But among the array of new weapons none are more satisfying than a cannon that allows you to unleash bolts of lightning.

The Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) cannon is currently being tested at Picatinny Arsenal, a key US Army research complex in New Jersey.

"We never got tired of the lightning bolts zapping our simulated targets," says George Fischer, who heads the research team.

The charge is created by emitting a laser pulse that charges the air, and forms a hugely destructive bolt of lighting.

"If a laser puts out a pulse with modest energy, but the time is incredibly tiny, the power can be huge," says Fischer."During the duration of the laser pulse, it can be putting out more power than a large city needs, but the pulse only lasts for two-trillionths of a second."

But the laser isn’t just the source of energy, it is the aiming mechanism as well. Lightning travels down the path of least resistance, and the laser forms just such a channel. This means that the operator can change aim simply by retargeting the laser beam.

But taming it was not easy.

"If the light focuses in air, there is certainly the danger that it will focus in a glass lens, or in other parts of the laser amplifier system, destroying it," says Fischer.

Now that the beam is working correctly, the biggest questions surround the combat situations in which the Tesla-like weapon could prove useful.

Theoretically, it can be used to take out a specific object in its entirety – an enemy SUV or a plane – without having to destroy everything around it.

The charge is most powerful when the target is a high-conductivity object – a metal tank – stationed on a lower conductivity surface: land. This cannot always be guaranteed, and limits the number of things that can be targeted by LIPC.

It is also likely to be significantly more expensive than conventional charges.

Engineers are now working on turning the prototype into a mobile cannon that can be mounted on aircraft and trucks, but the US Army has not yet ordered any devices.

It is possible that despite the intimidation factor and its design elegance, the man-made lightning bolt will remain a prototype – at least for now.

As the news emerged, public opinion became split as to how much of Nicola Tesla’s scientific legacy underlay the project. To some, the weapon closely resembled a Tesla coil, a 1891 patent invention, which produces high-voltage, low-current, high frequency alternating-current electricity. Others argue the Tesla coils produce a different type of electricity from LIPC and generally “fire” randomly. Tesla coils can be seen nowadays at educational displays and in entertainment.

Tesla coil (Image from tesladownunder.com)

Is US secretly liquidating dissidents?

"Disable the purveyors": Is US secretly liquidating dissidents?

By Kevin Barrett

Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:20PM GMT

There are worse places to be a dissident than the USA.

In many countries, people who cross the line in opposing the government risk incarceration, torture, or murder.

Until recently, it was hard for American dissidents to cross that line. If they wanted to get arrested for saying something subversive, mere ideas weren't enough; they would have to actually threaten to physically harm the President or another high official.

But the post-9/11 USA is no longer a beacon of human rights. As former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote in the New York Times, “The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.” In his article, Carter points out that top US officials are now openly targeting US citizens for political assassination, “disappearance,” unlimited surveillance, and other forms of gross human rights abuse.

Since we now know that a secret National Security committee is ordering the murder of American citizens, and since we know the CIA has the power to easily simulate deaths from illness and accident, we might as well assume that every time a dissident dies unexpectedly, he or she has been murdered by the US government.

Consider the chilling words of Obama's information czar Cass Sunstein, who openly advocates that the US government should “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” Sunstein's article “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures” argues that “conspiracy theories” (by which he means the 9/11 truth movement) are so dangerous that the government should “cognitively infiltrate” 9/11 truth groups, “disable” those who spread these ideas, and possibly even make the ideas illegal.

One way to “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories” is to terrorize them with death threats. This is precisely what happened recently in Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia.

On June 13, Dr. James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, was scheduled to speak at the University Heights Community Center in Seattle. Shortly before the event, the Community Center received a letter that read:

“Community Center, the 9/11 truth event on June 13th is going to be attacked to Kill Jim Fetzer because he says 'Space Beams' brought down the Twin Towers. The attack may be a bomb or fire bomb or maybe just gun fire. The Bombing may come at a future date to pay you back for supporting the 9/11 truth movement. Kill Jim Fetzer and the 9/11 truth movement. Kill Jim Fetzer (repeated 6 times). Kill University Heights Community Center (repeated twice) Kill you now.”

Detective Kerry Hays of the Seattle Police Department is currently investigating the case.

The Community Center hastily canceled Dr. Fetzer's talk. Fortunately, an alternate venue was found at the last minute.

Then a few days later, a similar death threat was emailed to the owner of the Denman Theater in Vancouver, British Columbia, where Dr. Fetzer was organizing the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings. This time, the threat named me and Press TV Canadian correspondent Joshua Blakeney as well as Dr. Fetzer. Fortunately, the theater owner was too busy hosting the event to read his email, so he did not become aware of the threat until the Hearings were over.

Death threats are one way to “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” Actual assassinations are another.

A long list of people who were trying to expose the truth of 9/11 have met with untimely, suspicious deaths. Barry Jennings, the deputy director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority on 9/11, appears to have been murdered after speaking publicly about explosions he witnessed that partly demolished World Trade Center Building 7 on the morning of 9/11. (The demolition of WTC-7, begun in the morning, was completed shortly after 5:20 that afternoon, after WTC owner Larry Silverstein and colleagues “made the decision to pull” the building according to Silverstein's own statement.)

Another 9/11 truth advocate and eyewitness, Dr. David Graham of Shreveport, Louisiana, was murdered - apparently by the FBI - for writing a book about two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, who were obvious intelligence assets controlled by people at Barksdale Air Force Base. Graham was poisoned with ethelene glycol (antifreeze). The case is discussed in Sander Hicks' new book Slingshot to the Juggernaut.

It might be objected that Jennings and Graham were murdered because they were eyewitnesses to a State Crime Against Democracy, or SCAD, not because they were dissidents. Is there any evidence that the US government (or a rogue network infiltrating it) is “disabling the purveyors” of dangerous ideas by killing or otherwise physically harming them, even if they are not eyewitnesses?

Mike Ruppert, the original leader of the 9/11 truth movement, writes that his office was attacked by microwave and/or EMF weapons after he began publishing critiques of the official story of 9/11. The attacks may have contributed to Ruppert's poor health and distraught frame of mind, which led him to quit the 9/11 truth movement and temporarily flee the USA in 2006.

Another early 9/11 truth advocate, publisher Byron Belitsos, told me that he and many other 9/11 truth organizers in California were targeted by EMF or microwave weapons during the first years after 9/11. Belitsos says the weapons were wielded by men in plain white vans that would park in front of the victim's house, and that victims suffered immediate and sometimes extreme health effects including headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, vomiting, severe depression, dizziness, and loss of consciousness.

It does seem that bad things have happened to far too many of the most trail-blazing, prestigious, and/or effective 9/11 truth leaders. Justin Raimondo, the pioneer investigator of Israeli complicity in 9/11, was warned away from the subject - and after he disregarded the warning, he suffered a severe heart attack, despite his relative youth and excellent physical condition. Since his mysterious heart attack, Raimondo has stayed away from the subject of 9/11, and has remained in good health.

David Ray Griffin, the world's leading voice of 9/11 truth, suffered a partially-disabling stroke in the summer of 2010. While he has recovered sufficiently to continue to write and research, the stroke left him with a slight aphasia that has ended his career as a prolific public speaker.

Dr. Bob Bowman, the former head of Star Wars under two US presidents, has had his 9/11 truth efforts slowed by his struggle with cancer.

Even more tragically, the most prestigious scientist ever to take up the cause of 9/11 truth, Lynn Margulis, died of a stroke November 22, 2011. When I last spoke to Lynn, less than a year before her death, she told me she did not want to speak publicly about 9/11 any more, because “politics is too dangerous.” She sounded scared - like someone had warned or threatened her.

Steven Jones, the physics professor who was forced out of Brigham Young University for researching the demolition of the World Trade Center, was warned to stop by a “connected” colleague. Jones did the right thing: he immediately went public about the apparent threat.

Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, may have been attacked by the type of EMF or microwave weapon described by Ruppert and Belitsos. In the summer of 2009, in Washington, DC, Gage suddenly suffered vertigo and hearing loss. Activist colleagues who were present suspect some kind of covert attack. Today, Gage still suffers from the after-effects: partial loss of hearing in one ear.

Though some consider microwave and EMF weapons the stuff of science fiction, Maj. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., the former head of the US Army's depleted uranium cleanup project after Gulf War I, says these weapons are very real, and commonly used in military circles. He described to me how he personally used such weapons on a regular basis while training with Special Forces at US Army facilities: “We had them van-mounted, truck-mounted, plane-mounted, and hand-carried. We would go around zapping each other for fun. This was during exercises, or sometimes just as a practical joke.” Rokke assured me that, based on his firsthand knowledge of US military mind-set and capabilities, 9/11 truth activists have undoubtedly been targeted by exotic non-lethal (and lethal) weapons.

Will writing this article put me on a US government hit list? Twenty years ago, such a question would have sounded absurd. Today, with the USA becoming more of a banana republic every day, it sounds increasingly realistic.

A government that extra-judicially murders, disappears, and tortures its own citizens should clean up its own act before it criticizes other nations. The US should heed former President Carter and start obeying its own Constitution if it wants to have any credibility on human rights. 

This flurry of memorials discourages deeper analysis of the cost of war

The planned architectural folly celebrating the achievements of Bomber Command ignores its victims

• 
• • Richard Gott
  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 15.43 BST

Dresden after the bombing in 1945. Photograph: Bettmann/CORBIS

Several recently erected war memorials now litter the streets and parks of London, but they are of little intrinsic interest and zero artistic merit. A banal tribute to animals at the top of Park Lane; 

an insipid celebration of women close to the Cenotaph in Whitehall, featuring overcoats on pegs; 

belated memorials to the dead of Australia and New Zealand [BELOW] included within the large necropolis that now makes up the traffic island at Hyde Park Corner; and a meaningless Commonwealth gateway ("Memorial Gates" with no gates) at the top of Constitution Hill.

Now they are to be joined at the bottom of Piccadilly by a neo-classical architectural folly that celebrates the achievements of Bomber Command, to be opened by the Queen on 28 June.

Here the objection to the building is not so much its unadventurous design as the celebration that it implies of what are often perceived as British war crimes. Aerial bombing, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, women and children included, is one of the most vile legacies of the 20th century. Particularly as practised during the second world war, such bombing was always controversial and much contested at the time. For that reason it has taken more than half a century for the authorities to judge that the time is right to remember officially those who died.

Bomber Command is forever associated with the name of "Bomber" Harris, the officer in charge of "area bombing" during the war, and also a veteran of 20 years of colonial bombing in the nearer reaches of the British empire, beginning in Iraq. The British practice of bombing from the air was first widely used in the empire, starting withDarfur in 1916 and Somaliland, Egypt and Afghanistan in 1919. Iraq was bombed throughout the 1920s and the North-West Frontier of India throughout the 1930s. Aerial bombing continued after 1945 during the wars in Malaya and Kenya. Of course other European countries grew accustomed to bombing their natives too, such as the French in Syria and Morocco, the Italians in Libya and Ethiopia, the South Africans in Namibia. It is a disgusting and inextinguishable record.

Yet it is the bombing during the second world war that arouses most debate. Bomber Command liked to claim that it "successfully conducted operations designed to hamper the enemy's military and industrial capability in order to bring an end to the war". This, at best, is only a very partial truth. "Area bombing", as opposed to the "precision bombing" advocated by the Americans, meant the indiscriminate dropping of bombs over large areas with a huge deployment of planes and untold numbers of civilian casualties. The stated aim of Arthur Harris was to destroy German morale by killing the civilian population, and that meant not just industrial workers but women and children as well. An estimated 50,000 were killed in Hamburg on the night of 27 July 1943, and100,000, by some estimates, were killed in Dresden less than two years later, on 13 February 1945. These were war crimes. Their only possible justification is that the bombing may have hindered the German war effort elsewhere.

Voices of protest were heard at the time from the church, notably from George Bell, the bishop of Chichester, and from the Reverend John Collins, the chaplain at Bomber Command's headquarters (and later a prominent figure in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament). The clerics were not successful in their efforts to stop the bombing, but their vocal protests undoubtedly evoked a sense of unease, both within the political and military establishment and in the wider world. Bomber Command was tainted by the charge of committing war crimes, and its members were granted no special war medals. Bomber Harris refused his expected peerage in protest, and flounced off to self-imposed exile in South Africa.

At the end of the war, the British were in no mood to memorialise recent events. Most towns and villages were content to add names to the existing monuments to the fallen of the first world war. The extravagant Royal Artillery memorial from the 1920s at Hyde Park Corner 

has a simple additional panel to commemorate the 30,000 who gave their lives in the second conflict "in all parts of the world".

Yet in recent years, perhaps because of the renewed enthusiasm for war and aerial bombing in the Blair years, the authorities have permitted a large amount of fresh memorialising, including the erection of a 20th century military memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, with the macabre inclusion of empty space to record 15,000 deaths still to come, in wars as yet unfought. Something similar happened in the Soviet Union, where only in the Brezhnev years did the Russians begin to expand their construction of monuments to their war dead. The new Bomber Command memorial appears to fit into this pattern.

What is lacking with all these new monuments is any kind of historical and educational re-assessment of what all this sacrifice amounted to, or what was involved in terms of the moral degradation of the country. "Even today," writes Sven Lindqvist in his indispensable book, A History of Bombing, "there is no hint in any British museum of the systematic attacks on German civilians in their own homes. No hint that these attacks constituted crimes against international humanitarian law for the protection of civilians." We prefer to build innocuous memorials rather than museums that might reflect on the huge cost of past battles, not just to "the glorious heroes" on our side but to the uncounted innocent peoples with whom we were once in conflict.

-------------------------------------------

NZ's memorial slammed as worse than Australia's 'urinal' (+photos)

11:47 AM Thursday Feb 14, 2008

[1]

[2]

New Zealand's war memorial in London has been criticised as "bristling" and "unlovely"[1] and more offensive than its Australian equivalent [2] in a campaign against tasteless, poorly-executed public artworks in the city.

Tim Knox, director of Sir John Soane's Museum in London, told The Timesnewspaper that many modern sculptures and other artworks in the city were "horrors" and "Frankenstein monster memorials".

"In the Victorian era and in the early 20th century there was great confidence and world-class artists were used," he said. "'But today that confidence has gone and the sculptors are not the world's best. This free-for-all needs to be regulated and I'm worried about the sheer proliferation of these Frankenstein monsters." His concerns were echoed by art historians, and museum and gallery experts.

Richard Shone, editor of The Burlington Magazine and an art historian, also complained of the infestation of public places by statues and memorials.

He said the Australian war memorial (click here for photos), despite resembling a urinal, was much less offensive than its nearby New Zealand equivalent - which was a "bristlingly unlovely installation in one of the most public sites in London".

"The New Zealand one seems to me very bad, the black spikes sticking up seems very aggressive ... the war is over!"

The New Zealand War Memorial - known as The Southern Stand - consists of 16 cross-shaped slabs of bronze up to 4.5m high and weighing up to 700kg. It carries New Zealand motifs: a fern leaf, a rugby ball, a figure, a farmer and Anzac poppies, with some of the stands laid out to resemble the Southern Cross constellation. It was designed by John Hardwick-Smith and Paul Dibble and was dedicated by Queen Elizabeth II on November 11, 2006.

The memorial is said to commemorate "enduring bonds" between New Zealand and Britain, and their shared sacrifice during times of war.

The Australian memorial, meanwhile, was designed by Sydney-based architectural firm Tonkin Zulaikha Greer in association with artist Janet Laurence and was unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II on November 11, 2003.

It is in the form of a long curving wall of Australian granite, with falls of water, and is set with the names of the 24,000 home towns of Australian men and women who served during the two world wars.

The names of 47 battle grounds are superimposed over the town names, which are intended to reflect the impact of the casualties on their families and communities.

"It's not so bad, but again, I wonder if it's the right place for it, where people are rushing past and don't have time to read it," Shone said.

"It also obscures certain views in that area, the New Zealand one even more so."

Westminster City Council told The Times it was concerned about the proliferation of statues and memorials on its streets - now more than 300.

It is stipulating that someone can only be commemorated in bronze or stone if they have made a serious contribution to society.

- NZPA / AAP

----------------------------