Start A Petition

Al-Qaeda: Created By the Bush Machine

World  (tags: Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Bush, Cheney, disinformation )

- 3925 days ago -
How BUSHCO made Al-Qaeda the catchphrase for the perceived enemy and continues to try to deceive the world. Posting this story at the request of Tim R.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


RC d (418)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 4:39 am
Well yes, Reagan and Bush Sr. LOVED Hussein at one time. And the CIA funded and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan during their skirmish with Russia. But then, our government loved the Shah of Iran and Noriega at one time too. We set 'em up, we knock 'em down.

Past Member (0)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 5:26 am
thanks again cate... i just sent that to everyone on my yahoo email list... i wish everyone in american could read this...

Tim Redfern (581)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 6:08 am
Thank you SO MUCH for posting this, Cate! You are my favorite tech-diva! Peace and Love to all! :)

Marianna Padolsky (33)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 6:26 am
yes -the virtual enemy

Past Member (0)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 6:30 am
Al-Qaeda, and Bin Laden are alive and well living in the lap of luxury on a CIA BUGET.

Why was the twin tower attack planed for September 11?

Dose anybody link this to the years of RESCUE 911 EMERGANCE series that we were all indoctrinated with for years on our own TV’s, to spark 50% of the world off in to action with out thinking?


WE may be in for even more tiring times and we need to be vigilant in keeping these dogs of war at bay, Maybe we should detain the lot of them at Quantanamo bay.

Tim Redfern (581)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 6:32 am
For those who are familiar with Orwellian terminology: Osama is Emmanuel Goldstein, the shadowy enemy who is never seen but is always threatening to attack. None of this is new. George Orwell wrote about it 60 years ago!

Pippa Posh (7)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 7:16 am
Yes Bush did have the Bin Laden family evacuated before the airports closed on the day of 9/11 bombing.
Yes Bush did want an oil pipline running from Afghanistan to the U.S.A.
Yes Bush is a fascist and has lied like a 'cheap watch.'
Yes Bush did many bad things in the name of 'oil', but by invading the Middle East,
he has 'pulled the tail of a very big dog,' thus renedering America as one of the most
disliked and divided countries in the world.

In the 11 month of the millenium year
In one of the richest countries in the world,
An idiot will come to power.
Therefter, a war lasting 27 years will begin.
Nostre Dames - Prophet.

Past Member (0)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 7:19 am
Funny isn't it that with all Bush's mentioning of Al Qaeda He still has not focused his attention on getting Ben Laden in Affganistan instead he focuses on Iraq.
All smoke and mirrors ,,the oil in Iraq and the big money that can be gained from this war is all that matters to Bush and Cheney.

I said it before and I will say it again ,,Beware Bush just might use the war in Iraq to stop the election in 2008 ,,he just might state that with America at war he must stay in office until it ends.
Can he do it ?
Well look at all he has done so far !
The people we really should be angry with are our elected officials who have stood by and watched all this happen when they easily could have started impeachment proceedings because it is very clear that this administration has broken many laws and violated our constitution not to mention war crimes all of which are impeachable acts.
The real question we should be asking is why hasn't impeachment been on the table ?

Past Member (0)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 7:20 am
Noted thanks again Cate for posting !

Jennie B (14)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 8:58 am
So true...Bush named Alqueida...true so true and Americans bought it hook, line and sinker...what a clever little Hitler he is...well, he's been found out and now he needs to be thrown out! noted

John Blalock (48)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 9:21 am
Bush, are greastest National Security Risk.

Phyllis P (237)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 9:42 am
You cannot currently send a star to Cate because you have done so within the last week.

Past Member (0)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 10:04 am
You mean guys like Jack Bauer on "24' aren't real? Aw-w-w phooey!

Elle J (276)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 10:26 am
The word delusional comes to mind. Did you know that at one time 7 out of 10 Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the events of 9/11? The recent poll is a vast improvement over this one. How can 23% of the American people still support this travesty? Now here comes an unpopular comment, I believe for all of his tyranny that Saddam Hussein was a stablizing force in the middle east. He would never have allowed this sectarian violence to go on in Iraq. Maybe putting the focus on Hussein and taking it off of bin Laden was a move by GWB to continue to do business with the bin Laden family.

Maureen S (122)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 10:49 am
Greetings Elle,

Oh thank you, thank you, and thank you again!!! I have stated this more than once; he may have been an "evil" man; we don't know what was in his heart or mind . . . we can only look at how he ruled over the people of Iraq . . . and that WAS win an iron fist! Dictator yes; committed crimes against humanity? YES!!!

However, as you point out Elle, he was a stabilising force in the Middle East and there was absolutely NO LOVE LOSS between bin Laden and Saddam! And it's about time that Americans take that harsh dose of medicine with all the rest that has come to light! Thank you again Elle for having the courage to state yet another "unpopular" view. Such Ladies of Wisdome we Crones . . . *cackle*

Mary J (29)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 10:51 am
For me, the most worrisome part of this article were the first two paragraphs:

"President George W. Bush's political capital is about as low as it can go, with only dead-end Bushists clinging to his failed regime. The erosion of support, however, can actually make the madman even more isolated from reality, arrogant and impetuous.

The final 18 months of his presidency will be an increasingly dangerous time for the world. Bush is wrapping himself in his messianic blanket, still bound to convince the infidels at home and abroad that he is a gifted visionary who can reshape the Middle East."

Thanks for the post Cate, you're awesome!!


Sandee S (228)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 11:01 am
The longer that bush has been in office, the wose that it becomes for all of us. Al-Qaeda's name is only that. What about all that isn't focused on? At what cost has this continued to conceal all things? Who's truly slleping in who's bed? Did you know that today, sat. in thje early am. that Bush gave the white house over to his Mr. noding man, Chenley? So maybe he's really got he health issue that was stated about his colon (ca. maybe?) but the facts remain that now we'll probably have more problems. Can you see Chenley at the head of what used to be calledour gov't? They're both so very blind anmd they lead the blind mice!!

Past Member (0)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 11:03 am

Maureen S (122)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 11:06 am
Greetings m'Lady Mary,

So true are your prophetic words; how many of us recognise (too many to count that's for sure!!!) that this is such a danger to all the world? It raises the "alert" level to be sure, just not in the ways that many perceive that. The "alert" is the one ticking away deep within all of us who share your concerns, and those of every other individual expressed here! Thank you for your ever insightful comments my friend. =)

pete O (242)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 11:24 am
Thanks Cate ... We reap what they sow ,,,,, the only way out of the whole he is digging esp in fainance - is to have him impeached - as a offering love n peace hi maureen x

Merry L (74)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 1:54 pm

Yvonne White (229)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 2:03 pm
Why is it RepubliCONs only know how to invent Terrorists, Fake Energy Crisis, & War Profits???

Tim Redfern (581)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 2:57 pm
9-11 was only a pretext for the war. It was staged to gain support for war, support that would never have been there otherwise. Bu$hco managed to B.S. enough people to get the support they needed. 9-11 was alot like The Gulf on Tonkin; Pearl Harbor; The Lusitania; and the USS Maine in 1898. It's called a 'false flag' operation, and it goes way back.

Dave Kane (308)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 3:41 pm
Bushco knows there is a lot of money and power to be gotten when war rules the day.
Grandad Prescott Bush helped finance Hitler During World War Two fer chrissakes! They are old hands at wartime profiteering. And Cheney is their Giant Pit Bull of Doom. A perfect marriage; you never quite know who's pulling what strings, but rest assured the strings are getting yanked right along with all the rest of us.

So let's get busy:

Give your representatives an Earful Every Day -- they deserve it!

Let them know what's important to You!

Ask them to support HR 333 --
the Kucinich resolution to impeach (Imperial Overlord) Dick Cheney.

Let's get rid of that evil toad first so there's no chance of him becoming president.

Call or write, then you can Really Enjoy the day : )

Contact Speaker Pelosi:
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Telephone: 202.225.0100 (Ask to leave a message for Speaker Pelosi : ))

Contact Rep. Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader
Rep. Steny Hoyer
House Majority Leader
H-107 Capitol Building,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone: 202.225.3130

Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
(Website mainly for his Nevada constituents, but you could send him a message)
Phone & Fax for Reid's Washington office: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

Find and Write Your Representative:

David Gould (155)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 5:06 pm
So it is going to get worse before it gets better...I didn't think it could get much worse. This world is out of control because we have elected (did we? or was that the first scam?) idiots and meglamaniacs to tell us lies.

And a prediction of this lasting 27 years...kind of gets you to understand mental illness in a whole new light.

Mara G (411)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 5:38 pm
Still going, going, going, till there is nothing left of our great nation. "EVERY DAY" they take more away!!

Rob S (112)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 8:12 pm
Same old same old as far as politics and politicians go.Noted and thanks again cate

Denice G (45)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 9:14 pm
Ron your are right. If this keeps up, what will we have??? Just what THEY want us to have. Noted

Bobbie W (113)
Saturday July 21, 2007, 11:19 pm
Noted!! And I'm speechless...(doesn't happen often!)

Patrick Cardwell (24)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 4:51 am
I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I have never been able to "visit site" on any of the messages I receive. I click on the link .. nothing, but return to the page I was one. Can someone PLEASE tell me what in the world I am doing wrong??!!??


Patrick Cardwell (24)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 4:52 am
Ahem ... you can cancel that last request.... for some reason it worked!

Mohd Noor Ahmad Zambri (7)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 6:29 am
Bush Laden Ben Ladin..I've always thougt they were a team..irony in any political works within the ruling party while the other works outside..The play or ploy are always well written and executed while everyone else pay the price and watch..
The question we have to wait until the whole scene has ended? Do we have to watch all the miseries before any changes could be effected?

Thank you Cate..I hope your effort and all the peace loving people of this world bring peace and provide a brigther future to our children.

Dave Kane (308)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 9:50 am
[excerpted from a review of "Bush On The Couch":

Aggression and Cruelty

This is a lifelong pattern. As a child, little George blew up frogs with firecrackers inserted into their bodies. Lacking scholastic and athletic abilities, he used unkind teasing in school. In college, he hazed new fraternity pledges with branding irons on the buttocks. As Governor he mocked death-row inmates and smirked at their executions. As a political campaigner, he relies heavily on smug ridicule and mockery of opponents.

The smirk – one of Mr. Bush’s characteristic expressions that has worried his political handlers – is a telltale indication of sadism. It reveals pleasure in inflicting or observing pain, defeat or discomfort in others while attempting to suppress more overt and unbecoming expressions of his pleasure. He is a profoundly angry, destructive man who, in Dr. Frank’s words, “needs to break things.”

Dr. Lifton extends the analysis to the appointees surrounding Bush as well, all of whom avoided Vietnam service. Lifton describes the exaggerated aggression with which people may respond to "death guilt" or "survivor guilt" – the knowledge that facing a common challenge others suffered while you didn't. This is often associated with a sense of "failed enactment" at the moment of truth. When such a wound to self esteem is repressed, it often becomes “transformed into impulses toward further violence." This may well unconsciously haunt our entire tough talking Republican leadership who hid out as young men while others died.

Past Member (0)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 10:35 am
Thank you Dave- because this is the root of our frustration. He does not have a sound mind. I'll be kind and say his foundation is 'rocky'! But one thing I am going to state- least you really be fooled- he is not a born- again Christian anymore than Hussein was a practicing Muslim. Anyone who truly participates in the Spirit of God- knows this. Churches are(and not all of them) businesses. My husband worked for one. They laid him off- by twisting the contract they held with them. I went to an Assistant pastor- placed his own bible in front of him and asked if he understood and taught he knew he had broken it with us before God. He said nothing and bowed his head. An assistant pastor wanted my husband's position for his friend. It was no secret. We heard from his fellow workers- Well that's business after all. These people worked in fear because under the law- the church did not have to pay into state unemployment funds. They lived in FEAR. That IS NOT Christianity- that is religion. When you know the truth - it makes you free. It doesn't set you free to figure it out on your own - it comprises your very being and makes you free. Look to God- not religion. Bush be small- God be big. Bush- how can he be more godless. He worships himself. Sorry if this is offensive- but that was 5 years in a silence that had to be broken . And all you born - again people like me- ask God. And listen. I did - and I am not alone. Bush is accountable. oh and my husband got a job in 1 month that doubled his wages and now it's at 4 times the amount. My God is faithful.Thanks again Dave for perspective.

Past Member (0)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 5:19 pm
Good article, Dave K.! Bush is not truly in recovery from his alcoholism; he is a "dry drunk". I've also noticed that dubya's smirk is very like that of sadistic bullies hurting people who cannot fight back (I'm a retired teacher of elementary students who have Severe Emotional Disabilities). He went from alcohol addiction to using born-again Christianity as a drug, rather than learning to deal with fear or opposition. To whit, no reporter in his press-conferences is allowed to truly challenge him or pin him down, and why his handlers kick out anyone at his public appearances that they even suspect may possibly oppose dubya in any way. Dubya's like a spoiled brat that everyone walks around on eggshells. Laughable if not so frightening. (I'd send you a butterfly, Dave, but I don't know how to do that.)

Lovebug Honey (35)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 9:09 pm
Existence of "Al-Qaeda" Is Crap; Quite Literally
Did Osama really choose to name his terror network after potty humor or was it a computer database he used to chat with his CIA handlers?

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | October 6 2006

The origins of the name "Al-Qaeda," and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of "Al-Qaeda," as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.

An organization by the name of "Al-Qaeda" does not exist and has never existed outside a falsely coined collective term for offshoot loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, the Saudis, MI6 and the CIA, that were created in response to America's actions after 9/11 - as the recent NIE report shows.

According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, the infamous footage of Bin Laden marching around with armed soldiers was a ruse on the part of Osama himself, graciously propagated by the lapdog press, in which actors were hired off the streets, given uniforms and guns and told to look aggressive.

Note the video states Bin Laden only took on the Al-Qaeda mantle post-9/11 after the U.S. government began parroting the term. The only error is the now debunked myth that 9/11 was carried out by "Al-Qaeda."

So if the group doesn't exist, where did the name come from?

You have heard before that "Al-Qaeda" roughly translates into "the base," but were you aware that "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is arabic colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet"?

Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a shit?

The truth about where the name "Al-Qaeda" originated explains why no would-be fundamentalist suicide martyr could have been involved in its creation.

Former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, who admirably resigned in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion, penned a piece in the London Guardian shortly before his death that shed light on the true genesis of the name.

"Al-Qaida," states Cook, "literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

Former French Military Intelligence official Pierre Henry Bunel expands, noting that "Al-Qaeda," was an early form of intranet, which was used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. It was also used by the "American agent," Osama bin Laden to send coded or covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan.

It's worthy to conclude with Bunel's assertion that "Al-Qaeda" as an organization is about as genuine as George W. Bush's Texas brush clearing cowboy image.

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."


Lovebug Honey (35)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 9:11 pm
Whose Bombs?

Nafeez Ahmed
Thursday, July 5, 2007

How to understand the attempted but largely failed terrorist plots uncovered since last Friday? Police officers on June 29 dismantled two car bombs made from gas canisters, gasoline and nails, parked in central London’s major theatre and shopping districts. A day later, two men rammed a Jeep Cherokee, filled with flammable material, into a terminal entrance at Glasgow airport. The series of attempted attacks follows hot on the heels of an attempted al-Qaeda attack in the United States earlier in June.

The chronology requires further probing, and indeed, preliminary analysis raises some unresolved questions.

Their Terror… And Ours

We will start with the UK. First off, we need to consider the way government, police and security services dealt with events. On Friday, official sources immediately told mainstream media that they had successfully defused highly dangerous explosive devices in the cars. The general picture disseminated by government spokesmen was that the bombs could well have killed hundreds of civilians generating a huge and lethal fireball engulfing the surrounding area.

“Although the two London car bombs were rudimentary, depending on a lethal mixture of petrol, gas canisters and nails, they could still have killed hundreds”, wrote Nigel Morris in the Independent:

“They were intended to be triggered by calls to mobile phones left in the cars. Although the bombers rang the phones several times, the bombs failed to go off. Did the calls fail to create the necessary detonation? The Glasgow attack appears to have been a failed suicide bombing. The Jeep Cherokee that smashed into the city’s airport was set alight but the gas canisters inside failed to ignite.”

Fortunately, there were no casualties. Unfortunately, elsewhere in the world, British and American troops were complicit in acts of terrorism which did result in Afghan and Iraqi civilian casualties far outweighing in scale and horror what was going on in the UK. Some of these were flagged up by American journalist Chris Floyd, but largely ignored in the mainstream media.

More than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in a three-hour NATO bombing raid on a village in the British-run district Helmand on Saturday, so reported the Observer citing local officials of the US-backed Afgan government, capping off a month of bloodshed in which over 200 Afghan civilians were killed, “a kill ratio far outstripping that of the violent sectarians of the Taliban”, observes Floyd. Hapless British commanders involved in the operations aren’t happy, noting that new NATO commander, US Gen Dan McNeill’s penchant for massive airpower could be “counterproductive.” “Every civilian dead means five new Taliban” said one British Army officer, noting the direct connection between their radicalization and our terrorism. But while UK commanders may have concerns, they have little choice given the decisions made for them by Bush and now Brown.

Yet the mainstream media has shown no interest whatsoever in our terrorism. “Why do these people hate us, why do they want to attack us?” I was asked repeatedly over the weekend by various media pundits wanting to know the secret of how angry Muslims become so radicalized they want to blow themselves up. The usual demands for Muslims the world over to buck up and confront the bin Laden-esque “enemy within” were trumpeted. Yet there was little soul-searching about a phenomenon of equal concern – the creeping radicalization of Western societies, where the slaughter of hundreds of Afghan or Iraqi civilians by Anglo-American military forces is justifiable as a form of “collateral damage”, regrettable, but an inevitable corollary of trying to “smoke ‘em out”. Sounds disturbingly similar to al-Qaeda’s own rhetoric of justification for targeting our civilians.

But of course, we’re the free, civilized world. They’re wrong, and we’re right.

So let’s get quickly back on track to look at the terror attempts in the UK. Whatever those attacks “appeared” to be, they were clearly planned and conducted by people with absolutely no real idea of what they were doing. Despite official attempts to ratchet up the fear-level by insisting that the police had pre-empted a spectacular bombing plot that could have slaughtered hundreds, a number of experts have pointed out the obvious.

Improvised Un-explosive Devices?

Larry C. Johnson, a former senior US counterterrorist official for the CIA and State Department who works as a consultant to governments on terrorism issues, described the Friday episode as a “crock of crap”:

“… gasoline is not a high explosive. If we were talking 50 pounds of Semtex or the Al Qaeda standby, TATP, I would be impressed. Those are real high explosives with a detonation rate in excess of 20,000 feet per second. Gasoline can explode (just ask former owners of a Ford Pinto) but it is first and foremost an incediary. If the initial reports are true, the clown driving the Mercedes was a rank amateur when it comes to constructing an Improvised Explosive Device aka IED. Unlike a Hollywood flick the 50 gallons of gas would not have shredded the Mercedes into lethal chunks of flying shrapnel.”

His observations on the next day’s Glasgow incident are even more cutting:

“Preliminary, unconfirmed reports indicate a nuclear blast has occurred at Glasgow’s international airport. No one has seen the mushroom cloud or heard the blast, but something by God is happening and it must be terrible. There is smoke and fire. In fact, a car is on fire. It must be Al Qaeda. Only Al Qaeda knows how to set themselves on fire inside a car. Please. Flee to the hills (leave your doors unlocked). Oh the humanity!...

… we need to stop equating their [religious fanatics’] hatred with actual capability. If today's events at Glasgow prove to be linked to the two non-events yesterday in London, then we should heave a sigh of relief. We may be witnessing the implosion of takfiri jihadists — religious fanatics who are incredibly inept… Propane tanks and petrol (gas for us Americans) can produce a dandy flame and a mighty boom but these are not the tools for making a car bomb along the lines of what we see detonating on a daily basis in Iraq.”

As Thomas Greene further observed, absent an oxidiser, the devices, if one could call them that, would simply have been unable to detonate. The implication that they could have detonated, then, is precisely state propaganda. No wonder ex-CIA terror expert Johnson described the weekend incidents as “non-events.” Thus, concluded Peter Lehr, a research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, St. Andrews University: “Just using petrol canisters, nuts and bolts and a cell phone to trigger the explosion, the London bombing attempt would probably not have worked.” He continued about the Glasgow fiasco: “If you take a look at most al Qaeda attacks, they did a lot of work on reconnoitring. Now they got stopped by some bollards. They didn’t seem very familiar with the airport, then they would have known that the bollards would have stopped them or they overestimated the thrust of the Jeep Cherokee.”

For those tracking the recent round of terror plots against the US and Britain, the dire lack of expertise is a familiar pattern. On the August 2006 “liquid bomb plot”, similarly discredited as simply unworkable, former British Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. (ret.) Nigel Wylde pointed out: “Not al-Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure.”

The Propaganda War

Rather than reassuring the public of these facts and implications, the government did the opposite. The UK terror alert was raised to “critical”, and the citizens were urged to remain “alert” and “vigilant”. “If it moves to critical, you should worry”, a senior Whitehall source told the BBC when asked the explain the alert level system.

Rachel North, a survivor of the July 7th 2005 London bombings, comments:

“Oh for heaven’s sake. We ‘should worry’. That’s the suggestion is it? The official advice is: to be afraid and stay afraid? And what pray, does being told ‘to worry’ do to help aid the fight against terrorism? Terrorism being of course designed to worry, nay, terrify and terrorise people, using terror: the state of being afraid?

...What is the ‘critical - attack imminent’ stuff then, if not intimidating, and likely to make people anxious and therefore stop them getting on with their lives? … like most of the new anti-terror intitiatives, all it does is sound scary and ramp up the fear without actually doing anything practical to tackle the situation… We didn't have this during the IRA campaign or during the Blitz, so I don't see why turning the adrenalin dial up to eleven is going to help now. We can all see the news, thank you. We don't need to have our strings pulled like this.”

So we have established that there is, indeed, a sharp disparity between the reality of these plots as utterly amateur cock-ups by people with no idea whatsoever of how to actually pull off a terrorist attack, and the official propaganda from the state that these attacks could have killed hundreds – which they simply could not have done.

Perhaps it is cynical to recognize that these doomed-to-fail plots coincided with the British government’s new counter-terrorism proposals. Days before these incidents, on 27th June, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee announced it was planning to hold a short inquiry into the new proposals for extended anti-terror powers, originally set out on 7th June by the Home Secretary.

Ironically, the Home Secretary’s announcement for new anti-terror legislation followed hot on the heels of revelations that a purported spectacular al-Qaeda terrorist plot unearthed in the United States may well have been nothing more than Bush administration propaganda. Such was the accusation from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown show ‘The Nexus of Politics & Terror’, who further noted that this was consistent with a history of such pronouncements:

“The abstract, hypothetical terror plot at JFK: It sounds ominous until you ask the experts. Blow up part of the jet fuel pipeline and you still stand zero chance of blowing up the airport… We will truth squad the plot and update the ‘Nexus of Politics and Terror,’ the now 13 times officials in this country have revealed so-called terror plots at times that were just coincidentally to their political benefit, no matter how preposterous the actual schemes might have been, including the plot against Fort Dix where pizza delivery men were supposed to kill at will at an Army base full of soldiers with guns.”

But perhaps most disturbingly, Olbermann references the extraordinary public statement by the newly-elected Chairman of the Republican Party in Arkansas: “All we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on 9/11, and the naysayers will come around very quickly for President Bush.”

The full statement, made in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette by Chairman Dennis Milligan, is reported in Raw Story as follows:

“In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country. ‘At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001],’ Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, ‘and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country’.”

With all due respect: what kind of closet Stalinist thinks that “we need” another terrorist attack “like” 9/11, in order that popular dissent might “come around” in favour of Bush and his policies of domestic and international militarization, mirrored faithfully here in the UK, originally by Blair, and now it seems by his heir Brown?

To those who have researched the development of neo-conservative ideology and geopolitical strategies behind the rise of the Bush administration, this is actually a startlingly familiar sentiment among elements of the American policymaking establishment. Recall the exhortations of Bush’s home-grown think-tank, the Project for a New American Century in its September 2000 report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”; or three years earlier, the carefully-crafted expansionist geostrategy charted by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Council on Foreign Relations study, The Grand Chessboard – all looking to a spectacular Pearl Harbour-type event as a useful tool for the control of public opinion at home, and thus the legitimization of military interventionism abroad.

More closet Stalinists to add to the collection? And some of them are now in charge of the most powerful state in the world.

Warnings, Warnings

Further questions arise in view of the emerging evidence of several warnings of the plots received by British and American intelligence services. Now the existence of these warnings ought to be contrasted with the official line expressed at the outset, that there was no intelligence chatter, no prior intelligence, and no specific warning about what was going to happen. That stance has now been pretty much discredited.

“Warnings were issued three months ago [in April 2007] about the threat of a terrorist campaign to mark the end of Tony Blair's premiership, security sources have revealed”. Two major agencies, the Centre for the Protection of the National Infrastructure, which reports to MI5, and the National Counter Terrorism Security Office, which reports to chief police officers “warned in April about the possibility of a renewed campaign”. One senior security source told the Guardian: “The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre [JTAC] assessed that a group of individuals, it is not known how many, clearly had the capability and the intent to carry out attacks on the UK. Therefore there was a strong likelihood of further attacks.” But officials insisted that there had been “no specific” information about the events of Friday and Saturday.

Further details came from the Sunday Times which obtained a leaked copy of the JTAC assessment. The newspaper cites Patrick Mercer MP, former homeland security spokesman, asking: “If they had a JTAC document saying there was a high risk of an attack to mark the end of the Blair administration, why didn’t they raise the threat level and why weren’t people warned?”

An alleged al-Qaeda-Taliban video, shot on 9th June in Pakistan by a Pakistani journalist invited for the occasion, was aired by CNN and ABC in that month purportedly displaying a suicide bomber “graduation ceremony”. The video claimed that “suicide bombers were supposedly sent off on their missions in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany.” The video included

“… images of Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, his brother was killed last month by US forces. On the tape, the leader of the British team speaking of the mission in broken English said ‘Let me say something about why we are going along with my team to tell a suicide attack in Britain.’ The video at the time sent a chilling note across the security services with warnings that attacks in the UK were more than likely this summer….”

For those with an eye for detail, the connection between our no doubt utterly justifiable June slaughter of Afghans and this particular warning from Pakistan of an imminent strike on Britain is notable. Yes, it is by no means the whole story, but it is undeniably a significant component. Meanwhile, British officials are falling over themselves to insist that there is no discernable connection to Pakistan – of course our ardent ally in the ‘War on Terror’. Also worth noting is, as the report above continues, the perpetrators of these particular attacks: foreign “trainee doctors are being held as suspects, having passed their security checks and been provided with official approval to practice in the UK.”

Dirty Skins

They were not clean skins, police officials are happy to admit, noting that MI5 had logged several of them in its surveillance database of “desirable” targets, thus allowing them to be quickly identified and apprehended. What a resounding success. “Several doctors arrested over the London and Glasgow car bomb plot were on the files of MI5”, reported the Telegraph, including one

“… on a Home Office watch list after being identified by security services - meaning their travel in and out of Britain was monitored by immigration officers. Others were found to be on the MI5 database, which contains an estimated 2,000 suspected jihadists or supporters of terrorism. Whitehall sources said they had not been involved in previous plots, but were ‘people who knew people’ who were under observation… But British security sources insisted there was no intelligence that al-Qa’eda commanders plotted to infiltrate the NHS… Most of the alleged cell members arrived in this country after 2004 to take up NHS jobs.”

Desirable targets are individuals directly associated with known al-Qaeda operatives actively engaged in terrorist activity, and/or those involved in fundraising for terrorist activity. But there are slight problems here. For one thing, “American intelligence sources suggested yesterday that some cell members were recruited by al-Qa'eda in Iraq up to three years ago. Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, an insurgency leader, was said to have been ordered to find young men to blend into Western society before staging an attack.”

So the Americans knew about them. What about the British? In fact, who exactly were these doctors associated with? The Americans had more to tell. The Telegraph noted that:

“… reports from the US that the three men had been identified and known to be an associate of Dhiren Barot [convicted last year of a transatlantic terror plan involving nightclubs, car bombs, and other plots], a suspected terrorist who had planned to set off bombs across London, were dismissed by government officials.”

British officials are denying what the Americans are confirming. But the Americans do not merely share all their intelligence with the British as a matter of routine; their intelligence operations are fundamentally inter-coordinated, and have been increasingly so after 9/11. There are more problems. How on earth did foreign trainee doctors logged by MI5 as al-Qaeda associates manage to pass “their security checks” to receive “official approval to practice in the UK”? MI5 already had these individuals logged, yet MI5 did nothing while these individuals predictably applied to join the NHS, the very reason they had arrived in the UK after 2004. The official insistence from British officials that they had no idea these people were trying to infiltrate the NHS is difficult to make sense of. What else would al-Qaeda associates with medical degrees arriving in the UK for the specific purpose of joining the NHS be trying to do?.

Just on a side note, the 7/7 bombers (at least Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shahzad Tanweer), it has been admitted, were also logged by MI5 as “desirable” targets. They will have been, similarly, identified along with other relevant background data, as al-Qaeda associates, at the very least. They will have had files open on them, just as with these “desirable” targets.

And More Warnings

More embarrassing information from the Americans has continued to appear. A senior US official told ABC News that they had “received intelligence reports two weeks ago which warned of a possible terror attack in Glasgow against ‘airport infrastructure or aircraft’...” This was actionable intelligence, as it did indeed lead to action: except not in Glasgow. The official confirmed that “the intelligence led to the assignment of Federal Air Marshals to flights into and out of both Glasgow and Prague in the Czech Republic.” What did Britain know? “US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declined to comment on the report, but on Monday told ABC News that ‘everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa’.”

It should not surprise anyone by now that the Brits are once again denying everything. “There was no prior intelligence” about the Glasgow attack, said Strathclyde police chief constable Willie Rae. No of course there wasn’t. American intelligence officials are no doubt hallucinating.

Yet another official Foreign Office denial came regarding a separate warning from British priest Canon Andrew White, head of the Baghdad-based head of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, who said he’d been warned by an al-Qaeda figure of an attack. The unnamed al-Qaeda leader from Syria told him on the sidelines of a religious summit in the Jordania capital, Amman “about how they were going to destroy British and Americans. He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said the people who cure you would kill you.” The figure added that the plans “would be carried out in the coming weeks, and would target the British first.”

“Canon Andrew White, a British cleric working in Baghdad, claimed that he met an al-Qa’ida leader in Amman who had warned him about the imminent attack, saying ‘those who cure you will kill you’. Canon White said he passed the message to the Foreign Office. However a Foreign Office spokesman said there is no record of such a warning being given.”

In any case, White points out that he did not mention the medical angle. But it looks like the Foreign Office has got itself into a bit of a tiz. Although issuing repeated denials to various foreign press, insisting that no record of the warning existed and that no recollection of the conversation could be unearthed, Bloomberg was able to report an admission:

“The Foreign Office today acknowledged receiving information from White about the Amman meeting, adding that it was considered at the time to be too vague to merit further analysis. White’s information has since been passed on to police investigating the Glasgow and London incidents, a Foreign Office spokesman said.”

Ah yes, too vague, although it cohered with all the other intelligence being received just around that time of plans to strike the UK. It certainly also cohered with the previous evidence of an origin for the attacks in al-Qaeda in Iraq; as well as in Pakistan.

The official British government position is not tenable. Credible sources confirm that multiple warnings were indeed received. Repeated official denials contradict the evidence and are internally-inconsistent. In this context, the response of the authorities is telling. The denials eclipse the connections of this obviously untrained group of amateurs to an international al-Qaeda-affiliated network in Iraq and Pakistan.

Al-Qaeda or Not? And the Strategy of Tension

The “al-Qaeda or not” question, however, is not a black or white case. The pattern of terror plots particularly in the UK over the last few years since after 7/7 has invariably involved rather inept cells with quite questionable expertise in explosives and other terrorist techniques. Many of these cells while purportedly ‘home-grown’, are nevertheless associated with international networks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, where reside senior al-Qaeda operatives with real terrorist expertise. In the UK, USA and Western Europe, one group responsible for mediating communication and movement between these two domestic and international arenas is formerly known as al-Muhajiroun, purportedly banned by the British government, but still intact and still run by self-described cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed from Lebanon, where he was exiled by the British government. It is this that appears to produce a mismatch of actual expertise.

Omar Bakri’s protégé, Anjem Choudray, continues to run around the UK on Omar Bakri’s behalf (and with his regular guidance) attempting to mentor a new generation of Islamist extremists. It was former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus who confirmed that Omar Bakri and his al-Muhajiroun network had been first hired by MI6 in the late 1990s to recruit British Muslims to fight in Kosovo. His UK underlings even continue to maintain a website for him which curiously remains devoid of his hundreds of most inflammatory statements supporting al-Qaeda terrorism. Despite exiling him to Britain, authorities have done nothing to curb his ongoing influence over his UK network, except to protect him from official investigation in connection with the radicalization of that very network. Al-Muhajiroun incubated those involved with Dhiren Barot’s grand plan to bomb targets in the US and Britain, with which the fertilizer and 7/7 plotters were also intimately linked.

Further questions arise when we probe the plausible al-Qaeda connections to these incidents from Iraq and Pakistan. We may remind ourselves that the alleged perpetrators of the latest crimes are mostly of Middle Eastern origin. In September 2005, I had already documented evidence from a number of credible sources suggesting that the United States was covertly supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents described as “former Ba’ath party” loyalists now joining with “al-Qaeda in Iraq”. The proxy for this funnel of weaponry was Pakistani military intelligence, according to a Pakistani defence source cited by the Asia Times. The next year, an outraged British colonel complained that Pakistan was sheltering al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But nevermind him, Bush says Pakistan’s our “major non-NATO ally.”

This strategy of tension in Iraq was, it appears, extended to other key states in the region, namely Lebanon, by late 2006. On CNN, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh summarized his latest exclusive. Hersh’s absolutely critical discovery was that the Bush administration is actively sponsoring al-Qaeda affiliated groups across the entire Middle East, with a focus on Lebanon, to counter regional Shi’ite Iranian influence. Moreover, much of the finances for these covert operations are being funnelled by Saudi Arabia through Iraq:

“This administration has made a policy change, a decision that they are going to put all of the pressure they can on the Shiites, that is the Shiite regime in Iran, the Shiite - and they are also doing everything they can to stop Hezbollah - which is Shiite, the Hezbollah organization from getting any control or any more of a political foothold in Lebanon.

… we are interested in recreating what is happening in Iraq in Lebanon, that is Sunni versus Shia… we have been pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia is putting up some of this money, for covert operations in many areas of the Middle East where we think that the - we want to stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.

They call it the ‘Shiite Crescent.’ And a lot of this money… has gotten into the hands - among other places, in Lebanon, into the hands of three - at least three jihadist groups. There are three Sunni jihadist groups whose main claim to fame inside Lebanon right now is that they are very tough. These are people connected to al Qaeda who want to take on Hezbollah…

My government, which arrests al Qaeda every place it can find them… is sitting back while the Lebanese government we support, the government of Prime Minister Siniora, is providing arms and sustenance to three jihadist groups whose sole function, seems to me and to the people that talk to me in our government, to be there in case there is a real shoot-‘em-up with Hezbollah…

… So America, my country, without telling Congress, using funds not appropriated, I don't know where, by my sources believe much of the money obviously came from Iraq where there is all kinds of piles of loose money, pools of cash that could be used for covert operations… We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way...”

Déjà vu? An unholy triangle, the US at the helm, Saudi Arabia providing the funds, Pakistan providing military intelligence support, but this time not into Afghanistan as during the Cold War, but into Iraq and thereby throughout the Middle East. It seems, al-Qaeda is still a useful mercenary outfit for our covert regional geostrategy.

In March 2007, Hersh firmed up this conclusion in the New Yorker magazine, citing White House insiders and other US government officials, all confirming in perhaps the clearest terms that the US was deliberately attempting to control al-Qaeda terrorist activity through Saudi Arabia (among others) to be re-directed against Iran:

“The ‘redirection,’ as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

... The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

... Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that ‘there is nothing coincidental or ironic’ about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. ‘The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the [al-Qaeda] Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,’ Leverett said. ‘This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.’

… This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that ‘they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran’.”

So, we know the al-Qaeda salafis will throw bombs. But apart from trying to blow up American, British and other civilians, funnelling them arms, funds and logistical assistance will allow us to “control” them sufficiently to make life difficult for the Iranians, perhaps even provoke them into a response that will legitimize an Anglo-American “strike at them.” Notice that national security, I mean real national security in terms of the protection of the lives of the Western publics, is not an operative factor calculated into this strategy.

Whose bombs indeed. There is a term for this kind of covert sponsorship of terror networks. It’s called “complicity,” if the Modern Law Review is anything to go by. Thus, by law, the Bush administration, and perhaps now Brown’s also, is aiding and abetting al-Qaeda. They cannot be absolved of culpability in the fall-out.

So why Iran and why now?

Nothing to do with oil, of course. It is merely a coincidence that in late June, a former White House energy consultant and NATO energy delegate Dr. Roger Bezdek, annoyed the Bush administration by demanding that it “must immediately and rigorously assess the looming impact of peak oil.” He said: “... it may already be too late to avoid serious problems.” Dr. Bezdek’s warning came shortly after the publication of British Petroleum’s influential Statistical Review of World Energy which claimed optimistically that sufficient oil reserves remain to meet current demand for the next 40 years. BP’s report, which echoes that of other American and British giant oil corporations, was refuted by leading independent oil industry experts including Dr Colin Campbell, a former chief geologist and vice-chairman at several major oil companies, who noted that on the contrary, the latest data shows oil is set to peak within the next four years. Indeed, Chris Skrebowski, a former chief planner for BP and now editor of Petroleum Review, observes: “I was extremely sceptical to start with. We have enough capacity coming online for the next two-and-a-half years. After that the situation deteriorates.”

Bush administration officials have long been aware of the impending oil crisis. Indeed, it was a key factor in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s formulation of the strategy in Iraq only five months prior to 9/11. Reports like that of BP are designed to misinform, steering public attention away from the real cause of the problem.

If ever there was a resource-driven strategy of tension, this is it; and the fear being ratcheted up in the US and UK is its direct corollary. While the British police and intelligence services are congratulating themselves on having rounded up the terrorists and thus quelled the threat for now, the US government is actively fostering the source of the threat in the Middle East because of its antipathy toward Iran. Given Britain’s close alliance with the US in the ‘War on Terror’, the question must be asked, how precisely involved is the British government in this self-defeating strategy that consciously compromises civilian life?
You want to fight the terror Mr Brown? Perhaps you can start by fighting your new boss, Mr Bush.

Somehow, I don’t see it happening.


Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Overlook, 2006) and The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Olive Branch, 2005), among other books. He teaches international relations at the University of Sussex, and directs the Institute for Policy Research & Development ( ).


Lovebug Honey (35)
Sunday July 22, 2007, 9:14 pm
Last thing I will say is did anyone else notice in one of Bush's last speeches he stated
"The same people bombing Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11"

First off this is new information, Al Qaeda now has airplanes and bombs?

Daily attacks in Iraq hit new high

David Morgan
Saturday July 21, 2007

Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.
The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.

Pentagon officials were not immediately available to comment on the statistics.

The June numbers showed 5,335 attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians and infrastructure.

June's total was 2.5 percent below an October 2006 peak of 5,472 attacks and slightly lower than the 5,365 attacks in May.

But because June has only 30 days, the average daily number of attacks was 177.8, higher than the 176.5 last October and 173.1 in May.

The Pentagon statistics, which come as pressure mounts in the U.S. Congress for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, depicted the most intensive month for daily attacks since Bush declared major combat operations at an end in May 2003.

Daily attacks rose as the Bush administration moved the last combat battalions into place for a security clampdown in Baghdad, part of a controversial U.S. strategy to stabilize Iraq with an additional 28,000 troops.

Bush and other senior officials have predicted that a rise in violence from insurgents and al Qaeda in Iraq would occur this summer as the so-called "surge" strategy takes hold.

A crucial report expected in September from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, could force a change in U.S. policy if it suggests the strategy is not working.

U.S. military commanders have sought to paint a more upbeat picture of events on the ground while pleading for additional time to determine whether the Bush strategy can succeed.

The statistics showed the 177.8 attacks per day in June were above the 157.5 in March, the lowest daily average for any month in 2007. Total monthly attack figures have also climbed to well over 5,000 from a low in February of 4,561.

Attacks last month were up 46 percent from a year earlier, with the statistics showing 3,642 attacks or 121.4 per day on average in June 2006.

The June 2007 statistics confirmed a significant decline in the targeting of Iraqi civilians, with such attacks falling 18 percent to 763 from a 2007 high of 932 in May.

Attacks on Iraqi security forces fell to 889 in June from 987 in May, while attacks on coalition forces rose about 7 percent to 3,671 from 3,423.


Al Amjad Tawfiq Isstaif (75)
Monday July 23, 2007, 2:34 am
Urgent, Please note this story here

Tim Redfern (581)
Monday July 23, 2007, 3:57 am
Lovebug: Actually, that is true. It was the federal govt./Bu$hco that 'bombed' us on 9-11, and it is their CIA/Black Ops people who are fomenting much of the violence in Iraq. The statement really isn't so big a stretch.

Debal Deb (8)
Monday July 23, 2007, 6:57 am
It's a great irony that aeven after all revelations and expositions of lies (in "Farenheit 9/11", "Zeitgeist" and the many many articles that Cate has been circulating0, Bush is still in power, and perhaps will remain for the third term. A greater irny is that altough the whole world knows how Bush won the Presidential election the second time, most of the US people still want the rest of the world to believe that the US model of parliamentary democracy is the best type of governance "of the people, by the people, for the people." They seem to fail to see that in parliamentary demiocracy in any country, the "people" consists of the clique of bureaucrats-politicians-industrialists.
It's time to move - globally - for a civic democracy, where all members of the commity woud meet as equals, take all decisions regarding their lives and livelihoods, and abolish all liberalist freedoms of industrialists to destroy the Earth's life-support systems. That would necessitate abandoning the myth of economic growth and the fads of consumerism. Onlu then would our collective dream of a peaceful, sustainable world come true..

Laura Hovland (129)
Monday July 23, 2007, 10:56 am
Contact congress and tell them to IMPEACH

I just put together a 'user friendly' list of email contacts on a share. Please check it out, and email them all.

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Tuesday July 24, 2007, 9:10 am
It is IMPERATIVE TO IMPEACH, of course! Cheney and Bush MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO FINISH OUT THEIR TERMS UNPUNISHED. Think of the PRECEDENT it sets for other evil-doers! It would be like allowing known and identified child-rapists to get off with NOTHING! How many children, babies and families have Bush-Cheney's policies been responsible for MURDERING IN COLD BLOOD??? Both victims of the illegal Invasion and Occupation; and, the victims of 9/11 itself; including the victims on the airplanes that mysteriously vanished on that day. {That left the airports and did NOT hit the purported "targets" such as the Pentagon!}

ALL THIS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO THE TROOPS PRESENTLY FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND IN AFGHANISTAN. It must ALSO be made known to the troops still in the U.S.; to troops stationed abroad in other countries such as Germany and Japan; to the FAMILIES of the troops; and, to the troops of U.S. "allies" such as the U.K. and Australia.

IF ALL THESE TROOPS GET AND ABSORB THE MESSAGE, THAT 9/11 WAS A FRAUD TO STEAL OIL; then the troops will LOOSE THE WILL TO FIGHT. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT; FOR THE TROOPS TO LOSE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY, THE WILL TO FIGHT. The troops MUST be told, that they are not and never were, "defending" anything at all. In fact, the troops fighting is actually HARMING their families, their communities, and ultimately, their country itself. Both the U.S. troops, and their "allies".

IF THE TROOPS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY LOSE THE WILL TO FIGHT, THEN THEY CANNOT BE MADE TO FIGHT. There have ALREADY been SEVERAL instances of "Combat Refusal"; both by INDIVIDUALS, and by ENTIRE UNITS, such as the 343rd Quartermasters and the 10th Mountain Division. In at least some instances, it was KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE TRUTH OF 9/11, that led to the Combat Refusal. In other instances, it was the HIGH NUMBER OF CASUALTIES the unit suffered. IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THERE MUST BE OTHER INSTANCES OF COMBAT REFUSAL THAT WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT. This must only be the TIP of an ever-INCREASING ICEBERG.

It is up to US. to TELL THE TROOPS THE TRUTH; thru their families, friends, neighbors, veterans, and fellow-soldiers. THIS IS HOW TO REALLY SUPPORT THE TROOPS -- SUPPORT THEM GOING AWOL.
If the troops COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY LOSE THE WILL TO FIGHT, it will not be POSSIBLE for the mis-Administration, or complicit Democrats for that matter, to keep troops in Iraq till 2009, or indefinitely, or to start a war with IraN. NOT IF THE AIR FORCE PILOTS REFUSE TO BOMB OR TO NUKE IRAN.
This will be like Viet Nam "deja vu all over again".

Past Member (0)
Tuesday July 24, 2007, 10:19 am
Debal Deb- you said you believe -"most of the US people still want the rest of the world to believe that the US model of parliamentary democracy is the best type of governance "of the people, by the people, for the people." They seem to fail to see that in parliamentary demiocracy in any country, the "people" consists of the clique of bureaucrats-politicians-industrialists." The real irony- is that you believe this about ALL of us. I don't think all the people in all the world believe the lies their government says about me. I expect innate human intelligence to prevail - not an new ideology that will form it's own rules about who can belong. Do we really need history repeating it 's worst mistakes? That only makes for a lonelier world. Please think about this - your view is important and vital - but base it on real facts- not propaganda.
BMutiny- I hold on to that hope also. I am astonished by my own astonishment- that we would ever have to see this again- only more evil seems to have been let loose this time. We know when it comes to patriotism- people have to be more valued than land. Keep striking at the rock of offense and also keep yourself well.

Maureen S (122)
Tuesday July 24, 2007, 2:17 pm
Greetings Lady Cate,

Well, I must say that for the sake of discussion . . . I curtsy to you!!! =D And as to your original comment as regards "we set them up and we knock them down," I couldn't agree more!!! There were already so many great comments here when I popped in; apologies for lack of acknowledgement initially (lest she missed that amongst all these brilliant comments!). Indeed you are good for the social and cultural soul! And for that I am eternally grateful at your sharp eye and wit for the stories that we NEED to be hearing about . .. *wink*

BMutiny . . . in spirit I am with you 3,000%; however, I can't necessarily agree with you that the troops don't know, or aren't aware; however, both they and their families are extremely aware of the dangers they are in by being there. Going AWOL is not something I would encourage troops to do . . . because it comes with heavy punative actions on the part of the government, and I sure wouldn't want ANY family member or close friend serving do that in theatre!!! That would be deadly!!! To the troop and to the Unit . . . and consider that it is a war theatre! Even if they go AWOL here, I don't encourage that due to the fact they could easily be deemed "enemy combatants" and shipped to bloody Quantanimo not ever to be heard from again or able to exercise their rights!!!

Filing for conscientious objector status is entirely different; that's a TOTALLY different request and one that every troop is able to do. However, at the same time, we have a VOLUNTARY military presently; and if anyone watched the YouTube debates last night (which were great by the way!!! Can't wait to see the GOP candidates fumble with the questions in this format!!! TOO BAD OUR TROOPS CAN'T SEE IT ANYMORE!!!), whilst they are talking about whether women need register and whether they would institute a draft again, needs also be taken into consideration.

Because in the end, the troop and their family serve for THEIR COUNTRY and the CONSTITUTION, truly. They don't serve the "Policymaker;" trust me on this one dear friend. And they are wise to what is going on more than most of the public at present; and as to how much of 9/11 certain members of our government were complicent in, they see service in Afghanistan as retribution for the attacks, and the complicity of Usama bin Laden and his "terrorist," extremist organisation; that very same one that we propped up and gave money to when they were fighting Russia as Cate notes. And they are ANGRY over the fact that we haven't caught bin Laden at present. However, I have to submit that I stand behind a very close friend--like a son to me--for his continued service to Counry and he's headed back to Iraq for the third time next year, if we are still there. And military families--especially spouses--are not blind to what takes their loved ones to war; while there are many families who were "duped" just like the rest of the country when we "invaded and occupied Iraq;" however, that's not the case now in part because of people such as yourself, and David, and others . . . Cate for example and this story, so I think you underestimate their enlightenment and the reasons that they serve. =) And I say this as a respectful disagreement as you well know m'Lady. Lastly BMT, always remember that our troops are traveling WITHOUT passports . . . so if they went AWOL in country . . . well, where would they go. Now mind BMT . . . I'm not stating that this is necessarily what you meant, however, in part it's what I inferred from what you stated. Which of course is where some of the disagreement derives from. =P

Thanks Laura for the list! =D Again, complicity with whom on 9/11 is at this point, moot; and as to Bush's continued and worn out statements of "the same who attacked on 9/11 are attacking us in Iraq" are the delusions the above quote from the article reference. Now is the time to pressure Congress to IMPEACH!!! And bring our troops home; Maliki has already extended the invitation for us to exit Iraq at any time. The waste of this war knows no boundaries, and the facts that we are even there and NOT pursuing bin Laden and Al Qaida is ludicrous!!! And one thing is for sure, the troops who are serving in THAT theatre are aware that we are not trying to capture them! That occurred during my husband's tour there . . . and angered many of those within his unit. The equipment that isn't being sold to surplus stores and being tossed is ridiculous. On and on and on . . . and worst of all, the cost in lives of the brave troops and their families, whether the greatest sacrifice or coming home no longer whole; be it physically, mentally, spiritually, psychically . . . being human. That's the betrayal that DEMANDS IMPEACHMENT!

And simply put, we need to say to Nouri al Maliki and his government, fine! We shall go home and withdraw our troops. =D I also think that Bush and Cheney and anyone else that can be found to be complicit in the Iraq perpetration or 9/11 from within our government, be tried in the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity!!! That aside, I'll take Impeachment!!! I'll take Congress doing their job!!!

Dialing and e-mailing daily! Thanks again Cate.

As to IMPEACHMENT, I'm still doing the "dialing to Congress!" and signing and screaming all the way along with all the others!!!

One of the most telling assertions in the article is "[T]he final 18 months of his presidency will be an increasingly dangerous time for the world. Bush is wrapping himself in his messianic blanket, still bound to convince the infidels at home and abroad that he is a gifted visionary who can reshape the Middle East" which is of course delusional (Ibid)!!! Indeed, he imposes a greater danger than he has to date if we accept all the things that have been exposed, and the fact that regardless of WHO participated

Kari D (192)
Tuesday July 24, 2007, 3:34 pm
just like Roc-em, Soc-em Robots.

Debal Deb (8)
Wednesday July 25, 2007, 1:04 am
Lee Speak, you feel I meant ALL of you when i wrote "Most of the US people". Please note the word "MOST", and that's based on my firsthand experience in the US (1989, and 2001-2). Indeed, an overwhelming majority of Indians and Palistanis and Sri Lankans and Thai people also believe in the efficacy of the US model of democracy and economic growth!! (i vouch for my firsthand, grassroots experience in these countries).
Surely I share your optiism that human intelligence will prevail, but what type of intelligence? Hitler's and Stalin's regimes were, and Bush's regime is choke full of intelligent people who either maintain the status quo or promote the interest of the big industrial-busiessmen-politician clique.
What I proposed is not a new ideology, it's just a hopeful indication of restoring Reason and civic democracy, based on the prominent facts of ecological economics. It's the mainstream economists who look away from the world's facts. They systematically ignore all ecological problems including global warming and resource depletion - against mountains of all scientific data, and advise governments to accelerate quantitative "growth". The growing chasm of economic and social disparity is never metioned in the discourse of growth. Any opposition to this is dubbed as a "new" utopian/anarchist/ terrorist propaganda. Like you, I also wonder. "Do we really need history repeating it 's worst mistakes?"

Past Member (0)
Wednesday July 25, 2007, 8:06 am
Debal Deb - I still think you believe only what you are told about the USA. Or rather- we the people. I still disagree with 'most'. Our own 'polls' do not say that. You are talking on a blog to people who are - to some degree- broken -hearted. We were taught one thing in our schools- and watched the preceding generations talk one way while giving the old 'nudge-nudge' to their business buddies. We- a lot of us here who have the time to be on line- are older. We lived Vietnam and now they are stealing the blood of our grand children. Do not say most! There will always be the gap between the idea on paper- it' s ability to make the heart soar into realms of idealistic imagery and the brick and mortar of the world.Demecracy- in theory is lovely - in application in this country- a threshing machine. But we elect the threshers - sometimes we only have a choice between the lesser of two evils. I think your heart desires what you state- but I see nothing as to how you would sort out those you feel will share this ideal. And then- you have to remember they are going to want to know what's in it for them Look at history as a series of good ideas gone bad. There is a major gap between our constitution and how we think. If intelligence can not get us off this cycle of death - never did- what will? We must see people as they are- rather than as we want them to be- the way we would make them if we were their creator. The ideals of a perfect society have never triumphed over greed. It will always come down to personal responsibility. We must conduct our individual business with honor. Your day by day character is what will build your life. Why do people always feel that a government can fix people? We will have a government but you must be a building block you would live next too. I know your ideas are a good point of view- but until you can take the generalities and bring out real time plans- they will always get to remain-ideal and beyond your reach. You must take the paragraphs and make them into an outline. Make a plan. Work it out-live it in front of the world- be your ideal made flesh. Then you will find those who will listen- once you take the time to make it so they can grasp your vision. The world will never be 'fixed' from the outside in. Those are the leaders we seek- not the ones who stand above us- but those who can coordinate the talents and abilities of us all. Toward a common goal. And there-in what you also must overcome- the reluctance to change. And please understand- most of us haven't traveled where you have or meet other peoples. You are right- in my opinion - to see it is a matter of money- not race or religion - that separates us into classes. I don't think elementally we are too different. We both want to live and let live -in peace. And with food on the table! Keep learning and teaching!

Debal Deb (8)
Thursday July 26, 2007, 2:43 pm
Dear Lee S - I understand the prevalent American pattern of thinking that whatever negative things others tell about them are wrong and biased. I am fully aware that there were and are many white intellectuals in the US (like Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Steve Gould, Pete Segar, William Shutkin, to name just a few) who are highly rational and dedicated to doing good to humanity. They are my teachers, along with many others from other continents. But I don't see why I shouldn't say "MOST Americans" believe their democracy is the best in the world, and that their kind of civilization is and ought to be the model of the rest of the world. And MOST of the people in the rest of the world also believe that. That's why mega development projects funded by World Bank and IMF are roaring everywhere, and everyone years to own an automobile and airconditioned home.
Most Americans refuse to see that the democracy and equality upheld by the US constitution does not allow any non-white to become a President.
"Our 'polls' don't say that"? What, then, have the Presidential elections told? We know the fallacy of electoral democracy, in which a majority does not participate, but the majority of dissenters always allow the powerful minority to rule. That's parliamentary democracy, and that's what we have the prerogative to ridicule - in USA, India, Chile, Mexico, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Solomon Island.....
"There is a major gap between our constitution and how we think" - that's precisely my point!
"History as a series of good ideas gone bad" - very right, but that's not history's fault. Who tarnishes the wonderful ideas? Who prevents the 'precept' from being translated into practice? - The Hierarchy, the Establishment, the Power that be. And we all know who comprise the Establishment.
I am grateful to exchange my ideas with people like you, who "who are - to some degree- broken-hearted" and - I must add - optimistic, too. We cannot afford to sit back thinking that good ideas may some day turn bad, and may never get down on earth.
"The ideals of a perfect society have never triumphed over greed. It will always come down to personal responsibility." Very True. And yet, I think greed is economically constructed. From my own experience of living in and working with 8 indigenous (tribal) societies in South Asia, personal greed does not seem to appear until "industrialisation and market disintegrates the community. Many characteristics of "ideal society" - including altruism and equity - are found in all pre-industrial societies pivoted on communitarian ethos.
"Make a plan. Work it out - live it in front of the world- be your ideal made flesh. Then you will find those who will listen - once you take the time to make it so they can grasp your vision." - Thanks a lot for your kind and useful advice. I hate to talk about my own work, but please allow me to inform you that I have been doing just that - over the past 12 years, in a remote corner of eastern India. At the cost of being branded by the Establishment as "anti-state", "anti-progress" and "Luddite anarchist".... Of course, I need advice from all friends because I know, first hand, how difficult and incarcerating it is to stand up against the "democratic" state. I am now prosecuted in a criminal suit, because a year ago I accused the State forest department of some corruption and injustice to villagers. I was physically assaulted because I dared to oppose illegal sale of untested genetically engineered seeds of a multinational corporation. Despite all this, I am glad to inform you that some villagers, some peasant farmers, some young men and women have grasped my vision. And they are challenging the authority of market and money.
But as I mentioned in my previous submission, what I am telling and want to convey with regard to civic democracy (as opposed to parliamentary democracy) is not my original idea. I am merely trying to put the global ecological economic theory into practice on a very small local scale. And this effort has emboldened me to share my thoughts with you. I apologise if I have inadvertently given anyone any offense.

Past Member (0)
Thursday July 26, 2007, 7:02 pm
Debal Deb- I am totally willing to admit that I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I must have. The last thing I ever want to be in is being a discouragement to anyone. As you continue to post - I will read them when I see them- and I will think and learn. O.K? Stay well and safe- Lee

Debal Deb (8)
Thursday July 26, 2007, 11:50 pm
Dear Lee S. – I greatly appreciate your magnanimity, but I also discern you want to stand off – perhaps you were hurt? I am always open to critiques, to learn where I am wrong. Maybe my style of argument is acerbic, but I never – ever – want to offend anyone. A healthy debate, like this one, ought to generate more light than heat. We cannot afford to allow even a microcalorie of heat to put out a light source. I was never discouraged by your mails, on the contrary, I was energized to write so many words. Looking back, I am embarrassed that I wrote so many things about my work. Please respond to my – as well as others’ postings, so we can all learn.

Past Member (0)
Friday July 27, 2007, 7:18 am
Debal Deb- No- I am not hurt. I avoid offense because it can shut your mind off from understanding. I HAVE to read what you are saying from your point of view- rather than interpreting it by my lack of knowledge. I have known that because we all here and there had a different childhood and what we were culturally taught- I realized before I came on this site this was an area I could get first hand information from the people who live it. We both have preconceived ideas because of the facts on each other are given to us for their advantage- not our education. Goods can be counted the same one place or another- but attitudes are placed by those who want to shape our thinking. So- because at this point I have a lot happening in my own life- I have to read and reread what you wrote to really 'hear' what you are telling us. I live in So. Ca.. We are very diverse here and also very biased.As much as I might offend my fellow californians- we are people- not always a smiling bunch either. There is a lot of violent crime and activity here . I watch BBC news for at least a wider perspective- but I only speak and read and think in English. That is - now - a disadvantage- because I must rely on a translator - but still my own point of view. So as you share you give us an insight we have been denied. Like a photograph does.You did not boast- you showed you are backing up what you say with what you do. I- as an analogy- have to learn your 'language'. My time is limited online now- I have a real time life that has a lot on it's timetable -LOL- but I haven't stopped tracking this thread. I wasn't being magnanimous- I meant it. We are at least here - in spite of the turmoil in our countries - equals at a level table. And I really think we both think it would be a good way for all of us to live- all the time. So we must do so and demonstrate it is possible and the world will not be able to deny it. Peace- Debal Deb- Lee

Kathleen R (983)
Friday July 27, 2007, 2:40 pm
I'm sorry, but it still amazes me that items concerning animals abuse get more attention than these that involve the abuse of humans!

Maureen S (122)
Friday July 27, 2007, 3:49 pm
Greetings Cate and Kathleen . . .
Alert, alert, alert! If one looks at the story this thread is about, and views the Lady Kathleen's profile, one sees that she cares deeply about social justice and children in particular. In this "War on Terror," regardless of the parties, children have been used and are being used. When all is said and done, every troop in the U.S. military (or any other State's military), is someone's child!

In that sense, her statement above, while in the proper context makes perfect sense (i.e., if this were a story about some type of animal abuse); however, within the context of this story, and this thread, it's not one that "fits." And m'Lady Kathleen R., I mean that with all respect. =D

And as to what is posted, I can understand how one can have difficulty understanding how animals can come before other humans (Homo sapiens). And Kathleen, I submit it is because we are losing our humanness, we are "denying" that we too are a species and thus have a symbiotic and systematic relationship with our environment, and are both ethnocentric and anthropomorphic. If we accept that a species which we deem "lower" than ourselves is such that we are "masters" over them, and can determine their fate, that permits us to do things that MOST (not all obviously) people would deem abhorrent and in need of immediate practice!

Add to that domestication of some animals for the purposes of food, companionship or some type of "service," and that is further evidence of our perceived "superiority" to these "other" species, regardless of what type they are, or the habitat they live in; however, first and foremost are those companion animals. We have "created" them, so to speak, and that raises the level of emotional bonding to these animals (or, domesticates). And there are more than enough heroic tales of companion animals taking extreme actions to help their "masters" or save their lives. For those who have companion animals, they realize the emotional bond that exists there.

However, as people dealing with people, and particularly the abuses of people, injustices perpetrated from ANY source, starvation, mass murder or ethnic cleansing . . . the list can go on, as you are obviously aware. =) And while we sign petitions on these issues, and we are members of various organizations which fight at the local, national, and international level against abuse against humans. However, those are also "abstract" ideas to each person insofar as where they are geographically, and how deep their emotional ties are to the people, or person, suffering abuse. I hope this makes sense to you. Companion animals are analogous to family members; it does not mean that those issues are MORE important than abuse of humans. It's easier to extend empathy and reference when there is an immediate "example" of that abuse. Most of those who note the stories about animal abuse are the same who note political, wildlife, and conservation issues globally as well (and that's not limiting them to that).

Because companion animals are emotionally, socially (through domestication), and geographically or environmentally closer to us, the impact is greater and thus the frame of reference. These animals meant to "serve" humans are deserving of at least as much, if not more in some means due to dependency on us (again, through domestication), thus it's a responsibility as well, it "appears" that people "care" more about animals than other humans. And indeed, there may be some who do!!! And that is their right to hold that view.

I don't know that I've contributed to an answer to your lack of understanding, or perhaps I need call it a "bridge?" =) However, it's an attempt. Also, when we see what we are capable of against and towards those domesticates and companion animals, it brings the "reality" of what we ARE capable of against one another--such as what we KNOW is occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur and other Nations--and we are repulsed. Given that we are in one sense "helpless" to impact the places inflamed with war, ethnic cleansing, and civil war, we act against the closest representation of that type of behaviour. And that is animals, particular companion animals or domesticates; from there it extends to wildlife. And for many, myself included, it extends to Mother Earth.

In my view, if Mother Earth is threatened due to anthropogenic actions and/or impacts, then we need to do whatever it takes to ensure those actions are illegal, and the impacts are cleansed and reversed to the extent possible, so that ALL species can survive. It there is not Mother Earth healthy enough for everyone to survive, will any of the rest matter in the end? (AS AN ACTIVIST, THAT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION!!! roflmbo And for those who are friends, you know that is not where my heart lies!!! =D)

This is merely my attempt at explaining why it appears that "issues concerning animals abuse get more attention than these that involve the abuse of humans" (Ibid)! And that's only if Kathleen's post was supposed to be in this particular thread at all!!! *Big Grin*

Okay . . . she's going to find the wall and bang her head!!!

serge vrabec (278)
Saturday July 28, 2007, 6:53 pm

Teresa del Castillo (1519)
Sunday August 12, 2007, 4:02 pm
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.