While the Indian leadership seems hell bent on blaming Pakistan or elements within Pakistan for the Mumbai Carnage, it appears that there are more and more reports emerging that suggest the terrorists were from within India. A recent report from one of the policemen injured in the attacks clearly says that the militant in custody spoke "Hindi with a strong Punjabi, north-Indian accent". The officer heard him and the driver of the snatched vehicle converse while he [the officer] lay half conscious in the back.
This statement has been published in the mainstream and alternative media as well. The seemingly most credible of the mainstream sources that reported this is Dawn News. The report is available here: Gunmen spoke Hindi with strong Punjabi, north-Indian accent
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Terrorist With The Saffron-colored Band
As I research the Mumbai Carnage, more and more interesting information seems to surface. While there is ongoing speculation regarding the terrorists' identity, the abstract below makes an interesting read, particularly in light of what one of the terrorists seemed to be wearing. After going through the text below, do have a look at at the picture to your left. You will notice that the militant has a saffron-colored band around his right wrist. What does this indicate? Was this act orchestrated and executed by extremists other than the often blamed Lashkar-e-Tayaba.
Monday, November 10, 2008 17:51 IST
NEW DELHI: A senior CPI-M MP
Hannan Mollah informed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about alleged activities in Bhonsale Military School; Hannan Mollah has again asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to take stern action against terror activities of saffron groups.
Hannan Mollah said he had earlier pointed out that "organisations like Bajrang Dal, Sanathan Sanstha, Hindu Jan Jagriti Samiti, Guru Kripa Pratisthan etc., were allegedly involved in 'some' bomb blasts and engaged in making bombs and giving arms training."
Interesting Unanswered questions ...
When the Mumbai Carnage [27th-29th No. 2008] first started, among many of my immediate considerations, I focused on the possible perpetrators; I asked myself, 'Could this be the work of internal agents?' Sure, the media in general has supported the ruling forces in India in their finger-pointing, and one may have the propensity to follow what they say [with whatever preliminary evidence has been provided]. However, with more and more time elapsing since the Mumbai Carnage [27th-29th No. 2008], there are certain facts that must be looked at objectively, regardless of the history of ISI orchestrated pranks.
Since I am following the Mumbai Carnage quite closely, I have made it a point to look into whatever all facets of the media. The alternative media is now becoming a much relied upon source of information, and it is from here that we can obtain important viewpoints. I managed to get a hold of some of these in the form of questions that people [particularly Mubaiites] are now begining to ask. They are below:
- How come the Colaba Police did not respond to the Leopold massacre on time? The restaurant is just across the road and the sound of the AK-47 gunfire, the screams of the victims, the chaos of motorists escaping the scene... ought to have been audible at least 100 metres away.
- Why weren’t the casualties sent to elite, private hospitals like Breach Candy and Jaslok nearby, and even Hinduja and Leelavati further away, when the facilities and infrastructure at government-run St. George, GT and JJ Hospitals were clearly incapable of dealing with the vast number of injured, dying and dead?
- If the terrorists had detailed blueprints of the Taj and Oberoi, why weren’t the NSG commandos provided with them before conducting rescue operations?
- What purpose did the visits by politicians like Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, L K Advani and Jaswant Singh serve? How dare Narendra Modi offer Hemant Karkare’s family a cash compensation? Hadn’t he criticised the ATS chief and called him anti-national just a short while ago?
- It took the combined efforts over 60 hours of the Mumbai Police and hundreds of commandos of the Army, Navy and National Security Guard to flush out just 20-odd terrorists armed with sophisticated weapons and explosives... how will we ever fare in a war with hostile, nuclear-armed neighbours?
- How did the few terrorists manage to carry on their campaign over three days without sleep and food? Whereas each place under siege had to regularly have fresh and new teams of commandos pressed into operation over the 60 hours.
- How did the terrorists sneak all that sophisticated weaponry and explosives past hotel security which otherwise looks into every woman’s handbag and frisks men entering the premises?
- Why weren’t the Taj and Oberoi simultaneously stormed by the hundreds of commandos from all entries, with additional forces dropped onto the roof by choppers as at Nariman House, when it was known that there were just few terrorists holed up inside the hotels? Wouldn’t such an operation have taken the terrorists by surprise? After all, they weren’t guarding all the entries...
- Were attempts made to contact the terrorists and negotiate the release of hostages? Aren’t hostages taken for a purpose such as barter against a safe escape, the release of imprisoned terrorists, huge amounts of cash, etc?
- Who was in charge of the entire rescue operation? Wouldn’t one competent and deciding authority have handled it faster and smoother and more responsibly? Shouldn’t it have been the state home ministry?
- What happens to the lone, captured terrorist? Who gets custody of him? Who interrogates him? Did the Indian government really expect Pakistan to send its ISI chief over to help in the probe?
- Where were the carbine-wielding policemen on CST when the terrorists opened fire? Aren’t the GRP and RPF offices on the station? Why didn’t they prevent the terrorists from walking away calmly after the massacre towards Cama Hospital to kill again?
- Who is going to tell the politicians where they get off? Who will cast the first stone of a civil revolution, a people’s war, against the corrupt and communal leaders who have brought the nation to this brink of complete destruction? [All credit to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Fashion_Shows/I_bumped_into_the_terrorists/articleshow/3773098.cms]
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Attack on India's Business Hub! Who's Responsible? Some Mujahideen? Who are Mujahideen? Are Militants Responsible? If not, Who Is?
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Attack on India's Business Hub! Who's Responsible? Some Mujahideen? Who are Mujahideen? Are Militants Responsible? If not, Who Is?
After more than 55 hrs of the Carnage in Mumbai [which commenced late 27th Nov. 2008], I had a conversation online with a friend; we often engage in discussing issues of this kind. During the course of our conversation, he [Tudor] implied that some 'mujaheddin group is claiming responsibility'. My reply was: '...one wonders who is telling any tiny percentage of the truth.'
Then he asked who the 'mujaheddin' were. 'were they Islamic extremists?' he asked. The following entails what I had to say:
If u r really interested in knowing what 'mujahideen' means, u need to first of all take this concept out of your head that there is a term called 'holy war' written in the Quran or Hadees. Words like mujahideen, mujahid, jihad, jidd o jehad, etc. have nothing to do with any war! What they all do allude to is 'struggle'. Now, 'struggle' refers to struggle against social or even political ills in society. For example, you could be a jehadi or mujahideen in ur community when u want to eradicate your community of drug use or spousal abuse.
These terms like mujahideen etc. have been used to label the radicals who claim to be preachers or followers of Islam. There is no such word as 'holy war' in the Quran or Hadees!
It's quite easy to label people, groups or other things, and it really helps in the media and politics when you have an agenda to achieve. The first label put out when there is an issue at hand tends to have an immediate impact. As an example, that's why when the so-called war on terror commenced, Bush had a very hard time distancing himself from a term he used for his war: 'crusade' ...
Coming back to these terms [mujahideen, etc.] the world at large, including Muslims themselves have automatically radicalized many more Muslims than they would have liked to. While Pakistan or Malaysia-based militants may be at the center of these attacks, it is not preposterous to think that Muslims from India or Britain may be responsibleIndia has an enormous number of Muslims across their demography. Also, the MI5 in the past has used militants to knock of certain people....of course for a sizable reward. Yes, just like Omar Saeed Sheikh was used to kill Usama Bin Laden.
One final thought is worth adding here; since i doubt the credibility of these attackers Deccan Mujahideen], and since other militant groups have denied doing it and have even condemned it, it might be a reasonable guess to consider the Hindu fundamentalists [Thackeray's group]. This group killed Christians over many years.
To focus more on the Mumbai attacks, there are others besides Jews and Christians that were killed in Mumbai. Chinese, Japanese, Germans, etc. were among the dead too. Additionally, the gunmen had opened fire indiscriminately. They killed Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anything remotely human in their judgment.
In summation, I can say that when considering who is responsible for this carnage, the possibilities are enormous; almost any group could be responsible for it: RAW [Indian spy network with a hidden agenda], some radicalized militant group, Thackeray or other Hindu fundamentalists, or our own ISI. It is possible that the ISI has done it. I am not sure how [it's just a thought] . Maybe to create a situation in which they expose the incapability of Zardari's government, and then have the military step in once again. At the same time, it could be a government initiated move by the Indians themselves to create an issue just before the elections. This might give them an opportunity to get into some action in order to prove to the prospective voters that they have done something heroic and, therefore, should be elected again. An even further consideration in this regard is also that competing forces may be keen on exposing the ruling party's incapacity and incapability to deter a crisis of this sort.
Only time MIGHT reveal the truth. And, whoever the perpetrators are, they can hardly claim they belong to any religion!
A Final Thought:
This might be another one of Noam Chomsky's concepts in action: 'manufacturing consensus'.
Like sure, Usma's guys attacked the WTC. But they [the US] knew since 1999 that it was going to happen, and they let it happen, and they exacerbated it. They magnified the carnage, and then had an excuse for following it with their agenda to get into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Democracy or Dictatorship? Does it really matter to us?
With Musharaf setting sail for retirement [perhaps], the much touted violation of the constitution seems to settle in the dust. The main question being asked in the media include the all important one: who and what will fill the vacuum Musharaf leaves behind? However, one has to wonder whether this is the question to ask, given the nature and quality of Pakistani democracy we have experienced through our history. It is more relevant to keep in view the democracy this nation has seen since General Zia was assassinated.
The less myopic educated segment of Pakistani society remembers what this democracy has been like. It is now 2008, and the writer speaks of the Democracy that Pakistan has experienced in the post General Zia era. Indeed, it was 1988 when Pakistan saw democracy return after Zia's rule was brought to a halt. Who all did the country see before it in its democratic forefront? Benazir Bhutto [who would still be around if she weren't assassinated], her ever-scheming Asif Zardari, the Sharif brothers, much of the PML, Altaf Hussain, etc. That was 1988, and the country saw Benazir step into power twice since then. So did Nawaz Sharif hold Prime Minister's office twice. Now, it is 2008, and one would assume these leaders would have relinquished their hold democratically after serving two terms each. However, low and behold, in come the same faces and their minions two decades later.
The masses [largely uneducated as any survey will verify] are somehow convinced that these so-called democratic players people promise change. Well, one won't deny that. This time round, they have managed to oust the single-minded Musharaf. He stands firm in the development and security he brought to Pakistan, particular in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC. Apart from that, he has done a lot that has discredited him. The one thing that does prop him up amid the rest in the political scenario is that he could never be found guilty of marauding the country. With him gone, this is one of the greatest worries Pakistan should pay attention to. Given the record of our democratic players, it is indeed difficult to imagine them keeping their hands clean. Old habits die hard they say. For example, whether Pakistan has democracy or dictatorship, the police are still corrupt; the misuse their powers, commit crimes themseves, and are untouchable.
So what about the 'vacuum' that Musharaf has left behind? Is there going to be any new promising blood around, aside from the philanderer of a son that Zardari has fathered? How come there are no new faces in the political arena? Is there some sort of barrier that keeps new blood out? Shouldn't a democratic country be concerned about the fact that the last 20 years has brought no change even within the individual parties? Certainly, Musharaf's rule didn't deter any political party from choosing new leaders through a democratic process. If these political parties believe in democracy so fervidly, how come they have lifetime leaders? This is unlike any democratic party in UK or the US or even India. Democratic leaders are supposed to be elected even within their parties through the trust of their own party members.
One may not have answers to all the questions above, but there are certain glaring points that one might need to digest in order to understand the way that things work in Pakistan. We are a client state and a buffer state. The west needs us to be in a certain predicament in order to suit their own designs. We will probably forever ever on the brink because this is how they achieve their objectives. Look back at the history of this country, and you will see a shift back and fourth: corrupt leaders come in and make a mess, the people cry, and then the army comes in. After that, the people get fed up of the military, and they cry for democracy. Next, the same rogues, if they are alive, come in to plunder the country some more, and the military will be back again later. Today, many Pakistanis are crying out for democracy. Tomorrow, we might want another Ayub or a Musharaf. The army can come in because it can exercise its might and may sometimes have civilian support. The so-called democracy returns when the same old leaders manage to make more promises to the largely ignorant masses that love them blindly.
Call it conspiracy or whatever one wants, but this shift of power is expected to continue as long as the west benefits from it. That's why one should ask whether having democracy or dictatorship really matters. The people at large still have the same problems!
Finally, it's worth pointing out that while democracy-loving people welcome Musharaf's departure with dancing and firing guns in the streets, the more educated waste their time participating in independent polls. Surprizingly, Dawn News TV reported that there were 76% of the voters were in favor of Musharaf not being impeached while the remaining 24% felt that he should be impeached. In a follow up poll, while these two groups were split with more than 50% believed that he should remain as president. Now this was an English speaking audience that participated in this poll, which one might assume is an educated segment.
Now, are these English-speaking viewers in favor of western designs while residing in Pakistan? Are they as like-minded as the Pakistani-Americans who largely felt more comfortable with Musharaf being around? You can be the judge.
With Musharaf setting sail for retirement [perhaps], the much touted violation of the constitution seems to settle in the dust. The main question being asked in the media include the all important one: who and what will fill the vacuum Musharaf leaves behind? However, one has to wonder whether this is the question to ask, given the nature and quality of Pakistani democracy we have experienced through our history. It is more relevant to keep in view the democracy this nation has seen since General Zia was assassinated.
The less myopic educated segment of Pakistani society remembers what this democracy has been like. It is now 2008, and the writer speaks of the Democracy that Pakistan has experienced in the post General Zia era. Indeed, it was 1988 when Pakistan saw democracy return after Zia's rule was brought to a halt. Who all did the country see before it in its democratic forefront? Benazir Bhutto [who would still be around if she weren't assassinated], her ever-scheming Asif Zardari, the Sharif brothers, much of the PML, Altaf Hussain, etc. That was 1988, and the country saw Benazir step into power twice since then. So did Nawaz Sharif hold Prime Minister's office twice. Now, it is 2008, and one would assume these leaders would have relinquished their hold democratically after serving two terms each. However, low and behold, in come the same faces and their minions two decades later.
The masses [largely uneducated as any survey will verify] are somehow convinced that these so-called democratic players people promise change. Well, one won't deny that. This time round, they have managed to oust the single-minded Musharaf. He stands firm in the development and security he brought to Pakistan, particular in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC. Apart from that, he has done a lot that has discredited him. The one thing that does prop him up amid the rest in the political scenario is that he could never be found guilty of marauding the country. With him gone, this is one of the greatest worries Pakistan should pay attention to. Given the record of our democratic players, it is indeed difficult to imagine them keeping their hands clean. Old habits die hard they say. For example, whether Pakistan has democracy or dictatorship, the police are still corrupt; the misuse their powers, commit crimes themseves, and are untouchable.
So what about the 'vacuum' that Musharaf has left behind? Is there going to be any new promising blood around, aside from the philanderer of a son that Zardari has fathered? How come there are no new faces in the political arena? Is there some sort of barrier that keeps new blood out? Shouldn't a democratic country be concerned about the fact that the last 20 years has brought no change even within the individual parties? Certainly, Musharaf's rule didn't deter any political party from choosing new leaders through a democratic process. If these political parties believe in democracy so fervidly, how come they have lifetime leaders? This is unlike any democratic party in UK or the US or even India. Democratic leaders are supposed to be elected even within their parties through the trust of their own party members.
One may not have answers to all the questions above, but there are certain glaring points that one might need to digest in order to understand the way that things work in Pakistan. We are a client state and a buffer state. The west needs us to be in a certain predicament in order to suit their own designs. We will probably forever ever on the brink because this is how they achieve their objectives. Look back at the history of this country, and you will see a shift back and fourth: corrupt leaders come in and make a mess, the people cry, and then the army comes in. After that, the people get fed up of the military, and they cry for democracy. Next, the same rogues, if they are alive, come in to plunder the country some more, and the military will be back again later. Today, many Pakistanis are crying out for democracy. Tomorrow, we might want another Ayub or a Musharaf. The army can come in because it can exercise its might and may sometimes have civilian support. The so-called democracy returns when the same old leaders manage to make more promises to the largely ignorant masses that love them blindly.
Call it conspiracy or whatever one wants, but this shift of power is expected to continue as long as the west benefits from it. That's why one should ask whether having democracy or dictatorship really matters. The people at large still have the same problems!
Finally, it's worth pointing out that while democracy-loving people welcome Musharaf's departure with dancing and firing guns in the streets, the more educated waste their time participating in independent polls. Surprizingly, Dawn News TV reported that there were 76% of the voters were in favor of Musharaf not being impeached while the remaining 24% felt that he should be impeached. In a follow up poll, while these two groups were split with more than 50% believed that he should remain as president. Now this was an English speaking audience that participated in this poll, which one might assume is an educated segment.
Now, are these English-speaking viewers in favor of western designs while residing in Pakistan? Are they as like-minded as the Pakistani-Americans who largely felt more comfortable with Musharaf being around? You can be the judge.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
War for Oil!
Oh this war for oil! Well, I'm sure you'd be aware of it if you ever have bothered venturing into the plethora of available information on Bush Senior and Junior, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and many others. Yes, that's what I am hinting at: their interest in oil, and the war that is used as leverage to achieve control over it. And if you haven't a clue about where I am heading, search up these names and "oil" as a mandatory search key. You'll be hit back with a tsunami of enlightening information.
As much as the media portrays the American-led war as a 'War on Terror', there is no doubt about the not-so-clandestine nature of dealings surrounding it. However, many till today struggle to digest the fact that this war benefits a handful of voracious businessmen rather than those poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, those who have managed to fathom the surrounding dealings that lie as a background to this war will have made sense of it. Can war make sense? oh yes, it can, particularly because it is a fact that fighting a war always tends to benefit the aggressor's economy. Afterall, the army is an industry in itself with many associated ones working closely with it. Defense expenditures rise, and every mechanism kicks into play, setting its own economy in motion. There are billions of Dollars being generated in military deals, some of which are even extended to countries outside the warring aggressor's domain. However, let me not lose my focus here, which is the War for Oil. Oops! Sorry, I meant, War on Terror.
True, maybe I am just rambling on about what I believe or what a few other writers have put out there. However, it is worth looking back at what has been before we accept or validate George W. Bush as our crusader against the 'Axis of Evil'. And 'crusader' is none but a cynical title for him, as he is hardly a follower of any monotheist faith. Ironically, his War on Terror began as what he described as a 'crusade' against evil. While many felt his war was justified, it sickened the rest of us powerless spectators. Justified or not, there were many unanswered questions that remained.
Since the day I received an email about the War on Terror, entitled 'It's the Oil Stupid', I began to question the legitimacy of the Bush clan. I began to wonder how it could all be possible; did the Al Qaeda really orchestrate and execute the 9/11 terrorist attacks and did they really catch everyone by surprise? or did the CIA let it happen so they'd have an excuse to enter Afghanistan? could the U.S. have caused mass deception so easily? Why Afghanistan? Why Iraq? and why did Iraq not have any weapons of mass destruction once it was invaded? did all those weapons evaporate overnight? were any of these weapons really there to begin with? or maybe it was the chemical or biological weapons Bush was talking about. Yes, I am talking about the same chemical weapons that the U.S. provided Saddam to fight the Iranians. The U.S. has always done things like this; they side with you when it suits their purposes, and then, when their work is done they will exploit you. Afterall, countries like Iraq and Pakistan are just 'client states', judged not by their values or the respect they have earned, but by their obedience to the west. Now, why on earth did I mention Pakistan alongside Iraq? Is there any similarity between the two?
Just like Iraq was used as leverage against Iran, Pakistan has been used to operate against the Russian-occupied Afghanistan via the Taliban. The U.S. [C.I.A.] funded and directed the Taliban and the eventual Al-Qaeda through the Pakistan [I.S.I]. Oh yes, you had better get some research done if you don't believe it. The very recent Lal Masjid incident was a manifestation of the clandestine activities went on there; fighters were indoctrinated and trained there. Do you suppose our ex-Prime Ministers [Benazir and Nawaz Sharif] had no idea about this? Also, let us not forget that it was the U.S. that welcomed the Taliban's success at driving the Russians out of Afghanistan. We all hailed them as 'Mujahideen' [Freedom Fighters].
Anyway, once the Taliban gained control, things seemed warm between them and the U.S, particularly because both countries had an interest in the oil business. Both stood to gain from the abundant oil reserves in the region. By the time George W. Bush became president, Taliban officials had even visited the U.S. [Do check out Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11]. According to this documentary and a host of other sources, there were plans to tap into oil reserves that Bush could not get his hands on alone. Afghanistan [the Taliban] was supposed to be part of this. However, something went horribly wrong, and the hiatus led to something quite unexpected for most of us. What caused the Taliban-American relations to strain, and so quickly too? Were the Americans being to greedy in their pipeline deal? Did they ask for too large a percentage? Or did the U.S. simply change their minds about their planned pipeline through Afghanistan and decide to kill two birds with one stone [Afghanistan and Iraq]. But how?
Terrorism was a conveniently growing threat, given that Usama Bin Laden [incidentally, a man with American combat training] began to make Americans his prime targets through the latter 1990s. This terrorist threat was the perfect leverage that could be used against Afghanistan, and subsequently against the then potentially dangerous Iraq. The 9/11 terrorist attacks was the beginning of the showdown. Before we knew it, the argot of Bush, quickly transformed into vernacular phrases that echoed every facet of the media: Al Qaeda, axis of evil, perpetrators, Taliban, Usama Bin Laden, etc. were words on almost every tongue.
While getting into Afghanistan was easily achieved owing to Usama Bin Laden and his minions hiding there, it would have been a difficult task to gain consensual approval for invading Iraq. However, nearly all members of U.N. Security Council members voted in favor of invading Iraq. Why? Well, it's simple: 'It's the Oil, Stupid!' However, not all of them would benefit from the oil reserves. They apparently were coerced, but had to say it was their own choice to support the war for the sake of their international image. And of course, Uncle Sam threatened these weaklings with dire consequences should they act any differently.
Though consensus was more easily achieved through coercing weaker states, there were others like the UN Security members that had to put their weight behind a consensus. Countries like France and even Russia had already signed agreements with Saddam's administration. These agreements and the subsequent investments were supposed to set up the oil industry in Iraq. Now, if any of these countries didn't want their agreements scrapped under the new Iraq administration, they would have to abide by what the U.S. intended to do. And so, a consensus was not too difficult to achieve. Most of them submitted to the U.S. calumniation against Iraq, and went ahead with the invasion. For the rest of the world, it did not matter what anyone thought about war. Perhaps most of us were all too convinced or perplexed by what the White House propagated through the media. Such chicanery and wile tactics have probably never been attempted with this magnitude before, and many are still stunned at the audacity and impunity of such a plot.
Well, I shall end my message here. I will write some more about the 'war for oil' later when another mail prompts me to do so.
Good day to you!
P.S.
I have not bothered going into every detail extensively because I'd end up having to provided you anecdotes, citations and references. There is plenty of material available on these issues that might be more insightful. So go ahead if you like :)
As much as the media portrays the American-led war as a 'War on Terror', there is no doubt about the not-so-clandestine nature of dealings surrounding it. However, many till today struggle to digest the fact that this war benefits a handful of voracious businessmen rather than those poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, those who have managed to fathom the surrounding dealings that lie as a background to this war will have made sense of it. Can war make sense? oh yes, it can, particularly because it is a fact that fighting a war always tends to benefit the aggressor's economy. Afterall, the army is an industry in itself with many associated ones working closely with it. Defense expenditures rise, and every mechanism kicks into play, setting its own economy in motion. There are billions of Dollars being generated in military deals, some of which are even extended to countries outside the warring aggressor's domain. However, let me not lose my focus here, which is the War for Oil. Oops! Sorry, I meant, War on Terror.
True, maybe I am just rambling on about what I believe or what a few other writers have put out there. However, it is worth looking back at what has been before we accept or validate George W. Bush as our crusader against the 'Axis of Evil'. And 'crusader' is none but a cynical title for him, as he is hardly a follower of any monotheist faith. Ironically, his War on Terror began as what he described as a 'crusade' against evil. While many felt his war was justified, it sickened the rest of us powerless spectators. Justified or not, there were many unanswered questions that remained.
Since the day I received an email about the War on Terror, entitled 'It's the Oil Stupid', I began to question the legitimacy of the Bush clan. I began to wonder how it could all be possible; did the Al Qaeda really orchestrate and execute the 9/11 terrorist attacks and did they really catch everyone by surprise? or did the CIA let it happen so they'd have an excuse to enter Afghanistan? could the U.S. have caused mass deception so easily? Why Afghanistan? Why Iraq? and why did Iraq not have any weapons of mass destruction once it was invaded? did all those weapons evaporate overnight? were any of these weapons really there to begin with? or maybe it was the chemical or biological weapons Bush was talking about. Yes, I am talking about the same chemical weapons that the U.S. provided Saddam to fight the Iranians. The U.S. has always done things like this; they side with you when it suits their purposes, and then, when their work is done they will exploit you. Afterall, countries like Iraq and Pakistan are just 'client states', judged not by their values or the respect they have earned, but by their obedience to the west. Now, why on earth did I mention Pakistan alongside Iraq? Is there any similarity between the two?
Just like Iraq was used as leverage against Iran, Pakistan has been used to operate against the Russian-occupied Afghanistan via the Taliban. The U.S. [C.I.A.] funded and directed the Taliban and the eventual Al-Qaeda through the Pakistan [I.S.I]. Oh yes, you had better get some research done if you don't believe it. The very recent Lal Masjid incident was a manifestation of the clandestine activities went on there; fighters were indoctrinated and trained there. Do you suppose our ex-Prime Ministers [Benazir and Nawaz Sharif] had no idea about this? Also, let us not forget that it was the U.S. that welcomed the Taliban's success at driving the Russians out of Afghanistan. We all hailed them as 'Mujahideen' [Freedom Fighters].
Anyway, once the Taliban gained control, things seemed warm between them and the U.S, particularly because both countries had an interest in the oil business. Both stood to gain from the abundant oil reserves in the region. By the time George W. Bush became president, Taliban officials had even visited the U.S. [Do check out Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11]. According to this documentary and a host of other sources, there were plans to tap into oil reserves that Bush could not get his hands on alone. Afghanistan [the Taliban] was supposed to be part of this. However, something went horribly wrong, and the hiatus led to something quite unexpected for most of us. What caused the Taliban-American relations to strain, and so quickly too? Were the Americans being to greedy in their pipeline deal? Did they ask for too large a percentage? Or did the U.S. simply change their minds about their planned pipeline through Afghanistan and decide to kill two birds with one stone [Afghanistan and Iraq]. But how?
Terrorism was a conveniently growing threat, given that Usama Bin Laden [incidentally, a man with American combat training] began to make Americans his prime targets through the latter 1990s. This terrorist threat was the perfect leverage that could be used against Afghanistan, and subsequently against the then potentially dangerous Iraq. The 9/11 terrorist attacks was the beginning of the showdown. Before we knew it, the argot of Bush, quickly transformed into vernacular phrases that echoed every facet of the media: Al Qaeda, axis of evil, perpetrators, Taliban, Usama Bin Laden, etc. were words on almost every tongue.
While getting into Afghanistan was easily achieved owing to Usama Bin Laden and his minions hiding there, it would have been a difficult task to gain consensual approval for invading Iraq. However, nearly all members of U.N. Security Council members voted in favor of invading Iraq. Why? Well, it's simple: 'It's the Oil, Stupid!' However, not all of them would benefit from the oil reserves. They apparently were coerced, but had to say it was their own choice to support the war for the sake of their international image. And of course, Uncle Sam threatened these weaklings with dire consequences should they act any differently.
Though consensus was more easily achieved through coercing weaker states, there were others like the UN Security members that had to put their weight behind a consensus. Countries like France and even Russia had already signed agreements with Saddam's administration. These agreements and the subsequent investments were supposed to set up the oil industry in Iraq. Now, if any of these countries didn't want their agreements scrapped under the new Iraq administration, they would have to abide by what the U.S. intended to do. And so, a consensus was not too difficult to achieve. Most of them submitted to the U.S. calumniation against Iraq, and went ahead with the invasion. For the rest of the world, it did not matter what anyone thought about war. Perhaps most of us were all too convinced or perplexed by what the White House propagated through the media. Such chicanery and wile tactics have probably never been attempted with this magnitude before, and many are still stunned at the audacity and impunity of such a plot.
Well, I shall end my message here. I will write some more about the 'war for oil' later when another mail prompts me to do so.
Good day to you!
P.S.
I have not bothered going into every detail extensively because I'd end up having to provided you anecdotes, citations and references. There is plenty of material available on these issues that might be more insightful. So go ahead if you like :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
