Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Saturday, July 09, 2005

round and round the mulberry bush...

My attention has been drawn to this comment I added to a post I made deep in the bowels of this blog:
Now you've got America forcing globalised totalitarian capitalism (in the guise of "freedom" amd "democracy" onto the rest of the world via the World Bank, the IMF, and even US Aid. And if that fails, it's time for those two big sticks, economic sanctions and military intervention. The local (target) population has no say.

You've got one brand of (highly discredited) economics being imposed on the whole world and no one gets to vote on it. That's democracy? Big Business has hijacked democracy. You can only have a "democracy" that's Big Business friendly. I hate that kind of totalitarian brand of politics and in that sense I hate America and those who blindly support this shit.

And how can it be stopped if you are prevented from voting against it? You can't even debate it. They will not discuss it. They just deny, lie and obfuscate and that's the killing of democracy right there.

So militant pacifists such as myself yo-yo between ranting, vebally challenging Americans (and their cohorts), or plunging into depresssion, whilst the more articulate and literate people write books on these issues. But the great brainwashed masses won't read them and your "education" systems don't want you to read them.

Less pacifistic militants resort to vandalism, sabotage and guerilla warfare (neatly dismissed as "terrorism") and in the absence of a democratic process inclusive of their voice, I cannot blame them. We know they are fighting for the very survival of their human rights. In a sense they are the last of the freedom fighters.

If there were genuine democratic outlets for their concerns and ideas, I would condemn their violence, but given the seriousness and the urgency of the threat against them and the total lack of genuine debate, negotiation and representation being afforded them, I can only empathise with them and hope that they choose more peaceful means of fighting for their cause, but people being brutalised and victimised rarely resort to "enlightened" methods of resistance (Human Nature 101). And the prime cause for all this lies with "The West" and its top bully and instigator, America the "Brave".
What's this got to do with the London bombings this week? Everything. If these acts of terrorism were indeed the work of al Qaeda carried out in the name of the world's aggrieved and disenfranchised, I condemn them.

Deliberately blowing up innocent civilians is reprehensible. It discredits their cause. If they think violence and murder are justified, then they should at least target the prime instruments of the power with which they have their grievance.

If they must kill people (and I question that), then they should target WTO, IMF, World Bank, or G8 personnel, or the military and police engaged in the direct protection of these criminals. At least then they could perhaps (and that's a very big perhaps) be understood under the caveat of a freedom fighter directly attacking a perceived oppressor.

But they should not under any circumstances target the public randomly and deliberately. That kind of action is inspired by the belief that two wrongs make a right (and so, by the way, is the killing of "justifiable" targets). That is murderous hypocrisy. That plays straight into the hands of the very power they are trying to defeat. It legitimises their enemy. It affords sympathy for their enemy and alienates their own supporters. It is absolutely counter-productive. In a word, it is insane.

On the other hand, if al Qaeda were a "black ops" puppet organisation, infiltrated and influenced by agents provocateur controlled by the CIA, or if the bombings were carried out, not by al Qaeda, but a black ops unit of the CIA passing itself off as al Qaeda, then
it all starts to make perfect sense.
Conspiracy theory?
The American mind could not possibly conceive such a plan?
Oh really?
You really think so?
Then Google this and then get back to me and we'll chat further, my little naïve friend.

Review again the footage of Blair's address at Gleneagles immediately following the bombings. Did you notice the smirk on Bush's face as he was standing behind Blair? He looked as if he was about to burst out laughing at some secret joke. What was that all about?


Anonymous Kent said...

As many commenters (some very unreasonable and racist, others very sane and reasoned) have been saying, Islamic terrorists in particular don't seem to operate in a particularly sane way. I mean, anyone with half a brain would haved realised that September 11 >> uprooting of the Taliban. Same here, as you say.

I will remain naive and steer clear of the conspiracy theories. Why would the CIA bother running such a risk in the face of every other intelligence service in the world, when there is plenty of undeniably real terrorist activity going on (points to Palestine, points to Iraq).

As for Bush, well. He was just looking for "My Pet Goat Returns" to read to his fellow world leaders.

July 09, 2005 11:35 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Kent, you're right to fight to the last to retain a visage of sanity. I, however, have lost mine and therefore am free to theorise as I wish. :-)

If Islamist freedom fighters are not sane (and I agree they are not) then it may be that successive Machiavellian machinations by the Brits, the French, the Israelis, the Russians, and more recently the Americans, have had the cumulative effect of tipping them over the edge.

You might recall that it was the Americans, in the eighties, who whipped Islamist fundamentalist extremism into a white-hot state in order to "motivate" bin Laden's Mujahedeen so that they could be used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. The Americans created and supported the Taliban. The Taliban are a creature of America. Bit of a joke to now blame Islam for this monstrous aberration.

Well, now the US is the oil and gas thieving, mass-murdering aggressor in their region. Did you realy think these dudes would just roll over and say "Take me from behind. Oh yesssssssss"?

Perhaps if everyone left them to sort out their own affairs for a century or two, the rest of Islam might help them calm down a bit. But no, right now we must mass-murder them in order to steal their oil and gas, so that's not about to happen, is it Kent?. And if they go nuts we'll use that as an excuse to totally waste then, yeah? And we'll call it "the war on terror".

America needs an excuse (justification) to invade/control the rich oil and gas regions of the middle east in order for it to continue on its evil path. The CIA has always manipulated foreign countries to facilitate the American agenda. It is brutal and psychopathic in its pursuit of its goals. If it means manipulating a group like al Qaeda (e.g. via agents provocateur)to carry out heinous acts in order to justify American "intervention", the CIA would not bat an eyelid, Kent. Read Blum, Chomsky, Pilger, et al.

Palestine? Palestinian freedom fighters would more likely just target Israel. If they went farther afield, they'd more likely target America because without American military and financial aid, Israel would have been a basket case long ago. So I don't think London was done by the Palestinians.

Iraq? Yes, I think Iraq could feature in this in the sense that Britain might be being punished for being the major co-invader and mass-murdering oil-thief in Iraq. If you go and take part in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis you would indeed be naïve to expect them not to retaliate. How would the British feel if they suffered the size of death toll which they have inflicted on the Iraqis? Hmmm? They squeal like stuck pigs after fifty-odd dead British civilians, yet they did not proportionally howl the rafters down when they killed Iraqi civilians by the thousands. They even convinced themselves that this was for the Iraqis' own good.

Perhaps you harbour beliefs superiority, Kent? If so, is it because you are white? Christian? Anglo? What!?!?! What would explain that which prevents you from "walking a mile in their shoes"?

You seem to be interested in history. Well, history is being written right now, but I wonder what "version" of history you really want see written. And I wonder what beliefs would "shape" that "version". You seem to be quite content to allow Bush and Blair to write it...

July 10, 2005 6:19 PM  
Anonymous Kent said...

Mm yeah I don't disagree with you. It is more than a joke to blame Islam for terrorism like observa was doing over at LP - these guys (if we just assume for a moment that September 11, Madrid, etc were indeed done by Islamic fundamentalists) are terrorists first, criminals second, psychopaths third, and Muslims last. Indeed the US is rooting over the rest of the world in its search for petroleum, and indeed Afghanisation etc.

But the US and the CIA - much as they'd like to think they do - don't control the world, and this is not all some stage. I did Google that Operation Northwoods link you gave, but I don't see it as compelling. So (maybe) the CIA tried to orchestrate a Cuban war with terrorism. But they didn't, did they? There was no stage. There was the failed invasion, there was the missile crisis - these were real things, not orchestrated by anyone. But I suppose that's where irrefutable conspiracy theories kick in, and we'll simply have to part company.

I appreciate your anger, in all your rhetorical questions - I feel it too, though not as strongly as you. Bush is an incredibly dangerous but thankfully moronic man - Blair on the other hand seems to suffer from serious delusion. But then there are few politicans and world leaders that don't make me despair.

I'm not too sure what you mean by your second-to-last paragraph - I certainly admit to Anglo inclinations, I admit to that. But they're at least somewhat reasoned. I should say here and now that I think anyone who bases their behaviour on sheer faith and tattered thousand-year-old works of fiction from is a complete lunatic, and that includes pretty much every incarnation of a Muslim, Christian, or Jew. They seem to cause all the bloody trouble.

Incidentally, I like history because all you can wreck are reputations. The lives of real people aren't at stake. Politics is too real for me, too bloody. You've got to have foundations to fight in politics, and I just don't have them.

July 11, 2005 12:08 AM  
Anonymous Kent said...

Well, it's been nice knowing you and everything, but I can't live with myself and "Afghanisation". I'm off to hang myself now.

July 11, 2005 12:09 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Kent, is your last comment saying, "don't bother replying, I'm not interested in what you've got to say"? Because if so, I'm replying anyway, for the benefit of readers who are interested.

You raise two important issues:

(1) The US don't control the world.

Is the US trying to control the whole world? No. Is the US trying to control those areas of the world where it is "in its interests" to exert control? You betcha!!! I think this can be agreed upon without incurring the label of "conspiracy theorist".

(2) Operation Northwoods is irrelevant to 9/11

I disagree. It shows that American military planners at the very highest level are capable of planning major terrorist acts upon their own people if they think it will help in their objectives.

In 1962, America was led by JFK, a liberal, who refused to let the military set the agenda, and he personally and emphatically quashed Operation Northwoods (interestingly, 18 months later JFK was assassinated, and his refusal to get tough with Cuba has repeately been mooted as the reason, and the CIA as the agency responsible which might explain the mysterious inability to solve this crime.) Northwoods was the work of right-wing extremists who had gained control of the military (and, it follows, the CIA.)

In 2001, America was led by GWB, an extreme right-wing imbecile and military nut. The military was once again controlled by right wing extremists. (Can you now spot what's different between 1962 and 2001?) Do you think these people would have any qualms resurrecting the sort of thinking that led to Op Northwoods?

I think it is naïve to dismiss a Northwoods-like scenario as mere unfounded conspiracy theory.

Why did I imply you might be prejudiced? Easy. You call them Islamic terrorists, thereby linking terrorism with Islam. I doubt that you would have called the IRA Catholic terrorists. That you label them as terrorists rather than freedom fighters is of course the other reason I think you're prejudiced against Islamic or Arabic people. When white caucasian Anglo, French or Zionist military/political murderers do it, then of course it ain't evil and it ain't terrorism, it's just "fighting for freedom". Right?

Wrong !!!

That's what I was getting at when I suggested you might be allowing yourself to be blinded by the evils of your own cultural brainwashing.

About the history/politcs thing: Having an interest in history is having an interest in a changable interpretation of unchangable past events.

Having an interest in politcs is having an interest in shaping the future before it becomes mere history.

I fail to see how one can say with any integrity that one is passionately for democracy and then not take the time to keep oneself politically informed and aware.

Uninformed voters don't elect the right leaders. With democracy comes, I think, the social obligation to inform oneself politically and in fact to become politically active all of the time, not just rocking up on election day full of media hype or your best mate's opinion, to cast a sheep-like vote.

July 11, 2005 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Kent said...

my last comment was a spelling correction of myself - Afghanisation is not Afghanistan, and I hate making such mistakes. it was a joke, sadly appears to have gone amiss.

and sorry, but I can't do the arguing thing here any more. you've built such an enormous straw man I can hardly breathe. apparently I linked Islam to terrorism and thus this is evidence I am prejudiced against arabs and muslims (a claim which closely resembles a steaming pile of crap afaik). so i'll repeat what i already said on this thread: "these guys are terrorists first, criminals second, psychopaths third, and Muslims last".

July 11, 2005 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Theo said...

Kent seems to be on the right track.
There is a fundamental (hah) difference between our perception of a war aganst terrorist and their perception.
Our wars are fought to gain a better future, more land, oil wells etc.
Once the war is over it is over, new owners, kings or whatever.

They are living the tribal life, eye for an eye, etc.
IOW, they live in the past and are executing a tribal blood feud like they have been doing for centuries.

You killed my great grand father and revenge will come your way one day.

Couple that with the after life rewards for those that die and it gets clear where this is headed.

A nasty mix of tribal blood feuds and a furtherance of their power base by the immans throwing in a bit of Jihad.

July 12, 2005 8:10 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Until we know who did the London bombings and what their motivations were, I think it would be foolish to take the debate into the ball park you're playing in, Theo.

"Islamic terrorism" as a term used to describe all acts of political violence carried out by Islamists or Arab people is a straw man. it is a piece of propaganda crap.

July 13, 2005 12:37 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<<<<< Home