Afghanistan massacre: Lone nut theory?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2108798,00.html

Afghans expressed doubt Monday that a single U.S. Army soldier could have shot and killed 16 civilians in houses over a mile (2 kilometers) apart and burned the bodies afterward.

"It is not possible for only one American soldier to come out of his base, kill a number of people far away, burn the bodies, go to another house and kill civilians there, then walk at least 2 kilometers and enter another house, kill civilians and burn them," said Ayubi.

Abdul Ghani, a local councilman in Panjwai district, said local villagers reported seeing two groups of soldiers.

"The villagers said they were hearing machine gun fire and pistol fire from different directions," said Ghani.

The statement quoted a 15-year-old survivor named Rafiullah, who was shot in the leg, as telling Karzai in a phone call that "soldiers" broke into his house, woke up his family and began shooting them.

The U.S. military has said there is no indication that more than one soldier carried out the attacks in two villages in Kandahar province before dawn Sunday.

No indication at all, apart from logic, logistics and eyewitness and survivor accounts.

Heavens, things must be bad in Afghanistan if the damage-control cover story - a mass murdering psycopath - is better than whatever the truth might be.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2108798,00.html

Afghans expressed doubt Monday that a single U.S. Army soldier could have shot and killed 16 civilians in houses over a mile (2 kilometers) apart and burned the bodies afterward.

"It is not possible for only one American soldier to come out of his base, kill a number of people far away, burn the bodies, go to another house and kill civilians there, then walk at least 2 kilometers and enter another house, kill civilians and burn them," said Ayubi.

Abdul Ghani, a local councilman in Panjwai district, said local villagers reported seeing two groups of soldiers.

"The villagers said they were hearing machine gun fire and pistol fire from different directions," said Ghani.

The statement quoted a 15-year-old survivor named Rafiullah, who was shot in the leg, as telling Karzai in a phone call that "soldiers" broke into his house, woke up his family and began shooting them.

The U.S. military has said there is no indication that more than one soldier carried out the attacks in two villages in Kandahar province before dawn Sunday.

No indication at all, apart from logic, logistics and eyewitness and survivor accounts.

Heavens, things must be bad in Afghanistan if the damage-control cover story - a mass murdering psycopath - is better than whatever the truth might be.

Afghanistan massacre: Lone nut theory?

Christopher Hitchens Catches his Death of Cancer

I'm not some kind of droog kicking drunks in the street. One's opponents should be sober at least and preferably in good health also. But it's hard to avoid this remarkable statement from Hitchens:

I'm glad we're not having an inquest now, as we would be, into why we allowed a Rwanda or a Congo to develop on the Gulf, an imploding Iraq right in front of our eyes, a vortex of violence and meltdown, a whole society beggared and fractured and traumatised, waiting to fall to pieces.

But that is exactly what happened in Iraq, as a direct result of the illegal and criminal invasion which you, the traitor Hitchens, aggressively supported. Surely you, Hitchens, cannot be unaware of this fact?


Hitchens:

One of the bitter aspects of that is, well, I put in 60 years at the coalface, I worked very hard. In the last few years I've got a fair amount of recognition for it. In my opinion, actually, rather more than I deserve. Certainly more than I expected. And I could have looked forward to a few years of, shall we say, cruising speed, you know, just, as it were, relishing that, enjoying it.

Hitchens sold his soul to the devil to get his reward of money, fame, success and recognition. Instead, he got terminal cancer.

Truly pitiful.

Hitchens decided to switch his support to the US Empire over the criminal, baseless, counterproductive, disastrous, genocidal Iraq war.

It's like someone who decides to support Soviet Russia, not during the 1917 Revolution or the 1941 Great Patriotic war, but during the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or the 1979 Afghanistan invasion.

You would have thought even the slowest of them would know better by then.

God didn't strike Hitchens down with cancer over his atheism or imperialism, he did to to give us a bitter, ironic laugh at this World-Historical clown figure.

I'm not some kind of droog kicking drunks in the street. One's opponents should be sober at least and preferably in good health also. But it's hard to avoid this remarkable statement from Hitchens:

I'm glad we're not having an inquest now, as we would be, into why we allowed a Rwanda or a Congo to develop on the Gulf, an imploding Iraq right in front of our eyes, a vortex of violence and meltdown, a whole society beggared and fractured and traumatised, waiting to fall to pieces.

But that is exactly what happened in Iraq, as a direct result of the illegal and criminal invasion which you, the traitor Hitchens, aggressively supported. Surely you, Hitchens, cannot be unaware of this fact?


Hitchens:

One of the bitter aspects of that is, well, I put in 60 years at the coalface, I worked very hard. In the last few years I've got a fair amount of recognition for it. In my opinion, actually, rather more than I deserve. Certainly more than I expected. And I could have looked forward to a few years of, shall we say, cruising speed, you know, just, as it were, relishing that, enjoying it.

Hitchens sold his soul to the devil to get his reward of money, fame, success and recognition. Instead, he got terminal cancer.

Truly pitiful.

Hitchens decided to switch his support to the US Empire over the criminal, baseless, counterproductive, disastrous, genocidal Iraq war.

It's like someone who decides to support Soviet Russia, not during the 1917 Revolution or the 1941 Great Patriotic war, but during the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or the 1979 Afghanistan invasion.

You would have thought even the slowest of them would know better by then.

God didn't strike Hitchens down with cancer over his atheism or imperialism, he did to to give us a bitter, ironic laugh at this World-Historical clown figure.

Christopher Hitchens Catches his Death of Cancer

Terror 'Attack' that Wasnt

Afghanistan cannot be surrendered as a training base of unlimited potential to terrorists as it was prior to 2001

said Prime Minister Rudd. But what if war against and occupation of Middle Eastern countries is the cause of terrorism?

And what if the war in Afghanistan, nearly ten years old already, goes on for decades?

And also, it was the US, not Australia, that was attacked on 9/11. Australia does not want or need to get involved in the imperialist wars of the US or any other country. The proper response to terrorist incidents is police action under international law and redressing the grievances people have, not random war and killing of people and countries that may or mostly may not have had anything whatever to do with it.

This statement of motive for the alleged attack against an army base is plain enough and typical for the jihadis:

One of five men charged with plotting the alleged suicide attack, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, delivered a defiant outburst when he appeared in a Melbourne court on terrorist charges yesterday.

''You call us terrorists,'' he said. ''I've never killed anyone in my life.''

But he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court the Australian Army ''kills innocent people'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During his rant, Fattal, 33, also said Israelis forcibly took land from Palestinians and said he wanted to leave Australia.

So why doesn't Mr Rudd:

1. Withdraw all Australian forces permanently from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally.

2. Stop supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and call for boycott, divestment and sanctions if Israel does not withdraw all soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line.

The Australian Government will obviously do no such thing, and the reason is that we are not committed to a 'war on terror', we are committed (virtually as an appendage, not even with the dignity of UK 'spear carrier' status) to the global hegemonic ambitions of the United States. In this sense Rudd is no different from Howard.

In continuing the war effort against Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and condoning the occupation of those countries and of Palestine Rudd is simply creating a motive for vengeance and thus directly exposing Australia and Australians to an unnecessary risk of terrorist attack, small though that may be.

Afghanistan cannot be surrendered as a training base of unlimited potential to terrorists as it was prior to 2001

said Prime Minister Rudd. But what if war against and occupation of Middle Eastern countries is the cause of terrorism?

And what if the war in Afghanistan, nearly ten years old already, goes on for decades?

And also, it was the US, not Australia, that was attacked on 9/11. Australia does not want or need to get involved in the imperialist wars of the US or any other country. The proper response to terrorist incidents is police action under international law and redressing the grievances people have, not random war and killing of people and countries that may or mostly may not have had anything whatever to do with it.

This statement of motive for the alleged attack against an army base is plain enough and typical for the jihadis:

One of five men charged with plotting the alleged suicide attack, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, delivered a defiant outburst when he appeared in a Melbourne court on terrorist charges yesterday.

''You call us terrorists,'' he said. ''I've never killed anyone in my life.''

But he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court the Australian Army ''kills innocent people'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During his rant, Fattal, 33, also said Israelis forcibly took land from Palestinians and said he wanted to leave Australia.

So why doesn't Mr Rudd:

1. Withdraw all Australian forces permanently from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally.

2. Stop supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and call for boycott, divestment and sanctions if Israel does not withdraw all soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line.

The Australian Government will obviously do no such thing, and the reason is that we are not committed to a 'war on terror', we are committed (virtually as an appendage, not even with the dignity of UK 'spear carrier' status) to the global hegemonic ambitions of the United States. In this sense Rudd is no different from Howard.

In continuing the war effort against Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and condoning the occupation of those countries and of Palestine Rudd is simply creating a motive for vengeance and thus directly exposing Australia and Australians to an unnecessary risk of terrorist attack, small though that may be.

Terror 'Attack' that Wasnt

Al-Qaeda No.3 Threatens America

Ranting and railing, fingerpointing and threatening, Al-Qaeda No.3 Adam Yehiye Gadahn aka Azzam al-Amriki aka Adam the American launches a tirade (in English) against Bush and the 'Crusader Coalition.' Bombastic demands and threats are issued in more or less equal measure. Bush is attacked as a 'babykiller and war criminal' who sent the US on a 'death march to breakdown and disintegration.' Bush leads an 'empire of evil' and his crusade is a 'colossal failure'. He is 'losing on all fronts, and losing big time.' He 'lives in a cocoon of his own making, and prefers to remain ignorant.'

Australia gets an indirect mention as a 'loyal but stoopid ally'.

Well, if the US wants peace the terms have been pretty much laid down, according to Al-Qaeda. All they have to do is close their empire and withdraw from Muslim lands, 'from Afghanistan to Zanzibar'; stop aid for 'the bastard state of Israel', leave Islamic countries alone; end propaganda to Islam; release all Muslim prisoners etc. And the big news is, the US doesnt even have to give up its freedoms! All in all, not a bad deal for Americans, but of course totally uninteresting for the ruling corporate/political elite.

Ranting and railing, fingerpointing and threatening, Al-Qaeda No.3 Adam Yehiye Gadahn aka Azzam al-Amriki aka Adam the American launches a tirade (in English) against Bush and the 'Crusader Coalition.' Bombastic demands and threats are issued in more or less equal measure. Bush is attacked as a 'babykiller and war criminal' who sent the US on a 'death march to breakdown and disintegration.' Bush leads an 'empire of evil' and his crusade is a 'colossal failure'. He is 'losing on all fronts, and losing big time.' He 'lives in a cocoon of his own making, and prefers to remain ignorant.'

Australia gets an indirect mention as a 'loyal but stoopid ally'.

Well, if the US wants peace the terms have been pretty much laid down, according to Al-Qaeda. All they have to do is close their empire and withdraw from Muslim lands, 'from Afghanistan to Zanzibar'; stop aid for 'the bastard state of Israel', leave Islamic countries alone; end propaganda to Islam; release all Muslim prisoners etc. And the big news is, the US doesnt even have to give up its freedoms! All in all, not a bad deal for Americans, but of course totally uninteresting for the ruling corporate/political elite.

Al-Qaeda No.3 Threatens America

Terrorism and Fascism on the rise in the UK: Intimidation, hatespeech and violence. One wonders whether Mr Blair is paying attention to the inherent 'threat to our values.'

Terrorism and Fascism on the rise in the UK: Intimidation, hatespeech and violence. One wonders whether Mr Blair is paying attention to the inherent 'threat to our values.'

London August Terror Bomb plot a hoax: Another article questioning this plot. Naturally this has the most serious implications. It would appear to be the case under late Western democracy that many fundamental institutions have been politicised and corrupted. Not only the Government, but also the intelligence agencies, the Defence Force, the police, the bureacracy, the corporate media cannot or ought not be trusted. The judiciary and the scientific community in the form of the university system is under sustained attack as well by a right wing that is unprincipled and unscrupulous - just a mechanical reflection of power and wealth in the political and societal spheres.

London August Terror Bomb plot a hoax: Another article questioning this plot. Naturally this has the most serious implications. It would appear to be the case under late Western democracy that many fundamental institutions have been politicised and corrupted. Not only the Government, but also the intelligence agencies, the Defence Force, the police, the bureacracy, the corporate media cannot or ought not be trusted. The judiciary and the scientific community in the form of the university system is under sustained attack as well by a right wing that is unprincipled and unscrupulous - just a mechanical reflection of power and wealth in the political and societal spheres.

Iraq War Causes Massive Increase in Terrorism

So much for the phony 'war on terror'.... The graph says it all but you can read Larry Johnson's article also. "No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts by John McCain and others [John Howard?] to discount the significance of that factor by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are disingenuous."

So much for the phony 'war on terror'.... The graph says it all but you can read Larry Johnson's article also. "No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts by John McCain and others [John Howard?] to discount the significance of that factor by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are disingenuous."

Iraq War Causes Massive Increase in Terrorism

Torture and permanent detention without trial legalised in the United States

Argues Glenn Greenwald: "There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period."

"I fully understand, but ultimately disagree with, the viewpoint, well-argued by Hunter and others, that this bill constitutes merely another step on a path we've long been on, rather than a fundamental and wholly new level of tyranny.... There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest."

The question has been asked, what did Bush do to break John McCain that a North Vietnamese prison did not?

Along with the doctrine of 'preemptive war' and permanent military domination as openly posted on the official Whitehouse website, this is a shameful thing which will take a long time for the United States to ever live down.

* One might think that under the US Constitution, it would be impossible to 'legalise' such things, but the US Supreme Court is one vote away from the 'Unitary Executive' - the US version of the 'Fuhrer Principle', that anything is legal if the President does it.

Argues Glenn Greenwald: "There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period."

"I fully understand, but ultimately disagree with, the viewpoint, well-argued by Hunter and others, that this bill constitutes merely another step on a path we've long been on, rather than a fundamental and wholly new level of tyranny.... There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest."

The question has been asked, what did Bush do to break John McCain that a North Vietnamese prison did not?

Along with the doctrine of 'preemptive war' and permanent military domination as openly posted on the official Whitehouse website, this is a shameful thing which will take a long time for the United States to ever live down.

* One might think that under the US Constitution, it would be impossible to 'legalise' such things, but the US Supreme Court is one vote away from the 'Unitary Executive' - the US version of the 'Fuhrer Principle', that anything is legal if the President does it.

Torture and permanent detention without trial legalised in the United States

'War on Terror' failing

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

This can be added to a seemingly endless series of expert reports pointing out the obvious that (predictably) the 'war on terror' is generating more terrorism. In fact of course, the 'war on terror' is an utter fraud, which is why the term should not be used (except for the purpose of deconstructing it). The reality is a classic imperialist/colonialist war against the Middle East for the overall strategic purpose of controlling the world's energy reserves. At present Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked and occupied; Lebanon has been attacked; and Syria and especially Iran are in the firing line.

The Anglo-saxons governments maintain that they are attacking us because they 'hate our freedoms'. In reality, they are attacking us because we are killing and repressing them. It is a classic asymmetric (guerilla) war of resistance against imperial repression and occupation. The Anglo-saxon official line is transparently false, and is nothing other than the Nazi technique of the Big Lie: if the lie is big enough, and told confidently and frequently enough, people will not believe that their own Governments could be so corrupt as to tell such massive lies, and thus assume that it must be true.

Nevertheless it is an insult to the intelligence as well as a warcrime and crime against humanity; and Bush, Blair and Howard have earned the lasting contempt of all decent people. Liars, criminals - and in view of the immense strategic failure of the Iraq invasion - idiots.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

This can be added to a seemingly endless series of expert reports pointing out the obvious that (predictably) the 'war on terror' is generating more terrorism. In fact of course, the 'war on terror' is an utter fraud, which is why the term should not be used (except for the purpose of deconstructing it). The reality is a classic imperialist/colonialist war against the Middle East for the overall strategic purpose of controlling the world's energy reserves. At present Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked and occupied; Lebanon has been attacked; and Syria and especially Iran are in the firing line.

The Anglo-saxons governments maintain that they are attacking us because they 'hate our freedoms'. In reality, they are attacking us because we are killing and repressing them. It is a classic asymmetric (guerilla) war of resistance against imperial repression and occupation. The Anglo-saxon official line is transparently false, and is nothing other than the Nazi technique of the Big Lie: if the lie is big enough, and told confidently and frequently enough, people will not believe that their own Governments could be so corrupt as to tell such massive lies, and thus assume that it must be true.

Nevertheless it is an insult to the intelligence as well as a warcrime and crime against humanity; and Bush, Blair and Howard have earned the lasting contempt of all decent people. Liars, criminals - and in view of the immense strategic failure of the Iraq invasion - idiots.

'War on Terror' failing

The Anti-Empire Report: William Blum also expresses scepticism about the London 'terror bomb plot' and discusses some other, similar incidents.

HL Mencken made the memorable remark: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

When first encountered, this remark might be regarded as a witty quip with a grain of truth, but of course not to be taken literally. However, with a bit more experience, one begins to wonder. Look at the scares of our times: the Great Red scare, the McCarthyite witchhunt, the Vietnam domino madness, the phony 'war on terra' - not to mention the drug war, the 'rising tide of crime', the threat of the boat people etc. We are looking at a regular method of government, systematically pursued again and again.

When Bush, Blair and Howard launched their 'war on terror' following 9/11 (enthusiastically embraced by all the usual culprits such as Peter Costello as a 'long war' or '50 year war') they were not breaking new ground or acting unusually. The invasion of Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11); the attack on civil liberties; the frightening of the population; the big lies about 'why they hate us'; the attack on Islamic civilisation; the denial that Western interest in the Gulf had anything to do with oil: - all simply part of a systematic method of governance. Perhaps its been an unpleasant surprise what a disaster the invasion of Iraq has proved to be (a bit like Crassus invading Mesopotamia?) but otherwise the whole thing is nothing but business-as-usual from a well-tested playbook.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - HL Mencken

The Anti-Empire Report: William Blum also expresses scepticism about the London 'terror bomb plot' and discusses some other, similar incidents.

HL Mencken made the memorable remark: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

When first encountered, this remark might be regarded as a witty quip with a grain of truth, but of course not to be taken literally. However, with a bit more experience, one begins to wonder. Look at the scares of our times: the Great Red scare, the McCarthyite witchhunt, the Vietnam domino madness, the phony 'war on terra' - not to mention the drug war, the 'rising tide of crime', the threat of the boat people etc. We are looking at a regular method of government, systematically pursued again and again.

When Bush, Blair and Howard launched their 'war on terror' following 9/11 (enthusiastically embraced by all the usual culprits such as Peter Costello as a 'long war' or '50 year war') they were not breaking new ground or acting unusually. The invasion of Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11); the attack on civil liberties; the frightening of the population; the big lies about 'why they hate us'; the attack on Islamic civilisation; the denial that Western interest in the Gulf had anything to do with oil: - all simply part of a systematic method of governance. Perhaps its been an unpleasant surprise what a disaster the invasion of Iraq has proved to be (a bit like Crassus invading Mesopotamia?) but otherwise the whole thing is nothing but business-as-usual from a well-tested playbook.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - HL Mencken