SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
spinning the spin .....It would be tempting to dismiss Neil Brown’s ranting Opinion piece as illogical puffery (‘Ruthlessness In Pursuit Of Terrorism Is No Crime’, The Australian, January 9), were it not for the fact that it acts to promote a number of deceitful & dangerous fictions, whilst being afforded prominent & unjustified exposure in our community.
Essentially Brown argues that the US & its allies, including Australia, need to free of any moral & legal constraints & totally ruthless in their prosecution of the alleged “endless war on terror”.
Brown attempts to construct a justification for his argument by lasciviously unpacking a series of bloodthirsty & extreme views allegedly posited by Winston Churchill in prosecuting the war against Nazi Germany, as reported in just released cabinet minutes.
He then asserts that it was only the adoption of such ruthless tactics that secured victory in that war for the allies & therefore, if the world is to secure victory in its war on terror, it must adopt the same terms of engagement.
Having devoted nearly half his piece to lionising Churchill for his bloodthirsty views, Brown then says: ‘In today's way of looking at things, Churchill would be expected to comply with "moral and legal considerations", be hamstrung as a result and eventually be beaten by Germany.’
How absurd.
For those who might have missed it, including Brown, Germany was defeated &, as Brown himself acknowledges, Churchill’s extreme policies were never actually enacted & therefore played no part in the allied victory.
But that’s OK: Brown’s already constructed his argument – the end justifies the means – illogical as it is: he’s on a roll & its time to convince us that there we still have a soft underbelly in our society that acts to impede our victory in the war on terror.
And what is our soft underbelly?
In a nutshell, it’s our soft treatment of terrorists; our refusal to jettison legal & human rights; our failure to embrace the dark art of torture & our refusal to accept that our political leaders should be above the law, including International Law.
Whilst Brown argues that it is this soft underbelly that threatens to deny us victory in the war on terror, he ignores the fact that the US & its allies have prosecuted the war on terror for four (4) years, using any & all means at their disposal to secure victory.
Unlike his great exemplar, Winston Churchill, the coalition of the willing has not been constrained at all. Quite to the contrary, it has operated with a mandate based purely on overwhelming brute force – ‘shock & awe no less’ - & has completely ignored the niceties of International Laws & Conventions.
It has committed the highest war crime – a crime against peace – by waging an illegal war of aggression against & occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq: a country that played no part in the obscene terrorist attack against the US on 911.
As the ‘leader’ of the coalition, the US in particular has abandoned the rule of law: suspending the application of the Geneva Conventions, trashing the Torture Convention & refusing to support the International Court of Justice.
Along the way, the US has abused the sovereign rights of many other nations in carrying-out the kidnapping & rendering of terrorist suspects to 3rd countries, where they are held indefinitely without charge; interrogated, frequently tortured & on numerous occasions, murdered.
Both the US & Great Britain hold terrorist ‘suspects’ without charge; denying them access to legal representation; the right to confront their accusers & the right to due process. More than 500 such ‘suspects’ have been held at Guantanamo Bay for more than four (4) years, with only ten (10) having been charged with any offence.
And if this is not enough, our political leaders have acted to diminish the legal & human rights of their own citizens by extending the powers of the Police, Intelligence Agencies & even the Military in domestic situations, by introducing laws that permit secret searches; questioning on suspicion; detention without charge or reason; denial of legal representation & denial of the right not to self-incriminate or to refuse to answer questions.
Contrary to Brown’s arguments, it would seem that our political leaders have already usurped & used all the powers that Winston Churchill might have wished for, notwithstanding voices in opposition.
Instead of whinging about not being able to get the job done & acting as an apologist for our warrior politicians, perhaps Neil Brown should be asking them to explain why, unlike Churchill, they haven’t got the job done?
And perhaps they could start by telling us why Usama bin Laden is still free?
|
User login |
A dummy target
Bin laden is not nice, but he has been heaped will all the ills of the world.
... as if he was "Robbing Hoon" with his crummy men holding the world to ransom... Sure! There is a bit of that, but the ills are far deeper than what we are spruiked. Do we think that a bunch of people on the run in mountain caves in Afghanistan, can rattle the bumper crop of economic harvest we are promising ourselves, better than ever? AND IN THE FACE OF THE MIGHTIEST ROMAN ARMIES EVER ASSEMBLED?
WE are being "FEARED" and 'MORALIZED' so that we can be herded into our nice little compounds... WHILE OUR LEADERS BREAK ALL THE RULES without blinking... all against their ESPOUSED AND DISPLAYED FAITH ... They just lie. And when cornered or exposed? They roll out the greater grand con that they are tarnishing their soul for us... What a sacrifice!
This hypocrisy is the rotten core of our little apple...
Browning it.
"Ruthlessness in pursuit of terrorism is no crime", although published a while back in the Australian left me cold. Reminded me of a certain 1930-40's leader who claimed the bigger the lie told more it will be believed.
Unrestrained admiration for Winston Churchill is one thing but his complete lack of historical perspective is as breathtaking as his grasp of current world affairs.
Firstly despite rumours, the world powers are not engaged in total warfare akin to 1939-45. It was during this period Churchill’s comments in the article were noted.
Like so many war apologists before him Brown is cute to equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler.
Hitler’s Germany that opposed Churchill’s Britain was a world superpower. It was capable of launching total war in Europe and beyond. It did so with the axis powers for nearly 6 years with devastating effect.
Hussein, is/was isolated, as previous allies had long deserted him since the end of the Cold War. Hussein’s Iraq was crushed by very effective UN sanctions for over a decade. Iraq barely made Third World status prior to the ‘war on terror’. At this stage Hussein’s Iraq could barely put a motorway together let alone take on the developed world in a global conflict in the manner Hitler’s Germany could.
But then Brown is confused. He claims the real Hitler or Hitleresque threat today is ‘Islamic fundamentalism and its lunatic followers’. Saddam who fought fundamentalist Iran was just a sideshow Hitler then? Or did Brown mean both secular Saddam and his Iraq in combination with ‘Islamic fundamentalism and its lunatic followers’ are worse than Hitler and Hitler’s Germany.
Brown gets one thing right, the ‘present enemy has no command structure,…no identifiable centres of operation or headquarters’ With this, Churchill may have described this new ‘enemy’ as nothing more than a “…rag-tag disparate bunch of nihilist murdering scum that should be run down with the full force of the law wherever they raise their heads”. Basically that’s what the ‘new enemy’ are, a cowardly bunch of suicidal nihilist murderers who hate modernity and freedom. Hardly the Third Reich’s war machine in 1939!
Interesting how Churchill (even out of public earshot) refused to acknowledge the potential of Hitler and his war machine. He referred to him as merely a ‘gangster’. Thatcher deployed similar terminology to the provincial IRA during the height of the war in the north of Ireland. Downplaying the political and military threat posed by the provisionals, when it was very real and tangible. It appears now the less real and less tangible a threat really is the greater it should be inflated.
But back to Churchill, he like appropriately named Brown was no great lover of libertarian ideals (note the GB public dropped him like a hot potato in the election after WW2!). However the man who led his nation to face down Nazi Europe must turn in his grave when the likes of Brown equates current events to WW2 to justify surrendering our freedoms in the face of deadly but small bands of nihilist cowards. Luckily Britain had the leaders and people to do the job back then, not the terrified and confused likes of Brown.
just another poke in the eye .....
‘The CIA’s recent botched attempt to kill al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Zawahiri, in Pakistan illustrates why the Bush administration’s overly aggressive “war on terror” actually motivates terrorists to attack the United States. Certainly, capturing or killing the brains behind al Qaeda is an important goal. Unfortunately, in the U.S. method of warfare - which unduly emphasizes attrition, heavy firepower and sophisticated weaponry, even against guerrillas and terrorists - the technology of killing has outstripped the quality of human intelligence needed to hit the correct targets. The CIA’s unmanned Predator drone fired missiles that killed many Pakistani civilians, including women and children, but apparently not Zawahiri.’
“War on Terror” Continues to Create Terrorists
the meaning of victory .....
‘It is undoubtedly, Osama bin Laden's one real victory. If no "apostate" Arab regime has fallen under al-Qaeda's blows, if its attacks wound democracies without really threatening them, it is America that has vacillated in its moral and legal certitudes. Through the apocalyptic dimension of his struggle, the great conductor of international jihadism has succeeded in making George W. Bush lose his cool, in dragging him into a dark and tormented terrain. And the controversy over torture and CIA black sites has inflicted collateral damage in Washington and in the world.
At the same time, the French Army finds itself shaken up by the "Mahé Affair," named after a prisoner sordidly murdered by a patrol in Ivory Coast. Of course, the two subjects are not of similar scale. On the one hand, a repressive system implemented by politico-military actors whilst, on the other, a blunder committed by a few individuals. But in both cases, non-conventional conflicts destabilized those who were supposed to contain them. And awoke the spectre - always waiting in ambush - of dirty war.’
The Invariable Degeneration of Non-Conventional Conflicts
down the slippery slide we go .....
‘The UK government is secretly trying to stifle attempts by MPs to find out what it knows about CIA "torture flights" and privately admits that people captured by British forces could have been sent illegally to interrogation centres. A hidden strategy aimed at suppressing a debate about rendition - the US practice of transporting detainees to secret centres where they are at risk of being tortured - is revealed in a briefing paper sent by the Foreign Office to No 10.’
Torture Flights: What No 10 Knew And Tried To Cover Up
(The leaked briefing paper can be read here Rendition)
we don't deal with terrorists .....
‘Asked about Rubaie's charges, a Pentagon spokesman would not comment directly on whether contacts were being pursued with Sunnis associated with the insurgency.
"It's my understanding that the coalition is involved in reaching out to influential community leaders across Iraq to address legitimate concerns of the people and to urge people to participate in a peaceful political process," said Bryan Whitman.
"I can tell you that we do not engage with (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi or al-Qaeda in Iraq, pro-Saddamists, criminals, foreign fighters - that is not the type of engagement that we're talking about," he said.
But on whether there have been contacts with other insurgents, he said, "It depends on how you characterize or categorize people."’
Iraqi Criticizes Secret US Contacts With Insurgents
living on illusions .....
‘My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them... Our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite.
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show that an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he [Bush] has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them [Bin Laden's followers] on their land than them fighting us [Americans] on our land. I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favour, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses.
The reality shows that war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he [Bush] claims ... The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through [with preparations].
We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.’
Osama bin Laden: Is It Him?
redefining terrorism .....
‘The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation's supposed "war profiteering." The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. "It was tongue-in-street political theater," Parkin says.
But that's not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. Created three years ago by the Defense Department, CIFA's role is "force protection" - tracking threats and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy Defense secretary, authorized a fact-gathering operation code-named TALON - short for Threat and Local Observation Notice - that would collect "raw information" about "suspicious incidents." The data would be fed to CIFA to help the Pentagon's "terrorism threat warning process," according to an internal Pentagon memo.’
The Other Big Brother
retreat into darkness .....
‘This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.
This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There – in an article by military analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon – came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."
According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization – the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" – will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.’
Into The Dark: The Pentagon Plan To Foment Terrorism
the power of persuasion .....
‘United States military authorities have taken tougher
measures to force-feed detainees engaged in hunger strikes at Guantánamo Bay,
Cuba, after concluding that some were determined to commit suicide to protest
their indefinite confinement, military officials have said.
In recent weeks, the officials
said, guards have begun strapping recalcitrant detainees into "restraint
chairs," sometimes for hours a day, to feed them through tubes and prevent
them from deliberately vomiting afterward. Detainees who refuse to eat have
also been placed in isolation for extended periods in what the officials said
was an effort to keep them from being encouraged by other hunger strikers. The
measures appear to have had drastic effects. The chief military spokesman at
Guantánamo, Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin, said yesterday that the number of
detainees on hunger strike had dropped to 4 from 84 at the end of December.’
Guards Force-Feeding
Prisoners at Guantanamo
the phoney war .....
‘Yet even if you include the 9/11 casualties,
the number of Americans killed by international terrorists since the late 1960s
(which is when the State Department began counting them) is about the same as
that killed by lightning - or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic
reactions to peanuts.
"In almost all years, the total number of
people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much
more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States" wrote
John Mueller of Ohio State University in last autumn's issue of the
authoritative American journal Terrorism and Political Violence.
As Mueller concedes, there is a definitional
issue: Few insurgents in Iraq are internationals; most are homegrown. And if
aspirant terrorists in London or Paris had nuclear bombs, the numbers would
become rather different.
Nonetheless, a phenomenon that is scattered, limited and
under control, and inevitably transient, has been conflated by Washington with
something that is huge and very serious: the desperation among the Muslim
masses that is directed indiscriminately against Western nations, which are
held responsible for Islamic society's backwardness, poverty and exploitation.’
William Pfaff: A
'long war' Designed To Perpetuate Itself
truth speaks to power .....
Clutching her Italian identity card in a gloved hand, the cloaked wife of a fiery Muslim cleric Wednesday tearfully recounted publicly for the first time how her husband was kidnapped on a Milan street in 2003 and sent to Egypt to endure torture and repeated imprisonment.
Italian prosecutors say the cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, was kidnapped by CIA agents as part of a plan to transport suspected terrorists to third countries for questioning.
Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was a political refugee in Italy and preached at the Islamic Center on Milan's Jenner Street.
His wife, Ghali Nabila, spent more than six hours on the stand, marking the first testimony in a complicated court case that opened nearly a year ago, and has focused on the U.S. practice of "extraordinary renditions" and complicity by foreign governments in such forced relocation.
"Extraordinary Rendition" On Trial In Italy
dresses for summer weddings

 cheap wedding party dresses ;
That might believe a night time gown even sold with regard to $192,000? Nicely, believe it or not, times back, during an auction working in london Wedding Shoes Wedding Shoes, a dark dress dress worn by the teenage lady Diana Spencer was offered from $192,Thousand. The result really was the feeling, since the dress had been likely to cost around $50, casual wedding dresses for summer casual wedding dresses for summer000.
This particular well-known formal gown was created through Bridgend — created Emanuel and the wife At the jackets online jackets online, that got much more fames following this public sale. Before the public sale summer 2011 fashion , the pair had been very worried, because many people contain the opinion which no one would care Little princess Diana anymore. However, casual black dress casual black dress the ultimate outcomes overturned this sort of doubts.
The black dress of Diana got its really cause to become therefore costly wedding dresses for a beach wedding , however how can all of us afford our wedding gown? It is no deniable fact that wedding gowns are becoming more and more expensive, why not save money throughout wedding planning ?
To begin with, there is no relationship between tacky, stingy and cheap bride-to-be dresses dresses . When you might select stunning dress from low prices, The ultimate resource for wedding dresses and wedding fashion. Everything you need to know about your wedding dress! the reason why in order to waste the money upon those costly types?
When selecting wedding gown, it does not need to be whitened. Just pick the gown that suits using the theme of your wedding is affordable. After that other wedding suggestions about purchasing wedding gowns .
One. Search with regard to journal or even the internet to get ideas about what type of dress is actually most suitable for you. You will save time in addition to cash, since you may really feel a lot easy to select your own gown .
2. When you decide to put on a simple bride-to-be dress, never forget to include tulle apron, or even some other wedding gown add-ons. They will be really nice for any romantic marriage ceremony.
Three. Check the shopping mall division or even online stores. Numerous department stores or online shops provide decent wedding gowns from much lower prices than the specialty shops.
Four. Do not forget leasing wedding dresses wedding dresses . Just as many people think that unique wedding dresses can end up being just worn once, if you might rent a satisfactory wedding gown, it still is a great way to save money.