eigentlich weniger theorie als vielmehr realität..die wertung muß jeder selbst für sich übernehmen..der fahrplan für die zukunft ist jedenfalls vorgezeichnet. es gibt für mich keinen zweifel: der nahe osten wird das nächste große schlachtfeld sein. sollte der iraq soweit provoziert werden (was relativ leicht sein dürfte) israel nochmal anzugreifen wird die usa-israel auch atomwaffen einsetzen. natürlich 'taktische' waffen. die medien werden in der westlichen welt angst vor 'terroristen' des islam schüren und damit die rechtfertigung für jeden massenmord liefern.
alle haben angst vor dem faschismus: jetzt haben wir ihn in den usa, wer hätte das gedacht. die geschichte wird ihren lauf nehmen...
********
Convicted Criminals, Liars And Terrorists In The U.S. Bush Administration
Plotting War Against Iraq
'The Wolfowitz Cabal'
On Oct. 14, the London Observer published one of the now familiar - and totally false - U.S. propaganda scare stories, entitled
"Iraq 'Behind U.S. Anthrax Outbreaks." The story gave credence to the ravings of"American hawks" who say there is"a growing mass
of evidence that (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the Sept. 11 suicide hijacks."If confirmed,"
said the Observer,"the pressure now building... for an attack (on Iraq) may be irresistible." One of these"hawks," an unnamed U.S.
"administration official," told the Observer that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a"faithful ally" in the war against terrorism and
that"if it means we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, then that's what we are doing" (emphasis added).
The"next Hundred Year's War"? Who are the U.S. maniacs who use such language,
and are they not as dangerous as Osama bin Laden's jihad?
Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the"Wolfowitz cabal," named after
Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on
Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland,
falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist"war"
into a full-blown"Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the"enemy image" in a"new Cold War."
The"Clash of Civilizations" theory, developed by Harvard professor-turned President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski and his protégés, including Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington, defined the Arab and Islamic world as an"arc of crisis"
from the Middle East to the Islamic countries of Central Asia in the then-Soviet Union. Brzezinski wanted to use the"Islamic card" against
the Soviet Union, and in so doing, began the policy of promoting Islamic fundamentalists against moderate and pro-Western Arab and
Islamic governments. After the end of the Cold War, the Brzezinski/Huntington crowd updated their"arc of crisis," declaring that the
Islamic religion is the enemy, in a new war in which religions, rather than political systems, inevitably battle each other.
However, trained by British and U.S. special intelligence services and the CIA, and armed by Israeli military networks, the very terrorist
drug-runners in the Islamic world who were launched by Brzezinski and"adopted" by the Iran-Contra networks run by Lt. Col. Oliver
North, under the elder George Bush's Executive Order 12333, have become the main suspects in terrorist attacks against the United States.
A Network Throughout the Government
The adherents of the so-called"Wolfowitz cabal," pushing the"Clash of Civilizations" theory, are nothing less than"an enemy within" the U.S.,
a network that cuts across the Defense Department, the State Department, the White House, and the National Security Council. This
report is not a"good guys" versus"bad guys" description of the Bush Administration; rather it is a warning that this cabal is a close-knit rogue
network that is trying to hijack U.S. policy, and turn the current Afghanistan mess into a global war. The cabal bears a dangerous resemblance
to the"secret parallel government" of North and Gen. Richard Secord's"Project Democracy" operation that ran Iran-Contra. In fact, some
of the cabal members now in the Bush Administration are convicted criminals as a result of their activity in North's"Enterprise"!
On Oct. 12, the New York Times revealed deep divisions in the Bush Administration, describing how the cabal plots policy behind the back
of Cabinet officials, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the name of the U.S. government. The group wants to obliterate Iraq,
put Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on the terrorism list (if not the obituary list),
and declare war on nation-states.
The Times revealed that a key section of the"Wolfowitz cabal," is the 18-member Defense Policy Board, which met for more than 19
hours on Sept. 19-20 to"make the case" against Saddam Hussein. The meeting pushed for a renewed war against Iraq as soon as the
war against Afghanistan had concluded its initial phase. It discussed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, partitioning Iraq into mini-states led by
U.S.-funded dissidents who would steal the proceeds from the Basra oil revenues for their quisling government. The meeting discussed
how to manipulate information so as to pin the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States on Saddam Hussein.
According to the Times, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended the meetings for only"part" of both days, and on Sept. 22, President
George Bush rejected the Policy Board's recommendation to declare war (so soon) against Iraq. But to the"Wolfowitz cabal," Bush's decision
didn't really matter - senior members of the Policy Board had been selected for their broad international connections, especially to the United
Kingdom and Israel, allowing them to force changes in U.S. policy through an"outside-inside" operation. If unable to change policy through
advising, the network could also run covert operations as a"government within a government," as they had maneuvered during Iran-Contra.
The chairman of the Defense Policy Board is Richard Perle, the former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Affairs, now based at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Perle, nicknamed"The Prince of Darkness" because of his nuclear Armageddon views during the Cold War, is, more importantly,
an asset of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, Inc., which grew out of British Empire Security Coordinator William
Stephenson's efforts to secure arms for Britain during World War II. At present, Hollinger owns the British Tory Party-linked
Telegraph PLC, whose International Advisory Board is headed by former British Prime Minister, now Lady Margaret Thatcher.
Hollinger also owns the Jerusalem Post, another war-mongering press outlet.
The"heavy hitters" on the Defense Policy Board are the worst of the Anglo-American-Israeli geopolitical fanatics from the last
several decades, including: former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who is also a member of Hollinger's International Advisory Board;
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Clinton Administration Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey; former Deputy
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. David E. Jeremiah; former Vice President Dan Quayle; former Defense and Energy Secretary
James R. Schlesinger; and former President Carter's Defense Secretary Harold Brown.
Though Perle was only recently appointed to head the Defense Policy Board, he and Wolfowitz have been collaborators for more than
two decades, as agents-of-influence of the right-wing Israeli war faction. In 1985, when it was clear that Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American
convicted that year of spying for Israel, could not have been working alone in stealing such high-level U.S. secrets for Israel to sell
to the Soviet Union, top-level intelligence officials told EIR that an entire"X Committee" of high-level U.S. officials, was being investigated.
Wolfowitz and Perle were on the list of"X Committee" suspects, and Israeli spying against the United States was so thick that
investigators told EIR they had found"not moles, but entire molehills." Pollard and his Israeli defenders later claimed that Pollard
"had to" spy against the United States because the Americans were soft on Iraq and other Arab countries.
The"Wolfowitz cabal" is deterimined to push the United States in the direction of the most dangerous Israeli right-wing policy, including
a possible Israeli nuclear attack on an Arab state. They are implementers of the very"breakaway ally" scenario about which 2004
Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche warned in his statement of Oct. 12.
Plan B: Wagging the Dog
The"Wolfowitz cabal" is out to destroy any potential for a Middle East peace, and simultaneously is determined to crush Eurasian economic
development centered around co-operation among Europe, Russia, and China. After being rebuffed after the marathon Defense Policy Board
meetings, the Wolfowitz cabal set various operations in motion to plant propaganda stories, falsify reports of U.S. policy, and carry out
other maneuvers, whereby the tail would"wag the dog." Unapproved statements are made by cabal members, interviews misrepresenting
U.S. policy are planted around the globe, and intelligence reports are altered or manufactured to further the policy goals.
The pattern is becoming crystal clear.
In the first such instance, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, Wolfowitz declared that the United States will"end states harboring terrorism,"
and insisted that under the principle of self-defense, the United States could act alone, without the United Nations, or cooperation
from any other country. He wanted to establish the"doctrine" that the United States would hit a country"anywhere, anytime" based
on secret evidence. But, Wolfowitz was forced to retract his statements, in a visible rift with the White House. Some days later, NATO
allies at its Brussels headquarters snubbed Wolfowitz, and refused to formalize cooperation with the United States under NATO
agreements at a meeting where Wolfowitz represented the Bush Administration.
In the same vein, on Oct. 7, the day the Afghanistan bombings began, the cabal again attempted to provoke a rift between the United States
and members of the UN Security Council, especially Russia and China, by altering the text of a letter from U.S. Ambassador to the UN
John D. Negroponte - a notorious insider in the Iran-Contra operation, who was accused of collaborating with narcotics-linked
military death squads in Honduras in the 1980s.The changes in the letter were made without notifying Negroponte's boss,
Secretary of State Powell.
In the letter, Negroponte echoed Wolfowitz's so-called gaffe, writing,"We may find that our self-defense requires further action with respect
to other organizations and states" (emphasis added). The statement implicitly targetted Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, all countries which are on
the State Department's list of countries that support terrorism. The statement violated promises the United States had made, that it would
limit"coalition" action to redressing the attack of Sept.11. Upon learning of the statement, from the press, Powell reportedly"hit the
roof." The insertion was drafted by Stephen J. Hadley, who is the Deputy Adviser to the National Security Council. The stunt may
have been planned at the Defense Policy Board meetings.
Then there's the case of former CIA director R. James Woolsey, whose defined role is as the Policy Board member who is most public in
demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain reported on Oct. 11, that Woolsey had been authorized
the prior month to fly to London on a U.S. government plane, accompanied by Justice and Defense Department officials, on a secret
mission to gather evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attack. In a Sept. 18 press conference by Defense Week, Woolsey
called for creating a"no-fly and no-drive zone" in the north and south of Iraq, so that the Kurds and the Shi'ites, respectively, could better
fight Saddam."The watchword of the day," Woolsey said, is,"It's the Regimes, Stupid!" Since the Oct. 5 death from anthrax of Bob Stevens,
the Sun tabloid photo editor, from anthrax, Woolsey has been the world's leading finger-pointer at Saddam as being behind the anthrax attack.
His so-called evidence is dated, prejudiced, and completely unreliable.
It was no accident that Woolsey role-played a prominent character - CIA Director - in the New York Council on Foreign Relations 1999
- 2000 scenario the previous year,"The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control, and Impact," that acted out a virtual coup
d'état coming on the heels of a combined financial crisis and terrorist attack. In the CFR war-game, the U.S. President would be
taken out of the picture, leaving the country under the control of a crisis management dictatorship.
Also dispatched to London to propagandize for a"rolling war" that would attack Afghanistan, then Iraq, then country after country
until revenge is exacted, was fellow Policy Board member Newt Gingrich. Talking to the London Times, owned by top British
-Israeli propagandist Rupert Murdoch, Gingrich said that the United States is"at war" with"organized, systematic extensions of terror,
supported by nation-states." He said that targetting the Afghan Taliban without defeating Iraq would be"like defeating Imperial Japan
and leaving the Nazis alone." Gingrich threatened that countries judged not cooperative against terrorism would face the
consequences:"The U.S. and the coalition forces will assist your own people in removing you."
Setting the pace for his team, Perle was the joint initiator with neo-con William Kristol of the Rupert Murdoch-funded Weekly Standard,
of an open letter to President Bush, that, while ostensibly supporting the President in the war against terrorism, was, in fact, an ultimatum
to support a"Clash of Civilizations" Thirty Years' War in the Middle East. Among the non-negotiable demands set forth in that letter
was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein,"even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (Sept. 11) attack."
There is no doubt that the Wolfowitz/Perle duo is at the heart of the network that can use Israel in the"breakaway ally scenario." Indeed,
Wolfowitz is one of great hopes of right-wing extremists in Israel, including among the radical settlers movement, who are demanding the
assassination of Arafat and the expulsion of all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories (see coverage in International). But, Wolfowitz
and Perle are not"Israeli agents." Rather, they are second-generation operatives both mentored by the RAND Corp.'s Albert Wohlstetter,
a former Trotskyite communist turned nuclear strategist. Nor are the cabal war-mongers Seven Days in May militarists.
Richard Armitage, Gen. Wayne Downing, Richard Clarke, and Elliott Abrams are also heavily involved in the cabal.
********
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/messengercabal.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2841wolfowitz.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2847skunks.html
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
Released: September 22, 2001
The right to self-defense gives you the right to defend your life by any means possible.
War, Nuclear Weapons and"Innocents"
By Onkar Ghate (Download an image of this author for print publication.)
America is at war.
To win, we must destroy not just individual terrorists like Osama bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan but the power of brutal, authoritarian governments to send out their armies of terrorists against us. Central among these is Iran, but the enemy includes Iraq, Syria, Sudan, the PLO and others.
The task ahead may be difficult, but we must not waver. We should constantly remind ourselves that these dictatorial regimes are arming themselves with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons aimed at our destruction. We dare not wait for another massacre before we eliminate their ability to attack us.
Many are now wondering, aloud or silently: Should the United States use nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy?
Determining what are the proper military means of achieving America's objective in the war, and whether those means include nuclear weapons, is an issue for our generals. But the real worry behind the question is whether the U.S. government has the moral right to use its full military arsenal in waging the war. To this question I can say, as a philosopher, that morality answers with an unequivocal"Yes."
The basic issue is that of self-defense. When men are initiating force against you in order to destroy you, you have the moral right to kill your would-be murderers by any means possible. To think that one thereby descends to the moral level of one's attackers is as absurd as to think that a policeman descends to the level of Al Capone if he kills Capone in a shootout.
The U.S. government is simply the agent of its citizens, charged with one and only one responsibility: to secure and defend the rights—and very lives—of its citizens against aggressors. If in waging war our government were to consider deaths in enemy countries as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of American citizens or soldiers, it would be violating its most basic function. It would no longer be an agent for our self-defense, but theirs.
What could be more morally obscene than 20,000 additional Americans killed in another attack on our cities because our government failed to bomb Iran, worried that Iranian casualties would be too high? Equally obscene would be to send our soldiers to war—courageous individuals ready to defend their freedom and ours—and then have our government not do everything in its power to minimize their deaths.
Morally, the responsibility of the U.S. government is to destroy our aggressors and minimize U.S. casualties. If our military decides that in this war, as in WWII, it needs nuclear weapons, so be it.
But what of the"innocent" civilians in enemy states that could be killed in the process?
Many civilians in those states hate us and actively support, materially and spiritually, their tyrannical regimes. They are not innocents. As we drop our bombs, should we worry about the lives of Palestinians who celebrated by dancing in the streets on September 11?
Other civilians in enemy states are passive, unthinking followers. Their work and economic production, however meager, supports their terrorist governments and so they are in part responsible for the continued power of our aggressors. They too are not innocent—and their deaths may be unavoidable in order for America to defend itself.
The civilians in enemy territory who actually oppose their dictatorial regimes are usually the regimes' first innocent victims. Any such individuals who remain alive and outside of prison camps should try to flee their country or rebel.
Destroying innocents qua innocents should not be our goal—and true innocents should welcome American attack on their country. They know that they might be killed in the process, and even that they are legitimate targets insofar as they are forced to support their dictatorial regimes, but they will also know that it is their only chance at freedom. In WWII, occupied Europe welcomed American invasion, even though this meant that some civilians who actually resisted the Nazis would die in American bombings.
We must not allow human shields to deter us from defending ourselves. The U.S. government, properly and morally, in the name of defending the lives of its citizens, ordered the shooting down of the airplanes-become-missiles, even though this meant killing not only the terrorists but also the innocent American captives onboard. If this principle applies to Americans onboard their own planes, how much more so does it apply to people in Afghanistan or Iran?
The responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves.
War is terrible but sometimes necessary. To win this war, we must not let an immoral concern with"innocents" weaken our resolve. We must have the profound moral conviction that we have the right to exist. We have the right to destroy those who initiate force to deprive us of our rights and lives. With full moral certainty we must urge our government to defend our lives, even if that requires nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands of deaths in terrorist countries.
Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
Thread-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht
Reihenfolge
Thread gesperrt
