You want to watch for false flags these days. Cheney and other trigger happy hawks are desperate to ignite World War III and deliberately putting out fires with gasoline. The yet-to-be-confirmed terror attack on Putin during his yet-to-be-started trip in Iran definitely smells like Dubya's dream team spirit.
All fundamentalist doomsayers know History and remember which incident ignited WWI : the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este in Sarajevo. Back then, the Balkans were the hotspot for warmongers, and now, all the heat is on Tehran.
Vlad the Impaler knows how to orchestrate terror and is quite an expert himself in false flag operations. Russia's next lifetime Prime Minister is transferring the pressure, but off Ahmadinejad's shoulders and directly towards Bush : I know you are up to something but I cannot tell what nor when, I know you want to make people believe Iran is responsible for your dream war but I want the public to make no mistake : if anything happens to me or anyone else, you will be the one holding the smoking gun.
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
20070911
General Petraeus in "surge" of credibility
As Lobby Dick Cheney taught us a while ago, insurgents are in their "last throes" in Iraq. And the US army is winning the war on terror. And Osama bin Laden is about to be "smoked out".
And "the surge" in US troops to Iraq has been a complete success, adds General Petraeus.
What is the outcome of the said "surge", Sarge ?
Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because fewer US troops are killed there these days, not fewer Iraqi civilians.
Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because it is being "pacified". Not by your troops but by the civil and sectarian war you ignited with this invasion. The traditional Sunni-Shi'ite mix belongs to the past, an ugly separation wall to the present, and the partition of Iraq to the future.
Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because the surge helped insurgents to export chaos and terror in parts of the country that had been relatively spared until now. Parts that would have proved useful come the time of reconstruction.
Bush wanted this surge to accelerate the collapse of Iraq and the final destruction of any hope of reconciliation between the parties. And now he is asking for more time to fulfill this agenda.
Bush should be the one to answer the questions, not Petraeus.
Bush should be the one accused of betrayal, not Petraeus*.
* see MoveOn's ad "General Petraeus or General Betray Us ?"
And "the surge" in US troops to Iraq has been a complete success, adds General Petraeus.
What is the outcome of the said "surge", Sarge ?
Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because fewer US troops are killed there these days, not fewer Iraqi civilians.
Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because it is being "pacified". Not by your troops but by the civil and sectarian war you ignited with this invasion. The traditional Sunni-Shi'ite mix belongs to the past, an ugly separation wall to the present, and the partition of Iraq to the future.
Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because the surge helped insurgents to export chaos and terror in parts of the country that had been relatively spared until now. Parts that would have proved useful come the time of reconstruction.
Bush wanted this surge to accelerate the collapse of Iraq and the final destruction of any hope of reconciliation between the parties. And now he is asking for more time to fulfill this agenda.
Bush should be the one to answer the questions, not Petraeus.
Bush should be the one accused of betrayal, not Petraeus*.
* see MoveOn's ad "General Petraeus or General Betray Us ?"
20070809
Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism
1 - What is fundamentalism ?
At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.
Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.
Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.
Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.
Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.
The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.
The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…
The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.
The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.
2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?
Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.
For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.
His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.
Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.
Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.
Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.
During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.
Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.
The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.
Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.
I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.
The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.
Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).
A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.
If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.
This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.
Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.
3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?
Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.
America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.
The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.
The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.
Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.
Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).
The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.
I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.
Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).
Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.
Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?
blogules 2007
---
ADDENDUM 20090117
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).
Change has come to America.
---
digg this
At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.
Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.
Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.
Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.
Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.
The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.
The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…
The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.
The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.
2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?
Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.
For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.
His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.
Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.
Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.
Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.
During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.
Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.
The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.
Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.
I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.
The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.
Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).
A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.
If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.
This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.
Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.
3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?
Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.
America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.
The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.
The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.
Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.
Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).
The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.
I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.
Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).
Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.
Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?
blogules 2007
---
ADDENDUM 20090117
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).
Change has come to America.
---
digg this
20070718
Back to square one, back to Ground Zero
Bin Laden determined to strike in US.
It took six years to say it out loud, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, the death of thousands of US civilians in the 9/11 attacks, of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq, of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who lost their country along with their dictator.
The war on terror is a total failure : the US helped islamists draft millions of new sympathizers and thousands of new terrorists, and even provided them with a new real size training ground. Whether US troops leave Iraq or not, these apt pupils will put into practice their cultural learnings for make benefit glorious nation of Amerika as well as of all other nations.
Furthermore, instead of fighting the right battle at the root of terror, the US have fueled anger, despair and unfairness, deliberately slaughtering what was left of the peace process in the Middle East and especially between Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
The man in charge proposes peace talks the way he has always been talking about peace : are you with us or against us ? are you good or evil ? will you help us remove from power this Saddam / Hamas we empowered all by ourselves ?
It took six years to say it out loud, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, the death of thousands of US civilians in the 9/11 attacks, of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq, of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who lost their country along with their dictator.
The war on terror is a total failure : the US helped islamists draft millions of new sympathizers and thousands of new terrorists, and even provided them with a new real size training ground. Whether US troops leave Iraq or not, these apt pupils will put into practice their cultural learnings for make benefit glorious nation of Amerika as well as of all other nations.
Furthermore, instead of fighting the right battle at the root of terror, the US have fueled anger, despair and unfairness, deliberately slaughtering what was left of the peace process in the Middle East and especially between Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
The man in charge proposes peace talks the way he has always been talking about peace : are you with us or against us ? are you good or evil ? will you help us remove from power this Saddam / Hamas we empowered all by ourselves ?
20070616
Palestine : the Pakistan-Bangladesh scenario
Ehud Olmert and his fellow hawks eventually succeeded in putting the Gaza Ghetto in the hands of the most radical elements of Hamas. All they needed was to inflict years of humiliation, to illegally abduct key moderate leaders, and to carpet bomb any attempt of conciliation.
Back in January 2006*, I envisioned a Pakistan - Bangladesh scenario for the Gaza Strip - West Bank couple, with radical islamists ruling over the former and unharmful people struggling to survive in the latter. Among the key differences : the Bengali suffer from abundance of water.
The time has almost come.
Israeli hardliners can measure the success of their strategy, and the crucial** help of a fellow fundamentalist named George W. Bush. They didn't need Dubya to get rid of Yitzhak Rabin, but they badly needed his support to crush the peace process initiated with Bill Clinton.
As usual, Shimon Peres keeps the glam (Nobel Prize, presidence) and avoids direct combat in favor of peace. Ehud Barak joins the government with the label of a member of opposition, but the new Defense Minister is a renowned expert in camouflage as a cross dresser who paved the way for Sharon by sabotaging the 2000 Summit in Camp David, putting the first nails on Arafat's coffin.
Now I don't see how moderates can win elections in Israel, how violence can be prevented from spreading. Fundamentalists have won in Palestine, in Israel, in the USA and in the Muslim world. Warmongers are gaining momentum and the only way to stop this madness would be to give a strong signal against the Commander in Thief.
Impeach Bush-Cheney.
PS : don't bet on strong critics on Israel by US prez candidates before November 2008
* see "Red blogule to Ehud Olmert - the Bangladesh scenario" (20060125)
** no pun intended, Mel
Back in January 2006*, I envisioned a Pakistan - Bangladesh scenario for the Gaza Strip - West Bank couple, with radical islamists ruling over the former and unharmful people struggling to survive in the latter. Among the key differences : the Bengali suffer from abundance of water.
The time has almost come.
Israeli hardliners can measure the success of their strategy, and the crucial** help of a fellow fundamentalist named George W. Bush. They didn't need Dubya to get rid of Yitzhak Rabin, but they badly needed his support to crush the peace process initiated with Bill Clinton.
As usual, Shimon Peres keeps the glam (Nobel Prize, presidence) and avoids direct combat in favor of peace. Ehud Barak joins the government with the label of a member of opposition, but the new Defense Minister is a renowned expert in camouflage as a cross dresser who paved the way for Sharon by sabotaging the 2000 Summit in Camp David, putting the first nails on Arafat's coffin.
Now I don't see how moderates can win elections in Israel, how violence can be prevented from spreading. Fundamentalists have won in Palestine, in Israel, in the USA and in the Muslim world. Warmongers are gaining momentum and the only way to stop this madness would be to give a strong signal against the Commander in Thief.
Impeach Bush-Cheney.
PS : don't bet on strong critics on Israel by US prez candidates before November 2008
* see "Red blogule to Ehud Olmert - the Bangladesh scenario" (20060125)
** no pun intended, Mel
20070301
Red blogule to intel kept inside - Cheney caused 23 more deaths
The US knew suicide bombers were at large in the Bagram area. Yet, they did nothing to prevent the attack or at least warn their closest partners nearby when Dick Cheney paid a costly visit to this base in Afghanistan : 23 people died including a Korean translator who happened to pass by.
Poor score for a mass murderer who doesn't even know how to shoot by himself* : Lobby Dick already forged the case that caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Darth Vader enjoys using the Dark Side of the Force, governing from a hidden spot with his powerful reach... but unlike this excuse for a VP, Anakin Skywalker is not a coward.
Impeach him you should.
* see "White blogule to Dick Cheney - Shooting Star vs silver star" (20060214)
Poor score for a mass murderer who doesn't even know how to shoot by himself* : Lobby Dick already forged the case that caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Darth Vader enjoys using the Dark Side of the Force, governing from a hidden spot with his powerful reach... but unlike this excuse for a VP, Anakin Skywalker is not a coward.
Impeach him you should.
* see "White blogule to Dick Cheney - Shooting Star vs silver star" (20060214)
20070223
Di's is cast - When Harry met sandy
Prince Harry wants to fight. The boy doesn't want to end up like his dad, remembered as a ugly clumsy veggie wearing the kilt, sipping tea and playing polo. The boy loves the uniform. Any kind of uniform, as we previously noticed*.
"Wales" is allowed to join Iraq the day Tony Blair announces his withdrawal plan for the troops. As a clear message to the British Army : see, we are not gonna let you down - and with such a soft target, we sure are not gonna let your ennemies let you down either.
Princess Diana cared for the victims of landmines, his son decides to earn a different kind of respect in a sick shooting game, kicking some ass or camel in the desert.
Tu quoque, mi fili... Di's is cast.
* remember "When Harry met nazis" (20050116) ?
"Wales" is allowed to join Iraq the day Tony Blair announces his withdrawal plan for the troops. As a clear message to the British Army : see, we are not gonna let you down - and with such a soft target, we sure are not gonna let your ennemies let you down either.
Princess Diana cared for the victims of landmines, his son decides to earn a different kind of respect in a sick shooting game, kicking some ass or camel in the desert.
Tu quoque, mi fili... Di's is cast.
* remember "When Harry met nazis" (20050116) ?
20070205
Red blogule to London calling... for trouble
Two days ago, 135 people were killed in a terror attack in Baghdad's Sadriya market. That one did make the headlines, unlike the other days, when terror claims only the equivalent of the 7/7 London bombings.
About the same day, many people were arrested in London in what appeared to be a plot to abduct and behead a muslim soldier. A great victory for counter terrorism being often followed by the revelation of a not so glorious news for the Government, I just sat and waited for it to pop up.
It didn't take long for UK's army to confess 15 minor soldiers had been sent to Iraq. Actually, underaged combattants happened to be one of the few disgraces lacking to Tony Blair's impressive collection. We'll have to scratch our heads to find the next one...
According to Saint Tony, 7/7 had nothing to do with Iraq and the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the war on terror.
According to me, Ruppert Murdoch had something to do with the election of Tony Blair and Fox News' broadcasting of the invasion of Iraq as "War On Terror".
Tony will leave power soon ; the next guy, either Gordon Brown or David Cameron, will also have to sign a pact with the Devil to get elected ; and the "Winner" will face a new kind of terror : a wave of youngsters trained in Iraq and ready to spread chaos across the United Kingdom and Europe.
They have the European citizenship and they are from all origins, not necessary "foreign". They won't need to strike with a bomb in a major touristic area to get their point. Any small IED (Improvised Explosing Device) or any single shot in any neighborhood will do. Random abductions and killings will make anyone feel insecure. Terror at its simplest, purest and scariest level.
Chirac and Blair gone, Merkel taking her marks, let's see what kind of leadership emerges in Europe. The fundamentalists may want to play a role in the coming elections : Europeans would be inspired not to put a Dubya look alike in front of them.
About the same day, many people were arrested in London in what appeared to be a plot to abduct and behead a muslim soldier. A great victory for counter terrorism being often followed by the revelation of a not so glorious news for the Government, I just sat and waited for it to pop up.
It didn't take long for UK's army to confess 15 minor soldiers had been sent to Iraq. Actually, underaged combattants happened to be one of the few disgraces lacking to Tony Blair's impressive collection. We'll have to scratch our heads to find the next one...
According to Saint Tony, 7/7 had nothing to do with Iraq and the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the war on terror.
According to me, Ruppert Murdoch had something to do with the election of Tony Blair and Fox News' broadcasting of the invasion of Iraq as "War On Terror".
Tony will leave power soon ; the next guy, either Gordon Brown or David Cameron, will also have to sign a pact with the Devil to get elected ; and the "Winner" will face a new kind of terror : a wave of youngsters trained in Iraq and ready to spread chaos across the United Kingdom and Europe.
They have the European citizenship and they are from all origins, not necessary "foreign". They won't need to strike with a bomb in a major touristic area to get their point. Any small IED (Improvised Explosing Device) or any single shot in any neighborhood will do. Random abductions and killings will make anyone feel insecure. Terror at its simplest, purest and scariest level.
Chirac and Blair gone, Merkel taking her marks, let's see what kind of leadership emerges in Europe. The fundamentalists may want to play a role in the coming elections : Europeans would be inspired not to put a Dubya look alike in front of them.
20070124
White blogule to the NYT - The State of the Union in Words
Dear compassionate reader,
Last year, I would release a scoop for your eyes only : the State of the Union speech as initially written by George W. Bush. A few days later, you could measure the gap between his fundamentalist way of thinking and the official propaganda*.
This year, a new face joined the sitcom for Season VII : behind the Kommander in Thief sitted Lobby Dick Cheney, as usual and with his trademark snarl, but also Nancy Pelosi, completing a perfect Good vs Evil picture.
And the New York Times offered an exciting gimmick to fully enjoy the show : an online search engine comparing the usage of keywords during all SotU speeches since 2001**. For example, the words Iraq/Iraqi(s) were never used in 2001, twice in 2002, and respectively 21, 24, 27, 16 and 34 times the following years. There is even a graphic showing the positions of all occurences in all speeches.
If you compare "Security" with "Social Security", you can notice all 15 occurences of the former were actually associated with the latter in 2001. One year later, only 2 of 19 occurences of Security had something to do with health.
Bush bats a steady 5,000 words and 53.5 "America" per speech, plus 5.7 for "United States". "China" is not exactly at the top of his mind : he uttered it once this year, tying the humble record of years 2002, 2003 and 2006. The "World" ? Dubya didn't care for it when he took office (2 mentions), gave it some consideration after 9/11 (19-26-13-15-27 between 2002 and 2006), and put it back to the bottom drawer in front of a semi-hostile audience yesterday (10).
The word "peace" has never been so unpopular in his mouth : 3 miserable appearances in 2007 after a solid 6- 5- 10- 5- 12- 8 streak. On the other hand, "war" is back to its peak levels : 11 vs 2-13-13-12-5-2.
Don't be fooled by this overall rather balanced 46-58 "peace-war" ratio : from 2001 to 2007, the POTUS mentioned only 19 "liberty" and 20 "democracy" vs 44 (non-social) "security" and 145 "terror".
Another propaganda favorite looks almost abandoned this year : the "Freedom" agenda knocked only 3 times at our door (vs 8-14-5-8-21-17). W seems to have some trouble selling values this season, so he sticks to less vague concepts and pitches below the waist, where Joe Sixpack can catch a neither fast- nor knuckle- ball. Significantly, the part of "freedom" in the overall occurences of "free" is also at its lowest point : 27% vs an average 65%, after last year's staggering peak (94.4%!).
Anyway... what George W. Bush said is one thing, how he looked another and what he'll do yet another. The actual State of the Union remains that of the Divided States of Amerika.
* "White blogule to the State of the Union speech - complete and uncut edition" (20060126), followed by "Red blogule to Demokracy - professor Bush's vision" (20060204)
** see nytimes.com/ref/washington/20070123_STATEOFUNION.htmlx
Last year, I would release a scoop for your eyes only : the State of the Union speech as initially written by George W. Bush. A few days later, you could measure the gap between his fundamentalist way of thinking and the official propaganda*.
This year, a new face joined the sitcom for Season VII : behind the Kommander in Thief sitted Lobby Dick Cheney, as usual and with his trademark snarl, but also Nancy Pelosi, completing a perfect Good vs Evil picture.
And the New York Times offered an exciting gimmick to fully enjoy the show : an online search engine comparing the usage of keywords during all SotU speeches since 2001**. For example, the words Iraq/Iraqi(s) were never used in 2001, twice in 2002, and respectively 21, 24, 27, 16 and 34 times the following years. There is even a graphic showing the positions of all occurences in all speeches.
If you compare "Security" with "Social Security", you can notice all 15 occurences of the former were actually associated with the latter in 2001. One year later, only 2 of 19 occurences of Security had something to do with health.
Bush bats a steady 5,000 words and 53.5 "America" per speech, plus 5.7 for "United States". "China" is not exactly at the top of his mind : he uttered it once this year, tying the humble record of years 2002, 2003 and 2006. The "World" ? Dubya didn't care for it when he took office (2 mentions), gave it some consideration after 9/11 (19-26-13-15-27 between 2002 and 2006), and put it back to the bottom drawer in front of a semi-hostile audience yesterday (10).
The word "peace" has never been so unpopular in his mouth : 3 miserable appearances in 2007 after a solid 6- 5- 10- 5- 12- 8 streak. On the other hand, "war" is back to its peak levels : 11 vs 2-13-13-12-5-2.
Don't be fooled by this overall rather balanced 46-58 "peace-war" ratio : from 2001 to 2007, the POTUS mentioned only 19 "liberty" and 20 "democracy" vs 44 (non-social) "security" and 145 "terror".
Another propaganda favorite looks almost abandoned this year : the "Freedom" agenda knocked only 3 times at our door (vs 8-14-5-8-21-17). W seems to have some trouble selling values this season, so he sticks to less vague concepts and pitches below the waist, where Joe Sixpack can catch a neither fast- nor knuckle- ball. Significantly, the part of "freedom" in the overall occurences of "free" is also at its lowest point : 27% vs an average 65%, after last year's staggering peak (94.4%!).
Anyway... what George W. Bush said is one thing, how he looked another and what he'll do yet another. The actual State of the Union remains that of the Divided States of Amerika.
* "White blogule to the State of the Union speech - complete and uncut edition" (20060126), followed by "Red blogule to Demokracy - professor Bush's vision" (20060204)
** see nytimes.com/ref/washington/20070123_STATEOFUNION.htmlx
20061223
Red blogule to Condi Rice - is war "worth the investment" ?
Each war has its purpose and the War in Iraq was sold as a war on terror. It proved to be a war in favor of it... and sold through bold lies.
Democracy ? Bush replaced a cruel dictatorship with an even more lethal chaos. Not to mention such collateral damages as the failure in Afghanistan, or the repeated insults to America's values.
I do hope democracy will prevail in Iraq but it will cost much more in time, money and lives than through the constructive ways of the international community, also crushed by this excuse for an Administration.
Let us consider the "investment" in American lives and dollars mentioned by USA's top "diplomat" (and not consider the losses in Iraqi lives, which Condoleeza Rice must consider yet another "wonderful opportunity") : "I don't think it's a matter of money - along the way there have been plenty of markers that show that this is a country that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country, that is a stabilizing factor you will have a very different kind of Middle East".
We'll have a very different kind of Middle East, all right. For a start, Iraq will not emerge as a country (as it used to do) but as several countries. Iran will emerge as the dominant player in the region, which could be considered "a stabilizing factor"... but for the nerves of some neocons / theocons.
Fundamentalism will emerge in Israel, Palestine and Turkey, new herds of terrorists will emerge in Jordan. As planned from the start, Christian fundamentalism will strengthen its base in the US and overseas.
I've been telling the same for years on these pages, Condi : this war in Iraq was definitely worth the investment for the fundamentalists who sold it to such a gullible audience.
Democracy ? Bush replaced a cruel dictatorship with an even more lethal chaos. Not to mention such collateral damages as the failure in Afghanistan, or the repeated insults to America's values.
I do hope democracy will prevail in Iraq but it will cost much more in time, money and lives than through the constructive ways of the international community, also crushed by this excuse for an Administration.
Let us consider the "investment" in American lives and dollars mentioned by USA's top "diplomat" (and not consider the losses in Iraqi lives, which Condoleeza Rice must consider yet another "wonderful opportunity") : "I don't think it's a matter of money - along the way there have been plenty of markers that show that this is a country that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country, that is a stabilizing factor you will have a very different kind of Middle East".
We'll have a very different kind of Middle East, all right. For a start, Iraq will not emerge as a country (as it used to do) but as several countries. Iran will emerge as the dominant player in the region, which could be considered "a stabilizing factor"... but for the nerves of some neocons / theocons.
Fundamentalism will emerge in Israel, Palestine and Turkey, new herds of terrorists will emerge in Jordan. As planned from the start, Christian fundamentalism will strengthen its base in the US and overseas.
I've been telling the same for years on these pages, Condi : this war in Iraq was definitely worth the investment for the fundamentalists who sold it to such a gullible audience.
20061107
VOTE FOR AMERICA - VOTE AGAINST BUSH IF YOU ARE A TRUE REPUBLICAN
If you are a true Republican and if you are a true Conservative, you MUST vote against your party.
Back in 2004, you missed the opportunity to kick George W. Bush out of the White House and restore the values that built America. If you don't realize by now how far you have been betrayed by this President, here are a few wake up calls :
- the Bush Administration doesn't fight terror but feeds it. You've heard about it, you may even understand some of it, but that's not the worst piece of news : all this is done on purpose
- this president turned America into a outlaw and a pariah, insulting the very values he pretends to represent : how can you be proud of your country and how can it remain a model democracy overseas when its leader refuses any kind of accountability before the international community as well as before its own Congress, when it legalizes torture and abductions, when it denies its own citizens basic human and legal rights ? Do you believe this "compassionate republican" ? Do you think this president does what is best for his country or what is best for his own hidden agenda ?
- it is time for you to understand Bush's agenda is neither conservative nor even neo-conservative : the aim of the game is to make fundamentalism mainstream across the world and in the US. And fundamentalism cannot survive in a peaceful environment - fundamentalism feeds from fear, anger, war, frustration, injustice, unfairness, the absence of debate... the very way this Administration is running and ruining the country. Don't expect these guys to lead Amerika nor the World to peace.
- this has nothing to do about genuine faith or religion : this is about changing politics, science, society, about raping the very idea of democracy to please a bunch of madhatters
- if you don't consider US fundamentalists as mad as Islamist fundamentalists, consider this : from the very start, your leaders wanted Iraq to collapse and be parted, Iran to become the superevil it is now and Israel to infuriate its neighbors. All this because the craziest among them believe the final battle between Israel and Evil must happen as soon as possible in order to provoque the return of the Messiah during their lifetime... How is that for an "intelligent design" ?
You may like your Republican representative or your senator but do you really think America can afford two more years of impunity for the Bush Administration ? Do you really want to see what these people (from the White House, not from Capitol Hill) will do to make sure they remain in power after Dubya's second term ?
What will you tell your children and grandchildren ?
Vote for America, vote against Bush.
Back in 2004, you missed the opportunity to kick George W. Bush out of the White House and restore the values that built America. If you don't realize by now how far you have been betrayed by this President, here are a few wake up calls :
- the Bush Administration doesn't fight terror but feeds it. You've heard about it, you may even understand some of it, but that's not the worst piece of news : all this is done on purpose
- this president turned America into a outlaw and a pariah, insulting the very values he pretends to represent : how can you be proud of your country and how can it remain a model democracy overseas when its leader refuses any kind of accountability before the international community as well as before its own Congress, when it legalizes torture and abductions, when it denies its own citizens basic human and legal rights ? Do you believe this "compassionate republican" ? Do you think this president does what is best for his country or what is best for his own hidden agenda ?
- it is time for you to understand Bush's agenda is neither conservative nor even neo-conservative : the aim of the game is to make fundamentalism mainstream across the world and in the US. And fundamentalism cannot survive in a peaceful environment - fundamentalism feeds from fear, anger, war, frustration, injustice, unfairness, the absence of debate... the very way this Administration is running and ruining the country. Don't expect these guys to lead Amerika nor the World to peace.
- this has nothing to do about genuine faith or religion : this is about changing politics, science, society, about raping the very idea of democracy to please a bunch of madhatters
- if you don't consider US fundamentalists as mad as Islamist fundamentalists, consider this : from the very start, your leaders wanted Iraq to collapse and be parted, Iran to become the superevil it is now and Israel to infuriate its neighbors. All this because the craziest among them believe the final battle between Israel and Evil must happen as soon as possible in order to provoque the return of the Messiah during their lifetime... How is that for an "intelligent design" ?
You may like your Republican representative or your senator but do you really think America can afford two more years of impunity for the Bush Administration ? Do you really want to see what these people (from the White House, not from Capitol Hill) will do to make sure they remain in power after Dubya's second term ?
What will you tell your children and grandchildren ?
Vote for America, vote against Bush.
20061009
Red blogule to Kim Jong-il and to the six party talks
Unsurprisingly, North Korea proceeded to its first nuclear trial. An underground fart worth 4.2 on Richter's scale. Just loud enough for people around to get the message without the poisonous stench. In the dead middle of key commitee meetings in China, right during Abe's first visit to South Korea, and a few days after the quasi-confirmation of Ban Ki-moon as the UN's next secretary-general.
Kim Jong-il is guilty. For maintaining his country in terror, absolute denial of liberty and basic human rights, for imposing starvation, torture, deportations and other sweets to a people brought back to the Middle Age under the rule of a totalitarian sect. For having no other goal than preserving his own liberty, whatever the consequences.
South Korea is guilty. For avoiding the touchy "human rights" topic in order not to hurt the feelings of its neighbor. For balking in front of a reunification that would cost thousands of times more than Germany's from an humanitarian as well as an economical, social and political point of view.
Russia is guilty. For exporting the Stalinian model in its most perverse version. For nurturing a monster in the middle of a region under American influence.
China is guilty. For not seizing the opportunity of Russia's collapse in order to cool Kim's regime down when it was the weakest. For strenghtening militarism instead of encouraging reforms. And of course for wanting a Korean reunification INSIDE China.
Japan is guilty. For doing everything in order to delay a reunification that would cast it away from the center of the New Far East. For sabotaging each and every progress in the six-party talks as efficiently as its American friends.
USA are guilty. For letting their hawkiest wings crush any opportunity or opening, for wanting the messiest degradation of the situation, for purposedly strenghtening Kim's regime in its most diabolical sides. For refusing bilateral talks and becoming the most negative player in these 6 party talks, even before Kim himself. For knowingly provoquing the nuclear crisis and eventually collecting a much awaited diversion right before the November 2006 elections : "hey lads, see what kind of mess we prevented by removing Saddam from power ? see what happens when you let the UN or the IAEA take care of the WMD proliferation control ?"
The UN is guilty indeed. For relying on the goodwill of the United States of America, China and Russia for any decision going beyond the purchase of staples for the 8th floor.
Let's hope last night's trials will lead to a positive opening. Just like India and Pakistan did before declaring PAT instead of CHESSMATE.
Kim Jong-il is guilty. For maintaining his country in terror, absolute denial of liberty and basic human rights, for imposing starvation, torture, deportations and other sweets to a people brought back to the Middle Age under the rule of a totalitarian sect. For having no other goal than preserving his own liberty, whatever the consequences.
South Korea is guilty. For avoiding the touchy "human rights" topic in order not to hurt the feelings of its neighbor. For balking in front of a reunification that would cost thousands of times more than Germany's from an humanitarian as well as an economical, social and political point of view.
Russia is guilty. For exporting the Stalinian model in its most perverse version. For nurturing a monster in the middle of a region under American influence.
China is guilty. For not seizing the opportunity of Russia's collapse in order to cool Kim's regime down when it was the weakest. For strenghtening militarism instead of encouraging reforms. And of course for wanting a Korean reunification INSIDE China.
Japan is guilty. For doing everything in order to delay a reunification that would cast it away from the center of the New Far East. For sabotaging each and every progress in the six-party talks as efficiently as its American friends.
USA are guilty. For letting their hawkiest wings crush any opportunity or opening, for wanting the messiest degradation of the situation, for purposedly strenghtening Kim's regime in its most diabolical sides. For refusing bilateral talks and becoming the most negative player in these 6 party talks, even before Kim himself. For knowingly provoquing the nuclear crisis and eventually collecting a much awaited diversion right before the November 2006 elections : "hey lads, see what kind of mess we prevented by removing Saddam from power ? see what happens when you let the UN or the IAEA take care of the WMD proliferation control ?"
The UN is guilty indeed. For relying on the goodwill of the United States of America, China and Russia for any decision going beyond the purchase of staples for the 8th floor.
Let's hope last night's trials will lead to a positive opening. Just like India and Pakistan did before declaring PAT instead of CHESSMATE.
20060927
White blogule to confusion creators - exposing propaganda
I suggest a Karl Rove Propaganda Award for President Bush following his comment about medias revealing parts of the intel report on terror and Iraq. According to King Dubya, the said medias did "create confusion in the minds of the American people", which could be translated into "did their jobs" or "exposed our propaganda machine".
The POTUS released his own edited version of the intel outside report, insisting on the links between terror and Iraq but without confusing the reader with the fact that he was the one who created the links in the first place.
PS : interesting papers from Newsweek (20061002 issue) about :
- Hizbullah's propaganda machine : "Winning Hearts and Minds"
- The Architect's new proteges (Todd Olsen, Terry Nelson...) : "In Rove's Footsteps"
The POTUS released his own edited version of the intel outside report, insisting on the links between terror and Iraq but without confusing the reader with the fact that he was the one who created the links in the first place.
PS : interesting papers from Newsweek (20061002 issue) about :
- Hizbullah's propaganda machine : "Winning Hearts and Minds"
- The Architect's new proteges (Todd Olsen, Terry Nelson...) : "In Rove's Footsteps"
20060915
White blogule to The Best War Ever - Lies, damned lies, and the mess in Iraq
Spread the news folks. The actual news, not the Weapons of Mass Disinformation you've been carpetbombed with for years. If you really believe Lobby Dick when he tells you the US "War on terror" is making the world a safer place and insurgency in Iraq is reaching its "last throes", it's high time for you to activate your brain.
The truth is Iraq is about to collapse and US troops' main mission these days is to prevent this from happening before the mid-term elections. If they manage not to collapse themselves, that is (read the interesting Newsweek paper on the morale of the troops in Baghdad - "Straight to the Heart" - 20060918).
The truth is this war has always been about lies from the Bush Administration, and if you want to understand the propaganda campaign that led to it, you definitely have to read "The Best War Ever"*, by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton who already brought us "Weapons of Mass Deception" or "Banana Republicans".
And remember : if you really want to wake up to the sound of soundness and rediscover a propaganda-free world, the closest thing to a safe haven you can find on the web remains PR Watch / The Center for Media and Democracy, where Sheldon, John and friends are working hard to make this world a truly better place.
America's worst historical mistakes in the past 20 years were this war on Iraq and the 2004 (re)election of George W. Bush. Both happened because the people of America was deliberately kept in the dark by a bunch of liars. You cannot let them go away with it this time again. Read, talk, donate to the CMD and don't forget to activate your brain before voting.
* also available in France through Amazon : "The Best War Ever".
The truth is Iraq is about to collapse and US troops' main mission these days is to prevent this from happening before the mid-term elections. If they manage not to collapse themselves, that is (read the interesting Newsweek paper on the morale of the troops in Baghdad - "Straight to the Heart" - 20060918).
The truth is this war has always been about lies from the Bush Administration, and if you want to understand the propaganda campaign that led to it, you definitely have to read "The Best War Ever"*, by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton who already brought us "Weapons of Mass Deception" or "Banana Republicans".
And remember : if you really want to wake up to the sound of soundness and rediscover a propaganda-free world, the closest thing to a safe haven you can find on the web remains PR Watch / The Center for Media and Democracy, where Sheldon, John and friends are working hard to make this world a truly better place.
America's worst historical mistakes in the past 20 years were this war on Iraq and the 2004 (re)election of George W. Bush. Both happened because the people of America was deliberately kept in the dark by a bunch of liars. You cannot let them go away with it this time again. Read, talk, donate to the CMD and don't forget to activate your brain before voting.
---
* also available in France through Amazon : "The Best War Ever".
20060909
Red blogule to the Commander in Thief - The Architect is back
Yes, the Bush camp can still win the 2006 elections. After all, Ken Mehlman remains an ace and Karl Rove the ultimate opponent-destroying-propaganda machine.
The aim of the game, as usual, is to steal the elections by counterfighting where you're supposed to be the weakest. Iraq, for example, about which the Dems are considering the pros and cons of a withdrawal, exposing themselves to an intense guerilla from "Turd Blossom". I wish they instead made clear in the minds of the public the most vital thing for the US is to withdraw from the Bush doctrine. First behave well, then act responsively, sane decisions will come naturally. And they propably won't include a withdrawal of all troops anytime soon. The least America must do is to fix the damage Bush's Amerika has done.
For the moment, the "flip flop" specter is hovering above the Democrats, and Karl will very likely have Bush talk as the boss in charge : we've been waging a nasty war that's true, but we nailed most of 'em bastards and we proved bein' tough could prevent new attacks on our soil. You have the power to decide ; to be either with us or with them - not them Dems, but them terrorist thugs.
The truth should be exposed : right after 9/11, terrorists were the only bad guys around and the whole world was supporting the US, expecting a responsible answer from a model democracy - but this excuse for an Administration managed to damage the image of democracy so badly the US are now considered a rogue state and terrorists heroes. Not only did the US invite terrorists where they weren't (Iraq), they made the World a much less safer place by fueling terror, fanatism and hatred all across the world.
The US need a strong administration all right, but should remain a model democracy as well : you have the choice between supporting fascists and fundamentalists on one hand (those ruling the country these days as well as the terrorists, their supposed enemies), and restoring the values that made America respected on the other (all you have to do is to get rid of these madhatters).
The aim of the game, as usual, is to steal the elections by counterfighting where you're supposed to be the weakest. Iraq, for example, about which the Dems are considering the pros and cons of a withdrawal, exposing themselves to an intense guerilla from "Turd Blossom". I wish they instead made clear in the minds of the public the most vital thing for the US is to withdraw from the Bush doctrine. First behave well, then act responsively, sane decisions will come naturally. And they propably won't include a withdrawal of all troops anytime soon. The least America must do is to fix the damage Bush's Amerika has done.
For the moment, the "flip flop" specter is hovering above the Democrats, and Karl will very likely have Bush talk as the boss in charge : we've been waging a nasty war that's true, but we nailed most of 'em bastards and we proved bein' tough could prevent new attacks on our soil. You have the power to decide ; to be either with us or with them - not them Dems, but them terrorist thugs.
The truth should be exposed : right after 9/11, terrorists were the only bad guys around and the whole world was supporting the US, expecting a responsible answer from a model democracy - but this excuse for an Administration managed to damage the image of democracy so badly the US are now considered a rogue state and terrorists heroes. Not only did the US invite terrorists where they weren't (Iraq), they made the World a much less safer place by fueling terror, fanatism and hatred all across the world.
The US need a strong administration all right, but should remain a model democracy as well : you have the choice between supporting fascists and fundamentalists on one hand (those ruling the country these days as well as the terrorists, their supposed enemies), and restoring the values that made America respected on the other (all you have to do is to get rid of these madhatters).
20060815
Red blogule to Amerika's "Freedom Agenda"
I listened to Dubya's I have a dream press conference yesterday. It's good to hear again about the need for an independant and free Palestine, but it's getting harder and harder to stand this voice and that surrealistic propaganda rap of empty keywords repeated on and on (blah blah terror blah blah freedom blah blah Iran nuke blah blah liberty blah blah freedom of worship blah blah strategy of freedom blah blah universal desire for liberty blah blah democracy blah blah tyranny blah blah unstoppable power of freedom blah blah amen). While munching their pizzaz, mesmerized Joe Sixpacks musta understood Hezbollah helped Saddam and Bin Laden destroy the Twin Towers back on 9/11. With such efficient History Bis 101 lessons, no wonder 50% of US adults now think Iraq had WMDs when the US invaded that country, up from 36% back in February 2005 (Harris polls mentioned by the CMD).
Freedom will prevail, yeah... Hezbollah, a state sponsored terrorist group, will be replaced by Qaeda wannabes, a cloudy mist of irresponsible people far more dangerous for the region, but that's OK because Israeli hardliners need a bigger threat at their doors. Olmert will be replaced by a madhatter even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu but that's OK because that's what Amerika needs too. The utterly successful Iraki model will be replicated in Lebanon but that's OK because that was the aim of the game... Sorry Beirut but Bush's speech is yet another bring'em-on-invitation to terrorists from all over the world to visit your country.
But the most surrealistic speech of the day was pronounced by Ehud Olmert himself : admitting his own failure, he dared say next time - because there will be a next time - , he'll handle war better. Talking about flattened Lebanon as a learning curve...
Last throes of sanity, anyone ?
More than ever, it's time for a regime change in both the US and Israel... but for the better, please.
Freedom will prevail, yeah... Hezbollah, a state sponsored terrorist group, will be replaced by Qaeda wannabes, a cloudy mist of irresponsible people far more dangerous for the region, but that's OK because Israeli hardliners need a bigger threat at their doors. Olmert will be replaced by a madhatter even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu but that's OK because that's what Amerika needs too. The utterly successful Iraki model will be replicated in Lebanon but that's OK because that was the aim of the game... Sorry Beirut but Bush's speech is yet another bring'em-on-invitation to terrorists from all over the world to visit your country.
But the most surrealistic speech of the day was pronounced by Ehud Olmert himself : admitting his own failure, he dared say next time - because there will be a next time - , he'll handle war better. Talking about flattened Lebanon as a learning curve...
Last throes of sanity, anyone ?
More than ever, it's time for a regime change in both the US and Israel... but for the better, please.
20060811
Red blogule to Dubya - "Islamo-fascists" don't enjoy a monopoly
Once again, George W. Bush uttered the "islamic fascist" expression. This time, it was all about a Heathrow plot uncovered at the most convenient time : Bush and Blair are said to have talked about this issue a couple of days earlier but didn't warn their partners, which means either they didn't care for them, or the emergency wasn't that critical. Anyway, Bush and Blair clearly needed a terror fix to go back up in the polls and to give some support to Olmert, also going down for his military failures. The message : war on terror is difficult but it has to be lead whatever the cost ; it's a noble cause, a moral one. Significantly, Jacques Chirac just used the term "immoral" to warn the US : not reaching a ceasefire agreement would be "immoral"... a clear echo to the messianic War on Terror propaganda.
This is not the first time Bush uses the "Islamic fascism" expression* ; in a typically Karlrovish move, he's counterattacking with the very words that are being relevantly** used against his Administration and now protégés.
* see "Red blogule to the first amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for fascism" (20051016).
** see "Let's face it they're fascists" (20040527)
This is not the first time Bush uses the "Islamic fascism" expression* ; in a typically Karlrovish move, he's counterattacking with the very words that are being relevantly** used against his Administration and now protégés.
* see "Red blogule to the first amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for fascism" (20051016).
** see "Let's face it they're fascists" (20040527)
20060805
Red blogule to fundamentalists - bases are loaded
The disarmament of Hezbollah is under way thanks to... Hezbollah itself : the organization is methodically getting rid of its stocks of weapons over Israel. Tel Aviv's attacks are not meant to destroy Hezbollah but to make sure Eretz Israel has strong enemies for the decades to come and thus, to make sure Israeli fundamentalists remain in power. Paradoxically and just like Bush's counterproductive "War on Terror" helps terrorists recruit new followers, new waves of antisemitism will lead more Israelis towards the welcoming arms of their country's extreme right.
Whether from Iran, Israel or the USA, fundamentalists don't want peace : peace means living without fear nor coercion ; peace means opening up and accepting the world as it should be, diverse and tolerant ; peace means the irrelevance of fundamentalism.
Look at them cheer up all over the world : radical Sunnis and radical Shiites applauding each other's victories ; Amerikan New-Born Neo-Cons and Iranian radical islamists using each other as evil witches to be hunted in a sick medieval obscurantism remake...
US "diplomats" don't seem to care much when masses of pro-Hezbollah demonstrators hit the streets in Baghdad. They don't seem to worry when Israel ruins the heritage of Yitzhak Rabin and infuriates the whole world as well as Bush did back in 2003 with an unecessary war doubled by a provocative occupation... The White House's most radical wings are actually rejoicing.
I wonder when the US citizens will eventually realize their country is led by lunatics devoted to putting out fire with gasoline. It will take decades to repair the image of the country overseas (not to mention implementing actual peace) - but judging by the 2004 landslide victory of immoderate conservatism across Amerika, I don't believe the restoration of the values that made America respected to be a priority.
Whether from Iran, Israel or the USA, fundamentalists don't want peace : peace means living without fear nor coercion ; peace means opening up and accepting the world as it should be, diverse and tolerant ; peace means the irrelevance of fundamentalism.
Look at them cheer up all over the world : radical Sunnis and radical Shiites applauding each other's victories ; Amerikan New-Born Neo-Cons and Iranian radical islamists using each other as evil witches to be hunted in a sick medieval obscurantism remake...
US "diplomats" don't seem to care much when masses of pro-Hezbollah demonstrators hit the streets in Baghdad. They don't seem to worry when Israel ruins the heritage of Yitzhak Rabin and infuriates the whole world as well as Bush did back in 2003 with an unecessary war doubled by a provocative occupation... The White House's most radical wings are actually rejoicing.
I wonder when the US citizens will eventually realize their country is led by lunatics devoted to putting out fire with gasoline. It will take decades to repair the image of the country overseas (not to mention implementing actual peace) - but judging by the 2004 landslide victory of immoderate conservatism across Amerika, I don't believe the restoration of the values that made America respected to be a priority.
20060718
White blogule to Lebanon - please do survive
Israel fuels terrorism as efficiently as the Bush administration : instead of acting carefuly and with the help of the international community after outspoken terror attacks (9/11, Hezbollah raid), they attack blindly and unilaterally, appear as the aggressors and bring chaos where it definitely wasn't needed (Iraq, Lebanon). Only military action is considered, all political options and all legal frameworks being nixed.
I wonder if Lebanon can survive now. People came back once but this looks even worse than civil war. The country is politically, economically and socially devastated. A week after the first Israeli riposts, half a million people have been moved and more than 200 civilians killed, half of them kids. Who cares ? There's nothing but culture to be saved over there.
Bush applauds, Europe remains silent, Arab countries fear for their own stability, the UN is as dead as John Bolton wants it. Welcome to Diplomacy's Ground Zero.
I wonder if Lebanon can survive now. People came back once but this looks even worse than civil war. The country is politically, economically and socially devastated. A week after the first Israeli riposts, half a million people have been moved and more than 200 civilians killed, half of them kids. Who cares ? There's nothing but culture to be saved over there.
Bush applauds, Europe remains silent, Arab countries fear for their own stability, the UN is as dead as John Bolton wants it. Welcome to Diplomacy's Ground Zero.
20060703
Red blogule to Operation Summer Rain - peace drowned in monsoon
Israel won't enjoy longlasting peace if its government keeps humiliating Palestinians. Just like Bush's Amerika, Sharon-and-now-Olmert's Eretz Israel openly mocks at intra-and-international laws, exacerbates hatred, fuels radicalism, extremism and terrorism, loses all respect and credit from moderates.
Just like Sharon got rid of Arafat, Olmert can wack Hamas but it doesn't matter since the annilihation of each of every one constructive hope today means the creation of thousands of new ennemies tomorrow.
And all this for what ? Just artificially keeping a minority of ultra-conservatives and fundamentalists alive ; species bound to extinction in a peaceful world.
Where on Earth are Israel's moderates ? Why are they keeping silent ? At least, we know why the US are not doing anything to stop this sick joke...
Just like Sharon got rid of Arafat, Olmert can wack Hamas but it doesn't matter since the annilihation of each of every one constructive hope today means the creation of thousands of new ennemies tomorrow.
And all this for what ? Just artificially keeping a minority of ultra-conservatives and fundamentalists alive ; species bound to extinction in a peaceful world.
Where on Earth are Israel's moderates ? Why are they keeping silent ? At least, we know why the US are not doing anything to stop this sick joke...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
