In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a task force to study what causes Terrorism, and it concluded that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies":  specifically, "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" through our "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan" (the full report is here). 

Now, a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years:  namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather.  . . . foreign military occupations.

They Hate Us for Our Occupations

How stupid does the world wide media consider the ordinary citizen of ANY country?  What you write in your post John is so true that one must feel for the people who are suffering the US led imperialism which makes the conquests of Genghis Khan look like a Salvation Army BBQ.

I have personally described the "suicide bombings" by indigenous people are acts of heroism for their homeland under attack.  We Australians call that the "ultimate sacrifice".

Someday, people will realise that democracy is a marketing word – freedom is measured by the power and wealth of the elite.  Most people would say that the answer is too complicated but, think reason and use logic – it is the information that the people of nations are fed which decides their attitude to the current, war like attitudes in the apparent reservoirs of the all mighty Oil.

The duplicity of the “news” we receive is an indication of the contrived intention of influencing any opinion on any matter of note.  For example, before and even now, the anti-labor bias of the ABC has demonstrated the demise of “balanced reporting” and the Howard disease lingers on.

The infamous Murdoch regime has continued its persecution of the Australian Federal Government and anything they have done, are doing or intend to do. It is considered fair play by the Murdochracy to abuse your advantages to the point where you eliminate anything truthful in favour of a political statement against the Australian government.

IMHO the information we receive, especially from the Murdoch Media Empire, is more fiction than fact.  Surely somewhere in Australia besides Your Democracy, there is a few “free thinkers” who can see through the manipulation of the “minds and hearts” by the Political Press.  

So, in reality, and mostly due to the infamous Howard “New Order” the media has become a totally political weapon which is already deciding for us what is best for …them.

In the meantime, is it beyond hope to find some criticism of the Abbott team of “no policy” and their natural tendency to lie and create stories which begin and end as mere accusations?

Wake up Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

Surely it must be obvious, irrespective of the Murdoch "opinions not facts" - that the Howard remnants of a shattered US puppet regime are still depending on media bias to bring about the ultimate domonstration of Media power by Murdoch electing Tony Abbott.  This will remind us of the "shock and awe" of the Murdoch power.  Why bother with elections and all of its costs - just get Murdoch's decision.

It is not a coincidence that the Murdoch plague has spread its disease only in so-called "democracies"?

Various countries throughout the world are "brain washing" their children to believe in the form of government into which they were born.  The Roman Catholic Church has built its entire empire on that principle. 

The world has upstart newcomers like the US telling ancient civilizations that their system is wrong and demanding that those apparently happy people conform to the US type of a mad, mad world.  And the tragedy is that Australians are being led to believe that these "rag heads" as the Americans call them, desperately NEED our lifestyle to survive for another thousand years at least. Meanwhile we will blow ourselves to pieces if we don't abuse nature enough to do it for us.

There must be an insidious universal force which is manipulating the destructive behaviour of the most powerful country on earth. It's behaviour is diametrically opposed to the values which their administrations have sold to their people over many years.  How did they sell it? How did the Churchs sell their doctrine? How did Murdoch almost succeed in punishing Australians for being so gullible as to believe that the arrogant and aggressive Abbott would be good - for who?

Wake up Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

I have imagined that over the centuries, several types of Empires have formed and been "successful" in subjugating various peoples who were unable to successfully defend themselves.  I have often wondered as to the purpose of these occupations because it appears to me that with such oppression comes a responsibility to control and make the effort pay?

IMHO I believe that over time, the forced occupation of land only increased the responsibility and costs of administration so – what was in it for Alexander for example?

Some races over the years may have been more aggressive if they had the weapons to back it up.  But what then?

These are my wonders of the past militarily forced occupation of lands unable to defend themselves. Over the centuries I find that some lands benefited from these “Empires” but, inevitably fought to regain their identity and dignity.

Conversely, some wars changed the borders and even the names of various “tribes” so that the more wars that were fought for LAND the more confusion and bastardisation of original societies occurred.

But to the modern world the intention is one of two – capture the wealth of the nation for your own use or at least cause internal rebellion, from which you can profit by producing weapons.  Who care who wins?

So I come back to America and its passage from a “light on the hill” to a gross dishonest and hated aggressive armoury.

There was a time when the US and Russia were sparring off for what could be the end of the world which was based on the premise that both sides could use the ultimate weapon (at that time) but that abated didn’t it?

Now the economies of the major nations are dependent to such an extent that their “so-called” weapons of defence consume the majority of their economies and dictate their employment.

The “Sheriff” of the world would have worked I believe, IF the US had been agreeable to the decisions of the Security Council and had itself reached the dignity and reliability that it demanded on others.

NE OUBLIE.

"Afghanistan has been the central front in the most important civilisational struggle of our times."

Tony Abbott

This is possibly the most offensive justification for war that has been peddled in Australia - or anywhere for that matter. The idea that the US military machine - now responsible for probably over one million deaths in Iraq and the almost complete destruction of one of the Middle East's most advanced nations - is a beacon of light in a war for progressive human values is one of the most racist and vile contentions around.

Someone should have thrown a pair of shoes - and the box - at his ugly little mug.

Instead he went effectively unchallenged and was heard in silence. What a complete indictment of parliamentary respectability.

The parliament is full of these nutbags with unsupportable views, but you wouldn't know it from reading or listening to the mainstream media. For them, bullshit justifications for endless slaughter in the name of the prestige and standing of the US empire are the bread and butter of legitimate debate.

Yet anyone who dares question the motives of the killing machine is derided as somehow insensitive. What hypocrisy.

9/11, Afghanistan and the lies of the establishment

hypocrisy indeed .....

The chances that we may learn the truth on this subject from the "debate" now progressing through Parliament are very slim.

A proper sense of history would have indicated the impossibility of "winning" a war in the tribal world of Afghanistan. Even a little knowledge of history would have meant familiarity with the failures of Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and the British Raj. Knowledge of events only thirty years ago would have explained how a world power was humiliated by bands of raggedy partisans, some of them armed and organised by American "intelligence".

A modest knowledge of the law would have been decisive.

The United States invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, ostensibly to pursue al Qa'ida, held responsible for the outrages in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The invasion was an act of misdirected revenge, because the majority of the plane hijackers were Saudis, and the nervous centre of the operation was Hamburg, Germany. There is no evidence linking Afghanistan with the attacks. There are some indications that the Taliban offered to deliver up Osama bin Laden, under certain conditions, to the United States months before and even one month after it began the invasion. The offers were rejected. Revenge was obviously preferred.

In any event, revenge is not a legal ground for going to war, which is a crime under the UN Charter unless a) for self-defence or b) under UN Security Council authorisation.

There was no legal basis for the invasion: neither UN Resolution of the Security Council 1368/12.09.2001 nor UNSC Resolution 1373/28.09.01 authorised it.

Australia joined between October and December 01. The current "reasons" being given are based on "the national interest" and "solidarity with an ally."

Intervention was deemed authorised by the ANZUS Treaty, presumably Article IV, by which "Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

Debate on Australia's presence in Afghanistan? What debate?

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban...they requested evidence...and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

The political analyst also said that non-existence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

"The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany."

Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war."

"All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.

The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country.

Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.

Chomsky: US-led Afghan war, criminal