Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

President Kerry

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

but there are more pro-choice folks on this board. Jump on in and tell this "facist nazi" how you all feel.


Do you think the US should have a pro partial-birth abortion president?


I think he is right on healthcare but that is not the only issue.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

This is not about abortion, it is about your statements supporting violence and the asuras who run the world.


Both Republicans and Democrats are working for the same agenda, the republicans try and get the religious people to support them and the democrats try to get everyone else, they are working for the same agenda trying to con different sectors of society.


Why have you said you support their demonic bombing campaigns to make the worlds poor submit to their global hegemony ? Israels also ? These guys, these are not the good guys, they demonize a group of people so they can get your support to invade and colonize, and or destroy any chance of these countries defending themselves.


The entire world is under the thumb of the american imperial economic control, the "third world" or ex-colonies are forced to accept dictators installed by american government support. These dictators keep the american corporate investors in control of the countries resources, oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, diamonds, you name it.


Almost all of Africa and South America, Central Asia and South East Asia are under the american colonial corporate imperium, they are 100% controlled and kept in poverty by the american investor class who control the u.s government and use the military, intell agencies, world bank, IMF, to enforce slave economies and dictators on the poorest people on earth.


America rules the world by installing puppet corrupt governments to allow the corporate global fascists (corporate banking elites) to rob these countries blind and keep dissenters under constant threat of torture, murder, rape, genocide etc.


America, democrat and republican, are both 100% sold out to the cause of the continuing colonial exploitation of the weakest and poorest people on earth. At home they close down all industry to ship the now 10 cent an hour jobs to these colonial corporate/government owned companies/countries.


The terror threat is completely a fraud. There is no terrorist threat. It is a ruse, meant to give an excuse for their demonic acivities, it is meant to fool you.


Evidentely it works.


Abortion ?


This is exactly what they want, they want the religious people in america to side with the republicans,and they want the non religious to side with the democrats.


But nothing changes except for a better stronger more effecient police state, this in order to suppress dissent and keep the prisons full of poor undereducated people who they are fearfull of.


These are the people you say are on "our" side.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

No sense in having a war over there if we cant have one over here as well.


So kerry is hated because he supports choice. I dont care for this position, but then again, the facts remain that care for the newborn is just as valid pro-life as prevention of abortion.


The neocons cannot be called pro-life. They can be called anti-abortion. The dems, especially kerry and kicinich, cannot be called pro-abortion. They can be called pro-choice.


Pro-choice is used improperly by pro-abortionists. Pro-abortionists do not want to have the options to abortion discussed, therefore, they are anti choice.


So, please know what you speak of before ya hang tags. To call bush pro-life is disgusting, because he has become a great killer. To elect him because he hates abortion is equally disgusting when he cuts off any chance a young woman has if she decides to keep her child.


To call kerry pro-abortion is not valid, either, because his plan includes prenatal care of the unborn, social programs to help the unfortunate girls whose husbands (or boyfriends) are evil jerks. I worked for a pro-life center in the 80s and 90s, and abortions went down under clinton. Under reagan and bush #1, abortions skyrocketed.


Know what ya talk about.


About kerry, if there was an election, Id vote for him. Id vote for anyone but the anti-christians who call themselves neocons. But fascism is not a buzz word for a saign held by a lefty demonstrator, it is a reality. November vote is not in the plans if kerry doesnt self-destruct. Just like 72, martial law is there, but mcgovern blew it (or maybe not) by selecting eagleton as veep without knowing about the mental disorder, so nixious did not have to do it.


haribol, ys, mad mahax

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first comment on this one article is that I think the writer got the look on Bush's face wrong. I don't think it's dazed and confused, but petulant and pissy--a "How dare you say such things to my face (Carter had the same problem in his first debate with Reagan)?" look, or maybe he meant it as a "How can you be stupid and evil?" look.


Partisans are spinning this in easily predictable ways. I prefer Jon Stewart's puerile-humor response myself.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the sorry level of American culture in general and political cultural specificaly. So-called pundits sit around tv newsrooms and try to analyse the meanings of facial gestures and tone of voice etc. While sometimes meaningful never as meaningfull as a proper analysis of the proponents positions.


Like Kerry's idea on how to approach Iran over the nuclear weapons development. He said the US should provide them with nuclear materials. You know so they won't develop them on their own and produce weapons grade. Just exactly the failed deal Clinton made with North Korea. Of course NK just laughed at the gullibility and went on unchallenged in their program to produce weapons grade nuclear power. Madeline Albright, the US negotiator, has even admitted as much that it was folly to trust them. And he chided Bush last night for bringing in China, Russia, S.Korea, Japan in to help apply pressure to N.Korea. And he even had the gall to suggest Clinton's failed treaty with N. Korea was Bushes fault.


So now Kerry wants to do exactly the same thing in Iran. Yeah let's trust the Mullahs and Imams and just believe them when they say "we promise we won't make any bombs." Yeah right.


I prefer the old saying, "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel."


Any attempt by Iran to continue with their nuke program should be taken out by force if necessary.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

If election were held today in Iraq, saddam would get 42%, The shiite cleric would get 34%, the kurd worlords would split the rest.


Give it back, and let them have their oil, and their ruthless leader that at least kept Bagdad somewhat peaceful. I mean, his dungeons had 1500 prisoners, and the amerikkkans are hoilding 25000.


At least al qaida wasnt in operation while saddam was there, hed eat them with his kurds and whey. Iraq needs a super dictator stalinist, not democracy which ensures endless murders in the street.


And, no, it wasnt his dumpiness that made bush lose, nor his tex-mex illiteracy, or his IQ approaching 92. It was his alcoholism produced inability to say that he screwed up, that he is fallible, that he made mistakes. Arrogance is an ugly wart on the end of his nose that even the FOX experts of media mind control cant fix.


Actually, I hope he wins, and the dems take over both houses, so we can impeach his worthless okole, turn him over to the Hague war tribunal, and have world TV see how war criminals should be dealt with.


mad mahax

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be more inclined to sympathize with your rambling if you liberals would have held Clinton to the same standard you hold Bush to but all I say was people turning a blind eye to his shenanigans. That leads me to think liberal hatred of Bush is not free of self motivation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A.M. I hear you. For instance they are always screaming and foaming at the mouth about Halliburton getting non-bid contracts in Iraq. But they never seem to say anything about Clinton awarding Halliburton 2 billion dollars worth of non-bid contracts in Kosovo.


And notice how they are silent about Bush going onto Iraq to take over the oil. They used to scream about it out of foamed filled mouths, now its silence.


It's just hate rhetoric. I have learned to just not read it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

We have held Clinton accountable, more then you may think. I have posted many articles saying how both the "right" and the "left" are both corporate owned and controlled. You guys are the partisans here. Not me, Not Mahaksa, you guys are Bush and republican supporters. Which means you have to be ignorant of what and who they work for.


Just a couple Clinton posts by me on this forum.


Clinton stuff


From the above post at this forum










Africa, Diamonds, and Clinton


From the above post at this forum


"Other Barrick Gold directors include J. Trevor Eyton, a member of the Canadian Senate; former U.S. Senator Howard Baker; and the industrious lawyer Vernon E. Jordan, who worked for his good friend, then U.S. President Bill Clinton.


Indeed, diamonds are Bill Clinton's best friend. Throughout his tenure in the White House, Clinton personally profited at profound human loss of life from Congo connections tried and true. For years influential with the brutal Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese-Seko, CIA operative Lawrence Devlin used his Congo network to access diamonds and cobalt for Clintonite diamond kingpins Michael McMurrough, Jean Raymond-Bouelle, Maurice and Leon Templesman, and their companies: America Mineral Fields International (AMFI)headquartered in Hope, Arkansas in 1995; and Lazare Kaplan International. Unremarkably, AMFI's mining partners include Barrick Gold Corporation."


Stuff on Kerry I posted here.


Skull and Bonesman


From the above post about Kerry


"It's deplorable. Three-hundred-seventeen bills introduced. Seven passed. And four of those were ceremonial ones -- designating special days. Voted for the horrific Telecommunications Act (in fact, led the charge); voted for the illegal war/occupation; voted for the Patriot Act (in fact, helped draft parts of it when it was first drafted under Clinton); brags about voting for class war on poor moms and kids--Clinton's welfare "reform" -- need I go on?


Yes, I will. One of the few Bills he got passed was 1999's Plan Columbia, the phony Drug War's defoliation of the rainforest with toxic chemicals. Since the Plan was launched some 325,000 acres of South America's oldest democracy have been sprayed with toxins, yet there has been no drop off in cocaine imports to the US. In fact, according to the Harvard Political Review, Columbia's cocaine production increased 11%."



And might as well give you guys a new article.



America's War for Global Domination


by Michel Chossudovsky



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Next Phase of the War

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


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


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


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


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


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


The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Planning of War

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


War Propaganda

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


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


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


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


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


The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Actual Terrorist Attacks

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

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


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


September 11

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


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


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


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


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


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


The Antiwar Movement

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Criminalization of the State

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hatred of Bush? Not really, I pity the fool.


You bushites cant speak about this reprehensible person without talking about clinton. You cry and cry about his treatment, yet, when clinton was President, you had no respect for the presidency. Your whitewater went nowhere, because how can you go after a saving and loan failure that was number 535 on the list, while Bush brothers were in the top ten.


Your sex harassment went nowhere, the hos were proven liars, unlike the truth spoken by those harassed by gingrich, the oreo-cookie thomas, the scores of white trash anti-christian fundamentalists like swaggart and company.


You rambled about clinton dodgin the draft, but he was outspoken oponant of vietnam, not like the chicken hawk draft dodgers like bush, chaney, and the rest of these who wanted to kill them gooks, but wanted the blacks and po white trash to do this for ya.


Then you make hay with monica. Clinton is human, just like bushes daddy, just like reagan, just like W. But you make it into a big deal, and say nothing while thousands of american servicemen are being picked off in support of a land grab by the bush-binladen heritage foundation.


Aw, poor unfortunate, misunderstood baby bush. Give me a break. Maybe your boy should thicken up his skin a bit, but at least clinton finally admitted his imperfection. Bush will die thinkin hes jesus and can do no wrong.


Question is, are things better now than during the clinton regime?


mad mahax

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I admit my hatred of Clinton may have caused me some blind allegiance to George Bush and even as a Bush partisan I have to admit this war has been mismanaged. The Bush regime definetly did fail in a big way in regards to Bin Laden. As Pat Buchanan says:


"In the war on terror, a critical objective was to isolate Osama as a mass murderer who did not represent Islam. Osama's goal was to embed himself in the Arab and Islamic causes of expelling the infidel Americans from the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia and ending what he denounced as our persecution of the oppressed Iraqi people."


"Osama sought to conflate his war with the Arab cause. It was in our interest to keep them seperate. But the invasion of Iraq - an attack on an Arab country that did not attack us and did not want war with us - united and aroused the Arab world against us, with Bin Laden"


"And just as those who argue for an accelerated withdrawal must face up to the risks, those who favor escalation must consider the risks of trying to attain a political objective that appears to be receding before our eyes."



So in all honesty I don't know who to vote for anymore because I am not convinced Kerry has any more of a clue than Bush but I will admit the Bush whitehouse have screwed up the war on Iraq. Too bad we didn't elect Pat Buchanan in the first place then we wouldn't be in this mess.


Hare Krishna

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing Monday morning generals won't get any of us anywhere. You'al don't impress me and I don't impress you, and I am sure none of the readers are impressed by any of us.


When trying to analyze the war don't and the present problems that are coming from the Sunni north don't forget to factor in that at the last moment Turkey reverse themselves and denied the coalition forces to go through Turkey into Iraq. That was 40,000 US and 20,000 British that were planned to come down from the North and meet the others that came up from Kuwait. As planned they would have met around Bagdad. Instead 60,000 were left stranded in Kuwait and had to enter later from the south.


I never thought of it either but heard it mentioned tonight on Fox news.


But that's war. Unpredictable. Just like a football game or a boxing match. You come to a fight with a plan to knock out the opponent in short order with your superior strength. But you find he is harder to hit than you planned for so you have to adjust and plan for a longer fight.


If you can't stay fluid enough in your thinking to change strategy when necessary you will lose. be it boxing, football or war.


Consider this A.M. Bush has started a faith based initiative to allow the govt. to fund religious organizations that do charity work, like pass out food clothes,shelter the homeless etc. before they were barred just because they taught about God.


In the next four years there is a good chance that there will be 3 vacancies on the Supreme Court. Bush will appoint judges favorable to the pro-life position and Kerry will appoint judges that will allow continued abortions.


Kerry is pro gay marriage and Bush is against it. etc.


Neither one is Pariksit or Prithu, but study the issues and see which one matches up closer to Krsna conscious ideals.


Then if you vote, vote for that person.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definetly think Republican agenda is closer to Krishna consciousness than the liberal agenda. All I saw out of liberalism in 8 years of Clinton was rampant endorsement of homosexuality, abortion, and a complete disdain and utter hatred of religion and God. Its just I have had a lot of mixed emotions about the war in Iraq and wether we are getting ourselves in too deep.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Look, I am against Bush, I am against Kerry, I am against Adharma posing as Dharma(Bush) and I am against fake men of the people(Kerry). You seem to be under the delusion that America is on the side of Dharma, and that Arabs or muslims are on the side of Adharma, therefore America can kill as many of them as they want and colonize their countries. Since you refuse to educate yourself on the truth, and instead accept corporate mass media propaganda as factual truth, there is little anyone can say that will change your mind.


In the end, Adharma is what American power is all about, republican or democrat.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


You seem to be under the delusion that America is on the side of Dharma, and that Arabs or muslims are on the side of Adharma, therefore America can kill as many of them as they want and colonize their countries.



You truly are nuts shiva.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these guys deserve full support. But neither are they all the same. There is no way a spiritualy thinking person could back any of them all the way. They are both cow killers for instance. But of the two cow killers one is against abortion rights and one supports abortion rights.


I don't expect much from the political side. With the world creating karma like it is what can we expect.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Theist notes: "Consider this A.M. Bush has started a faith based initiative to allow the govt. to fund religious organizations that do charity work, like pass out food clothes,shelter the homeless etc. before they were barred just because they taught about God."


If anyone thinks this is a good deal to the Samkirtana Movement, Think again. The fundamentalist christian who pushes this agenda will use its massive resources to block the Krsna Movement at all costs. "Faith based initiative" means neocon fascism with Jesus Name blasphemed, just as Lord Jesus Predicted.


mad mahax


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the government's duty to support welfare work. Just because some group believes in God the leftists want to ban them from receiving an equal share of the tax money to help their welfare work.


If devotees are smart they will take advantage of this for Food for Life type programs. Using their imaginations they can come up with much more if so inclined.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Theist-you have said you support American military policy, and wish that it was harsher.


"I have been in favor of a pre-emptive military option since early Ronald Reagen. So I like Bush on that approach, although I would consider myself to be far more to the right than he or most people out there.


For instance, I have always hated the term'state sponsered terrorism', prefering instead the more precise 'act of war'. Leaders, as well as devotees, should be "Soft as a rose and as strong as a thunderbolt." Presently we have neither.


For instance when Israel took out Saddam's military grade nuclear reactor sites in 1981 I jumped for joy noting that madhood in leadership is not completely dead in the world.


We should do the same with Iran, now, post haste.


The Republicans come closest to that thinking so I tend to favor them. As well as on a host of other issues. School vouchers, abortion, public expressions of religion. Preventing the mass media from distributing pronography. School prayer for example, I say let the atheists ignore God in the privacy of their own homes if they like, but we shouldn't let them stifle us on God's own planet. Republicans are more closely aligned with us on those issues.


There are a host of other issues also.


...Any attempt by Iran to continue with their nuke program should be taken out by force if necessary.



...When trying to analyze the war don't and the present problems that are coming from the Sunni north don't forget to factor in that at the last moment Turkey reverse themselves and denied the coalition forces to go through Turkey into Iraq. That was 40,000 US and 20,000 British that were planned to come down from the North and meet the others that came up from Kuwait. As planned they would have met around Bagdad. Instead 60,000 were left stranded in Kuwait and had to enter later from the south.


I never thought of it either but heard it mentioned tonight on Fox news.


But that's war. Unpredictable. Just like a football game or a boxing match. You come to a fight with a plan to knock out the opponent in short order with your superior strength. But you find he is harder to hit than you planned for so you have to adjust and plan for a longer fight.


If you can't stay fluid enough in your thinking to change strategy when necessary you will lose. be it boxing, football or war."







You support Adharma. Why ?



Caught in a Dangerous Fantasy


Our Safety is at Greater Risk Now Than Ever



For the past 43 years I have made a career of teaching and studying the Middle East. For this reason, friends, family and acquaintances regularly ask me, "How is the war against terrorism going? Are we safer now?" I usually tell them, "You don't want to hear what I have to say." But they always want to hear anyway and so I assume that there are others who want to hear also. This is what I tell them, straight out, with no sugarcoating:


The war against terror is a disaster of monumental proportions. I fear for this country and for us all. I am dismayed as I have never been in my whole adult life. Moreover, all indications are that the vast majority of my colleagues and independent experts on the Middle East share my dismay. Among the reasons for our concern are these:


Terrorism -- or more exactly the terrorism of a fanatical Islamic revivalist fringe -- does not have a country or location; it has no army that can be fought "over there" where we are not. Terrorists are a dozen people in an Internet cafe in Hamburg, some guys in a flight-school in Florida, 20 or 100 armed men training in the wilds of Pakistan or the forests of Oregon. Finding and neutralizing them means isolating them, making their cause unpopular and drying up their stream of recruits, encouraging the people among whom they live to report them to the authorities, diligently following money trails, gossip and rumor. There is absolutely no spectacular or simple military solution to the problem of terrorism.


Our international situation is a disaster. In a stunning turn-around, huge majorities in countries that have been or should be our friends and allies now consider the United States to be bumbling, arrogant, irresponsible and a major danger to the world. Leaders who know that every country has a stake in combating terrorism cannot risk political suicide by supporting us. Ordinary people are suspicious of us and far more likely to overlook or condone terrorist groups and plots.


The war in Iraq is a disaster. Forget all the talk of bad information and WMD and whether or not Saddam Hussein posed a credible threat. Once we invaded, we failed in every respect to do what needed to be done, with terrible consequences.


In the Middle East the one major thing that legitimizes a ruler or regime is the ability to provide stability and security. There is a venerable saying in Arabic that goes something like this, "Better a hundred years of tyranny than one day of fitna (civil chaos)." This is how a Saddam Hussein can be seen by many as an acceptable ruler.


There was no doubt in the minds of those who know Iraq that once the lid of Saddam's brutal regime had been lifted, the country would descend into chaos without an overwhelming commitment of U.S. forces. Yet, caught up in a fantasy, we sent too few troops, with too little planning, and, to Middle Easterners, proved ourselves incapable of governing or providing security. Our standing in the Middle East has hit an all-time low and the standing of anti-American terrorists has risen accordingly.


The situation of our troops is a disaster. They are in an impossible, no-win situation. Even their victories are defeats. Urban warfare involving air support brings collateral casualties -- civilians, children. We have killed at least as many Iraqi and Afghani children by accident as the Chechen and 9/11 terrorists killed on purpose. To the families, friends and neighbors of dead children the distinction between collateral damage and intentional murder is meaningless. Ending Shiite insurgency by fighting in their holiest shrines enrages many millions of believers in Iraq and around the world. Every death, every incident supports the notion that terrorism is a legitimate response to our perceived misuse of overwhelming power.


Abu Ghraib is a disaster. The atrocities at Abu Ghraib have given credence to the most paranoid fantasies of angry anti-Western fanatics. We raped Iraqi women, our women sexually humiliated Iraqi men and we murdered helpless prisoners. This is no trivial matter and it will not be soon or easily forgotten.


The overall situation in the Middle East is a disaster. Our bungled occupation of Iraq has rescued a failing Islamic revivalist regime in Iran. We disbanded the secularist, socialist Baath party and now, Iraqi "elections" will undoubtedly result in a more or less theocratic Shiite state aligned with Iran. The Kurds in the north will attempt to break away and set up their own state, bringing untold trouble to our Turkish allies. We are not bringing democracy to the Middle East. We are stripping legitimacy from local democrats, secularists and moderates, leaving the fanatics and would-be tyrants in control.


No, we are not safer. We have hugely increased the danger. Whoever wins the next election will either make a dramatic change in our course and attitude toward the rest of the world or lead us into a long nightmare cycle of death and reprisal.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...