Jump to content
Islamic Forum

yusufar

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by yusufar

  1. Washington is losing 'War on Terror': experts by Michel Moutot Despite high-profile arrests, security operations and upbeat assessments from the White House, the United States is losing its "global war on terror," experts warn. Five years after Washington launched its hunt for those responsible for the September 11 attacks, the world has not become a safer place, and a new large-scale strike against America at some point appears likely, they say. A picture released by the US Army shows a US soldier patrolling the market center in the town of Bayji, north of Iraq. Despite high-profile arrests, security operations and upbeat assessments from the White House, the United States is losing its "global war on terror," experts warn. (AFP/US ARMY-HO/Staff Sgt. Russell Lee Klika) Even the killing last month of Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hailed by the White House as a major blow against the terror network, has not dented its ability to recruit new militants or mount attacks. In May the influential US magazine Foreign Policy and a Washington-based think-tank questioned 116 leading US experts -- a balanced mix of Republicans and Democrats -- on the progress of the US campaign against terrorism. Among others, they consulted a former secretary of state, two former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and dozens of the country's top security analysts. The result? Eighty-four percent believe the United States is losing the "war on terror," 86 percent that the world has become a more dangerous place in the past five years, and 80 percent that a major new attack on their country was likely within the next decade. "We are losing the 'war on terror' because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause," argued Anne-Marie Slaughter, head of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. "Our insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time feeds Al-Qaeda's vision of the world," boosting support for the Islamic radical cause, she said. For Leslie Gelb, president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, the unity of views expressed by those questioned reflects a deeply critical attitude towards the administration of President George W. Bush. "It's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force," he said. Other experts questioned the very nature of the US campaign. "It was a doomed enterprise from the very start: a 'war on terror' -- it's as ridiculous as a 'war on anger'. You do not wage a war on terror, you wage a war against people," said Alain Chouet, a former senior officer of France's DGSE foreign intelligence service. "The Americans have been stuck inside this idea of a 'war on terror' since September 11, they are not asking the right questions." "You can always slaughter terrorists -- there are endless reserves of them. We should not be attacking the effects of terrorism but its causes: Wahhabite ideology, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. But no one will touch any of those," Chouet argued. Instead he said US policy in the Middle East, which had "turned Iraq into a new Afghanistan," was acting as a powerful recruiting agent for a generation of Islamic radicals. The continued US presence in Iraq and "the atrocities committed by a campaigning army", the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and the "grotesque" US detention centre at Guantanamo in Cuba all "provide excuses" for violent radicals, he said. The United States "have fallen into the classic terrorist trap -- they're lashing out at the wrong targets," causing collateral damage that boosts the cause of their opponents, he said. Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, agreed that Washington was acting as its own worst enemy in the fight against Islamic terrorism. "We're clearly losing. Today, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and their allies have only one indispensable ally: the US' foreign policy towards the Islamic world." "The cumulative impact of several events in the past two years has gone a good way towards increasing Muslim hatred for Americans, simply because they are Americans," he said, citing Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the East-West row over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. "Each of these events is unfortunate but not terribly serious for Western minds. But from the Muslim perspective they are deliberate and vicious attacks against the things that guide their lives and their faith." - AFP
  2. Unfortunately, this has been the self-serving US agenda for many years now. It is the only way the US can maintain its preeminent economic position in the world or so it would appear has been American thinking from the day the first white settlers invaded the New World. All is fair in business, including going to war and exterminating other people for the sake of maintaining and even extending Americans' economic power and position. Of course the Americans will never admit it, even if many of their own people do (but do not do anything about it because it will affect their own comfortable situation). I did a study once upon a time on US control of/influence over/interference with international trade organizations (including regimes and agreements such as GATT, the Common Fund and now of course the WTA) and had to come to the regretable conclusion that indeed the US did exercise an unusual degree of control of/influence over/interference with them, to the extent of subverting the very aims of having them in the first place. While one cannot blame the US for attempting to protect its own interests, certainly I think a case can be made out that in doing so rather too vigorously, the US is actually creating a resistance to what it is attempting to do. Surely the US does does not think that it can forever maintain its lifestyle or impose its will at the expense of the rest of the world. Invading other countries is the worst example of such excessiveness, that one has to seriously question the perversity of such a course of action, which ultimately will not benefit anyone except those who are part of the military-industrial complex. Ordinary people will have to pay for such perversity on the part of the US, with their lives, property and the incalculable trauma - this includes Americans as well as the victims of such invasions. It will only end when Americans stop thinking in terms of pure economic exploitation, capitalism and militarism and put greater emphasis on moral obligations. Will it ever happen is the big question. yusufar
  3. Very true. Moral of the story: Don't just read the headlines. In any event, this headline was a question, not a statement. It is one viewpoint. There is a big unanswered question though - who really controls the oil majors? Hopefully there are no Jews or rather Zionists hiding behind all those half a trillion barrels of oil or manipulating them. Conspiracy? Who knows! Since conspirators act in great secrecy and have many methods of hiding their tracks, it would obviously not be easy to make a case against them. Sometimes suspicion, healthy scepticism and circumstantial evidence is all we have to go on. Conspirators beware! We are on to you! :D yusufar
  4. Muslims "must Root Out Extremism"

    The UK must root out Bliar and the US Bush... they have the audacity to ask Muslims to root out extremism when they themselves are extremists and all their actions have been calculated to negate any efforts of Muslims to do so. How would it be possible for Muslims to root out extremism when non-Muslims occupy Muslim lands and interfere in Muslim countries and commit massacres on Muslims as they please? yusufar
  5. :D Notwithstanding any conspiracy theories, I normally try to post articles which have some level of credibility. I agree with you - Greg Palast I think has got quite a good reputation as a serious reporter. The history of oil especially but not exclusively in the Middle East has shown a substantial level of intrigue, in many instances bordering on conspiracy, if not actual conspiracy. yusufar
  6. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_kurtnimmo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?p=443"]Corporate Media Ignores War Against Palestinians[/url] by Kurt Nimmo In a brazen attempt to sugar coat israel’s flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention, specifically Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is intended to protect civilians, the corporate media continues to spin the situation in the Gaza Strip. “israel Steps Up Raids in Bid to Free Soldier,” headlines the New York Times, reporting that “israeli aircraft intensified their attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza.” In fact, the israelis are inflicting relentless collective punishment on the Palestinians, as B’Tselem, the israeli human rights organization, documents. “During its operation in the Gaza Strip following the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, israeli air force jets have carried out low-altitude sorties over the Gaza Strip in which they intentionally cause powerful sonic booms,” explains B’Tselem. “The sole purpose of these sorties is to prevent the residents from sleeping and to create an ongoing sense of fear and anxiety. Regarding the sonic booms, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that, ‘thousands of residents in southern israel live in fear and discomfort, so I gave instructions that nobody will sleep at night in the meantime in Gaza.’ The clear intention of the practice is to pressure the Palestinian Authority and the armed Palestinian organizations by harming the entire civilian population.” No mention of this in the israel-friendly New York Times, or the Washington Post for that matter. Of course, we shouldn’t expect the New York Times to report this, as they have functioned obediently as a propaganda tool for the neocons, who are joined at the hip with the Likudites in israel and have the unwavering support of millions of Stepfordized Christian Zionists who believe the Palestinians must be ethnically cleansed in order that they may realize their delusional and selfish pretribulationist rapture. “Children, in particular, suffer from the sonic booms. In the past, the Gaza Community Mental Health Center reported that the supersonic sorties caused fear among many children, which led to a loss of concentration, loss of appetite, bedwetting, and other disorders. The Center also reported that sonic booms caused headaches, stomach aches, shortness of breath, and other physical effects that appeared among both children and adults…. The use of sonic booms flagrantly breaches a number of provisions of international humanitarian law. The most significant provision is the prohibition on collective punishment. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is intended to protect civilians in time of war, categorically states that ‘Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.’ The article also states that, ‘Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.’ Air force supersonic sorties also breach the principle of distinction, a central pillar of humanitarian law, which forbids the warring sides to direct their attacks against civilians.” The Palestine Media Center (PMC) writes the following: “Using the release of the israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit as pretext, israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his occupation forces to reoccupy Gaza Strip, terrorize Palestinian civilians with sonic booms, thin them to starvation, disrupt traffic, electricity supply, and access to water, bomb soccer fields, schools, TV stations, cultural centers and charities, vandalize hospitals, and kidnap mafia-like cabinet ministers, mayors and parliamentarians, revoke Palestinian residency in Jerusalem, and bomb the offices of prime and interior ministers.” PMC, filling in where the disgusting israel-friendly corporate media has left off, notes specific incidents: IOF warplanes bombed the soccer field of the Islamic University in Gaza late Wednesday after destroying the only power plant in the strip early in the day, plunging Gaza Strip into darkness and depriving about one million Palestinians from electricity for months to come, hitting very hard not only households but also hospitals and schools. Water supplies were also cut early Wednesday by bombing water pipelines, after destroying three bridges linking the south and north of the Gaza Strip. Al-Arqam school, a cultural center and a charity in Gaza city were bombed to rubble by the IOF warplanes. The IOF also damaged the Atfaluna Society for Deaf Children’s facilities in Gaza City. When IOF warplanes caused massive sonic booms and nearby explosions in air strikes, the Palestinian NGO’s building windows shattered. As a result, several deaf vocational trainees were injured from the shattered glass. According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights six power transformers were destroyed, which provide an estimated 45 per cent of the electricity in Gaza for approximately half the population. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Gaza Electrical Distribution Company estimates it will take nine months to procure replacement transformers. The Coastal Municipalities Water Utility manages the 132 water wells in Gaza, which is powered by GEDCO. Since back-up generators are needed to keep water flowing, there is concern about the financial and physical stability of using back-up generators because the IOF closed off the energy pipeline into Gaza. Destroying critical civilian infrastructure, targeting facilities for the deaf, pitching hospitals and charities into the dark, creating a massive refugee situation—it is all in a day’s work for the neocons and their Likudite masters, from Gaza and the West Bank to the whole of Iraq. “I take personal responsibility for what is happening in Gaza. I want no one to sleep at night in Gaza,” declared Olmert, who should also take responsibility for the fact Palestinians on life support and other critical health care systems will now die; he should take responsibility for all the miscarriages and mental problems caused by sonic boom warfare; he should take responsibility for terrorizing hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians, the vast majority who have nothing to do with the capture of IOF soldier Shalit, who is a prisoner of war. Ehud Olmert, claiming responsibility for crimes against humanity, should face a tribunal immediately. But then, as Olmert’s predecessor, the scurrilous terrorist leader (of Irgun) Menachem Begin, told israel’s mafia, otherwise known as the Knesset, the Palestinians “are beasts walking on two legs.” As such, according to the israelis and their neocon co-conspirators, the Palestinians do not deserve hospitals, charities, clean water (or any water at all, as there is no electricity to drive well pumps), food, or even a night’s rest. The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to humans, not beasts on two legs. Obviously, as well, the New York Times believes the Palestinians are beasts, although as “liberals,” they would not state such outright, as the leader of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi, Menachem Begin did.
  7. Indeed. Humvees? Perhaps it's part of the CSI Miami programme? If there is any country in the world terrorizing itself and its population it is the US. On top of that they are also the largest perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism around the world. Born out of terrorising and committing wholesale genocide of the American Natives and stealing their land and continuing to do the same in many other areas of the world, the US is the last nation on earth that can claim to be fighting a "global war on terrorism". The only country with a truly global reach, with its Navy in all the world's oceans and military bases all over the world, is the US. yusufar
  8. Insurgents Showing Sense ?

    Perhaps you may like to take your own guys' - I'll call them "Yarn Guys" - own observations regarding the use of certain terms in Islam and Arabic, via (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=30882"]this thread[/url] here. You wouldn't want to promote enemy ideology now would you? yusufar
  9. Insurgents Showing Sense ?

    Stay on long enough and it will become another Vietnam. Then we can talk about military success or failure. Even the best-trained and most well-equipped army in the world can lose its mind and will to fight a practically unseen enemy. Don't they wonder what happened to Saddam's million man army? As civilian casualties among the Iraqis mount their will to resist will tend to solidify, and as casualities slowly but surely creep up among the US troops, apart from various other psychological problems which they will face in fighting an unjust war for unsupportable "reasons", their ability to carry on fighting will also be sapped. If they want to continue to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of Halliburton & Gang and the like thereof, it is up to them... They are the ones who should show some sense and really get out while they still can. yusufar
  10. G.i.s Found Mutilated

    Dive right down into his book and find out. :D
  11. I know you got the phrase from me. Use it by all means, but to keep on repeating it the way you do may cause it to lose any impact, if you know what I mean. Read (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=30882"]this post[/url] on the Political Forum for alternative terms. You should find it very useful. The US stop buying oil? Is the world coming to an end sooner than we expect? Let's be realistic. There's no harm with free trade, but to interfere in other countries merely to preserve one's trading advantages or for other economic justifications is no longer acceptable and the sooner the US realizes this all the better for the whole world, not just for Muslims. Now this would be good. But money has no conscience, and men with money even worse and if they have the ability to influence governments such as the US into interfering they will and have. Such interference will inevitably come in many guises to hide the real reasons and will also cause much hardship, pain, suffering, death and destruction in the countries being interfered with. But do these men who make money out of other peoples' misery care? The greater the misery and the greater the reaction (which they and you call "terrorism"), the more justification to carry on and all the more money to be made. So how do you change this "terrorism"? Simple, stop interfering! But then, what's the use of having the world's biggest army, navy and airforce if not to be used to interfere? So not so simple after all! Yes, power does corrupt and the downtrodden, the oppressed and deprived peoples of the world, Muslim or otherwise, will fight back until they or others overthrow such corrupt regimes and put in place more just and equitable governments which then slowly become corrupt again. That is the never-ending cycle of life until the end of time as we know it. What you see as "terrorism", gruesome and perverse though it may sometimes be, is part of that never-ending cycle of reaction to actual and perceived injustice and oppression committed by purportedly just regimes and which can be just as gruesome and perverse, if not more so. All such injustice and oppression must be fought by right-thinking individuals and countries. Does this mean by all means, fair or foul? Can the cause of justice employ unjust means? Islam says it cannot and that immediately puts Muslims at a disadvantage - how to fight perversity without becoming perverse oneself? The answer to this is the "straight way" that all Muslims pray to God to guide them to and keep them on. Many stray, but what they do does not detract one bit from the essential truth of the real message and teachings of Islam, in submission to God. Do you understand what I am trying to say? yusufar
  12. You seem to be on a roll with this "perverse people who call themselves Muslims" thing. :D I suspect that there are more perverse people who are not Muslim than those who call themselves Muslim. But of course this doesn't make any difference to you, since you are obsessed with the purported "terrorism of the Islamic World" and blind to the state terrorism perpetrated by the US and israel. My only advice for the US is "stay out of other countries and stop interfering with other people's lives around the world unless you have something positive to contribute".
  13. Next We Take Tehran

    (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.motherjones(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/news/feature/2006/07/next_we_take_tehran.html"]Next We Take Tehran[/url] News: The confrontation with Iran has very little to do with nukes—and a lot with the agenda of empire By Robert Dreyfuss President Bush may or may not order a massive aerial bombardment of Iran later this year. Or he may wait until 2007. Or he may simply escalate a risky confrontation with Iran through covert action and economic sanctions. But whatever the next act in the crisis, don’t be fooled by the assertion that the problem is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms. Iran is a decade away from gaining access to the bomb, according to the administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate, and despite all the talk about the ugliness of the theocratic regime in Tehran, the likely showdown is, at bottom, driven by the geopolitics of oil. With one-tenth of the world’s petroleum reserves and one-sixth of its natural gas reserves, Iran sits in a strategic geographical position that makes it the ####pit for control of the entire Middle East. It straddles the Persian Gulf’s choke points, including the Strait of Hormuz; it has important influence among Shiites throughout Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states; and it borders highly contested real estate to the north, from the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia. The logic of the Bush administration is inexorable. Its ironclad syllogism is this: The United States is and must remain the world’s preeminent power, if need be by using its superior military might. One of the two powers with the ability to emerge as a rival—China—depends vitally on the Persian Gulf and Central Asia for its future supply of oil; the other—Russia—is heavily engaged in Iran, Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. Therefore, if the United States can secure a dominant position in the Gulf, it will have an enormous advantage over its potential challengers. Call it zero-sum geopolitics: Their loss is our gain. Of course, the idea of the Persian Gulf as an American lake is not exactly new. Neoconservatives, moderate conservatives, “realists” typified by Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker, and liberal internationalists in the mold of President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, mostly agree that the Gulf ought to be owned and operated by the United States, and the idea has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy under presidents both Republican and Democratic. Its adherents justified it in the past, however thinly, because of the exigencies of World War II and then the Cold War. But if the administration’s goals are congruent with past U.S. policy, its methods represent a radical departure. Previous administrations relied on alliances, proxy relationships with local rulers, a military presence that stayed mostly behind the scenes, and over-the-horizon forces ready to intervene in a crisis. President Bush has directly occupied two countries in the region and threatened a third. And by claiming a sweeping regional war without end against what he has referred to as “Islamofascism,” combined with an announced goal to impose U.S.-style free-market democracy in southwest Asia, he has adopted a utopian approach much closer to imperialism than to traditional balance-of-power politics. By inaugurating a war of choice against a nation that had not attacked the United States, and by justifying his actions under a new doctrine of unilateral, preventive war, Bush shattered the U.S. establishment’s policy consensus while alienating America’s closest allies, angering its rivals, and provoking a storm of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Now, like a high-stakes blackjack player doubling down, the president is letting the world know that he is ready to do it all over again in Iran. A SUCCESSION OF U.S. presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower to Jimmy Carter to George H.W. Bush, literally and figuratively planted the American flag at the heart of the Persian Gulf. F.D.R., who met Saudi Arabia’s king aboard a warship in 1945, had proclaimed two years earlier: “I hereby find that the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.” Carter, in 1980, restated the doctrine even more forcefully: “Let our position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States.” From the 1950s through the 1990s, the U.S. backed up those words with muscle. Military treaties reaching into the Middle East, including NATO and CENTO, were established. An archipelago of U.S. military bases took form in east Africa, the Indian Ocean, and the Gulf. Washington sent billions of dollars in military aid and arms sales, and tens of thousands of U.S. military advisers, into the region. The Rapid Deployment Force and then the U.S. Central Command were created, and the U.S. 5th Fleet was assembled and based in the tiny Gulf nation of Bahrain. All that, and more, preceded the Gulf War in 1991, which led to a massive expansion of the U.S. military presence in the region. Since 2001, President Bush has radically revised the rules of the game. From the beginning, the neoconservative architects of Bush’s policy intended for the war that began in Afghanistan and expanded to Iraq to go on, in a dominolike series of forced regime change, revolution, and even war, to Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. Iran, in particular, was always seen as the next step after Iraq. The original idea was that if the United States toppled Saddam Hussein and installed in Baghdad a regime dominated by Kurdish and Shiite puppets, Iran would be caught between U.S. forces to its west in Iraq and to its east in Afghanistan. And because both Shiites and Kurds have allies inside Iran, and because Iraqi Shiite religious leaders have intimate connections with the ruling Iranian theocracy, the skids would be greased for a U.S.-inspired overthrow of the Iranian government—or so Bush and Cheney believed. Needless to say, things haven’t exactly gone according to plan. Still, it’s far too early to write off the impact of 130,000 U.S. soldiers in a country the size of Iraq, backed by a president convinced that he can still pull out a victory, especially if the troops stay for another five years or more. And if the United States launches the sort of bombing campaign against Iran that is being considered—involving attacks against not just nuclear research facilities but also airfields, command and control centers, and other intelligence and military targets—to say that the consequences would be unpredictable is an understatement. The administration and many of its supporters are apparently ready to take the gamble that after an armed confrontation with Iran, a moderate, pro-American regime might emerge from the wreckage. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is explicit on that score. “I don’t disagree [about] the convulsive effects that a strike would have. I actually think that it would be in the end a healthy thing for Iran internally.” Not surprisingly, Russia and China have a different perspective. Moscow and Beijing, neither of which wants Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, nevertheless do not see Tehran as a threat. To them, the country’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas make it a natural ally. Both Russian and Chinese oil companies had enormous development and supply contracts with Baghdad under Saddam Hussein, deals that are worthless in an Iraq controlled by the United States. They might be forgiven for thinking that Iran, too, would be off-limits to them if Bush succeeds. For China’s economic future, Iran and the region are essential. As recently as 1992, China was an oil-exporting country, but since then it has become a voracious importer of oil and gas. (Indeed, China’s demand for oil is the leading factor in pushing prices from $10 to $20 a barrel to around $75 a barrel today.) In Iran, China has signed a series of gargantuan deals, including a 25-year contract reported to be worth $100 billion between Iran and the Chinese state-owned energy company Sinopec. China is also deeply engaged with Russia’s oil industry and with Central Asian oil exporters in constructing a web of gas and oil pipelines throughout the region. President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China have made energy the centerpiece of Russian-Chinese relations. Russia’s Rosneft oil company and China National Petroleum Co., two state-owned conglomerates, have negotiated plans for Russia to supply about 10 percent of China’s oil, and the Russian gas giant Gazprom is talking to China about building two huge new gas pipelines with a total capacity of 80 billion cubic meters a year. Last year, the Asia Times heralded the emergence of a strategic “new triangle comprised of China, Iran, and Russia.” Since 2001, Russia and China have watched America’s heavy-handed push into the Middle East and Central Asia with suspicion and alarm. Together, they and four Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—have created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security body that has emerged as a counterweight to U.S. influence in the region. Last July, the organization issued a declaration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Central Asia; by the end of 2005, Uzbekistan had kicked the United States out of its Karshi-Khanabad air base, and soon Kyrgyzstan may evict the U.S. from its Manas air base, both head-on challenges to the administration in countries that Washington considers essential to its influence in Central Asia. This summer, the SCO may agree to extend a membership offer to Iran. Meanwhile, U.S. relations with both China and Russia are edging toward outright hostility. With Beijing, the administration has maintained cordial ties, in part because Big Business depends so heavily on China. But many Bush officials have an innate distrust, even loathing, of China, especially in the office of Vice President Cheney, who in 2001 drew several of his top aides from the staff of a strongly anti-China congressional committee pursuing allegations that Beijing had stolen state secrets during the Clinton administration. Cheney, too, is leading the charge for a more confrontational stance toward Russia. During an overseas visit in May that took him from the Baltic republic of Lithuania to Kazakhstan, in the heart of Central Asia’s oil and gas fields, Cheney delivered a series of broadsides against Moscow and warned Putin against using “oil and gas [as] tools of intimidation or blackmail.” Flynt Leverett, who worked on Middle East policy for Bush’s National Security Council before resigning in disgust, told a political salon in Washington recently that the U.S.-Iran conflict could end up pushing Russia, China, and Iran closer together. “What I see as an emerging axis of oil between Russia and China will be greatly bolstered,” he said. SERGEY LAVROV, Russia’s foreign minister, is Moscow’s point man for the U.N. talks about Iran. After a U.N. meeting in New York earlier this year, Lavrov said bluntly: “This looks like déjà vu.” Indeed, the parallels with the year before the invasion of Iraq are startling. In addition to exaggerating the nuclear threat, the administration has been accusing Iran of harboring Al Qaeda fugitives and supporting bin Laden’s movement, though there is little or no evidence to support these claims. As in Iraq, Washington is sinking millions of dollars into propaganda efforts and alliances with dubious exile groups; according to a recent State Department planning document, the United States is busily setting up Iran intelligence and mobilization centers in Dubai, Istanbul, Frankfurt, London, and Azerbaijan to work with “Iranian expatriate communities.” Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president and a top State Department official, is overseeing a program to spend $85 million on support for dissidents in Iran and to pay for anti-Iran propaganda. She has helped create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, and she reportedly supervises an office called the Iran-Syria Operations Group. As with Iraq, U.S. officials—realizing that U.N. support for an attack on Iran is nil—are talking openly about bypassing the world body and forging yet another “coalition of the willing” to confront Iran. And, of course, as with Iraq, there is the escalating rhetoric, the talk of “all options” being on the table, the news of Special Forces already operating in the country to foment civil conflict. “If that is déjà vu, then so be it,” John Bolton, the neoconservative saber-rattler who represents the United States at the U.N., told reporters in March. “That is the course we are on.”
  14. Next We Take Tehran

    My mistake too. Thank you for the correction. You have reached more than 50 posts so you should be able to edit.
  15. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.sfgate(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/27/international/i061750D85.DTL"]Iranian Minister: WMD Outlawed in Islam[/url] Tuesday, June 27, 2006 (06-27) 06:17 PDT JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- An Iranian minister told Indonesia's vice president Tuesday that his country has no plans to develop nuclear weapons because Islamic law outlaws the development of weapons of mass destruction. Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi, Iran's minister of science, research and technology said that based on the Islamic principle, Iran must take advantage of all its potential resources including nuclear technology for the prosperity of its people. Zahedi called on Western countries not to try and prevent developing nations from producing their own nuclear power when it is designed for peaceful purposes. "Islamic doctrine does not allow us to produce mass destruction weapons or nuclear ones and the Iranian state is based on that principle," Zahedi told a news conference after meeting with Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla. He questioned why countries that have developed or used nuclear weapons continue to oppose Iran's nuclear research and development. He called on developing countries to fight hand in hand against what he called "scientific apartheid." "I would like to say that the usage of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of every nation. And we, as a sovereign nation, do not allow other nations to interfere our domestic affairs," he said. The United States and some European countries have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and have offered a package of incentives for Iran to give up uranium enrichment and resume negotiations over its nuclear ambitions.
  16. The following article, although dated to the early 80s, is still relevant today: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.theunjustmedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_ast.htm"]The Zionist Plan for the Middle East[/url] Translated and edited by israel Shahak The israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947) In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon." from Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for israel in the Nineteen Eighties" Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982 Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8) The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon's article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the "vision" for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents. The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become israel's satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation. This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication, (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.theunjustmedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/israel's%20Sacred%20Terrorism.htm"]israel's Sacred Terrorism[/url] (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of israel, Rokach's study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties. The first massive israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, "A Strategy for israel in the 1980's," talks about "far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967" that are created by the "very stormy situation [that] surrounds israel." The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of contlict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled "(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.theunjustmedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/israel_talks_of_a_new_exodus.hm"]israel Talks of a New Exodus[/url]" is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine. It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the "far-reaching opportunities" of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same "opportunities" of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later. Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same. Khalil Nakhleh July 23, 1982 FORWARD The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by israel, into small units, occurs again and again in israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old. 2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest. 3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time. The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text. israel Shahak June 13, 1982 A Strategy for israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem. At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs. This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several "truths" which are presently disappearing--for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man's requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society,1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do--that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil. The vision of man's limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2 The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child's play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world.3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future. The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West's military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz' dictum into "War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means," and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country's security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4 The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging.5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today). Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a "second" Christian Lebanon in Egypt. All the Arab States east of israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi'ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble. Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi'ites in Iraq view as their natural leader. All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi'ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi'ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi'ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power. Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi'ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards israel, and today even that is insufficient. Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran's population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey's population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi'ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million Shi'ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi'ites who endanger the existence of that state.13 This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems. In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad's state of Christians and half a million Shi'ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6 In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee.7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today. The "peace" policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing.8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state. In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil.9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs. (Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat's visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979.10 israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.11 The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into "fact." In reality, however, Egypt's power in proportion both to israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow.12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front. Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.13 The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14 Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.15 The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.16 Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run. There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and israel's policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigrationfrom the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa'amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.17 Within israel the distinction between the areas of '67 and the territories beyond them, those of '48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of '67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or mifitary constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch. Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today.l8 Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation.l9 From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises.20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future.21 Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat's method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken "peace" policy and the problem of the israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future. Conclusion Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published. The Military Background of The Plan The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being "explained" in closed meetings to members of the israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian "unrest" on the West Bank, the forces of the israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of "Haddad forces" or of "Village Associations" (also known as "Village Leagues"): local forces under "leaders" completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The "states" proposed by Yinon are "Haddadland" and "Village Associations," and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be "punished" either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon. It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen. Why it is necessary to publish this in israel? The reason for publication is the dual nature of the israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin's speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid "persuaders" and "explainers" (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then "learn it," more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was "in opposition") the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering "the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity" was explained in the years 1965-67. Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans? Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other israelis? In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti-Stalinist" are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion--exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which israel is really a "closed society" to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible. israel Shahak June 17, 1982 Jerusalem About the Translator israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is israel's Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. israel Shahak: (1933-2001) Notes 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today's world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger. 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963). 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, "USSR's Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future," Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979. 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80. 5. Elie Kedourie, "The End of the Ottoman Empire," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968. 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba'ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, "Egypt's Population Problem," The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980. 7. E. Kanovsky, "Arab Haves and Have Nots," The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba'ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June '67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and israel's policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma'ariv 1979) pp. 226-227. 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma 'ariv,10/3/80) that the israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace. The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha'aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha'aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha'aretz, 5/5/79. Ma'ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and israel's energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma'arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once...see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha'aretz, 8/22/79. 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet's programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10. According to these sources, Egypt's military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha'aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79. 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt's ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, "The Arab Republic of Egypt"; E. Kanovsky, "Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East," Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, "The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors," Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78. 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai...by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79. 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79. 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha'aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80. 15. J.P. Peroncell Hugoz, Le Monde, Paris 4/28/80; Dr. Abbas Kelidar, Middle East Review, Summer 1979; Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha'aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979. 16. Arnold Hottinger, "The Rich Arab States in Trouble," The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79. 17. As for Jordan's policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma'ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa'amr program of the israeli Arabs was published in Ha'aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha'aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma'ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO's position towards israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al'Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, "The Palestinian Problem," Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, "The Palestinian Myth," Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, "The Palestinians and the PLO," Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980. 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, "Samaria--The Basis for israel's Security," Ma'arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya'akov Hasdai, "Peace, the Way and the Right to Know," Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, "Strategic Depth--An israeli Perspective," Ma'arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, "israel's Defense Problems in the Eighties," Ma'arakhot October 1979. 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime's Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981). 20. Henry Kissinger, "The Lessons of the Past," The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, "OPEC's Challenge to the West," The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, "Oil and the Decline of the West," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report--"Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?" U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, "Reflections on the Present Danger," The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez "The illusions of SALT" Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, "The Present Danger," Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, "Oil and American Power Six Years Later," Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, "The Abandonment of israel," Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, "Misreading the Middle East," Commentary July 1979. 21. According to figures published by Ya'akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, "The New Anti-Semitism," The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, "They poisoned the Wells," Newsweek 2/3/75.
  17. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_kurtnimmo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?p=438"]Neocons Revisit The Askariya Shrine Bombing[/url] By Kurt Nimmo 28.6.2006 Now that the Pentagon has murdered the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi myth, it is time to roll up “al-Qaeda in Iraq” for propaganda purposes, especially considering the miserable condition of the Iraq occupation and the increasing demands of the Iraqi “leadership” that the United States leave the country. “The Samarra shrine bombing, which set off waves of sectarian killing that are still plaguing the country, was the brainchild of an Iraqi member of Al Qaeda, and not a foreign terrorist, a senior Iraqi official said today,” reports the “liberal” (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.nytimes(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2006/06/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1151553600&en=c2a531815c564a00&ei=5094&partner=homepage"]New York Times[/url], the “newspaper of record” neocons are itching to prosecute for treason. “Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, the country’s national security adviser, identified Haitham al-Badri as the planner of the February attack. He said that Mr. Badri, a member of a Sunni tribe from Salahadin province, which includes Samarra, was currently a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but earlier had belonged to a different Iraqi insurgent group, Ansar al-Sunna.” All of this supposedly came to light after Yousri Fakher Mohammed Ali, a Tunisian also known as Abu Qudama and allegedly an “al-Qaeda in Iraq” member, fingered al-Badri. It is amazing the way slavish corporate media tools, essentially stenographers for the Pentagon and the neocons, report the “news” (engineered propaganda) without reference to past events, sort of like Winston Smith feeding evidence of news recalibrated into the memory hole. Haitham al-Badri’s “confession yielded several new details about the shrine bombing, Mr. Rubaie. He said it was the work of a team of two Iraqis, four Saudis and Abu Qudama, under the direction of Mr. Badri,” the New York Times continues. “The group took advantage of a handoff in security at the shrine, when the Iraqi turned it over to a local facility protection service. ‘The terrorists entered the shrine the night before the bombing, and they jailed the guards in one of the rooms and had the whole time—several hours—to install the equipment of crime,’ Mr. Rubaie said.” No mention here of Iraqi reports that the bombing was pulled off by the Iraqi National Guard and that according “to reports appearing on the humanitarian Iraqi League organization’s Iraqi Rabita website and translated into English by the Iraqi blogger Baghdad Dweller … at least two witnesses saw ‘unusual activities by the ING [iraqi National Guard] in the area around the Masjid.’ Two Masjid guards reported four men in ING uniforms had blindfolded them and planted explosives. A second witness, Muhammad al-Samarrai, the owner of an internet cafe in the area, was told to stay in his store and not leave the area. From 11 pm until 6:30 am, ten minutes before two bombs were detonated, the area surrounding the Masjid was patrolled by ‘joint forces of Iraqi ING and Americans,’ according to al-Samarrai” (see my February 23 blog entry, (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_kurtnimmo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?p=244"]Pentagon-Controlled Iraqi National Guard Implicated in Samarra Masjid Bombing[/url]). In addition to apparently facilitating the Masjid bombing, Iraqi National Guard troops provided assistance to “more than a dozen masked Shia gunmen” attacking the Sunni al-Quds Masjid in western Baghdad in the wake of the Samarra attack, according to the Times Online. In addition, “gunmen arrived [at the Maakel prison in Basra] in a fleet of cars and showed documents which claimed that they were from the Interior Ministry… and lynched at least eleven Sunni inmates, among them at least two Egyptians.” “The bombing of the Golden Dome shrine, regarded by Shiites as one of their holiest sites, was followed by the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis in reprisal killings, as the country teetered on the verge of a full-blown civil war,” the New York Times continues. “Killings on the basis of ethnicity or religion have become routine in Baghdad and other mixed areas of Iraq, and a report issued Tuesday by the International Organization on Migration, a London-based advocacy group, estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqis had fled their homes since the bombing of the shrine, primarily out of fear of assassination.” In short, “al-Qaeda in Iraq” has accomplished its mission—touching off a “civil war,” as the corporate media deems it, in fact an engineered effort to balkanize the country. Once again, cui bono comes into play: the United States and israel benefit from the social and cultural destruction of Iraq, not the Iraqi people and certainly not some fantastical entity called “al-Qaeda,” who we are expected to believe runs the resistance in Iraq. How exactly an alleged fanatical Muslim organization benefits from killing fellow Muslims and blowing up Masjids while ignoring the occupation is not explained. As John St. John writes for After Downing Street ((www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.afterdowningstreet(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/node/12370"]The Iraq Vichy[/url]), “There is an interesting historical parallel between the Nazi occupation of France and the American occupation of Iraq. The Vichy government was installed by an occupation just as the Iraq government was. Hitler did not call for any elections in France because at that time election fraud had not become a science. Unlike Hitler: Bush who had stolen two elections in the United States did not fear the electoral process. The Iraqis who turned out to vote did not even know who they were voting for. The Vichy government in France initiated a civil war just as the faux Iraq government has. This is why Iraqis are killing Iraqis. The idea that civil war in Iraq is caused by religious differences between the Sunni and the Shiites is false propaganda used to justify continuing the American occupation.” In short, as a tool of the Pentagon, the current Iraqi government is doing the bidding of the neocons, who borrowed a page from the israeli “strategist” Oded Yinon. In addition to acting as quite brutal death squad assassins, the U.S. trained and supplied Iraqi National Guard will eventually serve as “Haddad forces” (the late (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.veteranen.info/~cedarsouthlebanon/dff/south_lebanon_army.eng.htm"]Major Saad Haddad[/url] was the leader of the IDF’s proxy militia in Lebanon) and Iraq (and all of the Arab and Muslim Middle East) will become “Haddadland,” as (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.theunjustmedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_ast.htm"]israel Shahak[/url] dismissively referred to the “states” (Bantustans) proposed by Yinon in his 1982 report. “In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon,” the late Shahak wrote in a conclusion of a reprint of Yinon’s report. Of course, the israelis failed in Lebanon and thanks in no small part to the effort of Hezbollah, formed in response to israel’s illegal invasion, they were unceremoniously sent packing, tails tucked. Obviously, israel does not have the resources or manpower to place “garrisons” in the Arab and Muslim Middle East, but the United States does, or so the neocon planners, in sync with the fanatical Jabotinskyites in israel, believe. In fact, the U.S. is hastily constructing “enduring bases” with names such as Camp Renegade and Camp Victory in Iraq for this express purpose, although Pentagon Herr Reichsführer Donald Rumsfeld denies it. All of this extensive and expensive effort, however, will ultimately fail, as the Iraqi people, as the Lebanese before them, will continue to fight until the United States leaves Iraq, more than likely with all the class of helicopters ferrying hysterical refugees from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon. An indigenous Hezbollah already exists in Iraq, although the Pentagon is employing black ops to portray this resistance as the efforts of crazed Wahabbi fanatics, a propaganda effort designed to convince Americans “al-Qaeda” has taken over in Iraq and if “we don’t fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will be fighting them on the streets of America,” a load of childish bunkum unfortunately bought by millions of Americans who get their information from Fox News, or rather the Bush Ministry of Lies and Disinformation, and are easily frightened, as children are frightened as they gather around a campfire and listen to scary stories about monsters and scary Freddy Kruger apparitions.
  18. Peace Indeed discussion is better than violence and suicide attacks. Muslims who condemn and fight these perverse people could themselves also become targets (they already are at great risk of course). But have they really been given the chance to do so? All it would take for the Muslim world to take its destiny into its own hands would be the complete cessation of all foreign intervention and interference in Muslim lands. Can or will the West, particularly the US, do this? Having taken the iniative in the purported global "war on terrorism" do they expect to have Muslims on their side when they have in the process created even greater terrorism and killed so many innocent Muslims while dismissing such killing as "collateral damage"? Yes?
  19. Conspiracy Theorists Meet Over 9/11

    Have fun with these: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.mindcontrolforums(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/declassified-official-reports.htm"]Declassified official reports[/url], Operation Bigfoot included. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.mindcontrolforums(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/murder-secret.htm"]The Secret Wars of the CIA[/url]: Does anyone really believe that America isn't still doing all of this today?
  20. Conspiracy Theorists Meet Over 9/11

    (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gcrailway.co.uk/spevents/0606war.htm"]Operation Bigfoot[/url] There is something going on! It must be a conspiracy to bring back WWII. :D
  21. Your wish is my command (sometimes! :D ). But it would also be useful in the first place to know what is it that needs to be explained, argued or defended... yusufar
  22. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.robert-fisk(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/american_terrorism.htm"]The Weapons of American Terrorism: Cluster Bombs[/url] Cluster bombs are one of the most savage and inhumane weapons in the arsenal of the United States Corporate Mafia Government and military. These instruments of bloody terror are used for the gruesome slaughter of both military and civilian people around the world. Each cluster bomb is composed of 200 to 700 bomblets. When each bomblet explodes it fragments into about 300 pieces of jagged steel — sending out virtual blizzards of deadly shrapnel. People are decapitated, arms, legs, hands and feet are severed from their bodies — anyone and anything alive in the immediate vicinity is shredded into a bloody mess. Picture yourself, your girlfriend or boyfriend, your wife or husband, and your children reduced to dismembered body parts by the United States military, and you'll have a clue as to what unfortunate people around the world have experienced since the Vietnam Genocide. Cluster bombs were used by American/NATO forces to brutally murder civilian people all over Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001. American/British forces have used cluster bombs against the civilian people of Iraq from 1991 to the present day. Millions of cluster bombs were dropped on the civilian people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the viciously racist genocide known as "the Vietnam War." Once released from a U.S. Air Force or Navy jet, cluster bombs fall for a pre-set amount of time or distance before their dispensers open, spreading the bomblets widely so they can effectively slaughter people over a wide area. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, American/NATO pilots routinely flew at high altitudes to avoid anti-aircraft fire as they dropped their cluster bombs. This made the bombing thoroughly indiscriminate, guaranteeing that there would be zero accuracy in hitting specific "military" targets. This revealed very clearly that the NATO bombing was in fact a terror campaign against the entire civilian population, rather than a genuine military campaign. With the opening of a 1,000-pound cluster bomb a couple of hundred bomblets shoot out in all directions. Each one has a little parachute that looks like an inverted umbrella. The chutes slow down the descent of the bomblets and disperse them so they'll hit as many "soft targets" as possible. "Soft targets" is military-speak for human bodies. The U.S. military — and the corporations that make these murderous weapons — routinely uses such sterile euphemisms in an attempt to hide the fact that they are in the business of brutally murdering human beings. The Public Record of American War Crimes Yugoslavian (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.vma.sv.gov.yu/vma_home_eng.htm"]Military Medical Academy[/url] Reports, Civilian Casualties: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.vma.sv.gov.yu/Civil/index_engleski.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.vma.sv.gov.yu/Civil/index_engleski.html[/url] WARNING — this site has gruesome photos that show what American cluster bombs do to human bodies. Every victim was somebody's daughter, somebody's son, somebody's brother, sister, wife, husband, mother, father, grandfather, grandmother. Each one was somebody's friend. They could just as well be your loved ones. If you're not a media-numbed moron, these photos will be deeply disturbing to see. But terrible though they are, these photographs constitute an essential public record of American/NATO war crimes. Cluster bombs as landmines Each cluster bomblet is activated by an internal fuze, and is set to explode above ground, on impact, or to be time-delayed — that is, they can be made into time bombs or mines. In addition, the rate at which cluster bombs fail to explode at the intended time is 5 to 30 percent. The use of cluster bombs, therefore, is the equivalent of creating uncharted mine fields. The smaller bombs are designed to explode near the time of impact. But since 5% to 30% fail to explode at the time set for them, unexploded bombs litter every target area, silent and nondescript. Until picked up by an unfortunate child or accidentally kicked by a passerby. Unexploded bombs may rest on top of the soil in clear view. Cluster bombs may also hide themselves if they land in weeds, soft soil, sand, mud or water. Alternatively, bombs on top of the ground may become buried by soil erosion or growing plants. In this way they become hidden killers, blending into their surroundings like land mines. And over time cluster bombs become more unstable — they explode more easily. Used by the United States military since the Vietnam Genocide, cluster bombs are among the most indiscriminate weapons in their arsenal. These bombs not only cause physical suffering and loss — they also severely hinder agricultural and economic development of the land, many years into the future. Villagers are terrified to work on land they know is littered with unexploded cluster bombs. This is what the United States Air Force and Navy have done to the people and land of Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq — and now Yugoslavia. Every year hundreds of people in these lands — including many children — are murdered and maimed for life by American cluster bombs that have become land mines. This is why the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government refuses to sign a treaty for the elimination of land mines. It knows that if it signed such a treaty it would be pressured to end its use of cluster bombs. Varieties of American-made Cluster Bombs CBU-52B The bomblets in the CBU-52 are softball-sized and are intended primarily to shred and dismember human bodies. The dispenser holds 220 of the bomblets and can be used against both people and light-skinned vehicles. CBU-58A/B This cluster bomb is also used to butcher human bodies and destroy light skinned military or civilian vehicles. The dispenser holds 650 baseball-sized bomblets to be dispersed indiscriminately over a wide area. MK-20 Rockeye The Rockeye is a clamshell-shaped dispenser holding 247 dart-shaped bomblets. These bomblets free fall and can cover a 3,300 square yard area, detonating on impact. The dart-shaped warhead charge in the bomblet is intended for use against armor and people. CBU-59B Rockeye II A newer version of the MK-20 Rockeye cluster bomb, the CBU 59 is used against both modern armor and human bodies. Rockeye II and the older Rockeye I are dart shaped bomblets with a small fuze in the pointed end of each bomblet. The CBU-59 dispenser holds about 700 bomblets. CBU-71/B The CBU-71/B is very similar to the CBU-58, carrying 650 baseball-sized bomblets. The CBU-71 bomblets have what the U.S. war criminals call "a random delay fuzing option." Translation from military-speak: These cluster bombs are used as land mines, set to explode at a variety of times after hitting the ground, to terrorize a local population. CBU-72 Fuel-Air Explosive This cluster bomb is different from all the others. It's an extremely destructive incendiary bomb, rather than a shrapnel bomb. The U.S. military like to emphasize that it's used to "detonate minefields" and to "destroy aircraft parked in the open." What they would rather not discuss too publicly is that it's also used to burn the occupants alive in armored vehicles, and to burn alive and suffocate people who are taking shelter in bunkers. The bomb is made up of three separate bomblets dispensing an aerosol fuel cloud across the target area. As the fuel cloud descends to the ground it is ignited by an embedded detonator to produce what U.S. war criminals call "an impressive explosion." The rapidly expanding wave front due to overpressure flattens all objects and burns all people alive within close proximity of the epicenter of the aerosol fuel cloud. It also produces "debilitating damage" well beyond the flattened area. Translation from military-speak: Civilian people are horribly burned to death and their bodies crushed over a very wide area. CBU-87 CEM Combined Effects Munition According to the "Jane's Air-Launched Weapons" directory, the U.S.-made CBU-87 "combined effects munition" is a "free-fall cluster bomb" composed of 202 "multi-purpose bomblets." Each bomblet is capable of penetrating up to 177 mm (seven inches) of armor and has fire-starting capabilities as well. The CEM dispenses the 202 bomblets over an area of 800 feet by 400 feet. U.S. war criminals call it "an area denial cluster weapon." Translation from military-speak: the bomblets create an 800 x 400 ft. uncharted mine field. This cluster bomb is intended to destroy both lightly armored vehicles and human beings. The CBU-87 was used extensively to slaughter Iraqi civilian men, women and children during the Desert Storm terror campaign. CBU-89 The "GATOR" family of scatterable mines is another favorite body-butchering weapon used by the cowardly mass-murderers who like to think of themselves as "fighter aircrews." The dispenser holds 72 anti-armor mines and 22 anti-personnel mines. These mines arm immediately upon impact. The GATOR has two integrated "kill mechanisms": a magnetic influence fuze to sense armor, and deployed trip wires that explode the bomb when adults, children or your pet dog walks on or disturbs them. Another feature of the GATOR is the "random delay function" detonating over several days for "highly effective area denial and harassment operations." Translation from military-speak: These evil weapons are highly effective for the murder and long-term terrorization of human beings. Any human beings it pleases the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government to use them against. Such as Iraqi children, Vietnamese children, Laotian children, Cambodian children, Albanian children and Yugoslavian children. CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon This "cosmic cluster munition" combines 10 bomblets with 4 "skeet type" warheads in a single dispenser, providing 40 weapons total. After release, a fuze causes the dispenser to disperse the 10 bomblets, each stabilized by a parachute. At a preset altitude a rocket fires, propelling the bomblet in an upward vector. As the bomblet climbs, it is spun to disperse the 4 internal skeet warheads randomly by centrifugal force. An infrared sensor in each warhead searches for a motorized vehicle or living being, and upon discovery detonates over it, firing a "kinetic fragment." The fragment drives itself through the lightly armored top of the vehicle — or the head of the unfortunate person. If no isolated victim is found, the sensor detonates the warhead above ground to spray the battlefield — or the village market square — with a myriad of lethal fragments. This brutal American weapon of mass-destruction is very effective against armor and human bodies, covering a 4,800 square yard area. CBU-97/B Sensor Fuzed Weapon The CBU-97/B cluster bomb, created by Alliant Techsystems of Hopkins, Minnesota, was used in the American/NATO terror campaign of 1999 to butcher civilian people all over Yugoslavia. For example, this is probably the model that slaughtered the old men and women doing their shopping on the market street in the southern Serbian town of Nis. This cluster bomb destroys armored vehicles like tanks, and can spray a "battlefield" (read: market square) with metal fragments, making it lethal against people and other "soft" targets. Like horses, cows, sheep and family pets. According to Jane's Defense Weekly, which predicted its use in early April 1999 (by which time it had already been used), each sensor fuzed weapon (SFW) carries forty SKEET warheads that use infrared sensors to home in on armored vehicles and people. Each warhead is a copper-plated, 1 kg Explosively-Formed Projectile that spins at 1,600 rpm. The SFW can be dropped from 200 to 20,000 feet from B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers, as well as from A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft and F-15 and F-16 fighters. The SFW can cover an area the size of about 12 football fields (or 6 hectares). A B-1B bomber can carry 30 SFWs, or 1200 individual cluster bombs, with the potential to butcher every living being in an area equal to 360 football fields. Five B-1B Lancer bombers were deployed on April 1, 1999, at RAF Fairford, England, and used to murder and terrorize the civilian men, women and children of Yugoslavia. The A-10 Warthog and F-16 can be fitted with four SFWs. At the beginning of April, only the B-1B had been "certified" for using the SFW, which suggests that any other aircraft using the weapon was conducting experiments in the so-called "combat" situations. British cluster bomb — the RBL755 The British, America's favorite partners in war crime, have their own version of the cluster bomb. They too used it to butcher civilian men, women and children all over Iraq and Yugoslavia. The UK arms company Hunting Engineering of Ampthill, Bedford, manufactures the British cluster bomb. Each RBL 755 weighs 600 lb and breaks up in the air releasing 147 bomblets, each of which explodes into approximately 2000 metal fragments. About the size of a soft-drink can, parachutes slow the bomblets' fall, and each has the explosive power to destroy a tank — if by some miracle it hits a tank in the right place. That's a big "IF" indeed — considering the safe-for-the-pilot altitude from which the bombs are dropped. Such high-altitude delivery guarantees there will be essentially zero accuracy. That means lots of dead civilian people, including children. The 'R' BL755 uses a different fuze from the original low-level delivery variant allowing it to be dropped from a high enough altitude — above 10,000 ft (3,305 m) — where there is little or no threat from hand-held, infrared-guided, surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. Related sites (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.clearlandmines(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]Clear Landmines[/url] Cluster Munitions: The Bombs That Keep On Killing (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.icbl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/lm/2000/report/LMWeb-60.php3"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.icbl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/lm/2000/report/LMWeb-60.php3[/url] Kosovo: "A Wasteland Called Peace" (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.icbl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/resources/raejune99.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.icbl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/resources/raejune99.html[/url] A report by The UK Campaign for a Transparent & Accountable Arms Trade on the illegal and immoral American/NATO use of cluster bombs. Laos War Legacy (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.mcc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/clusterbomb/laos_legacy/index.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.mcc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/clusterbomb/laos_legacy/index.html[/url] The Mennonite Central Committee report on the genocidal use of cluster bombs by the United States Air Force against the people of Laos during the Vietnam War. Legacy of the Secret War (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.mcc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/clusterbomb/secret_war/index.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.mcc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/clusterbomb/secret_war/index.html[/url] "The Continuing Problem of Unexploded Ordnance in Xieng Khouang Province, Laos, and the Response of the Mennonite Central Committee and the American Friends Service Committee, 1972-1994." NATO cluster bombs kill 100 Albanians in Kosovo: Where is the outrage? (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.wsws(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/1999/may1999/koso-m15.shtml"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.wsws(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/1999/may1999/koso-m15.shtml[/url] Cluster Munitions: America's DUMB Bombs (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.fas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.fas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html[/url] Part of the valuable Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website, this section gives comprehensive descriptions of individual cluster bomb models. The individual listings contain photos and diagrams of the bombs as well as photos of the aircraft that deliver them. Has photos of cluster bombs exploding over tanks and other battlefield targets. No photos of decapitated children in residential Yugoslavian neighborhoods, though. The Pentagon doesn't want you to know about that particular use for cluster bombs. No, you just be sure you obediently pay your taxes so the Pentagon can buy these weapons, and keep your own head stuck firmly in the sand. One photo series shows a fuel-air bomb exploding over a two-story, house-like structure on a desert test range. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.fas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.fas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm[/url] (Such a target trains U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots to get used to the idea of murdering civilians in residential houses. The U.S. military turns men and women into inhuman murderers, butchering people on command. Then it tells these fools they're "heros," when in fact they're nothing but trained rats.) Now picture you and your loved ones underneath that fireball. Then you'll have a clue as to what the people of Yugoslavia experienced for 79 days and nights in 1999. And what the people of Southeast Asia experienced for 14 YEARS, courtesy of Uncle Sham. To see the type of cluster bomb commonly used by heroic American/NATO pilots to butcher children, women and men, young and old, all over Yugoslavia and Iraq, see: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.fas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.fas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm[/url] Bibliography Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum NATO TARGETS (video) produced by Gloria La Riva To Kill A Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia by Michael Parenti Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII by William Blum The Beast Reawakens by Martin A. Lee NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition by Ramsey Clark, Sean Gervasi, Sara Flounders, Thomas Deichmann, Gary Wilson, Richard Becker and Nadja Tesich Against Empire by Michael Parenti The Sword and the Dollar: Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race by Michael Parenti What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky The Culture of Terrorism by Noam Chomsky Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA by Ralph W. McGehee Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don't Want You to See by David McGowan The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media: Decoding Spin and Lies in Mainstream News by Norman Solomon Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media by Michael Parenti War, Lies & Videotape: How media monopoly stifles truth edited by Lenora Foerstel; multiple authors The Weapons of American State Terrorism Assassination Chemical & Biological Weapons Cluster Bombs Depleted Uranium Domestic Oppression Fuel-Air Bombs Nuclear Bombs Surveillance Torture
  23. G.i.s Found Mutilated

    If there is anyone who epitomises all that's wrong with America, you are that person. Why have a nick like bdcent when you are the exact opposite of it? As I have stated in another thread and I will repeat it here: I can only quote the words of an American in reply: “America was born in blood. America suckled on blood. America gorged on blood and grew into a giant, and America will drown in blood.” — Thomas W. Chittum Vietnam veteran in his book Civil War Two Until America stops all its "bloody" incursions into other peoples' lands, what it does in foreign countries will come back to haunt it and eventually even lead to its own destruction. America travels headlong down this road at its own peril. It is up to Americans how they want to be remembered in history, not that many appear to even care, regretably. I say regretably because I still believe America can be a great force for good and the betterment of humanity rather than the malevolent force of evil which its now spreads around the globe. But this takes all or at least the majority of Americans themselves to really care and want to be that force for good. Yet many (like you) only seem to want revenge, with a misquided vengeance out of all proportion to any perceived or actual wrongs committed against them, and at the same time completely ignoring the multitude of wrongs they have committed against multitudes of people across the whole planet. What is it with them? Somewhere in this there is a lesson for Muslims as well. Are we to be like these Americans as well or shall we try to live up to the words of God in the Qur'an that we are the "best of mankind"? Or is that just history? History does repeat itself. This too will pass. yusufar
  24. The Weapons Of American Terrorism:

    I can only quote the words of an American in reply: “America was born in blood. America suckled on blood. America gorged on blood and grew into a giant, and America will drown in blood.” — Thomas W. Chittum Vietnam veteran in his book Civil War Two Until America stops all its "bloody" incursions into other peoples' lands, what it does in foreign countries will come back to haunt it and eventually even lead to its own destruction. America travels headlong down this road at its own peril. It is up to Americans how they want to be remembered in history, not that many appear to even care, regretably. I say regretably because I still believe America can be a great force for good and the betterment of humanity rather than the malevolent force of evil which its now spreads around the globe. But this takes all or at least the majority of Americans themselves to really care and want to be that force for good. Yet many only seem to want revenge, with a misquided vengeance out of all proportion to any perceived or actual wrongs committed against them, and at the same time completely ignoring the multitude of wrongs they have committed against multitudes of people across the whole planet. What is it with them? Somewhere in this there is a lesson for Muslims as well. Are we to be like these Americans as well or shall we try to live up to the words of God in the Qur'an that we are the "best of mankind"? Or is that just history? History does repeat itself. This too will pass. yusufar
×