PLEASE GO TO THE URL, TO THE VIDEO OF THE INTERVIEW WITH CHOMSKY. IT IS A VERY INTERESTING INTERVIEW.
“I took the official definitions of terrorism, which were very good, I took the definition that is given in US and British law, which is a fine definition but has a flaw; If you apply it, it turns out the United States is one of the leading terrorist states in the world,” Chomsky told Press TV in an interview on Tuesday.
The academic added that he had predicted the ongoing so-called war on terror by the US when Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s.
“I’ve been writing about terrorism since 1981, since Ronald Reagan came into office and declared that a war on terror would be the centerpiece of the American policy,” Chomsky stated.
He called into question the legality of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, saying, “The US and Britain tried to provide a kind of a thin legal cover for the invasion. The legal cover was, as you know, that Saddam had not ended his programs of weapons of mass destruction.”
US-led forces attacked Iraq in 2003 and toppled Saddam Hussein on the pretext of possessing weapons of mass destruction. But no WMD was ever discovered in Iraq.
At the peak of the US-led military operation in Iraq, there were 170,000 US troops and more than 500 bases in Iraq.
More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country.
Renowned American academic, Noam Chomsky, says US President Barack Obama, his predecessor George W. Bush, along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should face trial for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing turmoil in the Arab state.
“Bush and Blair ought to be up there [at the International Criminal Court]. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s got to be there for the terror war,” Chomsky told Russia Today on Thursday.
In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in a blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found in Iraq.
More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization, Project Censored.
Chomsky, a prominent critic of the US foreign policy, said the invasion of Iraq is a “supreme international crime,” adding that the US and its allies were responsible for bomb attacks across the Arab country.
“The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, no questions about it. Which means that we were responsible for all the evil that follows like the bombings. Serious conflict arose, [and] it spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That is part of the evil that follows,” Chomsky stated.
He went on to slam Washington for its growing use of killer drones in a number of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, describing it as a “massive terror campaign.”
“A drone strike was a terror weapon; we do not talk about it that way. It is; just imagine you are walking down the street and you do not know whether in five minutes there is going to be an explosion across the street from some place up in the sky that you cannot see,” said Chomsky.
“Somebody will be killed, and whoever is around will be killed, maybe you will be injured if you are there. That is a terror weapon. It terrorizes villages, regions, huge areas. In fact it’s the most massive terror campaign going on by a long shot,” he added.
Washington uses killer drones in several countries, claiming that they target “terrorists.” According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to massive civilian casualties.
Are you aware of the Arctic Circle Doomsday Seed Vault? Technically it’s the Svalbard International Seed Vault. The media has hailed it as an attempt to create a doomsday ark containing a wide variety of seeds to ensure the future of agriculture in the event of widespread crop disasters. A closer look behind the curtains finds some suspicious characters heavily vested in the vault’s activity.
The doomsday vault’s operation
The doomsday seed vault is situated on the island of Spitzbergen, Norway, located in the Svalbard island group within the Arctic Circle. It exists in an old copper mine, which is connected by a long steel tunnel from outside of the mine’s mountain. It is steel and concrete fortified with all the latest technological innovations for supplying power and maintaining seed security.
It is considered a safety deposit box back up for all other seed banks located throughout the world, of which there are many. Because of its remote but accessible location, entrance at 400 feet above sea level, and the permafrost protection for the vault if there is a power failure. On the surface, the project makes ecological sense.
Norway technically owns the vault, and endows those who place seeds into the vault with absolute ownership and access of the seeds. The Global Crop Diversity Trust based in Rome is the prime coordinating international agency for the doomsday vault, and they have strong Rockefeller connections.
An earlier LA Times article mentioned that all seeds are accepted, except for genetically modified seeds.
However, this stipulation wasn’t noticed on the vault FAQs web page. The doomsday vault donors listed include
Gates Foundation
Rockefeller
Monsanto
Syngenta, an international counterpart to Monsanto based in Switzerland
Suspicions are warranted
International investigative journalist William Engdahl voiced his concerns in a 2007 Global Research article just prior to the vault’s opening: “Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic – Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t.”
Engdahl has serious issues, supported by documented historical evidence, regarding the major doomsday vault sponsors. He connects their shadowy dots from earlier 20th Century agribusiness endeavors of the usual suspects to now. They thrive on NGO front groups with humanitarian titles and push vaccinations in third world countries as well.
Even Norway was involved with producing sterilization agents that were attempted under the guise of free tetanus vaccinations – for women of child bearing ages only – in Mexico, Nigeria, and the Philippines during the 1990s.
Among the listed sponsors are: Monsanto; The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Bill privately invested heavily in Monsanto stocks); world agribusiness giants Dupont/Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta, both promoting GMO seeds and all the chemicals needed for large scale monoculture farming; global network groups supported by Rockefeller foundations to ensure the master monopolist Rockefellers have strong claim on agribusiness.
Engdahl points out that the so called “Green Revolution” was a steady networking grab, allowing the monopoly Rockefellers to eventually gain control over much of international agribusiness while ruining small third world farms and forcing those farmers into cheap labor pools.
How do the above mentioned groups keep their mission statements straight, funding millions into the doomsday vault while simultaneously funding large sums into The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)?
Cloaked in benevolence, AGRA is an attempt to ruin small, independent farming in Africa and replace it with GM and monoculture large scale farming, which demands all the various chemicals the private companies sponsoring the doomsday vault provide.
Engdahl suspects something is rotten in Svalbard. And it smells of global control with some depopulation. You can read his article here:
Dr. David Wallinga, Director of the Food and Health Program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, talks about the findings of a recent IATP study on the presence of mercury in high fructose corn syrup and in common food and beverage products.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(2) Raising pigs & problems — saying no to antibiotics in animal feed: David Wallinga TedXManhattan
This is about FUSARIUM in GMO’d crops. The mycotoxins produced by fusarium are deadly in high enough quantity, as discussed in earlier postings. It’s why it has been illegal to sell grain that has fusarium in it.
It is disconcerting to see (Western Producer article below) that the proposed response to higher levels of fusarium in food grains is to raise the tolerance level. (Instead of it being illegal to sell.)
There is a serious plant diseaseissue around GMO’d crops. (Makes sense to me – applied toxins eventually compromise immune systems.)
One disease, fusarium, should be discussed along with the increase in other crop diseases (just as the increases in human disease should be discussed together, not in isolation).
CLUB ROOT in canola (the disease remains in the soil for 60 years) has appeared and is on the march. Pretty well all the canola grown in Canada is GMO. (I’ll add the link to earlier posting on club root asap.)
The Western Producer article below gives two reasons for the increase in fusarium:
largely influenced by local weather conditions.
Seeding date was also an important factor
The first article (Organic Consumers Assoc) says . . .
crops grown in the fields the year after Roundup Ready crops are at higher risk of disease.
Chemical loads on the fields are high, there are residual chemicals in the field which weakens immunity. And maybe the fusarium fungus remains in the soil, the same as for the club foot organism?
I wonder if the Western Producer has EVER reported on the connections between crop disease and GMO agriculture?
Canadian research just released confirms the suspicions raised by other
studies and farmers that Monsanto¹s glyphosate herbicide ³Roundup² leads to
increased presence of the Fusarium fungus on crops. The Fusarium pathogen
can lead to Fusarium Head Blight in wheat and other cereals, as well as
Sudden Death Syndrome in soybeans.
This is bad news for growers of GM Roundup Ready crops, as well as for
Monsanto. It means that Roundup Ready crops sprayed with Roundup
(glyphosate) are at higher risk from disease. Furthermore, crops grown in the fields the year after Roundup Ready crops are at higher risk of disease.
This new research which links glyphosate applications to Fusarium Head
Blight in wheat comes at a controversial time in Canada and America, as
Monsanto¹s application to commercialise Roundup Ready wheat is being
considered. Fusarium Head Blight devastates huge proportions of North
America¹s and Europe¹s wheat crops, and farmers, activists and NGOs are
pleading with the Canadian government to reject or delay RR wheat approval
while there is a risk of increasing fusarium.
Best wishes,
Teresa
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
FROM A MEMBER OF OUR NETWORK:
one of the lead authorities on fusarium…did PhD research on it… has worked with some of leads around world on this problem..
told me a dozen years ago that this train was coming down tracks…
said that by end of last decade, fully expected it to reach SK/AB border.
What is more interesting is that work uncovered a problem which took to a conference in States along with a colleague from Australia (?)
about 10 years ago….it had something to do with the spraying of roundup on newly planted crops as a guard against the fusarium fungus…seems the spraying was taking place at such a time in such a way . . showing me pix of the stock of young wheat shriveling or rotting around the base or few inches up from there.
research clearly attributed it to use of RoundUp…when the two disclosed this, they had Monsanto around their necks…paranoid about personal safety as was counterpart in Australia…
Yields cut by nearly half | Concerns rise over spread of disease through cleaned pedigreed seed
Fusarium graminearum took a huge bite out of pedigreed seed supplies in 2012, particularly in Saskatchewan where some seed growers harvested unusually small crops that were heavily infected with the disease.
Fusarium cut grain yields by as much as 50 percent in some parts of the province, and the proportion of fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) in certified wheat and barley crops was unusually high, leading to additional cleanout losses of 30 percent or more.
The disease’s prevalence is raising concerns about whether it is being spread via pedigreed seed that contains traces of fusarium graminearum, even after the seed has been cleaned and conditioned. Graminearum is the most aggressive and costly of the fusarium species.
The yield losses caused by fusarium will almost certainly result in regional shortages of certified wheat and barley seed, said Bruce Carriere, manager of Discovery Seed Labs.
“There’s going to be a seed shortage, big time,” Carriere said. “There are some growers that have nothing to sell.”
Fusarium losses in Saskatchewan varied from region to region and were largely influenced by local weather conditions.
Seeding date was also an important factor in determining overall infection rates.
Some crops planted in early to mid-May were heavily infected while others planted later experienced minor losses.
Overall, there were numerous hotspots where infections rates reached record levels and where fusarium graminearum was evident on more than 50 percent of harvested kernels.
Joe Rennick, a certified seed grower from Milestone, Sask., south of Regina, said certified seed crops on his farm produced variable yields, depending on when they were seeded.
In some instances, wheat crops that looked like they would produce 50 or 60 bushels per acre yielded in the mid 20s.
“In the crops that were affected, it really hit the yield hard,” said Rennick.
He said certified wheat crops that were hardest hit produced yields of 22 to 28 bu. per acre, a disappointing outcome considering the density of the stands.
Clean-out losses on that material could cut production by another 20 to 30 percent, pushing the total marketable yield of conditioned certified seed as low 15 to 20 bu. per acre.
The prevalence of fusarium in certified seed crops is prompting discussions about whether the pedigreed seed industry should establish fusarium thresholds on certified seed supplies.
Most fusarium damaged kernels can be cleaned out of pedigreed seed using a gravity table, but there is no guarantee that the remaining seeds do not carry traces of fusarium graminearum.
Commercial grain growers who buy certified seed are responsible for asking whether the seed has been tested for fusarium graminearum and whether fusarium damaged kernels were prevalent in pre-conditioned seed lots.
Growers who plant farm-saved seed should check seed for traces of the disease.
In Alberta, fusarium graminearum was declared a pest under the province’s Agricultural Pest Act in 1999.
The declaration, when combined with Alberta’s fusarium management plan, means there is a zero-tolerance threshold on pedigreed seed that contains detectable traces of fusarium graminearum.
In other words, it is illegal for any Alberta farmer to buy, sell, distribute or grow seed that is contaminated with the fungus.
The increasing prevalence of the disease in Western Canada has the Alberta government and some Alberta seed growers questioning whether the zero-tolerance policy for seed-borne fusarium graminearum should be revisited.
Fusarium has already been detected in cereal crops produced in southern Alberta in 2010 and 2011.
The disease has also been confirmed in the Peace River district.
As well, unusually wet weather in Alberta last year is expected to encourage the disease’s spread.
Gayah Sieusahai, chair of the province’s fusarium action committee, said plant pathologists are reviewing the province’s fusarium management plan.
Support for a zero-tolerance policy on seed-borne fusarium may be waning in Alberta, especially given that the disease has already been detected in the province.
As well, Sieusahai said it is difficult to ensure that all certified seed transported across the Saskatchewan-Alberta border is fusarium-free.
To complicate matters, plots of breeder seed planted at Agriculture Canada’s seed increase unit near Indian Head, Sask., were also heavily infected in 2012.
That has prompted concerns that breeder seed from Agriculture Canada’s newest and most promising cereal varieties may contain traces of fusarium graminearum, even after the seed has been cleaned and conditioned.
If that is the case, breeder seed from Agriculture Canada’s Indian Head facility would be prohibited from entering Alberta’s pedigreed seed system unless existing terms of the province’s fusarium management plan are amended.
Officials at Indian Head will be examining conditioned seed lots in early 2013 to determine if heat treatment procedures were effective in eliminating seed-borne traces of fusarium graminearum.
The increase in the fungal disease, fusarium, in GMO crops was well-documented years ago. Traditionally, crops infected with fusarium have to be destroyed whether they are for human or animal consumption because of the associated production of deadly myco-toxins. Now, here is another related fungal disease:
Don Huber: I have been doing research on glyphosate for 20 years. I began noticing problems when I saw a consistent increase in “take-all” (a fungal disease that impacts wheat) where glyphosate had been applied in a previous year for weed control. I tried to understand why there was an increase in disease with glyphosate. . . . .
. . . There are a lot of serious questions about the impacts of glyphosate that we need answers for in order to continue using this technology. I don’t believe we can ignore these questions any more if we want to ensure a safe, sustainable food supply and abundant crop production.
Rolf Penner states: “One of the first problems GM wheat eliminates is a common fungus, fusarium, which attacks wheat and produces deadly mycotoxins.”
Let me explain:
GM wheat is engineered to withstand applications of, e.g. glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup” and accompanying “Round-up Resistant” GMO wheat). Different chemical companies have their equivalent to Round-up and their own brand of GM seeds, different names from different chemical/biotech companies, but the process is the same: develop a GM crop that is resistant to your particular chemical, and patent the seed.
Response to Penner’s statement about fusarium: The research on the connection between glyphosate (roundup) and fusarium is conflicting. The industry is known for deliberately creating the “conflicting science”.
MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP): IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND PLANT LIFE
What is being said here is consistent with scientific research circulated earlier: fusarium (a fungus that you absolutely do not want in the food supply because of the health implications) is a problem in genetically modified crops (wheat at the time of the discussion). The crops are engineered to be resistant to applications of glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup). In my simple description: the application of the chemicals compromises the immune systems of the plants. The “scientists” who promote these technologies are doing an incredible disservice to the long term viability of the food system. This is just one of the associated issues.
Think you can plant genetically modified seeds with your crop and no one will notice? Better not try it in Hungary, where agriculture officials literally took a scorched-Earth approach to GMO seeds, which are banned there, and burned 1,000 acres of corn crops. Much of what was burned was believed to have come from seeds made at the genetic-engineering company Monsanto, but farmers complained they didn’t realize the seeds were modified — and Monsanto denies selling any seeds to Hungary farmers. An independent laboratory in France tested the seeds Monsanto says they sold to Hungary and found no GMO. GMO seeds are allowed across much of the rest of the European Union, but there is growing world-wide objection to Monsanto and other genetically engineered food producers.
The technology of genetic engineering – the application of patented gene sequences and the accompanying laws, policies and regulations – facilitates corporate control over seed.
SIX MAJOR COMPANIES developing and selling GE crops are: Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, BASF
Collectively, they control 59.8% of seeds and 76.1% of agrochemicals globally.
They also account for 76% of total private research and development in seed and agrochemical sectors. At least 70% of this R&D is devoted to biotechnology and GE crops.
These six companies accounted for 98% of all biotech acres in 2007. Monsanto’s GE traits were in 85% of the total acreage planted with GE crops (in 13 countries).
Since the first GE seeds were introduced in 1996, the market share of the world’s three largest seed companies – Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta – has more than doubled, from 22% to 53.4% of commercial seed sales.
These six companies regularly cross license to each other, reinforcing their market power. About half of all commercial GE seeds with stacked traits are the result of cross licensing between companies.
Monsanto:
• is the largest seed company in the world (accounted for 23% of the world’s commercial seed market in 2007).
• Owns the seed planted on approximately 85% of the GE crop acres in the world (in 13 countries).
• Sells the top selling global herbicide Roundup (glyphosate).
• Owns the patent and research on Terminator technology (Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land in 2006 which developed Terminator seeds, genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest to stop farmers from saving and reusing seed.) There is an international moratorium on the field testing and commercial growing of Terminator technology.
• Monsanto accounts for over 57% of the US cotton seed market.
The Canadian Army tried to cancel the purchase of a new armoured vehicle fleet, wanting to use the $2 billion instead to offset budget cuts that are hurting its combat readiness.
But the Conservative government decided against scuttling the Close Combat Vehicle project, worried that the cancellation would give it yet another military procurement black eye. Instead, it is proceeding with the purchase of the new armoured fighting vehicles the military’s leadership is not overly keen to acquire.
The army is facing a 22-per-cent cut in its budget and has been trying to figure out how to deal with those reductions. It is scaling back on training and cutting some support programs for the troops.
The government has already announced billions of dollars in contracts to purchase new tactical armoured patrol vehicles for the army, refurbished Leopard tanks, and an upgrade to the military’s fleet of light armoured vehicles. Some in the Canadian Forces leadership saw the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) as something that, while nice to have, is not essential at a time of cost-cutting.
Defence and industry officials say that senior military leaders looked at a number of scenarios on where the $2 billion for the CCV project could be better used. One included using the money to offset the government-ordered cutbacks the army is required to make. Another was to use the money for the government’s multi-billion dollar naval shipbuilding program, which some inside DND fear is underfunded.
There was initial interest among Treasury Board officials for the cancellation of the CCV project but that initiative was shut down by the Conservatives.
The CCV, announced with great fanfare in the summer of 2009, has already fallen two years behind schedule, according to industry officials.
The government will buy 108 of the vehicles. There would be an option for the purchase of up to 30 more. The army originally argued that the vehicles, which would accompany its Leopard tanks into battle, are a priority for future missions.
The Defence Department did not answer Citizen questions about why the army wanted to put a halt to the CCV project. Instead it emailed a link to a public relations information sheet on the CCV project, which notes that the contract will be awarded sometime this year.
Industry representatives have been told that a winning bidder has been identified. That winning company will be announced when it suits the Conservative government’s public relations plan.
But there are concerns inside the department and industry about the government announcing yet more purchases of armoured vehicles when the Conservatives have yet to move ahead with the acquisition of a new and much-needed search-and-rescue aircraft fleet. That project is estimated to cost a little more than $3 billion and the ongoing delays on that purchase were criticized in a recent report from the country’s auditor general.
Meanwhile, the government is spending $1 billion upgrading the army’s light armoured vehicles and has its $1 billion program for second-hand but modernized Leopard 2 tanks. It is also spending more than $600 million to buy 500 new tactical armoured patrol vehicles for the army.
Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister for matériel at DND, said the government is taking the position that it knows what is best for the military. “Here you have a government again politicizing the acquisition of military hardware,” said Williams.
He said instead there needs to be an internal debate to examine the effect that cancelling the CCV would have on Canadian defence policy as well as why the army has now changed its view that such a vehicle fleet is no longer essential.
The army is bearing the brunt of government cost-cutting in the Canadian Forces and will see its budget drop from $1.5 billion to just under $1.2 billion by 2015.
Those reductions will cut into how the army trains as well as its operations. To deal with the cuts, it wants to scale back on costly Arctic exercises, noted a Jan. 31 planning document from army commander Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin.
The document points out that deployments overseas will also be scaled back to involve smaller groups and certain specialized training will stop entirely.
In December, Devlin warned a Senate committee that the 22-per-cent cut to the army’s budget would mean significant changes, although he did not get into many of the details. “We are training to a lower level than we trained, when we were training for combat operations,” he acknowledged.
At the time, Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office released a statement noting that training is expected to slow since the Canadian Forces are no longer in combat missions in Afghanistan or Libya and their contribution to missions such as the one in Haiti has been substantially reduced.
