My reply to the paper, published on May 1, 2013, was as follows:
It wasn’t a case of George W Bush responding inappropriately to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan and Iraq (editorial, April 26). It was a case of 9/11 enabling GWB to implement a programme of aggression that was already in place. Indeed, 9/11 was eagerly anticipated by the neocons, who stated in Project for the New American Century that their hopes would be difficult to realise “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”.
According to General Wesley Clark, former commander of Nato forces in Europe, the plan was to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”. Give or take one or two countries, and one or two changes in their order, that programme is still in place.
It’s too early to speculate about the aim of those behind the Boston bombings. Suffice it to say that there is no shortage of anomalies in the official narrative. Some of these become apparent in a frame-by-frame scrutiny of a film of events at one of the crime scenes, which initially shows no blood — despite what purports to be a severe injury.
Another interesting feature of the Boston bombings is that, as in the case of 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London, a terror drill “coincidentally” scheduled for the same place at the same time, and “coincidentally” constructing the same scenario, somehow managed to go live. (Letter ends here.)
Note the confidence with which Acting Editor Rob Mitchell says the “masterminds [of 9/11] lived beyond America’s borders”. He evidently hasn’t read what Nicholas Rockefeller said to Aaron Russo in 2000 — 11 months before 9/11:
There’s gonna be an event, and out of that event we’re gonna invade Afghanistan to run pipelines from the Caspian Sea. We’re going to invade Iraq to take the oilfields and establish a base in the Middle East, and to make it all part of the New World Order…”
After quoting Rockefeller, Russo says: “In my relationships with some of these people, I can tell you, that’s as evil as it really gets.” So, Mr Mitchell, who are the real “bad guys”?
Contrary to Mark Keown’s assertion, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily a result of the United States desire to achieve “full-spectrum” dominance. Plans for the invasion and occupation of these strategic areas were laid in the 1990s — long before 9/11 provided a convenient casus belli. (See Section V of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a publication of the Project for the New American Century. This section is entitled Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force, and includes the sentence: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”.) The destruction and dismemberment of Iraq (and soon of Iran?) also served the important purpose of removing yet another obstacle to Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East.
Later in the article, the reader’s interest is further piqued by the sentence: “One senses that the the future of the world is increased instability and perhaps in Europe, suppression of Islam, ethnic cleansing and dare I say it, ultimately even war.” Needless to say, there is no way in which Islam can be “suppressed”. (See the Telegraph article of March 25, 2008, which says: “The projections show that, if the Churches do not reverse their historical decline, there will be more active Muslims than Christians in Sunday services across Britain before the middle of the century.”) It’s already far too late for any program of “suppression” to be successful. And any attempt to remove the population of 2.4 million Muslims in Britain (which has grown by 500,000 in just the past four years) would result, quite simply, in the destruction of British society. Ditto the societies of France, Germany and other European countries with rapidly expanding Muslim minorities.
Keown is right when he says “we [should not] condemn all Muslims on the basis of the lunacy of a few”. But if he is seriously concerned about “lunacy”, he should examine United States foreign policy. He could begin by reading Robert Dreyfuss’ Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Metropolitan Books, 2005). He will then realize that these people he describes as lunatics are, to a large extent, the creation of policies pursued by the US at the height of the Cold War, when it sought (a) to contain Arab nationalism and Russian communism , and (b) to nurture a Sunni radicalism that could be used as a “weapon” against its enemies — in much the same way as it used Saddam as a “weapon” against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
Actually, the list of US/Israeli lunacies is far too long to be reproduced here. This incredibly destructive alliance has killed millions of people throughout the world during the past 50 years or so, and has also succeeded in poisoning large areas of the planet — with dioxins in the case of Vietnam, and with depleted uranium in the case of Iraq and other countries where DU munitions have been used. These toxins will remain teratogenic (i.e. a cause of hideous birth deformities) for hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of years.
Click on the banner to go to my secondhand bookshop at http://www.adilbookz.com.
The problem, here, is that Dominion Post cartoonist Tom Scott doesn’t know what the Afghanistan of “yesterday” was like. In reality, it was a country that was confidently moving into the modern age — although the record shop on the left, in a photo from the 1960s, was not the kind of place you would have found outside Kabul. (To see more pictures from that era, go to Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan…) The cartoon was published on August 11, 2010, and is a comment on the case of Bibi Aisha, who was allegedly mutilated by her husband, allegedly on the orders of a “Taliban court”. (I put the latter words in quotation marks because I doubt any court purporting to be Islamic would come up with a sentence for which there is no provision in Islamic law.)
Ann Jones, who says she knows Aisha, says in The Nation (August 12, 2010): “She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn’t figure at all in this account. The Time story*, however, attributes Aisha’s mutilation to a husband under orders of a Talib commander, thereby transforming a personal story, similar to those of countless women in Afghanistan today, into a portent of things to come for all women if the Taliban return to power.”
*Time magazine cover story of August 9, 2010.
Click on the banner to go to my secondhand bookshop at http://www.adilbookz.com.
This is the main picture on the front page of today’s Dominion Post. The kicker to the caption reads, “In the firing line”. Whew! You can almost hear the bullets whistling overhead. Just as well our heroic PM had the foresight to don a flak jacket.
In the story under the picture, headlined “Key makes secret visit to war zone”, the intrepid John Key is quoted as saying, “This is a dangerous place and I am asking New Zealanders to come here and represent New Zealand but, ultimately in doing that, to put their own lives on the line and I am not prepared to send people to a destination I am not prepared to come myself”.
Not exactly an elegant sentence.
In this month’s edition of Crescent International, Zafar Bangash has contributed a “special report” entitled “How Western governments and media spread Islamophobia”. In this five-page article, he notes that terrorists are invariably presented as pious Muslims by the Western media. “[Yet] it was also reported that the night before the [9/11] attacks, most of the alleged hijackers [went] to nightclubs to drink and dance.” Bangash also makes some excellent points in his “Reflections” article, which is headlined “Nationalism and sectarianism tearing the Ummah apart”. In my opinion, few things are more stupid than nationalism/patriotism. I never wave the flag, never sing the national anthem. Other articles in the latest edition of Crescent include two editorials: “US-backed terrorist group attacks Iran”, and “Goldstone report confirms Zionist war crimes”.
The latest edition of Australia/Israel Review has the words “The Terror Triangle” superimposed on a map of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also superimposed is a picture of some smiling Pashtun tribesmen wielding weapons, whom we are presumably expected to regard as terrorists. But as many observers have pointed out, the principal aim of such “terrorists” or “insurgents” is simply to expel the foreign forces that are occupying their country. Ironically, the main terrorist organization operating in the area is the United States military, which sends drones to fire missiles into the suspected homes/meeting places of those who oppose its criminal activities – almost always killing large numbers of women and children.
View Crescent online at crescent-online.net.
Mike Moreu’s cartoon from the Manawatu Standard of September 4, 2009.
A New Zealand Herald article (August 26, 2009) headlined “Boot camps offer hope to ‘unexploded time-bombs’ ” begins: “The Government has announced 40 places in controversial military-style boot camps will be available to deal with serious young offenders. The camps, to cost $5.3 million over four years, were one of a range of initiatives announced by Prime Minister John Key in Wellington today.”
Interestingly, Kim Workman, project director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, has commented: “Boot camps and their variants are known in the profession as “correctional quackery” – they satisfy the desire to punish, but fail to produce a result.”