Global war on "terrorism"
In 1980s, the United States and Israel created the concept of "international terrorism" to discredit the national liberation movements, accusing them of being tentacles of the Soviet beast. After the September 11 attacks, responsibility for quashing terrorism was taken away from the police and shifted to the military domain. For the Anglo-American ruling class, the "war against terrorism" had been envisaged as a means of affirming its control over trade routes (free maritime and air circulation), but it served the Bush administration and the Zionist movement to cloak their mistimed colonial adventures (Palestine, Afghanistan, Irak).
The same concept is used by the West to justify the setting up of an Orwellian surveillance society and by the Shangai Cooperation Organisation (Russia, China) to stymie the intrusion of the nomadic populations of Central Asia and to stabilise them by force.
The theory that sums up the destruction of the World Trade Center and production of fake magnetic cards in a suburb in France is part of the same plan, the same world terrorist organization, and is based only on the confessions of the “repentant of Al Qaeda.” However, in a more detailed analysis, those repentant are few and their testimonies are very doubtful, even not sincere at all. No court has been able, until later 2004, to show any evidence of the alleged links between the attacks in Europe and Al Qaeda. The repentant are still testifying, playing the game of the media and that of certain experts who take advantage of this to draw up hypotheses and advocate policies, bases only upon the alleged truth of those statements.
Periodically, media outlets report the arrest of Al-Qaeda members in Europe thus endorsing the US theory of an Islamic world conspiracy. However, in every case, the courts have rejected the accusations that say these people belong to a world terrorist organization. The sentences pronounced only mention common crimes or criminal projects that have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. In practice, the antiterrorist judicial steps and investigations only seem to be an indirect way to present those who oppose US-allied Arab governments as criminals and, at the same time, to maintain a good ideological behavior in the eyes of Washington.
To avoid the complex process of deploying classic military forces inherited from the Cold War, Donald Rumsfeld has developed mobile units capable of attacking all fronts: the Special Forces. However, far from energizing the system, they have brought to surface new rivalries within the army since the traditional forces now refuse to be stripped of their own prerogatives and their elite training. On the other hand, the spectacular actions carried out in Afghanistan or Iraq cannot replace whatsoever the traditional missions, like occupying and reconstructing a country. The Pentagon becomes more developed, but its effectiveness falls.
Indifferent to Colin Powell’s opposition, the "hawks" prepare the next stage to reshape the Middle East: the "liberation" of Lebanon and an attack on Syria. They are already preparing the indictment file to justify such operations with the same rhetoric they used for Iraq: supporting "international terrorism" and possessing weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon knows it can count on General Sharon, so anxious to establish a Maronite State in Lebanon and eliminate Palestinian resistance. Military deployment has been in place since June 2004.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq (...)
Thank you for asking me here to the Heritage Foundation. I’m pleased to be able to speak to you today about the Bush Administration’s efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The spread of weapons of mass destruction to state sponsors of terrorism and terrorist groups is, in my estimation, the gravest security threat we now face. States engaging in this behavior—some of them parties to international treaties prohibiting such activities—must be held accountable and (...)
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such (...)
Axis for Peace
A French September 11th?
The Yugoslav Caldron
Debunking the Islamic Trail