Pentagon proposed creating a hormone bomb that could turn Muslim soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Hank Plante

A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called “Gay Bomb.”

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley’s Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force’s Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, “One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.”

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

“The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another,” Hammond said after reviwing the documents.

“The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay,” explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

“The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform,” said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the “gay bomb” idea was quickly dismissed.

However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.

“The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed,” he said. “In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider.”

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a “gay bomb” both offensive and almost laughable at the same time.

“Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction,” said Geoff Kors of Equality California. “So, it’s just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there’s so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed.”

The 911 Solution the Big Clue Everybody Missed

Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that … all » permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by controlled demolitionA third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first few hours immediately after the attacks.

Specifically:

1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden – while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

2. Fox News featured a “man in the street” eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

How was it that these stories – based on no fact, no research and no inquirry – appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?

Were these stories prepared in advance?

There’s an old intelligence saying that “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action.”

Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they’d done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.

Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.

Watch this video:

The Secret War of the U.S.A.

Paul Craig Roberts

American soldiers have been fighting and dying in Iraq since 2003, and Americans do not know why.

All the reasons President Bush gave us for his war are false. Bush said he invaded Iraq “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”

We now know that these were false claims. Disinformation about Iraq was produced by a special unit within the Pentagon run by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. The unit operated outside the normal intelligence channels of the CIA and DIA. Its purpose was to create false intelligence to enable Bush to initiate war with Iraq.

Did President Bush know that the claims put into his speeches by his speechwriters was false?

Who instructed Bush’s speechwriters to incorporate known lies into the President’s speeches?

Why did Vice President Cheney, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Defense all lie to the American people and to the entire world?

What is the real agenda?

Millions of Americans have come to their own conclusions about the reasons for Bush’s invasion: (1) Oil: the US government wants to hold on to power by expanding its control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company cronies. (2) Military-security complex: Police agencies favor war as a means of expanding their power, and military industries favor war as a means of expanding their profits. (3) Neoconservative ideology: Neocons’ believe in “American exceptionalism” and claim that America’s virtue gives the US government the right and the obligation to impose US hegemony on the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East where independent Muslim states object to Israel’s theft of Palestine. (4) Karl Rove: Rove used the “war president” role to rescue Bush from attack by Democrats as an illegitimate president elected by one vote of the US Supreme Court. (5) American self-righteousness over 9/11 and lust for revenge.

All of these reasons came together to make a cruel war on an innocent people.

There may be other reasons about which we know not.

As it is now recognized that every reason for the war is false or illegitimate, the question is: why does Bush insist on persisting with a costly war, the express reasons for which are now known to be mistakes? There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to al Qaeda, and Bush has installed a puppet Iraqi government that cannot venture outside the heavily fortified and US protected “green zone.” The Iraqi government governs nothing.

War without cause is murder, not war.

That Bush persists with a war for which he can provide no legitimate reason indicates that there is a secret agenda that has not been shared with the American people. Are we experiencing the privatization of the US government by police agencies, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby?

That the American people and their elected representatives continue to tolerate a war that has killed and maimed thousands of their own soldiers, destroyed the infrastructure of a country,

killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and created 4 million refugees for no known reason raises serious questions about the morals of the American people.

Is the impotence of the peace movement due to the power of the Israel Lobby or have Americans become morally degenerate as commentators increasingly assert?

One indication would be the response of presidential candidates to the gratuitous and failed war. What we saw at the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on June 5 is inconsistent with the self-esteem of the American people. All of the leading Republican presidential candidates openly and nonchalantly endorsed using nuclear weapons against Iran unless Iran abandons its right to enrich uranium under the non-proliferation treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India, and US puppet Pakistan).

What is moral degeneracy if it is not using nuclear weapons to murder masses of innocent civilians and spread deadly radioactivity over vast areas merely in order to force a country to do as we order? If this isn’t barbarism, what is barbarism?

Do the American people realize that the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination are monsters who want to murder people who have done us no harm?

After five years of war that has achieved no noble purpose, no valid aim, indeed, no aim at all except perhaps Osama bin Laden’s aim of stirring up uncontrollable strife in the Middle East, how can Republicans cheer for candidates who preach a wider war and the use of nuclear weapons against defenseless people?

Is the approval lavished on Republican presidential candidates, who are willing to use nuclear weapons as means of terrorizing Muslim peoples, an indication that the American people have morphed into inhuman monsters?

If not, what does it indicate? Ignorant fanaticism? Paranoia? Blind hatred? The belief that no one is of any value but Americans?

For six and one-half years the Bush Regime has relied on coercion, intimidation, war, and threats of war. Diplomacy and good will have been shunned. The regime’s blatant warmongering has resurrected the nuclear arms race. China and Russia regard America’s drive for world hegemony with great alarm. China has put nuclear ICBMs on mobile platforms to increase their survivability in event of an American attack. Russia has developed new multi-warhead ICBMs, which can penetrate any known missile defense, and new cruise missiles that Putin says will be targeted on Europe if the US persists in its aggressive military encirclement of Russia.

An administration that resurrects the threat of nuclear Armageddon so that its cronies in the military-security complex can become still richer is evil beyond compare.

Anti-Muslim comments of US talk show host

On the June 4 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA program, “Gunny” Bob Newman mischaracterized the findings of a recently released Pew Research Center opinion poll on attitudes among Muslim Americans. In response to a caller’s claim that the survey revealed “something like 25 percent of Islamic Americans would be willing to strap bombs [to themselves],” Newman asserted, “Yeah … 26 percent agreed that at some times, suicide bombing is acceptable.” In fact, while the Pew poll indicated that 26 percent of U.S. Muslims aged 18-29 thought that suicide bombing of civilian targets was “[e]ver justified,” the total number of U.S. Muslims who thought that way was 13 percent.

Later in the broadcast, Newman also misrepresented his history of anti-Muslim remarks. After calling the result of the poll that he and the caller had distorted “a shocking figure … a mind-blower,” Newman claimed that “for nearly six years on this program I have been saying that we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with a faction of Islam that has been hijacked by … fanatics.” He also claimed to “disagree with … people who say, oh, well, yeah — we have a problem with the fundamentalists.” But contradicting that comment are remarks Newman made on his May 8 broadcast, when he demanded that “every Muslim immigrant to America … be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times” and suggested that the federal government “bug [Muslims'] places of work and their residences” and monitor “[a]ll mosques and community centers.” Newman also called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States, adding, “If they don’t like the idea, or if they refuse, throw their asses out of this country.”

Contrary to Newman’s assertion about Muslim-American attitudes on suicide bombings, Pew reported in its survey summary that “[o]verall, 8% of Muslim Americans say suicide bombings against civilian targets tactics are often (1%) or sometimes (7%) justified in the defense of Islam.” As Pew further noted:

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. (78%) say that the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies is never justified. In this regard, American Muslims are more opposed to suicide bombing than are Muslims in nine of the 10 other countries surveyed in 2006.

The survey did acknowledge that American Muslims ages 18 to 29 “are more willing to accept suicide bombing in the defense of Islam than are their older counterparts.” According to Pew, “Among Muslims younger than 30, for example, 15% say that suicide bombing can often or sometimes be justified”; an additional 11% of this demographic responded that suicide bombings are “rarely justified,” according to the poll. But Newman omitted the finding that among “[a]ll U.S. Muslims,” only 13 percent agreed that suicide bombing of civilian targets was “[e]ver justified,” according to the poll.

Pew offered that number in two separate tables, (here and here). The poll asked respondents, “Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

From the June 4 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA’s The Gunny Bob Show:CALLER: Hey, you know, the thing that concerns me about all of this general is kind of the timing associated with that poll that recently indicated that, what, something like 25 percent of Islamic Americans would be willing to strap bombs –NEWMAN: Yeah, it was 20, it was 26 percent would be will — would — would not be willing to do it themselves; 26 percent agreed that at some times, suicide bombing is acceptable. That’s what they said.CALLER: Well, that’s just mind-boggling. I can’t imagine any other group in this country who lives here and considers themselves Americans saying that. It’s just, it’s just inconceivable. It’s like having this dangerous fifth column in your midst. And I, I’m sure there are plenty of good, patriotic Islamic Americans that live in this country, but that statistic, if that poll is even remotely valid, is just mind-boggling.

NEWMAN: Yeah, it, it is mind-boggling, but — and here’s the thing though, OK; 20, 26 percent — that, that’s a shocking figure. That, that’s a mind-blower right there. But unfortunately, what some people do then is they say, well, you know, what that means is we are at war with Islam, and we are not. I’ve been saying this for nearly six years on this program. And I’m not saying you’re saying it, [caller], because you didn’t. I want to be clear about that. But for nearly six years on this program I have been saying that we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with a faction of Islam that has been hijacked by, by fanatics. And I also disagree with the so-called fund — people who say, oh, well, yeah — we have a problem with the fundamentalists. Listen, if you, if you really un, understand peaceful Muslims, they will tell you to their face, these terrorists are not fundamentalists. Because fundamental Islam, as I’ve been saying for nearly six years, is not about car bombs and flying planes into, into twin towers. But that, but at the same time, we must not take away from that 26 percent, because it is a shocking and very disappointing figure.

A graph that visually summarize all aspects of Islamophobia

 

The above graph is from the Runnymede Trust.