Archive for February 8th, 2008
U.S. heading to war in Iran, says former inspector – 7 US soldiers killed in Iraq
U.S. heading to war in Iran, says former inspector
BY: MARILYN H. KARFELD
And while both talked about wrong-headed U.S. policy in Iraq and Iran, they also criticized Israel for its role.
Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and Edward Peck, onetime chief of mission in Baghdad and former ambassador to Mauritania, spoke recently at a forum sponsored by Cleveland Peace Action Now and Trinity Cathedral. Before the event, this reporter and a journalist from The Plain Dealer talked to Ritter and Peck.
The White House is using outright fabrications and exaggerations to persuade the American public that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, Ritter and Peck claimed. The ultimate goal, they said, is overthrow of Iran’s Islamic theocracy.
Just as he did with Iraq, President Bush is falsely positioning Iran as a threat to U.S. national security and a leading sponsor of terrorism, contended Ritter, a 12-year Marine veteran who spent four years in Israel as lead liaison between the UN and the Jewish state on the issues of Iraq and nuclear weapons.
By demonizing Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bush is repeating the failed policy used against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, said Ritter, 46, who resigned under pressure from his UN post in 1998. Ritter claimed he was punished for criticizing the White House’s handling of Saddam Hussein. Allegations that he spied for Israel were ultimately dropped following an FBI investigation.
There is an 80% chance of war with Iran, probably in March or April, insisted the impassioned Ritter, who was last in Iran in September 2005. A second window of opportunity for an air assault opens in October or November, he added.
Ritter has been making this prediction of war with Iran for at least three years. Internet research turned up a similar forecast he made in April 2005, insisting an aerial attack on Iran was likely that June.
Israel, according to his 2006 book, is largely responsible for the coming military action. The Jewish Daily Forward reported that in Ritter’s Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plan for Regime Change, the antiwar activist writes: “Let there be no doubt. If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
The Bush Administration, with the help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel “Lobby,” has exploited the American public’s fear of a nuclear-armed Iran, Ritter writes in his book, according to the Forward.
The current U.S. military buildup will peak this spring, and Ritter told the CJN that America would begin a 30-day limited, but massive, air strike against Iran. Neither Congress nor the corporate-controlled media will check the president’s power, Ritter maintained.
Iran will retaliate with missiles launched at Israel, Ritter predicted. The Islamist state will also shut down oil production by blocking the route out of the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz. And Iran will unleash Shia Muslims in southern Iraq to target American forces there, Ritter asserted.
“Now we have a major conflict. We’re caught in a spiral of events out of our control. After 30 days, the military will be putting Marines in Hormuz, soldiers in Iran. Israel, especially, stands to lose.”
In 2002, Ritter similarly talked about the likelihood of America launching a war against Iraq, despite the fact that UN inspectors repeatedly said Saddam Hussein no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
At the Cleveland Peace Action event, Peck and Ritter talked about the quagmire in Iraq and the lessons we failed to learn there and apply to Iran. Much of what Ahmadenijad is accused of saying he has never said, Ritter insisted. Furthermore, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wields the only power to wage war and build nuclear weapons, not Ahmadenijad.
Sanctions against Iran are “a holding pattern, while revving up for war,” claimed Peck. “They are a guarantee of armed conflict.” He advocated diplomatic negotiation instead.
When Congress appropriates $77 million to finance dissident groups to overthrow the Iranian regime, “that’s an act of war,” Peck continued. People in the Middle East “are afraid of us. They do not see us as bringers of truth, justice and harmony.”
Forcing democracy on Middle Eastern countries is not possible, Peck warned. “Democracy is experiential. Iraqis know nothing about it. It’s something you grow up with.” The West pushes democracy and then hypocritically punishes the Palestinians for choosing Hamas in democratic elections, added Peck, who observed the balloting in the West Bank.
He criticized Israel for occupying the West Bank and for “doing terrible things” there. “One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,” he said, alluding to suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians.
Most of those audience members who took the microphone to ask questions bashed Israel for its occupation and brutalization of the Palestinian people. Several blamed Israel for all conflict in the Middle East.
Pursuing its inhumane policy toward the Palestinian people will not bring Israel peace, Peck said. “Israel’s security will be derived from good relations with its neighbors. The future of Israel is at stake.”
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2008/02/07/news/local/war0208.txt
Seven US soldiers killed in Iraq
Feb 09, 2008
Washington/Baghdad (dpa) -
A bomb attack and an explosion killed 7 US soldiers in Iraq in separate incidents, the US military said early Saturday.
7 US Soldiers Killed; Public Blames Iraq War for Economic Woes
5 US soldiers were killed by roadside bombs on Friday, 4 northwest of Baghdad and one in Kirkuk Province. Note that both these regions are Sunni Arab, and that it makes no sense that Shiite Iran gave explosively formed projectiles to Sunni Arab guerrillas in these areas, since they could also be deployed against Shiite troops and paramilitaries that Iran supports.
It was announced on Friday that on Tuesday, Iraqi guerrillas killed two US soldiers with an improvised bomb in Diyala Province. A third soldier was wounded. Over two-thirds of Americans think that getting out of Iraq will help the US economy a great deal (48%) or at least somewhat (20%).
Myself, I think that is the death knell of the Iraq War and spells very bad news for John McCain. McCain’s argument is that if Iraq can be pacified, such that troops are not being killed, then there is no intrinsic objection to the US keeping bases there.
But first of all, his premise is not evident, and the news of the troop deaths this week argues against complacency on that score. Besides, the public is noting an objection even in the case of no troop deaths, which is the extra expense. If the war really is going to cost $2 trillion, they can think of other ways they’d like to spend that money, including on unemployment checks for themselves since they are afraid they are about to be fired because of the recession.Hearteningly, even after decades of Republican propaganda about the miraculous properties of “tax cuts” (mainly on their own rich selves), more Americans still think a good way to get out of the recession is for the government to spend more money on health care, education and housing than think it can all be fixed with a tax cut.Only 28 percent think that anything Bush does is going to help them avoid economic bad times.Since McCain is trying out for the role of Son of Bush, that is also bad news for him.Angelina Jolie in Baghdad as a UN special envoy is lobbying for something to be done for the over 2 million internally displaced persons in Iraq. If you count the externally displaced in Syria and Jordan, it is more like 4 million.
It is the US Congress that should be funding such aid on a large scale, since it voted to let Bush invade the country in the first place. Can’t Moveon.org or someone take this campaign up? I can’t imagine the government of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki doing anything effective about it.
Manuel Miranda has lambasted the US embassy in Baghdad for being mired in red tape and being unable to implement Bush’s policies. I would find this charge more plausible if there were any evidence that Bush has any policies other than muddling through. I’d love to know the backstory here, since some of what Miranda says sounds plausible, but given how he starts out I am very suspicious of his motives. Has he seen the writing on the wall for America in Iraq and is he setting up the State Department to take the fall rather than the Republican Party?
‘ Miranda listed several examples of what he regards as failures, ranging from “a near complete lack” of coordination with other agencies and the Iraqi government, withholding information, blaming Iraqis for all shortcomings, providing bad advice on legislative matters and wasting millions in taxpayers’ money. Among them was the repeated pushing of Iraqis to accept a flawed law governing the distribution of oil revenue, which he said would have been rejected as untenable by “any experienced international lawyer.” ‘
Russia seems set to write off all but about $1 billion of Iraq’s $13 bn. debt to Moscow. This step is a loss leader, and in return Russian oil firms are going to do very well in new bids let over the next few years. The Russians had commitments from Saddam to develop the West Qurna fields, and that is still a possibility. After all, there is a lot more than $12 bn. to be made in the Iraq hydrocarbon fields. China forgave $8 bn. in loans last summer and already the Iraqis are saying that it would make sense for China to develop the al-Ahdab fields.
Talks with Western oil majors, including Exxon-Mobil and Chevron on technical service agreements are set to resume in March. Hat tip to the invaluable Iraq Oil Report.
Sunni Arab members of pro-American Awakening Councils in Diyala Province have gone on strike to protest the actions of the Shiite police chief. They say he is running anti-Sunni death squads and they can’t work with him. Diyala is 60% Sunni Arab, but in the January 2005 provincial elections, the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq won because the Sunnis boycotted the polls. This incident is an example of why provincial elections desperately need to be held if a chance for social peace is to be realized.
McClatchy reports political violence for Friday:
Bahgdad
Head of Sahwa in 14th of Ramadhan neighbourhood, Mshahda, 15 km to the north of Baghdad City was assassinated by gunmen at around 05:00 pm last night. 2 of his security detail were injured.
A mortar shell hit an orchard in Doura at 04:00 pm. No casualties were reported.
3 bodies were found in Baghdad by Iraqi Police today. 1 in Slaikh, 1 in Palestine St and 1 in Mansour.
Diyala
Clashes between Concerned Local Citizens groups, specifically 1920 Revolution Brigades and Iraqi Police in Tahrir neighbourhood, central Baquba and the town of Buhruz to the south of Baquba, no casualties were reported. The security forces have, however, imposed a curfew in both Baquba and Buhruz until further notice.
Anbar
Clashes between Anbar Police and gunmen in Andulus neighbourhood, east Fellujah resulted in the death of 1 gunman and the arrest of another and the injury of 1 policeman.
Basra
Gunmen kidnapped 4 civilians from al-Sakhra Church, Manawi Basha neighbourhood, central Basra, yesterday evening, said eye witnesses. The 4 Christians are activists in missionary work with the Norwegian Churches Organization who work out of al-Sakhra church, confirms Churches in Southern Iraq official. Basra Police deny any knowledge of the incident.’
http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/two-us-soldiers-killed-public-blames.html
Big Media and The New World Order
Famed journalist George Seldes put it another way by condemning the “prostitution of the press” in an earlier era when he covered WW I, the rise of fascism, and most major world and national events until his death in 1995 at age 104. He also confronted the media in books like “Lords of the Press.” In it and others, he condemned their corruption, suppression of the truth, and news censorship before the television age, and said “The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself, (and the press is) the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people.”
Orwell also knew a thing or two about truth and said telling it is a “revolutionary act in times of universal deceit. ” Much else he said applies to the man this article addresses and the state of today’s media. He was at his allegorical best in “Animal Farm” where power overwhelms freedom, and “All animals are equal but some….are more equal than others.” And he observed in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that “Those who control the present control the future (and) Those who control the future control the past.”
Today’s media barons control the world as opinion makers. Like in Orwell’s world, they’re our national thought control police gatekeepers sanitizing news so only the cleansed residue portion gets through with everything people want most left out – the full truth all the time. They manipulate our minds and beliefs, program our thoughts, divert our attention, and effectively destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a healthy democracy they won’t tolerate.
None more ruthlessly than Murdoch and the info-entertainment empire he controls. Its flagship US operation is Fox News that Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) calls “the most biased name in news….with its extraordinary right-wing tilt.” In response, Murdock defiantly “challenge(s) anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel” because in his world the entire political spectrum begins and ends with his views. For him and his staff, “fair and balanced,” we report, you decide” means supporting the boss. Alternative views are biased, verboten and rarely aired. But they’re hammered when they are as the “liberal” mainstream that’s code language for CNN and other rivals at a time all media giants match the worst of Fox and are often as crude, confrontational and unprofessional.
Distinguished Australian-raised journalist Bruce Page wrote the book on Murdock called “The Murdoch Archigelago.” It’s about a man he calls “one of the world’s leading villains (and) global pirate(s)” who rampages the mediasphere putting world leaders on notice what he expects from them and what he’ll offer in return. It’s “let’s make a deal,” Murdock-style that’s uncompromisingly hardball. Acquiesce or get hammered in print and on-air with scathing innuendo, misinformation and outright lies. Few politicians risk it. Others with alternative views have no choice, and world leaders like Hugo Chavez are used to this type character assassination.
He mostly worries about the other kind and with good reason as long-time Latin American expert James Petras reported November 28. Four days before a crucially important constitutional reform referendum, he published an article headlined: “Venezuela’s D-Day – The December 2, 2007 Constituent Referendum: Democratic Socialism or Imperial Counter-Revolution.”
In it, he reported that the Venezuelan government “broadcast and circulated a confidential (US embassy) memo to the CIA” revealing “clandestine operations….to destabilize (the referendum) and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government.” It’s because independent polls predicted the referendum would pass even though they proved wrong. The dominant media readied to pounce on the results but instead went into gloat mode on a win Chavez called a “phyrric victory” but Murdock headlines trumpeted “Chavez’s president-for-life-bid defeated.” This is the type vintage copy Page covers with reams of examples in his book.
Its central theme is that the media baron wants to privatize “a state propaganda service (and manipulate it) without scruple (or) regard for the truth.” In return he wants “vast government favors such as tax breaks, regulatory relief, and monopoly” market control free from competitors having too much of what he wants solely for himself and apparently feels it’s owed to him.
Because of his size and media clout, he usually gets his way and mostly in places mattering most – in the biggest markets with greatest profit potential in a business where truth is off the table and partnering with government for a growing revenue stream and greater influence is all that counts.
The Murdoch Empire from its Inception
Gross revenue today tops $28 billion, operating income is nearly $4.5 billion, the company has over 47,000 employees, it operates on six continents, 75% of its business is in the US, and one industry analyst told McChesney and Herman 10 years ago “Murdock seems to have Washington in his back pocket” as he keeps getting favorable rulings to do what he wants. And that was under Bill Clinton who signed the outrageous 1996 Telecommunications (giveaway) Act for Big Media and Big Telecom that let them consolidate further through mergers and acquisitions and be able to squash competition and diversity.
In those days and earlier, Murdoch aimed high to control “multiple forms of programming – news, sports, films and children’s shows–and beam them via satellite or TV stations to homes (around the world with) Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone (once saying) Murdock ‘want(ed) to conquer the world.’ ” Other media chiefs said he was doing it, and he’s “the one media executive they most respect and fear, and the one whose moves they study.”
Murdoch inherited his father’s Australian News Limited newspapers in 1952. He had no journalistic background but compensated by cultivating political influence through favorable electoral coverage. He became managing director of News Limited in 1953 and then took over running Adelaide News in 1954. He founded News Corporation in 1979 but years earlier concentrated on acquisitions and expansion to build his business. In 1964, he launched Australia’s first national daily, The Australian, later acquired The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, and in the late 1960s entered the UK market by snaring The News of the World. In 1950, it was the world’s most popular English language newspaper with a peak circulation of around 8.4 million. It was about six million when Murdock got it in 1968.
More acquisitions followed. They included The (London) Times and The Sunday Times in 1981, and by the 1980s he was a dominant force in the US. He bought the film studio, Twentieth Century Fox, that launched Fox Television and now notorious Fox News.
Today, the company is in everything media-related (except music) and describes itself on its web site as “Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world.” That’s in the eye of the beholder where there’s considerable disagreement with the official company position. Nonetheless, the site lists a vast array of News Corporation operations:
– Filmed entertainment: 20th Century Fox, 20th Century Fox Espanol, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 20th Century Fox International, 20th Century Fox Television, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox Studios Australia, Fox Studios Baja, Fox Studios LA, Fox Television Studios, and Blue Sky Studios;
– Television: Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports Australia, Fox Television Stations, FOXTEL, MyNeworkTV, STAR; and the newest entry, Fox Business, to compete with CNBC and Bloomberg;
– Cable: Fox Business Network (just launched), Fox Movie Channel, Fox News Channel, Fox Sports Channel, Fox College Sports, Fox Sports Enterprises, Fox Sports En Espanol, Fox Sports Net, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Reality, Fuel TV, FX, National Geographic, Channel United States, Channel Worldwide, Speed, and Stats, Inc.;
– Direct broadcast satellite television: BSkyB, DirectTV, and Sky Italia;
– Magazines and Inserts: Big League, Inside Out, donna hay, ALPHA, News America Marketing, Smart Source, The Weekly Standard, and Gemstar – TV Guide International Inc.;
– Newspapers: 21 in “Australasia” including the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, Herald Sun and Sunday Herald Sun, Post-Currier, Sunday Mail, Sunday Times, The Australian, The Mercury, and the Weekly Times; 6 in the UK including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and News International; and two in the US – the New York Post (the Columbia Journalism review calls “a force for evil”) and Wall Street Journal as of December 13 when News Corporation announced the completion of its acquisition of Dow Jones & Company;
– Books: HarperCollins Publishers, Australia, Canada, Children’s Books, United States, United Kingdom, Zondervan;
– Other assets: 25 are listed including Broadsystem, Fox Interactive Media, IGN Entertainment, FoxSports.com, Fox.com, News Outdoor and others.
News Corp. even claims to be addressing climate change, says it’s “committed” to “lowering the energy use of its businesses” across the globe, will “switch to renewable sources of power when economically feasible,” and will “become carbon neutral by 2010.” True or false, it’s likely the company does address its energy consumption to cut costs as most other businesses also do, climate change or not.
Bruce Page picks up the story in “The Murdoch Archipelago” published in 2003. Even while attacking the media baron, he says he and others do some good. Murdoch, for instance, “exposes numberless sexual peccadilloes, and much lesser crime – but not dud military campaigns or Enronesque frauds.” He specializes in sensationalist pseudo-journalism that distorts the truth on the news and loads it with juiced-up reports on murder, mayhem, mishaps, celebrity gossip and soft porn. Page goes on to say “the world would be better off without News Corp.” and before he ever bought it “There’s certainly a good case that he should not own The Wall Street Journal.”
Too late, now that the Bancroft family sold it to him for the billions he offered and muscle he applied to get it like he always does. They might have considered former Chicago columnist Mike Royko’s comment when he left the Sun-Times after Murdoch bought it (and later sold it Hollinger, Inc.’s fraud convicted Conrad Black). Moving to the Tribune, he remarked “no self-respecting fish would (want to be) wrapped in a Murdock paper….His goal is not quality journalism (it’s) vast power, political power.” Murdock’s own private joke also should have scared them off that “God doesn’t trust (him) in the dark.” Nor should anyone anywhere, anytime.
Page’s polemic traces Murdoch’s history in his lengthy book covering his rise from early beginnings to his unrivaled status in today’s media world. It’s the story of power and a man who wields it ruthlessly as a world class predator – with deception and chicanery, arrogance and artfulness, charm and cunning and sheer muscle, will, intimidation, poisonous influence and toadying to get his way as he generally does. Whatever Rupert wants, Rupert gets, and nothing stands in his way. That goes for governments and his editors as well as reporters in print and on-air. No one crosses Murdoch. Anyone practicing real journalism gets dispatched elsewhere to pursue it.
Page explained from firsthand accounts that Murdoch newsrooms aren’t fun places to work. He upbraids editors and interferes with their work. Also, as explained above, he uses his operations for power play politics to bend governments to his will. As his influence grows, so does the bending, and along with it, fake journalism bearing no resemblance to the real kind. It’s a Murdoch specialty by a world class pariah in a media world beset with them, but Murdoch’s the worst. He’s bereft of ethics, an authoritarian boss, and the book is full of examples of how he throws his weight around, bullies people and prevails. It also expresses particular displeasure about the way he cozied up to the Chinese in 1994 by removing BBC World News (no media paragon, just classier than Murdoch) from Satellite TV Asia Region in return for special favors he got.
Page also exposes Murdoch’s absurd claim to be an enemy of the establishment, a populist, and battler for the common man. This from someone raised in privilege, courts the powerful, represents entrenched wealth, is now a billionaire, benefitted from nepotism, is passing his empire to his children, smashes print unions, runs a “bordello of papers” as the Sunday Times called it before he bought it, and has easy access to Number 10, the White House and other seats of power.
Page worries that media barons cause serious harm by undermining democracy, and Murdoch’s the worst of the bunch. He targets the vulnerable, attacks disenfranchised minorities and bashes gays, Muslims, innocent victims of war and oppression, and anyone getting in his way. Page warns that unless we see his threat and confront it, all free societies are at risk.
Page also exposes the Murdoch myth of an archetypical entrepreneur whose “journalistic (and business) genius” got him where he is. Nonsense about a man, like his father, who uses press power for business favors to gain more power. Yet he audaciously told his biographer, William Shawcross, to “Give me an example. When have we ever asked for anything?” Page has reams of it exposing Murdoch’s guile and mendacity about wanting a “level (media) playing-field.” Just the opposite. He’s obsessed with monopoly control and smashes competition for it.
He also smashes editors who disobey him. One observer called him unhinged, out of control and completely amoral while a former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, describes the “terrorism” Murdoch spreads throughout his empire to get his way. Neil also wrote: “Rupert expects his papers to stand broadly for what he believes – a combination of right-wing Republicanism from America mixed with undiluted Thatcherism from Britain.”
Murdoch’s US Fox News Flagship
Fox News smoothes the way for him as a round-the-clock Bush administration commercial imitating real news. It debuted in 1996 and one of its on-air hosts explained the “Channel was launched (because) something was wrong with news media….somewhere bias found its way into reporting….Fox….is committed to being fair and balanced (covering) stories everybody is reporting–and….stories….you will see only on Fox.”
Later, the Columbia Journalism Review had a different view. It reported “several” former Fox employees “complained of ‘management sticking their fingers’ in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes.” One of them complained about never running into that before before while FAIR reported “Fox’s signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.” So much for “fair and balanced” real news.
This type attack never happens to a Republican and hasn’t for Fox’s presidential favorite, Rudy Giuliani, who was sinking fast, fared poorly in early primaries and now has withdrawn from the race. Nonetheless, his leadership failures and marital transgressions were ignored, and so were his ties to friend, business partner and former New York City Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik. He was indicted on 16 counts of federal corruption, including bribery, conspiracy, tax fraud, and lying on his federal disclosure forms for not reporting a $250,000 “loan” (a likely payoff) from an Israeli billionaire that may have been sent to him for Giuliani for favors rendered.
An added twist is that a former Kerik lover, Judith Regan, sued Murdock’s News Corp. and accused the company of pressuring her to commit perjury to protect Giuliani’s presidential hopes. Fox News won’t explain or cover it, but it daily airs preferential bias for Giuliani in its slanted reporting. It’s a blatant example of unethical coverage to manipulate news for its own purpose.
FAIR also blasted one of Hume”s regular features – “The Political Grapevine” that’s billed as “the most scintillating two minutes in television” as a sort of right-wing “hot-sheet.” It features anchor Hume “reading off a series of gossipy items culled from other (generally) right-wing” sources. It’s not subtle and is blatantly partisan calling Democrats, environmentalists, the liberal media, civil rights groups, anti-war activists and Hollywood and other liberals “villians” while Republicans are good guys or “heros who can do no wrong.” When critics jump on Fox, it hits back claiming a responsibility to correct the “liberal media’s bias” with Bill O’Reilly saying Fox “gives voice to people who can’t get on other networks.” What it does, of course, is slant the news its way to please the boss, and that means a distorted hard-right point of view only.
It also means the more people watch it, the less informed they are as News Dissector Danny Schechter explained about all TV news in his candid insider’s book “The More You Watch, The Less You Know.” That doesn’t bother Murdoch who spends millions for lobbying and hundreds of thousands more for political contributions – mostly to Republicans but also to friendly Democrats to buy and keep his growing influence. It pays off with senators like Trent Lott once telling the Washington Post: “If it hadn’t been for Fox, I don’t know what I’d have done for the news.” He means a right-wing echo chamber pretending to be unbiased.
Long-time Republican operative Roger Ailes runs it for Murdock with FAIR once quoting former senior Bush aide Lee Atwater saying he operates on “two speeds – attack and destroy.” He also called Clinton a “hippie president,” refers to liberals as “bigots,” and assures all on-air programming conforms to his views. Only Republicans get hired to air them and those screened for jobs are asked to be sure.
As for punditry and political debate, here’s how FAIR characterizes it: on shows like Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor and The Beltway Boys it’s like watching “a Harlem Globetrotters game (knowing) which side is supposed to win.” Or maybe pro wrestling. The discussion is so lopsided, it’s impossible hiding Fox’s partisanship, and it shows with on-air hosts like Tony Snow endorsing Republican Bob Dole for President in 1996 and then seamlessly becoming White House press secretary from May, 2006 to September, 2007. Other Fox “journalists” are as bad and collect handsome fees addressing Republican gatherings and corporate interest groups with big name ones like O’Reilly reportedly charging $50,000 per engagement on the lecture circuit delivering red meat to audiences that love it.
So do hard core Fox viewers who swallow the channel’s pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-occupation America uber alles type journalism combined with juiced-up infotainment reports imitating real news. It makes it hard knowing where one ends and the other begins. In the mainstream, much of it is the same, and all of it defiles what journalism should do -
– be the principle source of political information to create an informed citizenry Jefferson said was “the bulwark of a democracy;”
– provide a wide range of opinion and analysis of all key issues affecting everyone;
– hold governments accountable to the public interest and not just the privileged elite part of it; and generally
– “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Murdoch and the rest of the dominant media fail the test. Their concentrated power blunt democracy by destroying its essential free marketplace of ideas. Today, social control substitutes for diversity, free expression, and an informed electorate; pro-business ideology trumps the greater good; and the single-minded pursuit of profit triumphs over beneficial social change. Combating it means confronting the media barons who are as determined as Murdoch to squash us.
Organizations like Free Press are doing it. It’s a “national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates.” It aims to “generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector” promoting greater diversity. The more democratic our media, the more accountable government will be to public concerns. Free Press focuses on four broad areas to help: “media ownership” for greater competition and diversity; “independent and public media” free from the single-minded pursuit of profit; “internet freedom” from corporate control; and “media reform” of a corrupted system aided by government that must end.
To happen, public participation is essential, and for that organizations like Free Press are crucial. Corporate media control is the core issue of our time along with overall corporate dominance with governments as their handmaiden. Democracy and a free society are impossible unless that changes. It’s we the people vs. the Murdochs of the world, and we’ve only just begun fighting back.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
Comment la DGSE a déjoué une nouvelle vague d’attentats d’Al-CIA en Europe
Comment la DGSE a déjoué une nouvelle vague d’attentats d’Al-CIA en Europe
Une vaste campagne d’attentats islamistes aurait dû terroriser l’Europe entre le 20 et le 28 janvier. Elle a été déjouée in extremis par la DGSE française et son homologue espagnole, le CNI, sous la supervision de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Mais ces attentats étaient attendus par l’OTAN pour pouvoir intervenir militairement au Pakistan.
Thierry Meyssan révèle les dessous de cette machination avortée.
par Thierry Meyssan*
Menaces sur l’Europe
La presse européenne a largement rendu compte du démantèlement d’un réseau terroriste islamiste, le 18 janvier 2008. Sur les instructions de l’émir pakistanais Baitullah Mehsud, six kamikazes et cinq complices s’apprêtaient à commettre trois attentats en 48 h à Barcelone, dans deux wagons de la ligne 3 du métro, dans un centre commercial non-identifié et à la mosquée de Ciutat Vella. Cette opération aurait marqué le début d’une nouvelle vague d’attentats au Portugal, en France, en Allemagne et au Royaume-Uni. La nouvelle a été annoncée par le ministre de l’Intérieur, Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, qui a placé toutes les forces de sécurité de son pays en état d’alerte [1]. L’Espagne a déjà été marquée, le 11 mars 2004, par une série d’attentats dans des trains de banlieue à Madrid, faisant 191 morts et plus de 1 800 blessés.
Le coup de filet [2] a été rendu possible grâce aux informations données par un jeune homme, destiné à se sacrifier au cours d’un attentat, qui a échappé à ses camarades et s’est spontanément présenté à la police. Trois complices se sont enfuis vers la France où ils sont activement recherchés [3]. Des moyens exceptionnels ont été déployés pour trouver une seconde équipe, qui aurait été chargée de fabriquer les explosifs [4].
Le chef de la cellule catalane, Maroof Ahmed Mirza, avait été formé durant quatre années dans une madrasa (école coranique) extrémiste au Pakistan. Il était suivi par plusieurs services de renseignement occidentaux. Les « services » français avaient observé son arrivée sur leur territoire et prévenu leurs homologues espagnols du Centro Nacional de Inteligencia (CNI) de son installation en Catalogne. Ceux-ci avaient retrouvé sa trace dans une banlieue déshéritée, Raval, où il était devenu imam de la mosquée de la rue de l’hôpital. Pour donner le change, il évoluait avec ses hommes au sein d’une petite communauté musulmane non-violente à Barcelone [5]. Ils se réclamaient du Jamaat Al-Tabligh Wal-Dawa (Congrégation pour la propagation et la prédication), une organisation apparue en 1927, en Inde britannique, rattachée au courant théologique deobandi.
Selon le témoignage du jeune repenti (désigné dans les procés-verbaux d’enquête sous le pseudonyme de « F-1 »), il aurait été choisi pour mourir avec deux autres compagnons dans un attentat à Francfort, mais au dernier moment, les plans auraient été modifiés. Il aurait dû participer à l’opération de Barcelone et aurait été remplacé à Francfort par un certain Akeel Abassi. Le juge Ismael Moreno, chargé de l’affaire, a également entendu les autres interpellés. Au total, il s’agit de neuf Pakistanais et d’un Indien (ou peut être huit Pakistanais, un Bengali et un Indien [6]), présentant des profils similaires à ceux des jeunes gens accusés d’être responsables des attentats de Londres, qui firent 52 morts, le 7 juillet 2005 [7].
La presse a abondamment reproduit l’extrait suivant des procès-verbaux.
— Un des jihadistes s’adressant à F-1 : « Pourquoi n’as tu pas achevé ta formation au Pakistan ? »
— F-1 (témoin protégé) : « Parce que j’étais malade et j’ai du revenir ».
— Le jihadiste : « Tu plais beaucoup à l’émir Baitullah Mehsud. Tu lui plais tant que si tu avais terminé ta préparation, il aurait fait de toi un expert en explosifs plutôt qu’un kamikaze ».
— F-1 : « Quelle différence y a-t-il entre un kamikaze et un expert en explosifs ? »
— Le jihadiste : « Il y a trois groupes différents : les planificateurs, ceux qui fabriquent les bombes et les kamikazes » [8].
En réalité, F-1 serait un agent des services de renseignement extérieur français (DGSE), infiltré dans les réseaux jihadistes. Les militaires français auraient tenu une réunion d’urgence avec leurs homologues espagnols, à Noël à Madrid. Le président du gouvernement espagnol, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, aurait été personnellement informé du danger, mais l’Élysée n’aurait été tenu au courant qu’en termes vagues pour éviter les interférences [9]. Le coup de filet aurait été décidé au vu de la prière collective des membres du commando et de leur purification rituelle, indicateurs d’un passage à l’acte imminent [10].
Six autres individus, pistés par le Centro Nacional de Coordinación Antiterrorista espagnol, ont été arrêtés le 24 janvier à l’aéroport britannique de Gatwick, tandis que le Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure du service de contre-espionnage (MI5) lançait un avis d’alerte : cette équipe de planificateurs devait déclencher une autre cellule kamikaze qui aurait commis un attentat dans le tunnel sous la Manche [11].
Tous les services de renseignement européens ont été placés en état d’alerte, d’autant que ces événements coïncidaient avec le périple européen du président pakistanais, Pervez Musharraf (Bruxelles, Paris, Londres, Davos) [12]. Un voyage à hauts risques au cours duquel l’ancien chef d’état-major, entouré d’une nuée de spin doctors états-uniens, devait se construire une image de leader polissé et fréquentable. Malheureusement ses réflexes autoritaires ressurgissaient chaque fois qu’on l’interrogeait sur l’indépendance des juges de son pays ou la possible implication de son parti politique —la PML-Q— dans l’assassinat de Benazir Bhutto.
En outre, les événements de Barcelone prenaient place dans un contexte de nombreuses menaces :
Le 3 janvier, un certain Murabit Muwaded (c’est-à-dire « le combattant pour l’unité ») a posté en arabe sur le forum du site islamiste al-ekhlaas.net un message promettant de « mettre un terme à la poursuite des ambitions du président Sarkozy dans les pays du Maghreb » et de provoquer « un effondrement de l’économie française au niveau international ».
Le 5 janvier, un centre états-unien chargé de surveiller les communications du réseau d’Oussama Ben Laden a repéré sur Internet des menaces « contre Paris et contre son maire Bertrand Delanoë » afin d’entraîner « la chute de Nicolas Sarkozy ».
Le 10 janvier des contrôleurs aériens portugais ont intercepté un message sur les ondes courtes faisant état de menaces terroristes sur Paris [13].
Le 21 janvier, Le Parisien a oublié en « une » un entretien avec « la veuve noire », une ancienne dirigeante d’Al Qaïda, annonçant que La France serait punie pour son allégeance à l’Amérique [14].
Le 24 janvier, un message posté sur le forum du site internet al-ekhlaas.net, cette fois signé « Al Qaïda en Grande-Bretagne », exigeait un retrait des troupes britanniques d’Afghanistan et d’Irak, ainsi que la libération des « musulmans captifs » de la prison de haute sécurité de Belmarsh. Il désignait Gordon Brown et Tony Blair comme cibles.
Baitullah Mehsud
Le 5 février, Nigel Inkster, l’ancien directeur adjoint des services secrets extérieurs britanniques (MI6) présentait à Londres le très attendu rapport annuel de l’International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). À cette occasion, il a « confirmé » que Baitullah Meshud avait organisé l’assassinat de l’ancien Premier ministre pakistanais Benazir Bhutto, en décembre 2007. M. Inskter a désigné le chef néo-taliban comme le nouvel ennemi public n°1 de l’Occident en remplacement d’Oussama Ben Laden et d’Abou Moussab Al-Zarkaoui [15].
Retenez bien ce nom : Baitullah Mehsud. Il animera vos cauchemars médiatiques durant les prochaines années.
Baitullah Mehsud est connu de longue date comme un chef de guerre pashtoun opérant au Waziristan (zone tribale pakistanaise, frontalière de l’Afghanistan). Il y a deux ans, il avait négocié le cessez-le-feu local et était alors présenté par ses amis états-uniens comme un « artisan de paix » [16]. Changeant d’image, il a fait irruption sur la scène mondiale, le 28 décembre 2007, lorsque le porte-parole du ministre de l’Intérieur pakistanais a déclaré : « Nous avons des rapports de renseignement indiquant que le leader d’Al Qaïda, Baitullah Meshud, est derrière l’assassinat [de Benazir Bhutto]. Nous venons juste de recevoir une interception de renseignement qui a été enregistrée ce matin et dans laquelle Baitullah Meshud félicite ses gens pour avoir réaliser cet acte lâche » [17]. Consécration suprême, le général Michael V. Hayden, directeur de la CIA, déclarait à son tour : « [l’assassinat de Mme Bhutto] a été perpétré par un réseau autour de Baitullah Meshud. Nous n’avons aucune raison d’en douter » [18].
On ne sait pas grand chose de Meshud, sauf la brève biographie que la lui a consacrée le mois dernier la Jamestown Foundation [19]. Si sa période pro-US y est passée sous silence, on y apprend qu’il aurait juré allégeance au mollah Omar, chef historique des talibans, et qu’il serait à la tête d’une armée de 20 000 hommes, pour la plupart issus de son clan, dont on n’avait jusque là jamais soupçonné l’ampleur. Il prohiberait les images, ce qui expliquerait que l’on ne dispose d’aucune photographie de lui. Il a cependant eu la bonne idée d’accorder en janvier une interview à Shahid Nadeem d’Al-Jazeera. D’où l’on sait qu’il aurait commencé ses classes dans l’armée soviétique avant de se rallier aux talibans [20].
L’agence texane Statfor a établi quant à elle un lien entre la secte des suspects de Barcelone et de précédentes affaires de terrorisme [21]. La Jamaat Al-Tabligh Wal-Dawa compterait aujourd’hui 70 à 80 millions de membres ce qui en ferait la plus importante confrérie musulmane dans le monde. Deux dizaines de ses membres seraient impliqués dans les attentats de Londres de juillet 2005 [22], les projets d’attentats à l’explosif liquide d’août 2006 [23], et dans les attentats manqués de Glasgow de juillet 2007.
L’envers du décor
L’affaire de Barcelone est exceptionnelle et l’on imagine que les gouvernements espagnol et britannique ont chaleureusement remercié la Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE) française —et particulièrement leur audacieux agent F-1— pour avoir déjoué ces complots et sauvé tant de vies innocentes.
Il n’en est rien. Car il y avait un deuxième niveau de manipulation.
Le lecteur attentif est peut-être déjà devenu soupçonneux devant la campagne médiatique alarmiste qui précédait ces projets d’attentat. Il aura remarqué la confusion entre courant wahhabite et déobandi. Il aura peut-être souri devant les menaces de « la veuve noire », prétendûment ancienne dirigeante d’Al-Qaïda, alors que cette mouvance —affirment les mêmes médias— refuse tout rôle politique aux femmes. Il se sera interrogé sur ce Mashud qui passe du jour au lendemain de statut d’« artisan de paix » à celui d’« ennemi public n°1 ». Et s’il a vu son interview sur Al-Jazeera, il se souviendra de ces commentaires du journaliste : « C’est un homme très simple. Il a une garde lourdement armée, mais il ne se comporte pas comme un chef inaccessible. Dans son village, il est chez lui. Contrairement à certains combattants étrangers d’Al-Qaida, il ne se cache pas ». Bref, il semble ignorer son nouveau rôle de méchant planétaire et ne craint pas de faire l’objet d’une attaque des forces spéciales états-uniennes.
Vient le moment où le masque tombe.
Les six terroristes de la cellule de planification arrêtés par Scotland Yard à l’aéroport de Gatwick, le 24 janvier, ont été longuement interrogés par le contre-espionnage britannique (MI5) au centre de haute sécurité de Paddington Green. Surprise : l’un était le frère cadet, trois autres les neveux, et les deux derniers des collaborateurs directs de Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, président de la Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam (PML-Q), le parti politique du président Pervez Musharraf. Tout ce petit monde rejoignait la suite de Pervez Musharraf, attendu à Londres. Ils n’avaient aucun éclaircissement à apporter sur leur passage à Barcelone. Après les vérifications d’usage, la raison d’État a prévalu. Ils ont été discrétement expulsés vers Islamabad (Pakistan) par le premier vol disponible tandis que Scotland Yard évoquait une méprise (mais alors, pourquoi les expulser ?) [24].
S’il n’avait pas été déjoué le 19 janvier, le scénario de la terreur aurait été le suivant : les deux premiers jours du voyage de Pervez Musharraf en Europe (les 20-21 janvier à Bruxelles et Paris), la première cellule faisait 48 heures de carnage à Barcelone. Le 22 janvier, le président pakistanais étant toujous à Paris, une seconde cellule y opérait. Entre le 23 et le 25, alors que M. Musharraf pérorait au Forum économique de Davos, des bombes explosaient à Francfort. Et lors de son séjour à Londres (du 26 au 28), un attentat dévastait le tunnel sous la Manche.
Du Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud revendiquait cette campagne de terreur. Accordant des interviews à la presse européenne, Pervez Musharraf dénonçait le tueur de Benazir Bhutto et appelait les forces armées US à l’aide. Déjà secrètement rendu sur place, l’amiral Mike McConell, directeur général du renseignement US, et le général Michael Heyden, directeur de la CIA, dirigeaient une opération contre Meshud. Malheureusement, ils le manquaient de peu, mais tuaient son adjoint, le Libyen Abu Laith al-Libi, le 31 janvier (ce dernier point a été quand même mené à bien à la date prévue, question de rentabiliser le déplacement). Le même jour, George W. Bush battait le tambour en prononçant un discours à Las Vegas sur la guerre globale au terrorisme. Le 1er février, à Paris, Nicolas Sarkozy appelait à un sursaut de l’Occident en recevant le secrétaire général de l’OTAN. Le lendemain à Londres, Gordon Brown et Dick Cheney répondaient à cet appel depuis la résidence des Chequers.
Le 5 février l’International Institute for Strategic Studies publiait un rapport qui venait à point pour évaluer l’ampleur de la menace Meshud. Les ministres de l’OTAN, réunis les 7 et 8 février à Vilnius (Lituanie), décidaient d’étendre les opérations de l’Alliance de l’Afghanistan au Pakistan.
Politique fiction ? Non. Outre que l’agenda des personnalités ci-dessus est exact, souvenez-vous comment, en 1978, le conseiller national de sécurité des États-Unis, Zbignew Brzezinski [25] vint enrôler à Beyrouth un jeune golden boy, Oussama Ben Laden, pour en faire le chef de l’insurrection anti-communiste en Afghanistan [26] ; comment ce dernier recruta des mercenaires dans les milieux sunnites extrémistes pour mener la guerre contre les Soviètiques ; comment il constitua une véritable mouvance autour de lui avec l’aide conjointe des États-uniens, des Britanniques, des Saoudiens, puis des Pakistanais. Souvenez-vous aussi du rôle des services secrets pakistanais (ISI) dans la formation des moujahiddines, puis des talibans, et du personnel d’Al Qaïda [27]. Souvenez-vous du rôle du général Mahmoud Ahmad (directeur de l’ISI) dans l’organisation des attentats du 11 septembre 2001, alors même qu’il était présent à Washington ce jour-là [28].
Notez que l’International Institute for Strategic Studies de Londres avait été le seul organisme non-gouvernemental à rédiger un rapport accréditant la fable des armes de destruction massive en Irak et qu’il est passé maître dans l’art de l’intoxication [29].
Notez que la Fondation Jamestown qui diffuse l’essentiel des informations sur Baitullah Mehsud est dirigée par l’inoxidable Zbignew Brzezinski, par ailleurs conseiller spécial de Barack Obama, le seul candidat à la présidence des États-Unis qui appelle à une intervention militaire au Pakistan.
Ainsi, les services secrets militaires français et espagnols, et José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, n’ont pas seulement empêché des attentats en Europe, ils ont empêché (ou au moins différé) une opération militaire de l’OTAN au Pakistan à laquelle ils sont viscéralement opposés.
Journaliste et écrivain, président du Réseau Voltaire
[2] Les dix personnes interpellées sont : Hafeez Ahmed, Maroof Ahmed Mirza , Mohammad Ayud Elahi Bibi, Imran Cheema, Shaib Iqbal, Mehmooh Khalib , Roshan Jamal Khan, Qadeer Malik, Mohammed Shoaib et Mohamed Tarik.
[3] Tres de los islamistas dispuestos a atentar en Barcelona han huído y su objetivo no era España, ABC, 25 janvier 2008.
[4] « Sospecha de la presencia en España de un comando proveedor », par Enrique Figuerdo et Eduardo Martin de Pozuello, La Vanguardia, 29 janvier 2008.
[5] « El jefe del grupo se formó cuatro años en una ’madrasa’ paquistaní », El Pais, 3 février 2007.
[6] « Spain terror plot : MEA in dark over arrest of Indians », Times of India, 26 janvier 2008.
[7] « Los detenidos tienen idéntico perfil que los autores del 7-J », El Pais, 27 janvier 2008.
[8] “¿Por qué vamos a atacar en el metro de Barcelona y no en otro lado ?”, preguntó…, El Pais, 26 janvier 2008.
[9] « Islamistas.- El servicio secreto francés convocó de urgencia al CNI en Navidad para informarle del plan terrorista », Europa Press, 2 février 2008.
[10] « Terrorisme : le kamikaze infiltré changera d’identité en France », par Joana Viusà, L’Indépendant de Perpignan, 1er février 2008.
[11] « Suicide bomb suspects held at Gatwick after tip-off », par David Leppard, The Sunday Times, 3 février 2007.
[12] « Les services européens redoutent des attentats », par Arnaud De La Grange, Le Figaro, 21 janvier 2008.
[13] « Un appel terroriste visant la tour Eiffel a été intercepté au Portugal », par Yves Bordenave, Le Monde, 12 janvier 2008.
[14] « La « veuve noire » d’Al-Qaïda : « La France sera bientôt punie », propos recueillis par Jean-Marc Ducos, Le Parisien, 21 janvier 2008.
[15] « Abou Moussab al-Zarkaoui, super-héros du Mal », par Vladimir Alexe, Réseau Voltaire, 19 juillet 2005.
[16] « Le chef taliban Mehsud, principal ennemi d’Islamabad », par Nadia Blétry et Pir Zubair Shah, Le Temps, 7 février 2008.
[17] Déclaration en ourdou de Javed Iqbal Cheema sur PTV News, le 28 décembre 2007.
[18] « CIA Places Blame for Bhutto Assassination ; Hayden Cites Al-Qaeda, Pakistani Fighters », par Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, 18 janvier 2008.
[19] « Baitullah Mehsud – The Taliban’s New Leader in Pakistan », par Imtiaz Ali, Terrorism Focus, Volume 5, Issue 1 (January 8, 2008), Jamestown Foundation éd.
[20] « Baitullah Mehsud, nouveau chef taliban, défie l’armée pakistanaise », par Françoise Chipaux, Le Monde du 1er février 2008.
[21] « Tablighi Jamaat : An Indirect Line to Terrorism », Statfor, 23 février 2008.
[22] « Londres renoue avec la stratégie de la tension », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 13 juillet 2005.
[23] « Complot terroriste au Royaume-Uni : que se passe-t-il vraiment ? », par Craig Murray ; « Londres : terrorisme fictif, guerre réelle », par Jürgen Elsässer ; « Fabriquez vous-mêmes votre bombe au TATP », par Thomas C. Greene ; « L’alerte terroriste inquiète les Britanniques, sauf Tony Blair » ; « Les certitudes de Nicolas Sarkozy : “Un faisceau d’éléments permet de penser que la nébuleuse Al Qaïda n’est pas très éloignée de ce qui aurait pu se passer” » ; « Le mensonge des attentats à l’explosif liquide », par James Petras, Réseau Voltaire, 29 août 2006.
[24] « España tomó por terroristas a cargos del partido de Musharraf », El Pais, « El CNI confundió a familiares de un colaborador de Musharraf con islamistas », par Nando Garcia, El Mundo, 6 février 2008.
[25] « La stratégie anti-russe de Zbigniew Brzezinski », par Arthur Lepic, Réseau Voltaire, 22 octobre 2004.
[26] « La Ligue anti-communiste mondiale, une internationale du crime », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 12 mai 2004.
[27] On trouvera un exposé détaillé de cette affaire dans l’ouvrage que lui a consacré le sous-directeur du renseignement indien qui fut chargé, pendant des années, de l’observer : Fulcrum of Evil : ISI-CIA-Al Qaeda Nexus par Maloy Krihna Dhar, Manas Publication, Delhi, 2006
[28] Lire L’Effroyable imposture 1, par Thierry Meyssan, mars 2002, réédition Demi-lune 2007.
[29] « Les experts qui ont donné raison à la CIA », Réseau Voltaire, 4 février 2004.
Portraits of Kandahar – Kandahar Cemetery – Le représentant de l’Union européenne payait les Talibans
Portraits of Kandahar – Kandahar Cemetery
Feb 08
As international forces struggle against a resurgent Taliban, the Afghan conflict remains in the balance.
Provinces in the south and east of Afghanistan are suffering the heaviest fighting, in particular, Kandahar. Zeina Khodr reports on its Arab cemetery and how it’s become a place of pilgrimage.
________________________________________________________________
Le représentant de l’Union européenne payait les Talibans
08 Février 2008
L’écrivain et journaliste afghan, Abdelrazagh Mamoun a déclaré au journaliste de l’agence de presse FARS que le peuple afghan sait parfaitement que les Etats-Unis et les 40 autres pays membres des forces internationales basées en Afghanistan ne sont pas déployés en Afghanistan pour le bien de la population locale mais pour se rassurer que la situation sera favorable pour eux-mêmes.
Il a ajouté que la situation économique, culturelle et sociale de l’Afghanistan dépend entièrement de la situation sécuritaire prévalant dans ce pays. Selon M. Mamoun, l’anarchie générale en Afghanistan a augmenté le sentiment d’insécurité et d’angoisse dans ce pays.
M. Mamoun a déclaré qu’aujourd’hui, personne n’a confiance en Afghanistan en ce qui se passe dans ce pays, et qu’un climat de peur s’est établi même dans la vie quotidienne des Afghans. “Si vous demandez au gens si les forces américaines se battaient contre les Taliban, il lui sera difficile de vous répondre, car tout le monde sait que le représentant spécial de l’Union européenne, Michael Simpel qui a été récemment expulsé d’Afghanistan par le gouvernement de Kaboul, se rendait librement à Helmand pour rencontrer les chefs des Taliban. M. Simpel parlait couramment le persan et le Pashtoun.
Il se déguisant en afghan et rendait régulièrement visite aux représentants des Taliban.”, a-t-il déclaré. M. Mamoun a ajouté : “L’expulsion de Michael Simpel par le gouvernement de Kaboul s’était intervenue sous les pressions des Etats-Unis. Il y avait des documents qui prouvaient que Simpel payait de l’argent à au moins un millier de membres des Taliban à Helmand. Chaque officiel recevait de lui 500 dollars par mois et chaque combattant simple 200 dollars. Il a ajouté que ce projet avait été appliqué pendant ces six dernières années, en coordination avec les forces internationales basées en Afghanistan, et que la Grande Bretagne et le Pakistan étaient fortement impliqués dans cette affaire.
Evoquant les divergences de vue survenues récemment entre les Etats-Unis et la Grande Bretagne au sujet de l’Afghanistan, M. Mamoun a déclaré que les Britanniques avaient cherchés pendant ces derniers mois à attaque la forteresse des Taliban à Moussa Ghaleh.
En effet, Helmand est devenu la base principale des Taliban en Afghanistan, avec le soutien directe des Britanniques eux-mêmes. M. Mamoun a déclaré que pour les Américains et les Britanniques, les Taliban comptaient un levier important pour assurer leurs objectifs en Afghanistan, c’est pourquoi ils souhaitent garder les Taliban en tant qu’une force active sur la scène des événements politiques et sociaux de l’Afghanistan, d’autant plus que les Taliban sont très hostile aux chiites et aux persanophones, ce qui est très important pour les forces occidentales qui souhaitent marginaliser les chiites et les persanophones en Afghanistan.
Selon M. Mamoun, c’est exactement pour cette raison que les Etats-Unis et la Grande Bretagne ont décidé de garder les Taliban sur la scène politique et sociale de l’Afghanistan, mais ils ne veulent pas que les Taliban se tournent de nouveau contre eux. Ils ont vu comment le Pakistan a réussi à réorganiser les Taliban et les mettre au service de ses propres intérêts.
Ils ont décidé donc d’empêcher les Taliban de développer leur contrôle sur différentes régions de l’Afghanistan, mais dans le même temps ils souhaitent que les Taliban restent forts et actifs dans le pays.
D’après M. Mamoun, pendant ces six dernières années, les forces internationales n’ont pratiquement rien fait pour lutter efficacement contre le terrorisme, car ils ne cherchent à assurer le progrès et le développement de l’Afghanistan. L’objectif des Etats-Unis est de contrôler le pays et utiliser le territoire afghan comme un instrument stratégique au service du pillage des ressources énergétique de toute la région. Dans ce cadre, ils estiment que la situation géographique privilégiée de l’Afghanistan leur permettra de développer leurs politiques expansionnistes dans toute la région.
Seven Young Palestinian Policemen Assassinated During Afternoon Prayers in Israeli Missile Attack
Seven Young Palestinian Policemen Assassinated During Afternoon Prayers in Israeli Missile Attack
By: Hiyam Noir
On Tuesday afternoon seven young Palestinian policemen employed in the Gaza-based Executive Forces of the Hamas government,were killed and 14 others were injured, when Israeli terrorists in an helicopter launched several missiles,at the police head quarter in Khan Younis.. Our sources in Gaza City and in Khan Younis, report that the policemen were performing afternoon prayers when the missiles struck the building, seven members of the Executive Police Forces were killed.Two of the victims of this atrocious Israeli crime, were only 19 years old, others were in their early twenties.The victims are, Ahmed Mosbeh 20 -Mo’taz Abu Shahla 19-Samy Abu Se’ada 19,-Ra’fat Qodeh 21-Ramy Abu Younis 20,-Abed El-Naser Abu Tieer 20 and Mohamed Abu Se’ada 21.Three of the 14 injured, were found with serious injuries. They were taken to the Al Nasser hospital in Khan Younis. The victims were brought by local Palestinian residents, to the hospital in private cars.
After a few minutes of Israeli aircraft shelling, four other Palestinian policemen were injured in another Israeli missile attack on Tuesday afternoon. The Israelis marine squadron, targeted the Palestinian coastal police headquarters in western Rafah, southern Gaza Strip.Three of the wounded have sustained moderate injuries. In a pressmeeting the spokesperson of the Hamas governments Interior Ministry.
Hamas Interior Ministry spokesperson Eyhab Al-Ghusayn said in a press briefing – “The Israeli occupation was sending a message to the interior ministry telling them that the Israelis want security services which protect the occupation rather than protecting the resistance – However, we are announcing from the outset that our goal is to protect the Palestinian resistance and that is why the Israelis tarIet the security services.”
While writing this report Israeli aircraft are still hovering in the skies over Gaza Strip.The Hamas government’s interior Ministry has declared Gaza Strip,a state of emergency and the ministry have ordered partial evacuation of all police headquarters in the Gaza Strip.
http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=40907&l=e&size=1&hd=0
______________________________
