Topic: War On Terror
BEHIND THE SUPERPOWER CURTAINS - Genocide in Gaza, and What the World Does Not Know About the US, Al-Qaeda and the "War on Terror" Palestine and Afghanistan bleed. Children has been killed, beheaded, raped - including by the Coalition forces. Until when will they pretend they fight terror, in the name of God, or oil, and we pretend we believe it? Explosive (and documented) revelations involving the US policy in the Middle East, from Mr. Carter to George Bush the son, contesting the "war on terror" and the Israeli bombardment in Gaza. The UN and the world media trumpet about terrorist acts of individuals and groups. Nothing about terrorism of State. Hiding behind democratic speeches and liberation for others, Bush carries Branham's theology too far, based on the"power of the American sword", exterminating nations. We unmask the superpower and its "war on terror", describing as well the childish suffering in Palestine and Afghanistan. A generation lost. A future lostby Edu Montesanti Goldoni
(liberal)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
We have been watching on TV Palestinian children panic-driven, rushing headlong away, totally discouraged among endless wreckages, many of them even killed. An image has shown an about 3-year-old beheaded child in Gaza, victim of Israel's bombardment. There is neither electricity nor water in Gaza, and the Palestinian people have scarcely food. A Palestinian psychiatrist has said that traumas will be with his compatriotic children for ever, implicating all their lives. A generation lost. A future lost. What can we expect to the future?
From Afghanistan we receive long ago reports that children have been forced to commit suicidal attacks, tortured and raped including by the Coalition forces, and been arrested (eight Afghan minors have been carried to Guantanamo since 2002, and the US recognizes that there are 10 minors, one of them a 12-year-old boy on the Bagrom base in Afghanistan). Young girls cannot attend school or go to hospital, running the risk of being captured, hit, raped, burned or killed. What to conclude about this all?
An Exclusive War
The present Israel's response to Hamas is the only conflict all over the world in which the attacked people cannot cross the border to flee to another land. Israel does not permit press to cover the conflict, reporting the real situation in Gaza, and barely permits humanitarian aid there. After being expelled from their homes by the Israeli Army, thousands of Palestinians found escape on schools of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). For 33 of them it was in vain: 30 died on January 6, under a bombardment on a school in Yabalia; 55 were wounded. In another attacked school in Gaza, three civilians died. The British John Ging, chief of the UNRWA, said that this conflict is inhuman: acoording to him, entire families with more than 10 members have been exterminated in their homes. But this is not the first conflict in the world which war crimes are committed - and they have been committed in Gaza in two ways: 1. The brutal differences between both sides; and 2. The death of civilians. Up to date, died 919 Palestinians, and 13 Israelis.
It is NOT impressive how the world media only analyses Israel's side in this conflict, or even creates facts, is it? No, it is not, and we are going to show why in the lines below, after some other preview considerations. Mr. David Brooks wrote in his column to The New York Times, on January 6: "When Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran became leading players in the Middle East, that land-for-peace game was suspended (...). The extremist groups believe in the eventual extermination of Israel. The extremists's goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, and wait for God (or Iran) to kill the rest. Israel's goal is to restrain the brazenness of the extremists until their movement somehow burns itself out or is destroyed from within Arab society. Israel's realistic immediate goal is not to achieve some permanent resolution, but to merely suppress terrorism week by week, and month by month."
It is NOT impressive how innumerable international observers ignore history and reality, is it? No, it is not. First of all, a commentator or politician that still believes in military means to win terror, in terror against terror is just kidding. And if the facts involving Israel in Gaza cited above, which are not new to the world, are not sufficient to condemn this conflict, it is really difficult to understand, discuss and solve the problem.
Israel x Palestine - A Cruel History
Well, we have to remember that the United Kingdom (UK) occupied Palestine in the end of the I World War, and in 1917 the British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour supported the idea of a homeland to the Jews in the region, defending as well the Arab community rights on the ground. Mr. Balfour promised the Palestinians an independent state, never created. Three years later, the UK received a mandate from the United Nations - at the time still called League of Nations - to rule over Palestine. So, the Arab leaders considered themselves betrayed by the UK and threatened by the Jews.
After the II World War, the devastated UK gave the UN the responsability of solving the problems in the region. In 1947, without listening to Palestinians who had lived the region for ages, the United Nations (UN) approved the division of Palestine into two States - one to Jews, and another to Arabs who rejected the deal. In 1948 was created the State of Israel, and in the following year the war ended with Israel's victory. 700 thousand Palestinians took refuge in Cisjordan, in the Gaza Strip and in Arab countries. Egypt took office of Gaza; Jordan took office of the Eastern Jerusalem and Cisjordan, and ever since the Palestinians have had no land. The Arab-Palestinian State promised was not proclaimed, and up to date the Jews rule over more than 75% of the Palestinian territory.
It is also worth remembering that such a land-for-peace game was closer more than ever in the years of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1992-1995), killed by a ultra-rightist Jew after a manifestation for peace in Tel Aviv, on November 4, 1995. We have to remember as well that the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (2002-2006) caused a strong radicalization among Palestinians: he expanded the Jewish communities, suspended negotiations with Palestine and intensified the siege to the Arab territories, causing a genocide against Palestinians. So, it is clear that the roots of the problems are not Palestinians.
Distorting Reality
Mr. Brooks went on: (...) "In this game, violence does not necessarily beget violence", referring to the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Ahmed Yassin in 2004 which, according to Mr. Brooks, temporarily suppressed Hamas suicidal bombings".
At last, he stated that, "The new game is not a war of attrition. It is a struggle for confidence, a series of psychological exchange designed to shift the balance of morale (...). What is really important is how each episode ends (the material destroyed and the psychological effects), because ending defines the meaning". Mr. Brooks cooly and tendentiously states that ending defines the meaning, forgetting all the civilian losses in Palestine. But if Mr. Brooks, reflecting the viewpoint of the world press as he really does, is so sure about this, why could not Palestinians and any local party, taking history into account, respond the same way? Does ending define the meaning only to one side? Why? The terror of State practiced by the great powers is previous to Hamas, which is a political party widely supported by the Palestinians in Gaza, resisting and fighting for liberation of an oppressed people. Why can Israel and the US defend their interests through Army and bombs, while a people who has not even a land, taken away from them, cannot defend themselves through the armed fight? We are totally against war and any kind of violence, also against suicide bombers promoted by Hamas, but in the present world reality, why does a coward genocide practiced by State is not considered terrorism? This has been motive of divergence at the UN. Another point of discussion is if legal definition about terror should take into account conditions that cause it, such as poverty, social differences and injustice. All this circus of information that we have been watching and reading on the media is not "for nothing", but has serious motivations, what we are going to understand exactly in the explosive lines below.
They Pretend They Fight Terror, We Pretend We Believe It - Behind the Superpower Curtains
Actually, the messianic American disposal to the global domination is based on William Branham's theology (1909-1965). Considered a prophet by some evangelical ramifications in the country, Mr. Branham preached that the world salvation had to be promoted by the "power of the American sword", that is, through permanent war against the enemies of the nation. Such a theory is very timely to the American thirst for oil, and George Bush the son has been carried this theology too far.
To the US and Israel, its allied in the Middle East, there is no more excuses but they insist on defending the indefensible. Why do they insisist on fighting terror thorugh military ways? Why do they insist on calling us fool? What is exactly behind the superpower curtains? Many things.
"Al-Qaeda was created by the US. It was a CIA project, launched during the Jimmy Carter administration in 1979, when the National Security Counselor was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Later, this initiative got stronger during the Reagan administration, when some agents was sent to support the mujaheedins recruiting (Muslim guerrillas) to finance madrassas, or canonic schools, where the talibans studied (...).
"If you ask about this to the CIA, they say, "Yes, we created Islamic brigades, but for a good cause". The official explanation presented, unbelievable, is that in the end of the Cold War these Islamic brigades turned against the US. So, the CIA recognizes that it created Islamic brigades, in other words created Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
"Several men who are today in the Bush administration were involved in the Islamic brigades architecture. Richard Armitage, sub secretary of State, was responsible for financing and supporting the mujaheedins. Collin Powell was also involved when came to surface the scandal Iran-Contra (...), he was the military commander who authorized that sale [of weapons to Iran in the war against Iraq], and with the money the American government financed the contra in Nicaragua, as well the mujaheedins.
"(...) Mr. Brzevinski tells that the American government created the Afghan insurgency the same way it created the contra. (...) The CIA encouraged such sects to build schools in Afgfhanistan and to develop a holy war against the Soviet invaders, who were secular. But if you remember the 70's, you will see that there was in Afghanistan a secular post-colonial government supported by the Soviet Union (USSR), and the Afghan society was also secular, it was starting to build government institutions, and what Americans actually did was to create essentially insurgency and incite the Soviets to intervene. In my book, in an interview with Mr. Brzezinski, he says very clearly: 'We created the Islamic jihads and carried support and financing to them'. In time, Al-Qaeda cells was used in several countries, including after the Cold War (...). It was used by the US to destabilize the ex-USSR. One of the important strategic passages is Chechnya. Why is it important? Because it is in the Soviet oleoduct crossing (...) and the US tried to destabilize the Russian control over these oleoduct routes, and using Al-Qaeda supported insurgencies in the region. And the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) played a very important part in all this.
"(...) The ISI became prominent exactly in the beginning of the Reagan administration, in 1981, 1982, when started recruiting radicals all around the Middle East (...). Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war, in the 80's. (...) I proved in my book that there was a collaboration between Al-Qaeda and the American government in Yugoslav, starting in Bosnia in 1993. I reproduced in the book a document of the Republican Party Committee in the US Senate, from 1997 which accuses President Bill Clinton of collaborating to Osama bin Laden. And this is a very explicit document saying clearly: 'The Clinton administration collaborates to the terrorism net called Al-Qaeda'. And there were other events in the 90's. (...) There are other evidences of collaboration, but these are the most crucial, in Kosovo and in Macedon. In Macedon, it happened some weeks before September 11, 2001. Inside the same semimilitary array, there were American military counselors of the Pentagon working side by side with the mujaheedins designated by Al-Qaeda (...). It happened in August, 2001, and was denounced by the Macedonian Prime Minister at the time [Branko Crvenkovski].
"(...) There are documents in my book which prove the collaboration of the ISI to the CIA (...), General Ahmad was received by the Bush administration high echelons, had meetings with Mr. Powell, with Mr. Armitage, with the director of the CIA, Mr. George Tenet, and also met important members of the Congress in September, 2001.
"(...) Senator Bob Graham and Deputy Peter Gross went to Pakistan on August, 29 and had meetings with the local government, and with Mr. Massoud [Ahmed Massoud, Northern Alliance chief, killed in a suicidal attempt on September 13, 2001], later identified by the FBI as involved in financing the attacks of the 9/11.
"(...) The US supported Taliban in 1996 to promote a radical Islamic government, conservative in Afghanistan, Mr. Massoud and the Northern Alliance were supported by Russia. But later the US realized that could not manipulate Taliban as once imagined, and needed the Northern Alliance to substitute it. We do not know what was exactly the goal of the General Ahmad's visit to the US, but on the American media there was kind of a silence about his presence in the country (...) In the following day to the attempt [9/11], as if the meeting had been planned before, he was in Mr. Armitage's office! And was there to discuss the terms of the Pakistani co-operation to the war on terror, on running behind the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And such negotiations were completed on September 13, when he met Mr. Powell. In the morning of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad had a breakfast with Mr. Graham and Mr. Gross, this was reported by the American media.
"(...) The FBI wrote a report in the end of September, affirming that he transferred money to Mohamed Atta, pointed out as the head of the 9/11 attempt."
Mr. Obama and the Middle East
The President-elect Barack Obama has said that the US has one president at a time, and he is right. But on the other hand, he was wrong, so vague in the presidential campagin about the Middle East affairs, especially about Palestine. As well, he is wrong for choosing Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
Mr. Obama is planning to commit thousands of additional American troops to the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, which is already more than seven years old, has cost billions and billions of dollars, many lives (including American ones), and long ago turned into a total failure. What will be the US mission there? The Afghan people is pleading the foreign forces led by the US to leave the country. Malalaï Joya, an ex-Parliamentary from Afghanistan, observed: "The U.S. could easily get rid of a bunch of medieval-minded, illiterate and ignorant people like Taliban. Actually, the U.S. is not serious in its fight against the Taliban and just needs an excuse to prolong its presence in Afghanistan to threaten Iran, China, Central Asia and other Asian powers" (Read more in our article Anna Politkovskaya Award' 2008 to Malalaï Joya, the Bravest Woman in Afghanistan, here).
In his article for Newsweek, Mr. Bacevich wrote: "The chief effect of military operations in Afghanistan so far has been to push radical Islamites across the Pakistani border. As a result, effects to stabilize Afghanistan [we and Afghans contest such effects] are contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan, with potentially devastating implications. One thing is right: the US and the international forces cannot deliver Afghanistan to their own fate". No, the US really cannot deliver Afghans to their own fate now, but cannot occupy their land any more. Not only the focus ot the US policy has to be changed, but also the aspect of its discussion. If Mr. Obama insists on this liar "war on terror", running behind unlimited power, there will neither be enough politics to change the present world situation, nor the US economic crisis. Bush is using the "war on terror" to solve its economic problems. What then?
Terror Made in West. Until When?
The UN has developed an extensive legislation on terrorism practiced by individuals or opposition groups. However, has not defined the terrorism of State, and all around the world most victims have been pacific and disarmed civilians, inciting them to the armed fight - few people have been suffering as much as Palestinians. But this terrorism they suffer is out of fashion to the media. Underground the Middle East is the answer for this.
Israel, always supported by the US, is attacking and destroying Palestine, turning its back to the world - "we do what is better to our people", forgetting that the Palestinian children will grow someday. What to expect from them? Such a land-for-peace game, which to the unreasonable mind of many "violence does not necessarily beget violence" (but only to one side), is interrupted for a generation more, and I really pray to God that we westerners, within 10, 20, 30, 40 years still remember these infamous Israeli attacks, which bloodshed requires a careful way to be solved - the fisrt one, giving to Palestinians a just land, the land that belongs to them.
We are the roots of the present world rages, let us never forget January, 2009 in the coming years - the men of tommorow will be the children of today. May we have a good memory not to cheerfully applaud politicians and media spectacles in the future.
PS: Please, read these very important materials on the Nolan Chart,
1. Anna Politkovskaya Award' 2008 to Mamalaï Joya, the Bravest Woman in Aghanistan, here;
2. Political Crime - UN Diplomat Killed in Iraq - To Whom Did This Murder Interest?, here;
3. A very timely material about terrorism of State is presented by Jake the Champion of the Constution, in Police State Stomps on Iraq Veteran's Face as McBama Sanctions Attack on Freedom of Speech: The Story of the Hempstead 15, here.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Edu Montesanti Goldoni only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Edu Montesanti Goldoni is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Don't you think your spelling list was a little insensitive to someone whose native language obviously isn't English? If you tried to write an article of this length in French or German or Mandarin, would you think it constructive if that was the only comment someone made about your article?
The man is obviously trying to make a point which is far more important than using spellcheck. Why don't you bash him around a little about the kind of political system he's supporting, and how it usurps liberty? That would certainly be better than nitpicking him about his spelling. There are LOTS of Libertarians on this website who can't spell or write a coherent sentence. Should we start making lists for them, too?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-15 11:27:10
Feel free, Master C. Actually, we've been trying to crack down on submssions with spelling mistakes. This article apparently got through without the approver noticing them. Edu himself will tell you that he welcomes such feedback.
I love the fact that you're talking about insensitivity, given your track record here at the 'Chart. I wonder if you'll follow your own advice?
Insensitivity does NOT mean ignoring idiocy, bigotry, naivete, gullibility, or ignorance. And, it certainly doesn't mean failing to respond to the vulgarity, condescention, prevarication, infantile quibbling, and diatribes of those who have the keyboard with which to write but don't have the brain with which to reason.
You seem so stuffy and tunnel-visioned that you think clever, metaphorical repartee and buttal is insensitivity. The only insensitivity in that is SELF-REALIZATION. I know it really hurts when someone points out things that people just don't want to read. But ~ like medicine ~ sometimes the cure is distasteful.
I follow all your guidelines. Some just don't like the fact that I'm so good at it.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-16 20:25:21
Very good stuff Edu! Great job with the research. Appreciate the link to my articles as well! Spelling is tough, even if english is our first lanuguage we still make mistakes. :) - Jake
Dear MC and Walt -
Yeah, I gave a shot at translating one of my articles into Mandarin once, but the editor doesnt accept them, so I'd have to post it as a jpeg. No worries, have to wait till I have some spare time
Posted By: Paul M. Green
Date: 2009-01-17 06:04:31
To Master C and Walt Thiessen:
I see no problem with folks pointing out grammatical or spelling errors. As far as I'm concerned its just a way for us to look out for each other. These article are seen all over the world. People make judgments based on their impression of what they see. This is not "text messaging" where we can write like we are at a 1st grade level. I believe it to be a show of respect for the reader, to the site, and for ourselves if we do our utmost to use proper grammer, spelling, and sentence construction.
I know when I'm told about an error I make, I'm less likely to make it again. I tend to mix up "principle" and "principal." My most recent article had a typo where I spelled "boarders" when I meant to use "borders." To this day, the word "neighbor" kills me - whats with all the superfluous letters in that word? I had to use google just to spell it here. I can NEVER remember how to spell it.
I'm a native English speaker, and still spend a lot of time juggling words around in my writing just to get them right. I can't imagine how difficult it is for somebody who is learning our language to get his point across, and post an article that makes sense to us.
Having a fellow writer point out mistakes, or make suggestions to me in a respectful manner helps me learn. Usually, my mind is made up when it comes to the content of my writing, so any bashing or rebuttal toward that is unlikely to change my mind (on rare occasions, you can). However, if you point out my mistakes of grammar, syntax, spelling, or construction, then I'll take that CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISISM, learn something from it, and perhaps use it next time I put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard).
If Edu tooks Walt's comment as it was intended - as constuctive critisism - and learned something, he might have become a better speller as a result. Be that the case, then we all win.
Now, go over this comment, and find any mistakes....I looked hard, but couldn't find any. Can you?
Your comments are truly unnecessary. What you contributed is hardly a revelation. Walt and I knew what we were talking about. But, you didn't.
On the other hand, just to accommodate you: 1) you misspelled "it's" in the second sentence, 2) you misspelled "articles" in the third sentence, 3) you need to match your tenses by using the word "impressions" to match with people in the fourth sentence, 4) you misspelled the word "what's" in the fourth sentence of the 2nd paragraph, 5) I actually think the word "superfluous" is not the proper word to use in that same sentence because I don't see any letters that are unneeded or extra in the word neighbor ~ neigh-bor ~ what's wrong with that? 6) the word "criticism" is misspelled in the third sentence of the fourth paragraph, 7) the word "took" is misspelled in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, 8) you misspelled "criticism" again in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph.
I guess you either didn't look very well, or you just don't know any better, huh, Paul?
Let me see, if I stand behind my curtain and throw rocks at your windows, will I be safe from retaliation? No? Well, how about this. I'll build a fancy church in Gaza, and on Sundays, during Church Services, I'll use a speacially constructed portion of the Church I paid for, to throw rockets at your windows. Ok, now am I safe from your retaliaion?
Besides, you're a super power. And everyone knows, an Islamic fundamentalist has but one goal in life - release from this planet. As bullets gain a longer range and become more explosive (read Iran - read nukes on missiles) then Isreal must seek out the source of the thrown rocks. Do you understand?
I am not sure you have all your facts straight. At the very least, the UN could not have mandated the UK to rule Palestine in 1920 since it was not formed until 1945. Did I misspell any words?
Posted By: E. M. Goldoni
Date: 2009-01-29 10:05:26
Dear * "Boy":
Thank you for your readership and opinion. But I have to make you know that in the post-I World War there was the League of Nations, supported by the Pres. Wilson and boycotted by the Republican Congress. Later, it would become what we today know as the UN. This change does not change yhe idea of the point in this article. I didn't commit any mistake, dear * "Boy". It approved the UK to rule Palestine, yes, it didi so. Go and study more, "Boy".
Concerning to mispellings, I invite you guys not to discuss it any more - at least, not in my column. Even though the terribel American moral and intellectual crisis, I also mention your sense of justice and democracy. So, let's give a civilization exhibition here.
If you guys insist on discussing it, go and discuss it in an other column, please.
I am always glad for contacting my readers, edumontesanti@web.de. Write me - in Portugese, Spanish, Italian, German, Swedish, French, and very soon in Tupi- Guarani and Norwegian (I'm studying them). Not in English, I'm not used to contacting in this language - I do not like English, but some times it's necessary. (By the way, do you know what Tupi-Guarani is???).
My granfather was used to say that we do not have to respect people who do not mention their real name, but now, respecting over all Mr. Thiessen and Jake, I respect you and finish this message.
P.S.: * Dear is not used in the US, but do not discuss if this here... If I'm a gay (I wouldn't be amazed if you discussed it here!). I'm not in the US, I'm not American, and in the UK yes, they use it.
P.S. 2 This material was published in Gaza, Germany and Afghanistan. I have other materials published abroad.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
