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.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008


The present standoff between the US and Russia over Georgia and Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia virtually guarantees that Russia will not support further sanctions against Iran in the United Nations. Since Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power, it is doubtful that the US and their allies will even bother raising the issue of sanctions against Iran until the conflict over Georgia and the separatist states has been resolved.

So, where does this leave Israel?

Israel and the Israel lobby in the US has been champing at the bit to bomb Iran but would much prefer it if the US were to do it for them. Unfortunately for Israel, the US, or more specifically, George Bush, has got his hands full with an American people who are in no mood for more war, especially on the eve of a Presidential campaign that many see as being one of the most important in American history.

However, all is not entirely lost for those rightwing Israelis itching to let loose on the Iranians. Firstly, Condoleezza Rice has said that the US would not say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Israel doing what it thinks it needs to do in order to ‘defend’ herself, which, of course, is an open invitation for Israel to attack Iran. Secondly, the fact that Russia is now unlikely to support further UN sanctions against Iran could work in Israel’s favour. Waiting for the slow process of the UN imposed sanctions to wind its way through the system has always been the cause of great frustration to Israel but, since the US has insisted that it must go down this road in order to get public opinion on side, Israel has just had to grit its teeth and go along with it. Now, though, they can see themselves being relieved of that particular burden and claim that there is now no time to waste and that Iran is an immediate threat that can no longer be tolerated especially since the UN is no longer able to apply sanctions. In this case Israel may just feel free to ‘unilaterally’ attack Iran but knowing full well that the US will come to Israel’s aid just as soon as the first shot has been fired by Israel.

Which all kind of begs the question: What was the Georgians aim of attacking South Ossetia in the first place and to what extent was there Israeli involvement and US collusion given that we know that there was very heavy Israeli influence within the Georgian government among some of their ministers?

Tuesday, August 26, 2008


The Israeli extremist organisation, Shurat Hadin, a front organisation for Israeli extremist Zionists and neoconservatives, have now taken to advertising in the ‘Jerusalem Post’ their package deal which they call ‘The Ultimate Mission to Israel’. The deal includes the following:

Briefings by Mossad officials and commanders of the Shin Bet.
Briefing by officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches.
Inside tour of the IAF unit who carries out targeted killings.
Live exhibition of penetration raids in Arab territory.
Observe a trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court.
First hand tours of the Lebanese front-line military positions and the Gaza border check-points.
Inside tour of the controversial Security Fence and secret intelligence bases. Meeting Israel's Arab agents who infiltrate the terrorist groups and provide real-time intelligence.
Briefing by Israel's war heroes who saved the country.
Meetings with senior Cabinet Ministers and other key policymakers.
Small airplane tour of the Galilee, Jeep rides in the Golan Heights, water activities on Lake Kinneret, a cook-out barbecue and a Shabbat enjoying the rich religious and historic wonders of Jerusalem's Old City.

On top of all this you also get:

Five-star accommodations at the Sheraton Plaza Jerusalem (Glatt Kosher),
Three meals a day (all Kosher),
Luxury bus transportation and knowledgeable tour guide,
A dedicated Executive Communications Center at the hotel,
Personal cell phone for each participant.

Watching other people suffer seems to be some people’s idea of a holiday. One can only imagine the outrage of the Western world if, say, Hamas or Hezbollah were to openly ‘normalise’ targeted killings of Israeli political and military leaders or allow Arab tourists to be part of the proceedings of Hamas or Hezbollah ‘trials’ of captured Israelis. Yet the world ignores the Israelis doing the same thing AND making a commercial enterprise out of it!


The arrival on Saturday of the two freedom ships, the SS Free Gaza and the SS Liberty, has lifted the spirits of the Gazan people immensely judging by the reception they received as they appeared in Gazan waters. More importantly, however, their safe arrival into Gaza without interference from the Israelis has set a precedent that would now be difficult for the Israelis to reverse.

The Israelis had thought long and hard about how to deal with this clear challenge to their authority over the lives of the Palestinian people in the Gaza. In the end, considering the amount of publicity that the Israelis were unable to keep a lid on through their supporter’s control of the mainstream media, coupled with the high profile and multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of the crew and participants which included a holocaust survivor, an Israeli academic and a sister-in-law of ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, the Israeli authorities had little option but to let the ships through and complete what the Israelis thought was their symbolic business hoping then that it will all be quickly forgotten as it becomes yesterday’s news. However, the Israelis have seriously miscalculated both the motives and the determination of the organisers who the Israelis believed were out merely for the publicity of a one-off venture to test the will of the Israelis and to propagandise the plight of the Palestinian people in the Gaza.

It is true that the Free Gaza project has highlighted the plight of the Palestinian people in the Gaza, but it is a reflection on the Israeli rightwing’s own considerations about humanitarian priorities if they believe that the Free Gaza project was simply about publicity. On the odd occasion that the Israelis do make some concession to Palestinian suffering like allowing the occasional child to get urgent medical treatment in Israel, it is always only for the purposes of publicity; never mind that the child more than likely needed the urgent treatment because the Israelis had denied the facilities to Gazan doctors and specialists in the first place.

The Israelis haven’t entirely ignored the possibilities of further attempts to break the blockade and, indeed, have already warned that further attempts will not necessarily get the same reaction. It would be difficult, though, for the Israelis to justify turning back or, worse, using violence against, ships that are so clearly bringing only much needed aid to the Palestinian people.

Now that the project has received the mainstream media attention that it deserves, it is now up to everyone to ensure that future blockade-busting activities from the Free Gaza Project also get all the attention and bi-partisan support it deserves.

Sunday, August 24, 2008


Fred Kagan, a senior neocon who instigated the idea of the ‘surge’ policy in Iraq that some have hailed as a success, is at it again only this time he’s looking to further provoke the Russians by insisting that NATO positively demonstrates it support and presence in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania lest the Russians feel tempted to reinvade them as Kagan thinks they did in Georgia.

Kagan, a well known neoconservative propagandist, is deliberately attempting to recreate the atmosphere of fear and loathing that dominated during the Cold War years. The Baltic States that consist of three small European nations have historically, especially during the last century, been used as a bit of a political football due to their geographical position relative to Germany and Russia.

In 1939 the Baltic States were ceded to Russia as part Stalin’s deal with Hitler when they carved up Eastern Europe between them at the beginning of the Second World War. However, when Hitler turned on Stalin and attacked Russia, the Baltic States quickly fell to German control. Then, toward the end of the war as Russia advanced westward, the Baltic States reverted back to Soviet Russian control. It wasn’t until 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the Baltic States regained their independence. As a result of this predominately Soviet Russian control over the years, the people of the Baltic States had become extremely anti-communist and, far more importantly in the twenty-first century since the demise of communism, anti-Russian, and it is this fact that the likes of Kagan are exploiting for their own ends.

So, what’s behind Kagan’s thinking here? The answer lies in what Kagan has proffered as an explanation for this strategy; he ‘says that the West needed to match words with deeds if it was to stop Russia turning into an "intolerable, aggressive imperialistic" power’. The reality, of course, is that it is not Russia that is becoming an “intolerable, aggressive imperialistic” power, but the US.

The circumstances that led to the crisis in Georgia is totally different from the geo-political situation of the Baltic States relative to Russia, yet Kagan, in his relentless hatred of all things Russian, is quite content to place the Baltic States into the line fire yet again by abusing the Baltic States well-known resentment of the Russians to bolster the neocons anti-Russian rhetoric. Kagan knows that the Baltic States are unlikely to refuse Western help but would be far better off simply proclaiming neutrality or simply be non-aligned like Sweden and Finland.

Kagan’s stirring up of old Baltic-Russian antagonisms is transparent and belies the neocons trues objectives of reviving the old Cold War animosities that were the bread and butter of the US military-industrial complex which in turn ensured US predominance as a so-called superpower.

Saturday, August 23, 2008


With the allies losing their war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the US and their allies are now attempting to subdue the Afghan people using terror; the very methods they had hypocritically accused the Taliban of using and which were offered to the world as part of their justification to invade Afghanistan in the first place.

The other justification, of course, was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and to destroy ‘al Qaeda’. Almost seven years later and there is still no sign of bin Laden, and al Qaeda, indeed, if the propaganda and rhetoric of the Western neocon and mainstream media is anything to go by, al Qaeda has grown and flourished and now has branches everywhere including Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Morocco and throughout much of Africa including Nigeria, Ethiopia and elsewhere, not to mention still in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

One has to wonder what got into the minds of the US government when they declared that they had ‘routed’ the Taliban in December 2001 after the US invasion of Afghanistan the previous October. It now seems that Bush’s claim of ‘victory’ over the Taliban was to say the least, premature – a mistake he repeated when claiming ‘mission accomplished’ on 1 May 2003 after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The reality is that Bush and the neocons, far from wanting to liberate the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal regimes and dictators, were far more interested in liberating the Iraqi people of their resources and subduing the Afghan people into submitting to US hegemony for their own nefarious and ulterior motives. What the US hadn’t accounted for was the fact that most people, regardless of how despicable the people that rule them are, will no tolerate a foreign troop on their soil who they know are there to steal from them.

Above is a photograph of US troops in Afghanistan but imagine if you will that they are Afghani troops in, say, Outback Australia and their supporting warplanes had just bombed and killed 76 civilians including 50 women and 19 children in Alice Springs. How would you feel about that?
You’d be outraged to the point that if you were a young man and one of those killed was a relative or friend and there was a resistance movement against these foreign troops on your soil you’d be inclined to join up and fight back would you not.

Why then should the people of Afghanistan not feel any different?

And that’s why the US and their allies can never win in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Friday, August 22, 2008


Yesterday’s release of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) report on the collapse of WTC7 seems to have been carefully coordinated with the mainstream media in an all-out propaganda effort to debunk so-called conspiracy theories that insist that WTC7 collapsed after being rigged with demolition charges which would infer that, due to time constraints, could only have been placed in the building before 9/11.

Few, however, find the new ‘evidence’ proffered by NIST of the building collapsing because of the failure of a beam due to thermal expansion very compelling; indeed, some, if one cares to read through The New York Times comments pages that followed their reporting of the reports release, are now more convinced than ever that the governments version of events are lies.

All of the existing evidence, including the now much seen video footage, shows quite clearly the building collapsing uniformly and spontaneously whereas the NIST report requires us to believe that, rather than there being a simultaneous failure of the structural elements supporting the building which would have resulted in the uniform and spontaneous collapse shown, the building collapsed after the sequential failure of the various structural elements. Had this been the case then the building would not have collapsed uniformly as the various videos clearly show it did.

As an aside, the release of the report has also exposed the mainstream media’s complicity in pushing what will now become the official government line on the collapse of WTC7.

First, let’s have a closer look at how the NYT covered the release of the report. On the surface the NYT take on the reports findings seems quite objective. The author of the NYT article, Eric Lipton, uses subtly negative phraseology to give the impression that the report should finally debunk the alternative explanations as to the buildings collapse. For example, he says in the very first paragraph: “Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, federal investigators concluded on Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives caused the building’s collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.” The words: “curb still rampant speculation” are used to reinforce the notion that the NIST report reduces those other explanations to mere speculation when, in reality, the NIST reports findings, in the light of the compelling evidence shown in the videos, is actually even more speculative.

Lipton then immediately goes on to say: “No one died when the tower, 7 World Trade Center, tumbled…” Tumbled? The building didn’t ‘tumble’; it collapsed linearly into it own footprint. Lipton also uses the term ‘conspiracy theorists’, a term which since 9/11, the mainstream media has managed to ensure has morphed into a derogatory label. He writes: “What started as a small number of such conspiracy theorists ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by Internet sites and homemade videos.” This is a very patronising piece of criticism from a mainstream media stalwart, the NYT, to the flourishing blogosphere without which we’d have had even less knowledge about events than if we had to rely on the mainstream media.

Another mainstream media online newspaper, The Age of Melbourne, Australia, was less subtle about its anti-conspiracy theorist propaganda. Its headline blared; “9/11 collapse mystery solved: scientists”. Then, right below the opening paragraph, there is a photograph, not of WTC7, but of the second airliner about to hit the second tower of the main WTC with the caption underneath it reading: “The truth about 'conspiracies'. Millions believe the 9/11 attacks were faked, thousands say they've seen UFOs and an army of hunters are after Bigfoot but professional sceptic Dr Michael Shermer has news for all 'believers'.”

The Age report quite unsubtley links and equates those that enquire about explanations of the events of 9/11 other than those given by the government with UFO and Bigfoot believers with the wording even implying that UFOs were seen in Manhattan on 9/11! This particular mainstream propaganda piece was topped of with this: "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonour the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," from Larry Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillan.

The problem, at least from the government’s point of view, is that the NIST report, far from debunking the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ alternative explanations for the events of 9/11, have actually strengthened peoples view about the government lying about the events of 9/11 and, in the process, by bringing it all out into the mainstream media as they have, will now gain more converts to the idea that the governments version of events is a cover-up.


Sorry! Sorry. It seems I’ve got it wrong again. Apparently that should read; Israel threatens to assassinate Hamas leaders if one Israeli prisoner is not released. World couldn’t care less.

Thursday, August 21, 2008


Its odd how, when reading about government intelligence agencies reports on research into ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’, one might be forgiven for thinking that that such reports are more of a reflection on themselves rather than a dissertation on the state of mind of ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’. It would almost seem that the personalities of those that they consider to be ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’ and themselves are identical if the report in today’s UK Telegraph is any indication.

As one reads through this article the irony of similarity becomes unmistakable, almost compelling. For example, it says: “MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain.” Oddly, there’s also no easy way to identify those who become involved in the intelligence services either. Indeed, if anyone in the intelligence services did demonstrate an easy way to identify themselves then they wouldn’t have a job.

The article goes on to say “…that it is not possible to draw up a typical profile of the "British terrorist" as most are "demographically unremarkable" and simply reflect the communities in which they live.” Such a profile, of course, is also an essential qualification for employment with the intelligence services.

The conclusion the report comes to, among other things, is this: “The "mad and bad" theory to explain why people turn to terrorism does not stand up, with no more evidence of mental illness or pathological personality traits found among British terrorists than is found in the general population.” The reports other findings conclude that generally British ‘terrorist’s’, far from actually being ‘extremist’s’, are really quite normal to the point of being boring.

The obvious question here is: Are there any actual ‘terrorists’ then? Are the stories we hear about their fanaticism and extremism just stories made up to justify… well, whatever the government of the day feels like?

On the other hand, what about the people that make up the intelligence and so-called anti-terrorist services? We often hear about how ‘dedicated’ they are but is ‘dedication’ the same as fanaticism? We often hear of how they have ‘eliminated’ extremists and terrorists in so-called shoot outs and straight out assassinations but do ordinary everyday people go around doing that sort of thing? What sort of person would do those sorts of things? Violence always begets violence.

Apparently it would depend on whether or not you work for the government or the other lot. If you work for the government then you are a dedicated brave officer protecting the lives of ordinary citizens. If, however, you work for the other lot then you are a fanatical crazed person dedicated to destroying the lives of ordinary citizens – or at least, until now, according to the mainstream media you are.

The reality is this: The government maintains an intelligence service not to protect us from ‘terrorist’ and ‘extremists’ but to protect the government from having the truth revealed and to do the underhand bidding that government may from time to time require then to do in pursuit of some policy or another that would otherwise be unacceptable to the boring everyday person on the street.

The real ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’ out there are not the ones that the government often like to ‘warn’ us about those that charged with ensuring that the government’s will is imposed upon all of us. It is done remorselessly by ruthless extremists who we call our ‘intelligence services’.

Stuck in the middle are the teeming masses of ordinary everyday citizens anyone of whom, according to the intelligence report, could become a ‘ruthless extremist’ just when it suits the other ruthless extremists and the government of the day for them to become so.


The Sydney Daily Telegraph owned by Rupert Murdoch has shown, yet again, that it practices deceit and fraud on its opinion blogs. Australian extreme rightwing Islamophobic racist Tim Blair runs an online blog at this newspaper which in the main attracts fellow rightwing Muslim-hating racists who exchange rightwing ideas and generally just slap each other on the back when they opine some outrageous view about their objects of hate. (Currently it’s Barack Obama)

Recently I have been posting at this blog only to find when I really hit a sore point with them that exposes their racism, that what I have written had been heavily editorialised to the point that it is published in a way that means the complete opposite of what was originally written. The intent is to dissuade any further posting that disrupts their otherwise warmongering and hate-filled discourse.

Naturally, people are free to publish or not as they wish but in this case Blair and his coterie of supporters who professes to be a ‘liberal’, get very irate over people that deny freedom of speech or practice censorship. Yet, when the argument against them becomes compelling, he shuts down the argument by abusing his editorial privilege. While I don’t have a problem with censorship per se, there is in Blair’s case a big problem with his so-called ‘liberal’ credentials – not to mention his hypocrisy.

What the argument was actually about, however, pales into unimportance when it is laid against the fact that this deceitful practice of editing out participators that don’t conform is multiplied by the number of extreme rightwing pro-Zionist anti-Islam hate blogs that Murdoch owns all over the world. It gives him and his paid-for minion’s unparalleled power that goes directly to the Israeli-centric neoconservatives and their warmongering Zionist cohorts in Israel as they attempt to manipulate world opinion to favour their racist agenda.

Having been editorialised out of further blogging at Blair’s demonstrates how desperate these people are in their attempts to silence the truth about rightwing Zionism and the events of 9/11 but also shows how important blogs that are independent of the mainstream media are.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008


Europe is being pragmatic about the crisis over Georgia to the point that the divergence between pragmatic European interests and ideologically-driven US interests over the matter could itself become a crisis.

At the NATO emergency summit meeting yesterday in Brussels it has been reported that many of the European members rejected a US proposal to freeze the Nato-Russia council, established in 2002 to boost relations between Moscow and the West preferring instead to keep open channels of communication between European and Russian Ministers. Even David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary said: "I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanours.” The UK government, until now, has been very supportive of the tough US policy against Russia. To top it off the meeting decided not to rush through Georgia’s membership into NATO which was one of the main US calls. Even Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, seemed in no rush to endorse a quick decision on the question of Georgia’s NATO membership.

The Europeans are also aware that Russia is quite happy to go and talk and trade with people that will talk and trade with them. The Europeans are very much aware that the Russians may also be happy to trade not just commercially but also militarily. As I type President Assad of Syria is preparing for a trip to Russia for talks about closer ties and the possibility of purchasing military materiel; a situation not likely to please Israel or the US.

The reality is the Europeans know which side their bread is buttered. Wealth creation in Europe and the energy requirements of Europe rely on trading with Russia. The bottom line is simple: Europe cannot afford to upset the Russians to the extent the US wants them to. This will annoy the US in much the same way as the German and French refusal to endorse the US and UK and their allies when the US and the so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’, which, incidentally, included Georgia, did when they wanted to attack Iraq in March 2003.

To what extent the US will be annoyed with the Europeans for their intransigence toward US foreign policy on Russia over the Georgia crisis remains to be seen. How the neocons and the Bush administration will react also remains to be seen.

Sunday, August 17, 2008


For those following what has been going on at Blair’s blog, here’s what I said that Blair modified to suit his own argument. It is behaviour that one has come to expect from the rightwing mainstream press.

Bigmac… well, just your choice of name says it all for starters.

Blair, in his usual opportunistic way, simply used the idea of using seawater as a way of having a go at someone who knows far more about the environment than he or, indeed, you ever will. In other words, Blair was simply trying to score political points. The environment and how it may affect the future of the planet is something that should be left to experts and is not something that should be used as a political football by rightwing loons such you, Blair and the other same old hopelessly ignorant posters that insist on gathering here to protect everything the propagandising opportunist Blair says. Fortunately for the rest of Australia there are only a tiny handful of you here and one wonders why even the neocon Murdoch actually keeps the likes of Blair on; he’s an embarrassment to Australia.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Australians do care about the environment enough to make the financial sacrifices that may be required to keep the planet safe and even rejuvenated for future generations. Solar energy in all its forms, direct or wind, is seen by most Australians as the way of the future with total disregard to what you or the other rightwing loons around the world may think about it.

Stick with your obsession for Bush and the turkey; I’m sure people think that’s something that is really important for the future of the world.

Saturday, August 16, 2008


Events have moved along quickly with regard to the Georgia crisis. I get the distinct impression that the neoconservatives are now back-peddling somewhat from their aggressive stance against the Russians as they realise that it could jeopardise their primary commitment to Israel and their push for regime change in Iran. The neocons have quickly realised that the Russians aren’t going to be the pushover they first thought they were going to be. There has been posture and counter posture from both sides but there is only so much posturing the two sides can do without actual confrontation and, since the Russians have the advantage of home turf, the US are now all postured out and the Russians still haven’t budged.

Frederick Kagan writing in the neocon comic, The Weekly Standard, says: “The Cold War isn't back. The Russian attacks on Georgia don't mean American soldiers will soon be staring at Red Army soldiers in the middle of Germany or that U.S. defense spending must triple to match a global Russian military juggernaut.” Kagan even concedes, without actually saying it, that Russia has got the better of the situation; he writes: “American rhetoric about Russia's actions has been strong but has not deterred Putin from pushing even harder.” The reality is that while American rhetoric maybe aggressive, there is nothing they can do if Russia, as it has, digs its heels in and effectively tells the US to get knotted. Had the Russians backed off as the US demanded, the neocons and the Bush administration would have felt more confident in resuming their stance against Iran but since the Russians haven’t backed off the neocons and the administration have now found that it is they that need to back off from confrontation with Russia. Failure to do so could otherwise completely alienate the Russians and push them into the Iranian camp whereby the Iranian nuclear issue becomes part of the rhetoric in the standoff between the US and Russia – something the neocons and the Bush administration would be keen to avoid at all costs.

As the window of opportunity continues to close the countdown to a Final Confrontation with Iran is still ticking though the US and Israel are going to find it very difficult to get the regime change they need in Iran with the Russians breathing down their necks in anger.


The rushed signing yesterday of a deal between the US and Poland for the US to base ten Interceptor missiles at a base in Poland renders totally transparent the US administrations assertion that the missile defence system is to protect Europe from attack by a nuclear armed Iran.

Over the past year or so the US, together with help from neocon front organisations, has insisted that the missile defence system they want to install in Eastern Europe is to protect the region from the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. Russia has always seen the transparency in this assertion and has objected to the US having their missile defence systems on their doorsteps saying that they are a threat to their own security.

The recent events in Georgia and the resulting stand-off between Russia and the US, culminating in yesterday’s expedited signing of a deal with Poland allowing the missiles to be positioned there, has reinforced Russia’s claims that the placement of the systems in East Europe has nothing to do with threats from Iran and everything to do with the further projection of US hegemony right up to Russia’s doorstep. The talks between Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk were centred against a background of discussion about US pledges to back Warsaw against any Russian aggression with Iran only being mentioned in passing as the Polish government and the US attempted to maintain the fa├žade of the missiles only being for defence against Iran. If that’s the case then why the rush to sign off on the deal?

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the neocons have been behind the push to confrontation with Russia as they realise their War on Terrorism is falling apart in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of being a ‘War on Terrorism’ in these places its becoming clear to the world that, far from being ‘terrorists’, those that are fighting the Americans and their allies are simply wanting their respective nations back. A renewed Cold War with the Russians is just what the US and their allies need at the moment to distract a watching world from the neocons failures everywhere else.

The difference this round, however, is that Russia is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The US, contrary to what they think about themselves, is not the world’s only superpower; Russia can be more than a match for them.

The US should be reminded that they do have weapons of mass destruction and, if their tenacious ability to defend their mother country as displayed during the Second World War is anything to go by, they would be more than willing to use them.

Friday, August 15, 2008


The war in Georgia seems to have reignited the neoconservative’s passion for what they would like us to think is ‘anti-communism’ and has reinflamed their old animosities toward the ‘East’ with the latest confrontation providing them with an opportunity to reinvent themselves as guardians of the ‘West’ as the ‘War on Terrorism’ fizzles due to a lack of any credibility.

Notorious neocon commentator, Max Boot, writing in the LA Times a few days ago opened his piece commenting on the conflict in Georgia by writing: “It took the Red Army -- excuse me, the Russian army -- only two days to secure Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” He then went on to regurgitate the same old Cold War writing style that we were familiar with during 60s, 70s and 80s prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Boot writes: “By crossing Georgia's borders, the Russians have committed their worst violation of international law since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979,” and he adds, “At a time like this, it is vital for the leaders of the West to stand together and make clear that this aggression will not stand.” Boot even resurrects the old anti-communist fear-mongering rhetoric that the West used to justify its ‘stand’ against communism in South East Asia. He says: “Likewise, the Russian attacks on Georgia, if left unchecked, could easily trigger more conflict in the future. The Kremlin has embarked on a campaign to destabilize not just pro-Western Georgia but other former Soviet satrapies that refuse to toe its line. Many of these states have their own Russian minorities whose alleged maltreatment provides the perfect excuse for Russian meddling. Today, Georgia; tomorrow, Ukraine; the day after, Estonia?”

Arch neocon William Kristol writing in The New York Times just couldn’t help himself as he jumped on the rickety bandwagon of Cold War invocation. “Will Russia get away with it?” is the title of his 10 August piece. Then in the opening lines he invokes the memory of brave little Georgia’s brave stand against ‘Soviet rule’. “In August 1924, the small nation of Georgia, occupied by Soviet Russia since 1921, rose up against Soviet rule.”

Kristol takes a slightly different tack than Boot. Kristol prefers to lump Putin in with China’s Hu Jintaos to make the communist connection, and then, just to tie things up with Kristol’s other object of paranoiac fear, Iran, gives President Ahmadinejad a mention as well. Just to reinforce that particular aspect of the connection Kristol adds: “Incidentally, has Russia really been helping much on Iran? It has gone along with — while delaying — three United Nations Security Council resolutions that have imposed mild sanctions on Iran. But it has also supplied material for Iran’s nuclear program, and is now selling Iran antiaircraft systems to protect military and nuclear installations.” As the ‘War on Terrorism’ slips aimlessly in to historical oblivion Kristol tries to give it the kiss of life attempting to connect Russia, now, if we are to go along with the neocons, the new enemy of the West, with the Islamic enemies the neocons created for us in 2001

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, that other notorious warmongering neocon writer Charles Krauthammer writes echoing the Boot and Kristol line. Again, the old Soviet and Cold War analogies are invoked. Krauthammer tells his readers that the Russian “…objective is the Finlandization of Georgia through the removal of President Mikheil Saakashvili and his replacement by a Russian puppet.” Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of this observation, considering America’s own history of promoting puppet governments all around the world, there is also the not insignificant fact that many observers contend that Saakashvili is actually a puppet of the West himself.

Krauthammer also invokes the analogy of the ‘Domino Affect’ of nations systematically being forced to come under Russian influence if Russia has its way in Georgia. He says: “Subduing Georgia has an additional effect. It warns Russia's former Baltic and East European satellites what happens if you get too close to the West. It is the first step to re-establishing Russian hegemony in the region.” Again, however, the hypocrisy is transparent; was not the invasion of Iraq and the replacement of Saddam with a West-friendly leader under pseudo-democratic rule supposed to have had exactly the same effect in the region?

Soon the neocons will be claiming victory in the ‘War on Terrorism’ as they scurry to clamour for the next war: the ‘War to Defend Democracy”?

Thursday, August 14, 2008


President Bush, after reeling from the events of the last few days in Georgia, has finally rallied himself into some kind of response. All too predictably, however, it is one that simply adds more fuel to what could become a rapidly accelerating fire.

Bush has reacted with two responses that could lead to direct confrontation between American and Russian regular troops. First, he has demanded that all Russian troops leave Georgia and, second, he has sent American troops to Georgia to ‘aid the humanitarian effort’. Bush didn’t make clear if ‘all Russian troops leave Georgia’ included South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the regions the Russians and the Georgians are in dispute over and which was the initial cause of the present conflict, or if Bush would be satisfied if they simply withdrew to their bases of which some are in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and which part of the peace deal brokered by French President Sarkozy allowed for, also is unclear.

Either way, the end result is that armed American troops will be in Georgia – and so will Russian troops.

The Bush response has been slow in coming which clearly indicates that they did not see this crisis developing in the way it did. However, it is highly unlikely that the Georgia government would have taken it upon themselves to aggressively attempt to assert their authority in the disputed regions without he support or go-ahead from the US who have many military advisors in the Georgian military and who would have been in constant communication with the Defence Department at the Pentagon as the Georgians developed their plans to reach into South Ossetia. The US, as I have previously said, has completely misjudged the Russian reaction to Georgia’s moves.

In an effort to recover the political ground Bush lost as the world realised that Bush hadn’t got a backup plan in the event of Georgia’s misadventures going pear-shaped, Bush has gone overboard in ensuring that he is being seen to be the strongman in this crisis. Bush has promised not just humanitarian aid to cater for the immediate crisis but also massive ongoing aid to ensure that Georgia is fully supported by the US in the future. In short, there is likely to be a massive US military presence in Georgia for some time to come.

How Russia will view this development right on their doorstep is another matter.


It seems that in the rush to get a peace deal going, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy, has left a loop hole open in the agreement whereby Russian troops can enter Georgia as part of any additional security measures Russia sees fit. This puts the ball firmly back in President Bush’s court who has insisted that Russia live up to their part of the agreement – the Russians will no doubt insist upon it.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008


Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has released his latest delusional fantasy plan for peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Abbas has rejected it.

The talks between Olmert and Abbas have been a complete and utter waste of time that has catered only to Olmert’s ego and to Abbas’s quest for power. The most ridiculous aspect of Olmert’s latest offer was that it was contingent on Abbas taking control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas. How Abbas was expected to achieve this was not explained unless embedded within any such an agreement was a clause that, if Abbas accepted the offer, the Israelis would wrest control from Hamas by invading the Gaza and then handing power over to Abbas.

The offer was rejected by Abbas because he knew that there would be no way that Palestinians generally would accept the other terms offered particularly with regard to Jerusalem as capital not being part of the deal; the ridiculous land swap offer whereby Israel gets to keep prime land in the West Bank in exchange for a bit of Israeli desert adjoining the Gaza, and the Israeli rejection of the return of refugees to their original homelands saying that they should go to the new Palestine instead.

One can only conclude that Olmert is simply out to try and big note himself before leaving office so that he can say that he ‘at least tried’. But everyone knows that it has all been for show. It has all been part of what Olmert has always been – a shallow and transparent fraudster! There never was any chance that the arrangements that Olmert and Abbas, together with Condoleezza Rice, had discussed were ever going to come into fruition. The offer was never going to be acceptable to the rightwing Zionists of Israel who are never likely to concede anything to the Palestinians, especially a free and independent state; and Hamas, still well supported by the Palestinian people in both the West Bank and the Gaza, would never accept any Israeli settlements on any part of Palestine and certainly will not accept anything less than a full return of refugees to their original homelands.

It may seem, then, that everything is as it has always been ever since 1948 – hopelessly deadlocked.

But all is not lost. The notion of a binational single state has once again been put forward by the Palestinian chief negotiator, Ahmed Qurie, who has been reported as saying: "If Israel continues to oppose making this a reality, then the Palestinian demand for the Palestinian people and its leadership (would be) one state, a binational state.”

Of course, the idea of a binational single state is completely abhorrent to rightwing Israelis because the reality is that, in the event of a binational single state coming into existence, the Palestinian people would soon come to dominate the new state just by virtue of the demographics – the very same demographics that exist today that are driving the rightwing Zionists to insist that Palestinians never have their own state.

While the notion of a binational single state may still be some way from becoming a reality, there are a growing number of Palestinians and Israelis who see such a state as the only alternative to the delusional fantasies of the likes of Olmert on the one hand and the rightwing Israeli Zionists who want all of the lands of Palestine and more for themselves, on the other.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008


For many the war in Georgia may have seemed as though it came from nowhere; as if it just suddenly erupted without any warning. And, if one were to believe what the pro-western mainstream media are telling us, one could be forgiven for believing that it did. The US and their western allies have taken full advantage of this anomaly and turned it to their advantage for propaganda purposes. They have been busy telling the world that the Georgians have been overwhelmed by the Russian ‘bully boys’ to their north when in reality the Russians were and are merely reacting to the murderous bully boy tactics of the Georgian army and their supporting band of US and Israeli mercenary thugs that ruthlessly attacked the civilian population of south Ossetia in an effort to force them to give up their demands for autonomy.

In fact the tensions in and around Georgia, once part of the Soviet Union, have been simmering for years.

The Georgian state is made up of many ethnic groupings many of whom feel more comfortable being part of Russia than having to be subservient to Georgia. Over the years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the birth of present day Georgia in 1991, two regions of Georgia in particular, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, have evolved, against the wishes of the central Georgian government, into semi-autonomous regions whose status has been protected and supported by Russia. This has caused massive resentment from the Georgians who insist that these regions come entirely under Georgian control.

Every now and then the undercurrent of animosities between the Georgians and the Russians over these two regions well up to the surface and become a source of potential conflict. In the past Russia, simply by twitching a military muscle, which, if push really came to shove, could flatten Georgia in a flash, usually has seen an end to any further serious posturing by the Georgians.

As well as the existence of these animosities, the old Cold War animosities that existed between the US and her western allies and the Russians still linger on long after what most people believed was an end to the Cold War in 1991. As the War on Terrorism replaced the Cold War as a vehicle for US imperialism in its projection of hegemony into a resources-rich region of our world, so some of those resentments have re-emerged as the new political battles for increasingly diminishing resources intensify. The old East-West polarisations of the post-Second World War are actually beginning to replicate themselves almost as it was in the Cold War days. The all-important difference this time, however, is the new places where the East meets the West – and Georgia is one of those places.

Georgia has recently been making strong moves to become part of NATO and has ambitions to become part of the EU. Russia is very keen, and, given that the US would like to put their anti-missile shield system into NATO countries to protect them from the so-called threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, understandably so, to limit the number of NATO nations it has on its doorstep. As a result of Georgian aspirations about becoming part of NATO, the Georgians have become close allies of the US and the West and also of Israel who have ties to the small but influential Jewish community in Georgia with some of those members having close links to Israel being in the Georgian government including Georgia’s Integration Minister Temur Yakobashvili.

It was because of their strong relationship with the US that the Georgians considered it safe to have another go at asserting its will over the breakaway regions in the belief that the Russians wouldn’t dare to counter any Georgian moves against South Ossetia with Russian military action and, if they did, the US and the West would immediately come to their aid in the event of a Russian backlash against Georgian moves into South Ossetia. Certainly, Georgia would not have made any such move into South Ossetia without the backing of the US. It now seems, though, that both the US and Georgia have badly misjudged the Russian reaction and the US are unable to move. If they do, it will be the first time that the US and Russia have ever directly confronted each other in face to face open warfare – and we all know where that would eventually lead. As it is, American ‘advisors’ (mercenaries), have in all likelihood been in combat with Russian troops in this conflict as have Israeli ‘instructors’ (mercenaries).

The US and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis have painted themselves into a corner. Neither can afford to upset the Russians too much because they need Russian support over their stance on Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program. Open hostility toward Russia, a veto-wielding power in the UN Security Council, would mean the end of UN support for any moves toward a UN endorsement of further sanctions against Iran. While Israel could pre-emptively attack Iran and would get support from the US in doing so, without UN supported sanctions in place there could be no reasonable casus belli for such an attack. (With sanctions in place, Israel could always claim that sanctions aren’t working and attack anyway.)But if the UN were to deny sanctions because of a Russian veto this would be tantamount to the Russians saying it does not believe the Iranians need to have sanctions against them because they do not have a weapons program and, since nobody would know better than the Russians about what programs the Iranians do have in place, they are, after all, the main suppliers of the Iranian nuclear equipment, then bang goes any casus belli the Israelis might feel they can use.

The geo-political reality, as we can see, is a far cry from the propaganda and rhetoric the US and their western allies are trying to put out in the mainstream media. And in this day and age of blogs and the internet which is often nowadays keeping one step ahead of the mainstream media, the propaganda and rhetoric is becoming increasingly more transparent in its blatancy.

Monday, August 11, 2008


In a blatant demonstration of US arrogance and hypocrisy the US Ambassador to the UN, neocon and PNAC signatory Zalmay Khalilzad, yesterday actually accused the Russians of seeking ‘regime change’ in Georgia. He went on to tell the UN Security Council that Russia was waging a ‘campaign of terror’ in Georgia.

Khalilzad’s remarks follow earlier comments made on Saturday by an un-named ‘senior US official’ that “…Russia has used ‘disproportionate’ force in the South Ossetia conflict with Georgia”, adding that: “The response has been far disproportionate from whatever threat Russia was citing."

This simply further demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of the Bush administration. The word ‘disproportionate’, one might recall, was not a word that the US used when just about everyone else was as the Israelis launched their murderous and criminal bombing campaign against the people of Lebanon killing over a thousand people and causing many thousands more to flee their homes after they had been destroyed. And, while the changing of a regime of any sovereign nation is one that should be affected only by the citizens of that nation, since when has the Bush administered US government been in a position to moralise about the ‘regime change’ ambitions of other powers considering how they are still seeking, with Israel, to change the regime of Iran and not to mention the ‘campaign of terror’ that the US and their allies inflicted on Iraq as they went about ‘regime change’ in that devastated country?

The values that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’ are not our so-called ‘freedoms’ and ‘democracy’ but our arrogance and hypocrisy.

The very same people that have brought death and destruction to Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere this century are the same the same people that are bringing death and destruction to the innocent civilians who have been caught up in the conflict in Georgia.

The peoples of the world demand regime change in the US. We trust the American people to see to it!

Friday, August 08, 2008


US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice yesterday said that the US would not say ‘no’ to an Israeli plan to attack Iran adding that Israel is a sovereign state inferring that the US would not interfere with Israeli plans.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the aircraft carriers, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Ronald Reagan are now steaming to the Gulf where they will join the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and the aircraft maintenance group headed by the USS Peleliu.

Closer to Israel, Hezbollah in Lebanon continue to be criticised for building its air defences using a sophisticated anti-aircraft missile system. In an act of almost unprecedented chutzpah, the Israelis are actually complaining that the new defence system will now stop them from making illegal flights over Lebanon. Israel is even touting the installation of the new anti-craft system as a direct provocation that Israel may have no choice but to respond to.

As the window of opportunity inches ever closer to closing on an Israeli and US opportunity to attack its enemies, the people of the world must surely now realise that Israeli and US intent toward Iran is rapidly becoming more apparent and that the people of the world should be out on the streets now to protest the prospect of a war that has the potential to devastate our world.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008


It is becoming increasingly obvious that Israel is attempting to manipulate affairs via the use of propaganda whereby it will not only find casus belli to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, but also its other enemies including Hamas in the Gaza, possibly Syria, and, of course, Iran.

Various news stories in the Israeli press over the past few months seem to indicate that there is an attempt to ‘converge’ perceived threats against Israel to the extent that Israel may tell the world that its only course of action is to make pre-emptive strikes against all 'threats' even if only one of them provides a casus belli to attack.

Over the last week Israel’s propaganda campaign seems to be directed toward Hezbollah in Lebanon who, the Israelis claim, are being ‘provocative’ because they have installed an anti-aircraft missile system which the Israelis say is a threat to Israeli air force incursions into Lebanese sovereign airspace.

However, this also comes at the same time as recent statements by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak who has said: “Those who miss the operations in the Gaza Strip, don't worry, they will come,” alluding to the fact that the present ceasefire is unlikely to last.

And, on top of that, of course, is Israel’s ongoing and relentless propaganda campaign against Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons’ ambitions.

As time goes on, the stage management of this propaganda campaign against all of its perceived enemies has become transparent. Desperation seems to be creeping in as the window of opportunity for US participation in a strike against Iran closes. The stand-off in the Gaza between Hamas and Israel and Fatah in the West Bank can’t last forever and Olmert would be getting desperate to go out on a high note of what he hopes will be a victory that will overshadow the allegations against him of criminal fraud.

The window is rapidly closing. The world needs to wake up to what is about to happen. All the signs are there; it is only a matter of time. Israel is manipulating its enemies; all they are looking for now is an excuse.

Friday, August 01, 2008


A report in Ha’aretz today highlighted the now famous Israeli Chutzpah method of dealing with its enemies.

Just the headline alone demonstrates the extent of this particular piece of Chutzpah; “Hezbollah threatens ‘practical measures’ against Israeli overflights”. The report goes on to say that such threats are “…in line with Israeli intelligence assessments that predicted that following the completion of the Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap, Hezbollah would seek excuses to resume its struggle against Israel in order to justify its refusal to disarm. Hezbollah has cultivated an image as Lebanon's ‘protector’ against what it describes as Israeli aggression.”

The report makes it seem almost as though, somehow, Israel has special rights to violate Lebanese sovereign airspace with Israeli military jet strike aircraft. The fact that these military ‘overflights’ are taking place at all doesn’t get questioned; it’s just taken for granted that that is what the Israelis are entitled to do given President Bush’s, together with other Western leaders, statements that Israel is entitled to take what ever measures it deems necessary to ‘defend’ itself. One wonders how indignant the Syrians would be if they were to send their military jets on ‘overfly’ missions over Israel and then the Israelis threatened ‘practical measures’ against them. For the Israelis such an action by the Syrians would be seen as an act of war.

But what makes this particular piece of Chutzpah double-edged and even more interesting is the way that Israel accuses Hezbollah of refusing to disarm and that Hezbollah is ‘cultivating an image as Lebanon’s protector against what it describes as Israeli aggression’.

Never mind that two years ago Israel deliberately and murderously bombed Lebanon, a campaign that killed well over a thousand innocent civilians, and then invaded the country. It was only Hezbollah’s tenacity in fighting back and Israel’s inability to halt Hezbollah rocket launches onto Israel that pushed Israel to abandon its attempt at conquering south Lebanon and provoking Iran into war, and sue for peace via the UN. Hezbollah are, indeed, the protectors of Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Whatever made the Israelis, in the light of their defeat two years ago, think otherwise?

If Israel has the right to defend itself against aggression then so does the people of Lebanon. Overflying a sovereign nation with military jets is an act of aggression that the people of Lebanon have the right to defend themselves against. Most peoples of the world can see right through this Chutzpah.