You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Sunni"

US government continues its terrorist attacks against Iran

Iranian commanders assassinated. The US government, under multiple administrations has such a long record for using terrorism throughout multiple regions of the world that it is actually incredible that it has the gall to proclaim that it is now engaged in a 'global war against terrorism', even as it uses terrorism in areas like Somalia, Honduras, and Iran, not to mention other countries. Open up your eyes, my fellow Americans. Your own government is a terrorist government itself! The following is copied from Wikipedia and is about the terrorist group run by the US called Jundullah... United States ABC news reported in April 2007, citing US and Pakistani tribal and intelligence sources,[38] that the terrorist group "has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials" to destabilize the government in Iran.[39] According to this report by Brian Ross and Christopher Isham of ABC News, the United States government had been secretly encouraging and advising the Jundullah in its attacks against Iranian targets. This support is said to have started in 2005 and arranged so that the United States provided no direct funding to the group, which would require congressional oversight and attract media attention.[40] The report was denied by Pakistan official sources.[41] But despite their denial ABC stood by their claim.[42] Alexis Debat, one of the sources quoted by Ross and Isham in their report alleging US support for the Jundullah, resigned from ABC News in June 2007, after ABC officials claimed that he faked several interviews while working for the company.[43] Brian Ross, an award winning journalist and the correspondent who worked most closely with Mr. Debat, said the Jundullah story had many sources. “We’re only worried about the things Debat supplied, not about the substance of that story,” he said in regard to the Jundullah report. So far, ABC has found nothing that would undermine the stories Mr. Debat worked on, Mr. Ross said last night. But he acknowledged that as the stories of fabrications continue to roll in, the network “at some point has to question whether anything he said can be believed.”[44] This caused the network in 2007 to send a second team of producers to Pakistan investigating the original reports.[45] ABC never retracted the story. The ABC exclusive further reveals that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney discussed the activity of the group against Iran during his visit to Pakistan.[46] The exclusive makes parallels between American support for Jundallah and U.S. involvement in Nicaragua through Contras.[47] Fars News Agency, an Iranian state run news agency, reported that the United States government is involved in PRMI's terrorists acts.[48] Gholamali Haddadadel, Iranian parliament speaker in 2007, speaking to reporters said, Jundallah is part of pressure tactics used by United States to subdue Iran and hoped with Pakistani help, Iran would be able to defeat Jundallah.[49] On April 2, 2007, Abdul Malik Rigi, appeared on the Persian service of Voice of America, the official broadcasting service of the United States government, which identified Rigi as "the leader of

One man’s Guerrier, another’s Terroriste

WELL LOOKY WHAT I FOUND! Published in France just after the war, this book is about "LES TERRORISTES." Can you tell by the cover art, who play the title role? USA POST-2001: America designates its war zone detainees as EPWs, or "Enemy Prisoners of War," because to call them POWs would confuse public sympathies. To the average American, "P.O.W." commemorates the GI captivity experience in Vietnam or Korea. When a soldier of ours is caught, that's a POW. To grant both sides equal status would be to humanize our enemy. Of course, POW used to mean all "Prisoners Of War," ours and theirs, in WWII days, before, and as mentioned in all international conventions. We label the people of Iraq or Afghanistan who resist our occupation, as insurgents. Be they Bathists or Taliban, we call their cause an insurgency, not a resistance, because that would confuse American public affection for the French Resistance: La Resistance! Every nation in Occupied Europe had a resistance movement, and the WWII archetypes are still fresh. Occupiers equal Germans. Collaborators equal cowards, traitors, Qwislings, Vichy. Resistance fighters equal the heroes. Since then, American occupations, of postwar France for example, have avoided mention of their assigned task. In Germany and Japan, US soldiers are merely "stationed" there. In countries which we've invaded, like Vietnam, Americans denied being the despised occupiers, we were advisors, protectors, etc. And the populations who opposed our military administration were insurgents, and if they attacked us by unconventional means, they were terrorists! In Iraq as well as Afghanistan, the American spectator can discern that al-Qaeda has been the only named terrorist organization, yet Sunni, Shiite, and Taliban fighters are all called terrorists. Militant Islam is considered terrorist, Hezbollah and Hamas liberation movements are called terrorist, even the Somali pirate brigands are being condemned as terrorists. So who were "Les Terroristes" of Occupied France? The book cover heeds us to "Souvenais-vous!" Never forget them. The book is full of their pictures and accounts of their brave deeds. Most of them fell to the Nazis, to firing squads and Gestapo tortures. The brave Terroristes were the scourge of the German Occupation, rooted out and almost eradicated before the last year of the war. The Nazis called them "terrorists," they were LA RESISTANCE!

Arab dictator allies of US line up in support of Israeli terrorism against Gaza

Silence. Or worse yet even, efforts to blame Hamas instead of Israel for the new slaughter in Gaza. That's what the US allied Arab dictatorships imposed on the Arab world offer their people. Complicity. Many of these Sunni Arab elites (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et cetera) are eager for the US to hammer the Shiite led Iranians, and have no solidarity at all with their own poor let alone the Palestinian poor of Gaza.... or Palestinians elsewhere for that matter. This is the opening battle of the war to bring about regime change in Iran for the Washington, D.C. rat class, and the Arab dictatorships controlled by the US government are fully behind the effort. Meanwhile the corporate media in the US and Britain keep a tight lid on the spin of the actual news, all in support of their own imperialist ruling cabals. At least, the European Union and the United Nations have had the decency to tokenly oppose this slaughter by this Jewish/ Christian Corporate Alliance centered in the US, Great Britain, and Israel. Everybody around the globe pretty much knows who holds the big guns, and it is the US government and its immediate side kicks that do. Everybody realizes that there is always the big price to pay if one gets too out of line with what these gangsters want from them. The US antiwar community, dominated by phony 'Peace'crat types, are immobilized. It seems that the script promised by the 'Peace'crats with an Obama victory were as false as they come. They all voted for Obama and now don't know what exactly to do? Really going out and protesting against their rulers is something that might make them embarrassed and scares them no end. Locally, not a word from the office clowns of the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace De-Commission, with them only wanting to turn the other cheek from reality, though reality just keeps on beating them about their public face. So now we know why the Arab World hates us so? It has to do with their own gang of thugs kept in power by the US government. The US and Israel have even turned the Arabs into hating the PLO, now that the leader of the PLO, Abbas, is totally controlled by our sorry leaders in Washington, D.C. What a mess! And the world keeps on just getting more and more dangerous, more and more messed up, day after day. Nobody has any 'national security' these days, thinks to the Democratic and Republican gangsters that almost all voting Americans backed in the last election. This Israeli bombing of mainly children Arab youngsters living in the most horrible poverty and isolation in Gaza, is their work. Aren't you proud you voted for this, if in fact you did?

Blackwater Thugs: Fallujah “heroes”?

There's a War-drum-beating propaganda special coming on this evening on one of the cable history channels... The teaser says "When four Blackwater private security contractors were brutally murdered and their bodies hung up for everybody to see" BULLSHIT... They went into Fallujah to pick a fight, knowing that neither the Iraqi government nor the United States Government would prosecute them for their CRIMES, ...but the Sunni Militia DID, under THEIR laws. Our newly moderated Troll said the Private Contractors were "doing security work (at Pete Field) so American Troops could be freed up to fight for your rights in Iraq"... Except Air Force SP's aren't exactly a combat unit. Of course, sending cops over there to enforce Imperial Martial Law is really really fighting FOR freedom. And of course, sending mercenaries over there to back up those cops, who only truly want to imprison, torture or kill ONLY those naughty Iraqi people who object to the Invasion Liberation of their country... and fail to greet their liberators with flowers... and fail to bow before the Natural Superior Culture of the Empire Liberation Forces... and fail to lick their goddamned jackboots...

i have no tribe dot com slash lineage

iHaveNoTribe.com is a stateside effort for ex-pat Kenyans to renounce their tribal ties, or give it the old college try, to set an example for their friends and family (and tribe!) back home. The new refrain being: I am a Kenyan. Valiant, but what does it mean? At NMT we know something about tribe. It sounds good, doesn't it? To cast off old-fashioned family ties, vestiges of biology, the roots certainly of bigotry and xenophobia. But blood ties are the only bonds we can know without being taught them. Familial bonds are part of our inherent biological imperative, to procreate, to protect the prospects of our progeny, their interests being synonymous with ours. It goes without saying, doesn't it? We look after our own. As our bloodlines spread over greater numbers, we have to be reminded who to consider our own. Higher ideals, often religion, would have us see all of mankind as our own. Subsets of race feed our need to recognize ourselves in others. Further subsets collect nationalities. National feelings of fraternity become patriotism. But is that natural at all? Where we are led to believe to think about others as ourselves, usually requiring sacrifice of the individual, is for the collective good. A collection of someone's. In the case of Kenya, the subjugation of tribes would benefit the larger group, the collected population of the state. It's become civilized tradition, precursor to globalization, to put country before traditional division. But what is a country? In Africa in particular it's a colonial apportionment of land based on what territories the western explorers were able to conquer and hold together. Or it can be the subsequent holdings of whoever was the last ambitious chieftain. In either case, they are combinations of majority peoples interwoven with minorities, tribes on the rise landlording over those on the wane. The directive to ignore tribal differences would seem to serve mainly dominant bloodlines. Having reached beyond its own dominions, an expanding tribe needs to fold the minority neighbors into its ranks to populate and work the extended lands. The common good being as a matter of fact the leadership's prosperity. Tribes were the original sustainable paradigm for land stewardship before societies needed a system of ownership to support non-productive hierarchies. Tribal claim to land was determined by who could hold it, usually directly related to how much of its resources you needed. Native Americans tribes protected their territories based on their number. Civilizations brought the fat cats who drew more than their share. These included the priests, and thus the need to explain that the administrators of peoples were your extended tribe. Scotland used to be divided into clans, large extended families which inhabited the moors and highlands. Land wasn't owned, clans grew or shrank based on the aptitudes of their chiefs, and borders adjusted accordingly. When the English invaded, they divided the lands and introduced ownership. Clans were rendered obsolete when the English landlords discovered they didn't need farming labor. They discovered that raising sheep netted

Greg Mortenson’s own cup of tea

Greg Mortenson finds himself on the vanguard of Pax Americana the same way he stumbled into the mountain village beneath K2. He has no idea the enormity of the power behind his continued fortune.

US government breeds terrorism everywhere

Our government is the #1 breeder of terrorism across the planet, same as it is the #1 world breeder of drug trafficking. The latest from Iraq is news of how a car bomb went off in a Kurdish market where people buy their food, with hundreds killed and wounded. Who did it? The short answer is that you and I did. How so, you might ask? Simple. It's because you and I mainly sat back and watched our government destroy a country, and then divide up the ruins between 3 principle groups; the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunni. Then we sat back while our government set them against each other. We did next to nothing to stop this from happening, and we continue to do next to nothing as if it were not our responsibility to act. OK, that's the short and abstract answer to who set that bomb off. But who might have done it physically, and why? Most will turn their accusations to one of the groups being victimized by the US occupiers. But truth is, it could have been set off by many others, including the Turkish government and the US government itself. Can imagine the Turkish government, whose brutality to the Kurds is legendary, but not the US government? But why not? The US government practices collective punishment daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. It so much as a bb gun goes off directed at US forces, the US levels entire neighborhoods. In Afghanistan, it's just bombs away from a high. In Iraq itself, the reaction usually mimics more the Israeli style counter insurgencies against Palestinian communities. In both manners, the civilians take a big hit for any resistance activities that they may or may not have partially sanctioned i their neighborhood. Back to the market bomb. What is there to make us think that the US military does not use these terrorist attacks as yet another tool in the manipulation of events to make their occupation of Iraq come off? They did this sort of thing constantly in Vietnam, as did the French in Algeria. In war, nobody can ever be too sure of who is responsible for what? What one can be sure of is that occupation breeds acts of terrorism, usually against others than those doing the occupying. Message from the US government post 9/11? We are better at using terrorism than you can ever be, al qaeda.

Is Iran Responsible, or the Bush family, for the destruction of Iraq?

The American media and government have begun a campaign to blame Iran for the chaos and destruction that now exists in Iraq. The storyline goes that all would be OK, but only if the Shia were to behave. The US public is pretty damn ignorant of anything that goes on in the Middle East, always has been, and there are no signs on the horizon to make anybody think that this will ever change. However this new line of total bullshit from our imperialist misleaders really is too much to take, even by the most demented American Right Winger. Last I heard the US has suffered less than 5,000 casualties in 2 wars with Iraq. The Iranians though, suffered 1,000,000 casualties and $350,000,000,000 dollars in losses due to a war started by Sunni run Iraq and its Sunni Arab allies, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1980. The US government of Ronald Reagan with George Bush Senior acting as the Dick Cheney of that era, solidly was behind the effort to 'punish' Iran for having overthrown the US backed despot, the Shah of Iran. Donald Rumsfeld, the Reagan and Bush emissary, was busy pumping Saddam's hand in support late 1983, flat in the middle of that aggression against Iran. In short, the Sunnis have screwed up Iraq for over 1/4 century now and screwed over Iran, too. And they could not have done the damage they did without the consistent complicity of the Bush family in support of that destruction. For more info (since they didn't teach this history at your school), check out 'Iraq Iran War' over at wikipedia.

Algonquin, Iroquois, Hmong, Montagnard, Pashtun, Kosovars, Bosnian Muslims, Kurds, Timorese

What a tragic list. The list is actually much, much larger than the one I put here as the title of this thread, but the unifying theme is a simple one. It is a list of smaller national groupings that have cooperated in some way with major imperialist powers, usually with tragic results to themselves. It is a list of smaller cultural, racial, national groupings that have gotten historically used and buffeted by much larger powers, that themselves were acting in their own perceived interests within much larger world conflicts. An interesting and poorly taught history, is the history of the conflicts between the Algonquin vs the Iroquois, French vs the British, then enter the Americans, too with their own internal conflicts. Much easier to teach are the fables of Pocahontas and that of 'Thanksgiving'. How much brutal warfare for the Algonquin and the Iroquois as they tried to side with one group of Europeans against the other. Their efforts to survive were only minimally successful. Then are the stories of the Hmong and Montagnards, who cooperated in one degree or another with the French and the US in their imperial efforts to dominate SE Asia. They did so in rebellion against their own domination within their regional societies by the more numerous Vietnamese, Lao, and Khmer peoples. But as a result, they became soon 'strangers in their own land', so to speak. Many ended up in far away exiles in the US and elsewhere. And look what has befallen the Pashtun, used by the US and the US allied Arab dictatorships to battle against the exSoviet Union which backed different Norht Afghan groupings of other national backgrounds. Much more complicated than just blaming it on the Taliban or 'Muslim extremism', as the idiot US Right Wing does so. The Kosovars remain with 60% unemployment years after Clinton/ Gore's war. What have they gotten by cooperating with US imperial interests against their neighbors, the Serbs? Little, it seems. Would 'independence' bring any better? It is doubtful, since Serbia is unlikely to easily forget such an evil alliance between Albanian and American. And the Bosnian Muslim? He faces a backing that now is in a religious war against the very same religion backed just yesterday. The Kurds? They had certainly legitimate reason to rebel against Saddam Hussein and the his Arab Sunni grouping. But now they are linked irremediably to the CIA and Pentagon, even as those same sinister forces back Kurd oppression next door in Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan is now the better off section of Iraq, yet what a dangerous situation for the Kurdish people long term. And the Timorese? Half of Timor remains part of Indonesia, and the other half is now an impotent pseudo state, dependent on the UN, Australia, and the US for its

Tom Tancredo, my old homebase is in the news again, You Dope

I have spend a lot of time in Tamaulipas, Mexico. And I once lived in Laredo across the river from this story, too. If you have never imagined such a place, Laredo is America's largest inland port. That would make where this story occurred, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico's largest inland port. Just one shallow river that flows from Colorado's mountains, divides the 2 cities. Subcomandante Marcos (now going by the name, Delegate Zero) of the Zapatistas visited there last month. Here is what he saw, amidst the garbage of Tamaulipas. I have to tell people about any real info written about Tamaulipas. It is really about America, too. Ask my daughter. She has spent much of her young life there. Now, let me mention that I am offering our idiot Colorado Representative, Tomas Tancredo, free transportation with my family to visit in Tamaulipas. He can go fishing down there with the family, and doesn't have to walk the same barrios that Marcos just did. Wouldn't want the poor guy to get hurt. That is when he gets back from his 'Third World' Miami vacation that he passed at a swank hotel.. What a dummy this twerp is. He heads the House Immigragion Reform Caucus, and he is just about as knowlegable on immigration matters, as Silvestre Reyes is about Shia and Sunni divisions. In other words, he is a totally ignorant dumbass. If he thinks that Miami is 'the Third World'?, duh, then come along, Fool, and let me show you. Tom Tancredo was in the news last week embarrassing even the Bush Klan by his uniformed and stupid remarks that Miami was just like the Third World. Duh? Then why is much of Latin America trying to get there then? Not too many are trying to get to South Texas, though. Maybe we can get this dummy a job at the Swift and Co meatpacking plant in Greeley? If he's smart enough to even do the work right on the kill floor there even? I have my doubts. He's only smart enough to be the Big Boss Man.

Nancy Pelosi’s new dog, Silvestre, fails IQ test

Democratic Party exINS police dog, Silvestre Reyes, flunked his IQ test this week. The new head of the House Intelligence Committee was given a series of basic questions about the Middle East by the journal Congressional Quarterly Today, and scored ZERO on their IQ test for him. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction, it seems. But Pelosi's pick for the spot didn't seem to even know the difference between the Sunnis and the Shia! Unbelievable! Maybe they should rename it the House Ignorance Committee instead? Even the CQ interviewer didn't quite believe what he was hearing when he sat down with Reyes to talk about this newest advance in his career as Democratic Party top hack. Hint hint. Now go and give this test to Obama, too. We want some more fun. This is much better than watching Sasha Cohen play Borat. And even much more fun than a vactaion to Tehran to do a philosophy conference, even! Can we get Cheney tested now? Pleaseeeee.... Doesn't it boggle the mind to think that this bipartisan DP-RP insane asylum trying to run another culture without a clue to what's going on, could possibly succeed? Nobody speaks Arabic or Pashto, nobody in the country other than Pat Robertson, Billy Graham Baby, and Glenn Beck know anything about Islam (just kidding), and 99% of the US public that supports this fiasco overseas can't locate their asses from a hole in the ground on a map! Yes, our leaders are all as stupid as rocks. Good going Democrats with picking Reyes for his post. He might be even stupider than Dubya? No mean feet. duh. Look, to be fair, the liberal voters even to the Left of the Democratic Party politician hacks try to play Risk with other people's lives while being totally clueless. How many of these nitwits want to go rushing in with US troops from Djibouti (I guess?) into Sudan, Chad, and the Central African Republic? Give these good hearted fools an IQ test about the region, and they would be out of their Risk game within secs due to brain infarcts.. Most of these liberal wannabe admirals so ready to Trotsky into areas like that, probably have already forgotten their Kosovan Albanian. It is sad, this US desire to control the world. When will it stop?

Is Iraq in ‘Civil War’?

Our national debates often enter into surreal territories, and I got to say that I find the liberal sites to be almost as bad as the conservative ones when it comes to their examination of US militarism. Today finds the liberal sites, like Alternet and CommonDreams celebrating what a supposed advance forward it is that NBC started calling the situation in Iraq a civil war. The White House duly responded with, "Is not! Is not!". So there, we now have lined up the two sides of the usual American idiocy, The Democrats versus the Republicans. Yawn.... But is the Iraq conflict in reality a 'civil war' like the liberals are now declaring it to be? I think not. See, the liberal Democratic Party types don't dare call the Iraq conflict what it really is, which is an imperialist war and colonial occupation Made in America. So they do the next best thing they can come up with, and that is to say that the US has troops centered in a country with a 'civil war' flaring up. Oh my! Despite 'our' good intentions, we're in danger! Let's cut and run! This way of stupidly arguing this issue of war and peace with the Right, allows pro-warmongers to say, Look, the Iraqis need us to keep themselves from killing each other. Oh how humane we shall always be! Liberals, this is no civil war at all. Can you imagine in our real American Civil War, would we have ever called it a Civil War if all the American cities, both South and North, had been occupied by a bunch of murderous imperial troops, from say Mongolia or Japan? And that these troops were causing the chaos between different sections of our own country's population? See the simple difference between a real civil war, and an imperialist war? Apparently, the liberals have big trouble on that! Our American Civil War was a civil war, whereas the Iraqi chaos is not. If one remembers this, the Vietnam War was once described by the American press as a civil war, too. The supposed good guys in South Vietnam were our friends, and the bad guys there were the commies. It was taught that South Vietnam was in a civil war where another country would not leave the South Vietnamese alone to solve their internal difficuties. That bad country was called North Vietnam. Just like then, the argument went that we had to occupy the country, simply because without us, the 'civil war' there would go much for the worse. Plus, another country, Iran... uh I mean North Vietnam, was wrongly entering into another country's civil strife. and trying to turn it into a 'civil war'! We had to save the South Vietnamese from foreign intervention into their civil

Jay Fawcett, Moderate Republican at best

It is really sad to see the local liberals buying into the campaign of Jay Fawcett. Granted that his opponent Doug Lamborn is about as repulsive as you can get, but that's still little excuse to go out and vote for Fawcett. The most notable aspect of his campaign has been how he has tied himself into alliance with the national campaign for president of Wesley Clark, Clinton's man for invading Yugoslavia.   How is supporting Fawcett and Clark pushing for peace and less military? Both were quiet for those 8 long years, as Clinton and Gore waged war on Iraq through bombings and economic sanctions that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians. Which also led to the beginning of the ethnic dividing up of Iraq that is destroying the country at present. Clinton's military people pushed into Kurdish Iraq to arm and use them against the Sunni Bathists of Hussein. Now Iraq has an ethnic civil war running hot that is destroying the country. Fact is, both Fawcett and Clark have straddled the line between the Democrats and the Republicans. Today, Fawcett published a big propaganda piece trawling for Republican votes titled 'Why Local Republicans Don't Support Doug Lamborn for Congress'. The real question is why are liberals so desperate that they would vote for Jay Fawcett, moderate Republican? Have they not gone to his website? Do they not know what he actually is? How is a vote for this militarist jerk 'taking back the Democratic Party'? If he had already been elected to Congress, he would have certainly voted alongside of Democrat Salazar in supporting the Bush Adminsitration's use of torture on POW's taken in the fighting. In no way is Fawcett a break from supporting US militarism. He endorses it. He is part of it. Not an obstacle to Bush at all. Why would any liberal want another Democratic Party enabler of Bush's program in Congress? Fawcett supports a continual US military agression against the rest of the world as Bush and Cheney do. He just thinks that Bush is botching the operation.

Irreligious troubles

Remember the troubles in Ireland? They were religious wars is what we were told. The Catholics against the Protestants. Been going on for centuries. Indeed. England has occupied Ireland for centuries, that much is true. And the English lackeys who settled the land for the British king and played landlord to the Irish were Protestant indeed. And the native Irish who have been fighting to regain their sovereignty are the religion of St Stephen who drove the pagan snakes from Ireland and converted everyone to Christianity before there was such a thing as Protestantism. The English were Catholic until Henry VIII was refused an annulment from the pope and so created his own Church of England. British subjects had to follow their king into Protestantism, and the enemy freedom fighters in Ireland would, of course, not. And so the battle between the Irish and their English occupiers waged on, cleverly repackaged by the empire, the British Empire and ours, as religious troubles. Who sympathizes with an opponent's foreign religion? The plight the dispossessed is another matter. Likewise in Palestine. Are we to believe that Muslims are fighting Jews over the fate of their religious differences in Palestine? Oh, it's been going on for thousands of years. Really? Israel's pretext for entitlement to the Holy Land dates back two thousand years, that's true enough, when Jews last ruled Judea. There probably can be no end to land disputes when you argue claims that far back. Courts decided long ago to simplify disputes with statutes of limitation. In war however, every conqueror likes to assert they are reclaiming what lands were theirs by predestiny. Palestinians are fighting the Israelis for their homeland. Israel occupies Palestine and keeps building settlements unto more of it, displacing and killing the original occupants. Israel's motives might be religious, but the conflict is not. The fighting is occupation versus resistance, er, insurrection. The internecine strife amongst Palestinians and amongst Lebanese are no more sectarian than it is about who is collaborating with the occupiers. Sectarian differences in Iraq, as throughout the Middle East, have similarly less to do with religion than the struggle against colonial occupiers. Right now we are demonizing the Shia, the fundamentalist hard ballers out of Iran, who threaten the Sunnis. They do, but hardly for religious reasons. The Sunni are and have been our agents, the administrative class for the West's domination of the Middle East. When you hear Egypt opine, that's us. Saudi Ariabia, that's us. All the feudal sheiks, sultans and monarchs? Ours. In our pocket and we in theirs. They don't like the Shias because they're as irreligious as alpha males in a harem. Once more the occupiers have their religious or counter-religious pretext. The oppressed are fighting for their land and their freedom.

Banners make the news

The local NBC affiliate 5/30 did an excellent story involving Camp Casey. See the video clip here.   They covered our Sunday morning send-off of IVAW members who were leaving to join the March 14 peace march along the Gulf Coast. And they also gave our banners some visibility. THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR flies in the face of the Media worldview. Let's dispell a couple of other media reported fallacies, too verbose for banners. Dubai port scandal The problem with a port takeover by a Dubai owned company has nothing to do with U.S. security, not as concerns terrorists. The takeover is part of the larger globalization move to privatize world infrastructure and enforce "free trade" subjugation. The only tie-in with terrorism has to do with Dubai's involvement with the 9/11 hijackers. Whoever let 9/11 happen, under the nose of the FBI, could make something happen again, out of reach of American security agencies, facilitated with Dubai's complicity. Samarra mosque bombing Who is it that wants a civil war in Iraq? The quick and mutually diffused tensions following the mosque bombing suggests that Iraqis do not want a civil war. Evidence is pointing to U.S. involvement in the destruction of the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. Residents are fighting US and UK efforts to begin rebuilding the dome before the forensic evidence can be analyzed to determine the real culprits behind the explosives. Experts doubt that Sunnis were behind the destruction of a mosque which is revered by both Shia ad Sunni alike. Pious peoples do not behave that way. Even the troubles in Ireland never devolved to exploding each other's churches. Where in the world are there peoples so uncultured, so spiritually callous, so uneducated, insentitive and irreverant that they destroy their brother's places of worship?

Top