The Western world should be quite clear about this; Benjamin Netanyahu will never ever allow a Palestinian state to exist in the West Bank, Gaza Strip or any where else that the Israeli right-wing Zionists considers to be part of an eventual Greater Israel.
The West should not be fooled by Netanyahu’s recent remarks about wanting to ‘seek an alternative to current peace talks’ if he becomes Prime Minister of Israel at their elections next February. Netanyahu is seeking only to play for time. He has absolutely no interest whatsoever in making peace with the Palestinian people and even less interest in allowing the Palestinians to have any kind of sovereign state of their own.
The question of the right of return of the refugees is a Palestinian demand that is not negotiable with any Israeli leader. The question of East Jerusalem is also not negotiable as far as the Palestinians are concerned. There is, therefore, only deadlock since Netanyahu is equally steadfast in his refusal to even consider the right of return of the refugees and handing over any part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
Instead, the Likud Party leader who could well be Israel’s next PM prefers to talk about subduing Palestinian fervour for a Palestinian state by offering what he calls ‘economic growth’. Nowhere in Netanyahu’s rhetoric is their any talk of Palestinian nationhood. Netanyahu wants to buy peace and security for Israel rather than allow the Palestinian people a sovereign peaceful independent state of their own. And even less likely under a Netanyahu regime in Israel will there any consideration given to a binational single state which Jews and Arabs can share as equals despite the fact that ultimately the one-state solution can be the only solution.
Netanyahu has an agenda that serves only the Zionist cause. He, together with his neoconservative supporters both within the Republican and Democrat ranks of US politics, seek only a final confrontation with their enemies Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas, Syria and Iran in order to create their long-held dream of a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian, south Lebanese and Syrian peoples.
The future President of the United States must not be conned by Netanyahu’s web of deceit and lies designed to detract the incoming President into giving away the last and no matter how remote opportunity to at least continue to talk of peace and Palestinian statehood. Once Obama accedes to Netanyahu’s ploy designed to stop any further talks of peace and statehood there will be little or no chance of ever turning back.
It is essential that concerned people write straightaway to President-elect Obama’s website demanding that, no matter what Netanyahu says, the talks on peace and nationhood for Palestinians not under any circumstances be halted.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
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, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
ISRAEL PLANS DESTRUCTION OF GAZA VILLAGES AS COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT FOR PALESTINIAN ROCKETS.
The Israeli government is considering sending IDF terrorist forces in to the Gaza to forcibly remove Gazan villagers from villages where rockets have been launched against Israel and then entirely destroy the village with heavy artillery fire. The proposal was made jointly by Israeli Injustice Minister Daniel Friedmann and the prime minister's deputy Haim Ramon.
Already as a result of the rocket launchings against Israel, the vast majority of which seem to be ineffective, Israel Minister for Terrorism, Ehud Barak, has had the border crossings into the Gaza closed which has stopped essential fuel to flow in to the Gaza leading to major blackouts including power supplies for essential medical equipment at Gazan hospitals.
Recently, Barak had the temerity to announce that right-wing Israeli extremists are ‘cancerous growths’. A bit much coming from a man who has been staunchly right-wing himself all his life and never had any qualms about involving himself in terrorist activities including dressing himself up as a woman in order to commit murder in a foreign country. Despite the Israeli Labor Party, which Barak heads, being considered ‘left of centre’, one should make no mistake about its political position regarding Palestine and the Palestinian people; it is as much a right-wing Zionist party as any other in Israel. The Israeli Labor Party is only ‘left of centre’ relative to other Israeli political parties, most of which are ultra extreme right-wing.
Already as a result of the rocket launchings against Israel, the vast majority of which seem to be ineffective, Israel Minister for Terrorism, Ehud Barak, has had the border crossings into the Gaza closed which has stopped essential fuel to flow in to the Gaza leading to major blackouts including power supplies for essential medical equipment at Gazan hospitals.
Recently, Barak had the temerity to announce that right-wing Israeli extremists are ‘cancerous growths’. A bit much coming from a man who has been staunchly right-wing himself all his life and never had any qualms about involving himself in terrorist activities including dressing himself up as a woman in order to commit murder in a foreign country. Despite the Israeli Labor Party, which Barak heads, being considered ‘left of centre’, one should make no mistake about its political position regarding Palestine and the Palestinian people; it is as much a right-wing Zionist party as any other in Israel. The Israeli Labor Party is only ‘left of centre’ relative to other Israeli political parties, most of which are ultra extreme right-wing.
DID ISRAEL DOSE THEIR BOMBS WITH TRACES OF ENRICHED URANIUM WHEN THEY BOMBED THE SYRIAN PLANT?
The ‘Jerusalem Post’ is reporting that traces of enriched uranium has been found by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the site Israelis bombed in Syria back in September 2007.
The problem with this story is that by claiming traces of enriched uranium have been found at the site infers that the site wasn’t new and that the Syrians, far from just beginning to build a clandestine nuclear facility, were actually well advanced having either enriched uranium themselves, (though the report does not reveal to what extent the uranium discovered had been enriched or if the Syrians had enriched it), or being in a position where enriched uranium could be accepted into the facility for some purpose. Either way, the presence of enriched uranium can only suggest the Syrians were well advanced in some nuclear project or another and, if that was the case, it is very difficult to believe that the Israelis and the US did not know about it, and do something about it, much earlier.
The Israelis have been very cagey about the whole episode from the beginning neither confirming nor denying that they had even bombed the facility. Now, it seems, we may have a reason for why they have been so cagey.
The reality is that, if Israel had admitted that it was responsible for the raid, Israel would then open itself up to claims by the Syrians themselves to the very assertion that I am making now that Israel could have used traces of enriched uranium (which the world knows the Israelis do have) on the weapons they used to bomb the facility so that they may be found sometime later by the IAEA to confirm the rumours started by Israel and the US that it was indeed a nuclear facility, in turn sparking a ‘see, we told you so’ moment and a propaganda victory for Israel and the US.
It’s now clear that the destruction of the facility was not the essential outcome of the raid but, rather, the raid provided an opportunity to ‘plant’ enriched uranium at the site in order to further demonise Syria and to put Western public opinion on side for any future action Israel may take against Syria or, more likely, its allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The window of opportunity for Israel to kick start the Final Confrontation with Iran via another war with Hezbollah and Hamas is still open. Bush is still President, he is still Commander in Chief and still has the powers Congress gave him to wage war without prior Congressional approval.
UPDATE
13 November 2008
It now seems that Syria too thinks that Israel may have dosed their bombs with enriched uranium which they then used to bomb the ‘nuclear plant’ in Syria back in September 2007.
The problem with this story is that by claiming traces of enriched uranium have been found at the site infers that the site wasn’t new and that the Syrians, far from just beginning to build a clandestine nuclear facility, were actually well advanced having either enriched uranium themselves, (though the report does not reveal to what extent the uranium discovered had been enriched or if the Syrians had enriched it), or being in a position where enriched uranium could be accepted into the facility for some purpose. Either way, the presence of enriched uranium can only suggest the Syrians were well advanced in some nuclear project or another and, if that was the case, it is very difficult to believe that the Israelis and the US did not know about it, and do something about it, much earlier.
The Israelis have been very cagey about the whole episode from the beginning neither confirming nor denying that they had even bombed the facility. Now, it seems, we may have a reason for why they have been so cagey.
The reality is that, if Israel had admitted that it was responsible for the raid, Israel would then open itself up to claims by the Syrians themselves to the very assertion that I am making now that Israel could have used traces of enriched uranium (which the world knows the Israelis do have) on the weapons they used to bomb the facility so that they may be found sometime later by the IAEA to confirm the rumours started by Israel and the US that it was indeed a nuclear facility, in turn sparking a ‘see, we told you so’ moment and a propaganda victory for Israel and the US.
It’s now clear that the destruction of the facility was not the essential outcome of the raid but, rather, the raid provided an opportunity to ‘plant’ enriched uranium at the site in order to further demonise Syria and to put Western public opinion on side for any future action Israel may take against Syria or, more likely, its allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The window of opportunity for Israel to kick start the Final Confrontation with Iran via another war with Hezbollah and Hamas is still open. Bush is still President, he is still Commander in Chief and still has the powers Congress gave him to wage war without prior Congressional approval.
UPDATE
13 November 2008
It now seems that Syria too thinks that Israel may have dosed their bombs with enriched uranium which they then used to bomb the ‘nuclear plant’ in Syria back in September 2007.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
AL QAEDA IN THE U.K.: DELIBERATE FEARMONGERING PROPAGANDA OR RACIST PARANOIA?
The UK ‘Daily Telegraph’ reports that a paper written by the UK Ministry of Defence, MI5 and Special Branch shows that there are some 200 terrorists networks in the UK and that they are ‘planning mass casualty strikes in Britain’. Fearmongering reports like this have been emanating from the UK (and the US) ever since 9/11. Rarely, however, do any of the ‘threats’ become realised and they are either simply forgotten or used as further propaganda by the authorities who then go on to claim that that particular threat has been thwarted because of the anti-terrorism laws that are in place which, in turn, justifies the laws that have been used to clamp down on Muslim dissidents who the authorities claim are ‘al Qaeda’ terrorists.
Such fearmongering from the British security services serves two purposes but the primary purpose is not so much as to warn the British people of an imminent ‘terrorist’ attack but to promote racial intolerance among the British people. The kind of racism they wish promote these days is not so much the racism of blood and colour; Britain has a long history of that kind of racism already, but the new racism of culture and religion that now pervades throughout the UK since 9/11 and particularly since 7/7.
The ‘al Qaeda’ label is used by the British authorities as part of the Western allies continued global propaganda effort to perpetuate the myth of an international terrorist organisation led by the long-dead Osama bin Laden so that the so-called ‘Global War on Terror’ can continue unabated.
For the British establishment, the ‘al Qaeda in Britain’ propaganda myth serves two purposes: First, it caters for the need to keep the British people in a state of perpetual fear so that the expense of a ‘Global War on Terrorism’ can be justified and, secondly, it serves the interests of Britains traditional right-wing racists who continue to fear that their so-called traditional way of life will be tainted, not just by the influx of peoples with different ‘blood and colour’ as had occurred decades earlier, but also by peoples who have a different ‘culture and religion’. Furthermore, in order to meet their needs, the traditional racist white Britons that form the old British establishment use the old colonial divide and rule technique of employing one segment of a population, in this case those that are of a different ‘blood and colour’ and who have now been in the UK for some time, to help support their other agenda of demonising those that have a different culture and religion. The old racism of ‘blood and colour’ is not one that the average British white racist can now do anything about. But the new racism of culture and religion, to them, is now seen as even more of a threat to their ‘way of life’ to the point where the propaganda of fear and hatred serves to cover their paranoid racist fears.
Such fearmongering from the British security services serves two purposes but the primary purpose is not so much as to warn the British people of an imminent ‘terrorist’ attack but to promote racial intolerance among the British people. The kind of racism they wish promote these days is not so much the racism of blood and colour; Britain has a long history of that kind of racism already, but the new racism of culture and religion that now pervades throughout the UK since 9/11 and particularly since 7/7.
The ‘al Qaeda’ label is used by the British authorities as part of the Western allies continued global propaganda effort to perpetuate the myth of an international terrorist organisation led by the long-dead Osama bin Laden so that the so-called ‘Global War on Terror’ can continue unabated.
For the British establishment, the ‘al Qaeda in Britain’ propaganda myth serves two purposes: First, it caters for the need to keep the British people in a state of perpetual fear so that the expense of a ‘Global War on Terrorism’ can be justified and, secondly, it serves the interests of Britains traditional right-wing racists who continue to fear that their so-called traditional way of life will be tainted, not just by the influx of peoples with different ‘blood and colour’ as had occurred decades earlier, but also by peoples who have a different ‘culture and religion’. Furthermore, in order to meet their needs, the traditional racist white Britons that form the old British establishment use the old colonial divide and rule technique of employing one segment of a population, in this case those that are of a different ‘blood and colour’ and who have now been in the UK for some time, to help support their other agenda of demonising those that have a different culture and religion. The old racism of ‘blood and colour’ is not one that the average British white racist can now do anything about. But the new racism of culture and religion, to them, is now seen as even more of a threat to their ‘way of life’ to the point where the propaganda of fear and hatred serves to cover their paranoid racist fears.
Friday, November 07, 2008
TIM BLAIR AND HIS BLOGGIES: SORE DISILLUSIONED LOSERS DRIFTING INTO FANTASY.
The trouncing the right-wing of America has received as a result of the Obama win has upset the extreme right-wing bloggers of Australia and their overseas supporters, particularly that tiny band of loonies that gather to roost at Tim Blair’s blog. Blair’s blog at Australia’s version of Murdoch’s UK ‘Sun’ newspaper, the ‘Sydney Daily Telegraph’, where the crudest of tabloid journalism meets with the requirements of Australia’s right-wing racists and warmongers, is the home of the most extreme of Australia’s lunatic right-wing fringe.
In his latest post Blair quotes this from another Murdoch source:
‘Mr Rudd said it was a matter for the Liberal Party to explain former Prime Minister John Howard’s comment last year that terrorists would be hoping for an Obama win in the presidential election.
“It is a matter for the Liberals to explain to the Australian people and to make proper account to the Australian people,” he said.’
Blair then says: “What a very odd thing for Rudd to say. Wasn’t he the fellow who vowed after his own election win to “put aside the old battles of the past”? Now he’s pursuing a retired politician over remarks made more than 12 months ago – in a bid to swing attention away from small man sniping at the current President.”
Retired politician?! This is Blair’s fantasy. It is his way of avoiding the ‘twoof’ that he detests so much. To say that Howard ‘retired’ is a blatant lie, the sort of lie that one comes to expect from Blair and his bloggies. The reality is; both John Howard and his government were resoundingly booted out of office. And now it is the American neocon’s turn to get the shove as well. Naturally, I wrote to Blair to remind him of this but, of course, the ‘twoof’ is not something that the deceitful liar and manipulator Blair would want to publish on his blog. Other comments that also alluded to this were also either censored entirely or heavily edited by Blairs gormlessly inane assistant, Tran, who’s looking after shop while Blair’s in the US to witness the demise of his heroes.
Blair’s bloggies are now trying to console themselves by telling each other that they can have a good laugh at the so-called ‘left wing governments’ efforts to put right all the wrongs that the likes of Howard and Bush have created in this world. One of them, a MarkL of Canberra, froths and foams at the mouth for a full 1500 word rant about the left in an effort to revitalise the shattered morale of the extreme right-wing. All MarkL actually achieves is demonstrating how utterly flawed the policies of the last eight years have been and how disastrous they’ve been for the world generally.
Blair is only successful with his blog at the Sydney Daily Telegraph because, one, Murdoch employs him (without Murdoch he his nothing), and, two, he has his tiny but vocal coterie of mindless supporters to justify his existence.
I doubt they’ll actually get over their loss. Thankfully, the rest of the world will.
In his latest post Blair quotes this from another Murdoch source:
‘Mr Rudd said it was a matter for the Liberal Party to explain former Prime Minister John Howard’s comment last year that terrorists would be hoping for an Obama win in the presidential election.
“It is a matter for the Liberals to explain to the Australian people and to make proper account to the Australian people,” he said.’
Blair then says: “What a very odd thing for Rudd to say. Wasn’t he the fellow who vowed after his own election win to “put aside the old battles of the past”? Now he’s pursuing a retired politician over remarks made more than 12 months ago – in a bid to swing attention away from small man sniping at the current President.”
Retired politician?! This is Blair’s fantasy. It is his way of avoiding the ‘twoof’ that he detests so much. To say that Howard ‘retired’ is a blatant lie, the sort of lie that one comes to expect from Blair and his bloggies. The reality is; both John Howard and his government were resoundingly booted out of office. And now it is the American neocon’s turn to get the shove as well. Naturally, I wrote to Blair to remind him of this but, of course, the ‘twoof’ is not something that the deceitful liar and manipulator Blair would want to publish on his blog. Other comments that also alluded to this were also either censored entirely or heavily edited by Blairs gormlessly inane assistant, Tran, who’s looking after shop while Blair’s in the US to witness the demise of his heroes.
Blair’s bloggies are now trying to console themselves by telling each other that they can have a good laugh at the so-called ‘left wing governments’ efforts to put right all the wrongs that the likes of Howard and Bush have created in this world. One of them, a MarkL of Canberra, froths and foams at the mouth for a full 1500 word rant about the left in an effort to revitalise the shattered morale of the extreme right-wing. All MarkL actually achieves is demonstrating how utterly flawed the policies of the last eight years have been and how disastrous they’ve been for the world generally.
Blair is only successful with his blog at the Sydney Daily Telegraph because, one, Murdoch employs him (without Murdoch he his nothing), and, two, he has his tiny but vocal coterie of mindless supporters to justify his existence.
I doubt they’ll actually get over their loss. Thankfully, the rest of the world will.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
ISRAEL: AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO IRAN.
Israel has for some time claimed that Iran is an ‘existential threat’ to Israel. The reality, however, is that Israel is actually an existential threat to Iran – and in being so, is also a threat to world peace.
Israel’s claim of Iran being an existential threat stems from the deliberately misinterpreted words of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who on 26 October 2005 gave a speech to a conference in Tehran in which he said that the Zionist Israeli government should be wiped from the ‘pages of time’. The right-wing Zionist-supporting neoconservative-controlled organisation known as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) who were responsible for the deliberate misinterpretation spun Ahmadinejad’s words to read ‘wipe Israel off the map’. MEMRI were successfully able to push their interpretation to the western media who then picked it up and ran with it throughout most of the mainstream media. Since then the quote, or rather misquote, has been at the core of the US and Israel’s propaganda against Iran. The US and Israel have been able to utilise the misquote together with Iran’s quest to produce nuclear energy for electricity generation in a relentless propaganda bid to demonise Iran by claiming that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program that will enable Iran to build a bomb with which to carry out what Israel claims is Iran’s threat to physically destroy Israel.
All this propaganda of course, is just that; propaganda. Israel and their neoconservative allies in the US have been harping on about Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons ambitions for years, long before Ahmadinejad came on the scene. When one objectively examines the geo-political reality, however, a completely opposite picture to the one the Israelis and the US paint emerges. Rather than Iran being an existential threat to Israel, it is Israel that is the existential threat to Iran.
Iran, even Israel and the US concede, doesn’t actually have any nuclear weapons. At this moment of time it doesn’t even have a nuclear power plant let alone weapons. Israel and the US do. Indeed, Israel is so heavily nuclear armed that its arsenal alone could completely and utterly destroy all of Iran – and most of the Middle East with it. Furthermore, despite the propaganda, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of Iran having any nuclear weapons program. Not a skerrick. Yet time and time again the US and Israel claim the Iranians are edging closer and closer to having a bomb. But not once have either country produced any evidence to back up their claims.
Even in the highly unlikely event of Iran ever having a bomb, the likelihood of them using it to attack Israel is zero since they know that retaliation from both Israel and the US would be instantaneous. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the likelihood of Israel using their nuclear weapons against Iran. Some reports have already talked of Israeli plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran and the US has already given the green light for Israel to attack Iran if Israel sees so fit to do.
So what are the Israelis and the US really after with regards to Iran? The answer is the same as it was with Iraq and for the same reasons – regime change in order to cut off support for the Palestinians and the Lebanese of south Lebanon, or, to be more precise, Hamas in the Gaza and the West Bank and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Only these two organisations, and to a lesser extent, Fatah, stand in the way of Israel’s dreams of a Greater Israel that includes the Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon up to the Litani river. Iranian support of Syria is also very much a feature of Israel’s push against Iran.
In all likelihood, by next week Barack Obama will be the President-elect of the United States. However, until he actually becomes President on 20 January 2009, George W. Bush will remain the Commander-in-Chief of Americas armed forces and President of the US still with his wartime powers. With total disregard to the results of the elections, Bush still wields ultimate power. And even with a successful transference of Presidency on the 20 January next year, the world still cannot relax on the likelihood of an inferno engulfing the Middle East. Israel goes to the polls the following month and if Netanyahu wins government, the existential threat toward Iran from Israel will still remain.
The world should not have any illusions about a change of government in the US lessening the threat of attack against Iran and the subsequent turmoil such an attack will have on the Middle East. While the Zionists of Israel and their supporters in the US still maintain their dreams of a Greater Israel, the existential threat to Iran will remain.
Israel’s claim of Iran being an existential threat stems from the deliberately misinterpreted words of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who on 26 October 2005 gave a speech to a conference in Tehran in which he said that the Zionist Israeli government should be wiped from the ‘pages of time’. The right-wing Zionist-supporting neoconservative-controlled organisation known as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) who were responsible for the deliberate misinterpretation spun Ahmadinejad’s words to read ‘wipe Israel off the map’. MEMRI were successfully able to push their interpretation to the western media who then picked it up and ran with it throughout most of the mainstream media. Since then the quote, or rather misquote, has been at the core of the US and Israel’s propaganda against Iran. The US and Israel have been able to utilise the misquote together with Iran’s quest to produce nuclear energy for electricity generation in a relentless propaganda bid to demonise Iran by claiming that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program that will enable Iran to build a bomb with which to carry out what Israel claims is Iran’s threat to physically destroy Israel.
All this propaganda of course, is just that; propaganda. Israel and their neoconservative allies in the US have been harping on about Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons ambitions for years, long before Ahmadinejad came on the scene. When one objectively examines the geo-political reality, however, a completely opposite picture to the one the Israelis and the US paint emerges. Rather than Iran being an existential threat to Israel, it is Israel that is the existential threat to Iran.
Iran, even Israel and the US concede, doesn’t actually have any nuclear weapons. At this moment of time it doesn’t even have a nuclear power plant let alone weapons. Israel and the US do. Indeed, Israel is so heavily nuclear armed that its arsenal alone could completely and utterly destroy all of Iran – and most of the Middle East with it. Furthermore, despite the propaganda, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of Iran having any nuclear weapons program. Not a skerrick. Yet time and time again the US and Israel claim the Iranians are edging closer and closer to having a bomb. But not once have either country produced any evidence to back up their claims.
Even in the highly unlikely event of Iran ever having a bomb, the likelihood of them using it to attack Israel is zero since they know that retaliation from both Israel and the US would be instantaneous. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the likelihood of Israel using their nuclear weapons against Iran. Some reports have already talked of Israeli plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran and the US has already given the green light for Israel to attack Iran if Israel sees so fit to do.
So what are the Israelis and the US really after with regards to Iran? The answer is the same as it was with Iraq and for the same reasons – regime change in order to cut off support for the Palestinians and the Lebanese of south Lebanon, or, to be more precise, Hamas in the Gaza and the West Bank and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Only these two organisations, and to a lesser extent, Fatah, stand in the way of Israel’s dreams of a Greater Israel that includes the Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon up to the Litani river. Iranian support of Syria is also very much a feature of Israel’s push against Iran.
In all likelihood, by next week Barack Obama will be the President-elect of the United States. However, until he actually becomes President on 20 January 2009, George W. Bush will remain the Commander-in-Chief of Americas armed forces and President of the US still with his wartime powers. With total disregard to the results of the elections, Bush still wields ultimate power. And even with a successful transference of Presidency on the 20 January next year, the world still cannot relax on the likelihood of an inferno engulfing the Middle East. Israel goes to the polls the following month and if Netanyahu wins government, the existential threat toward Iran from Israel will still remain.
The world should not have any illusions about a change of government in the US lessening the threat of attack against Iran and the subsequent turmoil such an attack will have on the Middle East. While the Zionists of Israel and their supporters in the US still maintain their dreams of a Greater Israel, the existential threat to Iran will remain.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
U.S. TERRORISTS STRIKE AT SYRIA AND PAKISTAN KILLING MORE INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
US terrorists are increasing their attacks on Pakistani villages and have now extended their range of murderous operations to include terrorist strikes against civilian targets in Syria as well.
As usual, US propaganda has attempted to justify the attacks that have killed children and innocent civilians by saying they were targeting ‘al Qaeda’ both in Pakistan and Syria. In the latest attacks by US terrorists in Syria, eight innocent civilians were reported to have been killed and Syria has said that future incursions into their country by US terrorists will result in retaliation. The US government have not produced any evidence to support their claims that they were after ‘foreign fighters’ entering Iraq from Syria. Clearly the irony of such remarks regarding ‘foreign fighters in Iraq’ has been missed as it seems the only foreign fighters that are in Iraq are the US terrorists themselves.
For some time the US government has been in the habit of referring to fighters that attempt to defend themselves and their respective countries against US terrorism as ‘al Qaeda’ after the organisation of the same name that the American CIA organisation set up in the last century to combat a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and led by the late Osama bin Laden. The US had also accused bin Laden of being responsible for the attacks against the American people on 9/11, an act of terror that much of the world now know was actually perpetrated with the connivance of extremist elements within the US government itself.
While the latest US terrorist acts have been nowhere near as deadly as the initial attacks US terrorists made on the Afghani and Iraqi people in 2001 and 2003 respectively in which well over a million people died and millions more driven from their homes and country, the latest attacks indicate that they are still willing to kill innocent people in order to perpetuate the myth in the West that those that fight to defend their lands against US terrorism are some kind of evil enemy that must be eliminated in order to maintain the equally mythical perception of ‘American exceptionalism’.
The word ‘terrorist’ is bandied about in the West without any thought or consideration to the real meaning of the word. It is hoped that my use of the word in the context that I have used above will provide a new and different perspective about who the real ‘terrorists’ are in the world.
As usual, US propaganda has attempted to justify the attacks that have killed children and innocent civilians by saying they were targeting ‘al Qaeda’ both in Pakistan and Syria. In the latest attacks by US terrorists in Syria, eight innocent civilians were reported to have been killed and Syria has said that future incursions into their country by US terrorists will result in retaliation. The US government have not produced any evidence to support their claims that they were after ‘foreign fighters’ entering Iraq from Syria. Clearly the irony of such remarks regarding ‘foreign fighters in Iraq’ has been missed as it seems the only foreign fighters that are in Iraq are the US terrorists themselves.
For some time the US government has been in the habit of referring to fighters that attempt to defend themselves and their respective countries against US terrorism as ‘al Qaeda’ after the organisation of the same name that the American CIA organisation set up in the last century to combat a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and led by the late Osama bin Laden. The US had also accused bin Laden of being responsible for the attacks against the American people on 9/11, an act of terror that much of the world now know was actually perpetrated with the connivance of extremist elements within the US government itself.
While the latest US terrorist acts have been nowhere near as deadly as the initial attacks US terrorists made on the Afghani and Iraqi people in 2001 and 2003 respectively in which well over a million people died and millions more driven from their homes and country, the latest attacks indicate that they are still willing to kill innocent people in order to perpetuate the myth in the West that those that fight to defend their lands against US terrorism are some kind of evil enemy that must be eliminated in order to maintain the equally mythical perception of ‘American exceptionalism’.
The word ‘terrorist’ is bandied about in the West without any thought or consideration to the real meaning of the word. It is hoped that my use of the word in the context that I have used above will provide a new and different perspective about who the real ‘terrorists’ are in the world.
Monday, October 27, 2008
WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE WORLD – A McCAIN WIN IN THE U.S. AND A NETANYAHU WIN IN ISRAEL.
The world is hoping and even praying that nothing happens that will upset an Obama win in the upcoming US election. Yet today McCain is either indulging in some serious wishful thinking or he knows something that we don’t. According to some reports, he has told the world that, despite the polls telling us otherwise, he ‘guarantees a win in next week’s election’. He concedes that it’ll be close but, nonetheless, he thinks he’s going to get the job.
Reports are already coming in about voter fraud where there are computer voting systems in place for early voting. Even Fox News is reporting that most Americans are actually expecting widespread voter fraud to take place. With just over a week to go before the election – and remember; a week is a very long time in politics – the window of opportunity for the GOP and/or other ‘interested’ parties to avert an impending disaster for the Republicans is rapidly closing.
On the other side of the world in Israel, another election outcome that could equally determine the future of the Middle East is being observed with as much anticipation as the outcome of the US presidential elections.
Kadima chair, Tzipi Livni, has failed to bring together a coalition government and will now be taking Israel to the polls when it is widely expected that the ultra right-wing Zionist Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party in cohorts with other ultra right-wing nationalist and expansionist groups will win government. Already the settlers in the occupied territories sense victory as they confront Israeli authorities over the removal of illegal outposts since they know that with Netanyahu they have a friend who shares their expansionist dreams.
But the most terrifying aspect of a McCain win in the US and a Netanyahu win in Israel is the very much enhanced likelihood of a final confrontation with Iran and the fallout, literally and metaphorically, that such a confrontation will have for the Middle East and the world. Netanyahu has in the past hinted at a ‘nuclear strike on Iran’. And, of course, who can forget McCain’s policy of ‘Bomb, bomb, bombing Iran’.
The American people, not just for themselves but for the entire world, must ensure that McCain doesn’t become President. And with an Obama victory the world should then demand peace for everyone in the Middle East.
The alternatives are too shocking to even contemplate.
Reports are already coming in about voter fraud where there are computer voting systems in place for early voting. Even Fox News is reporting that most Americans are actually expecting widespread voter fraud to take place. With just over a week to go before the election – and remember; a week is a very long time in politics – the window of opportunity for the GOP and/or other ‘interested’ parties to avert an impending disaster for the Republicans is rapidly closing.
On the other side of the world in Israel, another election outcome that could equally determine the future of the Middle East is being observed with as much anticipation as the outcome of the US presidential elections.
Kadima chair, Tzipi Livni, has failed to bring together a coalition government and will now be taking Israel to the polls when it is widely expected that the ultra right-wing Zionist Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party in cohorts with other ultra right-wing nationalist and expansionist groups will win government. Already the settlers in the occupied territories sense victory as they confront Israeli authorities over the removal of illegal outposts since they know that with Netanyahu they have a friend who shares their expansionist dreams.
But the most terrifying aspect of a McCain win in the US and a Netanyahu win in Israel is the very much enhanced likelihood of a final confrontation with Iran and the fallout, literally and metaphorically, that such a confrontation will have for the Middle East and the world. Netanyahu has in the past hinted at a ‘nuclear strike on Iran’. And, of course, who can forget McCain’s policy of ‘Bomb, bomb, bombing Iran’.
The American people, not just for themselves but for the entire world, must ensure that McCain doesn’t become President. And with an Obama victory the world should then demand peace for everyone in the Middle East.
The alternatives are too shocking to even contemplate.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
U.S. ISSUE THINLY VEILED THREAT TO THE IRAQIS.
The US is now putting significant pressure on the Iraqi government to sign up for another three years of US occupation. They are threatening that “the consequences of not having a Sofa (Status of Forces Agreement) and of not having a renewed UN authorisation are pretty dramatic in terms of consequences for our actions”.
According to US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, ‘A failure to put an agreement in place could mean a loss of ground against al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias and criminal elements in Iraq’.
The UN mandate which covers the current allied presence in Iraq expires on 31 December this year but US administration officials are anxious to tie up an agreement to extend their occupation for a further three years as soon as possible; presumably before the presidential election on 4 November. If the Iraqi government doesn’t agree to the ‘Sofa’ arrangements proposed then the US will need to seek an extension of the UN mandate. Given the current frosty climate between the US and Russia, a UN Security Council member that holds veto power over any UN mandates, a UN extension of a mandate isn’t necessarily a given just because the US want it.
Since there is no al ‘Qaeda in Iraq’, and a continued American presence in Iraq is more likely to encourage Iranian-backed militias rather than dissipate their influence, and considering that the majority of ‘criminal elements’ in Iraq are those that are finance by the US, it would seem that Iraq would be far better off it were to get rid of the US entirely from their country so that the Iraqi people can determine for themselves their own destiny which something they are going to have to do sooner or later anyway; if not now, then in three years time.
One has to wonder what Secretary of Defence Gates has in mind when he says “the consequences of not having a Sofa (Status of Forces Agreement) and of not having a renewed UN authorisation are pretty dramatic in terms of consequences for our actions”.
How ‘dramatic’?
According to US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, ‘A failure to put an agreement in place could mean a loss of ground against al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias and criminal elements in Iraq’.
The UN mandate which covers the current allied presence in Iraq expires on 31 December this year but US administration officials are anxious to tie up an agreement to extend their occupation for a further three years as soon as possible; presumably before the presidential election on 4 November. If the Iraqi government doesn’t agree to the ‘Sofa’ arrangements proposed then the US will need to seek an extension of the UN mandate. Given the current frosty climate between the US and Russia, a UN Security Council member that holds veto power over any UN mandates, a UN extension of a mandate isn’t necessarily a given just because the US want it.
Since there is no al ‘Qaeda in Iraq’, and a continued American presence in Iraq is more likely to encourage Iranian-backed militias rather than dissipate their influence, and considering that the majority of ‘criminal elements’ in Iraq are those that are finance by the US, it would seem that Iraq would be far better off it were to get rid of the US entirely from their country so that the Iraqi people can determine for themselves their own destiny which something they are going to have to do sooner or later anyway; if not now, then in three years time.
One has to wonder what Secretary of Defence Gates has in mind when he says “the consequences of not having a Sofa (Status of Forces Agreement) and of not having a renewed UN authorisation are pretty dramatic in terms of consequences for our actions”.
How ‘dramatic’?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
THE TALIBAN AND THE MYTH OF ‘AL QAEDA’.
Recently the Taliban have sought to instigate talks that may lead to a settlement in Afghanistan which the US and their allies now concede is unwinable. Part of the concessions the Taliban are willing to make are to disassociate themselves from ‘al Qaeda’. A reader has asked me to comment on this. Here is my response.
The attitude of the Taliban with regard to ‘al Qaeda’ is indicative of the extent of influence ‘al Qaeda’ as an organisation really has in Central Asia – about zilch.
Western propagandists would like us to think that ‘al Qaeda’ is an extensive, well-organised internationalist Jihad movement with branches every place where there are American and allied forces. The reality is that ‘al Qaeda’ exists these days largely as a figment of Western propagandist’s somewhat vivid imagination and the words ‘al Qaeda’ are basically used as a convenient catchall label to define to the Western public who the ‘enemy’ is as it relates to the equally overused and inappropriately titled ‘Global War on Terror’. In nearly all cases they are, in fact, simply fighters who are resisting US domination in their respective countries. Among these fighters are those who have come from other countries to help those they consider to be their ‘brothers’ defend their country despite the fact it is not their own country. It is this air of internationalism among young Muslims wanting to help other Muslims in the fight against oppression and persecution and this notion of pan Islamic camaraderie that has given rise to the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ being the overarching enemy. They have become the perpetual enemy. There is barely any discussion in the West about any of today’s trouble spots around the globe where ‘al Qaeda’ doesn’t get a mention.
Rather than try to explain to the Western public the intricate nuances of continually shifting alliances and allegiances of America’s enemies in every theatre of fighting, it is far easier for the US and their allies to simply lump all of these enemies under the one banner called ‘al Qaeda’. And in situations where the Western public know that a particular group is known not to be ‘al Qaeda’ then they are usually referred to simply as an ‘al Qaeda’ linked terrorist organisation or some such.
The fact is the Taliban are not ‘al Qaeda’ and Osama bin Laden is very likely long dead. However, their continued ‘existence’ is required by the US and their allies in order to perpetuate the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ being a terrorist organisation that remains a threat to the West. Once the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ is exposed the US and their allies will then have no ‘enemy’. They would then have to explain what all the wars have really been all about.
The war in Afghanistan has got to the stage now where the invaders have realised that they cannot possibly ever actually ‘win’ the war against the Taliban. They could keep it going forever and a day, but they can’t actually ‘win’ it. The time has come for the two sides to talk. The Taliban realise that the West wants concessions that will make them look as though they’ve achieved something and so the Taliban are happy to play along with the idea that they’ll disassociate themselves from ‘al Qaeda’ in order to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. It works for the Taliban who get to most likely at least play a major role again in the running of their country, and it works for the US and their allies who get to keep the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ going as part of their ongoing ‘Global War on Terror’ elsewhere in the world. It also leaves the options open to reuse the ‘al Qaeda in Afghanistan’ myth if the need arises in the future if things don’t pan out after any settlement there.
Sooner or later though, the world is going to learn that ‘al Qaeda’ was merely a late twentieth-century rag-tag group of disillusioned Jihadists whose numbers probably never exceeded a hundred or so in their heyday but whose continued mythical existence into the twenty-first century was fabricated for the purposes of enhancing US imperial hegemony and neoconservative dreams of Israeli Zionist expansionism and influence in the Middle East.
The attitude of the Taliban with regard to ‘al Qaeda’ is indicative of the extent of influence ‘al Qaeda’ as an organisation really has in Central Asia – about zilch.
Western propagandists would like us to think that ‘al Qaeda’ is an extensive, well-organised internationalist Jihad movement with branches every place where there are American and allied forces. The reality is that ‘al Qaeda’ exists these days largely as a figment of Western propagandist’s somewhat vivid imagination and the words ‘al Qaeda’ are basically used as a convenient catchall label to define to the Western public who the ‘enemy’ is as it relates to the equally overused and inappropriately titled ‘Global War on Terror’. In nearly all cases they are, in fact, simply fighters who are resisting US domination in their respective countries. Among these fighters are those who have come from other countries to help those they consider to be their ‘brothers’ defend their country despite the fact it is not their own country. It is this air of internationalism among young Muslims wanting to help other Muslims in the fight against oppression and persecution and this notion of pan Islamic camaraderie that has given rise to the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ being the overarching enemy. They have become the perpetual enemy. There is barely any discussion in the West about any of today’s trouble spots around the globe where ‘al Qaeda’ doesn’t get a mention.
Rather than try to explain to the Western public the intricate nuances of continually shifting alliances and allegiances of America’s enemies in every theatre of fighting, it is far easier for the US and their allies to simply lump all of these enemies under the one banner called ‘al Qaeda’. And in situations where the Western public know that a particular group is known not to be ‘al Qaeda’ then they are usually referred to simply as an ‘al Qaeda’ linked terrorist organisation or some such.
The fact is the Taliban are not ‘al Qaeda’ and Osama bin Laden is very likely long dead. However, their continued ‘existence’ is required by the US and their allies in order to perpetuate the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ being a terrorist organisation that remains a threat to the West. Once the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ is exposed the US and their allies will then have no ‘enemy’. They would then have to explain what all the wars have really been all about.
The war in Afghanistan has got to the stage now where the invaders have realised that they cannot possibly ever actually ‘win’ the war against the Taliban. They could keep it going forever and a day, but they can’t actually ‘win’ it. The time has come for the two sides to talk. The Taliban realise that the West wants concessions that will make them look as though they’ve achieved something and so the Taliban are happy to play along with the idea that they’ll disassociate themselves from ‘al Qaeda’ in order to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. It works for the Taliban who get to most likely at least play a major role again in the running of their country, and it works for the US and their allies who get to keep the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ going as part of their ongoing ‘Global War on Terror’ elsewhere in the world. It also leaves the options open to reuse the ‘al Qaeda in Afghanistan’ myth if the need arises in the future if things don’t pan out after any settlement there.
Sooner or later though, the world is going to learn that ‘al Qaeda’ was merely a late twentieth-century rag-tag group of disillusioned Jihadists whose numbers probably never exceeded a hundred or so in their heyday but whose continued mythical existence into the twenty-first century was fabricated for the purposes of enhancing US imperial hegemony and neoconservative dreams of Israeli Zionist expansionism and influence in the Middle East.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
ONE NEOCON AT THE ‘WEEKLY STANDARD’ IS ALREADY CONCEDING DEFEAT WHILE ANOTHER DRIFTS INTO GA-GA LAND.
Fred Barnes, writing in the neocon comic ‘Weekly Standard’ about Sarah Palin’s future concludes his piece with these words: “Whether they know it or not, Republicans have a huge stake in Palin. If, after the election, they let her slip into political obscurity, they'll be making a tragic mistake.”
If, as the neocons would like, Palin is Vice-President after the election, then why would she slip in obscurity? Surely, if you’re giving your whole-hearted support to the McCain-Palin campaign you shouldn’t really be indulging in such defeatist talk, should you? Unless, of course, the outcome of the Presidential elections, even for the neocons, is already a foregone conclusion.
Perhaps ‘Defeatist Freddy’ should take a leaf out of fellow neocrazy ‘Weekly Standard’ writer, Stephen ‘Smokey’ Hayes, who seems to have been smoking something that’s caused him to once again drift off into ga-ga land. His piece is titled – wait for it – ‘McCain wins round three’!
It just goes to show how out of touch with reality these people are.
If, as the neocons would like, Palin is Vice-President after the election, then why would she slip in obscurity? Surely, if you’re giving your whole-hearted support to the McCain-Palin campaign you shouldn’t really be indulging in such defeatist talk, should you? Unless, of course, the outcome of the Presidential elections, even for the neocons, is already a foregone conclusion.
Perhaps ‘Defeatist Freddy’ should take a leaf out of fellow neocrazy ‘Weekly Standard’ writer, Stephen ‘Smokey’ Hayes, who seems to have been smoking something that’s caused him to once again drift off into ga-ga land. His piece is titled – wait for it – ‘McCain wins round three’!
It just goes to show how out of touch with reality these people are.
Friday, October 17, 2008
AND IN OTHER NEWS TO HAND…
ALLIED AIR STRIKE KILLS MORE AFGHAN CIVILIANS
The caption under the photo in this BBC article reads ‘The issue of civilian casualties is hugely controversial’.
What’s ‘controversial’ about it? What’s to discuss that makes it a 'controversy’? The Americans and their allies have invaded a country and their armed forces are killing the inhabitants of that country. It’s not ‘controversial’; it’s criminal. It should be fairly clear now to all in the West that the Afghan people are not in the slightest bit interested in having Western-style democracy, especially American-style democracy, rammed down their throats. For them it’s a farce. It’s an excuse for those like the US puppet Hamid Karzai and others that involve themselves in it to rip off their own people. They’re sick and tired of people invading them and they’re sick and tired of the corruption and hypocrisy that follows.
The Taliban and their allies are now determined to put an end to the farce. The Western allies in Afghanistan can never win. The best they can hope for is a negotiated peace followed by complete withdrawal. And, for the sake of both the innocent civilians of Afghanistan and the Western kidz that are sent there to kill them, the quicker the better.
THE ‘SUICIDE VEST’: NO ‘AL QAEDA IN IRAQ’ LEADER WOULD BE SEEN DEAD WITHOUT ONE – APPARENTLY.
The number two ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ leader, known as Abu Qaswarah or Abu Sara, has, according to a US military statement that we are expected to believe, blown himself up by detonating his ‘suicide vest’ rather than allow himself to be captured.
We are told that ‘US forces were raiding a building where Abu Qaswarah was holed up on October 5 when a gunfight erupted. The militant leader, who suffered gunshot wounds, moved upstairs with his fighters and some women and children, and exploded his suicide vest,’ the report states.
Are we really expected to believe that these people go around 24 hours a day wearing their ‘suicide vests’ just in case they’re caught ‘holed up’ in a house with women and children with them? A far more likely explanation for the explosion that ended up killing the ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ leader and presumably the women and children and others that were with him, is that the US military either threw or launched grenades into the building.
The imagery of an ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ leader wearing his ‘suicide vest’ at all times ‘just in case’ he gets caught ‘holed up’ is just the sort of propaganda the dumb and gullible in the West are likely to lap up.
The caption under the photo in this BBC article reads ‘The issue of civilian casualties is hugely controversial’.
What’s ‘controversial’ about it? What’s to discuss that makes it a 'controversy’? The Americans and their allies have invaded a country and their armed forces are killing the inhabitants of that country. It’s not ‘controversial’; it’s criminal. It should be fairly clear now to all in the West that the Afghan people are not in the slightest bit interested in having Western-style democracy, especially American-style democracy, rammed down their throats. For them it’s a farce. It’s an excuse for those like the US puppet Hamid Karzai and others that involve themselves in it to rip off their own people. They’re sick and tired of people invading them and they’re sick and tired of the corruption and hypocrisy that follows.
The Taliban and their allies are now determined to put an end to the farce. The Western allies in Afghanistan can never win. The best they can hope for is a negotiated peace followed by complete withdrawal. And, for the sake of both the innocent civilians of Afghanistan and the Western kidz that are sent there to kill them, the quicker the better.
THE ‘SUICIDE VEST’: NO ‘AL QAEDA IN IRAQ’ LEADER WOULD BE SEEN DEAD WITHOUT ONE – APPARENTLY.
The number two ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ leader, known as Abu Qaswarah or Abu Sara, has, according to a US military statement that we are expected to believe, blown himself up by detonating his ‘suicide vest’ rather than allow himself to be captured.
We are told that ‘US forces were raiding a building where Abu Qaswarah was holed up on October 5 when a gunfight erupted. The militant leader, who suffered gunshot wounds, moved upstairs with his fighters and some women and children, and exploded his suicide vest,’ the report states.
Are we really expected to believe that these people go around 24 hours a day wearing their ‘suicide vests’ just in case they’re caught ‘holed up’ in a house with women and children with them? A far more likely explanation for the explosion that ended up killing the ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ leader and presumably the women and children and others that were with him, is that the US military either threw or launched grenades into the building.
The imagery of an ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ leader wearing his ‘suicide vest’ at all times ‘just in case’ he gets caught ‘holed up’ is just the sort of propaganda the dumb and gullible in the West are likely to lap up.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
ARE THE REPUBLICANS AND NEOCONS REALLY JUST GOING TO WALK AWAY AFTER JUST EIGHT YEARS OF THE ‘NEW AMERICAN CENTURY’?
It’s gone awfully quiet out there in neocon land. They’re not putting up much of a fight to help their man in to the White House to replace Bush. And what little fight they are putting up seems half-hearted and even defeatist, somehow accepting of what seems inevitable – an Obama win.
‘Weekly Standard’ neocon writer Fred Barnes pens an article titled, ‘Worst Case Scenario: What an Obama administration and a heavily Democratic Congress would accomplish’. Fellow neocon writer, Terry Eastland, also writing in the current issue of the ‘Weekly Standard’, titles his piece; ‘Night of the Living Constitution: Explaining the judicial consequences of an Obama presidency’. They seem somehow resigned to an Obama victory – a victory that will bring about the end of neocon power and influence, and foreshorten their dream of a ‘New American Century’ by some ninety two years.
And where’s Dick Cheney? We haven’t heard anything from him. He always was one to keep a low profile publicly but now it’s almost as if he’s disappeared off the planet. He hasn’t actually dropped off the planet (unfortunately), but rather than being out their pushing McCain and his 'lets have more of the same' ideology, Cheney’s just doing a little bit of quiet campaigning and fundraising up in a Chicago suburb for GOP candidate Marty Ozinga. All very low profile.
So, what’s going on? After all the effort they went to in order to get power by cheating at the ballot box and defrauding the electorate, starting wars with lies and worse, whittling away the Constitution, depriving peoples of their rights, robbing the treasury, awarding themselves massive contracts, handing over massive amounts of taxpayers money to their mates in the banks so the banks can lend it back to the taxpayer, shove the world to the brink of another Great Depression, flex a few wasted and now ineffectual muscles in the general direction of their arch enemy Russia, squawk on pointlessly about a Palestinian state that they know is never going to happen and generally turned a comparatively peaceful and almost flourishing world into a brutish nightmare for millions, are they really just going to walk away?
As I said, it’s gone awfully quiet out there in neocon land. Far too quiet. They’re up to something. Do the neocon writers know something the rest of us don’t to the point where they feel they don’t need to put too much effort into getting their man up? Is this the right-wing lull before the storm of what may be their final thrust for power that will ensure that the ‘New American Century’ will indeed go the full distance?
If, as they say, a week is a long time in politics, then three weeks out from an election can seem like an eternity within which anything happen. Heave a sigh of relief if nothing happens, but don’t say you weren’t warned if it does. The likes of Cheney and his band of power-hungry warmongering lunatics rarely walk away from anything – especially after having come this far.
‘Weekly Standard’ neocon writer Fred Barnes pens an article titled, ‘Worst Case Scenario: What an Obama administration and a heavily Democratic Congress would accomplish’. Fellow neocon writer, Terry Eastland, also writing in the current issue of the ‘Weekly Standard’, titles his piece; ‘Night of the Living Constitution: Explaining the judicial consequences of an Obama presidency’. They seem somehow resigned to an Obama victory – a victory that will bring about the end of neocon power and influence, and foreshorten their dream of a ‘New American Century’ by some ninety two years.
And where’s Dick Cheney? We haven’t heard anything from him. He always was one to keep a low profile publicly but now it’s almost as if he’s disappeared off the planet. He hasn’t actually dropped off the planet (unfortunately), but rather than being out their pushing McCain and his 'lets have more of the same' ideology, Cheney’s just doing a little bit of quiet campaigning and fundraising up in a Chicago suburb for GOP candidate Marty Ozinga. All very low profile.
So, what’s going on? After all the effort they went to in order to get power by cheating at the ballot box and defrauding the electorate, starting wars with lies and worse, whittling away the Constitution, depriving peoples of their rights, robbing the treasury, awarding themselves massive contracts, handing over massive amounts of taxpayers money to their mates in the banks so the banks can lend it back to the taxpayer, shove the world to the brink of another Great Depression, flex a few wasted and now ineffectual muscles in the general direction of their arch enemy Russia, squawk on pointlessly about a Palestinian state that they know is never going to happen and generally turned a comparatively peaceful and almost flourishing world into a brutish nightmare for millions, are they really just going to walk away?
As I said, it’s gone awfully quiet out there in neocon land. Far too quiet. They’re up to something. Do the neocon writers know something the rest of us don’t to the point where they feel they don’t need to put too much effort into getting their man up? Is this the right-wing lull before the storm of what may be their final thrust for power that will ensure that the ‘New American Century’ will indeed go the full distance?
If, as they say, a week is a long time in politics, then three weeks out from an election can seem like an eternity within which anything happen. Heave a sigh of relief if nothing happens, but don’t say you weren’t warned if it does. The likes of Cheney and his band of power-hungry warmongering lunatics rarely walk away from anything – especially after having come this far.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
A ‘SURGE’ IN AFGHANISTAN WON’T WORK BECAUSE THE SUCCESS OF A ‘SURGE’ IN IRAQ WAS A NEOCON MYTH.
Contrary to what the neocons would have us believe the success of the ‘surge’ in Iraq is a myth. The reason why some of the violence dropped off is not because US soldiers were able to eliminate the insurgents but because the US government were able to buy them off. And those they weren’t able to buy off they simply had killed by those that they were able to buy off.
The US was able to take full advantage of some of the internal squabbling between Sunni and Shia groups and militias. Elements of the Sunni insurgency that had been fighting against the US and their allies’ occupation were simply made an offer they couldn’t refuse and formed in to ‘Awakening Councils’ in the pay of the US government; and those that did refuse were killed off – by the ‘Awakening Councils’. Those that didn’t take up the offer were labelled ‘al Qaeda terrorists’ and treated accordingly. Now it looks like those ‘Awakening Council’ arrangements are coming apart. The old animosities are re-emerging and the possibility of open fighting once again being a distinct possibility all of which will demonstrate the extent to which the success of the ‘surge’ was a myth.
In Iraq the ‘al Qaeda’ label is merely a catchall for anyone who fights against the US occupation there. The propaganda value of the ‘al Qaeda’ label is still very powerful when it comes to perpetuating the myth of the ‘surge’ particularly, and the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ generally.
In Afghanistan the situation is so different than in Iraq that a ‘surge’ is not possible and even the commander in chief in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, concedes this. The simple fact is; the Afghani fighters know from history that a concerted and tenacious defence of their homeland will always see the invader off eventually. Nor are they open to bribes. Those that were able to be bought off were bought off years ago and are either now in the Karzai puppet government or are warlords with their own domains scattered throughout Afghanistan. In other words, there is no one left to buy off.
The Republican vice-presidential candidate’s call for repeating the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan demonstrates the extent of Sarah Palin’s inability to face reality even after seven years of failure in Afghanistan.
The British are waking up to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is unwinable are now tentatively calling for talks. It’s time the US government and the candidates for the presidency did the same.
The US was able to take full advantage of some of the internal squabbling between Sunni and Shia groups and militias. Elements of the Sunni insurgency that had been fighting against the US and their allies’ occupation were simply made an offer they couldn’t refuse and formed in to ‘Awakening Councils’ in the pay of the US government; and those that did refuse were killed off – by the ‘Awakening Councils’. Those that didn’t take up the offer were labelled ‘al Qaeda terrorists’ and treated accordingly. Now it looks like those ‘Awakening Council’ arrangements are coming apart. The old animosities are re-emerging and the possibility of open fighting once again being a distinct possibility all of which will demonstrate the extent to which the success of the ‘surge’ was a myth.
In Iraq the ‘al Qaeda’ label is merely a catchall for anyone who fights against the US occupation there. The propaganda value of the ‘al Qaeda’ label is still very powerful when it comes to perpetuating the myth of the ‘surge’ particularly, and the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ generally.
In Afghanistan the situation is so different than in Iraq that a ‘surge’ is not possible and even the commander in chief in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, concedes this. The simple fact is; the Afghani fighters know from history that a concerted and tenacious defence of their homeland will always see the invader off eventually. Nor are they open to bribes. Those that were able to be bought off were bought off years ago and are either now in the Karzai puppet government or are warlords with their own domains scattered throughout Afghanistan. In other words, there is no one left to buy off.
The Republican vice-presidential candidate’s call for repeating the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan demonstrates the extent of Sarah Palin’s inability to face reality even after seven years of failure in Afghanistan.
The British are waking up to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is unwinable are now tentatively calling for talks. It’s time the US government and the candidates for the presidency did the same.
Monday, October 06, 2008
LIKE HITLER’S ‘THOUSAND YEAR REICH’, THE NEOCONS ‘NEW AMERICAN CENTURY’ FALLS FAR SHORT OF ITS TARGET.
Hitler’s ‘Thousand Year Reich began in 1933 when he became Chancellor of Germany and ended just twelve years later when he committed suicide in his bunker in Berlin surrounded by all of his enemies and with Germany all but totally in ruins in 1945.
So too the Neoconservative’s ‘New American Century’, which began when George W. Bush became President of the United States, seems set to end just as prematurely as their wars continue to be half-heartedly fought without any sign of victory whatsoever and talk of talks with their perceived enemies signalling the end of their dreams of a unipolar world dominated by ‘American Exceptionalism’ and a style of ‘democracy’ that nobody really seems to want – especially if all you end up with is a country like America is today.
As well as its military might having been ill-spent, so too has their treasure chest been ravaged by the tycoons of war machinery and the carpetbaggers that followed behind them. And, not being content merely with the greed of war, the banks of America also tore into the equity of the average American’s biggest and most important investment – his own home.
The end of the ‘New American Century’ nightmare cannot come soon enough for both the peoples of the world that have suffered through their wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia and elsewhere. And nor can it come soon enough for the peoples of the rest of world – and especially for the long-suffering people of America that have had so much blood and treasure stolen from them.
After just eight years the neocon’s dream of a ‘New American Century’ has been as big a failure as the dreams of the dictators of the last century. The quicker they disappear into the pages of the history books the better for the world.
So too the Neoconservative’s ‘New American Century’, which began when George W. Bush became President of the United States, seems set to end just as prematurely as their wars continue to be half-heartedly fought without any sign of victory whatsoever and talk of talks with their perceived enemies signalling the end of their dreams of a unipolar world dominated by ‘American Exceptionalism’ and a style of ‘democracy’ that nobody really seems to want – especially if all you end up with is a country like America is today.
As well as its military might having been ill-spent, so too has their treasure chest been ravaged by the tycoons of war machinery and the carpetbaggers that followed behind them. And, not being content merely with the greed of war, the banks of America also tore into the equity of the average American’s biggest and most important investment – his own home.
The end of the ‘New American Century’ nightmare cannot come soon enough for both the peoples of the world that have suffered through their wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia and elsewhere. And nor can it come soon enough for the peoples of the rest of world – and especially for the long-suffering people of America that have had so much blood and treasure stolen from them.
After just eight years the neocon’s dream of a ‘New American Century’ has been as big a failure as the dreams of the dictators of the last century. The quicker they disappear into the pages of the history books the better for the world.
THE PUSH FOR TALKS WITH THE TALIBAN TO END THE WAR IS STARTING TO GET SERIOUS – TO THE HORROR OF THE NEOCONS!
Following up on my piece from last Saturday regarding the West beginning to concede that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of British forces in Afghanistan, has been quoted in the UK ‘Guardian’ newspaper as having said on Sunday (5 October) confirming that, indeed, the war cannot be won and that, furthermore, the only way out is to initiate talks with the Taliban.
It seems the commander was speaking with some authority from the British government. The Ministry of Defence agreed that they had no problem with warning the UK people not to expect a decisive victory and they may have to settle for a deal with the Taliban.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US, rather than considering talks (but not ruling them out entirely), are, instead, toying with the idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan indicating that the two, until now, staunch allies were drifting apart on Afghan policy.
The Afghan US-sponsored puppet president, Hamid Karzai, has also been thinking along the lines of talks with the Taliban. Karzai is reported to have approached the Saudi government to broker such peace talks. Even the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, while on the one hand has asked for some 10,000 more troops, has, in apparent contradiction to US policy, proposed talks stating that the war needs to be dealt with diplomatically.
The warmongering neocons, quite predictably, are not happy with the new developments. When asked recently how the war against the Taliban could be won Karl Rove answered: “More Predators and helicopters!”
It seems the commander was speaking with some authority from the British government. The Ministry of Defence agreed that they had no problem with warning the UK people not to expect a decisive victory and they may have to settle for a deal with the Taliban.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US, rather than considering talks (but not ruling them out entirely), are, instead, toying with the idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan indicating that the two, until now, staunch allies were drifting apart on Afghan policy.
The Afghan US-sponsored puppet president, Hamid Karzai, has also been thinking along the lines of talks with the Taliban. Karzai is reported to have approached the Saudi government to broker such peace talks. Even the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, while on the one hand has asked for some 10,000 more troops, has, in apparent contradiction to US policy, proposed talks stating that the war needs to be dealt with diplomatically.
The warmongering neocons, quite predictably, are not happy with the new developments. When asked recently how the war against the Taliban could be won Karl Rove answered: “More Predators and helicopters!”
Saturday, October 04, 2008
AFTER SEVEN YEARS THE WEST FINALLY BEGINS TO SEE THAT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN CANNOT BE WON.
Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, concedes that the war against the Taliban and allied insurgents cannot be won. He has been reported as saying “The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust.” The Ambassador was also reported as saying that the NATO action against the Taliban will fail and that the only hope for an outcome that may be acceptable is the installation of a dictatorship.
Even the warmongering British neoconservative political commentator Con Coughlin concedes that the allies are getting nowhere fast in Afghanistan saying: “Next week it will be seven years since the war on terror was officially launched when the US military, with British support, unleashed a devastating bombardment on 31 al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. But despite the heroic efforts of coalition forces [Invading other people’s country and killing their inhabitants is heroic?] and the deployment of vast resources, the West appears no closer to achieving its long-term objective of eradicating the threat posed by Islamist groups and helping to turn failed states into ones capable of sustaining democratic government based on the rule of law.”
This comes on top of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullin’s assessment last month when he told a Congressional hearing that “I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan”, adding that the allies should be ‘looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region that would cover both sides of the border, including Pakistan's tribal areas’.
While the various views represented did not amount to a concession that they’d already lost, it does seem that they concede the point that, if they were to carry on as they are, they will eventually lose.
The British government responded to their Ambassadors remarks predictably saying they did not reflect British policy on Afghanistan. The Ambassadors view that an “acceptable dictator” might be the answer flies in the face of US propaganda that demands ‘democracy’, though the present ‘government’ in Kabul, despite Bush’s assertions to the contrary, is hardly representative of the people of Afghanistan. And Mullin’s idea that the war should be extended into Pakistan demonstrates only the failures of seven years of fighting in Afghanistan.
All that and still no sign of Osama bin Laden, the stated reason for the war in the first place.
Even the warmongering British neoconservative political commentator Con Coughlin concedes that the allies are getting nowhere fast in Afghanistan saying: “Next week it will be seven years since the war on terror was officially launched when the US military, with British support, unleashed a devastating bombardment on 31 al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. But despite the heroic efforts of coalition forces [Invading other people’s country and killing their inhabitants is heroic?] and the deployment of vast resources, the West appears no closer to achieving its long-term objective of eradicating the threat posed by Islamist groups and helping to turn failed states into ones capable of sustaining democratic government based on the rule of law.”
This comes on top of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullin’s assessment last month when he told a Congressional hearing that “I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan”, adding that the allies should be ‘looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region that would cover both sides of the border, including Pakistan's tribal areas’.
While the various views represented did not amount to a concession that they’d already lost, it does seem that they concede the point that, if they were to carry on as they are, they will eventually lose.
The British government responded to their Ambassadors remarks predictably saying they did not reflect British policy on Afghanistan. The Ambassadors view that an “acceptable dictator” might be the answer flies in the face of US propaganda that demands ‘democracy’, though the present ‘government’ in Kabul, despite Bush’s assertions to the contrary, is hardly representative of the people of Afghanistan. And Mullin’s idea that the war should be extended into Pakistan demonstrates only the failures of seven years of fighting in Afghanistan.
All that and still no sign of Osama bin Laden, the stated reason for the war in the first place.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
ANYONE REMEMBER HOW THE LAST GREAT DEPRESSION ENDED? – WORLD WAR TWO GOT STARTED.
In America it took ten years before the economy got going again after the last Great Depression started on 29 October 1929. No one knows how long it would have gone on for had the Second World War not started.
This time it seems as though things are the other way around; we go to war first spending billions of taxpayers money on weapons and invasions, then we spend even more billions on pretending to patch up the stuff that got broken as a result of the invasions and then we wonder why there’s no money left to carry the cost of it all.
The wars have made the ultra rich even richer and, since there is only x amount of money around, that can only mean the poor got poorer but the banks were quite happy to create and perpetuate the illusion that credit was good because it gave everyone what they wanted even if they couldn’t afford it. We were even told that these were the sort of ‘values’ that the kiddies from the West were dying for in the Middle East and Central Asia. Meanwhile the kiddies in the Middle East and Central Asia who were being killed by the kiddies from the West just knew that the kiddies from the West were only in the Middle East and Central Asia in order to enrich the already ultra rich in the West. Now, however, the pigeons have come home to roost. Not only have the ‘values’ that the kiddies from the West have been fighting for been shown to be false but the monetary value of the real reasons why the kiddies from the West are dying for has also had its backside pulled from underneath itself.
Let’s hope that the answer to this potential disaster doesn’t involve even more war. Do we really want the kiddies of our planet to wipe each other out just so that the very rich can remain very rich?
The first decade of the twenty-first century isn’t even over yet and already we’re repeating the mistakes that the lunatics in the twentieth century made.
Will we ever learn?
This time it seems as though things are the other way around; we go to war first spending billions of taxpayers money on weapons and invasions, then we spend even more billions on pretending to patch up the stuff that got broken as a result of the invasions and then we wonder why there’s no money left to carry the cost of it all.
The wars have made the ultra rich even richer and, since there is only x amount of money around, that can only mean the poor got poorer but the banks were quite happy to create and perpetuate the illusion that credit was good because it gave everyone what they wanted even if they couldn’t afford it. We were even told that these were the sort of ‘values’ that the kiddies from the West were dying for in the Middle East and Central Asia. Meanwhile the kiddies in the Middle East and Central Asia who were being killed by the kiddies from the West just knew that the kiddies from the West were only in the Middle East and Central Asia in order to enrich the already ultra rich in the West. Now, however, the pigeons have come home to roost. Not only have the ‘values’ that the kiddies from the West have been fighting for been shown to be false but the monetary value of the real reasons why the kiddies from the West are dying for has also had its backside pulled from underneath itself.
Let’s hope that the answer to this potential disaster doesn’t involve even more war. Do we really want the kiddies of our planet to wipe each other out just so that the very rich can remain very rich?
The first decade of the twenty-first century isn’t even over yet and already we’re repeating the mistakes that the lunatics in the twentieth century made.
Will we ever learn?
Monday, September 29, 2008
THE PROPAGANDA OF FEAR AND HATRED – THE HALLMARK OF THE EXTREME RIGHTWING ZIONISTS OF ISRAEL
The Israeli Ministry of Propaganda, better known as the Israeli National Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Bureau, have been working overtime recently dreaming up ‘terrorist’ scenarios aimed at frightening the Israeli people and demonising the Lebanese militias known as Hezbollah. The idea is to work up enough enmity and hatred between the two so that the Israeli Zionists can feel justified in once again invading southern Lebanon in an attempt to kick start a war with Iran and, at the same time, secure south Lebanon up to the Litani River for themselves just as they have tried a couple of times in the past to do without success.
According to a report in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, the Counter Terrorism Bureau believe that Hezbollah are planning to infiltrate across the border and capture an Israeli community and then barricade themselves in one of the homes with Israeli civilians. The IDF apparently are also concerned that Hezbollah may attempt to ‘kidnap’ Israel soldiers ‘as they have done in the past’, presumably a reference to the capture of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture triggered the last attempt by Israel to invade Lebanon.
Meanwhile, extreme right-wing Zionists seem to be getting worried about the influence of the Israeli left who are increasingly moving toward the idea of a free Palestinian state and even the notion of a one state bi-national solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Flyers have been discovered offering NIS 1 million to anyone that kills members of the growing Israeli left-wing Peace Now movement.
The Israeli right-wing is currently in turmoil after the demise of Olmert. However, if an election were to be held now it is likely that Likud under Netanyahu would prevail, a move that would not bode well for Palestinians nor those in Israel who are tired of the violence and the hatreds and the seemingly never-ending fearmongering that is the hallmark of the extreme rightwing.
According to a report in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, the Counter Terrorism Bureau believe that Hezbollah are planning to infiltrate across the border and capture an Israeli community and then barricade themselves in one of the homes with Israeli civilians. The IDF apparently are also concerned that Hezbollah may attempt to ‘kidnap’ Israel soldiers ‘as they have done in the past’, presumably a reference to the capture of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture triggered the last attempt by Israel to invade Lebanon.
Meanwhile, extreme right-wing Zionists seem to be getting worried about the influence of the Israeli left who are increasingly moving toward the idea of a free Palestinian state and even the notion of a one state bi-national solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Flyers have been discovered offering NIS 1 million to anyone that kills members of the growing Israeli left-wing Peace Now movement.
The Israeli right-wing is currently in turmoil after the demise of Olmert. However, if an election were to be held now it is likely that Likud under Netanyahu would prevail, a move that would not bode well for Palestinians nor those in Israel who are tired of the violence and the hatreds and the seemingly never-ending fearmongering that is the hallmark of the extreme rightwing.
AUSTRALIAN EXTREME RIGHT-WING MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLOGGERS THINK McCAIN WAS THE WINNER – DESPITE REST OF WORLD THINKING OBAMA WON.
You have to hand it to the extreme right-wing Murdoch bloggers – they’ll swear black is white regardless of the evidence presented to them saying the opposite. (They still think Saddam and Osama bin Laden did the 9/11 job between them.) Take ‘The Australian’ newspapers ultra right-wing commentator known, for obvious reasons to those familiar with her commentary, as ‘SS-Rantenfuehrer’ Janet Albrechtsen. She reckons the ‘Young messiah did not trounce the old guy’ because the ’old guy’ was the tough guy who was strong on victory in Iraq at any cost, strong on continuing to alienate Iran by not offering talks, and strong on Pakistan and Russia as potential world troublemakers. In other words, strong on all of the warmongering garbage that most Americans are now heartily fed up with.
Meanwhile, over at Murdoch’s other right-wing rag, the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, Tim Blair and his band of right-wing loony bloggies think that McCain won because Obama couldn’t remember the name of the mother who had given him a bracelet in memory of her son killed in Iraq. (Never mind that Obama was actually wearing the one that he’d been given while McCain had left his somewhere else.) It was, perhaps, a rather embarrassing ‘me too’ moment for Obama but is the future of the planet really going to revolve around bracelets and remembering who gave it to them?
Interestingly, the vast majority of polls say that he ‘young messiah did indeed trounce the old guy’ so from where these right-wingers get the idea that McCain somehow won the debate is anybody’s guess. Wishful thinking more likely.
As I said, these right-wingers will swear black is white in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How do they keep their jobs? Of course! They work for Murdoch!
Meanwhile, over at Murdoch’s other right-wing rag, the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, Tim Blair and his band of right-wing loony bloggies think that McCain won because Obama couldn’t remember the name of the mother who had given him a bracelet in memory of her son killed in Iraq. (Never mind that Obama was actually wearing the one that he’d been given while McCain had left his somewhere else.) It was, perhaps, a rather embarrassing ‘me too’ moment for Obama but is the future of the planet really going to revolve around bracelets and remembering who gave it to them?
Interestingly, the vast majority of polls say that he ‘young messiah did indeed trounce the old guy’ so from where these right-wingers get the idea that McCain somehow won the debate is anybody’s guess. Wishful thinking more likely.
As I said, these right-wingers will swear black is white in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How do they keep their jobs? Of course! They work for Murdoch!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
WAS MARRIOTT BLAST FAILED COUP ATTEMPT BACKED BY U.S. IN ORDER TO SECURE PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL?
The fact that both the Pakistan president and his Prime Minister were both scheduled to meet and dine at the Marriott Hotel together with many other senior government leaders at the time of the bomb blast that destroyed the hotel puts a new perspective on the notion that the blast was something more than just another so-called ‘suicide bomber’ attack by ‘Islamic extremists’.
While the US and their allies were quick to use the mainstream media to point the finger of blame at al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, who have denied any knowledge of the attack, the reality is that neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban had anything to actually gain from such an atrocity. Only the US and their allies would have gained from the deaths of Pakistan’s leaders in these circumstances. Had they been killed, the US and their allies would have had an opportunity to back a pro-US Pakistani to lead the country in its ‘war against terrorism’ which had now come to Pakistan. The US may even have used the event as an excuse to launch ground operations by US forces to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal using the US-backed emergency leader to give authority to such action.
Other factors are also giving cause for greater suspicion about this event. Just days before the bombing, the US had launched a number of drone attacks against targets on Pakistani soil. The Pakistan government had told the US that all such attacks in future that infringed Pakistan’s sovereignty would be defended by Pakistan’s forces regardless of who was attacking them. The US head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had given his assurances personally to the President that such attacks would not happen again. But they did. Even as Mullen was giving the President his assurance, the Predator drone attacks were being planned. It was quickly becoming apparent that both the Pakistani government and, more importantly, the Pakistani people, were rapidly losing what little confidence they had left in being allied to the US as they had been. US and allied incursions into Pakistan were seeing Pakistanis becoming increasingly hostile toward the US to the point that the US was running the risk of becoming completely alienated by the Pakistan government.
An alienated nuclear armed Islamic Pakistan right next door to Iran is the last thing the US and their allies want.
While the US and their allies were quick to use the mainstream media to point the finger of blame at al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, who have denied any knowledge of the attack, the reality is that neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban had anything to actually gain from such an atrocity. Only the US and their allies would have gained from the deaths of Pakistan’s leaders in these circumstances. Had they been killed, the US and their allies would have had an opportunity to back a pro-US Pakistani to lead the country in its ‘war against terrorism’ which had now come to Pakistan. The US may even have used the event as an excuse to launch ground operations by US forces to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal using the US-backed emergency leader to give authority to such action.
Other factors are also giving cause for greater suspicion about this event. Just days before the bombing, the US had launched a number of drone attacks against targets on Pakistani soil. The Pakistan government had told the US that all such attacks in future that infringed Pakistan’s sovereignty would be defended by Pakistan’s forces regardless of who was attacking them. The US head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had given his assurances personally to the President that such attacks would not happen again. But they did. Even as Mullen was giving the President his assurance, the Predator drone attacks were being planned. It was quickly becoming apparent that both the Pakistani government and, more importantly, the Pakistani people, were rapidly losing what little confidence they had left in being allied to the US as they had been. US and allied incursions into Pakistan were seeing Pakistanis becoming increasingly hostile toward the US to the point that the US was running the risk of becoming completely alienated by the Pakistan government.
An alienated nuclear armed Islamic Pakistan right next door to Iran is the last thing the US and their allies want.
Monday, September 22, 2008
RIGHT-WING ZIONIST ISRAELIS WANT ‘NATIONAL EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT' NOW – BEFORE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE!
Already the right-wing Zionists across the board of Israeli politics are calling for a national emergency government in order to cater for, as Ehud Barak the Israeli Labour leader puts it, ‘the political, financial and security challenges’ Israel faces. He has, it seems, the support of Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party.
Such a move would deprive Israelis of a right to elect a new government if the leader-elect of the Kadima Party, Tzipi Livni, is unable to form a coalition government. According to a report last Wednesday, talks between Barak and Netanyahu have resulted in an agreement whereby Netanyahu would become the Prime Minister of such a national emergency government until such time as elections take place either at the end of 2009 or when they are due in 2010 when Barak would take over as premier.
So why the rush to form a ‘national emergency government?
The extreme right wing Zionists – and make no mistake here, despite being leader of what is supposed to be a ‘leftish’ party, Barak is an extreme right-wing Zionist – need to form a government before the Bush presidency ends in order to guarantee support for an attack against Iran, Hizbollah, Syria and Hamas. An Obama presidency will be of no use to a right-wing Zionist government. Obama is unlikely to support such moves and the Zionists can’t afford to wait and see if McCain becomes president.
As always when it comes to Israeli politics, a lot of water can pass under the bridge in a very short space of time and alliances between politicians and parties can be made one moment and switched again the next. One thing is for sure however; if Netanyahu and the extreme right Zionists get up a government before Bush leaves office then Israel, the Palestinians and the entire Middle East can look forward only to more war and more misery.
Such a move would deprive Israelis of a right to elect a new government if the leader-elect of the Kadima Party, Tzipi Livni, is unable to form a coalition government. According to a report last Wednesday, talks between Barak and Netanyahu have resulted in an agreement whereby Netanyahu would become the Prime Minister of such a national emergency government until such time as elections take place either at the end of 2009 or when they are due in 2010 when Barak would take over as premier.
So why the rush to form a ‘national emergency government?
The extreme right wing Zionists – and make no mistake here, despite being leader of what is supposed to be a ‘leftish’ party, Barak is an extreme right-wing Zionist – need to form a government before the Bush presidency ends in order to guarantee support for an attack against Iran, Hizbollah, Syria and Hamas. An Obama presidency will be of no use to a right-wing Zionist government. Obama is unlikely to support such moves and the Zionists can’t afford to wait and see if McCain becomes president.
As always when it comes to Israeli politics, a lot of water can pass under the bridge in a very short space of time and alliances between politicians and parties can be made one moment and switched again the next. One thing is for sure however; if Netanyahu and the extreme right Zionists get up a government before Bush leaves office then Israel, the Palestinians and the entire Middle East can look forward only to more war and more misery.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
THE MARRIOTT HOTEL BOMBING – A TERRORIST ATTACK ALRIGHT, BUT WHO EXACTLY WERE THE TERRORISTS?
Take a step back, have a look at the bigger picture and cast aside any preconceived subjective ideas that the western mainstream media propaganda machine may have instilled in you. After an objective and unbiased analysis of the events that preceded the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, there emerges a picture that is starkly different from what the people of the west have been told by their mainstream media.
Last Thursday a US Predator drone aircraft fired off four Hellfire missiles into Pakistan killing seven people. This was just hours after the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had personally assured President Asif Ali Zardari that the US would in future respect the sovereignty of Pakistan after previous US incursions both into Pakistani airspace and on to Pakistani soil that had resulted in the deaths of Pakistani civilians. Relations between the US and Pakistan immediately floundered. Just a couple of day’s later, right on cue, there’s this massive blast at the Marriott Hotel that virtually destroys the hotel and kills scores. ‘Terrorists’ are blamed – the same Islamic extremist ‘terrorists, so we and the Pakistani government are told, who the US was trying to get just a couple of days earlier. And now there’s US National Security Advisor (and one of the few warmongering ultra neocons that is still in the Bush administration), Stephen Hadley, trying to tell the Pakistanis that they need the US to go into Pakistan to get these ‘terrorists’ because Pakistan hasn’t got the wherewithal to do it themselves.
We know, of course, that the Americans and their allies are not above this kind of false flag attack, (USS Liberty, Lavon Affair, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.). And, since there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber as claimed, or even that the perpetrator was from one of the so-called Islamic extremist organisations, one can, considering the circumstantial evidence, come to the conclusion that it may more than likely have been a false flag attack perpetrated by the US or their allies than one carried out by Muslim extremists who would, incidentally, have absolutely nothing to gain, especially at that time, from such an attack.
We should get over this ‘our government would never do a thing like that’ mentality and take a good hard look at the geo-political reality of what is actually happening in our world and has been happening for some considerable time.
Last Thursday a US Predator drone aircraft fired off four Hellfire missiles into Pakistan killing seven people. This was just hours after the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had personally assured President Asif Ali Zardari that the US would in future respect the sovereignty of Pakistan after previous US incursions both into Pakistani airspace and on to Pakistani soil that had resulted in the deaths of Pakistani civilians. Relations between the US and Pakistan immediately floundered. Just a couple of day’s later, right on cue, there’s this massive blast at the Marriott Hotel that virtually destroys the hotel and kills scores. ‘Terrorists’ are blamed – the same Islamic extremist ‘terrorists, so we and the Pakistani government are told, who the US was trying to get just a couple of days earlier. And now there’s US National Security Advisor (and one of the few warmongering ultra neocons that is still in the Bush administration), Stephen Hadley, trying to tell the Pakistanis that they need the US to go into Pakistan to get these ‘terrorists’ because Pakistan hasn’t got the wherewithal to do it themselves.
We know, of course, that the Americans and their allies are not above this kind of false flag attack, (USS Liberty, Lavon Affair, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.). And, since there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber as claimed, or even that the perpetrator was from one of the so-called Islamic extremist organisations, one can, considering the circumstantial evidence, come to the conclusion that it may more than likely have been a false flag attack perpetrated by the US or their allies than one carried out by Muslim extremists who would, incidentally, have absolutely nothing to gain, especially at that time, from such an attack.
We should get over this ‘our government would never do a thing like that’ mentality and take a good hard look at the geo-political reality of what is actually happening in our world and has been happening for some considerable time.
IS ISRAEL ABOUT TO LAUNCH AN ATTACK AGAINST THE GAZA USING WEST BANK FATAH FORCES?
The head of Palestinian Authority (PA) forces in the West Bank, General Dhiab al-Ali, has told Israeli newspaper ‘Ha’aretz’: “If Gaza remains mutinous, the Palestinian Authority will have no choice but to use force against it”.
It goes without saying that any such operation by the PA in the West Bank against Hamas in the Gaza will need more than just a nod from the Israelis to go ahead. The Israelis will need to supply the PA forces with the logistics of, firstly, moving PA forces from the West Bank to Gaza and, secondly, provide the kind of armaments needed for such an operation – something the PA forces simply do not have.
So far al-Ali denies that there has been any consultation with the Israelis on the matter but the idea that the PA and Israel have not discussed the possibilities is very unrealistic.
In January of next year President Mahmoud Abbas’ presidency ends. There should then be an election to find the next President but it is unlikely that Hamas will be allowed to put up a candidate since the organisation has been declared a ‘terrorist organisation’. This would lead to unrest in the West Bank. In all likelihood Abbas will then declare a state of emergency and extend his presidency with the possibility of then ruling by decree, effectively making him a dictator over the Palestinian people and thus running the risk of a civil war.
From Israel’s point of view, it needs to resolve the ‘Gaza problem’ – preferably before Abbas’ presidency ends. However, Hamas is a formidable military force in the Gaza and also has a strong political power base among ordinary Palestinians who had voted them into government before the PA led by Abbas usurped Hamas power for themselves. Contrary to al-Ali’s assertion that the Gaza under Hamas is ‘mutinous’, it was Fatah that mutinied against Hamas’ democratically elected yet unrecognised government.
The reality is that, if there is to be an invasion of the Gaza to overthrow the Hamas government, it will be undertaken by Israeli forces who would likely ‘soften up’ the Gaza with air strikes prior to a full on invasion that would include PA forces. Naturally the propaganda and rhetoric would be that it was the PA that had planned the assault and carried it out playing down Israel’s role in any such an attack.
The short term gain for the Israelis is that they get immediate security in the Gaza provided by forces that are no longer hostile to Israel. This will result in the cessation of rocket attacks across into Israeli townships close to the Gaza, though rocket attacks have all but ceased already.
For the intermediate term gain, it could be – and this only speculative – that Israel and the PA could come to a deal whereby Israel withdraws all the settlements from the West Bank and realigns some, if not all, of its so-called ‘security barrier’, in exchange for the PA transferring all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip for annexation to Israel where the settlers could then move to. The Israelis then end up with the Gaza Strip with it having been given to them by the Palestinians. Later, of course, there will be further ‘disturbances’ in the West Bank when the Israelis will then feel the need to re-enter the West Bank to start the process of occupation all over again gradually whittling down Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonisation and another round of settlement building.
It goes without saying that any such operation by the PA in the West Bank against Hamas in the Gaza will need more than just a nod from the Israelis to go ahead. The Israelis will need to supply the PA forces with the logistics of, firstly, moving PA forces from the West Bank to Gaza and, secondly, provide the kind of armaments needed for such an operation – something the PA forces simply do not have.
So far al-Ali denies that there has been any consultation with the Israelis on the matter but the idea that the PA and Israel have not discussed the possibilities is very unrealistic.
In January of next year President Mahmoud Abbas’ presidency ends. There should then be an election to find the next President but it is unlikely that Hamas will be allowed to put up a candidate since the organisation has been declared a ‘terrorist organisation’. This would lead to unrest in the West Bank. In all likelihood Abbas will then declare a state of emergency and extend his presidency with the possibility of then ruling by decree, effectively making him a dictator over the Palestinian people and thus running the risk of a civil war.
From Israel’s point of view, it needs to resolve the ‘Gaza problem’ – preferably before Abbas’ presidency ends. However, Hamas is a formidable military force in the Gaza and also has a strong political power base among ordinary Palestinians who had voted them into government before the PA led by Abbas usurped Hamas power for themselves. Contrary to al-Ali’s assertion that the Gaza under Hamas is ‘mutinous’, it was Fatah that mutinied against Hamas’ democratically elected yet unrecognised government.
The reality is that, if there is to be an invasion of the Gaza to overthrow the Hamas government, it will be undertaken by Israeli forces who would likely ‘soften up’ the Gaza with air strikes prior to a full on invasion that would include PA forces. Naturally the propaganda and rhetoric would be that it was the PA that had planned the assault and carried it out playing down Israel’s role in any such an attack.
The short term gain for the Israelis is that they get immediate security in the Gaza provided by forces that are no longer hostile to Israel. This will result in the cessation of rocket attacks across into Israeli townships close to the Gaza, though rocket attacks have all but ceased already.
For the intermediate term gain, it could be – and this only speculative – that Israel and the PA could come to a deal whereby Israel withdraws all the settlements from the West Bank and realigns some, if not all, of its so-called ‘security barrier’, in exchange for the PA transferring all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip for annexation to Israel where the settlers could then move to. The Israelis then end up with the Gaza Strip with it having been given to them by the Palestinians. Later, of course, there will be further ‘disturbances’ in the West Bank when the Israelis will then feel the need to re-enter the West Bank to start the process of occupation all over again gradually whittling down Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonisation and another round of settlement building.
Friday, September 19, 2008
JENNY HUME EXPOSES HER TRUE RACIST CREDENTIALS
It seems that Jenny Hume over at Webdiary still has absolutely no idea of what racism is all about.
She and her husband may be intrigued to learn that racism is not just about blood and biology as their simplistic upbringing may have taught them but also is about religion and culture, a new racism that they themselves are a part of.
Jenny Hume and Ian McDougall really have no idea about progressive politics in Australia and are simply at Webdiary to promote their own ideas about how they would like to see their ideal of a racist and inclusive ‘Australia’. Their idealistic dreamlike Australia bears no resemblance to the real world that Australia actually needs to be a part of. Their heads are firmly buried in the sands of their own restrained vision of the world that precludes entirely the reality of what is going on around them. To suggest that racism is simply a blood and biology thing without religious or cultural considerations is totally delusional.
She and her husband may be intrigued to learn that racism is not just about blood and biology as their simplistic upbringing may have taught them but also is about religion and culture, a new racism that they themselves are a part of.
Jenny Hume and Ian McDougall really have no idea about progressive politics in Australia and are simply at Webdiary to promote their own ideas about how they would like to see their ideal of a racist and inclusive ‘Australia’. Their idealistic dreamlike Australia bears no resemblance to the real world that Australia actually needs to be a part of. Their heads are firmly buried in the sands of their own restrained vision of the world that precludes entirely the reality of what is going on around them. To suggest that racism is simply a blood and biology thing without religious or cultural considerations is totally delusional.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A THOUSAND BUNKER BUSTER BOMBS?! AND THEY NEED THESE FOR...!!??
Israel’s recently approved order of 1000 GBU-39 bunker buster bombs has put the prospect of an attack against Iran firmly back on the front burner after having been shoved to the back while the Georgia affair and the current financial meltdown in the US dominated the news.
While no one can be really sure of what’s going on behind the scenes in the US and Israel, it certainly seems as though there is a convergence of circumstances that indicate that there are some moves afoot for the US and/or Israel (more likely ‘and’ rather than ‘or’) to strike not just Iran militarily, but also Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and possibly Hamas in the Gaza as well.
The GBU-39, while comparatively not a particularly big bomb carrying only some 23 kgs of high explosive, is, nonetheless, a very sophisticated weapon. Launched from height the bomb is capable of gliding to its target which, if the launch height is high enough and the weather conditions are right, can be up to 100 kms away. It is guided to its target via a GPS assisted inertial navigation system and is said to be accurate to within 8 meters. It can also penetrate reinforced concrete up to 1.8 meters thick. A thousand of these bombs will do a lot of damage, especially when used in conjunction with Israel’s other munitions and ordnance arsenal.
Apart from the order for these bombs there are other factors that tend to indicate that something is in the offing – not least of which is senior retired ultra neocon warmonger David Wurmser’s ’assurances’, published today in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, that Bush will not attack Iran before his term finishes in January. Considering Wurmser’s involvement in the weaving of the web of lies that led to the invasion of Iraq one can easily understand why Wurmser’s words should be treated with extreme scepticism; there is nothing like trying to lull your enemy into a false sense of security.
It also seems that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing going on behind the political scenes in Israel itself with the right-wing Zionists jockeying for position in a post-Olmert Israel. Regardless of who gets the thumbs up for the Kadima leadership, it seems that Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu together with the ultra right Shas party are scheming to snatch government away from Kadima to form a new rightwing coalition to be initially headed up by Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is one of the regions most dangerous politicians and is unlikely to hesitate to attack Iran and any of Israel’s other enemies given any opportunity – especially if he becomes Prime Minister. Netanyahu is also a great friend of vice-president Dick Cheney who is also known to want to bomb Iran and take on Israel’s other enemies. But, even if either Tzipi Livni or Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are able to maintain a coalition government, the likelihood of an attack against Iran is will be increased as both these leaders are known to be less hesitant than Olmert was. Furthermore, once the change has been made, regardless of who it is, the so-called ‘peace process’ with Abbas of Palestine will, for whatever it has been worth, end as none of the alternative potential Prime Ministers are interested in continuing with negotiations.
The Israeli hawks are coming to power and the bombs are virtually ‘off the shelf’ and ready to use. Russia will not support further sanctions against Iran (much to the relief of some rightwing Zionists who now see no point in delaying an attack against Iran; which, in turn, makes one wonder what the Georgia thing was all about in the first place), and, of course, time is simply running out. There’s unlikely to be an attack against Iran with Obama in the White House so the big question now is; can they take the risk of waiting to see if McCain gets up?
Unfortunately for Iran, the Middle East, Americans and the entire world, the warmongers seem to have everything aligned and in place to ensure that the world in the very near future will not be a better place because of them.
While no one can be really sure of what’s going on behind the scenes in the US and Israel, it certainly seems as though there is a convergence of circumstances that indicate that there are some moves afoot for the US and/or Israel (more likely ‘and’ rather than ‘or’) to strike not just Iran militarily, but also Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and possibly Hamas in the Gaza as well.
The GBU-39, while comparatively not a particularly big bomb carrying only some 23 kgs of high explosive, is, nonetheless, a very sophisticated weapon. Launched from height the bomb is capable of gliding to its target which, if the launch height is high enough and the weather conditions are right, can be up to 100 kms away. It is guided to its target via a GPS assisted inertial navigation system and is said to be accurate to within 8 meters. It can also penetrate reinforced concrete up to 1.8 meters thick. A thousand of these bombs will do a lot of damage, especially when used in conjunction with Israel’s other munitions and ordnance arsenal.
Apart from the order for these bombs there are other factors that tend to indicate that something is in the offing – not least of which is senior retired ultra neocon warmonger David Wurmser’s ’assurances’, published today in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, that Bush will not attack Iran before his term finishes in January. Considering Wurmser’s involvement in the weaving of the web of lies that led to the invasion of Iraq one can easily understand why Wurmser’s words should be treated with extreme scepticism; there is nothing like trying to lull your enemy into a false sense of security.
It also seems that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing going on behind the political scenes in Israel itself with the right-wing Zionists jockeying for position in a post-Olmert Israel. Regardless of who gets the thumbs up for the Kadima leadership, it seems that Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu together with the ultra right Shas party are scheming to snatch government away from Kadima to form a new rightwing coalition to be initially headed up by Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is one of the regions most dangerous politicians and is unlikely to hesitate to attack Iran and any of Israel’s other enemies given any opportunity – especially if he becomes Prime Minister. Netanyahu is also a great friend of vice-president Dick Cheney who is also known to want to bomb Iran and take on Israel’s other enemies. But, even if either Tzipi Livni or Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are able to maintain a coalition government, the likelihood of an attack against Iran is will be increased as both these leaders are known to be less hesitant than Olmert was. Furthermore, once the change has been made, regardless of who it is, the so-called ‘peace process’ with Abbas of Palestine will, for whatever it has been worth, end as none of the alternative potential Prime Ministers are interested in continuing with negotiations.
The Israeli hawks are coming to power and the bombs are virtually ‘off the shelf’ and ready to use. Russia will not support further sanctions against Iran (much to the relief of some rightwing Zionists who now see no point in delaying an attack against Iran; which, in turn, makes one wonder what the Georgia thing was all about in the first place), and, of course, time is simply running out. There’s unlikely to be an attack against Iran with Obama in the White House so the big question now is; can they take the risk of waiting to see if McCain gets up?
Unfortunately for Iran, the Middle East, Americans and the entire world, the warmongers seem to have everything aligned and in place to ensure that the world in the very near future will not be a better place because of them.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
NEOCONS GET DESPERATE OVER OBAMA.
Back in May 2008 neocon extremist Edward Luttwak wrote an article about how Barack Obama would be viewed by the Islamic world as an apostate; a Muslim that has made a deliberate move to no longer be a believer within the religion of Islam. The piece, published in the New York Times, was a transparent attempt to connect in the minds of the dumb and gullible the idea that Obama would not be an appropriate person to have as an American president due to his father being a Muslim. This, in turn, subliminally reinforces the notion that a Judeao-Christian America is at war with the world of Islam which is the reason why, so Luttwak suggests, it is inappropriate for Obama to become President.
Juan Cole, a noted professor of modern Middle Eastern and south Asian history at the University of Michigan, was quick to point out how ludicrous Luttwak’s argument was in a rebuttal to Luttwak’s assertions that Cole published on his own website just a few days after Luttwak’s piece appeared in the NYT.
Fortunately – and one has to wonder if it wasn’t as a result of Cole’s scholarly rebuttal – The New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, had the good sense to also publish a rebuttal of Luttwak’s ignorant argument.
Hoyt not only pointed out how Luttwak had just got it plain wrong, but also berated the NYT op-ed editor, David Shipley, for not having vetted Luttwak’s original copy for accuracy in the first place. Desperation set in and the neocons at The Weekly Standard were quick to step in to defend their hero. The bottom line remained, however, that Islamic scholars both in the US and the throughout the Islamic world refuted Luttwak’s nonsensical claims.
But Luttwak wasn’t the first neocon crazy to attempt to demonise Barack Obama. In January 2008 the quintessential Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes, wrote a piece titled: ‘Confirmed: Barack Obama Practised Islam’, as though in having done so, he had committed some heinous crime – which, of course, is what the likes of Pipes and Luttwak hope that the people of America and elsewhere will actually think. Pipes, though, is an extremist and not one who easily gives up despite being made a complete fool of by those that have debunked his lunatic assertions. Only recently, August 2008, he wrote an article in similar vein that was published in the Jerusalem Post titled: ‘Obama through Muslim eyes’ in which he again attempted to assert that Obama was a Muslin apostate this time citing fellow neoconservative Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, Virginia, as an ‘expert’ in these matters and who actually wrote in May 2008, shortly after Luttwak’s piece appeared, that, “Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house. After all, the 2008 campaign could very well give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate.”
What all this demonstrates, apart from the obvious and transparent attempt by the neocons to demonise Obama, is the way in which the neocon pundits use each others work to reinforce their own when in many cases the propaganda actually goes full circle as in this case where Pipes kicks off his garbage then Luttwak follows up followed by Burki and then, to complete the cycle, Pipes uses Burki to reinforce his argument again.
It’s pure desperation from the neocons.
Juan Cole, a noted professor of modern Middle Eastern and south Asian history at the University of Michigan, was quick to point out how ludicrous Luttwak’s argument was in a rebuttal to Luttwak’s assertions that Cole published on his own website just a few days after Luttwak’s piece appeared in the NYT.
Fortunately – and one has to wonder if it wasn’t as a result of Cole’s scholarly rebuttal – The New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, had the good sense to also publish a rebuttal of Luttwak’s ignorant argument.
Hoyt not only pointed out how Luttwak had just got it plain wrong, but also berated the NYT op-ed editor, David Shipley, for not having vetted Luttwak’s original copy for accuracy in the first place. Desperation set in and the neocons at The Weekly Standard were quick to step in to defend their hero. The bottom line remained, however, that Islamic scholars both in the US and the throughout the Islamic world refuted Luttwak’s nonsensical claims.
But Luttwak wasn’t the first neocon crazy to attempt to demonise Barack Obama. In January 2008 the quintessential Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes, wrote a piece titled: ‘Confirmed: Barack Obama Practised Islam’, as though in having done so, he had committed some heinous crime – which, of course, is what the likes of Pipes and Luttwak hope that the people of America and elsewhere will actually think. Pipes, though, is an extremist and not one who easily gives up despite being made a complete fool of by those that have debunked his lunatic assertions. Only recently, August 2008, he wrote an article in similar vein that was published in the Jerusalem Post titled: ‘Obama through Muslim eyes’ in which he again attempted to assert that Obama was a Muslin apostate this time citing fellow neoconservative Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, Virginia, as an ‘expert’ in these matters and who actually wrote in May 2008, shortly after Luttwak’s piece appeared, that, “Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house. After all, the 2008 campaign could very well give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate.”
What all this demonstrates, apart from the obvious and transparent attempt by the neocons to demonise Obama, is the way in which the neocon pundits use each others work to reinforce their own when in many cases the propaganda actually goes full circle as in this case where Pipes kicks off his garbage then Luttwak follows up followed by Burki and then, to complete the cycle, Pipes uses Burki to reinforce his argument again.
It’s pure desperation from the neocons.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
WOMAN THAT THINKS GOD ORDAINED THAT AMERICA SHOULD ATTACK AND DESTROY IRAQ WANTS TO RULE WORLD.
Sarah Palin once told an audience in Alaska that the invasion and destruction of Iraq was a “task from God”. This is the same Sarah Palin that is now the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party who could conceivably one day be the President of the United States and, therefore, become the most influential and most powerful person on the planet. And she thinks that the invasion and destruction of Iraq was a “task from God”!?
One has to wonder how she perceives the issues that the US has with Iran and with Russia. Will the destruction of these two nations also be seen as “tasks from God”? And how will a US under President Sarah Palin deal with the Palestinians and the Lebanese and the Syrians or, indeed, any other nation that has a majority of their peoples of a religion that she detests as much as she adores her own religion?
The present President is currently the most despised man on the planet. His approval ratings have been, and still are, among the very lowest of any US President. His lies and wars have cost the American people greatly in both blood and treasure. But, despite all this, here we are at the dawn of a new era that may begin with the election of a new President but with the polls and mainstream media telling us the opposite of what might be expected regarding the outcome of this upcoming election.
There is something terribly wrong here. How can the American people, fully aware now of much the crimes and lies of this Republican Presidency has cost them, go to the polls and vote for exactly the same kind of people into government all over again?
Are you really going to vote for John “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain and Sarah “Task from God” Palin?
The world is relying on the American people to rid us of these lunatics from power once and for all.
One has to wonder how she perceives the issues that the US has with Iran and with Russia. Will the destruction of these two nations also be seen as “tasks from God”? And how will a US under President Sarah Palin deal with the Palestinians and the Lebanese and the Syrians or, indeed, any other nation that has a majority of their peoples of a religion that she detests as much as she adores her own religion?
The present President is currently the most despised man on the planet. His approval ratings have been, and still are, among the very lowest of any US President. His lies and wars have cost the American people greatly in both blood and treasure. But, despite all this, here we are at the dawn of a new era that may begin with the election of a new President but with the polls and mainstream media telling us the opposite of what might be expected regarding the outcome of this upcoming election.
There is something terribly wrong here. How can the American people, fully aware now of much the crimes and lies of this Republican Presidency has cost them, go to the polls and vote for exactly the same kind of people into government all over again?
Are you really going to vote for John “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain and Sarah “Task from God” Palin?
The world is relying on the American people to rid us of these lunatics from power once and for all.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
THE DESPERATE PLIGHT OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF BREATHTAKING LIES
One of the reasons the mainstream media are so intent on supporting McCain and Palin in the up-coming Presidential election is because they realise that with the demise of Bush and a Democrat president-elect, there is far more likelihood of the mainstream media’s role in the Bush presidency’s lies being revealed by those that, in many cases, were themselves part of the mainstream media machine at the time.
The problem with the moguls of the mainstream media is that they just can’t help themselves when it comes to money-making opportunities. They are even happy to shoot themselves in the foot if they can be assured that there’s a quid in it for them. Of course, they’d prefer not to shoot themselves in the foot but, if there’s enough in it for them, they will.
The American mainstream media, and, more importantly, the moguls that own them, support the rightwing of politics, and in America that’s the Republicans. They support them because Republican goals coincide with the goals of big business and the mainstream media is a part of big business. Those in charge of big business tend to live in each others pockets. They help and support each other. They sit on each others boards of directors and belong to the same clubs and mix in the same social circles. As well as being chief honcho in their own business they also often have large share and stake-holdings in other big businesses to hedge against any disaster that may befall their own business. They share the same political, economic, social and value belief systems and ideologies. In this way they generally are able to maintain control of the political system of America by using the mainstream media to manipulate a compliant and often gullible public into making certain decisions that tend to work in favour of big business and their political supporters.
However, when a given set of circumstances occasionally goes against the best interests of big business and their supporters, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to prevent such circumstances arising – like, for example, the people of America electing a Democrat for president – then the mainstream media accepts the fait accompli of the situation and then goes all out to make as much money as possible by selling newspapers and advertising space via stories that would otherwise have not been tolerated when big business had greater control of the direction the nation was going.
The mainstream media has a tendency to follow popular trends as well as make a concerted effort to create them. And if the trend is for the people to demand answers to questions, only this time without being lied to, then mainstream media are happy to oblige even if, as I said, it means occasionally shooting themselves in the foot.
The problem this time around for the Republicans, and the mainstream media that support them, is that, if there is a dramatic change in government, there is likely to be a powerful demand for answers to questions that the American people feel have never honestly been answered and the mainstream media, driven by the desire to continue creating wealth for themselves, will feel obliged to provide those answers even at the detriment of themselves. They’ll apologise if they have to; they’ll blame the government and various government departments who they’ll say misled them; maybe even the odd head will roll as they attempt to back out of taking on any of the responsibility of all those things that were wrong and rotten throughout the George W. Bush presidency.
This time though, the mainstream media have bitten off a lot more than they are prepared to swallow. For eight long years they have been so deeply enmeshed in the dispensing of lies and propaganda on behalf of the Bush presidency and his neoconservative administration that they have been left with no choice now but to do all in their power to maintain control even if it means practicing further outrageous deceit to ensure maintenance of Republican power. This time around the mainstream media fears more than loss of income; they fear the idea that they may even be accused of complicity in war crimes perpetrated by the President and the administration. Just the stigma of their complicity in those crimes will set them back years in terms of regaining the confidence of the American people.
The demise of the Republican Bush era in the event of an Obama Democrat win at the next election is the mainstream media’s greatest fear because what they fear most is the revelation of the truth of what happened during the G. W. Bush years and their part in it.
If Obama wins then the truth will begin to trickle out and then it will snowball and the mainstream media will not be able to stop it. They will, instead, abuse the truth, just as the abused the lies of the Bush administration, in order to create greater wealth and power for themselves.
They just can’t help themselves.
The problem with the moguls of the mainstream media is that they just can’t help themselves when it comes to money-making opportunities. They are even happy to shoot themselves in the foot if they can be assured that there’s a quid in it for them. Of course, they’d prefer not to shoot themselves in the foot but, if there’s enough in it for them, they will.
The American mainstream media, and, more importantly, the moguls that own them, support the rightwing of politics, and in America that’s the Republicans. They support them because Republican goals coincide with the goals of big business and the mainstream media is a part of big business. Those in charge of big business tend to live in each others pockets. They help and support each other. They sit on each others boards of directors and belong to the same clubs and mix in the same social circles. As well as being chief honcho in their own business they also often have large share and stake-holdings in other big businesses to hedge against any disaster that may befall their own business. They share the same political, economic, social and value belief systems and ideologies. In this way they generally are able to maintain control of the political system of America by using the mainstream media to manipulate a compliant and often gullible public into making certain decisions that tend to work in favour of big business and their political supporters.
However, when a given set of circumstances occasionally goes against the best interests of big business and their supporters, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to prevent such circumstances arising – like, for example, the people of America electing a Democrat for president – then the mainstream media accepts the fait accompli of the situation and then goes all out to make as much money as possible by selling newspapers and advertising space via stories that would otherwise have not been tolerated when big business had greater control of the direction the nation was going.
The mainstream media has a tendency to follow popular trends as well as make a concerted effort to create them. And if the trend is for the people to demand answers to questions, only this time without being lied to, then mainstream media are happy to oblige even if, as I said, it means occasionally shooting themselves in the foot.
The problem this time around for the Republicans, and the mainstream media that support them, is that, if there is a dramatic change in government, there is likely to be a powerful demand for answers to questions that the American people feel have never honestly been answered and the mainstream media, driven by the desire to continue creating wealth for themselves, will feel obliged to provide those answers even at the detriment of themselves. They’ll apologise if they have to; they’ll blame the government and various government departments who they’ll say misled them; maybe even the odd head will roll as they attempt to back out of taking on any of the responsibility of all those things that were wrong and rotten throughout the George W. Bush presidency.
This time though, the mainstream media have bitten off a lot more than they are prepared to swallow. For eight long years they have been so deeply enmeshed in the dispensing of lies and propaganda on behalf of the Bush presidency and his neoconservative administration that they have been left with no choice now but to do all in their power to maintain control even if it means practicing further outrageous deceit to ensure maintenance of Republican power. This time around the mainstream media fears more than loss of income; they fear the idea that they may even be accused of complicity in war crimes perpetrated by the President and the administration. Just the stigma of their complicity in those crimes will set them back years in terms of regaining the confidence of the American people.
The demise of the Republican Bush era in the event of an Obama Democrat win at the next election is the mainstream media’s greatest fear because what they fear most is the revelation of the truth of what happened during the G. W. Bush years and their part in it.
If Obama wins then the truth will begin to trickle out and then it will snowball and the mainstream media will not be able to stop it. They will, instead, abuse the truth, just as the abused the lies of the Bush administration, in order to create greater wealth and power for themselves.
They just can’t help themselves.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PALIN FIASCO
Of course, it’s not so much about babies and pregnancies and who had whose child; it is, however, very much about hypocrisy and the ability of the Republican combination of John McCain and Sarah Palin to give the American people an honest accounting of themselves because if they can’t even do that, how are they going to be trusted to govern the US, the worlds most influential nation?
This business is likely to blow up in the Republicans faces. The chances of Sarah Palin surviving as the vice-presidential candidate until 4 November are very slim if there is any chance at all. The only way out for them is to provide the proper documentary evidence supporting their claims. It’s something they should have done the instant any question was raised. They didn’t. Why?
We’ll be hearing next that the emotional pressure for the seventeen year-old Bristol, Sarah Palin’s daughter who claims to be pregnant, has been too much to sustain and that she has suffered a ‘miscarriage’.
Are the American people really going to fall for this stuff? Is McCain really fit to be President if he makes these kind of judgements? And what on earth was his advisors thinking of when they let him go ahead with this nonsense?
The only people I feel sorry for here are the Palin’s kidz and the American people – all of whom have been duped and abused for long enough.
This business is likely to blow up in the Republicans faces. The chances of Sarah Palin surviving as the vice-presidential candidate until 4 November are very slim if there is any chance at all. The only way out for them is to provide the proper documentary evidence supporting their claims. It’s something they should have done the instant any question was raised. They didn’t. Why?
We’ll be hearing next that the emotional pressure for the seventeen year-old Bristol, Sarah Palin’s daughter who claims to be pregnant, has been too much to sustain and that she has suffered a ‘miscarriage’.
Are the American people really going to fall for this stuff? Is McCain really fit to be President if he makes these kind of judgements? And what on earth was his advisors thinking of when they let him go ahead with this nonsense?
The only people I feel sorry for here are the Palin’s kidz and the American people – all of whom have been duped and abused for long enough.
ISRAELI GUNSHIPS OPEN FIRE ON UNARMED PALESTINIAN FISHING BOATS WITH HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS ON BOARD
Reports are now coming in of Israeli naval vessels firing on unarmed Palestinian fishing boats with human rights workers on board. The fishing boats were several miles off the Gazan coast and inside Palestinian territorial waters when the Israeli Navy opened fire on them with live ammunition. There have been no reports of injuries.
One wonders if this will ever be a story that sees the light of day in the mainstream media. As I post this at 10.20am Adelaide, Australia local time, there has nothing mentioned at all in the mainstream media. The report originated directly from two of the multinational human rights workers on board the fishing vessels who have been in contact with the Australians For Palestine and Women For Palestine groups in Australia.
Please call the Israeli authorities now and tell them to stop firing on unarmed Palestinians and human rights workers. Here are a few numbers to call:
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel. +972 2 530 3111
The British Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 3 725 1222
The US Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 2 625 5755
The Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 3 693 5000
UPDATE 1
There are reports that at least two Gazan fisherman were injured when the Israeli Navy fired on the fishing vessels.
UPDATE 2
The ‘Jerusalem Post’ is reporting that the Israeli Navy had fired ‘warning shots’ at the Gazan fishing boats. The fact that two unarmed fisherman had been wounded indicates that they were not warning shots but shots designed to kill and injure.
One wonders if this will ever be a story that sees the light of day in the mainstream media. As I post this at 10.20am Adelaide, Australia local time, there has nothing mentioned at all in the mainstream media. The report originated directly from two of the multinational human rights workers on board the fishing vessels who have been in contact with the Australians For Palestine and Women For Palestine groups in Australia.
Please call the Israeli authorities now and tell them to stop firing on unarmed Palestinians and human rights workers. Here are a few numbers to call:
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel. +972 2 530 3111
The British Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 3 725 1222
The US Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 2 625 5755
The Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 3 693 5000
UPDATE 1
There are reports that at least two Gazan fisherman were injured when the Israeli Navy fired on the fishing vessels.
UPDATE 2
The ‘Jerusalem Post’ is reporting that the Israeli Navy had fired ‘warning shots’ at the Gazan fishing boats. The fact that two unarmed fisherman had been wounded indicates that they were not warning shots but shots designed to kill and injure.
Monday, September 01, 2008
A QUICK NOTE FOR U.S. READERS
For the benefit of my US readers, a friend has pointed me to some stuff that may be of interest including this and this about the ongoing and terrifying tactics of the police in Minnesota.
Many thanks to Bob Wall whose comments can be read at the No More of the Same blog.
Many thanks to Bob Wall whose comments can be read at the No More of the Same blog.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN WILL ISRAEL NOW FEEL FREE TO ATTACK?
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?
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
ISRAELI EXTREMIST GROUP NOW OFFER TOURIST PACKAGE DEALS SHOWCASING ISRAELI TERRORISM FOR WANNABE ZIONISTS
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!
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 SUCCESS OF THE FREEDOM SHIPS TO GAZA SET PRECEDENTS THE ISRAELIS WILL FIND HARD TO REVERSE.
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.
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
NEOCON WARMONGER KEEN TO PROVOKE RUSSIA IN EUROPE USING THE BALTIC STATES AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL - AGAIN.
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.
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
THE U.S. AND THEIR ALLIES HAVE ALMOST LOST THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)