How Not To Be Anti-American, Anti-Semitic, No Better Than Hitler, And Beneath Contempt

As you may have noticed, in our current so-called culture, it is extremely and increasingly important neither to be, nor to be perceived as, on the "wrong" side of certain issues.

Being, or simply being called, anti-American, anti-UK, anti-Israel, anti-NATO, and/or (especially) anti-Semitic, can jeopardize one's supposedly inalienable rights, among them: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Fortunately, it is quite easy not to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, and so on. There are ten rules that you need to learn and understand. Once you begin to apply these simple rules, you will be pleased to see that they make difficult thinking totally unnecessary.

~~~

1. Accept the (elected and unelected) great leaders (and spokespeople) of the USA, the UK, Israel, and NATO as your own (even if you don't like, and/or didn't vote for, any of them). To the greatest extent possible, (con)fuse their grandeur with your own identity. Understand that they not only lead your country (even if you live in a different country): they are your country, and by extension, they are you. Realize that your hopes, ambitions, loyalties, responsibilities, even your destiny are intricately and irreversibly entwined with theirs, and therefore you as an individual no longer have any independent meaning.

2. From now on, when we say "we", we mean "our great leaders", singly and collectively. This replaces the outmoded usage which erroneously referred to our former individually-oriented selves, and possibly also our family and our friends.

3. Whatever we do is Good. Otherwise we wouldn't do it.

4. Whatever we say is True. Otherwise we wouldn't say it.

5. Our enemies are whoever we say they are. (See rule 4.)

6. Whatever they do is Evil. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

7. Whatever they say is False. Otherwise they wouldn't say it. (It is also Evil for them to say it. See rule 6.)

8. If we don't want to talk about something they've accused us of doing, this proves we didn't do it. If we had done it, we would talk about it, because it would be Good. (See rule 3.) But since they made the accusation, it is False (see rule 7), and therefore it warrants no response whatsoever. Similarly, if they don't want to talk about something we've accused them of doing, this proves that they did it. (See rule 4.) Of course they don't want to talk about it. It was Evil. (See rule 6.)

9. Any criticism of American policy or practice is inherently anti-American, and any criticism of NATO or UK policy or practice is inherently anti-NATO or anti-UK respectively. Given America's direct influence on NATO, and indirect influence (through NATO) on many countries, including the UK, any criticism of NATO or the UK is inherently anti-American as well.

10. Any criticism of Israeli policy or practice is not only anti-Israel but also anti-Semitic (see rule 4), therefore no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt. Given the support Israel receives from the US, the UK, and NATO, all anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements are also anti-NATO, anti-UK, and anti-American as well. And vice versa.

~~~

Current events provide numerous free opportunities for ordinary citizens to put these simple rules into action, so as not to be (nor to be seen as) anti-American, anti-NATO, anti-UK, anti-Israel, and most importantly, anti-Semitic. It only takes a little bit of common sense.

For instance, the rules show that it is clearly Good for us (rule 2) to spend billions of dollars and engage the services of brutal terrorists (whom we didn't really engage at all; see rule 8) in an attempt to destabilize Ukraine (even though, at the time, Ukraine was a peaceful sovereign independent nation; see rule 3). And we are fully justified in calling our Good actions there "bringing democracy" and/or "enhancing stability" (see rule 4), despite the fact that our intervention has empowered monsters and brought about horrible suffering (none of which is in any sense our fault; see rule 8). But it would be Evil for the Russians (our enemies; see rule 5) to interact with Ukraine in any fashion whatsoever (rule 6), even if they merely sought to stabilize the country (which they wouldn't, especially if that's what they said they were doing; see rule 7). In other words, any Russian action with respect to Ukraine, including seemingly innocent cooperation in trade, transportation, or any other area, is Evil (rule 6), and would be Evil even in the absence of the current chaos, which we didn't cause (rule 8). And anyone who says otherwise is anti-American (rule 9), anti-Semitic (rule 10), no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

If you understand all this, then when your friends and neighbors start talking about how fantastic it was when Obama stood up to Putin and told him to keep his grubby mitts off Ukraine, you will know how not to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt. When they ask your opinion, you won't say, "America had no right to intervene in Ukraine in the first place, let alone now!" That would be anti-American, beneath contempt, and so on. Instead you might say, "Right on, bro! Obama rocks! Time to kick some Rooskie butt!" Then you could excuse yourself and go to the bathroom. And if you had to throw up, you could do it in private.

For another example: if you understand the rules, you can easily see that it is Good for us (rule 2) to commit all manner of unspeakable atrocities against the Palestinians (rule 3) but it is Evil for the Palestinians (our enemies; rule 5) to retaliate in any way (rule 6). And anyone who says otherwise is anti-Semitic (rule 10), no better than Hitler, beneath contempt, and so on. You don't want to fall that low. You don't want to be seen as having fallen that low. So when they ask your opinion, you won't say, "What the Israelis are doing is horrible, and the American support for it is sickening!" Instead you might say, "Right on, bro! Bibi rocks! Time to kick some Aayrabb butt!" Then you could excuse yourself and go to the bathroom again.

~~~

It's all very simple once it's been explained properly. And, to be honest, it wasn't very difficult to list and explain the ten simple rules. But many otherwise intelligent writers, whose work I read quite regularly, have failed to notice these valuable guidelines. I think they must have been busy with other matters.

Case in point: Chris Floyd has recently posted a brillant but anti-American and anti-Semitic column concerning Operation Protective Edge and the US Senate's unanimous and generous support for Israel at this critical time. Protective Edge, as you may have heard, is a purely defensive operation against beaches, hospitals, and other carefully selected military targets, launched by Israel in response to (and in the hope of deterring) rocket attacks from Gaza.

Floyd quotes James Marc Leas, who has assembled a timeline which shows very clearly that Israel had attacked Gaza more than a hundred times in the three weeks prior to the launch of the first such rocket attack, and this leads Floyd to conclude that we are lying when we claim the current Israeli actions -- high-tech brutalities against defenseless captive civilians -- constitute a legitimate response to the rocket attacks.

Floyd says, in effect, "They're all lying, and they know it. They have to know it. Anyone who has been following the news has to know it. But they're still lying. And they're getting away with it."

It's all very convincing, except that Floyd fails to take into account rules 3 and 4.

In other words, what difference does a timeline make? If we say we're only retaliating, then we're only retaliating. It doesn't matter if the retaliation began before the action that triggered it. If we say we're simply taking defensive action, then we're simply taking defensive action. If we say we're protecting the children, then we're protecting the children. And that's the whole story.

James Marc Leas has deliberately crafted his timeline to cast doubt on these obvious facts. Therefore, he and his timeline are both anti-Semitic (rule 10). And Floyd's reference to Leas is not only anti-Semitic, but anti-American as well (rule 9). It's no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

As if this were not bad enough, Floyd also cites Max Blumenthal and Jon Schwarz -- for very different reasons, but with eerily similar results. Bluemthal has compiled another timeline, this one concerning the murder in June of three Israeli teenagers. This timeline shows very clearly that we hid critical information, and that we lied -- to our own people and to the rest of the world -- about what we knew, when we knew it, what we were doing, and why we were doing it.

It's all very convincing, except that Blumenthal also fails to take into account rules 3 and 4.

In other words, what difference does a timeline make? If we say we think the boys are still alive, then we think they're still alive. It doesn't matter if we already know they're dead. If we say we know who kidnapped them, then we know who kidnapped them. If we say we are trying to rescue them, then we are trying to rescue them. And that's the whole story.

Max Blumenthal has deliberately crafted his timeline to cast doubt on these obvious facts. Therefore, he and his timeline are both anti-Semitic (rule 10). And Floyd's reference to Blumenthal is not only anti-Semitic, but anti-American as well (rule 9). It's no better than Hitler, and beneath contempt.

As for Jon Schwarz, he dug up a quote nearly fifty years old, in which we explained that Egypt's 1967 blockade of an Israeli port was an act of war, and that therefore Israel's military action against Egypt in response to the blockade was fully justified. Jon Schwarz and Chris Floyd both wonder, if a short-term Egyptian blockade of a single Israeli port was enough to justify a war, why doesn't a long-term Israeli blockade of all of Gaza justify any reaction whatsoever?

It goes without saying that there's a big difference between an Egyptian blockade of Israel and an Israeli blockade of Gaza. In the simplest terms: if we do it, it's Good (see rule 3). If they do it, it's Evil (see rule 6). I'm amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people don't get this.

Max Blumenthal, Jon Schwarz, James Marc Leas, and Chris Floyd seem like very bright guys. I don't think they deliberately set out to put themselves on a level with Adolf Hitler. I think they did it inadvertently, simply because they don't understand certain things.

These writers share outdated concepts. They put credence in established facts. They rely on systematic logical reasoning. They believe one can determine the truth or falsehood of a statement without knowing who made it. And they believe one can judge whether an action is Good or Evil without knowing who performed it. Because they have not yet abandoned these outdated ideas, they continue to say and write the most anti-American and anti-Semitic nonsense, which renders them no better than Hitler, beneath contempt, and unworthy of any serious response.

But I don't think it's deliberate. I don't think they strive to be no better than Hitler. I don't think they aspire to be beneath contempt. I just think nobody has ever taken the time and gone to the effort to explain certain things.

Until now.

Do you wish to comment? If so, click here to join the discussion.

Distraction 101: Why Are The Prog-Blogs Silent On Gaza? Because That Is Their Job!

Another Israeli attack on Gaza.
"Progressive" bloggers got nothing to say.

With "the American-armed, American-backed Israeli military [...] busily raining death into the cramped and crowded concentration camp of Gaza," I find it difficult to think clearly, let alone write clearly. The barbarity of the Israeli operation, no doubt carefully planned long ago, fills me with horror, rage, and grief -- and so too do the so-called "justifications" put forth by the so-called "analysts" who populate our so-called "news media." Even were I not hampered by physical injuries, I would find it very difficult to write at this time.

And yet, not writing at this time would be even more difficult, and writing about anything except the Israeli assault on Gaza would be almost inconceivable.

But the key word is "almost," and the crucial issue is context. In other words: I am an independent blogger with a small readership and no outside support. Thus, I am free (some would say "bound") to write what I think. But such was not always the case. Before I became an independent blogger with a small readership, I was a frequent and heavy contributor (and occasionally even the guest host) at a blog with a large readership, and things were very different.

Chris Floyd's latest post, "Blogging and Nothingness: Progressives Turn Their Gaze from Gaza," points out that the "leading" "progressive" blogs -- Digby, Eschaton, and Kos, among others -- have had nothing to say about current round of crimes being committed against the Palestinians, and against all humanity, by the Israeli "defense force." Certainly they are not about to call these crimes by their proper names, nor to admit that none of them would be possible without the support that flows to Israel from the United States.

As I came to see quite clearly when I was about to become an independent blogger, the big, so-called "progressive" bloggers are not interested in digging up and exposing any of the most important truths of our time, including but not limited to: the truth about 9/11, the long-standing, bi-partisan American plan to refashion the Middle East through escalating violence, Israel's outrageous use of military force against defenseless civilians, and the fact that this would not be possible without unstinting American support on numerous levels. (Perhaps you see these as multiple aspects of the same issue, in which case I beg your forgiveness for listing them separately.)

Occasionally I see the assertion made that the "leading" "progressive" bloggers are not shining bright lights on such harsh truths because they are afraid of being called "anti-Semitic." In my opinion, nothing could be further than the truth. The "leading" "progressive" bloggers are mostly interested in preventing such truths from coming to light, because they are anti-Semitic.

Let us speak plainly. Palestinians are Semites. Many Israelis, who came to Israel from Europe, are not. But Israel uses the term "anti-Semitic" to smear anyone who criticizes Israeli policies. Therefore, you will be called "anti-Semitic" if you oppose unwarranted violence against the Semitic people. But in fact it is Israeli policies, and Israeli supporters, which are truly "anti-Semitic."

This is extremely twisted "logic," using the ethnic identity of the victims to shield the perpetrators. But it is entirely typical -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a minefield, strewn with words and phrases whose apparent meanings and real meanings are radically different.

In my view, the "leading" "progressive" bloggers shy away from the minefield not because it's complicated -- it's really not very complicated at all -- but because that is their job. Their main purpose is to capture and nullify any potential opposition. They are remarkably successful at it, and heavily supported for doing it so well.

And therefore it is left to the "little guys" -- Chris Floyd and others -- to clear away the mines and tell the horrible truths, even though this guarantees that they will always be independent bloggers with small readerships.

As for the "leading" "progressive" blogs -- Digby, Eschaton, and Kos, among others -- I never expect them to say anything valuable about anything of importance. My expectations have rarely been disappointed.

Meanwhile, death and destruction continue to fall upon the people who are trapped in the Israeli vice. Israeli bombs continue to tear apart homes and kill whole families, while Israeli shills continue to claim that Israel never attacks civilians. And Barack Obama maintains that "Israel has the right to defend itself."

This so-called "right of self-defense" stems from Israel's so-called "right to exist." I wouldn't wait for any "leading" "progressive" blogger to explain how bogus all this is, or to point out that states exist by force of arms alone, not by right but by might. No coercive state has any right to exist whatsoever -- not Israel, not the USA, none of the others. States exist because -- and only for so long as -- none of their opponents can overcome their power.

If this obvious truth is invisible to the "leading" "progressive" bloggers, then maybe they are not so "progressive" after all ... which would explain why they are "leading."

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Norway's 9/11: The Horror Is In The Message

The front page of The Sun
blamed the attacks on al Qaeda.

Unlike many other writers of various political persuasions, I have had great difficulty putting into words my reactions to the recent events in Norway. I hope my comments, though belated, may prove to be of some value.

As you must have read by now, a bomb exploded in central Oslo on the afternoon of July 22, killing eight people. And a few hours later, a shooting rampage decimated a gathering of about 700 people on the picturesque island of Utoeya, northwest of Oslo.

I became aware of the attacks shortly after the explosion but before the shooting started, and I got my first hint that things were not as they appeared when I saw that ABC News, citing U.S. State Department sources, had declared the blast the result of "a vehicle bomb."

This happened before the Norwegian police were even calling it "a bomb."

"How," I asked myself, "could the State Department know more about the cause of the blast than the police who were just starting to investigate it?"

"Watch closely," an inner voice replied, "and you may find out."

So I watched and read and listened and learned.

Bomb damage in Oslo, July 22, 2011

The target of the bomb appears to have been government offices, and the victims of the shooting were attending a camp run by the youth wing of the Labor Party. And the bombing and the shooting were the work of one man, Anders Behring Breivik, who planned the assault for nine years without any outside help, and pulled it off without any apparent source of significant income.

The shooting spree lasted more than an hour, even though the police had been alerted. They couldn't reach the island quickly because no helicopters were available, and no helicopters were available because all the helicopter crews were on holiday simultaneously. So the police approached by road and inflatable raft instead. But they overloaded the raft and it began to sink, so it took more than one try before they could reach the island. And still, they say they made the quickest response anyone could have asked for.

Even though multiple eyewitnesses described bullets coming from multiple directions, and some spoke of a shooter with dark hair, the blond-haired Breivik, who arrived on the island wearing a police uniform, acted completely alone, according to the Norwegian authorities. Therefore it should come as no surprise that all his court appearances will be held in secret, to prevent him sending coded messages to his accomplices.

In polite company, it may be considered improper to ask how the lone nut killer obtained a police uniform. Did the police search his residence? Did they find a sewing machine? Solitary psychos must sew their own uniforms, no? They can't get them anywhere else, can they? Not if they want to remain "lone" nuts!

After killing more than 60 campers, Breivik reportedly called the police, who arrived promptly and arrested him without a fight. The story is getting more and more credible as it develops, is it not?

The killer allegedly left a 1500-page manifesto, some of which was plagiarized from the Unabomber and some of which refers to modern writers who take extreme anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant positions. Although Breivik was Norwegian, the manifesto is mostly about other countries. There's not much about Norway itself. And it's in fluent English, which has made certain people wonder.

Bomb damage in Oslo, July 22, 2011

The manifesto was reportedly emailed to 250 of the lone nut's closest associates just before the attacks, and discovered online shortly afterward. In it, the author claims to have traveled extensively, although no record can be found of Breivik ever earning substantial income. How could he afford all that travel? Alas, we are getting ahead of ourselves.

When the story broke, many mainstream "news services" jumped to the immediate conclusion that the carnage was the work of al Q'aeda. Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid, The Sun, ran a front page headline saying as much, and calling the episode "Norway's 9/11." For words such as these, the mainstream operators were heavily criticized, even though the claim appears to have been substantially correct.

The suspect, who has been "strikingly calm" according to the police, appears to be a brain-damaged patsy. The story being told by the victimized government is full of internal contradictions and dotted with assertions that cannot possibly be said to make any sense. The mainstream media are busy echoing the official tale with blatant disregard for its lack of provenance, having made no discernible attempt to verify any of it. And many so-called "investigative reporters" and "dissident bloggers" are doing the very same thing, even though some of the self-incriminating evidence Breivik supposedly posted on the Internet did not appear until the day after he was arrested. It's 9/11 all over again, but on a different stage and in a different language.

And, just as in the aftermath of 9/11, reports almost everywhere have been full of transparently obvious nonsense.

Bomb damage in Oslo, July 22, 2011

As one example among many, consider the following, written by Peter Beaumont in The Guardian of July 23:

Norwegian police said that the individual believed responsible for the shooting in Utøya, a 32-year-old Norwegian man, was also spotted in Oslo before the bombing there.

The targeted nature of the attacks at both government offices and the Labour party youth camp both suggest a more political agenda rather than an attempt to create widespread terror.

Norwegian news reports said that police did not think the attacks were linked to international terrorism and that it was more likely directed at the current political system.

There were reports that the gunman responsible for the attack on PM Jens Stoltenberg's party youth camp on the island of Utøya was blond haired and Nordic looking – allegations still yet to be confirmed.

This suggests the attack might have been the work of an individual or individuals closer in outlook to the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh driven by their own ideology, a theory backed up by a Norwegian police official who told the Associated Press the man suspected of the attacks does not appear to be linked to Islamist terrorism. He went on to say that the attacks probably have more in common with the 1995 attack on a US federal building in Oklahoma City than the September 11 2001 attacks.

The suspect appeared to have acted alone, he said, and "it seems like that this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all." He added that the investigation is still ongoing and that things can change.

Did you catch all that? Top marks if you did; it's spinning in so many different directions simultaneously that it's tough to catch any of it. So let's go slowly:

The targets of the attacks suggest a political agenda, rather than an attempt to create widespread terror. Why? Apparently because the fear generated by attacks on office buildings and defenseless children would not be widespread, provided the buildings and the children were connected to a political party.

Anders Breivik, the blond suspect

Even though allegations that the gunman was blond haired and Nordic looking were still unconfirmed, a Norwegian police official had already told the Associated Press that the suspect appeared to have acted alone. How did the police know this? Maybe they had been tipped off by one of the hundreds of people to whom Breivik emailed his manifesto.

All of the above certainly explains why the police could say, "it seems ... this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all," before journalists could even obtain confirmation of the color of the suspect's hair. It all makes perfect sense if you look at it from a certain angle.

Some people may think it's a remarkable coincidence that the police, who couldn't get a SWAT team to the scene of a massacre in less than an hour, could say almost immediately where the killer was seen before the attacks began, let alone that he apparently had no accomplices. It's probably also a coincidence that police conducted a bomb-scare terror drill and that suspicious sewer work was reported being done on Wednesday, in the very place where the bomb went off on Friday.

What can we make of all these strange coincidences? My understanding of the events in Norway has been colored by some of the writers I have been accustomed to reading, and my understanding of those writers has been colored to a certain extent by their coverage of the events.

In the blogosphere, I started, as I usually do, with Chris Floyd, whose site, Empire Burlesque, has been a great source of information and inspiration as long as it has existed. Floyd's one and only piece on the subject, "Fade to White: The Tender Treatment of Christian Terror," was posted the day after the attacks, and it reads:

There is not much to say about the horrific events in Norway, beyond this general observation. If a white, Christian nationalist carries out such atrocities, then he is, inevitably and always, a "lone nut," an outlier, emblematic of nothing but his own individual lunacy. But if a Muslim -- or any person of color or non-white ethnicity -- does anything similar (or indeed, far less serious in scope), why then, that perpetrator is emblematic of an entire race or religion or ethnic group: a group which must then be laid under collective suspicion, and collective harrasment, by the "security" forces (and the chattering classes) of the West.

In the coming days, we will hear much about the tormented psychology of the Norwegian terrorist ... who, as Glenn Greenwald notes, will no longer be known as a "terrorist" at all -- precisely because he is white, Christian and a "patriot."

I agree with almost all of this. But in my opinion, there is a great deal to say about these horrific events.

The piece by Glenn Greenwald to which Floyd linked was called "The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of 'Terrorism'" and it primarily concerned itself with tracking the early mainstream coverage of the attacks. All such coverage, needless to say, assumed that 9/11 was done by bearded Muslim madmen in caves half a world away who couldn't even talk to one another on their cell phones without the NSA knowing what they were saying, but who somehow outsmarted the largest security apparatus ever built and outmanoeuvered the laws of physics to demolish three buildings with just two airplanes.

All such coverage, needless to say, is worthless, as are the propaganda organs which produced it. How anyone could analyze such nonsense every day, without ever mentioning that it is nonsense, is beyond me. But this could be one of the reasons why Glenn Greenwald has a huge audience whereas I do not.

In an earlier post called "The Oslo attacks," Greenwald had taken the New York Times to task for its description of Norway, writing:

Most media accounts express bafflement that Norway would be the target of such an attack given how peaceful it is; The New York Times, for instance, said "the attacks appeared to be part of a coordinated assault on the ordinarily peaceful Scandinavian nation." This is simply inaccurate. Norway is a nation at war -- in more than just one country.

Far from grasping the NYT's point that Norway is fittingly described as "ordinarily peaceful" because gun violence is not rampant in its cities (unlike some countries one could name), and mass murder there was formerly very rare (ahem), Greenwald continued by documenting Norway's relatively minor involvement in Afghanistan and Libya, and wrote:

I simply do not understand this bafflement being expressed that Norway -- of all countries -- would be targeted with violence.

Regardless of the justifications of these wars -- and Norway is in both countries as part of a U.N. action -- it is simply a fact that Norway has sent its military to two foreign countries where it is attacking people, dropping bombs, and killing civilians. Historically, one reason not to invade and attack other countries is because doing so often prompts one's own country to be attacked. Western nations typically only attack countries that are incapable of responding in kind, but those nations and their sympathizers are capable of perpetrating asymmetrical attacks of the sort that Oslo just suffered.

I cannot argue with Greenwald's other main point -- one so obvious that in a sane world it would not even require a mention -- that our media take a different approach to violence inflicted by Western countries than to violence inflicted upon Western countries.

But I can argue with part of his conclusion, which runs:

[O]ur own country and those in alliance with it -- unintentionally or otherwise -- replicate the horror that took place in Oslo in countless places around the world with great regularity, and that requires at least as much attention and discussion as the Oslo attacks are sure to receive.

Specifically, I don't understand how the horrors our countries inflict on others could possibly be described as "unintentional." But I suppose we must consider the source, the audience, and the platform.

However, my primary area of disagreement in this instance lies in the way Greenwald speculatively connects the attacks on Norway to the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, without mentioning that these wars were instigated and are driven from places like Washington, London, and Tel Aviv (which would be more likely targets for anyone seriously seeking retribution), or that Norway has obviously been, like many other small European countries, dragged into foreign entanglements reluctantly, pressured by the usual extortions and lies about membership in NATO and the UN, and itching to get out.

With respect to Libya, Greenwald's "connection" was especially spurious, because even as the war instigators were saying it might take a year or longer to effect the changes they desire, the Norwegians had already announced the imminent end of their participation in slaughter of innocent Africans.

But then again, we must consider the source and the platform. Unfortunately for the audience, in order to offer a more credible explanation for why Norway might have been so brutally attacked, one must grasp the third rail of American politics. This, as Glenn Greenwald has shown repeatedly, he will not do.

I certainly agree with William Blum, who wrote:

Amidst all the sadness and horror surrounding the massacre in Norway, we should not lose sight of the fact that "peaceful little Norway" participated in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999; has deployed troops in Iraq; has troops in Afghanistan; and has supplied warplanes for NATO's bombing of Libya. The teenagers of those countries who lost their lives to the US/NATO killing machine wanted to live to adulthood and old age as much as the teenagers in Norway. With all the condemnation of "extremism" we now hear in Norway and around the world we must ask if this behavior of the Norwegian government, as well as that of the United States and NATO, is not "extremist".

But to explain the significance of "Norway's 9/11," one must delve much deeper.

Breivik (or someone who looks a
bit like him) in a mock military uniform.

William Blum has compiled and continues to enlarge an agonizingly long and detailed compendium of CIA black ops -- crimes against democracy and crimes against humanity committed over the decades and all around the world. But he still accepts the official lies about "America's 9/11." Apparently he has trouble recognizing a black op when he sees one unfolding.

An even less astute analysis came from another longstanding favourite, Bob Koehler, who wrote:

Young adults — teenagers — being stalked and methodically murdered at their bucolic summer camp on Utoya Island in Norway. In God’s name, why?

This is the question we ask instantaneously, with sucked-in breath. Why? The question is bigger than any answer we make up. The killer, Anders Behring Breivik, had an agenda, of course. The Utoya murders, along with the deaths meted out by the bomb he detonated in Oslo a short while earlier — 76 victims in all — were explicit political killings; but first, they were the product of some psycho-social kink in the human condition ... Anders Behring Breivik is our creation.

Koehler's column is, like many others, utterly devoid of skepticism. Worse, in my opinion, it incorrectly tries to assign the blame for this monstrous attack, it claims without proof that the question is bigger than any possible answer, and it implies that the only available answers are those we "make up."

Well, no! Bob, I'm sorry! Anders Behring Breivik is not my creation! Neither is he yours! Please do what you ask and expect of real journalists: look at your sources to see whether they make any sense, and whether what they say is verifiable, before you go any further. This outrage is not my fault. It's not yours, either. Rather than labeling the killer "our creation," guys like you should be trying to figure out whose fault it really is, rather than simply pointing fingers at the mainstream media for pinning the blame on al Q'aeda.

It's been almost 10 years since ordinary Americans first heard of al Q'aeda, and if they are still inclined to link outrageously brutal terrorism with Muslim madmen, that reflects nothing so much as the failure of our allegedly dissident writers. We didn't expect the war-cheerleaders to stop in the middle of their blood-orgy and tell us the truth themselves, did we?

A large part of the horror of "America's 9/11" became visible in the aftermath, when, one after another, supposedly dissident writers, who were then thought of as leaders of the purported anti-war movement, published vicious screeds attacking the people who were questioning the official story of those attacks. Another part of the horror came more gradually, with the slow realization that certain writers were never going to mention doubts about the official story at all, much less tackle them.

To see so many intelligent people accepting without question another blatantly ridiculous official story about another politically-motivated mass murder was not especially surprising -- after all, it's been ten years. But, seriously: What has Norway been doing lately to tick off powerful people? Why is this question so difficult for people to formulate?

It turns out that the question itself isn't especially difficult. The problem people are apparently having is with the answer.

Norway has been a reluctant member of NATO's foreign expeditions. Norway owns and manages its own natural resources. Norway has refused to join the EU. And Norway has been a major thorn in the side of Israel.

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store was met by demands that
Norway must recognize a Palenstinian state when he visited the
Labour Youth League summer camp on July 21. (Reuters)

From boycotting Israeli goods to divesting from joint Norwegian-Israeli enterprises; from resisting pro-Israeli propaganda merchants to barring investment by Israeli companies; from sponsoring education about Israel's crimes against the Palestinians to calling for Israeli leaders to be tried for their crimes; from offering to recognize a Palestinian state to threatening to attack Israel in the event of another attack on Gaza or the West Bank (using the same logic currently in play in Libya), Norway has been leading a growing worldwide campaign to stand up for the victims in the region, rather than the aggressors. The Labor Party has been prominent in that effort, and the youth of the party have been especially committed -- committed to supporting some of the most forsaken people on Earth.

Let us review, shall we? Supposedly to atone for crimes committed by Germans, the people of Palestine have been forced off their land, penned up in open-air concentration camps, cut off from normal life by walls and checkpoints, and terrorized by armed Israeli madmen who shoot first and ask no questions.

Their groves, to which they are almost always denied access, are being burnt and ripped up and converted into settlements in which the rightful owners are unwelcome at gunpoint. Their land and water have been stolen, their freedom of movement has been curtailed, and many thousands of them have been killed. But this is not enough for their oppressors, who now use deadly force against peaceful people who wish to bring them assistance.

And nobody is supposed to read about any of this, and nobody is supposed to write about any of this, except for propaganda outlets who deny that the Palestinians are oppressed, or that they are people, or who claim it's their own fault. And anybody who dares to criticize Israeli policy is anti-Semitic.

For that reason, members of the mainstream audience will never have access to the idea that the attack on Norway may have been a scripted event, a prefabricated act of terror in which Anders Breivik was a pawn of forces larger than he could ever imagine.

To some people, it will always remain an inexplicable act of madness, a psycho-social kink in the human condition, horrible and insane and ultimately meaningless. There are even some writers arguing that any attempt to find meaning in the Norway massacre is a sign of an unhinged mind.

If that is the case, I am proud to be unhinged. Ultimately, I have no choice, because the meaning of the massacre is as clear to me as it apparently is to some Norwegians, such as the Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who seemed to be speaking to a foreign audience when he said:

I have a message to the people who attacked us, and those behind them. This is a message from all of Norway:

You will not destroy us.

You will not destroy our democracy nor our quest for a better world. We are a small nation, but we are a proud nation.

No one shall bomb us into silence or shoot us into silence. Nothing will frighten us out of being Norway.

This night we will comfort each other, talk with each other, and stand together. Tomorrow we will show the world that Norway’s democracy grows stronger when it is challenged. We shall find the guilty and hold them responsible.

If Jens Stoltenberg believed the guilty had already been found, he would not have been speaking in such terms, would he? He seemed to be responding to a secret message, rather than reacting to the crime which the police and media have described.

But the message was no secret.

You will go along with the program. You will send your troops where we tell you, you will buy foreign products regardless of ethical considerations, you will stop supporting the vermin we are trying to eradicate, and under no circumstances will you threaten anyone.

Otherwise we will bomb your offices and kill your children.

We will do it on a famous anniversary, but it in such a way that no direct evidence leads back to us.

We will do it in a way that shows your police are thoroughly compromised and no use to you at all. We will do it in a way that exacerbates tensions between Christians and Moslems. And we will do it in a way that lends credibility to those who would trash the best features of your open, democratic society.

We will cover our tracks with a lame distraction which will confirm quite clearly -- to those with eyes to see -- that the entire world's "news" media are in our pocket. And most of your friends and neighbors -- including many who should know better -- will play along with it, if they show any interest at all.

And then ... ah, yes: then we will rejoice in your grief!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Anti-Semitism In Action: UK Lowers Terror Threat Level; Guardian Reports On The Change

Is anti-Semitism on the rise? You bet it is, and for good reason. It's well-funded.

Consider, for example, the following piece from Alan Travis, home affairs editor of The Guardian, which appeared on July 20, 2009. The headline reads: "Britain downgrades al-Qaida terror attack alert level". The sub-heading says "Officials reduce assessment of threat from 'severe' to 'substantial', its lowest level since 9/11", and the text of the article reads:

The official assessment of the threat level of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Britain has been lowered from "severe" – where an attack is deemed highly likely – to "substantial", where an attack is considered a strong possibility.

The decision to lower the official threat level follows a new assessment by MI5 and the joint terrorism analysis centre, based on intelligence gathered in Britain and abroad on how close terrorist groups may be to staging an attack.

The designation of a "substantial" threat level is the lowest since 9/11. It confirms that the swine flu pandemic is now a bigger threat to the life of the nation than terrorism.

The home secretary, Alan Johnson, acknowledged that fact on Sunday, when he told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme that swine flu came "above terrorism as a threat to this country". He said the long-term preparations had involved the whole "Cobra machinery", a reference to the Cabinet's emergency committe [sic] that handles major disasters.

The decision reportedly follows an official assessment of Operation Pathway, one of MI5's biggest counterterrorism campaigns, which led to the arrest of 11 Pakistani men in April. All those arrested were released without charge, and no explosives or weapons were found.

The system of threat levels is made up of five stages. At "critical", an attack is expected imminently. At "severe", an attack is regarded as highly likely. At "substantial", an attack is a strong possibility. At "moderate" an attack is possible but not likely. And at "low", an attack is deemed unlikely.

The home secretary said in a statement: "We still face a real and serious threat from terrorists and the public will notice little difference in the security measures that are in place, and I urge the public to remain vigilant. The police and security services are continuing in their thorough efforts to discover, track and disrupt terrorist activity."

Did you catch the anti-Semitism in this piece? Don't feel badly if you didn't; it's very subtle and it takes an expert to detect it. Fortunately, such an expert happened to be available -- eventually. But first, a number of Guardian readers made comments reflecting the obvious absurdity of the situation, such as this from nega9000:

Hang on a minute, weren't we being told just last month that a, quote, 'spectacular' attack was being planned?

Oh, I get it, whoever's our equivalent of Jack Bauer averted said attack in the nick of time, killed all the terrorists and is, as we speak, copping off with the foxy but feisty young agent who was there for no discernable reason other than to offer expository dialogue.

Phew. Was getting worried there for a minute.

and this from metalvendetta:

Let me get this straight, they arrested eleven Pakistanis and couldn't find anything to link them to terrorism, so now the threat is reduced? Could it be that they just arrested the wrong people? Or is this decision based on intelligence - the same kind of intelligence that led them to believe that those eleven innocent men were terrorists in the first place?

Haywire asks:

Does this mean i now have to stop rifling through my neighbours' bins looking for empty 'chemicals' containers which may well have been used for making bombs, as was suggested by a recent publicity awareness campaign? If so, what the hell am i now going to do with my Sundays? Go to church??!!

nimn2003 asks:

Does this mean we no longer need ID Cards and the Database? Thank the Lord for that!

and ChrisWoods answers:

No we still need ID Cards and database because although there is more chance of dying by eating peanuts, the risk of death by terrorism is still too great and we need total surveillance of you all the time and also need to know all your private details, phone conversations & email just to make sure you will be ok in the future.

Do you see it yet? Nobody has mentioned Israel, and nobody has said anything about any Jew or Jews in particular, nor has anyone said anything about Jews in general. But still, for those with the correct viewpoint, there's anti-Semitism dripping from every word.

Eventually -- belatedly but better late than never -- comes along GnosticMind, with a comment to set them all straight:

I am shocked at the inhrently anti semitic slant displayed in the entire article , not to mention in the tone of the public responses-- Only in the Guardian is such blatant anti semitism, and anti israel rhetoric allowed, and even considered manifestly praiseworthy.

The very next comment was from butteredballs, who wrote

@ GnosticMind

please explain yourself

but GnosticMind was busy elsewhere, apparently. And the comments on this article are now closed, so GnosticMind could not come back and explain, even if she wanted to. Not -- as I see it -- that she would want to.

You see? It's so ineffable, you could never explain it.

It's inherent. It's blatant. But it can't be put into words -- at least not by GnosticMind, or any of her cohorts... and not by anybody else who just happens to be working for the Israeli government.

According to an article published July 5th in Calcalist, a Hebrew-language paper based in Tel Aviv,

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. The Foreign Ministry’s department for the explanation of Israeli policy* is running the project, and it will be an integral part of it.

We're reading an English translation prepared by George Malent for Occupation Magazine, courtesy of MuzzleWatch.

In a footnote, Malent explains the asterisk: for "the Foreign Ministry’s department for the explanation of Israeli policy" you can read "the Ministry of Propaganda".

The piece continues:

“To all intents and purposes the Internet is a theatre in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we must be active in that theatre, otherwise we will lose,” Elan Shturman, deputy director of the policy-explanation department in the Foreign Ministry, and who is directly responsible for setting up the project, says in an interview with Calcalist. “Our policy-explanation achievements on the Internet today are impressive in comparison to the resources that have been invested so far, but the other side is also investing resources on the Internet. There is an endless array of pro-Palestinian websites, with huge budgets, rich with information and video clips that everyone can download and post on their websites. They are flooding the Internet with content from the Hamas news agency. It is a well-oiled machine. Our objective is to penetrate into the world in which these discussions are taking place, where reports and videos are published – the blogs, the social networks, the news websites of all sizes. We will introduce a pro-Israeli voice into those places.

Yes, of course! That's exactly what's missing today, among the endless array of pro-Palestinian websites: a pro-Israeli voice!!

Will the responders who are hired for this also present themselves as “ordinary net-surfers”?

“Of course,” says Shturman. “Our people will not say: ‘Hello, I am from the policy-explanation department of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I want to tell you the following.’ Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis. They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the Foreign Ministry developed.”

What will they be required to do? Shturman continues:

Their missions will be defined along the lines of the government policies that they will be required to defend on the Internet.

and here -- finally! -- is the explanation of the anti-Semitism in The Guardian.

The Israeli government wants you to be frightened of the militant Islamofascist suicide bomber jihadis and jihadi-wannabes who are everywhere and who are always plotting against you. The Israeli government wants you to be afraid of them, even if they don't exist, not because it's good for you to be afraid of things that don't exist, but because it's good for the Israeli government.

From the correct -- Israeli -- point of view, it's bad enough that Britain has downgraded the threat level. That's a blatant betrayal by a close ally, and it's inherently made worse by the Guardian's having the nerve to report on the government's downgrade. But worse still are the comments, making fun of the British government for taking so seriously -- or pretending to take seriously -- a threat which -- dare I say it? -- has been vastly overblown, if it existed at all.

But how can employees of the Israeli government say this? They can't, unless they are very highly placed, with chutzpah in professional abundance and a swarm of faux-journalists running interference for them.

Ordinary Israeli government employees can merely mouth the party line, as supplied by the Foreign Ministry's department of policy-explanation: the official propagandists cannot say "You must believe this lie even though it's bad for you, because it's good for us."

That would be just a touch too transparent.

Instead we get nonsense like this:

I am shocked at the inhrently anti semitic slant displayed in the entire article, not to mention in the tone of the public responses -- Only in the Guardian is such blatant anti semitism, and anti israel rhetoric allowed, and even considered manifestly praiseworthy.

which -- let's be honest -- is not transparent at all!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Israeli Airstrikes Kill Hundreds In Gaza

After months of a sickeningly brutal blockade, in which more than a million people have been deprived of life's essentials, the blockaders have escalated the "conflict".

The first wave of "retaliation" was a series of airstrikes in which -- according to reports -- 60 warplanes attacked 50 targets, killing more than 200 people and injuring at least 400 others.

The assault continues even now, with threats of more air attacks and a world-wide propaganda campaign against the victims.

The "elected" "leaders" of many western nations are disgorging the propaganda, and major "news" services are catapulting it, with the usual assistance from the blogosphere, including some allegedly dissident elements [to which I would be ashamed to link].

We can expect every Israeli action to be explained as a "reaction" to an endless series of provocations, for which the Telegraph gives some context:

Nine Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza since [...] September 2005.

Over the same period, at least 1,400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces in Gaza, according to figures compiled by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.

According to the Guardian,

The raids [...] took place mid-morning rather than at night [...] Some of the missiles struck densely populated areas as children were leaving school. Parents rushed into the streets to search for them.

From MSNBC:

Civilians rushed wounded people in cars and vans to hospitals because there weren't enough ambulances to transport all the dead and wounded.

"There are heads without bodies .... There's blood in the corridors. People are weeping, women are crying, doctors are shouting, " said nurse Ahmed Abdel Salaam from Shifa Hospital, Gaza's main treatment center.
[...]

"There is a time for calm and there is a time for fighting, and now is the time for fighting," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, vowing to expand the operation if necessary.

With an Israeli election just six weeks away, it will almost certainly be "necessary".

It will be done "properly", too, as Ha'aretz notes [via the Angry Arab]:

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Saturday instructed the Foreign Ministry to take emergency measures to adapt Israel's international public relations to the ongoing escalation in the Gaza Strip. Livni instructed senior ministry officials to open an aggressive and diplomatic international public relations campaign, in order to gain greater international support for Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip."

UPDATE: The horror and the propaganda continue, as Israel pounds Gaza for a second day.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

From The Mouths Of Terrorists: The Poisonous Truth

Two weeks ago we were talking about the most recent terror propaganda from friends of Mossad and the CIA, an "al Qaeda video" in which al Qaeda's purported number two man, Ayman al-Zawahri, spoke some uncomfortable truths about our transformative new President-elect, Barack Obama.

Zawahri [whose name often appears as Zawahiri in our bizarre western media], referred to Obama as a "house slave". It was a historical reference to pre-Civil War days when white Americans in the land of the free could legally own black Americans; those who worked in the mansions were typically more docile, and more inclined to do the bidding of their owners, than those who worked in the fields.

The video came to us via Rita Katz and the SITE Intelligence Group, which was called the SITE Institute until Katz' only partner left her holding the phony intelligence bag. It was the latest in a long line of questionable videos, some of which Katz has obtained before they appeared on the Islamist websites which SITE allegedly monitors.

Zawahri's comments about Obama were portrayed as racial insults, whereas the criticisms themselves were political in nature. Zawahri wasn't putting Obama down for being black; he was talking about Obama's agenda, his loyalties, his plans for our future -- all of which Obama has spelled out very clearly. Unfortunately, most of Obama's supporters haven't been listening very closely; otherwise Zawahri's comments would have been seen as insightful rather than insulting.

The Zawahri video was apparently intended to mark territory: now anyone who points out the various ways in which Barack Obama is doing the bidding of his owners can be branded a terrorist sympathizer, if not an outright terrorist.

Furthermore, the ties that bind Katz and SITE to the Bush administration, Israeli intelligence and the American media are becoming increasingly clear. But still -- even with all this in full view -- the propaganda is apparently having the desired effect.

Thus, shortly after the video was released, CNN reported: U.S. Muslim leaders denounce al Qaeda's slur toward Obama

Spiritual leaders of New York's African-American Muslim communities lashed out Friday at a purported al Qaeda message attacking President-elect Barack Obama and, using racist language, comparing him unfavorably to the late Malcolm X.

The imams called the recorded comments from al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri "an insult" from people who have "historically been disconnected from the African-American community generally and Muslim African-Americans in particular."

"We find it insulting when anyone speaks for our community instead of giving us the dignity and the honor of speaking for ourselves," they said in a statement read during a news conference at the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial, Educational and Cultural Center.

The al Qaeda statement, an 11-minute, 23-second audio message in Arabic with subtitles in English, appeared on the Internet on Wednesday [November 19]. Its authenticity has not been confirmed.

Heh! That's a laugh! None of the purported al Qaeda videos have ever been confirmed -- nor can they be -- because they are all so clearly bogus.

We're routinely told that al Qaeda hides out in caves in the mountains of Pakistan, and their operational leaders apparently cannot even use cell phones without being targeted; but somehow their chief propaganda agent has regular access to high-tech production studios?

None of it makes any sense, except as a black op. And yet ... ABC's Brian Ross, who -- when he's not lying about anthrax -- leaks Katz' videos to the media, told us once that we don't need to be concerned about the authenticity of al Qaeda videos because none of them have ever been shown to be fake.

Ross was speaking about the Osama bin Laden video in which a still image of bin Laden appears for 19 of the 22 minutes.

We could laugh if it weren't so tragic. CNN continues:

The message said Obama represents the "direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X.

The speaker also said Obama, former and current Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and "your likes" fit Malcolm X's description of "house slaves."

The description is a bit lame, though, since Malcolm X never said anything about "house slaves" being war criminals. Obama, Rice and Powell, with their support of the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and various other aspects of the Glorious War on Terror, have done more damage to more people than all the "house slaves" combined could ever have dreamt of. CNN goes on to spin a little on the history of Malcolm X, and why not? Most of CNN's readers never knew anything about him.

Malcolm X, the fiery African-American Muslim activist from the 1950s and 1960s, was an early member and leader of the Nation of Islam. He left that group in 1963 over disillusionment with its then-leader, Elijah Muhammed, but remained a Muslim.

After months of death threats, he was assassinated in 1965 by members of the Nation of Islam, who shot him 16 times at close range. The three men who were convicted of the crime have been paroled.

As well as being a "fiery leader", Malcolm X was also an honorable man, who worked to improve the lot of others. Like many "radical leaders" of his time, Malcolm X was horrified about the role his country had chosen for itself on the world stage. Standing up against state-sponsored mass murder was seen as "radical" in those days. And some things haven't changed a bit. But CNN won't tell you that.

There is also substantial evidence implicating government agents in the murder of Malcolm X. CNN won't tell you about that, either.

On Friday, Imam Al-Hajj Talib 'Abdur-Rashid, recalling Malcolm X's legacy, said that he "stood for human rights and the principle of self defense ... international law. He would have rejected, and we who are Muslim African-Americans leaders reject, acts of political extremism."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also condemned Zawahiri's comments in a statement issued Thursday.

"As Muslims and as Americans, we will never let terrorist groups or terror leaders falsely claim to represent us or our faith," the statement said. "We once again repudiate al Qaeda's actions, rhetoric and world view and re-state our condemnation of all forms of terrorism and religious extremism."

You can see the American Muslim leaders squirming in their boots. They can't repudiate what Zawarhi actually said without exposing themselves as "house negroes", so they attack on false premises, saying things such as "We find it insulting when anyone speaks for our community instead of giving us the dignity and the honor of speaking for ourselves" and "We will never let terrorist groups or terror leaders falsely claim to represent us or our faith".

Zawarhi wasn't speaking for any community, nor was he claiming to represent anyone. He was just telling the truth about the President-elect. But that truth is obviously poisonous.

The Nature Of The Poison

Zawahri himself (accidentally) threw a bright light on the nature of the poison, in an interview which Juan Cole quoted on September 11, 2008. [I've added emphasis and inserted comments in square brackets]:

[Q:] Do you have any advice or any words to refute the argument of the theoreticians [conspiracy theorists] who claim that 9/11 was an internal action [inside job] carried out by the Israeli Government?

Al-Zawahiri: My answer: It is enough to reply to this suspicion by saying that it is not based on any evidence. [denial]

The first side that released this suspicion was Al-Manar Television, which is affiliated with the Lebanese Hizballah. It claimed that it cited a certain website. [shoot the messenger] The objective behind this lie is clear. The objective is to deny that the Sunnis have heroes who harm America as no one has harmed it throughout its history. [sheer speculation, based on a story we know is false] This lie was then circulated by the Iranian news media and they continued to repeat it until today for the same objective. [shoot the messenger again] Perhaps, they guided Al-Manar Television to begin these lies. [more speculation] Iran's objective is clear. It is to cover its collusion with America in invading the homelands of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. [another red herring]

I gave examples of this collusion in my recent interview with Al-Sahab under the title "reading in the events." This lie was then repeated by some of the psychologically defeated ones in our Islamic world, whose minds, which were distorted by Western exaggeration, refuse to believe that some Muslims can cause this harm to America. [ad hominem] These poor minds have thus far not been able to understand why America is defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq in front of the simple mujahidin [red herring], and, in fact, why America has failed to arrest Mulla Mohammad Omar and Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, may God watch over them, after more than six years of fierce war, during which it used all means of technology, which caused us a headache about its legendary capabilities. [au contraire! The weak-minded theoreticians understand very well that the American terror warriors have no interest in acting against Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden, who are both, after all, their allies in this massive fraud -- a fraud which would have to stop if they were somehow defeated.] Furthermore, why the power of the mujahidin is growing against it day by day despite this world war that is being launched against them?' [another red herring]

You will note that virtually none of Zawahri's statement has anything to do with the question he was asked.

About this exchange, Juan Cole wrote:

No more eloquent testament to the defeat of the original al-Qaeda could be found than the pitiful inability of Zawahiri to name any genuine accomplishments in recent times save the ability of the top leadership to elude capture!

The Bush administration over-reacted to September 11, misunderstanding it as the action of a traditional state rather than of a small asymmetrical terrorist group. [...]

No kidding? Just an over-reaction? Just a misunderstanding?

Juan Cole is no more willing than Zawahri to discuss the evidence of Israeli complicity in 9/11.

Neither is he willing to call the Bush administration's "over-reaction" what it obviously was: not a reaction at all, but an action -- one that was obviously planned well in advance of the event that "caused it".

It's no wonder Juan Cole has become such a popular and well-respected blogger.

More Poison

If you're looking for more poison, you can get some from At Largely, where on April 16, 2008, Larisa Alexandrovna quoted the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in a post called "Netanyahu spreading sunshine wherever he goes..."

The Ha'aretz headline reads: "Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel", and the article says:

"The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

About this rather blunt admission of Israeli priorities, Larisa wrote:

Very nice. It is bad enough that Antisemites around the world have used the tragedy of 9/11 for their own propaganda purposes to push the lie that Israel was in actuality behind the attacks of September 11. Now Netanyahu has all but underwritten these dangerous talking points with this one, single, and shocking comment. Aside from this, most obvious issue, there are two small problems with Benji's assertions:

1. That 9/11 was good for Israel
2. That US public opinion is with Israel

As I have already noted, antisemitism is on the rise the world over, which is hardly good for Jews in general or Israel in particular. But in addition to that, American Jews are pulling further and further back from Israel thanks in large part to Likud's extremism and its lock-step relationship with Dick Cheney. Joe Lieberman, for example, was a contender for VP before 9/11. Now he is a political outcast by-and-large because of his bed-sharing with Likud and Dick Cheney.

Larisa seems to have missed the larger point, which is that Israel depends on the support of the American government much more than the support of American Jews. Netanyahu can conflate the two; in fact, he must. Americans (and Israelis too) like to pride themselves on the thought that they live in a democracy, so politicians such as Netanyahu must speak of "public opinion" as if it mattered. But it doesn't. Power matters. Military might matters. Israel doesn't care what you think -- as long as you keep electing politicians who swear allegiance to the Israeli flag.

And Israel no longer needs Joe Lieberman -- in the White House, or anywhere else -- since it has benefitted from eight years of "lock-step relationship with Dick Cheney", and can now look forward to a fully pro-Israel Democratic administration, run by the likes of Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel.

The missing link from this analysis is the obvious fact that 9/11 was good for the Israeli hard-liners, who until that point had been told quite regularly by their American supporters to restrain their ongoing orgy of violence against the Palestinians. As soon as 9/11 happened, the Israeli gloves came off. And they've been off ever since.

Many of Larisa's readers commented about the evidence of Israeli complicity in 9/11, beginning with Damien, who (among other things) wrote:

There are significant questions about what Israeli Intelligence knew prior to 911 (see 1 | 2 | 3).

There are various accounts of Israeli owned trucks detained on 911 in the Lincoln Tunnel with traces of explosives(1 | 2 | 3 | 4)

There appears to be at least one instance where Israeli Intelligence had previously impersonated al Qaeda operatives:

In February of 2000, Indian intelligence officials detained 11 members of what they thought was an Al Qaeda hijacking conspiracy. It was then discovered that these 11 "Muslim preachers" were all Israeli nationals.

Damien continued:

I have no idea of any Israeli awareness of or participation in 911, but I do know there are significant unanswered questions. If the topic is taboo then the public debate passes immediately into the hands of the rabid Israel haters. I think that would be a tragic outcome for everyone. We need all the answers about 911 and a full, independent inquiry.

I would go quite a bit farther than Damien, and in fact I have done so. See this post for more: Gatekeepers Bury Dancing Israeli Movers And Bogus Art Students On DN!

(See this blog for even more: Plunger Speaks.)

A Double Dose To Start

I now return you to the second week of September, 2001. On September 12, the day after the attacks, the Washington Post ran the following piece by a serial mass murderer, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger:

Kissinger: Destroy The Network

An attack such as yesterday's requires systematic planning, a good organization, a lot of money and a base. You cannot improvise something like this, and you cannot plan it when you're constantly on the move. Heretofore our response to attacks, and understandably so, has been to carry out some retaliatory act that was supposed to even the scales while hunting down the actual people who did it.

This, however, is an attack on the territorial United States, which is a threat to our social way of life and to our existence as a free society. It therefore has to be dealt with in a different way -- with an attack on the system that produces it.

The immediate response, of course, has to be taking care of casualties and restoring some sort of normal life. We must get back to work almost immediately, to show that our life cannot be disrupted. And we should henceforth show more sympathy for people who are daily exposed to this kind of attack, whom we keep telling to be very measured in their individual responses.

But then the government should be charged with a systematic response that, one hopes, will end the way that the attack on Pearl Harbor ended -- with the destruction of the system that is responsible for it. That system is a network of terrorist organizations sheltered in capitals of certain countries. In many cases we do not penalize those countries for sheltering the organizations; in other cases, we maintain something close to normal relations with them.

It is hard to say at this point what should be done in detail. If a week ago I had been asked whether such a coordinated attack as yesterday's was possible, I, no more than most people, would have thought so, so nothing I say is meant as a criticism. But until now we have been trying to do this as a police matter, and now it has to be done in a different way.

Of course there should be some act of retaliation, and I would certainly support it, but it cannot be the end of the process and should not even be the principal part of it. The principal part has to be to get the terrorist system on the run, and by the terrorist system I mean those parts of it that are organized on a global basis and can operate by synchronized means.

We do not yet know whether Osama bin Laden did this, although it appears to have the earmarks of a bin Laden-type operation. But any government that shelters groups capable of this kind of attack, whether or not they can be shown to have been involved in this attack, must pay an exorbitant price.

The question is not so much what kind of blow we can deliver this week or next. And the response, since our own security was threatened, cannot be made dependent on consensus, though this is an issue on which we and our allies must find a cooperative means of resistance that is not simply the lowest common denominator.

It is something we should do calmly, carefully and inexorably.

If you read this calmly and carefully, especially in light of the events which followed, you can see quite clearly the lies at the heart of our current situation, and who helped to put them there.

When Kissinger says, "any government that shelters groups capable of this kind of attack" must be made to "pay an exorbitant price", he is legitimizing the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, especially with his insistence that this price must be paid "whether or not they can be shown to have been involved in this attack".

When he says, "until now we have been trying to do this as a police matter, and now it has to be done in a different way", he is laying the groundwork for the militarization of America, regardless of the facts that 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war, and that it could have been prevented with normal police actions, if the Bush administration hadn't gone to great lengths to prevent any investigation of the impending terrorist attack.

When he talks about "a network of terrorist organizations sheltered in capitals of certain countries", he knows what he's saying. America helped put those organizations in those capitals. But he wouldn't want you to know that.

It turned out that the "threat to our social way of life and to our existence as a free society" has come from our government, not from any "terrorists", and Kissinger's characterization of the attacks as a threat "to our existence as a free society" is as much exaggeration as you are likely to get ... until two sentences later, when Kissinger writes:

And we should henceforth show more sympathy for people who are daily exposed to this kind of attack, whom we keep telling to be very measured in their individual responses.

Aside from the fact that there are no people anywhere who are "daily exposed to this kind of attack", Kissinger's purpose is clear: Hands off Israel!

And it has worked! Israeli leaders came to Washington and said, "There? You see what it's like? We're on the front line of this war. We have to deal with this stuff every day!" And Bush said "We sympathize! You're on the front line of this war. You have to deal with this stuff every day. We sympathize!"

It was a remarkable performance, just what Kissinger had asked for. And rightly so. After all, when you're on a path to global domination, and it's all based on lies, you have to proceed "calmly, carefully and inexorably."

For me, there's only one surprise in the entire piece, and that's the tortured bit of syntax that runs:

If a week ago I had been asked whether such a coordinated attack as yesterday's was possible, I, no more than most people, would have thought so...

His performance on the previous day had been one of the telltale signs that everything was bogus. And then, as we can see, he couldn't even put together a coherent denial.

I always thought Kissinger was a better liar than that. But then again, with all the help he gets, he doesn't really have to be, does he?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

UN Official Says Israel's Policies Strengthen Extremists

John Ging [photo], director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, has told an Israeli newspaper that Israel's policies in the Gaza Strip are strengthening extremists there.

This is probably not news to many of my readers, nor would many of my readers be surprised if I said that, in my opinion, strengthening extremists is one of the goals of the Israeli policy.

As I understand it, Israel and the USA both devote serious resources to fomenting terrorism, and neither country is above fabricating synthetic terror, if some terror happens to be required and none can be found or fomented. Of course they strengthen extremists!

Why? Because they need to have a war going, and to do that, they need to have an enemy, and the enemy must be as inhuman as possible -- capable of enormous and heinous crimes. That's why. If the US and/or Israel ever defeated the extremists, who would they have left to shoot at? Who would sell them the bullets, bombs, and fighter planes they need to protect themselves from the kids in the streets throwing rocks at their tanks?

But I'm just a cold blogger; I have the freedom to speak my mind, or type it, in return for the privilege of having almost no readers.

John Ging has no such luxury. People pay attention when he speaks. So he has to choose his words very carefully. And it's John Ging's choice of words that I find most remarkable, not his conclusion (which seems quite obvious to me).

Ging told the Israeli paper, Ha'aretz, that:

by not easing restrictions at crossings into the Strip during the months of the cease-fire, Israel bolstered extremists' claims that the closures represent a political, rather than security-related move.

Ging explains, as Ha'aretz reports:

"The extremists claimed that the Israeli closure is not related to the rockets. We said that wasn't true, we said the illegal firing of Qassams must stop, that they have no justification," Ging said.

"But the stance has been strengthened in recent months that the closure is political and not security-related. There were several months of tahadiyeh [cease-fire], but no easing at the crossings. This failure to ease the crossings was political."

Failure? Refusal.

Political? Well, of course it was; anybody can see that. But look at how John Ging says it:

Ging said he is not interested in judging Israeli policy according to interpretations based on ulterior motives, but on public declarations that Israeli security must be maintained. "If the platform is security and the desire to break the cycle of violence, Israeli policy has destructive, counterproductive consequences," he said.

That's a big "if", and John Ging throws it in, perhaps as a matter of professional necessity. But the question it implies is enormous.

Actions speak louder than words, and clearly the policy is destructive and counterproductive to "breaking the cycle of violence". So why do the Israelis continue the policy? Either they are stupid or they see some political advantage in it.

Are they stupid? Apparently not. Are they seeking some political advantage? John Ging won't say; but it's clear that he wants you to think about it.

He wants you to think about some other things, too. Ha'aretz provides some context:

Ging's remarks came last Thursday morning, when Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing, which was expected to be opened after having been closed for eight days. Gas supplies were also expected to be renewed.

In the afternoon, however, Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the crossings to remain closed. European Union consuls were also prohibited from entering the Strip. According to the coordinator of Israeli government activities in the territories, Peter Lerner, "the policy today is to only allow entry when it is most critical."

Ging said he does not accept the security logic during the cease-fire of only allowing humanitarian aid to the Strip. "If what is allowed to enter is only humanitarian, the entire population here is brought to a situation in which it is dependent on food aid. Is that the goal? People want to work, to create and to be rewarded for their labor, not to stand in line to receive charity," he said.

Ging continues:

"We are not talking about how to keep people alive, but about quality of life, not only physically and materially. This way, the people's mindset and emotional state are liable to be harmed," he said.

Unfortunately, keeping people alive is more difficult, too, when the checkpoints are everywhere -- especially when they're closed. The man in this photo is holding the body of his 3-month-old son, who couldn't get timely treatment because of the checkpoints. Sometimes, it's all and only about keeping people alive.

But the emotional damage is always.

Ging said he continues to be surprised by how people cling to their humanity, even having "lived so long in uncivilized conditions," and continue to hope their children develop and grow in better conditions.

Since the cease-fire went into place this summer, Ging said, fewer supplies have passed through the crossing than did in the beginning of 2006, when the western Negev suffered incessant Qassam rocket fire.

"Why? There is no need to explain the security challenges here. We are always told that we must ensure security arrangements, and we accepted that," he said. "But no one has explained to me the security reason behind the closure of every crossing. The crossings have tremendously sophisticated security devices. No one can pass with an explosives belt or weapon without being detected."

"Explain to me why people who present no security threat are not authorized to work in Israel as in the past. I ask the Israelis, why don't you allow the entry of cement, even during the cease-fire, so we can build new schools and reduce the crowdedness in classrooms?"

The Ha'aretz piece has more detail; for now, please note the following:

The policy of extended siege has proven itself to be ineffective, Ging said, adding that international observers have called for a new approach. In his view, to improve the situation, Israel should take a more positive approach and open all the crossings, ensuring freedom of movement to all people.

"If indeed the goal is the stated one: to achieve security and stability to lay the foundation for peaceful relations," Ging said.

There's that "if" again.

"If indeed the goal is the stated one..."

I can't help thinking that contemporary history -- especially contemporary American history -- would be quite a bit different if it were commonplace, rather than exceptional, to wonder whether the stated goals of our government are actual aims or only rhetorical devices.

~~~

For more on this theme, see: "A Formula For Endless War: The Wounded Shark, The Quest For Victory, And The Illusion Of Success"

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.