AWOL Bush needs terrorism as its blanket excuse for intervention

newsviewsnolose@yahoogroups.com

AWOL Bush needs terrorism as its blanket excuse for intervention

2008-01-04: Only a few years ago, NATO forces captured a large number of Pakistani Taliban fighters in an Afghan-Pakistani border region, many of whom provided details about ISI funding and running Taliban training camps (even in Pakistan) and about ISI providing documents, money, and weapons. It is not surprising that a leaked report from the British Ministry of Defence in 2006 stated that "(...) indirectly, Pakistan, through the ISI, has been supporting terrorism and extremism". Among experts, it is an accepted fact that the "sophistication" of al-Qa'ida, in comparison to the Taliban, has a specific attraction to fundamentalist members of the higher echelons of ISI.

According to several reliable Western intelligence sources, ISI is riddled with al-Qa'ida sympathisers. Obviously, ISI (or elements of that organization) had a significant interest in stopping Ms Bhutto. Given the level of influence ISI has with the Taliban and with al-Qa'ida in Pakistan, neither would assassinate a prominent political figure in Pakistan without, at the very least, ISI's consent - but since ISI is also strongly influenced and partly funded by the CIA, it is nearly inconceivable that the high-profile execution of Ms Bhutto would have been possible without American approval.

A much larger scale

So let's widen the view. There are those outside of the Pakistani "domain" who benefit, and who benefit on a much larger scale. The White House has long accused President Musharraf (whose Presidency is a tight-rope-act between Westernism and Pakistani Islam) of not doing enough in the "War on Terror", but they can not intervene as long as Pakistan is a coherent state with a lot of anti-Americanism filling the state structure. So, rather than wait until Ms Bhutto would become Prime Minister and allow US forces under Pakistani "guidance" to hunt al-Qa'ida - and go through all the troubles of having US forces be "associated" with Pakistani politics - the US government would gladly see the state of Pakistan collapse.

That would enable larger deployment of US forces, for example, based upon the argument that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would no longer be safe. At the same time, the pretext of "bringing democracy to the Muslim world" would again be used, knowing full well that this would create more terrorists.

American military planning is already under way for a larger-scale intervention, this year; troops are already being prepared; for example, despite the official position that there are less than a hundred US military personnel in Pakistan, in Punjab, there are secret US military bases with troop levels totalling, at present, a few thousand - and Punjab isn't the only region that has US combat troops present.

Traditional mainstream media are being fed stories that underline the "need" for US intervention. Scenarios are already being floated to carve up Pakistan into "Greater Baluchistan" (which is now Pakistan's largest province) and some other new "states" in which to install puppet regimes.

Without success for the Enemy, you may no longer be sufficiently able to instill fear in the people and have them follow you.

NOTE: they are going to be doing the same things they did in the Cold War. We can already here it in such expression as, 'Whoever is not with us is against us.' They are going to be trying to use every bit of power they have to bring countries in line
behind the United States.

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=4239&blz=1

NOTE: Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

September 11 2006: The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/110906_b_Bush.htm

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.

Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse or protection and everything you type may be used against you to detain you in a secret prison.

Why Support Kucinich

by Dave Aldrich

Snohomish Observer

http://www.snohomishobserver.com

daaldrich@snohomish.net

I'm going to guess that most readers of this site (which may be only myself) hold the following positions on major issues:

1. •health care: universal, single-payer
   

2. •Iraq: withdraw immediately
   

3. •climate change: sign the Kyoto Accord; impose either a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, a carbon tax, or both; and assume a leadership role among nations to confront the issue globally
   

4. •abortion: support a woman's right to choose; remove any and all legal sanctions against those who have or perform abortions
   

5. •Iran: recognize that Iran has legitimate interests; refrain from bombing the country; use diplomacy rather than state violence to achieve ends
   

So, where do the candidates stand on these issues? More important, will a candidate emerge to become president whose positions reflect yours?

In your research, you will quickly ascertain that only one candidate on either side shares your views. That candidate is Dennis J. Kucinich.

However, judging by Mr. Kucinich's showing in yesterday's Iowa caucuses, you may reach one or more of the following conclusions:

1.There are actually very few people who share the above views on these major issues.

2.Kucinich is an extremely weak campaigner with an even weaker campaign organization.

3. The major media summarily dismissed Kucinich long before the presidential race began.
.

4. Acandidate's positions on these and other issues have little if any bearing on voters' preferences.

The Democratic candidate emerging victorious from yesterday's Iowa selection process was Senator Barack Obama. His positions on the above issues both depart from and coincide with those of Rep. Kucinich. Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start, but does not support immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. He favors universal health care, but only in good time; in the near term, he wants all children to be covered. On immigration, he voted to build a fence and wants tougher penalties for those who hire illegal aliens. On Iran, he favors talk over belligerence. His views on climate change parallel those of Kucinich. He also supports Roe v. Wade.

__._,_.___