Of Terrorists and their proponents

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq

terrorism.gifThe likely threat of military attack by the US and its allies in the tribal areas of Pakistan using the pretext of potential strike like 9/11 and increasing activities of the Taliban is creating fear and panic amongst masses. The main agenda behind this bizarre scheme is to push the armed forces of Pakistan to the wall, get the control of nuclear arsenals and use bogey of ‘Islamic terrorism’ for the containment of China. George W. Bush Jr., now lame-duck President, before leaving the Oval, wants to ensure that the new man taking his place should have no option but to remain engaged in wars in various parts of the world.

Before one tries to understand the recent US military and propaganda outbursts against the Taliban, one must turn one’s mental clock back three decades or so, and recollect the legacy of Bush Senior. It was George Herbert Walker Bush’s ‘New World Order’ that led to the biggest and worldwide economic chaos during the Gulf War. As Vice-President and President, Bush was an unfortunate instance of ‘collateral damage’, or a ‘necessary evil’, flowing from his more primary geopolitical mission: to usher in the post-nation-state “one world order”, first spelled out in the mid-1970s Trilateral Commission studies of Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and first unleashed by the 1977-81 ‘All Trilat’ Jimmy Carter administration.

George Bush remarkable feats include inter alia amongst others:

Read more



Comments

The Truth Will Emerge

Post Information
Print & pdf

by US Senator Robert Byrd, Senate Floor Remarks - May 21, 2003

Published on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

truth.jpg
“Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - -
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers.”

Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.

But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it — more than I would ever have believed — right on this Senate Floor.

Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein’s direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.

Read more



Comments

TS Picks

Post Information
Print & pdf

bb6.jpg


1. Obama’s Victory? How Big? How Far? : Immanuel Wallerstein, Agence Global

2. US Concentration Camps? Where? : George Monbiot, The Guardian

3. From Indonesia to the US, governments stand powerless in face of markets : David Blair, The Frost Blog

4. The Greatest Story Never Told : Tom Engelhardt, The Baltimore Chronicle

5. American President Pleads Guilty to Hopeless Idealism : Maureen Dowd, The NYT



Comments

TS Picks

Post Information
Print & pdf

animals_banner.jpg

1. Separatism and Empire Building in the 21st Century : James Petras, Dissident Voice

2. A View from the Arab World : Rami G. Khouri, Agence Global

3. President Met Disgraced Lobbyist At Least Six Times : ABC News

4. Myth of the world’s oil shortage : The Frost Blog

5. The West’s self delusion : Robert Fisk

6. Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control : Patrick Cockburn

7. Death of the left : Yasmin AliBhai-Brown



Comments

The War, the Truth, and the New York Times

Post Information
Print & pdf

Now that every one and Charlie’s aunt knows of the crimes of America’s ruling cabal, how about finally asking to bring out the hangman’s ropes?

By Anwaar Hussain

media_monkeys.jpgSo finally the truth is acknowledged by the mother of all main stream media, the New York Times.

The June 6 editorial, ‘The Truth About the War’ of the media giant begins with these words, “It took just a few months after the United States’ invasion of Iraq for the world to find out that Saddam Hussein had long abandoned his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. He was not training terrorists or colluding with Al Qaeda. The only real threat he posed was to his own countrymen.” That it took more than five years for the leading light of a servile American media to finally find it out, is a fact glossed over most shamelessly.

Truth told late is worse than a murderous lie, is all that one can say to the NYT. It is a dishonest admission coming rather late for a million plus human beings. The icing on this deceitful piece of reporting is the ending of the Op-Ed. It says, “We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public - or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true - to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.”

BAD ENOUGH! Did I read it right? That’s it? BAD ENOUGH! Would you believe it? A million murdered Iraqis, 4000 dead US soldiers, obliterated Iraqi cities, DU shot-up environment, countless crippled and maimed human beings, innumerable shattered lives and how does the NYT express its outrage; by calling it ‘bad enough’? “Sorry mommy, I just killed a million people.” “That’s bad. Don’t do that again, now eat your spinach” eh? Bad enough!? Someone hand me the sick bag please.

Read more



Comments

TS Picks

Post Information
Print & pdf

banner2.jpg

1. What Do You Call a Terror(Jihad)ist? : NYT Op-Ed

2. Indefensible spending : America’s massive military budget is irrational, costly and dangerous. Why isn’t it a campaign issue?

3. Don’t Get Burned! : How to Protect Yourself From Raytheon’s Pain Gun

4. Kohn Signals Wall Street May Get Permanent Access to Fed Loans : Bloomberg News

5. Coming Late to the Table : Bob Herbert, NYT

6. How the War Ends in Iraq : Immanuel Wallerstein, Agence Global

7. Violence Is the Norm of ‘Security’ States : Rami G. Khouri, Agence Global




Comments

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras - May 2008

Wars in an imperialist democracy cannot simply be dictated by executive fiat, they require the consent of highly motivated masses who will make the human and material sacrifices. Imperialist leaders have to create a visible and highly charged emotional sense of injustice and righteousness to secure national cohesion and overcome the natural opposition to early death, destruction and disruption of civilian life and to the brutal regimentation that goes with submission to absolutist rule by the military.

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War From Pearl Harbor to 911

 

The need to invent a cause is especially the case with imperialist countries because their national territory is not under threat. There is no visible occupation army oppressing the mass of the people in their everyday life. The ‘enemy’ does not disrupt everyday normal life - as forced conscription would and does. Under normal peaceful time, who would be willing to sacrifice their constitutional rights and their participation in civil society to subject themselves to martial rule that precludes the exercise of all their civil freedoms?

The task of imperial rulers is to fabricate a world in which the enemy to be attacked (an emerging imperial power like Japan) is portrayed as an ‘invader’ or an ‘aggressor’ in the case of revolutionary movements (Korean and Indo-Chinese communists) engaged in a civil war against an imperial client ruler or a ‘terrorist conspiracy’ linked to an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial Islamic movements and secular states. Imperialist-democracies in the past did not need to consult or secure mass support for their expansionist wars; they relied on volunteer armies, mercenaries and colonial subjects led and directed by colonial officers. Only with the confluence of imperialism, electoral politics and total war did the need arise to secure not only consent, but also enthusiasm, to facilitate mass recruitment and obligatory conscription.

Read more



Comments

Afghanistan - Who is The Enemy?

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Eric Walberg

afghanistan.jpgThe US is not only repeating all the Soviets’ mistakes in Afghanistan, it is showing remarkable creativity in the horrors department, says Eric Walberg in the first of a two-part series.

Twenty years ago this week the Soviet Union began its withdrawal from Afghanistan, eight and a half years after it was invited by the desperate People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had degenerated into intra-party squabbling and was beset by Islamic rebels massively financed by the United States. The straw that broke the Soviets’ back was when the US began providing Stinger missiles to Osama bin Laden and his friends.

Now, after eight years of US/NATO occupation, the parallels - and differences - between the two occupation are many and stark, as confirmed by the current Russian ambassador to Afghanistan , Zamir Kabulov.

“There is no mistake made by the Soviet Union that was not repeated by the international community here in Afghanistan ,” Kabulov said. “Underestimation of the Afghan nation, the belief that we have superiority over Afghans, that they are inferior and cannot be trusted to run affairs in this country. A lack of knowledge of the social and ethnic structure of this country; a lack of sufficient understanding of traditions and religion.”

Read more



Comments

Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez: Similarities and Differences on the “National Road to Socialism”

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras

I have known and advised three left wing presidents including President Papandreou (Greece 1981-85), President Salvador Allende of Chile (1970-73) and President Hugo Chavez.

Prof. Petras on Venezuelan TV 2008

Picture: Prof. Petras in a recent interview on Venezuelan TV, 2008. Some of his recent interviews on Venezuelan Media can be viewed here (Spanish).

Both Allende and Chavez share many strategic goals and embrace policies favoring the working class, peasantry and the urban poor. They also pursued programs regaining national control over the strategic sectors of the economy, redistributing land (agrarian reform), reallocating budgetary expenditures in favor of social programs for the poor and pursuing independent anti-imperialist foreign policies.

In broad historical and sociological terms, they also share a common belief in constitutional, electoral processes, in a multi-party system, a mixed economy and independent trade unions, business and civic associations.

Despite the convergences and similarities between Allende and Chave, there are important political differences, which account for their different trajectories. Chavez proceeded toward political change before undertaking a deep socio-economic structural transformatio, thus creating a solid constitutional and political framework. Allende, on the other hand, accepted the existing political system and proceeded to implement radical socio-economic changes. As a result, Allende constantly faced political blockages, institutional obstacles that limited his capacity to realize the full potential of the structural changes. In contrast, Chavez’ political reforms led to the compatibility between political institutions and socio-economic change - minimizing opposition obstructionism.

Read more



Comments

Rules of Engagement for America’s Victims

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Anwaar Hussain

soldier.jpgIf by a quirk of fate, America’s victim nations get together, pronounce ‘enough is enough’ and proceed to invade and occupy America, what would their Rules of Engagement be during the occupation. The scribe has chalked out just a few on the exact same lines as America has them for her forces in Iraq. Here is how these go;

GENERAL GUIDANCE: This establishes the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for all the Victim Nations’ Forces (VICFORs) operating within the geographical confines of their former tormentor, the United States of America. Those forces not under immediate threat from the USA may establish more restrictive ROE in accordance with their national caveats. Conflicting ROE will be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the Victim Nations Central Command (VENTCOM). (To avoid any confusion, special attention must be given to Further Explanation (FE) given within the brackets at the end of most of the ROE)

VICTIMS’ NATIONS’ (VICNATs) NATIONAL POLICY. The VICNATs National Policy is to take the initiative within the limits allowed by these ROE during the occupation of the United States of America.

VICNATs MILITARY POLICY. # Commanders have the inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate action in self defense against the roving bands of former US Military Forces (FE: emphasis added on the word ‘roving’ and not on words ‘military’ and ‘forces’).

# Inside the geographical confines of the United States of America strikes on infrastructure, lines of communication and economic objects should, to the extent possible, disable and disrupt rather than destroy (FE: a wanton destruction in the heat of the moment may be overlooked on a case-by-case basis).

# Civilian structures, especially cultural and historic buildings in cities like Washington D.C., New York and Boston are protected structures (FE: Not in cities like Los Angeles and San Fransisco that the VENTCOM does not fancy). Additionally, nonmilitary structures, civilian population centers, churches and other religious places, hospitals and facilities displaying the red cross, are also protected structures and will not be attacked except when they are being used for military purposes (FE: which they often will be).

Read more



Comments



Anwaar’s articles appear simultaneously here at Truth Spring and at Soul Vibes in The Pakistan Tribune.


US loses its status as economic world power
DAVOS, Switzerland, 2008
.: ARTICLE BLOCKED :.
ON MARCH 2008
Who links to my website?