THE RIGHT-WING ZIONISTS OF ISRAEL AREN’T GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THIS!
The US in high-level talks with the Syrians and the Iranians? This definitely would not be sitting very well with the right-wing Zionists of Israel whose sole and only aim is to eliminate the regimes of Syria and Iran at any cost in order to leave the Israelis free to take on Hizbollah and Hamas without them getting support from Syria or Iran and to eventually occupy the lands of southern Lebanon up to the Latani River and also the Gaza and West Bank in their quest for a Greater Israel. On the other hand, perhaps all this high-level talk business may be just a ruse for something else the Israelis and the US have up their sleeves. Who knows – especially in the light of the fact that the US has said in the recent past that it would not be talking to the Iranians until they gave up enriching uranium.
MEANWHILE, ORDINARY ISRAELIS AREN’T TOO HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING UNDER THEIR RIGHT-WING ZIONIST GOVERNMENT.
Several Jewish organizations both in Israel and throughout the Diaspora have sprung up recently to counter the extremists in the Israeli government and the right-wing Zionist organizations and lobby groups, particularly the powerful Jewish lobby groups in the US. They are also unhappy with the disgusting way the Palestinians have been treated especially in the Gaza and West Bank. At long last the ordinary people of Israel are finding their voice and, with the help of likeminded Jews throughout the Diaspora, may yet be able to gain control of their own land and hand back to the Palestinians and the Syrians those lands which do not belong to them. That way there will be peace.
US CONSULTING COMPANY DRAFTS IRAQ’S NEW OIL LAWS.
So the invasion had nothing to do with the oil then? No doubt the Iraqi-puppet government well be ratifying the laws without too many problems apart from the odd futile but obligatory objection from here and there to make it all seem ‘democratic’. Then the big US-dominated oil giants will move and steal the oil literally from under the Iraqi peoples feet.
MODERATE ISRAELI PRESS EXPOSES RIGHT-WING ZIONISTS LAND THEFT AND OFFICIAL COMPLICITY.
An editorial in Israel’s left of centre newspaper Ha’aretz has exposed the blatant way in which the Israeli authorities are complicit in the theft of Palestinian land and the legitimizing of otherwise illegal construction of buildings for Israeli settlers on that land. The important aspect of this article is the fact that until recently such anti-Zionist news wouldn’t have made it to the editorials of newspapers like Ha’aretz. The movement away from right-wing Zionist extremism by the Israeli left and ordinary Israelis are all positive signs for both the Palestinians and the Israeli people.
MORE CHUTZPAH FROM ISREALI DEFENCE MINISTER PERETZ.
It seems that while Peretz was jumping up and down bemoaning the fact that Hamas is using the cease fire to rearm itself Israel has exactly been dormant themselves. Once again they are expecting the American taxpayer to pay for their continued terrorism in the Gaza and West Bank. Any Israeli attack on the people of Lebanon and their suspected and threatened attack against Iran will also be paid for by the American taxpayer as they rearm after last summers acts of terrorism against the Lebanese people.
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, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
CHENEY THREATENS PAKISTAN, BUSH'S TILT AT CONGRESS, ARE AUSSIES AS WELL AS THE US ALREADY IN IRAN? AND HOWARD THE LOSER
FIRST THEY THREATEN TO CUT AID TO PAKISTAN THEN THEY WANT PAKISTAN TO FIGHT HARDER AGAINST THE TALIBAN.
Dick Cheney dropped in on Pakistan yesterday because the weather wouldn’t let him into Afghanistan. So while he’s there he tells Musharraf that the Pakistanis ought to be making more of an effort to curtail Taliban fighters from entering Afghanistan from Pakistan. The Pakistan President must be fuming. First he gets told that aid may be cut and then he’s told that he must make more of an effort to fight America’s war for them. No wonder the US is losing this war. Bush and Cheney; America’s worst enemies.
SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS – AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.
Condoleeza Rice has said that Bush will not abide by legislation to limit the Iraq war. Rice has ‘urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.’ Bush is moving further and further away from reality if he believes he can defy Congress in this way. Everything about the Bush-Cheney-Rice administration clearly shows America drifting closer and closer toward a totalitarian state that ignores its own legislature and the voices of it peoples.
IT SEEMS SPECIAL OPERATION TEAMS ARE ALREADY OPERATING IN IRAN – AND THEY ARE NOT JUST AMERICAN TEAMS.
‘The US is reportedly stepping up covert operations in Iran in a new strategy that risks sparking an "open confrontation" with the Islamic republic.’ There are a few noises on the grapevine that are saying that it is not just US special forces operating inside Iran gathering intelligence for the coming attack. Apparently, according to some anonymous sources, Australian SAS people are also operating in Iran. I hope for Howards sake, not to mention the soldiers themselves, that none of them get caught. The political repurcussions of any of them getting caught and then shot for spying would be disatrous for the good name of Australia.
WILL HOWARD TRY TO STAY ON AT BENNELONG OR BOW OUT BEFORE THE ELECTION – EITHER WAY HE LOOKS LIKE A LOSER.
Whatever Howard does, it looks like his days are now numbered. Recent polls have already indicated that he would lose his seat and now the odds are on Maxine McKew gaining it. So the big question is going to be: Will John Howard take his chances at the next election or will he jump ship prior to the election and hand it over to Costello? Either way he’s going to look like a loser and, for a bloke that has always wanted to be nothing other than one of history’s winners, that’s going to hurt. I can’t think of it happening to a more deserving Australian Prime Minister.
Dick Cheney dropped in on Pakistan yesterday because the weather wouldn’t let him into Afghanistan. So while he’s there he tells Musharraf that the Pakistanis ought to be making more of an effort to curtail Taliban fighters from entering Afghanistan from Pakistan. The Pakistan President must be fuming. First he gets told that aid may be cut and then he’s told that he must make more of an effort to fight America’s war for them. No wonder the US is losing this war. Bush and Cheney; America’s worst enemies.
SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS – AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.
Condoleeza Rice has said that Bush will not abide by legislation to limit the Iraq war. Rice has ‘urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.’ Bush is moving further and further away from reality if he believes he can defy Congress in this way. Everything about the Bush-Cheney-Rice administration clearly shows America drifting closer and closer toward a totalitarian state that ignores its own legislature and the voices of it peoples.
IT SEEMS SPECIAL OPERATION TEAMS ARE ALREADY OPERATING IN IRAN – AND THEY ARE NOT JUST AMERICAN TEAMS.
‘The US is reportedly stepping up covert operations in Iran in a new strategy that risks sparking an "open confrontation" with the Islamic republic.’ There are a few noises on the grapevine that are saying that it is not just US special forces operating inside Iran gathering intelligence for the coming attack. Apparently, according to some anonymous sources, Australian SAS people are also operating in Iran. I hope for Howards sake, not to mention the soldiers themselves, that none of them get caught. The political repurcussions of any of them getting caught and then shot for spying would be disatrous for the good name of Australia.
WILL HOWARD TRY TO STAY ON AT BENNELONG OR BOW OUT BEFORE THE ELECTION – EITHER WAY HE LOOKS LIKE A LOSER.
Whatever Howard does, it looks like his days are now numbered. Recent polls have already indicated that he would lose his seat and now the odds are on Maxine McKew gaining it. So the big question is going to be: Will John Howard take his chances at the next election or will he jump ship prior to the election and hand it over to Costello? Either way he’s going to look like a loser and, for a bloke that has always wanted to be nothing other than one of history’s winners, that’s going to hurt. I can’t think of it happening to a more deserving Australian Prime Minister.
Monday, February 26, 2007
FEAR-MONGERING IN THE UK, HOWARD ON THE ROPES, ISRAEL READIES FOR WAR - AGAIN, AND BUSH DOES SOMETHING STUPID - AGAIN!
BRITAIN’S FEAR-MONGER THINK-TANKS HAVE BEEN AT IT AGAIN WITH MORE RIDICULOUS ‘TERROR’ PLOTS.
Over the years the Americans and their Western allies in the so-called ‘war against terror’ have endeavored to maintain the illusion of there actually being terrorists by creating various stories about ‘al Qaeda’ plots that have either been discovered or thwarted by the ever vigilant authorities. One that has recently been revealed is the ‘al Qaeda’ plot to assassinate UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. According to a report in the UKs Telegraph newspaper, not only were they going to do assassinate Blair but they were going to do it front of the Queen. As usual, the story has absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Just more propaganda to keep the masses in fear.
IT LOOKS LIKE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO KISS HIS SEAT GOODBYE AT THE NEXT ELECTION.
The Prime Ministers seat at Bennelong, Sydney, has become increasingly marginal over the past few elections to the point where a poll recently revealed that Howard would have lost his seat had an election taken place a couple of weeks ago. Now, as if that wasn’t bad enough news for Howard, it seems that popular ex-ABC journalist, Maxine McKew, is going to ensure that he well and truly takes a thumping at Bennelong by announcing her intention to stand against him at the next election. The quicker the better!
OLMERT WANTS ISRAEL TO GET READY FOR WAR WITH SYRIA
While Israel’s Military Intelligence Chief, Amos Yadlin, concedes that it is unlikely that Syria would initiate an attack on Israel, Syria would he said more than likely respond to any Israeli provocation – like Israeli fighters buzzing the Syrian Presidents home as they did in June of last year. One can only imagine why the Israelis would want ponder the idea of provoking Syria. It’s typical right-wing Zionist Chutzpah. What better way to provoke the Syrians than to tell Israeli forces to prepare for war with them! But, more importantly, why? Unless…
HOW STUPID CAN BUSH GET? NOW HE’S THREATENING THE LEADER OF THE ONE ISLAMIC NATION THAT REALLY DOES HAVE ‘THE BOMB’ WITH AID CUTS!
Pakistan is the one Islamic nation that really does have nuclear weapons and its leader is only in power by virtue of luck – the kind of luck you need to escape several assassination attempts with more than one of them getting more than a bit too close for comfort. For Bush to threaten Musharraf with cutting aid because he thinks Musharraf’s forces aren’t doing enough to halt border activity with Afghanistan and rounding up Taliban and so-called al Qaeda operatives is plain stupidity. In light of the fact that the Pakistan government together with its nuclear arsenal could fall to a hard-line anti-American Pakistani alliance at the drop of hat and then to threaten the one person that’s holding it together is pure insanity. But we are talking about Bush here.
Over the years the Americans and their Western allies in the so-called ‘war against terror’ have endeavored to maintain the illusion of there actually being terrorists by creating various stories about ‘al Qaeda’ plots that have either been discovered or thwarted by the ever vigilant authorities. One that has recently been revealed is the ‘al Qaeda’ plot to assassinate UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. According to a report in the UKs Telegraph newspaper, not only were they going to do assassinate Blair but they were going to do it front of the Queen. As usual, the story has absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Just more propaganda to keep the masses in fear.
IT LOOKS LIKE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO KISS HIS SEAT GOODBYE AT THE NEXT ELECTION.
The Prime Ministers seat at Bennelong, Sydney, has become increasingly marginal over the past few elections to the point where a poll recently revealed that Howard would have lost his seat had an election taken place a couple of weeks ago. Now, as if that wasn’t bad enough news for Howard, it seems that popular ex-ABC journalist, Maxine McKew, is going to ensure that he well and truly takes a thumping at Bennelong by announcing her intention to stand against him at the next election. The quicker the better!
OLMERT WANTS ISRAEL TO GET READY FOR WAR WITH SYRIA
While Israel’s Military Intelligence Chief, Amos Yadlin, concedes that it is unlikely that Syria would initiate an attack on Israel, Syria would he said more than likely respond to any Israeli provocation – like Israeli fighters buzzing the Syrian Presidents home as they did in June of last year. One can only imagine why the Israelis would want ponder the idea of provoking Syria. It’s typical right-wing Zionist Chutzpah. What better way to provoke the Syrians than to tell Israeli forces to prepare for war with them! But, more importantly, why? Unless…
HOW STUPID CAN BUSH GET? NOW HE’S THREATENING THE LEADER OF THE ONE ISLAMIC NATION THAT REALLY DOES HAVE ‘THE BOMB’ WITH AID CUTS!
Pakistan is the one Islamic nation that really does have nuclear weapons and its leader is only in power by virtue of luck – the kind of luck you need to escape several assassination attempts with more than one of them getting more than a bit too close for comfort. For Bush to threaten Musharraf with cutting aid because he thinks Musharraf’s forces aren’t doing enough to halt border activity with Afghanistan and rounding up Taliban and so-called al Qaeda operatives is plain stupidity. In light of the fact that the Pakistan government together with its nuclear arsenal could fall to a hard-line anti-American Pakistani alliance at the drop of hat and then to threaten the one person that’s holding it together is pure insanity. But we are talking about Bush here.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
CHENEY’S NOT WELCOME IN OZ
As Cheney hits Sydney, Sydney-siders will face massive traffic disruption as the security for his visit gets underway.
One has to wonder though, who he is actually being protected from – and why. No doubt his minders will make an effort to ensure that he doesn’t get a glimpse of the crowds that will be out to protest this warmongering lunatic’s visit. As the most despised person on the planet (yes, apparently more despised than even bin Laden) is wined and dined by Howard and his minions, ordinary Australians from all over Sydney will be protesting his presence everywhere he goes.
The propaganda machine would have us believe that he is a ‘terrorist’ target; hence all the roads being shut down as he motors through. The real reason of course, is to protect him from the anger of the ordinary everyday people of Sydney who are fed up with his disgusting war and the lies.
And in news just to hand it seems that Cheney is so hated that the Premier of New South Wales has had to rush through special legislation that would allow Cheney’s personal bodyguards to carry arms to protect their charge while in Australia. You just don’t know where those pesky Iraqi insurgents are going to strike next.
Meanwhile Bush and his White House staff are getting giddy trying to spin Blair’s troop withdrawals just as Bush is trying to scrape the bottom of their enlistment barrels to get more troops actually in to Iraq. Howard and Downer aren’t faring any better either – especially after Downer was telling Australian viewers on Lateline only the night before the British cut and run announcements that the British were still there as strong as ever side by side with the US and Australians. Clearly, despite Howard telling Australians otherwise, Downer was not aware that the British were about to announce their cut and run strategy. So much for the alliance of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’.
One has to wonder though, who he is actually being protected from – and why. No doubt his minders will make an effort to ensure that he doesn’t get a glimpse of the crowds that will be out to protest this warmongering lunatic’s visit. As the most despised person on the planet (yes, apparently more despised than even bin Laden) is wined and dined by Howard and his minions, ordinary Australians from all over Sydney will be protesting his presence everywhere he goes.
The propaganda machine would have us believe that he is a ‘terrorist’ target; hence all the roads being shut down as he motors through. The real reason of course, is to protect him from the anger of the ordinary everyday people of Sydney who are fed up with his disgusting war and the lies.
And in news just to hand it seems that Cheney is so hated that the Premier of New South Wales has had to rush through special legislation that would allow Cheney’s personal bodyguards to carry arms to protect their charge while in Australia. You just don’t know where those pesky Iraqi insurgents are going to strike next.
Meanwhile Bush and his White House staff are getting giddy trying to spin Blair’s troop withdrawals just as Bush is trying to scrape the bottom of their enlistment barrels to get more troops actually in to Iraq. Howard and Downer aren’t faring any better either – especially after Downer was telling Australian viewers on Lateline only the night before the British cut and run announcements that the British were still there as strong as ever side by side with the US and Australians. Clearly, despite Howard telling Australians otherwise, Downer was not aware that the British were about to announce their cut and run strategy. So much for the alliance of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
GIVEN HOWARD’S CONTEMPT OF THE UN, WILL CHENEY’S VISIT SEE HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
In May of last year John Howard was asked: “Prime Minister, is Australia’s involvement in any planned military action in Iran an option?” To which he replied: “There’s been absolutely no thought given to that. I’m not in favour of other than trying to achieve a diplomatic solution. It’s quite hard. This is a test for the United Nations. At the time of the Coalition operation in Iraq, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom were all attacked for not leaving it to the United Nations. Now Iran is in the hands of the United Nations and it will be a very big test of the processes of the United Nations to see if that matter can be resolved. I think we should continue to try diplomatic processes.” [1]
Vice-President Dick Cheney is due to arrive in Australia this week for talks with Howard. It will be interesting to see after Cheney leaves whether or not Howard’s rhetoric about Iran changes.
There are a lot of high-level administration officials flying all over the place at the moment talking with Middle East and Western allies. One wonders, in the light of the heightened rhetoric with regard to Iran, if these visits from high-level officials aren’t the prelude to the next stage of whatever it is the US and Israel is planning.
It’s interesting to note that in a follow-up question in the same interview which asked: “But given that you didn’t trust the UN in the case of Iraq, what’s changed with Iran?” Howard replied: “It’s not a question of not trusting the UN, it’s a question of the UN having failed in Iraq. Now it has another opportunity on this occasion. I mean what we did in Iraq was based on a Security Council Resolution. But the alternative was that we should leave it endlessly to further United Nations processes and that did not work. The United Nations failed in relation to Iraq. I hope it now has an opportunity to succeed in relation to Iran, and it should be given the opportunity to do so.”
Apart from the arrogance and contempt Howard displays toward the UN because it failed to bow to US demands, the remark also demonstrates Howard’s ignorance of the facts. The UN is a body representing the nations of the world. Failure to get sanction from the UN to invade Iraq not only demonstrates the extreme contempt that Howard and cohorts have for the other nations of the world but also fails to accept that it is not the UN that has failed in Iraq since the invasion but the US and, by association, Australia. One has to seriously wonder, in the event that the UN once again refuses to yield to US demands with regard to Iran, if the US will take matters into their own hands once again and attack Iran anyway. One would further need to wonder where Howard stands given his unstinting support of Bush’s delusional ideas about the so-called ‘War on Terrorism’ so far.
So far we’ve heard very little from Howard about Iran as the next election approaches but will there be change in Howard’s tone after Cheney has been and gone?
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP, Doorstop Interview, Kirribilli House, Sydney’, 12 May 2006. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1929.html Accessed 20 February 2007.
Vice-President Dick Cheney is due to arrive in Australia this week for talks with Howard. It will be interesting to see after Cheney leaves whether or not Howard’s rhetoric about Iran changes.
There are a lot of high-level administration officials flying all over the place at the moment talking with Middle East and Western allies. One wonders, in the light of the heightened rhetoric with regard to Iran, if these visits from high-level officials aren’t the prelude to the next stage of whatever it is the US and Israel is planning.
It’s interesting to note that in a follow-up question in the same interview which asked: “But given that you didn’t trust the UN in the case of Iraq, what’s changed with Iran?” Howard replied: “It’s not a question of not trusting the UN, it’s a question of the UN having failed in Iraq. Now it has another opportunity on this occasion. I mean what we did in Iraq was based on a Security Council Resolution. But the alternative was that we should leave it endlessly to further United Nations processes and that did not work. The United Nations failed in relation to Iraq. I hope it now has an opportunity to succeed in relation to Iran, and it should be given the opportunity to do so.”
Apart from the arrogance and contempt Howard displays toward the UN because it failed to bow to US demands, the remark also demonstrates Howard’s ignorance of the facts. The UN is a body representing the nations of the world. Failure to get sanction from the UN to invade Iraq not only demonstrates the extreme contempt that Howard and cohorts have for the other nations of the world but also fails to accept that it is not the UN that has failed in Iraq since the invasion but the US and, by association, Australia. One has to seriously wonder, in the event that the UN once again refuses to yield to US demands with regard to Iran, if the US will take matters into their own hands once again and attack Iran anyway. One would further need to wonder where Howard stands given his unstinting support of Bush’s delusional ideas about the so-called ‘War on Terrorism’ so far.
So far we’ve heard very little from Howard about Iran as the next election approaches but will there be change in Howard’s tone after Cheney has been and gone?
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP, Doorstop Interview, Kirribilli House, Sydney’, 12 May 2006. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1929.html Accessed 20 February 2007.
Friday, February 16, 2007
MORE LIES AND DECEIT FROM AUSTRALIAN ISRAELI LOBBYIST DYLAN KISSANE
In a classic example of how the Australian Israeli Lobby use lies and deceit for propaganda purposes Dylan Kissane, a PhD student at the University of South Australia and right-wing Zionist propagandist, has used his blog to deliberately deceive those that read his work.
His post was:
Kevin's Konfusion
Thursday, Feb 15, 2007
ALP Leader Kevin Rudd looks at our forces in the Middle Eastern theatre and concludes - contrary to PM John Howard's contention - that their withdrawal wouldn't be such a big deal:
"...there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, about to surge to 160,000, currently our force in the entire region is about 1,400 and this debate is about the future of the combat element of that of some 500. It’s important to put all that into context because Mr Howard says that if these Australian combat forces of about 500 are withdrawn after another couple of rotations that that of itself would trigger the withdrawal immediately of 140 to 160,000 American troops, well I think we need to put that into some context as well."
According to Rudd, it's a little silly to think that 500 combat troops can precipitate something as large as a 160,000-strong US troop withdrawal. But on the other hand, Kevin claims those same troops are strong enough to change the foreign policy outlooks of sovereign nation-states in the region:
"...Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia [sic] Arabia."
In the first case Rudd is arguing that the number of troops are so small as to have little impact on the regional security. In the second case he is arguing that those same small number of troops can and do have an impact on regional security, including promoting changes in the grand strategy of nuclear weapons wannabe Iran and other surrounding countries.
Looks like Kevin's confused again.
The deceit is in Kissane’s re-contextualising of the words Rudd actually used which was achieved by only partially citing what Rudd said, which was:
“What’s concerned me deeply, and I’ve been writing about this for more than a year now, is one of the greatest strategic failures in Mr Howard’s decision to take us into this war, and as the chief cheerleader for this war outside of the United States, has been that is has emboldened Iran. Iran, which was once a significant power in this wider region of the Middle East, has become the dominant power because you have, through the Shia influence from Iran, extending of that influence into Iraq so that the Iranian influence is now much more widespread. This places Iran in a much stronger position. The failure of our policy, Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia Arabia. Mr Howard says he’s going to be part of the long term solution. I say on national security and foreign policy, Mr Howard increasingly looks like a long term risk.”
While in the first instance that Kissane refers to, Rudd indeed was talking about the numbers of Australian troops and their relative impact, or lack thereof, on the criminal war effort in Iraq, but clearly in the second instance Rudd was not refering to the troop numbers at all as Kissane attempts to assert but was referring instead to Howards failed strategic policy.
One can only hope that Kissanes dishonesty is not reflected in his academic work.
His post was:
Kevin's Konfusion
Thursday, Feb 15, 2007
ALP Leader Kevin Rudd looks at our forces in the Middle Eastern theatre and concludes - contrary to PM John Howard's contention - that their withdrawal wouldn't be such a big deal:
"...there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, about to surge to 160,000, currently our force in the entire region is about 1,400 and this debate is about the future of the combat element of that of some 500. It’s important to put all that into context because Mr Howard says that if these Australian combat forces of about 500 are withdrawn after another couple of rotations that that of itself would trigger the withdrawal immediately of 140 to 160,000 American troops, well I think we need to put that into some context as well."
According to Rudd, it's a little silly to think that 500 combat troops can precipitate something as large as a 160,000-strong US troop withdrawal. But on the other hand, Kevin claims those same troops are strong enough to change the foreign policy outlooks of sovereign nation-states in the region:
"...Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia [sic] Arabia."
In the first case Rudd is arguing that the number of troops are so small as to have little impact on the regional security. In the second case he is arguing that those same small number of troops can and do have an impact on regional security, including promoting changes in the grand strategy of nuclear weapons wannabe Iran and other surrounding countries.
Looks like Kevin's confused again.
The deceit is in Kissane’s re-contextualising of the words Rudd actually used which was achieved by only partially citing what Rudd said, which was:
“What’s concerned me deeply, and I’ve been writing about this for more than a year now, is one of the greatest strategic failures in Mr Howard’s decision to take us into this war, and as the chief cheerleader for this war outside of the United States, has been that is has emboldened Iran. Iran, which was once a significant power in this wider region of the Middle East, has become the dominant power because you have, through the Shia influence from Iran, extending of that influence into Iraq so that the Iranian influence is now much more widespread. This places Iran in a much stronger position. The failure of our policy, Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia Arabia. Mr Howard says he’s going to be part of the long term solution. I say on national security and foreign policy, Mr Howard increasingly looks like a long term risk.”
While in the first instance that Kissane refers to, Rudd indeed was talking about the numbers of Australian troops and their relative impact, or lack thereof, on the criminal war effort in Iraq, but clearly in the second instance Rudd was not refering to the troop numbers at all as Kissane attempts to assert but was referring instead to Howards failed strategic policy.
One can only hope that Kissanes dishonesty is not reflected in his academic work.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
THE EVENTS OF 9/11 AND THE ‘HOUSE OF CARDS’ EFFECT
Most of the worlds major events, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrible consequences of those invasions including the hideous tortures and deaths at Abu Ghraib, the massacres of countless villagers in Afghanistan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through bombings and shootings, the daily sectarian killings, the expenditure of billions upon billions of dollars, the threat of further expansion of the Middle East war, the deaths of over 12,000 allied soldiers, not just those that died on the battlefield but those that have since died of their wounds and remain uncounted in the official lists,[1] and the many thousands of others that have been injured; all of this has been as a direct result of the events of 11 September 2001.
All that has happened has been because George W. Bush told the world that the terrible events of 11 September 2001 were the work of ‘terrorists’. Everything that Bush has done since has been done in the name of the events of 11 September 2001. The killings, the treatment of prisoners, the torture, the deaths of US and allied soldiers, the spending of those billions of dollars have all been justified by Bush because of the events of 11 September 2001.
But what if the events of 11 September turned out not to be the work of the ‘terrorists’ that Bush claimed. Or worse, what if it turned out that elements within or associated with the Bush administration were complicit in the ‘terrorist’ attacks on America on 11 September 2001. There has been massive amounts speculation about these possibilities ever since the day it happened but despite the huge amounts of circumstantial evidence that suggests that there was more to the events of 11 September 2001 than we are being told, we haven’t yet had any substantive evidence that could demonstrate conclusively that it didn’t happen the way the Bush administration has told us it happened – at least not until now.
Just recently emerging is the strongest pieces of evidence[2] yet that show that all is not well with the official story of the events 11 September 2001. They relate not to the spectacular collapse of the Twin Towers after they had been hit by airliners or to the mysterious circumstances of the explosion at the Pentagon over which there is much controversy– but it relates to the collapse of WTC Building 7; a collapse that, at the time, virtually went unnoticed happening as it did on the same day as the main event as it were.
The collapse of the Twin Towers will always be controversial but as the evidence regarding the collapse of WTC7 emerges so the controversy about how the building collapsed recedes, because it is so obvious that it was taken down by professional demolition explosives in a controlled implosion, rather than spontaneously collapsing due to fire, but as the question of ‘how’ is resolved so the questions of ‘who’ and ‘why’ take over.
The moment the mainstream media accept that, indeed, WTC Building 7 was deliberately demolished by placed explosives then the whole edifice that is the foundation of all that has happened so far this century will begin to crumble just like a house of cards.
And when it does it will be just as spectacular as the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center – and just as messy.
ENDNOTES
[1] Brian Harring, ‘Over 12000 US Soldiers Killed in Iraq War’, The Harring Report, 7 January 2007 Available online: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-09-07/discussion.cgi.58.html Accessed 13 February 2007.
[2] Paul Watson, ‘NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs’, Prisonplanet.com, 10 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
See also: Paul Watson and Alex Jones, ‘More Ground Zero Heroes on the Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down’, Prisonplanet.com, 9 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm Accessed 13 February 2007, and Paul Watson, ‘Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was Going to be “Pulled”’, Prisonplanet.com, 8 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
All that has happened has been because George W. Bush told the world that the terrible events of 11 September 2001 were the work of ‘terrorists’. Everything that Bush has done since has been done in the name of the events of 11 September 2001. The killings, the treatment of prisoners, the torture, the deaths of US and allied soldiers, the spending of those billions of dollars have all been justified by Bush because of the events of 11 September 2001.
But what if the events of 11 September turned out not to be the work of the ‘terrorists’ that Bush claimed. Or worse, what if it turned out that elements within or associated with the Bush administration were complicit in the ‘terrorist’ attacks on America on 11 September 2001. There has been massive amounts speculation about these possibilities ever since the day it happened but despite the huge amounts of circumstantial evidence that suggests that there was more to the events of 11 September 2001 than we are being told, we haven’t yet had any substantive evidence that could demonstrate conclusively that it didn’t happen the way the Bush administration has told us it happened – at least not until now.
Just recently emerging is the strongest pieces of evidence[2] yet that show that all is not well with the official story of the events 11 September 2001. They relate not to the spectacular collapse of the Twin Towers after they had been hit by airliners or to the mysterious circumstances of the explosion at the Pentagon over which there is much controversy– but it relates to the collapse of WTC Building 7; a collapse that, at the time, virtually went unnoticed happening as it did on the same day as the main event as it were.
The collapse of the Twin Towers will always be controversial but as the evidence regarding the collapse of WTC7 emerges so the controversy about how the building collapsed recedes, because it is so obvious that it was taken down by professional demolition explosives in a controlled implosion, rather than spontaneously collapsing due to fire, but as the question of ‘how’ is resolved so the questions of ‘who’ and ‘why’ take over.
The moment the mainstream media accept that, indeed, WTC Building 7 was deliberately demolished by placed explosives then the whole edifice that is the foundation of all that has happened so far this century will begin to crumble just like a house of cards.
And when it does it will be just as spectacular as the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center – and just as messy.
ENDNOTES
[1] Brian Harring, ‘Over 12000 US Soldiers Killed in Iraq War’, The Harring Report, 7 January 2007 Available online: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-09-07/discussion.cgi.58.html Accessed 13 February 2007.
[2] Paul Watson, ‘NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs’, Prisonplanet.com, 10 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
See also: Paul Watson and Alex Jones, ‘More Ground Zero Heroes on the Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down’, Prisonplanet.com, 9 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm Accessed 13 February 2007, and Paul Watson, ‘Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was Going to be “Pulled”’, Prisonplanet.com, 8 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
Monday, February 12, 2007
AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD STILL REVELS IN HIS FANTASY WORLD AND FAILS TO ACCEPT REALITY.
In an interview on Australia’s current affairs program, ‘Sunday’, Australian Prime Minister John Howard demonstrated how completely out of touch with reality he really is. He told the interviewer after being asked about Barack Obama’s decision to run for the Presidency and how he would have the troops home by March 2008 if elected: “I think he's wrong. I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for Obama victory. If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”[1]
Howard has failed to see that Iraq is already completely destabilised and has already been destroyed and that the ‘terrorists’ in Iraq is the US troops and their allies. Howard continues to insist that Al-Qaeda bogeymen are running things in Iraq. He fails to grasp the reality that the only reasons for the violence in Iraq is because the people don’t want the US and their allies, including Australia, in Iraq and that their presence there is unwelcome by the vast majority of Iraqis. Howard says: “There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008.” What Howard is unable to accept is the fact that Iraq will never be stabilised while the US are there. For every moment that the US remains in Iraq they prolong the agony that the Iraqi people now endure.
Howard also ties in the conflict in Iraq with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He says: “And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone.” The hope of getting a Palestinian settlement in favour of right-wing Zionist Israelis will be gone – yes, but a proper settlement returning to the Palestinians their land and sovereignty can only be enhanced by an American withdrawal from the Middle East.
Howard goes on to say: “There'll be enormous conflict between the Shi'a and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be (destabilised), Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had and that will have implications in our region because of the link, the ideological link at the very least, between the Al-Qaeda and JI.”
This is pure unadulterated garbage. There is no reason for either Saudi Arabia or Jordan to become ‘destabilised’ simply because some - and only some - Shi’a and Sunnis have got at each others throats in Iraq to take advantage of the internal power struggles that dominate Iraq as a result of the US presence there. To infer that the violence between Shi’a and Sunni militants in Iraq is so widespread that it will spread throughout the region is pure nonsense. To suggest that Al-Qaeda will ‘trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had’ is just plain delusional. The delusion is completed for Howard by suggesting that such a ‘victory’ for Al-Qaeda will somehow have repercussions in the South Pacific region.
Howard has tried all these lies before but does he really expect people to still actually believe them?
ENDNOTE
[1] ‘Interview: John Howard’, Sunday.ninemsn, 11 February 2007. Available online: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_2124.asp Accessed 12 February 2007.
Howard has failed to see that Iraq is already completely destabilised and has already been destroyed and that the ‘terrorists’ in Iraq is the US troops and their allies. Howard continues to insist that Al-Qaeda bogeymen are running things in Iraq. He fails to grasp the reality that the only reasons for the violence in Iraq is because the people don’t want the US and their allies, including Australia, in Iraq and that their presence there is unwelcome by the vast majority of Iraqis. Howard says: “There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008.” What Howard is unable to accept is the fact that Iraq will never be stabilised while the US are there. For every moment that the US remains in Iraq they prolong the agony that the Iraqi people now endure.
Howard also ties in the conflict in Iraq with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He says: “And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone.” The hope of getting a Palestinian settlement in favour of right-wing Zionist Israelis will be gone – yes, but a proper settlement returning to the Palestinians their land and sovereignty can only be enhanced by an American withdrawal from the Middle East.
Howard goes on to say: “There'll be enormous conflict between the Shi'a and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be (destabilised), Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had and that will have implications in our region because of the link, the ideological link at the very least, between the Al-Qaeda and JI.”
This is pure unadulterated garbage. There is no reason for either Saudi Arabia or Jordan to become ‘destabilised’ simply because some - and only some - Shi’a and Sunnis have got at each others throats in Iraq to take advantage of the internal power struggles that dominate Iraq as a result of the US presence there. To infer that the violence between Shi’a and Sunni militants in Iraq is so widespread that it will spread throughout the region is pure nonsense. To suggest that Al-Qaeda will ‘trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had’ is just plain delusional. The delusion is completed for Howard by suggesting that such a ‘victory’ for Al-Qaeda will somehow have repercussions in the South Pacific region.
Howard has tried all these lies before but does he really expect people to still actually believe them?
ENDNOTE
[1] ‘Interview: John Howard’, Sunday.ninemsn, 11 February 2007. Available online: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_2124.asp Accessed 12 February 2007.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
IS THE WESTERN ‘LEFT’ REALLY IN AN ALLIANCE WITH THE ISLAMIC ‘RIGHT’?
The short answer, of course, is ‘No!’
The question arises only because the Western ‘Right’ have used the notion of the Western ‘Left’ being in alliance with the Islamic ‘Right’ as a propaganda tool against the Western ‘Left’ because the Western ‘Left’ are not supporting the Western ‘Right’ in their fight against what they perceive to be the Islamic ‘Right’.
The notion has its source in the statement made by George W. Bush on 20 September 2001 when he said quite emphatically: “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists”.[1] In the eyes of the Western ‘Right’ that statement precluded the options of not being with either or of being against both. Since those words were spoken Western ‘Right’ leaders and the mainstream media have taken the notion literally in order to berate the ‘Left’.
For example; Jeremy Cordeaux, at the time a radio personality in Adelaide, South Australia, asked Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of the world’s staunchest allies of President Bush, about a month before the allied invasion of Iraq and just after the massive demonstrations around the world protesting against the pending war, this: “Let me ask you first, what did you think when you saw 400,000 fellow Australians on the streets demonstrating in a way that was, they say, against war but really it was in favour of Saddam Hussein?” Howard responded with: “…I do know also that demonstrations do give comfort to the Iraqi leadership, there's no doubt about that.”[2] The reality that Cordeaux failed to grasp was the fact that people weren’t supporting Saddam Hussein, but simply did not support war – especially a war that most people knew by then was based on lies. Howard, forever the politician however, played on Cordeuax’s words brilliantly by not quite explicitly saying that the 400,000 were in favour of Saddam Hussein but inferring it by saying that it gave ‘comfort to the Iraqi leadership’.
The fact that so many people demonstrating against an impending war against Iraq more than likely did give ‘comfort to the Iraqi leadership’ is hardly the point. What Howard and Cordeaux had succeeded in doing was to plant the seed that being against the war was tantamount to being in favour of terrorism as exemplified by the arch villain of terrorism Saddam Hussein who was about to be attacked for what was claimed to be his part in world terrorism.
Right-wing commentators, particularly right-wing Zionist propagandists, have ever since been pushing the line that the left-wing that is against the war is somehow in an alliance with right-wing Islamic militarism. One has even gone so far as to have written a book about it. David Horowitz’s book is about what he perceives as, and is titled, an ‘Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left’. Horowitz argues that the American left has forged an alliance with radical Islamists in order to jointly oppose America’s war on terrorism and its war in Iraq. The argument is based on the precept that the American left is ‘anti-American’, an absurdity in much the same way as some Jews are being called ‘self-haters’ because they don’t share the right-wing Zionist view about Israel’s fight against the Arabs is an absurdity.
When the right-wing says that someone is ‘anti-American’ it is based on the assumption that the right-wing view of ‘America’ is the one and only acceptable view that one may have of America. It is an arrogant premise. If ones view is not aligned with the right-wing view it is considered then to be anti-American. The right-wings view of the ‘Left’ being ‘anti-American’ is based purely on arrogance and has little to do with reality. Horowitz bases his entire argument on the premise that the ‘Left’ is ‘anti-American’ and so, ipso facto, must be pro right-wing Islam. It is a deliberate lie that is based on deceit and paranoia.
The concept works in much the same way as the propaganda of the right-wing Zionists who insist that any opposition to them is ‘anti-Semitic’ even if those that oppose them are actually Jewish themselves. Most people are aware, however, that indeed it is just propaganda.
The ‘Left’ did not oppose the war because it supported Saddam Hussein. The ‘Left’ opposed the war with Iraq because the war was being launched based on ulterior motives. Most of the peoples of the world were not fooled for one moment by the lies and rhetoric coming from Western right-wing leaders. Most of the peoples of the world knew that what the war was really about was oil, hegemony and Israeli interests and these facts were made quite clear at the various rallies and demonstrations that were held around the world just prior to the invasion. Everything that has transpired since has proved the ‘Left’ correct in the assumptions that were made then. There were no WMDs, Saddam was not in anyway involved with the events of 9/11 and Iraq certainly was not a threat to the world and nor did it any longer have any ambitions of being nuclear armed. The left cried ‘No war for oil!’ and the right insisted that it was not about oil – yet now the US have secured contracts for Iraq oil guaranteed for the next thirty years. The right lied.
The ‘Left’ is far more concerned about the ulterior motives of the Western ‘Right’ than it is about the Islamic ‘Right’. The ‘Left’ see the Western ‘Right’ as a far greater threat to world security than the Islamic ‘Right’ despite the Western ‘Rights’ propaganda and rhetoric. The bottom line is simply that deaths resulting from the actions of the Western ‘Right’ far outnumber deaths resulting from the actions of the Islamic ‘Right’. The Western ‘Right’ have been exposed as a sham. The rhetoric alleging an alliance between the Western ‘Left’ and the Islamic ‘Right’ is also a sham – just like Saddam’s WMDs were.
Just because the Western ‘Left’ does not support an attack on Iran does not mean to say that it therefore supports the politics of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The Western ‘Left’ doesn’t support an attack on Iran because the Western ‘Left’ knows that the Western ‘Right’ are simply lying about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and involvement in Iraq in order to find a casus belli to attack it in order to maintain US hegemony in the region and to further Israel’s regional aspirations for a Greater Israel.
ENDNOTES
[1] President George W. Bush, ‘Address to the Joint Session of Congress and to the American People’, The White House, 20 September 2001. Available online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html Accessed 6 February 2007.
[2] ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP interview with Jeremy Cordeaux, Radio 5DN’, 20 February 2003, PM Australia website. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview247.html Accessed 6 February 2007.
The question arises only because the Western ‘Right’ have used the notion of the Western ‘Left’ being in alliance with the Islamic ‘Right’ as a propaganda tool against the Western ‘Left’ because the Western ‘Left’ are not supporting the Western ‘Right’ in their fight against what they perceive to be the Islamic ‘Right’.
The notion has its source in the statement made by George W. Bush on 20 September 2001 when he said quite emphatically: “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists”.[1] In the eyes of the Western ‘Right’ that statement precluded the options of not being with either or of being against both. Since those words were spoken Western ‘Right’ leaders and the mainstream media have taken the notion literally in order to berate the ‘Left’.
For example; Jeremy Cordeaux, at the time a radio personality in Adelaide, South Australia, asked Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of the world’s staunchest allies of President Bush, about a month before the allied invasion of Iraq and just after the massive demonstrations around the world protesting against the pending war, this: “Let me ask you first, what did you think when you saw 400,000 fellow Australians on the streets demonstrating in a way that was, they say, against war but really it was in favour of Saddam Hussein?” Howard responded with: “…I do know also that demonstrations do give comfort to the Iraqi leadership, there's no doubt about that.”[2] The reality that Cordeaux failed to grasp was the fact that people weren’t supporting Saddam Hussein, but simply did not support war – especially a war that most people knew by then was based on lies. Howard, forever the politician however, played on Cordeuax’s words brilliantly by not quite explicitly saying that the 400,000 were in favour of Saddam Hussein but inferring it by saying that it gave ‘comfort to the Iraqi leadership’.
The fact that so many people demonstrating against an impending war against Iraq more than likely did give ‘comfort to the Iraqi leadership’ is hardly the point. What Howard and Cordeaux had succeeded in doing was to plant the seed that being against the war was tantamount to being in favour of terrorism as exemplified by the arch villain of terrorism Saddam Hussein who was about to be attacked for what was claimed to be his part in world terrorism.
Right-wing commentators, particularly right-wing Zionist propagandists, have ever since been pushing the line that the left-wing that is against the war is somehow in an alliance with right-wing Islamic militarism. One has even gone so far as to have written a book about it. David Horowitz’s book is about what he perceives as, and is titled, an ‘Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left’. Horowitz argues that the American left has forged an alliance with radical Islamists in order to jointly oppose America’s war on terrorism and its war in Iraq. The argument is based on the precept that the American left is ‘anti-American’, an absurdity in much the same way as some Jews are being called ‘self-haters’ because they don’t share the right-wing Zionist view about Israel’s fight against the Arabs is an absurdity.
When the right-wing says that someone is ‘anti-American’ it is based on the assumption that the right-wing view of ‘America’ is the one and only acceptable view that one may have of America. It is an arrogant premise. If ones view is not aligned with the right-wing view it is considered then to be anti-American. The right-wings view of the ‘Left’ being ‘anti-American’ is based purely on arrogance and has little to do with reality. Horowitz bases his entire argument on the premise that the ‘Left’ is ‘anti-American’ and so, ipso facto, must be pro right-wing Islam. It is a deliberate lie that is based on deceit and paranoia.
The concept works in much the same way as the propaganda of the right-wing Zionists who insist that any opposition to them is ‘anti-Semitic’ even if those that oppose them are actually Jewish themselves. Most people are aware, however, that indeed it is just propaganda.
The ‘Left’ did not oppose the war because it supported Saddam Hussein. The ‘Left’ opposed the war with Iraq because the war was being launched based on ulterior motives. Most of the peoples of the world were not fooled for one moment by the lies and rhetoric coming from Western right-wing leaders. Most of the peoples of the world knew that what the war was really about was oil, hegemony and Israeli interests and these facts were made quite clear at the various rallies and demonstrations that were held around the world just prior to the invasion. Everything that has transpired since has proved the ‘Left’ correct in the assumptions that were made then. There were no WMDs, Saddam was not in anyway involved with the events of 9/11 and Iraq certainly was not a threat to the world and nor did it any longer have any ambitions of being nuclear armed. The left cried ‘No war for oil!’ and the right insisted that it was not about oil – yet now the US have secured contracts for Iraq oil guaranteed for the next thirty years. The right lied.
The ‘Left’ is far more concerned about the ulterior motives of the Western ‘Right’ than it is about the Islamic ‘Right’. The ‘Left’ see the Western ‘Right’ as a far greater threat to world security than the Islamic ‘Right’ despite the Western ‘Rights’ propaganda and rhetoric. The bottom line is simply that deaths resulting from the actions of the Western ‘Right’ far outnumber deaths resulting from the actions of the Islamic ‘Right’. The Western ‘Right’ have been exposed as a sham. The rhetoric alleging an alliance between the Western ‘Left’ and the Islamic ‘Right’ is also a sham – just like Saddam’s WMDs were.
Just because the Western ‘Left’ does not support an attack on Iran does not mean to say that it therefore supports the politics of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The Western ‘Left’ doesn’t support an attack on Iran because the Western ‘Left’ knows that the Western ‘Right’ are simply lying about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and involvement in Iraq in order to find a casus belli to attack it in order to maintain US hegemony in the region and to further Israel’s regional aspirations for a Greater Israel.
ENDNOTES
[1] President George W. Bush, ‘Address to the Joint Session of Congress and to the American People’, The White House, 20 September 2001. Available online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html Accessed 6 February 2007.
[2] ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP interview with Jeremy Cordeaux, Radio 5DN’, 20 February 2003, PM Australia website. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview247.html Accessed 6 February 2007.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
IRAN: THE LAST BIG STUMBLING BLOCK TO THE RIGHT-WING ZIONIST DREAM OF A ‘GREATER ISRAEL’.
The right-wing Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative allies within the US administration, together with their colleagues in the media and right-wing think-tank organisations, have already managed to get the US and their allies to invade and occupy Iraq thus ridding Israel of one of its enemies. Now those same people are trying the same kind of lies they told about Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the world to support an attack against the Islamic state of Iran.
The first time around with Iraq they had little trouble convincing many of the governments of the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat to them and must therefore be gotton rid off. They took advantage of the sympathy gained from the events of 11 September 2001, milking it for all it was worth, including claiming that Saddam Hussein had connections with al Qaeda who the US alleged were responsible for 9/11, in order to get the UN to endorse an attack against Iraq. Even then most of the peoples of the world could not be so easily fooled and knew that the US and its allies had ulterior motives. They argued that, despite being a disgusting dictator, Hussein was not a threat to the world as we were being told and that ousting him would end up being more trouble for the Middle East than it was worth. In the end, the US and their so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’ were unable to get the support they wanted from the UN and decided to attack Iraq without a mandate.
Their adventure quickly began to fall apart soon after their invasion and they began losing what little support they had mustered when it became apparent that there were no WMDs to be found. The allied governments began to grasp at straws when they discovered some trucks, which they claimed were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. They turned out to be nothing more than mobile hydrogen generators used for weather and artillery ranging balloons. Their credibility foundered further when they made the mistake of continuing to claim they were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Then some of the other lies that were told also began to fall apart. The claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger were found to be false. Tony Blair’s famous ‘dossier’ turned out to be nothing more than lies plagiarised from a student’s assignment. And, on top of all that, the war quickly began to look like it wasn’t going to be the ‘cakewalk’ that neocon Ken Adelman, a close friend and government colleague of Donald Rumsfeld, said it was going to be.[1] Instead of welcoming the American troops and their allies as ‘liberators’ as Dick Cheney had boasted,[2] the Iraqi people began to fight back. It soon became obvious to the Iraqis why the Americans had invaded and they quickly realised that the combination of their oil resources were one attraction and that regional influence and hegemony was another, all of which in turn served the purposes of Israel who had been plagued by Saddam Hussein’s financial support of the Palestinians in their fight to free themselves.
Not only did the Iraqis begin to fight back but they also began to take advantage of the lawlessness that ensued in order to fight each other, not just in order to jockey for political power within the new set of circumstances but also to extract revenge for the years that one ethnic group had had domination over another reducing Iraq into chaos.
During the almost four years that have passed since the invasion of Iraq, Israel and the US have steadily increased their rhetoric against Iran. Ever since the overthrow of the US-backed Shah by the Iranian Islamic militants, successive Israeli and US administrations have to varying degrees been at loggerheads with successive Iranian leaders with a slight thaw in relations only when the more moderate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came to power after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The thaw was short-lived and by the end of the first Gulf War tensions again began to mount as the US and Israel accused Iran of supporting ‘terrorism’ and embarking on a nuclear program designed to build nuclear weapons.
Israel’s main grievance about Iran was its support of Hizbollah, a mainly Shia militant group that began to flourish in the late 80s as a result of the civil war in Lebanon and the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that resulted from that civil war.
The civil war in Lebanon also saw the emergence of complex alliances among the various Muslim groupings, particularly between many of the Palestinian refugees that now lived in southern Lebanon who had suffered terribly at the hands of both the Israelis and the Christian Phalange militias that were allied with the Israelis. This has resulted in a somewhat confusing and often seemingly contradictory relationship between various factions, both religious and secular, throughout the Middle East and beyond. The bottom line for the Israelis, however, and their pro-Zionist neoconservative allies in the US, is that Iran, ever since the overthrow of the Shah, has been a thorn in the side of Israeli ambitions to create a Greater Israel that is inclusive of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the Golan Heights, the Gaza and the West Bank.
For the Israelis the neutralising of Iran is more important than the problem Israel has with Syria. Syria, being on Israel’s doorstep, can be taken care of at anytime by the Israelis and the neutralising of Iran will also enhance Israel’s ability to neutralise Syria later.
There are many reasons why Israel sees Iran as the priority for neutralising before going for Syria. The main reason is that Iran is by far the more dominant of the two. Militarily Israel would be able to overwhelm Syria in a full scale attack with relative ease – but only if Iran is out of the picture. Iran and Syria have a current mutual assistance treaty which means that Iran would come to Syria’s assistance if Israel attacked Syria.[3] Since Iran has missiles that are able to reach Israel it would be prudent of Israel to first ensure that Iran was neutralised before taking on Syria. The hope is, of course, that in the event of Iran being neutralised, Syria would then capitulate to Israel’s demands leaving Israel free to confront, yet again, Hizbollah. The Israeli hope is that, with a defeated Hizbollah, there will follow a collapse of Palestinian resistance in the Gaza and the West Bank.
That’s the theory. The problem for Israel is; how to neutralise Iran.
This is where we came in. The Israelis have already managed to get the West to take care of Iraq for them by using lies and deceit. Since it worked once, the Israelis and their neoconservative allies reason, then it should work again if the lies can be even bigger and more convincing. With the support of a compliant mainstream media they are certainly, it seems, going to give it a try.
The role of fear-mongering plays an important part in right-wing Zionist propaganda and what better fear-mongering can there be for the right-wing propagandists to evoke the threat of a second Holocaust by playing on President Ahmadinejad’s re-contextualised and misinterpreted words regarding ‘wiping the Zionist entity’ from the map. This was seized upon by the propagandists who, coupling it with the lie about Irans nuclear ambitions, has played the deceitful scenario for all its worth to the UN and the people of America and Israel and the peoples of the world. However, the IAEA, the authority that the Israelis and the US are relying on to support their claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, have found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran is doing anything more than enriching uranium for use in energy generation. Nonetheless, the US and Israel have stirred up big enough waves to at least get the international community, the UN, to invoke some sanctions against Iran, none of which are actually likely to hurt Iran directly with most of them being put in place just to placate the US and Israel to make them feel as though the UN is actually doing something. Naturally, the US and Israel would have preferred sanctions that were a lot stiffer and offered military options but there was never anyway that that was going to happen while the Russians and the Chinese have veto power.
President Bush is now all but isolated politically in terms of being able to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He certainly would not be able to get congressional approval to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran. As a consequence Bush and his administration are trying really hard to implicate Iran with the insurgency in Iraq as this, arguably, would then, if he could provide direct evidence of such Iranian interference in Iraq, be the legitimate casus belli that would allow Bush to launch an attack directly on Iran as he already has authority as commander-in-chief to wage war in Iraq and an attack on Iran in circumstances where Iran was interfering in Iraq would, Bush’s team argues, be legal.
This is the stage that the Middle East is at now. All the US needs is some provocation from Iran, either by Iran making a pre-emptive strike (real or imaginary) against some American target, perhaps somewhere in the Straight of Hormuz where US carrier battle fleets are gathering, or ‘provably’ involving itself in the Iraq conflict against the interests of the US. Of course, the US is also just as likely to point the finger of blame to Iran for just about any major incident that occurs in Iraq regardless of whether or not Iran actually did have anything to do with it.
Since the US are ramping up the rhetoric to make this scenario look more likely, it would seem that the other possible scenario, that of Israel making a pre-emptive strike off its own bat, is on the back-burner for the moment. Even that scenario, however, would still require US cooperation; the logistics of overfly routes, fuelling, target acquisition, etc., would be impossible without US help and, besides, the Israelis wouldn’t dream of embarking on such an operation without being assured of US help in the event of an Iranian retaliatory strike.
The reality is that what this ‘crisis’ is really all about is not Iran seeking nuclear weapons, or President Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Israel, or stopping Iran supporting ‘terrorists’, but about Israel being rid of its enemies so that it can move ahead with its long held dream of a Greater Israel that encompasses lands which currently do not belong to them and which are protected by the presence of Islamic nations hostile to Israeli interests and aspirations. Slowly the world is waking up to this reality and the lies and deceit are becoming exposed.
Unfortunately, we are living in a world where our leaders who are in league with each other in Israel’s quest for a Greater Israel aren’t listening to their peoples anymore; they are just as likely to go ahead with their plans for US and Israeli domination of the Middle East regardless of what he rest of the world has to say about it – just as they ignored the masses of a protesting world prior to invading Iraq.
ENDNOTES
[1] Ken Adelman, ‘Cakewalk In Iraq’, Washington Post, 13 February 2003. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer Accessed 28 December 2006.
[2] Dana Milbank, ‘Upbeat Tone Ended With War’, Washington Post, 29 March 2003. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer Accessed 30 January 2007.
[3] Farhad Pouladi, ‘Iran, Syria Sign Defence Agreement’, DefenseNews.com, 15 June 2006. Available online: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1872085&C=mideast Accessed 30 January 2007.
The first time around with Iraq they had little trouble convincing many of the governments of the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat to them and must therefore be gotton rid off. They took advantage of the sympathy gained from the events of 11 September 2001, milking it for all it was worth, including claiming that Saddam Hussein had connections with al Qaeda who the US alleged were responsible for 9/11, in order to get the UN to endorse an attack against Iraq. Even then most of the peoples of the world could not be so easily fooled and knew that the US and its allies had ulterior motives. They argued that, despite being a disgusting dictator, Hussein was not a threat to the world as we were being told and that ousting him would end up being more trouble for the Middle East than it was worth. In the end, the US and their so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’ were unable to get the support they wanted from the UN and decided to attack Iraq without a mandate.
Their adventure quickly began to fall apart soon after their invasion and they began losing what little support they had mustered when it became apparent that there were no WMDs to be found. The allied governments began to grasp at straws when they discovered some trucks, which they claimed were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. They turned out to be nothing more than mobile hydrogen generators used for weather and artillery ranging balloons. Their credibility foundered further when they made the mistake of continuing to claim they were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Then some of the other lies that were told also began to fall apart. The claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger were found to be false. Tony Blair’s famous ‘dossier’ turned out to be nothing more than lies plagiarised from a student’s assignment. And, on top of all that, the war quickly began to look like it wasn’t going to be the ‘cakewalk’ that neocon Ken Adelman, a close friend and government colleague of Donald Rumsfeld, said it was going to be.[1] Instead of welcoming the American troops and their allies as ‘liberators’ as Dick Cheney had boasted,[2] the Iraqi people began to fight back. It soon became obvious to the Iraqis why the Americans had invaded and they quickly realised that the combination of their oil resources were one attraction and that regional influence and hegemony was another, all of which in turn served the purposes of Israel who had been plagued by Saddam Hussein’s financial support of the Palestinians in their fight to free themselves.
Not only did the Iraqis begin to fight back but they also began to take advantage of the lawlessness that ensued in order to fight each other, not just in order to jockey for political power within the new set of circumstances but also to extract revenge for the years that one ethnic group had had domination over another reducing Iraq into chaos.
During the almost four years that have passed since the invasion of Iraq, Israel and the US have steadily increased their rhetoric against Iran. Ever since the overthrow of the US-backed Shah by the Iranian Islamic militants, successive Israeli and US administrations have to varying degrees been at loggerheads with successive Iranian leaders with a slight thaw in relations only when the more moderate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came to power after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The thaw was short-lived and by the end of the first Gulf War tensions again began to mount as the US and Israel accused Iran of supporting ‘terrorism’ and embarking on a nuclear program designed to build nuclear weapons.
Israel’s main grievance about Iran was its support of Hizbollah, a mainly Shia militant group that began to flourish in the late 80s as a result of the civil war in Lebanon and the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that resulted from that civil war.
The civil war in Lebanon also saw the emergence of complex alliances among the various Muslim groupings, particularly between many of the Palestinian refugees that now lived in southern Lebanon who had suffered terribly at the hands of both the Israelis and the Christian Phalange militias that were allied with the Israelis. This has resulted in a somewhat confusing and often seemingly contradictory relationship between various factions, both religious and secular, throughout the Middle East and beyond. The bottom line for the Israelis, however, and their pro-Zionist neoconservative allies in the US, is that Iran, ever since the overthrow of the Shah, has been a thorn in the side of Israeli ambitions to create a Greater Israel that is inclusive of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the Golan Heights, the Gaza and the West Bank.
For the Israelis the neutralising of Iran is more important than the problem Israel has with Syria. Syria, being on Israel’s doorstep, can be taken care of at anytime by the Israelis and the neutralising of Iran will also enhance Israel’s ability to neutralise Syria later.
There are many reasons why Israel sees Iran as the priority for neutralising before going for Syria. The main reason is that Iran is by far the more dominant of the two. Militarily Israel would be able to overwhelm Syria in a full scale attack with relative ease – but only if Iran is out of the picture. Iran and Syria have a current mutual assistance treaty which means that Iran would come to Syria’s assistance if Israel attacked Syria.[3] Since Iran has missiles that are able to reach Israel it would be prudent of Israel to first ensure that Iran was neutralised before taking on Syria. The hope is, of course, that in the event of Iran being neutralised, Syria would then capitulate to Israel’s demands leaving Israel free to confront, yet again, Hizbollah. The Israeli hope is that, with a defeated Hizbollah, there will follow a collapse of Palestinian resistance in the Gaza and the West Bank.
That’s the theory. The problem for Israel is; how to neutralise Iran.
This is where we came in. The Israelis have already managed to get the West to take care of Iraq for them by using lies and deceit. Since it worked once, the Israelis and their neoconservative allies reason, then it should work again if the lies can be even bigger and more convincing. With the support of a compliant mainstream media they are certainly, it seems, going to give it a try.
The role of fear-mongering plays an important part in right-wing Zionist propaganda and what better fear-mongering can there be for the right-wing propagandists to evoke the threat of a second Holocaust by playing on President Ahmadinejad’s re-contextualised and misinterpreted words regarding ‘wiping the Zionist entity’ from the map. This was seized upon by the propagandists who, coupling it with the lie about Irans nuclear ambitions, has played the deceitful scenario for all its worth to the UN and the people of America and Israel and the peoples of the world. However, the IAEA, the authority that the Israelis and the US are relying on to support their claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, have found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran is doing anything more than enriching uranium for use in energy generation. Nonetheless, the US and Israel have stirred up big enough waves to at least get the international community, the UN, to invoke some sanctions against Iran, none of which are actually likely to hurt Iran directly with most of them being put in place just to placate the US and Israel to make them feel as though the UN is actually doing something. Naturally, the US and Israel would have preferred sanctions that were a lot stiffer and offered military options but there was never anyway that that was going to happen while the Russians and the Chinese have veto power.
President Bush is now all but isolated politically in terms of being able to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He certainly would not be able to get congressional approval to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran. As a consequence Bush and his administration are trying really hard to implicate Iran with the insurgency in Iraq as this, arguably, would then, if he could provide direct evidence of such Iranian interference in Iraq, be the legitimate casus belli that would allow Bush to launch an attack directly on Iran as he already has authority as commander-in-chief to wage war in Iraq and an attack on Iran in circumstances where Iran was interfering in Iraq would, Bush’s team argues, be legal.
This is the stage that the Middle East is at now. All the US needs is some provocation from Iran, either by Iran making a pre-emptive strike (real or imaginary) against some American target, perhaps somewhere in the Straight of Hormuz where US carrier battle fleets are gathering, or ‘provably’ involving itself in the Iraq conflict against the interests of the US. Of course, the US is also just as likely to point the finger of blame to Iran for just about any major incident that occurs in Iraq regardless of whether or not Iran actually did have anything to do with it.
Since the US are ramping up the rhetoric to make this scenario look more likely, it would seem that the other possible scenario, that of Israel making a pre-emptive strike off its own bat, is on the back-burner for the moment. Even that scenario, however, would still require US cooperation; the logistics of overfly routes, fuelling, target acquisition, etc., would be impossible without US help and, besides, the Israelis wouldn’t dream of embarking on such an operation without being assured of US help in the event of an Iranian retaliatory strike.
The reality is that what this ‘crisis’ is really all about is not Iran seeking nuclear weapons, or President Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Israel, or stopping Iran supporting ‘terrorists’, but about Israel being rid of its enemies so that it can move ahead with its long held dream of a Greater Israel that encompasses lands which currently do not belong to them and which are protected by the presence of Islamic nations hostile to Israeli interests and aspirations. Slowly the world is waking up to this reality and the lies and deceit are becoming exposed.
Unfortunately, we are living in a world where our leaders who are in league with each other in Israel’s quest for a Greater Israel aren’t listening to their peoples anymore; they are just as likely to go ahead with their plans for US and Israeli domination of the Middle East regardless of what he rest of the world has to say about it – just as they ignored the masses of a protesting world prior to invading Iraq.
ENDNOTES
[1] Ken Adelman, ‘Cakewalk In Iraq’, Washington Post, 13 February 2003. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer Accessed 28 December 2006.
[2] Dana Milbank, ‘Upbeat Tone Ended With War’, Washington Post, 29 March 2003. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer Accessed 30 January 2007.
[3] Farhad Pouladi, ‘Iran, Syria Sign Defence Agreement’, DefenseNews.com, 15 June 2006. Available online: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1872085&C=mideast Accessed 30 January 2007.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
EVIDENCE BUSH WAS SERIOUSLY THINKING OF IRAN SOON AFTER HAVING INVADED IRAQ!
In Bob Woodward’s latest book, State of Denial, there is an easily overlooked passage that gives more than just a subtle hint about what Bush’s intentions are for Iran. Rather than re-relate the story as Bob Woodward tells it, which would then tend to make the story third hand, I’ll reproduce the passage here which the reader can then verify via reference to the book itself.
The story relates to an interview that Jay Garner, the short-lived director of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Iraq, had with Bush just after he had been replaced by Paul Bremer. Woodward writes:
“Mr. President, the one thing I’ll tell you, I’ve had three weeks to work with Ambassador Bremer and he’s one of the hardest working men I’ve ever seen. He’s a very bright guy. He’s articulate and he’ll get the job done. You made a good choice.”
“I didn’t choose him,” Bush said. “Rumsfeld chose him just like he chose you.”
Garner looked at Rumsfeld. The secretary of defence had told him explicitly in late April [2003] that Bush had selected Bremer, and had added later that even the timing of Bremer’s arrival was not his call. But now Rumsfeld didn’t say a word.
As Garner got up to leave, Rice stopped him and extended her hand. “Jay, you’ve got to stay in touch with us,” she said.
“I’d like to,” Garner said, thinking to himself, ‘How the hell am I going to do that?’ After all, he only talked with Rumsfeld.
On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back. “Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran”?
“Sir, the boys and I talked about that and we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and cigars are a little better… The women are prettier.”
Bush laughed. “You got it. You got Cuba.”[1]
The passage is telling for a number of reasons. The meeting between Garner and Bush was on 18 June 2003.[2] Already Bush was seriously thinking of Iran. And not just Iran, it seems. While it was Garner that mentioned Cuba, Bush was quick to take the opportunity of exercising the ‘Emperor’s prerogative’ implying that it was within his power to ‘give’ Garner Cuba.
The passage also highlights the deceitful and lying ways of Rumsfeld – it was indeed Rumsfeld who had selected Bremer to replace Garner contrary to what the secretary of defence had told him.
And, finally, there’s Condoleeza Rice’s rather patronising remark about Garner having to stay in touch with ‘us’.
All very revealing.
ENDNOTES
[1] Bob Woodward, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.) p. 224.
[2] Woodward, State of Denial. p. 227.
The story relates to an interview that Jay Garner, the short-lived director of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Iraq, had with Bush just after he had been replaced by Paul Bremer. Woodward writes:
“Mr. President, the one thing I’ll tell you, I’ve had three weeks to work with Ambassador Bremer and he’s one of the hardest working men I’ve ever seen. He’s a very bright guy. He’s articulate and he’ll get the job done. You made a good choice.”
“I didn’t choose him,” Bush said. “Rumsfeld chose him just like he chose you.”
Garner looked at Rumsfeld. The secretary of defence had told him explicitly in late April [2003] that Bush had selected Bremer, and had added later that even the timing of Bremer’s arrival was not his call. But now Rumsfeld didn’t say a word.
As Garner got up to leave, Rice stopped him and extended her hand. “Jay, you’ve got to stay in touch with us,” she said.
“I’d like to,” Garner said, thinking to himself, ‘How the hell am I going to do that?’ After all, he only talked with Rumsfeld.
On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back. “Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran”?
“Sir, the boys and I talked about that and we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and cigars are a little better… The women are prettier.”
Bush laughed. “You got it. You got Cuba.”[1]
The passage is telling for a number of reasons. The meeting between Garner and Bush was on 18 June 2003.[2] Already Bush was seriously thinking of Iran. And not just Iran, it seems. While it was Garner that mentioned Cuba, Bush was quick to take the opportunity of exercising the ‘Emperor’s prerogative’ implying that it was within his power to ‘give’ Garner Cuba.
The passage also highlights the deceitful and lying ways of Rumsfeld – it was indeed Rumsfeld who had selected Bremer to replace Garner contrary to what the secretary of defence had told him.
And, finally, there’s Condoleeza Rice’s rather patronising remark about Garner having to stay in touch with ‘us’.
All very revealing.
ENDNOTES
[1] Bob Woodward, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.) p. 224.
[2] Woodward, State of Denial. p. 227.
Monday, January 22, 2007
EXPENSIVE ETHNIC CLEANSING PROPOSED FOR THE WEST BANK.
The latest crackpot idea from right-wing Israeli Zionists hell-bent on a Greater Israel has been revealed in today’s Jerusalem Post.[1] The report said: “A new proposal designed to solve Israel's Arab demographic concerns suggests offering a million Palestinian residents of refugee camps in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) incentives totalling as much as $50 billion to convince them to leave the area.”
The proposal comes from two of Israel’s foremost proponents for a Greater Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Ateret Kohanim Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and MK Benny Elon of the ultra right-wing National Union-National Religious Party.
No prizes for guessing where they expect the money to come from.
In a follow up to this story, another report, in Ha’aretz,[2] provides some perspective to Aviner and Elon’s ideas. During a tour last Saturday of the West Bank and around Jerusalem, the head of EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, said: “I had the opportunity to make a tour along the eastern part of Jerusalem and go to Abu Dis and its surroundings. You get really very shocked every time you go and you see the situation worse, the wall is more extended and settlements are more extended”.
The lunatic ideas of Aviner and Elon combined with the reality on the ground paint a grim picture for the future of the Palestinian peoples.
ENDNOTES
[1] Matthew Wagner, ‘New proposal: Transfer-for-cash plan’, Jerusalem Post, 21 January 2007. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467783009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 22 January 2007.
[2] ‘Solana shocked at growth of Israeli settlements in West Bank’, Ha’aretz, 22 January 2007. Available online: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815971.html Accessed 22 January 2007.
The proposal comes from two of Israel’s foremost proponents for a Greater Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Ateret Kohanim Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and MK Benny Elon of the ultra right-wing National Union-National Religious Party.
No prizes for guessing where they expect the money to come from.
In a follow up to this story, another report, in Ha’aretz,[2] provides some perspective to Aviner and Elon’s ideas. During a tour last Saturday of the West Bank and around Jerusalem, the head of EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, said: “I had the opportunity to make a tour along the eastern part of Jerusalem and go to Abu Dis and its surroundings. You get really very shocked every time you go and you see the situation worse, the wall is more extended and settlements are more extended”.
The lunatic ideas of Aviner and Elon combined with the reality on the ground paint a grim picture for the future of the Palestinian peoples.
ENDNOTES
[1] Matthew Wagner, ‘New proposal: Transfer-for-cash plan’, Jerusalem Post, 21 January 2007. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467783009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 22 January 2007.
[2] ‘Solana shocked at growth of Israeli settlements in West Bank’, Ha’aretz, 22 January 2007. Available online: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815971.html Accessed 22 January 2007.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
NEOCON DAVID GELERNTER OF 'THE WEEKLY STANDARD' EXPOSES THE REAL REASON FOR WAR AGAINST THE IRAQIS – IT WAS ABOUT ISRAEL AFTER ALL !
David Gelernter of the American Enterprise Institute delusionally fancies himself as a speechwriter for Bush’s forthcoming State of the Union Address. In the latest edition of the neocon comic, The Weekly Standard,[1] he reproduces the speech he would like Bush to deliver to the people of America and the world.
Gelernter starts off by letting the people of America know that he would be pessimistic about the war in Iraq if “…the fight to topple the tyrant had dragged on for years”, ignoring entirely the fact that the tyrant has been toppled and the war has dragged on for years anyway. He goes on to say: “…the trial of Saddam Hussein was managed well under difficult circumstances. If (on the other hand) an outburst of violence had marred or derailed the election, if the trial or execution of Saddam had led to the large-scale violence so many people predicted, I might be pessimistic today.” Clearly the violence on the streets since Saddams execution which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including the deaths of some 70 students on Tuesday is not violence on a large enough scale for Gelernter to consider being ‘pessimistic’ about.
Further on in his speech to the people Gelernter would say:
“Of course some people argue that the war itself was a mistake; that all we can hope for today is to minimize our losses and get out fast. You know their reasons. Let me give you mine for believing that we were right to go into Iraq, righter than we ever knew. If we hadn't, Saddam would still be writing checks to subsidize Palestinian terror against Israel.” Instead we have the US writing checks to subsidize Israeli terror against the Palestinians and the Lebanese.
Gelernter goes on: “Israel would still be shadowed by Iraqi Scuds.” Instead we have Iran being shadowed by US warships with Tomahawk missiles.
Further on he’d say: “Today we might face two Irans, not one – two America-hating tyrant regimes with their weapons programs heated to max-boil.” Instead we have two Islam-hating tyrant regimes, the US and Israel, with their weapons ‘programs’ about to boil over.
Further on Gelernter, working himself up into a rhetorical frenzy and almost foaming at the mouth would blurt out the greatest furphy of them all: “Above all, how many 9/11s did we avert by showing that we would hit back and hit hard, and stand and fight for as long as it takes? Terrorists understand bullets, not baloney. U.N. resolutions don't impress them.” [The only people not impressed by UN resolutions are the Israelis] “Did we encourage 9/11 by standing down [Standing down the air force on 9/11 sure helped things along.] and backing off during much of the 1990s? We'll never know for sure." [Oh yes we will!] "But a great nation must act on its best judgment, not hang back and dither, when its safety and the world's are at stake.”
Pure garbage!
Apart from the obvious hypocrisy and the garbage, it very importantly demonstrates what the neoconservative’s real purpose was for instigating the war against Iraq – the protection of Israel and its interests.
ENDNOTE
[1] David Gelernter, ‘Please Say This… (Advice on the State of the Union. No charge.), Weekly Standard, 17 January 2007. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/167oczvj.asp Accessed 18 January 2007
Gelernter starts off by letting the people of America know that he would be pessimistic about the war in Iraq if “…the fight to topple the tyrant had dragged on for years”, ignoring entirely the fact that the tyrant has been toppled and the war has dragged on for years anyway. He goes on to say: “…the trial of Saddam Hussein was managed well under difficult circumstances. If (on the other hand) an outburst of violence had marred or derailed the election, if the trial or execution of Saddam had led to the large-scale violence so many people predicted, I might be pessimistic today.” Clearly the violence on the streets since Saddams execution which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including the deaths of some 70 students on Tuesday is not violence on a large enough scale for Gelernter to consider being ‘pessimistic’ about.
Further on in his speech to the people Gelernter would say:
“Of course some people argue that the war itself was a mistake; that all we can hope for today is to minimize our losses and get out fast. You know their reasons. Let me give you mine for believing that we were right to go into Iraq, righter than we ever knew. If we hadn't, Saddam would still be writing checks to subsidize Palestinian terror against Israel.” Instead we have the US writing checks to subsidize Israeli terror against the Palestinians and the Lebanese.
Gelernter goes on: “Israel would still be shadowed by Iraqi Scuds.” Instead we have Iran being shadowed by US warships with Tomahawk missiles.
Further on he’d say: “Today we might face two Irans, not one – two America-hating tyrant regimes with their weapons programs heated to max-boil.” Instead we have two Islam-hating tyrant regimes, the US and Israel, with their weapons ‘programs’ about to boil over.
Further on Gelernter, working himself up into a rhetorical frenzy and almost foaming at the mouth would blurt out the greatest furphy of them all: “Above all, how many 9/11s did we avert by showing that we would hit back and hit hard, and stand and fight for as long as it takes? Terrorists understand bullets, not baloney. U.N. resolutions don't impress them.” [The only people not impressed by UN resolutions are the Israelis] “Did we encourage 9/11 by standing down [Standing down the air force on 9/11 sure helped things along.] and backing off during much of the 1990s? We'll never know for sure." [Oh yes we will!] "But a great nation must act on its best judgment, not hang back and dither, when its safety and the world's are at stake.”
Pure garbage!
Apart from the obvious hypocrisy and the garbage, it very importantly demonstrates what the neoconservative’s real purpose was for instigating the war against Iraq – the protection of Israel and its interests.
ENDNOTE
[1] David Gelernter, ‘Please Say This… (Advice on the State of the Union. No charge.), Weekly Standard, 17 January 2007. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/167oczvj.asp Accessed 18 January 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
MARGO KINGSTON CAVES IN AGAIN!
It seems the right-wing at Australia’s Webdiary have done it again! This time Margo Kingston herself has forced one of Webdiary’s most articulate commentators, Roslyn Ross, from its pages through the most blatantly discriminatory of expediencies of limiting Ross’ – and only Ross’ – posts to 500 words. Ross, quite rightly, believes that this is intolerable censorship and has decided to withdraw from further debate there.
Roslyn Ross argued strongly against Israeli and US aggression in all of the countries that Israel and the US have attacked and occupied together with the Israelis on-going ethnic cleansing in the Gaza and West Bank. In the past Kingston has buckled to Australian pro-Zionist pressure, which has included death threats, (which her brother Hamish Alcorn has been caught lying about in the past) and it would seem that there is no reason to believe that Kingston has not done so once again given that the objections are said to be about “…relentless hostility towards Israel and Jews in particular, and her ceaseless hackneyed anti-American tirades.”[1]
The Webdiary site is now dominated by free-lance Israeli Loony Lobbyists like the Islamaphobes Chris Parsons, Geoff Pahoff and Mike Lyvers, the pseudo-academic deceiver and liar Will Howard, the ignoramus and blatantly fascist Jay White and a handful of other assorted right-wing lunatics who use the site to push their warmongering paranoid and Islamaphobic ideas on to an ever decreasing audience that have now begun to wake up to these people’s insanity.
Margo Kingston’s Webdiary was once a great place for lively debate about what goes on in this world – until it was taken over by the right-wing lunatics who support the madness that is now the Middle East. So much for Margo Kingston’s ‘liberalism’. She’s joined the ranks of John Howard’s ‘Support Bush and right-wing Zionist Israel at all costs’ brigade.
What a great shame. I wonder if Kingston will ever come clean and tell us the truth behind her censoring of comments on Webdiary.
ENDNOTE
[1] Roslyn Ross, ‘It is written… enough is enough’, Webdiary comment, 16 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58988 Accessed 16 January 2007.
Roslyn Ross argued strongly against Israeli and US aggression in all of the countries that Israel and the US have attacked and occupied together with the Israelis on-going ethnic cleansing in the Gaza and West Bank. In the past Kingston has buckled to Australian pro-Zionist pressure, which has included death threats, (which her brother Hamish Alcorn has been caught lying about in the past) and it would seem that there is no reason to believe that Kingston has not done so once again given that the objections are said to be about “…relentless hostility towards Israel and Jews in particular, and her ceaseless hackneyed anti-American tirades.”[1]
The Webdiary site is now dominated by free-lance Israeli Loony Lobbyists like the Islamaphobes Chris Parsons, Geoff Pahoff and Mike Lyvers, the pseudo-academic deceiver and liar Will Howard, the ignoramus and blatantly fascist Jay White and a handful of other assorted right-wing lunatics who use the site to push their warmongering paranoid and Islamaphobic ideas on to an ever decreasing audience that have now begun to wake up to these people’s insanity.
Margo Kingston’s Webdiary was once a great place for lively debate about what goes on in this world – until it was taken over by the right-wing lunatics who support the madness that is now the Middle East. So much for Margo Kingston’s ‘liberalism’. She’s joined the ranks of John Howard’s ‘Support Bush and right-wing Zionist Israel at all costs’ brigade.
What a great shame. I wonder if Kingston will ever come clean and tell us the truth behind her censoring of comments on Webdiary.
ENDNOTE
[1] Roslyn Ross, ‘It is written… enough is enough’, Webdiary comment, 16 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58988 Accessed 16 January 2007.
Monday, January 15, 2007
PATRIOT AIR DEFENCE MISSILES OFF TO THE MIDDLE EAST? WHAT FOR? UNLESS…
A quiet little story in the El Paso Times lets the cat out of the bag with regards to America’s future plans for the Middle East; apparently the 3-43 Air Defence Artillery out of Fort Bliss are soon to be on their way to the Middle East (actual destination unknown).[1]
One needs to ask why the US needs Patriot anti-missile missiles when the only other folk out there that have missiles are Israel and Iran. Now, we know Israel won’t be sending missiles against either themselves or the Americans so that leaves Iran. But why would Iran want to launch missiles against the Americans or their allies the Israelis?
Iran has said time and time again that it will retaliate if it is attacked and that its response would be immediate. Since Iran do have missiles capable of making the distance to both American strongholds in Iraq and to targets in Israel one wouldn’t be drawing a very long bow if one were to conclude that the Patriot missiles are being brought in to protect against an assault by Iranian missiles that were launched in retaliation against an attack on Iran, presumably against its nuclear facilities, by America and/or Israel.
Since we know that Israel really does have nuclear weapons, one can assume that, in circumstances where, say, Irans retaliatory attack killed large numbers of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv or Haifa, that Israel may feel that it has no alternative but to use its nuclear ability on one of Irans smaller cities in order to break Irans continued resolve to fight Israel.
Does one really want to think about the consequences resulting from such escalation? It would be catastrophic for both the Middle East and the world.
It is time for the people of America and Israel to make a stand against the lunacy of their leaders. It is time for the world to make a stand against the lunacy of these leaders and their own leaders if they support this stupidity.
ENDNOTE
[1] Chris Roberts, ‘Bush’s troop surge includes 600 from Fort Bliss’, El Paso Times, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_4997755 Accessed 15 January 2007.
One needs to ask why the US needs Patriot anti-missile missiles when the only other folk out there that have missiles are Israel and Iran. Now, we know Israel won’t be sending missiles against either themselves or the Americans so that leaves Iran. But why would Iran want to launch missiles against the Americans or their allies the Israelis?
Iran has said time and time again that it will retaliate if it is attacked and that its response would be immediate. Since Iran do have missiles capable of making the distance to both American strongholds in Iraq and to targets in Israel one wouldn’t be drawing a very long bow if one were to conclude that the Patriot missiles are being brought in to protect against an assault by Iranian missiles that were launched in retaliation against an attack on Iran, presumably against its nuclear facilities, by America and/or Israel.
Since we know that Israel really does have nuclear weapons, one can assume that, in circumstances where, say, Irans retaliatory attack killed large numbers of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv or Haifa, that Israel may feel that it has no alternative but to use its nuclear ability on one of Irans smaller cities in order to break Irans continued resolve to fight Israel.
Does one really want to think about the consequences resulting from such escalation? It would be catastrophic for both the Middle East and the world.
It is time for the people of America and Israel to make a stand against the lunacy of their leaders. It is time for the world to make a stand against the lunacy of these leaders and their own leaders if they support this stupidity.
ENDNOTE
[1] Chris Roberts, ‘Bush’s troop surge includes 600 from Fort Bliss’, El Paso Times, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_4997755 Accessed 15 January 2007.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
A QUICK COMMENT ON SOME OF TODAY’S HEADLINES.
FIGHTING BACK.
The headline in today’s UK Telegraph reads: “Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force”.[1]
Blair’s quite right – that’s why the Palestinians are fighting the Israeli terrorists that occupy the West Bank and the Gaza and why the Iraqis are fighting the US terrorists and their allies that occupy Iraq.
SOME VERY UNSUBTLE PROPAGANDA FROM THE AUSSIE MURDOCH PRESS.
The Murdoch press just can’t help themselves. While it now seems that the rocket fired at the US Embassy was launched by a Greek left-wing group, The Australian, owned by the neoconservative Murdoch, just had to mention ‘Iran’ in the very first paragraph of their story despite the fact that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The headline read: “Rocket hits US Embassy”. The first paragraph of the story reads: “The US embassy in Athens was yesterday pierced by an anti-tank shell in what Greek police called an "act of terrorism", a day after America escalated its war in Iraq and warned Iran it would not "stand idly by" if Tehran continued to arm Iraq's insurgents.”[2]
Que?
ENDNOTES
[1] George Jones, ‘Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force’, UK Telegraph, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OKYIKNHLST2H3QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nblair112.xml Accessed 13 January 2007.
[2] ‘Rockets hit US Embassy’, The Australian, 14 January 2007. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21051496-601,00.html Accessed 14 January 2007.
The headline in today’s UK Telegraph reads: “Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force”.[1]
Blair’s quite right – that’s why the Palestinians are fighting the Israeli terrorists that occupy the West Bank and the Gaza and why the Iraqis are fighting the US terrorists and their allies that occupy Iraq.
SOME VERY UNSUBTLE PROPAGANDA FROM THE AUSSIE MURDOCH PRESS.
The Murdoch press just can’t help themselves. While it now seems that the rocket fired at the US Embassy was launched by a Greek left-wing group, The Australian, owned by the neoconservative Murdoch, just had to mention ‘Iran’ in the very first paragraph of their story despite the fact that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The headline read: “Rocket hits US Embassy”. The first paragraph of the story reads: “The US embassy in Athens was yesterday pierced by an anti-tank shell in what Greek police called an "act of terrorism", a day after America escalated its war in Iraq and warned Iran it would not "stand idly by" if Tehran continued to arm Iraq's insurgents.”[2]
Que?
ENDNOTES
[1] George Jones, ‘Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force’, UK Telegraph, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OKYIKNHLST2H3QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nblair112.xml Accessed 13 January 2007.
[2] ‘Rockets hit US Embassy’, The Australian, 14 January 2007. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21051496-601,00.html Accessed 14 January 2007.
Friday, January 12, 2007
A COUPLE OF QUICK THOUGHTS FOR TODAY
ARROGANT AND HYPOCRITICAL HEADLINES
Here’s a classic example of Western arrogance and hypocrisy (two of the values that ‘they’ really do hate about ‘us’). This is the headline in an article in today’s Jerusalem Post. It reads: ‘Bush, in speech, warns Iran, Syria over aiding Iraq insurgents’.
Now, what if it read: ‘Ahmadinejad, in speech, warns US over aiding Israeli terrorists in Gaza, West Bank’.
Bush and his lunatic cohorts would be frothing at the mouth yet, for some reason, we’re expected to go along and accept the first headline.
US EMBASSY ATTACKED IN ATHENS.
What’s the likelihood of the Americans discovering that the rocket that was fired into the US Embassy compound was made in Iran and fired by ‘terrorists’ trained in or financed by Iran?
Here’s a classic example of Western arrogance and hypocrisy (two of the values that ‘they’ really do hate about ‘us’). This is the headline in an article in today’s Jerusalem Post. It reads: ‘Bush, in speech, warns Iran, Syria over aiding Iraq insurgents’.
Now, what if it read: ‘Ahmadinejad, in speech, warns US over aiding Israeli terrorists in Gaza, West Bank’.
Bush and his lunatic cohorts would be frothing at the mouth yet, for some reason, we’re expected to go along and accept the first headline.
US EMBASSY ATTACKED IN ATHENS.
What’s the likelihood of the Americans discovering that the rocket that was fired into the US Embassy compound was made in Iran and fired by ‘terrorists’ trained in or financed by Iran?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
WILL THE WORLD GET SUCKED IN TO ANOTHER NEOCONSERVATIVE LIE THAT WILL END IN THOUSANDS MORE DEAD FOR THE ISRAELI CAUSE?
There has been a massive amount of energy expended by neoconservatives within the US, the world-wide Israeli Lobby, Israel itself and among neocon commentators embedded within the world’s mainstream media to try and con the world into believing that Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb that it will use against Israel.
However, despite the expenditure of all this energy, there is still absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gets anywhere near substantiating the neocons claims. Even the IAEA can’t come up with any evidence.
Back in mid 2003 inspectors found a tiny trace of highly enriched bomb grade uranium in Iran.[1] The neocons jumped up and down saying they’d found the ‘smoking gun’ of Irans intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons.[2] It turns out that the tiny trace that was found was actually just a speck of contamination that came into the country on a piece of nuclear equipment that had been imported from Pakistan.[3] This didn’t make any difference to the neocons who continued to demonise the Iranians peaceful nuclear ambitions which is to enrich uranium to sufficient levels where it can be used for the production of electrical power. In November of 2003 the neocons continued their propaganda feast. The neocon senior editor of the neoconservative’s mainstay journal, Commentary, Gabriel Schoenfeld, wrote: “In late August and again in late September, IAEA inspections turned up traces of uranium on equipment in supposedly non-nuclear facilities, leading the agency to conclude that an illicit enrichment program was under way. Commented ElBaradei: "This worries us greatly."”[4] The neocons and the right-wing Israeli Zionists have been feeding on this ever since – despite there being nothing to actually chew on.
Schoenfeld’s piece, entitled ‘The Terror Ahead’, is also interesting for some of its other remarks; remarks that emphasise the neocons penchant for arrogance and hypocrisy. At one point Schoenfeld writes: “Among the countries trading with North Korea is Iran, a country likewise governed by violent fanatics, of the Islamic rather than the Marxist-Leninist stripe.”[5] Schoenfeld ignores entirely that other nation in the Middle East governed by violent fanatics of the right-wing Zionist stripe rather than the Islamic or Marxist-Leninist stripe; Israel, is a nation that indeed does have nuclear weapons and now, apparently, seems ready to use them.
So what is it about Iran that the Israelis hate so much that they are prepared to risk a Middle East nuclear holocaust in order to ensure regime change there? Israel knows as well as the rest of the world that, despite the outrageous lies and propaganda designed purely and solely for the consumption of the dumb and gullible in the West, that Iran has no nuclear weapons; so why Iran? Why not Pakistan? Now there’s an Islamic nation that does have nuclear weapons yet Israel seems undisturbed by this.
At the moment Pakistan is not a threat to Israel – at least not while Musharraf is still in charge. But the reason Iran is perceived by Israel as a threat is, not because of any non-existent nuclear ambitions, but because of Iran’s support of those that resist Israel’s long-term Greater Israel ambitions in the Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and its continued occupation of the Golan Heights; that is to say Irans support of Hamas and Hizbollah. Naturally, Israel can’t just come right out and say ‘Iran under its present leadership is thwarting our expansionist ambitions so therefore we want regime change’, so instead it has come up with the same sort of lies and propaganda that they used to get the US, UK, Australia and a few other sucked in nations to get rid of that other monkey on the back of Israel’s regional ambitions, Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein who was supporting the Palestinians in their resistance to Israeli aggression. It worked then but one wonders what makes the Israelis think that the world is going to get sucked in again!
ENDNOTES
[1] Felicity Barringer, ‘Traces of Enriched Uranium Are Reportedly Found in Iran’, The New York Times, 27 August 2003. Available online (subscription required): http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B12FB3B5D0C748EDDA10894DB404482 Accessed 9 January 2007.
[2] Jon Levin, ‘Convenient Concession’, National Review Online, 4 November 2003. Available online: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levin200311040821.asp Accessed January 2007.
[3] Dafna Linza, ‘No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program’, Washington Post, 23 August 2005. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html Accessed 9 January 2007.
[4] Gabriel Schoenfeld, ‘The Terror Ahead’, Commentary, November 2003, Vol. 116, No. 4, p. 21.
[5] Schoenfeld, The Terror Ahead’. p. 21.
However, despite the expenditure of all this energy, there is still absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gets anywhere near substantiating the neocons claims. Even the IAEA can’t come up with any evidence.
Back in mid 2003 inspectors found a tiny trace of highly enriched bomb grade uranium in Iran.[1] The neocons jumped up and down saying they’d found the ‘smoking gun’ of Irans intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons.[2] It turns out that the tiny trace that was found was actually just a speck of contamination that came into the country on a piece of nuclear equipment that had been imported from Pakistan.[3] This didn’t make any difference to the neocons who continued to demonise the Iranians peaceful nuclear ambitions which is to enrich uranium to sufficient levels where it can be used for the production of electrical power. In November of 2003 the neocons continued their propaganda feast. The neocon senior editor of the neoconservative’s mainstay journal, Commentary, Gabriel Schoenfeld, wrote: “In late August and again in late September, IAEA inspections turned up traces of uranium on equipment in supposedly non-nuclear facilities, leading the agency to conclude that an illicit enrichment program was under way. Commented ElBaradei: "This worries us greatly."”[4] The neocons and the right-wing Israeli Zionists have been feeding on this ever since – despite there being nothing to actually chew on.
Schoenfeld’s piece, entitled ‘The Terror Ahead’, is also interesting for some of its other remarks; remarks that emphasise the neocons penchant for arrogance and hypocrisy. At one point Schoenfeld writes: “Among the countries trading with North Korea is Iran, a country likewise governed by violent fanatics, of the Islamic rather than the Marxist-Leninist stripe.”[5] Schoenfeld ignores entirely that other nation in the Middle East governed by violent fanatics of the right-wing Zionist stripe rather than the Islamic or Marxist-Leninist stripe; Israel, is a nation that indeed does have nuclear weapons and now, apparently, seems ready to use them.
So what is it about Iran that the Israelis hate so much that they are prepared to risk a Middle East nuclear holocaust in order to ensure regime change there? Israel knows as well as the rest of the world that, despite the outrageous lies and propaganda designed purely and solely for the consumption of the dumb and gullible in the West, that Iran has no nuclear weapons; so why Iran? Why not Pakistan? Now there’s an Islamic nation that does have nuclear weapons yet Israel seems undisturbed by this.
At the moment Pakistan is not a threat to Israel – at least not while Musharraf is still in charge. But the reason Iran is perceived by Israel as a threat is, not because of any non-existent nuclear ambitions, but because of Iran’s support of those that resist Israel’s long-term Greater Israel ambitions in the Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and its continued occupation of the Golan Heights; that is to say Irans support of Hamas and Hizbollah. Naturally, Israel can’t just come right out and say ‘Iran under its present leadership is thwarting our expansionist ambitions so therefore we want regime change’, so instead it has come up with the same sort of lies and propaganda that they used to get the US, UK, Australia and a few other sucked in nations to get rid of that other monkey on the back of Israel’s regional ambitions, Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein who was supporting the Palestinians in their resistance to Israeli aggression. It worked then but one wonders what makes the Israelis think that the world is going to get sucked in again!
ENDNOTES
[1] Felicity Barringer, ‘Traces of Enriched Uranium Are Reportedly Found in Iran’, The New York Times, 27 August 2003. Available online (subscription required): http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B12FB3B5D0C748EDDA10894DB404482 Accessed 9 January 2007.
[2] Jon Levin, ‘Convenient Concession’, National Review Online, 4 November 2003. Available online: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levin200311040821.asp Accessed January 2007.
[3] Dafna Linza, ‘No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program’, Washington Post, 23 August 2005. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html Accessed 9 January 2007.
[4] Gabriel Schoenfeld, ‘The Terror Ahead’, Commentary, November 2003, Vol. 116, No. 4, p. 21.
[5] Schoenfeld, The Terror Ahead’. p. 21.
Monday, January 08, 2007
THE PENDING CONVERGENCE OF A NEOCONSERVATIVE INSPIRED CATASTROPHE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
The Middle East, the US and possibly the world are heading for disaster in 2007 if the Neocon-dominated Bush administration and Israeli government have their way.
Bush, against the good sense of just about everyone,[1] is likely to accept the advice handed to him by the warmongering neocon lunatics at the American Enterprise Institute who have suggested that what has become known as a ‘surge’ force be sent to Iraq to try and quash the insurgent and sectarian violence once and for all.[2]
Aligned with the prospect of the potential for disaster which such a surge is likely to result in is Israel’s increasingly noisy chatter about taking on Irans so-called nuclear ambitions[3] and the even bigger prospect of disaster here as the consequences of such an attack by Israel against Iran become realised.
If Bush goes ahead with the planned surge with some 20,000 or more US troops, together with a matching number of Iraqi troops, being poured into Baghdad and then to al-Anbar province the result will be massive bloodbath that could make what happened in Fallujah look like a tea party. The result could well be all out civil war in which tens of thousands could die including huge civilian and militia losses as well as many American soldiers. There could even be the possibility of a temporary alliance between Shia and Sunni militia to fight what they see as being a US and Iraqi puppet army 'surge' happening against them. Either way, thousands are likely to lose their lives.
In the other disaster scenario where Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities – especially if this is done using tactical nuclear weapons – the consequences will also be catastrophic. The entire region could be engulfed in an unimaginable conflict which could well unite the Arab world against the West.
The two happening at the same time could spark a disaster for the world that would be too ghastly to even contemplate.
And all because the neoconservatives that influence the Bush administration on behalf of the right-wing Zionist Israeli government fantasise about a Greater Israel dominating the Middle East.
It’s time the peoples of the world – including the peoples of Israel – stood up and demand an end to this utter lunacy.
ENDNOTES
[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Bush’s Surge Strategy Faces Heavy Opposition’, electronic.Iraq.net, 6 January 2007. Available online: http://electroniciraq.net/news/2799.shtml Accessed 8 January 2007.
[2] Frederick W. Kagan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’, AEI Publication, 14 December 2006. Available online: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp Accessed 18 December 2006.
[3] Reuters, ‘Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper’, via news.yahoo.com, 6 January 2007. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070106/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_israel_dc Accessed 8 January 2007.
Bush, against the good sense of just about everyone,[1] is likely to accept the advice handed to him by the warmongering neocon lunatics at the American Enterprise Institute who have suggested that what has become known as a ‘surge’ force be sent to Iraq to try and quash the insurgent and sectarian violence once and for all.[2]
Aligned with the prospect of the potential for disaster which such a surge is likely to result in is Israel’s increasingly noisy chatter about taking on Irans so-called nuclear ambitions[3] and the even bigger prospect of disaster here as the consequences of such an attack by Israel against Iran become realised.
If Bush goes ahead with the planned surge with some 20,000 or more US troops, together with a matching number of Iraqi troops, being poured into Baghdad and then to al-Anbar province the result will be massive bloodbath that could make what happened in Fallujah look like a tea party. The result could well be all out civil war in which tens of thousands could die including huge civilian and militia losses as well as many American soldiers. There could even be the possibility of a temporary alliance between Shia and Sunni militia to fight what they see as being a US and Iraqi puppet army 'surge' happening against them. Either way, thousands are likely to lose their lives.
In the other disaster scenario where Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities – especially if this is done using tactical nuclear weapons – the consequences will also be catastrophic. The entire region could be engulfed in an unimaginable conflict which could well unite the Arab world against the West.
The two happening at the same time could spark a disaster for the world that would be too ghastly to even contemplate.
And all because the neoconservatives that influence the Bush administration on behalf of the right-wing Zionist Israeli government fantasise about a Greater Israel dominating the Middle East.
It’s time the peoples of the world – including the peoples of Israel – stood up and demand an end to this utter lunacy.
ENDNOTES
[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Bush’s Surge Strategy Faces Heavy Opposition’, electronic.Iraq.net, 6 January 2007. Available online: http://electroniciraq.net/news/2799.shtml Accessed 8 January 2007.
[2] Frederick W. Kagan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’, AEI Publication, 14 December 2006. Available online: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp Accessed 18 December 2006.
[3] Reuters, ‘Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper’, via news.yahoo.com, 6 January 2007. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070106/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_israel_dc Accessed 8 January 2007.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
AUSTRALIAN ISRAELI LOONY LOBBY CRANK UP THE WARMONGERING AGAINST IRAN.
There seems to be an awful amount of garbage being spouted over at popular Australian current affairs blog, Webdiary, by members of the warmongering self-appointed Australian Branch of the Israeli Loony Lobby that tend to use the blog to spew their warmongering Israeli Lobby myths, in this case about Iran’s non-existent nuclear arms program. The perpetual liar, Australia-American neocon Will Howard, says: “…there is evidence that the belligerent rhetoric from Iran more [sic] be more than just words (see the various IAEA reports over the past two years). It's not conclusive evidence, thus the dilemma for Israel and the West in general.”[1]
The belligerent rhetoric Will Howard is referring to is Ahmadinejad’s comments about ‘wiping’ the right-wing Zionist government ‘off the map’. Will Howard refers to ‘evidence’, meaning Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, but then says it’s ‘not conclusive evidence’. This is an oxy-moron! One either has evidence or one doesn’t. Non-conclusive evidence is no evidence at all. The IAEA has no evidence whatsoever – and has said so – that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.[2]
Then there is this foaming-at-the-mouth rant from the racist Islamaphobe Geoff Pahoff:
“Do you seriously think this is about hurtful language and naughty words? Do you sincerely believe there is nothing more to this than belligerent rhetoric? Let me be as clear as I can about this. Read my lips. Please try to understand what I am about to say, for everybody's sake. It is important. Very important. Too important to run the risk of confused or mixed messages. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. Never. This is something that will not happen. Surely you must understand this fact, even if the Iranians are too deluded or stupid to understand it. No Iranian nukes. Never. What they think is ultimately irrelevant. Get it? Would you like me to repeat that?”[3]
First off, Iran will never have nukes – not because Pahoff and his right-wing Zionofascist mates say so but because the Iranians themselves aren’t pursuing them and have said so time and time again. Pahoff’s remarks however also expose some other characteristics of Pahoff and Will Howard’s particular brand of right-wing Zionofascism; hypocrisy and arrogance. It’s OK apparently for Israel to have nuclear weapons as long as no one else in the region has.
These two free-lancing warmongering lunatics, together with a few others at Webdiary, have seized on the remarks of one man who, incidentally, they neglect to mention does not have the final say in what goes on in Iran, especially in matters that relate to taking the country to war and nuking other nations, and have used those remarks, as have the Israeli government and the Likudnik-supporting American neoconservatives, to ferment hatred in the Western world against the Iranians in order to get the US to attack Iran or, alternatively, to get the US to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The Israeli Loony Lobby tried this same stunt with Iraq and managed to get the US to attack Iraq; now they’re trying it on again using Ahmadinejad’s misconstrued and re-contextualised remarks as an excuse to attack Iran. The reality is that Ahmadinejad’s remarks are not the reason for Israel’s hatred because the right-wing Zionist Israelis and their neocon comrades in the US have been banging on about Iran ever since the fascist Shah was kicked out by the Mullahs and long before Ahmadinejad appeared on the scene. The real reason for their hatred of Iran is their hatred and fear of Islam and Islamic dominated governments and, more precisely, their fear of an Islamic Iran’s interference of Israel’s regional aspirations which include the colonisation of the Gaza, the West Bank and even, hopefully, southern Lebanon up to the Litani River – in other words, the Zionist dream of the creation of a Greater Israel.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Sticks and Stones’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58653
[2] ‘Iran: IAEA Report Shows No Nuclear Activity in Iran’, Associated Press report via Foxnews.com, 28 February 2006. Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186249,00.html While this is a February 2006 news item, the story hasn’t changed despite the rhetoric.
[3] Geoff Pahoff, ‘No Fascist Nukes. Never. Nothing to Discuss’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58659
The belligerent rhetoric Will Howard is referring to is Ahmadinejad’s comments about ‘wiping’ the right-wing Zionist government ‘off the map’. Will Howard refers to ‘evidence’, meaning Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, but then says it’s ‘not conclusive evidence’. This is an oxy-moron! One either has evidence or one doesn’t. Non-conclusive evidence is no evidence at all. The IAEA has no evidence whatsoever – and has said so – that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.[2]
Then there is this foaming-at-the-mouth rant from the racist Islamaphobe Geoff Pahoff:
“Do you seriously think this is about hurtful language and naughty words? Do you sincerely believe there is nothing more to this than belligerent rhetoric? Let me be as clear as I can about this. Read my lips. Please try to understand what I am about to say, for everybody's sake. It is important. Very important. Too important to run the risk of confused or mixed messages. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. Never. This is something that will not happen. Surely you must understand this fact, even if the Iranians are too deluded or stupid to understand it. No Iranian nukes. Never. What they think is ultimately irrelevant. Get it? Would you like me to repeat that?”[3]
First off, Iran will never have nukes – not because Pahoff and his right-wing Zionofascist mates say so but because the Iranians themselves aren’t pursuing them and have said so time and time again. Pahoff’s remarks however also expose some other characteristics of Pahoff and Will Howard’s particular brand of right-wing Zionofascism; hypocrisy and arrogance. It’s OK apparently for Israel to have nuclear weapons as long as no one else in the region has.
These two free-lancing warmongering lunatics, together with a few others at Webdiary, have seized on the remarks of one man who, incidentally, they neglect to mention does not have the final say in what goes on in Iran, especially in matters that relate to taking the country to war and nuking other nations, and have used those remarks, as have the Israeli government and the Likudnik-supporting American neoconservatives, to ferment hatred in the Western world against the Iranians in order to get the US to attack Iran or, alternatively, to get the US to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The Israeli Loony Lobby tried this same stunt with Iraq and managed to get the US to attack Iraq; now they’re trying it on again using Ahmadinejad’s misconstrued and re-contextualised remarks as an excuse to attack Iran. The reality is that Ahmadinejad’s remarks are not the reason for Israel’s hatred because the right-wing Zionist Israelis and their neocon comrades in the US have been banging on about Iran ever since the fascist Shah was kicked out by the Mullahs and long before Ahmadinejad appeared on the scene. The real reason for their hatred of Iran is their hatred and fear of Islam and Islamic dominated governments and, more precisely, their fear of an Islamic Iran’s interference of Israel’s regional aspirations which include the colonisation of the Gaza, the West Bank and even, hopefully, southern Lebanon up to the Litani River – in other words, the Zionist dream of the creation of a Greater Israel.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Sticks and Stones’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58653
[2] ‘Iran: IAEA Report Shows No Nuclear Activity in Iran’, Associated Press report via Foxnews.com, 28 February 2006. Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186249,00.html While this is a February 2006 news item, the story hasn’t changed despite the rhetoric.
[3] Geoff Pahoff, ‘No Fascist Nukes. Never. Nothing to Discuss’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1599#comment-58659
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)