Media Democracy Day

Friday, October 19, 2001

I got an email last night from a friend who is definitely more pro-war than I am. He forwards me various Bin Laden jokes and things like that, which I often object to on because I feel that reducing a highly complicated war into a one-liner joke is degrading to everyone involved. That said, he asked me, if I object so much to the positition the US has taken, what do I suggest as a reasonable alternative. My response:

  1. As the UN has insisted, stop the current bombing which is doing zero damage to the Taliban, enormous damage to citizens, turning the Muslim and much of the international community against the US, and will only result in more terrorist attacks on US citizens which cannot be stopped.
  2. Develop alternate energy research so the US is no longer financially/oil dependant on the Middle East and has no "need" to interfere with their politics. Then, worst case, they just kill each other off and leave the US alone.
  3. Seek a diplomatic solution.
  4. If #3 is unsuccessful, QUIETLY and out of the public eye take the Israeli approach -- simply assassinate Taliban and Al-Quaeda leaders and don't make ANY statements about it. Just have them disappear. No martyrs, no PR nightmares.

Look at what's happened so far — “first” (not really first, but let's make that the start of our count) around 5000 people were killed in the US by terrorists, as well as massive damage being done to the US financially. Then the US launched an attack which it had to call on every political favor and deeply put itself in debt over. The attack so far has been entirely ineffective at killing anyone responsible, but has killed around 500 innocent people, made thousands more homeless, and has disrupted aid efforts which, if the war continues, will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (none of them involved in the first attack on the US). In addition, enourmous resentment toward the US has been created internationally, especially in Muslim countries, creating a strong liklihood of continued attacks on the US, both my Al-Qaeda and other groups (since they know it works so well now). In addition, the US has attacked itself on its own soil with a series of “homeland security” measures, taking away the (perhaps illusionary) freedoms that in theory differentiate the US from other countries. Most people have seen this link, but this one takes the cake.

It's not as if it's going to get any better, largely because of the people calling the shots I suspect. Look at Bush — he's called for freezing the assets of Bin Laden, but his first business, Arbusto Energy, was financed by the bin Laden family. It's not like Arbusto was the only time either, Bush's Harken Energy Corporation was bailed out by Saudi Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh and BCCI and Khalid bin Mahfouz. As Wayne Madsen points out, “the ties between bin Laden and the White House may be much closer than [Bush] is willing to acknowledge.”

Want the other side of the story?

When I present these alternate viewpoints, I can't prove to you that they are true. What I can tell you is that neither “side” is telling the truth — the media is certainly not impartial — and that only by learning as much as you can and from all points of view will you be able to make an informed observation.

Which brings me to an important reminder:

Today is Media Democracy Day.
Please, if you have a moment, read that page, and read it fully. It's not that long, and contains a great deal of important information. There are various events going on all day (mostly in Toronto), including protests at the CRTC regarding their attempt to shut down Star Ray TV…

Comments (0)

Six more puppy pix

Thursday, October 18, 2001

Comments (0)

Guess who got a PUPPY?

Thursday, October 18, 2001

And guess who's big fat belly makes a comfy puppy bed?

Comments (0)

Some more news links

Thursday, October 18, 2001

The storm of “stop the bombing” calls is increasing, even locally. Everyone from aid organizations (who point out that if they are not able to get food through, 100,000 Afghani children will die this year) to Farrakhan (who wants evidence supporting the attacks — The US government, he says, has “lied before, and there's no guarantee they are not lying now.”), the Archbishop of Canterbury (who warns that we not repeat the misery we inflicted on Iraq, and asks, “how to punish the guilty without hurting the innocent, uproot evil without eroding the common good?”), to the city of Berkeley (the first city in America to pass a war censure act). Objection to the extreme laws and security measures are coming from all over the place… from knitters who had their needles taken, and even from Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean), who is concerned that the new laws may well much of his comedy routines illegal.

I keep hearing threats of more serious attacks. I don't really know if this is because they're stopping them and we don't know about it, or because they're just scare tactics. There have been tons of false scares… my favorite was the unlucky coincidence that right now Publisher's Clearinghouse is running a promotion where they are mailing out thousands of little packs of white powdered soap. Then of course there's assholes like the Army of God who have said that anthrax scares at abortion clinics “made their day“.

A bigger concern though may be the strain with “out Saudi allies“. It's pretty much clear to everyone that Saudi Arabia is the real source of the terrorism, but because we “need” them for their oil, they're somewhat untouchable. Of course, if they really do demand that the 13,000 US troops leave their soil, I'm sure that things will get very unpleasant very fast.

Well, at least somebody is doing well… drug companies are able to push way more pills, and, I guess now that they've been caught, maybe some CIA directors can collect their cash from the September 11th stock trading tricks. Not that I can believe anything the media says. Recent events here in Toronto certainly showed that — after all, if a relatively stupid couple of politicians here can fabricate stories about local protests, what can be fabricated when you have a trillion dollar budget?

Finally, if you're not already taking some GAP drug, this will help you get there.

Comments (0)

Six Questions About The War

Wednesday, October 17, 2001

This is a slightly modified version of a file at the struggle.ws page. There is no copyright on this — feel free to copy and spread it anywhere you'd like.

SIX QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

Is there a link between U.S. involvement overseas and attacks on American targets?

Yes there is according to a 1997 U.S. Department of Defence study, which read: “As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and deploy forces around the world. Americas position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.”

On a related note, it is perhaps significant that the U.S. government had plans for war in Afghanistan prior to September 11th, and that the Taliban knew of these plans. According to former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik, at a meeting in Berlin in July: “The Americans indicated to us that in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn't help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan,” “I told the Pakistani government, who informed the Taliban via our foreign office and the Taliban ambassador here.”

What is the corporate interest in the Middle East?

According to the Washington Post: “Since the 1970s, Saudi Arabia has shifted from its role as a large oil supplier to becoming the principal U.S. ally and economic partner in the region. In the 1970s and 1980s, it bolstered the international banking system with its oil revenue. After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian revolution the same year, Saudi Arabia turned to the United States for modern weapons, including F-15s, AWACS surveillance planes, helicopters, transport planes, tanks and air defense weapons, including Patriot and Hawk missiles. In 1991, it served as the main staging ground for U.S. forces that drove Iraq from Kuwait.”

“Since 1981, U.S. construction companies and arms suppliers have earned more than $50 billion in Saudi Arabia, according to the Congressional Research Service. More than 30,000 Americans are employed by Saudi companies or joint U.S.-Saudi ventures and U.S. investments in the country reached $4.8 billion in 2000, according to the Commerce Department. The U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. recently was chosen by the Saudi government to lead two of three consortiums developing gas projects worth $20 billion to $26 billion.” (Washington Post 21/9/01)

What is the corporate interest in Central Asia?

According to a United States Government website:

“Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration in the mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's instability.”

“In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed… Besides the gas pipeline, Unocal also had considered building a 1,000-mile, 1-million barrel-per-day (bbl/d) capacity oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan to Pakistan's Arabian Sea Coast via Afghanistan.” (Unocal being a Californian based energy corporation.)

Will military action foil the “terrorist threat”?

Not according to Ronald Jacquard, an advisor to the United Nations Security Council, author of a book on Bin Laden and head of the French state's International Terrorism Observatory, “The more that is done to destroy Bin Laden's organisation, the more they will try to carry out the plans they have already.” “People in the mass-market consumer societies of the United States and Europe will have to live like countries such as Israel, under permanent threat.” (Irish Times 3/10/01)

Likewise the British newspaper the Guardian, drawing on a report in the Washington Post, claims: “Intelligence officials have told Congress that they believe a second major terrorist attack on the United States is highly likely in the near future, and that once the anticipated assault on Afghanistan begins, retaliation is '100%' certain..” (Guardian 6/10/01)

Is this a “war against terrorism”?

Hardly. All of the powerful states lining up in the coalition against terrorism have inflicted the same bloody slaughter as the hijackers brought to New York. Consider the actions of the Russian State in Chechnya or the largely British and American inspired United Nations sanctions on Iraq. The latter has, according to figures produced by the Iraqi government and verified by U.N. agencies, killed almost one and a half million people between 1991 and 1998, and is continuing to kill at a rate of 7,000 people a month, and 4,000 of the monthly death toll are children under the age of five.

Who are NATO's allies the Northern Alliance?

A consortium of criminal warlords such as:
“Abdul Rashid Dustum, one of the most powerful Alliance gangsters, whose men looted and raped their way through the suburbs of Kabul in the Nineties. They chose girls for forced marriages, murdered their families,”
“Then there's Rasoul Sayaf, a Pashtun who originally ran the “Islamic Union for the Freedom of Afghanistan”, but whose gunmen tortured Shia families and used their women as sex slaves in a series of human rights abuses between 1992 and 1996. Sure, he's just one of 15 leaders in the Alliance, but the terrified people of Kabul are chilled to the bone at the thought that these criminals are to be among America's new foot-soldiers.”

According to a member of the Afghan feminist organisation, the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women, they “condemn the cooperation of the United States with the Northern Alliance. This is another nightmare for our people – the Northern Alliance are the second Taliban. The Northern Alliance are hypocrites: they say they stand for democracy and human rights, but we can't forget the black experiences we had with them. Seventy-year-old grandmothers were raped during their rule; thousands of girls were raped; thousands were killed and tortured. They are the first government that started this tragedy in Afghanistan.” (Guardian 8/10/01)

Comments (0)