Iran urges Egypt for united front in region

from Press TV

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a strong alliance between Iran and Egypt in the region to counter enemy threats.

“If Iran and Egypt closed ranks, international enemies of humanity could not inflict any harm upon our nations,” Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi on the sidelines of the 12th summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Cairo on Tuesday.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to increase relations with Egypt in all sectors without any restrictions. The Iranian nation opens up its arms and the way for the development and progress of the Egyptian nation,” he added.

“From a historical standpoint, in case Iran and Egypt stay together, both will emerge winners and that would benefit not only the two nations, but also the entire region,” said Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian president noted that Iran and Egypt need to coordinate their positions and settle the ongoing crisis in Syria.

He also stated that Tehran and Cairo would be able to contribute to finding a resolution to the Palestinian issue.

The Pemex Privatization: How Using the “conspiracy theorist” Pejorative Kills Critical Thinking and Logic

by Scott Creighton

“Nigger, kike, cunt, faggot, whop, slope, rag-head, camel jockey, spic, hippy, honky, cracker, white trash, trailer trash, porch monkey, commie, etc” none of these derogatory terms pack the same punch they used to. In fact they’re pretty much laughed at when employed in civilized discourse to marginalize the point of view of one group or another.

There’s only one pejorative term that effectively silences that little voice in the back of your head these days and it’s employed to such an end as predictably as John McCain making racist and war-mongering slurs in public forums… and about as often.

Imagine there is someone standing on a stage at an event saying things that certain people don’t want you too know. Someone else in the crowd yells out:

1. “Shut up you stupid nigger!”

or

2. “Shut up you stupid conspiracy theorist!”

Which of these is going to have the  desired effect? Which of these is going to have the opposite of the desired effect? Which will start a riot? Which will marginalize the person who makes the statement? Which will marginalize the person it’s directed at? Which would have worked 50 years ago? Which would have been laughed at 50 years ago?

“CHANGE”: New Memo Details How Pres. and “Top Officials” Can Kill You Without Due Process

by Scott Creighton

“Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an “imminent threat” of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” page 7 of Obama memo justifying the assassination legal killing of U.S. citizens and anyone else

Obama of the Peace Prize and “top administration officials” can take you out anywhere in the world (thanks to the NDAA 2012 opening up the entire planet as the battlefield) without judicial review and without you even planning an attack on the U.S., it’s troops or anyone else for that matter if they so choose to do so. So says a 16 page memo given to congress last June. They can kill anyone they want, anywhere in the world if it will advance their Global Free Market Wars agenda. And it’s not called an assassination, it’s called a “lawful killing in self-defense” and this administration (and all those too follow once this precedent is set), only have to have say that an “informed high level official” has intelligence that their target poses an “imminent threat” and that is good enough for a president or any other “top administration official” to have you killed. The “imminent threat” guidelines are rather vague to say the least.

A report Monday night on the nature of the administration’s drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming cabinet.

The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials — not just the president — may order the killing of “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” states the Justice Department white paper quoted by Isikoff.

The 16-page memo, given to Congress in June, is not the final Office of Legal Counsel memo that news organizations have sued to obtain. But it offers plenty of insight into the government’s justification for killing American citizens in overseas drone strikes.

The paper states that the U.S. would be able to kill a U.S. citizen overseas when “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” determines the target is an imminent threat, when capture would be infeasible and when the operation is “conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles.”

The white paper suggests that such decisions would not be subject to judicial review and outlines a broad definition of what constitutes “imminent” threat. Huffington Post

The memo itself is unambiguously titled “The Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaeda or an Associated Force” is not the full legal brief which purports to be the basis for which this American president claims he has the right to murder U.S. citizens and pretty much anyone else if he and his “top officials” chose to do so.