ten downing street

Leading UK Muslims have united to tell Tony Blair that his foreign policy in Iraq and on Israel offers "ammunition to extremists" and puts British lives "at increased risk".

An open letter signed by three of the four Muslim MPs, three of the four peers, and 38 organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, was greeted with dismay in Downing Street. It has courted the MCB and several of the signatories, such as key Labour MPs Sadiq Khan (Tooting) and Shahid Malik (Dewsbury), whom it believes can shape Muslim opinion.

The letter says: "As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens. It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

"To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

"The debacle of Iraq and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

"Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the prime minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us all safer."

The signatories insisted they condemned those who planned the alleged attacks. Mr Khan told the Guardian that Mr Blair's reluctance to criticise Israel over the Lebanon attacks meant the pool of people from which terrorists found their recruits was increasing.

He said: "We simply cannot ignore the fact that our country's foreign policy is being used by charismatic [figures] to tell British Muslims that their country hates them. Current policy on the Middle East is seen by almost everyone I speak to as unfair and unjust. Such a sense of injustice plays into the hands of extremists."

Mr Malik said British foreign policy encourages the view in the Muslim community "where you forget about right and wrong, where you think two wrongs equals a right ... those events are diminishing my ability to put forward arguments against extremism".

Lord Patel of Blackburn said the US and British governments were applying "double standards" by failing to take on Israel.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We hope the government will do more to ensure its policy doesn't allow people to believe that the lives of some civilians are worth more to it than others."

No 10 is frustrated by the letter, which it did not know about until last night. A spokesman said: "Al-Qaida starting killing innocent civilians in the 90s. It killed Muslim civilians even before 9/11, and the attacks on New York and Washington killed over 3,000 people before Iraq. To imply al-Qaida is driven by an honest disagreement over foreign policy is a mistake."

Two Muslim commentators blamed a lack of community leadership from foreign-born imams and mosque elders for the alienation felt by some younger Muslims. On the BBC's World at One Shiraz Mihir, a former member of the hardline Hizb ut-Tahrir group, said: "The mosques are not able to offer any effective leadership. At a time when there is a polarising debate about Muslim identity and how young British Muslims fit into the wider British society, there is a vacuum which is being filled by radicals and extremists."

Harris Rafique of the newly formed Sufi Muslim Council added: "We are seeing a huge politicisation of faith rather than (economic) circumstances. An ideology is taking hold of our youngsters."

Senior members of other faith communities voiced their practical support for a peace settlement in the Middle East. John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, announced that he was cancelling his holiday and would embark on a week of prayer and fasting inside York Minster.

Alan McDonald, moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, called for prayers for peace and donate to charities such as Christian Aid. - link

This is taken from the official no.10 website:

http://www.number10.gov.uk

"Madam Speaker, other questions arise about this military operation. Let me deal with some of them. Is it a specific objective to remove Saddam Hussein? The answer is it cannot be. No-one would be better pleased if his evil regime disappeared as a direct or indirect result of our action, but our military objectives are precisely those I have set out. Even if there was legal authority to do so, removing Saddam through military action would require the insertion of ground troops on a massive scale hundreds of thousands, as the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, made clear this morning. Even then there would be no absolute guarantee of success. I cannot make that commitment responsibly."
- link

Yesterday, after Hezbollah killed12 Israeli soldiers preparing to fight in Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert met with fifty of his mouth pieces to inform them of the new talking points. In preparation for the widening of aggression against all of Lebanon, Hezbollah areas and not, they needed to get some new spin ready.

"Our enemy is not Hezbollah, but Iran, which employs Hezbollah as its agent," Olmert told his spokepersons.

Israel often constructs a mythical puppeteer, far bigger than the opponent it is fighting, to either exaggerate its victories or minimize the meaning of its defeats.

In March 2002, a Palestinian sniper killed 10 Israeli soldiers with a primitive WW2 rifle, the attack was so potent, 10 out of 15 rounds fired were deadly. Sitting in a hill opposed to military post, the sniper withdrew unharmed. It sent shock waves within the Israeli military establishment.

It was so hard for the Israelis that a Palestinian could have carried out such an attack; they claimed an IRA member must have done it. They issued alerts to look out for any suspected IRA members in Palestine, and called the Irish Authorities to investigate if any IRA fighters traveled to Palestine. Of course, Israel's wished never materialized. A couple of years later, they arrested a Palestinian man in his late sixties and charged him with the attack.

Similarly, Israel, not being able to face its failure to defeat Hezbollah, will attach the words "Syria" and "Iran" to every mention of the group. This mantra particularly intensifies when Hezbollah carries out sophisticated attacks, like flying reconnaissance drones over Israeli targets, and the bombing of a warship with an advanced guided missile three weeks ago. Israel not only blamed Iran for supplying the weapon, but also it insisted that there was Iranian advisor present for Hezbollah to be able to fire such a missile.

It is common knowledge that Iran supports and supplies Hezbollah, but by no means to the extent the US supports and supplies Israel (billions of dollars a year). Nor does that make Hezbollah a foreign proxy.

Israel continues to claim that arms are still being shipped to Hezbollah as the fighting goes on, despite the near complete destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, particularly roads, bridges, airports, and seaports. Such are meant to mask the fact that Hezbollah had large stockpiles of weapons, which Israel's attacks failed to destroy.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Israel portrayed the Soviet Union as the enemy behind the enemy during its wars with neighboring Arab countries. Israel's victory then is behind the current myth-like reputation of the Israeli army, as it 'not only defeated the Arab armies, but also their Soviet backing.' Israel also cultivated the fruits of that strategy through the massive US support it won on ideological grounds.

Israel losing this fight has immense political effects on Israel. An Israel that is not capable of defeating Hezbollah is not the strategic ally the pro-Israel lobby portrays in justifying massive and unconditional American political and financial support to Israel. As a result, the longer this fight goes on -- the further away victory seems for the Israeli army -- the more focused the Israeli PR machine becomes on building up the straw men behind Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

The Sunday attack that killed 12 Israeli soldiers was so humiliating to Israel's military might, the mythical puppeteer no longer satisfies the fury. Israel revealed its newest measure, a higher level of hatred, rage, and revenge. It announced it would target "strategic civilian infrastructure" and "symbols of the Lebanese government." When the self-deluded "civilized" get desperate, we see war crimes painted as strategy.

Aside from being immoral, unethical, illegal collective punishment, Israel's actions provide an insight into the feeling of defeat that is beginning to wear down the Israeli leadership. - link

Britain is living through its most threatening time since the second world war, John Reid, the home secretary, warned today.

In a speech to Demos, a London thinktank, the hyperactive home secretary - who will mark 100 days in the job this Friday - confirmed that a terrorist attack on the UK was "highly likely", as signalled by the current "severe" warning on official government websites.

He also called for a "Darwinian" approach to the legal system, saying that it must be "responsive to change" in order to protect the nation against terrorism. Mr Reid said: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

He complained that as home secretary he was "in a very difficult position", unable to always prosecute individuals due to the difficulty of obtaining "sufficiently cogent admissible evidence for a criminal trial", while facing legal bars against deporting or detaining them.

He warned: "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms."

Although the speech broke no new ground in terms of concrete policy, Mr Reid repeated previous government assurances that the security services had already foiled four known terror plots against the country - but quoted Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, by saying that there were "known unknown and unknown unknown" terror plots.

Mr Reid also pointed out that European-wide human rights - such as freedom from detention, forced labour, torture and punishment without trial - had been formulated in the wake of state fascism, but were now threatened by what he dubbed "fascist individuals".

The heavily-trailed speech also called for a national debate on immigration levels - something the Labour party heavily attacked Michael Howard for demanding at the last general election.

In his address to Demos, Mr Reid called on the public, especially ethnic minority communities, to help the police and intelligence services track potential terrorists, saying that the professionals alone cannot "100% guarantee" to defeat the threat.

The home secretary said that the end of the cold war had been accompanied by the "reach and impact" of organised crime and international terrorism.

"We are probably in the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II.

"While I am confident that the security services and police will deliver 100% effort and 100% dedication, they cannot guarantee 100% success.

"Our security forces and the apparatus of the state provide a very necessary condition for defeating terrorism but can never be sufficient to do so on their own. Our common security will only be assured by a common effort from all sections of society."

As leaked to the weekend papers, Mr Reid also said that mass migration in a globalised world was the "greatest challenge facing European governments".

While the mass movement of people provided the potential for greater wealth and opportunity, it also brought insecurity into the heart of communities, he claimed.

The home secretary said that the cold war "froze" the world into a static state in which migration was minimal, ethnic and religious tensions suppressed and national borders inviolable.

Twenty years after its end, Britons were now faced with a world in which insecurity had become "one of the highest concerns of daily living".

"That momentous scale of transition from static to mobile populations makes mass migration and the management of immigration the greatest challenge facing European governments, in my view," he said.

The speech came a week after the court of appeal said that control orders used to restrain the movements of six terror suspects broke human rights laws.

The court of appeal judges did not quash the system of control orders, which are used to restrain terror suspects where there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.

But they said that the orders applied to six suspects were so stringent that they broke European laws outlawing indefinite detention without trial.

Mr Reid has now issued new orders against the men which shorten their curfews from 18 hours to 14 hours a day and relax restrictions on who they are allowed to meet.

But he said that the orders were now not as restrictive as the security services believed necessary.

The Conservatives would still like to see a US-style minister for "homeland security" while both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have urged the government to allow phone tap evidence in terrorist trials.

The Liberal Democrats queried whether the government's existing counter-terrorism strategies were actually "encouraging rather than undermining co-operation" with all communities.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, complained: "[The government] should now answer our calls to establish a dedicated UK border police force to secure our borders and to appoint a dedicated minister for counter-terrorism."

Commenting after Mr Reid said it was not racist to talk about immigration, Mr Davis added: "The home secretary cannot simply blame the end of the cold war for the chaos and confusion in the asylum and immigration system. It is his government's policies that have lead to it being overwhelmed."- link

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence”. (Bertrand Russell)

So it is with Messrs. Bush and Blair which have acted time and again on the flimsiest of evidence to reshape Middle East into what they desire it to be: a neo-colonial possession to supply oil while at the same time helping their rich to get richer. You may disagree with this statement, especially, if you have been listening to so much propaganda about spreading democracy in the Muslim world in general and Middle East in particular. So I ask you to look at the following arguments and then decide if the actions taken so far point to fighting terrorism, spreading democracy or hegemony.


The beginning


In 1996 the newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned a study group called ”Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" to formulate a strategy for Israel in the coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created the Israel’s strategy paper titled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” [1].

The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented bellow:


1.

Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.
2.

An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.
3.

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
4.

This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right


In 1997 another set of Neo-Conservatives that included personalities such as Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz Elliott Abrams, Lewis Libby, Eliot A. Cohen and others, created a think-tank organisation by the name of “The Project for the New American Century”. They stated their vision of the new world in their “statement of Principles”. To their credit, they were very honest about their goals. They said:


“We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?”[2]


The authors of the Clean Break, and the New American Century were friends, and fellow travellers. It is therefore not surprising to see that they soon recognised the complementary nature of these two strategies for the Middle East. Of course I leave the question of who influences whom to the reader; suffice to say that when it came to Israel and the Middle East, they both shared a common vision.


Immediately after the creation of the New American Century, the Neocons started their campaign for a change in American policy. Statement after statement called for a fundamental change, but the Clinton administration was not buying it. Of course with election of George Bush everything changed. One must not forget that a founding member and signatory to the “statement of Principles” was Jeb Bush, President’s brother, and another member Dick Cheney was the Vice President. It would not be far-fetched to assume that the Neocons, in 2000, still believed in the rightness of their strategy. Already by then the “Road Map to piece” and the Arab-Israeli negotiations was dead, and the new strategy of “Clean Break” was being implemented.

Now Israel was given the green light to go ahead and openly implement their vision of Peace-for-Peace instead of the Land-for-Peace.


Then came the golden opportunity: the infamous 9/11 [3]. Now the stage was set to begin to change the world and protect America’s “interest”. Now, what is it that the world needs most and of which 25% goes to America? Oil of course. Where is that Oil? Middle East. Who lives there? Muslims.


It is a fact that people in general, regardless of their nationality, race or creed, will not wage war on others without being either angry or frightened. People will not go to war for money alone; fear and anger have to be there. To create the fear and anger the Neocons started their propaganda campaign. According to Joseph Gobbles, Nazi Minister of Propaganda "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly ... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." The Neocons had already formulated the points:


*

Muslims are dangerous,
*

they, i.e. Muslims, are trying to destroy our (US, UK, Australian) way of life
*

all Arab and Muslim governments in the Middle East that are not subservient to US are illegitimate,
*

these governments were somehow involved in terrorism and 9/11,
*

the defence of Israel is the defence of Western values (i.e. US values).


Only after convincing people of these allegations, could they proper move to reshape the Middle East. The people had to be convinced that Neocons’ way was the only way forward. To achieve this, a two prong campaign was waged against the people of the United States, UK and Australia. While people such as Rupert Murdoch and his media empire were used to demonise the Muslims and quash any American (as unpatriotic or soft) who dared to question the reasons behind the government’s actions; the US and other governments set about scaring the people to death by constantly warning people of imminent terrorist attacks.


Suddenly the people were bombarded with negative images of Muslim “terrorists” that were out there to get them. The fear factor was also increased by the government’s colour coded warnings or announcements by police chiefs that they know of several terrorist plans to bomb civilians. One day it was New York, then Los Angeles, then somewhere else. Every week there were constant reports of terrorists planning this and that attack on unsuspecting citizens. News media, the government, the so called experts, the series (such as 24 hours) on TVs depicting Muslims as terrorist, and other means were used to scare the people into submission. Then when the people were really scared, the government came with its anti-terror laws such as Patriot Act, rubbing people of some their most basic civil liberties.


The Propaganda Machine

I can very well understand, if you are sceptical of this. But just look at all the films and discussions by the so called “experts” in the news and see if you can detect the message. It is a message of fear that is repeated over and over again. This message is nicely inserted in the popular movie plots. Just look at all the series that have been released by major film studios, and see if you can find one that contains anything even remotely favourable to Arabs, Muslims, or Islam. And then look at all the movies and see if you can find one bad Jewish character in them. The Muslims are always portrayed as terrorists, terrorist sympathisers, or refugees running from Islam. In some films even the hero happily uses torture to extract information from the Muslim terrorist in order to save innocent people. You may watch these films and see it as fun, but unconsciously you are being prepared to believe the stereotypical caricature of the Muslims.


In contrast you see that the Jews are always portrayed as honest, religious, and educated people. Jews make up a very small percentage of the US population (2.2%), yet from the films you get the impression that they represent around 25% or more. Don’t get me wrong, I say good for them. They have worked hard to get into a position to improve their public image by using the media. After years of being portrayed as shylocks and such, it is refreshing to see them portrayed as good, honest, hard working citizens. I just mention them here to show how the media is portraying different people and how that may determine your view of these people. And just to be clear about it, I should say it loud and clear here that I hate anti-Semitism or any kind of racism and condemn it in all its forms. What I am talking about here is the manipulation of unsuspecting people by a small group for political and financial gains.

Of course, we hate the thought of being manipulated and controlled. We don’t want to believe it. Our intellectual autonomy, after life itself, is one that we cherish most. We accept the overt manipulations by the advertisers, for we believe that we are in control. After all, no-one can fool me, right? That is why we pay for French bottled water, drink Pepsi and buy Nikes, and all because we are in control. In today’s world, the greatest illusion for an individual is that of being in control of one’s thought and opinion.


There exists a power that reaches into every home and into every mind and tries to manipulate and influence our opinions and perceptions of the reality. This power is called the mass-media. We all acknowledge the influence of this power on young minds. We protect our children from images, language or contents that we deem unsuitable; thinking, rightly, that the young mind is all too impressionable and susceptible to believe the stuff that they are exposed to. Yet, we leave ourselves open to manipulation without blinking an eye; for we believe that they can not fool us. But unfortunately we are being fooled on a grand scale. After all, the greater the lie, the easier it is to accept it as the truth.


To show you how a few people can manipulate so many, I have to list just a small section of this vast propaganda machine that is employed to make-up our mind for us.

The sad truth is that a handful of powerful groups control the expanding media and leisure market spanning film, television, book publishing, music, new online media, theme parks, sport, the print media and even the theatres. For example the US media market is controlled by only 6 conglomerates: Time Warner, General Electric, Walt Disney, Bertelsmann AG, Viacom, and News Corporation.


These companies, or rather their owners, set the agenda and control the dissemination of information to the public. Imagine the power these people have. It is no wonder that Presidents and Prime Ministers go hat in hand asking for an audience with the owners. These politicians know that these people are the ones that shape our perception of reality. So they go presenting their CVs, hoping to be accepted.


For example, every year Mr. Murdoch (the greatest friend of Israel) the owner of the News Corporation is described as television’s “most powerful man in the world with the capacity to reach more than 110 million viewers across four continents.” Murdoch’s network owns more than 175 newspapers, journals and magazines on three continents, publishes 40 million papers a week and dominates the newspaper markets in Britain, Australia and New Zealand [4]. Every year he holds a company meeting in a place of his choosing. This year it was in Pebble Beach, California.


According to Guardian, “Murdoch wields considerable clout, which is why Tony Blair is likely to address the Pebble Beach conference, just as he did, controversially, when the gathering was held in Sydney in 1996. As the political climate changes on both sides of the Atlantic, Murdoch continues to be courted by those seeking to gain or retain power. Blair's attendance will be viewed as a sign that Murdoch is not yet ready to abandon his paper's support for New Labour, but it could also be interpreted as a snub to Gordon Brown.

Murdoch is aligning his interests, as ever, with those who are most likely to benefit from a change in public opinion - hence his flirtation with presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. He is even hosting a fundraising event for the New York senator later this year.”[5]


You just have to look at Fox News, Sky News, or read the New York Post, Sun, or the Australian to understand what Mr Murdoch wants you to believe. He is one of the staunchest supporters – among other media tycoons-of the Neocons cause.


Mr. Murdoch controls – among other things- the following [6]:


International Book Publishing

HarperCollins Publishing, including HarperCollins U.K.; HarperCollins Canada; and HarperCollins Australia. U.S. imprints include Perennial; Quill; Regan Books; Amistad Press; Hearst Book Group (acquired 1997); includes William Morrow; Avon; HarperCollins Children's Book Group; and Zondervan Publishing House (world's largest commercial Bible publisher).


In US

Fox Sports Networks (21 networks covering major U.S. cities); Fox Sports Net (cable network with 60 million subscribers); Madison Square Garden Network (40 percent) with Cablevision; Speedvision (34 percent); Outdoor Life (34 percent); the Health Network (50 percent), with Liberty Media; Fox Family Worldwide; FOX News Channel; Fox Television Stations 22 stations (largest TV group in USA), Fox Entertainment, Fox Kid's Network,

Fox Sports; Fox Filmed Entertainment: TV and film production from Twentieth Century Fox; Fox Animation Studios; Fox 2000; and Fox Searchlight; Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment; Twentieth Century Fox Television; Twentieth Century Fox Licencing and Merchandising , and The New York Post


In UK

BSkyB (40 percent); Vivendi, as a result of its takeover of Universal has to divest its 24.5 percent stake in BskyB; Sky Digital, 150 channels and services including Sky One Sky News; National Geographic Channel (50 percent); The History Channel (50 percent); Paramount Channel (25 percent); Nickelodeon U.K. (50 percent); Premium channels including Sky Movies; Sky Movies Gold; Sky Sports, The Times; The Sunday Times; The Sun; The News of the World


In Australia

More than 100 national, metropolitan, suburban, regional and Sunday titles: The Australian; The Weekend Australian , The Daily Telegraph; The Sunday Telegraph Sportsman; Cumberland Newspaper Group (20 titles in the Sydney suburbs); Herald Sun; Sunday Herald Sun; The Weekly Times (30 titles in the Melbourne suburbs); The Courier Mail (41.7 percent); The Sunday Mail (41.7 percent); Gold Coast Bulletin (41.7 percent); The Cairns Post Group (41.7 percent); North Queensland Newspaper Group; Townsville Bulletin; Quest Community newspapers (17 titles in the Brisbane suburbs); Northern Territory News; Sunday Territorian; Centralian Advocate; The Suburban; The Mercury; The Sunday Tasmanian; Tasmanian Country; Treasure Islander; Derwnet Valley Gazette and the Sunday Times.


The above list is only a part of a vast propaganda machine that is working hard to get us to fear and hate and pay with our money and blood, so that the dreams and visions of a few can be realised. People everywhere, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or atheist, will rather work and help each other than kill one another. Nothing is more vile than killing for money and power. Where do you think the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the unnecessary war in Iraq has come from and more importantly, where has it gone? The money has gone from millions of poor American, English and Australian pockets into a few rich and large pockets.


In the process parents have lost their children, wives have lost husbands, children have lost their parents, and many millions have become homeless. And as though this was not enough, the seeds of hatred have been sown in the heart of over one billion people. People think that like in the movies, when a war is finished, the victims somehow just vanish or cease to exist. But the millions of Iraqis who have been robbed of their loved ones and now have to endure a civil-war are not likely to just forgive or forget; just as the Palestinians have not forgotten or allowed to forget. For more information you can look at this [Palestinian lives under occupation]. I bet 99.9% of us haven’t a clue of what life under occupation is like.


But let us just forget about the victims and consider the bystanders. The people in the Muslim world also watch TV and read Newspapers. Do you think that people in Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey or Jordan don’t see what they are being portrayed as? Do you think they don’t see the situation in Iraq, or Lebanon? If we were treated and portrayed in the same way, we would also react in the manner: with anger and frustration.


The war on terror is used like a beautiful magician’s assistant, to distract the public while the magician does his tricks. As long as people are scared and busy with Osama Bin Laden, no one will be noticing the systematic erosion of their civil liberties, or the increasing inequality, or declining quality of their lives. Who cares if 37.0 million Americans live in poverty [7]? Who cares if over 13 million families including 26.5 million children are living at the edge of the poverty (median income = $38000) [8]? Who cares if the top 10% own 71.5% of everything in US [9]? As long as you are afraid of the evil “terrorists” and are engaged in an unending war, you will not care.


Perhaps, Joseph Goebbels, the master propagandist of the third Reich was correct in his theory that:

”If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”



The Unending War: War on Terror


I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism [10]. This is because if you are going to define terrorism, you are liable to define some of your own actions as terrorism. And this will not do at all.


For example, in December 1987 the United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible way. When it came to vote, one country, Honduras, abstained and two voted against it: United States and Israel [11]. Are you surprised?


This was because of the article 8 of the resolution that mentions the elimination of colonialism, racism, and alien domination and occupation. This should tell you a lot about why UN can not come-up with a definition of terrorism. Here is the text of the article 8.


Article 8 of the UN resolution against terrorism: “Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the

progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security.”[12]


Well this means that if you are fighting against an occupying power then you are not a terrorist. If you are fighting against colonialism, then you are not a terrorist. If you are fighting against racism, then you are not a terrorist. If you are fighting against flagrant human rights violation, then you area terrorist. The only way that you can avoid being labelled a terrorist is to be a good fellow and take it. Sandinistas of Nicaragua, when fighting for freedom were the terrorists. Nicaraguan Contras that were funded by CIA and committed horrendous atrocities were the freedom fighters. People that fought for a more just society in Bolivia, Uruguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, and other places were all terrorists. Their governments torturing their citizens (and others’) and selling their countries on the cheap to multi-national conglomerates were the good guys fighting evil.


It seems that as long one uses aircraft, Armoured Personnel Carriers, and Tanks to kill civilians and destroy bridges and power stations, it is not terrorism. But if one kills the same civilians with a home made bomb, it is terrorism. Even if one kills civilians taking refuge in the UN compound it is not terrorism. Even if one kills un-armed UN observers, it is not terrorism. Let us face the truth; terrorism is what you want it to be. And the powers that coined the phrase “fight on terror” intend to use it for all its worth. Now terrorism is an all encompassing word covering everything from fighting occupation abroad to gang related shootings and animal-right activism in the US.


Since September 9/11, United States has systematically reduced its citizens’ liberties. The Patriot Act I, and II have taken away much of that freedom that made United States the Land of the Free. Already the draconian laws that were supposed to be used against the terrorists are being used against anyone thought to deserve a stronger punishment than the one provided under normal law. In United States the new laws are used against animal activists, teenagers, and to obtain information from law offices.


For example, in 2005, prosecutors in New Jersey used the anti terror law to prosecute a group of animal right activists.


“The six, members of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), are charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, amended in 2002 to include "animal enterprise terrorism," which outlaws disrupting firms like Huntingdon. If convicted, the group and its accused members face a maximum $250,000 fine and three years in prison.”[13]


In another case four teenagers were charged with terrorism when police discovered that the four had planned to kill their classmates.


“The boys, between the ages of 14 and 16, were arrested Wednesday after police heard about the alleged plot from administrators at the school, where three of the teens are students. Authorities did not release their names because of their ages.

The boys initially were charged only with low-level crimes and were not eligible to be moved to adult court. Authorities said the teens planned to target students, and teachers and others.

The terrorism charge and other charges added Thursday -- two counts each of conspiracy to attempt murder -- are serious enough that prosecutors could ask a judge to move the case from family court to adult criminal court, where the penalties could be much stiffer.

Prosecutors have 30 days to consider whether to request moving the case; no decision on that was made by Thursday afternoon.” [14]


In yet another case the Bronx District Attorney employed the anti-terror law in the trial of Edgar "Puebla" Morales, 22, and four other members of the "St. James Park" street gang.


"This case appears to be the first in which the Anti-terrorism Statute has been used against members of an organized gang who sought to dominate a neighbourhood through their criminal acts," Johnson said. Although the law was intended to be used against acts of political terror, Johnson said, "The terror perpetrated by gangs, which all too often occurs on the streets of New York, also fits squarely within the scope of this statute."[15]


But these incidents are all in the US. What concerns us is international terrorism. After all that term is used to wreak havoc on different parts of the world. So let us ignore the UN and instead adopt the US definition as our standard definition of international terrorism. Here is the definition of terrorism according to US criminal law TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331. [16]


(1) The term “international terrorism” means activities that—

1.

involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
2.

appear to be intended—

1.

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
2.

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3.

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

3.

occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;


Well, now that we have established our definition of International Terrorism, we shall look at “some” (and by no means all) of the US government actions around the world and see if we can classify any of them as international terrorism.


I think planning assassination, attempted assassination or actually assassinating a foreign official (regardless of how horrible we may think they are), because of their political views, would classify as international terrorism. Don you agree?


Well, William Blum in his book “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, has kindly provided us with a list of US actions overseas.

“The following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. (CIA humorists have at times referred to this type of operation as “suicide involuntarily administered” to be carried out by the Agency’s Health Alteration Committee.)” [17]

You must note here that all these activities are prior to 9/11 attack, and to be absolutely clear, (Please note that I am not saying that these actions by US in any shape or form justify terrorist attacks either in US or elsewhere.)


1949 Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950s CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be “put out of the way” in the event of a Soviet invasion.

1950s Zhou Enali, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life.

!950s, 1962 Sukrano, President of Indonasia

1951 Kim II Sung, Premier of North Korea

1953 Mohammad Mossadegh, Prime minister of Iran

!950s Carlo M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader

1955 Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime minister of India

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt

1959/63/69 Nordom Sihanouk, Leader of Cambodia

1960 Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq

1950s-70s Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life

1961 Francoi “Papa Doc” Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 Patrice Lumumba, Prime minister of Congo

1961 Gen. Rafael Truijillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life

1960s Raul Castro, High official in government of Cuba

1965 Fransisco Caamano, Dominican Republic opposition leader

1965-6 Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 Che Guevera, Cuban Leader

1970 Salador Allende, President on Chile

1970 General Rene Schneider, Chief of Army, Chile

1970s, 1981 General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence

1975 Mobuto Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 Michle Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1980-86 Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya

1982 Ayatollah Khomaini, Leader of Iran

1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander

1983 Miguel d’Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 The nine comandantes of Sandinista National Directorate

1985 Sheikh Mohammad Hussain Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader

1991 Sadam Hussain, leader of Iraq

1998 Osama Bin-Laden, leading Islamic militant

1999 Slobadan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia


Another case that we may consider as terrorism under US definition, is that of kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals. Imagine that you are a US citizen living in Canada. One day as you are walking in the street, you are kidnapped (because you are “suspected” of sympathising with the Basque separatists of Spain) and taken to Mexico where you are tortured for a few months by Guatemalan secret service and then released (if you are extremely lucky). Would you call this terrorism? Well this is what is happening to Muslims all around the world. I doubt if you hear any of this on Fox News.


Consider the case of Mr. Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen who was kidnapped by CIA on the Macedonian border in 2003 [18]. He was taken to Afghanistan where he was interrogated and tortured for five months before being finally released in Albania. Or consider the case of Egyptian cleric Mr. Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr who was kidnapped by CIA in Italy and taken to Egypt for torture and imprisonment in 2003 [19].


These are just two cases that we know of. There have been over 1000 secret CIA flights within EU since 2001, transporting terror “suspects” for questioning overseas. Usually suspects are taken to countries where torture and illegal imprisonment are routine. How many have been kidnapped and imprisoned without being charged or even murdered is anybody’s guess.


One can continue and list, page after page, of atrocities that have been committed and is being committed under the banner of fight against Terror; but none is more horrendous than falsely accusing and then invading a country on the pretex of fighting terrorism. The fighting so far has destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. There are plans afoot to do an Iraq to Iran. All the propaganda machines are now aiming for your approval to destroy Iran, and they are not holding back. Look at the latest propaganda:


“In a video taped message aired on al-Jazeera Saturday, one of the heads of the Iranian controlled al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri stated, "We announce to the Islamic nation the good news of the unification of a great faction of the knights of the Jamaa Islamiya...with the al-Qaeda group." The head of the Egyptian group is Muhammad al-Islambouli, the younger brother of Khaled al-Islambouli, the assassin of Egypt President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981.” [20]


This article appeared in News Blaze. You can see how they now call Al Qaeda an Iranian creation. This is a preposterous lie of gigantic proportion. But the people buy it. The American people, even after the white house admitted that there was nothing in Iraq, still believe that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). A recent poll shows that the majority of the people in US have become independent of reality.


“Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq” [21].


The propaganda machine never stops. There are constant talks about Iran and terrorism; Iran and Nuclear weapons; Iran being the danger to the world, etc. We are being prepared for another war. Does any of this sound familiar? If we are not careful, they will start another war in the name of “war on terrorism” or “stopping nuclear weapon proliferation”.


WE know that Iran has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. WE know that they don’t have atomic weapons. WE also know that Israel has over 200 atomic bombs [22]. WE know that Pakistan and India have A-Bombs. WE also know that US is good friends of all three, not to mention the Brazilians that are enriching Uranium [23].


We know a lot, but we don’t have the voice to say: enough is enough. The people like Murdoch have stolen our voice. We can only shout in the streets, for newspapers and TVs are closed to us. But, we can still reach others through places like this internet site and say: WE have had enough of your propaganda and lies. WE do not want war of civilizations. We do not want a war of religions. WE do not want destroyed houses and bridges. WE do not want dead children and refugees. WE WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE.


Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He's a former associate professor of Nordland University, Norway. Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no


Copyright Abbas Bakhtiar, all rights reserved.








1 Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, 8 July 1996, Richard Perle et al



2 PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, “Statement of Principles”, June 3, 1997


3 GlobalResearch.ca, “ 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" Vindicated: Pentagon deliberately misled Public Opinion: Military officials made false statements to Congress and to the 911 Commission”, 7 August 2006


4 AmericanFreePress.net, “Media Mogul’s Sinister Links to September 11”, April 12, 2004


5 Guardian Unlimited.co, “Murdoch an emperor leading a revolution”, June 18, 2006


6 Mediachannel.org, ”Bestriding The World” , By Granville Williams of Britain's Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Prepared for New Internationalist magazine.


7 US Census Bureau, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates.

8 Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, “Low-Income Working Families”, The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW ,Washington, DC 20037. September 2005


9 Lawrence Mishel et al., ”The State of Working America 2004/2005”, Cornell University Press, January 2005

10

United Nations, Office on Drug and Crime, ”Definitions of Terrorism” 5 Aug 2006


11 Zmag.org, “An Evening with Noam Chomsky:The New War Against Terror”, 18 October 2001


12 United Nations Feneral Assembly, “Resolution A/RES/42/159, P4th plenary meeting”, 7 December 1987


13 Reuters, “Animal Rights Activists Face Trial under Terror Law”, 04 June 2005


14 Daily Record, “Teens charged under terror law”, 06April 2006


15 Juvenile Justice Digest, “NEW YORK USES TERROR LAW TO HIT STREET GANG”, 14 February 2005


16 Cornell Law School, “U.S. Code Collection: Title 18-Crime and Criminal Procedure- PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331 Definitions”, 7 July 2006


17 Blum,William. “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Common Courage Press, Monroe, Main, USA. 2000. ISBN 1-56751-195-3. Pages 38-40

18

Spiegel.de, “The US Stands Accused of Kidnapping”, 14 February 2005


19 Washingtonpost.com, “Italy Knew About Plan To Grab Suspect: CIA Offical Cite Briefing in 2003”, 30 June 2005


20 Newsblaze.com, “CrossFire War- Egypt Pres. Mubarak Marked for Assassination by Tehran”, Aug 2006


21 News-leader.com, “Many still think Iraq had WMD”, 7 August 2006


22 Guardian Unlimited, “Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines”, Sunday October 12, 2003.



23 The Indian Express, “Brazil follows Iran’s nuclear path, but without the fuss”, April 22, 2006


- link

Migrant workers setting up the test phase of the latest Israeli security project.

It might not be such a terrible thing for Gilad Atzmon to have his computer be tapped by the various bodies of Intelligence around the world. As we all know, they are far from what their name implies at times, and there are on occasion some Top Secret documents and projects that filter out. This is the latest in a series of super-reserved documents that Gilad has been able to obtain from Israel and share with the general public. This appears to be a version of a press release or a journalistic dispatch, which is more or less the same thing at the end of the day, and not only does it show the creativity of Israel, it gives us a glimpse into the dynamism of a typical brainstorming meeting of the top cabinet. To be informed is to be armed, as they say, so brothers and sisters, arm yourselves and take a look at the latest idea Israel has to guarantee the Security of the Jewish State.

Operation Security Roof
Developing Story
by Gilad Atzmon

Following the IDF difficulties in defeating Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s ballistic warfare, the Israeli Government is now searching for contractors with some advanced experience in large scale reinforced concrete constructions. The mission ahead is the building of a solid concrete roof over the entire Jewish State (known as 'Greater Israel’). PM Olmert is determined that the only way to defend Israel’s populated area is to cover the Jewish State with a thick layer of iron and cement.

The Israeli Government’s decision to build a concrete roof followed a considerable debate within the cabinet. Defence Minister Amir Peretz insisted that a massive extension of the current Security Wall would be enough to provide the goods. Peretz maintained that a substantial increase of the wall to the height of 90,000 ft. would be more than sufficient to stop missiles from entering Israeli territory. Peretz sensibly argued that Israeli youngsters would benefit from seeing the blue sky when they raise their eyes above. Prime Minister Olmert and the Chief of Staff, Major General Dan Halutz, couldn’t agree less. Being fully aware of the nature of ballistic warfare, both Halutz and Olmert agreed that the only way to provide the Jewish State with the ultimate security is to cover it from above with a reinforced concrete shield. Shimon Peres, the legendary peace enthusiast, offered a compromise inspired by the idea of a trampoline. Peres suggested that a Security Wall’s 90,000 ft. extension made of an elastic net would do the job. The elder statesman argued that an elastic net will guarantee that every Arab missile aimed at Israel would bounce back to the Arab territory once it hits the net. Olmert and Halutz dismissed Peres’s suggestion. They argued that considering the excessive Israeli usage of artillery and missiles against its Arab enemies, the Jewish State would suffer far more from the erection of such a 'bouncy net’. "Israel," said Halutz, "would never survive the extent of its fierce artillery barrages bouncing back on itself."

In a press conference following the heated cabinet debate, the Government spokesman Mr Zion Zioni stressed that "following the total success of the Security Wall in stopping Palestinian suicidal terror, 'Security Roof’ is obviously the natural way to proceed." Mr Zioni maintained as well that the new Israeli project will turn the Jewish State into a "sealed Jewish Bunker". "In fact," Zioni emphasised, "'Operation Security Roof’ brings the Zionist adventure into its final destination. We are now moving from the 'Iron Wall’ phase into the 'Concrete Roof’ future. With a reinforced concrete ceiling from above, a Security Wall in the East and the Mediterranean Sea in the West, the Jewish State will eventually become the safest haven for world Jewry. Herzl’s dream comes true. Long Live Israel!"

Yet, some technical difficulties lay ahead. Probably the most crucial problem has something to do with breathing. Like the rest of the humankind, the Israeli people consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Apparently, the Israeli cabinet Ministers were made aware of this very crucial fact by the Health Minister. Olmert, being a man of action, responded immediately. Already in the cabinet meeting he authorised the Defence Ministry to explore different solutions to the acute problem.

We already learned from the Defence Ministry spokesman Lt. Galileo Galilee that 'Filter on the Roof’, the Israeli-American High Tech chemical giant (traded on Wall Street, operated from Gush Katif) has been contracted to deal with the problem.We have learned as well from Lt. Galilee that Filter on the Roof has already come up with more than a few solutions. Although some of the solutions are rather radical, it is crucial to mention that they are all extremely innovative, as you would expect from an Israeli-American High Tech venture. Probably the most conventional and practical solution proposed by the chemical giant was to bore as many as 6 million ventilation holes in the roof. Peres, Peretz and Sh-Meretz rejected the possibility without even thinking twice. "Considering our traumatic collective memory of the holocaust," so they said, "turning the Jewish State into a big room with holes in the ceiling is simply unacceptable."

Probably the most radical suggestion made by the Israeli-American company was to train the Jewish population in Israel to breath like fish. By the time the Israeli people are well trained, all that is left to do is just to fill the Jewish bunker with seawater. In other words, Filter on the Roof suggested to turn the Israeli State into a 'giant Jewish tropical aquarium’. Though this option seems to be very radical and even inconceivable, most cabinet Ministers reacted enthusiastically. They all agreed that such a solution would fit nicely with the concept of modern Jewish life in general and Zionism in particular. Israelis love the sea. Israelis are not afraid of water. Once the entire Israeli society is covered with water, no one would ever consider throwing them to the sea.

We will be following this developing story and keeping you informed. - link

In the UK Parliament on July 25th, Tory MP Sir Peter Tapsell broke an unwritten taboo. He denounced the Israeli attacks on the civilian population of Beirut as: '.. a war crime grimly reminiscent of the nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw.' For six decades 'though shalt not criticise Israel', has been an absolute, who ever is attacked and slaughtered (remember the Sabra and Shatila camps massacre of untold hundreds in 1982, for which Ariel Sharon was convicted of war crimes? Nothing happened and he became his country's Prime Minister. )

Were Amnesty International as brave as Sir Peter. Their mission statement includes demands to :

*Free prisoners of conscience and ensure prompt and fair trials for political prioners.

*End extradudicial executions and disappearances

*(Work) to ensure pepetrators of such abuses are brought to justice

AI is: ' independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest, or religion.' Further, statements (issued by AI) '.. are checked at the highest level for accuracy and political impartiality '(emphasis added.)

Yet below is Amnesty's take on the currenty tragedy in Lebanon, which fails to mention the dual tragedy in Palestine. In Lebanon, with life support of roads, electricity, bridges bombed, the trapped, maimed dismembered, blasted, barricaded, blockaded die without help and if help is at hand, hospitals are running out of all - and if the electricty dies, so does all needed to sustain life, from incubators to life support. What threat did the largest food importer in Lebanon pose? The chocolate and milk factory? The aid convoys, the ambulances, those attempting to dig victims from the ruins, those attempting to rescue four slaughtered UN peacekeepers, who had reportedly called the IDF ten times to tell them how close missiles were falling to their (marked) base. Only to be hit by a 'precison guided missile'. Collective punishment comes to mind. Illegal. So was the Warsaw ghetto - and many responsible hanged after the Nuremberg trials. Israeli Command has reportedly ordered the destruction of ten multi-story buildings for every (1937 designed) Katyusha rocket fired into Israel by Hizbollah. Palestine's airbrushed plight does not include bombed picknicking families on the beach, its ninety six kidnapped legislatures, bombed and demolished government buildings (including the Ministry of Agriculture, which last week, a first hand report says took the IDF three days to demolish with bulldozers.)

Also airbushed is: In January 2006, over 8200 Palestinians were held in Israeli custody: 3,111 held by the army (of whom 741 were in administrative detention), and 5,127 in Israeli prisons (53 in administrative detention). In March 2005, 19 prisoners were serving sentences of 20 years, and 140 serving 15 years or more. (Islamonline.net.) According to London based Palestine Solidarity Campaign,of these apporoximately 1,000 are women and currently 50-60 minors. A few years ago the Israeli Authorities used blue markers to write prison number on prisoners arms and legs, further reminiscent of Nazi horrors and degridations, writes William Blum, author of the definitive wake up call, 'Rogue State,'

Amnesty's letter to the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Rome on Wednesday refers not to the destruction of virtually the entire Lebanese nation by Israel (who has invaded Lebanon seven times in thirty years) but that: ' ...serious violations of the laws of war have been committed by both sides (any serious follower of events would surely have concluded that like Iraq and Palestine, this was an illegal invasion) launching indiscriminate attacks are war crimes.' So are wars of aggression. Also unadressed are the now numerous - many very credible - reports, that this is a long planned action and that the 'kidnapped soldiers' had infact been seized inside Lebanon, not snatched from Israel. Nevertheless:




Urge Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora to take measures to ensure that Hizbullah immediately ends its targeting of Israeli civilians, notably its firing of Katyusha rockets and other projectiles into Israeli towns and villages, and that Hizbullah fighters do not initiate armed attacks from residential civilian areas and avoid locating military objectives within civilian areas. Call on him to ensure that Hizbullah treats the two captured Israeli soldiers humanely and allows them immediate access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Take action!

Write to Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora


Dear Prime Minister,
I am writing to express my concern about the killing of civilians both in Lebanon and Israel. Since 12 July, some 300 Lebanese civilians, including dozens of children have been killed by Israeli air strikes against Lebanon and hundreds more have been injured. Amnesty International condemns unreservedly the massive attacks carried out by the Israeli army against civilians and civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon, and is calling on Israel to immediately cease such attacks and to respect international humanitarian law.

We are also concerned about Hizbullah attacks against Israeli civilians, some 15 of whom have been killed by rocket launched by Hizbullah. Such attacks have also caused substantial damage to homes and other civilian properties.
I urge you to take measures to ensure that Hizbullah immediately ends its targeting of Israeli civilians, notably its firing of Katyusha rockets and other projectiles into Israeli towns and villages, and that Hizbullah fighters do not initiate armed attacks from residential civilian areas and avoid locating military objectives within civilian areas. I also call on you to ensure that Hizbullah treats the two captured Israeli soldiers humanely and allow them immediate access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).



Sincerely,

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL


Where are the letters to Prime Minister Olmert of Israel, to President Bush whose military industrial complex supplies the weapons and is rushing more as this is written, including , according to former Pentagon Advisor who headed the US Army Depleted Uranium Project, Doug Rokke, one hundred BLU 12 'bunker busters' loaded with depleted uranium and other nuclear waste, since it comes from the nuclear fuel cycle (which will further poison the Middle East including Israel's citizens - 'where the wind blows ...' for four and a half billion years, till beyond: ' when the sun goes out') and to the supine Prime Minister Blair who jumps only to his Washington master's voice. Where is the demand for halt of all weapons to Israel? Where was the demand for Syria,Iran and Israel to be represented at the (pathetic just three hour Rome meeting .) Peace cannot be made without all parties being involved.

Is Amnesty, with its remarkable ability to mobilise thousands on behalf of one prisoner if it chooses, as impartial as it seems, or is it sometimes, simply gullible? One story is worth revisiting again, in detail.

In September 1990, a month after Iraq invaded Kuwait, a story surfaced in the London Daily Telegraph, with a claim from the exiled Kuwaiti housing Minister, Yahya al-Sumait (the Kuwaiti government, who had done much to incite invasion, ran away when it happened - unlike Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine - and came skulking back when all was safe) that babies in a hospital premature unit had ben thrown out of their incubators by Iraq soldiers who had then stolen the incubators to take to Baghdad, They had also switched off life support units. The story spread and grew, 312 babies in three hospital, left to die on the floor.

This against the backdrop of Saddam Hussein being the 'butcher of Baghdad', 'another Hitler', '... a mad dog, a killer ..' (Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York, sounding not fully bolted down himself.) Unknown to the public was the Bush Snr., Administration had enlisted the help of two vast PR companies. Hill and Knowlton and the Rendon Group, to sell an attack on Iraq (after the then US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam regarding Kuwait : 'We have no view on Arab-Arab conflicts'; ie any dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was of no interest to the US.)

Amnesty had long campaigned against human rights violations in Iraq and more used to battling governments, suddenly found themselves '..admired and quoted by the Bush Administration and Hill and Knowlton.' Incredibly, on October 10th 1990, Amnesty presented evidence against Iraq with Hill and Knowlton at the congressional Human Rights Caucus on Capitol Hill. Had they no clue as to a (mega buck) PR company's aims, employed by the Bush Administration? Hill and Knowlton produced a fifteen year old girl called 'Nayirah', 'allegedly a Kuwaiti with first hand knowledge of ... her tortured land.'

'I volunteered (tears) at the Al Addan Hospital .. I saw the Iraqi soldiers ..with guns', they took fifteen babies out of incubators, leftthem on the cold floor and took the incubators. Oddly no one asked why she didn't pick them up and wrap and tend to them. No one checked who she really was. She was the daughter of Saud al Sabar, the Kuwaiti Ambassador to US. The incubators story of course, turned out to be complete fabrication (as with stories of germans cutting off and eating childrens' hands in WW1. Propoganda changes little.) Amnesty trustingly endorsed the incubator story. Apparently never investigating who 'Nayirah' was and in a charged situation, whether propoganda might not be rampant.

The full duplicity of the incubator story is an article in itself, but Amnesty's endorsement certainly contributed to the onslaught on Iraq and the thirteen years of subsequent, murderous sanctions, leading to possible one and a half million 'sanctions related' deaths, according the the UN., on which Amnesty was disproportionately silent. Further : 'Amnesty US Exective Director, John Healey, had compounded the incubator baby error in testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on January 8th (1991.) Amnesty had even, earlier signed up the the 'Nayirah' testimony without even bothering to mention her name, the little identity the world had. The carpet bombing of Iraq began nine days later.

Aziz Abu-Hamad of Middle East Watch had asked Amnesty on 6th January (1991) if they had : '.. the names of any of the families of the reported (now 350 plus) dead premature babies.They have, as we do, names of people killed in other ways and names of detainees, but I have yet to come across the name of one family, whose premature baby was allegedly thrown out of an incubator.'*

A story that has never gone away is that Amnesty was given $500.000 in gratitude by the government of Kuwait for their support. Letters over some years met with neither confirmation or denial. But some highly knowledgeable, influential and impartial people made - and continue to make the claim. Amnesty states that where it cannot gain access, it relies on others in the region or country. Perhaps this leads to manipulation, even of the well meaning.

*All detail from 'Selling babies' : Second Front : Censorship and Propoganda in the Gulf War, John R. Macarthur, California Press. - link

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

Research by RAW STORY has confirmed a surprising lack of public statements from the president regarding the branches of Islam, but did uncover at least one mention of their existence. A fact sheet released by the White House in December of 2001 does indeed use the term Sunni to describe a Lashkar-E-Tayyib, "the armed wing of the Pakistan-based religious organization, Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad." Other mentions, not originating from the White House, were common in government documents and proceedings, as well as in media coverage of the middle east.

Other reports also place Bush announcing newfound knowledge of the differences between Muslim groups shortly before entering the Iraq war.

In an interview with RAW STORY, Ambassador Galbraith recounted this anecdote from his book to exemplify “a culture of arrogance that pervaded the whole administration.”

“From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision of a pluralistic democratic society,” said Galbraith. “The arrogance came in the form of a belief that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that it was not important to know something about Iraq.”

The Bush Administration’s aims when it invaded Iraq in March 2003 were to bring it democracy and transform the Middle East. Instead, Iraq has reverted to its three constituent components: a pro-western Kurdistan, an Iran-dominated Shiite theocracy in the south, and a chaotic Sunni Arab region in the center.

Galbraith argues that because the new Iraq was never a voluntary creation of its people--but rather held together by force--America’s ongoing attempt to preserve a unified nation is guaranteed to fail, especially since it’s divided into three different entities.

“You can’t have a national unity government when there is no nation, no unity, and no government,” said Galbraith. “Rather than trying to preserve or hold together a unified Iraq, the U.S. must accept the reality of Iraq’s breakup and work with the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs to strengthen the already semi-independent regions.”

Galbraith further argues that the invasion of Iraq destabilized the Middle East while inadvertently strengthening Iran. One of the administration's intentions in invading Iraq was to undermine Iran, but instead, the Iraqi occupation has given Tehran one of its greatest strategic triumphs in the last four centuries.

Once considered to be Iraq’s worst enemy, Iran has now created, financed and armed the Shiite Islamic movements within southern Iraq. Since the Iraqi Parliamentary elections of 2005, the Shiites have made considerable political gains and now have substantial influence over the country’s U.S.-created military, its police, and the central government in Baghdad. In addition, Iraq is developing economic ties with Iran that Galbraith believes could soon link the two countries’ strategic oil supplies.

Galbraith says that, “thanks to George W. Bush, Iran today has no closer ally in the world than the Iraq of the Ayatollahs.” As a result, he argues, sending U.S. forces into Iraq, has in effect, made them hostage to Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies and left the U.S. without a viable military option to halt Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

A seasoned diplomat, Galbraith served as the first U.S. ambassador to Croatia, where he negotiated the 1995 Erdut Agreement that ended the Croatian war.

Galbraith fears the United States may have lost the war on the very day it took Baghdad. “The American servicemen and women who took Baghdad were professionals--disciplined, courteous, and task-oriented,” said Galbraith. “Unfortunately, their political masters were so focused on making the case for war, so keen to vanquish their political foes at home, felt certain that Iraqis would embrace American-style democracy, yet they were so blinded by their own ideology that they failed to plan for the most obvious tasks following military victory.”

Galbraith believes that the Bush Administration’s effort will only leave the U.S. with an open-ended commitment in circumstances of uncontrollable turmoil. In the end, he believes, America’s most important objective is to avoid a worsening civil war.

“There is no easy exit from Iraq,” said Galbraith. “The alternative, however is to continue the present strategy of trying to build national institutions-displaced in the 2003 invasion-but how can you do that where this now is no longer an existing nation?”
- link

Tony Blair heads off on holiday today with his delusions apparently stronger than ever. At his monthly press conference yesterday he proclaimed that it was high time the world "joined up the dots". It is a grave mistake, Mr Blair argued, to see the situation in Lebanon as an isolated phenomenon. Hizbollah, he claimed, are motivated by the same ideology as those who are killing British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to our Prime Minister, they form part of "an arc of extremism" linking them with those that blew up commuter trains in London and Madrid and that flew planes into the twin towers in New York almost five years ago.

How convenient it would be for Mr Blair if we all acquiesced in this theory of a global, unified terrorist conspiracy. It would mean that no foreign policy adventure, however extreme, could be criticised; no attack on British troops abroad, no botched intervention, could be blamed on the Prime Minister's judgement. For what would not be legitimate in the face of a powerful, relentless campaign waged by "terrorists" against our very existence? Indeed the worse the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Middle East became, the more it would vindicate Mr Blair's position.

The problem with this view of the world is that it betrays a wilful ignorance of the specific circumstances of the real world. Hizbollah was formed as a resistance movement to the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. The Taliban are parochial fanatics with no apparent goals beyond the re-conquest of Afghanistan. Iraq is in the midst of a vicious sectarian civil war. The argument that all this can be bracketed into a phenomenon called "global extremism" is an insult to our intelligence.

Extremism and religious fanaticism are indeed increasing around the world and must be confronted - not least to support liberal Muslims who are threatened most by it. But not in the way Mr Blair and his patron George Bush have gone about it. The most vital objective of our foreign policy should be to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslim communities. Mr Bush and Mr Blair, with their apparent belief that bombs and bullets are the best way to create "a new Middle East", are merely alienating them further. To the extent that there is an "arc of extremism", these two have done more than most to create it.

In a rare moment of sanity Mr Blair conceded this week that we are not seen as "even-handed" in many Muslim countries. But the Prime Minister refuses to consider why this is the case. Let us enlighten him. It is because of the illegal invasion and incompetent occupation of Iraq, in which tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. It is because of our one-eyed support for Israel in the Middle East. Mr Blair proclaimed his solidarity with Lebanon yesterday, but at the same time refused to utter even the slightest criticism of Israel's shameful collective punishment of the Lebanese people. Is it small wonder Britain is not regarded as even-handed? The simple fact is that, under Mr Blair's leadership, we have not been.

During his visit to the US this week Mr Blair referred to his "complete inner self-confidence in the analysis of the struggle we face". It is that self-serving and flawed analysis, and the policies that stem from it, that presents perhaps the greatest single threat to the security of our world. "That is the nature of the struggle in which we are engaged - and we will not win it until we face up to that", Mr Blair argues. On the contrary: we will not win until we reject the poisonous notion that we are engaged in a global "war on terror"- and until we reject those leaders - link

In 1969 Rupert Murdoch purchased The Sun newspaper in 1969. He turned it into a trashy tabloid and it was not long before it had become the best-selling daily newspaper in Britain. Later that year he purchased the News of the World, Britain’s largest selling newspaper.

The two newspapers advocated extreme right-wing policies over the next ten years and played an important role in the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. He continued to support Thatcher in her decision to create mass unemployment by reducing spending on the public sector. This policy also undermined the power of the trade-unions. This enabled the Tories to pass anti-trade union legislation that helped Murdoch win his fight with the print unions.

In 1981 Murdoch purchased The Times and the Sunday Times. He also created News Corporation that controlled all his media interests. This includes film and television companies such as Sky and Fox and a large number of newspapers and magazines in the United States and various other countries. It has been claimed that he is the most important political influence in the western world.

In the late 1990s it became clear that the British public had turned against the right-wing Tory government. In the 1997 general election, the Murdoch press supported the Labour Party. This would have come as no surprise to those that had watched Murdoch’s behaviour in Australia. He had supported their Labour Party in the past. However, when they gained power with his support, they turned into a right-wing authoritarian government.

The same thing happened in Britain. After he won the 1997 election, Tony Blair abandoned his left-wing agenda and showed himself to be a Thatcherite. According to Lance Price, who worked for the Labour government, Blair would always consult Murdoch before introducing any new policy.

Murdoch was also a great supporter of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Every one of his 179 newspapers also supported this policy. He claimed at the time that the invasion would result in lower oil prices and an increase in stock market shares. His newspapers also played an important role in persuading the public that Iraq had WMD.

When Blair became unpopular with the British public he joined the plot to get Gordon Brown made the new prime minister without an election. Brown had been under the control of Murdoch for many years. However, after six months it became clear that Brown would lose the next election and so Murdoch’s newspaper’s began to support David Cameron.

Murdoch seemed untouchable. All leading politicians were too frightened to take him on. They knew he would use the whole of his media empire against them if they did that. Then something happened yesterday that might give us the opportunity to remove this terrible influence on British life.

The story begins in 2006 when members of the royal household complained that they believed that their mobile phones had been hacked into. The anti-terror police investigated the case as they feared it might be connected to a Muslim terrorist group. A few months later, Clive Goodman, a journalist working for the News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective, were arrested. Mulcaire confessed to hacking into the royal family’s mobile phones to listen to their voice-mail and that he had been paid to do this by Goodman.

In January 2007, Goodman was sentenced to four months in prison and Mulcaire got six months. Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World. He claimed that he knew nothing about this phone hacking. Anyone with any experience of newspapers knew that Coulson was lying. No editor would ever publish a potential libellous story without knowing the source of the story. Goodman was portrayed as a rogue reporter.

Les Hinton, the chairman of News International, appeared before a parliamentary committee and told MPs he had carried out a full investigation into the case and he was convinced that Goodman had been acting alone. The Press Complaints Commission also claimed they could find no evidence that Coulson knew anything about these illegal activities. Although he was strangely not interviewed by the PCC.

On July 9, 2007, David Cameron appointed Andy Coulson as Conservative Party Director of Communications on a salary of £450,000 a year. Why? Maybe because he is the man who knows all the secrets of the politicians.

The police supported this view that Coulson did not know anything by not bringing anymore prosecutions against News of the World reporters. However, we now know that the police did have a great deal of information about large-scale phone-hacking by Murdoch’s journalists. For example, Glenn Mulcaire had been paid £2,000 a month as a retainer fee for News Corporation. Evidence suggests he had been working for 37 different journalists. Mulcaire’s work had resulted in several scoops including those against the socialist politician, Tommy Sheridan, David Beckham (Rebecca Loos) and Sven-Goran Eriksson (Faria Alam).

Why did the police not follow up cases against these 37 journalists? How much did Murdoch pay to the police to stop these prosecutions?

The problem is that some policemen earn extra money by selling information to the press and other interested parties. One of them tipped off Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballer’s Association, that his phone had been hacked by Glenn Mulcaire. He therefore decided to sue News Corporation. In September, 2007, News Corporation paid Taylor and two of his football contacts, over a £1 million in a case that was held in secret. The people involved promised not to reveal details of the case. The High Court then joined in the conspiracy by sealing the evidence obtained from the police.

Someone, we don’t know who, tipped off Nick Davies, a reporter, about what had happened and the story appeared in yesterday’s Guardian. Rupert Murdoch immediately announced he knew nothing about this £1 million payout. This surely can be proved to be a lie.

The Guardian also provided a list of some of the people whose phones were hacked by Mulcaire. This included several cabinet ministers, including John Prescott, the former deputy prime-minister. This obviously has implications for national security. However, Prescott insists he was never told by the police that attempts had been made to hack his phone.

The most amazing response was from the police. Assistant Commissioner John Yates, quickly issued a statement that the police were unwilling to reopen the investigation into the case. Yates was of course the man who led the investigation into the corruption of Tony Blair and decided that he should not be prosecuted for any offences. I wonder how much money he was paid to reach this conclusion? How much was he paid for yesterday’s statement.

Other than the Guardian and the BBC, the rest of the media are doing what they can to ignore this story. One former editor of the Sun claimed yesterday that the whole story is a “socialist conspiracy”. The reason that even non-Murdoch papers are ignoring the story, is that they have also relied on illegal phone-hacking to get their stories and are worried where all this will lead. How many journalists will end up in prison for these offences? That is why it is important that we use the internet to expose this story.