AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
Now available. $20-00 including postage in Australia. Click on image above for details..... TELLING THE HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY AS IT REALLY WAS.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

ZIONISTS WON’T BE HAPPY; ORDINARY ISRAELIS UNHAPPY WITH ZIONISTS; TO THE VICTORS GOES THE SPOILS; LAND THEFT DOESN’T GO UNNOTICED; AND MORE HYPOCRICY.

THE RIGHT-WING ZIONISTS OF ISRAEL AREN’T GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THIS!

The US in high-level talks with the Syrians and the Iranians? This definitely would not be sitting very well with the right-wing Zionists of Israel whose sole and only aim is to eliminate the regimes of Syria and Iran at any cost in order to leave the Israelis free to take on Hizbollah and Hamas without them getting support from Syria or Iran and to eventually occupy the lands of southern Lebanon up to the Latani River and also the Gaza and West Bank in their quest for a Greater Israel. On the other hand, perhaps all this high-level talk business may be just a ruse for something else the Israelis and the US have up their sleeves. Who knows – especially in the light of the fact that the US has said in the recent past that it would not be talking to the Iranians until they gave up enriching uranium.


MEANWHILE, ORDINARY ISRAELIS AREN’T TOO HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING UNDER THEIR RIGHT-WING ZIONIST GOVERNMENT.

Several Jewish organizations both in Israel and throughout the Diaspora have sprung up recently to counter the extremists in the Israeli government and the right-wing Zionist organizations and lobby groups, particularly the powerful Jewish lobby groups in the US. They are also unhappy with the disgusting way the Palestinians have been treated especially in the Gaza and West Bank. At long last the ordinary people of Israel are finding their voice and, with the help of likeminded Jews throughout the Diaspora, may yet be able to gain control of their own land and hand back to the Palestinians and the Syrians those lands which do not belong to them. That way there will be peace.


US CONSULTING COMPANY DRAFTS IRAQ’S NEW OIL LAWS.

So the invasion had nothing to do with the oil then? No doubt the Iraqi-puppet government well be ratifying the laws without too many problems apart from the odd futile but obligatory objection from here and there to make it all seem ‘democratic’. Then the big US-dominated oil giants will move and steal the oil literally from under the Iraqi peoples feet.


MODERATE ISRAELI PRESS EXPOSES RIGHT-WING ZIONISTS LAND THEFT AND OFFICIAL COMPLICITY.

An editorial in Israel’s left of centre newspaper Ha’aretz has exposed the blatant way in which the Israeli authorities are complicit in the theft of Palestinian land and the legitimizing of otherwise illegal construction of buildings for Israeli settlers on that land. The important aspect of this article is the fact that until recently such anti-Zionist news wouldn’t have made it to the editorials of newspapers like Ha’aretz. The movement away from right-wing Zionist extremism by the Israeli left and ordinary Israelis are all positive signs for both the Palestinians and the Israeli people.


MORE CHUTZPAH FROM ISREALI DEFENCE MINISTER PERETZ.

It seems that while Peretz was jumping up and down bemoaning the fact that Hamas is using the cease fire to rearm itself Israel has exactly been dormant themselves. Once again they are expecting the American taxpayer to pay for their continued terrorism in the Gaza and West Bank. Any Israeli attack on the people of Lebanon and their suspected and threatened attack against Iran will also be paid for by the American taxpayer as they rearm after last summers acts of terrorism against the Lebanese people.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

CHENEY THREATENS PAKISTAN, BUSH'S TILT AT CONGRESS, ARE AUSSIES AS WELL AS THE US ALREADY IN IRAN? AND HOWARD THE LOSER

FIRST THEY THREATEN TO CUT AID TO PAKISTAN THEN THEY WANT PAKISTAN TO FIGHT HARDER AGAINST THE TALIBAN.

Dick Cheney dropped in on Pakistan yesterday because the weather wouldn’t let him into Afghanistan. So while he’s there he tells Musharraf that the Pakistanis ought to be making more of an effort to curtail Taliban fighters from entering Afghanistan from Pakistan. The Pakistan President must be fuming. First he gets told that aid may be cut and then he’s told that he must make more of an effort to fight America’s war for them. No wonder the US is losing this war. Bush and Cheney; America’s worst enemies.


SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS – AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.

Condoleeza Rice has said that Bush will not abide by legislation to limit the Iraq war. Rice has ‘urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.’ Bush is moving further and further away from reality if he believes he can defy Congress in this way. Everything about the Bush-Cheney-Rice administration clearly shows America drifting closer and closer toward a totalitarian state that ignores its own legislature and the voices of it peoples.


IT SEEMS SPECIAL OPERATION TEAMS ARE ALREADY OPERATING IN IRAN – AND THEY ARE NOT JUST AMERICAN TEAMS.

‘The US is reportedly stepping up covert operations in Iran in a new strategy that risks sparking an "open confrontation" with the Islamic republic.’ There are a few noises on the grapevine that are saying that it is not just US special forces operating inside Iran gathering intelligence for the coming attack. Apparently, according to some anonymous sources, Australian SAS people are also operating in Iran. I hope for Howards sake, not to mention the soldiers themselves, that none of them get caught. The political repurcussions of any of them getting caught and then shot for spying would be disatrous for the good name of Australia.


WILL HOWARD TRY TO STAY ON AT BENNELONG OR BOW OUT BEFORE THE ELECTION – EITHER WAY HE LOOKS LIKE A LOSER.

Whatever Howard does, it looks like his days are now numbered. Recent polls have already indicated that he would lose his seat and now the odds are on Maxine McKew gaining it. So the big question is going to be: Will John Howard take his chances at the next election or will he jump ship prior to the election and hand it over to Costello? Either way he’s going to look like a loser and, for a bloke that has always wanted to be nothing other than one of history’s winners, that’s going to hurt. I can’t think of it happening to a more deserving Australian Prime Minister.

Monday, February 26, 2007

FEAR-MONGERING IN THE UK, HOWARD ON THE ROPES, ISRAEL READIES FOR WAR - AGAIN, AND BUSH DOES SOMETHING STUPID - AGAIN!

BRITAIN’S FEAR-MONGER THINK-TANKS HAVE BEEN AT IT AGAIN WITH MORE RIDICULOUS ‘TERROR’ PLOTS.

Over the years the Americans and their Western allies in the so-called ‘war against terror’ have endeavored to maintain the illusion of there actually being terrorists by creating various stories about ‘al Qaeda’ plots that have either been discovered or thwarted by the ever vigilant authorities. One that has recently been revealed is the ‘al Qaeda’ plot to assassinate UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. According to a report in the UKs Telegraph newspaper, not only were they going to do assassinate Blair but they were going to do it front of the Queen. As usual, the story has absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Just more propaganda to keep the masses in fear.


IT LOOKS LIKE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO KISS HIS SEAT GOODBYE AT THE NEXT ELECTION.

The Prime Ministers seat at Bennelong, Sydney, has become increasingly marginal over the past few elections to the point where a poll recently revealed that Howard would have lost his seat had an election taken place a couple of weeks ago. Now, as if that wasn’t bad enough news for Howard, it seems that popular ex-ABC journalist, Maxine McKew, is going to ensure that he well and truly takes a thumping at Bennelong by announcing her intention to stand against him at the next election. The quicker the better!


OLMERT WANTS ISRAEL TO GET READY FOR WAR WITH SYRIA

While Israel’s Military Intelligence Chief, Amos Yadlin, concedes that it is unlikely that Syria would initiate an attack on Israel, Syria would he said more than likely respond to any Israeli provocation – like Israeli fighters buzzing the Syrian Presidents home as they did in June of last year. One can only imagine why the Israelis would want ponder the idea of provoking Syria. It’s typical right-wing Zionist Chutzpah. What better way to provoke the Syrians than to tell Israeli forces to prepare for war with them! But, more importantly, why? Unless…


HOW STUPID CAN BUSH GET? NOW HE’S THREATENING THE LEADER OF THE ONE ISLAMIC NATION THAT REALLY DOES HAVE ‘THE BOMB’ WITH AID CUTS!

Pakistan is the one Islamic nation that really does have nuclear weapons and its leader is only in power by virtue of luck – the kind of luck you need to escape several assassination attempts with more than one of them getting more than a bit too close for comfort. For Bush to threaten Musharraf with cutting aid because he thinks Musharraf’s forces aren’t doing enough to halt border activity with Afghanistan and rounding up Taliban and so-called al Qaeda operatives is plain stupidity. In light of the fact that the Pakistan government together with its nuclear arsenal could fall to a hard-line anti-American Pakistani alliance at the drop of hat and then to threaten the one person that’s holding it together is pure insanity. But we are talking about Bush here.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

CHENEY’S NOT WELCOME IN OZ

As Cheney hits Sydney, Sydney-siders will face massive traffic disruption as the security for his visit gets underway.

One has to wonder though, who he is actually being protected from – and why. No doubt his minders will make an effort to ensure that he doesn’t get a glimpse of the crowds that will be out to protest this warmongering lunatic’s visit. As the most despised person on the planet (yes, apparently more despised than even bin Laden) is wined and dined by Howard and his minions, ordinary Australians from all over Sydney will be protesting his presence everywhere he goes.

The propaganda machine would have us believe that he is a ‘terrorist’ target; hence all the roads being shut down as he motors through. The real reason of course, is to protect him from the anger of the ordinary everyday people of Sydney who are fed up with his disgusting war and the lies.

And in news just to hand it seems that Cheney is so hated that the Premier of New South Wales has had to rush through special legislation that would allow Cheney’s personal bodyguards to carry arms to protect their charge while in Australia. You just don’t know where those pesky Iraqi insurgents are going to strike next.

Meanwhile Bush and his White House staff are getting giddy trying to spin Blair’s troop withdrawals just as Bush is trying to scrape the bottom of their enlistment barrels to get more troops actually in to Iraq. Howard and Downer aren’t faring any better either – especially after Downer was telling Australian viewers on Lateline only the night before the British cut and run announcements that the British were still there as strong as ever side by side with the US and Australians. Clearly, despite Howard telling Australians otherwise, Downer was not aware that the British were about to announce their cut and run strategy. So much for the alliance of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

GIVEN HOWARD’S CONTEMPT OF THE UN, WILL CHENEY’S VISIT SEE HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?

In May of last year John Howard was asked: “Prime Minister, is Australia’s involvement in any planned military action in Iran an option?” To which he replied: “There’s been absolutely no thought given to that. I’m not in favour of other than trying to achieve a diplomatic solution. It’s quite hard. This is a test for the United Nations. At the time of the Coalition operation in Iraq, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom were all attacked for not leaving it to the United Nations. Now Iran is in the hands of the United Nations and it will be a very big test of the processes of the United Nations to see if that matter can be resolved. I think we should continue to try diplomatic processes.” [1]

Vice-President Dick Cheney is due to arrive in Australia this week for talks with Howard. It will be interesting to see after Cheney leaves whether or not Howard’s rhetoric about Iran changes.

There are a lot of high-level administration officials flying all over the place at the moment talking with Middle East and Western allies. One wonders, in the light of the heightened rhetoric with regard to Iran, if these visits from high-level officials aren’t the prelude to the next stage of whatever it is the US and Israel is planning.

It’s interesting to note that in a follow-up question in the same interview which asked: “But given that you didn’t trust the UN in the case of Iraq, what’s changed with Iran?” Howard replied: “It’s not a question of not trusting the UN, it’s a question of the UN having failed in Iraq. Now it has another opportunity on this occasion. I mean what we did in Iraq was based on a Security Council Resolution. But the alternative was that we should leave it endlessly to further United Nations processes and that did not work. The United Nations failed in relation to Iraq. I hope it now has an opportunity to succeed in relation to Iran, and it should be given the opportunity to do so.”

Apart from the arrogance and contempt Howard displays toward the UN because it failed to bow to US demands, the remark also demonstrates Howard’s ignorance of the facts. The UN is a body representing the nations of the world. Failure to get sanction from the UN to invade Iraq not only demonstrates the extreme contempt that Howard and cohorts have for the other nations of the world but also fails to accept that it is not the UN that has failed in Iraq since the invasion but the US and, by association, Australia. One has to seriously wonder, in the event that the UN once again refuses to yield to US demands with regard to Iran, if the US will take matters into their own hands once again and attack Iran anyway. One would further need to wonder where Howard stands given his unstinting support of Bush’s delusional ideas about the so-called ‘War on Terrorism’ so far.

So far we’ve heard very little from Howard about Iran as the next election approaches but will there be change in Howard’s tone after Cheney has been and gone?




ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP, Doorstop Interview, Kirribilli House, Sydney’, 12 May 2006. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1929.html Accessed 20 February 2007.

Friday, February 16, 2007

MORE LIES AND DECEIT FROM AUSTRALIAN ISRAELI LOBBYIST DYLAN KISSANE

In a classic example of how the Australian Israeli Lobby use lies and deceit for propaganda purposes Dylan Kissane, a PhD student at the University of South Australia and right-wing Zionist propagandist, has used his blog to deliberately deceive those that read his work.

His post was:

Kevin's Konfusion
Thursday, Feb 15, 2007

ALP Leader Kevin Rudd looks at our forces in the Middle Eastern theatre and concludes - contrary to PM John Howard's contention - that their withdrawal wouldn't be such a big deal:

"...there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, about to surge to 160,000, currently our force in the entire region is about 1,400 and this debate is about the future of the combat element of that of some 500. It’s important to put all that into context because Mr Howard says that if these Australian combat forces of about 500 are withdrawn after another couple of rotations that that of itself would trigger the withdrawal immediately of 140 to 160,000 American troops, well I think we need to put that into some context as well."

According to Rudd, it's a little silly to think that 500 combat troops can precipitate something as large as a 160,000-strong US troop withdrawal. But on the other hand, Kevin claims those same troops are strong enough to change the foreign policy outlooks of sovereign nation-states in the region:

"...Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia [sic] Arabia."

In the first case Rudd is arguing that the number of troops are so small as to have little impact on the regional security. In the second case he is arguing that those same small number of troops can and do have an impact on regional security, including promoting changes in the grand strategy of nuclear weapons wannabe Iran and other surrounding countries.

Looks like Kevin's confused again.



The deceit is in Kissane’s re-contextualising of the words Rudd actually used which was achieved by only partially citing what Rudd said, which was:

“What’s concerned me deeply, and I’ve been writing about this for more than a year now, is one of the greatest strategic failures in Mr Howard’s decision to take us into this war, and as the chief cheerleader for this war outside of the United States, has been that is has emboldened Iran. Iran, which was once a significant power in this wider region of the Middle East, has become the dominant power because you have, through the Shia influence from Iran, extending of that influence into Iraq so that the Iranian influence is now much more widespread. This places Iran in a much stronger position. The failure of our policy, Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia Arabia. Mr Howard says he’s going to be part of the long term solution. I say on national security and foreign policy, Mr Howard increasingly looks like a long term risk.”

While in the first instance that Kissane refers to, Rudd indeed was talking about the numbers of Australian troops and their relative impact, or lack thereof, on the criminal war effort in Iraq, but clearly in the second instance Rudd was not refering to the troop numbers at all as Kissane attempts to assert but was referring instead to Howards failed strategic policy.

One can only hope that Kissanes dishonesty is not reflected in his academic work.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

THE EVENTS OF 9/11 AND THE ‘HOUSE OF CARDS’ EFFECT

Most of the worlds major events, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrible consequences of those invasions including the hideous tortures and deaths at Abu Ghraib, the massacres of countless villagers in Afghanistan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through bombings and shootings, the daily sectarian killings, the expenditure of billions upon billions of dollars, the threat of further expansion of the Middle East war, the deaths of over 12,000 allied soldiers, not just those that died on the battlefield but those that have since died of their wounds and remain uncounted in the official lists,[1] and the many thousands of others that have been injured; all of this has been as a direct result of the events of 11 September 2001.

All that has happened has been because George W. Bush told the world that the terrible events of 11 September 2001 were the work of ‘terrorists’. Everything that Bush has done since has been done in the name of the events of 11 September 2001. The killings, the treatment of prisoners, the torture, the deaths of US and allied soldiers, the spending of those billions of dollars have all been justified by Bush because of the events of 11 September 2001.

But what if the events of 11 September turned out not to be the work of the ‘terrorists’ that Bush claimed. Or worse, what if it turned out that elements within or associated with the Bush administration were complicit in the ‘terrorist’ attacks on America on 11 September 2001. There has been massive amounts speculation about these possibilities ever since the day it happened but despite the huge amounts of circumstantial evidence that suggests that there was more to the events of 11 September 2001 than we are being told, we haven’t yet had any substantive evidence that could demonstrate conclusively that it didn’t happen the way the Bush administration has told us it happened – at least not until now.

Just recently emerging is the strongest pieces of evidence[2] yet that show that all is not well with the official story of the events 11 September 2001. They relate not to the spectacular collapse of the Twin Towers after they had been hit by airliners or to the mysterious circumstances of the explosion at the Pentagon over which there is much controversy– but it relates to the collapse of WTC Building 7; a collapse that, at the time, virtually went unnoticed happening as it did on the same day as the main event as it were.

The collapse of the Twin Towers will always be controversial but as the evidence regarding the collapse of WTC7 emerges so the controversy about how the building collapsed recedes, because it is so obvious that it was taken down by professional demolition explosives in a controlled implosion, rather than spontaneously collapsing due to fire, but as the question of ‘how’ is resolved so the questions of ‘who’ and ‘why’ take over.

The moment the mainstream media accept that, indeed, WTC Building 7 was deliberately demolished by placed explosives then the whole edifice that is the foundation of all that has happened so far this century will begin to crumble just like a house of cards.

And when it does it will be just as spectacular as the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center – and just as messy.



ENDNOTES
[1] Brian Harring, ‘Over 12000 US Soldiers Killed in Iraq War’, The Harring Report, 7 January 2007 Available online: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-09-07/discussion.cgi.58.html Accessed 13 February 2007.
[2] Paul Watson, ‘NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs’, Prisonplanet.com, 10 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
See also: Paul Watson and Alex Jones, ‘More Ground Zero Heroes on the Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down’, Prisonplanet.com, 9 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm Accessed 13 February 2007, and Paul Watson, ‘Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was Going to be “Pulled”’, Prisonplanet.com, 8 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.

Monday, February 12, 2007

AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD STILL REVELS IN HIS FANTASY WORLD AND FAILS TO ACCEPT REALITY.

In an interview on Australia’s current affairs program, ‘Sunday’, Australian Prime Minister John Howard demonstrated how completely out of touch with reality he really is. He told the interviewer after being asked about Barack Obama’s decision to run for the Presidency and how he would have the troops home by March 2008 if elected: “I think he's wrong. I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for Obama victory. If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”[1]

Howard has failed to see that Iraq is already completely destabilised and has already been destroyed and that the ‘terrorists’ in Iraq is the US troops and their allies. Howard continues to insist that Al-Qaeda bogeymen are running things in Iraq. He fails to grasp the reality that the only reasons for the violence in Iraq is because the people don’t want the US and their allies, including Australia, in Iraq and that their presence there is unwelcome by the vast majority of Iraqis. Howard says: “There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008.” What Howard is unable to accept is the fact that Iraq will never be stabilised while the US are there. For every moment that the US remains in Iraq they prolong the agony that the Iraqi people now endure.

Howard also ties in the conflict in Iraq with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He says: “And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone.” The hope of getting a Palestinian settlement in favour of right-wing Zionist Israelis will be gone – yes, but a proper settlement returning to the Palestinians their land and sovereignty can only be enhanced by an American withdrawal from the Middle East.

Howard goes on to say: “There'll be enormous conflict between the Shi'a and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be (destabilised), Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had and that will have implications in our region because of the link, the ideological link at the very least, between the Al-Qaeda and JI.”

This is pure unadulterated garbage. There is no reason for either Saudi Arabia or Jordan to become ‘destabilised’ simply because some - and only some - Shi’a and Sunnis have got at each others throats in Iraq to take advantage of the internal power struggles that dominate Iraq as a result of the US presence there. To infer that the violence between Shi’a and Sunni militants in Iraq is so widespread that it will spread throughout the region is pure nonsense. To suggest that Al-Qaeda will ‘trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had’ is just plain delusional. The delusion is completed for Howard by suggesting that such a ‘victory’ for Al-Qaeda will somehow have repercussions in the South Pacific region.

Howard has tried all these lies before but does he really expect people to still actually believe them?


ENDNOTE
[1] ‘Interview: John Howard’, Sunday.ninemsn, 11 February 2007. Available online: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_2124.asp Accessed 12 February 2007.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

IS THE WESTERN ‘LEFT’ REALLY IN AN ALLIANCE WITH THE ISLAMIC ‘RIGHT’?

The short answer, of course, is ‘No!’

The question arises only because the Western ‘Right’ have used the notion of the Western ‘Left’ being in alliance with the Islamic ‘Right’ as a propaganda tool against the Western ‘Left’ because the Western ‘Left’ are not supporting the Western ‘Right’ in their fight against what they perceive to be the Islamic ‘Right’.

The notion has its source in the statement made by George W. Bush on 20 September 2001 when he said quite emphatically: “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists”.[1] In the eyes of the Western ‘Right’ that statement precluded the options of not being with either or of being against both. Since those words were spoken Western ‘Right’ leaders and the mainstream media have taken the notion literally in order to berate the ‘Left’.

For example; Jeremy Cordeaux, at the time a radio personality in Adelaide, South Australia, asked Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of the world’s staunchest allies of President Bush, about a month before the allied invasion of Iraq and just after the massive demonstrations around the world protesting against the pending war, this: “Let me ask you first, what did you think when you saw 400,000 fellow Australians on the streets demonstrating in a way that was, they say, against war but really it was in favour of Saddam Hussein?” Howard responded with: “…I do know also that demonstrations do give comfort to the Iraqi leadership, there's no doubt about that.”[2] The reality that Cordeaux failed to grasp was the fact that people weren’t supporting Saddam Hussein, but simply did not support war – especially a war that most people knew by then was based on lies. Howard, forever the politician however, played on Cordeuax’s words brilliantly by not quite explicitly saying that the 400,000 were in favour of Saddam Hussein but inferring it by saying that it gave ‘comfort to the Iraqi leadership’.

The fact that so many people demonstrating against an impending war against Iraq more than likely did give ‘comfort to the Iraqi leadership’ is hardly the point. What Howard and Cordeaux had succeeded in doing was to plant the seed that being against the war was tantamount to being in favour of terrorism as exemplified by the arch villain of terrorism Saddam Hussein who was about to be attacked for what was claimed to be his part in world terrorism.

Right-wing commentators, particularly right-wing Zionist propagandists, have ever since been pushing the line that the left-wing that is against the war is somehow in an alliance with right-wing Islamic militarism. One has even gone so far as to have written a book about it. David Horowitz’s book is about what he perceives as, and is titled, an ‘Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left’. Horowitz argues that the American left has forged an alliance with radical Islamists in order to jointly oppose America’s war on terrorism and its war in Iraq. The argument is based on the precept that the American left is ‘anti-American’, an absurdity in much the same way as some Jews are being called ‘self-haters’ because they don’t share the right-wing Zionist view about Israel’s fight against the Arabs is an absurdity.

When the right-wing says that someone is ‘anti-American’ it is based on the assumption that the right-wing view of ‘America’ is the one and only acceptable view that one may have of America. It is an arrogant premise. If ones view is not aligned with the right-wing view it is considered then to be anti-American. The right-wings view of the ‘Left’ being ‘anti-American’ is based purely on arrogance and has little to do with reality. Horowitz bases his entire argument on the premise that the ‘Left’ is ‘anti-American’ and so, ipso facto, must be pro right-wing Islam. It is a deliberate lie that is based on deceit and paranoia.

The concept works in much the same way as the propaganda of the right-wing Zionists who insist that any opposition to them is ‘anti-Semitic’ even if those that oppose them are actually Jewish themselves. Most people are aware, however, that indeed it is just propaganda.

The ‘Left’ did not oppose the war because it supported Saddam Hussein. The ‘Left’ opposed the war with Iraq because the war was being launched based on ulterior motives. Most of the peoples of the world were not fooled for one moment by the lies and rhetoric coming from Western right-wing leaders. Most of the peoples of the world knew that what the war was really about was oil, hegemony and Israeli interests and these facts were made quite clear at the various rallies and demonstrations that were held around the world just prior to the invasion. Everything that has transpired since has proved the ‘Left’ correct in the assumptions that were made then. There were no WMDs, Saddam was not in anyway involved with the events of 9/11 and Iraq certainly was not a threat to the world and nor did it any longer have any ambitions of being nuclear armed. The left cried ‘No war for oil!’ and the right insisted that it was not about oil – yet now the US have secured contracts for Iraq oil guaranteed for the next thirty years. The right lied.

The ‘Left’ is far more concerned about the ulterior motives of the Western ‘Right’ than it is about the Islamic ‘Right’. The ‘Left’ see the Western ‘Right’ as a far greater threat to world security than the Islamic ‘Right’ despite the Western ‘Rights’ propaganda and rhetoric. The bottom line is simply that deaths resulting from the actions of the Western ‘Right’ far outnumber deaths resulting from the actions of the Islamic ‘Right’. The Western ‘Right’ have been exposed as a sham. The rhetoric alleging an alliance between the Western ‘Left’ and the Islamic ‘Right’ is also a sham – just like Saddam’s WMDs were.

Just because the Western ‘Left’ does not support an attack on Iran does not mean to say that it therefore supports the politics of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The Western ‘Left’ doesn’t support an attack on Iran because the Western ‘Left’ knows that the Western ‘Right’ are simply lying about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and involvement in Iraq in order to find a casus belli to attack it in order to maintain US hegemony in the region and to further Israel’s regional aspirations for a Greater Israel.





ENDNOTES
[1] President George W. Bush, ‘Address to the Joint Session of Congress and to the American People’, The White House, 20 September 2001. Available online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html Accessed 6 February 2007.
[2] ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP interview with Jeremy Cordeaux, Radio 5DN’, 20 February 2003, PM Australia website. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview247.html Accessed 6 February 2007.