There is a deplorable campaign in progress to “rehabilitate” World War I — to make us believe it was fought with a purity of purpose by gallant young men who wanted nothing more than a land “fit for heroes to live in” (in the words of Lloyd George). In reality, it was a squalid conflict that set the stage for World War II and created bitter rivalries in the Middle East that continue to this day.
It should be obvious to everyone that the claim that those who died at Gallipoli “laid down their lives” for our freedom is ludicrous. The Ottoman Empire never threatened our freedom in New Zealand, and its foolish alliance with Germany during World War I is neither here nor there. So those who died at Gallipoli — those who initially assumed the war would be a spiffing, four-month adventure — really did die for nothing. I see no more point in remembering them than in remembering those who died in the Crimean War.
These days, the truth stops long before it reaches the Oval Office. The cartoon is from the Los Angeles Times.
I found this cartoon from 1988 while clearing out some old papers. It’s as relevant today as it was then.
As I said in my previous post, I have been looking at a few of the analyses of current events that I have been receiving from the Stratfor think tank. Another statement that I took issue with was:
“…as long as the ideology of jihadism survives, its adherents will pose a threat…”
to which I replied:
As long as the US continues its push for global domination, in part by attacking, invading, occupying and brutalizing Muslim countries, there will be “jihadism”. It’s your baby, just as Hezbollah is Israel’s baby. Where was Hezbollah before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982? Where was “jihadism” before the US started its cynical, self-serving meddling in the Middle East?
Furthermore, your claim that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 is absurd. The planning of 9/11 began in the 1960s in the philosophy classes of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, and was developed by people with dual Israeli/American citizenship in what became known as the neoconservative movement. As former Italian President Francesco Cossiga said in 2007, all intelligence agencies know that 9/11 was run by the Mossad. The planes flying into buildings, the cries of “al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda”, were just a spectacular diversion for the masses. What we have here is an example, par excellence, of Joseph Goebbels’ Big Lie — the lie that is so huge, so stupendous that everyone believes it.
And why would members of a Zionist/neocon cabal kill thousands of their fellow citizens in an act of the most egregious evil? Well, you have to go back to the Nazi philosophies of Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt for the answer to that one.
Some time ago, I put myself on the Stratfor think tank’s mailing list. I even read a few of their analyses of current events, which proved to be ultra-conservative. (No surprises there!) In one, I found the following statement:
“…law enforcement and intelligence officials . . . have developed very effective programs of identifying grassroots operatives and drawing them into sting operations.”
to which I replied as follows:
But can they, in all cases, be described as “grassroots operatives” at the time they are initially approached by the FBI? I suspect that, in some cases, they are confused, simple-minded, or mentally unbalanced people who succumb to the persuasive talk of the FBI agent and “buy” his plot. The “operative” accepts equipment from the agent and dutifully follows his instructions, and is then arrested. The FBI agent then poses as a savior of society. But is he? Would the “operative” have attempted to commit a terrorist act if he had not been approached, and entrapped, by the agent? That is the question that has to be asked, but which your article does not address.
Your analysis of “radicalization” is also deficient. One does not have to be radicalized by “jihadist ideology” or by higher “tiers” of some jihadist structure. All one has to do is read the news – the daily reports of thousands of innocent people being dispossessed, tortured and killed by the Americans in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and elsewhere as they pursue their bogus “war on terror”, which is actually designed to advance American interests abroad and stifle dissent at home. Actually, the Americans are hypocritical, as they are happy to support al-Qaeda elements when the objectives of those elements coincide with America’s, as in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Libya and Syria. It is not for nothing that al-Qaeda has been called “America’s foreign legion”. As Tony Cartalucci has pointed out, al-Qaeda, to the Americans, is both ally and “perpetual casus belli”. America must have a perpetual casus belli, because it doesn’t make much, these days, apart from weapons, and it doesn’t do much, and can’t do much, except wage war. It is only with its military that it can compete with China, which is probably its ultimate enemy.
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”?
I have never involved myself in this issue, but believe in treating it seriously — without the locker-room jocularity of this cartoon by Manawatu Standard cartoonist Evans. It was published on April 18, 2013.
In an article headlined “Afghan war troubling for Clark, Key”, published in the Manawatu Standard on April 6, 2013, reporter Tracy Watkins quotes former prime minister Helen Clark as saying:
I didn’t have any qualms about the legality [of Afghanistan]. It was absolutely legal. But it was also just the knowledge that Afghanistan as it was had been a failed state and, in failed states, very bad things can happen, including what are obviously terror groups like al Qaeda being able to move around with impunity.
Watkins continues: “She is comfortable she can look the families of all our combat casualties in the eye in the belief New Zealand did the right thing.”
I would say that without hesitation. Just as I would say to families who lost loved ones in World War II, the cause was right.
MY NOTE: So if a country is a “failed state” (as defined by us), it’s okay to invade it, and kill thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people? And no doubt, like the criminal Tony Blair, she’d “do it all again”. See Helen Clark on Afghanistan in 2001 at hardcaw.com.