Revolutionizing Awareness

helping humanity, make choices, more so through awareness, than ignorance

Posts Tagged ‘osama bin laden’

The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER

Posted by Admin on December 20, 2011

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28254

by Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham

Global Research, December 18, 2011

Note to Readers: Remember to bookmark this page for future reference.
Please Forward the E-Reader far and wide. Post it on Facebook.

[scroll down for E-Reader’s Table of Contents]

GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER No.  2


The Globalization of War

The “Military Roadmap” to World War III 

Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham (Editors)

December 2011

INTRODUCTION

[scroll down for Reader’s Table of Contents]

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II. The broader objective of global military dominance in support of an imperial project was first formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War.

In September 1990, some five weeks after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, US President and Commander in Chief George Herbert Walker Bush delivered a historical address to a joint session of the US Congress and the Senate in which he proclaimed a New World Order emerging from the rubble of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union.

Bush Senior had envisaged a world of “peaceful international co-operation”, one which was no longer locked into the confrontation between competing super powers, under the shadow of the doctrine of  “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) which had characterized the Cold War era.

George H Walker Bush addressed a Joint Session
of the US Congress and the Senate, September 1990

Bush declared emphatically at the outset of what became known as “the post-Cold War era” that:

“a new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times… a new world order can emerge: A new era freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.”

Of course, speeches by American presidents are often occasions for cynical platitudes and contradictions that should not be taken at face value. After all, President Bush was holding forth on international law and justice only months after his country had invaded Panama in December 1989 causing the deaths of several thousand citizens – committing crimes comparable to what Saddam Hussein would be accused of and supposedly held to account for. Also in 1991, the US and its NATO allies went on to unleash, under a “humanitarian” mantle, a protracted war against Yugoslavia, leading to the destruction, fragmentation and impoverishment of an entire country.

Nevertheless, it is instructive to use Bush Senior’s slanted vision of a “New World Order” as a reference point for how dramatically the world has changed in the intervening 20 years of the so-called post-Cold War era, and in particular how unilaterally degenerate the contemporary international conduct of the US has become under the Clinton, G. W. Bush Junior and Obama administrations.

Bush Senior’s “promise” of world peace has opened up, in the wake of the Cold War, an age of continuous warfare accompanied by a process of economic dislocation, social devastation and environmental degradation.

In a bitter irony, this concept of peaceful international co-operation and partnership was used as a pretext to unleash The Gulf War, which consisted in  “defending the sovereignty” of Kuwait and “upholding international law” following the Iraqi 1990 invasion.

Global Warfare

We are dealing with a global military agenda, namely “Global Warfare”. Far from a world of peaceful cooperation, we are living in a dystopian world of permanent wars – wars that are being waged in flagrant contravention of international law and against public opinion and interest.

Far from a “new era more secure in the quest for peace” we may see a world more akin to George Orwell’s 1984, dominated by perpetual conflict, insecurity, authoritarian surveillance, doublethink and public mind control.

A problem for many citizens is that “doublethink and mind control” have become so deeply embedded and disseminated by the mass media, including the so-called quality free press, such as The New York Times and The Guardian.

The Post 9/11 Era: America’s Doctrine of Pre-emptive Warfare

Allegedly sponsored by Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon played a central role in molding public opinion.  One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. The “outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is “threatening America”.

Pre-emptive war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down: America is under attack.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.

“The Outside Enemy” Osama bin Laden, portrayed by the mainstream
media

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the “Islamic brigades”. Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and “kill the evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program “to go after” these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Instead of “war” or “state terrorism”, we are told of “humanitarian intervention” directed against “terrorists”.

Instead of “offence”, we are told of “defense” or “protection”.

Instead of “mass murder” we are told of “collateral damage”.

A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.”

Breaking the “Big Lie” which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Spawning Militarism: “War is Normal”

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 dynamic for globalized war has deep historical roots in the imperialism of capitalist governments. Rivalry for the raw materials of capitalist economies and geopolitical control were at the root of World Wars I and II – See the essays by Jacques Pauwels on the role of corporate America in supporting both Britain  and Nazi Germany. The same impetus lay behind countless invasions and proxy wars in Latin America, Asia and Africa by the US since World War II under the guise of “defending the free world from the Evil Soviet empire”.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union as a countervailing power, the US and its allies have become uninhibited over the past two decades to “go it alone” to assert imperial dominance. This dynamic has only been reinforced by the economic exhaustion of the capitalist powers since the onset of the financial crisis of 2008. Indeed, the rise of militarism can be seen as a compensatory corollary of their economic demise – a demise that is structural and deeply protracted beyond anything that may be deemed as the usual “end of business cycle”. We are perhaps witnessing an historic collapse in the capitalist system far greater in scope than the Great Depression. And with that, disturbingly, the rise of militarism takes on a much greater significance.

Crucial to the global control of resources are the raw materials of energy: oil and gas. Whether it is wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, or confrontation with Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, the fundamental point of contention is control over this lifeblood of the capitalist economy. All other espoused pretexts are mere window dressing, regardless of what the mainstream media would have us believe.

World War III Scenario

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran – which has the world’s third largest known reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq – has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005.

If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East/Central Asia region would be drawn into a conflagration. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III scenario.

Incredibly, the very real danger of World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans. The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or as “surgical” punitive bombings against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “global security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention”
Mandate defined in an ICISS report on R2P

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program. Moreover, 21st Century military technology combines an array of sophisticated weapons systems whose destructive power would overshadow the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget, the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.

Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: “[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” Like a cancer, the US war unleashed in 2003 on Iraq is mutating into a global disease.

While  The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets hailed 15 December 2011 as marking the “official” end of the nearly nine-year US war in Iraq, in reality that devastated country will remain an American war theater for the foreseeable future. Pentagon military advisers and contractors will continue to reside there and the people of Iraq will for generations be left with a legacy of US-imposed conflict and barbarity. The Pentagon’s “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq may have subsided, but its repercussions and criminal precedents are still very much extant, not only in Iraq but in the wider region and, increasingly, globally.

The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon’s agenda, was predicated on “waging a war without borders”. The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”.

This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his White House predecessor, George Bush Junior, who has recently been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for “Crimes against the Peace”.

This continuum of military agenda testifies to the fact that the two governing parties in the US, Democrat and Republican, are but two sides of a centrally planned military-industrial complex that is impregnable to the opinions, desires and interests of the American electorate.

Military Escalation and Preview of this Book

Contrary to the myth of “the good war”, we show in this Interactive Reader that the US entry into World War II was a deliberate strategy for self-serving imperialist gains. While the men and women who fought that war may have had moral convictions, the planners in Washington were operating on calculations of geopolitical control that had little to do with morals or legal principles – see the essays by Jacques Pauwels. The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the US in August 1945, obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians, was an act of heinous barbarity that reflected the callousness of America’s imperial design. The nuclear holocaust also set the nefarious parameters of the subsequent Cold War that gripped the world for nearly five decades following World War II. Essays by Brian Willson, Alfred McCoy and Michel Chossudovsky illustrate how the Pentagon’s genocidal wars in Asia were a continuation of America’s imperialist design – albeit under the cover of the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima mushroom cloud. By executive order of President
Harry S. Truman, the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb “Little Boy”
on Hiroshima, Monday, August 6, 1945

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

Survivors: August 1945. In the wake of Hiroshima

The fall of the Soviet Union may have brought an end to the Cold War, but soon the US would find new pretexts for waging war on the world and asserting hegemony on behalf of its capitalist allies. These new pretexts included “upholding international law” as in the First Gulf War against Iraq that Bush Senior embarked on in 1990, presaging the Second Gulf War that Bush Junior would reprise in 2003. And the US planners innovated the “humanitarian” pretext for the invasion of Somalia in 1991 and NATO’s war on Yugoslavia – see the essay by Sean Gervasi among others. In many ways, the “humanitarian war” in Yugoslavia served as the prototype for NATO’s 2011 military attack on Libya and what appears to be an imminent onslaught against Syria – see essays by Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.

To the Pentagon’s silo of propaganda justifying “wars without borders” we have the additional pretexts of  the “global war on terrorism”  and “pre-emptive strikes against weapons of mass destruction”. Fittingly, as Washington’s wars multiply, so too it seems have the phony pretexts for these wars, as the essays on Iraq and Afghanistan by Felicity Arbuthnot and Jack Smith reveal.

Permanent Belligerence: The Globalization of War

In Part VII, which also serves as the title of this Online Interactive E-Reader, The Globalization of War, we show how American-led imperialism has evolved from bloody bouts of episodic militarism over several decades to the present day state of permanent belligerence, with wars or war-making stretching from North and East Africa into the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond to Eurasia (Russia), the Far East (China) and Arctic (Russia again) – See the essays by James Petras, Rick Rozoff,  Peter Dale Scott, F. William Engdahl, Finian Cunningham, the interview with Fidel Castro, Michel Chossudovsky and Jules Dufour.

Of most immediate concern are the ongoing American-led war plans within the broader Middle East/Central Asian region involving coordinated actions against Iran, Syria and Pakistan – see essays by Michel Chossudovsky, Tom Burghardt, Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Nazemroaya.

Were these war plans to be carried out, this would lead to an extended regional war theater. The three existing and distinct war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) would merge into a broad regional war extending from the Lebanese-Syrian East Mediterranean coastline to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Western China. Israel, Lebanon and Turkey would be engulfed in a conflict that would herald World War III.   

Building an Effective Antiwar Movement

Meanwhile, the antiwar movement is in crisis: civil society organizations are misinformed, manipulated or co-opted. A large segment of “progressive” opinion is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.

There is an urgent need to rebuild the antiwar movement on entirely new premises.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.

Challenging and defeating the US/NATO global war agenda is profoundly predicated on the mass of people in Western countries asserting democratic governance and the genuine “rule of the people”. It will involve the mass of people breaking out of the two-party charade that hitherto passes for “democracy” – not only in the US but also in other Western states ­– to form new political organizations that truly represent the needs and interests of the majority of people. War-making, as with servile abeyance to corporate and financial elites, is endemic to the dominant political parties. It must be realized that voting for these same parties has become futile as a means to effect democratic change.

One practical way forward is for citizens to empower themselves legally. It should be understood that whatever its justification, war is a “Crime against the Peace” under Nuremberg. George Walker Bush and former British Prime Minister Anthony L. Blair have been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for waging a criminal war of aggression against Iraq. They are war criminals and citizens’ initiatives that are growing across the world for the arraignment of Bush and Blair are one practical step towards mobilizing a popular challenge to the war system.

War crimes, however, are not limited to the former US president and British prime minister. There are “New War Criminals on the Block“. They include the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, among others. The acting heads of state and heads of government who support US-NATO-Israel wars of aggression are also war criminals under international law. This proposition, which consists in unseating the war criminals in high office, is central to the waging of an effective antiwar movement.

It is also our intention to show citizens that the root cause of war lies in the prevailing, but failing, global capitalist economic system – the very system that is not only destroying lives in foreign countries but which is destroying the material and moral foundations of Western society.

We hope that this Interactive Reader, The Globalisation of War, will empower citizens to mount an all-encompassing social movement against this diabolical military agenda and for the establishment of real democracy.

Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham, December 2011

In the face of blatant media disinformation, a “Re-Learning Process” must be launched.

It is our hope that the Interactive Reader Series will become a useful tool for high school, college and university students.

=====================================================================================================================================================

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I.  THE HISTORY OF WAR: FROM WORLD WAR II TO THE COLD WAR ERA

– by Jacques R. Pauwels – 2011-12-11
65 years ago, August 6 and 9, 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
– by Jacques R. Pauwels – 2010-08-06

The unspoken objective of the atomic bomb was US Hegemony in Asia and the Pacific

 

– by Brian S. Willson – 2006-10-12
“Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population [of North Korea]” (General Curtis Lemay)

– by Prof. Alfred W. McCoy – 2010-04-18
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2005-04-26

Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

 

PART II. NATO’S WAR IN THE BALKANS

– by Sean Gervasi – 2010-09-12
The late Sean Gervasi had tremendous foresight. He understood NATO enlargement several years before it actually unfolded into a formidable military force.
NATO’s Reign of Terror in Kosovo

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-02-25
State Terrorism in Kosovo is an integral part of NATO’s design
NATO’s Kosovo War, 11 Years Later

– by James Bissett – 2010-03-24

PART III.  THE POST 9/11 ERA: AMERICA’S “WAR ON TERRORISM”

Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-01-20
Ironically, Al Qaeda –the “outside enemy of America”– is a creation of the CIA.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush’s National Security Doctrine

“Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the “Big Lie”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-07-12
9/11 Paved the Way for America’s Permanent Wars of Aggression

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-09-11

PART IV. IRAQ AND THE AF-PAK WARS

America’s Endless Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

– by Jack A. Smith – 2011-10-25
The illusion of military success…
US Afghan Strategy: Senseless and Merciless

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-07-22
U.S. And NATO Escalate World’s Deadliest War On Both Sides Of Afghan-Pakistani Border

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-03-01
Drone missile attacks conducted by the CIA killed in the neighborhood of 1,000 people in Pakistan last year
The War on Iraq : Five US Presidents, Five British Prime Ministers, Thirty Years of Duplicity, and Counting….

– by Felicity Arbuthnot – 2010-08-06
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He had walked into possibly the biggest trap in modern history
US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-04-17

PART V. THE CONQUEST OF AFRICA

America’s War in the Horn of Africa: “Drone Alley” – a Harbinger of Western Power across the African Continent

US Military Confirms Washington’s Secret New War in Somalia Despite Official Denials
– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-10-29
US Military Confirms Washington’s Secret New War in Somalia Despite Official Denials
Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”

Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-10-11
“An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.”

PART VI. US NATO-ISRAELI THREATS: PRE-EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST IRAN AND SYRIA 

World War III: The Launching of a Preemptive Nuclear War against Iran

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-12-04
World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
U.S. Arms Persian Gulf Allies For Conflict With Iran

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-11-18
THE CLOCK IS TICKING: “Shadow War” Heating Up. War With Iran: A Provocation Away?

– by Tom Burghardt – 2011-12-05
Amid conflicting reports that a huge explosion at Iran’s uranium conversion facility in Isfahan occurred last week, speculation was rife that Israel and the US were stepping-up covert attacks against defense and nuclear installations
Using Fake Intelligence to Justify War on Iran

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-11-09
Iran: “Regime Change” or All Out War?

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-06-
America’s Next War Theater: Syria and Lebanon?

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-06-10

PART VII. THE GLOBALIZATION OF WAR

Obama Raises the Military Stakes: Confrontation on the Borders with China and Russia

– by Prof. James Petras – 2011-12-10
Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world’s second largest economy and the US’s most important creditor, and Russia, the European Union’s principle oil and gas provider and the world’s second most powerful nuclear weapons power.
Conversations with Fidel Castro: The Dangers of a Nuclear War

– by Fidel Castro Ruz, Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-11-13
If a war breaks out in Iran, it will inevitably become a nuclear war and a global war.
The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War

– by Prof. Peter Dale Scott – 2009-08-11
The provision of private entrepreneurial violence and intelligence
Why Moscow does not Trust Washington on Missile Defense. Towards a Pre-emptive Nuclear War?

– by F. William Engdahl – 2011-12-02
Most in the civilized world are blissfully unaware that we are marching ineluctably towards an increasingly likely pre-emptive nuclear war…
“War Without Borders”: Washington Intensifies Push Into Central Asia

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-01-30
The U.S. and NATO have over 150,000 troops planted directly south of three Central Asian nations.
Asia-Pacific: US Ramps Up Global War Agenda

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-11-17
China’s “military advances” are prompting US concerns…Washington is the one beating the war drums.
North American Integration and the Militarization of the Arctic

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-08-20
The Battle for the Arctic is part of a global military agenda of conquest and territorial control, a New Cold War between Russia and America.
Review Article: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel
– by Prof. Jules Dufour – 2007-07-01
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

About the Editors

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca  website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia and Latin America, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Finian Cunningham is currently Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent. He has written extensively on international affairs. Previously, he was based in Bahrain and witnessed the upheavals in the Persian Gulf kingdom during 2011 as well as the subsequent Saudi-led brutal crackdown against pro-democracy protests. He is now based in East Africa.


This Online Interactive E-Reader is made available to Global Research readers with a view to curbing the flow of media disinformation and war propaganda.

Our ultimate objective is to reverse the tide of war and restore World peace.

Please consider making a donation to Global Research.

TO DONATE CLICK HERE


THE GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER SERIES



Libya and “The Arab Spring”: Neoliberalism, “Regime Change” and NATO’s “Humanitarian Wars”

ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER
– by Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-12-25

Forthcoming

The War on Iraq
ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER 3
January 2012


GLOBAL RESEARCH E-BOOK SERIES  (PDF)

Order directly from Global Research (click title for details)

NEW RELEASE: GLOBAL RESEARCH E-BOOK
Towards a World War III Scenario

by Michel Chossudovsky

Advertisements

Posted in Economic Upheavals, Geo-Politics, Global Research, War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER

Pakistan and “The Haqqani Network” : The Latest Orchestrated Threat to America and The End of History

Posted by Admin on September 30, 2011

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26797

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, September 27, 2011
– 2011-09-26

Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war–Pakistan.

President Obama’s claim that he had Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden exterminated deflated the threat from that long-serving bogyman. A terror organization that left its leader, unarmed and undefended, a sitting duck for assassination no longer seemed formidable. Time for a new, more threatening, bogyman, the pursuit of which will keep the “war on terror” going.

Now America’s “worst enemy” is the Haqqanis. Moreover, unlike Al Qaeda, which was never tied to a country, the Haqqani Network, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a “veritable arm” of the Pakistani government’s intelligence service, ISI. Washington claims that the ISI ordered its Haggani Network to attack the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 13 along with the US military base in Wadak province.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services committee and one of the main Republican warmongers, declared that “all options are on the table” and gave the Pentagon his assurance that in Congress there was broad bipartisan support for a US military attack on Pakistan.

As Washington has been killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians with drones and has forced the Pakistani army to hunt for Al Qaeda throughout most of Pakistan, producing tens of thousands or more of dislocated Pakistanis in the process, Sen. Graham must have something larger in mind.

The Pakistani government thinks so, too. The Pakistani prime minister,Yousuf Raza Gilani, called his foreign minister home from talks in Washington and ordered an emergency meeting of the government to assess the prospect of an American invasion.

Meanwhile, Washington is rounding up additional reasons to add to the new threat from the Haqqanis to justify making war on Pakistan: Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable and the nukes could fall into the wrong hands; the US can’t win in Afghanistan until it has eliminated sanctuaries in Pakistan; blah-blah.

Washington has been trying to bully Pakistan into launching a military operation against its own people in North Waziristan. Pakistan has good reasons for resisting this demand. Washington’s use of the new “Haqqani threat” as an invasion excuse could be Washington’s way of overcoming Pakistan’s resistance to attacking its North Waziristan provence, or it could be, as some Pakistani political leaders say, and the Pakistani government fears, a “drama” created by Washington to justify a military assault on yet another Muslim country.

Over the years of its servitude as an American puppet, the Pakistan government has brought this on itself. Pakistanis let the US purchase the Pakistan government, train and equip its military, and establish CIA interface with Pakistani intelligence. A government so dependent on Washington could say little when Washington began violating its sovereignty, sending in drones and special forces teams to kill alleged Al Qaeda, but usually women, children, and farmers. Unable to subdue after a decade a small number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, Washington has placed the blame for its military failure on Pakistan, just as Washington blamed the long drawn-out war on the Iraqi people on Iran’s alleged support for the Iraqi resistance to American occupation.

Some knowledgeable analysts’ about whom you will never hear in the “mainstream media,” say that the US military/security complex and their neoconservative whores are orchestrating World War III before Russia and China can get prepared. As a result of the communist oppression, a signifiant percentage of the Russian population is in the American orbit. These Russians trust Washington more than they trust Putin. The Chinese are too occupied dealing with the perils of rapid economic growth to prepare for war and are far behind the threat.

War, however, is the lifeblood of the profits of the military/security complex, and war is the chosen method of the neoconservatives for achieving their goal of American hegemony.

Pakistan borders China and former constituent parts of the Soviet Union in which the US now has military bases on Russia’s borders. US war upon and occupation of Pakistan is likely to awaken the somnolent Russians and Chinese. As both possess nuclear ICBMs, the outcome of the military/security complex’s greed for profits and the neoconservatives’ greed for empire could be the extinction of life on earth.

The patriots and super-patriots who fall in with the agendas of the military-security complex and the flag-waving neoconservatives are furthering the “end-times” outcome so fervently desired by the rapture evangelicals, who will waft up to heaven while the rest of us die on earth.

This is not President Reagan’s hoped for outcome from ending the cold war.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

Posted in Global Research | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pakistan and “The Haqqani Network” : The Latest Orchestrated Threat to America and The End of History

25 years later, how ‘Top Gun’ made America love war

Posted by Admin on September 30, 2011

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/25-years-later-how-%E2%80%98top-gun%E2%80%99-made-america-love-war/

By  | September 19th, 2011 | Category: Latest News | 102 comments

Here’s an interesting article from the Washington Post about the heavy influence of the Pentagon on the funding and production of Hollywood movies, making them a little more than propaganda disguised as entertainment.

Americansare souring on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military budget is under siege as Congress looks for spending to cut. And the Army is reporting record suicide rates among soldiers. So who does the Pentagon enlist for help in such painful circumstances?Hollywood.

In June, the Army negotiated a first-of-its-kind sponsorship deal with the producers of “X-Men: First Class,” backing it up with ads telling potential recruits that they could live out superhero fantasies on real-life battlefields. Then, in recent days, word leaked that the White House has been working with Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow on an election-year film chronicling the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

A country questioning its overall military posture, and a military establishment engaging in a counter-campaign for hearts and minds — if this feels like deja vu, that’s because it’s taking place on the 25th anniversary of the release of “Top Gun.”

That Jerry Bruckheimer blockbuster, made in collaboration with the Pentagon, came out in the mid-1980s, when polls showed many Americans expressing doubts about the post-Vietnam military and about the constant saber rattling from the White House. But the movie’s celebration of sweat-shined martial machismo generated $344 million at the box office and proved to be a major force in resuscitating the military’s image.

Not only did enlistment spike when “Top Gun” was released, and not only did the Navy set up recruitment tables at theaters playing the movie, but polls soon showed rising confidence in the military. With Ronald Reagan wrapping military adventurism in the flag, with the armed forces scoring low-risk but high-profile victories in Libya and Grenada, America fell in love with Maverick, Iceman and other high-fivin’ silver-screen super-pilots as they traveled Mach 2 while screaming about “the need for speed.”

Today, “Top Gun” lives on in cable reruns, in the American psyche and, most important, in how it turned the Hollywood-Pentagon relationship into a full-on Mav-Goose bromance that ideologically slants films from their inception.

The 1986 movie, starring Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis, was the template for a new Military-Entertainment Complex. During production, the Pentagon worked hand-in-hand with the filmmakers, reportedly charging Paramount Pictures just $1.8 million for the use of its warplanes and aircraft carriers. But that taxpayer-subsidized discount came at a price — the filmmakers were required to submit their script to Pentagon brass for meticulous line edits aimed at casting the military in the most positive light. (One example: Time magazine reported that Goose’s death was changed from a midair collision to an ejection scene, because “the Navy complained that too many pilots were crashing.”)

Although “Top Gun” was not the first movie to exchange creative input for Pentagon assistance and resources, its success set that bargain as a standard for other filmmakers, who began deluging the Pentagon with requests for collaboration. By the time the 1991 Persian Gulf War began, Phil Strub, the Pentagon’s liaison to the movie industry, told the Hollywood Reporter that he’d seen a 70 percent increase in the number of requests from filmmakers for assistance — effectively changing the way Hollywood works.

As Mace Neufeld, the producer of the 1990 film “The Hunt for Red October,” later recounted to Variety, studios in the post-“Top Gun” era instituted an unstated rule telling screenwriters and directors to get military cooperation “or forget about making the picture.” Economics drives that directive, Time magazine reported in 1986. “Without such billion-dollar props, producers [have to] spend an inordinate amount of time and money searching for substitutes” and therefore might not be able to make the movie at all, the magazine noted.

Emboldened by Hollywood’s obsequiousness, military officials became increasingly blunt about how they deploy the carrot of subsidized hardware and the stick of denied access to get what they want. Strub described the approval process to Variety in 1994: “The main criteria we use is . . . how could the proposed production benefit the military . . . could it help in recruiting [and] is it in sync with present policy?”

Robert Anderson, the Navy’s Hollywood point person, put it even more clearly to PBS in 2006: “If you want full cooperation from the Navy, we have a considerable amount of power, because it’s our ships, it’s our cooperation, and until the script is in a form that we can approve, then the production doesn’t go forward.”

The result is an entertainment culture rigged to produce relatively few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that glorify the military. For every “Hurt Locker” — a successful and critical war film made without Pentagon assistance — American moviegoers get a flood of pro-war agitprop, from “Armageddon,” to “Pearl Harbor,” to “Battle Los Angeles” to “X-Men.” And save for filmmakers’ obligatory thank you to the Pentagon in the credits, audiences are rarely aware that they may be watching government-subsidized propaganda.

Until this year, this Top Gun Effect seemed set in stone. But a quarter-century after that hagiographic tribute to the military’s “best of the best,” an odd alignment of partisan interests has prompted some in Congress to question the arrangement.

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, recently sent letters to the CIA and the Defense Department demanding an investigation of the upcoming Bin Laden movie. He criticized the practice of granting ideologically compliant filmmakers access to government property and information that he says should be available to all. The “alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history,” he argued.

Considering King’s previous silence on such issues, it’s not clear whether he’s standing on principle; more likely, he is trying to prevent a particular piece of propaganda from aiding a political opponent. Yet, even if inadvertent, King’s efforts make possible a broader look at how the U.S. government uses taxpayer resources to suffuse popular culture with militarism.

If and when King holds hearings on the matter, we could finally get to the important questions: Why does the Pentagon treat public hardware as private property? Why does the government grant and deny access to that hardware based on a filmmaker’s willingness to let the Pentagon influence the script? And doesn’t such a practice violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against government abridging freedom of speech?

Posted in Vigilant Citizen | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 25 years later, how ‘Top Gun’ made America love war

Nawaz biggest threat to Pakistan’s security: Zardari

Posted by Admin on July 2, 2011

Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan

Nawaz Shariff

http://in.news.yahoo.com/nawaz-biggest-threat-pakistans-security-zardari-052727314.html
By ANI | ANI – Wed, Jun 22, 2011

Islamabad, June 22(ANI): Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has asked Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif to refrain from “defaming the Pakistan Army and institutions of the country for his personal gains”.

Zardari said that the national institutions, including the army, were fighting against the mindset which had so far killed thousands of people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.Nawaz Sharif’s thought is the biggest threat to Pakistan’s security. His earnest regret is that this time army did not maneuver against the government of the day and refused to listen to his conspiracy theories,” the Daily Times quoted Zardari, as saying.

“He (Nawaz) wants the politics of General Zia-ul-Haq,” he added, claiming that the “mindset which took the life of Benazir Bhutto is on the retreat”.

He also called upon political forces to work for strengthening the country’s institutions and refrain from inciting clash of institutions.

“There is no single country in the world which survived or achieved progress after its institutions, including the army, were damaged. Do not speak against institutions. Do not talk about breaking them,” the President said.

Expressing concerns over the deteriorating law and order situation in the country, Sharif had earlier said that the country’s rulers and foreign agencies were behind the current imbroglio in Pakistan.

He said that corruption was in full swing in all departments, and that Zardari was following the policy of destruction. (ANI)

 

Comments

The Islamic nations are in a mess because of their rabid Islamic fundamentalistic attitudes and mindset.They pretend to be enemies of terror yet secretly provide shelter to the master of terrorists Osama Bin Laden and his followers.They are nothing but wolves in sheeps clothing.Their doom is on the horizon.If it wasnt for the Americans,British,Autralians,French,Canada,Japan and a host of other developing nations countries like Pakistan,Iran,Afghanistan,Turkey,Yemen,Iraq and other smaller Islamic nations would have lost their identity.They should thank the liberalized nations for their existance but on the contrary they turn around and bite the hand that has all along protected them .They are not altogether to blame —it is the violent culture and religious doctrine of hatred they follow .They are like horses in harness,with blinds over their eyes , iron bits in their mouths and reins in the hands of the Devil, who by the way, is steering them ruthlessly on the road that leads to the path of destruction.
When will realization dawn on the Islamic world .

 

A failed state, will destroy by itself.

As you sow, so shall U reap for Pakistan,

Only India Can save them, no body else can, others (West and China) and are using Pakistan for their selfish motive.

It is time to wake up for Paki and change their mind set towards his Great Nation.

 

Bhutto killed by Musharaff. Nawaz sent back by the same flight from his motherland by Musharaff. What is Zardari’s problem? He has got presidency served him on platter and he still complaining.

 

What is this yaar Zardari sahab?

Taliban waale inti mehnat karte hai. Building ko bomb se udaate hain, logon ko maarte hain aur saara credit Nawaz Sharif ko de rahe ho?

You are denying Taliban the credit of being Pakistan’s biggest threat, the same way the makers of 3 Idiots film denied writer Chetan Bhagat the credit of making 3 Idiots film a huge success.

Raju Hirani aur Vidhu Vinod Chopra se kuch seekho. They apologised to Chetan Bhagat and gave him credit. Now you should apologise to Taliban for making this statement and give them full credit of being Pakistan’s biggest threat.

 

Mr. Peer has very little idea of International politics and America.Pakistan is nearly bankrupt in it’s economy and it is declared as twelvth most failing nation in world clubbed with some African and Asian nations like Bangladesh, Bhutan., Nepal, sreelanka ,Afganistan and Iraq.If US stops giving AID to pakistan, it will be disaster for Pakistan.But biggest threat of Pakistan to my assesment is not from Nawaj but from ISI, different Islamic fundamentalist groups and policy of Pak Army showed by former general Jia ul Haq.They have to give up Dar-E- Islam mentality or else, how their own extremist groups are engaged in action sometimes with civilian population and with Army itself which helped this groups to be formed to punish India.Though entire world does not want to see Pakistan again devided into three /four states, I feel it is inivitable and none can stop it .Initiatives will be taken by their own people not by foreigners as it happened in East Pakistan and again their own policy will be held responsible for such divition.

 

Zardari is barking for his country at the expense of Nawas Sherif.Suddenly,he found out that Nawas is a big threat to Pakistan.He is mistaken.The present crop of leaders are self-centred,corrupt and made huge money,by corrupt means.Benazir also looted Pakistan like every one.Zardari made use of Banazir,made huge money,during her rule.[Probably,the loot by Karunanidhi and his family will be much more then the loot of Bhutto’s family]All these comedians-Nawas Sheriff,Zardari,Banazir,Musharaf etc were on the periphery of Pakistan Politics.the real power rests with the army and are calling the shots.Zardari stitched plenty of trousers after his unexpected victory in the last elections of Pakistan.He appears well-dressed for every body to see his trousers.He spends sometime in the presidential House and goes to sleep.Poor fellow!!He is not consulted on important matters of Pakistan.He manages his time like this.He is not to be blamed for this state of affairs.The Pakistan army should take responsibility for the plight of Zardari.He is a good material for Reymond advertisement for the well-dressed male.Waste fellows and a waste country!God save Pakistan!!

 

This comment is from an Indian.

There is no need to defend the army. They know to take care of themselves, whether you are with them or not. You can allow someone who has held the post of P.M. to say what he feels. If individual army officer cannot be held responsible or quoted or commented upon, the next best way is to say about the institution. Shutting the mouth of someone today, will come back to you soon.

Let your army be under the control of Civilian President. You are the President. Please be patient to praise the institution till they let you know what they propose to do with Nawaz. Now with your comment you have given them the legitimacy to eliminate him by proxy.

 

Zardari is in league with Geelani, Kayani and Pasha. They are only playing a big drama to siphon off the Aid coming from the west & US. They are using the terrorists to get more aid. At the same time they are trying to bring China into the AF_PAK theatre. China is very much interested since it wants the big share in the mineral wealth of the region. As such they cannot tolerate any one denigrating the President, PM, Army head trio. Of course even Nawaz is no better. he is just playing the card since he is not benifitting from the loot of Aid. The sufferers are the Pakistan people.
As for as India is concerned, the UPA’s hand shake policy is a fiasco. Inspite of knowing the crookedness of the Pak elite rulers and the turncoat president of Afghanistan they are going ahead with development plans in Afghanistan. It looks that the UPA is following the US dictats. The US will ditch us. They are even capable of teaming up with china to put us down.

 

Mr Zardai, I hope yoou are educated enough to understand that the people of Pakistan is not with you. You leave the hands of the US and its allies , which all the Pakistani people and the worlds Muslim population think as their enmy . Your 90% of the Problem will be solved. Do you not understand that your own army is not satisfied to work with US and its allies. Why you are exposing the rank and file of the army and the public in general to face the wrath of your discontented population. Please do nor try to deviate the attention of the mass to Nawaz Sharif or to that extent anybody else but introsepect. If not ,Pakistani people will not forgive you and your coterie.

Posted in Conspiracy Archives, Geo-Politics, India Forgotten | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nawaz biggest threat to Pakistan’s security: Zardari

There Is Much More to Say

Posted by Admin on May 24, 2011

Monday 23 May 2011

After the assassination of bin Laden I received such a deluge of requests for comment that I was unable to respond individually, and on May 4 and later I sent an unedited form response instead, not intending for it to be posted, and expecting to write it up more fully and carefully later on. But it was posted, then circulated. It can now be found, reposted, at http://www.zcommunications.org/my-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-s-death-by-noam-chomsky.

That was followed but a deluge of reactions from all over the world. It is far from a scientific sample of course, but nevertheless, the tendencies may be of some interest. Overwhelmingly, those from the “third world” were on the order of “thanks for saying what we think.”  There were similar ones from the US, but many others were infuriated, often virtually hysterical, with almost no relation to the actual content of the posted form letter. That was true in particular of the posted or published responses brought to my attention. I have received a few requests to comment on several of these. Frankly, it seems to me superfluous. If there is any interest, I’ll nevertheless find some time to do so.

The original letter ends with the comment that “There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.” Here I will fill in some of the gaps, leaving the original otherwise unchanged in all essentials.

Noam Chomsky

May 2011

On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was kil­led in his vir­tual­ly un­protec­ted com­pound by a raid­ing mis­s­ion of 79 Navy Seals, who en­tered Pakis­tan by helicopt­er. After many lurid sto­ries were pro­vided by the govern­ment and with­drawn, of­fici­al re­ports made it in­creasing­ly clear that the op­era­tion was a plan­ned as­sas­sina­tion, multi­p­ly violat­ing elemen­ta­ry norms of in­ter­nation­al law, be­ginn­ing with the in­vas­ion it­self.

There ap­pears to have been no at­tempt to apprehend the un­ar­med vic­tim, as pre­sumab­ly could have been done by 79 com­man­dos fac­ing no op­posi­tion – ex­cept, they re­port, from his wife, also un­ar­med, who they shot in self-defense when she “lun­ged” at them (ac­cord­ing to the White House).

A plausib­le re­construc­tion of the events is pro­vided by veteran Mid­dle East cor­res­pondent Yochi Dreaz­en and col­leagues in the At­lantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/goal-was-never-to-capture-bin-laden/238330/). Dreaz­en, for­mer­ly the milita­ry cor­res­pondent for the Wall Street Journ­al, is sen­ior cor­res­pondent for the Nation­al Journ­al Group co­ver­ing milita­ry af­fairs and nation­al secur­ity. Ac­cord­ing to their in­ves­tiga­tion, White House plann­ing ap­pears not to have con­sidered the opt­ion of cap­tur­ing OBL alive: “The ad­ministra­tion had made clear to the military’s clan­destine Joint Speci­al Op­era­tions Com­mand that it wan­ted bin Laden dead, ac­cord­ing to a sen­ior U.S. of­fici­al with know­ledge of the dis­cuss­ions. A high-ranking milita­ry of­fic­er briefed on the as­sault said the SEALs knew their mis­s­ion was not to take him alive.”

The aut­hors add: “For many at the Pen­tagon and the Centr­al In­tel­lig­ence Agen­cy who had spent near­ly a de­cade hunt­ing bin Laden, kill­ing the militant was a neces­sa­ry and just­ified act of ven­gean­ce.” Further­more, “Cap­tur­ing bin Laden alive would have also pre­sen­ted the ad­ministra­tion with an array of nettlesome legal and polit­ical chal­lenges.” Bet­t­er, then, to as­sas­sinate him, dump­ing his body into the sea with­out the auto­psy con­sidered es­senti­al after a kill­ing, wheth­er con­sidered just­ified or not – an act that pre­dic­tab­ly pro­voked both anger and skep­tic­ism in much of the Mus­lim world.

As the At­lantic in­qui­ry ob­ser­ves, “The de­cis­ion to kill bin Laden out­right was the clearest il­lustra­tion to date of a little-noticed as­pect of the Obama ad­ministration’s co­un­terter­ror poli­cy. The Bush ad­ministra­tion cap­tured thousands of sus­pec­ted militants and sent them to de­ten­tion camps in Afghanis­tan, Iraq, and Guan­tanamo Bay. The Obama ad­ministra­tion, by contra­st, has focused on eliminat­ing in­dividu­al ter­ror­ists rath­er than at­tempt­ing to take them alive.” That is one sig­nificant dif­fer­ence bet­ween Bush and Obama. The aut­hors quote form­er West Ger­man Chan­cellor Hel­mut Schmidt, who “told Ger­man TV that the U.S. raid was ‘quite clear­ly a viola­tion of in­ter­nation­al law’ and that bin Laden should have been de­tained and put on trial,” contra­st­ing Schmidt with US At­torney Gener­al Eric Hold­er, who “de­fen­ded the de­cis­ion to kill bin Laden al­though he didn’t pose an im­mediate threat to the Navy SEALs, tell­ing a House panel on Tues­day that the as­sault had been ‘law­ful, legitimate and approp­riate in every way’.”

The dis­pos­al of the body with­out auto­psy was also criticized by al­l­ies. The high­ly re­gar­ded British bar­rist­er Geoffrey Robertson, who sup­por­ted the in­ter­ven­tion and op­posed the ex­ecu­tion lar­ge­ly on prag­matic grounds, nevertheless de­scribed Obama’s claim that “just­ice was done” as an “ab­surd­ity” that should have been ob­vi­ous to a form­er pro­fes­sor of con­stitution­al law (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/osama-bin-laden-death-why-he-should-have-been-captured-not-killed/). Pakis­tan law “re­quires a col­oni­al in­quest on violent death, and in­ter­nation­al human rights law in­s­ists that the ‘right to life’ man­dates an in­qui­ry whenev­er violent death oc­curs from govern­ment or police ac­tion. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an in­qui­ry that will satis­fy the world as to the true cir­cumstan­ces of this kill­ing.” Robertson adds that “The law per­mits crimin­als to be shot in self-defense if they (or their ac­complices) re­s­ist ar­rest in ways that end­ang­er those striv­ing to apprehend them. They should, if pos­sible, be given the op­por­tun­ity to sur­rend­er, but even if they do not come out with their hands up, they must be taken alive if that can be ac­hieved with­out risk. Ex­act­ly how bin Laden came to be ‘shot in the head’ (es­pecial­ly if it was the back of his head, execution-style) therefore re­quires ex­plana­tion. Why a hasty ‘buri­al at sea’ with­out a post mor­tem, as the law re­quires?”

Help Trut­hout close out the year strong! Make a tax-deductible con­tribu­tion to brave, in­depen­dent jour­nal­ism today.

Robertson attributes the murd­er to “America’s ob­ses­sive be­lief in capit­al punishment—alone among ad­vanced nations—[which] is re­flec­ted in its re­joic­ing at the man­n­er of bin Laden’s de­m­ise.” For ex­am­ple, Na­tioncol­umn­ist Eric Al­ter­man writes that “The kill­ing of Osama bin Laden was a just and neces­sa­ry un­der­tak­ing.”

Robertson useful­ly re­minds us that “It was not al­ways thus. When the time came to con­sid­er the fate of men much more steeped in wic­ked­ness than Osama bin Laden — name­ly the Nazi leadership — the British govern­ment wan­ted them han­ged with­in six hours of cap­ture. Pre­sident Truman de­mur­red, cit­ing the con­clus­ion of Just­ice Robert Jackson that sum­ma­ry ex­ecu­tion ‘would not sit eas­i­ly on the American con­sci­ence or be re­mem­bered by our childr­en with pride…the only co­ur­se is to de­ter­mine the in­noc­ence or guilt of the ac­cused after a hear­ing as dis­pas­sionate as the times will per­mit and upon a re­cord that will leave our rea­sons and motives clear’.”

The editors of the Daily Beast com­ment that “The joy is un­derstand­able, but to many out­sid­ers, un­attrac­tive. It end­or­ses what looks in­creasing­ly like a cold-blooded as­sas­sina­tion as the White House is now for­ced to admitthat Osama bin Laden was un­ar­med when he was shot twice in the head.”

In societ­ies that pro­fess some re­spect for law, sus­pects are apprehen­ded and brought to fair trial. I stress “sus­pects.” In June 2002, FBI head Robert Muell­er, in what the Was­hington Post de­scribed as “among his most de­tailed pub­lic com­ments on the origins of the at­tacks,” could say only that “in­ves­tigators be­lieve the idea of the Sept. 11 at­tacks on the World Trade Cent­er and Pen­tagon came from al Qaeda lead­ers in Afghanis­tan, the ac­tu­al plott­ing was done in Ger­many, and the fin­anc­ing came through the Uni­ted Arab Em­irates from sour­ces in Afghanis­tan…. We think the mas­terminds of it were in Afghanis­tan, high in the al Qaeda leadership.” What the FBI be­lieved and thought in June 2002 they didn’t know eight months ear­li­er, when Was­hington dis­mis­sed ten­tative of­f­ers by the Taliban (how seri­ous, we do not know) to extra­dite bin Laden if they were pre­sen­ted with evi­d­ence. Thus it is not true, as the Pre­sident claimed in his White House state­ment, that “We quick­ly lear­ned that the 9/11 at­tacks were car­ried out by al Qaeda.”

There has never been any rea­son to doubt what the FBI be­lieved in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt re­quired in civilized societ­ies – and whatev­er the evi­d­ence might be, it does not war­rant mur­der­ing a sus­pect who could, it seems, have been eas­i­ly apprehen­ded and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evi­d­ence pro­vided since. Thus the 9/11 Com­miss­ion pro­vided ex­ten­sive cir­cumstan­ti­al evi­d­ence of bin Laden’s role in 9/11, based primari­ly on what it had been told about con­fess­ions by prison­ers in Guan­tanamo. It is doubt­ful that much of that would hold up in an in­depen­dent court, con­sider­ing the ways con­fess­ions were elicited. But in any event, the con­clus­ions of a con­gres­sional­ly aut­horized in­ves­tiga­tion, howev­er con­vinc­ing one finds them, plain­ly fall short of a sen­t­ence by a credib­le court, which is what shifts the cat­ego­ry of the ac­cused from sus­pect to con­vic­ted. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “con­fess­ion,” but that was a boast, not a con­fess­ion, with as much credibil­ity as my “con­fess­ion” that I won the Bos­ton marat­hon. The boast tells us a lot about his charact­er, but noth­ing about his re­spon­sibil­ity for what he re­gar­ded as a great ac­hieve­ment, for which he wan­ted to take credit.

Again, all of this is, trans­parent­ly, quite in­depen­dent of one’s judg­ments about his re­spon­sibil­ity, which seemed clear im­mediate­ly, even be­fore the FBI in­qui­ry, and still does.

It is worth add­ing that bin Laden’s re­spon­sibil­ity was re­cog­nized in much of the Mus­lim world, and con­dem­ned. One sig­nificant ex­am­ple is the dis­tin­guis­hed Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fad­lallah, great­ly re­spec­ted by Hiz­bollah and Shia groups general­ly, out­side Lebanon as well. He too had been tar­geted for as­sas­sina­tion: by a truck bomb out­side a mos­que, in a CIA-organized op­era­tion in 1985. He es­caped, but 80 oth­ers were kil­led, most­ly women and girls, as they left the mos­que – one of those in­numer­able crimes that do not enter the an­n­als of ter­ror be­cause of the fal­la­cy of “wrong agen­cy.” Sheikh Fad­lallah sharp­ly con­dem­ned the 9/11 at­tacks, as did many other lead­ing figures in the Mus­lim world, with­in the Jihadi move­ment as well. Among oth­ers, the head of Hiz­bollah, Sayyid Has­san Nas­rallah, sharp­ly con­dem­ned bin Laden and Jihadi ideology.

One of the lead­ing special­ists on the Jihadi move­ment, Fawaz Ger­ges, sug­gests that the move­ment might have been split at that time had the US ex­ploited the op­por­tun­ity in­stead of mobiliz­ing the move­ment, par­ticular­ly by the at­tack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp in­crease in ter­ror, as in­tel­lig­ence agen­cies had anti­cipated. That con­clus­ion was con­fir­med by the form­er head of Britain’s domes­tic in­tel­lig­ence agen­cy MI5 at the Chil­cot hear­ings in­ves­tigat­ing the background for the war. Con­firm­ing other an­alyses, she tes­tified that both British and US in­tel­lig­ence were aware that Sad­dam posed no seri­ous threat and that the in­vas­ion was li­ke­ly to in­crease ter­ror; and that the in­vas­ions of Iraq and Afghanis­tan had radicalized parts of a genera­tion of Mus­lims who saw the milita­ry ac­tions as an “at­tack on Islam.” As is often the case, secur­ity was not a high prior­ity for state ac­tion.

It might be in­struc­tive to ask our­selves how we would be rea­ct­ing if Iraqi com­man­dos lan­ded at Geor­ge W. Bush’s com­pound, as­sas­sinated him, and dum­ped his body in the At­lantic (after pro­p­er buri­al rites, of co­ur­se). Un­controver­sial­ly, he is not a “sus­pect” but the “de­cid­er” who gave the ord­ers to in­vade Iraq — that is, to com­mit the “sup­reme in­ter­nation­al crime dif­fer­ing only from other war crimes in that it con­tains with­in it­self the ac­cumulated evil of the whole” (quot­ing the Nurem­berg Tri­bun­al) for which Nazi crimin­als were han­ged: in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of de­aths, mill­ions of re­fugees, de­struc­tion of much of the co­unt­ry and the nation­al heritage, and the mur­der­ous sec­tarian con­flict that has now spread to the rest of the re­g­ion. Equal­ly un­controver­sial­ly, these crimes vast­ly ex­ceed an­yth­ing attributed to bin Laden.

To say that all of this is un­controver­si­al, as it is, is not to imply that it is not de­nied. The ex­ist­ence of flat earth­ers does not chan­ge the fact that, un­controver­sial­ly, the earth is not flat. Similar­ly, it is un­controver­si­al that Stalin and Hitl­er were re­spon­sible for hor­rend­ous crimes, though loyal­ists deny it. All of this should, again, be too ob­vi­ous for com­ment, and would be, ex­cept in an at­mosphere of hyst­eria so ex­treme that it blocks ration­al thought.

Similar­ly, it is un­controver­si­al that Bush and as­sociates did com­mit the “sup­reme in­ter­nation­al crime,” the crime of aggress­ion, at least if we take the Nurem­berg Tri­bun­al serious­ly. The crime of aggress­ion was de­fined clear­ly en­ough by Just­ice Robert Jackson, Chief of Co­un­sel for the Uni­ted States at Nurem­berg, re­iterated in an aut­horitative Gener­al As­semb­ly re­solu­tion. An “aggres­sor,” Jackson pro­posed to the Tri­bun­al in his op­en­ing state­ment, is a state that is the first to com­mit such ac­tions as “In­vas­ion of its armed for­ces, with or with­out a de­clara­tion of war, of the ter­rito­ry of an­oth­er State….” No one, even the most ex­treme sup­port­er of the aggress­ion, de­n­ies that Bush and as­sociates did just that.

We might also do well to re­call Jackson’s eloquent words at Nurem­berg on the prin­ci­ple of uni­ver­sal­ity: “If cer­tain acts of viola­tion of treat­ies are crimes, they are crimes wheth­er the Uni­ted States does them or wheth­er Ger­many does them, and we are not pre­pared to lay down a rule of crimin­al con­duct against oth­ers which we would not be will­ing to have in­voked against us.” And el­sewhere: “We must never for­get that the re­cord on which we judge these de­fen­dants is the re­cord on which his­to­ry will judge us tomor­row. To pass these de­fen­dants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

It is also clear that al­leged in­ten­tions are ir­relevant. Japanese fasc­ists ap­parent­ly did be­lieve that by ravag­ing China they were labor­ing to turn it into an “earth­ly para­d­ise.” We don’t know wheth­er Hitl­er be­lieved that he was de­fend­ing Ger­many from the “wild ter­ror” of the Poles, or was tak­ing over Czec­hoslovakia to pro­tect its popula­tion from ethnic con­flict and pro­vide them with the be­nefits of a super­ior cul­ture, or was sav­ing the glo­ries of the civiliza­tion of the Greeks from bar­barians of East and West, as his acolytes claimed (Mar­tin Heidegg­er). And it’s even con­ceiv­able that Bush and com­pany be­lieved that they were pro­tect­ing the world from de­struc­tion by Sad­dam’s nuc­lear weapons. All ir­relevant, though ar­dent loyal­ists on all sides may try to con­vin­ce them­selves ot­herw­ise.

We are left with two choices: eith­er Bush and as­sociates are guil­ty of the “sup­reme in­ter­nation­al crime” in­clud­ing all the evils that fol­low, crimes that go vast­ly be­yond an­yth­ing attributed to bin Laden; or else we de­clare that the Nurem­berg pro­ceed­ings were a farce and that the al­l­ies were guil­ty of judici­al murd­er. Again, that is en­tire­ly in­depen­dent of the ques­tion of the guilt of those char­ged: es­tablis­hed by the Nurem­berg Tri­bun­al in the case of the Nazi crimin­als, plausib­ly sur­mised from the out­set in the case of bin Laden.

A few days be­fore the bin Laden as­sas­sina­tion, Or­lando Bosch died peaceful­ly in Florida, where he re­sided along with his ter­ror­ist ac­complice Luis Posada Caril­les, and many oth­ers. After he was ac­cused of dozens of ter­ror­ist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was gran­ted a pre­siden­ti­al par­don by Bush I over the ob­jec­tions of the Just­ice De­part­ment, which found the con­clus­ion “in­es­cap­able that it would be pre­judici­al to the pub­lic in­terest for the Uni­ted States to pro­vide a safe haven for Bosch. ”The co­in­cid­ence of de­aths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine, which has “al­ready be­come a de facto rule of in­ter­nation­al re­la­tions,” ac­cord­ing to the noted Har­vard in­ter­nation­al re­la­tions special­ist Graham Al­lison. The doctrine re­vokes “the sovereignty of states that pro­vide sanctua­ry to ter­ror­ists,” Al­lison writes, re­ferr­ing to the pro­noun­ce­ment of Bush II that “those who har­bor ter­ror­ists are as guil­ty as the ter­ror­ists them­selves,” di­rec­ted to the Taliban. Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit tar­gets for bomb­ing and ter­ror; for ex­am­ple, the state that har­bored Bosch and his as­sociate — not to men­tion some rath­er more sig­nificant can­didates. When Bush is­sued this new “de facto rule of in­ter­nation­al re­la­tions,” no one seemed to notice that he was call­ing for in­vas­ion and de­struc­tion of the US and murd­er of its crimin­al pre­sidents.

None of this is pro­blematic, of co­ur­se, if we re­ject Just­ice Jackson’s prin­ci­ple of uni­ver­sal­ity, and adopt in­stead the prin­ci­ple that the US is self-immunized against in­ter­nation­al law and con­ven­tions — as, in fact, the govern­ment has frequent­ly made very clear, an im­por­tant fact, much too lit­tle un­derstood.

It is also worth think­ing about the name given to the op­era­tion: Op­era­tion Geronimo. The im­peri­al men­tal­ity is so pro­found that few seem able to per­ceive that the White House is glorify­ing bin Laden by call­ing him “Geronimo” — the lead­er of co­urage­ous re­sis­tance to the in­vad­ers who sought to con­sign his peo­ple to the fate of “that hap­less race of native Americans, which we are ex­ter­minat­ing with such mer­ciless and per­fidi­ous cruel­ty, among the hein­ous sins of this na­tion, for which I be­lieve God will one day bring [it] to jud­ge­ment,” in the words of the great grand strateg­ist John Quin­cy Adams, the in­tel­lectu­al architect of man­ifest de­stiny, long after his own con­tribu­tions to these sins had pas­sed. Some did com­prehend, not sur­prising­ly. The re­mnants of that hap­less race pro­tes­ted vigorous­ly. Choice of the name is re­minis­cent of the ease with which we name our­murd­er weapons after vic­tims of our crimes: Apac­he, Blackhawk. Tomahawk,… We might react dif­ferent­ly if the Luftwaf­fe were to call its fight­er planes “Jew” and “Gypsy”.

The ex­am­ples men­tioned would fall under the cat­ego­ry “American ex­cep­tional­ism,” were it not for the fact that easy sup­press­ion of one’s own crimes is vir­tual­ly ubiquit­ous among power­ful states, at least those that are not de­feated and for­ced to acknow­ledge rea­l­ity. Other cur­rent il­lustra­tions are too numer­ous to men­tion. To take just one, of great cur­rent sig­nifican­ce, con­sid­er Obama’s ter­ror weapons (drones) in Pakis­tan. Sup­pose that dur­ing the 1980s, when they were oc­cupy­ing Afghanis­tan, the Rus­sians had car­ried out tar­geted as­sas­sina­tions in Pakis­tan aimed at those who were fin­anc­ing, arm­ing and train­ing the in­sur­gents – quite pro­ud­ly and op­en­ly. For ex­am­ple, tar­get­ing the CIA sta­tion chief in Is­lamabad, who ex­plained that he “loved” the “noble goal” of his mis­s­ion: to “kill Soviet Sol­diers…not to li­berate Afghanis­tan.” There is no need to im­agine the rea­c­tion, but there is a cruci­al dis­tinc­tion: that was them, this is us.

What are the li­ke­ly con­sequ­ences of the kill­ing of bin Laden? For the Arab world, it will pro­bab­ly mean lit­tle. He had long been a fad­ing pre­s­ence, and in the past few months was ec­lipsed by the Arab Spr­ing. His sig­nifican­ce in the Arab world is cap­tured by the head­line in the New York Times for an op-ed by Mid­dle East/al Qaeda special­ist Gil­les Kepel; “Bin Laden was Dead Al­ready.” Kepel writes that few in the Arab world are li­ke­ly to care. That head­line might have been dated far ear­li­er, had the US not mobilized the Jihadi move­ment by the at­tacks on Afghanis­tan and Iraq, as sug­gested by the in­tel­lig­ence agen­cies and scholarship. As for the Jihadi move­ment, with­in it bin Laden was doubtless a venerated sym­bol, but ap­parent­ly did not play much more of a role for this “net­work of net­works,” as an­alysts call it, which un­der­take most­ly in­depen­dent op­era­tions.

The most im­mediate and sig­nificant con­sequ­ences are li­ke­ly to be in Pakis­tan. There is much dis­cuss­ion of Was­hington’s anger that Pakis­tan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less is said about the fury in Pakis­tan that the US in­vaded their ter­rito­ry to carry out a polit­ical as­sas­sina­tion. Anti-American fer­vor had al­ready rea­ched a very high peak in Pakis­tan, and these events are li­ke­ly to ex­acer­bate it.

Pakis­tan is the most dan­ger­ous co­unt­ry on earth, also the world’s fas­test grow­ing nuc­lear power, with a huge ar­sen­al. It is held togeth­er by one st­able in­stitu­tion, the milita­ry. One of the lead­ing special­ists on Pakis­tan and its milita­ry, An­atol Li­ev­en, writes that “if the US ever put Pakis­tani sol­di­ers in a posi­tion where they felt that honour and pat­riot­ism re­quired them to fight America, many would be very glad to do so.” And if Pakis­tan col­lap­sed, an “ab­solute­ly in­evit­able re­sult would be the flow of large numb­ers of high­ly trained ex-soldiers, in­clud­ing ex­plosive ex­perts and en­gine­ers, to ex­trem­ist groups.” That is the prima­ry threat he sees of leakage of fis­sile materi­als to Jihadi hands, a hor­rend­ous even­tual­ity.

The Pakis­tani milita­ry have al­ready been pus­hed to the edge by US at­tacks on Pakis­tani sovereignty. One fac­tor is the drone at­tacks in Pakis­tan that Obama es­calated im­mediate­ly after the kill­ing of bin Laden, rubb­ing salt in the wounds. But there is much more, in­clud­ing the de­mand that the Pakis­tani milita­ry co­operate in the US war against the Afghan Taliban, whom the over­whelm­ing major­ity of Pakis­tanis, the milita­ry in­cluded, see as fight­ing a just war of re­sis­tance against an in­vad­ing army, ac­cord­ing to Li­ev­en.

The bin Laden op­era­tion could have been the spark that set off a con­flag­ra­tion, with dire con­sequ­ences, par­ticular­ly if the in­vad­ing force had been com­pel­led to fight its way out, as was anti­cipated. Per­haps the as­sas­sina­tion was per­ceived as an “act of ven­gean­ce,” as Robertson con­cludes. Whatev­er the motive was, it could hard­ly have been secur­ity. As in the case of the “sup­reme in­ter­nation­al crime” in Iraq, the bin Laden as­sas­sina­tion il­lustrates that secur­ity is often not a high prior­ity for state ac­tion, contra­ry to re­ceived doctrine.

There is much more to say, but even the most ob­vi­ous and elemen­ta­ry facts should pro­vide us with a good deal to think about.

Posted in Conspiracy Archives, Truthout Articles | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There Is Much More to Say

Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden is dead, vows revenge

Posted by Admin on May 7, 2011

http://in.news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-confirms-bin-laden-death-monitoring-group-122219860.html

By Augustine Anthony | Reuters – Fri, May 6, 2011

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Al Qaeda confirmed on Friday that Osama bin Laden is dead, dispelling doubts by some Muslims that the group’s leader had really been killed by U.S. forces, and vowed to mount more attacks on the West.

The announcement by the Islamist network, which promised to publish a taped message from bin Laden soon, appeared intended to show its adherents around the globe that the group has survived as a functioning network.

In a statement online, it said the blood of bin Laden, shot dead by a U.S. commando team in a raid on Monday on his hideout in a Pakistani town, “is more precious to us and to every Muslim than to be wasted in vain.”

“It will remain, with permission from Allah the Almighty, a curse that hunts the Americans and their collaborators and chases them inside and outside their country.”

Al Qaeda urged Pakistanis to rise up against their government to “cleanse” the country of what it called the shame brought on it by bin Laden’s shooting and of the “filth of the Americans who spread corruption in it.”

“Before the sheikh passed from this world and before he could share with the Islamic nation in its joys over its revolutions in the face of the oppressors, he recorded a voice recording of congratulations and advice which we will publish soon, God willing,” the militant group said.

The statement also warned Americans not to harm bin Laden’s corpse and to hand it and those of others killed to their families, although U.S. officials say bin Laden’s body has been buried at sea and no other bodies were taken from the compound.

Some in the Muslim world have been skeptical of bin Laden’s death. One survey conducted in Pakistan this week by the British-based YouGov polling organization found that 66 percent of over 1,000 respondents did not think the person killed by U.S. Navy SEALs was bin Laden.

Anger and suspicion between Washington and Islamabad over the raid in Abbottabad, 30 miles (50 km) from the Pakistani capital, showed no sign of abating.

A U.S. drone killed 17 suspected militants in northwest Pakistan, despite warnings from the Pakistani military against the mounting of attacks within its borders. About 1,500 Islamists rallied in the southwestern city of Quetta to vow revenge for bin Laden’s death and there were small protests elsewhere. Afghan Taliban and Islamist Indonesian youths made similar threats.

“FIVE YEARS” IN COMPOUND

One of bin Laden’s wives, Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah, told Pakistani interrogators the al Qaeda leader had been living for five years in the compound where he was killed, a Pakistani security official told Reuters.

The revelation appeared sure to heighten U.S. suspicions that Pakistani authorities have been either grossly incompetent or playing a double game in the hunt for bin Laden and the two countries’ supposed partnership against violent Islamists.

Pakistani security forces took 15 or 16 people into custody from the Abbottabad compound after U.S. forces removed bin Laden’s body, said the security official. They included bin Laden’s three wives and several children.

In Washington, a U.S. official said U.S. intelligence had established on-the-ground surveillance in Abbottabad in advance of the raid.

U.S. officials also said among materials found at bin Laden’s hideout was some evidence indicating al Qaeda had at one point considered attacking the U.S. rail system on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks later this year.

The fact that bin Laden was found in a garrison town — his compound was not far from a military academy — has embarrassed Pakistan and the covert raid has angered its military.

Pressure is building in the U.S. Congress to suspend or at least review U.S. aid to Pakistan. Republican Representative Ted Poe has introduced a bill to ban more aid until Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can certify Pakistan did not know bin Laden’s whereabouts, or if it did, told the U.S. government.

The Pakistan army, for its part, threatened on Thursday to halt counterterrorism cooperation with the United States if it conducted any more similar raids.

It was unclear if such attacks included drone strikes which the U.S. military regularly conducts against militants along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Pakistani security officials have charged that U.S. troops, after landing by helicopter, shot the unarmed al Qaeda leader in cold blood rather than in a firefight, as U.S. officials first suggested.

Amid differing accounts this week of how much hostile fire the SEALS encountered in the compound, one Pakistani security official said on Friday that U.S. forces should release video footage he said they “must have” of the operation.

U.N. human rights investigators called on the United States to disclose the full facts “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.”

“It will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture bin Laden,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin said in a joint statement.

FEW QUALMS AMONG AMERICANS

The Pakistani military also said on Thursday it had decided to reduce the U.S. military presence in the country.

In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan said the Defense Department had not received notice from Islamabad about any decision to change the size of the U.S. military contingent in Pakistan. He said there are a little under 300 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan, many of them trainers.

Few Americans appear to have qualms about how bin Laden was killed, and on Thursday people cheered President Barack Obama when he visited the site of New York’s Twin Towers, leveled by al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Seeking to repair ties, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Rome on Thursday that Washington was still anxious to maintain its alliance with Islamabad.

(Additional reporting by Erika Solomon in Dubai, Michael Georgy in Islamabad and David Alexander, Susan Cornwell and Mark Hosenball in Washington; writing by Andrew Roche and Patrick Worsnip; editing by Eric Beech)

Posted in War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden is dead, vows revenge

The Most Important Issue

Posted by Admin on February 13, 2010

The Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe

December 11th, 2009 10:37 AM

By Robert Singer

My goal in writing is to help wake up the huddled masses. To that end, the “Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe” is:

The Story Behind the Story Behind the Story of how the World Trade Center I and II collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Why? Because if you don’t know how the twin towers collapsed, you can’t be sure you are waking up the masses from the right dream.

9/11/01

I’ll get right to the point, I have read the books and watched the documentaries on September 11 for three years and the 9/11 official story is:

    Nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, crash airplanes into steel skyscrapers because they “hate our freedom to consume”. Inexplicably the jet fuel, which is basically kerosene that burns at about 400c, took on the qualities of an explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke and causing 110-story buildings to collapse into a pile of rubble.

Is such a stupid story that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t really expect you to believe it.
A jet fuel fire brought down two of the tallest buildings in the world: Improbable, to say the least. [1]

Millions believe a LIHOP (Let it Happen on Purpose) version thanks to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, because their brain tells them the U.S. government killed 3,000 American citizens to pass the Patriot Act, build up the military and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. [2]

Everyone else, after you point out the obvious (110 stories of steel and concrete collapsing at free fall speed), thinks about it for a New York Second and realizes the official story is ridiculous and couldn’t be true.

Then, they come to the false conclusion it was a MIHOP (Made it Happen on Purpose): Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons killed 3,000 Americans so they could pass the Patriot Act, build up the military and invade Afghanistan and Iraq, an inside job.

In other words, The Powers That Be (TPTB) expected us to believe the 9/11 Truth story: A rogue element of the US government used controlled demolition to bring down the twin towers.
Let me be clear, I agree the US government or some proxy did exploit the events of 9/11: Building 7, the Pentagon and Flight 77. [3]

The “Experts” on 9/11

Professor Steven “Cold Fusion” Jones lectures ad nauseam about the obvious, that 110 stories of steel and concrete do not collapse into a pile of rubble from a kerosene fire. Jones’ research, allegedly peer reviewed, has not proven the building collapsed from controlled demolition.

Dr. Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering, with expertise in material science concludes the buildings were destroyed using some type of “field effect technology” related to the Hutchison Effect and the presence of Hurricane Erin. [4]

Jones, sweet and innocent, looks like he belongs in the Bush administration not in the counterculture community.

Wood, marginalized and tossed out of the 9/11-Truth Movement happens to look like a hippie.

Dr. Wood raises important questions about the so-called collapse and the dip of the Earth’s magnetic field at the precise moment of the supposed first plane “impact” but the 9/11 Truthers refuse to acknowledge her research and her work has been left out in their search for the Truth. [5]

David Ray Griffin, retired professor at the Claremont School of Theology and spokesman for the 9/11 Truth Movement, has written numerous books questioning the 9/11 official story. Inexplicably he and co-founder, John B. Cobb, Jr., of the Center for Process Studies hang around with David Rockefeller. Griffin’s major project at present is in fact, “to develop a theology for a New World Order.” [6]

Dr. Griffin, like Jones, lectures frequently at universities and public places explaining in repetitive detail that September 11 was not the result of 19 Arab terrorists and a kerosene fire.

However, neither of them will discuss anything that contradicts the controlled demolition theory of the twin towers.

The government would not allow the openly treasonous behavior of David Ray and Steven Earl unless the 9/11 Truth Movement was a Counter Intelligence Program (Cointelpro). [7]

No Plane

The “no plane” theory, asserts both plane impacts with the WTC were faked with CNN Video Fakery/ Cartoon CGI. [8]

The following image of the second impact, taken from a news helicopter, depicts a video composite of a Boeing 767 accidentally appearing from behind a Layer Mask.

Nico Haupt and Morgan Reynolds, formerly the chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration argue that no planes were used in the attacks.

Reynolds “claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely aluminum, could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video.”

    “There were no planes, there were no hijackers,” Reynolds insists. “I know, I know, I’m out of the mainstream, but that’s the way it is.” Of the two Boeing 767’s, which vanished into the Twin Towers, Reynolds asks: How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?

Discussion of “no plane” theories can get you banned from conspiracy theory websites and threatened with violence from members of the 9/11 community if you “no plane” too loudly.

The idea that there were “no planes”, keeps just about everyone confused about “what really happened” on 9/11.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Or if you want to read a thousand words, visit 911 Revisited – CNN Video Fakery / Cartoon CGI. [9]

And when I say everyone is confused, I mean EVERYONE is intentionally kept in confusion by the Alex and Steven Joneses, the Davids Griffin and Icke and the 911 Truth Movement that promotes the controlled demolition “theory” of the collapse of the twin towers.

Alex Jones is the “Minister of Truth” over a flock of “Truthers”, whose church is the “9/11 Truth Movement.”

The faithful followers are not concerned that Pastor Alex is now being given significant exposure and airtime by the mainstream media – specifically by Disinformation-Central Fox News.

The media attention he is getting is quite bewildering until one digs deeper and understands Alex Jones is part of a Cointelpro operation.

“The Truth Movement has the dual purpose of vectoring genuine truth seekers to dead ends, where anger, hype and paranoia endlessly stress the seeker and those around him or her, and to facilitate the mainstream media’s task of branding those who ask questions of authority and the true nature of reality as insane.”

Why does Jones appear to be closely aligned with that which he seeks to subvert and destroy?

The fact that Jones exposes government schemes – and extraordinarily loudly at that – becomes evidence that he may very well be Cointelpro.

    “What people fail to understand however, is that serious Cointelpro operations are never obvious. They are by definition, very closely aligned with that which they seek to subvert and destroy because they would not get very far at infiltration and subversion if they were not.” [10]

“The Best Way To Control The Opposition Is To Lead It Ourselves” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

While Minister Jones vociferously promotes the controlled demolition theory of the collapse of the twin towers a tiny fringe of 911 researchers with no political or monetary capital, led by Morgan Reynolds, the above-mentioned Dr. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson, make a compelling case that “no planes hit the World Trade Center” (“TV Fakery”), and that controlled demolition cannot explain the energy released when the twin towers collapsed. [11]

911 Truthers acknowledge there are problems with the official 911 Truth story.

    It’s an obvious computer generated-image of a 757 hitting the North Tower because you can’t see a break in the building wall between the port engine and fuselage. Think about how the jet engines, wings, fuselage and the tail section of an aluminum airplane just disappear through steel and reinforced concrete……and then appear to come through the other side.

But Minister Jones and his elders Physicist Steven Jones, author David Ray Griffin, architect Richard Gage in charge of 911 Truth, all with New World order connections [6], will not allow anyone to question a controlled demolition theory.

Why would the 911 Truth Movement promote a theory they know is untrue?

Professor James Fetzer, another well known 9/11 activist, said

    “It’s Tactical. “Even if they (the advocates of No Plane Theory) are right, it hurts the movement. Many feel that there is so much evidence of government complicity beyond the issue of big passenger jets that diverting attention to the one thing most people believe that they “saw” is not to our tactical and strategic advantage.”

“Our Tactical and Strategic Advantage”

Should we trust the “creepy side of the 911 Truth Movement” to tell us whose tactical and strategic advantage is served by discrediting the “no plane, no thermite” theories? [12]

What if the 9/11 Truth is nothing more than a pseudo-movement promoting a government “alternative official” story?

Who are the likely agents of disinformation?

Woods and Reynolds want to hijack the movement so the naïve public will be confused about the planes and will believe the government’s lie about nonexistent “terrorists.” Huh?

OR The Church of 9/11 Truth and the Joneses keep anyone from attempting to find out why Dr. Judy Wood calls the twin towers collapse, “The New Hiroshima” [11], and why at the precise moment of the alleged first plane “impact” did the Earth’s magnetic field dip.

My money is on Disinformation agent Alex Jones.

Google “Disinformation Agent” and the first result exposes Jones as a member of Project Mockingbird, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor and alternative Media Gatekeeper for the Vatican: Alex Jones Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor CIA Disinformation Agent, http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Jones-CIA.htm

Disinformation agents of the New Worldly Order (David Icke, Alex Jones, Zeitgeist) is worth 9 minutes of your time.

No Thermite

Chris Bollyn’s recent discovery of Super-Termite (nanothermite) at “Israel’s Super-Thermite Lab” is nonsense and should be dismissed immediately:

    “The main reason for 9-11 was to change the military equation in the Middle East and bring the United States and NATO into the region on a permanent basis to wage war against the foes of Israel. But how could they possibly think they would get away with such an audacious and heinous crime of false-flag terrorism?”

He then goes on to make the ludicrous statement:

    “What they didn’t expect is that a few Americans would dig into the evidence and uncover every stone to find the real culprits. They certainly didn’t expect that a careful and independent scientific analysis of the dust would reveal that a nano-composite form of super-thermite was used to pulverize the World Trade Center.”

“What they didn’t expect is that a few Americans would dig…” I can hardly stop laughing!

But when I did stop (laughing) and contacted Andrew Johnson at Check The Evidence, he pointed out:

Q) What is thermite anyway? Answer: Aluminum powder and Iron Oxide (rust).

    Fact: The exterior of WTC towers contains aluminum and there were some rusty beams inside the buildings. Therefore we can dismiss any smoking gun theory of super-thermite because you would expect to find Aluminum powder and Iron Oxide in the remains of the World Trade Centre.

Q) What does thermite do to metal? Answer: It melts through it.

Q) What happened to the towers? Answer: They turned largely to dust.

Thermite cannot have been responsible for turning towers to dust. Let’s see this nanothermite in action please!

It’s an explosive but the towers didn’t explode -they turned into a fountain of dust. [13]

The 2001 Invasion of Iraq… That Was Called Off… When the Twin Towers Collapsed

    Paul O’Neill’s revelations that the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq long before September 11, 2001 have been widely publicized. The decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was made in July 2001 and the plans were on Bush’s desk by Sept 9. [14]

During the 2008 Presidential election a comment about “John McCain’s Dirt on the Cross Lies” appeared on greenusa.blogspot:

    “I served in the Navy as a Nuclear Plant Operator for over 14 years. I served onboard the USS Texas (CGN-39) in Operation Desert Storm. I served onboard the USS Arkansas (CGN-41) in support of Operation Desert Fox. I was a crewmember of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) when airplanes struck the Twin Towers on 9/11, and our ship was the first ship that was flying attack missions into Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.” [15]

Some time later I read the following:

On September 10th the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) chopped (turned around) in the straits of Hormoz, went to Battle Condition II, and prepared to invade Iraq. The order to stand down came 5 hours after the 2nd tower collapsed. [16]

The USS Carl Vinson was in the Persian Gulf with orders to invade Iraq, logic would dictate the invasion would go forward when the buildings collapsed and not be called off.

Hence, if you want the answer to the Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe you better be reading and listening to someone telling you:

  • Why the invasion was called off after the second tower collapsed and
  • What the dip of the Earth’s magnetic field at the precise moment of the alleged first plane “impact” has to do with “what really happened.”

Footnotes:

[1] Many official government stories are so ridiculous that a select group of people some call the puppet masters don’t expect you to believe them. Disinformation is misleading information that is true, deliberately announced publicly or leaked by a government or an intelligence agency to sow confusion and undermine credibility. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, which is deliberately intended to deceive, 9/11, What’s Wrong With This Picture? http://dprogram.net/2009/03/26/911-whats-wrong-with-this-picture, Robert Singer.
[2] There are three reasons why most Americans are in denial and cling to the official story:

  1. I am a Patriot, the US is a great country they wouldn’t kill 3,000 American citizens to pass the Patriot Act, build up the military and invade Afghanistan and Irak (Kill3000toPassBuild&Invade).
  2. I like my life I’m having a good time don’t bother me with the Kill3000toPassBuild&Invade nonsense.
  3. I can’t do anything about it anyway, so don’t bother me with the Kill3000toPassBuild&Invade story.

[3] Let me be clear, I agree the US government or some proxy did exploit the events of 9/11 to:

  • Demolish Building 7 that wasn’t even hit by a plane, home of the SEC investigation files and Rudy Giuliani’s command center.
  • Fire a cruise missile into the newly renovated wing of the Pentagon, killing 189 people, including the five “alleged” hijackers and
  • 34 civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts working for the Resource Services department. And, in another one of those coincidences that don’t happen very often, the accountants and bookkeepers were investigating, according to Donald Rumsfeld, 2.3 trillion Dollars that “just vanished”, September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld spoke to Congress and confessed the Pentagon is missing 2.3 trillion Dollars. Just vanished.
  • Shoot down flight 77 over Pennsylvania and kill the passengers from flight 93 and a second mysterious airplane that made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. Flights 11, 12 (9+3), 13 (1+7+5), 14 (7+7). UAL Flight 93 Landed Safely At Cleveland Hopkins Airport Plane Lands In Cleveland – Bomb Feared Aboard 8-7-4 Reported by 9 News Staff Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01, At 10 A.M. on 9/11 Cleveland airport was evacuated due to rumors of a bomb scare. People around the airport were told to go home.
  • Remove the rubble from the Twin Towers with GPS tracked debris trucks before anyone could perform a forensic analysis. WTC Steel Removal The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html#ref2. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired. GPS on the Job in Massive World Trade Center Clean-up, securitysolutions.com, 7/1/2002,http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

[4] http://www.drjudywood.com
http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchison-effect-parallel.html
http://www.prlog.org/10073301-new-study-by-former-professor-examines-hurricane-erin-on-9-11-01.html

[5] Dip of the Earth’s magnetic field on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:40http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/mpics/H4.jpg
[6] July 23. Connect Griffin to New World Order on angieon911, www.angieon911.com

[7] COINTELPRO is the FBI acronym for a series of covert action programs directed against domestic groups. In these programs, the Bureau went beyond the collection of intelligence to secret action defined to “disrupt” and “neutralize” target groups and individuals. The techniques were adopted wholesale from wartime counterintelligence, and ranged from the trivial (mailing reprints of Reader’s Digest articles to college administrators) to the degrading (sending anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous (encouraging gang warfare and falsely labeling members of a violent group as police informers).

[8] Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths, CB_Brooklyn

[9] 911 Revisited – CNN Video Fakery / Cartoon CGI, ww.freedomdomain.com/911/911revisited.html
[10] The strategy of supporting sides that at first glance appear to be in direct opposition is similar to the way things are staged by the “Secret Team”. L Fletcher Prouty described in great detail how the flow of information is successfully managed by a few hands to produce precisely the reaction the Powers That Be require from their unwitting targets. The Secret Team” and “JFK”, L Fletcher Prouty

[11] 9/11 – The New Hiroshima, http://www.drjudywood.com/videos/Hiroshima_videos.html

[12] The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement, www.angieon911.com

[13] The World Trade Center (WTC) towers did not “collapse” on 9/11/01, they were pulverized (Blown to Kingdom Come) before a gravity-driven collapse was even a possibility. Pulverized to dust, a paucity of remaining material. Where are the concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where are the bookcases? They were not there, so most of it appears to have turned to dust, as illustrated in Figure 31. Pulverized to dust,http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

[14] Going back all the way to the Bush administration’s build-up for invading Iraq, there has been much written and said about the reasons for the invasion. Now Paul O’Neill’s revelations that the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq long before September 11, 2001 have been widely publicized. Iraq Was Surviving the Sanctions, Why They Wouldn’t Wait By Tom Jackson

[15] August 20, 2008 John McCain’s Dirt on the Cross Lies,http://greenusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-mccains-dirt-on-cross-lies.html

[16] Note: Strategic information about the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is classified by the U.S. Military. If the Carl Vinson wasn’t ordered to Battle Condition II, let someone from Naval Command come forward and dispute that:

  1. Ship control stations were fully manned
  2. All lookout stations were fully manned
  3. All detection apparatus manned
  4. Water-tight Integrity Watch posted

“Chopped” is a naval term used when a ship changes course. I can no longer find this post on the Web. Personal Web sites and blogs come and go, and it’s common knowledge that technology exists to scrub content off the web.
Posts, blogs and comments just don’t disappear. Posts, blogs and comments are scrubbed…from the Internet

World Trade Center Collapse: Kerosene Fire, Controlled Demolition or a Third Story

-###-

Robert Singer is an Entrepreneur and the author of a forthcoming book on the Federal Reserve. His articles cover politics and the financial and environmental implications of our consumer society. The articles have been main headlined and can be found on numerous popular websites: Marketoracle, Silverseek, Pakistan Daily, Silver Bear Café, Goldseek, Dissident Voice, The Peoples Voice, LAprogressive, Canadafreepress, disinformation.com, Opednews, and many of the WordPress sites. Richard Daughty, The Mogambo Guru, proclaimed him a Junior Mogambo Ranger (JMR).

Posted in Conspiracy Archives | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Most Important Issue