|
Post by enigma on Jul 20, 2009 8:09:10 GMT 3
unfortunately, there is a section of kenyans who have been traumatised by the very ascendancy of Obama to that lofty perch. Their malady manifests itself mainly through incessant conspiracy theories. I have even heard one of these afflicted souls weave Obama's election into the da vinci code folklore. Another has copious documents on Obama's links with the 'literati' and Raila Odinga even features somewhere.
My point is you might think that you are engaging someone in meaningful debate when infact you are dealing with an afflicted soul, as I found out with a great deal of exasperation.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Jul 20, 2009 19:59:52 GMT 3
Man K,
You are one hell of a patient fellow. You've earned a lot of respect from me. I wish I had so much reservoir of patience myself. No one will ever accuse you should you feel fatigued by this debate!
I remember asking Ndugu Wanyee at some stage to kindly frame the title of the thread differently, but he insisted there was a strong connection between The Obama Deception and 9/11.
We are already on the 5th page, and yet the dots have not been connected thus far!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jul 20, 2009 21:12:04 GMT 3
........ My point is you might think that you are engaging someone in meaningful debate when infact you are dealing with an afflicted soul, as I found out with a great deal of exasperation. That insight is highly appreciated. It sure does explain the madness that is the character of this thread. I have noted this phenomenon severally along the way but I kept entertaining the hope that there was still a chance to redeem this soul. What a waste?
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jul 20, 2009 22:16:01 GMT 3
Man K,You are one hell of a patient fellow. You've earned a lot of respect from me. I wish I had so much reservoir of patience myself. No one will ever accuse you should you feel fatigued by this debate! I remember asking Ndugu Wanyee at some stage to kindly frame the title of the thread differently, but he insisted there was a strong connection between The Obama Deception and 9/11.We are already on the 5th page, and yet the dots have not been connected thus far!! Hi Einstein, I have certainly been insanely patient here. Thanks for pointing it out and even giving me a reassurance that it was worth it. I had doubts. I kept going for every one of us who expressed disapproval of Wanyee's wild claims. At every turn I felt the need to give the man another prominent opportunity to either make a logical argument or straighten up his minds on this issue. He has done neither, but at this point there can be no doubt as to what he really had to offer.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 21, 2009 3:22:36 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
We have already clarifed the use of the title of this thread “as a label for a discussion that was ongoing before the title came along…the title does not define my argument, but rather it is my argument that defines the title. I am substantiating the 'The Obama Deception' argument, via the 9/11 issue."
Once again, my argument is that Obama is a deception, by pursuing the agenda of the global power elite ("war on terror"), which is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag).
Those who wish to challenge my argument, should challenge its basis, by either refuting that Obama is pursuing the "war on terror" or refuting that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.
(Or do you need “evidence” that Obama is pursuing the “war on terror”?)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 21, 2009 11:22:38 GMT 3
Please bottle your reserves of patience, have it carbonated and ship it to kenya alongside your remittances. Our tavarish (comrades)need lots of it to deal with the challenges of living in a failed state. They will appreciate an ounce of your patience appertif more than the likes of Wanyee.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 22, 2009 3:16:56 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
To challenge an / my argument you must be able to challenge its basis.
The basis of my argument is very simple, and I have no problem repeating it as necessary. This time, let us try using a different format for those of you who seem to have trouble understanding it:
1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)
The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” (or hoax that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax.
Now, anyone who would like to challenge my argument should challenge its basis (as stated above), by either refuting that Obama is pursuing the "war on terror" or refuting that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.
It is very simple.
|
|
|
Post by job on Jul 22, 2009 4:02:13 GMT 3
Wanyee, You say; In other words, as per your logic above...there can only be two conclusions....either Obama is a puppet of the global elite...or Obama is ignorant....and no in-betweens!!!!!!!! Is that a safe evaluation of your conclusion? Meanwhile, here below is an excerpt from VOA news about Obama's assault on the military-industrial complex - just today in Congress. Could this be offending the war-loving, puppet-masters (global elite) or this is just a gimmick? The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to end funding for the most sophisticated U.S. fighter jet, supporting President Barack Obama on one of the most controversial issues to come before the Congress since he took office six months ago.
President Obama had threatened to veto his own defense budget if the Congress added $1.75 billion to produce more F-22 Raptor aircraft. But he did not have to do that, as the Senate voted down the funding 58 to 40.
The F-22 is the most sophisticated jet fighter in the world and the U.S. Air Force has previously supported its production. President Obama vowed to end production of the F-22 as part of his plan for defense bugdet cuts and advancement of international diplomacy. .
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jul 22, 2009 8:58:27 GMT 3
I considered posting the current events that Job has posted but I was concerned that I could be getting back into another tiring yet fruitless round. I am glad to see it posted. I trust Wanyee will come out with his best this time.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 23, 2009 3:19:36 GMT 3
Obama’s Rollback Strategy: Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the Boomerang Effect)The recent events in Honduras and Iran, which pit democratically elected regimes against pro-US military and civilian actors intent on overthrowing them can best be understood as part of a larger White House strategy designed to rollback the gains achieved by opposition government and movements during the Bush years. In a manner reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s New Cold War policies, Obama has vastly increased the military budget, increased the number of combat troops, targeted new regions for military intervention and backed military coups in regions traditionally controlled by the US . However Obama’s rollback strategy occurs in a very different international and domestic context. Unlike Reagan, Obama faces a prolonged and profound recession/depression, massive fiscal and trade deficits, a declining role in the world economy and loss of political dominance in Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and elsewhere. While Reagan faced off against a decaying Soviet Communist regime, Obama confronts surging world-wide opposition from a variety of independent secular, clerical, nationalist, liberal democratic and socialist electoral regimes and social movements anchored in local struggles. Obama’s rollback strategy is evident from his very first pronouncements, promising to reassert US dominance (‘leadership’) in the Middle East, his projection of massive military power in Afghanistan and military expansion in Pakistan and the destabilization of regimes through deep intervention by proxies as in Iran and Honduras. Obama’s pursuit of the rollback strategy operates a multi-track policy of overt military intervention, covert ‘civil society’ operations and soft-sell, seemingly benign diplomatic rhetoric, which relies heavily on mass media propaganda. Major ongoing events illustrate the rollback policies in action. In Afghanistan, Obama has more than doubled the US military forces from 32,000 to 68,000. In the first week of July his military commanders launched the biggest single military offensive in decades in the southern Afghan province of Helmand to displace indigenous resistance and governance. In Pakistan, the Obama-Clinton-Holbrooke regime successfully put maximum pressure on their newly installed client Zedari regime to launch a massive military offensive and rollback the long-standing influence of Islamic resistance forces in the Northwest frontier regions, while US drones and Special Forces commandoes routinely bomb and assault villages and local Pashtun leaders suspected of supporting the resistance. In Iraq, the Obama regime engages in a farcical ploy, reconfiguring the urban map of Baghdad to include US military bases and operations and pass off the result as “retiring troops’ to their barracks”. Obama’s multi-billion-dollar investment in long-term, large-scale military infrastructure, including bases, airfields and compounds speaks to a ‘permanent’ imperial presence, not to his campaign promises of a programmed withdrawal. While ‘staging’ fixed election between US-certified client candidates is the norm in Iraq and Afghanistan where the presence of US troops guarantees a colonial victory, in Iran and Honduras, Washington resorts to covert operations to destabilize or overthrow incumbent Presidents who do not support Obama’s rollback policies. The covert and not-so-invisible operation in Iran found expression in a failed electoral challenge followed by ‘mass street demonstrations’ centered on the claim that the electoral victory of the incumbent anti-imperialist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a result of ‘electoral fraud’. Western mass media played a major role during the electoral campaign exclusively providing favorable coverage of the opposition and negative accounts of the incumbent regime. The mass media blanketed the ‘news’ with pro-demonstrator propaganda, selectively presenting coverage to de-legitimize the elections and elected officials, echoing the charges of ‘fraud’. The propaganda success of the US-orchestrated destabilization campaign even found an echo among broad sections of what passes for the US ‘left’ who ignored the massive, coordinated US financing of key Iranian groups and politicos engaged in the street protests. Neo-conservative, liberal and itinerant leftist ‘free-lance journalists’, like Reese Erlich, defended the destabilization effort from their own particular vantage point as ‘a popular democratic movement against electoral fraud.’ The right/left cheerleaders of US destabilization projects fail to address several key explanatory factors: 1. None, for example, discuss the fact that several weeks before the election a rigorous survey conducted by two US pollsters revealed an electoral outcome very near to the actual voting result, including in the ethnic provinces where the opposition claimed fraud. 2. None of the critics discussed the $400 million dollars allocated by the Bush Administration to finance regime change, domestic destabilization and cross border terror operations. Many of the students and ‘civil society’ NGO’s in the demonstrations received funding from overseas foundations and NGO’s – which in turn were funded by the US government. 3. The charge of electoral fraud was cooked up after the results of the vote count were announced. In the entire run-up to the election, especially when the opposition believed they would win the elections – neither the student protesters nor the Western mass media nor the freelance journalists claimed impending fraud. During the entire day of voting, with opposition party observers at each polling place, no claims of voter intimidation or fraud were noted by the media, international observers or left backers of the opposition. Opposition party observers were present to monitor the entire vote count and yet, with only rare exception, no claims of vote rigging were made at the time. In fact, with the exception of one dubious claim by free-lance journalist Reese Erlich, none of the world’s media claimed ballot box stuffing. And even Erlich’s claims were admittedly based on unsubstantiated ‘anecdotal accounts’ from anonymous sources among his contacts in the opposition. 4. During the first week of protests in Tehran, the US, EU and Israeli leaders did not question the validity of the election outcome. Instead, they condemned the regime’s repression of the protestors. Clearly their well-informed embassies and intelligence operative provided a more accurate and systematic assessment of the Iranian voter preferences than the propaganda spun by the Western mass media and the useful idiots among the Anglo-American left. The US-backed electoral and street opposition in Iran was designed to push to the limits a destabilization campaign, with the intention of rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East, undermining Tehran’s opposition to US military intervention in the Gulf, its occupation of Iraq and , above all, Iran’s challenge to Israel’s projection of military power in the region. Anti-Iran propaganda and policy making has been heavily influenced for years on a daily basis by the entire pro-Israel power configuration in the US. This includes the 51 Presidents of the Major America Jewish Organizations with over a million members and several thousand full-time functionaries, scores of editorial writers and commentators dominating the opinion pages of the influential Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times as well as the yellow tabloid press. Obama’s policy of roll back of Iranian influence counted on a two-step process: Supporting a coalition of clerical dissidents, pro-Western liberals, dissident democrats and right-wing surrogates of the US. Once in office, Washington would push the dissident clerics toward alliances with their strategic allies among pro-Western liberals and rightists, who would then shift policy in accordance with US imperial and Israeli colonial interests by cutting off support for Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Venezuela, the Iraqi resistance and embrace the pro-US Saudi-Iraqi--Jordan-Egypt clients. In other words, Obama’s roll back policy is designed to relocate Iran to the pre-1979 political alignment. Obama’s roll back of critical elected regimes to impose pliant clients found further expression in the recent military coup in Honduras. The use of the high command in the Honduras military and Washington’s long-standing ties with the local oligarchy, who control the Congress and Supreme Court, facilitated the process and obviated the need for direct US intervention—as was the case in other recent coup efforts. Unlike Haiti where the US marines intervened to oust democratically elected Bertrand Aristide, only a decade ago,and openly backed the failed coup against President Chavez in 2002, and more recently, funded the botched coup against the President-elect Evo Morales in September 2008, the circumstances of US involvement in Honduras were more discrete in order to allow for ‘credible denial’. The ‘structural presence’ and motives of the US with regard to ousted President Zelaya are readily identifiable. Historically the US has trained and socialized almost the entire Honduran officer corps and maintained deep penetration at all senior levels through daily consultation and common strategic planning. Through its military base in Honduras, the Pentagon’s military intelligence operatives have intimate contacts to pursue policies as well as to keep track of all polical moves by all political actors. Because Honduras is so heavily colonized, it has served as an important base for US military intervention in the region: In 1954 the successful US-backed coup against the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was launched from Honduras. In 1961 the US-orchestrated Cuban exile invasion of Cuba was launched from Honduras. From 1981-1989, the US financed and trained over 20,000 ‘Contra’ mercenaries in Honduras which comprised the army of death squads to attack the democratically elected Nicaraguan Sandinista government. During the first seven years of the Chavez government, Honduran regimes were staunchly allied with Washington against the populist Caracas regime. Obviously no military coups ever occurred or could occur against any US puppet regime in Honduras. The key to the shift in US policy toward Honduras occurred in 2007-2008 when the Liberal President Zelaya decided to improved relations with Venezuela in order to secure generous petro-subsidies and foreign aid from Caracas. Subsequently Zelaya joined ‘Petro-Caribe’, a Venezuelan-organized Caribbean and Central American association to provide long-term, low-cost oil and gas to meet the energy needs of member countries. In more recent days, Zelaya joined ALBA, a regional integration organization sponsored by President Chavez to promote greater trade and investment among its member countries in opposition to the US-promoted regional free trade pact, known as ALCA. Since Washington defined Venezuela as a threat and alternative to its hegemony in Latin America, Zelaya’s alignment with Chavez on economic issues and his criticism of US intervention turned him into a likely target for US coup planners eager to make Zelaya an example and concerned about their access to Honduran military bases as their traditional launching point for intervention in the region. Washington wrongly assumed that a coup in a small Central American ‘banana republic’ (indeed the original banana republic) would not provoke any major outcry. They believed that Central American ‘roll-back’ would serve as a warning to other independent-minded regimes in the Caribbean and Central American region of what awaits them if they align with Venezuela. The mechanics of the coup are well-known and public: The Honduran military seized President Zelaya and ‘exiled’ him to Costa Rica; the oligarchs appointed one of their own in Congress as the interim ‘President’ while their colleagues in the Supreme Court provided bogus legality. Latin American governments from the left to the right condemned the coup and called for the re-instatement of the legally-elected President. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, not willing to disown their clients, condemned unspecified ‘violence’ and called for ‘negotiations’ between the powerful usurpers and the weakened exile President – a clear recognition of the legitimate role of the Honduran generals as interlocutors. After the United Nations General Assembly condemned the coup and, along with the Organization of American States, demanded Zelay’s re-instatement, Obama and Secretary Clinton finally condemned the ousting of Zelaya but they refused to call it a ‘coup’, which according to US legislation would have automatically led to a complete suspension of their annual ($80 million) military and economic aid package to Honduras. While Zelaya met with all the Latin American heads of state, President Obama and Secretary Clinton turned him over to a lesser functionary in order not to weaken their allies in Honduran Junta. All the countries in the OAS withdrew their Ambassadors…except the US, whose embassy began to negotiate with the Junta to see how they might salvage the situation in which both were increasingly isolated – especially in the face of Honduras’ expulsion from the OAS. Whether Zelaya eventually returns to office or whether the US-backed junta continues in office for an extended period of time, while Obama and Clinton sabotage his immediate return through prolonged negotiations, the key issue of the US-promoted ‘roll-back’ has been extremely costly diplomatically as well as politically. The US backed coup in Honduras demonstrates that unlike the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada and President George Bush (Papa) invaded Panama, the situation and political profile of Latin America (and the rest of the world) has changed drastically. Back then the military and pro-US regimes in the region generally approved of US interventions and collaborated; a few protested mildly. Today the center-left and even rightist electoral regimes oppose military coups anywhere as a potential threat to their own futures. Equally important, given the grave economic crisis and increasing social polarization, the last thing the incumbent regimes want is bloody domestic unrest, stimulated by crude US imperial interventions. Finally, the capitalist classes in Latin America’s center-left countries want stability because they can shift the balance of power via elections (as in the recent cases in Panama, Argentina) and pro-US military regimes can upset their growing trade ties with China, the Middle East and Venezuela/Bolivia. Obama’s global roll-back strategy includes building offensive missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, not far from the Russian border. Concomitantly Obama is pushing hard to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, which will increase US military pressure on Russia’s southern flank. Taking advantage of Russian President Dimitry Medvedev’s ‘malleability’ (in the footsteps of Mikail Gorbechev) Washington has secured free passage of US troops and arms through Russia to the Afghan front, Moscow’s approval for new sanction against Iran, and recognition and support for the US puppet regime in Baghdad. Russian defense officials will likely question Medvedev’s obsequious behavior as Obama moves ahead with his plans to station nuclear missiles 5 minutes from Moscow. Roll-Back: Predictable Failures and the Boomerang Effect Obama’s roll-back strategy is counting on a revival of right-wing mass politics to ‘legitimize’ the re-assertion of US dominance. In Argentina throughout 2008, hundreds of thousands of lower and upper-middle class demonstrators took to the streets in the interior of the country under the leadership of pro-US big landowners associations to destabilize the ‘center-left’ Fernandez regime. In Bolivia, hundreds of thousands of middle class students, business-people, landowners and NGO affiliates, centered in Santa Cruz and four other wealthy provinces and heavily funded by US Ambassador Goldberg, Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy took to the streets, wrecking havoc and murdering over 30 indigenous supporters of President Morales in an effort to oust him from power. Similar rightist mass demonstrations have taken place in Venezuela in the past and more recently in Honduras and Iran. The notion that mass demonstrations of the well-to-do screaming ‘democracy’ gives legitimacy to US-backed destabilization efforts against its democratically-elected adversaries is an idea promulgated by cynical propagandists in the mass media and parroted by gullible ‘progressive’ free-lance journalists who have never understood the class basis of mass politics. Obama’s Honduran coup and the US-funded destabilization effort in Iran have much in common. Both take place against electoral processes in which critics of US policies defeated pro-Washington social forces. Having lost the ‘electoral option’ Obama’s roll-back looks to extra-parliamentary ‘mass politics’ to legitimize elite effort to seize power: In Iran by dissident clerics and in Honduras by the generals and oligarchs. In both Honduras and Iran, Washington’s foreign policy goals were the same: To roll-back regimes whose leaders rejected US tutelage. In Honduras, the coup serves as a ‘lesson’ to intimidate other Central American and Caribbean countries who exit from the US camp and join Venezuelan-led economic integration programs.Obama’s message is clear: such moves will result in US orchestrated sabotage and retaliation. Through its backing of the military coup, Washington reminds all the countries of Latin America that the US still has the capability to implement its policies through the Latin American military elites, even as its own armed forces are tied down in wars and occupations in Asia and the Middle East and its economic presence is declining. Likewise in the Middle East, Obama’s destabilization of the Iranian regime is meant to intimidate Syria and other critics of US imperial policy and reassure Israel(and the Zionist power configuration in the US ) that Iran remains high on the US roll-back agenda. Obama’s roll-back policies in many crucial ways follow in the steps of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89). Like Reagan, Obama’s presidency takes place in a time of US retreat, declining power and the advance of anti-imperialist politics. Reagan faced the aftermath of the US defeat in Indo-China, the successful spread of anti-colonial revolutions in Southern Africa (especially Angola and Mozambique), a successful democratic revolt in Afghanistan and a victorious social revolution in Nicaragua and major revolutionary movements in El Salvador and Guatemala. Like Obama today, Reagan set in motion a murderous military strategy of rolling-back these changes in order to undermine, destabilize and destroy the adversaries to US empire. Obama faces a similar set of adversarial conditions in the current post-Bush period: - Democratic advances throughout Latin America with new regional integration projects excluding the US; defeats and stalemates in the Middle East and South Asia; a revived and strengthened Russia projecting power in the former Soviet republics; declining US influence over NATO military commitments , a loss of political, economic, military and diplomatic credibility as a result of the Wall Street-induced global economic depression and prolonged un-successful regional wars. Contrary to Obama, Ronald Reagan’s roll-back took place under favorable circumstances. In Afghanistan Reagan secured the support of the entire conservative Muslim world and operated through the key Afghan feudal-tribal leaders against a Soviet-backed, urban-based reformist regime in Kabul. Obama is in the reverse position in Afghanistan. His military occupation is opposed by the vast majority of Afghans and most of the Muslim population in Asia. Reagan’s roll-back in Central America, especially his Contra-mercenary invasion of Nicaragua, had the backing of Honduras and all the pro-US military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia and Brazil, as well as rightwing civilian government in the region. In contrast, Obama’s roll-back coup in Honduras and beyond face democratic electoral regimes throughout the region, an alliance of left nationalist regimes led by Venezuela and regional economic and diplomatic organizations staunchly opposed to any return to US domination and intervention. Obama’s roll-back strategy finds itself in total political isolation in the entire region. Obama’s roll-back policies cannot wield the economic ‘Big Stick’ to force regimes in the Middle East and Asia to support his policies. Now there are alternative Asian markets, Chinese foreign investments, the deepening US depression and the disinvestment of overseas US banks and multi-nationals. Unlike Reagan, Obama cannot combine economic carrots with the military stick. Obama has to rely on the less effective and costly military option at a time when the rest of the world has no interest or will in projecting military power in regions of little economic significance or where they can attain market access via economic agreements. Obama’s launch of the global roll-back strategy has boomeranged, even in its initial stage. In Afghanistan, the big troop build-up and the massive offensive into ‘Taliban’ strongholds has not led to any major military victories or even confrontations. The resistance has retired, blended in with the local population and will likely resort to prolonged decentralized, small-scale war of attrition designed to tie down several thousand troops in a sea of hostile Afghans, bleeding the US economy, increasing casualties, resolving nothing and eventually trying the patience of the US public now deeply immersed in job losses and rapidly declining living standards. The coup, carried out by the US-backed Honduran military, has already re-affirmed US political and diplomatic isolation in the Hemisphere. The Obama regime is the only major country to retain an Ambassador in Honduras, the only country which refuses to regard the military take-over as a ‘coup’, and the only country to continue economic and military aid. Rather than establish an example of the US’ power to intimidate neighboring countries, the coup has strengthened the belief among all South and Central American countries that Washington is attempting to return to the ‘bad old days’ of pro-US military regimes, economic pillage and monopolized markets. What Obama’s foreign policy advisers have failed to understand is that they can’t put their ‘Humpty Dumpty’ together again; they cannot return to the days of Reagan’s roll-back, Clinton’s unilateral bombing of Iraq,Yugoslavia ana Somalia and his pillage of Latin America. No major region, alliance or country will follow the US in its armed colonial occupation in peripheral (Afghanistan/Pakistan) or even central (Iran) countries, even as they join the US in economic sanctions, propaganda wars and electoral destabilization efforts against Iran. No Latin American country will tolerate another US military putsch against a democratically elected president, even national populist regimes which diverge from US economic and diplomatic policies. The great fear and loathing of the US-backed coup stems from the entire Latin American political class’ memory of the nightmare years of US backed military dictatorships. Obama’s military offensive, his roll-back strategy to recover imperial power is accelerating the decline of the American Republic. His administration’s isolation is increasingly evidenced by his dependence on Israel-Firsters who occupy his Administration and the Congress as well as influential pro-Israel pundits in the mass media who identify roll-back with Israel’s own seizure of Palestinian land and military threats to Iran. Roll-back has boomeranged: Instead of regaining the imperial presence, Obama has submerged the republic and, with it, the American people into greater misery and instability. James Petras most recent books Whats Left in Latin America coauthored with Henry Veltmeyer (Ashgate press 2009) and Global Depression and Regional Wars( Clarity press 2009 –August) James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James Petras SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14291
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 25, 2009 0:19:40 GMT 3
Excerpt from the article above: “In Afghanistan, Obama has more than doubled the US military forces from 32,000 to 68,000. In the first week of July his military commanders launched the biggest single military offensive in decades in the southern Afghan province of Helmand to displace indigenous resistance and governance. In Pakistan, the Obama-Clinton-Holbrooke regime successfully put maximum pressure on their newly installed client Zedari regime to launch a massive military offensive and rollback the long-standing influence of Islamic resistance forces in the Northwest frontier regions, while US drones and Special Forces commandoes routinely bomb and assault villages and local Pashtun leaders suspected of supporting the resistance. In Iraq, the Obama regime engages in a farcical ploy, reconfiguring the urban map of Baghdad to include US military bases and operations and pass off the result as “retiring troops’ to their barracks”. Obama’s multi-billion-dollar investment in long-term, large-scale military infrastructure, including bases, airfields and compounds speaks to a ‘permanent’ imperial presence, not to his campaign promises of a programmed withdrawal” [ Obama’s Rollback Strategy: Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the Boomerang Effect) - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14291]--- I hope that the above sheds some light on the issue of Obama and the “war on terror” / Military-Industrial complex (#1 below). Once again, to challenge an / my argument you must be able to challenge its basis, and the basis of my argument is very simple: 1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” (or hoax that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax.Now, anyone who would like to challenge my argument should challenge its basis (as stated above), by either refuting that Obama is pursuing the "war on terror" or refuting that 9/11 was a false-flag operation. It is very simple.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 28, 2009 2:20:23 GMT 3
Military Escalation and Obama's "War on Terrorism" US Officials "Rediscover" ISI-Taliban Nexusby Tom Burghardt Global Research, March 29, 2009 Long considered the realm of "conspiracy buffs" The New York Times, citing anonymous "American government officials," have belatedly "discovered" that Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) is aiding the Taliban and al-Qaeda. That ISI operatives were reportedly involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, the ostensible reason for the 2001 U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan remains as they say, "off the table." Yet, as The History Commons reports, Operation Diamondback uncovered a 2001 plot jointly-run by ISI operatives and organized crime figures to illegally purchase weapons, including Stinger missiles and nuclear components, for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. According to The History Commons, citing The Washington Post and MSNBC: Informant Randy Glass plays a key role in the sting, and has thirteen felony fraud charges against him reduced as a result, serving only seven months in prison. Federal agents involved in the case later express puzzlement that Washington higher-ups did not make the case a higher priority, pointing out that bin Laden could have gotten a nuclear bomb if the deal was for real. Agents on the case complain that the FBI did not make the case a counterterrorism matter, which would have improved bureaucratic backing and opened access to FBI information and US intelligence from around the world. ("Sting Operation Exposes Al-Qaeda, ISI, and Drug Connections: Investigators Face Obstacles to Learn More," The History Commons, no date) In 1999, ISI operative Rajaa Gulum Abbas is recorded telling Glass as he gestures towards the World Trade Center in New York during an earlier phase of Operation Diamondback, "those towers are coming down." Yet authorities fail to stop the plot and two years later, 3,000 people are murdered by terrorists in New York and Washington. The appearance of these reports in the corporate media arrive as the United States prepares a "surge" of some 17,000 American troops into Afghanistan and as the Obama administration escalates CIA drone attacks inside Pakistan. On March 18, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon is contemplating "broadening the target area" to include "a major insurgent sanctuary in and around the city of Quetta." Extending military operations into the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, with the potential for "surging" CIA paramilitary officers and Special Operations troops to "kill or capture" senior Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives represents a significant escalation of the conflict. In a March 27 announcement outlining America's new regional strategy in the "Afpak theatre," President Obama vowed to send an additional 4,000 troops under cover of "training" recruits for the Afghan National Army. The Pentagon plans to raise the total strength of the Afghan army to 134,000 by 2011. Echoing Bush administration pronouncements, Obama told diplomats and soldiers headed to Afghanistan, "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." Employing rhetoric designed to sell the war to a sceptical public, Obama went on to say: "Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the US homeland from its safe havens in Pakistan." As I reported March 7, with a recently concluded agreement amongst Pakistani Taliban fighters and their Afghan counterparts, the prospects for a bloody spring offensive are a nettlesome reminder that U.S. regional plans are so many illusions soon to be cast to the four winds. Orchestrated by Afghan Taliban chieftain Mullah Mohammed Omar in coordination with Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), North Waziristan commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur and South Waziristan "emir" Maulvi Nazeer--grouped under the banner of the Shura Ittihad-ul-Mujahideen (Council of United Holy Warriors, SIM)--the United States and their NATO allies face the prospect of ferocious multi-front attacks. According to the Times, ISI support "consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders." Despite billions of dollars in military assistance to the corrupt Musharraf regime and the equally venal Zardari administration, Pakistan's search for "strategic depth" against their geopolitical rival India has only resulted in a furtherance of ISI/Army connivance with the Islamist far-right. The Times avers: "Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan's spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections. (Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, "Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say," The New York Times, March 26, 2009) Citing "electronic surveillance and trusted informants," anonymous Pakistani officials have denied these ties "were strengthening the insurgency." While publicly denying state links to Islamist insurgents, the Army and ISI have historical ties--as does the CIA--to organizations such as the Taliban and the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets known as al-Qaeda. As readers of Antifascist Calling and websites such as Global Research and the World Socialist Web Site are well aware, for three decades the United States has pursued a ruthless policy in pursuit of its own narrow interests. Far from being concerned with the economic and social well-being of the people of Central- and South Asia, America's imperialist project is designed solely for regional military domination and resource extraction vis-à-vis their geopolitical rivals Russia and China. Indeed, since the fall of Kabul's socialist government, the United States has singlemindedly pursued policies to control the vast petrochemical resources of Eurasia. As researcher and analyst Michel Chossudovsky pointed out, anticipating the current political demonization of the Pakistani people as a selling-point to secure the giant oil and natural gas reserves of Central Asia for American corporations, "Demonization serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries. The US led war in the broader Middle East-Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region. ... The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan)." ("The 'Demonization' of Muslims and the Battle for Oil," Global Research, January 4, 2007) All of the features described above are in play today. That media outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have discovered ISI-Taliban-al-Qaeda "connections"--while glossing over and suppressing--America's operational links to these same terrorist and narcotrafficking networks, is indicative of the dire straits faced by an economically depleted and politically bankrupt empire. Drawing (false) distinctions amongst the welter of jihadist groups that American and Pakistan have cultivated since the 1980s, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, retired admiral Dennis Blair, told Congress that the CIA's counterparts in crime, the ISI, believe there are some that "have to be hit and that we should cooperate on hitting, and there are others they think don't constitute as much of a threat to them and that they think are best left alone." While pursuing Mehsud and others who threaten the state's writ, the Army has been loathe to run to ground proxies such as Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, veteran narcotrafficking jihadists' who were key Pakistani-linked commanders during the anti-Soviet jihad. Considered "strategic assets" by ISI, Haqqani and Hekmatyar's networks direct fire inside Afghanistan and are therefore considered candidates "best left alone" in Blair's laconic phrase. However, according to anonymous officials it was none other than the Haqqani network, in collusion with ISI operatives who helped plan last summer's Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul that killed 54 and wounded dozens of others. While American and European officials are hell-bent on finding (or manufacturing) "good Taliban" with whom they can negotiate a climb down, Pentagon analysts are far-less sanguine of the prospects. A March 1, 2009 presentation for deploying troops prepared by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) G-2 and the TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity (TRISA), posted by the intelligence and security website Cryptome, lays out the formidable problems posed by the insurgency--and the extent of Pakistani involvement. Under the heading, "Insurgent Syndicate Characteristics," TRISA analysts aver: The nature of the enemy in AF HAS NOT CHANGED: * This enemy is primarily Pashtun in nature and Sunni Muslim (Wahhabi and Deobandi). * This enemy is funded by the drug economy and Gulf Arab money (for religious reasons). * This enemy is trained and assisted by ISID or ISID affiliated elements (Kashmiris/HuJI/LeT/HuM, with some Uzbeks. * They are assisted by AQ [al-Qaeda] in terms of funding, foreign fighters, and other assistance. * Logistics is the Achilles heel of ISAF operations in AF. Pak control of FATA and the Torkhum Gate. ("HB 9 Paramilitary Terrorist Insurgent Groups: Afghanistan," U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, March 1, 2009, p. 5) As if to drive home the point that "logistics is the Achilles heel" of U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan, Dawn reported March 29 that "hundreds of suspected Taliban armed with rockets and Kalashnikovs entered the Farhad terminal at about 2am and set on fire four vehicles, three cranes, a mini-truck and six power generators." The Al-Faisal terminal near Peshawar is a major jump-off point supplying NATO troops in Afghanistan. TRISA's "Threat Lay Down" (p. 7) estimates that some 60,000 insurgent fighters are currently arrayed against U.S. and NATO forces. Estimating Afghan Taliban strength at 30,000 fighters, fully half of the estimated number of insurgents are Pakistani. These include: TTP, 15,000; TNSM, 5,000; Lashkar-e-Toiba, 3,000; Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, 2,000. With 2,000 Al-Qaeda commandos (Brigade 055) and smaller contingents drawn from the former Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and other Central Asian and Middle Eastern factions, it becomes clear that Pakistan's intelligence services, given continued support to "moderates" such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as well as to terrorist outfits such as LET and LEJ are a major source of support behind the insurgency. This is all the more remarkable considering that LET commandos, operating in close coordination with ISI and Dawood Ibrahim's organized crime-linked D Company carried out last November's attacks in Mumbai, whilst LEJ was reportedly behind the assault on Sri Lanka's national cricket team in Lahore earlier this month. Significantly, TRISA analysts claim that amongst the "Warlord Militias" (p. 10) currently backing Hamid Karzai's government, their operations unsurprisingly, are also financed through "crime, narco-trafficking, smuggling, illegal taxation, including illegal road checkpoints for taxation." One might reasonably infer that U.S. operations amount to little more, despite the role of the narcotics trade on both sides of the "Afpak" divide, than a battle for control over lucrative drug manufacturing and smuggling routes. Ironically enough, despite the grave threat to Pakistani citizens in Swat Valley, indeed throughout the entire country, the Zardari administration cut a deal last month with local TTP commander Maulana Fazlullah. The sociopathic son-in-law of Tehrik Nifaz Shariat-i-Muhammadi (Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, TNSM) leader Maulana Sufi Mohammed, a close ally of Mullah Omar, Fazlullah's criminal network has instituted a reign of terror in Swat under the banner of "Sharia law." Despite the truce, TTP militants continue to murder Swat residents and enhance the reach of various criminal enterprises, ranging from extortion, kidnapping and illegal logging through heroin processing for export. Pakistani workers and farmers continue to pay a heavy price for the state's move to mollify the jihadist Frankenstein. For decades, having proven themselves politically useful when it comes to murdering leftists, trade union activists or uppity women and cultural workers, reactionary forces such as the TTP or the ever-pliant Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are a shadowy "third force" that can be counted on by "Military Inc." to "keep the rabble in line." In this context, "holy warriors" linked to the TTP carried out a horrific suicide bombing inside a mosque packed with worshipers in the Khyber region on Friday, killing 50 people and wounding 158 others. Dawn reported that the two-storey structure collapsed onto the heads of worshipers after a suicide bomber "jumped into the Friday congregation and blew himself up just when the prayers were about to begin." Eyewitnesses told Dawn they believe the casualty figures are being under-reported by authorities and that upwards of 70 people may have been killed by the blast and the subsequent collapse of the mosque's ceiling. The News reported Saturday that upwards of 76 people had been killed in the vicious blast, including the prayer leader, his brother, as well as truck drivers carrying goods to neighboring Afghanistan. There were tragic scenes at the site of the explosion. Many of the dead were mutilated beyond recognition. Rescuers and grief-stricken relatives of the missing and the dead were collecting pieces of bodies in the hope of locating their near and dear ones. A goat killed by the blast was also lying near the destroyed mosque. ... Meanwhile, some residents and injured belonging to the villages of Rekalay and Kufar Tangi said they saw aircraft flying above the area since Friday morning. They feared the blast at the mosque could have been caused by a missile fired by a US drone. (Daud Khattak & Nasrullah Afridi, "76 killed in Jamrud mosque bombing," The News, March 28, 2009) While eyewitness accounts describe a suicide bomber as the party responsible for the horrendous attack, part and parcel of SIM's campaign to cut NATO supply lines into Afghanistan, America's escalating robot drone wars are a reminder of growing anti-American sentiment amongst Pakistanis who are the overwhelming victims of the CIA's death-from-above air campaign. If the Swat truce is an indication of what Pakistani citizens will now face at the hands of Mehsud's TTP and their minions, the prospects for a "normal" life--short of smashing the medievalists' and their ISI handlers--are grim. Even as CIA and Pakistani intelligence officials "are drawing up a fresh list of terrorist targets for Predator drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border," The Wall Street Journal reports that ISI officials are "directly supporting the Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan, even as the U.S. targets those groups." Indeed, as the Times avers, "when the Haqqani fighters need to stay a step ahead of American forces stalking them on the ground and in the air, they rely on moles within the spy agency to tip them off to allied missions planned against them." An unspoken subtext to the Times and Journal reportage is the continued utilization of these terrorist networks--by the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Command--for covert war against Iran--even as the Obama administration seeks Tehran's assistance in battling the Taliban and al-Qaeda. As investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported last July in The New Yorker the Pentagon funded the narcotrafficker Baluchi-based Jundullah organization to attack security personnel inside Iran. While an open secret in Washington, Obama's new product roll-out in the form of an ill-conceived plan to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaeda and the Taliban has everything to do with the construction of the $7.6 billion dollar "Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline that would cross western Afghanistan east of Herat and advance south through Taliban-controlled territory towards Pakistani Balochistan province," according to Asia Times. As the World Socialist Web Site points out, Afghanistan and Pakistan stand at a nexus of pipeline and trade routes between the Middle East, Russia, China and the Indian subcontinent, and US domination of the countries would give it decisive influence over developments in trade and strategic relations between many of Eurasia's largest and fastest-growing economies. In particular, it would cement the US' ability to mount a blockade of oil supplies for China and India in the Indian Ocean. (Alex Lantier, "Obama announces escalation of war in Afghanistan, Pakistan," World Socialist Web Site, March 28, 2009) And with the imperialist military project going off the rails in Afghanistan as the Taliban's spring offensive looms ever-larger on the horizon, the prospects for a deadly confrontation between nuclear-armed world powers over control of oil and gas will inevitably increase. Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12943
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 29, 2009 22:10:08 GMT 3
The Obama Enigma: Imperial Interventionism and Militarism by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay Global Research, June 12, 2009 "We do not want a PAX Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time." President John F. Kennedy, 1963
"I will not hesitate to use force unilaterally, if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests wherever we are attacked or imminently threatened. ...We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense, in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities." Sen. Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007)
"Our interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists bent on attacking us. That does not require the scale of military operations that the incoming administration is contemplating. It does not require wholesale occupation. It does not require the endless funneling of human treasure and countless billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan government." Bob Herbert, The New York Times, January 6, 2009 Those who thought that the election of Barack Obama as American President would mean a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy should have lost their illusions by now. Faces change but the system remains. When you want change, it's necessary to look beyond a single individual and evaluate the team he is working with...or for. And the Obama team is what can be called a soft neoconservative team, all devoted to maintaining the military-industrial complex, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090610/pl_nm/us_arms_boeing]and all sold out with the ideology of permanent wars rather than permanent human progress. The truth is that during the last election, both candidate McCain [http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1088] and candidate Obama [http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1090] were favorable to the policy of permanent wars [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9616] under the cover of fighting terrorism. That is the reason I had concluded then that candidate Obama was only marginally superior to candidate McCain, but not fundamentally different. In fact, I believe that as far as character goes, McCain was probably more his own man than Obama, who has demonstrated a tendency to align himself with powerful interests in order to bolster his political career. There seems to have been a deal here: Obama will be kept busy shaking hands, traveling and delivering grand speeches or sermons, while Chief of cabinet Rahm Emanuel [http://www.theweek.com/article/index/92267/Rahm_Emanuel_Obamas_main_man] would run the White House. Everything then felt into place: Marine Corps General James Jones [http://www.acus.org/press/general-james-jones-named-national-security-advisor] was named National Security Advisor (N.B.: The national security adviser heads the National Security Council, which is the part of the White House structure that deals with foreign policy), and Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15986.html] was asked to remain at his post. This alone should have persuaded most everyone that U.S. foreign policy would only change in tone, not in substance. By enlarging and expanding the Afghanistan-Pakistan war [http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/10/moves-rhetoric-reveal-massive-us-commitment-to-afghanistan-war/], just as U.S. troops reduce their unwelcomed presence in Iraq, Obama has de facto endorsed interventionism and militarism as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. This is a failed policy, besides being immoral, because it requires the pursuit of a contradiction, i.e. killing civilians [http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/11/us-says-investigating-reports-of-afghan-civilians-killed-in-wednesday-air-strike/] and supporting authoritarian regimes while attempting to obtain the support of a foreign population in favor of democracy. What is more, Obama is enlarging a war that has no clear rationale behind it and no clear objectives. If the main rationale is to build his political image as “commander-in-chief”, then Obama is falling into the same trap as George W. Bush. The Afghanistan-Pakistan war will be his war and it will be a quagmire. When he signed an order increasing U.S. troops by 17,000 combat and support personnel in Afghanistan, then newly sworn in President Barack Obama [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4Z44._h7ZNY] said the war in Afghanistan was “still winnable”. What did he mean? Does it mean that the U.S. will have troops over there for decades? It seems that nothing is learned from history and that everything has to be relearned. —Such a policy failed miserably in Vietnam, [http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1686794.html] and it is most likely to fail again in Afghanistan-Pakistan, two countries whose borders are highly artificial, having been imposed by imperial Great Britain in the nineteen century. It also failed for the Soviets who had to withdraw from Afghanistan after eight-and-a-half disastrous years. Soon after, the entire Soviet regime collapsed. Indeed, by enlarging the Afghanistan-Pakistan War, President Obama is embarking on a course of action that could eventually destroy his presidency. It will be a repeat of President Lyndon B. Johnson who was destroyed politically with his Vietnam War, [http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html] even though this was a war he had not started. As in Vietnam, the ill-conceived Afghanistan war will become a war of attrition that will drain public support and finances as the war becomes more and more americanized. This will be another tragedy. If Obama listens to the military, as he obviously seems to do, he will be fed the deadly pablum that every problem in the world is a military problem. But this is false and counterproductive. In fact, bombing civilian populations will only enrage them against the invaders, just as bombing the United States would naturally enrage Americans. On that, Obama and his team are on the same wavelength and on the same path to disaster as Bush-Cheney and their neocon sycophants. This is too bad. President Barack Obama is quickly wasting his political capital and his political credibility. And once lost, it will be difficult to regain them. Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.comSOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13959--- This thread is based on the following argument: 1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)In reality, “the US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region…The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan)…The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order” (The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347).N.B: "By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed…We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight" (Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” / hoax / deception (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax.Those who may wish to challenge this argument must begin by challenging its basis (as stated above), by either refuting that Obama is pursuing the "war on terror" or refuting that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 31, 2009 22:18:57 GMT 3
And you thought Wanyee had finally realized the folly of his ways, the depth of his affliction and was reflecting on how to debrief and purge himself of the indoctrination.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Aug 5, 2009 5:12:08 GMT 3
The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oilby Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, January 4, 2007 Throughout history, "wars of religion" have served to obscure the economic and strategic interests behind the conquest and invasion of foreign lands. "Wars of religion" were invariably fought with a view to securing control over trading routes and natural resources. The Crusades extending from the 11th to the 14th Century are often presented by historians as "a continuous series of military-religious expeditions made by European Christians in the hope of wresting the Holy Land from the infidel Turks." The objective of the Crusades, however, had little to do with religion. The Crusades largely consisted, through military action, in challenging the dominion of the Muslim merchant societies, which controlled the Eastern trade routes. The "Just War" supported the Crusades. War was waged with the support of the Catholic Church, acting as an instrument of religious propaganda and indoctrination, which was used in the enlistment throughout Europe of thousands of peasants, serfs and urban vagabonds. America's Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle EastIn the eyes of public opinion, possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central. A war is said to be Just if it is waged on moral, religious or ethical grounds. America's Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle East is no exception. The "war on terrorism" purports to defend the American Homeland and protect the "civilized world". It is upheld as a "war of religion", a "clash of civilizations", when in fact the main objective of this war is to secure control and corporate ownership over the region's extensive oil wealth, while also imposing under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank (now under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz), the privatization of State enterprises and the transfer of the countries' economic assets into the hands of foreign capital. . The Just War theory upholds war as a "humanitarian operation". It serves to camouflage the real objectives of the military operation, while providing a moral and principled image to the invaders. In its contemporary version, it calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against "rogue states" and "Islamic terrorists", which are threatening the Homeland. Possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central to the Bush administration's justification for invading and occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq. Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the "Just War" theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The "war on terrorism" and the notion of "preemption" are predicated on the right to "self defense." They define "when it is permissible to wage war": jus ad bellum. Jus ad bellum serves to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It also serves to convince the troops that the enemy is "evil" and that they are fighting for a "just cause". More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda. The Battle for Oil. Demonization of the EnemyWar builds a humanitarian agenda. Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again. The Crusades consisted in demonizing the Turks as infidels and heretics, with a view to justifying military action. Demonization serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries. The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region. (See table and maps below). Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers (Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%. See table below). The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East-Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. Iraq has five times more oil than the United States. Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries. The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil. Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil. The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism". The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan). Demonization is a PSYOP, used to sway public opinion and build a consensus in favor of war. Psychological warfare is directly sponsored by the Pentagon and the US intelligence apparatus. It is not limited to assassinating or executing the rulers of Muslim countries, it extends to entire populations. It also targets Muslims in Western Europe and North America. It purports to break national consciousness and the ability to resist the invader. It denigrates Islam. It creates social divisions. It is intended to divide national societies and ultimately trigger "civil war". While it creates an environment which facilitates the outright appropriation of the countries' resources, at the same time, it potentially backlashes, creates a new national consciousness, develops inter-ethnic solidarity, brings people together in confronting the invaders. It is worth noting that the triggering of sectarian divisions and "civil wars" is contemplated in the process of redrawing of the map of the Middle East, where countries are slated to be broken up and transformed into territories. The map of the New Middle East, although not official, has been used by the US National War Academy. It was recently published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 2006). In this map, nation states are broken up, international borders are redefined along sectarian-ethnic lines, broadly in accordance with the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants (See Map below). The map has also been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers. The Oil Lies in Muslim LandsThe oil lies in Muslim lands. Vilification of the enemy is part and parcel of Eurasia energy geopolitics. It is a direct function of the geographic distribution of the World's oil and gas reserves. If the oil were in countries occupied predominantly by Buddhists or Hindus, one would expect that US foreign policy would be directed against Buddhists and Hindus, who would also be the object of vilification. In the Middle East war theater, Iran and Syria, which are part of the "axis of evil", are the next targets according to official US statements. US sponsored "civil wars" have also been conducted in several other strategic oil and gas regions including Nigeria, the Sudan, Colombia, Somalia, Yemen, Angola, not to mention Chechnya and several republics of the former Soviet Union. Ongoing US sponsored "civil wars", which often include the channelling of covert support to paramilitary groups, have been triggered in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as in Somalia, Darfur possesses extensive oil reserves. In Somalia, lucrative concessions have already been granted to four Anglo-American oil giants. "According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco [now part of BP], Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there." (America's Interests in Somalia, Global Research, 2002) Globalization and the Conquest of the World's Energy ResourcesThe collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order. Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005. SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347 --- This thread is based on the following argument: 1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)In reality, “the US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region…The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan)…The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order” (The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347).
N.B: "By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed…We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight" (Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” / hoax / deception (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax.Those who may wish to challenge this argument must begin by challenging its basis (as stated above), by either refuting that Obama is pursuing the "war on terror" or refuting that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 7, 2009 23:12:01 GMT 3
Wanyee, Events in the news are bringing me back here, to clarify something I already said. The debate you coin out in this thread is really two debates: 1) That 911 was a staged tragedy. We aired our respective positions on that. 2) Obama is a deception. This debate was started by the group that has now gone on to acquire the label ... "the birthers". I already told you that much of the arguments that you popped here, through the links you had, had already been used by some group during the Campaigns, with the aim of ruling out Obama as a candidate. The story below, from The Nation, has more. Original story available at www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/635400/-/item/0/-/vrb2rv/-/index.htmlAnti-Obama lunatics living in denial They are living in denial. In America they are equated to lunatics, but their push to drop anything credible to force President Obama out of office includes forgery in the land of Obama’s father. The group — the birthers — are the fringe “lunatics” who insist Obama is not a natural-born citizen — a US constitutional requirement for the presidency. Russian-born lawyer, dentist and estate agent Orly Taitz, on the eve of Obama’s 48th birthday, told CNN’s David Shuster: “Your listeners need to know the truth”. But the birth certificate purporting Mr Obama was born in Kenya differs with genuine certificates issued in the early 1960s, the Nation can reveal. Certificates issued during the colonial period were marked “Colony and Protectorate of Kenya”. Today’s have the logo of the Government of Kenya, with a seal. Orly, the most prominent anti-Obama “birther”, recently released a document entitled “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” stating Obama was born on “4th August, 1961 at Coast General Hospital.” The supposed copy dated 17th February 1964 carries the signature of deputy registrar Joshua Simon Oduya, along with the inscription “Office of the Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya.” Researchers point out that while Kenya became an independent nation in December 1963, it remained known as the Dominion of Kenya until December 1964 — 10 months after the “certified copy” was allegedly made. The document also refers to the signature of “registrar E. F. Lavender,” which, The Washington Independent points out, “happened to be the name of a popular soap in Kenya.” The Independent also quotes Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan embassy in Washington, as calling the claims madness. “His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya,” he said. A British professor in African history points out the term “Coast Province” could not have been used in early 1964, Dan Branch, of the University of Warwick, said at that time, Kenyan provinces were referred to as “regions.” The “birthers” attract some media attention in the US. Officials there have said repeatedly that they have no doubt about the authenticity of an Obama birth certificate indicating the president was born in Honolulu, the state’s capital city. Some “birthers” critics suggest it is motivated by racism. “Is the fact that he is the first African-American president a factor?” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson asks. “Is it that some people can’t or won’t accept that he won the election and serves as commander in chief? Immigration minister Otieno Kajwang’ dismissed the documents thus: “If we get those individuals, they will be jailed for forging government documents.” According to a poll released last week by Research 2000, 28 per cent of Republicans think that Obama was not born in the US and another 30 per cent are “not sure”. Eligibility Adding “credibility” to the “birthers” are Alan Keyes, a former Republican presidential candidate, who has filed a lawsuit questioning Obama’s eligibility for office, and Republican senator James Inhofe, who says he can’t bring himself to “discourage” the movement. Names aside, Mombasa, where the certificate says he was born, belonged to Zanzibar at the time , not Kenya. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Aug 25, 2009 23:34:25 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, Correction: this thread is / has been based on only ONE argument, and I shall begin by reiterating it: 1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)In reality, “the US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region…The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan)…The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order” (The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347).
N.B: "By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed…We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight" (Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” / hoax / deception (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax.Those who may wish to challenge this argument must begin by challenging its basis (as stated above), BY EITHER REFUTING THAT OBAMA IS PURSUING THE WAR ON TERROR OR REFUTING THAT 9/11 WAS A FALSE-FLAG OPERATION. --- Global Energy War: Washington's New Kissinger The appointment of US Marine General James Jonesby Rick Rozoff Lost amid the national and international fanfare accompanying the inauguration of the 44th president of the United States is attention to the person who is slated to be the next major foreign policy architect and executor, retired US Marine General James Jones. In nearly identical phraseology that cannot be construed as either fortuitous or without foundation, the Washington Post of November 22, 2008 referred to the then pending selection of Jones as US National Security Adviser in these terms: "Sources familiar with the discussions said Obama is considering expanding the scope of the job to give the adviser the kind of authority once wielded by powerful figures such as Henry A. Kissinger." And the following day's Israeli Ha'aretz wrote: "Jones is expected to play a key role in the Obama administration. According to U.S. press reports, he will be as strong as Henry Kissinger, the all-powerful national security adviser to President Richard Nixon." The analogy is with the role of Henry Kissinger as National Security Adviser to the first and second Nixon administrations (1969-1977, continuing into the Ford White House) and as both National Security Adviser and Secretary of State during the second term; that is, as a then unprecedentedly influential player in determining US foreign policy. A similar comparison can be made with the Carter administration's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the true power behind the foreign policy throne from 1977-1981, with Secretaries of State Cyrus Vance and, briefly, Edmund Muskie, largely figureheads in relation to him. James Jones is now the first career military officer to hold the post as head of the National Security Council since retired general Colin Powell did so in the second Reagan Administration and is the first former NATO Supreme Allied Commander to do so. Jones was appointed to the NATO post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the overlapping, essentially co-terminous one of Commander, United States European Command (COMUSEUCOM) in the first Bush term and is part of the two-thirds of the Obama administration's foreign policy triumvirate – National Security Adviser, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense - inherited from the preceding administration. The other is, of course, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Jones is a graduate of Georgetown University, with a doctorate degree in Sovietology and Russian studies. As commander of the Pentagon's European Command (EUCOM) Jones was in charge of the largest area of military responsibility in world history, one that encompassed anywhere from 13-21 million square miles and included 92 of the world's 192 nations. And as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander he was the chief military commander of an expanding military bloc of twenty six full members, two new candidates and twenty three Partnership for Peace, six Mediterranean Dialogue, six Gulf Cooperation Council and assorted other military partners in South and Far East Asia and the South Pacific, altogether on five continents. While wearing both the above braided hats, Jones was the major architect of what last October 1st was officially launched as the first new US military command in over half a century, Africa Command (AFRICOM), whose chartered area of operations includes fifty-three nations. AFRICOM's historical precedents were commented upon by a Ghanian news source almost three years ago: "Marine General James L. Jones, Head of the US European Command...said the Pentagon was seeking to acquire access to two kinds of bases in Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Kenya and other African countries. "The new US strategy based on the conclusions of May 2001 report of the President's National Energy Policy Development group chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney and known as the Cheney report." (Ghana Web, February 23, 2006) And by a Nigerian commentator the following year: "[In January of 2002 the African Oil Policy Initiative Group] recommended that African oil be treated as a priority for the national security of the US after 9/11, that the US government declares the Gulf of Guinea an "area of vital interest" and that it set up a sub-command structure for US forces in the region. In September 2002, the then US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, put forward a proposal to establish a NATO Rapid Response Force (NRF) which was approved by the defence ministers of NATO in Brussels in June 2003 and was inaugurated in October 2003." (Leadership, November 22, 2007) In keeping with the above, after his formal selection as nominee for Nationl Security Adviser late last year, Jones revealed that " s commander of NATO, I worried early in the mornings about how to protect energy facilities and supply chain routes as far away as Africa, the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea." (Agence France-Presse, November 30, 2008)
Or as a US daily newspaper put it later:
"During his 2003-2006 stint as NATO's supreme commander, Jones stressed his view that energy policy was a top national security matter for the United States and a leading international security priority. For the past year, Jones has been president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy. Until his Dec. 1 selection by Obama, he also served as a board member of the Chevron Corp." (Houston Chronicle, December 25, 2008)
The above reflected designs voiced earlier, as evidenced by:
"NATO's top commander of operations, U.S. General James Jones, has said he sees a potential role for the alliance in protecting key shipping lanes such as those around the Black Sea and oil supply routes from Africa to Europe." (Reuters, November 27, 2006)
And shortly before stepping down as both European Command and NATO commander, Jones, addressing US business leaders, said:
"Officials at U.S. European Command spend between 65 to 70 percent of their time on African issues, Jones said....Establishing such a group [military task force in West Africa] could also send a message to U.S. companies 'that investing in many parts of Africa is a good idea,' the general said." [U.S. Department of Defense, August 18, 2006)
And, just as candidly, he and his NATO civilian cohort declared:
"NATOs' executives are ready to use warships to ensure the security of offshore oil and gas transportation routes from Western Africa, reportedly said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's Secretary General, speaking at the session of foreign committee of PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]. "On April 30 General James Jones, commander-in-chief of NATO in Europe, reportedly said NATO was going to draw up the plan for ensuring security of oil and gas industry facilities. "In this respect the block is willing to ensure security in unstable regions where oil and gas are produced and transported." (Trend News Agency, May 3, 2006)
Note that while speaking to those he assumes to be interested and complicit parties, Jones is quite candid in moving his finger across the map of the world and indicating precisely where the Pentagon's – not the State Department's, say, or the US Department of Energy's - priorities lie.
And they are, as mentioned above, immediately in three of the five areas of the world where hitherto unexploited or underexploited massive oil and natural gas deposits lie: Africa's Gulf of Guinea, the Black and Caspian Seas and the Persian Gulf.
The other two contested zones and already current battlegrounds between the West and Russia and other emerging nations in this regard are the Arctic Circle and the northern part of South America and the Caribbean. Southeast Asia may be soon be another candidate for the role.
The drive into Africa, from the Mediterranean north to the South African way station to Antarctica and its offshore environs (the sixth key global energy chess piece) and from the war-torn northeast to the oil-rich Atlantic west, is thus integrally linked to the concomitant US and NATO military expansion into the Black and Caspian Seas and Persian Gulf regions.
Mind, this is not a direct, reductionist 'war for oil'; it is rather an international strategic bid by a consortium of declining Western powers united under the NATO aegis to seize and dominate world energy resources and transportation lines to in turn maintain and expand global economic and political hegemony. (Indeed, the two nations most central to Western plans for trans-Eurasian oil transit plans, Azerbaijan and Georgia, have recorded the largest per capita and percentile increases in military spending in the world over the past five years – a case of oil for war rather than the reverse.)
Jones' resume as top military commander of both US European Command and of NATO gave him, and still gives him, a pivotal role in what the State Department of Condoleezza Rice (herself with a doctorate degree in Sovietology and Russian studies) has referred to for years as the "push east and south."
As the US armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes reported a year and a half ago:
"Five years ago, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent marching orders to Marine Gen. James L. Jones, telling him that the U.S. European Command needed an overhaul to meet the unique challenges of the 21st century. "Jones' plan, started in 2002, called for the moving of thousands of troops from Europe back to the United States, moving troops into Eastern Europe and setting up forward operating sites in Africa."
What has occurred in the interim regarding the first trajectory, the push to the east, is that the Pentagon and NATO have selected seven military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, after the latter two's NATO accession in 2004, for land, naval and air 'lily pads' on the Black Sea for operations in the Caucasus, Ukraine, Central and South Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.
The US and its Alliance cohorts have similarly turned another Black Sea, and Caucasus, nation - Georgia - into a military and strategic energy corridor heading both east and south.
In fact Georgia is the central link in what Western officials for years have touted as the "project of the century": The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline transporting oil from the Caspian to the Mediterranean Seas.
Along with its sister projects, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline and the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku ("China to London") railway, the West envisions plans to export oil and natural gas from as far east as Kazakhstan on the Chinese border over, around and under the Caspian Sea to the South Caucasus and from there north to Ukraine and Poland to the Baltic Sea and onto Western Europe, and south along the Mediterranean to Israel to be shipped on tankers through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea and across the Arabian Sea to countries like India and Japan. That is, back to East Asia where much of it originated.
If any more grand (or grandiose) and far-reaching geopolitical design has ever been contemplated, history fails to record it.
Chinese military analyst Lin Zhiyuan summed up the general stratgey over two years ago:
"[N]ew military bases, airports and training bases will be built in Hungary, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria and other nations to ensure "gangways" to some areas in the Middle East, African and Asia in possible military actions in the years ahead. "More important, the United States will successfully move eastward the gravity and frontline of its Europe defense, go on beefing up its military presence in the Baltic states and the central Asia region, and also raise its capability to contain Russia by stepping into the backyard of the former Soviet Union. "James L. Jones, commander of the European command of the US army [EUCOM, as well as NATO], acknowledged that EETAF [Eastern European Task Force] would "greatly upgrade" the capacity of coordinating the forces of the U.S. and its allies, and the capacity of training and operation in Eurasia and the Caucasian region, so that they are able to make faster responses in some conflict areas...." (People's Daily, December 5, 2006)
The author was perhaps referring to an earlier statement by James Jones, one reported on the US State Department's website on March 10, 2006:
"[Jones] discussed ongoing shifts in troop levels, the creation of rotational force hubs in Bulgaria and Romania, and initiatives in Africa....Those forces remaining in Europe will focus on being able swiftly to deploy to temporary locations in southeast Europe, Eurasia and Africa. Along the Black Sea, recent basing agreements will allow U.S. forces to start establishing an Eastern European Task Force [which will] "significantly increases" the ability of U.S. and partner forces to coordinate and conduct training and missions in Eurasia and the Caucasus.... Jones also described Caspian Guard, a program to improve the capabilities of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in a strategic region that borders northern Iran. "Africa's vast potential makes African stability a near-term global strategic imperative."
In the past week the Pentagon's Central Command chief General David Petraeus visited Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan and Turkmenistan, the first and third on both ends of the Caspian Sea and the two largest producers of oil and natural gas in Central Asia.
This is the further implementation of Jones' plan which he bluntly articulated well over three years ago:
"NATO's top military commander is seeking an important new security role for private industry and business leaders as part of a new security strategy that will focus on the economic vulnerabilities of the 26-country alliance. "Two immediate and priority projects for NATO officials to develop with private industry are to secure the pipelines bringing Russian oil and gas to Europe...to secure ports and merchant shipping, the alliance Supreme Commander, Gen. James Jones of the U.S. Marine Corps said Wednesday. "A further area of NATO interest to secure energy supplies could be the Gulf of Guinea off the West African coast, Jones noted...'a serious security problem.' Oil companies were already spending more than a billion dollars a year on security in the region, he noted, pointing to the need for NATO and business to confer on the common security concern." (United Press International, October 13, 2005)
On the far western end of what British geographer and proto-geostrategist Halford Mackinder called the World Island (Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East) lies the Atlantic Coast of Africa and the Gulf of Guinea.
It is here that then EUCOM and NATO top military commander Jones arranged the foundation of the future AFRICOM.
Though not without attending to the rest of the continent as well during his dual tenure from 2003-2006.
In April of 2006 he already advocated the following:
"Jones...raised the prospect of NATO taking a role to counter piracy off the coast of the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Guinea, especially when it threatens energy supply routes to Western nations." (Associated Press, April 24, 2006)
Two and a half years before NATO initiated the Atalanta interdiction operation in the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden last autumn (NATO warships even docked at the Kenyan port city of Mombasa), Jones was laying the groundwork for the NATO cum European Union mission of today.
As the Horn of Africa region was the only part of Africa not formerly in EUCOM's area of responsibility (in was in Central Command's), Jones was clearly speaking of an AFRICOM that wouldn't appear for another 30 months.
Also, in addition to bilateral military agreements with Northern African states, Jones was NATO Supreme Commander in 2004 when at the Istanbul summit NATO upgraded the Alliance's seven Mediterranean Dialogue members - the bulk of which are in North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) - to an enhanced partnership status.
He also created the military wing of the US State Department's Pan Sahel Initiative. The Pentagon's website described it in early 2006 as follows:
"The 2002 Pan Sahel Initiative involved training and equipping a least one rapid-reaction company in each of the four Sahel states: Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Chad. The current initiative involves those four states and Algeria, Morocco, Senegal, Tunisia and Nigeria.
"'U.S. Naval Forces Europe, (the command's) lead component in this initiative, has developed a robust maritime security strategy and regional 10-year campaign plan for the Gulf of Guinea region.' "'Africa's vast potential makes African stability a near-term global strategic imperative,' Jones said." (Defense Link, March 8, 2006}
In the following year an Algerian article called "U.S. embassies turned into command posts in North Africa" added this:
"[T]he countries involved in the U.S. embassies command posts are Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Senegal. A major focus of AFRICOM will be the Gulf of Guinea, with its enormous oil reserves in Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola and the Congo Republic.... -The U.S. is already pouring $500 million into its Trans-Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative that embraces Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria in North Africa, and nations boarding the Sahara including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad and Senegal." (Ech Chorouk, October 17, 2007}
And in May of 2005 NATO began its first official operation on the African continent, transporting troops to the Darfur region of Sudan, thereby beginning Western military intrusion into the Central African Republic-Chad-Sudan triangle.
Yet the Gulf of Guinea remained the main focus of attention.
No later than 2003 Western news sources reported on a suspected unprecedented oil bonanza in the former Portuguses possessions of Sao Tome and Principe in the Gulf.
Shortly afterward there was talk of the Pentagon establishing a naval base on Sao Tome.
The State Department estimated at the time that the US was then currently importing 15% of its oil from the Gulf of Guinea and that the figure would rise to 25% in a few years.
Western Africa oil offers two key advantages to the US. It's comparatively high-grade crude and can be transported on tankers directly across the Atlantic Ocean, thereby circumventing straits, canals and other potential chokepoints and attendant customs duties and taxes by littoral nations.
Throughout his time as EUCOM and NATO top military commander Jones touted what he described as ongoing and permanent US and NATO naval presence in the Gulf.
In June of 2006 NATO helds its first large-scale military exercises in Africa, in fact initiating the NATO Rapid Response Force, north of the Gulf in Cape Verde.
Below are accounts of the drills:
"Hundreds of elite North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) troops backed by fighter planes and warships will storm a tiny volcanic island off Africa's Atlantic coast this week in what the Western alliance hopes will prove a potent demonstration of its ability to project power around the world." (Associated Press, June 21, 2006)
"Seven thousand NATO troops conducted war games on the Atlantic Ocean island of Cape Verde on Thursday in the latest sign of the alliance's growing interest in playing a role in Africa. "The land, air and sea exercises were NATO's first major deployment in Africa and designed to show the former Cold War giant can launch far-flung military operations at short notice. "'You are seeing the new NATO, the one that has the ability to project stability,' said NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a news conference after NATO troops stormed a beach on one of the islands on the archipelago in a mock assault on a fictitious terrorist camp. "NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe James Jones, the alliance soldier in charge of NATO operations, said he hoped the two-week Cape Verde exercises would help break down negative images about NATO in Africa and elsewhere." (Reuters, June 22, 2006)
Jones may have inveigled Reuters with concerns about NATO's public image, but its rival agency was more forthcoming:
"NATO is developing a special plan to safeguard oil and gas fields in the region, says its Supreme Allied Commander on Europe, Gen. James Jones.
"He said a training session will be held in the Atlantic oceanic area and the Cabo Verde island in June to outline activities to protect the routes transporting oil to Western Europe....Jones said the alliance is ready to ensure the security of oil-producing and transporting regions." (Associated Press, May 2, 2006)
That same month Jones was in the northern tip of the Gulf, in Monrovia, the capital of the one nation on the continent that seemed at first willing to host the future AFRICOM's headquarters after Washington assisted in the toppling of the Charles Taylor government and the installation of former US-based Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to head its successor.
A local paper reported:
"A United States military delegation today met with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf at her Executive Mansion office in Monrovia. The delegation was headed by General James Jones of the US Marine Corps who is also the head of the US government European Command. "Also with General Jones today were seven members of his delegation, who were in full US military uniform. General Jones reaffirmed his government's support in assisting the Liberian government in the formation of the new Liberian army. He said some members of his command, were due in Liberia soon, to begin the training of the new Liberian army, which is expected to begin in July. (African News Dimension, June 2, 2006)
Two months before the US State Department reported on another of Jones' African plans, the Gulf of Guinea Maritime Security Initiative, and thereby tied together a few threads in Washington's African tapestry:
"'Left unattended, political instability in Africa could require reactive and repeated interventions at enormous costs, as in the case of Liberia,' Jones said." (Washington File, April 7, 2006)
And in the intervening month Jones reminded readers that he still wore two commanders' caps and that his energy and broader geopolitical strategy encompassed, still, both south and east:
"'Our strategic goal is to expand...to Eastern Europe and Africa.... -"'The United States is not unchallenged in its quest to gain influence in and access to Africa.'" (Stars And Stripes, March 9, 2006)
And so it remains.
The West, the US in the first instance, is waging an unparalleled drive to retain and expand what military, political and economic domination and monopolies it has wrested from the rest of the world over the past five centuries, and control of the globe's energy resources and their transportation is a vital component of that reckless campaign.
Africa is rapidly shaping up to be a major battleground in that international struggle.
With James Jones as new US National Security chief, complemented by the 'soft power' efforts of former State Department Africa hand Dr. Susan Rice as probable US ambassador to the United Nations, the continent's and the world's guard must not be relaxed.
---
Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. Is the manager of the Stop NATO international email list at: groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/ Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12143
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 26, 2009 5:34:42 GMT 3
[quote author=wanyee board=general thread=3141 post=36767 time=1251232465]......Those who may wish to challenge this argument must begin by challenging its basis (as stated above), BY EITHER REFUTING THAT OBAMA IS PURSUING THE WAR ON TERROR OR REFUTING THAT 9/11 WAS A FALSE-FLAG OPERATION.
[/quote]
Ndugu Wanyee,
With "Obama" in the heading of this thread it would be expected that you would spend sometime talking about Obama. But you keep talking generalities about the treatment of Muslims, the geography of oil, etc. Then you challenge people to say something about Obama in the war on terror, where you have made no specific case at all ... no one but you put Obama in the heading ... so go ahead and tell us about him and his actions which you claim earn him the label you give him with the above heading. We shall react to what you have to say.
When opportunities have come to address Obama's actions, you have disappeared. For example, remember when Obama threatened to veto some bill aimed at funding military jets, and that bill ended up not even making its way to his desk? For that he was not very popular with folks who want the US to be out there shooting guns all the time. And when Job challenged you to explain how someone pursuing the war on terror in the sense you argue he is, you were no show.
Your wishful argument cannot be supported, so I cannot blame you for not having any specifics beyond "... he is pursuing war on terror."
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Aug 27, 2009 2:16:04 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, I have been talking about Obama this entire time, specifically in the context of 9/11-based geopolitics (which you do not seem to want to discuss - for increasingly obvious reasons). The article below and the excerpt thereafter (which I posted on 23rd July 2009), should address the issue that you and Job have raised, regarding Obama and the Military-Industrial-Complex: Obama and the Military: Purely Tactical Disagreements The Role of the US Military-Industrial Complexby Alexander Frolov In his last presidential address, US President D. Eisenhower warned his countrymen against the unchecked growth of influence of the political, ideological, economic, financial, and industrial militarily oriented machine which had emerged in the US by that time. To describe it, he coined the term military-industrial complex which later became commonly adopted. Since then the US military-industrial complex has gained a much greater clout. Quite possibly President Obama is not yet fully aware of the great extent to which the military-industrial complex is able to exert influence on him and his policies, but no doubt he is already being influenced by it. This fact must be taken into account to understand Obama's politics in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military-industrial complex – the world's largest – is not limited to the US armed forces and companies manufacturing weaponry. It also includes the federal and private organizations oriented towards the war, including a number of legislative and executive bodies. It is also fair to say that the US intelligence community belongs to the country's military-industrial complex. The US military-industrial complex has enormous financial resources at its disposal and is extremely influential, largely due to its symbiotic relationship with transnational corporations which routinely employ the US military might and the potential of its intelligence agencies to promote their interests worldwide. The whole enormous monster functions according to its own laws and it takes a tremendous effort to make it adjust its plans. Can President Obama make such an effort? During Obama's presidential campaign his dovish ideas concerning the settlement of conflicts in various parts of the world – mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan - were warmly welcomed by the public and seemed to draw no comments from the military. In the White House, President Obama confirmed that his plan would be to withdraw most of the US forces from Iraq within 16 months. The army generals immediately responded by suggesting a withdrawal within 23 months citing a number of unresolved strategic problems. Eventually a compromise – 19 months – was reached, but options to prolong indefinitely the presence of the US group of forces which is due to stay in Iraq after the general withdrawal in 2010 were invoked at the same time. Evidently Obama expected to meet with opposition from the military in dealing with Afghanistan as well. To ensure clarity from the start he called his plan the “withdrawal strategy”, but judging by the information and comments in the US media, what we are going to witness is not exactly a withdrawal. The military hold that the situation with the Talibs would turn hopeless unless the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are built up. The US Administration agreed and decided to increase the current 38,000 US and 25,000 NATO contingents in Afghanistan by 17,000 and 4,000 servicemen respectively. Unlike the case of Iraq, no specific withdrawal timetable for Afghanistan is even being discussed. Gen. David D. McKiernan who served recently as the US forces commander in Afghanistan said that a strengthened US contingent should stay in the country for at least another five years. This would altogether mean a 12-year US military presence in Afghanistan. Other military commanders mentioned even longer terms. It appears that the notorious Bin Laden with his permanent threats is needed by Washington to justify the US military presence in Afghanistan. And still, why is it that the US army – despite its servicemen getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan – is reluctant to withdraw from the counties? Is the new US Administration interested in resolving the problems in them or is it simply trying to maintain status quo that makes it possible for the US to pursue its own agenda in the Middle East and South Asia? The first of the above must be true judging by the statements made by Obama, but if put under scrutiny his strategy looks more like a disguise for the same old politics implemented by former US President G. Bush. Various interests make the US stay in the two regions. First, the Pentagon has to account for the enormous amounts of taxpayers' money it is absorbing. Secondly, there are also business interests involved. It is no secret that security is one of the most serious problems confronting oil companies in Iraq, and the US army – jointly with private security contractors – certainly can help. Over more than five years of the US occupation of Iraq quite a few US army servicemen, including those from the top command, started their own business in Iraq. Commercial interests make them want the US presence in Iraq to continue at any cost. Obama is coming under pressure from the military-industrial complex not only because of his politics in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the moderate plans to downsize certain defense programs are drawing strong criticism, especially from the ranks of Republican politicians. James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe from Oklahoma said: “President Obama is disarming America. Our sons and daughters are risking their lives fighting an enemy whose sole purpose is the destruction of our country and our way of life, while their president disarms America”2. Speaking recently at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, John Cornyn, a Republican Senator from Texas, accused Obama's Administration of attempting “to cash in a peace dividend” and weakening the US defense. He said that “great powers, namely China and Russia, are pursuing independent military modernization programs to improve their military capabilities with the intention of rivaling the United States” while Obama's Administration is cutting the defense budget in the name of domestic priorities. As for cutting the defense budget, that is clearly an overstatement. According to a report published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US military spending grew by 9.7% in 2008 and reached the astronomic figure of $607 bn (42% of the world's total). Compare: China, the country with the world's second largest military budget, spends about $120 bn on its defense. Sen. Cornyn was discontent that in 2008 Pentagon got $50 bn less than it was promised. Besides, there is a plan not to buy the costly F-22 jet fighters and to stop manufacturing the C-17 strategic airlifters. However, lobbyists ignore the fact that the inefficient programs are being cut on Pentagon own suggestion. At the same time, a boost awaits more modern programs such as the production of the F-35 fighter and the missile defense systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles at the initial phase of flight. There are no reasons to regard Obama as a dove and a proponent of massive disarmament, though conflicts between him and the military-industrial complex are possible. The disagreements are purely tactical: there is a growing understanding in the ranks of the US establishment that the US is gradually losing its grip on global processes. What can it do to reverse the trend? There may be tactical disagreements, but there is unanimity among the US political class that this can be done only on the basis of building up the US military might and raising the potential of the US army to a new and higher level. SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13976--- Excerpt:“In a manner reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s New Cold War policies, Obama has vastly increased the military budget, increased the number of combat troops, targeted new regions for military intervention and backed military coups in regions traditionally controlled by the US…Obama’s rollback strategy is evident from his very first pronouncements, promising to reassert US dominance (‘leadership’) in the Middle East, his projection of massive military power in Afghanistan and military expansion in Pakistan and the destabilization of regimes through deep intervention by proxies as in Iran and Honduras. Obama’s pursuit of the rollback strategy operates a multi-track policy of overt military intervention, covert ‘civil society’ operations and soft-sell, seemingly benign diplomatic rhetoric, which relies heavily on mass media propaganda. Major ongoing events illustrate the rollback policies in action…In Afghanistan, Obama has more than doubled the US military forces from 32,000 to 68,000. In the first week of July his military commanders launched the biggest single military offensive in decades in the southern Afghan province of Helmand to displace indigenous resistance and governance. In Pakistan, the Obama-Clinton-Holbrooke regime successfully put maximum pressure on their newly installed client Zedari regime to launch a massive military offensive and rollback the long-standing influence of Islamic resistance forces in the Northwest frontier regions, while US drones and Special Forces commandoes routinely bomb and assault villages and local Pashtun leaders suspected of supporting the resistance. In Iraq, the Obama regime engages in a farcical ploy, reconfiguring the urban map of Baghdad to include US military bases and operations and pass off the result as “retiring troops’ to their barracks”. Obama’s multi-billion-dollar investment in long-term, large-scale military infrastructure, including bases, airfields and compounds speaks to a ‘permanent’ imperial presence, not to his campaign promises of a programmed withdrawal. While ‘staging’ fixed election between US-certified client candidates is the norm in Iraq and Afghanistan where the presence of US troops guarantees a colonial victory, in Iran and Honduras, Washington resorts to covert operations to destabilize or overthrow incumbent Presidents who do not support Obama’s rollback policies...” [ Obama’s Rollback Strategy: Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the Boomerang Effect) - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14291]. --- This thread is based on the following argument:1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)In reality, “the US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region…The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan)…The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order” (The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347).N.B: "By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed…We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight" (Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” / hoax / deception (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax.Those who may wish to challenge this argument must begin by challenging its basis (as stated above), BY EITHER REFUTING THAT OBAMA IS PURSUING THE WAR ON TERROR OR REFUTING THAT 9/11 WAS A FALSE-FLAG OPERATION.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Aug 27, 2009 2:55:34 GMT 3
Win this debate on those same premises you've based it Ndugu, go on and just win it. I will be the first to congratulate you!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 27, 2009 6:40:16 GMT 3
Win this debate on those same premises you've based it Ndugu, go on and just win it. I will be the first to congratulate you! It has proven very difficult to ignore Wanyee. ... It would be even more difficult to ridicule him. Where would one start, really?
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Aug 27, 2009 19:22:08 GMT 3
Win this debate on those same premises you've based it Ndugu, go on and just win it. I will be the first to congratulate you! It has proven very difficult to ignore Wanyee. ... It would be even more difficult to ridicule him. Where would one start, really? Yeah Brotha Man K, I'm also trying very hard to comprehend what Ndugu Wanyee means on his signature. He is now insinuating that we on Jukwaa ignored him, then ridiculed him and thereafter went on to fight him! No thread has ever gotten so much attention from me like this one. Jukwaa is never in the habit of ridiculing people with opposing views and certainly no one has fought Wanyee although we know that all he is trying to feed us on is pure propaganda extracted from some conspiracy theory websites!! That is how liberal Jukwaa is!!! Hence my desire that Ndugu Wanyee wins this debate, but with FACTS please!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 27, 2009 20:55:57 GMT 3
It has proven very difficult to ignore Wanyee. ... It would be even more difficult to ridicule him. Where would one start, really? ............. No thread has ever gotten so much attention from me like this one. Likewise, no other debate has attracted so much of my attention. You said it. Unfortunately Ndugu Wanyee trusts the theorists so much that he can care less that facts do not bear them witness. Since Ndugu Wanyee will not argue his views with debatable propositions there can be no better conclusion. Kudos! We know what Wanyee would give us if we insist on FACTS ... another lengthy column of unspecified claims from the usual sources. ... and as usual, with no original extension of thought, except the 2 lines repeated over and over ".... 911 a false flag ..., and Obama advancing war ...".
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Aug 28, 2009 2:23:30 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
This thread is based on two very simple facts:
1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)
Now, can either of you challenge any of the above (or both) as being factual?
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Aug 28, 2009 20:28:49 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu, This thread is based on two very simple facts: 1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag) Now, can either of you challenge any of the above (or both) as being factual? Ndugu Wanyee, I will be very brief on this since I do not intend to waste time writing a lengthy essay to which you will, as usual, not respond. Here we go. 1: It is a fact that Obama is pursuing the war on terror (note: no quotes on the words the war on terror). 2: The war on terror is NOT a hoax / deception, because Kenyans (our own relatives, friends, mothers, fathers etc etc) and Tanzanians died in large numbers due to terrorist activities!! 3: Hence there is no Obama deception since terrorism is a reality!! I remember my teacher calling that analysis by deduction!! It is really that simple. I hope that puts the debate to rest unless you can finally put your cards on the table for all to see. Currently, we are not able to see what you might be seeing. There you go bro!! Adios Amigo!!
|
|