If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I always trusted Robin's suggestions, and this is one of them:
Quoting Robin:
Ahelen Haitham,
This video is ABSOLUTELY the best video I have seen. It pulls EVERYTHING together.
If you do anything at all for viewing purposes, grab a LARGE bag of popcorn and sit down with some friends and watch this video. It's two years old and things have only gotten worse in Iraq and Afghanistan but it says it ALL. WHY is the US fighting this war, "Is it for freedom"? HELL NO.
{ 5 } Comments
To me this film brought almost all the pieces together about
the true reasons this war is being fought.
The film states that the reason given for fighting the war was to undercut OPEC and flood the market with cheap oil. The reason has NEVER been to undercut the price of oil but rather to control it for OUR benefit. We here in the US are paying twice the amount at the pump since the invasion of Iraq while the oil companies recieved 400% windfall profits and the rebuilding efforts in Iraq which were supposed to be paid by their oil profits have been largely abandonded as the country has slid into civil war.
There was one thing said in this film I didn't agree with how it was said. It states the American view of Hezbollah, that being an enemy of Israel, which of course goes without saying. It calls Hezbollah a "violent group". Well, it is a group which was founded in the time of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and has three factors, political, charitable and militant. If you want to call militant "violent" then one must state why they exist in the first place which is not stated in this film. The film is not about Hezbollah but throwing it in there I don't think was necessary, even though it was brief.
One thing left out of this film is the Kirkuk-Mosul to Haifa pipeline which if re-opened would direct Iraqi oil to Israel. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-03.htm
This pipeline has been abandoned and in disrepair for over 50 years. The only articles I could find on this topic are older. Note in the first portion of the film it mentions PNAC and it's members close ties to the Likud party.
This war is NOT about freedom, and it is NOT about ridding the world of "terrorism" It is about GREED and GLOBAL DOMINATION.
And as for the new NIE, Patterns of Global Terrorism Report, supposedly the one leaked and now being being released but only FOUR pages of it by the administration, part of it WAS a thirty-three page document called the CRE Report to Congress and it has been available on the web since Sunday!!!! Except today if you search and find it it is only 21 pages long!!! American public, you are STUPID to believe a word that comes out of these neo-cons mouths.
Here's the report http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33555.pdf#search=%22Trends%20in%20Global%20Terrorism%22
MINUS 12 pages since I read it Sunday when it was 33 pages long!!
What does it say that is so damaging? That terrorism has INCREASED since the invasion of Iraq. Glory be Bush and company. Your NIE report discredits EVERYTHING you tell the public and what the rest of the world has been saying for YEARS!!!! (did the dog eat the other 12 pages?)I am 100% SURE it was 33 pages long and I just heard it on the radio on Air America AND it is stated in all the blogs it was 30 pages long (I suppose three pages of credits or such)
It's the OIL and POWER people. Even Afghanistan, it's the OIL. As the film states, if we were really only invading to get Bin Ladin (remember him?) then why did we do it in this fashion? Kharzi, ex-UNOCAL director. Condi, ex-Chevron, go up and down the list and you will see OIL OIL OIL, money made in some connection to OIL. Never mind the human cost, it IS the OIL.
Robin & Sabbah, I have watched the documentary. I am afraid to say that I was disappointed (but found it veerry interesting on so many other levels). While it does contain much information that have today acquired credibility, parts of it look and feel like propaganda for the Bush regime and its war on Iraq & "terrorism" [example: "winning the peace" - whatever that means; "the war will not be won completely" - does that sound like they are preparing the public for "reality" or what; the part that Robin pointed out about Iran & Hezbollah], all in all making me fairly uncomfortable. And one cannot but feel some weirdness in having Chomsky (appearing from nowhere kind of) as if to provide the documentary with some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of anti-war watchers. Given the controversy surrounding Chomsky,it is all starting to make sense.
http://ender.indymedia.org/?q=node/595
Now, here is my verdict: THIS DOCUMENTARY IS A RED HERRING!
HOWEVER, if viewed within the context of the "zionization" of the US, then the same images make ample sense. Fast forward to the Israeli assault on Lebanon and you have this:
"The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.
In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin: '[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel,' (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)
Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
And one other thing, on the Iraq debacle, just about everybody is saying that the Bush administration "failed" in Iraq. Not according to Youssef Aschkar! In which case, Bush is quite right to accuse the Americans of being naïve.
http://www.aschkar.org/article53.html
Here again, one sees the zionization of geopolitics whereby the World (or more to the point, societies, to quote Aschkar) are in chaos and the Ziocons win! Thus I beg to differ that this war is about OIL. It is not! It is about the survival of Israel - just as Jeffrey Blankfort says in his critique of Noam Chomsky (through the control of the flow of oil to the World)!
FurGaia,
First, I would like to thank you for your links which provide excellent material to further this discussion. If you noticed, I opened by saying this film for me provided ALMOST all the pieces of this puzzle and went on to say that the statements made about Hezbollah made me uncomfortable because they were made from the "typical" American viewpoint. The same goes for the statements made about Iran. One must know the history of US involvement in Iran in order to understand their animosity towards the US just as one must understand the history of the Palestinian issue in order to understand why Hezbollah exists in the first place to counterbalance and fight Israeli aggression, ie in Lebanon. Those ARE two aspects of this film which I did state were incorrect.
Your statement as to viewing the film from the context of the "Zionization of the US" is also the aspect I was referring to when I stated this film ALMOST gets it right. That is precisely why I referred to the film's brief mention of the neo-con PNAC connection to Israel. In other words, I agree with you 100% that this is the missing piece of the puzzle as far as this film's portrayal of why the so called "war on terror" is being fought. Also, I agree with you 100@ concerning viewing this film through the lens of the "Zionist agenda" and their recent aggression in Lebanon. I must tell you, that is personally exactly where I was viewing this film from and your provision of the above links ARE the missing pieces of this puzzle.
The Aschkar article is particularly useful in it's discussion of the use of the words "evil" and "evils" and the supreme contradiction that this so-called "war on terror" is being fought by "terroristic methods". Doesn't anyone see that the simple term "war on terror" is a DOUBLE NEGATIVE in the English language? I was NEVER in favor of this war because I do not believe for one moment that any values can be spread to another nation by means of war. There will always be blowback and besides that, it is NOT the West's right to impose their values on ANYONE, not to mention the fact that the West's business interests seem to have an uncanny habit of following close behind their "democratization and globalization" efforts.
The one thing I disagree with, and perhaps it is merely a matter of semantics, is the statement by Blankfort in the first link that this is not a war for oil per se but rather a war for domination. On one hand I agree wholeheartedly that it is a war for domination but the fact remains, in order to dominate one must control resources, and in this case it is oil. I agree that Zionism has existed for years and was a means of domination but even thousands of years ago, one does not nearly wish to dominate for just the heck of it, there is ALWAYS a reason, in other words, geo-politically speaking, something that is desired. In current times it is the oil (for both profits and need) but there was also the need to control water and trade routes throughout history. Add to this the icing on the cake that the Zionists claim to be chosen people of God and it is GOD'S decision that they should succeed and you've got one heck of a tidy "blessed" little plan for dominance.
And again, the AIPAC/Zionist piece of this puzzle IS what is missing in this film. Interestingly, Bankfort says that it is Israel who is controlling the US foreign policy in the Mideast but puts all the blame on Israel while he chides Chomsky for putting all the blame on the US. Personally, the way I view it is that Israel could not POSSIBLY do what it does to the Palestinians without US backing. Who do I wish to blame?
BOTH. There are so many different reasons given by individual Americans and their government (my government regretably)for their support of Israel. But ALL of those reasons have been provided to us BY Israel. Our unfettered support of the Zionist state is NOT in America's best interest whatsoever. Since US early involvement in establishing the state of Israel the Palestinians and the Arab world came to us for understanding and we shut the door on them. Since then, many Arab states themselves have joined the US/Israeli bandwagon further worsening the problem and the hopes of justice for the Palestinians. The war against the Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan and the saber-rattling against Iran are ALL part of the war of domination in this region. They are not in America's interest but even more importantly they are not in the WORLD'S interest either morally or politically. On both fronts, this aggression is surely unsustainable and CANNOT succeed indefinitely because success is measured in PEACE, not in war.
Fur Gaia,
Forgive me, but I wish to clarify myself. Above I reread my post and realize I mispoke concerning, "just as one must understand the history of the Palestinian issue in order to understand why Hezbollah exists in the first place to counterbalance and fight Israeli aggression, ie in Lebanon".
Hezbollah exists due to Israeli occupation of Lebanon, not because of the Palestinian occupation. Although they have a common enemy, it does NOT mean that the militant factions in Palestine are one in the same and far too many people (ie the US/West and Israel) lump every single militant enemy, be it those legitimately fighting for their rights (such as Hezbollah and Hamas) to "terrorists" such as OBL and the dearly departed Zarqawi into the same bag (another convenient blurring of the truth in order to fight the so-called "war on terrorism" and do Israel a favor at the same time).On a personal level I am a complete pacifist, but a pacifist who realizes the ways of the world and why they exist. Also, when I stated "success is measured in peace" I should have added that peace can ONLY be achieved by cooperation which takes into account the mutual respect of the human rights of all individuals and the right to sovereignty which does NOT include the waging of a war of domination. The reason why I thought this film is so good is that it strips away the false veneer of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being fought supposedly to end "terrorism" and "spread freedom" when in truth this is simply a packaged lie to cover the true intention. One thing I failed to mentiion above also is that land itself is also a resource, but in most cases it is usually an undesirable resource unless it fulfills a strategic purpose. In fact occupation is ALWAYS a source of blowback to the occupier at some point in time due to the desire for sovereignty.
It can also be pointed out that while many in the US are against the war in Iraq, they are still behind the war in Afghanistan and support Israel. That IS the reason I mentioned the insertion into this film of the Hezbollah/Iran statement made me uncomfortable but for me it did not negate the rest of the film because like you I was looking at it through a certain lens. I feel this film does justice to the geo-political strategic reasoning behind the war which IS domination, including Afghanistan and with further clarification and the added missing pieces which specifies just who the "dominators" are, it makes PERFECT sense to me. And also, as for preparing the American public, of course that's what the neo-cons are doing because their strategy is a complete failure but showing what the neo-cons say in the film is NOT endorsing their agenda. But in truth, the neo-cons I do not believe ever envisioned peace as an end-game because it is WAR which adds to the coffers of the military industrial complex which is what our economy has come to rest upon to a very large degree and which is also tied CLOSELY to Israel's own military industrial complex (that which in both cases is the tool of domination)
Shukran, Robin, for your comments! As with most things, it is all in the interpretation one gives to them, isn't it? I agree with you that the documentary is an important one. It does cover many aspects from which the current situation we are in evolved (minus the Lebanon crisis, which it precludes). Indeed that is what makes it interesting in my eyes. Someone, somewhere wanted us to make the "oil connection", excluding all others, which the Lebanon crisis brought to light, namely the Israel connection. In that sense, that documentary is quite something and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. In the end, one can fault the authors of that documentary in the same way that Blankfort faults Chomsky: where is Israel in all of this? And why isn't it mentioned?
I was also impressed with your argument that BOTH Israel and the US are at fault here. That is an interesting point that Professor Finkelstein has addressed in his article "It's Not Either/Or - The Israel Lobby". He writes:
"In the current fractious debate over the role of the Israel Lobby in the formulation and execution of US policies in the Middle East, the 'either-or' framework — giving primacy to either the Israel Lobby or to U.S. strategic interests — isn't, in my opinion, very useful.
Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. For different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate."
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=205
I tend to agree with him that we need to adopt that frame of reference in order to better grasp what we are up against.
Till then, regards Robin!
{ 2 } Trackbacks
[...] Following a viewing of a documentary featured at Sabbah's blog, I was left with a sense of uneasiness. I left a comment at Sabbah's that I am not certain will be published (spam problem, it seems.) I have reproduced it below in the hope that someone else (with some time to spare) can view the documentary & read my comment and provide some feedback. Thx! ——– I am afraid to say that I was disappointed (but found it veerry interesting on so many other levels). While it does contain much information that have today acquired credibility, parts of it look and feel like propaganda for the Bush regime and its war on Iraq & "terrorism" [example: "winning the peace" - whatever that means; "the war will not be won completely" - does that sound like they are preparing the public for "reality" or what; the part that Robin pointed out about Iran & Hezbollah being violent], all in all making me fairly uncomfortable. And one cannot but feel some weirdness in seeing Chomsky (appearing from nowhere kind of) as if to provide the documentary with some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of anti-war viewers. Given the controversy surrounding Chomsky, it is all starting to make sense. Now, here is my verdict: THAT DOCUMENTARY IS A RED HERRING! HOWEVER, if viewed within the context of the "zionization" of the US, then the same images make ample sense. Fast forward to the Israeli assault on Lebanon and you have this: [...]
[...] Afghanistan as well as many interviews with a large array of personalities including Bush. . add a comment | problem? function commentFormAction(action) { if (action=='show') {document.getElementById('commentForm').style.display="; } else { document.getElementById('commentForm').style.display='none'; document.getElementById('visitorComment').value="; } } [...]
Post a Comment