U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.
Scopes
At the end of the serial number on Trijicon's ACOG gun sight, you can read "JN8:12", a reference to... Expand
(ABC News)

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.
U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
READ MORE - U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

British troops get new Sharpshooter rifle to blast Taliban from more than half-a-mile away

British soldiers in Afghanistan will be issued with a new infantry combat rifle for the first time in 20 years, the Ministry of Defence announced today.
More than 400 Sharpshooter rifles, which fire a 7.62mm round, are being purchased as part of a £1.5million 'urgent operational requirement'.
The first batch of the U.S.-made rifles will be used by the 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, from October.
Sharpshooter rifle
'Urgent requirement': More than 400 U.S.-made Sharpshooter rifles will be used by British soldiers in Afghanistan from October
Quentin Davies, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said: 'Troops in Afghanistan are already bristling with a variety of weapons they can use when fighting the Taliban.
Sharpshooter rifle
Capable: The new rifle, the first to be issued to infantrymen in 20 years, fires a 7.62mm round and has a kill range of up to 900 yards
'The Sharpshooter rifle adds to this arsenal and provides them with an additional, highly-precise, long-range capability.
'This is a concrete example of where we add to our range of equipment to ensure our brave forces have the best kit available to them on the frontline.'
Sharpshooter rifles have a 'kill range' of up to 900 yards, while the Army's standard issue SA80 A2 assault rifle, which fires smaller 5.56mm bullets, is limited to around 300 yards.
Insurgents in Afghanistan are said to have learned the effective range of the current issue weapons and return fire from their AK47 rifles, which also fire 7.62mm bullets, from further away.

The MoD said the semi-automatic weapons, also known as L129A1 rifles, were the first new infantry combat rifle to be given to troops in more than two decades.
Colonel Peter Warden, Light Weapons, Photographic and Batteries team leader at Defence, Equipment and Support, said: 'The Sharpshooter rifle is very capable and has been bought to fulfill a specific role on the frontline in Afghanistan.
'It is a versatile weapon which will give our units a new dimension to their armoury.
'Initial feedback to the rifle has been very positive and the Army units deployed in Afghanistan are very keen to get their hands on it.'
 
Ministry of Defence

The L129A1 Sharpshooter is a gas-operated weapon that carries a 20-round magazine. It is 945mm long and weighs 5kg. It will be manufactured by Lewis Machine & Tool Company in the United States. Features include a single-piece upper receiver and free-floating, quick-change barrels available in 305mm, 406mm and 508mm. It has four Picatinny rails with a 540mm top rail for night vision, thermal and image intensifying optics.

READ MORE - British troops get new Sharpshooter rifle to blast Taliban from more than half-a-mile away

'Shadow Elite': Outsourcing Government, Losing Democracy


James Madison famously wrote in the Federalist Papers (#51), "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
We've learned the hard way, most starkly in the Great Depression and now in the Great Recession, that men and women are anything but angels, and that government first and foremost must protect the American people from the unmitigated avarice of the private sector.
The problem is, what has happened to that lofty, Founding Fathers notion of government as our protector? To me, the most important contribution, and the most disturbing part of Janine Wedel's brilliant new book, "Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government and the Free Market", is that she has laid bare the lie that we have functional separation today between the public and private sector. Over time, capitalism and democracy have become gradually melded into corporatism in the corridors of power in Washington (and in many other national capitals around the world). Public and private are now substantially blurred, as the "transnational" political elites and the financial elites have become literally the same people. It is a condition which leaves the people feeling unrepresented, unprotected and utterly disregarded, a prop in their own play, a hollow feeling the great Peruvian journalist Gustavo Gorriti once eloquently described as "cosmetic democracy."
According to Janine, whose unflinching social anthropological work I have respected for years, three out of four people doing the work of the federal government today are actually private contractors. Think about that a minute...That means private company employees -- with less stringent conflict of interest requirements and also not generally obligated to adhere to the Freedom of Information Act -- increasingly have become the government and now substantially rule the roost.
When I directed the Center for Public Integrity earlier in this decade, we discovered a mercenary culture far more extensive than I had ever imagined. For example, in 2002, in a report entitled "Making a Killing: The Business of War", we identified 90 private military companies operating in the world, hired by governments or corporations. In early 2003, we reported that nine out of 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, then chaired by Richard Perle, had ties to defense companies with $76 billion in Pentagon contracts in just the preceding two years. In late 2003, the Center issued "Windfalls of War", first revealing that Kellogg, Brown & Root, then a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, was the top recipient of U.S. war contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. That report, which won the first George Polk award for online reporting and was produced by 20 researchers, writers and editors, also revealed that the most of the major contractors had close employee or Board ties to the executive branch for Republican and Democrat administrations and cumulatively they had contributed many millions of dollars to the political process.
Fascinated and alarmed by the Tammany Hall feeling of political favoritism or cronyism I was getting, we launched into another epic investigation and published "Outsourcing the Pentagon: Who's Winning the Big Contracts" in the fall of 2004. We examined 2.2 million contract actions over six fiscal years, totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures, and discovered that no-bid contracts had accounted for more than 40 percent of Pentagon contracting, $362 billion in taxpayer money to companies without competitive bidding. In other words, the multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts Halliburton had received actually weren't such an aberration, unfortunately. Indeed, we found contractors had written the Department of Defense budget, were guarding our soldiers in the Green Zone in Iraq, had participated in the Abu Ghraib interrogations and when the Secretary of Army wanted to find out just how many contractors were being employed, he naturally hired a company to find it out.
Were there howls of protest in Washington, aggressive investigative Congressional hearings, angry protestations from the companies, substantial news media attention about these findings? No. The silence was deafening.
That was then, and this is now, 2010, in the historic "change we can believe in" administration of Barack Obama. The issue of outsourcing our democracy is not remotely of interest to the latest occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And that should not exactly be surprising, in the entwined mercenary culture of Washington. For example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, political contributions to the 2008 presidential candidates doubled compared to 2004, $1.748 billion up from $880.5 billion, and candidate Obama raised more than twice what incumbent President George W. Bush collected in 2004. Gosh, did inflation go up that much?
The problem isn't just the increasing price of power in this democracy and what that means for a government theoretically, according to Lincoln, "of the people, by the people, for the people." Another protector of the public, the vaunted Fourth Estate, could be all over this subject, a "uniquely qualified," "trusted source" of news for the American people, holding those in power accountable. Where are the traditional journalistic watchdogs in all this? Early retired, tightly leashed or asleep.
Arianna Huffington is absolutely right to flag the smarmy preening of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, writing a 2,500-word essay about the economy in Newsweek, his accompanying bio conveniently failing to mention his own key leadership role at Citibank, which had to be saved by the America people. Of course that was shameless and self-serving of Rubin, and is emblematic of the new class of influencers Wedel has dubbed as "flexians," but a theoretically independent news media outlet, Newsweek, also shouldn't have allowed that kind of misrepresentation.
Nor should America's TV networks have allowed dozens of former generals to pose on the air as "independent" analysts about the Iraq war while simultaneously becoming rich as defense industry consultants, quietly traveling on then Vice President Dick Cheney's private jet to tour Guantanamo or getting daily talking points from the Pentagon. Did you notice how many national television networks apologized to the public after David Barstow's terrific Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series exposing this farce? None, of course, but they could have at least acknowledged it as a news story, which they also didn't do. So much for news media accountability -- but when exactly have we had that?
Bravo to Janine Wedel for this significant book, and to Arianna Huffington for calling it to the public's attention.
READ MORE - 'Shadow Elite': Outsourcing Government, Losing Democracy

Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive?


Osama Bin Laden died eight years ago during the battle for Tora Bora in Afghanistan, either from a US bomb or from a serious kidney disease.

Or so the conspiracy theory goes.

The theory that has developed on the web since 9/11 is that US intelligence services are manufacturing the Bin Laden statements to create an evil bogeyman, to justify the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and back at home.

So is the world's most wanted man still alive?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm
READ MORE - Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive?

US airstrike kills five in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: At least five suspected militants were killed in a US drone attack on a Taliban hideout in Pakistan's restive North Waziristan tribal district, media reports said on Sunday.

Six other insurgents were wounded when two missiles fired from a pilotless aircraft struck a compound in Ismailkhel village on Saturday night, English-language The News daily reported.

The newspaper cited unnamed sources as saying that the men killed and wounded in the raid were thought to be affiliated with local tribal leader, Hafiz Gul Bahadur.

The airstrike was the second in two days. At least five Taliban militants were killed on Friday when two missiles struck their vehicle near Miranshah, main town of North Waziristan district.

The US has stepped up airstrikes inside Pakistan's tribal belt, which it says is used by the Taliban and al-Qaida members to plan and launch deadly assaults on Western forces fighting the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Islamabad publicly opposes the drone attacks, but analysts believe the government has an undisclosed agreement with Washington over the issue.

The strikes, which have killed several insurgents including some leaders, stoke up anti-American sentiment among many Pakistanis, who describe the raids as violation of national sovereignty.

However, US officials say the attacks are vital to dismantling the insurgent network.

"We believe that, as I have stated and as our government has stated, that it is one of many tools that we must use to try to defeat a very determined and terrible enemy," US Senator John McCain said in Islamabad.
READ MORE - US airstrike kills five in Pakistan
 
 
Copyright © Chief Of War
Powered by Sinlung