The dynamic of democratic, nationalist and class struggles throughout the Muslim world has set in motion a new constellation of alliances between the imperial West (US and European Union) and Islamist parties, leaders and regimes, dubbed "moderate" by US officials, propagandists and academics.

This essay analyzes the changing contemporary context of imperial domination, especially the demise of longstanding client regimes. It then examines the previous significant ties between western imperial powers and Islamist movements and regimes and the basis of 'historical collaboration'.

The third part of the paper will outline the political circumstances in which the imperial powers embrace "moderate" Islamists in government and utilize "armed fundamentalists" in opposition to secular regimes. We will critically analyze how "moderate" Islam is defined by the Western imperialist powers. Is this a tactical or strategic alliance? What are the political "trade-offs"? What do imperialism's neo-liberal clients and their new 'moderate' Muslim allies have in common and how do they differ?

In conclusion we will evaluate the viability of this alliance and its capacity to contain and deflect the popular democratic movements and repress the burgeoning class and national struggles, especially in regard to the 'obstacles' posed by the Israel-US-Zionist ties and the continued IMF policies which promise to worsen the crises in the Muslim countries.

The Transition from Neo-Liberal Client Rulers to Power-Sharing with Moderate Islamists

The key motivation in Washington's and the European imperial troika's (England, France and Germany) embrace of what their press and officialdom hail as "moderate" Islamist parties has been the collapse or weakening of their long-term client rulers. Faced with the ouster of Mubarak, in Egypt, Ali in Tunisia and Saleh in Yemen, mass protests in Morocco and Algeria, the US-EU turned to conservative Muslim leaders who were willing to work within the existing state institutional framework (including the army and state police), uphold the capitalist order and align with the empire against anti-imperial movements and states. In Egypt, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) (the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood), in Tunisia the Renaissance Party, in Morocco the Justice and Development Party have all indicated their willingness to serve as reliable partners in blocking the pro-democracy movements that challenge the socio-economic status quo and the long-standing military-imperial linkages.

The Islamist collaborators are called "moderate and respectable" because they agree to participate in elections within the boundaries of the established political and economic order; they have dropped any criticism of imperial and colonial treaties and trade agreements signed by the previous client regions - including ones which collaborate with Israel's colonization of Palestine.

Equally important "moderate" means supporting imperial wars against nationalist and secular Arab republics, such as Syria and Libya, and isolating and/or repressing class based trade unions and secular-left parties.

"Moderate" Islamists have become the Empire's 'contraceptive of choice' against any chance the massive Arab peoples' revolt might give birth to substantive egalitarian social changes and bring those brutal pro- western officials, responsible for so many crimes against humanity, to justice.

The West and their client officials in the military and police have agreed to a kind of "power-sharing' with the moderate/respectable (read 'reactionary') Islamist parties. The Islamists would be responsible for imposing orthodox economic policies and re-establishing 'order' (i.e. bolstering the existing one) in partnership with pro-multinational bank economists and pro US-EU generals and security officials. In exchange the Islamists could take certain ministries, appoint their members, finance electoral clientele among the poor and push their 'moderate' religious, social and cultural agenda. Basically, the elected Islamists would replace the old corrupt dictatorial regimes in running the state and signing off on more free trade agreements with the EU. Their role would keep the leftists, nationalists and populists out of power and from gaining mass support. Their job would substitute spiritual solace and "inner worth" via Islam in place of redistributing land, income and power from the elite, including the foreign multi-nationals to the peasants, workers, unemployed and exploited low-paid employees.

Why the Empire Arms Fundamentalist Anti-Secular Muslims

While the US and EU have backed respectable "moderate Islam" in heading off a popular upheaval of the young and unemployed, in other contexts they have enlisted violent, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to overthrow secular independent anti-imperialists regimes - like Libya, Syria - just as they had done earlier in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. The US, Qatar and the European troika financed and armed Libyan fundamentalist militias and then engaged in a murderous eight months air and sea assault to ensure their client's 'victory' over the secular Gaddafi regime. Fresh from NATO's success, the US, the European 'Troika' and Turkey, with the backing of the League of Arab collaborator princes and emirs, have financed a violent Muslim Brotherhood insurrection in Syria, intent on destroying the nationalist economy and modern secular state.

The US and EU have openly unleashed their fundamentalists allies in order to destroy independent adversaries in the name of "democracy" and 'humanitarian intervention', a laughable claim in light of decade long colonial wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. All target regimes have one crime in common: Using their national resources to develop modern secular states - independent of imperial dictates.

NATO implements its campaigns through conservative 'moderate' or armed fundamentalist Islamist movements depending on the specific needs, circumstances and range of options in any given target nation. With the fall of pro-Empire 'secular dictatorships' in Egypt and Tunisia, pliable conservative Islamist leaders are the fall back "lesser evil". When the opportunity to overthrow an independent secular or nationalist regime arises, armed and violent fundamentalist mercenaries become the political vehicle of choice.

As with European empires in the past, the modern Western imperial countries have relied on retrograde religious parties and leaders to collaborate and serve their economic and military interests and to provide mercenaries for imperial armies to savage any anti-imperialist social revolutionaries. In that sense US and European rulers are neither 'pro nor anti' Islam, it all depends on their national and class position. Islamists who collaborate with Empire are "moderate" allies and if they attack an anti-imperialist regime, they become 'freedom fighters'. On the other hand, they become "terrorists" or "fundamentalists" when they oppose imperial occupation, pillage or colonial settlements.

Contemporary History of Islamist-Imperial Collaboration

The historical record of western imperial expansion reveals many instances of collaboration and cooptation as well as conflict with Islamist regimes, movements and parties. In the early 1960's the CIA backed a brutal military coup against the secular Indonesian nationalist regime of Sukarno, and encouraged their puppet dictator General Suharto to unleash Muslim militia in a veritable "holy war" exterminating nearly one million leftist trade unionists, school teachers, students, farmers, communists or suspected sympathizers and their family members. The horrific 'Jakarta Option' became a model for CIA operations elsewhere. In Yugoslavia the US and Europe promoted and financed fundamentalists Muslims in Bosnia, importing mujahedeen who would later form part of Al Qaida, and then backed the Kosovo Liberation Army, a known terrorist organization, in order to completely break-up and ethnically 'cleanse' a modern secular multi-national state - going so far as to have Americans and NATO bomb Belgrade for the first time since the Nazis in the Second World War.

During President Carter's administration, the CIA joined with Saudi Arabia's ruling royalty, providing billions of dollars in arms and military supplies to Afghan Muslim fundamentalists in their brutal but successful Jihad overthrowing a modern, secular nationalist regime backed by the USSR. The murderous fate of school teachers and educated women in the aftermath was quickly covered up.

Needless to say, wherever US imperialism faces leftists or secular, modernizing anti-imperialist regimes, Washington turns to retrograde Islamic leaders willing and able to destroy the progressive regime in return for imperialist support. Such coalitions are built mainly around fundamentalist and moderate Islamist opposition to secular, class- based politics allied with the Empire's hostility to any anti-imperialist challenge to its domination..

The same 'coalition' of Islamists and the Empire has been glaringly obvious during the NATO assault on Libya and continues against Syria: The Muslims provide the shock troops on the ground; NATO provides the aerial bombing, funds, arms, sanctions, embargoes and propaganda.

These Islamist-Imperialist coalitions are usually temporary, based on a common secular or nationalist enemy and not on any common strategic interest. After the defeat of a secular anti-imperialist regime, militant Muslims may find themselves attacked by the colonial neo-liberal regime most favored by the imperial west. This happened in Afghanistan and elsewhere after the overseas Islamist fighters (Afghan Arabs) returned to their own neo-colonized, collaborating home countries, like Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt and elsewhere.

Contemporary History of Islamist-Imperial Conflict

The relation between Islamist regimes and imperialism is complex, changing and full of examples of bloody conflict.

The US backed the "modernizing" free market dictatorship of the Shah in Iran, overthrowing the nationalist Mosaddegh regime. They provided arms and intelligence for the Savak, the Shah's monstrous secret police as it hunted down and murdered tens of thousands of nationalist-Islamists and leftist resistance fighters and critics in Iran and abroad. The rise to power of the fundamentalist-anti-imperialist Khomeini regime fueled US armed attacks and provoked retaliatory moves: Iran backed and financed anti-colonial Islamist groups in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (the Shia parties).

Subsequent to 9/11 the US invaded and overthrew the Islamist Taliban regime, re-colonized the country, establishing a puppet regime under US-European auspices. The Taliban and allied Islamist and nationalist resistance fighters organized and established a mass guerrilla army which has engaged in a decade long war with armed support from Pakistani Islamist forces responding to US military incursions.

In Palestine, Washington, under the overweening control of Israel's Zionist fifth column, has armed and financed Israel's war against the popularly elected Palestinian Islamist Hamas government in Gaza. Washington's total commitment to the Jewish state and its colonial expansion and usurpation of Palestinian (Muslim and Christian) lands and property in Jerusalem and elsewhere reflects the profound and pervasive influence of the Zionist power configuration throughout the US political system .They secure 90% votes in Congress, pledges of allegiance from the White House, and senior appointments in Treasury, State Department and the Pentagon.

What determines whether the US Empire will have a collaborative or conflict-ridden relation with Islam depends on the specific political context. The US allies with Islamists when faced with nationalist, leftist and secular democratic regimes and movements, especially where their optimal choice, a military-neo-liberal alternative is relatively weak. However, faced with a nationalist, anti-colonial Islamist regime (as is the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran), Washington will side with pro-western liberals, dissident Muslim clerics, pliable tribal chiefs, separatist ethnic minorities and pro-Western generals.

The key to US-Islamist relations from the White House perspective is based on the Islamists' attitude toward empire, class politics, NATO and the "free market" (private foreign investment).

Today's 'moderate' Islamist parties in Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco (and elsewhere), which have offered their support to NATO and its wars against Libya and Syria, uphold 'private property' (i.e. foreign and imperialist client control of key industries) and repress independent working class and anti-imperialist parties: They are the Empire's "new partners" in the pillage of the resource-rich Middle East and North Africa.

The US-brokered counter-revolutionary alliance among moderate Islamists, the previous military rulers and Washington is fraught with tensions. The military demands total impunity and a continuation of its economic privileges; this includes a veto on any legislation addressing the previous regime's brutal crimes against its own people. On the other hand, the Islamist parties uphold their electoral victories and demand majority rule. Washington insists the alliance adhere to its policy toward Israel and abandon their support for the Palestinian national struggle. As these tensions and conflicts deepen, the alliance could collapse ushering in a new phase of conflict and instability.

Emblematic of "moderate Islamiist" collaboration with US-EU imperialism is the role of Qatar, home to the 'respectable' Arabic media giant, Al-Jazeera, and the demagogic Qatari "spiritual guide" Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi. Sheik Youssef quotes the Koran and Islamic moral principles in defense of NATO's 8-month aerial bombing of Libya, which killed over 50,000 pro-regime Libyans (themselves Muslims). He calls for armed imperial intervention in Syria to overthrow the secular Assad regime, a position he shares comfortably with the state of Israel. He urges the "moderate Islamists" in Egypt and Tunisia to cease any criticism of the existing economic order, ( see "Spiritual guide steers Arabs to moderation", Financial Times, December 9, 2011 - p5). In a word, this respectable Muslim cleric is NATO's perfect Koran-quoting "moderate Islamist" partner - a dream come true.

The Strategic Utility of "Moderate" Islamist Parties

Islamist parties are approached by the Empire's policy elites only when they have a mass following and can therefore weaken any popular, nationalist insurgency. Mass-based Islamist parties serve the empire by providing "legitimacy", by winning elections and by giving a veneer of respectability to the pro-imperial military and police apparatus retained in place from the overthrown client state dictatorships.

The Islamist parties compete at the "grass roots" with the leftists. They build up a clientele of supporters among the poor in the countryside and urban slums through organized charity and basic social services administered at the mosques and humanitarian religious foundations. Because they reject class struggle and are intensely hostile to the left (with its secular, pro-feminist and working-class agenda), they have been 'half-tolerated' by the dictatorship, while the leftist activists are routinely murdered. Subsequently, with the overthrow of the dictatorship, the Islamists emerge intact with the strongest national organizational network as the country's 'natural leaders' from the religious-bazaar merchant political elite. Their leaders offer to serve the empire and its traditional native military collaborators in exchange for a 'slice of power', especially over morality, culture, religion and households (women), in other words, the "micro-society".

For their part, they offer to marginalize and undermine the left, anti-imperialist secular democrats in the streets. In the face of mass popular rebellion calling into question the imperial order, a 'moderate' Islamist-imperial partnership is a 'heavenly deal' praised in Washington, Paris or London (as well as Riyadh and Tel Aviv).

Conclusion: How Viable is the Imperial-Islamic Coalition?

Those who thought that the spontaneous pro-democracy movements spelled the end of the imperial order left out the role of organized "moderate" Islamist electoral parties as able collaborators of Empire. The brutally repressed mass mobilization of unemployed youth was no match for the well-funded grass roots community organization of the moderate Islamists. This is especially true when politics shifted from the street to the ballot box, a process that the Islamist parties facilitated. In the absence of a mass revolutionary party, seeking state power, the existing military-police state was able to work around the mass protesters and put together a power sharing agreement at least in the short-run.

In the November 2011 elections, the radical Egyptian Islamist party, Nour, gathered one-quarter of the vote in Cairo and Alexandria. Their showing was even higher among the urban poor districts, which promises even greater support among poor rural constituencies in the coming elections. Essentially a Salafist Islamist party, Nour, unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, combined denunciations of class abuses and elite corruption with mass appeals to a return to a mythic harmonious life. They used effective grass roots organizing around basic services in order to gain a greater proportion of the working class vote than all the leftist parties combined. Nour's message of "class retribution against the ...abuses of Egypt's elite fueled Nour's new found popularity", (Financial Times December 10, 2011 p6).

Despite the successes of the Islamist-Imperial partnership, the world economic crises and especially the growing unemployment and misery in the Arab countries will make it difficult for the 'respectable moderate' Islamists to stabilize their societies. They are inextricably constrained by their alliances to function within the confines of the 'orthodox neo-liberal framework' imposed by the Empire. For that reason, the "moderate" Islamists will try to co-opt some secular liberals, social democrats and even a few leftists as 'minority partners', so that they won't be held solely responsible for dashing the expectations of the poor in their countries.

The fact of the matter is that the pro-imperial Islamist parties have absolutely no answer to the current crises: Charities delivered from the mosque during the dictatorship won them mass support; now more austerity programs imposed from their ministerial posts will certainly alienate and infuriate their mass base. What will follow depends on who is best organized: Liberals are limited to media campaigns and tied to economic orthodoxy; the leftists have to advance from protest movements in the downtown squares to organized political units operating in popular neighborhoods, workplaces, markets, villages and slums. Otherwise radical fundamentalist, like the Salafists, will exploit the people's outrage with moderate Islamist betrayals and promote their own version of a closed clerical society, opposing the West while repressing the Left.

The US and EU may have 'temporarily' avoided revolution by accommodating electoral reforms and adapting to alliances with "moderate" Islamists, but their ongoing military interventions and their own growing economic crisis will simply postpone a more decisive conflict in the near future.

* James Petras is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals. Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

1. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." ~ George W. Bush, address to the nation, September 11, 2001

"They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." ~ George W. Bush, address to Congress, September 20, 2001

In context, all Americans assumed that Bush was talking about Moooooooooslims. Maybe he was really talking about somebody else but just couldn't say so? Let's see who hates our freedoms.

Where to begin? It seems the US has so many enemies these days. We could start with Pakistan, they hate our elections don't they? Oh, but they have elections too. Hell they even elected a woman as president. I know, they hate us because we have the right in the United States to keep and bear arms. Pakistanis don't have that right, right? Well, not quite. The gun situation in Pakistan would be the envy of everyone living in Bumfuck, Idaho. But I digress.

Oh, maybe they hate us because we bomb the shit out of them with drones? Damn, I bet killing lots of women and children probably does piss them off quite a bit, them being Moooooslims and all. Ungrateful bastards.

Maybe if we stopped killing them they might like us more. Naah.

Hmmmm, I went over a whole bunch of people who don't like us these days in a council with all the tuyuur here at Mantiq al-Tayr and we had to rule out places like Iran, North Korea, the Palestinians, damn near all Arabs everywhere, the Russians, the Chinese, the Central Americans, Newfoundland, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Yahweh knows who else. None of them, as far as we could determine, hates our freedoms, even our freedom to not have universal health care.

Hmmm, maybe Bush meant something else. Maybe he was being subtle, trying to get a secret message across to us. Maybe he was trying to say "Look, I'm a dumb-shit born to a rich family and I did too many drugs as a kid. But now I'm surrounded by absolute Zionist crazies and we're fucked. Help!"

Wouldn't that be cool?

Wow. So where should I look to find those who hate our freedoms?

A little birdie told me to start with the US Senate. It seems that there is some brouhahahahahaha going on about new legislation that might allow the military to arrest American citizens and put them in detention forever with no habeas corpus. The entire patriot-minded internet has written about it, so if this is a first for you then you have got to be a Shas Party member, but I digress. The US military could become the only nuclear police force on earth. Who on earth would come up with an idea as anti-American as that?

Israel.

Carl Levin

Well, for thing he is right at the top of Senate recipients of Jewish Lobby money. (Note to Shas Party Members and Republicans, the red highlights were done by Hassan Nasrallah, standing in for Haifa Wehbe who had a previous commitment editing Mark Dankof's work.)

"For the past three re-election cycles, Levin has been the top recipient in the Senate of pro-Israel contributions – receiving $573,773 in 1990, $371,157 in 1996 and $331,304 in 2002. In this election cycle of 2008, Levin is also leading all Senate candidates in donations from pro-Israeli groups with $84,910 in contributions, which is more than double the amount of all other Senate candidates."

The pro-Israel pacs just love this guy and he gets contributions from a whole bunch of them. Here are three examples:

One of those groups is the Center for Middle East Peace & Economic Cooperation, which was established in 1989 by Slim Fast Foods Chairman S. Daniel Abraham and Utah Congressman Wayne Owens. This pro-Israeli group makes campaign contributions and takes members of Congress to the Middle East on fact-finding missions. In the 2002 election cycle, they were the number one pro-Israeli campaign contributor giving nearly $1.5 million to candidates.

And:

Then there is the Washington PAC, which was founded by Morrie Amitay. Amitay was Executive Director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) from 1974 to 1980 and speaks highly of Levin on his website. Washington PAC contributed $10,000 to Levin in 2002 and has already given $9,000 for his re-election campaign this year.

And:

NorPAC has contributed $5,000 to Senator Levin for his 2008 re-election campaign. NorPAC is a non-partisan political action committee whose primary purpose is to support candidates and sitting members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives "who demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel." Their website also claims that their lobbying efforts, "Successfully helped pass the Syria Accountability Act, Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, Iran Freedom and Support Act, and gain Israel's entry into the UN's Western European and Others (WEOG) Group."

Levin of course does Israel's bidding on every conceivable issue with the exception of the Iraq war. He is a huge fan of the war on terror, arguing that the Iraq war was a distraction from it, and he is viciously anti-Palestinian.

He co-sponsored the senate resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2009.

Occupy Wall Street even calls him a "dual national." I'm not sure why though. Seems he is just loyal to one country. The same country that his co-sponsor John McCain is loyal to.

Not only does Levin hate your freedoms, he doesn't want the Egyptians to have theirs either. (And, btw, the Egyptians are fucked.) Last February Levin made it clear that all he cares about with respect to what some call the Egyptian "revolution" (which it was not) is that Egypt continue to kiss Israel's ass.

This guy is bought and paid for by Israel and he wants the military to be an internal police force against terrorism. All you all who like to do things like write columns for Hizbullah's al-Manar website and appear on Press TV had better fucking look out.

In Part II we will look at the drones. But I also really want to get to Alan Derwoshitz. Damn, but that one will have to wait till part 3 or 4.

Some much Zionist Bullshit, so little time. So little time not just for Mantiq al-Tayr, but for you.

2. The Republican Jewish Coalition also hates your freedoms. Remember, Israel is "the nation-state" of the Jewish people, so these Republicans, like their "Democratic" counterparts in the "National Jewish Democratic Council" have one priority – and guess what goys and girls – you ain't it.

Again, as anyone with the state of awareness of a Penn State football coach knows, Ron Paul, about the only non-fascist running for the Republican nomination, was excluded from their debate on Dec. 7 – a day that will "live in infamy" for sure.

The RJC, on it's website runs a piece by Jonathan Tobin who says:

"But just as no one would consider a demand the GOP group provide a platform for a Democrat, there is no reason for it to allow Paul to pretend he is anything but an extremist who is far outside of the mainstream, especially when it comes to issues concerning the U.S.-Israel alliance."

Paul also believes in individual liberties and freedom from a crushing militarized police state that is engaged is endless wars all over the globe. The RJC stands for exactly the opposite. They hate your freedoms.

Here's Newt Gringrich (by the way, there is some controversy about how you pronounce his last name – it is pronounced "GingdieforIsraelrich", but I digress)showing that he works for Israel at the RJC "debate".

"In a Gingrich administration, the opening day, there will be an executive order about two hours after the inaugural address. We will send the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as of that day."

So, an inauguration day, immediately after taking the Oath of Office as required by article six of the US Constitution, GringdieforIsraelrich will make serving our Israeli masters his first priority.

If you assholes vote for this guy you richly deserve to go straight to hell. And you will because he will create it here on earth for you, though I have to admit we're well on the way there already.

Here's what the RJC had to say on its very own website about the great "debate". Hasan-jan did the highlights again.

"What a tremendous day! The RJC's 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates Forum was an outstanding success. Six top presidential candidates took the time to come to Washington, D.C. just to speak to our audience. Each gave an impressive, thoughtful, and exciting speech and took questions from the audience."

"Impressive" and "thoughtful" mean subverting your country to Israeli interests.

Here's proof from the Haaretz blog of the event.

Matthew Brooks

"The Jewish community has a role to play in these elections and we'll win," Brooks says.

Uh, Matt, who is "we" in that sentence? Oh, and btw goys and girls, Matt isn't just the CEO of the RJC, he is also the head of the Jewish Policy Center, a pro Israeli think tank, one of about 6 million in the US. The Center "strongly supports the global war against Islamic extremism". This guy is all Israel all the time.

Here's Michelle Bachmann speaking at Matt's "debate".

Michele Bachmann

"I will move the Embassy to Jerusalem. Recognize annexation of the Golan Heights or any settlements Israel would chose to annex."

Here's Rick "Die for Israel" Perry saying the US must support Israel's wars.

"But Israel needs our vocal moral support, because there will be inevitable international condemnation if Israel decides to strike. What Israel does not need is President Obama demanding eternal gratitude for being its best friend."

The Zionist Jews are really after Romney, who also kissed Israel's ass at the "debate" but didn't kiss it enough. It's clear they have decided he's on his way out. They are the one's who decide who you'll get to vote for.

For example:

"Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) issued the following statement in response to Romney's speech: "Throughout my career in Congress, Democrats and Republicans have stood side-by-side in support of Israel's security and the U.S.-Israel relationship because they are bipartisan, national security priorities. It is highly irresponsible for a presidential candidate to spread reckless accusations about our foreign policy that could lead anyone to question the United States' commitment to Israel's security."

Not sure what got her so riled up, Romney totally sucked up to Israel and engaged in the mandatory war mongering against Iran. She's not the only Jew in Congress who was pissed off as you'll see if you read the whole blog – it's so revealing you might just want to pack up your bags and move somewhere else after you read it.

For example, Nit Mitt said:

"My policy couldn't be more different – I'll travel to Israel on my first trip, reaffirm Israel's existence as a Jewish state. And I want the world to know that the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unshakable. I wouldn't meet with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. He should be excluded from the diplomatic community and indicted for incitement of genocide. And on my watch, Iran's Ayatollahs won't be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. Our friends should never doubt we'll stand by them in their hour of need; our enemies should never question our resolve."

Huntsman also left the "debate" with a brown nose.

"It's time for the world to understand who our friends and allies are, that we stand with Israel." That's pretty much what Herman Cain used to say.

And the ridiculous Rick Santorum also wants you involved in more wars for Israel too.

"Look at the situation developing in Iran. It's time the Oval office has courage and convictions and so something that is right, to challenge the radical theocracy. It will change the world. There is no greater threat to the existence to Israel than Iran."

Go here on the RJC site for links to videos of the speeches on CSPAN as well as transcripts of many of the presentations. You must be over 18 – old enough to kill people for Israel – to view that material.

3. Okay, for video time, let's go to the other side of Zionist-permitted opinion on all things political, the so-called Democratic Party. And who would be a better representative of that party than the chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The video is so revealing of how fucked we are. . .

Note that in her criticism of the RJC's "debate" she says that the RJC is "an organization that puts its partisanship and its party in front of its love of Israel." That's a criticism?

But as you watch the video it only gets worse. With Zionism, it always does.

Video link: http://youtu.be/ztz6OCoM_Ho

As I wrote above:

Some much Zionist Bullshit, so little time. So little time not just for Mantiq al-Tayr, but for you.

(to be continued, time permitting)

* Mantiq al-Tayr is a blogger who is attempting to wake up other American citizens to the true dangers and challenges which face their country and is devoted to justice for the Palestinian people. Truth is his objective, satire is his tool. He also enjoys reading the Qur'an from time to time. See his website.

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." --Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. --James Bryce

Americans won't like this. Practically everyone else will: Americans simply can never admit they were wrong.

Ill-begotten wars--from Vietnam to Afghanistan have accomplished nothing but increasing enemies toward American arrogance.

Nothing could have been more misguided than the Iraq war, based on a mythical collection of WMDs. The lie, the war and the occupation cost the lives of 4,801 Americans plus 179 UK lives and the death of 1,455,590 Iraqis. The WMD's never existed.

Instead of an admission that the Iraq debacle was wrong, the fraudsters made lame excuses in attempts to exonerate themselves. Past Vice President Dick Cheney, the strongest defender of the Iraq misadventure continues his vain attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

"There is nothing less to our credit than our neglect of the foreigner and his children, unless it be the arrogance most of us betray when we set out to 'Americanize' him," wrote American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley.

On November 28th, a NATO air attack killed at least two dozen Pakistani soldiers. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, the US military suggested that the Pakistanis shot first.

Said Fred Branfman about the incident, "Short-sighted U.S. policy is creating a national security disaster in Pakistan." Instead of apologizing and admitting to a mistake, Branfman concludes:

"The U.S. policy of trying to win in tiny Afghanistan by extending its war-making into giant, nuclear-armed Pakistan--including drone strikes, cross-border raids, illegal U.S. ground assassination... threatens the greatest U.S. foreign policy disaster...."

American arrogance has clearly found several avenues for acrimony. More than 1,000 American military bases around the world has often been an unwelcome embodiment of American military power.

Next, not only do Americans display a belief in their superiority over other countries, their leaders' actions reveal an arrogant pre-eminence over the masses of the American public.

In an earlier article, "Ruled by Arrogance", I commented on an American tendency to discredit others' opinions with forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered weaker or less important.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry faulted a mixture of arrogance and audacity in the Obama administration:

This administration in Washington...clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need but it's the most qualified to make essential decisions for every American in every area. That mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American.

That's the same Rick Perry who arrogantly boasts about how great Texas has been with his governorship. In America, the pot (Rick Perry) is expected to call the kettle (Barack Obama) black.

Paradoxically, another American presidential candidate, Rick Santorum criticized President Obama for looking apologetic rather than being arrogant:

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans--helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.

What American values and traditions does Santorum believe become belittled by an apology uttered by an American president? American arrogance!

Earlier, in April 2009, a number of Republicans castigated President Obama for bowing before Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Though the White House denied it, the video of the meeting provided enough fodder for Obama's critics.

The arrogance of Obama's predecessor established a standard of American presidential behaviour that those following the Bush administration should not deviate from.

America has a history of arrogance reflected in racial and gender supremacy. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) provides an example of a superior white attitude reflected in American slavery.

In a country full of misogyny, it's ironic that Americans now belittle countries whose men treat women as lesser creatures.

If it's difficult to convince most Americans that they are guided by undeserved arrogance, those who know it seem undisturbed by it.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, "Look closely enough and you'll find groups in any country who believe they are superior to all others."

When the political elite assume they are superior to others, and when the media elite behave as if America is better than others, they flaunt a dangerously endemic model of arrogant behaviour.

The problems come when the "others" resist being disadvantaged.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By Noam Chomsky * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This is the 10th anniversary of the horrendous atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, which, it is commonly held, changed the world.

The impact of the attacks is not in doubt. Just keeping to western and central Asia: Afghanistan is barely surviving, Iraq has been devastated and Pakistan is edging closer to a disaster that could be catastrophic.
On May 1, 2011, the presumed mastermind of the crime, Osama bin Laden, was assassinated in Pakistan. The most immediate significant consequences have also occurred in Pakistan. There has been much discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less has been said about the fury among Pakistanis that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already intensified in Pakistan, and these events have stoked it further.

One of the leading specialists on Pakistan, British military historian Anatol Lieven, wrote in The National Interest in February that the war in Afghanistan is “destabilizing and radicalizing Pakistan, risking a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States – and the world – which would dwarf anything that could possibly occur in Afghanistan.”

At every level of society, Lieven writes, Pakistanis overwhelmingly sympathize with the Afghan Taliban, not because they like them but because “the Taliban are seen as a legitimate force of resistance against an alien occupation of the country,” much as the Afghan mujahedeen were perceived when they resisted the Russian occupation in the 1980s.

These feelings are shared by Pakistan’s military leaders, who bitterly resent U.S. pressures to sacrifice themselves in Washington’s war against the Taliban. Further bitterness comes from the terror attacks (drone warfare) by the U.S. within Pakistan, the frequency of which was sharply accelerated by President Obama; and from U.S. demands that the Pakistani army carry Washington’s war into tribal areas of Pakistan that had been pretty much left on their own, even under British rule.

The military is the stable institution in Pakistan, holding the country together. U.S. actions might “provoke a mutiny of parts of the military,” Lieven writes, in which case “the Pakistani state would collapse very quickly indeed, with all the disasters that this would entail.”

The potential disasters are drastically heightened by Pakistan’s huge, rapidly growing nuclear weapons arsenal, and by the country’s substantial jihadi movement.

Both of these are legacies of the Reagan administration. Reagan officials pretended they did not know that Zia ul-Haq, the most vicious of Pakistan’s military dictators and a Washington favorite, was developing nuclear weapons and carrying out a program of radical Islamization of Pakistan with Saudi funding.

The catastrophe lurking in the background is that these two legacies might combine, with fissile materials leaking into the hands of jihadis. Thus we might see nuclear weapons, most likely “dirty bombs,” exploding in London and New York.

Lieven summarizes: “U.S. and British soldiers are in effect dying in Afghanistan in order to make the world more dangerous for American and British peoples.”

Surely Washington understands that U.S. operations in what has been christened “Afpak” – Afghanistan-Pakistan – might destabilize and radicalize Pakistan.

The most significant WikiLeaks documents to have been released so far are the cables from U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson in Islamabad, who supports U.S. actions in Afpak but warns that they “risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan â(euro) .125.”

Patterson writes of the possibility that “someone working in (Pakistani government) facilities could gradually smuggle enough fissile material out to eventually make a weapon,” a danger enhanced by “the vulnerability of weapons in transit.”

A number of analysts have observed that bin Laden won some major successes in his war against the United States.

As Eric S. Margolis writes in The American Conservative in May, “(bin Laden) repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them.”

That Washington seemed bent on fulfilling bin Laden’s wishes was evident immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

In his 2004 book “Imperial Hubris,” Michael Scheuer, a senior CIA analyst who had tracked Osama bin Laden since 1996, explains: “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. (He) is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world,” and largely achieved his goal.

He continues: “U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden’s only indispensable ally.” And arguably remains so, even after his death.

The succession of horrors across the past decade leads to the question: Was there an alternative to the West’s response to the 9/11 attacks?

The jihadi movement, much of it highly critical of bin Laden, could have been split and undermined after 9/11, if the “crime against humanity,” as the attacks were rightly called, had been approached as a crime, with an international operation to apprehend the suspects. That was recognized at the time, but no such idea was even considered in the rush to war. It is worth adding that bin Laden was condemned in much of the Arab world for his part in the attacks.

By the time of his death, bin Laden had long been a fading presence, and in the previous months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. His significance in the Arab world is captured by the headline in a New York Times article by Middle East specialist Gilles Kepel: “Bin Laden Was Dead Already.”

That headline might have been dated far earlier, had the U.S. not mobilized the jihadi movement with retaliatory attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Within the jihadi movement, bin Laden was doubtless a venerated symbol but apparently didn’t play much more of a role for al-Qaida, this “network of networks,” as analysts call it, which undertake mostly independent operations.

Even the most obvious and elementary facts about the decade lead to bleak reflections when we consider 9/11 and its consequences, and what they portend for the future.

* Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and pressor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Techonology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific communities as one of the fathers of modern linguistics, and a major figure of analytic philosophy. Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views.

By Cindy Sheehan* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Recently, I was listening to KGO radio and in case you don't know, KGO is the ABC affiliate super-station here in San Francisco that can be heard by millions of people with it's mega-wattage transmitter.

Gene Burns happened to be the host at that time. The night that I was listening, Mr. Burns was wondering why the U.S. is bombing Libya, but not Syria, because Syria is, "torturing and killing children," and Mr. Burns didn't know how the people of the world could stand by and watch this happen.

I wish I could have gotten through on the call-in line because I would have asked Mr. Burns how he feels about the USA torturing and killing children in places like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. These are the active places the US is bombing, but what about the children that were held or are being held in places like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Abu Ghraib in Iraq or Bagram AFB in Afghanistan? Why are the "people of the world" standing by and watching the US destroy civilization as it murders and tortures children?

It is my suspicion that even the most hardcore war supporter knows that women and children are the ones that suffer the most from war-but as War Madam, Madeline Albright notoriously said in an interview with Lesley Stahl of CBS: the slaughter of over 500,000 Iraqi children during the sanctions period during the Clinton regime was "worth it." Monsters don't always have to have long claws, bloody fangs, or inhabit our nightmares-they can look like somebody's Grammy-and that's what I call a waking terror.
As a mother of a victim of US Imperialism, my well of empathy is bottomless, but I am not like Gene Burns-I don't think we should just be upset when "rogue" regimes kill or torture children-because the US is the largest rogue regime in recorded history. The rogue Empire counts on people like Gene Burns to provide cover for its crimes, in part, by over-sensationalizing the crimes of others.

Because of the definition of "collateral damage" ("We don't do body counts," General Tommy Franks), it is hard to pin down the exact number of children that have been killed by the US's War OF Terror since 2001-in fact, it's almost impossible, but a safe guesstimate is hundreds of thousands. However, one was exactly one too many.
What I can do for you is tell you some statistics on how children are treated here in the US:

NUMBER OF HOMELESS CHILDREN: 1.5 million

NUMBER OF HUNGRY CHILDREN: 16.7 million

NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY: 13 million

NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE: 10.6 million

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO DON'T GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL: 30%

JUVENILES INCARCERATED IN THE US: 92, 854 (2006)

HOW MANY CHILDREN HAS THE US DETAINED IN GITMO? 22

NUMBER OF CHILDREN SYRIAN FORCES ARE ACCUSED OF KILLING: 30

Children should be the ultimate expression of love, joy, and hope in all societies and I am not trying to excuse Syrian forces for what has happened. Killing/torturing a child (adult) is an abomination, but what I am trying to do is put things in perspective.

Why would the dark forces that run the US care about murdering brown children with odd sounding names in far away places when it doesn't even care about the children here within our own borders?

Today (Sunday, June 12), on CBS's Meet the Press, war monster, Senator Lindsey Graham of SC said that the time was "very close" to attacking Syria, and it's time to let President Assad know that "all options are on the table."

If we do attack Syria, then the Nobel Laureate POTUS would be at war with at least six countries. I hope that Graham is just having a wet dream about Syria, but I fear he is correct because the US can't allow anybody else to kill people--our War Machine already has a near monopoly on murder.

* Cindy Sheehan is an American anti-war activist whose son, U.S. Army Specialist Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq War. Cindy Sheehan attracted national and international media attention in August 2005 for her extended anti-war protest at a makeshift camp outside President George W. Bush. She is a vocal critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, saying: "I don't think much has changed since the Bush administration."

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Americans are at their most vulnerable
They are vulnerable because they are gullible
They are gullible because they are ignorant
They are ignorant because they are deliberately misinformed.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

When Obama announced OBL dead, it was established as a fact - the truth. Where truth is concerned, it clearly matters where you were born - or else the truth does not matter.

In a 2007 interview, a former Pakistani born president (twice) and a leading opposition candidate favored to win the 2008 general Pakistani elections, Benazir Bhutto, claimed that Omar Sheikh had murdered OBL in an extraordinary interview, she did not get [re] elected -- she was assassinated. Her allegations were buried by the mainstream media along with her. Without a doubt, the American-born US President's announcement of OBL's death will extend Barak Obama's occupancy of the White House for another four years. Neither Bhutto nor Obama produced a corpse to back their claim, yet it appears that nationality has its privileges -- that of establishing the truth.

A pertinent question arises: Why would the U.S. put an expiration stamp on the Osama card when it had served the empire so well?

Inarguably, OBL had proven his value. Even in his 'death', he continues to serve the American Empire. We have been duly warned that "U.S. intelligence officials believe Osama bin Laden made a propaganda recording shortly before his death and expect that tape to surface soon." The possibility of a future tape, puts the Obama administration in the comfortable fall-back position and enable false flag operations when necessary. What dedication. Is it any wonder that OBL was granted his dearest wish -- to die in battle (and not murdered by a fellow Moslem, or sickness, or ..)?

Although OBL was with our consciousness well before 2001, the events of September 11 gave him a new prominence - and for years thereon, he knew when to be silent and when to speak out (apparently the trend will continue after his death). Admittedly, this inordinate ability to speak or be silent took some training - or persuasion.

For three years after 9/11, OBL denied being behind the attacks stating: "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents, which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," (CIA FBIS: Usama bin Laden Statements 1994-2004, Wikileaks, September 14, 2008). Perhaps the pounding of Afghanistan and Iraq deafened him into submission - or substitution.

In October 2004, a videotape of OBL is broadcast in which he assumes responsibility for 9/11. (The still photo from the 2004 video is worthy of scrutiny. It closely resembles the still image presented alongside Obama on today's C-Span. Although the hair coloring varies, there are two consistencies: the same wide and uncharacteristic nose and the same exact outfit see link - minute 5:25). After three years of only audio messages, in 2007 (after his first publicly announced death), a new videotape of OBL emerged -with a dyed and trimmed beard to please his global audience (see link). This picture is an exact duplicate of the two above mentioned pictures. It was this incredible image of OBL that prompted me to write my first article about the man. I could not fathom a man devoted to a vigorous practice of fundamental Islam defying the Islamic ideology pertaining to vanity - especially while living in his snug cave. His black trimmed beard was unorthodox. Although he sported a shorter beard, he had set his sight far -- he was analyzing and criticizing the US Democratic Party's moves.

On January 6, 2008, I wrote a second and brief article questioning OBL's absence in the face of Israel's massacre in Gaza. I should have been more patient. Eight days after my article was posted on various sites, a recording accompanied by a still photo of Bin Laden superimposed over the al-Aqsa mosque was delivered. It was heartwarming to know that Gaza had not been forgotten. OBL's audiotapes continued to surface. The man truly kept abreast of current events. In 2010, OBL even asked for the boycott of American goods for not addressing climate change. Way to go OBL!

Contrary to the latest revelations about OBL's living conditions in luxury and probably with the knowledge of Pakistanis, it had always been thought that OBL sent audio messages because he was in a cave or on the run. Now at least, with his demise, we are shown pictures of his corpse.

Regrettably, it has been brought to light by The Guardian that the picture of the corpse presented as proof of his demise seems to be old, recycled pictures. Notwithstanding this shortsightedness, we have been deprived of further photo opportunities in an attempt to respect Islamic rituals. US intelligence tell us that OBL's body was dumped into sea in accordance with Islamic burial demands of a 24 hour burial time frame. It is always refreshing to hear that Islam is respected after the many wars against Islamic countries.

So back to the main question: Why did the United States decide to expire Osama bin Laden at this juncture?

It would be naive to think that the logic behind the expiration stamp is restricted to promoting the incumbent president and uniting a dissatisfied nation (two thirds dissatisfied or angry with the government see link) and rally the people around the flag. It is equally naive to think that the world needed to be distracted from the reality that an attempted assassination of a foreign leader which led to the murder of his family members was a factor. Nor can one attribute this event to the justification of the illegal and immoral CIA-drone killings in Pakistan. There must be more than meets the eye!

Perhaps for the time being, America is so confident in its latest lethal weapon - the pro-democracy cyber dissidents, that it decided to trade the 'war on terror'' with humanitarian imperialism brought about with the help of its cyber dissidents. Such grand gestures of 'humanitarian intervention' to promote democracy require the public consensus. Write OBL's death certificate and the 'good' against evil fight is back on - confident that 'good' will prevail.

Cyber warriors and the call for 'humanitarian intervention imperialism':

The World Movement for Democracy was initiated by George W. Bush in which he told CIA front National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that his administration's democratization initiative [America must approve the outcome of elections] would focus first on the Middle East - starting with Iraq. This movement has been zealously followed by Obama. Lest we should be inclined to hold Bush to account for all the changes, we ought to be reminded that in 1999, the 'dovish' Jimmy Carter and neocon Paul Wolfowitz penned an article ("Don't Take Democracy for Granted", WSJ, July 21, 1999) praising Ronal Reagan's establishment of NED to spearhead America's ''nongovernmental" (covert psyops) efforts to 'assist' democratic movements around the word.

More importantly, we must revisit the historical aspects of "democracy" and what it means to America.

President Theodore Roosevelt claimed: "Democracy has justified itself by keeping for the white race the best portion's of the earth's surface." The need to justify 'democracy' further, led to capture of more of earth's surface, which no doubt explains the remarks by General Arthur MacArthur, (father of Douglas) when he said: "America's wonderful thrust into Asia was the destiny of the magnificent Aryan people." After the brutal takeover of the Philippines, Senator Beveridge claimed: " [J]ust beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-admiration. No, he has made us the master organizers of the world...that we may administer government among savages and senile peoples...the Philippines are ours forever...and just beyond the Philippines lie China's illimitable markets...We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee under God, of the civilization of the world...China is our natural customer. The Philippines give us a base at the door of the East.. it has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. Senators, remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals." (source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25996.html ).

No doubt the renewed thrust of the empire into the Middle East to justify democracy, assassinate, and plunder is not new; but the method is novel - democracy's cyber warriors.

* Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master's degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and USC School of International Relations. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy. She is a peace activist, essayist and public speaker.

Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered

Video link: http://youtu.be/UnychOXj9Tg

By Reuters

WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF DEATH AND INJURY BELOW

"Reuters" -- Photographs acquired by Reuters and taken about an hour after the U.S. assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan show three dead men lying in pools of blood, but no weapons.

The photos, taken by a Pakistani security official who entered the compound after the early morning raid on Monday, show two men dressed in traditional Pakistani garb and one in a t-shirt, with blood streaming from their ears, noses and mouths.

The official, who wished to remain anonymous, sold the pictures to Reuters.

None of the men looked like bin Laden. President Barack Obama decided not to release photos of his body because it could have incited violence and used as an al Qaeda propaganda tool, the White House said on Wednesday.

Based on the time-stamps on the pictures, the earliest one was dated May 2, 2:30 a.m., approximately an hour after the completion of the raid in which bin Laden was killed.

Other photos, taken hours later at between 5:21 a.m. and 6:43 a.m. show the outside of the trash-strewn compound and the wreckage of the helicopter the United States abandoned. The tail assembly is unusual, and could indicate some kind of previously unknown stealth capability.

Reuters is confident of the authenticity of the purchased images because details in the photos appear to show a wrecked helicopter from the assault, matching details from photos taken independently on Monday.

U.S. forces lost a helicopter in the raid due to a mechanical problem and later destroyed it.

The pictures are also taken in sequence and are all the same size in pixels, indicating they have not been tampered with. The time and date in the photos as recorded in the digital file's metadata match lighting conditions for the area as well as the time and date imprinted on the image itself.

The close-cropped pictures do not show any weapons on the dead men, but the photos are taken in medium close-up and often crop out the men's hands and arms.

One photo shows a computer cable and what looks like a child's plastic green and orange water pistol lying under the right shoulder of one of the dead men. A large pool of blood has formed under his head.

A second shows another man with a streak of blood running from his nose across his right cheek and a large band of blood across his chest.

A third man, in a T-shirt, is on his back in a large pool of blood which appears to be from a head wound.

U.S. acknowledgment on Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed when shot dead had raised accusations Washington had violated international law. The exact circumstances of his death remained unclear and could yet fuel controversy, especially in the Muslim world.

Pakistan faced national embarrassment, a leading Islamabad newspaper said, in explaining how the world's most-wanted man was able to live for years in the military garrison town of Abbottabad, just north of the capital.

Pakistan blamed worldwide intelligence lapses for a failure to detect bin Laden, while Washington worked to establish whether its ally had sheltered the al Qaeda leader, which Islamabad vehemently denies.

(Writing by Chris Allbritton; Editing by Jon Boyle)

The unidentified body of a man is seen after a raid by U.S. Navy SEAL commandos on the compound where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, May 2, 2011. Bin Laden was killed in the U.S. special forces assault on the Pakistani compound, then quickly buried at sea, in a dramatic end to the long manhunt for the al Qaeda leader who had been the guiding star of global terrorism. Picture taken May 2, 2011. REUTERS

The unidentified body of a man is seen after a raid by U.S. Navy SEAL commandos on the compound where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, May 2, 2011. Bin Laden was killed in the U.S. special forces assault on the Pakistani compound, then quickly buried at sea, in a dramatic end to the long manhunt for the al Qaeda leader who had been the guiding star of global terrorism. Picture taken May 2, 2011. REUTERS

The unidentified body of a man is seen after a raid by U.S. Navy SEAL commandos on the compound where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, May 2, 2011. Bin Laden was killed in the U.S. special forces assault on the Pakistani compound, then quickly buried at sea, in a dramatic end to the long manhunt for the al Qaeda leader who had been the guiding star of global terrorism. Picture taken May 2, 2011. REUTERS

The unidentified body of a man is seen after a raid by U.S. Navy SEAL commandos on the compound where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad May 2, 2011. Bin Laden was killed in the U.S. special forces assault on the Pakistani compound, then quickly buried at sea, in a dramatic end to the long manhunt for the al Qaeda leader who had been the guiding star of global terrorism. Picture taken May 2, 2011. REUTERS

By Christopher King * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

America wants them both – who should be released?

The US desperately wants to extradite both Julian Assange and Raymond A. Davis but for different reasons.

Julian Assange

Julian Assange

Julian Assange has not broken any laws. He has assisted democratic debate by transmitting material showing how the US terrorizes other countries and routinely murders people in course of its illegal wars. He acts to reveal corruption and government crime. President Obama asserts vaguely but with a demagogue's conviction that Mr Assange "puts lives at risk" but has never put any evidence forward. Rather, Mr Assange's work saves lives. He says he wants to reveal the truth and that is what he does. As the US Central Intelligence Agency's motto goes, "...the truth shall make you free". The fact is that the United States and the CIA hate truth.

American law has failed Mr Assange. The US government has cited no law that he has broken but wants him in prison nevertheless and has been torturing and offering plea-bargains to the whistleblower Bradley Manning, who leaked tens of thousands of diplomatic cables, to have him say that Mr Assange solicited the leaked cables.

Swedish law has failed Mr Assange. Sweden has issued an international arrest warrant against Mr Assange for patently false rape allegations – not even charges – that would not be crimes in any other European country even if the events on which they are based were true. It is clear that the Swedish government is acting on behalf of the US government and Mr Assange will next be extradited to the US.

British law has failed Mr Assange. He is being extradited to Sweden. Sweden has no case in British law and the whole country knows that Mr Assange is being persecuted by malicious women with whom he had enjoyed a poisoned sexual chalice, a self-promoting Swedish prosecutor and a government that will do anything for the US. The Swedish prosecutor merely wants to question Mr Assange – she says. She had the opportunity when Mr Assange was in Sweden, she could come to Britain to question him or she could question him by videophone. It's all lies.

If the British legal system cannot prosecute Anthony Blair for enriching himself over the bodies of hundreds of British servicemen and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, the least it could do would be to protect the man who revealed a small fraction of the reality of those events. British law is discredited. It is something now to be ashamed about as we are shamed by our politicians.

US consulate Raymond Allen Davis killed two Pakistani citizens in cold blooded murder

Raymond A. Davis

United States citizen Raymond A. Davis, who shot two Pakistanis in the back on a crowded street in Lahore, has diplomatic immunity, according to President Obama himself. Obama is trying both threats and bribes to get him released and insists on his immunity. Davis's car contained two handguns, a large quantity of ammunition for his guns and other weapons as well as other military equipment. An American embassy vehicle associated with this incident crushed another man to death and sped away. Its two occupants have fled the country and the US embassy refuses to cooperate with Pakistani police enquiries.

The Pakistanis are holding Davis as a murder suspect and they are legally correct in doing so. President Obama is wrong. Raymond A. Davis has no diplomatic immunity because he is carrying a false passport and applied for a visa in a false name. The man who killed two Pakistanis and whose accomplices killed another is not Raymond A. Davis. US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said so on 27 January. The barrister prosecuting the man who calls himself Davis told the Lahore High Court that no immunity obtained fraudulently is valid anywhere in the world.

You don't believe it? If you view the video of Philip J. Crowley's press briefing of 27 January you will see a room full of reporters and hear him tell them that the name being used in the media for this man is wrong. In the next briefing of 31 January (from point 46.00) he is asked to confirm Davis's name and says that he is not at liberty to discuss it.

Now, here's a really incredible thing. You can search the whole United States on Google to try to find a reference to Davis's alias and false passport and you won't find one. Try searching the New York Times and Washington Post. For some amazing reason not one of that roomful of reporters has bothered to publish the story – or get it published.

You could try the BBC website too and even the trusty Guardian and you will not find it. Well it's in the Pakistani papers. The Guardian has revealed the amazing news that "Davis" is a CIA operative. No! Surely not! I was innocently indignant that the backward Pakistanis, ignorant of the fine nuances of international law, should wickedly persecute an upstanding diplomat, doubtless preoccupied with peace negotiations, caught unawares by criminals.

The man calling himself Raymond A. Davis isn't a diplomat. He isn't even a spy who can be quietly swapped for a Pakistani spy if the Americans should happen to have one. Spies blend in. That's what spying is all about. Spies don't drive around in cars filled with arms and military gear. That's what terrorists do and once they kill people they are murderers as well.

You can see why we need whistleblowers and the Julian Assanges of this world. Not only are appalling government crimes being committed in secret, they are being covered up from the highest offices in the world and the mainstream media are being silenced. The conspiracy is bigger than you think – and I don't care if you call me a conspiracy theorist. It's so big we only snatch glimpses of it.

The Pakistanis should hold their nerve, try "Davis" for murder, which would be a slam-dunk case I would think (to borrow a phrase) and interrogate him. They'll find out what the United States is really doing in their country behind the smokescreen of fine rhetoric that got Obama his job as a CIA front-man. They would do well to forget all the bribery of American aid and make alliances aimed at getting rid of all Americans on their soil. They don't seem to have realized it yet, so let me be the first to tell Pakistan: You're under invasion!

It's too depressing to do more than mention the conspiracy that permits the United States to run NATO and essentially occupy Europe, with collusion from corrupt Europeans. I will return to it another time.

Here's a thought: If a high official, say, President Obama were to put a choice to you: "Which of the two do you want me to release (27:21) – Julian Assange or the man calling himself Raymond A. Davis?" who would you choose?

* Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

Its All In The Wiki-Math

By Gordon Duff * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

WikiMath

There is absolutely no question for the press that Wikileaks is totally phony, we all know it, it is blatantly slanted, clearly not only anti-American but aimed at Islam, the easy target of all time. Wikileaks is also trying to be more and more clever about seeming less the Mossad "game theory" construct that we all know it is. The "clever" is fun to watch, more "ham handed" than esoteric.

Much of the press seems to have gotten "talking points" from somewhere, leading them to the material Brzezinski picked up when he "trashed" Wikileaks. We did the "math" on the Afghanistan leak. 80% of the stories to hit the media mentioned Pakistan aiding the Taliban. We did the actual count and found 38 reports out of 92,000 documents that were unsubstantiated reports of Pakistani activity in Afghanistan.

"Four ...Ten Thousandths"....Where The Press Had To Go In Finding Intel On Pakistan In Wikileaks

We are seeing it again, Israel the hero, sparkling clean, a land of angels and wizards, surrounded by dirty Arabs and Paki's and now, seemingly worst of all, the corrupt and inept Americans, exposed for what they are, OK, almost exposed except for one thing, everything Americans are accused of in Wikileaks was done in support of Israel, at the direction of their powerful AIPAC lobby. Nothing of this is mentioned nor the fact that the leaders in Washington who formulated the policies Wikileaks is trashing are, largely, Israeli citizens.

Is Wikileaks planning, some day, to expose this gang, and show America to be the biggest victim of all?

If it looks too good to be true, trust me on this, run like hell!

REPORTER ANALOGY

Put yourself in the place of a decent and honest reporter. You wait, your pulse pounding, 92,000 documents. You have your entire staff, the obits guy, the restaurant critic, all sitting up at your house, pounding down tequila and espresso. Five of you and 92,000 documents, that's 18,400 each. You can each scan only 500 documents an hour, that's a day and a half, but you have a deadline and your Wikileaks lead story has to be in for the morning paper.

You get a text message to check your email. You have a list of articles there, the real "gold" among the senseless time wasting "chaff." You have one of those moments of moral dilemma. For a real reporter, in the real world, that moment came and went without notice.

'You've been wiki-had'

You've been Wiki-had!

GOLFING ANALOGY

With reporters finding, just the right places in Wikileaks, we wanted to look at the odds. Golfing is a good comparison, so we checked the odds of someone getting a "hole in one" playing golf. Is finding the right articles in Wikileaks easier or harder than getting a "hole in one" playing golf?

In 1999, Golf Digest reported, "One insurance company puts a PGA Tour pro's chances at 1 in 3,756 and an amateur's at 1 in 12,750."

That same issue reported that the "odds of an amateur making two holes-in-one in a round are 9,222,500 to 1."

Ireland's National Hole in One Club puts the odds a little lower for one ace: "The estimated odds of acing a hole with any given swing are one in 33,000."

And an article in the magazine Navy Newsstand, citing Sports Illustrated as its source, put the odds at 45,000 to 1 for "scoring a hole-in-one on a typical par-3 golf hole."

This is the comparison we came up with. With our odds, were there only one Wikileak, at 4,130 compared to "hole in one" odds for a golfing pro at 3,756, the analogy works. Thus, 38 out of 92,000 articles is about the same as getting a hole in one. However, when you consider this is the 3rd straight hole in one for Wikileaks, the odds figure to be well over 20 million to one against. Wikileaks beats the odds bigtime.

We call this "the luck of the press."

I am a member of the press, maybe, if I am lucky, I can find a $50,000 check and first class air to Israel in my mailbox. Any bets on my chances?

RIGGING THE GAME, BUYING THE UMPIRE, COOKING THE BOOKS..WIKIMATH

Oh, you didn't know we "farmed out" our intelligence? This is illegal, of course. Did America have private companies, some owned by Israelis, operating in Afghanistan, companies tied directly to the Mossad, producing intelligence reports that were then picked out by Wikileaks then hand fed to the press. Let's do the math.

This is the kind of thing former National Security Advisor Brzezinski is talking about. It is also what others in the media are talking about. Today, Wayne Madsen on Russia Today spoke of the same thing, how Wikileaks seems aimed directly at the enemies of Israel. Madsen, as with so many others, makes the point that Wikileaks is, as he says it, "cherrypicking" intelligence that seems to make Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu very happy.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXJUZMMNUpY

IS THERE A LESSON?

The last few days, Paul Craig Roberts and I have been trading emails, a three way debate with Robbie the Pict (actual name), a well known UK activist. Paul wrote this today:

"For example, the US print and TV media and the US government have made it completely clear that they have no regard for the First Amendment. Consider CNN's Wolf Blitzer's reaction to the leaked diplomatic cables that reveal how the US government uses deceptions, bribes, and threats to control other governments and to deceive the American and other publics. Blitzer is outraged that information revealing the US government's improprieties reached the people, or some of them. As Alexander Cockburn wrote, Blitzer demanded that the US government take the necessary steps to make certain that journalists and the American people never again find out what their government is up to."

So many, honorable people who have "fought the good fight" so long, like Roberts, have been hungry for something to hold on to that Wikileaks is defended to the last without the objectivity such things require. I was someone who, on 9/11, never imagined Osama bin Laden. My first words, "Oh g-d, I didn't think they would do it."

I meant Bush and Cheney. This is how I think, after all, I grew up "bad," a Detroit kid. Now, finally, Geraldo Rivera tells me I was right all along. I never had doubts, I only wondered how long it would take, not for the truth to come out, nobody wants the truth, but for it to become profitable to exploit the conspiracy. Welcome to that one.

Now we have divisions, those I call "Israeli shills" teamed with those who see the extremely flawed and even diseased Wikileaks as a big win because it supports the fight they have had against American duplicity. When is a "big win" a big loss?

My good friend, Paul Andrew Mitchell, had to remind me, Assange is an "odd duck" as a "whistleblower." He supports war, any war, anytime, anywhere. Assange may be the last man alive to support, without question, the 9/11 Commission but is planning to revealing the truth about space aliens and UFO's. In fact, as Mitchell points out, there isn't a hair's difference between the Mossad and CIA agenda and Wikileaks.

Even better, the Neocons are using Wikileaks as an excuse to censor the internet, multiple bills are in the works already, all conveniently timed to control the explosive 9/11 and AIPAC scandals that are the only real threats to Israel.

No wonder Assange is able to hide in plain site.

No Wikileak For Dr. Aafia? Time To Ask Why

It is Israel behind that mask and Wikileaks is simply a mask beneath a mask, or as Jeff Gates puts it, "psyops and game theory."

When are we going to read a Wikileak about organ theft rings or white phosphorous and American cluster bombs used against civilians in Gaza? Instead, we get "chickenfeed" about a politician?

Where are the Wikileaks on torture, rendition, Dr. Aafia or the phony intelligence on Iraq that led to the invasion in 2003? We are still waiting for a Wikileak on Israel's friend, Chalabi, the wanted criminal America made Prime Minister of Iraq, a decision that led to a full scale civil war.

Wikileaks is like mother's milk to people who have starved for openness and justice.

Wikileaks is mother's milk laced with arsenic.

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

SEE IT COMING AND STOP IT, EVEN IF IT COSTS YOU EVERYTHING

By Gordon Duff * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

CAMOUFLAGED TANKS AS SEEN BY MILITARY SATELLITE

“The 2010 election had one purpose, war with Iran, even if the risk is world conflict and the real loser, no matter what happens on the battlefield is the United States.”

Plans are in motion for a “false flag” attack on America. Iran will be blamed, everyone knows that and Iran will be totally innocent. This is the last thing Iran would ever want. The most likely scenario is a nuclear attack. Two bombs are missing, bombs built by Israel in South Africa and lost long ago. These were supposedly Saddam’s bombs. Now we are told Iran has them. Israel has had them all along and the fear, they may be inside the United States already.

The Israeli game with these weapons is one of the worst kept secrets in the world and has already cost the deaths of many. It will take nothing short of the detonation of one of this Hiroshima sized Israeli nukes to push America into Israel’s war with Iran, much as hunting for these nukes which Israel informed President Bush were in Iraq, led “the decider” to making one of the many blunders of his career. Our next 9/11 will be nuclear.

The purpose will be to push America into a 20 year war that will destroy Iran and Pakistan, take oil to over $300 per barrel and collapse the dollar and Euro. Iran isn’t Iraq of 2003, toothless and starving. This will be America’s last military adventure, and the end of America’s place in the world as we know it. We know the details of the proposed military campaign and the military and political leaders who support it are the worst imaginable incompetents and traitors.

Invading Iran is an impossible task for America. Other than there be no reason whatsoever to engage in such folly, something that, of recent years, seems to concern fewer and fewer Americans. Turn on the TV, if the “rodeo clown” says “wipe ‘em out” then we do it.

Invading Iran is an impossibility for America. Going to the moon was easier. No matter how senseless, how impossible, the decision has been made, more in Tel Aviv than Washington, for sure, but one that will be obeyed.

There are only two scenarios that can fulfill the nightmare Israel and her shiny new congress have in store with us. One is a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran and the other full scale total war with up to 500,000 Americans being drafted into the military.

RACE HATRED, AMERICAN KRYPTONITE

FAILURE OF THE “VOLUNTEER ARMY”…..AS ISRAEL SEES IT

Forcing America to return to a draft and begin a major war, one America can never really win as with Iraq and Afghanistan and, let us not forget Vietnam, is something absolutely vital to hang around the neck of a Democrat, especially one of African American ancestry. Anyone who doesn’t think the real heart of American politics has always been racism is a liar. Family values means “white” family values. African Americans know shame at the relief they have felt seeing Muslims targeted for persecution. Every political position in today’s America is derived from institutionalized racism, be it immigration, health care or “constitution.”

When a return to the “constitution” is brought up, by people who wouldn’t know the document from a Croatian take-out menu, the reality is always race, fear, hate and envy, the glue that holds American society prisoner. Decades ago, and even more recently during our last presidential election, African Americans were represented as animals, “goyim” to the Jews. Now we play “Kill the camel jockey.” Is this why the Christianized army we sent to Afghanistan murders innocent civilians for sport?

An America in total economic collapse will require another “decider” and more “Patriot Acts,” even more totalitarian and vicious than the last, that and an end to the even farcical elections that are now inundated with drug money and cash from US based foreign corporations.

This is the plan and a criminal gang in America, some in government and the military but more behind the scenes, “banksters” and media moguls, many with ties to Israel, are working feverishly to bring it about. However clever the planners may think they are, their mechanations can be tracked through the media, the army of “Wolf Blitzers” that “work” the American people with the subtlety of carny shills.

WHY DO THEY HATE US SO MUCH?

Why would anyone want to destroy America, kill millions, leave the nation that has been there to save the world over and over a virtual wasteland? If you think America’s castrated government or the military, now relegated to acting as virtual mercenaries for drug lords, oil cartels and bizarre Zionist plots, have the will or ability to stop what has already begun, you have not been paying attention for some time. While the “circus of deception” went on, the utterly phony “war on terror,” imaginary enemies, the 9/11 disaster, orchestrated by Israel and its puppets,

Israel has decided that America is going to war with Iran. The new congress, the one Israel openly boasts is under their total control, will make it happen, it was why they were put there. The upcoming war will leave the United States crippled, castrated, a “third world” nuclear power like the old Soviet Union. The plot isn’t against Iran and Pakistan, that’s just an excuse. The real enemy is what is left of a free and democratic America.

The real goal is to end America’s leadership role in the world.

Israel has plans for Russia, China and India, especially India, to rule the world with them pulling the strings. America had been their “milk cow” for some time, now that cow is going to slaughter.

HOW IT BEGINS

SCRATCH ONE SUPERTANKER OR DESTROYER

This is how it is going to play out. The news media has gotten their orders, Wikileaks is part of it. From now on, key members of congress will, on cue, begin harping about the threat of Iran. Governments in the Middle East that are under the total control of Israel and the American military will aid in every way possible. Thus far, of all the Islamic nations in the world, only Syria and Afghanistan are not taking orders from Tel Aviv.

The next step will be to replace key military staff as was done prior to 9/11, with “Israel friendly” third stringers, “dominionists” and “Israeli firsters” who place “end times” religious mythology over the welfare, safety and sovereignty of the United States. This group has been infiltrating the American military for years and has gained control of every service but the Marine Corps, starting with the United States Air Force.

The military pundits, with their laundered payoffs and free trips to Israel and the dozens of propaganda websites have already begun. If you have a computer, you can check this easily. Simply go into your email, it will be filled with warnings of Iran and nuclear terrorism. An Israeli teenager paid dearly to bring you that message, spending a difficult night in a hotel with one of our political or military “pro-Zionists.”

Our newly elected “Tea Party’ gang will be visiting Israel soon, watch and see, there is a “Monica Lewinsky” in their future. This is how it works, how it has worked for a long time and why we have sunk so low.

Anyone who talks about “liberal” media is part of it. A cursory check of who owns the media, “liberal” or any other media is easy. Israel owns our media, all of it. The stories will start with tales of Iran controlling the Shiite government of Iraq. Then you will hear of them controlling Karzai’s government in Afghanistan.

STEP ONE

Then the stories will start, Iran has to be tied to terrorist attacks on American troops. Watch for this. Americans will start dying and Iran will be blamed. Wikileaks started this with their fanciful stories about Iranians training Iraq in making explosives. A few years ago, we invaded Iraq because we believed they were building nuclear weapons, or so we were misinformed, now they can’t build pipe bombs without Iranian help? Wikileaks is a clear demonstration at how childish, how outlandish the lies are going to be. Wikileaks is prestaging terror attacks on Americans as much as if they made the bombs themselves, no question about that.

Every media outlet that, under specific directions, carries the “party line” on Wikileaks and the rest of it, no matter how absurd, carries these fabrications without question or embarrassment, should be considered a terrorist organization and their employees enemy combatants.

It will be Israel doing the killing just as with 9/11 and the USS Liberty and, frankly, so many other times Americans have died, like the Marines killed in Beirut, an attack Israel admitted knowing of in advance. More and more, we are finding everything was “known” in advance, “known” because those who knew planned it.

Getting the scene set, all the assets in place, buying or blackmailing congress, keeping the president surrounded by Israeli advisors as he is today, silencing voices of reason in the military, all this is going on right now.

Years have been spent branding Iran and Pakistan as dangerous, the press continually ignoring reports that Iran has no nuclear program or endlessly repeating outrageous rumors that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are almost in the hands approaching “Taliban” forces. With Karzai’s government Afghanistan openly negotiating with the Taliban after American forces, 9 years of fighting, have only managed to secure 3% of the country, building a case for war tied to Iranian “interference” in that conflict is going to be unmarketable.

This leaves Pakistan. Drone attacks in Pakistan have brought about considerable destabilization and an increase in terrorism in Pakistan. They have, as seemingly planned, worked to harm American interests in the region while attempting to bring about the dissolution of Pakistan. Continual reports of American contractors in Pakistan, working for the CIA and State Department, aiding terrorists, go unreported in the American media. Even when caught with weapons and explosives inside Pakistan, such reports are suppressed.

Increasingly, evidence is showing that the Mumbai attack, the massive terror assault on India blamed on Pakistan, was orchestrated by one of these American groups.

THE MONEY ISN’T THERE, AND WE KNOW IT

However, considering the financial collapse engineered though Bush era deregulation frauds combined with unstable tax policies and massive increase in government spending, combined with cost of two failed wars, America’s options are limited. There is simply no revenue to pay the current military without rollbacks or sustain moderate capabilities and readiness. America is too broke, not just to fight a new war but to continue the two that are going or even maintain a fully peacetime force at near current levels.

In fact, our military expenditures need to be cut by 30% or more, as studies being reviewed by the Department of Defense and congress are showing. We have the choice of cutting back now or dealing with consequences later, including, not only cuts in military and veterans health care but substantial cuts in pensions and disability compensation as well.

Another war, and there is no question that another war is planned, will push American debt to $20 trillion or more, half being military expenditures, always a combination of pork, payoffs and “misplaced” weaponry and the rest looted from the economy by the planned massive manipulation of oil prices made possible by the shutoff of world petroleum supplies.

HOW IRAN CONTROLS THE WORLD'S OIL SUPPLY, 8000 MISSILES

“IRAN WILL SHUT DOWN HORMUZ AND WORLD OIL IN ONE HOUR”

In March, 2010, a Chinese built missile factory opened in Iran. The plant builds a variety of missiles, primarily anti-ship, with ranges from 100 to 300 miles or more. These are advanced weapons that can be launched from hardened facilities along Iran’s rugged coastline, from aircraft, both fixed and rotary, from patrol boats, from nearly anything. One of these missiles can sink a frigate, perhaps even a destroyer. Several can disable an aircraft carrier. Approaching Iran from sea is impossible.

Iran controls Hormuz, not just with missiles but patrol boats as well, and not just from their own shore but from the islands in the gulf, some of which were seized 30 years ago and are still held.

The government of the United Arab Emirates has discussed, from time to time, a canal bypassing the strait, through to Oman and into the Persian Gulf. However, the cost would be outrageous as a ridge of hills would have to be crossed, something difficult to manage with a lock system capable of handing the largest ships in the world, oil supertankers.

The missiles, the torpedo boats and the almost impossible network of islands and swamps along the coast would make suppressing Iran’s capabilities impossible. The strait would close, oil would stop, Iraq, Iran certainly, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In days, currencies would collapse, stock markets shut down, gas lines would form and gas rationing would be required around the world. All western economies would disappear overnight.

Iranian Facilities at Hormuz

WHY PAKISTAN HAS TO FALL

There is simply no way into Iran by land. We can barely keep American troops in Afghanistan supplied with many routes being hundreds of miles long, narrow roads from the Port of Karachi in Pakistan. Recently we found how easily this supply line could be cut off. Agreements with Iran, not to mention religious affiliations between Shiites in Iraq, the majority there and the Shiite based government in Iran, make an approach through Iraq impossible.

We could also consider that our existing forces in Iraq and the entire Persian Gulf could be cut off by Iran with no resupply by sea possible for, not only Iraq but Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq. These nations and the US forces there would be immediately isolated. The only way in to Iran, restricted because of the topography, is through the province of Baluchistan, a remote area of Pakistan that borders Iran.

NEW YORK TO DENVER, ALL MOUNTAINS, NO ROADS

BALOCHISTAN

This isolated region has become the staging area for attacks against Iran, supposedly by Jundallah “rebels” but actually orchestrated by the Mossad and CIA. There are two independence movements wanting to break Baluchistan from Pakistan. One of the leaders I met in Islamabad while he was recovering from gunshot wounds. The other lives in Israel, surprise-surprise.

Tiny port, dirt roads, narrow gauge rail only

Because of the topography of Iran, the only way to approach Tehran is over more than a thousand miles of valleys. They can only be approached through Pakistan and there is only one port that serves that region. The only way to resupply other than through this small Chinese built port, Gwadar, is to truck into Kandahar, hundreds of miles, then back down into Pakistan, following the 500,000 man army into Iran in something closely akin to Napoleon’s ill fated invasion of Russia, but even worse if that is possible.

The military analogies are inescapable, Dien Bien Phu and Stalingrad are two that come to mind. Though the government of Pakistan lacks strong civilian leadership and is largely dependent on US aid, the use of Pakistan’s territory for another aggressive war in the Middle East that will perceived by almost all the world’s population, not just Muslims, as a sign of Israel’s control of the United States and its ability to get America to commit any crime, will not be acceptable to the people of Pakistan. It is also highly unlikely that even Karzai’s government in Afghanistan would abide such an action.

Thus, America could become beset, not just from Pakistan but by its own allies in Afghanistan and, quite possibly, the newly trained and surprisingly effective army in Iraq as well.

America would become a rogue state, even if purporting to respond to a devastating terrorist attack. In the aftermath of 9/11, America lacks any credibility. The second a disaster strikes inside America, the world will immediately assume the worst, Israel has deemed such an act necessary to push America to war. No rational person could assume otherwise.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

In order to stabilize the situation with our allies, those likely to become enemies, it will likely necessitate the decapitation of several regimes, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan initially. Others will quickly fall into line though some will be directly under the control of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in particular. They will become indefensible except through massive airlift, resources that will be needed elsewhere. Half the troops needed to secure America’s lines of supply left military service after multiple deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq for nearly a decade. Many are sick, some are homeless and hundreds of thousands are simply “fed up.”

This leaves the new citizen army, the one America had to turn to because of a “9/11 – Pearl Harbor” disaster fewer and fewer believe the cover story on as days go by. Even in America, despite what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks, you can only fool people so many times. The most glaring example of the lack of foresight some of our “War College” grads have can be seen in the Gwadar Port facilities, the only place American can use for supplies for the most difficult invasion in history, with, perhaps, the exception of Okinawa.

TWO CRANES, TWO CRANES, TWO CRANES...COUNT THEM AGAIN, IT WILL STILL ONLY BE TWO CRANES

ECONOMIC BELT TIGHTENING AT HOME

The 2010 election paid for a war, there is no question of that. Many of the puppets in America’s government had to be replaced as there was fear some of them might object to something as obscene as what is in the planning. Lies, fear mongering and childish rhetoric had never reached the levels seen in 2010. Never had a nation, since Germany in 1932, gone over to the “darkside” as clearly as America has done, a rejection of decency and common sense.

When the bill becomes due, and it most certainly will, that “smaller government” so many thought they would get will most certainly come true. What won’t happen is a return to constitutional rule, that will be gone forever. Habeas Corpus won’t be missed so much in a country where those without the cash to buy their way out of military service, yes, that great American tradition, will be one step ahead of the press gangs working to keep the military training camps filled to capacity. America may, quite likely, have bitten off a bit too much, a world war, and this time, no allies, none, not a chance.

LESS GOVERNMENT, THE DREAM OF AMERICA’S “RIGHT”

• SOCIAL SECURITY: Plans for less government have always been around, we have seen attempts to put these plans in place many times, starting with attempts to have Social Security declared unconstitutional back in the 1930s. This will be first to go, Social Security. Getting rid of Social Security has long been a dream of the GOP, either through outlawing it as “Socialism,” or “borrowing” the trust fund to cover war expenses or, more recently “privatization.” Now, none of those will be needed. The money will simply disappear overnight, not to pay war expenses, not hardly. It will be split up and stashed in Swiss bank accounts the same place the “bail out” money went, the same place every 401k in America went, the same place the assets of our largest banks went.
• MEDICARE/MEDIAID: They will be the next to go. States will be asked to pay fund this themselves. There won’t be any more questions about illegal aliens using our medical care, there won’t be any, not for them, not for the poor or not for the senior citizens who paid into medicare all their lives. Just because it was paid for doesn’t mean the government can’t simply break its promise, there are loyalties more powerful and more important that our government has than to the people. 9/11 proved that to any rational person.

TAX INCREASES: The time for borrowing, counterfeit money, the “Federal Reserve System” and selling T -Bills will be over. China and Iran are close. China will be finished with us, India too and no more Arab money. The dollar, the instrument we use to buy oil, fertilizer, metals and so many other things, will be worthless. We are going to have to invent a new form of monopoly money or go on the barter system. The dollar, as a world currency, will disappear.

• SCHOOLS SHUT DOWN: One good thing, schools will shut down. Thus, America’s inferior education system will no longer do the damage it once did. Along with that, mothers will be home to take care of children, a “blast from the past.” The downside, of course, the mothers will have lost their jobs, the homes will be unheated, some with no electricity, more with no water, all eventually repossessed and, unless the government starts giving out food as it had in the past, we will see starvation. The money that financed Food Stamps will be long gone.
• MILITARY AND VETERANS PENSIONS HALVED: Long seen as “freeloaders,” veterans and military retirees will be cut off. Pensions once seen as a “promise” have long been referred to as “entitlements.” Any entitlement can be “unentitled” and these will.
• MILITARY PAY CUT: Troops in Vietnam were paid $30 dollars a week. We are going to see that again.

THIS IS THE INEXORABLE FUTURE, BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

The draft, worthless money, gas lines, martial law, metal detectors in supermarkets, cameras everywhere, everything filmed, recorded, everyone every day, biometrics, face recognition, these things will be part of our lives from now on. These are the plans and putting this machinery in place, much of it “designed” in Israel, is what Americans voted for, this and the invasion of Iran, part of a war where only Americans will fight and die.

No one cares about Iran. No knowledgeable person ever thought they had nuclear weapons or wanted them. It was never about them. They were never a target, they were never a threat. The threat, the target, was always the United States. We were the danger, a free people.

Free people can’t be trusted, can’t be managed.

The plans are in place to bring that to an end. How many Americans will continue to be a part of it?

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Does anyone remember the "cakewalk war" that would last six weeks, cost $50-$60 billion, and be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues?

Does anyone remember that White House economist Lawrence Lindsey was fired by Dubya because Lindsey estimated that the Iraq war could cost as much as $200 billion?

Lindsey was fired for over-estimating the cost of a war that, according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, has cost 15 times more than Lindsey estimated. And the US still has 50,000 troops in Iraq.

Does anyone remember that just prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the US government declared victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Does anyone remember that the reason Dubya gave for invading Iraq was Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, weapons that the US government knew did not exist?

Are Americans aware that the same neoconservarives who made these fantastic mistakes, or told these fabulous lies, are still in control of the government in Washington?

The "war on terror" is now in its tenth year. What is it really all about?

The bottom line answer is that the "war on terror" is about creating real terrorists. The US government desperately needs real terrorists in order to justify its expansion of its wars against Muslim countries and to keep the American people sufficiently fearful that they continue to accept the police state that provides "security from terrorists," but not from the government that has discarded civil liberties.

The US government creates terrorists by invading Muslim countries, wrecking infrastructure and killing vast numbers of civilians. The US also creates terrorists by installing puppet governments to rule over Muslims and by using the puppet governments to murder and persecute citizens as is occurring on a vast scale in Pakistan today.

Neoconservatives used 9/11 to launch their plan for US world hegemony. Their plan fit with the interests of America's ruling oligarchies. Wars are good for the profits of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us in vain a half century ago. American hegemony is good for the oil industry's control over resources and resource flows. The transformation of the Middle East into a vast American puppet state serves well the Israel Lobby's Zionist aspirations for Israeli territorial expansion.

Most Americans cannot see what is happening because of their conditioning. Most Americans believe that their government is the best on earth, that it is morally motivated to help others and to do good, that it rushes aid to countries where there is famine and natural catastrophes. Most believe that their presidents tell the truth, except about their sexual affairs.

The persistence of these delusions is extraordinary in the face of daily headlines that report US government bullying of, and interference with, virtually every country on earth. The US policy is to buy off, overthrow, or make war on leaders of other countries who represent their peoples' interests instead of American interests. A recent victim was the president of Honduras who had the wild idea that the Honduran government should serve the Honduran people.

The American government was able to have the Honduran president discarded, because the Honduran military is trained and supplied by the US military. It is the same case in Pakistan, where the US government has the Pakistani government making war on its own people by invading tribal areas that the Americans consider to be friendly to the Taliban, al Qaeda, "militants" and "terrorists."

Earlier this year a deputy US Treasury secretary ordered Pakistan to raise taxes so that the Pakistani government could more effectively make war on its own citizens for the Americans. On October 14 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered Pakistan to again raise taxes or the US would withhold flood aid. Clinton pressured America's European puppet states to do the same, expressing in the same breath that the US government was worried by British cuts in the military budget. God forbid that the hard-pressed British, still reeling from American financial fraud, don't allocate enough money to fight America's wars.

On Washington's orders, the Pakistani government launched a military offensive against Pakistani citizens in the Swat Valley that killed large numbers of Pakistanis and drove millions of civilians from their homes. Last July the US instructed Pakistan to send its troops against the Pakistani residents of North Waziristan. On July 6 Jason Ditz reported on antiwar.com that "at America's behest, Pakistan has launched offensives against [the Pakistani provinces of] Swat Valley, Bajaur, South Waziristan, Orakzai,and Khyber."

A week later Israel's US Senator Carl Levin (D,MI) called for escalating the Obama Administration's policies of US airstrikes against Pakistan's tribal areas. On September 30, the Pakistani newspaper, The Frontier Post, wrote that the American air strikes "are, plain and simple, a naked aggression against Pakistan."

The US claims that its forces in Afghanistan have the right to cross into Pakistan in pursuit of "militants." Recently US helicopter gunships killed three Pakistani soldiers who they mistook for Taliban. Pakistan closed the main US supply route to Afghanistan until the Americans apologized.

Pakistan warned Washington against future attacks. However, US military officials, under pressure from Obama to show progress in the endless Afghan war, responded to Pakistan's warning by calling for expanding the Afghan war into Pakistan. On October 5 the Canadian journalist Eric Margolis wrote that "the US edges closer to invading Pakistan."

In his book, Obama's Wars, Bob Woodward reports that America's puppet president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, believes that terrorist bombing attacks inside Pakistan for which the Taliban are blamed are in fact CIA operations designed to destabilize Pakistan and allow Washington to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

To keep Pakistan in line, the US government changed its position that the "Times Square Bombing" was the work of a "lone wolf." Attorney General Eric Holder switched the blame to the "Pakistani Taliban," and Secretary of State Clinton threatened Pakistan with "very serious consequences" for the unsuccessful Times Square bombing, which likely was a false flag operation aimed at Pakistan.

To further heighten tensions, on September 1 the eight members of a high-ranking Pakistani military delegation in route to a meeting in Tampa, Florida, with US Central Command, were rudely treated and detained as terrorist suspects at Washington DC's Dulles Airport.

For decades the US government has enabled repeated Israeli military aggression against Lebanon and now appears to be getting into gear for another Israeli assault on the former American protectorate of Lebanon. On October 14 the US government expressed its "outrage" that the Lebanese government had permitted a visit by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who is the focus of Washington's intense demonization efforts. Israel's representatives in the US Congress threatened to stop US military aid to Lebanon, forgetting that US Rep. Howard Berman (D,CA) has had aid to Lebanon blocked since last August to punish Lebanon for a border clash with Israel.

Perhaps the most telling headline of all is the October 14 report, "Somalia's New American Primer Minister." An American has been installed as the Prime Minister of Somalia, an American puppet government in Mogadishu backed up by thousands of Ugandan troops paid by Washington.

This barely scratches the surface of Washington's benevolence toward other countries and respect for their rights, borders, and lives of their citizens.

Meanwhile, to silence Wikileaks and to prevent any more revelations of American war crimes, the "freedom and democracy" government in DC has closed down Wikileaks' donations by placing the organization on its "watch list" and by having the Australian puppet government blacklist Wikileaks.

Wikileaks is now akin to a terrorist organization. The American government's practice of silencing critics will spread across the Internet.

Remember, "they hate" us because we have "freedom and democracy", First Amendment rights, habeas corpus, respect for human rights, and show justice and mercy to all.

* Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds . He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

By Paul J. Balles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Christiane Amanpour

This week's talk show by Christiane Amanpour's spent the better part of two hours discussing Islam and how people are reacting to Islam as a source of fanaticism publicised in the press.

The Western public has been seduced into believing that reactions of "extremists" have something to do with Islam. Extremist reprisals have nothing to do with religion. They are expressions of revenge. Anti-American reactions have been what Reverend Jeremiah Wright called "bringing the chickens home to roost."

How can the West expect a placid reaction to their own actions when they have massacred more than 1,300,000 Iraqis, let alone the Afghans and the support given to Israel for their vicious savagery in Lebanon and Gaza?

How can we expect anything but calls for retribution when the agonizing stories of innocent victims of military atrocities get told and retold?

Just this week, the New York Times published the unusual report of a grotesque story from a small village in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan.

A woman told how American military men took her husband, a local mullah in Maiwand, out of their house, forced him to the ground, put a grenade under his body and blew him up.

The mullah was the third victim of soldiers who killed Afghan civilians for no apparent reason. Is this the kind of activity that's supposed to endear people around the world to America?

According to the New York Times, "Local elders estimate that in the past eight months at least 42 civilians have been killed in Maiwand during American operations."

Expand that relatively small area to the much larger scope of American military action in the Middle East and the incentives for revenge multiply.

One Afghan elder reportedly said, "The Americans have killed many people who did not support the Taliban, which is painful for us and actually creates hatred toward Americans."

In another incident reported by the New York Times this week, five soldiers are facing potential courts-martial on charges that they killed Afghan civilians for sport.

The report says they were "planting weapons near them (Afghans) to fake combat situations, collecting their body parts and taking photographs posing with their corpses."

Also this week, a chicken that came home to roost was tried in New York. Pakistani born Faisal Shahzad, who planted a car bomb in Times Square, New York on May 1st, was sentenced to life in prison.

MSNBC reported that Shahzad came to court to tell Americans he felt no remorse about his May 1 bombing attempt. "Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun," said Shahzad.

It's a great anomaly that Americans expect the extremists to feel remorse for their acts of revenge when most Americans express no remorse over our mindless murder and maiming of innocents abroad.

Moderate and peace loving, as all but the very few extremists like Shahzad are, Muslims are innocent victims of hate and hate crimes.

Writing in the Princetonian, Adam Bradlow observed "Intolerance toward Muslims has become part of the new norm."

Anti mosque rallies have broken out in at least four states, including the recent protests against the "ground zero" Community Centre in New York.

Speaking out against the Centre, past speaker of the US Congress Newt Gingrich called it "an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization."

Elizabeth Madrid, editor of the Tennessee Journal, reminds her readers, and hopefully Gingrich, that "A handful of extremists cannot rightly represent the entire Muslim faith."

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Religion And Democracy Are Incompatible, This Is Why We Learn History

By Gordon Duff* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"As more and more devout rural congregations across America were organized as political pressure groups, it didn't take long for extremist doctrines to be imposed and for cheap, dirty politics to move onto the pulpit."

Where to we start? Do we try to clear up the mythologies, alright we can simply call them lies, about the "founding fathers?" Hey, they were atheists! These were men from "The Age of Reason." This meant they rejected all religion as superstition. All this talk about Jefferson or Franklin being "theists" or trying to negotiate and "lawyer" some religion into the Constitution through the "back door" is simply pandering.

Divide and Conquer

All the talk about the constitution, federalism and America founded as a Christian state is a phony hustle, meant to play on one religion hating another. As more and more devout rural congregations across America were organized as political pressure groups, it didn't take long for extremist doctrines to be imposed and for cheap, dirty politics to move onto the pulpit.

Fear and hate have always been great political tools. Richard Nixon helped hone these failings with the help of a young and bellicose Donald Rumsfeld and his "sidekick" Dick Cheney. The "dynamic duo" of the Watergate years became the cheerleaders for the post 9/11 phobias. Where Nixon used class envy to divide and conquer, the new game is religious hate.

It was easy to take this model global. What had been a ploy to steal an election by Nixon became a political movement under Reagan and eventually a tool of global mayhem and endless wars. Now it appears Israel has taken the helm with the total failure of any American political movement to remain out of Zionist political control.

I have spent many meetings with Arabs and Israelis, chaired a few. They are cordial, productive and never demonstrate any of the conflicts spoken of in the press. People are people, business is business and intelligent and decent people of all religions hate the ignorant and destructive.

This is reality.

WRD's, Weapons of Religious Destruction

Religion and religious wars had destroyed Europe as religion and religious wars are destroying the world today. In America, in France, they saw it, pushed out the churches and the monarchs. What we forget, what we lie about, is that established churches were part of a monarchical system. The French Revolution was a revolution against, not just the monarchy but the Catholic Church which had impoverished the nation for centuries and led a holocaust of murder.

Religion had impeded civilization, science and human values and is doing so today more than ever. Religion used to be flat earth. Today it is "clean coal" and tax cuts for billionaires. Religious beliefs that used to follow "stupid" now chase bucks.

You don't have to burn a Koran or hunt down Afghan villagers for sport to be a religious nutcase.

Do we want to talk about the ethical argument? "Why do you go to church?"

"Without the bible, I wouldn't know how to act, I would blaspheme, kill, have sex with children, steal....treat homosexuals with dignity, love all humans equally...."

If I've heard this once, I have heard it a thousand times. Whenever a sex criminal that preys on children is caught, one of the first things logged into evidence is a bible. It is always "dog-eared"....well used with lots of underlining.

We learn history for a reason, or we used to. The French turned their churches into public toilets, barns, smashed statues, took the endless church lands in a frenzy of anger. The people of France lived like animals for centuries because of religion. Every state with an established church was the same, intolerance, brutality, massive taxation and it didn't stop in the Middle Ages. Over 50,000 people have come forward in the small nation of Ireland, sexually abused by the Church. The Church ran the schools, it ran public welfare organizations, even ran much of the government and everything it touched was stained with violence, injustice and bigotry.

Religion and Superstition

Americans have no idea how few people in Western Europe are Christians. A good guess is 10 to 15%. All they have to do is look around them, every day, and see where history took place. Religion was a nightmare for Europe, a holocaust that lasted centuries. Their rejection of religion is them saying, "never again."

With so much of the world's religious disruption supposedly about the hatred between Judaism and Islam, lets get real here. Most Israelis are atheists, most Jews are atheists. We all know this and, frankly, this is what I like most about Jews, what I respect most. These are educated people, scientists, thinkers. If they can't see it, touch it or prove it scientifically, legally, rationally, they don't believe it. You don't get all those Nobel Prizes for talking to dead people and howling at the moon.

The issues between Israel and others, more the United States than any Muslim country, even Iran, is about money, always has been. Jews were persecuted for two reasons, one tied to religious mythology written into what some call "gospels." A couple of minor points, it is impossible to prove in the remotest way that Jews were ever in Egypt for a minute and it is also even more impossible to learn anything about Christ, whether he was real or not or what he taught from reading gospels written for a "pagan" emperor, Constantine, and gleaned, edited and debauched by the Catholic Church.

This was 2000 years ago, Constantine was a monster, the church was corrupt and the Romans had become the most corrupt people on earth. Saying anything else is silly.

The other reason Jews were persecuted was because of money. There is history here, available to all. Learn it. It is still going on. You will ask yourself, "Why didn't they teach me this at school?" Europe depended on money for wars. Europe was in the business of murdering itself. We called this "feudalism." It was the 'dark ages.' People wore armor and beat each other to death with hammers for amusement. This was not a time to be proud of and certainly not a period to learn from.

Then again, Christianity, or what passed for it, had a few minor faults. The religion that Constantine personally designed, the one we have today, is a real piece of work. Talk about fear of burning Korans. The real fear is examining the roots of Christianity, how the Roman Empire excised everything of value and recreated a hierarchical religion of idolators and feudal warlords under the guise of Bishops, Cardinals and Popes.

These people burned every courageous and decent human they could get their hands on, burned them alive, and did so for centuries. These were the Christians. Religious conclaves that defined Christianity and selected which works were included in the bible were little more than political caucuses and the bible was seen as a party platform.

Would you believe anything they told you? The French and America's founding fathers knew better. Studies of early Christian history clearly show that a fabricated pagan religion repackaged to look something like Christianity, we will never know for sure, killed off the real followers of Christ. The original Christians were hunted down like animals and killed, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions.

They were called "heretics."

The real Christians weren't into money and power enough for the Romans and had to go. A church run by money hungry "bishops" and backed by military enforcers killed off Christianity.

Christians were hunted down and slaughtered until the 14th century with the last of them chased into the Pyrenees and burned alive by the hundreds. This is the not so secret history of Christianity. Next time you are in Southern France, drive the "Cathar Trail" and follow the last vestiges of Christianity as it fled the politicized state religion. If you want to be a Christian, learn about your religion, the real Christianity and who the real martyrs were.

Louis XIV, the "Sun King" worked hard to erase the last vestige of Christianity from history. It threatened his personal divinity.

This is why we learn history.

Today's Circus

Today's "flavor or the month" is Koran burning. Nobody would care, you can burn pretty-much anything you want, here in the US, flags, bibles, anything. The ACLU tells us that burning a Koran is a First Amendment right. Tell me this, why is this such a big deal? A Koran is not a holy book to a backwoods preacher in Florida, it is only paper. We know what is going on, an idiot, and we have millions of them in America, is screaming for attention.

The only reason he is getting attention is because the media needs something to talk about. Nobody is invading Iran, there is a news blackout on Gaza and Israel and nobody cares about Afghanistan. We tried to get some news recently out of WikiLeaks. When that didn't work, poor Julian Assange was accused of rape, in Sweden no less. Think about it. If you can sell that one, you can sell anything.

Oh, I forgot, Pakistan is giving billions of dollars to the Taliban. Last week, the Taliban was making billions selling drugs. Now we hear they get it from Pakistan.

Does Pakistan have billions to give? I have been there. Pakistan is broke. Anything left lying around is stolen by politicians, they would take food out of a rat's mouth. Money from Pakistan? Tell me another one.

What, exactly, would the "Taliban" do with money? There are no stores. They can't travel. They must be using it on the internet. Have we checked to see if the Taliban is buying everything with Paypal?

With their billions of dollars of aid from Pakistan, what is it that the Taliban buys? Do Taliban own things? An AK 47 costs $50 bucks. Since America "misplaced" 250,000 of them a couple of years ago, the only place you can sell one is at a gun show. Everyone in Afghanistan is given one, nearly at birth. A can opener is harder to find and more expensive.

Everyone else in the world has one.

Do this, go to an ATM, take out a few hundred dollars, if you still have that much, and head off into the most remote area you can still afford to drive to. Get out of the car, walk into the woods, desert, mountains. Take the money out of your pocket and try to spend it.

Welcome to Afghanistan.

Some Things Don't Make Any Sense

Let's take a minute to discuss Islam and terrorism. There wasn't any terrorism until the Palestine stuff. It started with the Jews against the British. This is history, lied about, suppressed but more than available. If Muslims were going to be angry at the west, it would have been about Britain, France and, later on, the United States, putting the "stooge" governments in place that enslaved them for decades.

They had been enslaved by the Turks for centuries anyway. If you don't know what that is about, rent Lawrence of Arabia. It is a great film, David Lean was a super director. It is history in a movie, watered down but somewhere to start from.

Learn history, please. Ignorance is embarrassing.

Those governments that Israel loves telling the world are corrupt dictatorships were put in power by us. They are as much our creation as Israel. We did it all. Do you think Jordan or Saudi Arabia were created by a "people's" revolt or Islamic fundamentalists?

There is one of those, it is Iran and nobody, not Russia, not China, certainly not America or Israel wants them around. Why? Is it because they have crazy Islamic laws?

Hey, they cut people's heads off every day in Saudi Arabia and nothing is said. If Iran threatens to stone someone, it hits the papers around the world. The whole thing is a game. Iran stones people, Israel blows up hospitals full of sick people, Americans shoot people in Afghanistan just to watch them bleed.

They world is screwed up. Funny thing, we hear all this but nobody ever threatens to fix any of it, they just love bitching about it.

What Are They Hiding?

Is this because two million Americans are sleeping in cars tonight because they have no homes? Two million Americans are sleeping in prison cells tonight also. Why is that? Why so many? For those of you living in America, have you noticed how short tempered people are getting? Some think it is the anger and alienation Americans feel during elections when faced with the prospect of voting for candidates everyone hates.

Hey, this is how democracy works, live with it or change it.

Why are people angry? Is it because they are broke, busted, no money, facing homelessness, starvation, no future?

Is the freakish sideshow, the religion game, hating homosexuals, burning Korans, imaginary terrorists, and the big spending Taliban, all entertainment to keep people from noticing that there is a real war.

There is real terrorism. Terrorism is stealing the future. The tool wasn't bombs, it isn't bombs, it isn't guns or extremists. The real terrorists own the newspapers, the television networks, the banks, the insurance companies, the hospitals, not just in America but all over the world. They are the phone company, the internet, the oil companies.

The real terrorism is corporate culture and organized crime. If you wonder why there are no candidates that talk about the real issues, why nothing is made in America, why corporations pay no taxes, why we fight war after war for no reason, the answer is simple.

Our government, along with Britain, Germany, Italy and so many others, are owned by corporations, banks, all slaves to a real international conspiracy that we call the "world economy." Al Capone would be ashamed of what we have done. Who pulls the strings?

Figure it out for yourself. It isn't hard. The first step is to turn off the television, the radio and to stop reading newspapers. Then check your internet habits. Are you reading websites like Newsmax or WorldNetDaily or FamilySecurityMatters?

Then, even your attempts to get around corporate brainwashing have been hijacked.

You won't find the truth in a church, mosque or synagogue. You won't find it easily. It won't make you feel better. The truth is a process of admitting that everything you have learned may be and probably is a lie. 95% of the great mysteries of life I have solved have been me buying in on delusion, accepting one cartoon reality for another.

How do we fix this? This is me trying.

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

By Michel Chossudovsky* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This article summarizes earlier writings by the author on 9/11 and the role of Al Qaeda in US foreign policy. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005

"The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings....The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..", (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

"Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad." (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

"Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, ... Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden." (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)

• Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.
• The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.
• President Ronald Reagan met the leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House in 1983
• Under the Reagan adminstration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic "freedom fighters". In today's World, the "freedom fighters" are labelled "Islamic terrorists".
• In the Pashtun language, the word "Taliban" means "Students", or graduates of the madrasahs (places of learning or coranic schools) set up by the Wahhabi missions from Saudi Arabia, with the support of the CIA. Education in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war war largely secular in Afghanistan. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

The Soviet-Afghan war was part of a CIA covert agenda initiated during the Carter administration, which consisted in actively supporting and financing the Islamic brigades, later known as Al Qaeda.

The Pakistani military regime played from the outset in the late 1970s, a key role in the US sponsored military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan. in the post-Cold war era, this central role of Pakistan in US intelligence operations was extended to the broader Central Asia- Middle East region. From the outset of the Soviet Afghan war in 1979, Pakistan under military rule actively supported the Islamic brigades. In close liaison with the CIA, Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), became a powerful organization, a parallel government, wielding tremendous power and influence.

America's covert war in Afghanistan, using Pakistan as a launch pad, was initiated during the Carter administration prior to the Soviet "invasion":

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." (Former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 January 1998)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". (Dipankar Banerjee, "Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry", India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid)

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

"Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. ... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984." (Ibid)

The ISI operating virtually as an affiliate of the CIA, played a central role in channeling support to Islamic paramilitary groups in Afghanistan and subsequently in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.

Acting on behalf of the CIA, the ISI was also involved in the recruitment and training of the Mujahideen. In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 Muslims from 43 Islamic countries were recruited to fight in the Afghan jihad. The madrassas in Pakistan, financed by Saudi charities, were also set up with US support with a view to "inculcating Islamic values". "The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism," (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban). Guerilla training under CIA-ISI auspices included targeted assassinations and car bomb attacks.

"Weapons' shipments "were sent by the Pakistani army and the ISI to rebel camps in the North West Frontier Province near the Afghanistan border. The governor of the province is Lieutenant General Fazle Haq, who [according to Alfred McCoy] . allowed "hundreds of heroin refineries to set up in his province." Beginning around 1982, Pakistani army trucks carrying CIA weapons from Karachi often pick up heroin in Haq's province and return loaded with heroin. They are protected from police search by ISI papers."(1982-1989: US Turns Blind Eye to BCCI and Pakistani Government Involvement in Heroin Trade See also McCoy, 2003, p. 477) .

Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a mujahedeen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)

Osama Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

During the Reagan administration, Osama, who belonged to the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities were used to finance the recruitment of Mujahieen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.

The Reagan Administration supports "Islamic Fundamentalism"

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". CIA covert support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In December 1984, the Sharia Law (Islamic jurisprudence) was established in Pakistan following a rigged referendum launched by President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Barely a few months later, in March 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which authorized "stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen" as well a support to religious indoctrination.

The imposition of The Sharia in Pakistan and the promotion of "radical Islam" was a deliberate US policy serving American geopolitical interests in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Many present-day "Islamic fundamentalist organizations" in the Middle East and Central Asia, were directly or indirectly the product of US covert support and financing, often channeled through foundations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Missions from the Wahhabi sect of conservative Islam in Saudi Arabia were put in charge of running the CIA sponsored madrassas in Northern Pakistan.

Under NSDD 166, a series of covert CIA-ISI operations was launched.

The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades through the ISI. CIA and ISI officials would meet at ISI headquarters in Rawalpindi to coordinate US support to the Mujahideen. Under NSDD 166, the procurement of US weapons to the Islamic insurgents increased from 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983 to 65,000 tons annually by 1987. "In addition to arms, training, extensive military equipment including military satellite maps and state-of-the-art communications equipment" (University Wire, 7 May 2002).

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

With William Casey as director of the CIA, NSDD 166 was described as the largest covert operation in US history:

The U.S. supplied support package had three essential components-organization and logistics, military technology, and ideological support for sustaining and encouraging the Afghan resistance....

U.S. counterinsurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in organizing Mujahideen groups and in planning operations inside Afghanistan.

... But the most important contribution of the U.S. was to ... bring in men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad. (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Afghanistan and the Genesis of the Global Jihad, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

Religious Indoctrination

Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channeled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions:

... the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

... AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."

... Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994." (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

The Role of the NeoCons

There is continuity. The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.

Several of the NeoCons of the Bush Junior Administration were high ranking officials during the Reagan presidency.

Richard Armitage, was Deputy Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2004). He played a central key role in post 9/11 negotiations with Pakistan leading up to the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. During the Reagan era, he held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In this capacity, he played a key role in the implementation of NSDD 163 while also ensuring liaison with the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus.

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz was at the State Department in charge of a foreign policy team composed, among others, of Lewis Libby, Francis Fukuyama and Zalmay Khalilzad. Wolfowitz's group was also involved in laying the conceptual groundwork of US covert support to Islamic parties and organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Bush's Secretary of Defence Robert Gates also was also involved in setting the groundwork for CIA covert operations. He was appointed Deputy Director for Intelligence by Ronald Reagan in 1982, and Deputy Director of the CIA in 1986, a position which he held until 1989. Gates played a key role in the formulation of NSDD 163, which established a consistent framework for promoting Islamic fundamentalism and channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades. He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal. .

The Iran Contra Operation

Richard Gates, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, among others, were also involved in the Iran-Contra operation.

Armitage was in close liaison with Colonel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North.

Of significance, the Iran-Contra operation was also tied into the process of channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan. The Iran Contra scheme served several related foreign policy:

1) Procurement of weapons to Iran thereby feeding the Iraq-Iran war,

2) Support to the Nicaraguan Contras,

3) Support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan, channeled via Pakistan's ISI.

Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. and the Mujahideen:

"The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan." (US News & World Report, 15 December 1986).

Although Lieutenant General Colin Powell, was not directly involved in the arms' transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among "at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the CIA." (The Record, 29 December 1986). In this regard, Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to lower-level officials in blatant violation of Congressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran:

"Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ''focal point system'' procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the CIA., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran" (New York Times, 16 February 1987)

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was also implicated in the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Golden Crescent Drug Trade

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer." (Ibid) Various Islamic paramilitary groups and organizations were created. The proceeds of the Afghan drug trade, which was protected by the CIA, were used to finance the various insurgencies:

"Under CIA and Pakistani protection, Pakistan military and Afghan resistance opened heroin labs on the Afghan and Pakistani border. According to The Washington Post of May 1990, among the leading heroin manufacturers were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan leader who received about half of the covert arms that the U.S. shipped to Pakistan. Although there were complaints about Hekmatyar's brutality and drug trafficking within the ranks of the Afghan resistance of the day, the CIA maintained an uncritical alliance and supported him without reservation or restraint.

Once the heroin left these labs in Pakistan's northwest frontier, the Sicilian Mafia imported the drugs into the U.S., where they soon captured sixty percent of the U.S. heroin market. That is to say, sixty percent of the U.S. heroin supply came indirectly from a CIA operation. During the decade of this operation, the 1980s, the substantial DEA contingent in Islamabad made no arrests and participated in no seizures, allowing the syndicates a de facto free hand to export heroin. By contrast, a lone Norwegian detective, following a heroin deal from Oslo to Karachi, mounted an investigation that put a powerful Pakistani banker known as President Zia's surrogate son behind bars. The DEA in Islamabad got nobody, did nothing, stayed away.

Former CIA operatives have admitted that this operation led to an expansion of the Pakistan-Afghanistan heroin trade. In 1995 the former CIA Director of this Afghan operation, Mr. Charles Cogan, admitted sacrificing the drug war to fight the Cold War. "Our main mission was to do as much damage to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade," he told Australian television. "I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes, but the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan." (Alfred McCoy, Testimony before the Special Seminar focusing on allegations linking CIA secret operations and drug trafficking-convened February 13, 1997, by Rep. John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus)

Lucrative Narcotics Trade in the Post Cold War Era

The drug trade has continued unabated during the post Cold war years. Afghanistan became the major supplier of heroin to Western markets, in fact almost the sole supplier: more than 90 percent of the heroin sold Worldwide originates in Afghanistan. This lucrative contraband is tied into Pakistani politics and the militarization of the Pakistani State. It also has a direct bearing on the structure of the Pakistani economy and its banking and financial institutions, which from the outset of the Golden Crescent drug trade have been involved in extensive money laundering operations, which are protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus:

According to the US State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (2006) (quoted in Daily Times, 2 March 2006),

"Pakistani criminal networks play a central role in the transshipment of narcotics and smuggled goods from Afghanistan to international markets. Pakistan is a major drug-transit country. The proceeds of narcotics trafficking and funding for terrorist activities are often laundered by means of the alternative system called hawala. ... .

"Repeatedly, a network of private unregulated charities has also emerged as a significant source of illicit funds for international terrorist networks," the report pointed out. ... "

The hawala system and the charities are but the tip of the iceberg. According to the State Department report, "the State Bank of Pakistan has frozen more twenty years] a meager $10.5 million "belonging to 12 entities and individuals linked to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban". What the report fails to mention is that the bulk of the proceeds of the Afghan drug trade are laundered in bona fide Western banking institutions.

The Taliban Repress the Drug Trade

A major and unexpected turnaround in the CIA sponsored drug trade occurred in 2000.

The Taliban government which came to power in 1996 with Washington's support, implemented in 2000-2001 a far-reaching opium eradication program with the support of the United Nations which served to undermine a multibillion dollar trade. (For further details see, Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005).

In 2001 prior to the US-led invasion, opium production under the Taliban eradication program declined by more than 90 percent.

In the immediate wake of the US led invasion, the Bush administration ordered that the opium harvest not be destroyed on the fabricated pretext that this would undermine the military government of Pervez Musharraf.

"Several sources inside Capitol Hill noted that the CIA opposes the destruction of the Afghan opium supply because to do so might destabilize the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. According to these sources, Pakistani intelligence had threatened to overthrow President Musharraf if the crops were destroyed. ...

'If they [the CIA] are in fact opposing the destruction of the Afghan opium trade, it'll only serve to perpetuate the belief that the CIA is an agency devoid of morals; off on their own program rather than that of our constitutionally elected government'" .(NewsMax.com, 28 March 2002)

Since the US led invasion, opium production has increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 under the Taliban to 6100 tons in 2006. Cultivated areas have increased 21 fold since the 2001 US-led invasion. (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 6 January 2006)

In 2007, Afghanistan supplied approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin. The proceeds (in terms of retail value) of the Afghanistan drug trade are estimated (2006) to be in excess of 190 billion dollars a year, representing a significant fraction of the global trade in narcotics.(Ibid)

The proceeds of this lucrative multibillion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of the revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan.

The laundering of drug money constitutes a multibillion dollar activity, which continues to be protected by the CIA and the ISI. In the wake of the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.

In retrospect, one of the major objectives of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was to restore the drug trade.

The militarization of Pakistan serves powerful political, financial and criminal interests underlying the drug trade. US foreign policy tends to support these powerful interests. The CIA continues to protect the Golden Crescent narcotics trade. Despite his commitment to eradicating the drug trade, opium production under the regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has skyrocketed.

The Assassination of General Zia Ul-Haq

In August 1988, President Zia was killed in an air crash together with US Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel and several of Pakistan's top generals. The circumstances of the air crash remain shrouded in mystery.

Following Zia's death, parliamentary elections were held and Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister in December 1988. She was subsequently removed from office by Zia's successor, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on the grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993, she was re-elected and was again removed from office in 1996 on the orders of President Farooq Leghari.

Continuity has been maintained throughout. Under the short-lived post-Zia elected governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the central role of the military-intelligence establishment and its links to Washington were never challenged.

Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif served US foreign policy interests. While in power, both democratically elected leaders, nonetheless supported the continuity of military rule. As prime minister from 1993 to 1996, Benazir Bhutto "advocated a conciliatory policy toward Islamists, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan" which were being supported by Pakistan's ISI (See F. William Engdahl, Global Research, January 2008)

Benazir Bhutto's successor as Prime Minister, Mia Muhammad Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) was deposed in 1999 in a US supported coup d'Etat led by General Pervez Musharraf.

The 1999 coup was instigated by General Pervez Musharaf, with the support of the Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad, who was subsequently appointed to the key position of head of military intelligence (ISI).

Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad

Concluding Remarks

These various "terrorist" organizations were created as a result of CIA support. They are not the product of religion. The project to establish "a pan-Islamic Caliphate" is part of a carefully devised intelligence operation.

CIA support to Al Qaeda was not in any way curtailed at the end of the Cold War. In fact quite the opposite. The earlier pattern of covert support not only extended, it took on a global thrust and became increasingly sophisticated.

The "Global War on Terrorism" is a complex and intricate intelligence construct. The covert support provided to "Islamic extremist groups" is part of an imperial agenda. It purports to weaken and eventually destroy secular and civilian governmental institutions, while also contributing to vilifying Islam. It is an instrument of colonization which seeks to undermine sovereign nation-states and transform countries into territories.

For the intelligence operation to be successful, however, the various Islamic organizations created and trained by the CIA must remain unaware of the role they are performing on geopolitical chessboard, on behalf of Washington.

Over the years, these organizations have indeed acquired a certain degree of autonomy and independence, in relation to their US-Pakistani sponsors. That appearance of "independence", however, is crucial; it is an integral part of the covert intelligence operation. According to former CIA agent Milton Beardman the Mujahideen were invariably unaware of the role they were performing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". (Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998).

"Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA." (Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Chapter 2).

The fabrication of "terrorism" --including covert support to terrorists-- is required to provide legitimacy to the "war on terrorism".

The various fundamentalist and paramilitary groups involved in US sponsored "terrorist" activities are "intelligence assets". In the wake of 9/11, their designated function as "intelligence assets" is to perform their role as credible "enemies of America".

Under the Bush administration, the CIA continued to support (via Pakistan's ISI) several Pakistani based Islamic groups. The ISI is known to support Jamaat a-Islami, which is also present in South East Asia, Lashkar-e-Tayya­ba, Jehad a-Kashmiri, Hizbul-Mujahidin and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The Islamic groups created by the CIA are also intended to rally public support in Muslim countries. The underlying objective is to create divisions within national societies throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, while also triggering sectarian strife within Islam, ultimately with a view to curbing the development of a broad based secular mass resistance, which would challenge US imperial ambitions.

This function of an outside enemy is also an essential part of war propaganda required to galvanize Western public opinion. Without an enemy, a war cannot be fought. US foreign policy needs to fabricate an enemy, to justify its various military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia. An enemy is required to justify a military agenda, which consists in " going after Al Qaeda". The fabrication and vilification of the enemy are required to justify military action.

The existence of an outside enemy sustains the illusion that the "war on terrorism" is real. It justifies and presents military intervention as a humanitarian operation based on the right to self-defense. It upholds the illusion of a "conflict of civilizations". The underlying purpose ultimately is to conceal the real economic and strategic objectives behind the broader Middle East Central Asian war.

Historically, Pakistan has played a central role in "war on terrorism". Pakistan constitutes from Washington's standpoint a geopolitical hub. It borders onto Afghanistan and Iran. It has played a crucial role in the conduct of US and allied military operations in Afghanistan as well as in the context of the Pentagon's war plans in relation to Iran.

* Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism" (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Adam Gadahn, Rita Katz and Ben Venzke

By Maidhc Ó Cathail* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Who's keeping the terror myth alive?

In the trigger-happy post-9/11 world, the favoured way to instigate a war is to demand that the designated "evildoer" prove a negative.

Iraq was invaded because it couldn't prove that it didn't have WMDs. Iran is under constant threat of attack unless it can demonstrate that it's not seeking nuclear weapons. And now Pakistan is being chastised for allegedly harbouring Osama bin Laden-who in all probability has been dead and buried for eight years.

Questioning Pakistan's willingness to pursue bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year told a group of Pakistani editors, "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." And in a recent interview with Fox News, Clinton charged that "elements" of the Pakistani government know where Bin Laden is hiding.

But what if bin Laden is not hiding in Pakistan? What if he's been dead since December 2001? How then does Islamabad prove that some of its government officials are not concealing his whereabouts?

While the mainstream media rarely if ever question the belief that bin Laden is still alive, some cracks have been appearing in the consensus. In a September 11, 2009 piece in Britain's Daily Mail, Sue Reid wondered, "What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake-and that he is being kept 'alive' by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?"

An even more prominent sceptic is UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave whose July 26, 2010 commentary titled "Elvis bin Laden" may herald a new consensus. Sifting much the same evidence as Reid, the "legendary journalist" stated that "some key intelligence officials are taking bin Laden's reported demise seriously."

Both articles cited experts who have studied the post-December 2001 audios and videos and concluded they are fakes.

In 2007, Switzerland's Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which does computer voice recognition for bank security, found that the voices on recordings after mid-December 2001 differed clearly from earlier recordings of bin Laden.

Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies' department and the foremost bin Laden expert, noted in a 2007 book the inconsistency between the increasingly secular language of the audios and videos and bin Laden's earlier distinctive religious speech.

Assessing the evidence, Angelo M. Codevilla, a former U.S. intelligence officer who studied Soviet disinformation techniques during the Cold War and a professor of international relations at Boston University, wryly concluded that "Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden."

So, if bin Laden is as dead as Elvis, who's been faking all those scary threats in his name?

According to U.S. and British intelligence officials, al-Qaeda's media wing, As-Sahab Foundation for Islamic Media Publication, has been run since 2001 by Adam Gadahn, a California-born convert to radical Islam who now goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki.

Gadahn found his way to the Islamic Society of Orange County while living with his grandfather, Carl Pearlman, a board member of the Anti-Defamation League. Ostensibly a civil rights organization set up to fight anti-Semitism, the ADL is "little more than a de facto adjunct of the Israeli government" which has even been caught spying on American critics of Israel.

Adam's parents changed their surnames to Gadahn in the mid-1970s. The name refers to the Biblical warrior Gideon who, with the aid of trumpets and clay jars, defeated Israel's enemies.

As Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo put it, Adam Gadahn is "an awfully odd figure, whose sudden evolution from a nice Jewish boy into Osama bin Laden's Goebbels is just a little hard to take."

Equally hard to take is the means by which the public learns of bin Laden's latest pronouncements.

"Almost every statement by Osama bin Laden published on the Internet...is first made public by SITE and IntelCenter," according to a Spiegel Online profile of Rita Katz, Josh Devon and Ben Venzke, who founded the two companies that supposedly track al-Qaeda online.

SITE co-founder Rita Katz is an Iraqi-born Jew, whose father was publicly hanged in Iraq after the 1967 War as an Israeli spy. Katz, who served in the Israeli Defense Forces, tries to downplay the significance of her background but is not always successful. "When you grow up in a place like Iraq," she told Spiegel, "you understand maybe a little bit about how Arabs think, and also what they are capable of."

When Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant, analysed a 2006 al-Qaeda video of Ayman al-Zawahiri for alterations and enhancements, he discovered that the As-Sahab and IntelCenter logos had been added at the same time.

Attempting to make light of the understandable suspicions that the "terror trackers" are working for Israeli intelligence, the Spiegel article jokes: "And the conspiracy theories pontificating that SITE and IntelCenter shoot the bin Laden videos themselves will continue to exist in the future. And Katz, Venzke and Devon will continue to see the humor in such theories: Yep, this is Mossad Headquarters. Exactly!"

But with the hunt for the elusive bin Laden having already cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, perhaps Americans should demand conclusive proof that Israel hasn't conned them into fighting a phoney "war on terror."

* Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan. To read more of his writing, go to Maidhc Ó Cathail: Writing and Analysis.