|
‘Neither Spectator Nor Victim’
South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition Spring 2007 Forum
Formally started at Trinity House Social Centre, Laygate, South Shiekds, on Tuesday 20 February 2007, at a meeting attended by Alan, Terry, Maddy, Phil, Alan, Nader, and Chris.
Introduction, by Alan Newham
"Words and writing were all nothing and must die, for action is the life of all and if thou dost not act, thou dost nothing"
Digger, Gerrard Winstanly 1649
Our forum has taken as its theme: Neither Spectator or Victim, referring as it does to ordinary people who are regarded as mere spectators of world events and to those more unfortunate who become victims of death and suffering at the hands of those whom they have no control over.
A sort of contradiction has developed in more recent times; despite claims that Democracy is in the hands of the voter a dangerous concentration of power and decision making has emerged in the hands of the equally dangerous few.
The continuous production of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise together with globalised economic conflict seems to have taken on a momentum of such apparent inevitability so as to appear as if there is no alternative to the wars and conflicts inflicted on ordinary people.
Contrast this with the so called era of the "Individual" where we are told that we are free with the time and resources to live an "Individual" life and successfully pursue our goals without having to act collectively or to rely on others. This argument is especially put forward in advanced western countries. It's as if power is telling us to get on with our individual lives so that power can carry out its own agenda without ever having to consult us.
If freedom and individuality can be argued as being the same thing then we should be able to determine the nature of that freedom. Power has no right to determine it for us.
We should not be fooled into believing in the inevitability of events, this will lead us over time to such an alienation from any involvement in events as to make us believe that it is the natural state of things.
Supreme power in a democracy lies with the people, or so it is defined, yet power in the form of nonlistening government together with our economic wellbeing in the hands of the unelected rich and powerful belies that definition.
When you hear George Bush talking of establishing democracy in Iraq - what he means is democracy as a political system, the kind of democracy that caters for established interests and allows a government to ignore the wishes and welfare of the society as a whole.
A possible dangerous bi-product is a de- politicised citizenry apathetic and cynical. Instead of citizens we have consumers; instead of communities we have shopping centres, leaving society feeling socially powerless.
Power has exploited the contradiction between the individual and the collective, granting individual liberty an absolute priority (it seems so in the west) to those who Prf. Galbraith calls the contented and economically fortunate - social equality is never mentioned.
Freedom and Democracy is the George Bush mantra - the perfect excuse for U.S. foreign policy, with their "preventive wars" and pre-emptive strikes - the sole purpose of which is to ensure oil supplies and progress U.S. global influence,War and Profit would be closer to the truth. Bush and his Neo-Con friends- ably assisted by Bechtel and Haliburton (making obscene amounts of money as a result of the war), all pushing and supporting an agenda that shows them as having nothing but contempt for democracy.
Walter Lippmann an influential American journalist who served on Woodrow Wilson's Committee of Public Information writing in his essay on Democracy referred to a "special class" of power and influence. The general public are "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" and "must be kept in their place".
Harold Lasswell a founder of modern political science warned the power elites that they must recognise the " ignorance and stupidity of the masses" We must be controlled and where force can't be used our social managers must develop " a whole new technique of control, largely thro' propaganda"
Bush and his supporters are worthy inheritors of those views and they must be rigorously challenged by us meddlesome outsiders.
The fly in the ointment of this gloomy picture is of course the millions of ordinary people around the world who stand up to wars and corruption. Public opinion is now against the war in Iraq, both in the U.S. and elsewhere yet the U.S. continues a military build up for a possible attack on Iran. In the U.K. we have the prospect of paying £70bn for an upgraded Trident missile programme.
Seattle in1999 saw the first of many demonstrations that continue around the globe, and although the Anti-War movement began as a single issue, it soon broadened as people began to look deeper into the issues surrounding the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Afghanistan, this developed into a much wider picture as people began to make links with an increase of unelected corporate power and their assaults on Trade Unions, welfare, and deregulation leading to privatisation on a global scale.
There is an emerging international solidarity between ordinary people of the world as they come to realise that their interests are more or less the same, the ESF's and the WSF's that people have attended from all corners of the globe give testament to this, but those meetings were held under the banner of Another World is Possible, so there is a vision of a world without war that we must pursue. Coming together as one to end War and its friends, poverty and inequality is our Ultimate Weapon. Resistance in one form or another continues at any given time somewhere in the world.
The founding principles of the anti-war movement are 1. UNITY - strength in numbers and the ability to organise.
THE MOVEMENT - is radical as well as broad
WE RECOGNISE POWER - in the hands of the few is the great enemy. Stop he War was against Saddam but we didn't believe that it was the great danger we were told it was. The so called Rogue and failed states largely the product of the preceding policies of the great powers.
SELF DETERMINATION - Iraqis should have been left to get rid of Saddam themselves. Unfortunately Iraq as well as Afghanistan was not pro - western enough, unlike other dictatorial regimes such as China and Saudi Arabia - no one invaded South Africa because of Apartheid.
So it is our hope that our movement will convince people around the world that it is political power and interests - not religion and culture, the so called Clash of Civilisations, that terrorise the world today.
Meanwhile our soldiers continue to be killed and injured fighting an illegal war as part of the U.S. programme of world domination.
Gerrard Winstanly was right - get active, ask questions, start a debate with friends and people at work, write to your newspaper and M.P. and join a demonstration.Think about direct action.
If we don't, we do nothing.
+++
Neither Spectator nor Victim – Defend
the Rights of All!
by Roger Nettleship
The theme of the Forum on the eve of the No to Trident -
Troops Out of Iraq national demonstration in London is: neither
spectator nor victim. I want to concentrate these remarks on the
issue that we are neither spectator nor victim but need to defend
the rights of all.
I think it is very important to reflect on the fact that the
government is attempting to create and incite divisions in Britain.
The aim is to attempt to shatter the coherence and resistance to
the wars of occupation and attacks on rights and freedoms as
well as to the attacks on social programmes, the environment
and the all-round well being of the people and render the people
as spectators, or victims.
The depiction of the people as spectator is to say that
history is made by someone else other than the people, that
people are denied decision-making power and that the executive
in power are the ones in the know, that tough decisions have to
be made which are unpopular. It is a dictate that people should
not have the power and should not be allowed to influence the
course of events. That the government wants to assign us the
role of spectators was very clear when they ignored the just
demand of the demonstration of two million against the invasion
and occupation of Iraq on February 15th 2003. That the people
defined these demonstrations in Britain and throughout the world
as a defining moment in the unity of the world’s people against
the warmongers, turned it into its opposite and placed the issue
of the demand for an anti-war government centre stage.
The depiction of the people as victims is that again the
victims are powerless, and are also isolated, that this is just an
issue to do with them and not the polity as a whole. The role of
victims is to complain and in the polity at large just to list how bad
things are. That the government wants to assign people and
communities the role of victims is very clear in the feverish
atmosphere of disinformation where they try to inculcate suspicion
and prejudice, giving priority to prejudicial statements and reports.
It is the case that the state is singling out those of the Muslim faith
and outlook for attack under the guise of waging war against
“Islamic extremism” and then criminally carrying out arbitrary arrest
and detention with “anti-terror” laws. To call such measures “laws”
is also travesty of justice itself when they are based on racial
profiling which require little or no evidence, reducing legal process
to one of the denunciation by secret police just as in the Middle
Ages.
The antidote to both roles that the ruling circles are trying
to assign to the people as spectator and victim is that the whole
polity in Britain has to put forward solutions and strive to become
the decision-making force. So the issue for the anti-war movement
and all movements of the people is to take a bold step together in
defence of the rights of all.
In this context of the government attacks on the polity
and its unity, the government tries to brand the resistance to their
wars in Britain and the world as “extremist” and calls on the
“moderate” forces to defend its “civilised” values and defend the
status quo which they claim are the values of the “host” community.
This “way of life” of the “host” community is also used to attack
the whole polity. The backward line, or backlash, to upholding the
rights of Muslims, or other national minorities, is that no one
upholds the rights and way of life of the “host” community, i.e.
what is sometimes described as the “white working class”.
Defending the rights of all smashes this. No culture is
second to any other. This way of life of the people and values of
these sections of the people united in the anti-war movement, the
youth movement and the workers’ movement – it is these values
of the people which are in the ascendancy, which are a threat to
the values of the executive power whose values are disintegrating
in the modern world and which they try to impose by force. In this
context, these old values of multi-party democracy (“representative
democracy” as opposed to involving people in decision making),
free-market economy (neo-liberal globalisation as opposed to an
economy that meets the needs of the people) and rights based
on private property (as opposed to being human) are fraudulently
represented as universal values or those of the “host” community.
In conclusion, the resistance movements of the people in
Britain and throughout the world is the order of the day – this is
why people will once again take to the streets of London on
February 24th against the warmongering government of Tony Blair.
Also, it is a reflection of the growing resistance in the United States
that over half a million demanded that the troops be brought home
in Washington DC two weeks ago. In these mass anti-war
manifestations of the people, the decisive issue the anti-war
movement has to take on board is not to stand aside as spectator
or victim at the hands of the executive, whether that be Tony Blair,
Gordon Brown, or someone else. The issue is that the whole
polity in Britain must put forward solutions and strive to become
the decision-making force and bring to power an anti-war
government. A government that puts in place arrangements that
are pro-people and put the interests of human beings at the centre
of all policies. So the issue for the anti-war movement and all
movements of people is to take a bold step together in defence of
the rights of all.
Bring the troops home from foreign soil!
End the attack on humanity!
Defend the rights of all!
+++
Iran Facts Versus “Secrets”, Lies,
Deception and Disinformation
by Nader Naderi
“Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all
for f***offs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a
filthy p***-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the side-walk and
masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.” Hunter S. Thompson,
delivers this lucid if not acerbic critique of the nature of the
corporate media, in his “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”.
Effectively highlighting the role of the corporate media as the public
relations department of their political masters, and their
proprietors’ proclivities. This inescapable, and ugly fact on its
own is of no consequence (freedom of press means anyone can
own one), however, when these public relations vassals of the
administrations in the White House, and Number 10, beat the
drums of war ever louder, there follows the untold deaths and
sufferings of many hundreds of thousands of human beings
(clinically classed as collateral damage).
The recent saturation reportage of ‘’unnamed sources, in an
unnamed location somewhere in Iraq, briefing about the use of
‘sophisticated improvised explosive devices’, supplied by Iran’’ are
shamelessly regurgitated without any irony. How on earth any
improvisation can entail ‘sophistication’ is not even hinted at?
The word play games stresses the advanced and highly scientific
use of you guessed it ‘improvised devices’. These chimps in the
cage as Hunter S. Thompson points out, must take, we the
audience for mugs.
Although the more sophisticated BBC, soon gets on with
reclassification of these ‘Improvised Explosive Devices’, as
‘Explosively Formed Projectiles’ with Infra Red triggers (now there
is a scientific thing, just like the telly remote control). The tragedy
of it all masks the comedy unfolding, the photographs in evidence,
showing an anonymous mortar shell (bearing HE that is High
Explosives in English, and the year printed as 2006, while the
Iranian solar year 1384 is conspicuously absent, never mind the
odd size of the 81 millimetre shells that are used mostly by
Pakistan’s forces) and bits and pieces of charred metal along
with a metal cylinder topped with a copper cap, that we are told
are the very sophisticated weapons systems that Iraqi resistance
are incapable of putting together themselves. Yet these
‘insurgents’ using these ‘sophisticated’ devices, are challenging
the supremacy of umpteen million dollars worth of assault vehicles,
tanks, and a plethora of armoured machinery that evidently can
be crippled by a fiver’s worth of crude home made ‘sophistication’.
None of the gatekeepers of truth even entertaining to table the
question; why on earth were all the monies spent on developing
these apparently useless machinery that can fall prey to five
pounds worth of improvisation by the resistance in Iraq? However,
everyone of the jerking chimps are in haste to point their finger of
blame to Iran.
Remembering that the same bunch of luminaries, all informed us
of the Saddam WMD, Chemical Weapons stockpiles, and the
dossiers warning us all about the forty five minutes between us,
and total annihilation by Saddam’s missiles, and his ambitions to
conquer the world just like Hitler wanted to! (what would these
chimps and their masters would have done, if there were no Hitler
in history? Heaven forbid!)
The jerking chimps and their masters still recant WWII as if it took
place the day before yesterday, and just before the Operation
Iraqi Freedom. We watched the telly, and all saw the commander
in chief land on the aircraft carrier on the golden hour, and we all
read the mission accomplished banner hastily nailed on the bridge
of the same, while listening to the gushing reportage of the brave
new free Iraq. The lands that were to be filled with honey, milk,
democracy, and opportunity, with as much freedom as Iraqis could
handle.
Then we heard Dunny Rumsfeld, telling us that; ‘’freedom is the
freedom to do good things, as well as bad things’’, which can go
some way to explain the disappearance of $12 billions dollars
worth of cash in Iraq, that is eighteen articulated truckloads of
cash disappearing in Iraq. That is pallet loads of $100 dollar bills
of cash weighing 363 tonnes disappearing without so much as a
hand written receipt from anyone’s friend, or accounts department.
Way to go freedom to get rich quick for those whom trade in wars
to hoard the tax payers tax pound and dollars, that otherwise
would have landed these fraudsters in jail for a long time, a very
long, long time.
The exhibitionist chimps pushing the agenda of the deluded
wannabe masters of the planet Earth, have been busy spreading
fear ever since the turn of the century which coincided with the
beginning of the new millennium. The millenarian fears of total
crashing out of the planet due to the Millennium Bug cost an arm
and a leg for anyone whom fell for the narrative. The narrative
remaining to scare the dickens out of the punters theme then
moved onto Taliban, Saddam Hitler and his multi faceted WMD,
not forgetting the terra-ists (terrorists) whom are so dangerous
that can kill with only one look, and a handful of Chapati Flour.
Although there has never been any Chapati Flour amnesty so
far! Giving rise to likes of professor John Muller in his book ;
Overblown, to quote statistics that find falling victim to a terrorist
attack being equal to being struck by a meteorite crashing to earth
from outer space, has somewhat hindered the deceleration of
Chapati Flour amnesty, and installation of bins for the reasons of
depositing the bags of flour.
For the last few years these same luminaries have been relentless
in pointing out the Iranian nuclear ambitions (the irony of the
bizarre Kafkaesque world of intentions). Hence it should have
come as no surprise to find the unconscious drivel being classified
as news reports.
To begin with the ‘secret nature’ of the Iranian nuclear programme,
has gone unchallenged; how can anyone conceal the construction
of a nuclear reactor, and ancillary plants keeping it a secret? As
everyone knows of the super sized nature of any nuclear plant
constructs that cannot escape the spotters binoculars never mind
the spy satellites capable of photographing number plates on
moving vehicles. Further the ‘secret’ nuclear power plant under
construction in the port town of Bushehr (see arrow), can be easily
observed from the Persian Gulf, some ‘secret’ location for a ‘top
secret’ project won’t you say? Also the fact that the same plant
was under construction in 1978 by German contractors, whom
downed tools and left after the revolution in 1979.
The notion of secrecy is to invoke the dastardly clandestine, and
nefarious shenanigans of Iranians, despite their inalienable right
to civil nuclear power, based on their membership of IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Authority) and being a signatory to
NPT (None Proliferation Treaty) designed to discourage the
signatory member states, from building nuclear bombs. Further
as per the part one of the same treaty/contract unless there are
2 kilograms or more of enriched uranium being used/introduced
to any facility, the signatory is under no obligation to inform the
IAEA.
However, this fancy lawyer talk is not good enough for the chief
cowboy in command, seeing as he went onto to declare Iran part
of the ‘’axis of evil’’ the term that was coined by his speech writer
David Frum a rabid Zionist, whose wife was quiet fond of boasting
about her husband’s influence on Mr. President as narrated in
the very communist Washington Post!
While David Frum was inventing new labels, his cohorts that is
Doglus Office of Special Plans Feith, Under-secretary of Defence,
and the leadership of the Defence Department, including Dunny
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the cabal of Richard, Iraqis will
greet the invasion troops with sweets, flowers, and songs, Perle
and his pal Kenneth cake walk to Baghdad Adelman whom under
tutelage of chief hate monger Michael, Iraqi children will sing, songs
about us for years to come Ledeen going on record by “Faster
Please” articles, and memos urging Bush administration to hasten
the attack on Iran, with other target countries to be specified after
such an event.
The expanded ‘Northern Gulf Affairs Office’ of Pentagon, renamed
the ‘Office of Special Plans’ (OSP), and placed under the direction
of Abram Shulsky, a contributor to the 2000 PNAC (Project for
New American Century) report (almost by now everyone knows
the Office of Special Plans as a rogue Administration faction
determined to find intelligence to support the Iraq War). But the
Iraq war was not the only remit assigned to it. Hence those
employed in OSP not only were busy producing their own version
of realities in Iraq, with respect to Saddam’s WMD, without any
regards to facts. They had time left for setting-up unofficial
meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a known muckraker, liar,
arms dealer implicated in the contra scandal of Regan presidency,
now become Iranian dissident. Despite CIA discounting the veracity
of any of the data from Manucher Ghorbanifar, however echoes
of ‘Curve Ball’ (the Iraqi informer whom brought the mobile
biological weapon factories of Saddam, the same trucks that were
used for filling weather balloons with hydrogen gas).
Despite the fact that Michael Ledeen held no official US
government position, yet he met Ghorbanifar in Rome, along
with Larry Franklin an Iran analyst in the Pentagon tapped by
Douglas Feith. Larry Franklin currently is serving a long jail
sentence for espionage, passing sensitive information on Iran to
employees of AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee)
and Israeli diplomats in Israeli Embassy in Washington. Further
two of Franklin’s partners in crime are currently facing trials in
US, however diplomatic immunity has spared the diplomats
involved from facing legal actions, although the Israeli Ambassador
to US has since changed.
Larry Franklin started his career as a spy in August 2002 and
began passing classified information involving United States policy
towards Iran to two AIPAC employees and an Israeli diplomat.
Franklin pleaded guilty to the charges in October 2005, explaining
that he had been hoping to force the US to take a harder line with
Iran, but AIPAC and Israel have continued to deny this.
Meanwhile the discussions in Rome in the cold December of 2001
were centred around allegations that Iranian forces were killing
US soldiers in Afghanistan (not a very original current charge that
has replaced the country of Afghanistan with Iraq, and keeping
to the old narrative), as recollected by Mr. Ledeen, however
Ghorbanifar recants the debate centring around regime change
in Iran. Further, public domain data points to senior Administration
officials, including then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen
Hadley and the leadership of the Defence Department, including
Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defence Wolfowitz, and Douglas
Feith, allegedly authorized a series of meetings between Defence
Department officials and Anti-Iranian agents abroad. The gamut
of the so called dissident stretched to even include Mojahedeen
e Khalgh (MEK) whose military base (Camp Ashraf) was set up
by Saddam, just outside Baghdad, with their sole aim being to
attack Iranians alongside the attacking Iraqis during the bloody
war that Saddam waged on Iran. The court photos of the leaders
of MEK being granted audience with Saddam, and the usual
photographs for posterity are plentiful.
The curious fact that MEK is classified as a terrorist organisation
by successive US administrations, that is Clinton, as well as Bush
administration, in addition to classification of this group as terrorists
by the rest of International Community, somehow did not hinder
the Pentagon leadership from authorising such contacts. At the
same time, re-branding of MEK in August 2002, to the National
Counci l of Resis tance of Iran, substituted as political
representatives began the efforts to influence Western (ie US,
UK, Holland, and at times German) domestic political discourse.
This motley crew of desperadoes, ne’er-do-wells, and terrorists,
made their splash by holding a press conference in Washington
and informing the world, that Iran had a ‘secret nuclear’ facility at
Natanz, due for completion in 2003.
In early 2002, Ledeen set-up the Coalition for Democracy in Iran,
along with Morris Amitay, the former executive director of the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Subsequent
to which the MEK members were introduced to Fox News, Sky
News, etc. as Iran analysts, these rent an expert mob, including
some so called journalists began the drip, drip of misinformation,
and concocted fantasies, lies, and untruths as the realities
concerning Iran. The result of which is the recent Senator Joe
Lieberman (another Israel firster), comments retorting to Ali Larijani
speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy (11/02/
2007), Holy Joe went on record; ‘’the image portrayed by Mr.
Larijani is not the image of Iran that we have’’.
Although Holy Joe relied heavily on the ignorance of his recipient
audience of the facts that have been set out so far. Confident
that the disinformation campaign has succeeded in obfuscating
the facts surrounding Iran’s attempts to satiate the energy needs
of her population.
At this point revisiting the facts, and restating the actualities, could
in effect clarify the situation.
A- Iran does not have any nuclear weapons capability.
B- Iranian crude oil is shipped out as exports, however, re-imported
derivatives of oil (ie refined fuel oils, gasoline, petrol etc.) to Iran,
have left Iran with massive bills, and their adverse effects on
balanced budgets. This is mainly due to the eight years of war
waged by Saddam at behest of his masters, mainly successive
administration of US, UK, aka The West. During which Iranian oil
refineries, were prime targets for destruction, as well as all the
industrial oil infrastructure.
C- Post the costly war of Saddam on Iran. All Iranian efforts to
reinstate the lost infrastructures, through the various contracts
by differing suppliers have been stymied (got nowhere). Through
contractors dragging their heels, the equipment deliveries not
taking place, additional costings introduced, etc. This being the
result of unilateral unofficial sanctions imposed on Iran by US.
D- Iranian power nuclear reactor building programme started
during the late sixties, early seventies, based on the estimated
depletion of oil around the late eighties, and nineties, for replacing
the oil based energy production (Iran has been in nuclear research
since 1950). This nuclear power programme came to an abrupt
halt after the revolution, by contractors upping sticks and walking
out (breach of contract in international law). Also due to the
sanctions put in place by US, subsequently no contractors were
available to finish the costly initial stages put in place. Also Saddam
had made sure whatever was put in place was heavily bombarded
too.
E- Iranians have learnt through bitter experience, they cannot
rely on any source for supply of their nuclear fuel to run their
nuclear reactors. History has taught Iran that money does not
necessarily talk, standing witness is the Iranian investment in a
nascent nuclear fuel production company Eurodif (European
Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment) in France.
E1- In 1973 France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden formed the joint
stock company EURODIF. Sweden withdrew from the project in
1974.
E2- In 1975 Sweden’s 10 per cent share in EURODIF went to Iran
as a result of an arrangement between France and Iran. The
French government subsidiary company Cogema and the Iranian
Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne
pour l’enrichissement de l’uranium par diffusion gazeuse)
enterprise with 60 per cent and 40 per cent shares, respectively.
In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25 per cent share in EURODIF, which
gave Iran its 10 per cent share of EURODIF.
E3- In 1974, the Shah (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi) lent 1
billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the
construction of the factory, to have the right to buy 10% of the
production.
E4- Despite the ownership of the company Iran has no voice in
the affairs of these companies, as well as others in Germany, and
elsewhere. ie The Iranians are good enough as cash cows, but
their wishes cannot be asserted, in other words; ‘Iranians should
pony up the cash, and not heard’. Hence no nuclear fuel either!
F- Considering the time lines of the long running nuclear power
production, and considering the sanctions and arbitrary
application of international laws. Iranians have learned to rely on
their own infrastructure, hence the dogged attempts for in house
nuclear fuel enrichment. As it is patently obvious that nuclear
reactors do not run on biofuels ie Cow Dung.
G- This is further reinforced by the unsuccessful attempts IAEA in
1980s that sought to put in place a guarantee of nuclear fuel
supply, and security of supply of fuel for nuclear reactors, by
appointing a committee to explore such an aim. Despite the seven
years long efforts of the appointed committee for this reason, no
such construct was arrived at, and or proposed. Hence the
sporadic and uncertain availability of nuclear fuel supplies, make
the provision of nuclear fuel to be mandatory and indigenous for
any nation seeking to develop civil nuclear programmes within
the frame of NPT.
H- In the current hysterical climate of rants and ravings of the
current administration in the White House, and their mercenary
proxies in Israel. The notions of a civil nuclear power in Iran has
been successfully misconstrued as an attempt in production of
nuclear weapons. Which in turn this fantasy has been the basis
of the naked aggression and debates about attacking Iran.
I- Considering Israel has 400 nuclear bombs, including
thermonuclear bombs (hydrogen bombs), and delivery vehicles
for these weapons of mass destruction, in the shape of ballistic
missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and
aircraft, as well as the secondary retaliatory capacity of the dolphin
class submarines donated by Germany. Israel’s constant
harangues of being i n danger, of being over run, and or
annihilation, despite its 400 time over plus the submarine launched
secondary retaliatory for destruction of any probable adversary.
Including adversaries even as big as Europe could not match this
kind of fire power Israel has at her disposal, somehow are not
classed as fantasies, and is never challenged.
I2- Further the heavy calibre propaganda, and evermore
vociferous threats of attacks on Iran, by US, Israel, including the
option of Israel attacking Iran on her own. As well as the debates
about using nuclear weapons in these attacks. Astonishingly such
a belligerent posturing by these bellicose operatives is going
unchallenged in the corporate media. The firm belief that Iran
cannot defend herself, in the face of the aggression of the
belligerents, rooted in the confidence that Iran does not have
any nuclear weapons, is edging the world towards a global
conflagration.
J- The absurdity of an attack on Iran, a country that has followed
the international laws to the letter, a signatory to IAEA, a country
that has been subject to the most strict regime of inspections by
the IAEA, in the history of this organisation. Is further compounded
by the chapter seven resolution of the UN Security Council. All
the while, Israel a country that manifestly and evidently has
exhibited not to be bound by any constraints of international law,
and has never entertained to ratify NPT, or be subject to the
scrutiny of IAEA, does not even get a mention in the same august
council such as UNSC. So much for United Nations being part of
any solutions, deja vu league of nations!
K- The stupefaction of the captive Western Audiences, by the
same corporate media, have further promoted venality of their
respective Western Administrations, in which a handful of political
leaders have been busy making grave decisions, based on partial
information, and their gut feelings, resulting in the fiasco that we
all witness in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As pointed out by
Carne Ross the British diplomat whom resigned his post in protest,
and is currently the voice of those without a voice.
L- The narrow world view brought about by such combination of
propaganda, and acquiescence of those political leaders in the
West, however is not shared by the rest of the world. Therefore,
with every drum beat of war, it is becoming clearer that the never
ending war that is currently under way. Further, appeasing these
partially informed warmongers, has patently resulted in the growing
appetites of these same warmongers, for even greater adventures,
in those far flung lands.
M- Hence the almost maniacal and mad rhetoric that makes no
sense to any other leader whom is remotely aware of the facts on
the ground, bringing about the very real and high probability of a
global war, which could very quickly and suddenly escalate into a
full and final nuclear exchange.
N- This is reflected in the remarks of President Putin of Russia, in
his speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy
(10/02/2007) during which he heavily attacked the unilateral
approach the US was taking. Stating that her increasing disdain
of fundamental principles of international law was provoking a
new arms race in the world, he said. “The US have trespassed
the limits in almost all concerns,”. Putin went on to say; the
monopolar world order had not proved to be efficient. Quite the
contrary was the case – the end of the Cold War had produced
by far more casualties and armed conflicts than ever before, he
said. In his opinion this development was caused by the attempt
of the US to attempt to solve problems unilaterally, yet the results
were human tragedies. The natural consequence according to
Mr. Putin was that the fundamental principles of international law
were disdained in a world where “nobody felt safe.” “Why is it
necessary nowadays to start bombing and shooting on any given
occasion?”
P- It is up to us all to start affording the majority of the people
whom have been in the merciless clutches of our corporate media,
and highest echelons of power. By teachings these masses, these
victims of propaganda the realities, and actualities on the ground.
Among our goals to remind people that being anti Zionist-
Supremacy is not an anti-Semitic gaol, it is in fact aiding those
poor Jews whom are suffering along with the rest of the world in
the hands of the few Supremacist whom seem to shout the loudest,
it is time we all joined together and out shouted the Zionist-
Supremacists, and their paymasters. Remembering what colonel
Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell
maintains; “The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations
with Tehran, in May 2003”
In May 2003, Iran made efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution
with the United States, these efforts were sabotaged by Vice
President Cheneys office, and the usual suspects in OSP, now
renamed to Iran Directorate, with subsequent increased anti Iran
activity directed at Congress. An “Iran Freedom Support Act” was
introduced in the House and Senate in January and February of
2005. Neoconservatives and individuals linked to the defence
contracting industry formed an Iran Policy Committee, and in April
and May presented briefings in support of MEK before the newlycreated
Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the House
of Representatives. By setting up the Iranian Directorate within
the Pentagon the administration has been able to avoid both
Congressional oversight and interference from Director of National
Intelligence who was sceptical about using force against Iran. The
White House also successfully stalled the release of a fresh
National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which reflects there is no
evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
In summation, the Bush Administration seems to have concluded
that, it can circumvent the US laws, along with International Laws,
and attack Iran, transforming the Persian Gulf to Yankee Gulf, by
continuing to maintain that the Persian Gulf belongs to Americans,
and not to Persians, setting the stage for a potential military strike.
Further the very recent remarks of US Defence Secretary Robert
Gates said Washington needed sufficient forces to combat large
armies and special units to fight terrorism, adding that
developments in countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran and
China were unpredictable. That is on top of the establishment of
Pentagons Africa Command Office that is assigned the task of
containing China in Africa.
Finally, considering the vast untapped oil reserves in Falklands,
Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere in the territories of US, UK, it is a
stark choice that the rest of the world is faced with, total destruction
of their nations based on the scenario surrounding the depletion
of the current resources of oil, and then remaining at the mercy
of the US, UK, for their energy needs, which increases the
likelihoods of a global conflagration by many folds. Hence the
next time you read the news rags, and or watch the nice man on
the telly spewing drivel ad infinitum, remember, these little wars in
those far flung lands, are creeping ever closer to home, and you
and your loved ones have no underground shelters to survive
the onslaught of the probable attacks, that have been long in
provocation by our dear fearless political leaderships.
+++
AM I ANGRY?
by Alan Trotter
Neither spectator nor victim, maybe not, but I am angry. I am
angry that my government have supported America in the invasion
of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, that my government is
responsible for the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi people and countless
injures both mental and physical to the surviving population.
I am angry that my government caused the deaths of 130 British
soldiers and are now trying to deny the deaths of 30 of them by a
different calculating system, I’m angry that my government refers
to slaughtered humans as collateral damage and I’m tired of the
lies after lies after lies.
All this money I pay in taxes to support a bunch of lying politicians,
to kill and maim innocent people, to rip the souls from our brothers
and sisters and worst of all, the destruction of children (Save the
children say up to 260,000 children may have died since the 2003
invasion), my friends we have all seen the pictures, we have all
felt the heartache and shed the tears for the slaughter of the
innocents, and we have been sending our own children into war,
17 year olds have been sent to Iraq to take part in the insane
cruelty of war, these kids are unable to legally buy a pint of beer at home but this government expects them to take part in the
foulest of deeds and activities.
The abuse of human rights continues with the continuing
occupation of Iraq and we now have the very real threat of the
attack on Iran.
Many people around me still mock at the seriousness of this
dreadful situation telling me I’m on the ‘hippy highway for a peaceful
paradise’ that is not going to happen and the usual ‘what can you
do about it’, your wasting your time.
I know that with the support of my brothers and sisters, from all
walks of life, of all creeds, all colours and all religions my time is
not wasted and together we can do something about it, so we can
invite the doubters to join us on highway to peace.
Neither spectator nor victim?, maybe I am, I see it from the TV
and computer and my government makes me pay my taxes to
support their war, maybe I am a victim, a very angry one.
+++
If the War goes on
by John Bell
[South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition gratefully thanks John Bell
for this contribution. Words and music by John L Bell (C) 2002 WGRG,
Iona Community, G2 3DH]
If the war goes on and the children die of hunger,
And the old men weep for the young men are no more,
And the women learn how to dance without a partner
Who will keep the score?
If the war goes on and the truth is taken hostage,
And new horrors lead to the need to euphemise,
When the calls for peace are declared unpatriotic,
Who will expose the lies?
If the war goes on and the daily bread is terror,
And the voiceless poor take the road as refugees,
And a nations pride destines millions to be homeless,
Who will heed their pleas?
If the war goes on and the rich increase their fortunes
And the arms sales soar as new weapons are displayed,
When a fertile field turns to no-mans land tomorrow,
Who’ll approve such trade/
If the war goes on will we close the doors of heaven,
If the war goes on will we breach the gates of hell,
If the war goes on will we ever be forgiven,
If the war goes on….and on….and on…?
+++
Neither Spectators Nor Victims, by Phil Talbot
On our small local scale, in forums and publications, South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition aims to widen the range of public debate.
Our intention is not to provide 'answers' for people to swallow, but to encourage people to think more freely and widely for themselves.
Our present theme, 'Neither Spectators Nor Victims', widens the two main Stop The War spring 2007 campaign themes (which are):
* No Trident Replacement
* Troops Out of Iraq
Politics ought not to be a ‘game’ played by a few ‘significant players’– with everyone else reduced to ‘spectators’ or ‘victims’.
Yet it is often reported in this way by the mainstream media.
Consider the U.S.-led 'Shock and Awe' bombing attack on Iraq in 2003.
It was directed by a few rich and powerful people - against majority public opinion.
It was presented as if a spectacular 'firework display' for television viewers - far distanced from the realities of the bombings as actually experienced by fellow human beings.
Tens of thousands of civilians died or were maimed or were psychologically scarred in that 'spectacular tv show'.
Most of these 'victims' were given no real human identities in the mainstream media coverage - indeed, shamefully, their lives and deaths were barely acknowledged.
The bulk of the people experiencing the attack were reduced to 'victims' or 'spectators' in an 'artificial reality' - in which civilian deaths on a massive scale caused by American and British weapons were 'denied'.
With potential nuclear weapon use, this 'victim'/'spectator' process would be terribly magnified.
The nuclear weapons programmes are directed by a small 'power elite' - against majority public opinion.
They would be used on the decisions of small groups of people - lurking in bunkers.
In a nuclear war, the rest of humanity would be reduced to roles of victims or spectators of the 'spectacular' nuclear bomb-blast 'shows'.
British domestic politics is often reduced to a 'spectator event' centring on the Westminster Village 'political drama' - mostly trivial antics of a few 'significant players'.
Of late, for example, much attention has been directed to the relatively unimportant issue of whether or not Tory leader Mr David Cameron smoked dope when a privileged Eton schoolboy two decades ago.
Concentration on such 'personality' issues seems little more than a distraction from more serious political issues.
While attention is directed towards such issues as whether Mr Cameron smoked dope two decades ago, the more serious issue of the replacement of Trident is barely discussed at all.
Updating the Trident nuclear mass murder system will cost British tax payers an estimated immediate £25 billion - while the overall costs of maintaining Trident will be an estimated £75 billion.
Those billions could be better spent on training tens of thousands of new nurses and teachers - and other life-enhancing measures.
Instead the billions will be spent on weapons that could kill millions of people.
One Trident warhead could wipe out a city of 1 million people – and the UK has 200 such Trident warheads.
Trident ties UK to US foreign and military policy - and is essentially an American mass murder system, not an 'independent British nuclear deterrent'.
Trident replacement would violate the nuclear weapon Non-Proliferation Treaty - the very treaty the UK government is accusing North Korea and Iran of 'violating'.
Those of us trying to encourage serious debate of such issues often find ourselves faced by a widespread sense of political 'disillusionment' and 'disinterest'.
People seem resigned to their roles of 'spectators or victims' - and the 'power elite' get away with scandalous abuses of power on a huge scale.
Studies of underlying public opinion reveal a deep political disillusionment.
A majority of people seem to view the electoral process as a 'charade' - played out by large money donors, party leaders and the advertizing and public relations industries, with crafted role-playing candidates saying almost anything to get themselves elected.
On most issues citizens cannot identify the precise policies of parties and candidates - as probably intended by those involved in the 'political spin' processes.
Issues on which popular opinions differ from mainstream 'power elite' opinion are excluded from 'political debate' as reported in the mainstream media.
Voters feel themselves directed to 'personal qualities' of candidates rather than 'issues'.
A majority of people feel themselves not to be truly 'active citizens', but at best 'powerless spectators', at worst 'passive victims' - and have little sense as to how they could be 'empowered'.
What remains of 'electoral democracy' seems a 'choice' between very similar 'commodities'.
Radical thinkers like Noam Chomsky have suggested that this is a quite deliberately and cynically contrived set-up:
(He said:) 'Business leaders have long explained the need to impose on … populations a "philosophy of futility" and "lack of purpose in life" to "concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption".
Deluged by such propaganda from infancy, people may then accept … subordinated lives and forget … ideas about managing their own affairs.
They may abandon their fate to corporate managers and the PR industry and ... to the self-described "intelligent minorities" who serve and administer power.'
Mr Chomsky and others have suggested that there are two main forces at work in current history:
* One, American-led corporate capitalism, is aiming towards global dominance and threatening the survival of humanity;
* The other, an international anti-war movement, is dedicated to the belief that 'another world is possible' – and is challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought, actions and institutions'.
Those of us who believe 'another world is possible' can find a common cause in defence of the dignity and rights of all fellow human beings - which seem presently threatened.
We ought not to be submitting to the roles assigned to us by the so called 'power elites'.
We ought not to be 'spectators' or 'victims' - in a violent and essentially nihilistic political narrative, devized by a small minority of rich and powerful people to maintain themselves in power.
We ought to be resisting the wars and anti-humanitarian measures of the Bushite administration and its allies.
Our present task ought to be to consolidate the anti-war movement.
Our long-term aim ought to be to bring to power anti-war pro-people governments, with political arrangements that put the well-being of living human beings at their centre.
+++
Get Active
by Alan Newham
“Words and writing were all nothing and must die, for action is the
life of all and if thou dost not act, thou dost nothing”
Digger, Gerrard Winstanly, 1649
Our forum has taken as its theme: Neither Spectator or Victim,
referring as it does to ordinary people who are regarded as mere
spectators of world events and to those more unfortunate who
become victims of death and suffering at the hands of those whom
they have no control over.
A sort of contradiction has developed in more recent times; despite
claims that Democracy is in the hands of the voter a dangerous
concentration of power and decision making has emerged in the
hands of the equally dangerous few.
The continuous production of weapons of mass destruction,
nuclear or otherwise together with globalised economic conflict
seems to have taken on a momentum of such apparent inevitability
so as to appear as if there is no alternative to the wars and conflicts
inflicted on ordinary people.
Contrast this with the so called era of the “Individual” where we
are told that we are free with the time and resources to live an
“Individual” life and successfully pursue our goals without having
to act collectively or to rely on others. This argument is especially
put forward in advanced western countries. It’s as if power is telling
us to get on with our individual lives so that power can carry out
its own agenda without ever having to consult us.
If freedom and individuality can be argued as being the same
thing then we should be able to determine the nature of that
freedom. Power has no right to determine it for us.
We should not be fooled into believing in the inevitability of events,
this will lead us over time to such an alienation from any
involvement in events as to make us believe that it is the natural
state of things.
The fly in the ointment of this gloomy picture is of course the
millions of ordinary people around the world who stand up to wars
and corruption. Public opinion is now against the war in Iraq both
in the U.S. and elsewhere yet the U.S. continues a military build
up for a possible attack on Iran. In the U.K. we have the prospect
of paying £70bn for an upgraded Trident missile programme.
Meanwhile our soldiers continue to be killed and injured fighting
an illegal war as part of the U.S. programme of world domination.
Gerrard Winstanly was right – get active, ask questions, start a
debate with friends and people at work, write to your newspaper
and M.P. and join a demonstration. If we don’t, we do nothing.
+++
Letter to the Guardian and
South Shields Gazette
by Alan Newham
Dear Madam/Sir
Frank Field former Labour Minister is urging South Shields M.P.
David Miliband to stand for the Labour Party leadership (Guardian
10th Feb). Mr. Field asks whether the next stage of the New
Labour Project is best taken forward “..by a candidate who is not
linked in the public mind with what will be seen as stage one of
New Labour’s journey. Step forward David Miliband.”
Could this be the same David Miliband who has never once
rebelled against the Government, supporting everything it has
done during stage one, and to my knowledge has never conceded
that he was wrong about the invasion of Iraq after supporting the
claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
The first thing David Miliband should do if he wants the respect
and the votes of the people of South Shields is to acknowledge
that he was mistaken in believing everything the Government told
him regarding the reasons we went to into an illegal war with Iraq.
Yours faithfully
Alan Newham - February 15th , 2007
+++
Neither Spectators Nor Victims, by Phil Talbot
On our small local scale, in our forums and publications, South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition aims to widen the range of public debate.
Our intention is not to provide 'answers' for people to swallow, but to encourage people to think more freely and widely for themselves.
Our present theme 'Neither Spectators Nor Victims' aims to widen the range of the main Stop The War spring 2007 campaign themes:
* No Trident Replacement
* Troops Out of Iraq
Neither spectators nor victims.
Whoever we are, we all have a common cause in defence of the dignity and rights of all fellow human beings at a time when they are threatened.
We ought not to be submitting to the roles assigned to us by the so called 'power elites'.
We ought not to be 'spectators' or 'victims' in a violent and essentially nihilistic political narrative - devized by a small minority of rich and powerful people to maintain themselves in power.
We ought to be resisting the wars and anti-humanitarian measures of the Bushite administration and its allies.
Our task ought to be to consolidate the anti-war movement.
Our long-term aim ought to be to bring to power anti-war pro-people governments, with political arrangements that put the well-being of living human beings at their centre.
Politics ought not to be a spectator sport 'played' by a few.
Yet it is often reported in the mainstream media as if the public is no more than a crowd of gapers - spectating the antics of a few significant 'players'.
Consider the U.S.-led 'Shock and Awe' bombing attack on Iraq in 2003.
It was directed by a few rich and powerful people - against majority public opinion.
It was presented as if a spectacular 'firework display' for television viewers - far distanced geographically, culturally and psychologically - from the cruel realities of the bombings as actually experienced by fellow human beings.
Tens of thousands of civilians died or were maimed or were psychologically scarred in that 'spectacular tv show'.
Most of these 'victims' were given no real human identities in the mainstream media coverage - indeed, shamefully, their lives and deaths were barely acknowledged.
The bulk of the people experiencing the attack were reduced to the status of passive 'victims' or 'spectators' of an artificial reality - in which civilian deaths on a massive scale caused by American and British weapons were 'denied'.
With potential nuclear weapon use, this 'victim'/'spectator' process would be grossly magnified.
The nuclear weapons programmes are directed by a small 'power elite' - against majority public opinion.
They would be used on the decisions of small groups of people - lurking in bunkers.
In a nuclear war, the rest of humanity would be reduced to roles of victims or spectators of the 'spectacular' nuclear bomb-blast 'shows'.
The underlying thinking of modern 'power elites' is well illustrated by some comments by Ron Suskind, an American journalist:
'In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that
the White House didn't like ... I had a meeting with a senior advizer to Bush ... he told me something that at that time I didn't fully comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community', which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality'. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works any more,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
In Britain, politics is often reduced to a 'spectator event' centring on the Westminster Village 'political drama' - mostly trivial antics of a few 'significant players'.
Of late, for example, much attention has been focussed on the relatively unimportant issue of whether or not Tory leader Mr David Cameron did or did not smoke dope when a privileged Eton schoolboy two decades ago.
Concentration on such 'personality' issues seems nothing more than a massive distraction from real political issues.
Which of the following is the most truly significant question about Mr Cameron? Did he:
a. smoke dope when an Eton schoolboy two decades ago?
b. vote for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003?
c. write considerable parts of the last Tory party 2005 general election manifesto - widely regarded as an extremely ultra-nationalistic reactionary document, particularly in its attacks on 'asylum seekers'?
d. work as a political advisor in the Treasury at the time of Black Wednesday in September 1992, one of the worst examples of financial mismanagement in British political history?
While attention is focussed on such relatively trivial issues as whether a priviliged public schoolboy smoked dope two decades ago, the somewhat more serious issue of the replacement of Trident is barely discussed at all.
Updating the Trident nuclear mass murder system will cost British tax payers an estimated immediate £25 billion - while the overall costs of maintaining Trident will be an estimated £75 billion.
Life or death choices.
Would £25 billion be better spend on a mass murder weapons system? or to pay for 120,000 new nurses each year for 10 years? or to pay for 60,000 new teachers each year for 20 years?
One Trident warhead could wipe out a city of 1 million people.
The UK has 200 Trident warheads.
Trident ties UK to US foreign and military policy - and is essentially an American mass murder system, not an 'independent British nuclear deterrent'.
Trident replacement would violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - the very treaty the UK government is accusing North Korea and Iran of 'violating'.
Those of us trying to encourage any kind of serious debate of this kind of serious issue often find ourselves faced by a widespread sense of political 'disillusionment' and 'disinterest'.
People seem resigned to their roles of 'spectators or victims' - and the 'power elite' get away with scandalous abuses of power on a huge scale.
For example, there is a widespread suspicion that the 2000 election that brought the Bushite administration to power was 'stolen', but most people did not seem to care whether the election was 'stolen' or not.
The 'indifference' relating to this and other serious 'political scandals' is revealing.
Studies of underlying public opinion reveal a deep political disillusionment.
A majority of people express opinions suggesting they view the electoral process as a 'charade' - played out by large contributors, party leaders and the advertizing and public relations industries, with crafted role-playing candidates saying almost anything to get themselves elected.
On most issues citizens cannot identify the precise policies of parties and candidates - as probably intended by those involved in the 'political spin' processes.
Issues in which popular opinions differ from mainstream 'power elite' opinion are excluded from 'political debate' as reported in the mainstream media.
Voters feel themselves directed to 'personal qualities' of candidates rather than 'issues'.
A majority of people feel themselves not to be truly 'active citizens', but at best 'powerless spectators', at worst 'passive victims' - and have little sense as to how they could be 'empowered'.
What remains of 'electoral democracy' seems a 'choice' between very similar 'commodities'.
Noam Chomsky, in Hegemony Or Survival [2004], suggests this is a quite deliberately and cynically contrived set-up:
'Business leaders have long explained the need to impose on the populations a "philosophy of futility" and "lack of purpose in life" to "concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption". Deluged by such propaganda from infancy, people may then accept their meaningless and subordinated lives and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They may abandon their fate to corporate managers and the PR industry and, in the political realm, to the self-described "intelligent minorities" who serve and administer power. From this perspective, conventional in "elite" opinion, the November 2000 elections did not reveal a flaw in US democracy, but rather its triumph.'
Mr Chomsky, goes on to clarify his view of the main contemporary 'political division':
'One can discern two trajectories in current history: one [American-led corporate capitalism] aiming towards hegemony, acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens [the] survival [of humanity]; the other dedicated to the belief that "another world is possible", in the words that animate the World Social Forum, challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought, actions and institutions.'
And that, on our small local scale, is what we in South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition are trying to do: 'challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought, actions and institutions ...'
+++
Lifting The Veils Of Deception:
Deliberately Confusing 'Secret-Security'/'State-Terror' Networks, by Phil Talbot
A common misunderstanding about 'secret security'/'state-terror' networks is that they are well-organized and rationally efficient.
In fact, they operate in systems of virtual 'administrative anarchy' - an 'alphabet soup' of changing code-named groupings - with each group suspicious of - and often spying on - every other - and, effectively, 'competing' against each other, usually to meet vague 'targets' broadly suggested by ambiguously worded 'executive orders'.
The irrationality of the state-terror 'organization' actually encourages irrational behaviour lower down its 'command chain' - it 'brings out the worst in people' in other words - 'hence', for example the disgusting spectacles of physical and sexual abuse of other human beings by American and British troops forces in the jails of Iraq.
For the 'power-elite' this 'administrative anarchy' has certain advantages:
* no explicit 'abuse', 'torture', or even 'kill', orders have to be issued - so 'responsibility' can always be denied;
[A classic example of this is to be found in the history of Nazi Germany - no explicit 'kill Jewish people' order was issued for the Holocaust by the gang at the top of the Nazi state: all they had to do was set the tone of the anti-Jewish ideology, then set up the state-terror structures ... and let events take their terrible courses ...]
* the general state of uncertainty and confusion - in the shifting group designations and vague, ambiguous orders [for example, what does an order to be 'harsh' to prisoners really mean?] - prevents anyone really understanding what is going on - including those directly involved - so 'deniability' is built into the course of events
* individuals low down the command-chain can be 'scape-goated' if media reports and/or popular opinions turn against aspects of the state-terror activity.
The present American-led state-terror operation that is known as 'the war on terror', contains many typical examples of this 'Administrative Anarchy ... Alphabet Zoup' [AA...AZ].
Documents unearthed by the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], for example, show quite clearly that:
* 'undirected' abuse, torture and even murder of Iraqis by the US Marine Corps [USMC] in Iraq has been widespread
[By 'undirected' is meant: occurring as part of an almost 'inevitable' course of events when a large and powerful army is in a war zone during a period of protracted and confusing conflict - 'these things happen' in other words, but it is a mistake to regard them as 'accidents', or else solely the fault of 'rogue individuals' ... because when the 'power elites' launch operations such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, they KNOW in advance that 'these things will happen', and that elements of their forces will run 'out of control' ...]
* running alongside this 'official' military operation - in which the abuses can be blamed on individual 'rogue' troops - there is a clandestine network of even harder-edged and deliberately brutal 'special operations' - done by 'task forces' going under various coded designations
* other more traditional elements of the American state - including the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] and the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] are 'investigating' - and in other ways 'competing' with these clandestine 'special operations' units
[This is probably best understood in terms of 'turf wars' between competing 'intelligence' agencies.]
* president George W. Bush personally issued an ambiguous 'Executive Order' authorizing the use of extreme 'interrogation' methods in his 'War on Terror'.
Documents sourced to the FBI refer specifically to a 'Presidential Executive Order' as authorizing the use of sleep deprivation, physical stress positioning, sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, and even intimidatory use of military dogs, in 'interrogations' of 'terror suspects'.
The documents further detail an account by an apparent FBI agent who had 'observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees', including 'strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings'.
Other sources suggest Bush personally signed an ambiguously labelled top secret 'finding' shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which authorized the setting up of clandestine teams of 'special forces' - given his 'authority' to pursue, arrest - and even assassinate - suspected 'high value' al Qaeda operatives 'anywhere in the world'.
This was the origin of the Special Access Program [SAP], which has operated under different names in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
SAP involves 'secret interrogation centers' in 'allied countries' where 'harsh treatments' are used - 'unconstrained by legal limits of public discourse'.
Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was personally responsible for the expansion of SAP into the terror-prison system used against detainees in Iraq.
One of the 'ground-level' American state-terror groups operating in Iraq was so-called 'Task Force 121' - which seems to have been a sub-unit of SAP.
In December 2003 a fact-finding mission was set up by mainstream American Generals disturbed by reports of systematic abuses by U.S. troops.
The 'mission' included an investigation of the activities of Task Force 121.
It found that it was made up primarily of soldiers from two Army 'special mission units' - who were operating outside orthodox military command.
Task Force 121's existence was 'not officially acknowledged by the Pentagon' - so its activities had built-in 'deniability'.
Members of Task Force 121 were observed 'beating detainees and using a secret facility to hide its interrogations'.
It hardly needs to be said that what such people let others 'observe' of their activities was only likely to be the 'tip of the iceberg' of those activities.
What the 'special mission units' have been up to when they are not being 'observed' is likely to be much worse.
Several of Task Force 121's members were later put under 'criminal investigation' for the deaths of two prisoners in its custody - in other words, individuals were 'scape-goated' to protect people higher up the chain-of-command.
In June 2004 the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] had investigators assigned to Iraq to observe the activities of Task Force 6-26 - which is either a variant of Task Force 121 or else an associated group.
The DIA people observed 'prisoners arriving at the Temporary Detention Facility in Baghdad with burn marks on their backs. Some have bruises and some complained of kidney pain'.
They saw Task Force 6-26 officers 'punch a prisoner in the face to the point that the individual needed medical attention'.
Such reported incidents of abuse - buried as 'throwaway incidentals' in Pentagon documents reporting the activities of one state agency spying on another - can again be regarded as 'tips of the iceberg'.
Meanwhile, it must be a fact that British clandestine 'secret security'/'state-terror' activities have been enmeshed with these American ones.
Tips of that British state-terror 'iceberg' are suggested by the fact that several dozen individual British armed forces personnel have been investigated and some brought before courts - or 'scape-goated' in other words - over 'abuse' allegations - including at least 20 for allegedly killing Iraqis.
+++
What's The International Situation?, by Phil Talbot
Half a century ago, in 1957, a group of cosmopolitan radicals set up the 'International Situationist' grouping, with a view to doing 'a total critique ... of every aspect of modern capitalism and its generalized system of illusions'.
Their main intention was to challenge a globalized corporate capitalist 'false culture' - which reduced most people to 'spectators' and/or 'victims'.
'All that was once directly lived has become mere representation. The spectacle is the very heart of society's real unreality.'
What has changed in the 50 years since the International Situationists started their work?
Totalitarian forms of communism have faded away ... but other forms of limiting, small-worlded, closed-minded, systematic 'tyrannies' [Incorporated] have emerged ...
And in reaction to the confusions of 'globalism', many seem to be shrinking - depressingly - into 'nationalisms' of one sort or another.
[George Orwell's definition of 'nationalism': 'The habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad". ... The habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good or evil and
recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with Patriotism.']
Guy Debord was one of the founders of the International Situationists.
He wrote a few short books, of which The Society of The Spectacle published in 1967, was the most well known, and provided his most defining phrase.
It consisted of 221 brief theses, and was written 'with deliberate intention of doing harm to the spectacular society'.
He wrote this knowingly, as an ironic joke - knowing that books, being by their slow-working nature 'unspectacular', tended to have little immediate impact on society ... but yet, through the slow-burning impact of their contents, could nevertheless change people's minds dramatically ... eventually ...
Mr Debord was a radical who defied categorization - and was, unnaturally enough, 'categorized' out of individualized human existence by the corporate capitalist processes he challenged.
['Categorization' - a process by which individuality is denied; a process by which Admass Inc. defuses the 'threat' - usually imagined rather than real - of potentially 'subversive' individuals.
'Incorporation' - a process by which individuals are absorbed and - one way or another - destroyed by corporations.]
A news agency report on Guy's death in 1994 labelled him 'an avante-garde essayist' who had denounced 'the show-biz society'.
For 'avante-garde essayist' read: 'free-thinker'.
For 'the show-biz society' read: 'the society of the spectacle'.
Guy Debord: 'Beyond a legacy of old books and old buildings, still of some significance, but destined to continual reductions ... there remains nothing, in culture or in nature, which has not been transformed, and polluted, according to the means and interests of modern commerce.'
Various other ways of putting it Guy Debord's way:
'In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.'
'There is the life, and there is the consumer event, and the two do not match up.'
'All that was once directly lived has become mere representation. The spectacle is the very heart of society's real unreality. In all its specific manifestations - news or propaganda, advertizing or the actual consumption of entertainment - the spectacle epitomises the prevailing model of modern false social life.'
'Such a "perfect democracy" constructs its own inconceivable foe, "terrorism". Its wish is to be judged by its enemies rather than by its results. The story of terrorism is written by the state and it is therefore highly instructive. The spectators must certainly never know everything about terrorism, but they must always know enough to convince them that, compared with terrorism, everything else must be acceptable, or in any case more rational and democratic.'
Ultimately, he predicted, everything potentially 'subversive' to the 'spectacular' norms was 'incorporated' - i.e. trivialized [made pseudo-spectacular - hence, bland, safe, sellable],
or just ignored.
And even his 'harmful' phrase, 'society of the spectacle' became a 'harmless' catchphrase.
Reviews and Revisions: The intention of the International Situationists, set up in 1957, was to provide 'a total critique of the world as it exists, that is, of every aspect of modern capitalism and its generalized system of illusions'.
Guy Debord, Commentaries, 1988: 'For the first time in contemporary Europe, not a party or faction of a party even tries to pretend they wish to change anything significantly. The commodity is beyond criticism: as a general system and even as the particular forms of junk that the heads of industry choose to put on the market at any given time.'
In short: the bland led the bland in bland pursuits, while pretending it was wonderfully exciting, and nobody really seemed to care about anything much any more.
Towards the end of his life, Guy Debord suggested that in a 'unified' world of global admass culture - and of consequent trashy pseudo-analysis - there was nowhere for him to find the relief of private space any more - and the old option of exile was no longer a real option, given that t.v. cameras, etc, were able to penetrate any private retreat anywhere.
The powers of Admass Inc. to invade, disrupt, distort and ultimately destroy anything of real value seemed, indeed, apparently, limitless ...
Nothing seemed to matter any more, and the 'junk culture' seemed to be destroying everything that previously had had value ...
|
