Thursday, August 31, 2006

Michael Collins Piper Exposes Hufschmid Link to Zionist Rupert Murdoch

Internet Rumor-Monger Hufschmid Indicted for Throwing
Bombs at Anti-Zionist Movement in the Guise of “Truth

Hufschmid’s Connection to Zionist Billionaire Rupert
Murdoch Unraveled!

Please post and distribute widely to expose Hufschmid
for the troublemaker that he is.

What follows is a summary of the August 31 broadcast
of Piper’s talk forum on

On the August 31 broadcast of his nightly radio talk
forum on, on the Republic Broadcasting
Network, American Free Press correspondent Michael
Collins Piper addressed what he called "The Hufschmid
Conundum," the puzzle surrounding the bizarre attacks
by Eric Hufschmid on many longtime anti-Zionist
writers and activists including Piper himself (and his
colleagues at American Free Press and The Spotlight)
as well as individuals such as Mark Glenn, Mark
Farrell, David Duke and many, many others too numerous
to mention.

Piper quoted a letter writer who said correctly that
"Eric spends most of his time making false allegations
against many good people. he seldom has any proof, yet
he boldly releases his ideas or opinions as fact, and
directly attacks 'the mark' of the day. Eric is always
assuming his mark as guilty until proven innocent."

Piper noted that although Hufschmid is constantly
attacking people as "Zionists" or as "Zionist agents,"
Hufschmid himself had little, if anything, to say
about the obvious role of Israel and its intelligence
agency, the Mossad, in his own book and video about

Piper noted that Hufschmid literally received millions
of dollars in free publicity regarding his
(Hufschmid's) book on the "Penn and Teller" broadcast
which is a product of the Zionist-controlled
"Showtime" network.

Piper noted that few REAL anti-Zionists ever receive
that kind of publicity and suggested that perhaps the
actual intent of Penn & Teller's "attack" on Hufschmid
was to redirect people to a source on 9-11 that does
NOT emphase Israeli complicity in the attack.

Piper noted the parallel theme in a recent essay by
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, published in the
September issue of POPULAR MECHANICS which suggests
that critics of the U.S. government's 9-11 thesis are
putting the blame on "America" for the attack; in
short, McCain was simply not mentioning the well-known
fact that many (if not most) critics of the U.S.
government lies about 9-11 contend—as American Free
Press journalist Christopher Bollyn has contended from
the beginning—that Israel and its Mossad was the prime
mover behind 9-11. So McCain and Hufschmid have
essentially taken the same approach.

Although Hufschmid talks on his website about an
Israeli connection, it is Hufschmid's book which has
been given the widespread international publicity.
This, said Piper, constitutes a classic "limited
hangout"---that is, giving "some" of the story, but
not "all" of it. That is, Hufschmid falls to emphasize
the strong evidence connecting Israel to the attack.

In the meantime, while pretending to be a supporter of
American Free Press journalist Christopher
Bollyn—Piper's longtime friend and colleague—Hufschmid
has been trying to drive a wedge between Bollyn and
Piper (and between Bollyn and his own employer,
American Free Press) by telling worldwide audiences
via internet broadcasts and on his lie-packed website
that American Free Press has NOT been publishing
Bollyn's work and trying to suppress it.

Piper previously demonstrated to his audience that
American Free Press had indeed published the articles
by Bollyn that Hufschmid falsely claimed had never
been published, and the one article that was not
immediately published (because it arrived too late)
was later reworked into other material by Bollyn
published by American Free Press.

Unfortunately, many people who don't read either the
published version of "AFP" or its complete on-line
subscription version, have been believing Hufschmid's
lies about Bollyn and AFP and about many other things.
Most of these people also believe Hufschmid's bizarre
and outlandish claim that Piper is a Zionist, despite
the fact that Piper has devoted 26 years of his 46
years to writing and speaking about the dangers of
Zionism, in such books as

FINAL JUDGMENT, detailing the Mossad link to the JFK
assassination conspiracy (over JFK's efforts to stop
israel from building nuclear weapons),

THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, exposing the secret history
of the Zionist neo-conservatives and their drive for
war against Iraq and Iran and Syria and the rest of
the Muslim world,

outlines the amazing power of Zionism in America, and

BEST WITNESS, which tells the story of Mel
Mermelstein's efforts to break the back of the
Holocaust Revisionist movement—an effort which failed
and failed badly.

In addition, Piper noted, AFP (and The SPOTLIGHT
before it) have published literally hundreds—maybe a
thousand?—of articles by Christopher Bollyn focusing
on the intrigues of Israel and the Zionist movement,
proving, beyond any question, that Hufschmid is lying
when he says that AFP is trying to suppress either the
works of Bollyn—whom Piper has always called "the best
journalist in America, bar none"—or discussion of the
subject of Zionism.

Piper believes that "The Hufschmid Conundrum" can be
explained by the fact, as Hufschmid himself admitted
in an article on his website, that Hufschmid's
half-sister is married to the son of Zionist
billionaire Rupert Murdoch
. This was early on and
Hufschmid actually suggested that Murdoch himiself may
have been aware of Hufschmid's work.

Incredibly, though, Hufschmid makes the lame
suggestion that Murdoch—one of the most powerful
Zionists on the face of the planet—may be one of the
"good" guys (of all things). Hufschmid even said that
he knew little about Murdoch until Murdoch's
publication, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, edited by Zionist
neo-conservative William Kristol (exposed thoroughly
in Piper's book THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR) had requested
a copy of Hufschmid's book.

Hufschmid's bizarre "explanation" of the "connection"
between himself and Murdoch, in Piper's estimation,
was simply a clever concoction by Hufschmid to explain
away his Murdoch connection in a blizzard of words in
order to cover up the fact that he (Hufschmid) was
actually being promoted by the Murdoch empire in order
to maintain a handle on "the controlled opposition"
surrounding speculation regarding the 9-11 terrorist
attacks, focusing attention on a book that talked
about the forensics of the 9-11 attacks but keeping
the lid on the Zionist connection to that tragic

Piper suggested that Hufschmid certainly knew that
once his name came into the fore that people would
(quite correctly) start researching into the name
"Hufschmid" and ultimately discover the
Hufschmid-Murdoch connection and that this was
Hufschmid's way of laying it on the table in a
relatively confusing way that would convince some
gullible people that Hufschmid was a "real" truth
seeker. But Hufschmid himself actually raised the
question as to whether he himself was being used in
some "psy-ops" by the Murdoch empire and the Zionist

Piper commented that this was a classic Mossad tactic:
"hiding in plain sight." In other words, Hufschmid put
the Murdoch connection out there so that if anyone
ever questioned him on it—as people are now doing, and
rightly so—he could say, "Oh I never kept it a

Piper also noted the interesting fact that Hufschmid's
attack on Piper and American Free Press and the
campaign to split off AFP's star reporter—Christopher
Bollyn—from AFP, and thereby deprive AFP of Bollyn's
reportage, came precisely at the time when AFP was
about to launch its international conference on Labor
Day weekend featuring a historic seminar on the Lies
of 9-11, with Bollyn as well as famed 9-11 hero and
World Trade Center survivor, William Rodriguez, and
Ellen Mariani, widow of 9-11 victim Neal Mariani.

What better way, Piper asked, than to disrupt a major
event to be attended by some 300 people including some
from around the world?

Piper also noted that some time ago Hufschmid had also
been privy to Piper's then-manuscript (which Hufschmid
knew was soon to be published) entitled THE JUDAS
GOATS, which features an entire chapter devoted to the
subject of how Rupert Murdoch and his media empire
(including Fox News) had been set up by the
billionaire Zionist families Rothschild, Oppenheimer
and Bronfman to provide a "controlled" so-called
"conservative alternative"—that is, a classic
"controlled opposition"—to the Zionist-dominated
"liberal" networks such as ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Hufschmid knew that publication of THE JUDAS GOATS
would be the first time that the nationalist-patriot
movement would see the ENTIRE Murdoch story outlined
in the context of a detailed book describing how the
Zionist movement had worked for years to infiltrate
and destroy the nationalist movement in America, that
many thousands of people would read about Murdoch, in
detail, for the first time and learn the truth of
"who" is really behind this media empire (with which
Hufschmid is intimately connected): his half-sister is
an heir, by marriage, to billions in Zionist money.

Hufschmid, thus, was rightly concerned that as more
and more people learned about Murdoch that they would
start doing their own research and discovering the
Hufschmid connection.

Clearly, says Piper, Hufschmid NEEDED to discredit
Piper and American Free Press and damage their
relationship with Christopher Bollyn.

Piper pointed out that he had been writing about
Murdoch for many years, going back to the early 1980s
when he wrote about Murdoch in The SPOTLIGHT
newspaper, utilizing "inside" data about Murdoch from
one of Murdoch's former Australian associates,
international businessman and prominent Catholic
layman, Henry Fischer, long known for his close ties
to the traditionalist Catholic movement and for his
intimate connections to anti-Zionist elements inside
the Vatican and the Catholic Church worldwide. Fischer
is even mentioned, Piper noted, in several books by
mainstream authors about Murdoch.

But Fischer's "inside" information on Murdoch's
Rothschild-Oppenheimer-Bronfman connection, making him
part of the "Billionaire Gang of Four," is never
mentioned in those “mainstream” volumes!

All of this taken together explains the truth about
"The Hufschmid Conundrum."

Piper urged people to provide financial support
directly to Christopher Bollyn in assisting Bollyn in
his legal case against the police state thugs who
attacked him and hit him with a life-threatening taser
gun in his own front yard in Hoffman Estates,

Contributions made out to "Christopher Bollyn" can be
sent to AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, #100,
Washington, DC 20003.

MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER can be reached at

Monday, August 28, 2006

The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism: Statement by the Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem

The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism: Statement by the Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it laces an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today.

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation. We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world. We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ.
Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations! We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.
We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land. Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way: We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn they are called to honor the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights. We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security. We affirm that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian. We reject all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity. We call upon all people to reject the narrow world view of Christian Zionism and other ideologies that privilege one people at the expense of others. We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.
With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonization, apartheid and empire-building. God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently. "What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) This is where we take our stand. We stand for justice. We can do no other. Justice alone guarantees a peace that will lead to reconciliation with a life of security and prosperity for all the peoples of our Land. By standing on the side of justice, we open ourselves to the work of peace - and working for peace makes us children of God. "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor 5:19)
His Beatitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem
Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate
Jerusalem Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East
Bishop Munib Younan, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land
August 22, 2006

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

A Lament Over Lebanon by Rev. Colin Chapman

A Lament Over Lebanon
by Colin Chapman

'How lonely sits the city that once was full of people!How like a widow she has become, she that was great among the nations!She that was a princess among the provinces has become a vassal.'(Lamentations 1:1)

This description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586BC in the book of Lamentations could easily be applied to the city of Beirut in July 2006. It has been a painful experience during the last few days to watch Lebanon being torn apart through the ferocity of Israel's attacks. As we've watched on television each day, we've been re-living the years that we spent as a family in Beirut from just after the start of the civil war in 1975 until the Israeli invasion in 1982 - with various evacuations in between.

The writer of Lamentations weeps over the devastated city, describing the humanitarian crisis which follows. But he also attempts to understand how God could have allowed this disaster to happen. He is very aware of the sins of his own people, and points the finger of blame at political and religious leaders who have led their people astray.

What follows is a personal attempt to make sense of the disaster unfolding in the Middle East before our eyes, written on 22 July, ten days after Hizbullah's attacks on Israel and Israel's attacks on Lebanon began. These, I suggest, are some of the major factors which need to be understood if we are to make any sense of what is happening and work towards 'the things that make for peace' (Luke 19:41).

This organisation didn't come into being until 1987. It was created as an Islamic alternative to the more secular approach of Arafat and the PLO who, it was felt, had already made too many concessions to Israel. It probably won the elections early in 2006 because of widespread disillusionment with the legacy of Arafat and the corruption and inertia of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas was more in touch with the aspirations of ordinary Palestinians and offered a much more robust defence of Palestinian rights.

In recent years the leadership of Hamas has demonstrated not only its commitment to an ideology that is based squarely on a particular interpretation of the Qur'an and Islamic theology and tradition, but has also shown a strong pragmatic streak which has enabled it to be flexible in its response to changing circumstances. It is therefore unfortunate that Israel, the US and the EU refused to give Hamas the time and space to work out its own way of participating in democratic processes, and instead made immediate demands which seemed reasonable to outside observers but amounted to conditions which could hardly be met immediately.

The refusal of both Israel and America to negotiate in any way with the democratically elected Palestinian leadership has simply exposed the hypocrisy of America's passion to spread democracy in the region. It seems that they only want democracy if it throws up leaders who are likely to respond to western agendas, and that they cannot handle an elected government which expresses more faithfully the aspirations of the people. If we in Britain have over so many years watched the painful process by which the IRA has slowly renounced violence and committed itself to democratic processes, could we not believe that, given time, Hamas might be able to transform itself into a different kind of movement? The Israeli, American and European refusal to do business with Hamas and the cutting off of vital funds have made it impossible for the elected government to function, placing it in an impossible position.

All this has been going on while the world has begun to realise that Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza may not have been as generous as it was made out to be. Sharon himself made no secret of the fact that he would use the withdrawal from Gaza to strengthen his claim to hold on to most of the settlements on the West Bank. And after the Israeli withdrawal, Gaza was left as a huge, open prison, with all exits, all natural resources and the whole economy totally in the hands of Israel. Meanwhile on the West Bank Israel continued its arrests of Palestinians, its targeted assassinations and land grabbing; and the Security Barrier has been extended, separating communities from their schools, clinics, orchards and vineyards, in one case going through the middle of the playground of a school and in another town right through the middle of the main street . Should anyone be surprised that the humiliation and despair created by the occupation have led some to suicide bombing and the majority to support Hamas?

This movement is supported by most (but not all) Shi'ites and by many (but not all) Sunnis in Lebanon. While Christians have recognised the role that Hizbullah played in getting Israel to withdraw from the south in 2000 and in providing for the needs of its community, few have actually supported them and many have been apprehensive about its growing power which has almost created a state within a state. Most Lebanese Christians are therefore extremely angry and resentful that Hizbullah's provocative attack on Israel, without the knowledge and approval of the government, has brought the wrath of Israel down so severely on the whole country. But their anger at Hizbullah is likely now to be overtaken and superseded by their anger against the US and its allies for allowing Israel to punish the whole country so severely for the crimes of one group within it.

This movement came into being in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and it occupation of the south. Of course it has been supported at every stage - financially, morally and materially - by Iran and therefore shares much of the ethos of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. But it's a genuinely Lebanese movement which responded to the intolerable situation of Israeli forces remaining in the country as an oppressive occupying force. It is far from being simply a 'terrorist organisation', since it has developed remarkably holistic programmes with schools, hospitals, clinics and social welfare of different kinds meeting needs which have not been met by a weak central government. Sheikh Nasrallah is an incredibly charismatic and gifted orator who can hold crowds spellbound for hours (I have often watched him on television) not only by talking politics, but by expounding the Qur'an and communicating a very genuine Shi'ite spirituality.

Newspaper reports suggest that Nasrallah had been planning some kind of attack on Israel for months, and timed the fateful capture of the two Israeli soldiers to demonstrate support for Hamas' similar attack on the borders of Gaza. While he probably expected strong retaliation from Israel, I very much doubt if he expected that it would be as fierce as it has turned out to be. Since he had succeeded on an earlier occasion in pressing Israel to release Lebanese prisoners in exchange for the release of the remains of Israeli soldiers, he no doubt hoped that he could do the same again this time. Having made the initial provocative attack and continued to launch rocket attacks on northern Israel, he feels that he cannot now lose face and gain absolutely nothing by giving in to Israeli demands that the hostages are returned and Hizbullah disarmed.

However much we may condemn the initial attack which triggered this crisis, and however uncomfortable we may be with Hizbullah's rhetoric about destroying Israel, we should not lose sight of the fact that the original raison d'etre of the movement was an understandable opposition to Israeli occupation. Perhaps here is another example of a movement which needed time and space to transform itself to take on a different role in changed circumstances.

Israel's end-game
Several observers have suspected that Israel had been planning attacks on both Hamas and Hizbullah for some time, and that the capture of the single soldier by Hamas and the two soldiers by Hizbullah simply provided Israel with the pretext for launching serious attacks. Hamas and Hizbullah may therefore have played into Israel's hands, giving it the moral justification for punishing both movements. It could perhaps be argued that by escalating their violence, Palestinians have lost the moral high ground that they once had, and have in a sense been shooting themselves in the foot.

This isn't the first time that something of this kind has happened. Before the invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 Palestinian attacks across the border had been minimal. It was the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London which gave Sharon the pretext for invading Lebanon. It almost seems, therefore, as if a pattern has repeated itself: Israel has its plans for dealing a serious blow to its enemies, and then uses the enemy's provocative attacks as a justification for a major offensive.

There are many who believe that in the early years Israel actually encouraged the growth of Hamas in order to weaken Arafat and divide the whole Palestinian movement. In recent years, however, Israel has declared its determination to weaken Hamas and its refusal ever to negotiate with a government led by them. Prime Minister Olmert and others in his government have stated very clearly that this time they are determined to destroy Hizbullah once and for all. One might have hoped, however, that Israel might have learned from its disastrous invasion and occupation of Lebanon that it cannot crush the Palestinian movement or any other Arab movement by force. Arafat and his colleagues were able to escape from Beirut and set themselves up in Tunis. And it has been argued that Israel's failure in Lebanon led ultimately to the first Intifada in 1986, which began as a spontaneous explosion of the anger among Palestinians on the West Bank who felt that they were not prepared to live under occupation any longer.

It seems to the Palestinians that Israel has been doing its utmost in recent years to humiliate and crush them into submission, and to postpone or even prevent face to face negotiations which would tackle the crucial issues in the conflict - the final borders, the right of return and the status of East Jerusalem. Israel has illegally taken over more and more land on the West Bank in the name of security. But it has now become clear to many that their ultimate goal is either to prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state or to ensure that any Palestinian state that might one day be created will be as small, as impotent, as divided and as meaningless as possible. If we simply look at all the facts that Israel has created on the ground on the West Bank since 1967, it's hard not to understand that this is what the Palestinians see as Israel's real end-game.

Diagnosing the nature of the problem
George W Bush and Tony Blair seem to believe that Hamas and Hizbullah are 'the root of the problem'. It's understandable, therefore, that they have effectively given Israel the green light to do its utmost to destroy both these organisations. But if Israel's present policies are having such disastrous consequences, and if, as many now believe, Israel will not be able to achieve its goal of destroying both movements, might the President and the Prime Minister ever be willing to consider another possible diagnosis of the problem?

This alternative diagnosis would suggest that the roots of the recent stages of the conflict have to be traced back to Israel's occupation of the West Bank since 1967. Most of the world still believes that the occupation, the settlements and the Security Barrier are a violation of international law. The first and second Intifadas were protests against the continuing occupation, and the suicide bombings have been an expression of the despair of Palestinians who feel that they had been badly let down by their own leaders, by Israel, by Arab states, by the United Nations and by western powers. From this perspective, Hamas and Hizbullah are not the root of the problem, but only symptoms.

Israel argues that Lebanon has not complied with UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called for the disarming of Hizbullah, and that Israel is simply trying to do what the Lebanese government hasn't had the courage or the power to do. But if Israel itself had complied with the famous UN Security Council Resolution 442 in 1967 calling for 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict', we wouldn't be in the situation that we face today. It is Israel's continuing, illegal occupation of the West Bank that has created the context in which both Hamas and Hizbullah came into being.
Since Israel's present policy of attempting to crush both Hamas and Hizbullah has led to more and more suffering for millions and probably doesn't have a chance of solving the problem, perhaps we should be urging our governments to consider this other diagnosis. If it's more realistic and actually addresses the root of the problem, it might in the long run lead to a resolution of the conflict and bring some kind of peace with justice. If Condoleezza Rice doesn't want to return to the status quo ante and really wants to work for a new Middle East, perhaps this is where she might need to begin.

Self-defence and proportionate response
No one disputes Israel's right to defend itself against attack. What is much more questionable, however, is whether Israel has a right to punish and destroy a whole country in order to defend itself against attacks launched by one group within that country. Localised attacks on missile sites inside the Lebanese border might have been regarded as legitimate and proportionate. But devastating attacks on the international airport, fuel tanks, power stations, bridges and roads all over the country - and even on the new lighthouse on Beirut's sea-front - is increasingly being regarded as totally disproportionate. This is not 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' (Leviticus 24:20) - a principle which in its original context was intended to set limits to revenge - but a return to pre-Mosaic, unlimited revenge and retaliation.

In recent days many will have read at least one account of a convoy of cars leaving villages in the south of Lebanon in response to Israeli calls to evacuate, and then being attacked by jets with many casualties, including children. If and when the dust settles, will there be any way of calling Israel to account for these attacks on innocent civilians? It seems that in this war Israel is acting as if it is above the law. It alone is allowed to determine what is a proportionate response. Meanwhile the leaders of the US and Britain not only refuse to call for a ceasefire, but cannot even bring themselves to say that Israel's response has been excessive.

The war on terror
The US responded to 9/11 by launching its war on terror. The Taliban and al-Qa'ida were the first target, and then the focus turned to Iraq in the war of 2003. Ariel Sharon cleverly aligned himself more closely with the US, arguing that Palestinian terrorists were no different from the suicide bombers of 9/11.
What has happened therefore is that both George W Bush and Tony Blair have tended to see their whole foreign policy in relation to this region in terms of 'the war on terror'. This has become the lens through which they see every conflict - whether it is Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or Israel/Palestine. This simplistic outlook which reduces all the different conflicts into one major conflict inevitably distorts vision and makes it impossible to understand each conflict in its own terms and respond in appropriate ways.

If the West had responded to 9/11 first of all by trying to understand the anger of Muslims and asking whether there might be good reasons for their anger, they would have realised (as Tony Blair seems to have done at certain stages) that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at, or very near, the top of the list of grievances against the West. They might have done more to adopt a more even-handed approach to the conflict which would force both Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table. Instead the continuing, one-sided support of Israel - political, economic and moral - and the refusal to deal with the roots of the problem have simply fuelled the anger of Arabs and Muslims.

Over this issue, therefore, the West - and particularly the US as the one superpower - is faced with a clear choice between two options. The first is to continue as they are doing at present and allow Olmert to remain in the driving seat and unilaterally impose a settlement on the Palestinians. The second option is to force both sides to negotiate face to face on the basis of international law. What seems to prevent the US and Britain from even considering this option is the fact that the agendas of the Jewish lobby, the neo-cons and the Christian Right have converged over this issue. And the West has allowed the conflict to drag on year after year without resolution, with the result that so many facts have been created on the ground that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to see how to unscramble the egg.

These, I suggest, are some of the areas in which we in the West have to do the hard soul-searching reflected in the book of Lamentations: 'Let us test and examine our ways and return to the Lord...' (3:40). What kept me sane and enabled me to hold onto my faith during the dark days of the civil war in Lebanon and through all that has happened in the Middle East since then has been the writings of the biblical prophets. There we find a world-view which sees all history in the hands of a holy and loving God who is at work both in judgement and in mercy, in and through all the terrible events that we witness.

'The thought of my affliction and my homelessness is wormwood and gall!
My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me.
But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope:
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness'

(Lamentations 3:19-23)

Rev Colin Chapman was until 2003 Lecturer in Islamic Studies at the Near East School of Theology, Beirut, Lebanon, and now lives in semi-retirement near Cambridge. He has worked for 17 years in different places in the Middle East, and also taught at Trinity College, Bristol and Crowther Hall, Selly Oak, Birmingham. His books include Whose Promised Land? (Lion, 2003), Whose holy City? Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Lion, 2004); and 'Islamic Terrorism': Is There a Christian Response? (Grove, 2005).

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Lessons from Lebanon by Ayman El-Amir for Al Ahram (Cairo)

Lessons from Lebanon

Unequivocally, Israel and the US are the biggest losers from an ill-fated month of war in Lebanon, writes Ayman El-Amir

In the month-long intense military campaign against Lebanon, Israel suffered a debacle beyond anyone's expectations and Hizbullah demonstrated a resilience that upset everyone's calculations. It was this surprising reversal of fortunes on the ground that changed the course of international diplomacy and led to the Security Council adopting a resolution for the cessation of hostilities, which the US had blocked for three weeks. The war in Lebanon has redefined the geopolitical situation and created new realities that will have far-reaching implications for all the parties involved. A reassessment will be required of the situation in the Middle East -- a region that will never be the same again.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Everything Old is New: by William Rivers Pitt

Everything old becomes new again. "A Clean Break" was written ten years ago to advocate for an Israeli attack on Lebanon, and by proxy Syria and Iran. It was cast aside then, but appears to have been revived for this current disaster. The lessons Israel is learning in Lebanon have been vividly available in Iraq these last years, as the basis for that invasion was essentially premised upon a slightly edited version of the same paper.

Those lessons have not achieved purchase with the neo-conservatives, and "A Clean Break" may come again to serve as the basis for an attack on Iran. There is little hope that such an attack will meet with any more success than the last two conflicts inspired by this dangerous document and the men who wrote it.

Lebanon Curse Strikes Again by Eric Margolis

The repulse of Israeli forces by a few thousand Hezbullah fighters ought to give pause for thought to the Pentagon and bloodthirsty neocons who have been clamoring for war with Iran. Hezbullah was trained and armed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. American forces might face the same tough fighting in any invasion of Iran that Israel just met in Lebanon.

AIPAC Congratulates Itself on the Slaughter in Lebanon by John Walsh

AIPAC Congratulates Itself on the Slaughter in Lebanon


"My fellow American," Howard Friedman, President of AIPAC, begins his letter of July 30 to friends and supporters of AIPAC, "Look what you've done"! After warning that "Israel is fighting a pivotal war for its life," by which he means Israel's wanton slaughter and all-out destruction in Lebanon, Friedman condemns "the expected chorus of international condemnation of Israel's actions" and Europe's call for "a cease-fire immediately." Then he exults: "only ONE nation in the world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job. . That nation is the United States of America--and the reason it had such a clear, unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of America Jewry." (All emphases in the original here and below.) Here I must take issue with President Friedman since I bet that most Jewish Americans, in contrast to the AIPAC crowd, were horrified by the slaughter in Lebanon. In fact if anyone other than President Friedman wrote this, he would be accused of fabricating a Jewish plot and labeled a nutty conspiracy theorist and scurrilous anti-semite.)

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Blimpy False Prophet: Mark Glenn's Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day
"Watch out for false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but who inwardly are ravenous their fruit you will recognize people pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit and every bad tree bears bad fruit, and every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. In those days false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive even the elect if that were possible... But not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, only he who does the will of my Father. Many will say to me on that day 'Lord, did we not prophesy and drive out demons and perform many miracles in your name?' And then I will tell them plainly 'Away from me you evil doers, I never knew you....' --Jesus of Nazareth

Mark Glenn correctly interpreted Mark Dankof's recent dream in San Antonio? Neo-Con Watch and BATR readers may enjoy playing the dream interpretation game as well! (Pentecostalists and Dispensationalists are forewarned in advance. . . .proceed at great risk to preconceived ideological grids.)

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

The Great Deception: by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

The Great Deception

The propaganda that we pay for


Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

6 August 2006

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence”. (Bertrand Russell)

So it is with Messrs. Bush and Blair which have acted time and again on the flimsiest of evidence to reshape Middle East into what they desire it to be: a neo-colonial possession to supply oil while at the same time helping their rich to get richer. You may disagree with this statement, especially, if you have been listening to so much propaganda about spreading democracy in the Muslim world in general and Middle East in particular. So I ask you to look at the following arguments and then decide if the actions taken so far point to fighting terrorism, spreading democracy or hegemony.

The beginning

In 1996 the newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned a study group called ”Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" to formulate a strategy for Israel in the coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created the Israel’s strategy paper titled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” [[1]].

The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented below:

1. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

2. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.

3. Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

4. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right

In 1997 another set of Neo-Conservatives that included personalities such as Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Lewis Libby, Eliot A. Cohen and others, created a think-tank organisation by the name of “The Project for the New American Century”. They stated their vision of the new world in their “Statement of Principles”. To their credit, they were very honest about their goals. They said:

We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?”[[2]]

The authors of the Clean Break, and the New American Century were friends, and fellow travellers. It is therefore not surprising to see that they soon recognised the complementary nature of these two strategies for the Middle East. Of course I leave the question of who influences whom to the reader; suffice to say that when it came to Israel and the Middle East, they both shared a common vision.

Immediately after the creation of the New American Century, the Neocons started their campaign for a change in American policy. Statement after statement called for a fundamental change, but the Clinton administration was not buying it. Of course with election of George Bush everything changed. One must not forget that a founding member and signatory to the “Statement of Principles” was Jeb Bush, President’s brother, and another member, Dick Cheney was the Vice President. It would not be far-fetched to assume that the Neocons, in 2000, still believed in the rightness of their strategy. Already by then the “Road Map to Peace” and the Arab-Israeli negotiations were dead, and the new strategy of “Clean Break” was being implemented.

Now Israel was given the green light to go ahead and openly implement their vision of Peace-for-Peace instead of the Land-for-Peace.

Then came the golden opportunity: the infamous 9/11 [[3]]. Now the stage was set to begin to change the world and protect America’s “interest”. Now, what is it that the world needs most and of which 25% goes to America? Oil of course. Where is that Oil? Middle East. Who lives there? Muslims.

It is a fact that people in general, regardless of their nationality, race or creed, will not wage war on others without being either angry or frightened. People will not go to war for money alone; fear and anger have to be there. To create the fear and anger the Neocons started their propaganda campaign. According to Joseph Gobbles, Nazi Minister of Propaganda "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly ... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." The Neocons had already formulated the points:

  • Muslims are dangerous,
  • they, i.e. Muslims, are trying to destroy our (US, UK, Australian) way of life
  • all Arab and Muslim governments in the Middle East that are not subservient to US are illegitimate,
  • these governments were somehow involved in terrorism and 9/11,
  • the defence of Israel is the defence of Western values (i.e. US values).

Only after convincing people of these allegations, could they proper move to reshape the Middle East. The people had to be convinced that Neocons’ way was the only way forward. To achieve this, a two prong campaign was waged against the people of the United States, UK and Australia. While people such as Rupert Murdoch and his media empire were used to demonise the Muslims and quash any American (as unpatriotic or soft) who dared to question the reasons behind the government’s actions; the US and other governments set about scaring the people to death by constantly warning people of imminent terrorist attacks.

Suddenly the people were bombarded with negative images of Muslim “terrorists” that were out there to get them. The fear factor was also increased by the government’s colour coded warnings or announcements by police chiefs that they know of several terrorist plans to bomb civilians. One day it was New York, then Los Angeles, then somewhere else. Every week there were constant reports of terrorists planning this and that attack on unsuspecting citizens. News media, the government, the so called experts, the series (such as 24 hours) on TVs depicting Muslims as terrorist, and other means were used to scare the people into submission. Then when the people were really scared, the government came with its anti-terror laws such as Patriot Act, rubbing people of some their most basic civil liberties.

The Propaganda Machine

I can very well understand, if you are sceptical of this. But just look at all the films and discussions by the so called “experts” in the news and see if you can detect the message. It is a message of fear that is repeated over and over again. This message is nicely inserted in the popular movie plots. Just look at all the series that have been released by major film studios, and see if you can find one that contains anything even remotely favourable to Arabs, Muslims, or Islam. And then look at all the movies and see if you can find one bad Jewish character in them. The Muslims are always portrayed as terrorists, terrorist sympathisers, or refugees running from Islam. In some films even the hero happily uses torture to extract information from the Muslim terrorist in order to save innocent people. You may watch these films and see it as fun, but unconsciously you are being prepared to believe the stereotypical caricature of the Muslims.

In contrast you see that the Jews are always portrayed as honest, religious, and educated people. Jews make up a very small percentage of the US population (2.2%), yet from the films you get the impression that they represent around 25% or more. Don’t get me wrong, I say good for them. They have worked hard to get into a position to improve their public image by using the media. After years of being portrayed as shylocks and such, it is refreshing to see them portrayed as good, honest, hard working citizens. I just mention them here to show how the media is portraying different people and how that may determine your view of these people. And just to be clear about it, I should say it loud and clear here that I hate anti-Semitism or any kind of racism and condemn it in all its forms. What I am talking about here is the manipulation of unsuspecting people by a small group for political and financial gains.

Of course, we hate the thought of being manipulated and controlled. We don’t want to believe it. Our intellectual autonomy, after life itself, is one that we cherish most. We accept the overt manipulations by the advertisers, for we believe that we are in control. After all, no-one can fool me, right? That is why we pay for French bottled water, drink Pepsi and buy Nikes, and all because we are in control. In today’s world, the greatest illusion for an individual is that of being in control of one’s thought and opinion.

There exists a power that reaches into every home and into every mind and tries to manipulate and influence our opinions and perceptions of the reality. This power is called the mass-media. We all acknowledge the influence of this power on young minds. We protect our children from images, language or contents that we deem unsuitable; thinking, rightly, that the young mind is all too impressionable and susceptible to believe the stuff that they are exposed to. Yet, we leave ourselves open to manipulation without blinking an eye; for we believe that they can not fool us. But unfortunately we are being fooled on a grand scale. After all, the greater the lie, the easier it is to accept it as the truth.

To show you how a few people can manipulate so many, I have to list just a small section of this vast propaganda machine that is employed to make-up our mind for us.

The sad truth is that a handful of powerful groups control the expanding media and leisure market spanning film, television, book publishing, music, new online media, theme parks, sport, the print media and even the theatres. For example the US media market is controlled by only 6 conglomerates: Time Warner, General Electric, Walt Disney, Bertelsmann AG, Viacom, and News Corporation.

These companies, or rather their owners, set the agenda and control the dissemination of information to the public. Imagine the power these people have. It is no wonder that Presidents and Prime Ministers go hat in hand asking for an audience with the owners. These politicians know that these people are the ones that shape our perception of reality. So they go presenting their CVs, hoping to be accepted.

For example, every year Mr. Murdoch (the greatest friend of Israel) the owner of the News Corporation is described as television’s “most powerful man in the world with the capacity to reach more than 110 million viewers across four continents.” Murdoch’s network owns more than 175 newspapers, journals and magazines on three continents, publishes 40 million papers a week and dominates the newspaper markets in Britain, Australia and New Zealand [[4]]. Every year he holds a company meeting in a place of his choosing. This year it was in Pebble Beach, California.

According to Guardian, “Murdoch wields considerable clout, which is why Tony Blair is likely to address the Pebble Beach conference, just as he did, controversially, when the gathering was held in Sydney in 1996. As the political climate changes on both sides of the Atlantic, Murdoch continues to be courted by those seeking to gain or retain power. Blair's attendance will be viewed as a sign that Murdoch is not yet ready to abandon his paper's support for New Labour, but it could also be interpreted as a snub to Gordon Brown.

Murdoch is aligning his interests, as ever, with those who are most likely to benefit from a change in public opinion - hence his flirtation with presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. He is even hosting a fundraising event for the New York senator later this year.”[[5]]

You just have to look at Fox News, Sky News, or read the New York Post, Sun, or the Australian to understand what Mr Murdoch wants you to believe. He is one of the staunchest supporters – among other media tycoons-of the Neocons cause.

Mr. Murdoch controls – among other things- the following [[6]]:

International Book Publishing

HarperCollins Publishing, including HarperCollins U.K.; HarperCollins Canada; and HarperCollins Australia. U.S. imprints include Perennial; Quill; Regan Books; Amistad Press; Hearst Book Group (acquired 1997); includes William Morrow; Avon; HarperCollins Children's Book Group; and Zondervan Publishing House (world's largest commercial Bible publisher).


Fox Sports Networks (21 networks covering major U.S. cities); Fox Sports Net (cable network with 60 million subscribers); Madison Square Garden Network (40 percent) with Cablevision; Speedvision (34 percent); Outdoor Life (34 percent); the Health Network (50 percent), with Liberty Media; Fox Family Worldwide; FOX News Channel; Fox Television Stations 22 stations (largest TV group in USA), Fox Entertainment, Fox Kid's Network,

Fox Sports; Fox Filmed Entertainment: TV and film production from Twentieth Century Fox; Fox Animation Studios; Fox 2000; and Fox Searchlight; Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment; Twentieth Century Fox Television; Twentieth Century Fox Licencing and Merchandising , and The New York Post


BSkyB (40 percent); Vivendi, as a result of its takeover of Universal has to divest its 24.5 percent stake in BskyB; Sky Digital, 150 channels and services including Sky One Sky News; National Geographic Channel (50 percent); The History Channel (50 percent); Paramount Channel (25 percent); Nickelodeon U.K. (50 percent); Premium channels including Sky Movies; Sky Movies Gold; Sky Sports, The Times; The Sunday Times; The Sun; The News of the World

In Australia

More than 100 national, metropolitan, suburban, regional and Sunday titles: The Australian; The Weekend Australian , The Daily Telegraph; The Sunday Telegraph Sportsman; Cumberland Newspaper Group (20 titles in the Sydney suburbs); Herald Sun; Sunday Herald Sun; The Weekly Times (30 titles in the Melbourne suburbs); The Courier Mail (41.7 percent); The Sunday Mail (41.7 percent); Gold Coast Bulletin (41.7 percent); The Cairns Post Group (41.7 percent); North Queensland Newspaper Group; Townsville Bulletin; Quest Community newspapers (17 titles in the Brisbane suburbs); Northern Territory News; Sunday Territorian; Centralian Advocate; The Suburban; The Mercury; The Sunday Tasmanian; Tasmanian Country; Treasure Islander; Derwnet Valley Gazette and the Sunday Times.

The above list is only a part of a vast propaganda machine that is working hard to get us to fear and hate and pay with our money and blood, so that the dreams and visions of a few can be realised. People everywhere, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or atheist, will rather work and help each other than kill one another. Nothing is more vile than killing for money and power. Where do you think the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the unnecessary war in Iraq has come from and more importantly, where has it gone? The money has gone from millions of poor American, English and Australian pockets into a few rich and large pockets.

In the process parents have lost their children, wives have lost husbands, children have lost their parents, and many millions have become homeless. And as though this was not enough, the seeds of hatred have been sown in the heart of over one billion people. People think that like in the movies, when a war is finished, the victims somehow just vanish or cease to exist. But the millions of Iraqis who have been robbed of their loved ones and now have to endure a civil-war are not likely to just forgive or forget; just as the Palestinians have not forgotten or allowed to forget. For more information you can look at this [Palestinian lives under occupation]. I bet 99.9% of us haven’t a clue of what life under occupation is like.

But let us just forget about the victims and consider the bystanders. The people in the Muslim world also watch TV and read Newspapers. Do you think that people in Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey or Jordan don’t see what they are being portrayed as? Do you think they don’t see the situation in Iraq, or Lebanon? If we were treated and portrayed in the same way, we would also react in the manner: with anger and frustration.

The war on terror is used like a beautiful magician’s assistant, to distract the public while the magician does his tricks. As long as people are scared and busy with Osama Bin Laden, no one will be noticing the systematic erosion of their civil liberties, or the increasing inequality, or declining quality of their lives. Who cares if 37.0 million Americans live in poverty [[7]]? Who cares if over 13 million families including 26.5 million children are living at the edge of the poverty (median income = $38000) [[8]]? Who cares if the top 10% own 71.5% of everything in US [[9]]? As long as you are afraid of the evil “terrorists” and are engaged in an unending war, you will not care.

Perhaps, Joseph Goebbels, the master propagandist of the third Reich was correct in his theory that:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The Unending War: War on Terror

I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism [[10]]. This is because if you are going to define terrorism, you are liable to define some of your own actions as terrorism. And this will not do at all.

For example, in December 1987 the United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible way. When it came to vote, one country, Honduras, abstained and two voted against it: United States and Israel [[11]]. Are you surprised?

This was because of the article 8 of the resolution that mentions the elimination of colonialism, racism, and alien domination and occupation. This should tell you a lot about why UN can not come-up with a definition of terrorism. Here is the text of the article 8.

<>Article 8 of the UN resolution against terrorism: Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the
progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security.”[[12]]

Well this means that if you are fighting against an occupying power then you are not a terrorist. If you are fighting against colonialism, then you are not a terrorist. If you are fighting against racism, then you are not a terrorist. If you are fighting against flagrant human rights violation, then you area terrorist. The only way that you can avoid being labelled a terrorist is to be a good fellow and take it. Sandinistas of Nicaragua, when fighting for freedom were the terrorists. Nicaraguan Contras that were funded by CIA and committed horrendous atrocities were the freedom fighters. People that fought for a more just society in Bolivia, Uruguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, and other places were all terrorists. Their governments torturing their citizens (and others’) and selling their countries on the cheap to multi-national conglomerates were the good guys fighting evil.

It seems that as long one uses aircraft, Armoured Personnel Carriers, and Tanks to kill civilians and destroy bridges and power stations, it is not terrorism. But if one kills the same civilians with a home made bomb, it is terrorism. Even if one kills civilians taking refuge in the UN compound it is not terrorism. Even if one kills un-armed UN observers, it is not terrorism. Let us face the truth; terrorism is what you want it to be. And the powers that coined the phrase “fight on terror” intend to use it for all its worth. Now terrorism is an all encompassing word covering everything from fighting occupation abroad to gang related shootings and animal-right activism in the US.

Since September 9/11, United States has systematically reduced its citizens’ liberties. The Patriot Act I, and II have taken away much of that freedom that made United States the Land of the Free. Already the draconian laws that were supposed to be used against the terrorists are being used against anyone thought to deserve a stronger punishment than the one provided under normal law. In United States the new laws are used against animal activists, teenagers, and to obtain information from law offices.

For example, in 2005, prosecutors in New Jersey used the anti terror law to prosecute a group of animal right activists.

The six, members of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), are charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, amended in 2002 to include "animal enterprise terrorism," which outlaws disrupting firms like Huntingdon. If convicted, the group and its accused members face a maximum $250,000 fine and three years in prison.”[[13]]

In another case four teenagers were charged with terrorism when police discovered that the four had planned to kill their classmates.

The boys, between the ages of 14 and 16, were arrested Wednesday after police heard about the alleged plot from administrators at the school, where three of the teens are students. Authorities did not release their names because of their ages.

The boys initially were charged only with low-level crimes and were not eligible to be moved to adult court. Authorities said the teens planned to target students, and teachers and others.

The terrorism charge and other charges added Thursday -- two counts each of conspiracy to attempt murder -- are serious enough that prosecutors could ask a judge to move the case from family court to adult criminal court, where the penalties could be much stiffer.

Prosecutors have 30 days to consider whether to request moving the case; no decision on that was made by Thursday afternoon.” [[14]]

In yet another case the Bronx District Attorney employed the anti-terror law in the trial of Edgar "Puebla" Morales, 22, and four other members of the "St. James Park" street gang.

"This case appears to be the first in which the Anti-terrorism Statute has been used against members of an organized gang who sought to dominate a neighbourhood through their criminal acts," Johnson said. Although the law was intended to be used against acts of political terror, Johnson said, "The terror perpetrated by gangs, which all too often occurs on the streets of New York, also fits squarely within the scope of this statute."[[15]]

But these incidents are all in the US. What concerns us is international terrorism. After all that term is used to wreak havoc on different parts of the world. So let us ignore the UN and instead adopt the US definition as our standard definition of international terrorism. Here is the definition of terrorism according to US criminal law TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331. [[16]]

(1) The term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Well, now that we have established our definition of International Terrorism, we shall look at “some” (and by no means all) of the US government actions around the world and see if we can classify any of them as international terrorism.

I think planning assassination, attempted assassination or actually assassinating a foreign official (regardless of how horrible we may think they are), because of their political views, would classify as international terrorism. Don't you agree?

Well, William Blum in his book “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, has kindly provided us with a list of US actions overseas.

“The following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. (CIA humorists have at times referred to this type of operation as “suicide involuntarily administered” to be carried out by the Agency’s Health Alteration Committee.)” [[17]]

You must note here that all these activities are prior to 9/11 attack, and to be absolutely clear, (Please note that I am not saying that these actions by US in any shape or form justify terrorist attacks either in US or elsewhere.)

1949 Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950s CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be “put out of the way” in the event of a Soviet invasion.

1950s Zhou Enali, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life.

!950s, 1962 Sukrano, President of Indonasia

1951 Kim II Sung, Premier of North Korea

1953 Mohammad Mossadegh, Prime minister of Iran

!950s Carlo M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader

1955 Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime minister of India

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt

1959/63/69 Nordom Sihanouk, Leader of Cambodia

1960 Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq

1950s-70s Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life

1961 Francoi “Papa Doc” Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 Patrice Lumumba, Prime minister of Congo

1961 Gen. Rafael Truijillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life

1960s Raul Castro, High official in government of Cuba

1965 Fransisco Caamano, Dominican Republic opposition leader

1965-6 Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 Che Guevera, Cuban Leader

1970 Salador Allende, President on Chile

1970 General Rene Schneider, Chief of Army, Chile

1970s, 1981 General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence

1975 Mobuto Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 Michle Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1980-86 Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya

1982 Ayatollah Khomaini, Leader of Iran

1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander

1983 Miguel d’Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 The nine comandantes of Sandinista National Directorate

1985 Sheikh Mohammad Hussain Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader

1991 Sadam Hussain, leader of Iraq

1998 Osama Bin-Laden, leading Islamic militant

1999 Slobadan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia

Another case that we may consider as terrorism under US definition, is that of kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals. Imagine that you are a US citizen living in Canada. One day as you are walking in the street, you are kidnapped (because you are “suspected” of sympathising with the Basque separatists of Spain) and taken to Mexico where you are tortured for a few months by Guatemalan secret service and then released (if you are extremely lucky). Would you call this terrorism? Well this is what is happening to Muslims all around the world. I doubt if you hear any of this on Fox News.

Consider the case of Mr. Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen who was kidnapped by CIA on the Macedonian border in 2003 [[18]]. He was taken to Afghanistan where he was interrogated and tortured for five months before being finally released in Albania. Or consider the case of Egyptian cleric Mr. Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr who was kidnapped by CIA in Italy and taken to Egypt for torture and imprisonment in 2003 [[19]].

These are just two cases that we know of. There have been over 1000 secret CIA flights within EU since 2001, transporting terror “suspects” for questioning overseas. Usually suspects are taken to countries where torture and illegal imprisonment are routine. How many have been kidnapped and imprisoned without being charged or even murdered is anybody’s guess.

One can continue and list, page after page, of atrocities that have been committed and is being committed under the banner of fight against Terror; but none is more horrendous than falsely accusing and then invading a country on the pretex of fighting terrorism. The fighting so far has destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. There are plans afoot to do an Iraq to Iran. All the propaganda machines are now aiming for your approval to destroy Iran, and they are not holding back. Look at the latest propaganda:

In a video taped message aired on al-Jazeera Saturday, one of the heads of the Iranian controlled al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri stated, "We announce to the Islamic nation the good news of the unification of a great faction of the knights of the Jamaa Islamiya...with the al-Qaeda group." The head of the Egyptian group is Muhammad al-Islambouli, the younger brother of Khaled al-Islambouli, the assassin of Egypt President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981.” [[20]]

This article appeared in News Blaze. You can see how they now call Al Qaeda an Iranian creation. This is a preposterous lie of gigantic proportion. But the people buy it. The American people, even after the white house admitted that there was nothing in Iraq, still believe that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). A recent poll shows that the majority of the people in US have become independent of reality.

Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq” [[21]].

The propaganda machine never stops. There are constant talks about Iran and terrorism; Iran and Nuclear weapons; Iran being the danger to the world, etc. We are being prepared for another war. Does any of this sound familiar? If we are not careful, they will start another war in the name of “war on terrorism” or “stopping nuclear weapon proliferation”.

WE know that Iran has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. WE know that they don’t have atomic weapons. WE also know that Israel has over 200 atomic bombs [[22]]. WE know that Pakistan and India have A-Bombs. WE also know that US is good friends of all three, not to mention the Brazilians that are enriching Uranium [[23]].

We know a lot, but we don’t have the voice to say: enough is enough. The people like Murdoch have stolen our voice. We can only shout in the streets, for newspapers and TVs are closed to us. But, we can still reach others through places like this internet site and say: WE have had enough of your propaganda and lies. WE do not want war of civilizations. We do not want a war of religions. WE do not want destroyed houses and bridges. WE do not want dead children and refugees. WE WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE.

Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He's a former associate professor of Nordland University, Norway.

Copyright Abbas Bakhtiar, all rights reserved.

[1] Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, 8 July 1996, Richard Perle et al

[2] PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, “Statement of Principles”, June 3, 1997

[4], “Media Mogul’s Sinister Links to September 11”, April 12, 2004

[5] Guardian, “Murdoch an emperor leading a revolution”, June 18, 2006

[6], ”Bestriding The World” , By Granville Williams of Britain's Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Prepared for New Internationalist magazine.

[7] US Census Bureau, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates.

[8] Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, “Low-Income Working Families”, The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW ,Washington, DC 20037. September 2005

[9] Lawrence Mishel et al., ”The State of Working America 2004/2005”, Cornell University Press, January 2005

[10] United Nations, Office on Drug and Crime, ”Definitions of Terrorism5 Aug 2006

[12] United Nations Feneral Assembly, “Resolution A/RES/42/159, P4th plenary meeting”, 7 December 1987

[14] Daily Record, “Teens charged under terror law”, 06April 2006

[15] Juvenile Justice Digest, “NEW YORK USES TERROR LAW TO HIT STREET GANG”, 14 February 2005

[17] Blum,William. “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Common Courage Press, Monroe, Main, USA. 2000. ISBN 1-56751-195-3. Pages 38-40

[18], “The US Stands Accused of Kidnapping”, 14 February 2005

[21], “Many still think Iraq had WMD”, 7 August 2006

[22] Guardian Unlimited, “Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines”, Sunday October 12, 2003.

[23] The Indian Express, “Brazil follows Iran’s nuclear path, but without the fuss”, April 22, 2006