The Last Crusade

Degenerate, despicable, shameless genocidal presidency is finally over

2009-01-18T16:07:00.012+11:00

For me G. W. Bush was an example of everything that is wrong with the human race. He was one of the most hypocrite men on earth whom Americans at some point in time called a candid man.

The candid man at the end happened to commit the worst genocides of the 21 century. He killed over one and a half million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, just because a Saudi guy trained by CIA to fight the Soviets decided to turn against the USA. He thought he had the obligation to show the world who the ruler was. However, during the last week of his term in office he was caught taking orders from a politician in Israel called Ehud Olmert and issuing a "yes boss, I will abstain" without even asking for an explanation, he just followed the order and then dictated to Condoleezza Rice and then Olmert made public that he humiliated Rice.

This was the guy who had to receive a spy plane dismantled into pieces and shipped into a Russian Antonov for having illegally landed in the Hainan island of China on April's fools' day, 2001, just 7 months and 11 days before you let the WTC be attacked.

Yes, the attack you let happen, an attack planned by a bunch of cave men your CIA trained, that you made look like the most coordinated and spectacular terrorist attack in written history. The title of the story: "The cave men declare war on the hyperpower while Caligula reads the Petty Goat", followed by "The empire strikes back at anyone who dares to laugh".

This was the guy who let a US city, New Orleans, sink in sewage and then said the rescue operation he led was a terrific job. Bush, your nickname is Katrina, or rather "Katrina's sewage".

This was the guy who said that Iraqis would greet the American invaders as liberators and to prove it the first thing he did when entering Baghdad was to send the troops to open the jails and release all the criminals and ask them to participate in some photo operations in which US soldiers will throw down a tyrant's statute and the prisoners would perform the role, for the American TV, of Iraqis exuberantly happy at being liberated by the forces of good.

This was the guy who changed the definition of torture so he will be able to say that USA did not torture people. Torture, under Bush, was defined as something that caused the dead of the tortured person, and nothing else. Maybe this was one of those things you said Jesus said to you when he told you to invade Iraq, right?

This was the guy who said that the UN and the international law were obsolete, and needed to be replaced by Bush's own law, and put this doctrine into practice by outsourcing torture to the repulsive Arab regimes, and by disappearing people in secret prisons in former Soviet states who happened to want to adopt these new American values.

This was the guy who until the last day in his presidential seat declared total support for the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinians because according to him, the Jewish values imposed on the Middle East by Israel were the same American values we all daringly care for. Let me guess what those values are: torture, extrajudicial assassinations, racial discrimination and segregation, systematic genocide, violation of international law and so forth, all in the name of God and the holy books.

This was the guy who wanted to rewrite the Coram, because unlike the Talmud, it was a book of hatred and violence.

You, yes you, leave a USA in bankruptcy after 8 years of claiming day to day that the fundamentals of USA the economy were robust and in the face of reality you, again, claim you did a terrific job in rescuing the economy even though by the end of your presidency the US was losing jobs at the rate of 0.7 million a month.

I mean, you Bush, you shit on everything and you really think you are making a hell of a Midas job. That would make anyone think that you are retarded, but I know you aren't. You just happen to be a crossbreed between Caligula, Nero and a stinky cockroach, you who think the rest of the world is as imbecile as your American followers. You degenerate, despicable, shameless genocidal and motherfucker. I am glad your time in the White House is over.

The only thing I am grateful for is because you ruined that fucking empire that looted the world and plagued it with misery in the name of freedom for almost 100 years. I am really glad about that.

Obama's silence on Gaza Holocaust is a War Crime

2009-01-16T08:46:00.005+11:00

Barak Obama's silent support for Israel in the face of the genocide makes him a participant accomplice in the carrying out of war crimes.

Is Obama taking orders from Olmert by phone in the same way as Bush did when Olmert decided he was going to humiliate Condolezza Rice by forcing her to abstain on a UN resolution she herself helped write to demand a cease fire in Gaza?

Colombia's dirty war crosses the border

2008-03-10T04:23:00.005+11:00

The Colombian government used the Andean crisis to show off the power of its military, which claims to be the largest, the best trained, the most experienced and the most powerful of Latin America. In fact, the bombing of Ecuador was supposed to be a demonstration of that power. Uribe also claims at the same time that he has the FARC guerrillas running for their lives.

The question is, if they are so powerful, why cannot they control their conflict? That’s what other Latin American countries wonder; are you allowing the guerrillas to cross the border just to have a pretext to bomb your neighbors, then call them terrorists and ask the US to join the fight?

Doesn’t it make sense to Uribe and his military that the first thing he has to do when waging a war is to secure its borders so he won’t need to chase guerrillas across? Doesn’t he have enough resources despite the billions of dollars the US provides for Plan Colombia? Where is that money? In a Swiss bank account?

Another rhetoric question would be, if Colombia hasn’t been able to defeat the guerrillas and win that war, why do they risk starting a war with their neighbours?

This is the case of a country that has all the support of the US against the guerrillas, yet it blames its less armed neighbors for its failures. Is Ecuador to blame for the existence of FARC? Is Venezuela responsible for 40 years of civil war in Colombia? Or should we blame the enormous endemic social injustice that has always prevailed in that country?

Why did Alvaro Uribe rush to kill Raúl Reyes?

2008-03-07T21:51:00.003+11:00

May be he thought that this would mean a free ticket for his second re-election and third term in office. Yet, if they have been following the rebel leader as they claimed and listening to his conversations, why not to wait and find out more and catch everyone in their own lies at the right place at the right time?

Something is very clear after the now infamous operation; Uribe had taken the most important FARC negotiator out of combat; and this proves a point, that Uribe is not interested in negotiations whatsoever with FARC.

Months earlier Uribe had extradited Simon Trinidad to the US where he was condemned to 60 years in jail for kidnapping three American mercenaries whose aircraft went down into the jungle directly into FARC’s territory.

Killing the negotiator is almost as serious and bad as killing the messenger; killing the messenger is the same as declaring all out war. You kill all the possibilities of any understanding or any negotiated way out of the conflict with the guerrillas.

Uribe had picked Rodrigo Granda as FARC’s negotiator. In his extreme and blinding arrogance it didn’t seem ridiculous to him to pick who was going to represent his enemies at the negotiations table with the government. Of course the pick was rejected by FARC.

So what other reason might’ve had Uribe to hurry up the operation? Maybe he wanted to leave Granda alone as FARC’s only communication channel with the world? Didn’t he happen to think that FARC has its internal structure and somebody was waiting in the queue?

Again, what was Uribe thinking? Why did he do it? Couldn’t he foresee the consequences?

What the Global Warming Agenda is really about

2007-02-11T19:03:00.000+11:00

Global warming is due to solar activity. The sun has periods of high solar activity that last 11 years, the same duration as the periods of low solar activity when the temperature in earth goes down.

I have followed the web site www.enterprisemission.com for few years and remember Richard Hoagland published some photographs of Mars that show how the Martian poles are melting. A proof that global warming is actually universal and not man made.

If well, it is true that we have to look after our planet, it is very suspicious that some countries have come up with this issue now in a time of geopolitical changes. Global Warming is actually an agenda of political and economic control, an agenda on the basis of which the destiny of many countries will be decided by guys in Europe, They will decide which country remains underdeveloped and which country will be allowed to industrialize.

I wouldn't oppose that agenda if there wasn't any control over the flow or migration of people. Why are we going to condemn some countries to live in a primitive way and not let their own people to decide which way to live, or even the opportunity to migrate to a country where they can live as they want?

The Global Warming agenda is aimed at replacing the obsolete system of backyard continents. I mean, there is currently a system in place by which we allow or disallow the progress of some countries. The backyard countries as they are called. Africa is Europe's backyard, Latin America is USA backyard and South Asia is Japan and Australia's backyard, the Middle East is an oil rich desert shared by several monopolies. The monopolies are the virtual owners of the backyards.

This system is about to collapse due to the rise of China, India and to a lesser extent of Brazil. The system of backyard countries is very important because it is aimed at regulating the consumption of natural resources around the world. The purpose of this system is for not to allow too many countries to develop so they might compete for the same resources. One of the reasons why the Middle East should never become a developed region is because otherwise they would consume the oil they are now exporting to Europe and the USA. It is obvious that the development and progress of some countries happens at the stake of others. Whyt do you think the US call the Arab oil vital for US interests?

The Global Agenda of Global Warming should be regarded as a threat by many countries of course. US first, because it traditionally has extended its backyard beyond Latin America, and now its own backyard might need to be shared with other monopolies. The same thing happens with Europe and Africa. China is now jumping into Europe's backyard as China has always been a backyard nation it doesn't need to play by the rules time ago agreed by the world powers. Therefore the urgent need of implementing a the Global Warming Agenda, to make China and others play by the old rules.

Backyard countries also see this agenda as a threat, because it is going to condemn them to another century of underdevelopment and poverty.

One of the objectives of the Global Warming Agenda is to stop this dangerous competition for the resources in which the old and new monopolies have now engaged. So, in reality, the only climate that has heated because of human activity is the political climate. The global warming agenda will define new winners and losers without need of fighting more wars.

Have you realized that the only monopoly pushing this agenda is the European one?

The Australian Aboriginals Holocaust

2007-02-03T20:57:00.000+11:00

From the AAP :

Boxer Anthony Mundine has likened the British treatment of Aborigines to the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust.
"John Howard has got to step to the plate, admit he is wrong, just like the Germans did back in the day and admitted under Hitler what they did and then moved forward," Mundine told Channel Nine.

He said the Union Jack was not a symbol to be proud of.

"It symbolises murder, raping, pillaging of the native people of the land," he said.

"The burning of the flag, we burn it, or the people burnt it, because they want to wash away with the dark side, with the dark past that Australia's got in its history and let's move forward, get a more unified place for the people."

Abused in Australia for visiting Africa and South America

2007-01-19T23:14:00.000+11:00

When arriving in Sydney’s International airport from overseas visitors have to fill up a an immigration card in which they enter their identification details, flight number, port of departure as well as a set of yes/no questions. These questions are designed in such way that if the passenger answers yes to any of them it means he/she is asking for troubles, meaning that the passenger is going to be delayed and is going to face a tough interrogation from the ASIO and custom officers.

Curiously, one of those questions, the last in the list is “have you visited South America or Africa in the past 6 days?” I arrived back from my vacation time, and had to fill up the card, my answer to the last questions was “Yes”, for which the immigration officer double crossed the card on the corner and subtly alerted other officers at the baggage claim area about my presence. I waited for more than 30 minutes until my suitcase appeared on the baggage platform, it was one of the last ones to be put on there. I grabbed my suitcase walked two meters and I was immediately approached by one of the custom officers who had been actually looking at me at prudential distance while I waited for my bag.

The officer took my immigration card, asked me twice if I was aware that I answered positively to one of the questions in that card. The tone in which he asked was meant to be intimidating, and then he took me to the counter and asked me to open my handbag, a small backpack where I carried books, tickets, receipts, documents, postcards, my diary, etc. He concentrated on the bills and receipts that I have kept from my trip, mostly hotel and restaurant bills as well as tickets. Not satisfied with his review he asked for my wallet, he ordered me to show him my driver’s license, Medicare card, bank and credit cards, etc. Then he called more officers to help him with my documents two more were looking at my reactions from the distance. They took my drivers license and credit cards and make phone calls somewhere, I guess they were assuming they were stolen or were fake. Still no happy with that, the officer asked me to pass him my wallet, he himself removed from it every document, business card, paper note, any little paper that I kept in it.

I started to worry about the way the search was escalating, I was being treated as a suspect in a crime. The officer asked me almost seven times when I had departed from Australia, and where I had been during this time. His repeating of the same questions all the time gave me the impression that the guy just wanted to upset me as if he needed to have an excuse to treat me worse and delay me even longer. I believe the officers were upset because I was carrying an Australian passport and therefore their abuses could not cross certain line which would turn things in my favor. I was aware of this, had the abusive interrogation continued I was going to be able to sue and claim some form of compensation. Had I got angry they would’ve arrested me under the new anti terrorism laws. The question in this case would be “what do terror laws have to do with someone spending his holidays in South America or South Africa?” At the end the officer asked me to empty my suitcase and make it again before he would let me go. After that my suitcase, my small backpack and my wallet were in a complete mess.

What would a South American say or think if they were treated the same way by their own authorities for spending holidays in Australia? This is not the only point of comparison or reference, when Australians visit South America they are treated respectfully, they are not even asked for visa in most of these countries. As I realize, there is not reciprocity in the way Australia treats South American visitors; there is a abyss of difference. The nation that claims to be one of the beacons of democracy and high values in the world treats visitors with contempt, as if they were suspects of some sort of crime. All in the name of security and protecting democracy, as if democracy could be threatened by ordinary citizens acting as individuals.

The other question is: what have South Americans done to Australia? What is the threat they pose that the immigration department has implemented a process to impose tough conditions to South American visitors? For how long will Australia get away with mistreating Latin visitors before the Latin public becomes aware of this discriminatory treatment and the issue starts backfiring? I just wonder.

Venezuela says United States wants to control the illegal drug trade

2006-01-16T23:08:00.001+11:00

January 14, 2006
In a communique issued by the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Madrid as response to the barring of Spain's sale of military planes to Venezuela, and then made public by the chancellor’s office, Venezuela has claimed that the reason why the United States government vetoes the selling of Spanish planes to Venezuela is because Washington wants to continue imposing the flight of American anti-drug patrols over Venezuela’s territory .
However, Spain says it will keep its promise and will equip the planes using European parts to bypass the US licenses.
In May 1999, President Hugo Chavez announced that United States military jets could no longer enter his country's airspace as it still does in the other Andean nations. If the US did so it would violate Venezuela's sovereignty he said.
Venezuela wants to buy 12 planes with a combined value of 2 billion U.S. dollars to carry out its own anti-drug surveillance and interception flights. The republic of Venezuela is the country where most of the drug seizing occurs as its geographic position makes it the natural route of illegal drug trade from the South America to the US.
The communique casts doubts about the real intentions of the US ban on the military planes sale and accuses the US of undermining Venezuela’s response capacity to deal with this threat. The announcement states that the ban is an evidence of the double speech of George W. Bush and formulates the question: Do they want to combat or to control the illegal drug trade?.
Venezuela is also attempting to buy planes from Brazil, but this move has also been vetoed by the US government under the grounds that Brazilian planes use American technology.
Sources•"US troubles with Chávez hinder drug interdiction in Venezuela". El Universal (Caracas), January 9, 2006
•"Chacón: US is delaying anti-drug convention". El Universal (Caracas), January 5, 2006
•"Spain defies US on Venezuela deal". BBC News, January 13, 2006
•"EEUU desea controlar el narcotráfico"". El Universal (Caracas), January 14 , 2006 (in Spanish)