Thursday, February 9, 2012
A Global Empire, Yet a United States of Fear
By the end of 2011, the United States had elite special operations forces in around 120 of the 192 countries recognized by the United Nations, with U.S. military bases in more than half of the world’s nation-states.
Yet despite this global empire — some would say because of it — the United States is a country today that is characterized not so much by peace and prosperity as by poverty and anxiety.
While the rhetoric of the political class in Washington boasts of fearlessness in the face of terror, the United States, writes author Tom Engelhardt in a new collection of essays, has become a nation ruled by fear, characterized by a cynical, institutional overreaction to the relatively minor threat that is international terrorism.
The country that proudly claims to have defeated an evil empire now spends billions of dollars to prevent so much as a perception of risk, looking more and more like its one-time superpower rival.
Politicians from both major parties, aided by the generals, military contractors, and corporate media outlets that stand to benefit from a militarized, militarist United States, speak of bravery and resolve in but two contexts: with respect to their millions of unemployed subjects — keep your chin up, kid! — and when rhetorically confronting the endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary, they use to sell a bellicose foreign policy of endless war.
Yet despite this global empire — some would say because of it — the United States is a country today that is characterized not so much by peace and prosperity as by poverty and anxiety.
While the rhetoric of the political class in Washington boasts of fearlessness in the face of terror, the United States, writes author Tom Engelhardt in a new collection of essays, has become a nation ruled by fear, characterized by a cynical, institutional overreaction to the relatively minor threat that is international terrorism.
The country that proudly claims to have defeated an evil empire now spends billions of dollars to prevent so much as a perception of risk, looking more and more like its one-time superpower rival.
Politicians from both major parties, aided by the generals, military contractors, and corporate media outlets that stand to benefit from a militarized, militarist United States, speak of bravery and resolve in but two contexts: with respect to their millions of unemployed subjects — keep your chin up, kid! — and when rhetorically confronting the endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary, they use to sell a bellicose foreign policy of endless war.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
US Iran Policy in 'Lockstep' with Israel?: President Obama Risks Becoming a Major-League War Criminal
It’s a relief to know that President Obama’s “preferred” solution to dealing with disagreements with Iran is diplomacy, as he said yesterday in an interview on NBC TV, but at the same time, it’s profoundly disturbing that he is simultaneously saying that, as an AP report on the interview put it: he would “not take options off the table to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”
Equally disturbing are the president’s mutually contradictory statements that, on the one hand, he feels that “Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us,” and that on the other, he will “make sure that we work in lockstep” with Israel in dealing with Iran and its nuclear program.
Lockstep? With Israel?
Didn’t the US just send Gen.Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Israel to tell that country’s leaders that the US does not want Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. And wasn’t Israel also told that the US would not support it in any attack on Iran, at least if the US was not warned well in advance? Israel, of course, is continuing to threaten to attack Iran -- using the very planes and bombs that the US provides it with. So how exactly is opposing an attack by Israel and having Israel continuously threatening to attack in any way to be construed as working in “lockstep”?
And anyhow, what kind of a country moves in “lockstep” with any other country, except for a puppet regime?
The US does not have a treaty with Israel requiring the US to go to war when Israel goes to war. It doesn’t even have a treaty to go to Israel’s defense if Israel is attacked. There is a treaty like that with Taiwan, but not with Israel. US interests are clearly not congruent with Israeli interests, especially where Iran is concerned (just ask any veteran of the USS Liberty about how congruent US and Israeli policy really is).
Equally disturbing are the president’s mutually contradictory statements that, on the one hand, he feels that “Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us,” and that on the other, he will “make sure that we work in lockstep” with Israel in dealing with Iran and its nuclear program.
Lockstep? With Israel?
Didn’t the US just send Gen.Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Israel to tell that country’s leaders that the US does not want Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. And wasn’t Israel also told that the US would not support it in any attack on Iran, at least if the US was not warned well in advance? Israel, of course, is continuing to threaten to attack Iran -- using the very planes and bombs that the US provides it with. So how exactly is opposing an attack by Israel and having Israel continuously threatening to attack in any way to be construed as working in “lockstep”?
And anyhow, what kind of a country moves in “lockstep” with any other country, except for a puppet regime?
The US does not have a treaty with Israel requiring the US to go to war when Israel goes to war. It doesn’t even have a treaty to go to Israel’s defense if Israel is attacked. There is a treaty like that with Taiwan, but not with Israel. US interests are clearly not congruent with Israeli interests, especially where Iran is concerned (just ask any veteran of the USS Liberty about how congruent US and Israeli policy really is).
Our Bloodstained Hands
The stage set: a street somewhere in Syria, where mysterious armed gangs [.pdf] roam freely, attacking civilians, kidnapping Shi’ite pilgrims, and suicide-bombing both military and civilian targets. Syrian troops – nervous, ill-trained, and short of weaponry and replacement parts – attack entire towns, with high casualties on both sides.
The actors: Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad, the 47-year-old US-educated former ophthalmologist, who may not be so strong after all. Standing behind him: the Ba’athist party apparatus and the military hierarchy, both dominated by the minority Alawite sect, an idiosyncratic regional variant of Islam considered heretical by most Muslims. Assad is the villain of the piece – an odd fate for a man who many thought would turn out to be a reformer.
This is a drama without heroes, for the simple reason that a single leader has not emerged out of the opposition – which is fractured into competing factions with different programs and conflicting ideologies. There is the group which has gotten the most attention, the Syrian National Council (SNC), dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of their activists are in exile, and the SNC is said to have very little influence inside the country. On the other hand, there is the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, or NCC, made up of leftist and Arab nationalist parties, all illegal in Syria but which have still managed to maintain a clandestine existence.
The big issues dividing the opposition are 1) The prospect of dialogue with the Assad regime, and 2) the prospect of foreign intervention, either by NATO, or some other agency. The Islamists organized around the SNC refuse all negotiations short of arranging for Assad’s abdication, while the largely secular and minority-oriented NCC insists on talks. On the issue of foreign intervention, the SNC is for it, the NCC against it – although they invite Arab League mediation.
A third factor – the wild card – is the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” which supposedly consists of defectors from the ranks of the regular Army and security forces. There is some doubt, however, about just how many defectors are in its ranks: there may be more Islamists than anything else. They operate from a base in Turkey, which has been helpfully provided by the government in Ankara: however, who’s exactly in charge of the FSA isn’t exactly clear. The group was founded by Col. Riad Assad, but a recent defector, General Mostafa Ahmed al-Sheikh, has reportedly pulled rank on the colonel, and declared himself commander-in-chief. Col. Assad disputes this, but apparently the Turks agree with the General: they’ve ordered Assad’s bank account closed.
The actors: Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad, the 47-year-old US-educated former ophthalmologist, who may not be so strong after all. Standing behind him: the Ba’athist party apparatus and the military hierarchy, both dominated by the minority Alawite sect, an idiosyncratic regional variant of Islam considered heretical by most Muslims. Assad is the villain of the piece – an odd fate for a man who many thought would turn out to be a reformer.
This is a drama without heroes, for the simple reason that a single leader has not emerged out of the opposition – which is fractured into competing factions with different programs and conflicting ideologies. There is the group which has gotten the most attention, the Syrian National Council (SNC), dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of their activists are in exile, and the SNC is said to have very little influence inside the country. On the other hand, there is the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, or NCC, made up of leftist and Arab nationalist parties, all illegal in Syria but which have still managed to maintain a clandestine existence.
The big issues dividing the opposition are 1) The prospect of dialogue with the Assad regime, and 2) the prospect of foreign intervention, either by NATO, or some other agency. The Islamists organized around the SNC refuse all negotiations short of arranging for Assad’s abdication, while the largely secular and minority-oriented NCC insists on talks. On the issue of foreign intervention, the SNC is for it, the NCC against it – although they invite Arab League mediation.
A third factor – the wild card – is the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” which supposedly consists of defectors from the ranks of the regular Army and security forces. There is some doubt, however, about just how many defectors are in its ranks: there may be more Islamists than anything else. They operate from a base in Turkey, which has been helpfully provided by the government in Ankara: however, who’s exactly in charge of the FSA isn’t exactly clear. The group was founded by Col. Riad Assad, but a recent defector, General Mostafa Ahmed al-Sheikh, has reportedly pulled rank on the colonel, and declared himself commander-in-chief. Col. Assad disputes this, but apparently the Turks agree with the General: they’ve ordered Assad’s bank account closed.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Iranian MP–Israel attack on Iran will change the Middle East geography
A senior Iranian lawmaker says the 33-day war with Lebanon should have taught Israel how devastating even the thought of a war with Iran could become for the entity.
Head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Sunday that a war with Iran would have consequences for Israel that are far worse than the war with Lebanon.
The Iranian lawmaker said if Israel commits the folly of waging war against Iran it could change the geography of the Middle East and would result in a serious security challenge for Israel.
Boroujerdi said Iran’s advancements in different fields, which are made despite international sanctions, irk Israel.
“The Zionist regime [of Israel] considers regional revolutions, which have Islamic tendencies and are modeled after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, a serious threat and thinks a war with Iran is the answer to all its security challenges,” he concluded.
Boroujerdi’s remarks come after Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon threatened Iran with a military strike against its nuclear facilities in an attempt to force the country to abandon its peaceful nuclear energy program.
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program.
Head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Sunday that a war with Iran would have consequences for Israel that are far worse than the war with Lebanon.
The Iranian lawmaker said if Israel commits the folly of waging war against Iran it could change the geography of the Middle East and would result in a serious security challenge for Israel.
Boroujerdi said Iran’s advancements in different fields, which are made despite international sanctions, irk Israel.
“The Zionist regime [of Israel] considers regional revolutions, which have Islamic tendencies and are modeled after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, a serious threat and thinks a war with Iran is the answer to all its security challenges,” he concluded.
Boroujerdi’s remarks come after Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon threatened Iran with a military strike against its nuclear facilities in an attempt to force the country to abandon its peaceful nuclear energy program.
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program.
The Globalization of War: The "Military Roadmap" to World War III
In truth, as this new Interactive Reader from Global Research will demonstrate, we are living in an era hallmarked by “The Globalization of War” conducted by the very states that proclaim to be defenders of democratic rights and international law.
The chief protagonist of this globalized war is the United States of America. The US, along with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Britain, France, Canada and Germany among others, as well as an array of proxies – such as the Persian Gulf Arab states – is now emboldened to strike militarily in any region of the world.
It should be noted that on a tour of the Asia-Pacific region in November 2011, US President Barack Obama’s rhetoric was laden with bellicose statements towards China, citing the latter as a military threat to the hemisphere that the United States was ready to confront. Obama’s aggressive rhetoric towards Beijing should have been widely seen as unprecedented and unacceptable. But from a reading of the Western mainstream media, the warmongering by the US president was somehow made into normal, reasonable discourse.
This spawning militarism is rationalized with a variety of seemingly palatable pretexts: securing the world against "Islamic terrorism", as in Afghanistan; securing the world against "weapons of mass destruction", as in Saddam’s Iraq and currently Iran; defending human rights, as in Libya; humanitarian intervention, as in Somalia; and protecting small nations, as in confronting China on behalf of Southeast Asian states, or constructing a Ballistic Missile Defense system along the Eastern European borders of Russia. And again, the Western mainstream media plays a huge role in rationalizing the irrational, normalizing the abnormal, justifying the unjustifiable – akin to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.
We may accept these pretexts at face value and attempt to “normalize” a world of seemingly chaotic conflicts, as the Western mainstream media would have us. Or we can choose to see the world as it really is, that is, one where such wars and war-making are correctly understood as abominations of international law and human relations.
It is our objective in this Interactive Reader to help citizens free themselves from the indoctrinated doublethink of “wars as normal”. In a global survey, we will show that the US and its allies are fulfilling an agenda of “full spectrum dominance” in which no nation deemed to be obstructing that agenda for domination by the US and its allies is tolerated, and is in fact made a target for war.
The chief protagonist of this globalized war is the United States of America. The US, along with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Britain, France, Canada and Germany among others, as well as an array of proxies – such as the Persian Gulf Arab states – is now emboldened to strike militarily in any region of the world.
It should be noted that on a tour of the Asia-Pacific region in November 2011, US President Barack Obama’s rhetoric was laden with bellicose statements towards China, citing the latter as a military threat to the hemisphere that the United States was ready to confront. Obama’s aggressive rhetoric towards Beijing should have been widely seen as unprecedented and unacceptable. But from a reading of the Western mainstream media, the warmongering by the US president was somehow made into normal, reasonable discourse.
This spawning militarism is rationalized with a variety of seemingly palatable pretexts: securing the world against "Islamic terrorism", as in Afghanistan; securing the world against "weapons of mass destruction", as in Saddam’s Iraq and currently Iran; defending human rights, as in Libya; humanitarian intervention, as in Somalia; and protecting small nations, as in confronting China on behalf of Southeast Asian states, or constructing a Ballistic Missile Defense system along the Eastern European borders of Russia. And again, the Western mainstream media plays a huge role in rationalizing the irrational, normalizing the abnormal, justifying the unjustifiable – akin to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.
We may accept these pretexts at face value and attempt to “normalize” a world of seemingly chaotic conflicts, as the Western mainstream media would have us. Or we can choose to see the world as it really is, that is, one where such wars and war-making are correctly understood as abominations of international law and human relations.
It is our objective in this Interactive Reader to help citizens free themselves from the indoctrinated doublethink of “wars as normal”. In a global survey, we will show that the US and its allies are fulfilling an agenda of “full spectrum dominance” in which no nation deemed to be obstructing that agenda for domination by the US and its allies is tolerated, and is in fact made a target for war.
Who Wants War With Iran?
Appearing alongside CIA Director David Petraeus before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said of Iran: “We don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”
Before the hearing, as James Fallows of The Atlantic reports, Clapper released his “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” It read, “We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
Clapper thus reaffirmed the assessment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, that the U.S. does not believe that Iran has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state.
In December, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran went all out, it might be able to build a nuclear weapon in a year, Pentagon spokesman George Little hastily clarified his comments: “The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Who, then, does want war? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
From their actions, it would appear not. If Iran wanted war with the United States, any terror attack inside this country or on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring that about in an afternoon.
Before the hearing, as James Fallows of The Atlantic reports, Clapper released his “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” It read, “We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
Clapper thus reaffirmed the assessment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, that the U.S. does not believe that Iran has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state.
In December, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran went all out, it might be able to build a nuclear weapon in a year, Pentagon spokesman George Little hastily clarified his comments: “The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Who, then, does want war? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
From their actions, it would appear not. If Iran wanted war with the United States, any terror attack inside this country or on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring that about in an afternoon.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Bush Knew Bin Laden Murdered in 2001
Bin Laden died of kidney disease, being forced to leave his dialysis machine behind when American troops came to his home to kill him. As a response, bin Laden did an interview with Al Jazeera denying any involvement with 9/11 and suggesting America look elsewhere.
This is from the official CIA transcript of Osama bin Laden’s last public statement:
■“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”
■“They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia.”
■“Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.”
■“Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 180) agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.”
■“Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.”
■“President Bush or any other US President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.”
This is from the official CIA transcript of Osama bin Laden’s last public statement:
■“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”
■“They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia.”
■“Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.”
■“Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 180) agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.”
■“Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.”
■“President Bush or any other US President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.”
AIPAC Obtained Missile Secrets
Author Norman F. Dacey made powerful enemies. He turned the cozy estate-planning industry upside-down after publishing How to Avoid Probate in 1965. The book sold 2 million copies as Dacey barnstormed [.pdf] the country advising Americans how to structure their estates to avoid the costs, delays, and publicity of probate by setting up trusts. Dacey engaged in fierce battles with various bar associations who tried to shut down publication of the book by claiming he was practicing law without a license. The tenacious Dacey returned fire, filing scores of libel and First Amendment lawsuits.
Newly declassified U.S. State Department documents reveal a lesser-known but equally intense battle fought by Dacey. The chairman of the American Palestine Committee and close confidant of “Rabbi Outcast” Elmer Berger nearly succeeded in having American Israel Public Affairs (AIPAC) Director Morris Amitay prosecuted for trafficking classified national defense information in the mid-1970s.
In 1975, the Ford administration attempted to sell improved Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Jordan and duly sent notification containing classified Department of Defense data to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee. AIPAC Director Morris Amitay reviewed the classified document after being informed of its existence “secretly by aides of Senator Clifford P. Case, Republican of New Jersey, and Representative Jonathan B. Bingham, Democrat of New York” according to the New York Times. Amitay and AIPAC quickly mounted a massive campaign in opposition to the missile sale, telling constituent public pressure groups that the weapons were capable of “providing cover for offensive operations against Israel.” After delays, Jordan considered acquiring a similar system from the Soviet Union.
Dacey was outraged. He dashed off a March 30, 1976, letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Adolph Dubs inquiring, “Did you initiate action to discover the identity of the individual(s) responsible for the violation and to institute appropriate action to punish the violator?” On April 29, the State Department forwarded Dacey’s letter to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, but attempted to downplay the affair by claiming that “A notice of sale is normally not considered by the Department of Defense to require classification and protection…. I would appreciate any comments you could offer on the issues presented by the letter….” On May 19, the State Department seemed to try to extricate itself from the scandal, telling Dacey “we consulted with the Justice Department informally after receipt of your first letter and, at their request, transmitted it to them for further consideration. The matter is still under review in the Justice Department, which expects to provide you with a direct response in the near future.”
While the Department of Justice may now have earned a reputation as the place where warranted prosecutions of AIPAC go to die, there is little evidence Israel’s lobby has similarly captured the pool of D.C. Appeals Court judges. The ghost of Norman Dacey — bane of American bar associations nationwide — may yet prevail.
Newly declassified U.S. State Department documents reveal a lesser-known but equally intense battle fought by Dacey. The chairman of the American Palestine Committee and close confidant of “Rabbi Outcast” Elmer Berger nearly succeeded in having American Israel Public Affairs (AIPAC) Director Morris Amitay prosecuted for trafficking classified national defense information in the mid-1970s.
In 1975, the Ford administration attempted to sell improved Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Jordan and duly sent notification containing classified Department of Defense data to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee. AIPAC Director Morris Amitay reviewed the classified document after being informed of its existence “secretly by aides of Senator Clifford P. Case, Republican of New Jersey, and Representative Jonathan B. Bingham, Democrat of New York” according to the New York Times. Amitay and AIPAC quickly mounted a massive campaign in opposition to the missile sale, telling constituent public pressure groups that the weapons were capable of “providing cover for offensive operations against Israel.” After delays, Jordan considered acquiring a similar system from the Soviet Union.
Dacey was outraged. He dashed off a March 30, 1976, letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Adolph Dubs inquiring, “Did you initiate action to discover the identity of the individual(s) responsible for the violation and to institute appropriate action to punish the violator?” On April 29, the State Department forwarded Dacey’s letter to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, but attempted to downplay the affair by claiming that “A notice of sale is normally not considered by the Department of Defense to require classification and protection…. I would appreciate any comments you could offer on the issues presented by the letter….” On May 19, the State Department seemed to try to extricate itself from the scandal, telling Dacey “we consulted with the Justice Department informally after receipt of your first letter and, at their request, transmitted it to them for further consideration. The matter is still under review in the Justice Department, which expects to provide you with a direct response in the near future.”
While the Department of Justice may now have earned a reputation as the place where warranted prosecutions of AIPAC go to die, there is little evidence Israel’s lobby has similarly captured the pool of D.C. Appeals Court judges. The ghost of Norman Dacey — bane of American bar associations nationwide — may yet prevail.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
WHY WE SHOULD FEAR ZIONISM MORE THAN ISLAM
Thousands of years ago, when Ishmael, the half-breed father of the Arabs, was born to Abraham, God's angel prophesied of him and his posterity: “He will be a wild donkey of a man. His hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him; and he will live to the east of all his brothers.” (Gen.16:12) Time has proven the accuracy of that prediction. The Muslim faith, birthed in sword and conquest, has resulted in a far-flung eastern empire, largely alienated from the rest of humanity. Always weakened by vendettas and dissensions, Arabs have shown themselves as disorganized as Jews are organized. And now, with Jews controlling most of the major newspapers we read in the morning and the evening news we watch at night, it is incredibly easy for Zionist media moguls to create in Islam the caricature of an enemy surpassing all others. How easily are Christians deceived!
It's happened before. In the Middle Ages, rumors came to Europe from Palestine that Muslims were performing indignities against Christians and forbidding them to visit Christian holy places. A great cry erupted in Christian Europe to rally for battle against Islam. “It is the will of God!” resounded throughout Western Europe as every able-bodied man left family, farm, and business to embark on a “holy crusade" to make the Mideast safe for Christianity. Like lemmings, millions went, including children. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years and about one and a half million people died. Eventually, Palestine reverted to Moslem control.
Déjà vu? Today, a similar alarm is going up that “Islamo-Fascism” is the great Satan that civilization should unite against. The Jewish media fans this flame to white-hot intensity, encouraging evangelicals and Christian-based nations that more and yet more must be done in the Mideast to pursue and subdue this Moslem bogey, even into Iran. Yet in the end, the result will be the same as followed our attempt to eradicate Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction.” Disillusionment. Death. Defeat. Thousands more body bags shipped home.
The crusaders got their priorities all mixed up, as Christians today have. It's because we follow Jewish media and fanatics like John Hagee.
Can we learn from history and not repeat its mistakes? It’s going to be very difficult because our greatest threat to national security does not exist in the distant alleys of Baghdad and barren sands of Iraq. Rather it is rolled up in black and white on our doormat every morning and stares us in the face before we go to bed.
It's happened before. In the Middle Ages, rumors came to Europe from Palestine that Muslims were performing indignities against Christians and forbidding them to visit Christian holy places. A great cry erupted in Christian Europe to rally for battle against Islam. “It is the will of God!” resounded throughout Western Europe as every able-bodied man left family, farm, and business to embark on a “holy crusade" to make the Mideast safe for Christianity. Like lemmings, millions went, including children. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years and about one and a half million people died. Eventually, Palestine reverted to Moslem control.
Déjà vu? Today, a similar alarm is going up that “Islamo-Fascism” is the great Satan that civilization should unite against. The Jewish media fans this flame to white-hot intensity, encouraging evangelicals and Christian-based nations that more and yet more must be done in the Mideast to pursue and subdue this Moslem bogey, even into Iran. Yet in the end, the result will be the same as followed our attempt to eradicate Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction.” Disillusionment. Death. Defeat. Thousands more body bags shipped home.
The crusaders got their priorities all mixed up, as Christians today have. It's because we follow Jewish media and fanatics like John Hagee.
Can we learn from history and not repeat its mistakes? It’s going to be very difficult because our greatest threat to national security does not exist in the distant alleys of Baghdad and barren sands of Iraq. Rather it is rolled up in black and white on our doormat every morning and stares us in the face before we go to bed.
How Hollywood Spreads Propaganda
Iran seems to many observers to be next in line for the Iraqi freedom treatment, the latest in a long line of “enemy” nations menaced by overt and covert military threats by the United States and its allies.
As the psyops operations and media propaganda intensifies, you might think war is imminent and that Iran is doing what countries under threat do in these circumstances, such as mobilizing their people and preparing for a bombing onslaught.
Think again. While I have been told that military targets have been or are being moved around, the atmosphere in Tehran is relaxed with more talk of a cultural battlefield than a military one. There’s a commemoration under way of the 33rd anniversary of the Iranian revolution and an international conference on “Hollywoodism and Cinema” as an extension of an annual Fajr film festival
And that’s what I am doing here, as a guest participant in an event that sees Hollywood as a bigger enemy than the Pentagon. It has become for them an “ism” and is the subject of discussions over its global role in shaping positive attitudes towards what passes for American “civilization,” its relationship to the awakenings and uprisings throughout the world – Iran’s Press TV probably devotes more coverage to Occupy Wall Street than any TV channel – and Hollywood’s alleged support for Zionism and Israel, a country that’s only cited here as “the Zionist Regime.”
Israel, in turn, is even more hostile seeing Iran as an “existential threat.” Sometimes it looks like both countries – both under the influence of religious fanaticism – need a stereotyped enemy to rally their own populations. It is Israel that is banging the drums loudest for war.
As the psyops operations and media propaganda intensifies, you might think war is imminent and that Iran is doing what countries under threat do in these circumstances, such as mobilizing their people and preparing for a bombing onslaught.
Think again. While I have been told that military targets have been or are being moved around, the atmosphere in Tehran is relaxed with more talk of a cultural battlefield than a military one. There’s a commemoration under way of the 33rd anniversary of the Iranian revolution and an international conference on “Hollywoodism and Cinema” as an extension of an annual Fajr film festival
And that’s what I am doing here, as a guest participant in an event that sees Hollywood as a bigger enemy than the Pentagon. It has become for them an “ism” and is the subject of discussions over its global role in shaping positive attitudes towards what passes for American “civilization,” its relationship to the awakenings and uprisings throughout the world – Iran’s Press TV probably devotes more coverage to Occupy Wall Street than any TV channel – and Hollywood’s alleged support for Zionism and Israel, a country that’s only cited here as “the Zionist Regime.”
Israel, in turn, is even more hostile seeing Iran as an “existential threat.” Sometimes it looks like both countries – both under the influence of religious fanaticism – need a stereotyped enemy to rally their own populations. It is Israel that is banging the drums loudest for war.
5 Wars That America Must End for Peace and Freedom to Prevail
Here are five wars that must end for peace and freedom to prevail:
Overseas Wars: The imperialistic wars in the oil-rich Arab world are clearly a failure in ideas, morality, and resource allocation. Even if the lies that led us there, and the lies that keep us there, were true, they'd still be flimsy reasons to excuse the countless tragedies involved, not least being the cost in American blood and treasure. The Orwellian nature of perpetual war is a technique that is used by global managers to ensure that even countries like the U.S. that are not experiencing direct confrontation are under a continued threat of economic destabilization and the spread of physical conflict onto their soil.
War on Terror: The War on Terror has been nothing more than a War on Freedom. Americans have lost precious rights to the war on terror, most notably from the USA PATRIOT Act and the recently-passed NDAA.
War on Drugs: The war on drugs benefits a load of special interests but accomplishes nothing; it only damages society. First, the government has no responsibility or authority to govern the private property of our bodies and minds. So, the war itself is an affront to everyone's natural rights, especially noticeable now as the war on drugs expands to food and natural health. Second, when there is demand for something, there will always be a supply no matter how many walls are built and guns are pointed.
Cyber War: The cyber war is really an information war (which we clearly engage in). There is no real threat in the cyber war except from those that benefit from the consolidation of power. Potential hackers are not worth a bloated budget for an army of cyber spies and soldiers when those resources could clearly be used to firewall any sensitive networks against attack.
Class War: A class war has been unofficially waged for over a century. It is a war that has taken away an individual's ability to provide a comfortable living for himself through price inflation of goods and services combined with stagnating wages, stiff regulations as barriers to starting a business, and penalizing production with heavy taxes that pay for this war against us.
Overseas Wars: The imperialistic wars in the oil-rich Arab world are clearly a failure in ideas, morality, and resource allocation. Even if the lies that led us there, and the lies that keep us there, were true, they'd still be flimsy reasons to excuse the countless tragedies involved, not least being the cost in American blood and treasure. The Orwellian nature of perpetual war is a technique that is used by global managers to ensure that even countries like the U.S. that are not experiencing direct confrontation are under a continued threat of economic destabilization and the spread of physical conflict onto their soil.
War on Terror: The War on Terror has been nothing more than a War on Freedom. Americans have lost precious rights to the war on terror, most notably from the USA PATRIOT Act and the recently-passed NDAA.
War on Drugs: The war on drugs benefits a load of special interests but accomplishes nothing; it only damages society. First, the government has no responsibility or authority to govern the private property of our bodies and minds. So, the war itself is an affront to everyone's natural rights, especially noticeable now as the war on drugs expands to food and natural health. Second, when there is demand for something, there will always be a supply no matter how many walls are built and guns are pointed.
Cyber War: The cyber war is really an information war (which we clearly engage in). There is no real threat in the cyber war except from those that benefit from the consolidation of power. Potential hackers are not worth a bloated budget for an army of cyber spies and soldiers when those resources could clearly be used to firewall any sensitive networks against attack.
Class War: A class war has been unofficially waged for over a century. It is a war that has taken away an individual's ability to provide a comfortable living for himself through price inflation of goods and services combined with stagnating wages, stiff regulations as barriers to starting a business, and penalizing production with heavy taxes that pay for this war against us.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)