…“The military is just one side of the triangle,” he said. “Where were the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office? “The window was briefly open for our message to be spread, for the civilian population to be informed of our intent and realise that we weren’t there simply to destroy the poppy fields and their livelihoods. I felt at this stage that the Taliban were sitting back and observing us, deciding in their own time how to most effectively hit us.”

Eventually the Taliban attacked on June 11, when Captain Jim Philippson became the first British soldier to be killed in Helmand. British troops have since been holed up in their compound with attacks coming at least once a day. Seven British soldiers have died in the Sangin area.

“Now the ground has been lost and all we’re doing in places like Sangin is surviving,” said Docherty. “It’s completely barking mad.

“We’re now scattered in a shallow meaningless way across northern towns where the only way for the troops to survive is to increase the level of violence so more people get killed. It’s pretty shocking and not something I want to be part of.”

timesonline.co.uk

SYDNEY, Australia – At least 10 stingrays have been slain since “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin was killed by one of the fish, an official said Tuesday, prompting a spokesman for the late TV star’s animal charity to urge people not take revenge on the animals.

msnbc.msn.com

He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours.

He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaeda had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen.

It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child’s story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America’s Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora.

He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered.

“To me, the report read as a cartoon.” White-haired and courtly, Griffin sits on a couch in a hotel lobby in Manhattan, unspooling words in that reasonable Presbyterian minister’s voice. “It’s a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives.”

Such as?

“There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives.”

If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the widespread belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 in order to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government “consciously failed to act.”

You could dismiss this as a louder than usual howl from the CIA-controls-my-thoughts-through-the-filling-in-my-molar crowd. Establishment assessments of the believers tend toward the psychotherapeutic. Many academics, politicians and thinkers left, right and center say the conspiracy theories are a case of one plus one equals five. It’s a piling up of improbabilities.

Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. “At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints,” Eager says. “Then I realized that it wasn’t that amazing — it’s the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down.”

But the chatter out there is loud enough for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to post a Web “fact sheet” poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers.

Yeah, as if . . .

The loose agglomeration known as the “9/11 Truth Movement” has stopped looking for truth from the government. As cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists anywhere this side of Guy Fawkes, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. There’s nothing like a triple, Google-fed epiphany lighting up the laptop at 2:44 a.m.

Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site, there are really weird doings in Baluchistan . . .

The academic wing is led by Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota (Fetzer’s an old hand in JFK assassination research); and Daniel Orr, the retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. The movement’s de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University, who’s studied vectors and velocities and tested explosives and concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition, sped by a thousand pounds of high-grade thermite.

Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She’s convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon — or didn’t hit it, as some believe the case may be. Catherine Austin Fitts served as assistant secretary of housing in the first President Bush’s administration and gained a fine reputation as a fraud buster; David Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter. Fitts and Bowman agree that the “most unbelievable conspiracy” theory is the one retailed by the government.

Then there’s Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn’t think much of his former boss; he describes President Bush as a “dysfunctional creep,” not to mention a “possible war criminal.”

You reach Reynolds at his country home in the hills of Arkansas. His favored rhetorical style is long paragraphs without obvious punctuation: “Who did it? Elements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad. The government’s case is a laugh-out-loud proposition. They used patsies and lies and subterfuge and there’s no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq without the help of 9/11.”

washingtonpost.com

…A year later the commercial media is dutifully revisiting the story, as if to sell the public on the notion that they—a defacto extension of the government—actually care about America’s poor; they do not. America remains a racist nation that was built upon slave labor, and the exploitation of immigrant workers. Racism can be found anywhere but, thankfully, it does not exist everywhere. Not all Americans are racists. However, racism flourishes in the White House, and every branch of government is poisoned by the malignancy of bigotry.

The truth is that wealthy white Plutocrats are in control of the government, and they don’t give a damn about anyone they cannot exploit; and that is the observation of a white man.  

Because of my race I know that I enjoy advantages and privileges that black men and women do not. I neither ask for nor expect preferential treatment, but I know that I am accorded them on the basis of my skin color. It should not be like this.

informationclearinghouse.info

The right-wing, pro-war position of the Democratic Party was on full display Tuesday as the party leadership presented a new report that criticizes the Bush administration for failing to adequately defend the interests of American militarism.

Over the past several weeks, top Bush administration officials have given a series of speeches marking the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. These speeches, laced with historical falsifications and other lies, have been designed to intimidate opponents of the war in Iraq, castigating them as appeasers of a new fascistic ideology.

The response from the Democratic Party is to argue that they, not the Republicans, are the more consistent proponents of American “national security” and “defense,” i.e., domestic repression and war. From the Democratic Party there has been no criticism of the basic line of the administration, which has used the pretext of the September 11 attacks to escalate a policy of neo-colonialism, particularly in the Middle East. Rather, the Democrats are seeking to argue that they will be better at prosecuting the “war on terror” by confronting supposed threats like Iran and North Korea.

wsws.org

MIRANSHAH, North Waziristan – With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

While the truce has generated much attention, a more significant development is an underhand deal between pro-al-Qaeda elements and Pakistan in which key al-Qaeda figures will either not be arrested or those already in custody will be set free. This has the potential to sour Islamabad’s relations with Washington beyond the point of no return.

On Tuesday, Pakistan agreed to withdraw its forces from the restive Waziristan tribal areas bordering Afghanistan in return for a pledge from tribal leaders to stop attacks by Pakistani Taliban across the border.

Most reports said that the stumbling block toward signing this truce had been the release of tribals from Pakistani custody. But most tribals had already been released.

The main problem – and one that has been unreported – was to keep Pakistan authorities’ hands off members of banned militant organizations connected with al-Qaeda.

Thus, for example, it has now been agreed between militants and Islamabad that Pakistan will not arrest two high-profile men on the “most wanted” list that includes Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Saud Memon and Ibrahim Choto are the only Pakistanis on this list, and they will be left alone. Saud Memon was the owner of the lot where US journalist Daniel Pearl was tortured, executed and buried in January 2002 in Karachi after being kidnapped by jihadis.

Pakistan has also agreed that many people arrested by law-enforcement agencies in Pakistan will be released from jail.

Importantly, this includes Ghulam Mustafa, who was detained by Pakistani authorities late last year. Mustafa is reckoned as al-Qaeda’s chief in Pakistan. (See Al-Qaeda’s man who knows too much, Asia Times Online, January 5. As predicted in that article, Mustafa did indeed disappear into a “black hole” and was never formally charged, let alone handed over to the US.)

Asia Times Online contacts expect Mustafa to be released in the next few days. He was once close to bin Laden and has intimate knowledge of al-Qaeda’s logistics, its financing and its nexus with the military in Pakistan.
asiatimes.com

yesterday they’re vowing to crush the Taliban in Afghanistan, and today…what is up?

THE future of Iraq as a sovereign nation has been jeopardised with the introduction to parliament of a law that would enable the country to break up into semi-autonomous regions.

A self-ruling Shiite state would emerge in the south, based on the autonomous region that Kurds have established in the north.

The Shiite state would not only be able to levy taxes and govern itself but, Shiite politicians say, would have its own armed guards along its borders. Sunnis, most of who bitterly oppose the law, have warned it would mark the first step in the break-up of the country and could lead to the south becoming a satellite of Iran.

The introduction of the law was marked by a plea from the Speaker of parliament that delegates must compromise and find agreement on the prospect of federalism, otherwise the country risked not only collapsing but descending into anarchy.

smh.com.au

MEXICO CITY — Felipe Calderon was declared president-elect Tuesday after two months of uncertainty, but his ability to rule remained in doubt, with Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador saying he’ll lead a parallel leftist government from the streets.

The unanimous decision by the Federal Electoral Tribunal rejected allegations of systematic fraud and awarded Calderon the presidency by 233,831 votes out of 41.6 million cast in the July 2 elections — a margin of 0.56%. The ruling can’t be appealed.

Calderon now must win over millions of Mexicans angry that President Vicente Fox didn’t make good on promises of sweeping change — and fend off thousands of people who say they’ll stop at nothing to undermine his presidency.

Lopez Obrador has said he won’t recognize the new government and pledges to block Calderon from taking power Dec. 1. Protesters outside the tribunal wept as the decision was announced and set off firecrackers that shook the building.

“We aren’t going to let him govern!” Thomas Jimenez, a 30-year-old law student, screamed as hundreds of protesters threw eggs and trash at the courthouse.

The decision by the seven judges — who have split their votes in disputes about other elections — also found that Fox endangered the election by making statements that favored Calderon, and that business leaders broke the law by paying for ads against Lopez Obrador, who promised to govern on behalf of poor people.

But the problems weren’t serious enough to annul the results, they said. “There are no perfect elections,” Judge Alfonsina Berta Navarro Hidalgo said.

The court’s president, Leonel Castillo, urged Mexicans to unite. “I hope we conclude this electoral process leaving confrontation behind,” he said.

Revolution ‘only way’ to change

But the decision was unlikely to end the demonstrations that have crippled Mexico City’s center or heal the nation’s political divide.

Lopez Obrador’s campaign pledge — “the poor come first” — resonated in southern states, where he won about half of the vote, compared with a national average of 35%. About half of Mexico’s 103 million people can’t afford food, clothing or housing, according to a government study.

In the Zocalo plaza, thousands of people in a month-old protest camp chanted: “If there is no solution, there will be revolution!”

“Taking up arms is the only way,” said Angel Sinsun, 80. “They’ll never give us power with peaceful resistance or with negotiations.”

Lopez Obrador has urged his followers to remain peaceful.

His movement has become increasingly radicalized since the election, and polls indicate he lost support after lawmakers from his party blocked Fox’s last State of the Nation address Friday.

Lopez Obrador adviser Manuel Camacho said the court’s recommendation “does not take into account what is actually happening in the country.”

“The court is going to be questioned seriously about its decision,” he said, adding: “We have the responsibility to conduct ourselves peacefully.”

For others, decision is perfect

No violence was reported, but police surrounded the headquarters of Calderon’s National Action Party, where businesswoman Susanna Rivera was among a few drivers honking in support of the conservative former energy secretary.

“It’s marvelous. It’s perfect,” she said of the court’s decision. “We are happy because he is a decent, educated person.” She said Lopez Obrador’s supporters would never accept Calderon because “they are a bunch of crazies.”

Neither candidate attended the court session. Lopez Obrador ate breakfast with lawmakers, then went to his protest tent in the Zocalo plaza, where he’s been sleeping for nearly two months.

Supporters greeted him with calls of “You are not alone!”

detroitfreepress

Al-Jazeera TV broadcast an audiotape Thursday that was said to be the first released by the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, who succeeded the militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In the tape, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer said he was confident that victory will be achieved and called on all mujahedeen to unite on the battlefield, the station reported.

It played a brief excerpt from the tape, in which the speaker said, “Our enemy has unified its ranks against us. Isn’t it time to get together, worshippers of God?”

Al-Muhajer, a previously unknown militant, became the leader of Iraq’s most feared insurgent group after al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. U.S. officials say they believe al-Muhajer is an Egyptian.

yahoo.com

 Yeah, and the Egyptians said a few months back that old boy’s in JAIL, and has been for years! I always know that when a story has the words ‘al Zarqawi’ in it it is going to be a)amusing, and b)total crap.

“President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascist Tool.”

So ran the New York Times headline, Oct. 26, 1948, after what Dewey biographer Richard Norton Smith called a “particularly vitriolic attack in Chicago” by Harry Truman.

What brings this to mind is President Bush’s assertion that we are “at war with Islamic fascism” and “Islamofascism.”

After the transatlantic bomb plot was smashed, Bush said the plotters “try to spread their jihadist message—a message I call, it’s totalitarian in nature—Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.”

What is wrong with the term Islamofascism?

First, there is no consensus as to what “fascism” even means. Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is, “I hate Smith. ” By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he’s a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini.

As a concept, writes Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution, “fascism … has no intellectual basis; its founders did not even pretend to have any. Hitler’s ravings in Mein Kampf … Mussolini’s boastful balcony speeches, all can be described, in the words of Roger Scruton, as ‘an amalgam of disparate conceptions.’”

Richard Pipes considers Stalinism and Hilterism to be siblings of the same birth mother: “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.”

Since the 1930s, “fascist” has been a term of hate and abuse used by the Left against the Right, as in the Harry Truman campaign. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. claimed to see in the Goldwater campaign “dangerous signs of Hitlerism.” Twin the words, “Reagan, fascism” in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up.

Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-Social Democratic Left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran into an “Islamofascist” kill box, then let SAC do the rest.

The term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.

But Saddam was about as devout a practitioner of Islam as his idol Stalin was of the Russian Orthodox faith. Saddam was into booze, mistresses, movies, monuments, palaces, and dynasty. Bin Laden loathed him and volunteered to fight him in 1991, if Saudi Arabia would only not bring the Americans in to do the fighting Islamic warriors ought to be doing themselves.

And whatever “Islamofascism” means, Syria surely is not it. It is a secular dictatorship Bush I bribed into becoming an ally in the Gulf War. The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Syria. In 1982, Hafez al-Assad perpetrated a massacre of the Brotherhood in the city of Hama that was awesome in its magnitude and horror.

As with Khaddafi, whom Bush let out of the penalty box after he agreed to pay $10 million to the family of each victim of Pan Am 103 and give up his nuclear program, America can deal with Syria, as Israel did after the Yom Kippur War—for an armistice on the Golan has stuck, as both sides have kept the deal.

America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies, and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.

Al-Qaeda appears to exist for one purpose: plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us and we have to get them first.

Hamas and Hezbollah have used terrorism, but like Begin’s Irgun and Mandela’s ANC, they have social and political agendas that require state power to implement. And once a guerrilla/terrorist movement takes over a state, it acquires state assets and interests that are then vulnerable to the U.S. military and economic power.

Why did the Ayatollah let the American hostages go, as Reagan raised his right hand to take the oath? Why has Syria not come to the rescue of Hezbollah? Why has Ahmadinejad not rocketed Tel Aviv in solidarity with his embattled allies in Lebanon? Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. They don’t want war with Israel; they don’t want war with the United States.

“Islamofascism” should be jettisoned from Bush’s vocabulary. It yokes the faith of a billion people with an odious ideology. Imagine how Christians would have reacted had FDR taken to declaring Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy “Christo-fascist.”

amconmag.com

Buchanan is interesting for his mixture of truth and propoganda…sort of like the right-wing Chomsky, I’m afaraid…