You are hereBlogs / jimstaro's blog / Manufactured and Testing WMD's

Manufactured and Testing WMD's


By jimstaro - Posted on 10 October 2010

Crimes manufactured in laboratories

Oct 8, 2010 - IT was the lot of the United States (US) Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton last week to render a similar soul-wrenching apology as her husband, Bill Clinton did 13 years ago on behalf of ‘God’s Own Country’. In 1997, the humanist Clinton stood before the world and profusely apologised for White America’s use of Black Americans as guinea pigs during experiments on syphilis.

Snip

In the name of war, human beings have also been used to test the effects of certain chemicals. For instance, Britain in the 1950s used Defoliants on the human populace in the Malay Peninsula. But the most criminal was the test of the chemicals, Agent White, Agent Blue and Agent Orange by the US during the John F Kennedy administration on the Vietnamese populace from 1961 to 1970 under Richard Nixon. For instance, it was discovered that one of the chemicals in Agent Orange caused birth deformities in laboratory animals.

The Americans tested this on the Vietnamese with tragic results. Seven major American companies: Dow Chemicals, Diamond Shammock, T H Agriculture And Nutrition, Monsanto, Uniroyal, Hercules and Thompson Chemical were given the contract to mass produce the chemical and more than 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed on South Vietnam. As was the case with the laboratory animals, there were lots of still births and deformities. Dioxins were also present in the local fish and milk of nursing mothers. So devastating was Agent Orange that some 300,000 American soldiers who served in Vietnam suffered severe after-effects, including liver disorders, skin rashes, rare cancers and Hodgkin’s Disease, a cancer from the lymph. {read rest}

Report Confirms Agent Orange Development at Fort Detrick

October 8, 2010 - Army officials are ‘just beginning to grapple with this issue,’ scientist says

A 2006 report to the U.S. Department of Defense reveals that Fort Detrick played a primary role in developing herbicides for military operations, the extent of which today’s scientists at the fort were unaware of until a few months ago.

The report, written by Alvin L. Young of Wyoming, a former professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Oklahoma and a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, reveals that Fort Detrick was active in formulating and testing herbicides, including Agent Orange, for the better part of a decade beginning in the early 1950s.

Taking a lead role in Agent Orange research, Detrick employed aerial spraying of the herbicide to test deployment methods, the report states.

That contrasts with what Detrick scientists revealed in August, when they said they believed that herbicide testing was limited to on-base greenhouses, and not used outside of enclosed buildings. {read rest}

Dioxins should be completely prohibited, from what I've learned about them, which is not much though. But if recalling correctly, then they are [persistent] pollutants that are extremely toxic. And I believe to have noticed an article posted at possibly Uruknet.info over recent months with a title that said something to the effect that Agent Orange is still poisoning people in Vietnam today.

Very different the topic of this post is from biological and chemical warfare agents, and other brutal weapons or weapons brutally used, but this is still a new weapon that isn't of full global scope in terms of infrastructure placement, though that aspect does involve several continents, and the purporse of it is of global scope. People need to know about this. The U.S. and NATO have evidently been moving strongly towards use of global cyber warfare and the potential power to be achieved with this is evidently great. The following article also refers to other advanced warfare tech. of the U.S., but the piece is primarily about the cyber warfare.

"Pentagon Partners With NATO To Create Global Cyber Warfare System"

by Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, RickRozoff.wordpress.com, Oct. 8th, 2010

U.S. Cyber Command is scheduled to be activated this month, in the words of a Reuters dispatch “ready to go to war in cyberspace” with full operational capability.

The launching of the world’s first multi-service – with the involvement of all major branches of the U.S. armed forces: ... – military command is being coordinated with a complementary initiative by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe, the joint effort striving toward a worldwide cyber warfare system.

Last month the U.S. Defense Department’s Joint Task Force Global Network Operations command was deactivated and absorbed into U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) after a decade-long existence.

(snip)

The first commander of CYBERCOM, General Keith Alexander, said two weeks after his appointment and CYBERCOM’s launching on May 21 that the Pentagon “depends on its networks for command and control, communications, intelligence, operations and logistics” and that the mission of his command is to “deter, detect and defend against emerging threats against our nation in cyberspace.”

That's a sick and dark joke; defending the U.S. is the complete opposite of what the U.S., politically and militarily, has been doing for more than a long time.

(snip)

On the rare occasions when the Pentagon’s establishing an unprecedented military command for cyber operations is mentioned in the news media at all, the preferred word in defining its purpose is defense. When military and Defense Department personnel speak among themselves more direct terms are employed: Warfare, warfighting, wartime, rules of engagement, battlefield, battlespace.

(snip)

The American military has not been used to defend the U.S. mainland since 1812, when the United States instigated a war with Britain by invading Canada. It has not been used even to defend American territories since the less-than-effective defense of Pearl Harbor in 1941 .... (snip)

(snip)

Recent rumors that the Stuxnet computer virus was used to attack Iran’s civilian nuclear power plant at Bushehr provide an example of how the capabilities CYBERCOM is developing for its offensive, its wartime, contingencies could be employed. (snip)

In addition to the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike project [5] for launching intercontinental ballistic and hypersonic cruise missile strikes anywhere in the world within 60 minutes, with the interval to shrink to a fraction of that time in the future, and with the development of super stealthy strategic bombers able to evade radar and air defenses and penetrate deep into the interior of targeted countries, a global cyber warfare capability would render the world defenseless in the face of American blackmail. And attacks. The foreign equivalents of the Pentagon’s Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system could be neutralized.

Not only would Iran be vulnerable, but Russia and China as well.

The September-October edition of Foreign Affairs, ..., contains an article by Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn called "Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy" in which he announced ..., and where he spelled out the five components of the Pentagon’s cyber warfare strategy:

(snip)

The Defense Department is due to release a cyber strategy document this autumn, synchronized with the full operationalization of CYBERCOM and ahead of the NATO summit in Portugal on November 19-20.

On August 28 the Washington Post ran a feature entitled “Pentagon considers preemptive strikes as part of cyber-defense strategy” which detailed the following:

(snip)

The deployment of software and hardware tools for the above purposes is “the next logical step in a cyber strategy outlined last week by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III,” one of so-called “active defense.” [8]

In August CYBERCOM chief General Keith Alexander spoke at the LandWarNet 2010 conference in Tampa, Florida whose theme was Providing Global Cyber Dominance to Joint/Combined Commanders. He reiterated the contention that “cyberspace is now a domain alongside air, land, sea, and space.” [9] More ominously, he added: “We have to have offensive capabilities, to, in real time, shut down somebody trying to attack us.” [10]

For “active defense” read the capacity to launch preemptive attacks not only on individual hackers but on entire national computer networks.

Defense? William J. Lynn III is full of another damn liar. And I agree with Rick Rozoff, but in addition to reading the "active defense" notion as he suggests, we can also consider it [aggression], imo. It's definitely not about any real defense.

(snip)

A few weeks ago an article appeared in the Global Times by a researcher at the Development Research Center of the State Council of China who wrote, “To control the world by controlling the Internet has been a dominant strategy of the US” and “the national information security strategy of the US has evolved from a preventative strategy to a preemptive one.”

“The ultimate goal is for the US to [have] the ability to open and shut parts of the Internet at will.”

(snip)

The Chinese author further asserted that “the five core areas of Internet infrastructure are monopolized by US”:

(snip)

- After the control of Internet infrastructure and hardware and software systems, the US is now turning to Internet content.

- The US government has adopted macro-control and focus-funding to actively use IT giants to create a global Internet infrastructure which could be manipulated by the US. [18]

(snip)

The Chinese expert’s apprehensions were confirmed by retired Air Force general Michael Hayden .... (snip)

The Pentagon and the White do not intend to act alone in developing an international cyber warfare structure.

(snip)

The article also cited a legal expert at NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence established in Estonia in 2008 affirming that “because the effect of a cyber attack can be similar to an armed assault, there is no need to redraft existing treaties.” That is, the Alliance’s Article 4 – used to move Patriot anti-ballistic missiles into Turkey on the eve of the war against Iraq in 2003 – and its Article 5 – used for NATO’s participation in the war in Afghanistan – can be evoked and activated in the event of a cyber attack.

(snip)

Worldwide is the correct word for the military network the Pentagon has built in recent years, as is evidenced by the nations participating under U.S. command in Combined Endeavor 2010 and Africa Endeavor 2010: 75 countries with Afghanistan and Iraq among them.

(snip)

Washington has increased its military presence in several continents to achieve its 21st century geopolitical objectives. (snip)

(snip)

The Pentagon will be satisfied with nothing less than full spectrum dominance throughout the world – and above the world. It is now adding to its military superiority in the realms of land, air, sea and space control of the fifth battleground: Cyberspace.

The full article provides many details that'll surely interest readers wanting to seriously know what's going on with all of this global dominance warfare madness, while the above piece is almost entirely about the cyber realm.

This, imo, is clearly part of a real world war, just that it's not being fought like the historial WW I and II were. These sick elites are clearly working for full global dominance and that also clearly is war on this world. It's definitely global in scope, and definitely not for bringing or establishing peace, justice, democracy, reasonable standards of living (economically), et cetera. It's world war, threat, state-lead terrorism, and so on.

This is for an excellent interview and the four parts are all roughly 10 minutes each. It's an audio, not video, recording, but it's excellent and is based on Robert B. Stinnett's book, "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor". It's an evidently serious book, apparently quite thick and with a thick appendix. He compiled it from U.S. government, military anyway, information that he obtained through the FOIA.

The truth is about President FDR, but also about top U.S. military command; all of them having known and more than known that Japan was going to attack. There were two exceptions, however. It's either one or two top U.S. military commanders were kept out of the information loop; the commander in Hawaii, and am not sure where the other one was located. It's clearly stated in the interview, along with plenty of other information, including that Japan attacked after the U.S. committed a number of acts of provocation against Japan, with a total of around eight defined possible acts; and Pres. FDR signed the orders for informed U.S. military commanders to not try to prevent the attacks.

And those were acts of provocation the U.S. war elites planned. They planned to provoke Japan into attacking U.S. forces. It wasn't accidental politics on the part of the U.S.

There are a few commercial breaks during the four clips, but the first one is said to be 4 minutes and doesn't last anywhere near that long; or certainly didn't seem to. I didn't listen to the original copy, for the one I did listen to was posted by TruthExcavator on Oct. 7th, 2010 at Youtube. But they're both 4-parts and the clips seem to be of the same length or very close to it.

"Robert Stinnett on the Power Hour, 1/4: Pearl Harbor was an Inside Job!"

ThePowerHourChannel, Dec. 7th, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61NuOWS6DhQ

Robert Stinnett:

www.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Robert_Stinnett

I learned of this today from the following article, which provides an article for some of the author's own words and an excerpt from an interview Robert Stinnett gave to Douglas Cirignano in 2002. The article also provides the 4-part clips posted at Youtube by Truth Excavator, plus links for a few more resources on Robert Stinnett; including three audio-recorded interviews Robert Stinnett gave on Antiwar's radio program with host Scott Horton in 2003, 2005, and 2007.

"October 7, 1940: The Day That Should Have Lived in Infamy"

by Truth Excavator, Oct. 10th, 2010

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m70631

Re. the interview Robert Stinnett gave to Douglas Cirignano in 2002:

Both the excerpt and the original contain important information, but the original provides important information that's lacking in the excerpt, so I recommend reading it instead of the excerpt. With the original copy, we also learn Robert Stinnett's view about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He clearly says he's not against those bombings and that he doesn't blame President FDR for what he did, arguing that it was necessary. Yet, he also says that he's definitely against the secrecy, or the secrecy being continued after WW II was over anyway.

I understand his reasons for thinking that Pres. FDR did the right thing in getting the U.S. into WW II, and US a-bombings in Japan, which he says ended the war, like many people have said. But I don't think it was right to secretly and deliberately sacrifice thousands of US forces in Pearl Harbor. But the actual information gained from his years of work on the truth about Pearl Harbor is definitely of great value and relevant for today.

He also draws an analogy between what Pres. FDR and U.S. military commanders did in provoking the attacks by Japan, as well as staying silent about the attack they knew was going to happen on Pearl Harbor and when it was going to happen, with three other examples. They are the Gulf of Tonkin lie of Pres. LBJ, "President Polk in the Mexican War in 1846", and "President Lincoln at Fort Sumter". I don't know extremely little about the two latter wars, but most people know the Vietnam War was definitely criminal.

He doesn't say whether he thinks the US acted correctly or in truly necessary terms in the cases of these three other wars; only saying the US provoked these, while possibly also meaning that the US leadership did this secretly. So since I know virtually nothing about two, but not the Vietnam War, I wonder if he believes this war was right, or that the Gulf of Tonkin lie was right or necessary.

But, his work on Pearl Harbor truth in terms of real, concrete information, is definitely important, and is relevant for today.

Manufacturing war:

Manufacturing war, we could say this is about; certainly manufacturing American public consent for the U.S. to enter war that the population was widely against entering, anyway. And it's at the pre-known cost of thousands of USN sailors' lives, sailors the U.S. war elites knew would be attacked and killed. Deliberately sacrifice thousands of U.S. citizens in order to deceptively manufacture public consent for entering into war! It was important to stop the Nazi war campaign, but that definitely doesn't make the criminal act the U.S. leadership committed against U.S. forces attacked by Japan less than extremely criminal and, I believe, treasonous.

The U.S. deliberately provoked Japan using criminal and aggressive actions. The interview gives the details very clearly; but this was planned by high U.S. military commanders and Pres. FDR signed the orders for these criminal and aggressive acts against Japan.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.