Cyprus-Forum.com

[unique_earthling]

Food for thought, i found it resonated with some ideas that have crossed my mind of late..

America's War for Global Domination
by Michel Chossudovsky


The following is the background text of Michel Chossudovsky's public
lecture at the Society for the Defense of Civil Rights and Human Dignity
(GBM), Berlin, 10-11 December, 2003 and Humboldt University, Berlin, 12
December 2003.

On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2003, Michel Chossudovsky was awarded The
2003 Human's Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil
Rights and Human Dignity (GBM). [details deutsch ]

Photos of GBM event in Berlin, click here

The German Text was published by Junge Welt: Vortrag von Michel
Chossudovsky Neuordnung der Welt Der Krieg der USA um globale Hegemonie
(Teil 1)

Die Gesellschaft zum Schutz Von Bürgerrecht Und Menschenwürde (GBM), 10
December 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 15 December 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312A.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
threatens the future of humanity.

The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda,
which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a
continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia
(1991-2001).

The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert
intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were
instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics
including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and
Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a
view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led
in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF
guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which
resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the
impoverishment of millions of people.

The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries
enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large
share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process
is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the
former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates,
through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices.

In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization
of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's
economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent
military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases
in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In
turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China
Sea.

War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the
conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free
market" system.

The Next Phase of the War
The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of
"the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria
by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to provide a
justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel
Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See
Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004)

This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It
means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as
well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.

The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a
land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a
military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of
controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters,
who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.

This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's
plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian
nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial domain towards
the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the
Syrian heartland, Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank
behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.

In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on
Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime
change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up in Turkey.

So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending
from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent and China's
Western frontier.

The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which
has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a
weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy.
Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East.
The governments of all three countries have stated quite openly, prior to
the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they
are attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the
fifth nuclear power in the World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced
than that of Britain.

Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the
US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to
develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war
theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the
Hiroshima bomb".

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its
nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear
industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command
Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was
held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima,
58 years ago.

The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors
in decision-making. It is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear
war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the
production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the
agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public
relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for
the "defense of the American Homeland."

Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be
"safe for civilians".

This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next
phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East
and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.

In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004,
to develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons.

The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars,
roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.

While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and
Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research
Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was
not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to
another unidentified form of uranium contamination:

"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were
astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive
uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War
veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net

The Planning of War
The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s.

A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated
quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United
States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.

In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to
the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published
its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's
Defenses."

The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the
Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in
the formulation of US foreign policy.

The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:

"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".

This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously
in several war theaters in different regions of the World.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior
to the presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct
imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle
East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while
strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's
vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for
empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda.
One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and
catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize
US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the
use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a
similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business
Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right
major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand
Chessboard:.

".it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on
foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and
widely perceived direct external threat."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy
Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by
the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an
integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who
led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to
the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the
imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls
for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be
established:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in
the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that
causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to
militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass,
casualty-producing event." (Ibid)

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military
and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the
"militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It
is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush
administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say,
it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General
Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and
social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political,
social and institutional structures.

General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as
to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a
justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to
"preserving civil liberties."

Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack
will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in
America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a
justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the
establishment of a military government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the
US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

War Propaganda
In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence
(OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics:

"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were
going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as
an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with
Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political
pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose was to
deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force Magazine,
January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is
embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent
about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation campaign remains
functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly
candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer
exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being carried out".
(Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld's press
interview can be consulted at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the
Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the propaganda
campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as
"humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the
restoration of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of
civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil
liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"--
is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding
civil liberties.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive
"defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda
constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda
campaign.

The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as
an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States"
and "Islamic terrorists":

"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of
uncertain duration. .America will act against such emerging threats before
they are fully formed.

.Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional
means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of
terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (.)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian
population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law
of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass
civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these
losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used
weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the
case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (.). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will,
if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White
House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine
requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside
enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State
sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."

But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events"
allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National
Security agenda.

In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks'
operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to
both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed
into the news chain.

In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda
threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official
statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the
news tabloids.

And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist
occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this
war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed
into the news chain.

2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as
outlined in the PNAC

What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist
events are part and parcel of military planning.

Actual Terrorist Attacks
In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign
cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it
also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide
credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used
to justify the implementation of "emergency measures" as well as
"retaliatory military actions". They are required, in the present context,
to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the
American Homeland.

The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's
assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See
Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global
Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled
"Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to
justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could
develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other
Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers
would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military
Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in
recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India
(2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or
cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a
certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a
covert intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct
contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the
role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are
they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military
intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian
intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which
contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were
allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of
which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by
Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the
ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar,
Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while
also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the
creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG),
to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among
terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is,
for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves
to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces." (William Arkin, The Secret
War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing
apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported
terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of terrorist
cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the
infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence
apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations
through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. In
the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated
with Al Qaeda in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997
report of the Republican Party Committee of the US Congress. (See US
Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during the
war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives,
bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists".
Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links
between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as
occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See
See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September
11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3,
http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And
this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S.
military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the
Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on
the Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press
and statements made by the Macedonian authorities. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant
Network were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the
National Liberation Army (NLA), which was involved in the terrorist
attacks in Macedonia.

In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda
barely a few weeks before 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in
official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda". This
in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al
Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports
nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist
occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to
Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by
official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this
information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist
attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist
organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.

September 11
While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February
2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda
terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence reports
confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the
Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established fact,
corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington's mainstream
think tanks.

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months
leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign
governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different
points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate
Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the
illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra
paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see
Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush
Administration, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11
cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last two years,
including official documents, testimonies and intelligence reports,
indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence
operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For
further details, see Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key
articles, September 2003)

The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of
Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged
9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of
Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of
the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See
Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.)

Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of
the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September
2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who allegedly
transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship
with a number of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin
Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage,
whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)

The Antiwar Movement
A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of
antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war criminals and
question their right to rule.

A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and
eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.

The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union
and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network
composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in
neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is
ultimately through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in
our name" will be challenged.

To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda
machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the
US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who
have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.

This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism"
and revealing the political complicity of the Bush administration in the
events of 9/11.

September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.

Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext
to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former
German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA and September 11:

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."

Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are
mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks,
corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind the
military and political actors.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the
State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the
shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense
contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating
discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians
become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited
by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought
to office.

Criminalization of the State
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately
occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the
criminals", when in fact they are criminals.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and
there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the
9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the
evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the
State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the
US Congress. .

Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration,
members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been
granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to
designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal
acts as "enemies of the State."

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and
supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as
well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The
Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military
operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and
vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western
military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and
intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common
understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World
Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war
machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must
be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More
generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the
institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors
of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust:
workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals,
artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and
intellectuals.

The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a
single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, "single
issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on
how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of
solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This
global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within
countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse
groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which
brings together social movements in all major regions of the world in a
common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting
world peace.

[miltiades]

The above was dictated by Bin Laden """.But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events"
allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National
Security agenda. ""

The fabricated enemy ??? The world is full of assholes

[unique_earthling]

food for thought, just food for thought my dear miltiades, nothing more...

[dancingbear]

miltiades, preachers mate preachers, they have nothing in their sorry little lives to do but preach anti anything.

Bear

[andri_cy]

Good Food for thought UE. It doesnt have to be right, but if it makes us think about things it is always welcome...

[Mickleham]

Every War is big Business for the Anglo Saxon race!

Arab nations like Saudi Arabia are selling billions of dollars in petroleum products to USA. In return USA is arming Saudi Arabia with aeroplanes and Guns, so in effect they getting the money they paid for petrol back.

In other instances after they arm a nation they also go back and destroy the same armaments they have sold to that nation, under various excuses, and life goes on

[miltiades]

Diarrhoea is food for thought ??

[ausbroker]

thanks 4 the info unique earthling..

unfortunatley we cant do jack about the crap that is going on.
we all know whta they are up to, but we cant do jack...
so i say live life and enjoy it while it lasts....
and dont forget to go church on sundays

[Kikapu]

The above was dictated by Bin Laden """.But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events"
allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National
Security agenda. ""

The fabricated enemy ??? The world is full of assholes

Now, now Miltiades, don't pretend you have never heard of PNAC ( Project for the New American Century), because I gave you the web site 3 times last month. Perhaps you can read it with your "side kick" dancingbear. He seems to be clueless also on PNAC, amongst other things.!

[G.Man]

Every War is big Business for the Anglo Saxon race!

Arab nations like Saudi Arabia are selling billions of dollars in petroleum products to USA. In return USA is arming Saudi Arabia with aeroplanes and Guns, so in effect they getting the money they paid for petrol back.

In other instances after they arm a nation they also go back and destroy the same armaments they have sold to that nation, under various excuses, and life goes on

So the US is anglo saxon now..

America buys oil with dollars it prints, it can print as many dollars as it needs to buy oil as long as there is a demand for dollars...

Why do you think they attacked iraq after they started selling oil in euros, iran is now doing the same...

To buy oil in euros they have to balance the trade, and other than arms, what has america got that anyone wants?