Now that the Iraqi invasion is over
let's re-focus on Ernst Zündel's unjustified imprisonment in Canada
Fredrick Töben reflects on the recent third Gulf War
On 16 March 2003 the local Adelaide Advertiser ran one of the most revealing news items of the year: "Saddam Hussein has distributed $430,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel. In a packed banquet hall, the families came one-by-one to receive their $17,000 cheque."
Is this what the war is really all about? And is free speech, as the US president promised the Iraqi people on 10 April 2003, going to include an open debate on the Jewish Holocaust? We shall presently test President Bush's honour.
The pulling down of Saddam Hussein's statue removed for many Iraqis a symbol of oppression and heralded in a new period of freedom.
This event occurred on the 21st day of the undeclared war and the western media representatives, as they observed a small group of individual Iraqis, assisted by US Marines, pull down the imposing statue, felt they were witnessing history in the making.
Symbolism is everything for semioticians who are having a field day because for them the universe is one gigantic symbol, and this episode in Baghdad symbolises - what?
From Jordan the vision is a little clearer - Iraqis will be ruled by foreigners, and home-rule may become a dream again. Perhaps for Jordanians the loss of that almost free Iraqi oil supply will change. The proposed pipeline that will pipe Iraqi oil to the Israeli port of Haifa may offer a new supply of oil - but at a price determined by the free market mechanism!
The question to ask is: freedom from what and freedom for what?
Now Iraqi asylum seekers may have to return and help rebuild the unnecessary destruction their once-rich country has suffered at the hands of the Anglo-American-Zionist Forces.
They will now see the oil flowing again, but this time through Jordan to Israel but not to Palestine.
And Iraqi water will begin to flow into Israel but not Palestine.
What remains for the AAZF to locate is the Weapons of Mass Destruction, something for which the Israelis no doubt have already made contingency plans to ensure these MDS will be found.
I am reminded of what Nobel Prize winning German scientist Werner Heisenberg said to me when I visited him during the 1970s.
Many Germans who ran away from Germany during the war, returned with a feeling of superiority, as a victor, and they wished to label Heisenberg a Nazi because he refused to leave his fatherland during its troubled times.
He said he refused to leave because that for him would be the easiest way out of a difficult situation. For him it was important to see the thing through and then help re-build destroyed Germany, something he did in exemplary fashion.
Many Iraqis will be faced with the same moral dilemma, they accepted Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and now they have to accept the internationalist-Anglo-American-Zionist dictatorship. Have no fear, the AAZF will dictate!
Whether one is better than the other, that remains to be seen.
I am reminded of the Iranian advice given to me when I raised this very issue with them. Iranians wish to solve from within their pressing problems - the eternal battle between conservatives and progressives. They don't want the degenerate western influence to set the change agenda.
Further, any Anglo-American-Zionist who moralises on Saddam Hussein's brutality, needs to reflect a little on the brutality perpetrated by their current action and by those of their ancestors. There is really nothing unique about what is happening in the Middle East, except that nationalist yearnings are not permitted for anyone in that region, except for the Jewish Zionists in Israel. Hitler's nationalist policies flourish in Israel. Why does the Anglo-American-Zionist establishment not act against the Sharon regime? After all, the oppression suffered by the
Palestinians (and even by the Israelis) is crying out for a drastic solution; and Israel's weapons of mass destruction must now also be eliminated.
Recently the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe said:
"This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold." (Sydney Morning Herald, 25 March 2003)
Adolf Hitler's alleged crimes were not unique and so also it is hypocrisy, and rather unbalanced, to assert that Saddam Hussein's brutality is unique - it is not.
Mind you, I cannot make that statement about Hitler in Germany because that would become a criminal offence even to discuss such things. The question that follows on from the above is therefore: is it more cruel to physically or mentally hurt a person? Germans live under such a regime where prison awaits the dissenting mind.
If you take away my freedom to think and to speak, then you take away my humanity and you commit a crime against humanity.
Look at Rvisionist giant Ernst Zündel's situation, currently in a Canadian prison all because he refuses to accept the official version of the Holocaust myth.
Interestingly, if they venture into the Holocaust mythology, Canadians, Americans and Europeans are also subject to such thought-control.
However, because the western mind's advanced stage of corruption suggests we still have freedoms, we need to remind ourselves of the limitations that we experience. We certainly have the freedom to go shopping, but not so if we don't have money to spend!
Is it now time to bring further freedoms to the Middle East by conducting courses in Holocaust Revisionism, so that the people will be liberated from historical lies and deception?
Where truth is no defence, lies flourish, and where lies are told, trust disappears. Trust, however, is an integral part of any free and democratic society, where, for example, you can leave your car unlocked anywhere at any time - as is the case in present-day Jordan!
I think we can learn something from the Middle East, something we have lost through excessive consumerism and predatory capitalism - the feeling that our country and our resources belong to the people, that we have a safe physical home and a home within ourselves. Only the other day South Australia's only oil refinery announced it was closing down, throwing 400 workers onto the scrapheap.
There is cheaper refined fuel available from Indonesia! What kind of freedom is that when family units are subjected to such stress? Fortunately for these individuals, in the past one could blame an individual for such economic effects, but now we know that these 400 workers are merely the playball of the multi-nationals who care for little except for making a deal and maximising their profit.
But the new generation is emerging, and one hopes that individuals therefrom will pick up impulses from the present situation and exclaim: This far and no further!
Israel's offer a 'humiliating demand'
Paul Dixon, Fraser, ACT, Australia
The Australian Financial Review, 7 April 2003
The Israeli Embassy's Orna Sagiv perpetuates the myth that Israel offered the Palestinians 96 per cent of the West Bank and a capital in East Jerusalem ('Wrong to dismiss resolution wording', AFR, Letters, April 4).
Israel did no such thing. Israel's actual offer was, in the words of Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, "a humiliating demand for surrender". Israeli journalist Tanya Reinhart, in her recent book Israel/Palestine, says that Israel's offer was a "fraud", which proposed a Palestinian "state" split up by Jewish settlement blocks, Israeli bypass roads and closed Israeli military areas that would have left the Palestinians with actual control over about 50 per cent of the West Bank, not 96 per cent, and with a capital in Abu Dis, a village on the far outskirts of East Jerusalem.
Israel's offer was designed to be rejected.
When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords in 1993 they agreed to accept Israel in 78 percent of Palestine, and to accept the remaining 22 per cent (the occupied Territories) for their state. This of itself is an enormous compromise, but since 1993 successive Israeli governments have continued to pour bJewish settlers into the territories (numbers have doubled since 1993), build new Jewish settlements (and expand existing settlements), destroy Palestinian houses and crops, and confiscate Palestinian land.
As for the 1967 being a war of "self-defence", a number of Israeli generals and politicians have admitted that this was was nothing more than a land grab, with the myth of "self-defence" made up after the event. Israel's settlement policy since 1967 proves this. I would suggest these simple facts are the best indicators of who is truly interested in peace.
Zündel to remain in prison
Government fears he'll spread hatred if released
The Canadian Press, Wednesday, April 02, 2003
Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel will remain in jail pending his refugee claimant hearing because the government believes he would continue to spread his anti-Semitic views if released, an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing ruled Tuesday.
"There are reasonable grounds to believe he supports groups that advocate violence," said Robert Murrant, the board member who made the ruling.
Murrant cited Zundel's conviction in Germany in 1991 for violating anti-hate laws, and a ruling by Canada's Human Rights Commission in 2001 that Zundel's Web site spreads hatred.
"As a consequence, there are reasonable grounds to believe he has been and will be in the position to influence people."
Earlier, a federal government lawyer argued that Zundel would continue to "flout the law" if he was released from jail and would spread "a call to arms for like-minded individuals to use violence."
"Mr. Zundel is very much a danger to the public, given that he incites hatred," David MacIntosh told the board.
MacIntosh and fellow government lawyer Toby Hoffman had argued that Zundel shouldn't be released because the government is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that he is inadmissible on the grounds of national security.
Zundel, 64, is seeking refugee status after being returned to Canada by U.S. authorities for overstaying a U.S. visitor's visa.
A German-born Canadian resident for some 40 years until 2001, he has been held in a Thorold, Ont., detention centre near Niagara Falls since Feb. 19.
MacIntosh told the hearing that Zundel flouted American law by failing to appear at a U.S. immigration hearing in 2001.
If deported to Germany, Zundel would face charges of suspicion of incitement of hate. The charges stem from material on his Web site that denies that the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War took place.
Zundel, dressed in the clothes he was arrested in rather than the orange prison overalls he wore Monday, told the hearing he has no control over the Web site, which is still operational and administered by his American wife.
"I'm a total computer illiterate," he told the hearing.
Paul Fromm, the director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, represented Zundel at the hearing and said his detention was a violation of the Charter of Rights.
Fromm told the hearing that the only writing utensil Zundel has access to is a short, stubby pencil. Holding the pencil up for all to see, Fromm added that such treatment borders on "cruel and unusual punishment."
© Copyright 2003 The Canadian Press
Blair Wants Free Speech in Iraq, But Not in Britain
George Galloway firstname.lastname@example.org
The Guardian, 4/8/2003
Last week the government enlisted the Murdoch press to launch an assault on me with the journalistic equivalent of a cluster bomb. The central thrust of their attacks, that I am a traitor not fit to sit in Parliament, was scattered over the Sun, News of the World, Times and Sunday Times. Some bomblets were designed to wound now (like the incitement to pound me with hate mail and threatening phone calls), others to explode later, and with terminal effect (like the order to strip me of parliamentary rank through withdrawal of the Labour whip, followed by expulsion).
In a world where thousands of civilians are being minced by the real thing, this would not ordinarily detain us over-long, but both the medium and the message are significant. That Tony Blair has taken New Labour into the outer limits of social democratic politics, a kind of twilight zone where, in the dimness, an axis of Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and Sharon can just be glimpsed, is pretty much a given. But his alliance with the cheap jingo press, which is spreading racist hatred in this conflict, is a key development in the war for Labour's future.
This latest attack on me, for example, was fed to a willing press by Labour sources. I know this because the national newspaper editor who was first offered the "story" (a transcript of a translated interview I gave to Abu Dhabi TV) turned it down and alerted me. It was then given to the Sun. The transcribed words were mine; the spin was all New Labour's.
The Sun (whose columnist, Richard Littlejohn, called me a "cocksucker" last week and assaults Muslims every time he takes out his armor-plated lap-top - "You're Shiite and you know you are") and the News of the World (which told us on Sunday that model Nell McAndrew was sending her knickers to Our Boys at the front) are Blair's new friends, and the principal cheerleaders for his war of agression.
Blair, it seems, wants free speech in Baghdad, but not in the British Parliament. He wants to use his systems of regime control - the whips, the emasculated national executive committee and the party conference (now dragooned more carefully than a Ceausescu mass wedding) - to ensure that only "licensed" and low-key opposition is heard.
It's true that some of my words have been harsh, but that's because I'm expressing the views of the millions who remain fiercely angry at the government's taking us into a war in defiance of the UN, in the teeth of overwhelming international opposition, on bogus and fabricated grounds, and to such disastrous effect. Not least, I'm speaking for the many in the British Muslim community - Shiites or otherwise - who feel powerless and virtually voiceless amid the slaughter of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and now Iraq.
Whole regiments of journalists and commentators have thrown objectivity to the desert wind and signed up for the war effort, endlessly parroting propaganda, wheeling this way and that, virtually on command. Parliamentary sketch-writers openly deride hostile questioning in the Commons as "suicide missions" on the part of MPs whose right, indeed duty, it is to stop our own Parliament becoming a rubber-stamp assembly like those in Baghdad and elsewhere. The threat to discipline me is also crucially aimed at muzzling the others in what is at risk of becoming a frenzy of intolerance, shredding the very values for which the "coalition" claims to be fighting.
Any sense of how this illegal war is playing around the globe is now virtually absent from public discourse; Bush and Blair have gone from being "the West" to the "international community" to being, quite simply, the known world. The safety of our citizens at home and abroad, the trading and other interests of the state and the security of the world we will be leaving to our children are all gravely imperilled by this colonial crime and blunder. But to say so in Blair's Airstrip One is to become, as the Sun called me, "A traitor ... an enemy of the state".
The real traitors are those who recklessly abandoned our European heartland and Labour's natural friends like Gerhard Schr?der, Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter and subordinated our interests to an extreme right-wing faction of a foreign power; George Bush's USA. History will judge New Labour more harshly than their fans at Wapping have done so far.
I don't want to be pushed out of Labour politics. After 35 years, and having served at every level, I suspect I love the Labour party rather more than Blair does. I hope he will eschew a witchhunt. But, just in case, my friends and I are busy building the new Glasgow central constituency into an impregnable fortress of real Labour values. Blair and his peculiar allies, his army of right-wing hacks and control-freaks, may well besiege it. But they will have their work cut out to overcome it.
(George Galloway is Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin and a columnist for the Scottish Mail on Sunday.
Jewish Scholar: Holocaust Denial Poses Future Danger
By Linda Comins
2 April 2003
A prominent Jewish scholar and author believes the biggest threat posed by those who deny the Holocaust is a future danger - when few Holocaust survivors remain to speak the truth.
Deborah Lipstadt, an Emory University professor, spoke at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Wheeling Tuesday night about researching the Holocaust denial movement and defending her written conclusions in a British courtroom.
After a six-and-a-half-year legal fight and a three-month trial in London, Lipstadt won a libel case brought by an author whom she had labeled as a Holocaust denier.
She visited Wheeling as part of the Holocaust Remembrance Series of West Liberty State College's Hughes Lecture Series. The West Virginia Humanities Council provided financial support for the program.
"Denial is a form of anti-Semitism. Many of the deniers are also virulent racists," she charged.
When deniers claim that the Holocaust is a myth, "it is not a clear and present danger; it is a clear and future danger," she commented.
"The ability of people to deny it becomes stronger as there are fewer people around to give first-hand accounts."
Offering a composite portrait, she said Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites and "many are racists; many are supporters of national socialism (Nazism)." She said the Holocaust stands out "because it was state-sponsored terrorism. It was state sponsored genocide in which virtually every aspect of government was involved."
In her book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory," Lipstadt ßdescribed prolific British writer David Irving as "the most dangerous of Holocaust deniers." She alleged that Irving was a racist, an anti-Semite and "a man dripping with hate." Lipstadt contended, "Irving knew the truth and bent it until it fit his goals."
Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in Great Britain and, under British libel law, an author has to prove what he or she wrote is true. She won, in her words, "an incredible judgment" at trial and won a three-day appeal last year.
Lipstadt said the personal element of the libel trial came when she saw Holocaust survivors "with ashen faces" sitting in the gallery of the London courtroom. A defining moment occurred when an old woman approached, revealed a concentration camp number tattooed on her arm and said, "You're fighting for us." Lipstadt said the woman's unspoken message was: "You're fighting for my memories, my family's memories. This is too important - don't mess up."
After the trial, Lipstadt was discomforted when people thanked her. She said rabbis say one "comes closest to God" when performing "acts of loving kindness." The most profound act of righteousness "is when you take care of the dead - the ultimate act of genuine loving kindness. There's no way they can pay back that act."
Copyright © 2002 The Intelligencer & Wheeling News Register
The Germans had it already 60 years ago!
The recent news, a new Radar installation in northern Australia has been commissioned which is capable of looking over the horizon for 2000km is by far not so sensational as most people may believe.
In WW2 the German Luftnachrichtentruppe (Air Force Signals) had already developed equipment which could "see" just as far as the modern Australian Radar System!
For example, in German occupied Holland near Alkmaar a Radar antenna code-named "Elephant" was capable of reporting the RAF Bombers right after they started for their raids against Germany. This gave the Luftwaffe reliable valuable time for forewarning and organizing the defence. "Elephant" detected 1944 Allied convoys on their way to Murmansk in the Northern Ice Sea, 2200 km distant! Its crew, highly trained LN-soldiers even surprised higher German command staff again and again with their accurate news. German Radar installations ("Wassermann") in Africa could "see" traffic near the Turkish coast.
Due to heavy losses of bombers, the British developed several systems to jam German Radar, even to bomb them out, and had some success for a time, whereupon a German engineer invented a Radar, which did not require to send any signals at all. It smartly used the signals of the British radar stations. Code-named "Klein Heidelberg" they were situated in strategic positions in Holland and Denmark.
As the British could not jam or close down their own Radar, the "passive" German stations continued to give reliable reports of Allied flights and their position when all others were out of action.
Quick Political Scholastic Aptitude Test
It consists of one (1) multiple-choice question.
Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of
World War II, compiled by historian William Blum
1. China 1945-46
2. Korea and China 1950-53
3. Guatemala 1954
4. Indonesia 1958
5. Cuba 1959-1961
6. Guatemala 1960
7. Congo 1964
8. Peru 1965
9. Laos 1964-73
10. Vietnam 1961-73
11. Cambodia 1969-70
12. Guatemala 1967-69
13. Grenada 1983
14. Lebanon 1983, 1984
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Iran 1987
19. Panama 1989
20. Iraq 1991-2003
21. Kuwait 1991
22. Somalia 1993
23. Bosnia 1994, 1995
24. Sudan 1998
25. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2
26. Yugoslavia 1999
Q: In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
Choose one of the following:
(d) not a one
(e) a whole number between -1 and +1
"All great truth is dealt with in three ways: First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; and finally it is accepted as self-evident.
A.Schopenhauer, famous German philosopher
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: what does happen is its opponents gradually die out and the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning."
Max Planck, father of modern physics
"The prophet courageously challenges oppressive social structures of which the church may be an integral part. The prophet is the end result of the best in the tradition and spirituality of the church - which soon, sadly, drives him or her out."
J. Milton Yinger, 1946
In order to understand how the Holocaust industry works, and the way the Shoa-racketeers and the corpse-peddlers count, we have to quote here the Jewish 'Fairy Tale' story teller, Elie Wiesel. He tells us, "With us Jews, everything is different."
This may explain why the Jewish victim figures of the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust is always six million, regardless how often within the last 500 years these figures have been officially dramatically reduced.
Now let's have a look, for example, at the Dachau Concentration Camp story. When the US Army mo0ved into this camp, the first act of 'liberation 'was to machine-gun approximately 500 German military and civilian personnel.
The Germans had already surrendered to the US troops by handing over their guns and camp administration.
After liberation, the smart US GIs from across the ocean, turned the Dachau disinfection gas chamber into a homicidal gas chamber. The former was used to protect life, not to kill, by disinfecting mattresses, furniture, clothes, etc.
Today's visitors will find an official sign put up by the Dachau authorites which states: 'This is a homicidal gas chamber built by the Nazis but never used'.
This is truly a story for the strong in the heart and weak in the head.
In the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, taken over by the British forces in 1945, we have 'Holocaust survivor' Moshe Peer who tells the tourists there that he was gassed in the Bergen-Belsen gas chamber five times as a child. But he always survived because, as he says, "Children are more resistant to Zyklon-B gas than adults.
According to the German authorities Mr Peer is of sound mind.
It also does not matter to anybody, including Mr Peer, that the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp never had a homicidal gas chamber, and that is official.
Holocaustomania is alive and well: 1 + 1 = 6 million, never forget that!
In regard to the Holofairytale stories within the last 55 years, the Auschwitz concentration complex puts the icing on the cake here.
Here is the place in history where Jewish mathematics really triumphs. At the Nürnberg International Military Tribunal, set up by the Allied occupation forces against the Axis powers between 1945-8, the death figures for Auschwitz is given by the French as 8 million.
This was even too much to swallow for the other Allied victors - USA, Great Britain and Soviet Union. The Tribunal then decided to accept the Soviet-given figure of 4 million.
Of course the US, Great Britain and France did not ask their Soviet friends for any proof for these figures. After all, Uncle Joe Stalin was a partner of the Allies in the war against Fascism, as they said.
The tribunal also did not go to Auschwitz to have a closer look at the murder weapon, it just accepted Uncle Joe's word, regardless of Joe Stalin's own track record of killing approximately 28 million people between 1924 (the year Lenin died) until his own death in 1953.
Keep in mind that Lenin himself was responsible for the murder of approximately 30 million people between 1917 and 1924.
As always western democracy and Soviet democracy worked hand in hand to defeat the fascist beast, financed by Anglo-American and Jewish-Zionist bankers.
The magic four million figure in Auschwitz survived until 1989 when the Polish government and the Auschwitz Museum Authority reduced this figure to one million.
After this reduction an uproar went through the Zionist federation and the then Polish President Lech Walensa was forced to increase these figures to 1.-1.5 million. So all 20 memorial plaques had to be changed from 4 million to 1.-1.5 million.
Here comes the good news. The victim figures again have been reduced to 500,000, and the alleged mass gassings have been transferred from Auschwitz-Birkenau, Krema II, to two small farm houses outside of the camp perimeter.
I am at a total loss here because I wonder whether these Holocaust racketeers and corpse-peddlers have any shame. Of course, Elie Wiesel is quite correct by saying that "With us Jews everything is different." That must now include mathematics because 1 + 1 = still 6 million, and pigs can fly.
The total death figure for Dachau concentration camp between 1940-45 given by the US military authorities in 1945 was 238 756. This figure was reduced to 27, 839, almost a 90 per cent reduction It was first published in Belgium in 1968 by the Comité International de Dachau in Paul Berben's book, Dachau 1933-45 The Official History. Dramatic reductions of victims' figures were made in many other concentration camps between 1955 until today. Just view the reduction of the death figure for Auschwitz made by Fritjof Meyer, senior Spiegel editor, in Osteuropa magazine!
German Lawyer challenges '11 September 2001 Lie'!
After publicly commenting on German television about the 11 September 2001alleged terrorist attacks, a German public prosecutor in Hamburg charged Horst Mahler with 'Billigung einer Staftat' - condoning a criminal act.
Mahler at that time had accepted the official US White House conspiracy theory, that Saudi Arabian terrorists had crashed planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, and he said words to the effect that the US deserved this.
I am not certain whether Mahler rested his statement on Noam Chomsky's statement wherein Chomsky claimed that the USA is the most violent society on earth.
Mahler has now revised his views, especially on the Pentagon crash conspiracy theory, and now he will attempt to set out the French argument that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, nor into the WTC.
He will thus present an alternative conspiracy theory to the official conspiracy theory and claim that it was not Saudi Arabian terrorists but Israel's Mossad and US spy agencies who were responsible for the 11 September tragedy.
In a German court it is difficult to defend yourself against any allegation because the concept of judicial notice may be invoked. This means that the matter is beyond dispute, and open debate becomes superfluous because it is now common knowledge that it was Arab terrorists who did the terrorist attacks. The same argument is used to block an open enquiry on matters Holocaust, as Revisionists well know when they wish to defend themselves in a German court when they are brought there because of their claim that homicidal gassings and the extermination of Jews during WWII are a fabrication.
I do wish Horst Mahler luck, and we must remember that recently Mahler had a significant victory in an action before Germanys highest court. He succeeded in having the government's case for the banning of a right-wing political party dismissed. This was a blow against those who hate free speech, against the intolerant who tolerate no tolerance.
Horst Mahler is a German who wishes to re-activate the German empire, ( re-activate in the sense that de jure it still exists, but de facto it is dead), and to achieve that goal he has developed a clear program as to how this can be done. The first imperative is to pursues a political liberation struggle against the Zionist-Jewish stranglehold that grips Germany - Europe. It entails a grappling with Hegelian dialectics as that liberates the individual from Jewish thought-patterns as found in Talmud, etc. Mahler's rejection of Marx's interpretation of Hegelian dialectics, is the first step towards this liberation struggle.
Members of the Socialist Left who are protesting against the Anglo-American-Zionist attacks on Iraq do not realize that they are still beholden to the Jewish-Marxist dialectics, a thinking process that does not offer individual freedom but only more Gulags because it divides the world into master-slave; and that does not liberate an individual's being because scapegoating is an integral part of this slave thinking.
A master is never free! In this context I am still waiting from individuals who can confirm or deny the story I heard while in Texas about the German mindset. Many Germans settled in Texas before the American Civil War, and most Germans opposed slavery. Towns were divided on the issue, and wherever there was a German community, the town would be split along the German - Anglo-American line, with the latter supporting slavery. Why did the Germans oppose it? Because the German value system is such that slave labour would never be good enough for the meticulous German mind. This partially explains why post World War Two propaganda relentlessly focuses on the war-time work camps, calling them slave camps so that this aspect of the German value system does not resurrect itself. After all, the constant harping on the term 'slave-labour' inplies that germans treated their war-time internees as slaves. With interest I watch what will happen to the Iraqi POWs, and I also watch the 2 million prisoners, many of them Afro-Americans, who are enslaved within the US prison system, and how humanely they will be treated by the US-Zionist administration that is set on implementing Talmudic justice on those who dare to oppose their enslaving materialistic-consumeristic mindset.
Mahler is attempting to do just that - and I think he realizes that standing in his way are those individuals who are driven by envy and greed rather than by uplifting values that liberate the soul.
For more on this matter, please contact Horst Mahler directly email@example.com
WAR IS THE CLIMAX OF THE AMERICAN-ISRAEL PARTNERSHIP
By distinguished British historian, Patrick Seale, 21 March 2003
The United States has embarked on an imperial adventure in the Middle East. This is the true meaning of the war against Iraq. The war is not about the disarmament of Iraq. That was always a hollow and cynical pretext. No one with any real knowledge of the situation believed that Iraq, on its knees from two disastrous wars and from twelve years of punitive sanctions, presented any sort of 'imminent threat' to anyone. In any event, from the start of last November when UN inspectors returned to Iraq under Security Council Resolution 1441, the Washington hawks wanted the inspectors to fail and then pressed impatiently for war, just when inspections showed real signs of progress.
Nor is the war only, or even primarily, about toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed the White House announced that US forces would enter Iraq whether or not the Iraqi leader resigned and left the country. The war has bigger aims: it is about the implementation of a vast - and probably demented - strategic plan.
Washington is intoxicated by the vision of imposing a Pax Americana on the Arab world on the model of the imperial 'order' which Britain imposed on the entire region in an earlier age -- with its Gulf and South Arabian strong points protecting the route to India, its occupation of Egypt in 1882, and then the extension of its rule after the First World War to some of the Arab provinces of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The result was the creation under British tutelage of Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan.
America's imperial ambitions
With bases across the region from Oman to Central Asia, America is now seeking to recreate the British Empire at its apogee. The occupation of Iraq, a major Arab country at the strategic heart of the region, will allow the United States to control the resources of the Middle East and reshape its geopolitics to its advantage - or so the Anglo-American strategists hope. But if things go badly, history may well judge the war to be a criminal enterprise - unjustified, unprovoked, illegitimate, catastrophic for the Iraqi victims of the conflict and destructive of the rules of international relations as they have evolved over the past half century.
The fatal flaw is that this is not a purely American project. Rather it must be seen as the culmination of America's strategic partnership with Israel which began 36 years ago when, in 1967, President Charles de Gaulle told Israel that it would lose French support if it attacked its Arab neighbours. Israel promptly switched its attentions from Europe to the US, which it gradually made its main external ally and subsidizer. The relationship has since grown more intimate with every passing year, to the extent that the tail now wags the dog.
Much of the ideological justification and political pressure for war against Iraq has come from right-wing American Zionists, many of them Jews, closely allied to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and occupying influential positions both inside and outside the Bush administration. It is neither exaggeration, nor anti-Semitism, as they would have it, to say that this is a Bush-Sharon war against Iraq.
As is now widely understood, the genesis of the idea of occupying Iraq can be dated back to the mid-1990s. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and often described as the intellectual driving force behind President Bush's world-view, has for years been pressing US and Israeli leaders to go to war against Iraq. On 8 July 1996, shortly after Benyamin Netanyahu's election victory over Shimon Peres, Perle handed Netanyahu a strategy paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'. It called for the removal of Saddam Hussein as a key Israeli objective and as a means of weakening Syria.
The call for an attack on Iraq was then taken up in 1997 by a right-wing American group called The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose members included Richard Perle; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Eliot Abrams, Middle East director of Bush's National Security Council; Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq; and two influential conservative editors, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Norman Podhoretz of Commentary. With friends such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfled and Vice-President Dick Cheney, and backed by half a dozen right-wing think-tanks, this group formed a formidable pressure group. The terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001 gave these advocates of American empire and of the US-Israeli alliance their chance. They were able to make the inexperienced President George W Bush, who came to power after a questionable election, the vehicle for their agenda.
The result is the war we are now witnessing. The ultimate objective is to change the map of the Middle East by destroying or intimidating all the enemies of the US and Israel. If America's imperium turns out to be benevolent, which is most improbable, the Arabs may accept it for a while. But they will always resist Israel's domination of their region. That is the flaw in the project.
Britain's Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair is a strange bedfellow of these right-wing ideologues. He has spoken passionately not only of the need to 'disarm Iraq' but also of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
He has castigated France for opposing the war and of thereby allegedly missing the chance of promoting Arab-Israeli peace. This is contorted and unconvincing logic.
Blair knows that Sharon, who has rubbished the Quartet's 'road-map' and has devoted his life to the achievement of a 'Greater Israel', has no intention of allowing the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. On the contrary, he is using the crisis to continue his wholesale destruction of Palestinian society. Blair has not commented on the 80 Palestinians Israel has killed, and the hundreds it has wounded, in the first 18 days of this month, nor has he spoken of the 48,000 Palestinian houses damaged or destroyed in the past 30 months. Blair has squandered a great deal of his integrity in order to protect Britain's so-called 'special relationship' with Washington. But if, after the war, attention turns to the Arab-Israeli conflict, he will find that Sharon has more influence in the American capital than he has - in spite of the 45,000 British troops he has committed to battle. As evidence of this influence, neither the White House nor the State Department has chosen to protest at the death of a young American peace activist, Rachel Corrie, crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza this week as she tried to stop the demolition of a Palestinian home.
Will America's war meet resistance?
The United States is counting on a swift, successful, relatively 'clean' war in Iraq, in which American troops will be seen as liberators not occupiers. It intends to buy goodwill by embarking immediately on a programme of reconstruction of roads, power plants, hospitals, schools and so forth. But who will pay for this reconstruction? Will it be money drawn from Iraq's oil revenues? In particular, will American companies, who intend to secure the lion's share of the contracts, be paid out of the UN escrow account established under the oil-for-food programme? This will require a new Security Council Resolution. If France, Russia and China are cut out of the reconstruction contracts and the oil concessions, they will undoubtedly fight any such American monopoly. Some Western diplomats see this as the next diplomatic battle.
In this war, the great unanswered question is whether American and British troops will meet any serious resistance, not just from the elite units of the Iraqi army but also from the civilian population. After the first flush of victory, will the occupying armies be harassed by hit- and-run guerrillas, as happened to Israel after its invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Will an Iraqi 'Hizballah' emerge on the model of the resistance movement which eventually drove Israel out of south Lebanon? A successful resistance movement needs outside support, a flow of arms and money, safe havens when the going gets tough. In Lebanon, Hizballah had such support from Syria and Iran. In 1983, it was Syria and its local allies that managed to defeat American attempts, brokered by George Shultz, then US Secretary of State, to draw Lebanon into Israel's sphere of influence.
Who in the region today could extend help to an Iraqi resistance movement? Syria has become too vulnerable to play any such role, Iran too fearful of being the next target, Turkey too preoccupied in keeping a lid on Kurdish aspirations to statehood in northern Iraq. The most likely resistance might come from elsewhere. A non-state actor like Osama bin Laden's Al-Qa'ida, drawing inspiration and recruits from the violent anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments now sweeping the Muslim world, might take up the challenge. Occupation breeds insurrection.
How can Ali's fate be justified by the Anglo-American-Zionist Forces' (AAZF) Invasion of Iraq?
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute