DaniMartExtras, Too



Posted by Xaniel777 on February 12, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : February 12, 2012


Israel: war with Iran is going to happen in a matter of weeks


From Benjamin Fulford’s Blog

Questions and Answers :


 Hi Ben,

 I trust this finds you well?

 I have a good friend whose wife originates from Israel and has family there. She told me that her brother who apparently has connections to their military said that war with Iran is going to happen in a matter of weeks. He was adamant so much so that he is planning on leaving Israel within the next two weeks with his family.

 This is not the first time I have heard such things in recent days. It appears that the message that the satanists reign is coming to an end is not being taken seriously over there as he also stated preparations where at an advanced stage and already some activities/sorties have occurred.

 Can you comment on this, as these developments have occurred this week as I understand it?



First of all please note that President Ahmajinedad of Iran works for the Khazarian Satanists and is an integral part of their plan to start WW3. The Israeli criminal regime and their Rothschild and Vatican P2 lodge fascist paymasters are religious fanatics who think it is their divine destiny to trigger a war between Gog and Magog, kill 90% of humanity and enslave the rest.

Fortunately, sane people in the Pentagon and the Russian and Chinese military establishments do not intend to go along with this criminally insane scenario. However, there is a good chance the Satanists will try to go ahead anyway in which case most Jews in Israel (who are chumps for going along with this) will be offered as a holocaust or burnt offering to Lucifer.

What the Jews need to realize is that their top leaders are not Jewish but are members of the ancient pagan cult of Saturn (Satan), the planet now in close proximity to earth. They have been planning this for a long time so we must never under-estimate these people. The Jews need to liberate themselves from the mind-slavery they are being subjected to.

The only people who want to kill the Jews are the Jews own leaders. ~~ Ben F.


AIPAC to Obama: Attack Iran or let Israel do it

From PressTV

US President Barack Obama makes his way onto the stage May 22, 2011 to address the AIPAC Policy Conference 2011.

The most powerful Zionist lobbying group in the US, AIPAC, is increasing pressure on the administration of Barack Obama to launch a military strike against Iran, a political writer says.

“It is clear that Israel and its neoconservative camp followers here in the United States are increasing pressure on President Obama to either attack Iran or let Israel do it,” M.J. Rosenberg said. 

Rosenberg, who was director of policy at Israel Policy Forum, made the suggestion in an article about a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

The author said the main reason behind his prediction is that “this is an election year and no one will say no to [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu in an election year.” 

He was referring to the 2012 presidential election in the United States that will be held in November. 

Rosenberg also pointed out to an upcoming meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

“War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference,” he wrote. 

AIPAC, which has an influential and undeniable role in US policies, advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. 

The group urges all members of Congress to support Israel through foreign aid. 

The US and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike, based on their allegation that Iran’s nuclear program may include a covert military aspect, a claim strongly rejected by Tehran. 



What Happens After an Iran-Israel War?

From Huff Post World

Leon T. Hadar

Senior Analyst at Wikistrat

Notwithstanding the never-ending stream of all those based-on-reliable-intelligence-sources analyses, it is doubtful whether these same analysts would be willing to bet whatever is left of their 401K retirement accounts on their predictions that Israel will — or will not — attack Iranian nuclear sites this year.

And while research institutions have conducted interesting exercises to try to figure out the military, diplomatic and economic repercussions of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, the dictum that no military plan survives the contact with the enemy applies also here — in addition to the unintended consequences, blowbacks and the proverbial ‘black swans’ that are bound to show up even in the unlikely scenario under which Israel achieves all or most of its military goals.

If I can put my ten cents worth of strategic thinking, it seems to me that the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the American fiasco in Iraq helped tip the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the Levant in the direction of Iran and its allies. And that made it more likely that Israel and other Sunni Arab players that regard the Islamic Republic as a threat to their core national interests would use all their available resources to deprive Iran from having access to a military instrument that would allow it to formalize the new regional balance of power.

In his magisterial study of the 1812-1814 military campaigns in Europe, Russia Against Napoleon, historian Dominic Lieven suggests that while Tsar Alexander recognized that France would never be able to control Europe, he also concluded that the price of adhering to Napoleon’s Continental System would have undermined Russia’s position as a great power and that the Russians had no choice but to use the full power of their military to prevent that from happening.

My guess is that Israel, as well the Saudis and their Arab-Sunni allies, know that it would be possible to contain a nuclear Iran — in the same way that Russia could have embraced a cost-effective strategy to contain Napoleon’s France. But as long as Israeli leaders believe that they have a realistic option of blocking Iran’s nuclear program — and by extension, of setting major constraints on its ability to assert its position as a regional power — they will probably use their military capacity. The Saudis and their Gulf partners would probably cheer them behind close doors while publicly condemning them.

But as quite a few Israeli and American military experts have warned, a military strike on Iranian facilities would not achieve the declared Israeli goal of ending Iran’s alleged nuclear military program and the expected costs in terms of Israeli casualties could be very high.
Moreover, if Iran gives the green light to its Shiite Hezbollah allies in Lebanon to attack Israel and mobilize the Shiites in Iraq and the Persian Gulf to retaliate against American and Saudi targets, Tehran would be in a position to strengthen its regional power. The ayatollahs would also be able to exploit an Israeli attack to ignite Iranian nationalism and win support even from those Iranians who actually oppose the ruling clerics and would like to see them removed from power.

And while the Obama administration insists that it wants to apply peaceful means to get Iran to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, it is not clear that Washington and its Europeans allies would succeed in coming up with a diplomatic formula that would be acceptable to Iran and to Israel (and its supporters in Washington) or that the Americans would be able to prevent Israel from taking military action against Iran. Those of us who believe that an Israeli military attack would not serve American and Israeli interests and may actually help consolidate the power of Iran in the Middle East and that of the clerics in Teheran should also recognize that President Barack Obama — who probably agrees with these assumptions — is not in a position for a diplomatic confrontation with Israel during a presidential election year.

In fact, even in a non-election year, there will be very little incentive for Mr Obama to launch a creative diplomatic opening to Iran at a time when the Iranian leadership does not have the power to make a deal with Washington and is facing strong opposition at home from liberal and conservative forces alike (who, despite their differences, want Iran to acquire nuclear military capacity).

And at a time when the Middle East is going through the political turmoil of the Arab Spring and the US is engaged in a steady drawdown from its military occupation of Iraq, the shaky balance of power in the region would make it difficult for Washington to try to reach a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran. Such a move, coming in the aftermath of the collapse of the pro-American regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, would be perceived by the Saudis and other Arab-Sunni governments as another sign of US weakness.

If Israel decides to attack Iran, expect the Obama administration to provide it with logistical and other support, including by vetoing a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel (unlike the Reagan administration which did join the Security Council’s censure of the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor in Osirak in 1981).

Leaf from History

Yet, in the same way that the outcome of the 1973 Middle East War provided the then Nixon administration with an opportunity to protect and even strengthen its position in the Middle East, by renewing diplomatic relations with Egypt and working to bring peace between the Egyptians and the Israelis, the Obama administration could find itself in a position to advance its interests in the aftermath of an Israel-Iran military confrontation and an ensuing Middle Eastern war. A potential leading player in such a post-war scenario would be Turkey which until now has played a clever diplomatic game vis-a-vis Iran. In the most significant act of military cooperation between Washington and Ankara since 2003, Turkey agreed last year to station sophisticated American radars, part of a US-led system to defend Europe against a potential Iranian missile attack, and has expressed strong opposition against any move by Iran to acquire nuclear military weapons.

At the same time, the Turks have also been in the forefront of the diplomatic opposition against a military strike against Iran and, working with Brazil, it proposed a diplomatic deal to freeze Iranian uranium enrichment in exchange for ending the US-led sanctions against Iran.
And while Turkey is a member of NATO and remains a close military ally of Washington, its recent diplomatic assertiveness and its tensions with Israel coupled with its strong support for democratic activists in the Arab World, has strengthened its status in the Middle East and could allow it to play the role of grand mediator between the US and Iran in a post-war scenario.

Indeed, working with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, as well with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union, the Obama administration could propose the convening of a Middle East Conference chaired by Turkey that would bring together all the Arab states, Iran and Israel and that would set the stage for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the region (which would apply also to Iran as well as to Israel’s nuclear arsenal) and to a series of diplomatic initiatives to help stabilize Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and revitalize the Israeli-Palestinian peace process along the lines of the old Arab League proposal.

In that context, the US and Iran could also start repairing their diplomatic ties and Teheran would be encouraged to support any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is agreed on both sides. Not for the first time in history, the end of a war could help create the conditions for stability, cooperation and peace. It could be worth the try.

The commentary was published originally in the Business Times of Singapore on 2.9.12


The World the Elites Remade?

From The Daily Bell

By Anthony Wile

Robert Kagan has published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why the World Needs America.” Kagan is a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institutionand the article is adapted from The World America Made, published by Alfred A. Knopf.

The article, in my view, is a good example of how the Internet – and what we call the Internet Reformation – is changing the context of elite dominant social themes. These themes, enunciated throughout the mainstream media, are intended to separate middle classes from wealth and power while supporting globalist institutions.

Kagan’s article contains nothing new; the alternative Internet media has rebutted it thoroughly with historical facts that are available to anyone who wants to look. This is a big problem for elite narratives.

When the messaging is easily rebutted in myriad forums it loses its persuasiveness. The top elite families – the ones that apparently control central banking trillions – also evidently and obviously want to create world government. They need people to believe in their narrative structure.

The primary elite meme within this context would be that over the past century freedom has triumphed over authoritarianism and free markets have triumphed over socialism. Kagan uses historical examples to support his thesis.

The end of Roman rule destroyed Western civilization for centuries, he claims. Likewise, British control of the seas and the balance of great powers on the European continent provided relative security and prosperity during the 18th and 19th centuries. Here’s some more from the article:

The present world order was largely shaped by American power and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other nations, the world order will change to suit their interests and preferences. Nor can we assume that all the great powers in a post-American world would agree on the benefits of preserving the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it, even if they wanted to …

But international order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others—in America’s case, the domination of free-market and democratic principles, together with an international system that supports them. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. No divine providence or unfoldingHegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them …

If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a guide, they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe—which is what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.

Kagan, by the way, is an advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, and this sort of perspective (above) is probably a good reason why even Republicans have a hard time getting enthusiastic about Romney.

It’s a mish-mosh of half-truths and historical evasions that one could compare to a Romney stump speech – especially the ones where he blasts “Obamacare” while omitting that as governor of Massachusetts he implemented something similar.

I’m not going to unpack Kagan’s entire article, but I’ll try to give a quick summary of “alternative (directed) history” to show that Kagan’s ideas are in some sense a neatly packaged promotion, a kind of history-at-a-glance that bears little resemblance to the reality that the blogosphere has uncovered over the past decade.

One of Kagan’s fundamental inaccuracies is to argue that Roman Empire created a peace and prosperity throughout the Western world. As we’ve now pointed out in numerous articles, the fulcrum of civilized societies lies in competing centers of power.

Greece during the Golden Age, Italy during the Renaissance, the US during the colonial period – each of these eras of peaceful creativity were developed when municipalities competed and people could move to other regions speaking the same language if governments became oppressive.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of history to claim that the CONSOLIDATION of these municipalities created a vibrant and entrepreneurial society. It was the initial COMPETITION that created the foundation for prosperity and civil society.

The Roman Empire, therefore, can be looked on as a degradation of what made Rome great – the disparate municipalities located on each of Rome’s seven hills. Again, it was the initial cultural competition that apparently built up the social structure that empire would degrade.

Kagan believes that the British Empire, like the American Empire, is an expression of cultural greatness and that it is seemingly the white man’s burden to spread this greatness worldwide. He has it reversed. It is not Leviathan that provides civil prosperity but Leviathan that spells the end of it.

As for the elements of history that have led to the current Pax Americana, I’d argue that Kagan is mis-reading history here as well. From what I can tell, there is a dedicated banking elite with industrial, military and religious enablers and associates that is intent on imposing world government.

This handful of enormously powerful people has manipulated history for at least the past 100 years or maybe longer in order to create global governance. They have apparently created wars and financial crises in order to impose globalist solutions.

This is not just speculation, of course. After World War I the League of Nations came into being. And when it failed, the outcome of yet another world war was the United Nations and the various globalist enterprises that are now clustered around it including the IMFWorld Bank, etc.

There is plenty of evidence that the Anglosphere banking elite funded both Hitler’s Germany and the creation of the USSR. Books and articles tracing these historical facts are available across the ‘Net.

It is not enough these days to assert, as Kagan does, that the American Leviathan is merely a fortuitous accident of history and that American military might – an empire – is necessary to uphold “modern civilization.”

Modern civilization, in fact, includes billions of tortured people that live on a couple of dollars a day and numerous dictators who are supported by American military might just because they are apparently willing to aid in the erection of the Anglosphere’s New World Order.

The “civilization” that Kagan writes of is historically questionable and currently doubtful, given the number of wars that the US is involved with, the economic disruption of the dollar reserve currency and the general, expanding economic depression, worldwide, as a result.

The truth – as Internet alternative history shows us – is that there IS an elite, one that directly straddles at least three “countries” (Israel, Britain and the US) and somewhat more indirectly controls the EU, Middle East, Africa, etc., as well. It uses myriad economic and socio-political resources to build world government. This explains why the policies of so many nation-states significantly depart from the desires of the civilian populations.

Search the Internet. Read up. There’s no mystery to it anymore. The ruling elites have set up economic, military and political systems that purport to represent the views and aspirations of “citizens” but actually realize the goals of the organizing elites – which is seemingly world governance, including a global central bank and global currency.

Why would Kagan write such a book and why would a reputable publisher promote it? Well, the myth of the emergent American Empire is a powerful meme. As long as people believe they are in charge of their own societies – and that militarized empires are necessary to civil society – then the elites can continue to manage events behind the scenes.

But if people begin to believe that they are NOT in control, that it is all an elaborate charade, then the mercantilist control now exercised by the Anglosphere will gradually fail. Those in charge will have to show the real face of power, not a healthy prescription in a modern age filled with angst and anger.

And so these sorts of dominant social themes will continue to be promoted. We will continue to be informed that nation states are run by their citizens and that military might and the empires that wield it are necessary to protect “civilization.”

The problem the elites have to grapple with is that this fundamental meme is increasingly unpersuasive as time goes by and more and more information emerges. Maybe that explains the current manic attacks on the Internet.

As people increasingly discover the truth, those at the top are increasingly desperate to hide it.


Iran vows to back Palestinian resistance

The Jerusalem Post

From The Jerusalem Post

By JPOST.COM STAFF02/11/2012 

Iran’s first vice president tells Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh that Palestinian issue is a “red line,” adding that Israel will soon “be punished” for “plots, aggression,” AFP reports.

Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh arrives in Tehran

Israel, saying “soon the Zionist regime will be punished for its plots and aggression,” AFP quoted Iran’s first Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.

Rahimi made the remarks to visiting Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who arrived Friday for three-day trip.

“Iran will not retreat one iota from its position on defending the rights of the Palestinian people,” said Rahimi.

“The Palestinian issue is a red line for us,” he added, vowing that Tehran would use “everything at its disposal” to support the “oppressed” Palestinians.

Haniyeh arrived in Tehran Friday afternoon, where he was welcomed at Mehrabad International Airport by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Salehi.

Haniyeh’s was scheduled to meet with Iranian officials and “review regional developments,” Iran’s FARS news agencyreported.

Late last month, Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nono said Haniyeh was going to Tehran at the invitation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Earlier this week, however, highlighting the divide between Sunni Arab leaders and Shi’ite Iran, leaders from Gulf states warned Haniyeh not to visit Iran as planned, the Al-Quds dailyreported.

According to the report, sources said that “officials in the Gulf states advised Haniyeh not to visit Iran due to tense relations,” and “expressed concern over Iran’s ambitions in the Persian Gulf.”

The source said high-level officials in Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait – which Haniyeh recently visited – urged him to cancel the planned Iran visit, saying that “without a doubt, Haniyeh’s visit to Tehran will have consequences.”

Late last month, the Gaza-based Hamas leader departed from the Strip for a tour of Iran and Gulf states.

A diplomatic source told Reuters that Iran had funded Hamas in the past with up to $300 million per year, but the flow ofmoney had not been regular in 2011. “Payment has been in suspension since August,” said the source, who spoke oncondition of anonymity.

Analysts and diplomatic sources say Iran is unhappy with Hamas for its refusal to offer public support to its ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, who has hosted the Hamas leadership in exile in his capital Damascus for the past decade.

Reuters contributed to this report.


Unstoppable file-sharing network ‘Tribler’ spells trouble for copyright holders

From BGR

By:  | Feb 10th, 2012

Copyright holders thought they had scored a major victory last month when one of the biggest file-sharing networks in the world was shuttered. Megaupload had been responsible for an estimated 30% to 40% of all file-sharing traffic worldwide, but a recent study suggests that the network’s closure did absolutely nothing to slow piracy related to file-sharing. To compound matters, another network that has flown under the radar for some time has now been dragged into the spotlight, and it may pose one of the biggest threats yet to copyright owners and their content. Read on for more.

“Tribler” is a peer-to-peer file-sharing client that is completely decentralized. “The only way to take it down is to take the Internet down,” the software’s creator says.

The Tribler BitTorrent client has been in development for more than five years and according to the researchers at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who built it, it has experienced 100% uptime since it first launched.

Unlike standard BitTorrent clients that rely on torrent sites to find and download content, Tribler is based on true peer-to-peer technology that requires no intermediate servers. Instead, the client installed on users’ computers communicates directly with other PCs on which Tribler is running.

“Our key scientific quest is facilitating unbounded information sharing,” Tribler creator Dr. Pouwelse toldTorrentFreak in a recent interview. “We simply don’t like unreliable servers. With Tribler we have achieved zero-seconds downtime over the past six years, all because we don’t rely on shaky foundations such as DNS, web servers or search portals.”

Though it took an extensive investigation and coordinated efforts across multiple continents to take down Megaupload and its founder Kim Dotcom, the task was simple compared to stopping the threat posed by decentralized clients like Tribler. Joe Morganelli, founder of copyright consulting firm Morganelli Group, thinks true peer-to-peer clients like Tribler will change the way BitTorrent is used, making it infinitely more difficult for authorities and copyright owners to combat piracy.

“With no central location it will make going after individuals so much more important,” Morganelli told BGR in an interview, though he acknowledges that this approach has not been terribly effective in the past. ”The crusade against a normal individual has had very little effect since there are millions of people,” Morganelli continued. “With the central location, it makes for an easy lawsuit.”

Tribler is free to download and use, and its code is completely open source.


Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: