THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Thursday, April 19, 2007


Infuriated by the fact that the world is slowly beginning to realise that the ‘Global War on Terror’ is increasingly looking like an excuse designed specifically to serve the interests of Bush, his neocon Zionist Israeli-supporting allies and his mates both in the military industrial complex and big business, the right-wing loony Israeli Lobby and their supporters are desperately trying to keep alive the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ in order to maintain the illusion that there is a tangible enemy for the West to fear and be forever at war with.

The people trying to maintain this myth have become over the last couple of years so desperate that they are now feeding into their propaganda machine the idea that al Qaeda has branch offices everywhere. For example, Stephen Ulph, a neoconservative so-called 'Senior Fellow' at the neocon think-tank organisation the Jamestown Institute thinks there is an al Qaeda branch office in Palestine calling themselves “al Qaeda from the Land of the Outposts, Occupied Palestine”, and in Saudi Arabia we are expected to believe there is a mob that call themselves “al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Shrines” and, of course in Iraq there is “al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers”. All of these are simply a figment of the neoconservatives imagination. Another neoconservative writer, David Keyes of the AIPAC Israeli Lobby think-tank organisation, the notrious Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), manages to weave straight out lies from nowhere. He claims (among other straight up and down lies) that:

“In a September 2005 interview, leading Hamas spokesman Mahmoud az-Zahar confirmed the infiltration of al-Qaeda members into Gaza. In addition to physical infiltration, he said that telephone contact from Gaza with other al-Qaeda centres in foreign countries existed as well.” This is an out and out lie. Mahmoud az-Zahar said no such thing. In the interview referred to he simply talked about some Palestinian fighters having contact with other fighters who have a common enemy - namely right-wing Zionist Israel. It was Keyes who embellished it with ‘al Qaeda’.

“Leaflets in Khan Yunis distributed by al-Qaeda’s “Palestine branch” proclaimed that the terrorist group has started its work of uniting Muslims under an Islamic state. The group stated that their primary goal was enforcing Sha’ria law worldwide. The leaflets were signed by al-Qaeda of Jihad in Palestine.” The reality was that, far from being distributed by ‘al Qaeda’, they were distributed by Mossad stooges. As they handed out the leaflets their transparency was immediately recognised and most of them ended up straight in the bin and those that were handing them out were literally run out of town.

The propagandists attempt to cloak their lies in a veneer of academic respectability by calling themselves ‘Fellows’ and ‘Senior Fellows’ of these ‘institutes’ and, in the case of the American Enterprise Institute, often referred to as neocon headquarters, they even delude themselves with titles such as ‘Freedom Scholar’, as in the case of the extreme right-wing warmongering lunatic Michael Ledeen.

It doesn’t take a great deal of research to soon discover that the only people pushing the idea of a world-wide ‘al Qaeda’ organisation are the Western right-wing governments supporting the Bush line and right-wing think-tank organisations and individuals. The reality is that most Islamic peoples fighting the US and Israel are doing so because both of these nations have invaded lands that belong to Islamic peoples. Simple as that. ‘Al Qaeda’ is simply a convenient catch-all that describes anyone that raises arms against the occupiers of these lands. The insurgents of Iraq and Afghanistan just want the US and their allies out. The Palestinian fighters want the Israelis out and a state of their own. Al Qaeda has nothing to do with it.

The world is waking up to this reality and the liars and deceivers are becoming more desperate.

A member of the Israeli Loony Lobby has, quite predictably, been quick to embellish even further the lie that Mahmoud az-Zahar had said that al Qaeda were in Palestine by linking to what they claim is the verbatim words of az-Zahar. Problem is this particular Israeli Loony Lobbyist, the well known liar, pseudo-academic and believer in fairy stories, Dylan Kissane, links to – and I kid readers not – a Haganah website to attempt to give the lie credibility. Unbelievable!

But it doesn’t end there. The deceit is compounded by Kissane as he feverishly trawls the net for more ‘evidence’ of an ‘al Qaeda’ connection to Palestine. He 'discovers' two. And where does he find them? One in the National Review, another neocon right-wing Zionist pro Israeli journal that supported the lies that gave us the Iraq war, and the other written by Dore Gold, yet another neoconservative lunatic who also happens to be president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs! All of them have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of ‘al Qaeda’. And this garbage from the neocon right-wing loonies is presented as evidence of the existence of ‘al Qaeda’.

This right-wing lunatic has become so desperate to promote the myth of al Qaeda he’s now actually trawling my blog to see how often I quote UK Guardian material in order to justify something he’s found in the Guardian that gives some vague quote about az-Zahar saying something about al Qaeda in Palestine. Persistent… but that’s about all. Still no actual evidence of al Qaeda in Palestine – apart from the ones Mossad have set up there.

Apparently it wasn’t az-Zahar that the Guardian article referred to, but Abbas himself. Well, I guess that means al Qaeda is everywhere if the Guardian says as much then I guess it must be so… Dream on!! I suppose I'll have to read this lunatics garbage and links more carefully... as if!

But still no actual evidence of al Qaeda in Palestine; just desperate attempts from this obsessed lunatic to protect the myth.

As if a quote in a newspaper is likely to support this garbage about a worldwide al Qaeda organisation with more branch offices than Prudential Insurance.

Desperate Dylan seems to think that my mistake of writing ‘az-Zahar’ instead of ‘Abbas’ is somehow proof positive that ‘al Qaeda’ exists in Palestine. So desperate is this loon to try and make his point that he hangs on every single word I write waiting for some slip that will provide him with the opportunity to perpetuate his delusion of al Qaeda’s existence. I don’t know why he is so obsessed with me and my blog and what I say. He seems to devote more time attacking what I write than actually providing any primary evidence to back his claims. And this is the bloke who thinks that “…ad hominem arguments aren't effective as rebuttals”. It’s another characteristic of the neocon/fascists that Desperate Dylan represents– hypocrisy.

Look out for the next exciting episode of 'Dylan's Delusions'. He's so obsessed over what I write that I'm sure there'll be one!

Desperate Dylan, the Loopy Lobby Lunatic from Lyon, has disappointed me by not responding to my last ad hominen attack on him as I thought he would. (Yes, I’m quite happy to make ‘ad hominem’ attacks on any neocon/fascist thug that thinks invading other people’s nations and destroying them is good for business and their disgusting Islamophobic racist policies.) But then again, he still hasn’t provided any hard evidence that al Qaeda exists in Palestine or anywhere else outside of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the vivid imagination of the Loony Lobby propagandists. Perhaps he’s busy trawling the net for some morsel of a quote of a quote sourced from the cousin of a sister of Osama bin Laden’s hairdresser who told a joke about an ‘al Qaeda’ staff application form for wannabe Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

It’s all very well having Bush, Blair and Howard and their lunatic warmongering propagandists and supporters saying ‘al Qaeda’ this and ‘terrorist’ that every time someone fights back against the US or any of their allies in order to get them out of their countries but the reality is; there has not been one piece of hard evidence to say that anything like a movement called ‘al Qaeda’ exists except maybe in Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Anonymous said...

What lands were the US invading to provoke the 9/11 attacks?

Iraq Part One was an old story by then (and if you believe some on the left then Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism anyway). The US was invited into Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. The US was part of a wider force bringing peace to majority Muslim parts of the former Yugoslavia and was an invited guest in Central Asian majority Muslim republics.

Damian Lataan said...

Yeah right, anonymous. Just remind me again, who did the 9/11 attacks? And if you answer bin Laden did it then prove it because the US government certainly hasn't.

I should also remind you that the US were planning to attack Afghanistan months before 9/11.

Anonymous said...

You said, "The reality is that most Islamic peoples fighting the US and Israel are doing so because both of these nations have invaded lands that belong to Islamic peoples."

I suggested the 9/11 attacks as events perpetrated by Islamic people.

For the sake of argument lets imagine it wasn't bin Laden behind it (as you seem to suggest). Further, let's assume for the sake of argument that the US Government's story is not the correct one.

Would you further assert that Islamic people had nothing to do with the attacks?

If your answer is 'yes' then perhaps you could explain what led you to believe 1/6th of humanity is completely innocent - particularly in light of your oft-stated opinion that you don't know what did happen, only what didn't happen.

Conversely, if your answer is 'no' then the original question still stands: why did these particular Islamic persons become involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Your original post clearly says "most" Islamic peoples so it is clear you are not claiming all are motivated by US invasions. Thus, it is also possible for any Muslims involved in 9/11 to fall outside this "most" category.

So, to bring this comment to its conclusion, do you claim that (a) no Islamic people were involved in the 9/11 attack; (b) Islamic people were involved but not motivated by US invasions; (c) Islamic people were involved and motivated by US invasions?

* Sorry for reposting but I think Blogger ate my comment last time. :)

Damian Lataan said...

I don't what religion the perpetrators of 9/11 were. I'm not in to the new racism of religion and culture which seems to bother you so much.

Anonymous said...

You imply that no one who could be called an Islamic person took part in the 9/11 attacks. You question hwo the US government reached their conclusions; I was just wondering how you reached that conclusion.

Damian Lataan said...

I did not say or imply "...that no one who could be called an Islamic person took part in the 9/11 attacks". I simply said I don't know what the religion of the perpetrators of 9/11 were. I don't know why their religion is important. They could have been atheists for all I know. I don't know why it should be so necessary or important for them for them to have been Muslims.

I place no importance whatsoever on the religion of the perpetrators of this crime.

Anonymous said...

The religion is important because you claimed that, "[t]he reality is that most Islamic peoples fighting the US and Israel are doing so because both of these nations have invaded lands that belong to Islamic peoples. Simple as that." That is why I focussed on an attack that was blamed on Muslims.

In my first comment I asked what invasion motivated the 9/11 attackers. If they were Muslim then they would likely have been be motivated by an invasion, as per your claim. The question in my comment was simple: which invasion?

If they were Muslims but NOT motivated by US invasions - and while you don't claim they are you also don't deny they could be - then what DID motivate them? And if we don't know what did, how can we exclude a US invasion as something that did?

Finally, if they weren't Muslim attackers then the point is moot. After all, you made no claim to know what motivates non-Islamic attacks in your post. However, it would be nice to know what leads you to believe they were not Muslims. I understand from your previous posts you don't believe they were al-Qaeda acting in the way the US claims they were but, as you realise, there is a big difference between professing faith in Islam and being a member of al-Qaeda. In this case, what convinced you the people involved weren't Muslim?

The religion is only important because you made a specific claim for a specific religious identity.