“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, November 02, 2014

More on the Senate if Republicans take control: If the party of stupid does their normal - Iran will get a nuclear deterrent and who could blame them?

THOMAS HEDGES, TRNN PRODUCER: As the November midterm election campaigns intensify, prospects of a Republican majority in the Senate are growing stronger. Forecasts are varied among major news sources, but only in their margin of victory. Just this week, The New York Times predicted a 64 percent likely win; The Washington Post, 93 percent. The House is already under Republican control and most likely going to stay that way after the elections next month. Many are bracing themselves for a new kind of political theater, one in which the GOP's voice will be significantly amplified.
This is the first of a string of reports coming from The Real News Network that will take a look at how a Republican-led Senate would affect current policies. The lens for each issue takes the form of Senate committees, political platforms that will undergo major reconfigurations if Republicans seize the Senate.
In this edition, we'll focus on the arena of foreign policy and, more specifically, the U.S. negotiations with Iran, which for many seem to be the most susceptible to change of course if the GOP does indeed win over the Senate. With the deadline for an agreement set for the end of November, a lot hinges on the developments over the next month that'll conclude a year-long round of talks.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: If you phrase the question where are you going to see a change because of the Republicans, then I think Iran is going to be one of the biggest issues, at least in your face, immediately, in the short term.
HEDGES: Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired army colonel and former chief of staff to Colin Powell. He says a Republican victory in the Senate jeopardizes the progress already made in the negotiations.
WILKERSON: Now, there are people in my party and people in the Democratic Party, like Robert Menendez in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee right now, who are opposed to this for differing reasons. And this will give the Senate, which is arguably the more powerful body of the Congress with respect to these kinds of agreements, more reason and more people and more wherewithal to oppose the president on these issues.
HEDGES: The current phase of negotiations began last November when the United States and Iran, along with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, often called P5+1, agreed to a preliminary and temporary nuclear deal. The initial agreement would ask Iran to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for a piecemeal removal of sanctions against the country.
KATE GOULD, MIDDLE EAST POLICY ANALYST, FRIENDS COUNCIL ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION: Within the U.S. sanctions, there are those that have been imposed by the president and those that have been imposed by Congress. And in the congressional sanctions, many of these sanctions--in fact, most of them--allow for the president to suspend sanctions against Iran for a certain amount of time.
HEDGES: Kate Gould is a Middle East policy analyst at the Friends Council on National Legislation. She argues that the uproar over the negotiations between Congress and the White House is an unnecessary source of tension.
GOULD: When they authored these sanctions, they allowed for the president to lift sanctions. And now that the president is talking about possibly using that legal authority, then some in Congress are objecting to that. But it was actually in the legislation that they authored and they voted for.
Many of these waivers the president's allowed to use, these are temporary waivers. They may last for six months; they may last longer. They could be renewed after six months. They could renew it again. But for an actual permanent lifting of sanctions, that's something that only Congress can do.
So it is expected that in any kind of final nuclear deal, for the first two years of an agreement, the president would lift sanctions, would suspend sanctions for a temporary amount of time to make sure that Iran is complying with the deal. And then, about two years in, Congress would be asked to then lift sanctions permanently. And in exchange, Iran would have to make even further concessions on their nuclear program.
HEDGES: As of today, Gould says, the opposition to a deal with Iran reflects a minority voice within Congress. Only a couple of dozen representatives, she says, are actively resisting the negotiations. But if the GOP does win, the ascension of Republican members to key positions within certain Senate committees threatens the current path to an agreement.
WILKERSON: Yeah, the committee structure, in terms of the midterms, if the Republicans win a majority in the Senate (it'll probably be a small one) will be a problem for the president, because we have some people who will be going to the committee chairmanships, maybe even John McCain in Senate Armed Services, who's contesting the rule that you can't serve after having served six years before. And that's going to change what the committees deal with. It's going to change how they deal with what they deal with. And it's going to change it in a way that's probably going to be antithetical to the president's wishes. So, yes, it's going to have an impact.
HEDGES: That impact could be seen in two other committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, committees that deal most closely with the U.S.-Iran negotiations.
GOULD: Most people don't think about the Banking Committee, but that actually is the committee where they have jurisdiction over sanctions legislation. It affects banks, of course.
HEDGES: With Senate Democrat and current chair of the Committee on Banking Tim Johnson set to step down at the end of this year, the change in committee leadership could see its Republican ranking member, Mike Crapo, take up the position. While Crapo doesn't hold such a hardline approach as his constituents, his moderate stance and acceptance of renewed Iran sanctions stand opposed to the more progressive measures Johnson has taken. For example, earlier this year, Senator Johnson played a key role in organizing ten chairs of separate Senate committees to sign on to a letter opposing any new sanctions against Iran. In the wake of a Republican victory, Gould predicts a similar move against the negotiations in the Committee on Foreign Relations.
GOULD: Currently it's chaired by Senator Robert Menendez, and he was the champion, he was the lead sponsor of a bill to try to oppose new sanctions on Iran that would violate the first-step nuclear agreement earlier this year.
His ranking member, the ranking member of the committee right now, is Senator Corker. So he could very likely be the new chair if this switches to Republican leadership. Senator Corker has actually not been at the forefront of pushing for more sanctions, but what he has pushed for is a joint resolution of disapproval of a nuclear agreement with Iran. So this is legislation he has right now. He has about a dozen senators, all Republicans, who have supported it, saying that the administration, in any kind of nuclear deal, they would have to actually submit it to Congress for an up or down vote, which, of course, is not about real diplomacy, is not about making sure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon and having respect for the very sensitive diplomatic process, but instead it's about political gamesmanship. He has also supported a legislation that outlines in very stark terms what an Iran nuclear agreement would look like. So it has some very onerous conditions that would essentially require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, which--all the negotiators that actually work with Iran know that's entirely unrealistic. Iran is not going to give up its nuclear enrichment program.
HEDGES: Gould notes the potential for other voices to be bolstered in the event of a Republican-controlled Senate. AIPAC, for example, has launched a large campaign to encourage representatives in challenging Obama on the lifting of any sanctions, even temporary. Others, like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, advocate authorizing the use of force.
Again, there's also a proposal by Senator Lindsey Graham, who wouldn't be in a leadership position, but, because of his party affiliation with Republicans, could be seen as given more authority in these matters of pushing for what--his legislative proposal that he actually warned of bringing up last year, which was an authorization for the use of military force against Iran.
HEDGES: And while for many the prospects of a new war with Iran seem unlikely, both Wilkerson and Gould warn that failure to reach an agreement may very well redirect American foreign policy down a path that could ultimately lead to the use of military force in the region.
GOULD: I mean, that's really what is the alternative. Like, if we don't get a nuclear deal, then we could be seen that just like we saw with Iraq, where first sanctions are presumably imposed for some kind of behavior change, for concerns about weapons of mass destruction, then quickly that logic changes, as we saw with Iraq. Then, when Madeleine Albright was asked about, well, are we going to lift sanctions against Iraq, since Saddam Hussein was letting in weapons inspectors--and the answer was no, not until there's regime change. And so sanctions, they take on a life of their own, and no longer are they used for behavior change; they're seen as just a way for the U.S. to provoke regime change.
WILKERSON: What do we do if the Iranian deal fails, as you say? What do we do? Do we bomb Tehran? There's no surer way to put a decision in the heads of the clerics, the IRG, and others to go nuclear. I would predict that within a year they will have tested a nuclear weapon if we bomb them.
The only way to stop them from having a nuclear weapon through hard power is to muster a half a million forces, invade Iran, occupy it for ten years, spend $2 trillion. And at the end of the ten years and the expenditure of all that taxpayer money, I defy anyone to say there's a success in sight.
HEDGES: For The Real News, Thomas Hedges, Washington.


Why Iran Should Get the Bomb

Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability

The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms. 
It should not. Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East. 
The crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three different ways. First, diplomacy coupled with serious sanctions could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so. Punishing a state through economic sanctions does not inexorably derail its nuclear program. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions. If Tehran determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind. In fact, adding still more sanctions now could make Iran feel even more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate deterrent. 
The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice. 
Such a breakout capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran's rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation). The problem is that a breakout capability might not work as intended. 
The United States and its European allies are primarily concerned with weaponization, so they might accept a scenario in which Iran stops short of a nuclear weapon. Israel, however, has made it clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity alone as an unacceptable threat. It is possible, then, that a verifiable commitment from Iran to stop short of a weapon could appease major Western powers but leave the Israelis unsatisfied. Israel would be less intimidated by a virtual nuclear weapon than it would be by an actual one and therefore would likely continue its risky efforts at subverting Iran's nuclear program through sabotage and assassination -- which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks. 
The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less. 
Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge. 
Of course, it is easy to understand why Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the region and why it is willing to use force to secure that status. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran. But the very acts that have allowed Israel to maintain its nuclear edge in the short term have prolonged an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term. Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again. In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.
One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise. 
Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear. 
Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself). Iran may be intransigent at the negotiating table and defiant in the face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation. Iran's leaders did not, for example, attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz despite issuing blustery warnings that they might do so after the EU announced its planned oil embargo in January. The Iranian regime clearly concluded that it did not want to provoke what would surely have been a swift and devastating American response to such a move.
Nevertheless, even some observers and policymakers who accept that the Iranian regime is rational still worry that a nuclear weapon would embolden it, providing Tehran with a shield that would allow it to act more aggressively and increase its support for terrorism. Some analysts even fear that Iran would directly provide terrorists with nuclear arms. The problem with these concerns is that they contradict the record of every other nuclear weapons state going back to 1945. History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. There is little reason to believe Iran would break this mold. 
As for the risk of a handoff to terrorists, no country could transfer nuclear weapons without running a high risk of being found out. U.S. surveillance capabilities would pose a serious obstacle, as would the United States' impressive and growing ability to identify the source of fissile material. Moreover, countries can never entirely control or even predict the behavior of the terrorist groups they sponsor. Once a country such as Iran acquires a nuclear capability, it will have every reason to maintain full control over its arsenal. After all, building a bomb is costly and dangerous. It would make little sense to transfer the product of that investment to parties that cannot be trusted or managed. 
Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. Properly defined, the term "proliferation" means a rapid and uncontrolled spread. Nothing like that has occurred; in fact, since 1970, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states. There is no reason to expect that this pattern will change now. Should Iran become the second Middle Eastern nuclear power since 1945, it would hardly signal the start of a landslide. When Israel acquired the bomb in the 1960s, it was at war with many of its neighbors. Its nuclear arms were a much bigger threat to the Arab world than Iran's program is today. If an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now.
In 1991, the historical rivals India and Pakistan signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other's nuclear facilities. They realized that far more worrisome than their adversary's nuclear deterrent was the instability produced by challenges to it. Since then, even in the face of high tensions and risky provocations, the two countries have kept the peace. Israel and Iran would do well to consider this precedent. If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply, even if the Iranian arsenal is relatively small. No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today. 
For that reason, the United States and its allies need not take such pains to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. Diplomacy between Iran and the major powers should continue, because open lines of communication will make the Western countries feel better able to live with a nuclear Iran. But the current sanctions on Iran can be dropped: they primarily harm ordinary Iranians, with little purpose. 
Most important, policymakers and citizens in the Arab world, Europe, Israel, and the United States should take comfort from the fact that history has shown that where nuclear capabilities emerge, so, too, does stability. When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better.


  1. I said at the time that Obama should have asked for a recount. :)

  2. OTTAWA: The Canadian military dropped bombs on Islamic State positions in Iraq for the first time on Sunday (Nov 2), in support of the US-led coalition. "Coordinated with our coalition partners, two CF-18s attacked IS targets with GBU12 500-pound (227-kilogram) laser-guided bombs in the vicinity of Fallujah," Defence Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement. "All aircraft returned safely to their base."

    Nicholson declined to detail damage caused to the targets during the approximately four-hour mission, indicating that such details would be provided during . . . . .

    Found the Range

  3. Well, let's see ...
    The "Plan" to castrate Iran by elminating its' influence in Syria, that went to shit.
    Now the US is bombing the Israeli preferred al-Qeada operative there ...

    Mr Hagel is confused, still thinking his job is to destabilize the legitimate government of Syria. He got the memo, setting the 'new priorities but must not be flexible in his thinking processes, Not realizing he has to shift gears AND steer at the same time.

    The Iraqi government, instead of crumbling has reorganized, engaging with their Kurdish element, and then deploying troops to Syria!
    Instead of fragmenting the Iranian influences in the region, the military offensive by Daesh has strengthen them.

    Things are not going to the Israeli plan.
    Mr Oren was so, so confident when he brazenly told the world ...

    Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

    A misreading of not only the region, but the United States.
    The ISraeli hubris so over the top that their leaders thought the propagandists could convince the people of the US that al-Qeada was an acceptable option. Bah bah, the sheeple of the US are not going let go of the last decade of indoctrination, not a chance.


  4. The US and Israel have provided all the incentives necessary for Iran to acquire a nuclear deterrent. The US does not have the political support to attack Iran and absorb the consequences. Israel does not have the resources. There is no joy in Iran for the leadership that has been foisted upon them in no small way by US actions since 1953 and Israeli aggression against Iran. The consequences are that Israel will have to get rid of their nuclear weapons or they will be deterred by a nuclear Iran. That is a prediction.

    1. As you say, you love Israel and don't want to see it vaporized.

      i agree.

      Any nation that is preparing to vaporize Israel should be pre-emptively vaporized.

    2. Total nonsense from start to finish but you seem to really believe it so what's the use?

    3. Won't happen, the consequences just to disastrous for the Zionists.

      Oil & self Interest trumps just about everything ... for Charlie Chi-com and Hindustan Haji.

    4. Do yourself a favor read the complete article I post below.

    5. ...and if you haven’t been paying attention, Russia will play Iran’s nuclear card against the United States, Israel and Europe, playing off the US and European position toward Russia in Ukraine. Throw in the Saudis discounting their oil, putting a major hurt on Russia’s cash flow and Bibi’s wet dream about bombing Iran ain’t going to happen.

    6. Representative democracy truly exists if citizens have a measure of control over the most important issues facing the nation through their vote. In unanimity, both Republicans and Democrats know that their vote is counted (sometimes twice) but really doesn’t count in determining the nation’s future.

      The people have no control over the nation’s borders and inflow of people; they have no say in the debasement of currency and the outflow of dollars: and they have to succumb to the will of powerful insiders who desire another prolonged, no-win-war in the Middle East.

      It is said that the American people turned against the war in Vietnam because ‘the war could not be won’. A more accurate rendition is that American people turned against the war because the war could not be won as it was fought.

      If we engage ISIS as a war should be fought, then come Spring ISIS would be a part of history and not of current events. That would be in the interest of all Americans voting this November.

    7. >>>The consequences are that Israel will have to get rid of their nuclear weapons or they will be deterred by a nuclear Iran. That is a prediction<<<

      Quite a prediction, You need to put on an ending date though, an expiration date like on food.

      Without nuclear weapons Israel would certainly be deterred by Iran right into the sea.

      The whole situation makes little sense. The Russians, for instance. Why is it the Russian best interest to have a nuclear armed Iran?

    8. Bibi’s wet dream about bombing Iran ain’t going to happen.?

      If Israel wanted to, they could have 30 years ago nuked Iran.

      No israel's wet dream?

      a non-crazy neighborhood.


    However, linguistic and archaeological evidence disputes the notion of a mass emigration and conquest; the Island Carib language appears not to have been Cariban, but Arawakan like that of their neighbors, the TaĆ­no.

    The very best thing that ever happened in their entire history to this group of Anthropophagens was the coming of Howard Johnson, Mr. Best Western, and the McDonalds.

    Ganja weed, the big thing how, is super shit, and makes many of the natives super shitty so that Tourist Warnings are often in place., much like storm warnings.......especially around the beaches......

    Quirk spent a good portion of his early life in Jamaica, and has always urged me to go there, though he refuses to do so himself.

    The underlying motive I suspect is an urge to bump me off and run away with my Old Vegas Girl Friend.

    Won't work for several reasons, one of which is I know my 'safe zones'.

    Another is she is smarter than that.

    I hereby offer Rufus a one way air line ticket to Jamaica.

    For the rest, I urge you to vote Republican for the sake of the Jamaicans, if nothing else.

  6. We have been down this foolish reckless road before:

    U.S. Considered '64 Bombing to Keep China Nuclear-Free
    September 27, 1998|JIM MANN | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    WASHINGTON — Amid the utmost secrecy, top aides of President Lyndon B. Johnson agonized during the early months of 1964 over a single, preoccupying national security issue: Should the United States bomb China to stop it from becoming a nuclear power?

    "I'm for this," scrawled Johnson's national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, on one memo about a possible preemptive strike that might cripple Chinese nuclear installations.

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff studied options for military action, including the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. The CIA plotted covert action against China's test facilities at Lop Nor. American officials even sounded out the Soviet Union about collaborating to stop China from getting the bomb.

    The Soviets weren't interested, and Johnson administration officials decided, after considerable debate, that the problem was not worth the risks inherent in a military attack.

    In the end, the United States resigned itself to China's possession of nuclear weapons.

    The details of this remarkable hidden drama are unveiled for the first time in a recently released collection of U.S. government documents about American policy toward China during the Johnson years. The papers were made public by the State Department, which is responsible for declassifying documents about the history of U.S. foreign policy.

    Since the advent of nuclear weapons during World War II, there has been only one instance when a nation used military force to stop another country from becoming a nuclear power: In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in an action that damaged and delayed, but did not stop, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

    On several other occasions, experts say, governments have contemplated preemptive military attacks against nuclear facilities and then held back.

    "People who look seriously at that option have trouble answering the inevitable question: Can you get all of it [the nuclear material]? What are the consequences if you don't?" observes Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, a defense-oriented research organization. "What are the consequences even if you succeed?"


    2. regime change is the wet dream in iran

  7. ISIS slave auction video November 2, 2014 ISIS warriors cite the Koran as they look forward to raping captured Yazidi slave women. More

    White House sees Iran deal as second term Obamacare November 2, 2014 It is outrageous that the president is willing to roll the dice with our national security so that history will look kindly on him More

    Dem Desperation: Mary Burke ad links Scott Walker to swastika November 2, 2014 It doesn't get any lower than this. More

    All over at American Thinker

  8. Science
    Catchiest song of all time? A Spice Girls tune, say British scientists (+video)

    The Spice Girls have the most recognizable pop song of all time, according to a survey of 12,000 people. What are the other top 20 most recognizable songs?
    By Lisa Suhay, Correspondent November 1, 2014
    About video ads

    Scientists say if you wanna be the pop star with the catchiest song of all time, “what you want, what you really really want,” to have is a word "hook" that latches onto a listener’s mind super fast.

    In the case of The Spice Girls’ hit "Wannabe," the study of 12,000 people found it takes just 2.29 seconds to recognize the song when it begins at the chorus "if you wanna be my lover…"

    Anyone seeking something man-made and sold to the general public which operates at that kind of speed may have to leave the world of song and hit the race track in search of an Ariel Atom – which moves just a hair slower than a Spice Girl tune. The Atom is the fastest accelerating street legal road car on the planet thanks to its ability to go from zero to sixty miles per hour in just 2.3 seconds, according to 10 Most Today website.
    Recommended: Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz

    Manchester's Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) published the results of a year-long study of what makes a song stick in your head – the Spice Girls’ “Wannabe” came in at No. 1.
    Test your knowledgeAre you scientifically literate? Take our quiz
    Photos of the Day Photos of the weekend

    Researchers used the ‘Hooked on Music’ test, which is online for continued use by the general public.

    The MOSI site offers two versions of the test. It asks listeners to try to name a song randomly selected from over 1,000 best-selling tunes when it began playing from the hook – or to take a time trial to see how fast you can recognize the song from the hook.

    The second most recognized song was Lou Bega’s Mambo No.5, which the average panelist recognized in 2.48 seconds. In the fastest car circuit, that would make Bega more of a Bugatti Veyron Supersport that clocks-in at 2.46 seconds for making 0-60 mph as the fastest production road car in the world.

    1. Here is full list of songs that speed to work on a listener’s memory, according to the new study. The second time listed is where the song's catchiest "hook," like a refrain, falls in the song.

      1. Spice Girls - Wannabe - 2.29 seconds (0:45)

      2. Lou Bega - Mambo No. 5 - 2.48 s (0:50)

      3. Survivor - Eye of the Tiger - 2.62 s (2:04)

      4. Lady Gaga - Just Dance - 2.66 s (1:39)

      5. ABBA - SOS - 2.73 s (2:25)

      6. Roy Orbison - Pretty Woman - 2.73 s (1:07)

      7. Michael Jackson - Beat It - 2.80 s (0:38)

      8. Whitney Houston - I Will Always Love You - 2.83 s (3:09)

      9. The Human League - Don't You Want Me - 2.83 s (3:05)

      10. Aerosmith - I Don't Want to Miss a Thing - 2.84 s (2:22)

      11. Lady Gaga - Poker Face - 2.88 s (0:57)

      12. Hanson - Mmmmbop - 2.89 s (1:44)

      13. Elvis Presley - It's Now Or Never - 2.91 s (2:14)

      14. Bachman-Turner Overdrive - You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet - 2.94 s (1:48)

      15. Michael Jackson - Billie Jean - 2.97 s (1:25)

      16. Culture Club - Karma Chameleon - 2.99 s (0:41)

      17. Britney Spears - Baby One More Time - 2.99 s (0:33)

      18. Elvis Presley - Devil in Disguise - 3.01 s (1:21)

      19. Boney M. - Rivers of Babylon - 3.03 s (0:23)

      20. Elton John - Candle in the Wind - 3.04 s (0:39)

      This study is reminiscent of the "hit potential" computer software work led by Dr. Tijl de Bie that used an algorithm designed to automatically analyze audio tracks and predict where a song is likely to fall on the Billboard charts.

      Based on the 50 years of UK top 40 singles, songs were checked for 23 features including loudness, tempo, duration, energy and "danceability."

      While the computer made some very accurate selections, like Adele’s “Rolling in the Deep,” it missed on Mumford and Son as the 2012 Grammy winners.

      The Hooked on Music study relies completely on the ear of the fan and speed of human memory recall.

      Perhaps, all of this may lead to the next big study: How to remove a song that’s stuck in a listener’s head.
      Related Stories

      Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz
      Test your knowledge Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz
      The 25 best country songs of all time (+video)

    2. Ruf's Favorite Song is off the charts....... on the low fact was never on the charts...

      It is

      "MumboBudJumbo" by The Pop Tabs

      nap time again.....


    U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by fighters linked to al-Qaeda

    "The Obama administration’s Syria strategy suffered a major setback Sunday after fighters linked to al-Qaeda routed U.S.-backed rebels from their main northern strongholds, capturing significant quantities of weaponry, triggering widespread defections and ending hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.

    Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts."

    ...unrelated ...

    "In 1939, 720 Polish soldiers held off 40,000 Nazi troops for three days at Wizna."

  11. This is all turning into a farce. The Independent has a Robert Fisk report detailing US manufactured anti-tank and thermal seeking missiles that ISIS have acquired along with serial numbers and product codes. Apparently they got them from 'moderates' who got them from the can't make this stuff up.

    There is a need for the Western countries to sit back and decide whether chaos is preferable to stability. If they prefer chaos in the Middle East then carry on with this dopey path they are following. If they prefer stability then disengage and let the Arabs sort this out. For any stability in these places a nasty regime is needed...a dictator that stamps his will on the people....people like Saddam and Assad. The problem is that the US wants to pick these dictators and have them do the US's bidding...and this isn't going to work. They have done it in the past with the CIA destabilising countries and it has worked for a period, but like with the Shah of Iran, it doesn't work in the long's that old saying from LBJ or Nixon?...he may be a bastard, but at least he's our arab is going to accept a bastard hand picked by the US either as leader of Iraq or Syria.

    1. How about the Saudi, they are every bit as repressive as Assad and Saddam.
      Do you reccomend that the US 'disengage' while 22% of US oil needs are thrown into chaos?

  12. Then, eventually, the new 'stable' regime, a Saddam for instance, goes marauding into Kuwait and the world is forced to react, sooner or later.

    The bright spot again seems to be the Kurds and that is where we should place our bets and efforts.

    Contain - or crush - ISIS ?

    It's getting hard to tell them apart - no so with the Kurdish women though. They are the ones holding rifles right beside the men and without the burkas.

  13. November 2, 2014
    Her Name Was Chaya
    By Eileen F. Toplansky

    Her name means life in Hebrew but this Jewish Israeli-American infant had few precious days on this earth before the monster destroyed her and scarred her family forever. Her last moments were at the Western Wall, where this picture of Chaya Zisel Braun was taken. The three-month old girl was thrown from her stroller as the Hamas terrorist's car made "a [deliberate] hit-and-run terror attack" killing the baby and injuring eight others........

    Writing about the murder of little Chaya, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West asserts that;

    …this savage barbaric pestilence has to be defeated, destroyed, eradicated, and I mean with a wholehearted commitment to crush Islamo-fascism and jihadism. Because not only do they care little for our children, they care even less for their own -- as ... reported here with Hamas’ commitment to use children and civilians as human shields. We also shared this interview with an Arab woman whose child’s life [had] been saved by Israeli Doctors -- yes, Jews -- yet she clearly stated she would be proud to have her son die to kill the same people who had saved her son.

    What manner of sickness is this? How can we continue to dismiss this and seek to blame everyone else -- except the violent ideology of Islam and its jihadist followers?
    …this savage barbaric pestilence has to be defeated, destroyed, eradicated, and I mean with a wholehearted commitment to crush Islamo-fascism and jihadism.

    So, explain to me how we 'coexist' with this? And don’t give me the fear mongering line or condemn me as an 'Islamophobe.' Anyone who can apologize or dismiss these attacks in Jerusalem or in Ottawa is just as bad as the jihadists -- you are an enabler for their despicable and heinous actions.

    God bless little Chaya who had her sweet life taken away far too soon by an animal [.] And yes, God bless the children who are being taught hatred so they will be the next generation of jihadists -- that is, if they survive being used as human shields.

    "this savage barbaric pestilence has to be defeated, destroyed, eradicated, and I mean with a wholehearted commitment to crush Islamo-fascism and jihadism"

    Colonel Allen West seems not to think much of the middle way......I wonder if he is the same guy that was on Fox News a lot...?

    1. What about the monsters that fired artillery and dropped bombs on hospitals,schools, beaches and apartment buildings in Gaza? Ant expectations of little lives taken away? What putrid nonsense.

    2. What manner of sickness? The sickness is religion, occupation, harassment, forced eviction and military destruction. The expected outcome, not only predictable but guaranteed revenge. The enablers are the bone heads that think they can push people around without push-back and their myopic defense and excuse team like god quoting Eileen. The religious fools have been fighting each other’s gods since they struggled to two feet.

    3. At approximately 9:00 pm on Tuesday, 26 August 2014, medical staff at Gaza’s Al Shifa Hospital announced the death of four-year-old, Lama Khader Al Nabeeh, who was injured in an airstrike on her family home on 20 August 2014. Lame was a resident of Al Shujai’ya.

      One of 504 children killed by the IDF and cheered on by the god quoting popcorn eating fat asses in their lawn chairs.

    4. ... play silly games, win silly prizes ...

    5. You are slipping into insanity.

    6. Deuce ☂Mon Nov 03, 06:32:00 AM EST
      What about the monsters that fired artillery and dropped bombs on hospitals,schools, beaches and apartment buildings in Gaza? Ant expectations of little lives taken away? What putrid nonsense.

      So sorry deuce, the blame is clearly on those monsters that put missiles next to and IN schools, hospitals and apts...

      If you build, store, plan, distribute, dig bunkers and tunnels and invest billions in a munitions store of 10,000 rockets and missiles coupled with 100 miles of underground bunks and USE UN buildings, schools and apartments as shields on purpose?


      Blame your self.

  14. The Hill responds to Quirk's assertion that 2014 Senate elections don't matter:....

    Five things that would change in a Republican-led Senate

    By Vicki Needham - 11/02/14 06:00 AM EST

    The midterm-election horserace is into its final furlong — and that means most of the attention of the political world is focused, understandably, on who’s up and who’s down; who will win and who will lose.

    But if Republicans succeed in their quest to secure a Senate majority on Tuesday, what will really change on Capitol Hill?

    The answer is “plenty” – both in terms of policy and politics.

    Here are five areas to watch.

    1. Will President Obama’s big achievements be hollowed out?

    Republicans say that if they gain control of Congress they will start chipping away at two of the Obama administration’s biggest victories: financial reform and healthcare.

    The GOP could well decide against attempting another full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. But its members would probably try to eliminate the much-discussed medical device tax. They might also look at nixing the employer mandate.

    The Dodd-Frank financial law is high on the hitlist of GOP lawmakers. They want to ease capital requirements for large insurance companies, create both a board of directors and a new inspector-general position for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and streamline a process for banks deemed too big to fail.

    More generally, Republicans have made it clear that Obama’s regulatory agenda is a prime target.

    With control over the budget and appropriations process, Republicans could cut off funding that is needed to implement or enforce regulations — including the EPA’s carbon-pollution standards for power plants, which form a big piece of the president's climate agenda.

    The GOP will also probably ramp up efforts to push through the Keystone XL pipeline and expand natural-gas exports.

    2. Senate confirmations: The battlefield tilts

    A GOP-controlled Senate will make it even tougher for Obama to confirm nominees, a process that hasn’t exactly been plain sailing even with Democrats in charge.

    Although Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said she is staying put, it remains plausible that Obama could be faced with a third chance to put his stamp on the court. Republicans would find it much easier to block his choice if they held the majority in the Senate.

    Obama will also nominate a replacement for retiring Attorney General Eric Holder, and the confirmation process will likely be fraught whomever he chooses.

    Obama also isn’t like to face any shortage of executive branch, ambassador and federal judicial nominations in his final two years in office. They will all need Senate confirmation.

    1. 3. Obama to stock up on veto pens

      Obama has had to pick up his veto pen on just two occasions since he took office in 2009, largely because Democrats have controlled at least one chamber of Congress throughout that time.

      He will need to check he has a plentiful supply of ink if Republicans take the Senate majority. He can expect to spend his final two years using his veto to protect earlier legislative victories, rather than seriously attempting to rack up new ones.

      There is some chance of bipartisan progress on issue such as immigration reform and global trade deals. But it also seems likely that Obama will need to rely on executive action if he wants to pursue many of his priorities.

      4. More Benghazi, more anti-ISIS action

      If Republicans take over the Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will take the gavel at the Armed Services Committee. He is almost certain to turn the spotlight back onto the Obama administration’s missteps in Benghazi — especially the ones that Republicans say were committed by Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of State at the time.

      Congressional Republican make little secret of the fact that they believe the controversy could hurt Clinton’s chances of winning the White House in 2016. Senate control would ensure they could keep it high up on the news agenda.

      Republicans also are likely to push for a more aggressive U.S. response to the militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. They have long argued that the Obama administration isn’t being aggressive enough in that fight.

      While their push probably won’t come in the form of asking for more U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, Republicans insist that the United States ought to do more to quell terrorist threats in the region.

      Republicans are faced also with a slew of expiring bills but none more important to national security than an NSA surveillance reauthorization.

      It will be up to the GOP to push a bill across the finish line, just as 2016 presidential contenders ramp up their campaigns. Many national security experts have argued that letting the current law expire would be disastrous.

      5. 2016: The future starts now

      Whoever wins and loses on Tuesday night, much of the political world will turn its focus to 2016 as soon as dawn breaks on Wednesday.

      If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, its leaders will take every step over the following two years with an acute appreciation of how their moves might affect the 2016 race for the White House.

      They will have to walk a fine line: They will want to make Democrats take tough votes while also helping those within their own ranks who might seek the Oval Office. GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) have all had their names bandied about as 2016 hopefuls.

      There will also be the concerns of those senators seeking reelection in 2016 to consider. Some centrist Republicans may seek to forge new relationships with Democrats in order to advance legislation they deem important to their reelection hopes.

      Julian Hattem, Kristina Wong, Laura Barron-Lopez, Bernie Becker, Ben Goad and Mike Lillis contributed.


    3. .

      You are a flipping moron. While I agree with a couple things on that list the majority of it is the exact opposite of what this country needs.

      You continue to astound.


  15. Canada, and Australia too take the hint from Rufus and are cracking down on travel for Ebola area. Though I don't see the word quarantine there yet the ideas is much the same:

    Canada enacts travel ban from Ebola-impacted countries
    posted at 11:31 am on November 1, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

    Share on Facebook 230

    The US refuses to stop travel from western African nations for non-US residents, but our neighbors to the north have decided to get ahead of the curve. Late yesterday, Canada announced that they would no longer process visas from western African nations with Ebola outbreaks, splitting from the US in its policies on preventing the spread of the disease:

    Canada will stop processing visa applications from foreign nationals who have visited West African nations with large outbreaks of the Ebola virus, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said Friday.

    Applications will be returned to people from Ebola hot spots who have already applied for visas, officials said in a press release.

    The changes do not affect Canadians currently in West Africa, the press release said. Health care workers in West Africa will be permitted to travel back to Canada.

    The action is similar to that taken by Australia several days ago.

    Canada has not announced any quarantine policies for returning Canadians.......

    1. cracking down on travel for Ebola area

      should be from Ebola areas

    2. Texas and New York should be quarantined ?

  16. String Theory: Now Circling the Drain | Blog Home Page
    The Great Condom Hypocrisy

    Posted by Ross Pomeroy October 31, 2014

    If your Baby Boomer parent nags you for the upteenth time about practicing safe sex with a haughty tone of moral superiority, reply with a simple statistic. The rate of gonorrhea was roughly five times higher during the 1970s than it is now. You know, mom or dad, condoms were around back then.

    Society is convinced that trouble-making teens need all of the instruction when it comes to sex, but in fact, adults may need more tutoring.

    In school, kids are now rightfully bombarded with information about contraception, abstinence, and practicing safe sex, and the barrage seems to be working. From 2000 to 2010, the teen birth rate dropped precipitously across all ethnicities. Over that same period, rates of gonorrhea fell slightly or remained steady, perhaps because 8 out of 10 sexually active boys and 7 out of 10 girls say they used a condom during their last sexual experience. That rate could be as low as 59%, but even so, it still easily trumps that of older Americans.

    Yep, the lowest rate of condom use is among people aged 45 and over. Okay, you might say, but that's because more adults are in committed relationships. True, but ninety-one percent of men older than 50 admitted to not using condoms for sex with a date or casual acquaintance, researchers from Indiana University found. Numbers like that undoubtedly contributed to this intriguing statistic: From 2000 to 2010, rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis doubled for people in their 50s, 60s and 70s.

    Teen still contract far more sexually transmitted diseases than adults. Adolescents ages 15-24 account for nearly half of the 19 million new cases of STD's each year, the CDC reported in July. But -- and this is just my guess -- that number probably says more about the prevalence of sexual activity by age group than it does about safe sex practices. After, all sexual activity declines rapidly beginning in middle age, most prominently due to physical difficulties.

    Teens, it seems, are far more inclined to use condoms than adults are. Therein lies one of the greatest sex hypocrisies. Of course, that doesn't mean that sexual education should stop. Far from it! More than 400,000 teen girls aged 15–19 years gave birth in 2009. That's far too high!

    But it does mean that the parents of teen students might want to attend a few sex education classes of their own, especially before adopting a "holier than thou" attitude.

  17. The middle east has been quite remarkably stable nuclear weapns wise until now.

    Now you Neo-Dims are making insane demands, like Israel giving up its entire arsenal of nuclear defensive weapons

    You madmen are are about to touch off a nuclear arms race.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.


    2. You madmen are are about to touch off a nuclear arms race.

      Delirious absurdity.

      You have delusions of grandeur if you think the mutterings of the 8-10 old guys on this blog matter so much as a nit in affecting world affairs.

      Remember, sir, you are an English major. A little clarity in thought and writing would be appreciated.


  18. The US should cut off ALL funding to Egypt, Israel, Syria and Jordon.
    Eliminate ALL military aid to all of the above.

    The sanctions regime placed on Iran should be expanded to those nations listed above, or waived with regard to Iran.

    Iraq, due to the blood the US has expended in Iraq, the current aid package should continue, until the inauguration of a new US President.

    A concerted effort should be made to increase ethanol production, in the US, to replace the 22% of oil imports coming from the Persian Gulf region. This could be funded with the funds not sent to Egypt, Syria, Jordon and Israel.

    1. No nation that has nuclear weapons that is not signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should receive aid from the US.
      Israel, India, Pakistan.

    2. The US should reclaim and remove the nuclear weapons stockpiled in Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.

    3. .

      Jack HawkinsMon Nov 03, 09:05:00 AM EST

      The US should cut off ALL funding to Egypt, Israel, Syria and Jordon.

      I agree but I am glad to see you left Jordan out since they have been our best ally in the ME for a long time.


    4. If we are going to 'abandon' the region, as you and Deuce have advocated for, as I think would be sound policy, we need to leave it ALL behind

    5. Jack Hawkins, a trusted Mossad agent on a mission of false flag..

  19. Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
    Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability

    Written over 2 years ago?

    Functionally obsolete.

    1. Thereality that the Zinists have been claiming that the Iranians are just days away from a nuclear weapon, for decades now, just shows that their claims are, were, lies, libel and deciet.

      Iran, is client state of Syria and Iraq stand in the way of Israeli hegemony and territorial expansion.
      Syria is aflame, Iraq is a shambles, now the Israeli are once again focusing their attention to Iran.

    2. Iran, its client state of Syria and Iraq stand in the way of Israeli hegemony and territorial expansion.

    3. DO NOT TRUST JACK HAWKINS he is a tool for the MOSSAD


  20. The truth about Israel's secret nuclear arsenal

    Israel has been stealing nuclear secrets and covertly making bombs since the 1950s. And western governments, including Britain and the US, turn a blind eye. But how can we expect Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions if the Israelis won't come clean?

    1. Jack "the Mossad Agent Hawkins....

      False Flag operation to lure Israel haters out into the open...

      gets their IP address then to the NSA then to Jerusalem

  21. The Ally From Hell

    Pakistan lies. It hosted Osama bin Laden (knowingly or not). Its government is barely functional.
    It hates the democracy next door.
    It is home to both radical jihadists and a large and growing nuclear arsenal (which it fears the U.S. will seize).
    Its intelligence service sponsors terrorists who attack American troops.
    With a friend like this, who needs enemies?

    Hamas chief’s sister treated in Israeli hospital

    1. Old news.
      It merely reinforces the idea that Hamas is another Zionist false flag operation, that Hamas is really an extension of the Zionist government of Occupied Palestine.

    2. The minimal losses that the Hamas 'military' operations have cost the Zionists, measured in Israeli lives lost, do not even approach the 252 Jewish innocents murdered by the Zionists, on 25NOV1940

    3. .

      It merely reinforces the idea that Hamas is another Zionist false flag operation, that Hamas is really an extension of the Zionist government of Occupied Palestine.

      The idea?

      Wasn't that 'the idea' dreamed up by that wet-back Mexican illegal holed up in his mother's basement out in the sticks of southern Arizona?


    4. ack HawkinsMon Nov 03, 09:45:00 AM EST

      Old news.
      It merely reinforces the idea that Hamas is another Zionist false flag operation, that Hamas is really an extension of the Zionist government of Occupied Palestine.



      So is ISIS/Iraq/Syria and the Eygptian military......all Israeli false flag operations......the outcome is pre determined.......every fool knows this.....

    5. No, Legionnaire Q, continue to scroll to the bottom, you will see how the case is made.

    6. Actually Jack is part of the Mossad's false flag operation to get others to contact him...

      then he befriends them? and turns them over to the Mossad.

      How clever those Jews are..

    Blast targets troops near Egypt-Gaza border

    "Over the past week, a total of 300 houses were demolished out of more than 800 targeted, housing more than 10,000 residents. The military aims to create a 500-meter wide buffer zone along the 13-kilometer borderline with Gaza extending from the Mediterranean sea.

    Authorities initially gave residents a 48-hour ultimatum to leave their homes. The demolishing of the houses, even with government promises to provide compensation for those displaced, has left hard feelings among many residents — who already hold decades-long grievances against the central government. Many Sinai natives have long complained of being neglected by Cairo and now feel they are being collectively punished by heavy-handed counterterrorism and security measures."

    Call the UN!

  24. Jack HawkinsMon Nov 03, 09:45:00 AM EST
    Old news.
    It merely reinforces the idea that Hamas is another Zionist false flag operation, that Hamas is really an extension of the Zionist government of Occupied Palestine.

    This merely reinforces the observation that you are "nutz".


    1. This is just some of the "Open Source" data set that supports the idea that Hamas is just another Zionist 'False Flag'

      How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

      sraeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.

      "Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

      That is what is openly, publicly admitted, by those that were there.
      Surely there is more that is 'classified' you know, desk co-odinator, "Above Top Secret"

    2. Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.

    3. Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them

      Money for something.

      Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas.

    4. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools.

      This is all public knowledge ...
      What is still secret, the real 'backstory' to another Zionist False Flag Operation.

      The Zionists are famous for them, revel in their ability to decieve the world

    5. The motto of the Mossad
      'By way of deception, thou shalt do war.'

    6. Part of the Public Data Set

      Mr. Hacham, the military Arab affairs expert, remembers taking one of Hamas's founders, Mahmoud Zahar, to meet Israel's then defense minister, Yitzhak Rabin, as part of regular consultations between Israeli officials and Palestinians not linked to the PLO. Mr. Zahar, the only Hamas founder known to be alive today, is now the group's senior political leader in Gaza.

    7. Israel tried to decapitate it. It started targeting Hamas leaders. This, too, made no dent in Hamas's support, and sometimes even helped the group.

      But remember, now, ... the Hamas 'operative' that met with Yitzhak Rabin ...
      Mr. Zahar, the only Hamas founder known to be alive today, is now the group's senior political leader in Gaza.

    8. Jack is actually working for the Mossad, false flag and all...

  25. Israel did not need to "steal" nuclear "secrets", since Jews were the prime movers of the US nuclear programs of the '50s. As to the materials needed for Israel's first weapons, you might want to ask the French about that.

    1. The Social Media Commando desk co-ordinator speaks ...

      'By way of deception, thou shalt do war.'

    2. If we are so powerful and deadly? Why are you still alive?

      Or maybe you are working for the mossad? False flag and all...

  26. After the fiasco in Jordan, Mr. Halevy was named director of Mossad, a position he held until 2002. ...

    Mr. Halevy has in recent years urged Israel to negotiate with Hamas. He says that "Hamas can be crushed," but he believes that "the price of crushing Hamas is a price that Israel would prefer not to pay."
    When Israel's authoritarian secular neighbor, Syria, launched a campaign to wipe out Muslim Brotherhood militants in the early 1980s it killed more than 20,000 people,

    Israel prefers Daesh (al-Qeada) in Syria, over the Alawites, Christians and their Kurdish allies

    Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened,that ...
    Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

    1. So, even the former head of the Mosad has said that Israel could crush Hamas, but will not.

      After Israel's inadequate attempts to 'decapitate' Hamas, the leader that emerges as the 'Head' of the Hamas political wing, the man that met and coordinated with Yitzack Rabin.

      The 'Coincidence Theorists' must be wearing Alcoa brand tin hats.

    2. Targeted assassinations, one of the hallmarks of the Zionist regime in Israel ...
      How is it they continue to miss the man that met and coordinated with Mr Rabin?

      Mr. Zahar, the only Hamas founder known to be alive today, is now the group's senior political leader in Gaza.

    3. Jack you give Israel the idea if they re going to be blamed (guilty or innocent) of the accusation of wanton murder? Israel should at least get the satisfaction of erasing those from the planet that are it's enemies.

      What's to lose?

      You say we are guilty of everything already.... So? Here's to the Mossad tracking you and your group of Israel enemies and liquidating you and yours.

      Here's to crime, both real and imagined that Jews and Israel ever did and will do!!!!!

      I hope you and your's lives are filled with burial plans, false limb replacement and poverty...

      Here's too it all!!!!

      Since we Jews are guilty of everything? We have nothing to lose anymore...

      KILL all enemies at once Israel...

      I except that we will see several nations vaporized in the next 3 days...

      go ahead and blame us already...

    4. Are you admitting you are an Israeli, "O"rdure?

    5. Since we Jews are guilty of everything? We have nothing to lose anymore...

      I admitted I was a Jew.

      And now it's time for you to admit you are working for the Mossad...

    6. Jack your reading skills sucks...

      "Here's to crime, both real and imagined that Jews and Israel ever did and will do!!!!!"

      really, you make me ashamed to think you are the BEST the Mossad has????


    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    8. Must be frustrating, to be you.

    9. Nope but it sure is fun to watch you wiggle.

      Like a puppet on a string..

      Dance.. Dipshit Dance

  27. The only regime in the Middle East to actually do battle with the Muslim Brotherhood, the legitimate government of Syria ...

    Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that ...
    Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

    “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

    Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
    “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

    1. Israel, more afraid of the secularist regimes in the region than they are of Islamic Extremists.

      In broad daylight, a Saudi-Israeli alliance

      Saudi Israeli alliance forged in blood

      Understanding the Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi alliance

    2. Jack Hawkins, an acknowledged expert on Israel


  28. How Israel helped create Hamas


  29. Ron Paul History Lesson Flashback: ‘Israel Created Hamas’

    - See more at:


  30. WikiLeaks: "Israel actively supported Hamas"

  31. So, Legionnaire Q, the idea that Hamas is a false Flag creation of Israel did not originate in a basement in AZ.

    Just for your personal edification, there are very few basements in AZ,.

    1. JACK HAWKINS is a MOSSAD Agent!!!!

      False flag and all...

      Crafty Jews

    2. Jack sent me an email describing how he really works FOR Israel, getting folks that hate Israel to confide in him then he turns them over to the Mossad....

      yep, False Flag and ALL

    3. Jack Hawkins is an acknowledged expert on Israel.

    4. Jack Hawkins is an acknowledged child molester, that's what I meant to say.... Not that he was an expert on Israel.

      Please accept my correction.

  32. Amazing our VERY OWN Jack Hawkins is a Mossad agent...

    Will wonders ever cease...

    Who KNEW that Jack was part of a false flag operation to lure Jew and Israel haters to him!!!!

    Crafty Jews...

    1. Golly, yesterday Jack was a taxi driver named Mohammed, today he is a Mossad agent.

      I wish you would decide which was what, "O"rdure, so that I could know which to deride.

    2. Speaking in the 3rd person again?


      Deride yourself

    3. Jack Hawkins is an acknowledged expert on Israel.

    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  33. .

    Just for your personal edification, there are very few basements in AZ,

    I realize that, rat. But I also heard that your mom and your uncle Ernesto and your cousin Pedro had three of the few there..


    1. You were misinformed, Legionnaire.

    2. Those voices from 'beyond the grave' are a delusion, Q, mom's been dead for some time now.
      You would be well served by a visit with a mental health professional.

    3. .

      Sorry, about you mom, rat. I suspected that. That's why I mentioned Ernesto and Pedro.


    4. They died, too.
      It was one heck of a wreck.

  34. I just skimmed by "Ordure's rants ...

    Seems as if a nerve must have been struck.


    1. Wonder if it was the WSJ or the WaPo that sent him over the edge?

      Global Research ...

      Reality, that's it, reality has finally struck a nerve.
      Then rubbed it ... raw

    2. Accumulated data sets, irrefutable points of fact.

      To the point that anyone, even "O"rdure can connect the dots

      Set him off, like a "Qassam rocket"

    3. But as is typical of most "Qassam rockets", there was no damage done.


    4. No nerve, but I get it now..

      You are actually a Mossad agent, creating a false flag operation..


    5. You mean to say, "O"rdure, that Jack Hawkins is more of an Israeli than you are?

      That Jack Hawkins is a more informed source of data, about Israel, than you are?

      That is a revelation, that is assured to be repeated.

    6. Jack Hawkins is an acknowledged expert on Israel.

    7. Jack Hawkins now posts as "anon"



  35. .

    So, Legionnaire Q, the idea that Hamas is a false Flag creation of Israel did not originate in a basement in AZ.

    Yet, I say it did. Perhaps, I shouldn't mock your use of English as a second language but what you describe is not a false flag operation.
    Israel has a history of pitting one opposition group against another, but using them as catpaws may be cynical, deceitful, and hypocritical but that doesn't constitute a false flag.

    In order to offset the power of the PLO back in the 80' and 90's, Israel encouraged the fighting amongst the various militant groups there, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. However, by the 90's Hamas and the boys, especially Islamic Jihad were getting way too violent and the cure became worse than the disease and the PLO didn't look all that bad after all. So through the negotiation process they first ended up agreeing that the PLO would be the sole negotiating group for the Palestinian people. Then bowing to pressure from the US in '91 they brought back Arafat from Tunisia. He was weak (he lost support with the Arab States and the Western Powers for supporting Hussein in the Gulf War), corrupt, and he could be manipulated. A much better negotiating partner than the militant groups.

    However, you are correct in the tenor of your post if not in how you identify it.

    To modify an idea from an old Frenchman, "If Hamas did not exist, the current Israeli administration would have to invent them." Cynical but true. Hamas (or IJ or some other Militant group) will always provide an excuse for Israel to avoid a political solution to the issue of the Occupied Territories. Plus Israel always has the backup plan of the settlements in the WB. They create 'facts on the ground' that can be used when needed. It is strictly my opinion but IMO they guarantee permanent Israeli control over the WB. If any two-state settlement were suddenly to appear possible (admittedly a no chance proposition), any dust up amongst the settlers could be used by the Israelis to install martial law or even annex the territory so as to project the Jewish population there just as we have seen Russia recently do in Crimea, as Hitler did, or as we have seen done numerous times throughout history.

    It's one of the reasons the PA wants all settlers out of any new Palestinian State. It is one of the reasons Israel insists they stay.

    Hamas is a detriment to the Palestinian cause since they provide Israel with a ready excuse. Plus they save Israel the problem of having to deal with the more militant groups such as Islamic Jihad or even IS. Net/net they are a negative for the Palestinians.

    A combined Palestinian population would have had a state by now, IMO, had they used the non-violent techniques such as those used in India to gain independence. Economic turmoil and world opinion would have forced it.


    1. The publicly available, open sourced data puts the case forward that Israel was instrumental in the formation of Hamas.
      A case you seemingly agree with.

      It does not take a great leap of faith to conclude that there is "more to the story'', Legionnaire Q, than what is available on the World Wide Web.

      The most telling point, the survival of the Hamas 'founder', the man that met and coordinated with Mr Rabin.
      Now, is that 'proof positive', no, it is not.
      But it is a mighty big dot.


    2. We will never know whether non-violence would have worked because the technique is utterly alien to Muslims. Look what they did to India in its quest for independence. Look what they are doing to India now.

      You use Hitler as a comparison to Israel - to each his own. I might have used the various land grabs of the U.S. against both Spain and Mexico.

      I would point out that violent Muslims groups, such as the MB, existed decades before the founding of Israel. Then as now, Islamists could not abide the thought of either Christians or Jews living unmolested on "Arab" land. Of course, the land belonged to the Ottoman Turks, as had been the case for about five centuries. The Turks gained title by right of conquest, as had the Arabs before them.

      It is my opinion that Israeli leaders have mishandled the management of the Palestinian problem for many years. We would, I am certain, disagree on how.

    3. .

      I am not so sure they would be so different, Allen.

      Unlike some here I am not emotionally involved on either side of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, other than the normal human response when seeing anyone on either side that suffers or dies as the result of it. By now you should know my position on what America's position 'should be' towards the ME, all of it, including Israel and the Occupied Territories. The ME as well as Afghanistan have both been alternately called the 'Graveyard of Empires'. IMO the US should whistle on by both of them.

      Above, I merely gave my opinion (although at times here I do call out what IMO I consider to be obvious bullshit or propaganda).

      Above, I stated what I thought the Palestinians 'should have' done. That does not imply any special sympathy for the Palestinians or their cause, well except as noted above.

      Likewise, I have previously stated my opinion on what Israel should have done decades ago to avoid the situation they are in today. That likewise does not imply any special sympathy for Israel. In fact, I find the current leadership there extremely unsympathetic.

      However, speaking of what should have been done there is just idle bullshit amongst a group of old guys sitting around busting balls. Like our current position in Iraq/Syria, we can complain that we shouldn't be there but we are. That was then. This is now.


    Diplomacy: Back to square one on Jordanian-Israeli relations

    Jordan exists because Israel has made it so. The author seems to qualify whether Jordan is a Palestinian state. It is.

    1. But it is not the Palestinian State.
      No more so than Israel is not a Palestinian State

      Both are populated by Palestinians.
      Both are States in Palestine.

    2. Merging Israel and Jordon into one state, now that could be a viable solution.

    3. The US has supported both countries ...
      It could be called ...


    4. A single nation that had a unified legal system that applied equally to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River.

    5. Jack Hawkins under cover Mossad agent working the False Flag operation

    6. Jack Hawkins is an acknowledged expert on Israel.

    7. LOL He's an expert on nothing. He just learned how to Google...

    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    9. A different Anonymous has stepped up, but it does not matter. He cannot retract WiO's claims that Jack Hawkins is an Israeli, and therefore an expert on Israel. It is WiO that has claimed that Jack Hawkins is an expert, not Anonymous.

      We all know that WiO is an American that recognizes who knows about Israel, and that is Jack Hawkins, Agent of the Mossad.

    10. We have to acknowledge WiO's expertise on these matters. He has made it clear, Jack Hawkins is an expert on matter relating to Israel. As a Mossad agent Jack Hawkins is the undisputed expert on all things Israeli.

      No US citizen can match Jack Hawkins' knowledge of Israel, and that's a fact!
      Thanks to WiO the expertise of Jack Hawkins will now be fully recognized.

    11. We all know that WiO is an American that recognizes who knows about Israel, and that is Jack Hawkins, Agent of the Mossad.

      Thanks for acknowledging that I am an American. And as such I can recognize nonsense when I see it...

    12. .

      When you have different anonymi battling amongst themselves, you know this blog is batshit crazy.


  37. Golly, I can neither confirm nor deny the claims that I am an Agent of the Mossad.
    But I will acknowledge that I know more about the Mossad's operations in the Americas than "O"rdure.

    I can confirm that he is still a 'wanna be', not having the intellectual fortitude nor the self discipline to have made the grade and graduated from the Social Media Commando contingent of the training regimen..

    I have been mentoring him, via e-mail.
    He is a 'slow learner', no doubt of that...

    1. He is so slow, that if we bussed students to the Academy, he'd be on the 'short bus', if you catch my drift.


    2. Jack Hawkins is a legend in his own mind, what little left there is...

    3. Jack HawkinsMon Nov 03, 04:25:00 PM EST
      Golly, I can neither confirm nor deny the claims that I am an Agent of the Mossad.

      Thanks, you are insane.

    4. No, "O"rdure,
      It's just basic 'Operational Protocol', guess you haven't gotten to that part of the Social Media Commando course.



  38. Ebola nurse, Maine settle quarantine suit

    (Reuters) - The state of Maine and a nurse who had treated victims of the Ebola virus in West Africa reached a settlement deal on Monday, allowing her to travel freely in public but requiring her to monitor her health closely and report any symptoms.

    The settlement, filed in nurse Kaci Hickox's home town of Fort Kent, in Maine's far north, where she returned after being briefly quarantined in New Jersey, keeps in effect through Nov. 10 the terms of an order issued by a Maine judge on Friday.

    1. What your login for Jack got boring?

    2. Farmer Rob and Jack, and Rat all shared a ride in their co owned taxi and yet?

      Only one seat was taken...

    3. By the Mossad Agent ?

  39. Jack HawkinsMon Nov 03, 11:01:00 AM EST
    Lit of Israeli Assassinations

    Your Muslim source and you do not know the definition of "assassinate" - "assassination"; but I repeat myself.

    1. Wkikpedia ?
      Muslims, they are everywhere

    2. You are as paranoid and delusional as "O"rdure, desk co-ordinator.

    3. And yet Allen and I go by ONE avatar each.

      We are real Americans..

      You over a dozen aliases and have bragged about how you have DOZENS more in the wings…

      Hope you are using a double sheet of tin foil to block out the voices...

  40. Undercover Mossad AgentMon Nov 03, 04:59:00 PM EST

    Harakat Hazam and the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF) handed over bases and weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra in the Idlib province in Syria over the weekend.

    “As a movement, the SRF is effectively finished,” said Aymen al-Tammimi, a Syria analyst. “Nusra has driven them out of their strongholds of Idlib and Hama.”

    On Friday al-Nusra captured Deir Sinbal, the hometown of Jamal Maarouf, the leader of the SRF, described as a “moderate” group that has received weapons from the United States, including Grad rockets and Tow anti-tank missiles. In April, Maarouf told The Independent his group conducted operations with al-Nusra.

    According to Barak Barfi, a research fellow for the New America Foundation, al-Nusra receives weapons indirectly from SRF.

    The Telegraph reports:

    It was not immediately clear if American Tow missiles were among the stockpile surrendered to Jabhat al-Nusra on Saturday. However, several Jabhat al-Nusra members on Twitter announced that they were. The loss of a group that had been held up as an example of Western efforts to court moderate rebel factions is a humiliating blow for Washington. In Idlib, Harakat Hazm gave up their positions to Jabhat al-Nusra “without firing a shot,” according to some reports, and some of the men even defected to the jihadists.

    The fiction there was a moderate rebel presence in Syria served as cover for the transfer of weapons to jihadist groups by the United States and the Gulf Emirates.

    “The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, the vaunted bulwarks of the moderate opposition, only really exist in hotel lobbies and the minds of Western diplomats,” writes Ben Reynolds.
    “There is simply no real separation between ‘moderate’ rebel groups and hardline Salafists allied with al-Qaeda.”

    1. Israel prefers Daesh (al-Qeada) in Syria, over the Alawites, Christians and their Kurdish allies

      Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

    2. Syria's Assad is now up to 250,000 civilians dead and 11 million truly made refugees.

      On a good day the Daesh (al-Qeada) in Syria have killed about 10,000 and made about 300,000 homeless.

      Sounds like sound logic to me..

      Jack of course sides with the mass murders of Syria and Iran, just how many millions have died at the hands of Iran and Syria? No one has an exact count, but Iran has murdered SCORES and SCORES of Americans in Iraq in RECENT MEMORY...

      Jack wants Iran to get a nuke and wants to KEEP the Dictatorship of Assad in power so he can continue to torture school kids and drop barrel bombs on markets.... That's how Jack rolls... Kill the Sunnis and the babies...

    3. You are projecting, now, "O"rdure.

      Or you could find a quote to support that claim, which you cannot do, because it doe not exist.

    4. It is why you will never get out of the Social Media Commando contingent.
      You just never learn.

    5. It is a skill, to have people 'see' what is not there.
      A skill that despite all the mentoring, you just cannot develop.


    6. Undercover Mossad AgentMon Nov 03, 05:22:00 PM EST

      'By way of deception, thou shalt do war.'

    7. Jack by your own words you have admitted your involvement in, shall we say, uncivilized behavior.

      Now you want to RUN away like a coward at your admissions?

      Tsk tsk, a coward..

      Many of us saw the quote before you realized the error of your vanity and erased it…

      No need for "quotes". We KNOW who you are.

    8. You can change your avatar a thousand times and still we can "smell" a rat in your droppings…

      You can run and you can try to hide, but the law WILL get you in the end…

      It was discovered just last week some NAZIS that evaded JUSTICE for 65 years were captured.

      There is no statue of limitations on murder…


      Sleep well Jack, our self confessed Black Ops guy...

    9. Just snip a quote that would confirm your delusions, "O"rdure.
      Just one would be enough.
      Bu you can't,
      The salient truth that you admit that you can't, but still continue to persist in your delusions, well, so sad for you ...
      Your condition may have progressed far beyond the skills of the mental health professionals available to you, in Tel Aviv.

    10. We can discuss later, in the next e-mail exchange.

    11. I would LOVE to LIVE in Israel Jack, but we both KNOW where I am...

      But if you wish to continue this fantasy that I am an Israeli? I am humbled. I am but a lowly American. Living the American dream, but someday? I do hope to achieve that moving on UP to Israel. You have made it clear that there is no future here in America for the Jew. You have made it clear that we are not accepted or should not be allowed to be "full citizens" like you.

      It's really simple.. If you work for someone, one day if you any sort of personal spirit, you realize that you are a gerbil on a wheel. And you might strike out on your own, as I have.

      then one day you meet folks like you..... And you realize that as a citizen? Helping build the fabric of a better America? Is too a waste of energy and I am just a gerbil on a wheel. And the new goal is to become a citizen of the Nation State of the Jewish people Israel. Where I will be accepted as a citizen that belongs there.

      Thank you Jack, it's people like you that have shown me the light, (and thousands of others making the step up to Israel)

      Israel is the place to be, Ohio, a mere shadow of living...