Will 2010 Be the Year Americans Finally Fight Back?

“Why Aren’t Americans Fighting Back?”

A non-US-citizen celebrates an attack on the CIA, and asks why Americans tolerate occupation

A foreign friend of mine, who must remain nameless here, recently contacted me to wish me a happy New Year and to celebrate the martyrdom operation in Afghanistan that claimed the lives of eight CIA agents. “This is wonderful!” he enthused. “Eight CIA agents at once! They must have had excellent intelligence and pulled everything off perfectly.”

I said I found it hard to get excited about a bunch of people getting killed, regardless of what they may have done to deserve it.

“That is the problem with you Americans,” he said. “Half of you are too stupid to resist your oppressors, and the other half reject violence even when it is justified and necessary.”

I told him I was flattered to be considered part of the non-stupid segment of the American public, but that even as a non-stupid non-pacifist I often find it hard to know when violence is justified or necessary.

“If your country were invaded and occupied by a hostile foreign power, your people slaughtered and tortured, your women raped, your religion and customs violated, your resources looted, would violent resistance be justified and necessary?”

“Of course.”

“So when the people of Afghanistan blow up eight CIA agents, are their actions justified and necessary?”

“From their point of view, sure.”

“What about from your point of view?”

“As an American citizen, I’m trying to change things peacefully through legal, Constitutionally-protected means of protest.”

“You would be much more effective if you built a real resistance movement and blew up CIA agents. Or better yet CIA directors.”

I explained to him that I wouldn’t have the faintest idea of how to go about blowing up a CIA director even if I wanted to. It’s obviously a lot more complicated than “stick a fuse up his ass, light it, and run like hell.” And not all CIA directors are 100% bad. Remember William Colby? And what about all those former CIA people who have spoken out for 9/11 truth? What if somebody had blown them up?

“Your country is occupied by CIA-Mossad and the finance mafia that runs it,” he said. “They killed the Kennedies. They killed Martin Luther King, Jr. They killed Wellstone. They killed Gary Webb. They kill everyone that gets in their way. They start wars that kill millions. They rig your elections. They listen to your telephone conversations, read your emails, and use your cell phone as a roving microphone. They blackmail everyone of note, and if they can’t blackmail them, they frame them or neutralize them or kill them. Every American President since Reagan has been a CIA agent. Your Constitution is a dead letter. It was dead long before 9/11.”

I admitted that this was all true.

“Your country is under occupation. In Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and other places, when people are occupied, they fight back. Why won’t Americans fight back?”

I explained that a lot of us are fighting back. It’s called the infowar.

“Infowar is great,” he said. “But it doesn’t cost them enough to change their way of doing business. If you want a bad man to change his behavior, you have to give him some incentive for change. You have to raise the cost of the bad behavior until it becomes intolerable. A lot of grumbling on the internet doesn’t really cost them very much.”

What would be the best way to raise the cost, I asked. A general strike? Riots in the streets?

“Yes, those are time-honored methods,” he said.

I explained that the whole point of the infowar is to wake enough people up so that some day soon, when the economy gets bad enough, people will take to the streets, and the cops and troops will be on our side…like the final scene in V-for-Vendetta.

“V wasn’t afraid to use violence as part of his infowar,” he said. “Nor are the people of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland, Somalia, the Basque country, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, and everywhere else on earth where people are fighting occupation by the global financiers and their hired guns.

“What counts is having a culture of resistance. Where there is a culture of resistance, everybody pitches in to help. Some people set off bombs or organize attacks on occupation forces. Others, the great majority, fight the infowar and build a support network for the actual fighters. Even the biggest pacifist, where there is a culture of resistance, helps the resistance fighters by providing food, clothing, money, shelter, and encouragement, and by misdirecting the authorities and refusing all cooperation with them and sabotaging them whenever the opportunity arises.”

I asked why pacifists would be helping an armed resistance.

“Because they recognize that the violence is coming from the occupier, and that only attacks on the lives and property of the occupier can raise the cost of occupation high enough to end it.”

“But most Americans don’t perceive themselves as victims of a violent occupation,” I said. “We of the smart half see ourselves as occupiers of other countries, while the dumb ones see themselves as potential victims of violent terrorists who attack us because they hate our freedoms.”

“Forget the dumb half,” he said. “You need to convince the smart half that they are not occupiers. Why should Americans identify with the evil assholes who are raping the planet? Americans are under violent occupation, just like the people of other occupied lands, and they should build an effective resistance. You need to convince them to start thinking of it as an actual war, not just an infowar. In an actual war, the only thing that matters is reducing the enemy’s ability to wage war, and to raise the cost of his continuing to wage war until the cost becomes intolerable.”

I said I had no idea how to do that. Wouldn’t attacks on lives and property be counterproductive?

“It depends whose lives and property,” he answered. “Attacking ordinary Americans in their passenger airplanes and office buildings helps the occupiers, not the resistance. That’s why the occupiers are behind so much false-flag terrorism. But attacks on the leading men behind the occupation of planet Earth…now that could be very productive. Attacks on their property, kidnapping of their loved ones, and of course assassinations, these tactics would raise the price of their behavior. If the powerful men who craft the evil policies had to live in fear, they would have a powerful disincentive to continue crafting evil policies.”

Kidnappings? Assassinations? Are you kidding?! That would be WRONG, I screamed, Nixonesque in my self-consciousness, that would be SO wrong! Why, the very idea! How utterly APPALLING! Don’t you realize that the bad guys could be listening in even as we speak?!

My friend just chortled, remarked on what a hopeless bunch of boobs Americans are, told me that he wouldn’t ask me to celebrate any more blastings of CIA agents, wished me well in my infowar, and went back to wherever he came from.

I chewed over his words for quite some time. I decided I’m not sure I entirely agree with him, but I’ll tell you this: they’d have to waterboard me quite a bit before I’d give up his name.

What’s wrong (and right) with Judaism? Douglas Rushkoff will join me for some interfaith dialogue next month

Douglas Rushkoff is the author of many excellent books, most recently Life, Inc. Another key Rushkoff text is Coercion, which I reviewed here. We will discuss his 2003 book Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Jews and Judaism Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 on Fair and Balanced.

My original radio show, Truth Jihad Radio, started out on Republic Broadcasting Network–and my very first broadcast featured John Kaminski, an early 9/11 truth supporter and writer of fiery op-eds. Halfway through the show, Kaminski started ranting against Jews and Judaism. I argued with him for awhile. RBN owner John Stadtmiller even came on and told Kaminski to “cool it, I don’t want the ADL on my ass!” That just got Kaminski even more riled up. Finally Stadtmiller suggested I kick Kaminski off the air, which I proceeded to do. It was my first-ever show, and the first and last time I ever kicked a guest off the air. (It was also the last time I let someone else choose my radio guests for me.)

Since then, I have noticed that there is a vocal minority of people in the patriot radio community who dislike Judaism and/or Jews. These people fail to heed Adrian Salbuchi’s common-sense observation that Judaism, Zionism, and the state of Israel are three different things.

If it weren’t for Zionism and the criminal policies of the Israeli regime, such people would be far less numerous. Muslims, in particular, would be more likely to notice positive aspects of Judaism if their holy places were not the site of a genocidal occupation by a self-proclaimed “Jewish” state.

So…ask me about Zionism or Israel, and I have a simple answer: I’m agin’ it. Ask me about Judaism, and we’re in more complex and nuanced territory. My first question is, “which Judaism? The Judaism of child-killer rabbis, or the Judaism of Naturei Karta or Ken Biegeleisen or Douglas Rushkoff?” The three radically different approaches to Judaism of NK, Biegeleisen and Rushkoff all strike me as highly admirable, in different ways and for different reasons. At the root of all three approaches is an iconoclastic moral serious that is deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition, and which should be celebrated by Jews and non-Jews alike.

Rushkoff’s book Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism earned rave reviews from the likes of Naomi Wolf, and angry diatribes from those Rushkoff might characterize as Jewish fundamentalists and unreflective Zionists. Rushkoff argues that Judaism is best regarded as an open-source code built around the central idea of an utterly transcendent, universal deity characterized by absolute oneness, the affirmation of which “amounts to a declaration of the unity of the universe” (10). Wait a minute — that sounds a whole lot like Islam, whose core ideas are God’s transcendence, universality, and oneness, and whose code is as open-source as it gets thanks to its rejection of any form of priesthood or rabbinate. Perhaps the resemblance is not purely coincidental, since Islam came to reaffirm the truth of the earliest prophets’ message, not replace it.

In Nothing Sacred, Rushkoff argues that Judaism’s core message — iconoclasm, monotheism, and social justice — has gotten lost in the post-Holocaust rush to Zionism and other neo-orthodoxies and fundamentalisms. It is a trenchant critique, as well as an appealing vision of what Judaism (and monotheism in general) ought to be.

I am tempted to apply Rushkoff’s critique of Jewish fundamentalism to the contemporary Islamic scene, which is also plagued by various forms of obscurantism. One major difference, however, is that Islam is currently under attack by non-Muslim imperialist and colonialist powers–led by the Jewish Zionists–which makes it hard to fault those who rally around local cultural traditions, some of which they falsely equate with Islam, as part of their strategy of resistance. Telling a person whose culture is under genocidal attack to give up that culture, and adopt a more universal one, is tantamount to supporting the genocide. Or to put it another way: When a Westerner says to a Native American/Iraqi/Palestinian/Afghani “accept our liberal, tolerant, universalist way of life or we’ll kill you!” I reach for my revolver.

Bruce Levine, Alison Weir on Truth Jihad Radio

Saturday, December 19th on Truth Jihad Radio, 5-7 pm Central, AmericanFreedomRadio.com to be archived here in a few days…

First hour: Bruce Levine, Ph.D clinical psychologist, author Surviving America’s Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy; and Commonsense Rebellion: Taking Back Your Life from Drugs, Shrinks, Corporations, and a World Gone Crazy. Check out his excellent new article, Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?

Second hour: Alison Weir, If Americans Knew, setting the record straight on the Palestinian-Zionist conflict. Several of Alison Weir’s articles have been included in anthologies, and she has given briefings on Capitol Hill, presentations at the Asia Media Summit in Kuala Lumpur and at the Jerusalem Media Center Conference in the West Bank, and lectures at Harvard Law School, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, the Naval Postgraduate Institute, Georgetown, and numerous other campuses.

Final half hour: Rolf Lindgren will join me to discuss our brief for the defense KSM Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked. By the way, I am working with Saad Ali and other members of We Are Change Chicago (last week’s guests) to plan some truth-squadding actions at the Thompson Correctional Center in Northern Illinois where, according to Obama, KSM and the False-Confession Five will soon be imprisoned.

The global war on us

A New World War would be a global war waged by a global ruling class against the citizens of the world, with the aim of maintaining and reshaping hierarchical society to serve their own interests. It would indeed symbolize a New World War for a New World Order. In a globalized world, all conflict has global implications; the task at hand is whether the people can realize that war is not waged against a “distant” or “foreign” enemy, but against all people of the world. A New World War for a New World Order The Origins of World War III: Part 3  by Andrew Gavin Marshall

There is a world war going on, and you, dear reader, are caught in the middle of it. No, that’s not quite right. You are not in the middle. You are on the receiving end. It is a war of aggression, and you are the target.

A rapacious elite cabal has declared war against the people of earth, and the other life forms of earth as well. The only question that remains is, are you going to defend yourself? Or are you going to let them kill you and your planet?

I know this isn’t a pretty thought. If all we ask of life is pretty thoughts, we can stick our heads in the sand and think anything we like until the ostrich-hunter mows us down.

War has a bad name, and justly so. If we could efface the reality by removing all verbal traces of war, violence, and aggression from our language, I would happily comply.

But when people are actually under attack, as we are, they are faced with an immediate existential choice: fight back or die. Fight back or let everything you love — not just you but your family, your community, your ecosystem, your planet — be destroyed.

This, in the end, is why 9/11 truth is so important. Most Westerners who buy the official version of 9/11 inevitably also buy the equally absurd fiction that the psychopathic elite’s “war on terror” is against their enemies, not against them. When they realize that the masters of empire murdered  almost 3,000 people on 9/11, among them a great many Americans and Westerners, they will also realize that those of us who live in the West are, like the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghanis, living under a murderous occupation by a mass-murdering psychopathic elite. And they will also realize that, like the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghanis, we must fight back with everything we have.


We’re coming for your house next, Arnie!

Arnold Schwartzenegger says the protesters who vandalized University of California President Robert Birgeneau’s campus home are “terrorists.” People like Arnie are saying similar things about the guy who whacked Italian fascist leader Berlusconi with a statue, breaking his nose and chipping some teeth.

I’m not surprised that a planet-killing psychopath like Arnie would talk like that. What IS surprising is that so many people who understand just how psychopathic our leaders are cannot bring themselves to cheer for protesters who mess up a University President’s house or Il Duce’s face.

Top US leaders, the world’s biggest terrorists, are responsible for murdering millions of people in Iraq alone. To get even with such a leader, we would have to murder him millions of times…WHOA THERE! Though we are clearly within the realm of fantasy here–murdering someone more than once is not very realistic–the mere thought is enough to get most people’s inner Secret Service agent kicking in the door to their skulls: “Stop! You can’t even fantasize about that!”

Why have we been trained to react with horror and revulsion even to fantasies of violent attacks on psychopathic mass murderers who happen to be powerful…while we ignore the millions of murders by soldiers and cops on behalf of the psychopathic elite? The answer is that the powers that be want to maintain their monopoly of violence, because if their opponents are willing to use violence when it is effective, it will level the playing field and threaten their power, which rests on a preposterous claim to a monopoly on violence.

The truth is that the use or threat of violence by resistance forces often IS effective. I remember how amazed I was when I arrived at the Universite de Paris VIII in 1988 and discovered that universities in France were tuition-free. How could that be, I asked? My French colleagues patiently explained to me that every time the government tried to levy even a token tuition, students rioted in the streets, burning cars, smashing shop windows and battling the cops. After a few days of this, the authorities always relented and gave up their plans to charge tuition.

In a similar vein, the Rev. Frank Martinez of St. Mark’s Church in New York City once explained to me how he and his friends had stopped a wave of police brutality. They had tried everything — protests in front of the police station, press conferences with victims beaten within an inch of their lives, angry letters to the editor, and so on — but nothing worked. Finally, someone had the idea of seeking out the offending officers’ home addresses and putting up “wanted for police brutality” posters featuring the abusive cops’ photos and home addresses along with brief descriptions of their evil deeds, and scheduling protests outside the officers’ homes. The day those posters started going up, Martinez said, the NYPD suddenly became very cooperative, suspending some rogue officers and moving others out of the neighborhoods they had been abusing and into desk jobs. The moral: an implicit or explicit threat of violence is often the only way to deter a powerful psychopath.

People who put up with their tax dollars being used to murder millions of innocents, but who flinch at the idea of physically assaulting a fascist war criminal like Berlusconi, are suffering from a bizarre but very prevalent form of schizoid delusion. All such people should immediately read Endgame by Derrick Jensen, who shows with searing clarity how the common activists’ insistence on “nonviolence” can be a debilitating neurosis. An extract:

“It is pretty clear to me that our horror of violence is actually a deep terror of responsibility. We don’t have issues with someone being killed. We have issues about unmediated killing, about doing it ourselves. And of course we have issues with violence flowing the wrong way up the hierarchy.” (Endgame v.2, p.685)

Violence SHOULD start flowing “the wrong way up the hierarchy,” and ASAP.  The top of the hierarchy is perpetrating the most obscene forms of mass violence on an ongoing basis, and the people lower down need to start figuring out how to use violence, and the threat of violence, more effectively against the psychopathic mass murderers at the top.

The pathocracy invented the “terrorism” witch hunts in order to demonize anyone who resists their violence with violence, who turns violence back against the real perpetrators, who sends violence back “the wrong way up the hierarchy.” Why? Because that’s precisely what they’re afraid of. They want us to “embrace nonviolence” and thereby prevent ourselves from ever posing a real threat to their power.

Yes, I do support all sorts of nonviolent resistance activities. I respect nonviolent activists, and my activism is of course 100% nonviolent and legal (since I obviously wouldn’t be stupid enough to blog about any part of it that wasn’t.) 

But I do confess to joining Fans of the Guy Who Hit Berlusconi.

And to admiring the kids who trashed Birgeneau’s house.

And to imagining how cool it would be to burn down the Governor’s mansion and kick Schwartzenegger’s “terrorist” ass…and then mete out similar treatment to the 9/11 traitors and all other members of the psychopathic elite that Barrie Zwicker calls “the diabologarchy.”

I’m not going to let the Orwellian brain police storm into my head and tell me I’m not allowed to have those feelings.

I do have them.

Maybe you should too.

Tarpley: “Obama declares war on Pakistan”

Tuesday, December 15th, 9 a.m. – 10 a.m. Pacific (noon – 1 pm Eastern) on Fair and Balanced, http://www.noliesradio.org, to be archived a few hours later here: Webster Tarpley, author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror, two Obama exposes, Surviving the Cataclysm, and other books.

Webster Tarpley is one of the most important geopolitical analysts of our time. His brand-new article “Obama Declares War on Pakistan” rips the veil off the covert Anglo-American war against Pakistan. I am posting the entire article below, since it is brand-new and I can’t find it posted elsewhere yet.

OBAMA DECLARES WAR ON PAKISTAN

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, Dec. 11 — Obama’s West Point speech of December 1 represents far more than the obvious brutal escalation in Afghanistan — it is nothing less than a declaration of all-out war by the United States against Pakistan. This is a brand-new war, a much wider war now targeting Pakistan, a country of 160 million people armed with nuclear weapons. In the process, Afghanistan is scheduled to be broken up. This is no longer the Bush Cheney Afghan war we have known in the past. This is something immensely bigger: the attempt to destroy the Pakistani central government in Islamabad and to sink that country into a chaos of civil war, Balkanization, subdivision and general mayhem. The chosen strategy is to massively export the Afghan civil war into Pakistan and beyond, fracturing Pakistan along ethnic lines. It is an oblique war using fourth-generation or guerrilla warfare techniques to assail a country which the United States and its associates in aggression are far too weak to attack directly. In this war, the Taliban are employed as US proxies. This aggression against Pakistan is Obama’s attempt to wage the Great Game against the hub of Central Asia and Eurasia or more generally.

US DETERRED FROM OPEN WAR BY PAKISTAN’S NUKES

The ongoing civil war in Afghanistan is merely a pretext, a cover story designed to provide the United States with a springboard for a geopolitical destabilization campaign in the entire region which cannot be publicly avowed. In the blunt cynical world of imperialist aggression à la Bush and Cheney, a pretext might have been manufactured to attack Pakistan directly. But Pakistan is far too large and the United States is far too weak and too bankrupt for such an undertaking. In addition, Pakistan is a nuclear power, possessing atomic bombs and medium range missiles needed to deliver them. What we are seeing is a novel case of nuclear deterrence in action. The US cannot send an invasion fleet or set up airbases nearby because Pakistani nuclear weapons might destroy them. To this extent, the efforts of Ali Bhutto and A.Q. Khan to provide Pakistan a deterrent capability have been vindicated. But the US answer is to find ways to attack Pakistan below the nuclear threshold, and even below the conventional threshold. This is where the tactic of exporting the Afghan civil war to Pakistan comes in.

The architect of the new Pakistani civil war is US Special Forces General Stanley McChrystal, who organized the infamous network of US torture chambers in Iraq. McChrystal’s specific credential for the Pakistani civil war is his role in unleashing the Iraqi civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites by creating “al Qaeda in Iraq” under the infamous and now departed double agent Zarkawi. If Iraqi society as a whole had lined up against the US invaders, the occupiers would have soon been driven out. The counter-gang known as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” avoided that possibility by killing Shiites, and thus calling forth massive retaliation in the form of a civil war. These tactics are drawn from the work of British General Frank Kitson, who wrote about them in his book Low Intensity Warfare. If the United States possesses a modern analog to Heinrich Himmler of the SS, it is surely General McChrystal, Obama’s hand-picked choice. McChrystal’s superior, Gen Petraeus, wants to be the new Field Marshal von Hindenburg – in other words, he wants to be the next US president.

The vulnerability of Pakistan which the US and its NATO associates are seeking to exploit can best be understood using a map of the prevalent ethnic groups of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and India. Most maps show only political borders which date back to the time of British imperialism, and therefore fail to reflect the principal ethnic groups of the region. For the purposes of this analysis, we must start by recognizing a number of groups. First is the Pashtun people, located mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then we have the Baluchis, located primarily in Pakistan and Iran. The Punjabis inhabit Pakistan, as do the Sindhis. The Bhutto family came from Sind.

PASHTUNISTAN

The US and NATO strategy begins with the Pashtuns, the ethnic group from which the so-called Taliban are largely drawn. The Pashtuns represent a substantial portion of the population of Afghanistan, but here they are alienated from the central government under President Karzai in Kabul, even though the US puppet Karzai passes for a Pashtun himself. The issue involves the Afghan National Army, which was created by the United States after the 2001 invasion. The Afghan officer corps are largely Tajiks drawn from the Northern Alliance that allied with the United States against the Pashtun Talibans. The Tajiks speak Dari, sometimes known as eastern Persian. Other Afghan officers come from the Hazara people. The important thing is that the Pashtuns feel shut out.

The US strategy can best be understood as a deliberate effort at persecuting, harassing, antagonizing, strafing, repressing, and murdering the Pashtuns. The additional 40,000 US and NATO forces which Obama demands for Afghanistan will concentrate in Helmand province and other areas where the Pashtuns are in the majority. The net effect will be to increase the rebellion of the fiercely independent Pashtuns against Kabul and the foreign occupation, and at the same time to push many of these newly radicalized mujaheddin fighters across the border into Pakistan, where they can wage war against the central government in Islamabad. US aid will flow directly to war lords and drug lords, increasing the centrifugal tendencies.

On the Pakistani side, the Pashtuns are also alienated from the central government. Islamabad and the army are seen by them as too much the creatures of the Punjabis, with some input from the Sindhis. On the Pakistani side of the Pashtun territory, US operations include wholesale assassinations from unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, murders by CIA and reportedly Blackwater snipers, plus blind terrorist massacres like the recent ones in Peshawar which the Pakistani Taliban are blaming on Blackwater, acting as a subcontractor of the CIA. These actions are intolerable and humiliating for a proud sovereign state. Every time the Pashtuns are clobbered, they blame the Punjabis in Islamabad for the dirty deals with the US that allow this to happen. The most immediate goal of Obama’s Afghan-Pakistan escalation is therefore to promote a general secessionist uprising of the entire Pashtun people under Taliban auspices, which would already have the effect of destroying the national unity of both Kabul and Islamabad.

BALUCHISTAN

The other ethnic group which the Obama strategy seeks to goad into insurrection and secession is the Baluchis. The Baluchis have their own grievances against the Iranian central government in Tehran, which they see as being dominated by Persians. An integral part of the new Obama policy is to expand the deadly flights of the CIA Predators and other assassination drones into Baluchistan. One pretext for this is the report, peddled for example by Michael Ware of CNN, that Osama bin Laden and his MI-6 sidekick Zawahiri are both holed up in the Baluchi city of Quetta, where they operate as the kingpins of the so-called “Quetta Shura.” Blackwater teams cannot be far behind. In Iranian Baluchistan, the CIA is funding the murderous Jundullah organization, which was recently denounced by Teheran for the murder of a number of top officials of the Iranian Pasdaran Revolutionary guards. The rebellion of Baluchistan would smash the national unity of both Pakistan and Iran, thus helping to destroy two of the leading targets of US policy.

OBAMA’S RUBE GOLDBERG STRATEGY

Even Chris Matthews of MSNBC, normally a devoted acolyte of Obama, pointed out that the US strategy as announced at West Point very much resembles a Rube Goldberg contraption. (In the real world, “al Qaeda” is of course the CIA’s own Arab and terrorist legion.) In the world of official US myth, the enemy is supposed to be “Al Qaeda.” But, even according to the US government, there are precious few “Al Qaeda” fighters left in Afghanistan. Why then, asked Matthews, concentrate US forces in Afghanistan where “Al Qaeda” is not, rather than in Pakistan where “Al Qaeda” is now alleged to be?

One elected official who has criticized this incongruous mismatch is Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who said in a television interview that ‘Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter [of global terrorism], although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That’s not next door to Waziristan. So I’m wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn’t make any sense to me.’ Indeed. ‘The Wisconsin Democrat also warned that U.S. policy in Afghanistan could actually push terrorists and extremists into Pakistan and, as a consequence, further destabilize the region: “You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan?” he told ABC. “They couldn’t deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it’s just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest.”’[1] Of course, this is all intentional and motivated by US imperialist raison d’état. .

MALICK: “DID OBAMA DECLARE WAR ON PAKISTAN?”

Obama’s speech did everything possible to blur the distinction between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are after all two sovereign states and both members of the United Nations in their own right. Ibrahim Sajid Malick, US correspondent for Samaa TV, one of the largest Pakistan television networks, called attention to this ploy: ‘Speaking to a hall full of cadets at the US Military Academy of West Point, President Barack Obama almost seemed like he might be declaring war on Pakistan. Every time he mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan preceded mention…. Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: “the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.” I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure.’[2] This article is entitled “Did Obama Declare War On Pakistan?”, and we can chalk the question mark up to diplomatic discretion. During congressional hearings involving General McChrystal and US Ambassador Eikenberry, Afghanistan and Pakistan were simply fused into one sinister entity known as “Afpak” or even “Afpakia.”

In the summer of 2007, Obama, coached by Zbigniew Brzezinski and other controllers, was the originator of the unilateral US policy of using Predator drones for political assassinations inside Pakistan. This assassination policy is now being massively escalated along with the troop strength: “Two weeks ago in Pakistan, Central Intelligence Agency sharpshooters killed eight people suspected of being militants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wounded two others in a compound that was said to be used for terrorist training…. The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president’s decision…to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time — a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas — because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.”[3] The US is now training more Predator operators than combat pilots.

BLACKWATER ACCUSED IN PESHAWAR MASSACRE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

The CIA, the Pentagon, and their various contractors among the private military firms are now on a murder spree across Pakistan, attacking peaceful villages and wedding parties, among other targets. Blackwater, now calling itself Xe Services and Total Intelligence Solutions, is heavily involved: ‘At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, “snatch and grabs” of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.’ [4]

As shocking as Scahill’s report is, it must nevertheless be viewed as a limited hangout, since there is no mention of the persistent charges that a large part of the deadly bombings in Peshawar and other Pakistani cities are being carried out by Blackwater, as this news item suggests: “ISLAMABAD Oct. 29 (Xinhua) — Chief of Taliban movement in Pakistan Hakimullah Mehsud has blamed the controversial American private firm Blackwater for the bomb blast in Peshawar which killed 108 people, local news agency NNI reported Thursday.”[5] This was blind terrorism designed for maximum slaughter, especially among women and children.

US ALSO AT WAR WITH UZBEKISTAN?

Scahill’s report also suggests that US black ops have reached into Uzbekistan, a post-Soviet country of 25 million which borders Afghanistan to the north: ‘In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, according to the military intelligence source. Blackwater does not actually carry out the operations, he said, which are executed on the ground by JSOC forces. “That piqued my curiosity and really worries me because I don’t know if you noticed but I was never told we are at war with Uzbekistan,” he said. “So, did I miss something, did Rumsfeld come back into power?”’ [6] Such are the ways of hope and change.

The role of US intelligence in fomenting the Baluchistan rebellion for the purpose of breaking Pakistan apart is also confirmed by Professor Chossudovsky: ‘Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a “Yugoslav-like fate” for Pakistan “in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Baluchistan.” (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a “failed state” by 2015, “as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanization and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons”. (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005)…. Washington favors the creation of a “Greater Baluchistan” which would integrate the Baluch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan.’[7] The Iranians, for their part, are adamant that the US is committing acts of war on their territory in Baluchistan: “TEHRAN, Oct. 29 (Xinhua) — Iran’s Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said …that there are some concrete evidences showing U.S. involvement in recent deadly bomb explosions in the country’s Sistan-Baluchistan province, the official IRNA news agency reported. …. The deadly suicide attack by Sunni rebel group Jundallah (God’s soldiers) occurred on Oct. 18 in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province near the border with Pakistan when the local officials were preparing a ceremony in which the local tribal leaders were to meet the military commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).[8]

US GOAL: CUT THE PAKISTAN ENERGY CORRIDOR BETWEEN IRAN, CHINA

Why would the United States be so obsessed with the breakup of Pakistan? One reason is that Pakistan is traditionally a strategic ally and economic partner of China, a country which the US and British are determined to oppose and contain on the world stage. Specifically, Pakistan could function as an energy corridor linking the oil fields of Iran and possibly even Iraq with the Chinese market by means of a pipeline that would cross the Himalayas above Kashmir. This is the so-called “Pipelinestan” issue. This would give China a guaranteed land-based oil supply not subject to Anglo-American naval superiority, while also cutting out the 12,000 mile tanker route around the southern rim of Asia. As a recent news report points out: ‘Beijing has been pressuring Tehran for China’s participation in the pipeline project and Islamabad, while willing to sign a bilateral agreement with Iran, has also welcomed China’s participation. According to an estimate, such a pipeline would result in Pakistan getting $200 million to $500 million annually in transit fees alone. China and Pakistan are already working on a proposal for laying a trans-Himalayan pipeline to carry Middle Eastern crude oil to western China. Pakistan provides China the shortest possible route to import oil from the Gulf countries…. The pipeline, which would run from the southern Pakistan port of Gwadar and follow the Karakoram highway, would be partly financed by Beijing. The Chinese are also building a refinery at Gwadar. Imports using the pipeline would allow Beijing to reduce the portion of its oil shipped through the narrow and unsafe Strait of Malacca, which at present carries up to 80% of its oil imports. Islamabad also plans to extend a railway track to China to connect it to Gwadar. The port is also considered the likely terminus of proposed multibillion-dollar gas pipelines reaching from the South Pars fields in Iran or from Qatar, and from the Daulatabad fields in Turkmenistan for export to world markets. Syed Fazl-e-Haider, “Pakistan, Iran sign gas pipeline deal,” Asia Times, 27 May 2009.[9] This is the normal, peaceful economic progress and cooperation which the Anglo-Americans are hell-bent on stopping.

Oil and natural gas pipelines from Iran across Pakistan and into China would carry energy resources into the Middle Kingdom, and would also serve as conveyor belts for Chinese economic influence into the Middle East. This would make Anglo-American dominion increasingly tenuous in a part of the world which London and Washington have traditionally sought to control as part of their overall strategy of world domination.

US domestic propaganda is already portraying Pakistan as the new home base of terrorism. The four pathetic patsies going on trial for an alleged plot to bomb a synagogue in the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx in New York City had been carefully sheep-dipped to associate them with the shadowy and suspicious Jaish-e-Mohammad, allegedly a Pakistani terrorist group. The same goes for the five Moslems from Northern Virginia who have just been arrested near Lahore in Pakistan.

INDIA AND IRAN

As far as the neighboring states are concerned, India under the unfortunate Manmohan Singh seems to be accepting the role of continental dagger against Pakistan and China on behalf of the US and the British. This is a recipe for a colossal tragedy. India should rather make permanent peace with Pakistan by vacating the Vale of Kashmir, where 95% of the population is Moslem and would like to join Pakistan. Without a solution to this issue, there will be no peace on the subcontinent.

Regarding Iran, George Friedman, the head of the Stratfor outlet of the US intelligence community recently told Russia Today that the great novelty of the next decade will be an alliance of the United States with Iran directed against Russia. In that scenario, Iran would cut off oil to China altogether. That is the essence of the Brzezinski strategy. It is urgent that the antiwar movement in the United States regroup and begin a new mobilization against the cynical hypocrisy of Obama’s war and escalation policy, which suprasses even the war crimes of the Bush-Cheny neocons. In this new phase of the Great Game, the stakes are incalculable.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/feingold-why-surge-where_n_381729.html
[2] Ibrahim Sajid Malick, “Did Obama Declare War On Pakistan?,” Pakistan for Pakistanis Blog, 2 December 2009. http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/did-Obama-declare-war-on-pakistan/484/
[3] Scott Shane, “C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan,” New York Times, December 3, 2009. See also David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, “Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan,” New York Times, 1 December 2009.
[4] Jeremy Scahill, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” The Nation, November 23, 2009
[5] “Taliban in Pakistan blame U.S. Blackwater for deadly blast,” Xinhua News Agency, 29 October 2009, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/29/content_12358907.htm
[6] Jeremy Scahill, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” The Nation, November 23, 2009
[7] Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, Global Research, December 30, 2007
[8] “Iran says having evidences of U.S. involvement in suicide bomb attacks,” Xinhua, 29 October 2009.
[9] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE27Df03.html

Et tu, “young debunka”?!

This is a response to “Debunking Dad” whose first post, “Pull It,” argues that Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling firefighters out of the building.

Sorry DD, but I’m gonna have to school ya!

As you know I’m an English teacher as well as a homeschool dad. So it is my professional duty to point out some errors in your blog post.

First, when you put words in quotation marks, they should be the words actually spoken by the person you are quoting. Adding your own interpretations in brackets is normally a bad idea.  It is usually preferable to just give the quote, then explain what you think it means.

More to the point, your interpretation that Silverstein was talking about pulling firemen out of WTC-7 is implausible. WTC-7’s perfectly symmetrical 6.5 second collapse happened around 5:20 p.m. on 9/11/01 (twenty minutes after it had been prematurely announced by the BBC!) There were no firefighters to “pull” from WTC-7 that afternoon, because the firefighters were not allowed to enter the building. If you google around you will find videos of firefighters talking about how crazy it was that they were ordered NOT to enter WTC-7 and put out the relatively small fires.

Along with the fact that there were no firefighters in WTC-7 to pull out, please note that the idiomatic English construction exemplified by “we did X and then watched Y” normally refers to events that occur in very close temporal succession and have some kind of causal link. For example: “We pulled the marshmallows out of the fire and then watched their swollen brown surfaces exude thick, sweet smoke.” In this instance, as in most other instances with this construction, the watching happens immediately after the pulling, and what is seen is the effect of what was pulled. Another example: “We pulled out of the driveway and then watched our house fade from view.” Here, as in the marshmallow example, what was seen closely follows from what was done, both temporally and causally.

Imagine: You say “We pulled out of the driveway and then watched Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory on TV.”  I say “huh?” You explain, “What I meant was that we pulled out of the driveway to go to school in the morning, and then that same evening we watched the TV show.” Sorry, that doesn’t parse,  because there is no close temporal or causal connection between the two events.

Getting back to the Silverstein quote: There could not possibly be a causal connection, because pulling people from a high-rise doesn’t cause it to collapse. And there could not possibly be a close temporal connection, because there were no firefighters in WTC-7 immediately before the collapse (nor were there any during the hours before it.)

Finally, if he were talking about pulling firemen out, he would have used the pronoun “they,” not “it.”

For all of these reasons, Silverstein’s quote only makes sense if he was talking about “pulling” as in “demolishing” the building.

Why would Silverstein admit to demolishing a building whose demolition would earn him 700 million dollars in insurance fraud money, based on the false idea that it collapsed as the result of a terrorist attack?

The best hypothesis is that when Silverstein was interviewed for the America Rebuilds video, he and the other perps hadn’t yet gotten their story straight about WTC-7. Something obviously went wrong with their plan, since they cannot have planned to demolish WTC-7 in front of cameras at 5:20 p.m.  They probably planned to have it hit by Flight 93, which was shot down before it got there. Or perhaps they were going to take it down under the cover of the dust clouds from the demolished Towers. In any case, when Silverstein did this interview, he probably couldn’t imagine that anyone could plausibly claim that such an obvious controlled demolition was anything else. So he nervously tried to make up an excuse about it being demolished to prevent further loss of life.

When Silverstein mentions the “er, fire department commander” he hesitates noticeably, suggesting that he knew that person under a different designation. In fact, the chain of command in the NYFD on 9/11 was probably altered by the insertion of FEMA personnel (or 9/11 conspirators in those roles) supposedly due to the massive Tripod 2 bio-terror exercise scheduled for 9/12/01. So the acting “Fire Department commander” was probably a federal official who was part of the 9/11 operation.

Note that Silverstein credits himself with the idea for conducting the demolition. This is not entirely implausible, since Silverstein is a billionaire kingpin in the  Zionist mafia that seems to have played a major role in 9/11, especially in New York. For some background on Silverstein and his accomplices, google “Pakalert Press Israel did 9/11 all the proof in the world.”

Finally, I would be remiss in my duties as a homeschool dad if I failed to point out that you have a sentence fragment in the second paragraph of your post, and that “lets” is missing an apostrophe.

So…nice try, and “keep on debunking!”

Love, Dad

Saad Ali & Jim Duensing this Saturday 12/12 on Truth Jihad Radio



Truth Jihad Radio, 5-7 pm Central, AmericanFreedomRadio.com to be archived here in a few days…

Two courageous activists!

First hour: Saad Ali, We Are Change Chicago. Saad guest-hosted this show last summer and has been doing some amazing activism — check out his confrontation with Al Gore with other WeAreChange members. (Personally I’m not yet convinced that climate change is a non-issue, and I AM convinced that the ongoing eco-catastrophe IS an issue…but I still love watching the We Are Changers getting in Gore’s face!)

Second hour: Jim Duensing, founder of the Libertarian 9/11 truth group Libertarians for Justice. Jim was recently tazed and then shot in the back by a rogue cop. He is running for Senate against the Senator from La Casa Nostra, Harry Reid.

Accused 9/11 plotters may face NY “Guantanamo” – Reuters

Accused 9/11 plotters may face NY “Guantanamo” – Reuters

KSM and the False-Confession Five are obviously not guilty, as Rolf Lindgren and I have shown in our exhaustive annihilation of the federal charges. What’s more, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims know they’re not guilty:

“On average less than one in four [Muslims worldwide] believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical–only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it.”  –WorldPublicOpinion.org survey

Yet the Reuters report tells us these obviously innocent men who have had their souls destroyed by incessant torture will continue to be tortured in New York, where they “can expect solitary confinement, 23-hour-a-day lockdowns, constant video surveillance and almost no visitors.”

Since hardly any Muslims believe that al-Qaeda in general or these guys in particular did 9/11, why so much security? Is the real purpose of isolating these defendants and destroying their minds to make sure that they don’t get an adequate defense, which would easily prove them innocent?