Year: 2007

Posted on

Shilling for a War

War - both sides of the storyCon Coughlin does it again in this waffly piece of shillery, overflowing with unnamed senior sources, claiming Israel is seeking authorisation from the Pentagon to whack Iran. Interestingly and simultaneously, the uber conservative Daily Telegraph broadcasts this story wherein Cheney warns that military action against Iran remains a possibility.

AP debunks the Coughlin shillery swiftly.

The subject has a revealing history of similar deceptive preemptive pro-war journalism. Is MI6 involved as well?

A report, put together by Campaign Iran and published at the end of 2006, revealed that Daily Telegraph’s political editor Con Coughlin, the man who ‘broke the story’ of Iraq’s 45 minute WMD capacity, was behind 16 articles containing unsubstantiated allegations against Iran over the past 12 months. The Press Complaints Commission has launched its third investigation into Coughlin in as many months after a number of high level complaints about his latest article on Iran. The investigation is looking at an article by Coughlin on 24 January relying on an unnamed “European defence official” alleging that North Korea is helping Iran prepare a nuclear weapons test.

Back in 2000, the British Journalism Review remarked that “officers of MI6… had been supplying Coughlin with material for years.” It is known that the MI6 has a shadowy programme called “I/Ops” (Information Operations), whose activities within Fleet Street have never before been so clearly exposed.

Supposing the Tele story is an MI6 plant, what should we make of this Times Online story that several US generals are prepared to resign if Doodoo gives the order to attack Iran?

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

Perhaps there are secret wars within the intel agencies themselves. Who is feeding the pro-war line in the Brit press and the Pentagon? Could it be none other than the recently departed torturer and his evul cohorts? Seymour Hersh spills the beans on the United Stupids tilt toward Iran:

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”)

OBL wants war in Iran
Ironically, the tilt against the Shite Iranians will benefit the most radical, fundamentalist Sunnis, from whom the likes of Bin Laden came. Whose side are the torturer’s mob really on?

“The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.” The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

What is the payoff for the torturer? More war, re-election of the neocons, more oil, more profits for Helliburton etc. – his mates.

Posted on

Torquemada in Oz

Cheney warmongerWhorestralia is cursed until Sunday this week by the presence of arch-neocon Cheney. We are wondering what shennanigans the torturer has up his sleeve prior to the next US election.

It is understood he said Democrats in the US were riding public opposition to the war that could end up prejudicing their leadership credentials. He said the mood could easily shift if there was another terrorist attack.

Bin Laden would benefit immensely from the gungho Repubes winning the next US elections, as unlike the more sophisticated diplomatic Dems, the militaristic Repubes fall into his traps so easily. Thus, whether there’s to be a false flag op (and at this point because of Doodoo’s inveterate deceit, there would be a lot of people suspecting another attack would be just that) or the genuine article, the United Stupid of Vice well knows the lovely game of fear which he has played with his swooning public so successfully in the past.

Torquemada also alludes to his dark desires for future Iranian misadventures, endorsing

… U.S. Republican Senator John McCain’s view that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

“They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.”

In his interview with the Australian, the ghoul hinted at possible timing for aggression by the United Stupids.

“You get various estimates of where the point of no return is,” Mr Cheney said, identifying nuclear terrorism as the greatest threat to the world. “Is it when they possess weapons or does it come sooner, when they have mastered the technology but perhaps not yet produced fissile material for weapons?”

Using Whorestralia as a sounding board, Cheney ‘appears’ to be geeing the world up to expect a military response to Iran’s supposed but in fact non-evident plans, ostensibly to further long held evil ambitions for US world hegemony.

Howard conflates Iraq with Iran, jumping on the torturer’s coat tails to paint by numbers the picture of the next imperial ‘enemy’.

“I don’t think there would be a country whose influence and potential clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran’s would be if the coalition was defeated in Iraq,” Mr Howard said.

“I don’t think you can separate the two.”

“Iran would be emboldened if the coalition was defeated in Iraq.”

“And that would be seen to have occurred if there was a significant coalition withdrawal.”

Yet Doodoo has burned his political capital and credibility in Iraq – its highly unlikely at this juncture that the Dems will permit him to whack Iran without some very convincing (non-manufactured) evidence of real intent by Iran to produce nukes, especially when they are currently attempting to remove Doodoo’s authorisation for the war against Iraq. Neither Russia nor China are keen on military ‘solutions’ so the US would need to ignore the UN Security Council unilaterally.

However, if the torturer and his fellow deluded neoziocons do get their way for more perks and profits for good mates Helliburton etc., the already stretched US would be fighting on three fronts which conceivably would swiftly become several more. US prestige, its economy and hegemony would decline more rapidly, and other economies, including ours, would follow. Al Qaeda would rejoice again as another trap yielded fruit – it would be bolstered with a flood of newly inspired fresh recruits. If Whorestralia supported the US militarily in its brand new adventures, naturally our own security would be further endangered. As our dollar dropped, foreign companies would have a field day buying up our mineral and other resources. Our wages and purchasing power would plummet as inflation and interest rates took off whilst our economy and wealth distribution statistics would lurch toward parity with our third world neighbours.

Gold, silver, oil and other fuels, essential goods and services would do comparatively well.

Little Johnny channels his gruesome hero by taking his usual vicious hard line against 85 Sri Lankan refugee boat people, who are accused of sabotaging their boat motor to avoid being turned back home on the high seas to probable death. Sri Lanka is the country where suicide bombing was invented, with a tripartite conflict going back years between the government, which disappears dissidents, thus provoking hatred and retaliation amongst the locals, insurgents in the south and guerillas in the north.

Read Michael Ondaatje’s “Anil’s Ghost” for sensational insight into the plight of the impoverished locals of Sri Lanka.

Posted on

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians

An important new book by Israeli historian and senior lecturer, Ilan Pappe, is now available. It chronicles one of the last century’s most distressing, neglected crimes against humanity, which crimes and the denial thereof are ongoing, courtesy of the Zionista.

An excellent, lengthy review by Steve Lendman can be found here.

In 1967, Israel excluded the 1948 Nakba and Right of Return from any peace discussions. Thenceforth, it based all negotiations on the notion that the conflict began in 1967 when Israel seized and occupied the West Bank and Gaza in the June Six Days’ War that year. This was how Israel sought to legitimize its 1948 “War of Independence” and all its crimes it wanted erased from the public memory. No longer were they on the table to be considered in any future conflict resolution negotiation. For Palestinians, the 1948 Nakba is their core issue, and without it being settled equitably there can never be closure or a real lasting peace in the region.

The Vogon adulators of the two following defining characteristics of fascism may of course home in on Pappe once they tire of slandering Jimmy Carter.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

…
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Now where have we witnessed stunted, desperate, far-right behaviour such as the above recently?

Posted on

Coalition of the Gobbling vs Iraq 1

Cheney visit protests

With the planned withdrawal of all Danish troops by August 07, the Coalition of the Gobbling will lose another member entirely. Lithuania is considering removing its forces too. Bliar’s concurrent announcement of a reduction in troop numbers by one quarter is greeted with approval from Basrawis. The wily rodent and Bliar spin the troop reduction as success. More likely Bliar can read the writing on the wall and may be looking to avoid further confrontation with an angry local populace which would shred any tattered vestige of a chance he has remaining of claiming justification for the ill-considered Iraqi misadventure. Why were the Brit troops withdrawn and not redeployed to support Doodoo’s surge?

“We welcome any withdrawal of British forces from inside the centre of the city,” said Hakim al-Mayahi, head of the Basra provincial security council, which has had a fractious relationship with the British.

An AFP reporter who visited British forces in Basra and at the airbase last month found both under almost daily mortar attack from militias in the city.

…

“Iraqi forces in Basra are ready and able to ensure security. Every Basrawi wishes to see all British forces leaving at one time not gradually,” he said.

And Razzaq Nasir, a 58-year-old oil worker, was categoric: “There is no need for them. The British forces in Basra are a big problem for the Iraqi forces and for ordinary Basrawis.”

The Whorestralian prime monster, with the repugnant Lon Cheney visit upon us, sticks with his plans to retain the present level of troops and send more military trainers to Iraq and indicates he is considering more troops for Afghanistan, the central battleground of the Great Game and historical graveyard of empires.

But as British columnist Gwynne Dyer noted, Australian leaders long ago realized that the United States is the only country that might be willing to come to their aid in an emergency. Keeping the White House happy is an Australian priority.“If the United States invaded Mars,” Dyer wrote, “Australia would send a battalion along to guard the supply depot.”

Ugh.

Kevvie presses the political advantage:

KEVIN RUDD: If it’s ok in Mr Howard’s view for the Danes to pull out some 460 troops from Iraq, why is it not ok for 520 Australian troops to be brought home to Australia, some time next year?

Well, mate, maybe little Johnny is thinking of all those lovely barbies at Crawford he’d miss out on in his retirement.

Meanwhile, Prodi resigns when the Italian Senate refuses to back his pro-US foreign policy initiatives.

Rome was plunged into political turmoil after Mr Prodi failed to muster enough Senate votes to approve the continuing commitment to Italian troop deployments in Afghanistan and the expansion of a US military base at Vicenza.

Unfortunately Prodi’s resignation and consequent electoral turmoil may prove a gift to the way out there and round the bend Berlusconi camp if Prodi can’t rally support among the multitudinous factions that adorn Italian Parliament.

Devoid of the belated political nous exhibited by Bliar, Doodoo refuses to get the message that Iraqis really don’t want the United Stupids in their country and haven’t for years. Yet according to Cheney, the Dems won’t be able to prevent Doodoo’s surge.

Iraqi woman, Riverbend, horrified by an alleged coverup of rape by the pseudo-democratic Iraqi government and proposed execution of three Iraqi women, points out the COG was defeated long ago:

And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse. Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.”

Posted on

Islamic Feminism

IslamofemsSince the creation of Islam and until the feminist victories of the 20th century in western society, Islamic women enjoyed more expansive personal privileges than their Christian sisters. Not only were they able to seek divorce, they could inherit property, albeit a lesser proportion than their brothers, and pursue professions. Restrictive Shariah law and culture-specific traditions, invented and administered by males for the primary benefit of males, were a later addition to the teachings of the Koran. In parallel with cultural mores and interference with women’s rights and bodies entrenched in some Christian sects, well illustrated for example by those engendered by the male-dominated Catholic Church, these arbitrary additions have hindered the ability of many Muslim women to achieve their full and desired potentials within the framework of their faith.

“Islam is not a patriarchal religion, and we cannot accept that patriarchy continues to govern social relations in the framework of Islam.”

The Conclusions of the Second International Conference of Islamic Feminism held in November 06 in Spain defined areas where positive change within patriarchal Islamic cultures can be initiated for the benefit of women:

“We denounce the discriminatory family laws that are enforced in many countries with a Muslim majority.

We voice our commitment to continue the gender jihad for the recovery of the equalitarian message of Islam, the freedom of interpretation and conscience.

Islamic Feminism is an integral part of the Global Feminist Movement. We denounce all forms of violence against women that are justified in the name of Islam, such as honor crimes, domestic violence, mutilation of female genitalia, stoning and other forms of corporal punishment.

We call for the participation of women in all areas of society. Therefore, we are against all those cultural practices which are not truly Islamic and which inhibit this participation.

We announce the creation of the “Observatory of Islam and Gender” in Spain to be headquartered in Barcelona. This Observatory attempts to consolidate the work of the two International Conferences of Islamic Feminism, to serve as a common ground between intellectuals and Feminist organizations in the Islamic world, and to promote Islamic Feminism in Spain. The Observatory will serve the task of giving continuity to the International Conference of Islamic Feminism.”

Whilst we do not adher to any religious faith, we support all women in their peaceful quest for enlightenment and equality of opportunity and express our solidarity with feminists of all nations and creeds against that most oppressive and pervasive phenomenon affecting women – rightwing fundamentalism.

Fundamentalist movements are political movements with religious, ethnic, and/or nationalist imperatives. They construct a single version of a collective identity as the only true, authentic and valid one, and use it to impose their power and authority. They usually claim to be the representatives of authentic tradition, and they speak against the corrupting influence of modernity and ‘the West’. However, fundamentalists are far from pre-modern. To promote their project, they use all modern technological means available, from the media to weaponry. Furthermore, the vision they conjure up is a constructed and selective vision, rather than a revival of something in the past. Since 2000 the popular appeal of fundamentalisms has been growing across the world and different communities.

Feminists have particular concerns when it comes to fundamentalist movements. Although many women take part in fundamentalist movements, overall fundamentalist politics tend to constitute a threat to women’s freedom and autonomy and often their lives. Gender relations in general, and women in particular, are often used to symbolize the collectivity, its ‘culture and tradition’, its boundaries and its future reproduction.