PATRIOT AIR DEFENCE MISSILES OFF TO THE MIDDLE EAST? WHAT FOR? UNLESS…

A quiet little story in the El Paso Times lets the cat out of the bag with regards to America’s future plans for the Middle East; apparently the 3-43 Air Defence Artillery out of Fort Bliss are soon to be on their way to the Middle East (actual destination unknown).[1]

One needs to ask why the US needs Patriot anti-missile missiles when the only other folk out there that have missiles are Israel and Iran. Now, we know Israel won’t be sending missiles against either themselves or the Americans so that leaves Iran. But why would Iran want to launch missiles against the Americans or their allies the Israelis?

Iran has said time and time again that it will retaliate if it is attacked and that its response would be immediate. Since Iran do have missiles capable of making the distance to both American strongholds in Iraq and to targets in Israel one wouldn’t be drawing a very long bow if one were to conclude that the Patriot missiles are being brought in to protect against an assault by Iranian missiles that were launched in retaliation against an attack on Iran, presumably against its nuclear facilities, by America and/or Israel.

Since we know that Israel really does have nuclear weapons, one can assume that, in circumstances where, say, Irans retaliatory attack killed large numbers of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv or Haifa, that Israel may feel that it has no alternative but to use its nuclear ability on one of Irans smaller cities in order to break Irans continued resolve to fight Israel.

Does one really want to think about the consequences resulting from such escalation? It would be catastrophic for both the Middle East and the world.

It is time for the people of America and Israel to make a stand against the lunacy of their leaders. It is time for the world to make a stand against the lunacy of these leaders and their own leaders if they support this stupidity.


ENDNOTE
[1] Chris Roberts, ‘Bush’s troop surge includes 600 from Fort Bliss’, El Paso Times, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_4997755 Accessed 15 January 2007.

A QUICK COMMENT ON SOME OF TODAY’S HEADLINES.

FIGHTING BACK.

The headline in today’s UK Telegraph reads: “Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force”.[1]

Blair’s quite right – that’s why the Palestinians are fighting the Israeli terrorists that occupy the West Bank and the Gaza and why the Iraqis are fighting the US terrorists and their allies that occupy Iraq.


SOME VERY UNSUBTLE PROPAGANDA FROM THE AUSSIE MURDOCH PRESS.

The Murdoch press just can’t help themselves. While it now seems that the rocket fired at the US Embassy was launched by a Greek left-wing group, The Australian, owned by the neoconservative Murdoch, just had to mention ‘Iran’ in the very first paragraph of their story despite the fact that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The headline read: “Rocket hits US Embassy”. The first paragraph of the story reads: “The US embassy in Athens was yesterday pierced by an anti-tank shell in what Greek police called an "act of terrorism", a day after America escalated its war in Iraq and warned Iran it would not "stand idly by" if Tehran continued to arm Iraq's insurgents.”[2]

Que?

ENDNOTES
[1] George Jones, ‘Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force’, UK Telegraph, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OKYIKNHLST2H3QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nblair112.xml Accessed 13 January 2007.
[2] ‘Rockets hit US Embassy’, The Australian, 14 January 2007. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21051496-601,00.html Accessed 14 January 2007.

A COUPLE OF QUICK THOUGHTS FOR TODAY

ARROGANT AND HYPOCRITICAL HEADLINES

Here’s a classic example of Western arrogance and hypocrisy (two of the values that ‘they’ really do hate about ‘us’). This is the headline in an article in today’s Jerusalem Post. It reads: ‘Bush, in speech, warns Iran, Syria over aiding Iraq insurgents’.

Now, what if it read: ‘Ahmadinejad, in speech, warns US over aiding Israeli terrorists in Gaza, West Bank’.

Bush and his lunatic cohorts would be frothing at the mouth yet, for some reason, we’re expected to go along and accept the first headline.



US EMBASSY ATTACKED IN ATHENS.

What’s the likelihood of the Americans discovering that the rocket that was fired into the US Embassy compound was made in Iran and fired by ‘terrorists’ trained in or financed by Iran?

WILL THE WORLD GET SUCKED IN TO ANOTHER NEOCONSERVATIVE LIE THAT WILL END IN THOUSANDS MORE DEAD FOR THE ISRAELI CAUSE?

There has been a massive amount of energy expended by neoconservatives within the US, the world-wide Israeli Lobby, Israel itself and among neocon commentators embedded within the world’s mainstream media to try and con the world into believing that Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb that it will use against Israel.

However, despite the expenditure of all this energy, there is still absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gets anywhere near substantiating the neocons claims. Even the IAEA can’t come up with any evidence.

Back in mid 2003 inspectors found a tiny trace of highly enriched bomb grade uranium in Iran.[1] The neocons jumped up and down saying they’d found the ‘smoking gun’ of Irans intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons.[2] It turns out that the tiny trace that was found was actually just a speck of contamination that came into the country on a piece of nuclear equipment that had been imported from Pakistan.[3] This didn’t make any difference to the neocons who continued to demonise the Iranians peaceful nuclear ambitions which is to enrich uranium to sufficient levels where it can be used for the production of electrical power. In November of 2003 the neocons continued their propaganda feast. The neocon senior editor of the neoconservative’s mainstay journal, Commentary, Gabriel Schoenfeld, wrote: “In late August and again in late September, IAEA inspections turned up traces of uranium on equipment in supposedly non-nuclear facilities, leading the agency to conclude that an illicit enrichment program was under way. Commented ElBaradei: "This worries us greatly."”[4] The neocons and the right-wing Israeli Zionists have been feeding on this ever since – despite there being nothing to actually chew on.

Schoenfeld’s piece, entitled ‘The Terror Ahead’, is also interesting for some of its other remarks; remarks that emphasise the neocons penchant for arrogance and hypocrisy. At one point Schoenfeld writes: “Among the countries trading with North Korea is Iran, a country likewise governed by violent fanatics, of the Islamic rather than the Marxist-Leninist stripe.”[5] Schoenfeld ignores entirely that other nation in the Middle East governed by violent fanatics of the right-wing Zionist stripe rather than the Islamic or Marxist-Leninist stripe; Israel, is a nation that indeed does have nuclear weapons and now, apparently, seems ready to use them.

So what is it about Iran that the Israelis hate so much that they are prepared to risk a Middle East nuclear holocaust in order to ensure regime change there? Israel knows as well as the rest of the world that, despite the outrageous lies and propaganda designed purely and solely for the consumption of the dumb and gullible in the West, that Iran has no nuclear weapons; so why Iran? Why not Pakistan? Now there’s an Islamic nation that does have nuclear weapons yet Israel seems undisturbed by this.

At the moment Pakistan is not a threat to Israel – at least not while Musharraf is still in charge. But the reason Iran is perceived by Israel as a threat is, not because of any non-existent nuclear ambitions, but because of Iran’s support of those that resist Israel’s long-term Greater Israel ambitions in the Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and its continued occupation of the Golan Heights; that is to say Irans support of Hamas and Hizbollah. Naturally, Israel can’t just come right out and say ‘Iran under its present leadership is thwarting our expansionist ambitions so therefore we want regime change’, so instead it has come up with the same sort of lies and propaganda that they used to get the US, UK, Australia and a few other sucked in nations to get rid of that other monkey on the back of Israel’s regional ambitions, Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein who was supporting the Palestinians in their resistance to Israeli aggression. It worked then but one wonders what makes the Israelis think that the world is going to get sucked in again!



ENDNOTES
[1] Felicity Barringer, ‘Traces of Enriched Uranium Are Reportedly Found in Iran’, The New York Times, 27 August 2003. Available online (subscription required): http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B12FB3B5D0C748EDDA10894DB404482 Accessed 9 January 2007.
[2] Jon Levin, ‘Convenient Concession’, National Review Online, 4 November 2003. Available online: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levin200311040821.asp Accessed January 2007.
[3] Dafna Linza, ‘No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program’, Washington Post, 23 August 2005. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html Accessed 9 January 2007.
[4] Gabriel Schoenfeld, ‘The Terror Ahead’, Commentary, November 2003, Vol. 116, No. 4, p. 21.
[5] Schoenfeld, The Terror Ahead’. p. 21.

THE PENDING CONVERGENCE OF A NEOCONSERVATIVE INSPIRED CATASTROPHE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

The Middle East, the US and possibly the world are heading for disaster in 2007 if the Neocon-dominated Bush administration and Israeli government have their way.

Bush, against the good sense of just about everyone,[1] is likely to accept the advice handed to him by the warmongering neocon lunatics at the American Enterprise Institute who have suggested that what has become known as a ‘surge’ force be sent to Iraq to try and quash the insurgent and sectarian violence once and for all.[2]

Aligned with the prospect of the potential for disaster which such a surge is likely to result in is Israel’s increasingly noisy chatter about taking on Irans so-called nuclear ambitions[3] and the even bigger prospect of disaster here as the consequences of such an attack by Israel against Iran become realised.

If Bush goes ahead with the planned surge with some 20,000 or more US troops, together with a matching number of Iraqi troops, being poured into Baghdad and then to al-Anbar province the result will be massive bloodbath that could make what happened in Fallujah look like a tea party. The result could well be all out civil war in which tens of thousands could die including huge civilian and militia losses as well as many American soldiers. There could even be the possibility of a temporary alliance between Shia and Sunni militia to fight what they see as being a US and Iraqi puppet army 'surge' happening against them. Either way, thousands are likely to lose their lives.

In the other disaster scenario where Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities – especially if this is done using tactical nuclear weapons – the consequences will also be catastrophic. The entire region could be engulfed in an unimaginable conflict which could well unite the Arab world against the West.

The two happening at the same time could spark a disaster for the world that would be too ghastly to even contemplate.

And all because the neoconservatives that influence the Bush administration on behalf of the right-wing Zionist Israeli government fantasise about a Greater Israel dominating the Middle East.

It’s time the peoples of the world – including the peoples of Israel – stood up and demand an end to this utter lunacy.


ENDNOTES
[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Bush’s Surge Strategy Faces Heavy Opposition’, electronic.Iraq.net, 6 January 2007. Available online: http://electroniciraq.net/news/2799.shtml Accessed 8 January 2007.
[2] Frederick W. Kagan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’, AEI Publication, 14 December 2006. Available online: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp Accessed 18 December 2006.
[3] Reuters, ‘Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper’, via news.yahoo.com, 6 January 2007. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070106/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_israel_dc Accessed 8 January 2007.

AUSTRALIAN ISRAELI LOONY LOBBY CRANK UP THE WARMONGERING AGAINST IRAN.

There seems to be an awful amount of garbage being spouted over at popular Australian current affairs blog, Webdiary, by members of the warmongering self-appointed Australian Branch of the Israeli Loony Lobby that tend to use the blog to spew their warmongering Israeli Lobby myths, in this case about Iran’s non-existent nuclear arms program. The perpetual liar, Australia-American neocon Will Howard, says: “…there is evidence that the belligerent rhetoric from Iran more [sic] be more than just words (see the various IAEA reports over the past two years). It's not conclusive evidence, thus the dilemma for Israel and the West in general.”[1]

The belligerent rhetoric Will Howard is referring to is Ahmadinejad’s comments about ‘wiping’ the right-wing Zionist government ‘off the map’. Will Howard refers to ‘evidence’, meaning Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, but then says it’s ‘not conclusive evidence’. This is an oxy-moron! One either has evidence or one doesn’t. Non-conclusive evidence is no evidence at all. The IAEA has no evidence whatsoever – and has said so – that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.[2]

Then there is this foaming-at-the-mouth rant from the racist Islamaphobe Geoff Pahoff:

“Do you seriously think this is about hurtful language and naughty words? Do you sincerely believe there is nothing more to this than belligerent rhetoric? Let me be as clear as I can about this. Read my lips. Please try to understand what I am about to say, for everybody's sake. It is important. Very important. Too important to run the risk of confused or mixed messages. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. Never. This is something that will not happen. Surely you must understand this fact, even if the Iranians are too deluded or stupid to understand it. No Iranian nukes. Never. What they think is ultimately irrelevant. Get it? Would you like me to repeat that?”[3]

First off, Iran will never have nukes – not because Pahoff and his right-wing Zionofascist mates say so but because the Iranians themselves aren’t pursuing them and have said so time and time again. Pahoff’s remarks however also expose some other characteristics of Pahoff and Will Howard’s particular brand of right-wing Zionofascism; hypocrisy and arrogance. It’s OK apparently for Israel to have nuclear weapons as long as no one else in the region has.

These two free-lancing warmongering lunatics, together with a few others at Webdiary, have seized on the remarks of one man who, incidentally, they neglect to mention does not have the final say in what goes on in Iran, especially in matters that relate to taking the country to war and nuking other nations, and have used those remarks, as have the Israeli government and the Likudnik-supporting American neoconservatives, to ferment hatred in the Western world against the Iranians in order to get the US to attack Iran or, alternatively, to get the US to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The Israeli Loony Lobby tried this same stunt with Iraq and managed to get the US to attack Iraq; now they’re trying it on again using Ahmadinejad’s misconstrued and re-contextualised remarks as an excuse to attack Iran. The reality is that Ahmadinejad’s remarks are not the reason for Israel’s hatred because the right-wing Zionist Israelis and their neocon comrades in the US have been banging on about Iran ever since the fascist Shah was kicked out by the Mullahs and long before Ahmadinejad appeared on the scene. The real reason for their hatred of Iran is their hatred and fear of Islam and Islamic dominated governments and, more precisely, their fear of an Islamic Iran’s interference of Israel’s regional aspirations which include the colonisation of the Gaza, the West Bank and even, hopefully, southern Lebanon up to the Litani River – in other words, the Zionist dream of the creation of a Greater Israel.




ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Sticks and Stones’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58653
[2] ‘Iran: IAEA Report Shows No Nuclear Activity in Iran’, Associated Press report via Foxnews.com, 28 February 2006. Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186249,00.html While this is a February 2006 news item, the story hasn’t changed despite the rhetoric.
[3] Geoff Pahoff, ‘No Fascist Nukes. Never. Nothing to Discuss’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58659

AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC OPINION EXPOSES THE HYPOCRISY OF THE HOWARD GOVERNMENTS ATTITUDE TOWARDS HICKS.

Now that the tide of Australian public opinion is beginning to flow David Hicks’s way as the call for his release, or at least an early hearing, gets louder and louder, so the Howard government has begun to show its true hypocritical colours by jumping on the bandwagon of that public opinion and, while not exactly calling for his immediate release, are calling on the US to expedite his case as quickly as possible.

Suddenly we are beginning to hear rhetoric like: “My personal view is that justice should be swift for anybody so their guilt or innocence can be determined as quickly as possible”,[1] from the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty. Why didn’t Keelty come out with this four years ago?

And this outright lie from Australian Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock, who has procrastinated for years about Hicks's incarceration, who recently told Astralians: “It's important to understand that the Government's position has always been, in relation to these matters, to have Hicks's situation resolved as quickly as possible”.[2]

Ruddock’s sudden change of heart came shortly after the new Australian director of military prosecutions, Brigadier Lynette McDade, had expressed her serious concerns about the length of time Hicks had spent in prison without any charge being brought against him. She told the Australia’s ABC that she is ‘appalled at the legal treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks’.[3]

The Australian government is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy demonstrating how once again, when it comes to public opinion flowing against the government it suddenly sees the light and begins, albeit very begrudgingly, to bend to the public will.

Yet, after all these years of doing nothing, if David Hicks is indeed released in the near future then one can rest assured that it will be Howard and his government taking ‘credit’ for his release.



ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Keelty calls for swift Hicks trial’, Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January 2007.Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/keelty-calls-for-swift-hicks-trial/2007/01/04/1167777190032.html#
[2] ‘Govt frustrated over length of Hicks detainment’, ABC Online, 2 January 2007. Available online: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1820528.htm
[3] ‘McDade condemns Hicks’s legal treatment’, ABC Online, 2 January 2007. Available online: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1820263.htm

THE AUSTRALIAN NEOCON DYLAN KISSANE IS CAUGHT OUT LYING – AGAIN.

Dylan Kissane, an Australian neocon living in France recently wrote: “International solutions to national problems are not, for me, an effective way to deal with such crimes.”[1] (Kissane was referring to the crimes that Saddam Hussein had recently been executed.)

I challenged this piece of gross hypocrisy by pointing out to him that, contrary to this assertion, he had indeed supported the invasion of Iraq as part of an international solution to the national problem of Saddam's crimes.

His response was typical of neocons caught out spouting hypocrisy – lie your way out of it. He said: “He [Saddam] was (and Iraq under his leadership was) an international threat. As such, it is not hypocritical to support an international solution to an international problem.”

I pointed out that this was a lie, stating what is by now the obvious string of lies that had been used by the neocons as an excuse to attack Iraq including there having been no WMDs and Saddam having had nothing to do with al Qaeda or the events of 911.

Kissane’s response, compounding his already gross hypocrisy, was this:

“There are lots of things that Saddam had nothing to do with and I believe - as you do - that 9/11 and al Qaeda are some of them. He was, however, involved in supporting the families of homicidal terrorists in Palestine and had used WMD in the past. He also had a history of aggression with attacks on Iran, Kuwait and Israel all occurring while he was in charge.”

Kissane ignores entirely the fact that the only ‘homicidal terrorists’ in Palestine are the ones dressed in Israeli uniforms murdering innocent Palestinians – these are the Israeli soldiers of the same army that really does have secret WMDs including nuclear weapons. Indeed, Saddam Hussein, whose crimes I must state, I do not condone, far from supporting the families of the ‘homicidal terrorists’, was supporting the families of those Palestinians who were fighting back against those ‘homicidal terrorists’.

Compounding his hypocrisy even more, Kissane also neglects to mention the many, many aggressive wars waged by the US and Israel over the years, particularly those against Iraq itself and Afghanistan by the Americans, and Lebanon and the Gaza by Israel.

More hypocrisy and more lies from Kissane; all typical hallmarks of neocons and right-wing Israeli Zionists around the world.




ENDNOTE
[1] Dylan Kissane, comment at DylanKissane.com, 3 January 2007. Available online: http://www.dylankissane.com/

BY ALLOWING SADDAM TO BE EXECUTED, BUSH AND HIS CRIMINAL CRONIES MAY HAVE SET UP A PRECEDENT THAT COULD ACTUALLY SEE THEM ‘SWING’ TOO!

Had the Bush administration handed over Saddam Hussein to the International Criminal Court to be dealt with, or whatever other International court would have had such appropriate jurisdiction in such matters, Saddam would have spent the rest of his life in prison for not only crimes against humanity but also for a whole range of other crimes including various war crimes that he undoubtedly would have been found guilty of.

However, in allowing this to have happened Bush would have opened if not himself then most certainly other officials of both this and previous administrations to having been complicit to some extent or another in many of Saddams other crimes. Indeed, the crime that Saddam was actually tried and executed for was deliberately and carefully chosen because it was one of the very, very few of Saddams crimes that the US was not actually complicit or implicated in thus ensuring that their other secrets are now safe.

With Saddams death comes a collective sigh of relief from those around Bush that may have been implicated by a full international trial of Saddam where all of his skeletons would have fallen out of the closet exposing the whole rotten mess that is US complicity in Middle East ratbaggery. But that collective sigh of relief could still turn into a gasp of horror as Bush and his cronies realise that, by setting the precedent of allowing Saddam to be executed in a country that does have the death penalty for such crimes, that they too could well find themselves facing the people of their own nation to answer similar crimes.

There would be a certain irony in the fact that the very laws the present US criminals created to ‘protect’ American citizens from the International Criminal Court, which doesn’t have a death penalty, meant that they had to face those charges in the US which does have a death penalty.

ISRAELI LOONY LOBBYISTS AT WEBDIARY EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.

Over at Webdiary, Will Howard wants to know who Bob Wall is accusing of being ‘dishonest and abusive’ and who Bob Wall is saying is a “…self-confessed apologist for Israel”.[1] The choice is between Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff; one is one and one is the other. But which one is which?

Now this is a really tough one! Both are apologists for Israel’s disgraceful behaviour and both are dishonest and abusive. But let’s try and whittle it down.

The disgusting and outrageously callous Pahoff is famed for his comments regarding the death of an elderly Islamic spiritual leader who was murdered by the Israeli government:

“I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss, ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.”[2]

Pahoff makes it perfectly clear where he stands with regard to Israel’s criminal actions.

There are numerous posts here at this blog (just do a search for ‘Will Howard’ on this blog) which document his lies and deceit. There is, for example, his classic piece of hoodwinking at Webdiary where he asserted that the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies, an Israeli think-tank staffed with ex-IDF senior officers and ex-Israeli intelligence officers was ‘non-partisan’ in its deliberations about Iran and its so-called nuclear ambitions. There are, of course, many other proven instances of his lies.

Will Howard is the most apalling liar and deciever so the upshot is, as I said; both are ‘dishonest and abusive’ and both are ‘Israeli apologists’.

Take your pick!





ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Come out with it’, comment at Webdiary, 29 December 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1778#comment-58367 Accessed 29 December 2006.
[2] Geoff Pahoff, Comment at Harry Heidelberg’s blog, 13 July 2006. Available online: http://kramgasse.typepad.com/harry_heidelberg/2006/07/america_hegemon.html#comment-19691619 Accessed 19 July 2006.

AUSTRALIAN NEO-CON/NEO-FASCIST COMMENTATOR WANTS AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL BROADCASTER TO BE MORE PRO-FASCIST.

Paul Gray, the Australian neoconservative and neo-fascist who supports illegally invading nations based on lies and who continues to support the notion that the West should violently foist Western-style ‘democracy’ on to peoples with total disregard as to whether they actually want it or not, has now come out and said by inference that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, sometimes known as ‘Aunty’, should be more anti-Islam. The title of his piece in The Australian says it all: ‘Aunty’s anti-Western bias is a dangerous political tool: Ignorant and ideologically biased ABC staff need re-educating’.[1]

The reality is that ABC staff generally are able to demonstrate that they are the least ignorant of most of Australia’s TV current affairs programs commentators and interviewers and are, moreover, able to provide the most analytical coverage of world events, something the commercial stations are unable to do. As for ‘ideological bias’, if by that Gray means that the bias is against war, lies, Western state-terrorism, invasion of sovereign nations that are not a threat to the rest of the world, is biased against nations colonising lands that aren’t theirs or interfering and intervening in the affairs of other nations governments because ‘we’ think our way is somehow better than ‘theirs’, then so the ABC should remain bias. One has only to read Gray’s article to realise that the alternative as Gray would wish it is anti-Islam, pro war and the imposition of so-called Western democracy by force upon the Islamic world. War, war and more war.

How’s this for arrogance: “…the problem reveals itself as coming from the same source: the spiritual and metaphysical rootlessness of the tertiary-educated Australian middle class.
I have always contended that dealing with this problem at its roots will require nothing less than the complete philosophical re-education of those ABC staff members engaged in intellectual tasks.”

‘The complete philosophical re-education?!’ One has to ask; to what? Fascism is the only alternative this arrogant hypocritical warmonger has in mind.





ENDNOTE
[1] Paul Gray, ‘Aunty’s anti-Western bias is a dangerous political tool: Ignorant and ideologically biased ABC staff need re-educating’, The Australian, 28 December 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20979039-7583,00.html Accessed 29 December 2006.

MORE AMERICAN ARROGANCE AND HYPOCRISY.

Just a quick one today about a couple of stories that caught my eye in The New York Times that summed up once again the arrogance and hypocrisy that underscores the US and their allies attitude towards the nations they have invaded and now occupy. The first article is headlined: ‘U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks’[1] in which it says:

“The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces. Evidence also emerged that some detainees had been involved in shipments of weapons to illegal armed groups in Iraq.”

First off, they are only ‘illegal’ as far as the US and their Iraqi puppets are concerned. Never mind, however, that the US and the Coalition of the Killing’s invasion of Iraq was itself illegal and that, therefore, they are in Iraq illegally themselves and that the killing they have undertaken since the invasion is also illegal. And why shouldn’t Middle East nations become allies in order to defeat a common enemy that has invaded one and threatened another – the Americans forget that it is they that are the foreigners in a country that doesn’t want them there.

The second article is headlined ‘Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan’.[2] The hypocrisy here is exposed with this paragraph:

“The rise of Hezbollah, with Iran's support, has demonstrated the extent of Tehran's sway in Lebanon, and the American toppling of Saddam Hussein has allowed it to expand its influence in Iraq. Iran has been making inroads into Afghanistan, as well. During the tumultuous 1980s and '90s, Iran shipped money and arms to groups fighting first the Soviet occupation and later the Taliban government. But since the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban in 2001, Iran has taken advantage of the central government's weakness to pursue a more nuanced strategy: part reconstruction, part education and part propaganda.”

The Americans it seems are arrogant enough to forget that Afghanistan is Iran’s neighbour and the construction work they do in Afghanistan is far more welcome than the destruction the Americans seem only to bring. And, again, why should the people of Lebanon not look to Iran for support in order to defeat their common enemies; the US and right-wing Israeli Zionism. After all, does not the US ship arms and money to Israel?

One day the Americans are going to wake up and realise that they have nothing to offer the people of the Middle East or anywhere else they go if all they bring with them is death and destruction accompanied by their arrogance and hypocrisy.




ENDNOTES
[1] Sabrina Tavernise, ‘U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks’, The New York Times, 27 December 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/middleeast/27iranians.html Accessed 27 December 2006.
[2] David Rhode, ‘Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan’, The New York Times, 27 December 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/asia/27afghan.ready.html?hp&ex=1167282000&en=5e993b9fa9472987&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 27 December 2006.

THE ILLUSION OF U.S. HEGEMONY AND THE MYTH OF ‘AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM’.

In The Australian on 19 December 2006, Owen Harries, a noted Australian neoconservative, asks what the future of the Bush doctrine will be. “Does failure on its first outing spell an early grave for it? Does it mean that it will have been but a passing episode in the history of US foreign policy? As 9/11 recedes into history, and as George W. Bush’s period in office draws to an end, are we witnessing the end of what the Bush doctrine stood for?” [1]

Given the lies that were told that initiated the invasion of Iraq, the horrendous loss of life since (over half a million dead and rising daily), the anarchy that now exists in Iraq and through much of the Middle East, the squalor that the Iraqi people now have to endure, the squandering of billions of dollars of taxpayers money (predominately the American taxpayer), the thousands of dead and injured American soldiers, the continued threat of more war against other Middle East nations such as Iran, Syria and possibly even Saudi Arabia, it would be nice to think that the answer to Owen Harries questions would be a resounding ‘Yes!’

Unfortunately, according to Harries, it is unlikely to be. “Not necessarily”, Harries proclaims, “For the doctrine represents two enduring and fundamental features of the situation - one structural, the other cultural - that will not disappear when the Iraq venture ends: the global hegemony of the US and American exceptionalism.”

Fortunately for the rest of the world Harries is wrong. Time and again American hegemony has proved ultimately to have been an illusion and the concept of ‘American exceptionalism’ is nothing more than arrogant wishful thinking that exists only in the minds of neoconservatives who seem to think that the ‘American Way’ is the answer to all of the worlds woes based on the historical experience that America itself has evolved from. (We’ll come back to that ridiculous furphy in a moment.)

That’s not to say, of course, that American hegemony doesn’t exist; just that it is very much overrated particularly in the context that Harries assumes.

One often reads of the US as being the only ‘superpower’ left (after the demise of the USSR) but in reality other superpowers are still around; ones that the US would not want to tangle with such as Russia and China. If hegemony means influence, then, yes, the US has lots of it. There are many nations around the world that ‘benefit’ from American ‘influence’ – especially economically. But when it comes to military grunt most nations these days realise that the US is not all it’s cracked up to be and Iraq is a classic example.

While the US has had its successes militarily over very small nations (like Grenada, Panama, etc.), it has, despite its military might, been unable to prevail in many of the conflicts it has been involved in directly since WWII. Despite terrible losses on both sides, North Korea still exists. Despite supporting an invasion of a small Caribbean island on its doorstep, Fidel Castro’s Cuba still exists. Despite the deaths of over 50,000 American and allied soldiers and well over a million or two others dead, Vietnam is still a communist nation. And, regardless of what the neoconservatives would have the world believe, America did not actually defeat the USSR in the ‘Cold War’ – it was simply able to survive longer; the bottom line is: the US did not militarily prevail over the USSR and to suggest otherwise is purely delusional.

And now we have Iraq. In a nutshell it was the neoconservative’s faith in the illusion of US military hegemony combined with their belief in the myth of American exceptionalism that has been America’s downfall in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s ‘shock and awe’ turned out to be fizzer. America’s technical military know-how with laser-guided bombs and missiles fired from the most sophisticated aircraft has failed to subdue a people that simply do not want the Americans there and are living in an Iraq that is now far, far worse than it was when Saddam was in power.[2] The Americans are now in a situation where they cannot win unless they use overwhelming firepower across virtually the entire nation which would entail the deaths of extremely large numbers of innocent Iraqis as it did when the Americans tried (and failed) a similar stunt on a smaller scale at Fallujah.[3]

For all its military might the US has rarely been able to prevail against its enemies using its military might. America’s hegemony comes not from its military might, as the neoconservatives would like the world to think, or even as they would like to think themselves as demonstrated in the Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) Statement of Principles[4], but from its ability to fork out huge amounts of money (or, alternatively, withhold huge amounts of money) in order to affect an outcome favourable to them.

In the present circumstances, it may well be that the Bush administration will, indeed, attempt a final fling at a military victory but if it does, it will be in the face of a backlash of very negative public opinion not just from the rest of the world but also from most of the American people who have now had about a gutful of this ridiculous war. And this will especially be so if such a final fling results in huge loss of life – Iraqis or Americans – and even more so still if all it ends up doing is inflaming an even greater insurgency.

As for the myth of American exceptionalism; this is based solely on neoconservative arrogance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness. It is the projection of an American sense of superiority arrived at by having undergone a transition in history that no other nation has, so they think, endured and one which they believe all other nations should aspire to. Rings a bell? The Romans? Napoleon? The Germans during the Nazi era?

Harries says:

“American exceptionalism, the strange term used to identify the profound belief widely held by Americans since their beginning as a nation that it is their historical - indeed their divinely ordained - destiny to be, in the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, "tutors of mankind in its pilgrimage to perfection", or in the words of president Woodrow Wilson, that Americans are divinely "chosen to show the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty". However condescending and presumptuous others may find this conviction, it is deeply held and as natural to Americans as apple pie. It will certainly survive the Iraq experience and the demise of the neo-conservatives, who are merely its latest vehicle, not its inventors.”

Contrary to what Harries asserts, while American exceptionalism may not have actually been invented by neoconservatives per se (the term was first coined by that hero of the neocons, Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831) it certainly has been brought to the forefront of neoconservative and US foreign policy as a direct result of neoconservative propaganda particularly since that other neoconservative hero, Seymour Martin Lipset, wrote his book about it, entitled ‘American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged-Sword’ in 1997.[5] Neoconservatism, most certainly in the modern context, has been the vehicle by which ‘American exceptionalism’ has been promoted and, certainly, one would hope that with the demise of neoconservative influence in US foreign policy in the wake of the fiasco that is Iraq, the ridiculous notion of ‘American exceptionalism’ will also be seen to expire.

American pre-eminence is now on the wane and it is on the wane as a direct result of the neoconservatives pushing what they believed was American hegemony beyond the bounds that the rest of the world, particularly the Islamic world, will accept. The notion of American exceptionalism sums up all that the Islamic world, and much of the rest of the world beside, believes are the real values of Americanism – arrogance and hypocrisy. Hopefully, when neoconservatism has run its course, the values that the rest of the world associate with them will pass on with them.


ENDNOTES
[1] Owen Harries, ‘Don’t think it’s over’, The Australian, 19 December 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20948142,00.html Accessed 21 December 2006.
[2] Anthony Arnove, ‘Iraq: More Hellish Than Under Saddam’, Alternet.org, 20 December 2006 Available online: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45699/ Accessed 21 December 2006.
[3] RAI News 24, ‘Fallujah – The Hidden Massacre’, Globalresearch.ca, 8 November 2005. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RAI20051108&articleId=1211 Accessed 18 December 2006.
[4] ‘Statement of Principles’, Project for the New American Century, 3 June 1997. Available online: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Accessed 21 December 2006.
[5] Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. (W. W. Norton and Co. 1997).

US NEOCONSERVATIVE WARMONGERS PUSH FOR PLAN TO DEFEAT ISRAEL’S ENEMIES IN IRAQ.

Not content with having got the US to start a war against a sovereign nation that was not a threat to the US, the Jewish-American-led neoconservatives, whose allegiances lean heavily towards Israel’s interests, are now pushing for the US to commit more of its soldiers to fight and die in Iraq in a last ditch effort to purge Iraq of the enemies of Zionist Israel.

The neoconservative Weekly Standard reports[1] that members of one of the numerous neoconservative think-tank front organisations, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), have recently come up with a ‘plan’ that they claim will solve all of the problems the US are currently experiencing in Iraq. The plan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’,[2] written by neoconservative ‘strategist’ Frederick W. Kagan, son of Donald Kagan and brother of Robert Kagan, up there among the most influential of Israeli-American neoconservative families along with the Kristol’s and the Podhoretz’s, and written in conjunction with advice from retired army General Jack Keane, calls for some 50,000 more troops whose “…initial mission would be to secure and hold the mixed Baghdad neighbourhoods of Shia and Sunni residents where most of the violence occurs.” One can only imagine the death and destruction such a ‘mission’ would entail as the US create ‘Fallujah’ style massacres[3] in Baghdad.

Then, after securing Baghdad, there would be, according to the report, a “…full-scale drive to pacify the Sunni-majority Anbar province.” ‘Pacify’, of course, is a neocon euphemism for killing, as the plan calls for a final effort to purge the already stricken nation of resistance to US and Israeli hegemony in the region.

Fred Barnes asserts in his Weekly Standard article that the plan is “…one that is likely to be implemented” by President Bush.

The neocons it seems aren’t quite finished yet. One can only hope that cooler heads within the US administration will prevail thus preventing yet another US instigated bloodbath in a nation that surely has already seen enough blood spilled on all sides in order to satisfy the lust of the Zionist-American neocons and their right-wing Zionist allies in Israel.


ENDNOTES

[1] Fred Barnes, ‘We’re going to win’, Weekly Standard, 25 December 2006 Issue. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/095rxgyi.asp Accessed 18 December 2006.
[2] Frederick W. Kagan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’, AEI Publication, 14 December 2006. Available online: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp Accessed 18 December 2006.
[3] RAI News 24, ‘Fallujah – The Hidden Massacre’, Globalresearch.ca, 8 November 2005. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RAI20051108&articleId=1211 Accessed 18 December 2006.

AUSTRALIAN NEOCONSERVATIVE DYLAN KISSANE EXPOSES HIS DISHONESTY AND FRAUDULENT WAYS.

I usually know when I’m getting close to the mark with any assertion I make about Israeli operations in the occupied territories regardless of whether they are overt or covert or any assertion I make that is inconsistent with neoconservative ideology; the Israeli Loony Lobby apologists react by jumping up and down shouting ‘conspiracy theory’ and questioning my intellectual integrity.

In short, they protesteth too much.

In fact, its got to the point now where, if I don’t get a reaction, I wonder about whether I’m right or not!

In recent times a fascist/neoconservative, Dylan Kissane, has taken to making comments in response to some of my postings. Most of them I have left published but lately I have deleted comments because they were simply propaganda comments pushing his own fascist/neoconservative garbage and, since he now has his own blog, I will not allow him to use this blog to spew his fascist views.

In typical fascist/neoconservative fashion Kissane has taken to distorting the contents of my postings.

For example; in a post titled ‘A response to a right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist who uses the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend right-wing Zionism’ I stated:

“…the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.”[1]

In response Kissane deliberately and dishonestly distorted what I had written saying:

“That's right: the Holocaust is not about the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe.”[2]

Yet that is not what I said. I have stated that it was indeed about the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe but adding that there were many, many others as well that perished in the Holocaust.

With regard to Israeli operations in the occupied territories, my most recent post suggested strongly that there could well be more to the recent deliberate killings of children than mistaken identity within inter-factional fighting among the Palestinians saying that the Israelis have form[3] for this kind of false-flag operation whereby they, usually Mossad or its agents, commit some heinous crime and make it look as though someone else was responsible in order to create trouble between entities whether they are nations, political groups or rival individuals. Kissane reacted vehemently shouting ‘Conspiracy theory!’ and carrying on about how terrible it was that Hamas should do such things. If, indeed, it was Hamas then, yes, it is terrible. The problem is there wasn’t a peep from Kissane when the Israeli terrorist forces in the Gaza opened fire into innocent men, women and children, not a peep.

Kissane has no honesty or integrity left. He has become as deceitful and dishonest as the other warmongering lying Israeli Loony Lobbyists here in Australia.

Neocons reacting vehemently and dishonestly are a fairly typical neoconservative characteristic when one is getting close to the truth.




ENDNOTES

[1] Damian Lataan, ‘A response to a right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist who uses the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend right-wing Zionism’, lataan.blogspot.com, 1 November 2006. Available online: http://lataan.blogspot.com/2006/11/response-to-right-wing-pro-israeli.html Accessed 15 December 2006.
[2] Dylan Kissane, ‘Lataan’s Way’, dylankissane.com, 14 December 2006. Available online: http://www.dylankissane.com/ Accessed 15 December 2006.
[3] Conal Urquhart, ‘Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity’, UK Guardian, 6 September, 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1563273,00.html Accessed 15 December 2006.

WHO’S REALLY KILLING THE CHILDREN OF PALESTINE?

It is becoming increasingly clear that the recent deliberate shooting deaths of the three children of a Palestinian Fatah official were something more than just a culmination of a series of deadly tit-for-tat factional incidents between Hamas and Fatah in the complex world of Palestinian politics.[1]

The circumstantial evidence is pointing to ‘agent provocateurs’ as having been more likely responsible for these totally senseless killings. Since the targets were the children of a Fatah officer, the knee-jerk reaction was to blame Fatah’s rivals, Hamas. Naturally, Hamas denied it. However, Hamas have not just left it as a simple denial; they have emphatically denied and have also firmly condemned the killings.[2] Giving weight to Hamas’ denials is the fact that, while there is indeed some factional violence between Hamas and Fatah, neither side have ever been known to resort to deliberately killing the children of each others operatives.

And deliberate the killings were since it was well known that the children were always driven to school in a different car from the one their father used plus the fact that the killings took place at the school. The reality is that the killers had made no mistake about their intended targets.[3]

Clearly the killings were specifically designed to provoke already inflamed tensions between Hamas and Fatah and the only beneficiaries of this outcome would have been Israel as they continue in their classic ‘divide and rule’ campaign among the Palestinians. While the Palestinian factions argue among themselves as to who was responsible for the killings, the real culprits would by now be in a safe haven inside Israel.

Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organisation, have a long history of running false flag operations and this particular type of operation is not without precedent.[4] Israeli forces also have a long history of deliberately targeting children generally in the occupied territories including the killing of children by Israeli snipers.[5]

There would be no benefit at all to Hamas for killing the children of Fatah officers. There could only be the promise of retaliation which would mean the killing of more children which is not something either side would benefit from.

While there is no direct evidence to say that Israel’s Mossad was responsible, there is no doubt that the circumstantial evidence is enough for the finger of at least strong suspicion to be pointed in their general direction.


ENDNOTES
[1] Rory McCarthy, ‘‘They were targeting the children’: Gaza factions hit new level of horror’, UK Guardian, 12 December 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1969880,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12 Accessed 13 December 2006.
[2] Ibrahim Barzak, ‘3 Palestinian kids dead in Gaza drive-by’, Yahoo News, 12 December 2006. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_school_shooting Accessed 13 December 2006.
[3] ‘Abbas condemns killing of PA official 3 children at Gaza school’, Ha’aretz, 12 December 2006. Available online: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/799484.html Accessed 13 December 2006.
[4] ‘Lebanon’s Army captures Israeli Mossad ‘Terrorist Ring’’ yaliban.com, 14 June 2006. Available online: http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/06/lebanons_army_c.php Accessed 13 December 2006.
[5] Robert Fisk, Roll Call of 322 Children Killed in the Intifada’, Commondreams.org, 1 October 2002. Available online: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1001-05.htm Accessed 13 December 2006.

WILL HOWARD CONTINUES TO LIE AND HOODWINK AT WEBDIARY.

In a recent post at Webdiary Will Howard wrote:

“… Iran, as an individual country, has no valid claim against Israel. Israel does not occupy one square inch of Iranian territory. Israel has never fired a shot at Iran. Israel has never disputed Iran's legitimacy as a state, questioned its right to exist, or called for the Iranian regime to be "wiped from the pages of history." Iran is also not an Arab nation, so certainly cannot claim some grievance against Israel as part of some sort of Arab "unity." (For example, Iran is not a member of the Arab League).”[1]

Will Howard ignores entirely that it is Israel that is calling for Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program to be destroyed. He ignores entirely that Israel’s greatest ally and benefactor, the US, has, as a direct result of pressure from Jewish-American neoconservatives who form the Israeli Lobby in the US, named Iran as part of an ‘Axis of Evil’. It was even Jewish-American neoconservatives that came up with the phrase ‘Axis of Evil’.[2]

Iran, contrary to Will Howard’s lies and attempt to deceive, has every good reason to posture strongly against Israel; it has seen what has happened to that other nation that was named part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ by Israel and the US – Iraq.

More Will Howard lies and deceit.


ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Rectifying the Israel-Palestine issue’, Webdiary comment, 8 December 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-57872 Accessed 8 December 2006.
[2] Julian Borger, ‘How I created the Axis of Evil’, The UK Guardian, 28 January 2003. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,890310,00.html Accessed 8 December 2006.

MORE LIES, OBFUSCATION AND DECEIT FROM WILL HOWARD OF THE ISRAELI LOONY LOBBY.

Will Howard at Webdiary is still pushing the lie that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. In a recent posting at Webdiary he starts by saying: “Another point about the Iran nuclear confrontation…”


One first needs to ask: What ‘Iran nuclear confrontation’? Iran has not confronted anyone with anything nuclear. The only people doing any ‘confronting’ are the Israelis and the neoconservatives in the US – both of whom do have nuclear weapons.


Will Howard goes on to say: “The US, UK, France, China, and Russia could reduce their stocks of nukes, and agree on a Central Asia/Mideast nuke-free zone.” What garbage! If these countries reduced their nuclear weapon stocks by 90% they’d still be able to destroy the planet a couple of times over. And, as far as the Middle East is concerned, the only Middle East nation that has nuclear weapons is Israel and they are hardly likely to relinquish their weapons to create a nuclear free zone.


Will Howard continues by saying: “I think the people who are really scared of a nuclear-armed Iran, are not so much the Israelis, but Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.” [1] More garbage. As I have mentioned before, this tactic of wedging is typical Israeli Lobby practice. The reality, however, is that none of the Middle East nations need be scared of a nuclear-armed Iran because Iran is not nuclear-armed and nor is their any evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is intending to become so – except in the neocons and Israel’s propaganda-inspired imagination.


Elsewhere on another Webdiary post Will Howard has pedantically argued that the Shebaa Farms are not a part of Lebanon[2] and that, therefore, Israel is not on Lebanese land. He all but ignores the fact that, while who owns the land might well be in dispute, who doesn’t own the land is not in dispute – and that, of course, is Israel, yet they are the ones that are occupying the Shebaa Farms.


In the same post Will Howard asks sarcastically: “So why didn't the peace-loving Hezbollah at least give the UN a chance to reinvestigate the sovereignty of Shebaa Farms before launching Katyusha’s on "disputed" Zionist-occupied areas such as Safed?” The entire question is an attempt to obfuscate by inferring that somehow Hezbollah had attacked Israel because of the Shebaa Farms being occupied by the Israelis.


Safed[3] is nowhere near the Shebaa farms for a starters. And Hezbollah attacked towns like Safed in an effort to deter the Israelis from destroying Lebanon. Will Howard should be reminded that Israel had planned and launched its attack on Lebanon before Hezbollah retaliated with rockets.


Will Howard continues to lie and deceive.


ENDNOTES

[1] Will Howard, ‘Disarmament Blues’, Webdiary comment, 6 December 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-57800 Accessed 6 December 2006.
[2] Will Howard, ‘You say Denial I say “DeNile”’, Webdiary comment, 6 December 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1725#comment-57803 Accessed 6 December 2006.
[3] Safed can be located on Google Earth at approximately 32° 57’ N and 35° 27’ E.

WILL HOWARD: MASTER LIAR, DECEIVER AND NOW MANIPULATOR.

It seems that as well as labelling Will Howard a ‘liar’ and ‘deceiver’, I can now add ‘manipulator’. Trying to wedge left-wing commentators is an Israeli Lobby speciality that has been tried before and is often used as simply a distractive tactic to avoid a focus on some other lie or deceit that would have otherwise befallen them or that they have been caught out on.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work as far as I’m concerned. Roslyn Ross has a political view that I support wholeheartedly. Since the debate is not about me I have no interest in what Roslyn Ross or anyone else personally thinks about me.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever about calling a liar a liar and I will continue to expose Will Howard for the liar, deceiver and now manipulator, that he is.

WILL HOWARD, AUSTRALIA’S MOST APPALLING SUPPORTER OF ISRAELI TERRORISM, ATTEMPTS MORE LIES AND DECEIT!

Over at Webdiary I note that the liar and deceiver Will Howard is trying to deny that Israeli Zionofascist troops in the Gaza, West Bank and other occupied territories have targeted children.[1]

There is abundant evidence available that shows that children have been targeted both indiscriminately and deliberately by Israeli terrorists operating in the various occupied territories for years.[2] Some have even been shot in the head by Israeli terrorist snipers – you can’t get any more deliberate than that.

Will Howard is a liar and deceiver; always has been and always will be. Judging from the email I get, most people at Webdiary and elsewhere on the net are now fully aware of this disgusting person’s lies and deceits in his efforts to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible of Israeli atrocities and war crimes.


ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Fact Checking’, Comment at Webdiary, 29 November 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1725#comment-57548 Accessed 29 November 2006.
[2] For just a few documented incidents see the following:
http://www.nogw.com/israeliatrocities.html

AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD AND FOREIGN MINISTER ALEXANDER DOWNER CAUGHT IN LIE ABOUT EARLY IRAQ WAR INVOLVEMENT.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, have consistently lied to the Australian people and to the world about the extent to which they had committed Australia to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the actual invasion in March 2003.[1] The Howard government, right up until almost the actual invasion date, had denied that they had committed Australia to this disastrous and criminal adventure. But now their lies are coming back to haunt them.

Just two days after Alexander Downer had haughtily told the ABC’s Lateline program[2] that the notion that Australia had committed itself to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the days just before the actual invasion were just ‘conspiracy theories’, an ex-SAS officer has come forward to tell the world that the Australian SAS were committed to involvement by at least mid-2002 thus putting the lie to Downer and Howard’s insistence that their decision to go to war was not made until just days before the actual invasion.[3]

This comes on top of revelations that the former chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Trevor Flugge, had been told by Australia’s then ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, that the ‘Howard government would participate in military action with the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein’ in early 2002. This directly contradicts Howard’s ‘previous statements that Australia had not agreed to join the war in Iraq before the UN debate in late 2002 and early 2003.’[4]

ENDNOTES
[1] Patrick Walters, ‘Iraq a moral blunder, says war hero’, The Australian, 25 November 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817682-601,00.html Accessed 25 November 2006.
[2] Alexander Downer, Transcript of ‘Interview – ABC’s Lateline’, 23 November 2006. Available online: http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/061123_abc.html Accessed 25 November 2006.
[3] Patrick Walters, ‘Wrong war, wrong time’, The Australian, 25 November 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20815881-601,00.html Accessed 25 November 2002.
[4] Marian Wilkinson, ‘Flugge knew invasion plans’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 November 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/flugge-knew-invasion-plans/2006/11/22/1163871481920.html Accessed 23 November 2006.

WILL HOWARD CONTINUES HIS DECEIT AT WEBDIARY!

It seems that the sleazy pseudo intellectual Will Howard over at Webdiary is practising his lies and deceit once again. This time Webdiarist Phil Kendall has stumbled upon the way Will Howard purveys his deceit. Will Howard claims he is not an Israeli apologist and not an Israeli Lobbyist in the sense that Mearsheimer and Walt classically describe the Israeli Lobby, which Will Howard blatantly insists does not exist – a deceit in itself.

Despite his denials however, Will Howard has consistently argued vigorously (albeit unsuccessfully) for the right-wing Zionist Israeli position, which indeed is the lobby that Mearsheimer and Walt refer to. Perhaps Will Howard is labouring under the delusion that the Israeli Lobby is some kind of formalised organisation of Diaspora Jews outside of Israel that barrack for the right-wing Zionist Israelis in whatever country they happen to be in; in Will Howard’s case, Australia.

He says that he is an Australian citizen as though this somehow provides a moral fence which provides him with the cover of just being a commentator rather than being an Israeli Lobbyist. Yet more deceit. Citizenship of a country other than Israel hasn’t stopped the likes of Joshua Muravchik or Max Boot or Michael Ledeen or Douglas Feith or Elliot Abrams or William Kristol or John Podhoretz, et al, all of whom are American citizens, from being part of the Israeli Lobby. And citizenship of Australia hasn’t stopped Will Howard either from being part of the Israeli Lobby.

Will Howard can deny being an Israeli Lobbyist until he is blue in the face. All he is succeeding in doing is demonstrating the length to which he is prepared to practice his disgusting deceit and lies.

IS ISRAEL READY TO GO IT ALONE TO START WAR WITH IRAN?

A US pre-emptive attack on Iran is out of the question now, but will Israel start war on its own hoping that the US will support them once war is underway?



The signals coming out of Israel over the last few days with regard to it’s position on Iran have become clear and almost explicit – Israel is gearing up to make a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and possibly Syria.

The recent demise of Republican power in Congress after the mid-term elections and the recommendations of the influential Iraq Study Group[1] under the co-chair of James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton about having both Iran and Syria involved in negotiations to find a resolution to the turmoil in Iraq, has all but ruled out the US being involved in any pre-emptive attack against Iran. However, it would not preclude US involvement if the Israelis were to instigate an attack to which Iran retaliates with an attack on both Israeli and US interests in the Gulf or if Israel asks for US assistance if, say, Iran attacked the Israeli homeland with missiles.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the press on board his jet as he was on his way to the US that “…Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they’re going to pay dearly.” An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, is reported to have responded: “If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds.”[2] Such a ‘rapid, firm and destructive’ response would undoubtedly draw the US into the conflict.

On Monday, 13 November, Olmert met with Bush for 50 minutes of private talk as well as other talks with their senior staff present. Bush spouted his usual rhetoric after the talks saying that Iran should ‘give up its nuclear ambitions’, that the ‘world should unite with one common voice’ and that Iran should be ‘isolated if it does not respond’ and that there would be ‘economic isolation’. But, while Bush fell short of threatening to take military steps to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, Olmert was less conciliatory saying: “ Iran needs to understand that there will be consequences for not agreeing to a compromise”, adding ominously that: “I can’t say what the consequences will be…”[3] Olmert went on to say that he was willing to give the idea of talks between Iran and the US on the subject of uranium enrichment a go but, since Iran is unlikely to give up its enrichment program, Israel will not be holding its breath on the outcome of such talks.

In other indicators of Israel’s impatience to bring on the final confrontation with Iran, Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister, also visiting the US, told an audience of the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Los Angeles that Iran was less than two years away from reaching what she termed the ‘point of no return’, a point, she said, where Iran did not actually have nuclear weapons but where Iran no longer needed outside help in order to produce a nuclear weapon. She added, however, “Iran denies the Holocaust and seeks the weapons to perpetrate one. If the promise of ‘Never Again’ supersedes the price of oil then the time for international indifference and hesitation in the face of the Iranian threat has long passed.”[4]

The Israeli military is also making noises about being prepared for ‘full-scale war’ against both Iran and Syria. An Israeli military official has said that: “The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one.”[5]

It is now all but impossible for Bush to be part of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, but the changed circumstances in the US now leaves Israel, knowing the US are no longer able to act, free to take matters in to their own hands.

If Olmert and Livni have received the assurances they need from Bush that, if push comes to shove the US will come to the Israelis aid once they have got their war underway, then one need ask not so much ‘if’ Israel will attack Iran but ‘when’.

ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Iraq Study Group’, United States Institute of Peace, November 2006. Available online: http://www.usip.org/isg/ Accessed 14 November 2006.
[2] Aluf Benn, ‘Olmert hints at possible military action against Iran”, Ha’aretz, 13 November 2006. No longer available online. Hard copy accessed 13 November 2006.
[3] Herb Keinon, ‘Bush: Nuclear Iran ‘very destabilizing’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378386632&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 14 November 2006.
[4] Amir Mizroch, ‘Livni to ‘Post’: Iran nearing the point of no return’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1162378384729&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 14 November 2006.
[5] ‘Israel must prepare for full-scale war’, Jerusalem Post, 12 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378379290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 13 November 2006.

MORE ON THE ISSUE ‘CONTENDING THAT ISRAEL WANTS TO PROVOKE A WAR WITH HAMAS TO DRAW IN HEZBOLLAH’

A perspective from Dr. David Palmer, Senior Lecturer in American Studies at Flinders University, South Australia, who says:


“Perhaps, but very unlikely.

This time Hezbollah will not take the IDF bait. Furthermore, neither Syria nor Iran will permit it (though Hezbollah in Lebanon is hardly an extension of either of those two countries - simply a recipient of aid and arms from them, with loyalties). Syria in particular will focus on its historic self-interest - Lebanon and Gollan Heights. Iran will focus on its interests in Iraq with the Shia majority there. Gaza is an afterthought to these powers, in reality. It is a symbol of oppression, but not strategic to either country - and Hezbollah has enough on its hands to retain popularity and influence in Lebanon, putting pragmatism above ideology.

The "war" between Israel and Hamas is in fact more akin to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - one side conducting massacres on a population living in an open air prison, the other side trying to respond however ineffectively to defend itself - while the world watches on doing nothing.

Major conservatives - including Gates (now head of Defense) - in the US have gone on record advocating the consideration of discussions with Syria and Iran - in complete conflict with neo-cons (and Rumsfeld / Cheney among the conservatives). This will reinforce this focus for Syria and Iran - they want talks, not a war (despite Iran's rhetoric). The result will be that the Palestinians - once again - will be on their own - and others in the region are not going to sacrifice on their behalf.

Cheney can say what he wants. Given the Democratic control of both houses of Congress now, and Gates moving into Defense, he is increasingly a man with lots to say but less and less real power. Gates and the generals will make sure of it. And Cheney's base in State Dept. is diplomatic - without real power in the current administration (as both Powell learned and Rice is learning). Power in the current administration - in terms of foreign policy - now - after last Tuesday - emanates from two sources: economic (Treasury) and military (Defense). Both Cabinet positions are now held by hardcore pragmatists / conservatives who have no time for neo-con nonsense. Both accepted their posts with the proviso that they could operate completely independently (e.g. Paulson now has total control over trade talks / relations with China, and did not campaign for Republicans in the last election - sanctions here have become the key weapon of choice also; Gates will have same autonomy, being able to coordinate all military and intelligence operations as he chooses - and he will get the generals onside to push his new agenda).

PRESIDENT CHENEY?

Cheney, who, according to Jim Lobe, “lies isolated and exposed”[1] could well become a dangerous man if he is tempted to opt for the Presidency in the light of the defeat of the neoconservatives and ultra-nationalists in the mid-terms and the resignation of his man Rumsfeld from the Department of Defence.

There is, of course, only one way that Cheney could ever become President between now and the next election short of an impeachment of Bush. And it’s not as though the neoconservatives haven’t pondered the idea of a ‘President Cheney’ themselves.[2]

ENDNOTES
[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Rumsfeld takes a hit for Bush’, Asia Times Online, 10 November 2006. Available online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK10Aa04.html Accessed 10 November 2006.
[2] Fred Barnes, ‘President Cheney?’, Weekly Standard, 7 March 2005. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/295zkwpw.asp Accessed 10 November 2006.

NOW WITH NOTHING TO LOSE BUSH IS FREE TO DO AS HE WISHES IN THE MIDDLE EAST; SO WILL IT BE WAR WITH IRAN?

Last month I asked: ‘Are Israeli actions in the Gaza designed to provoke war with Iran?’[1] In it I suggested that Israel were deliberately trying to provoke war with Hamas by attacking the Palestinians in the Gaza. Yesterday, after their criminal tank attack on the sleeping townsfolk in Beit Hanoun that has resulted in the death of some 18 Palestinians, including 8 children and 6 women, Hamas have finally said that enough is enough and have called for retaliation to protect the people of the Gaza.[2]

A full-on war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza will likely bring in Hizbollah in support of Hamas. The previously tried but failed domino of escalation to bring Iran in to the conflict via Hizbollah, Syria and the US in order to bring on the ‘final showdown’ could well be attempted again.

In Colorado Springs last Saturday, Vice-President Dick Cheney told his audience that the administration would continue “full steam ahead” with its Iraq policy regardless of yesterday’s election results.[3] This arrogance not only clearly indicates that the administration is not in the slightest bit interested in the now expressed wishes of the American people but also demonstrates that the administrations ‘full steam ahead’ Iraq policy in all likelihood refers also to the administrations entire Middle East policy which ultimately includes confrontation with Iran.


ENDNOTES
[1] Damian Lataan, ‘Are Israeli actions designed to provoke war with Iran?’ lataan.blogspot, 16 October 2006. Available online: http://lataan.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-israeli-actions-in-gaza-designed.html Accessed 9 November 2006.
[2] Ian Fisher and Steven Erlanger, ‘Isreali Shells Kill 18; Hamas Calls for Retaliation’, New York Times, 8 November 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1163048400&en=279c65ead1f119fb&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 9 November 2006.
[3] Martin Kettle, ‘America has spoken’, UK Guardian, 8 November 2006. Available online: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_kettle/2006/11/america_has_spoken.html Accessed 9 November 2006.

A RESPONSE TO A RIGHT-WING PRO-ISRAELI ZIONIST WHO USES THE ‘HOLOCAUST’ AS A PROPAGANDA TOOL TO DEFEND RIGHT-WING ZIONISM.

I reproduce below a post I sent to a predominately right-wing Australian website. I do so in the hope that it attracts more readers here than it does there.
The post was in response to a post written by Mike Lyvers, an extreme right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist, that, in part, read: “…[Roslyn] Ross [a Webdiary commentator in Australia] has questioned the Holocaust, denied that Jews were its primary victims, and made other blatantly anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi style assertions about Jews that had little or nothing to do with Israel.”


I wrote in response:

“Lyvers, I’ve read Roslyn Ross’s posts and I don’t recall seeing anything that she wrote that came anywhere near anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.

You assert that she ‘denies’ that Jews were the Holocaust’s primary victims. First, if the ‘Holocaust’ is taken to mean the destruction and extermination of all peoples that were an enemy of Nazism, then she is correct. Few people realise what Hitler and the Nazis had in store for the ‘Slavic’ races had he prevailed in his war against Eastern Europe and Russia. The destruction of the Jewish peoples of Europe was merely a part of Hitler’s overall plan and would have paled compared with the slaughter planned in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Secondly, the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.

You’ll find if you re-read Ross’s posts carefully that there is no anti-Semitism and there is no Holocaust denial. There is only the realignment of historical perspective that more accurately reflects the objective reality of events that over the years have been distorted by the subjective nature of historic sentimentality – a sentimentality that has been abused ever since by certain Zionist elements who now use the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend against anti right-wing Zionism.”

PRIME MINISTER HOWARD AND AUSSIE MEDIA RATCHET UP ISLAMAPHOBIA

Does anyone remember the worldwide furore that was created when, in 1954, Pope Pius XII said: “How many young girls there are who see nothing wrong in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep. They would certainly blush with shame if they could know the impression they make, and the feelings they evoke, in those who see them.”[1]

No? That’s because there wasn’t one.

And what about the outrage across the Western world that was caused by Mary Anne Moresco when she wrote in The Catholic Exchange: “The damage immodest dress does to the purity of a young girl’s soul is like the damage cigarettes do to a human lung: Very slowly, over time, it is left dark and malfunctioning.”[2]

You don’t recall the outrage? Again, that’s because there wasn’t one.

So, one needs to ask, why has the Australian Islamic cleric Taj Din al-Hilali’s outburst about the way women dress hogged the headlines in Australia and, indeed, around much of the Western world for the last couple of days?

Could it have something to do with the fact that he is a Muslim? Could it have something to do with the fact that he is the most senior Muslim in a John Howard-dominated anti-Muslim Australia who has riled the West with his pro-Islamic comments, particularly with regards to the struggles of the Iraqi and Afghan peoples against the Western invaders?

Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, has very skilfully as good as personally promoted further persecution and discrimination against Islam when he said in response to al-Hilali’s remarks: “What should happen and I’ll say it again, is that the Islamic community has got to take this matter in hand themselves, and if they don’t then there is the risk that people will use their failure to do so against them, however unfairly, and I really am asking the Islamic community to come up to the crease and handle this matter themselves.”[3] Otherwise – what, John Howard?



ENDNOTES
[1] Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, ‘Modesty in Dress’, CMRI, 21 June 1996. Available online: http://www.cmri.org/96prog6.html Accessed 30 October 2006.
[2] Mary Anne Moresco, ‘Where Has Modesty Gone?’, The Catholic Exchange, 7 December 2005. Available online: http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=29166 Accessed 30 October 2006.
[3] John Howard, ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP Doorstop interview, Finley RSL Club’, 27 October 2006. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview2207.html Accessed 30 October 2006.

BUSH FINDS A WAY OUT OF IRAQ – WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS WILL BE PUNISHMENT FOR THE IRAQIS IF VIOLENCE CONTINUES THERE!!

The headline in today’s UK Telegraph indicates that President Bush and his top generals think they may have found a way out of Iraq that will save them face – they are hinting that they may actually withdraw troops – and one needs to read this to believe it – as punishment for the continued violence.[1]

The Telegraph report said: “…benchmarks would be set covering progress in the Iraqi military, police and economy that if missed would result in the imposition of "penalties" by Washington.” The report went on to say that these “…would include "changes in military strategy", which could mean troop cuts or redeployment within Iraq…”

It seems the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ are now scrambling to find ways out of the Iraq disaster. The UKs Tony Blair is hoping that the Iraqis can take over ‘security’ in the areas currently ‘held’ by the British so that British troops can be withdrawn. Blair is clearly hoping the talks currently being held in London with Iraqi government officials will lead to withdrawal sooner rather than later.[2]


ENDNOTE
[1] Oliver Poole and Damien McElroy, ‘America may penalise Iraq if it fails to stop the violence’, UK Telegraph, 23 October 2006. Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LPKALVYJFMZKFQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/10/23/wirq23.xml Accessed 23 October 2006.
[2] Patrick Wintour and Michael Howard, ‘Blair gives Iraq 12 months to be ready for handover’, UK Guardian, 23 October 2003. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1929000,00.html Accessed 23 October 2006.