"...Colonial administration always relies on creating dissension between subjugated "native" tribes and populations. The fundamental white-power core of the American ruling class manages the nation in the colonial style. It sees itself as a small elite of elevated race (with a sprinkling of approved and tested tokens) that must control a vast, lower-class population. Setting the natives against each other in petty jealousies helps to fragment any opposition to their true masters.
The "carrot" always offered to subjugated natives is the chance to "sit at the right hand of the master, at his table." This is an avenue of advancement for a select few -- the Clarence Thomases, the Alberto Gonzalezes -- to implement the rule of the elite to the detriment of their own tribes, but for personal gain. Such people have been termed the "comprador" class in the literature of colonial administration. These are the "native bosses" who buy the labor needed for elite projects (e.g., native troops and native police), and keep current on doings in the tribes, to ensure the elite can quell independent thinking should it threaten to arise (e.g., weed out opposition leaders). They also man the facade of "diversity" and "equal opportunity" which all colonial administrations find useful for public relations. See the movie "Burn" by Pontecorvo (1970, starring Marlon Brando).
What can frustrate many natives is that the comprador option is just a cynical ploy, not an indication of real avenues of opportunity. So it is only open to a few, and these must be both highly capable and thoroughly compromised. Thus there can be much frustration among natives who are taken in by the ploy yet unable to actualize the false promises. Many want to "sit at the table" and believe themselves worthy, either on the basis of their own talents and achievements or by association with a reliably exploitable tribe ("we deserve it").
Manuel Garcia, Jr -- Immigrant Bashing For Colonial Control
Congo and Darfur: Where Anti-Arab Prejudice and Oil Make the Difference
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
by Roger Howard
Three million to four million Congolese have been killed, compared with the estimated 200,000 civilian deaths in Darfur.”
Some Black bodies are more worthy of attention than others. The three million dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where U.S. allies such as Rwanda keep the genocidal pot boiling and multinational corporations field private armies to guard their mineral extraction enterprises, get scant mention in corporate media. But Darfur, where 200,000 Black Sudanese lives have been lost, is cause for crocodile tears among right-wingers and Arab-haters. Genocide sensitivity is, apparently, an acquired, selective taste: it depends on who is doing the killing, and how much oil is in the mix.
“The Democratic Republic of Congo has received a fraction of the media attention devoted to Darfur.”
The key difference between the two situations lies in the racial and ethnic composition of the perceived victims and perpetrators. In Congo, black Africans are killing other black Africans in a way that is difficult for outsiders to identify with. The turmoil there can in that sense be regarded as a narrowly African affair. In Darfur the fighting is portrayed as a war between black Africans, rightly or wrongly regarded as the victims, and "Arabs," widely regarded as the perpetrators of the killings.
In practice these neat racial categories are highly indistinct, but it is through such a prism that the conflict is generally viewed. It is not hard to imagine why some in the west have found this perception so alluring, for there are numerous people who want to portray "the Arabs" in these terms. In the United States and elsewhere those who have spearheaded the case for foreign intervention in Darfur are largely the people who regard the Arabs as the root cause of the Israel-Palestine dispute.
From this viewpoint, the events in Darfur form just one part of a much wider picture of Arab malice and cruelty. Nor is it any coincidence that the moral frenzy about intervention in Sudan has coincided with the growing military debacle in Iraq – for as allied casualties in Iraq have mounted, so has indignation about the situation in Darfur. It is always easier for a losing side to demonize an enemy than to blame itself for a glaring military defeat, and the Darfur situation therefore offers some people a certain sense of catharsis.
“The US backed an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to topple an Islamic regime that the White House perceived as a possible sponsor of anti-American ‘terrorists.’ ”
Humanitarian concern among policymakers in Washington is ultimately self-interested. The United States is willing to impose new sanctions on the Sudan government if the latter refuses to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force, but it is no coincidence that Sudan, unlike Congo, has oil – lots of it – and strong links with China, a country the US regards as a strategic rival in the struggle for Africa's natural resources; only last week Amnesty International reported that Beijing has illicitly supplied Khartoum with large quantities of arms.
Nor has the bloodshed in Congo ever struck the same powerful chord as recent events in Somalia, where a new round of bitter fighting has recently erupted. At the end of last year the US backed an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to topple an Islamic regime that the White House perceived as a possible sponsor of anti-American "terrorists." The contrasting perceptions of events in Congo and Sudan are ultimately both cause and effect of particular prejudices.
Those who argue for liberal intervention, to impose "rights, freedom and democracy," ultimately speak only of their own interests. To view their role in such altruistic terms always leaves them open to well-founded accusations of double standards that damage the international standing of the intervening power and play into the hands of its enemies. By seeing foreign conflicts through the prism of their own prejudices, interventionists also convince themselves that others see the world in the same terms. This allows them to obscure uncomfortable truths, such as the nationalist resentment that their interference can provoke. This was the case with the Washington hawks who once assured us that the Iraqi people would be "dancing on the rooftops" to welcome the US invasion force that would be bringing everyone "freedom". Highly seductive though the rhetoric of liberal interventionism may be, it is always towards hubris and disaster that it leads its willing partners.
Roger Howard is the author of What's Wrong with Liberal Interventionism.
President Bush “Hurts” for Darfur
Darfur Is Safer than US Urban Cities
By Ali Baghdadi, Chicago
...What is breaking the heart of our President, the most “powerful” man in the history of mankind, is the Darfur tragedy! He has been hearing that Arabs are massacring black Africans; Arab Janjaweed militia is carrying out “ethnic cleansing”, “genocide”, and “rape” against blacks. To emphasize the gravity of the situation and the degree of concern, the President even went to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and threatened the Sudanese government that they must immediately stop the carnage or he will order additional sanctions.
Two years before the Darfur conflict erupted, President Bush expressed his dissatisfaction with the policies and conduct of the Sudanese government. He expressed his desire to see a regime change in Khartoum, similar to the one he brought about in Baghdad. He wants Sudan to become an oasis of freedom and democracy for the entire black continent, Iraqi style. One million Iraqis have lost their lives and four million have become refugees since he stood on top of an aircraft carrier and told the world, “Mission Accomplished”. Iraqi infant mortality, which was lower than the United States prior to the 1991 invasion by his father, is today the highest in the world. Iraqis lack clean water, their sanitation plants are destroyed, they receive no more than 2 to 3 hours of electricity per day, and their lands are polluted by tons upon tons of depleted uranium.
In late April, I joined a delegation of 31 African-American journalists in a fact-finding mission to the Sudan. Included in the entourage were: Akbar Muhammad, the trip organizer, a writer, a historian and the founder of Youth 4 Africa; James Mtume, KISS FM Radio – Talk Show Host; Alesia Powell, TV One – Producer; Kenneth Carr, PFW Radio –Talk Show Host, and others. I had the opportunity to meet with many members of the Sudanese government, on the national, state and local levels, including President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, as well as members of the opposition who had, until recently, carried arms against the central government. Darfur is the size of France, and is comprised of three states. I visited two, the North and the South. I talked to Darfurians in the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, as well as people in the marketplace, men, women and children.
Members of my family and some of my friends and their friends were too worried about me. They doubted that I would come home alive. They were overwhelmed by the news reports of Sudanese violence that Americans are bombarded with daily. In their perspective houses of worship, some also prayed for my safe return.
First, I must inform my President, who is greatly concerned about the safety and well being of every US citizen, particularly Palestinian Americans, that I am home, safe and sound.
After viewing the facts as they are on the ground, and not according to the US news factories, it is my utmost duty to relate to the President, his cabinet, the Congress, the US corporate media, as well as all who “championed” the Darfur cause, the good and bad news.
The United Nations and Doctors without Borders have been right all along. No genocide! No ethnic cleansing! No rape! Our politicians and media don’t seem to understand geography. They don’t seem to know how to read a world map. Darfur is not in occupied Iraq. It is not in occupied Palestine. I felt safer in Darfur than in US urban cities.
I also discovered the obvious, what I had known all along. The Sudanese citizens of Darfur are all Africans, all blacks, all Sunni Muslims, and all speak Arabic, the language of the Quran, the Muslim holy book. My African-American companions often asked, “Where are the Arabs?” However, I repeatedly asked, “Where are the Africans?”
The Janjaweed are not a militia that the central government arms and equips. They don’t belong to a specific tribe or ethnicity. They are bandits, outlawed, and the army and local police severely prosecute them when caught. The Janjaweed phenomenon has existed for centuries in this vast land, and the tribal chiefs were able to deal with it through the traditional tribal justice system. The situation has worsened due to outside interference and desertification caused by global warming.
It is true that there is a tragedy in Darfur. Approximately 9,000 civilians have lost their lives. There are refugees who escaped the violence. There is a rebellion and there are rebels that are sheltered in neighboring countries. There are also opposition “leaders” who refuse to sign the Abuja Peace Agreement sponsored by the African Union, and are waiting to enter Darfur behind US tanks. Darfurians, young and old, have assured me that Darfur will become a new Iraq; their land will become a graveyard for invaders.
An old man in his eighties that I had met at one of the IDP camps made it clear that his people reject donations collected in their names by US anti-Muslim Jewish organizations. The American Jewish World Service, one of the sponsors of the “Save Darfur” campaign, collected approximately $31 million; $28 million of the relief funds were channeled back into Jewish lobbying efforts. Most of the remaining $3 million earmarked for Darfur was spent on advertisement. The organization has made it clear that its objective is to create Jewish “presence” in world “humanitarianism”...
As far as Darfur is concerned, Mr. Al-Bashir insists that foreign intelligence is behind the rebellion, and that the conflict will cease the moment the West, particularly the US government, stop financing, arming, and supporting the rebels....When I asked him for the real reasons for this enmity towards his country, Mr. Al-Bashir stated that Sudan, the largest country in Africa (2.5 million square kilometer) is rich in oil, uranium, copper, iron and many other minerals. The land is fertile; water is abundant; they have the White and the Blue Nile rivers and underground reservoirs. The land, with the proper infrastructure, can become the bread basket of Africa and the Arab world. This would not only provide the Black continent with food security but will also bolster its political and economic independence, which the US overtly and covertly opposes....
In a May 21 editorial in the Financial Sense titled “Darfur Oil could result in second Cold War”, William Engdahl spells up the Sudanese tragedy in clear terms, “What’s at stake in the battle for Darfur? Control over oil, lots and lots of oil.
“Darfur and Chad are but an extension of the US Iraq policy “with other means”- control of oil “everywhere”… China is challenging that control “everywhere”, especially in Africa. It amounts to a new undeclared Cold War over oil.”
The American people should know that despite internal conflicts created by the West, Al-Bashir’s government made great strides in agriculture, industry, education, health, and other services. National growth, which the previous regime left in the red, is now 11 percent. The country, which ranked number 95 among developing nations in 1989, now occupies number 51. In the past, 80% of the budget depended on foreign aid. The budget today depends on local resources. Agricultural land increased from 16 million to 60 million acres. Exports increased from 480 million to 8 billion dollars. Universities increased from 7 to 37. Although al-Shefa, the major pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, was hit and destroyed by ballistic missiles by former President Bill Clinton to divert attention from the Monica Lewinski scandal, Sudan today has 37 factories that meet 70% of the local needs. The destruction of al-Shefa, whose ruins I inspected, was disastrous to Iraq. Iraqis depended on the vaccine produced by the plant for the treatment of their cattle. Some medicines manufactured in the Sudan are exported to other African countries.
I do understand the reason for Mr. Bush’s wish for a regime change in Khartoum. Unlike the great majority of Arab and Muslim leaders that walk all the way to Washington on their hands and knees and enjoy Bush’s blessing, approval, and support, President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir is quite different. Certainly, he is not Husni Mubarak of Egypt.
The Arab-African leader and the members of his government are known to be uncorrupt. They do not squander the resources of their country. They do not have Swiss banks accounts with money stolen from the poor. They do not accept bribes from foreign governments or multi-national corporations.
Despite the economic sanctions and the enormous pressures imposed on the Sudan, Mr. Al-Bashir refuses to submit to the will and dictate of the United States government. When it comes to the sovereignty and welfare of the Sudan, Mr. Al-Bashir is unwilling to compromise. The Sudanese are solidly behind their President. The Organization of Islamic Conference headed by the Malaysian Prime Minister, representing fifty-five Muslim nations, has just reaffirmed its endorsement.
u.s. "humanitarian" aggression tactics revealed despite NYT cover-up attempt...
Darfur Advocacy Group Undergoes a Shake-Up
Save Darfur has gotten into hot water with aid groups helping the refugees of the conflict....In February it began a high-profile advertising campaign that included full-page newspaper ads, television spots and billboards calling for more aggressive action in Darfur, including the imposition of a no-flight zone over the region.
Aid groups and even some activists say banning flights could do more harm than good, because it could stop aid flights. Many aid groups fly white airplanes and helicopters that may look similar to those used by the Sudanese government, putting their workers at risk in a no-flight zone.Sam Worthington, the president and chief executive of InterAction, a coalition of aid groups, complained to Mr. Rubenstein by e-mail that Save Darfur’s advertising was confusing the public and damaging the relief effort.“I am deeply concerned by the inability of Save Darfur to be informed by the realities on the ground and to understand the consequences of your proposed actions,” Mr. Worthington wrote.He noted that contrary to assertions in its initial ads, Save Darfur did not represent any of the organizations working in Darfur, and he accused it of “misstating facts.” He said its endorsement of plans that included a no-flight zone and the use of multilateral forces “could easily result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals.” Another aid group, Action Against Hunger, said in a statement last week that a forced intervention by United Nations troops without the approval of the Sudanese government “could have disastrous consequences that risk triggering a further escalation of violence while jeopardizing the provision of vital humanitarian assistance to millions of people.” Aid groups also complain that Save Darfur, whose budget last year was $15 million, does not spend that money on aid for the long-suffering citizens of the region....similar tension had flared publicly during the 1998-99 war in Kosovo, when relief groups had staff members in the Balkans at the same time advocacy groups were calling for bombing and more aggressive military action.“Not only were there concerns among relief agencies that their workers would be hit if there were bombing, but they were also fearful that more aggressive action could provoke a counterattack against aid workers, who might be seen as representative of the Western powers doing the bombing,”[...]
Revisiting the "Rwandan Genocide"
Resurrecting Ghosts, or Exorcising Demons?
by Steven da Silva
Global Research, June 1, 2007
...it is that utterly foreign spirit which has possessed the corpus of Central African history which has come to be known as the ‘Rwandan genocide’ – a hideous beast of a story concocted by imperialism. Hideous not only because of what happened between the months of April and July 1994, but hideous for how the tales told about those few months in Rwanda have served to mask the role imperialism has played in Central Africa at large throughout the 1990s. The tales told about the ‘Rwandan genocide’ are intended to disarm critical reason and deflect attention away from the even larger atrocities and the even greater war criminals that Western imperialism is trying to hide.
The Causes of the Rwandan Civil War
To the extent that Westerners know anything about Rwanda today, it is thanks to the Rwandan genocide entertainment industry which has proliferated in recent years (Hotel Rwanda, Shakes Hands with the Devil, Un Dimanche à Kigali, to name only a few). According to the myth propagated in these and many other films, books, and documentaries, the conflict really only begins in April 1994 with the shooting down of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana’s plane. As the mainstream discourse goes, ‘extremist’ Hutus shot down their own president’s plane in order to justify the slaughter of the country’s ethnic Tutsi minority. But if the conflict can be so easily periodized at all, one should really begin the story in late 1980s when the current Rwandan President Paul Kagame was head of the Ugandan army’s military intelligence under the American-backed dictatorship of Yoweri Museveni.
In late September 1990, while both the presidents of Rwandan (Habyarimana) and Uganda (Museveni) were away in New York attending a UNICEF meeting, 4000 soldiers and high ranking officers from the Ugandan National Army ‘mutinied’ and invaded Rwanda.1 Immediately after the invasion, Paul Kagame – who was in the United States at the time of the invasion being trained by the U.S. military in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas – returned to Uganda to take up a position as the commander of invading Ugandan forces (soon to be known as the Rwandan Patriotic Forces (RPF)).2
For the next three years, Museveni allowed his former troops to move freely across the Rwanda-Uganda border as the RPF terrorized and dispossessed hundreds of thousands of Hutu peasants in northern Rwanda of the most fertile land in the country. Robin Philpot, who has written a damning exposé on the Western role played in the Rwandan civil war, has written that within “two and a half years after the invasion, only 1800 people lived in an area of northern Rwanda that previously had a population of 800,000.”3 In other circumstances, this act has been called ‘ethnic cleansing’, if not genocide. But such victims are not worthy of mention when Western imperialism has had a hand in such acts. Conspiracies of silence most often shroud their histories.
In a testimony submitted to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, one source recites that from 1989 onwards, America supported joint RPF-Ugandan attacks upon Rwanda... There were at least 56 'situation reports' in (US) State Department files in 1991… As American and British relations with Uganda and the RPF strengthened, so hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda escalated… By August 1990 the RPF had begun preparing an invasion with the full knowledge and approval of British intelligence.4
At a time when the Western presses were expressing harsh indignation at Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, the international community was giving little attention to the RPF’s war crimes. Instead, it was the Habyarimana government that was being condemned by the world for its responses to the invasion and occupation (not unlike the way the Iraqi people are being demonized today for fighting back against their own occupation). In response to the October 1990 invasion, the Rwandan government had some 8000 suspected collaborators arrested, holding them for periods ranging from a few days to a few months. And without taking into consideration the state of emergency which gave rise to these arrests, human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, as Philpot reports, ignorantly claimed that “the arrests provided verifiable proof of serious human rights violations...proof of the genocidal intentions of the Rwandan Government leaders”.5 But no mention of the genocidal intentions of the RPF were made by Human Rights Watch.
Aside from the attacks being lodged by NGOs, Habyarimana was facing a host of other destabilizing forces from without. The ‘international community’ was pressuring Habyarimana to hold multiparty elections (while under occupation); and the IMF was imposing a Structural Adjustment Program that ended up leading to a harsh devaluation of the Rwandan Franc.6
By August 1993, with pressures escalating from all sides, the Habyarimana government buckled, signing the Arusha accords which allowed for a near parity of military and political forces between the Habyarimana government and the RPF forces.
In the same period in neighbouring Burundi, the first democratically elected Hutu president Melchior Ndadaye was assassinated by Tutsi officers in the Burundian army shortly after taking office. As a consequence, 375,000 Hutu refugees fled from Burundi to Rwanda to add to the one million Hutus internally displaced by the RPF.7 One cannot underestimate the level of resentment Hutus would have been experiencing at this point as they were being unilaterally victimized in a conflict, with the world siding with the RPF. Up until 1994, the refugee crisis in Rwanda was one that solely affected Hutus, thus intensifying the ethnic animosities between the 85-90% Hutu majority and Tutsi minority.
The precipitating cause for what came to be known as the Rwandan genocide came on April 6, 1994 when the plane carrying President Habyarimana and the president of Burundi Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down with a shoulder rocket. But this is not how the world would come to know this event: not as an assassination of two heads of state deeming a global outcry and an appropriate response by the United Nations, but rather a ‘plane crash’, brought down by unknown perpetrators, likely ‘Hutu extremists’ looking for a pretext to execute their genocidal plot. But no evidence has ever been brought against any Hutu extremists for this crime. In fact, all evidence that has been gathered on the case points to the RPF and Paul Kagame. [...]
Richard Hugus Commentary
The upcoming June 10 End the Occupation demonstration in Washington is based on a call stating that Palestinians have been under occupation for 40 years - i.e., since 1967. In fact, Palestine has been militarily occupied since 1948, or 59 years. The call purposely omits the massive stealing of land between 1948 and 1967. This position is characteristic of Zionists who think the state they have set up in Palestine is ultimately legitimate, that at least the land besides the West Bank and Gaza is rightfully "Israeli." This is an idea that should be rejected.
Below is an article detailing some of the political maneuvering done by left liberals in the US on the cause of Palestine. I don't forward it as an endorsement of the demonstration or a call to attend.
Mobilizing for June 10th - March for Liberation and Return!
The Notion of the “Jewish State” as an “Apartheid Regime” is a Liberal-Zionist One
by Gary Zatzman
"Islamic Terrorists" supported by Uncle Sam: "Black Ops" directed against Iran, Lebanon and Syria
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
The Bush administration has admitted that covert actions of an aggressive nature were applied against Iran and Syria. The stated objective was to wreck the countries' economies and currency systems. The infamous Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) created in early 2006, integrated by officials from the White House, the State Department, the CIA and the Treasury Department, had a mandate to destabilize Syria and Iran, and bring about "Regime Change" :
"The committee, the Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group [ISOG], met weekly throughout much of 2006 to coordinate actions such as curtailing Iran's access to credit and banking institutions, organizing the sale of military equipment to Iran's neighbors and supporting forces that oppose the two regimes." (Boston Globe, 25 May 2007)
ISOG had also been providing undercover assistance to Iranian opposition groups and dissidents. The group's propaganda ploy consisted in feeding disinformation into the news chain and "building international outrage toward Iran". (Boston Globe 2, January 2007)
About-Turn in Iran-Syria Policy?
Washington has recently announced an apparent about-turn: no more treacherous covert ops directed against "rogue enemies" in the Middle East. The Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) has been disbanded on the orders of President Bush. The US will no longer be involved in "[covert] aggressive actions against Iran and Syria", according to State Department officials... A senior State Department official,... said the group [ISOG] was shut down because of a widespread public perception that it was designed to enact regime change. State Department officials have said the focus of the Iran-Syria group was persuading the two regimes to change their behavior, not toppling them." (Ibid)
Believe it or not?
Foreign policy analysts have described Washington's decision as proof of a welcome "softening" of US strategy in the Middle East. The Bush administration is said to have discarded " regime change" in favor of a more flexible approach, consisting of constructive dialogue with Tehran and Damascus. Aggressive covert actions, we are told, have been swapped for bona fide international diplomacy: The [dissolution of ISOG] comes as the Bush administration has embarked on a significant new effort to hold high-level meetings with Iran and Syria...
The decision to dismantle ISOG is largely cosmetic. Most of these intelligence operations remain intact. ISOG was one among several covert initiatives to destabilize Iran and Syria. Regime change and outright war are still part of the Administration's agenda. In fact, destabilizing covert intelligence operations directed against Iran and Syria have been stepped up in the course of the last four years. Moreover, these operations are closely coordinated with Israeli and NATO war plans, which constitute an integral part of the US sponsored military operation directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
The covert ops have been synchronized with the military road map, including the various US war scenarios envisaged since the launching of " Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT) in May 2003, barely a month after the invasion of Iraq. These war-like scenarios explicitly envisage regime change: ... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)
The US is on a war footing and the various covert operations and Psy-Ops --which routinely feed despicable images of the Iranian head of State into the news chain--, are an integral part of the military-intelligence and propaganda arsenal. In turn, the covert ops are coordinated with US, Israeli and NATO military deployments in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf including the conduct of major war games, which have been carried out almost continuously since Summer 2006.
CIA " Black Ops" directed against Iran
Coinciding with the announcement on the closing down of ISOG, "The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, according to current and former officials in the intelligence community... " (ABC News Report 22 May 2007). This parallel CIA sponsored initiative, which "received approval by White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community", has broadly the same mandate as that of the defunct ISOG: "The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions...The CIA plan was apparently "designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq." The covert operation, according to US officials, was a softer alternative to that of a military strike on Iran, an option which was favored by Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawks within the administration: "Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran."Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides." (Ibid)
The covert intelligence operations directed against Iran and Syria is not an alternative to military action. Quite the opposite. The CIA plan was designed to support Washington's strategy to destabilize Iran and Syria, through both military action and non-military means including covert intelligence operations.
Unleashing The Islamic Brigades Inside Iran
In relation to Iran, US intelligence has been supporting a Pakistani based terrorist group, Jundullah (Soldiers of God), that has conducted terrorist raids inside Iran. The group operates "from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan 'tri-border region'." According to a report by ABC News: "A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials." (ABC News, 2 April 2007)
Abd el Malik Regi, the leader of Jundullah, commands a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters "that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera, ... Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan." (Ibid). US government sources have acknowledged that Jundullah's leader "had regular contact with US officials" but denies any "direct funding" of Jundullah by US intelligence.
Inherent in CIA covert operations, the Agency never grants funding "directly". It invariably proceeds through one of its proxy organizations including Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which historically, since the Soviet-Afghan war, has provided support to Islamic terror groups, including the funding of the training camps and the madrassahs, always acting on behalf of the CIA. In fact this insidious role of Pakistan's ISI (on behalf of the the CIA) is candidly acknowledged by US intelligence:
"American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection." ( Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, The Secret War Against Iran, April 03, 2007
Other channels used by US intelligence in funding terrorism is through Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where foundation money is funneled to various militant Islamic groups on behalf of Uncle Sam. "Some former CIA officers say the arrangement [with regard to Jundullah] is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s [reminiscent of the Iran-Contra affair]." (Ibid)
Consistent Pattern: Historical Origins of "Islamic Terrorism"
Ironically, the Islamic groups are portrayed as working hand in glove with Tehran. Iran, a predominantly Shia country, is accused of harboring Sunni Islamic terrorists, when in fact these Islamic terrorists are " intelligence assets" of the United States, supported indirectly by Washington.
This role of US intelligence in support of "Islamic terrorists" is well established. The covert op applied in Iran are part of a consistent pattern. The not so hidden agenda of US intelligence, applied throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, is to trigger political instability and foment ethnic strife by supporting "Islamic terrorist organizations", ultimately with a view to weakening the Nation State and destabilizing sovereign countries.
From the onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war and throughout the 1990s, a central feature of CIA activities has consisted in providing covert support to " Islamic terrorist organizations":
In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.(See Fred Halliday, "The Un-great game: the Country that lost the Cold War, Afghanistan, New Republic, 25 March 1996): Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005, Ch. 2.)
With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence, "some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad." (See Chossudovsky, op cit)
These covert operations in support of the "Islamic Brigades" continued in the post-Cold war period. The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Middle East and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." (Ibid). "Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia established themselves in the Muslim republics of the Former Soviet Union as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State." (Ibid)
A similar pattern emerged in the Balkans. Starting in the early 1990s, the Clinton Administration supported the recruitment of Al Qaeda Mujahideen to fight in Bosnia alongside the Bosnian Muslim Army. Ironically, it was the Republican Party in a document published by the Republican Party Committee of the US Senate which accused Clinton not only of a "''hands-on' involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline" but also of collaborating with the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), "a Sudan-based, phony humanitarian organization believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden,... " (The original document can be consulted on the website of the US Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm )
Since the launching of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the wake of September 11, 2001, many of the official documents, which single out the insidious relationship of US intelligence to the "Islamic terror network", have been carefully removed from the public eye.
US Sponsored "Islamic Terrorists" inside Lebanon
The recent killings of civilians in Palestinian refugee camps in northern Lebanon, resulted from the confrontation between Fatah Al Islam and the Lebanese armed forces. Fatah al-Islam is a predominantly non-Palestinian Sunni fundamentalist group, operating inside the refugee camps. Fatah Al Islam is also inspired by the Wahabi sects of Saudi Arabia, which were part of the CIA's covert operations since the onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war.
The Lebanese armed forces have been involved in raids on the camps, leading to the uprooting of the Palestinians refugees. The number of Fatah al Islam militants (made up of Saudi, Syrian, Yemeni and Moroccan fighters), inside the camp was of the order of 150-200 according to press reports. The Lebanese military offensive has been disproportionate, resulting in countless civilian casualties. "Yet, the massively disproportionate assault on the camp has been unconditionally endorsed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “The Siniora government is fighting against a very tough extremist foe,” Rice said. “But Lebanon is doing the right thing to try to protect its population, to assert its sovereignty and so we are very supportive of the Siniora government and what it is trying to do.”
Lebanon has used the police action against this tiny group to ask the US for $280 million in military assistance to help put down what it grandiosely calls an “uprising.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the request for funds, $220 million of which would go to the Lebanese Armed Forces and another $60 million to security forces, was being considered by Washington. The US gave $40 million in military aid to Lebanon last year and an additional $5 million so far this year. (Chris Marsden, 27 May 2007)
Fatah Al Islam has been presented in media reports, in an utterly twisted logic, as an organization linked to the Fatah movement in Palestine, a secular organization, founded by Yaser Arafat. From an ideological standpoint, Fatah al Islam, is similar to Al Qaeda, which is known to financed out of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and supported by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) in liaison with its US counterpart.
According to Seymour Hersh, Saudi Arabia is providing funding as well as covert support to Fatah Al Islam, in close consultation with the Bush administration. Hersh points to a "private agreement" between top NeoCon officials and Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, who worked closely with CIA Director George Tenet, when he was Saudi Ambassador in Washington. The Lebanese government is also involved in this intelligence operation:
“The key player is the Saudis. What I [Hersh] was writing about was sort of a private agreement that was made between the White House, we’re talking about Richard—Dick—Cheney and Elliott Abrams, one of the key aides in the White House, with Bandar [Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser]. And the idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah—the Shia group in the southern Lebanon—would be seen as an asset, .as simple as that.. We're in the business now of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia, against the Shia in Iran, against the Shia in Lebanon, that is Nasrullah. Civil war. We're in a business of creating in some places, Lebanon in particular, a sectarian violence..”(CNN Interview with Seymour Hersh, CNN International's Your World Today, 21 May 2007)
The pattern of Saudi support to Fatah Al Islam is part of a US sponsored covert operation similar to those conducted by the CIA in the 1980s in support of Al Qaeda.
Well, the United States was deeply involved. This was a covert operation that Bandar ran with us. Don't forget, if you remember, you know, we got into the war in Afghanistan with supporting Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen back in the late 1980s with Bandar and with people like Elliott Abrams around, the idea being that the Saudis promised us they could control -- they could control the jihadists so we spent a lot of money and time, ... in the late 1980s using and supporting the jihadists... And we have the same pattern, ... using the Saudis again to support jihadists [Fatah Al Islam], Saudis assuring us they can control these various group, the groups like the one that is in contact right now in Tripoli with the government. (CNN Interview with Seymour Hersh, CNN International's Your World Today, 21 May 2007)
Staged Event in Lebanon? Building a Humanitarian Justification for Military Intervention
Fatah Al Islam is an "intelligence asset" financed by Saudi Arabia. While the Bush administration accuses Damascus of supporting Fatah Al Islam, there are indications that the killings in the Palestinian refugee camps were the result of a carefully staged military intelligence operation..
Since the Summer 2006 following the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, NATO forces are present inside Lebanon as well as off Syrian-Lebanese coastline. The UN Security Council Resolution allowing for the deployment of NATO peace-keeping forces was the first step in this process, which followed the 2005 withdrawal and Syrian forces from Lebanon.
The objective of the military roadmap, is to create sectarian violence inside Lebanon which will provide a pretext "on humanitarian grounds" for a stepped up military intervention by NATO forces under a formal UN mandate. This humanitarian military NATO intervention in liaison with Israel, is envisaged as a sequel to the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005 and the Israeli bombings of 2006. If it were to be launched it could lead to a situation of de facto foreign occupation of Lebanon as well as the enforcement of a economic blockade directed against Syria.
The pretext for these stepped up military actions are Syria's alleged support of Fatah Al Islam and Damascus' supposed involvement in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The timely "investigation" into Hariri's assassination and the setting up of a kangaroo court are being used by the coalition to foment anti-Syrian sentiment in Lebanon. From a military and strategic standpoint, Lebanon is the gateway into Syria. The destabilization of Lebanon supports the US-NATO-Israeli military agenda directed against Syria and Iran. US intelligence sets loose its Islamic brigades, while also accusing the enemy of sponsoring terrorist groups, which are in fact covertly supported and financed by Uncle Sam.
from The Narco News Bulletin, indispensable resource on Latin America and U.S. Drug War
Venezuela Accuses U.S. DEA of Being a “Drug Cartel”
By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, May 8, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— The Venezuelan government responded yesterday to United States Drug Czar John Walters' criticisms that Venezuela is not cooperating with the United States in the fight against drugs by saying that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency is a "drug cartel." The Venezuelan government rejected Walters' statements, saying that the U.S. has the intention of damaging Venezuela's reputation and intervening in its affairs.
John Walters, who is the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington, made the statement in an interview with the Colombian magazine Semana last week. And today in Brussels, Walters made further statements about Venezuela at a meeting with the European Union and NATO about drug-related issues. Walters warned of an increasing problem with cocaine entering Europe from South America, and in particular from Venezuela.
"Venezuela is gaining importance for drug dealers," said the US Drug Czar. "There are flights from legal airports to Dominican Republic and Haiti. Sea shipments are dispatched from several points on the Venezuelan coast."
But the Venezuelan government rejected the claims made by Walters, saying it was an attempt to discredit anti-drug efforts in Venezuela. Minister of the Interior Pedro Carreño warned that the recent declarations are a new attempt to intervene in Venezuela with the intention of putting military bases in Venezuelan territory.
¨The United States establishes cooperation agreements in the fight against drug trafficking through economic cooperation so that they can later impose the presence of military bases under the pretense of cooperation," said Carreño yesterday.
Carreño dismissed any possibility of permitting the intervention of US authorities in Venezuela to fight drug trafficking and accused the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) of forming its own “drug cartel.” According to the Carreño, when Venezuela ended its cooperation with the DEA two years ago, they observed that the US agency was trafficking drugs through the country.
"They were making a large quantity of drug shipments under the pretense of monitoring them, and they didn't carry out arrests or breakup the cartels," explained Carreño. "We were able to determine the presence of a new drug cartel in which the United States Drug Enforcement Agency was monopolizing the shipment of drugs," he said...
"Venezuela is a free, independent country that has its own National Armed Forces and security forces to provide protection to our country, and we are not going to let some other Armed Forces come to our government and impose on us the presence of military bases," stated Carreño.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez ordered an end to the country's cooperation with the DEA in 2005, alleging that some members of the agency were infiltrating government intelligence and were a threat to the security of the country. Since then, Washington has made repeated accusations about drug trafficking in Venezuela, claiming that their lack of cooperation is allowing drugs to be passed through the country and into the United States.
The Venezuelan government, however, sees these declarations as an attempt to coerce them into allowing US intervention in the country.[...]
in case you missed it...
U.S. Intelligence Hoax on Venezuela?
By: Michael Fox - Venezuelanalysis.com, 4/19/6
Caracas awoke to the news in the Venezuelan daily paper, 2001, that US intelligence sources reported the existence of a secret agreement between Iran and Venezuela whereby Iran will be sending nuclear weapons to Venezuela and Cuba...A deeper investigation, however, reveals an uncanny similarity between yesterday morning’s 2001 article and the information found in an article by former self-proclaimed criminal and current US law-enforcement collaborator Kenneth Rijock.
Indigenous people explain the cruel realityi of "globalization" on their lives, lands and livelihoods and their determined resistance -- in Spanish with english subtitles
Video: The Path of the Mayos (Part I)
With the Other Campaign in Sonora
Video: El camino de los Mayo (Parte I)
May 27, 2007
Video: The Path of the Mayos (Part II)
With the Other Campaign in Sonora
Video: El camino de los Mayo (Parte II)
M http://images.indymedia.org/imc/chiapas/the_path_of_the_mayos_part_ii.mp... 27, 2007
INSIDE THE FASCIST "HOMELAND"
‘Less Meeting, More Fighting!’: Lessons Learned by Grassroots Katrina and Tsunami Social Activists
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
by Bill Quigley
American activists were startled to find that Indians could not comprehend the passivity of the U.S. public to the ejection of Katrina survivors from their home city and state, in the wake of the flood. "If this happened in India, there would be a revolution," said one Indian community organizer. The Christmas Tsunami that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives along the coasts of the Indian Ocean did not destroy the people's will to rebuild on land that was their birthright. But "disaster capitalism" has apparently triumphed in the United States, where rights can be washed away with no trace. [...]
Racist Genocide in New Orleans Continues: "Like 911 But Add Water"
by liz burbank
A renaissance of Black resistance and leadership, historically the leading edge of revolution is what the postmodern slavemasters fear most in the racist "homeland".
Katrina was no accident, no surprise, no act of 'mother nature', the 'gods' , or bureaucratic incompetence. The human and environmental and impact on New Orleans of a hurricane of this magnitude had been scientifically calculated. Rescue and recovery were deliberately withheld, working class Black people militarily imprisoned, forcibly dispersed and murdered by the armed state.
This intensification of america's historical genocide, a crime of U.S. imperialist state terrorism, is a premeditated physical and psychological attack on the Black Nation to destroy its strength, pride, cultural cohesion and resistance to capitalist white supremacy's fascist global juggernaut.
Central to the U.S. strategy for global domination, Katrina and the brutal aftermath was engineered to serve this fascist agenda in two interrelated ways: uprooting, dispersing and weakening the Black Nation, while simultaneously inflaming racist support for the consolidation of a fascist mode of state capitalism under the guise of "rescue, relief and recovery” from a "major casualty-producing event" the state declared a “natural disaster.” [...]
full article at http://lizburbankdigest.blogspot.com/2006/03/racist-genocide-in-new-orle... and http://www.burbankdigest.com/]
CYBER WARFARE PRACTICE MANEUVERS SERVE U.S. WAR OF TERROR/GLOBAL AGENDA: ANTI-RUSSIAN RIVALS & "WAR ON THE NET" /"SECURE COMPUTING"
FOREIGN DESK Estonia Computers Blitzed, Possibly by the Russians
Estonian officials declared that their country is the first to fall victim to cyberwarfare. “If you have a missile attack against, let’s say, an airport, it is an act of war,” a spokesman for the Estonian Defense Ministry, Madis Mikko, said Friday in a telephone interview. “If the same result is caused by computers, then how else do you describe that kind of attack?”
Officials in Estonia have accused Russia of orchestrating the attacks, officially or unofficially. They raised the issue at a meeting of NATO on Monday, with Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo saying that the alliance, which Estonia joined in 2004, needed to urgently debate the question — once seemingly a distant threat — of whether mass computer attacks posed a threat to national security.
“Events of this nature make a lot of people sit up,” a NATO spokesman, Robert Pszczel, said in a telephone interview. “Today Estonia, tomorrow it could be somebody else.”
The Kremlin has repeatedly denied government involvement in the attacks, dismissing Estonia’s complaints as fabrications..
Digital Fears Emerge After Data Siege in Estonia
TALLINN, Estonia, May 24 — When Estonian authorities began removing a bronze statue of a World War II-era Soviet soldier from a park in this bustling Baltic seaport last month, they expected violent street protests by Estonians of Russian descent.
They also knew from experience that “if there are fights on the street, there are going to be fights on the Internet,” said Hillar Aarelaid, the director of Estonia’s Computer Emergency Response Team. After all, for people here the Internet is almost as vital as running water; it is used routinely to vote, file their taxes, and, with their cellphones, to shop or pay for parking.
What followed was what some here describe as the first war in cyberspace, a month long campaign that has forced Estonian authorities to defend their pint-size Baltic nation from a data flood that they say was set off by orders from Russia or ethnic Russian sources in retaliation for the removal of the statue.
The authorities anticipated there would be a backlash to the removal of the statue, which had become a rallying point for Estonia’s large Russian-speaking minority, particularly as it was removed to a less accessible military graveyard.
The Russian government has denied any involvement in the attacks, which came close to shutting down the country’s digital infrastructure, clogging the Web sites of the president, the prime minister, Parliament and other government agencies, staggering Estonia’s biggest bank and overwhelming the sites of several daily newspapers.
“It turned out to be a national security situation,” Estonia’s defense minister, Jaak Aaviksoo, said in an interview. “It can effectively be compared to when your ports are shut to the sea.” Computer security experts from NATO, the European Union, the United States and Israel have since converged on Tallinn to offer help and to learn what they can about cyberwar in the digital age. “This may well turn out to be a watershed in terms of widespread awareness of the vulnerability of modern society,” said Linton Wells II, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration at the Pentagon...
The attackers used a giant network of bots — perhaps as many as one million computers in places as far away as the United States and Vietnam — to amplify the impact of their assault. In a sign of their financial resources, there is evidence that they rented time on other so-called botnets.... The 10 largest assaults blasted streams of 90 megabits of data a second at Estonia’s networks, lasting up to 10 hours each. That is a data load equivalent to downloading the entire Windows XP operating system every six seconds for 10 hours. “Hillar and his guys are good,” said Bill Woodcock, an American Internet security expert who was also on hand to observe the response...
Linnar Viik, a computer science professor and leader in Estonia’s high-tech industry... said the episode would serve as a learning experience. The use of botnets, for example, illustrates how a cyberattack on a single country can ensnare many other countries.
In recent years, cyberattacks have been associated with Middle East and Serbian-Croatian conflicts. But computer systems at the Pentagon, NASA, universities and research labs have been compromised in the past.
Scientists and researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences this year heard testimony from military strategy experts indicating that both China and Russia have offensive information-warfare programs. The United States is also said to have begun a cyberwarfare effort.
Though Estonia cannot be sure of the attackers’ identities, their plans were posted on the Internet even before the attack began. On Russian-language forums and chat groups, the investigators found detailed instructions on how to send disruptive messages, and which Estonian Web sites to use as targets.
“We were watching them being set up in real time,” said Mr. Aarelaid, who weeks later could find several examples using Google.
For NATO, the attack may lead to a discussion of whether it needs to modify its commitment to collective defense, enshrined in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. Mr. Aarelaid said NATO’s Internet security experts said little but took copious notes during their visit.
Because of the murkiness of the Internet — where attackers can mask their identities by using the Internet addresses of others, or remotely program distant computers to send data without their owners even knowing it — several experts said that the attackers would probably never be caught. American government officials said that the nature of the attacks suggested they were initiated by “hacktivists,” technical experts who act independently from governments...“At the present time, we are not able to prove direct state links,” Mr. Aaviksoo, Estonia’s defense minister...
A spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitri S. Peskov, denied Russian state involvement in the attacks and added, “The Estonia side has to be extremely careful when making accusations.” The police here arrested and then released a 19-year-old Estonian man of Russian descent whom they suspected of helping to organize the attacks. Meanwhile, Estonia’s foreign ministry has circulated a document that lists several Internet addresses inside the Russian government that it said took part in the attacks.
“I don’t think it was Russia, but who can tell?” said Gadi Evron, a computer security expert from Israel who spent four days in Tallinn writing a post-mortem on the response for the Estonians. “The Internet is perfect for plausible deniability.” Mr. Evron, an executive at an Internet security firm called Beyond Security, is a veteran of this kind of warfare. He set up the Computer Emergency Response Team, or CERT, in Israel. Web sites in Israel are regularly subjected to attacks by Palestinians or others sympathetic to their cause. “Whenever there is political tension, there is a cyber aftermath,” Mr. Evron said, noting that sites in Denmark became targets after a newspaper there published satirical cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad...
The last major wave of attacks was on May 18.
Jaan Priisalu, the head of computer security at Hansabank, and other friends from Estonia’s Internet security fraternity... said... somebody orchestrated this thing.”
Cyberblockade in Estonia
The small but technologically adept nation of Estonia has raised an alarm that should be heard around the wired world. Last month it weathered what some describe as the first real war in cyberspace when its government and much of its commerce nearly shut down for days because of an orchestrated Internet assault.
The assault on Estonia’s virtual society began in April after authorities moved a real bronze statue of a Soviet soldier from a central park in Tallinn to a military graveyard farther from the center of the city. For many Estonians, the statue was another reminder of Soviet invaders who took over their homes at Stalin’s orders. But Russians and Estonians of Russian descent immediately took to the streets to protest. The statue’s move was, for them, a sign of disrespect for Soviets who battled the Nazis in World War II.
The rioting and looting in Tallinn turned out to be nothing compared to what began happening to Estonia’s computers. Waves of unwanted data quickly clogged the Web sites of the government, businesses and several newspapers, shutting down one branch of their computer network after another. One minister described it as a kind of electronic blockade, like having the nation’s ports all shut to the sea. Estonian authorities charged that the data flood came on orders from the Kremlin. President Vladimir Putin’s government has denied any involvement.
In recent years, governments, businesses and individuals have focused on ways to keep hackers or destructive viruses from stealing or destroying sensitive information. But Estonia should put the computer-dependent world on full notice that there can be many offensive forms of information warfare and figuring out how to stop it — and ultimately who is behind it — is essential to all of our security.
...The attacks began on the day that the Estonian authorities removed a Soviet-era war monument that had been the source of protests and diplomatic tensions with Russia for months. Russia reacted vehemently, accusing Estonia, a former republic of the Soviet Union, of besmirching the memory of Soviet soldiers who fought against Nazi Germany. In the days that followed, Russia suspended rail service, ostensibly for track repairs, while protesters in Moscow staged raucous demonstrations, harassing Estonia’s ambassador in one instance. Senior officials have called for a boycott of Estonian goods, which at least one supermarket chain has observed.
The tensions with Estonia, along with Russian disputes with Poland and Lithuania, overshadowed a meeting in southern Russia near the city of Samara on Friday between Mr. Putin and the European Union’s leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the Union’s rotating president, and José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, the Union’s governing body. Tensions between Russia and Estonia were discussed at the meeting, but the computer attacks were not...
As the attacks have continued, they are now being traced to computers around the world, from Vietnam to the United States, according to Hillar Aarelaid, the head of the country’s newly created Computer Emergency Response Team.
Mr. Aarelaid said attacks involved “botnets,” networks of computers that have been compromised by an unauthorized user, who can then command and control them, surreptitiously and usually nefariously. Instructions in Russian on how to attack Estonian sites have circulated on the Internet, he added, suggesting that the world’s first cyberwar would continue. “We can’t say we have seen the biggest attack yet,” he said, “because each wave is bigger than the one before.”
Support global anti-imperialist resistance!
Iraqi Bombers Thwart Efforts to Shield G.I.'s
Even as the Pentagon has made a major effort to defend against makeshift explosives, the proportion of American deaths caused by them has sharply risen. "The problem will not subside even when there is a stable situation of some kind reached in either Iraq or Afghanistan. This is going to be around. This is too easy for an insurgent."
- GEN. MONTGOMERY C. MEIGS, director of a Pentagon task force on roadside bombs.
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy"
“SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” MY ASS
Just Look What “Your Country” Did To You
By Adam Engel
Have I mentioned the spirits of 30 million slain Native Americans reaching through the TV sets to choke Boobus Americanus on his livingroom sofa? Or the ghosts of 100 million-plus African slaves tearing down the buildings they were forced to erect
Global hegemony is a bipartisan imperialist empire survival game run now mainly by a ‘neocon’ team … with total neoliberal cooperation & complicity
What Dick really means . . . Neocon terrorists have ambitions of empire, says Cheney
By Dr. June Scorza Terpstra, translating the doublespeak from a report from
Online Journal Contributing Writer
The US War of Terror’s ultimate aim is to establish “a stronghold for the New World Order, covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia — and it wouldn’t stop there,” US Vice President Dick Cheney warned yesterday. He said the war of terror ”had ambitions of empire.”http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1816.shtml
Violence/Non-Violence: Imperialist Marriage of Convenience…and a message to liberal ‘peace’ /’non-violent’ missionaries
Washington’s New World Order “Democratization” Template
by Jonathan Mowat
“Gene Sharp started out the seminar by saying ‘Strategic nonviolent struggleis all about political power.’ And I thought, ‘Boy is this guy speaking my language,’ that is what armed struggle is about.”
Col. Robert Helvey
WHEN RESISTANCE TO STATE TERRORISM IS "TERRORISM": THE U.S. & ITS ZIONIST PROXY DEFINE UNPRECEDENTED STATE TERRORISM
George Orwell and the power of language
by Stephen Lendman
George Orwell knew about the power of language before the age of television and the internet enhanced it exponentially. He explained how easy "doublethink" and "newspeak" can convince us "war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." He also wrote "All war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from (chicken hawk) people who are not fighting (and) Big Brother is watching...." us to be sure we get the message and obey it.
In 1946, Orwell wrote about "Politics and the English Language" saying "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible" to hide what its user has in mind. So "defenseless villages are bombarded from the air (and) this is called 'pacification'." And the president declares a "war on terrorism" that's, in fact, a "war of terrorism"...
George Bush's [U.S. IMPERIALISM'S] "war on terrorism" began on that fateful September day when his administration [WITH COMPLICIT IMPERIALIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY] didn't miss a beat stoking the flames of fear ... for the long-planned aggressive imperial adventurism...needing "a catastrophic and catalyzing (enough) event - like a new Pearl Harbor" to launch. .. Many writers, past and present, have written on terrorism with their definitions and analyses of it... first an official definition...
How the US Defines Terrorism
(A) "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;"
(B) are intended to -
(i) "intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...."
The US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984) shortens the above definition to be "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature....through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." ...
[Canadian] scholar/author/activist and Global Research web site editor Michel Chossudovsky began writing that 911 evening publishing an article the next day titled "Who Is Osama Bin Laden," perhaps being the first... critic to courageously challenge the official account of what took place that day. He then updated his earlier account September 10, 2006 in an article titled "The Truth behind 9/11: Who is Osama Bin Ladin."...
Here's a summary of what he wrote that was included in his 2005 book: "America's War on Terrorism In the Wake of 9/11" he calls a complete fabrication
"based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden (from a cave in Afghanistan and hospital bed in Pakistan), outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus." He called it instead what it is, in fact - a pretext for permanent "New World Order" wars of conquest serving the interests of Wall Street, the US military-industrial complex, and all other corporate interests profiting hugely from a massive scheme harming the public interest in the near-term and potentially all humanity unless it's stopped in time.
On the morning of 9/11, the Bush administration didn't miss a beat telling the world Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon meaning Osama bin Laden was the main culprit - case closed without even the benefit of a forensic and intelligence analysis piecing together all potential helpful information. There was no need to because, as Chossudovsky explained, "That same (9/11) evening at 9:30 pm, a 'War Cabinet' was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. At 11:00PM, at the end of that historic (White House) meeting, the 'War on Terrorism' was officially launched... the decision was announced (straightaway) to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks" with news headlines the next day asserting, with certainty, "state sponsorship" responsibility for the attacks connected to them. The dominant media, in lockstep, called for military retaliation against Afghanistan even though no evidence proved the Taliban government responsible, because, in fact, it was not and we knew it.
Four weeks later on October 7, a long-planned war of illegal aggression began, Afghanistan was bombed and then invaded by US forces working in partnership with their new allies - the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan or so-called Northern Alliance "warlords." Their earlier repressive rule was so extreme, it gave rise to the Taliban in the first place and has now made them resurgent.
Chossudovsky further explained that the public doesn't "realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks." This one, like all others, was months in the making needing only what CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks called a "terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event" to arouse enough public anger for the Bush administration to launch it after declaring their "war on terrorism." Chossudovsky, through thorough and exhausting research, exposed it as a fraud.
He's been on top of the story ever since uncovering the "myth of an 'outside enemy' and the threat of 'Islamic terrorists' (that became) the cornerstone (and core justification) of the Bush administration's military doctrine." It allowed Washington to wage permanent aggressive wars beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq, to ignore international law, and to "repeal civil liberties and constitutional government" through repression laws like the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. A key objective throughout has, and continues to be, Washington's quest to control the world's energy supplies, primarily oil, starting in the Middle East where two-thirds of known reserves are located.
Toward that end, the Bush administration created a fictitious "outside enemy" threat without which no "war on terrorism" could exist, and no foreign wars could be waged. Chossudovsky exposed the linchpin of the whole scheme. He uncovered evidence that Al Queda "was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-Afghan war" era, and that in the 1990s Washington "consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at the same time placing him on the FBI's 'most wanted list' as the World's foremost terrorist." He explained that the CIA (since the 1980s and earlier) actively supports international terrorism covertly, and that on September 10, 2001 "Enemy Number One" bin Laden was in a Rawalpindi, Pakistan military hospital confirmed on CBS News by Dan Rather. He easily could have been arrested but wasn't because we had a "better purpose" in mind for "America's best known fugitive (to) give a (public) face to the 'war on terrorism' " that meant keeping bin Laden free to do it. If he didn't exist, we'd have had to invent him, but that could have been arranged as well.
...Today's "Enemy Number One" rests on the fiction of bin Laden-led Islamic terrorists threatening the survival of western civilization. In fact, however, Washington uses Islamic organizations like Islamic jihad as a "key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union" while, at the same time, blaming them for the 9/11 attacks calling them "a threat to America."
September 11, 2001 was, indeed, a threat to America, but one coming from within from real enemies... to undermine democracy and our freedoms...in pursuit of their own imperial interests for world domination by force through endless foreign wars and establishment of a locked down national "Homeland Security (police) State." They're well along toward it, and if they succeed, America, as we envision it, no longer will exist. Only by exposing the truth and resisting what's planned and already happening will there be any hope...
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.