Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I forgot:
The Neocon Zionist Threat to America
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/
macgupta:
"The number of states that have "Islam" written in their constitution is a very much larger, and would make the case with much better statistics, e.g., that the OIC (Islamic Conference) states policies and actions are a manifestation of Islamic beliefs.
Okay, point taken. But
1) We aren't talking about Muslim States, we are talking about Israel. and, more importantly,
2) Yes, and we can go on CNN and MSNBC and write in the New York Times about how Islam is a religion of War, Islam is hateful, Islam is vioelnt at it's core, etc., etc., etc., and it is completely acceptable.
Now try to do the same thing, but substitute "Islam" with "Judaism." See if you are invited back on Larry King, ever. See how many cocktail parties at Georgetown you get invited to.
As a matter of explanation, not apology, this kind of scenario will be the rule, not the exception, in Obama's presidency. Though by some estimates he may have won by 20 million more votes due to fraud, Obama suffers from two vulnerabilities. The first and most obvious is that he is a perceived "black" man in a "white" dominated ruling elite. Given the history of oppression to the point of lynching, our new president will have the specter of assassination always lurking in the background.
Obama's second difficulty is that he didn't serve in the armed forces. It shouldn't matter. The being that he is replacing is a deserter. Unfortunately, it does matter. He can easily be bullied and manipulated by his National Security Advisor (a former Marine general) and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Because of the war momentum created by the military industrial complex, enemies have to be found in order to justify the bloated Pentagon budget. It could be East Asia today, and Eurasia tomorrow. One would think that the "war on terror" would cause some propaganda problems, since there is no clear nation to attack. Such is not the case, though, as we have seen with "Iraq." Threats can easily be conjured up by proclaiming one nation after another as either an "immanent threat," a "terrorist" state, or a supporter of "terrorism."
We may end up waging war of one kind or another against "Iran." From the perspective of our foreign policy establishment, it's like gambling in Vegas: Can the "U.S." wage endless war against "terrorism" in the face of an impending collapse of our economic system? From the foreign policy standpoint, the economy is exogenous - outside their system, outside their realm of consideration.
What matters to our foreign policy establishment was revealed on a Meet the Press segment eight days ago (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493781/page/6/): David Sanger - "They (The "Iranians") could declare at any point in the first year or two of Barack Obama's presidency, 'Hey, we can make a bomb.' And at that point you have changed the balance of power."
Thus was revealed "our" entire "Mideast" policy - towards "Israel," towards the "Palestinians," towards "Iran," and towards everyone else in the region. All that matters is the "balance of power." "We" will wage any war, drop any bomb, overthrow any government, and sponsor any occupation, as long as the "balance of power" is preserved. And what is that "balance of power?" Why, balanced in "our" favor, of course.
I almost feel sorry for ordinary people who trusted Obama and gave him their money for his election campaign. Not 100% sorry, because the price must be paid for such gullibility. Couldn't they see that Obama was an opportunist, a user?
It's sad when people try to rationalize away his obvious lack of interest in solving problems in the Middle East except on the terms laid out by the Israel lobby. So he is willing to lie for them.
Emulating his craven selfishness, only a handful of Villagers have any guts any more. They love the life. The celebrity. The parties. You and I can go fly a kite. I'm disgusted with all of them except for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Even Bush told Israel not to attack Iran. ThatObama has not come out boldly against the Gaza invasion has only confirmed my opinion of him that he is nothing but another slick lawyer and tool of the rich and powerful to be used against the inconvenient poor at home and abroad.
God. To think that Obama can make Bush look good!
Whether it's the "War on Terror" or the "Iranian Nuclear Threat", the outgoing administration has given us a new definition of the "Rule of Law."
The purpose is not to prosecute terrorist acts, nor to retaliate against aggressors. The new burden adopted by Bush/Cheney and now handed off to Obama is to prevent bad acts before they occur.
Thus, the question of whether a person or a nation has actually committed criminal acts, or armed aggression, is no longer relevant. If they are guilty of bad thoughts or words, they must be imprisoned or destroyed.
It might be called "pre-emptive retaliation," if there were such a thing. It doesn't depend on "probable cause" nor any "existential threat", only the suspicion that the person or nation might wish to perform a bad act.
Of course, this is the gross perversion of the "Rule of Law", whether international or criminal, which is no longer suitable for "dealing with" those imagined threats.
Therefore, it isn't relevant (in the minds of the advocates) whether a person actually committed any criminal act, only that there was reason to believe that they might. It isn't relevant (in the minds of the advocates) whether a nation has the means to commit aggression, only that there is enough public fear expressed about their ill intentions.
Once a government assumes the obligation to prevent future attacks, all it requires is a supernatural knowledge of what those "bad people" might have done, if not prevented from doing it. It's called "omniscience" (knowledge of the future), which is in short supply among human beings. But, as we're assured, Those-Who-Know-All have infinite expertise in analyzing evil intentions and covert foreknowledge of their future bad acts.
This perception is evidenced in Dick Cheney's refusal to disclose which bad acts have been prevented by torture or indefinite detention, and by the pervasive refusal to admit the facts-of-the-matter regarding Iran's nuclear power program. The secrets that they know must remain secrets, because no facts exist.
I'm reminded of the fabled man who constantly whistled "to keep the elephants away." He was clearly "competent" at whistling and no elephants had ever bothered him, therefore it must be working. The risks of not whistling were too high. The elephants must be prevented from trampling on innocent bystanders.
The duty adopted by the prior - and apparently the future - administration is to do a lot of whistling.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
