Most of these people don’t know or understand things outside their society

the u.s department of defence website
features the stirring story of a man
fighting against people of his own faith

united states marine corps corporal
mohammed n. rahman
is a sunni muslim
and on active duty in iraq

when he's not shooting them
his language skills enable him
to speak to the locals

how ironic that here he is talking about iraqis
"Most of these people don’t know
or understand things outside their society,”

and then it seems he's talking about me
“Most people don’t understand
that the reason we are here
is to help them have a better life
and to remove these dangerous insurgents.”

click here if you want to read a first hand account
of the better life the americans bring

.

sheikh omran

today's age newspaper reports that a victorian backbencher is calling for the controversial muslim cleric sheikh omran to "go overseas and not come back".

adem somyurek, the upper house member for the eastern suburbs province of eumemmerring, said "I'm not saying he should be deported, ... I'm just saying, of his own free accord, if he wants to leave, if he wants to keep up the rhetoric, I suggest he perhaps leave."

i wrote to mr. somyurek in response to these statements, as follows.

Dear Mr. Somyurek,

I find your statements about Sheikh Omran far more dangerous and inflammatory than his statements. You are effectively calling for the expulsion of someone from the community for expressing unconventional political opinions. Sheikh Omran has not attacked anyone, nor advocated attacking anyone. Who are you to be saying whether someone should leave the country? It's outrageous. Your rhetoric is more violent than his.

I think most Australians value cultural diversity and the freedom to speak their mind much more highly than the prospect of living in a society free from "dangerous" opinions. In calling for an extreme punishment for someone's having expressed unconventional political views, you are ushering in a police state. In my view, your comments and opinions are much more dangerous and damaging to Australian values and the community than anything Sheikh Omran has said.

regards,

xero

if you should wish to express your opinions to the labour backbencher, he can be reached at adem.somyurek@parliament.vic.gov.au

rest assured i'll keep you informed of any further developments..

.

good news?

by the end of today, no children will be subject to mandatory immigration detention by the australian government. in light of the ongoing plight of detained asylum seekers, this is good news in the same way as "i'm going to kick your kidneys instead of your face" is good news. the recent case of peter qasim highlights the australian government's illegal regime of the detention of asylum seekers.

in 1997, peter qasim fled persecution and torture in kashmir. he arrived without identification in australia in 1998 and was detained. it wasn't until this month, after 6 years and ten months that he was finally granted a visa by ministerial fiat, presumably in response to media agitation.

under the international refugee convention of 1951, to which australia is a signatory, "a refugee seeking protection from persecution shall not be penalised for entering a country without valid documentation." in the australian legal system, six years is a typical sentence for serious crimes such as bank robbery or sexual assault. a high court decision last year means that australian law now authorises the indefinite detention of people who agree to leave australia but find it impossible. that is, a life sentence.

not only the circumstances under which refugees are detained prison-like, in some cases thay have been imprisoned. a 2002 human rights and equal opportunity commission report "found that Australia had breached its international human rights obligations by transferring six asylum-seekers from immigration detention to prisons, where they were arbitrarily detained without charge alongside convicted felons." in the same year, five asylum seekers were confined in dim or dark rooms at the port headland detention centre for days. detainees have no access to legal representation or an appeals process.

while it is great news that children will no longer be subject to mandatory detention, it is but a small step towards the end of a regime that is needlessly cruel and a violation of international law.

sources: 1 2 3

the crackdown

the united states needs oil. the middle east is rich in oil. and it is in the hands of people who are increasingly resistant to the american philosophy. that this vital and valuable resource was outside the control of the united states is the reason they are now occupying the middle east. afghanistan is the site of the pipeline that will allow its export. it was only when the taliban government refused to allow this pipeline that afganistan was invaded.

the muslim propaganda story, that the allied invasion is a crusade, a holy war against islam by christians and jews has more truth to it than the western propaganda story of the war on terror. the 'allies' are not hell-bent on the destruction of islam as a religion, but they are intent on breaking the back of its control over the region. the americans are there to show the muslim world who's in charge. a suitably compliant version of islam would be acceptable to the invaders.

those who refuse to be subjugated, however, are going to be marginalised and radicalised. they will become what the western media calls terrorists. in reality they are fighting for defence of their homeland and their faith, be that on the streets of baghdad or london. while all violence is reprehensible, the position of the freedom fighters seems to me much more honourable than that of the invaders, whose propaganda campaign includes computer games and beauty queens, as well as the lie of the war on terror.

since there is no significant military resistance to speak of, the main weapon of attack is embarrassment. the release of the abu ghraib photos and the more recent story of the desecration of the quran were propaganda attacks demonstrating the dominance of islam by america, the world's slavering prison-guard. it's no coincidence it was a woman humiliating muslim men in those photos, and it's no coincidence they were made public.



this, combined with their ability to slaughter children with cluster-bombs, and kill anyone who takes up arms against them, is designed to humiliate proud muslims, to make them lose face and accept subjugation. the war on terror is torture on a global scale, designed not only to break the spirits of the "enemy", but all of us.

.

winning the war of terror

the "newly-crowned MISS UNIVERSE® 2004, Jennifer Hawkins;
MISS USA® 2004, Shandi Finnessey;
and MISS TEEN USA® 2003, Tami Farrell"
have all visited american troops
stationed at guantanamo bay, cuba

at the same time
australian prime minister® john howard
has visited australian troops
stationed in iraq

i'm sure these visits
brought smiles to the faces
of the hard-working soldiers

i only hope these facts
bring you as much cause to smile
as they do me..

source

careful what you read

First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade-unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade-unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

australian federal police have started interrogating people
on the basis of the books they're buying and borrowing

as this story indicates
a student studying a university course on terrorism
has been targetted on the basis of the books
he's borrowed from the university library
or bought from the university bookshop

just as in the case of jean charles de menezes
that he was a bit different
no doubt contribued to official suspicions

in this case, the student's name is abraham
and he's a muslim

it's a good thing for him he wasn't running late for class..

.

coming soon to a railway platform near you..

this report just in
the war on terror continues

you're much safer really

just don't be a foreigner running late for work
or you'll be gunned down where you stand

Prime Minister John Howard has defended British police over the fatal shooting of an innocent Brazilian man.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from plainclothes police because he was afraid they were hoodlums, or simply because he was late for work, his friends told Brazilian newspapers.

Police have been forced to admit that de Menezes was only linked to Thursday's attempted bombings because he lived in the same south London block of flats as a man police had under surveillance.

good on our pm for defending the poor bobbies
they're just doing their job
which on that day happens to have been
brutallly murdering an innocent civilian

Mr Howard said thousands of innocent people had been murdered by terrorists.

"Surely that is the dominant consideration," he said.

yes
here's hoping mr howard and his friends in power
one day soon call an end to the terrorism and murder
they are perpetrating on the innocent civilians
of iraq and afghanistan

source

a simple truth

our governments are making the world more violent.

.

johnny tells it like it is(n't)

lying to the world isn't enough
now john howard is visiting injured australians in hospital
and lying to them

here you see him explaining
to an understandably skeptical louise barry
that her being in traction isn't his fault

source

the function of the media

these are the things i find surprising about the whole situation

1) the theft itself
2) the lies to cover it up
and most of all
3) that the lies go unchallenged


1) the theft itself

while it is oversimplifying
to say that america invaded iraq to steal their oil
it's pretty much the truth

they will of course obfuscate the theft administratively
by setting up a pretend government
and having private companies selling the stolen oil

but the brute facts of the matter are
murder and theft
by the team with the biggest guns

while we are conditioned to such behaviour
by the bloody litany of american postwar foreign policy
and shielded from it by supposedly comforting cover stories
like regime change, weapons of mass destruction and the war on terror
we are watching murderous theft being conducted in our names
and allowing it to happen

while the muslim world calls it a crusade
i fear that's putting too optimistic a spin on it
cos at the end of the crusades
the invaders packed up and went home

to the americans it's the wild west
as baghdad burning's post about the green zone
june 21, entitled general update
and this story about recovered australian hostage douglas wood make clear
it's already a cowboy economy

that wood was on the run with us$50,000 that wasn't his
not only suggest that his adbuction wasn't part of the jihad
but demonstrate the cowboy culture that america is creating

basically they're invading simultaneously with military units
and companies and their contractors

this is different to the israeli method of military plus settlers
because the objective is different
israel wants land, america wants money

but yes
there is a huge theft going on here
in a community we expect our neighbours to not take our stuff
[america sets itself up as a monument to that idea]
and here is a bully taking someone else's lunch money
after having rounded up a gang of weaker thugs

there's really no need for the bully to be hiding the fact too much
because everyone else is powerless to stop it

in fact it's in their interest that it's visible
so everyone else knows what to expect


2) the lies to cover it up

first there was the domino theory
and the communist witch craze

the war on drugs
while simultaneously flooding the inner city with drugs
was a relatively effective way of maintaining violent pressure
over the populace on the part of the state

this time around we have the war on terror
hot on the heels of
regime change
and weapons of mass destruction

the reason the allied countries were so sure
that saddam had weapons of mass destruction
was because they had sold them to him

as the downing street memo makes clear
they knew that he had gotten rid of them
by the time of the most recent invasion

now we are being sold the war on terror

the hooha about karl rove
is actually the final shards
of the weapons of mass destruction cover story
falling away


3) that the lies go unchallenged

this is perhaps the most surprising part
while we would hope against it
we must acknowledge that sometimes people steal
and would not be especially surprised
that they would lie to cover up the fact

what is surprising
is that apparently everyone involved in
manufacturing and disemminating mainstream opinion
happily relates these cover stories
and pretends that they're true

journalism was once taken seriously
as an occupation for intelligent people
and as constructing a reasonable representation of the world

leaving aside the question
of whether this opinion was valid or not then
it most certainly is not now

presumably there are smart people working at the news wire companies
and even in the offices of newspapers and tv stations
to whom it would be patently obvious
that the war on terror is a sham

that going into a country and dropping bombs on them
and taking what's theirs
is going to upset them
and increase the likelihood of some kind of retaliation

why then, do they relate these lies
as if they are believable?

if we assume for the moment
that the people whom are continually bombarded
by these lies from newspapers and the television
actually believe them
we can perhaps forgive them
given that they may have few other options

i assume the justification
on the part of the media manipulators
must be something like
yeah i know it's horse shit
but nobody takes it seriously
and if i shutup about it
i get to keep my lexus and my house and my hot wife

this situation makes clear the fact
that the function of mainstream media in western society
is not to transmit the news
but to spin the news

it operates under the pretense of providing information
but its actual function is to supress information

try and find in a mainstream media report from this week
a reference to the number of enemy combatants
or civilians killed since the start of this invasion

i'd be surprised if you could
it is, however, quite easy to find citations
of the number of iraqi civilians killed by insurgents
or the number of u.s personnel who have died

that you don't discover the former facts
is much more important to the function of the media
than that you do discover the latter



.

jihad hit list

according to osama bin laden

britain

spain

australia

poland

japan

italy

source source

now it's our turn

on top of common sense, brute facts, cia analysis,
and the saudi and israeli studies discussed below
the royal institute of international affairs [riia]
also known as chatham house
has just issued a report
suggesting the allied invasion of iraq
was increasing the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

the governments of the "coalition of the willing"
have all been called upon to respond.

they all continue to lie
in claiming that their iraq expedition
has done nothing to increase the chances of domestic terrorism

Prime Minister Tony Blair ... has insisted that the July 7 attacks on public transport, in which 55 people were killed and more than 700 injured, had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

"The United States had done nothing [to make it a target for terrorism] on September 11th when 3,000 people were killed." said rumsfeld

a wall street journal poll of muslim opinion
suggested widespread rage at
"US support for vicious Israeli repression of Palestinians
and robbery of their resources,
and the murderous US-UK sanctions
that were devastating the civilian society of Iraq"

and of course these issues are just the tip of the iceberg
as far as reasons for arabs to be angry at the "allied" crusades

the arguments from the elected officials are clearly specious

"Australia was a terrorist target well before the Iraq operation," Mr Howard told reporters. "We were a terrorist target before the 11th of September 2001."

like that somehow argues that we are now no more of a target

he is basically challenging them to kill us

i won't be surprised when bombs go off in sydney or melbourne
and nor will john howard

the question now is not whether australia is a terrorist target
but when and where the attack will occur

source source source

.

the lie

the cover story of the allied invasion of iraq
is the war on terror

that is, that military action in the middle east
will reduce terrorism in the u.s, england and australia

it's not doing that
and it's not designed to do that

anybody who thinks about it
(and that definitely includes the governments involved)
knows that invading iraq will not reduce domestic terrorism
it will increase it
(as is shown by the london bombs)

the war on terror is a lie
designed to obscure the invasion for oil

the u.s government knows their actions in iraq
are forging a new generation of terrorists

the cia earlier this year reported that

Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills, and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself.

[that this is actually happening is not just common sense
but public knowledge too, as recent israeli and saudi studies reveal]

yet bush this month repeated his claim
that the u.s killing "terrorists" in iraq means
that ''we do not have to face them here at home"

this is not a mistake
it's not like someone just failed to show him that cia report
he is lying
and he knows it

he should be saying
"we are making more terrorists
and they're coming to your house
but gasoline is gonna stay cheap"

it would be far more respectable if the u.s was just to say
we've got the biggest guns and we're going to take your oil
rather than pretending they were fighting the good fight

like fair enough if you're gonna shoot me in the face
but don't piss in my pocket while you do

source: this story in the boston globe

he makes me put my hand in places i don't want

something i saw on tv this morning

a reporter asked amanda vanstone, the australian immigration minister about her opinion of the as-yet only nebulously defined identity card the goverment has recently been touting. is she in favour? the reporter asks.

this is her curious response:

Well it's a bit like saying would you like something to eat.
If you offer me a dead rat, I'll say no.
It really depends on what you put in an ID card as to whether it's effective.
...
my own view is if you don't have a biometric
encased in the card digitally
for example, a fingerprint
then the card can simply be used by someone else.

So it depends what you want to do with the card.
If you wanted to improve the management of government services
and improve service delivery,
well you don't need a biometric.

But if you want it for proof of identity then you do.

So that, for example, someone who wasn't an Australian
or wasn't entitled to Medicare
couldn't go along with someone else's card
and have a major operation done in a public hospital
on the basis that they were the person on the card.

You won't stop that sort of thing unless you've got a biometric.

ignoring the fact that biometric has not previously been a noun
we know what she means

on a completely unrelated subject
disney world florida now requires
all visitors to undertake a biometric scan



here is some surveillance porn writing
first of a coming landslide of prose
to cater to this newest of fetishes

How do I use a pass that requires finger scans?

Once your fingers are inside the scanner, you will feel a small rubber knob. Place your fingers so that the rubber knob is between the index finger and the middle finger. *LIGHTLY* bring them together so they touch the rubber knob and push your hand all the way in so the web part between your index and middle fingers touches the small plastic spindle at the very front. Do not squeeze the rubber knob tight.

crossposted with my other blog, the kippledrome.

.

fake terror

"John Yoo ... served in the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003."

Another tool would [be to] have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within Al Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications.

Renewing the Patriot Act and staying the course at Guantanamo Bay remain important tools for gaining the intelligence that can prevent another Sept. 11. But we should realize that these measures remain fundamentally defensive. In order to prevail, we must develop an offensive strategy that focuses less on controlling territory or cities, none of which Al Qaeda possesses, and more on new ways to disrupt and destroy networks.

1) fake terrorist organisations: heaping irony upon irony.

there is a certain extent to which al qaeda is a fake terrorist organisation, built up by the western media as a bogeyman. it's not really an organisation, so much as an idea and a banner. like critical mass, it's a grassroots movement. also remember that it was the u.s government under reagan that basically funded the contruction of al qaeda and the taliban in the first place. [up until the year 2000, the year prior to the u.s invasion of afghanistan, supposedly to topple the taliban government, all of that government's salaries were paid for by the u.s government]

that they're prepared to discuss making a fake one underlies the notion of them already having done so, and reflects interestingly on the prospect of complicity in domestic terrorism discussed below.

of course the united states government and military are themselves the biggest and most powerful (and consequently the most violent) of all terrorist organisations already.

2) al qaeda don't hold territories or cities

this is a very important point and clearly true. but american strength is based on the military outlook of world war 2, mighty armies facing off against each other. the world isn't like that any more. yet still the spending continues.

this is the biggest gap in the propaganda front really. the disjunction between what they say they're doing "the war on terror" and what they're actually doing, invading a country to steal its oil.

in terms of the "war on terror" invading afghanistan and iraq is tactically ridiculous. the u.s government would be in no doubt that this is likely to escalate the terror war. this seems insane if one believes the stated objectives, to reduce terrorism.

but of course that's not the actual objective. the actual objective is to flex muscles, expend ammunition, gain a foothold and most importantly steal the valuable oil necessary for the ongoing smooth funtioning of the military-industrial machine.

that this exascerbates international terrorism is just a bonus for the government which enables them to diminish the power of people to complain.


elsewhere in the article john woo calls for a revoking of "the 1970s-era presidential order banning assassination". israel is the avant garde in this respect, taking out crippled hamas leaders by firing missiles at their cars from helicopter gunships. no arrest, no trial, just pre-emptive state-sponsored assasination in the clear light of day.

sure it's a shame if a girl happens to be playing in the street nearby, but all is fair in love and war.

basically such calls are a further justification for unilateralism. america has long ignored international law, (as noam chomsky discusses here) and is here signalling its intention to do so more and more flagrantly.

war is peace

"Terrorists are working to obtain biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons, and the threat of an attack is very real. ... Whenever possible, we want to stop terrorist attacks before they happen."
the department of homeland security

"In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, many Americans were asking, "Why do they hate us?" ... surveys of Muslim populations also show that large majorities of Muslims fear American power, or mistrust American intentions, or misunderstand American values. ... For instance, many in the Muslim world see the worst of American popular culture and assume that American-style democracy -- or any democracy at all, for that matter -- inevitably leads to crassness and immorality. Others believe that democracy is inherently hostile to faith, and corrosive of cherished traditions. And many more are federal [sic] a steady diet of hateful propaganda and conspiracy theories that twist American policy into grotesque caricatures. ... The consequences for much of the Muslim world are stagnation, persistent poverty and a lack of freedom."
condoleeza rice

"The United States ... stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. ...
They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year. The US has been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't like it."
noam chomsky, the new war against terror

"For four years the White House has framed the war on terror as an open-ended global battle against a monolithic enemy on many fronts, rather than employing a modern counterterrorism model that sees terrorism as a deadly pathology that grows out of religious or ethnic rage ...
But why has the White House pursued this nonsensical approach over the loud objections of the country's most experienced counterterrorism and Islamic experts? Because it allows the Administration all the political benefits the cold war afforded its predecessors: political capital, pork-barrel defense contracts and a grandiose sense of purpose.
And because the war on terror has no standard of victory, it can never end--thus neatly replacing the cold war as a black-and-white, us-against-them worldview that generations of American (and Soviet) politicians found so useful for keeping the plebes in line. It's a one-size-fits-all bludgeon."
robert scheer, the nation

"war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries
...
The primary aim of modern warfare ... is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. ... if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.
...
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. ... It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist."

"Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
george orwell, nineteen eighty four

terrorism

though there is little reason to suspect it
i would not be all that surprised
if 9/11 had been orchestrated by the american government
as an excuse for more obvious empire-building

while there have been numerous countries
whose governments they have changed
without the obvious use of massive military force

the united states is in possession
of the most powerful military force in the history of the earth

if they don't demonstrate a need for this force
by using it regularly
then the american people
who pay for it
might eventually become convinced
that it isn't necessary

which if course it isn't

when i say there is little reason
to expect that the american goverment orchetrated 9/11
there is not no reason
other than the circumstances outlined above

in his book body of secrets
james bamford refers to a plan in the early 1960s
circulated and authorised by the highest levels of goverment
(including the joint chiefs of staff)
which called for the u.s govt. to conduct terrorist activities
against its own people on american soil
to justify an invasion of cuba

the same thing happened in moscow more recently
whereby russian forces under putin were setting off bombs
to justify the invasion of chechnya

we are living in nineteen eighty four
war is peace

the war on terror
is the most ridiculous and laughable concept
so much so that it has fallen out of use
on the tv news at least

the war on terror
is the most obvious example of terrorism
being conducted in the world today

in common parlance
terrorism is war conducted by non-state parties
states pretend they are engaged under a certain set of rules
which these 'terrorists' ignore

when the u.s and israel kill civilians
it's an accident
no, really

when the mujahideen do it
they're terrorists

i am tempted to barrack for them
at least they're not lying about it

london 2

is it news when 3 bombs in baghdad kill 50 people?
are we shown in our living rooms the pain of their families?
are the victims interviewed in their hospital beds?

no

the allied attacks on iraq
have killed at least 22 000 people

at least 400 times as many
as have died in london

the news is mute on this
and makes us feel as if
the allies in iraq
are fighting the good fight

and that such events as those in london
demonstrate the need for the war in iraq

clearly the opposite is true
were it not for the invasion of iraq
those bombs would not have gone off

george bush says
we will bring them to justice
like osama no doubt

baghdad burning

i trust western news media
about as far as i can spit my television set

here is the story from the other side
a girl's blog from baghdad

baghdad burning

"'The Americans won’t be out in less than ten years. ... if you could see the bases they are planning to build- if you could see what already has been built- you’d know that they are going to be here for quite a while.'

The Green Zone is a source of consternation and aggravation for the typical Iraqi. ... It is a provocation because no matter how anyone tries to explain or justify it, it is like a slap in the face. It tells us that while we are citizens in our own country, our comings and goings are restricted because portions of the country no longer belong to its people."

"On the television the talk about ‘terrorists’ being arrested, but there are dozens of people being rounded up for no particular reason. Almost every Iraqi family can give the name of a friend or relative who is in one of the many American prisons for no particular reason. They aren’t allowed to see lawyers or have visitors and stories of torture have become commonplace. Both Sunni and Shia clerics who are in opposition to the occupation are particularly prone to attacks by “Liwa il Theeb” or the special Iraqi forces Wolf Brigade. They are often tortured during interrogation and some of them are found dead."

"In Baghdad there's talk of the latest "Operation Lightning". ... The plan includes 40,000 Iraqi security forces and that is making people a little bit uneasy. Iraqi National Guard are not pleasant or upstanding citizens- to have thousands of them scattered about Baghdad stopping cars and possibly harassing civilians is worrying. We're also very worried about the possibility of raids on homes."

the war 2

[reflections on the movie control room]

the nuremberg trials of the nazis
in which the allies were the prosecution
found that "i was only following orders"
was insufficient defence for war crimes

under this rationale
(which is that of the warmakers not mine)
every allied soldier in iraq
is guilty of war crimes

under international law there are three reasons one country can invade another
self-defence, humanitarian aid, and by order of the united nations
none of these three reasons apply in the iraq war
therefore it is an illegal act
and all those taking part in it are criminals

al jazeera showed footage of american pows
captured in iraq
understandably looking nervous
and saying they were just following orders



the cruel injustice of these grunts
having to take responsibility
for their country's illegal invasion
is obvious

what would be much more lovely and just
would be to see donald rumsfeld in that position
and to see if he stuck to his slick and slimy lies

because you just know to look at him
that he is the most indifferent and cynical man alive

the opposite of love isn't hate
the opposite of love (and hate) is indifference

donald rumsfeld doesn't love anything
he is the devil



"we know that al jazeera
has a pattern of playing propaganda
over and over and over again

what they do, is where a bomb goes down
they grab some children and some women
and pretend that the bomb hit the women and the children"

"it's up to all of us to ... recognize
that we're dealing with people
that are perfectly willing to lie to the world
to further their case"

indeed.

london

america and england send its men and women into afghanistan and iraq
with bombs and tanks and helicopters and missiles
and kills thousands and thousands of innocent civilians
and the western world goes
oh well, had to be done

al qaeda (if it really was al qaeda)
sends its troops into the london transport system
and kills 50 people
and the western world wrings its hands gnashes its teeth
and tears out its hair
at the barbarity that people can stoop to

there is really no sense in which the people of baghdad
did anything more to deserve to die from allied bombs
than the people of london did to deserve to die from al qaeda bombs

other than being darker skinned
having a different name for god
and being far away
of course

yet overwhelmingly
this is not the sense i get from manistream western news media
or the bloggers whose emotional agenda is thereby derived

wake up and smell the hypocrisy

the war

i just watched 'control room'
and at the risk of restating the obvious
i just want to be on record as saying
the 'allied' war on iraq
is clearly a military crime of the highest order
conducted entirely for mercenary and strategic reasons
and justified by lies
in the most cynical way possible

it's not especially surprising
but a document was leaked from england
now callled the downing street memo
that has on record the u.k govt
acknowledging that the american govt knowingly lied about
the presence of weapons of mass destruction
("fixing the intelligence")

did you hear about that on the news?
no?
why do you think that is?

this is murder
as it has always been

we'll be right back after these messages..