- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, November 01, 2010

391 000 more leaks, yet still no Weapons of Mass Destruction

Wikileaks documents 'reveal new deaths'
US military documents leaked to whistleblowing website Wikileaks reveal thousands of previously unreported civilian deaths, according to independent research organisation Iraq Body Count.

391 000 secret Iraq war documents released by Wikileaks and yet still no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

15 000 more civilian deaths than have been previously recognized have been acknowledged, yet no weapons of mass destruction.

Vast evidence of rape, torture murder and abuse of civilians have all been uncovered, but not one weapon of mass destruction.

Has it occurred to anyone yet that the invisible weapon of mass destruction is actually the West?

Brothers and Sisters, The second greatest lie about Iraq after the weapons of mass distraction, was that Saddam caused murders, rapes, torture and killings and that by invading him the brave courageous West would put a stop to that. Ignoring that fact that Saddam was a CIA client state and that any weapons of mass destruction he once owned had been sold to him by the West, these 391 000 released documents on wikileaks proves that the West have overseen the exact same perversions of authority that was supposedly the last remaining rational after the WMD lie that justified invading Iraq on trumped up charges in the first place.

I love the smell of hypocrisy and napalm first thing in the morning because nothing says freedom and democracy like a million dead civilians. Can’t we just be honest and call Iraq ‘Operation-steal-all-your-oil-based-on-trumped-up-charges-for-a- dictatorship-we-funded-that’s-gone-feral?’


At 1/11/10 4:51 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget the uncounted undocumented effects of depleted uranium ...

At 1/11/10 5:14 pm, Anonymous Gosman said...

Iraq was mainly a client state of the Soviet Union. While it received some assistance from the West during the Iran-Iraq war this didn't extend much beyong intelligence and some weapon sales. The vast majority of the technology that Saddam used to build up it's WMD capability was either obtained surreptiously or direct from the Soviet bloc. There is no evidence that it was a CIA 'client state' (whatever that actually means).

At 1/11/10 5:32 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This entire Iraq disaster was built on the premise of non existant WMDs. Contemptible idiots like Liberty Scott (still saving NZers from themselves by way of blog from London) are still claiming that the US and the UK will be proved to be right in the end.

At 1/11/10 6:53 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

And now Maliki has formed an alliance with Moqtada al-Sadr after 7 months of post election stalemate, meaning America's preferred candidate has sided with Iran! An alliance endorsed by Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, Well done America, making the world a safer place. Despite it's bloated military it seems incapable of achieving it's objectives...

Gosman, what planet are you on?

At 1/11/10 7:27 pm, Anonymous Pascal's bookie said...


So Iraq was only getting 'assistance' from the west during the Iran Iraq war? That would be when Iraq was using all those chemical weapons then.

And why perchance, do you think they went the soviets prior to that? Could it be, perhaps, something to do with all the weapons the west was feeding into Iran under the Shah?

Also of course, remains the fact that the Shah warned Hussein in the late 70's that the USSR planned to overthrow him, in return for which, Saddam sent Khomenei back home. That worked out well of course, but doesn't do much for the 'Saddam was a soviet lackey' theory.

A theory about as weak kneed as another you have put forward, that there was not much fighting in Baghdad during the most recent war.

At 1/11/10 7:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh the WMDs are there alright..
Just as soon as they locate the Candy Castle that they're hidden in & defeat the the dragon mounted pixies that protect them.

At 1/11/10 10:14 pm, Anonymous shirleyboy said...

Gosman is disciple of LBJ who believes that the USA fought a just war in Vietnam!

At 1/11/10 10:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Mukhabarat was advised and trained by the Statsi, the east German secret police. Funny that.

So how does this fit into your CIA theory?

Or are you simply ignoring it because it doesn't fit into your knee jerk America hating narrative?

Facts don't go away simply because they're inconvenient.

I'd give this post 'E' as in epic fail.

At 1/11/10 10:49 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 2/11/10 9:27 am, Anonymous Gosman said...

@ Pascal's Bookie

Lot's of dodgy countries have received assistence from the West. Why are you surprised?

The Soviet Union itself received huge amounts of raw materials and armaments during WWII even though the Red Army was commiting horrible atrocities in Eastern Europe and Germany.

The Zimbabwen army received training from the British in the 1980's even though ZANU-PF killed up to 20,000 of their own Ndebele people.

At 2/11/10 11:16 am, Anonymous Pascal's bookie said...

I'm not surprised at all.

It's kind of central to my point.

At 2/11/10 1:57 pm, Anonymous Gosman said...

I think your point was that the West is basically supporting these dodgy countries actions. The one doesn't flow from the other.

Just because the West gave the Soviet Union massive amounts of aid and armaments in WWII doesn't mean they condoned the mass rape of German Women at the end of the war.

Equally sharing intelligence information with the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war doesn't make the West complicit in the gassing of the Kurds. The Kurds of Iraq have far more to be greatful for from the West hence why they generally have a favourable impression of America (see


At 2/11/10 6:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget that those who supplied chemical weapons to Saddam were the French, Swiss and Germans.

So lets recall who was against the war again and just why - because they wanted to protect their lucrative commercial connections with the Iraqi regime.

Oh the nobility of opposing US regime change.

At 2/11/10 6:26 pm, Anonymous Pascal's bookie said...

Is gassing Iranians ok? I know torture is these days so I'm just trying to get my head around it all.

What's the deal? gassing kurds? nasty nasty war crime.

gassing Iranians? here let me give you some info re their positions.

At 3/11/10 6:19 am, Anonymous Gosman said...

Ummmmm..... who gassed the Kurds and Iranians again?

I think you will find it was the Iraqis.

Anonymous @ 6:20 pm is also right in that the Iraqis got far more material support for their weapon programmes in the 1970's and 80's from nations like France, Germany, and Switzerland than they did from the US or the UK. These are countries that did not support the deposing of Saddam Hussein.

At 3/11/10 8:47 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Gosman is one of the few still attempting to justify the American invasion of Iraq. You will find it was the Americans alongside those other western countries who were supplying Saddam with weapons, who sold him the helicopters Gosman? It was the Americans, Gosman pretends that the CIA didn't refer to Saddam as 'He is a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch', Gosman pretends that Saddam wasn't a client state of the US, he pretends America didn't sell Saddam duel technology products, Gosman pretends that the CIA didn't give Saddam satellite pictures from space during the Iran/Iraq war - Gosman does a lot of pretending, I remember when Gosman was claiming that he was kicking arse over at Hot Topic pretending to have those who believe global warming is made by man made pollution on the ropes, yet he isn't so loud about those claims anymore.

Gosman does a lot of pretending.

Don't forget that those who supplied chemical weapons to Saddam were the French, Swiss and Germans.
YAWN - this is used as some sort of defense for America, yes they sold Saddam that equipment, so did the fucking American's, they sold Saddam duel purpose equipment along with military hardware - I'm not for one second suggesting those countries opposed America for anything more than commercial reasons, but that doesn't excuse America anon, and it doesn't justify your dirty little war in Iraq.

Where are the WMD's then clown? You war apologists are all the same, grasping for straws to justify your violence. How about you send YOUR kids to war first and then jump up and down.

At 3/11/10 9:13 am, Anonymous AAMC said...


So, in the 1988 gassing of the Kurds, The Regan Government blocked Congress to prevent any condemnation of Iraq for it's atrocities. Regan and Bush Sr continued to provide significant armaments. The Pentagon claimed initially it was the Iranians and not Iraq who were responsible for the gassing. Thatcher ignored the issue.Tony Blair and Jack Straw also avoided protest.

In the 70's the Kurds were used as a political football in the manipulation between Iran and Iraq. Washington supported a Kurdish rebellion against Iraq in 1974, but after some deal making between Iran and Iraq which provided the opportunity for Iraq to massacre the Kurds, the Americans stepped aside. Henry Kissinger made the statement that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work". Complicit!

In 1991, following the first Gulf War, America gave Saddam the green light to crush another Kurdish rebellion, having encouraged it.European and Turkish pressure out of fear of refugees at the gate pressured for the advent of Kurdistan within Iraq. As a result of oil riches and black market trafficking during the sanctions, the Kurds did well during this period which contributes to your proposed "favorable impression of America"

In 1997, Clinton sent more military aid to Turkey than it had received between 1950 - 1983. 1997 was the peak of Kurdish repression within Turkey. Turkey was at this stage the leading benefactor of US military aid (other than Egypt and Israel), once the Kurdish insurgency was repressed the aid moved to Colombia. US was providing 80% of Turkey's arms, while it was committing atrocities against the Kurds, there is estimated to have been 50,000 killed and 3 million refugees. The Turks were condemned by America- despite this previous support from Clinton- once Turkey refused to tow the line over the invasion of Iraq.

If Washington, truly backed the Kurds, it would support the formation of an autonomous Kurdish State, but Turkey is more important of coarse than 25 million Kurds. Turkey is a pillar of Nato and a powerful ally in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea Basin.

The Kurds - a little like the Afghans - are pawns in a game between other players, and if currently it is American interests to support them, I'm sure they are grateful for that. It doesn't however erase history. American I'm sure you agree has enormous influence over this region, and I'd say giving large amounts of armaments to Turkey to be used in it's campaign against the Kurds, with no condemnation of the atrocities makes them complicit.

Anon, condemning America's support of atrocities by it's client states doesn't endorse France or the Germans or the Swiss. Weak argument!
What are your thought on how you Regime change has gone? How about the 7 month stalemate post election and now the power has shifted away from American influence and over to the Iranians. Regime change? Well done!

At 3/11/10 10:36 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course there are no WMD, that was the ploy to get into a war that will be everlasting until the last drop of oil is expleted. I dont understand how people can support a war in America when they dont have basic health care, numerous veterans are homeless and no proper mental care for them when they come home. They attract the poor and uneducated to fight.

The war costs approx $1 Billion a month, fighting proxy wars for Israel really and trying their best to get into Yemen now with this bullshit they've created over this cartridge bomb.

Whats bizare about wikileaks is that it doesnt think that 9/11 was manufactured either when there is so much proof and evidence of it being completely planned.. So wikileaks could be controlled by the military... who knows

At 3/11/10 10:52 am, Anonymous AAMC said...

And what about the Kurds in Turkey Gossman?

In 1997, the peak of Turkish atrocities against the Kurds was also the peak of US military aid to Turkey. More arms were sent to Turkey on 1997 than between the years 1950 - 1983. During the Clinton years Turkey - after Israel and Egypt - was the leading benefactor of US military aid. Throughout the 90's 80% of Turkish arms came from America. In 1999, once the Kurdish insurgency had been suppressed, the aid moved to Colombia. I'd say complicit!
Turkish sources suggest that during this period 50,000 Kurds were killed and 3 million displaced as refugees....
Once Turkey refused to partake in the US invasion of Iraq, the condemnation came.

The Kurds, like the Afghans are used as political pawns in geo- political games Gossman, you're analysis seems a little naive. There is unlikely to be an autonomous Kurdish state as America is unlikely to back the Kurds against Turkey,a NATO member and a valuable ally in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea Basin.

And Anon 6.20, it's pretty desperate to endorse US action because some other corrupt Governments are also morally questionable. What are your thoughts in relation to this regime change that has resulted in a democracy which takes 7 months to form a government. And now that political influence has fallen to Sadr, a self imposed exile to Iran, endorsed by Hezbollah, Syria, Iran... Regime change? Well done war mongers, you truly fucked this one up!

At 3/11/10 11:36 am, Anonymous AAMC said...

I apologize for repeating myself, thought the first one didn't go through cause it was too long...

At 3/11/10 11:55 am, Anonymous Gosman said...

"Gosman pretends that the CIA didn't refer to Saddam as 'He is a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch'"

I don't have to pretend that at all. There is no evidence that the CIA did state that at all, or anything remotely similar.

Care to provide some evidence to back your claim up Mr Bradbury?

At 3/11/10 11:56 am, Anonymous Gosman said...

By the way it is Gosman with one S AAAAMC.

At 3/11/10 12:18 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

You want a link to when you said you were kicking arse over at Hot Topic? How come the world hasn't woken up to your claim that global warming isn't because of man made pollution?

What I most love is how Gosman seems to utterly ignore the Iran/Iraq war when Iraq was VERY much a CIA client state. I suppose those satellite pictures from space just magically turned up on Saddam's desk huh Goss?

At 3/11/10 12:49 pm, Anonymous Gosman said...

Yeah, I think I would like a link to what you claim I stated about Hot Topic. Remember it is all about "kicking arse".

Perhaps you would care to provide the evidence for this as well as the CIA quote as well? Somehow I doubt you will though.

At 3/11/10 1:25 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

You are a liar Gosman, you are now claiming you didn't say that or the email you sent to 'explain' yourself?

You claimed you were kicking their arse, 'running for the hills' wasn't it Gossy? Gareth didn't seem to think anyone was "running to the hills" over at Hot Topic.

At 3/11/10 5:01 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Oh and while Gosman continues to lie about his climate denial, let's point out how Saddam was a CIA client state shall we?

Nice to see we can add Iraq war apologist to your climate denial bullshit as well, but I suspect we'll see a back-peddle on that at some point in the future.

At 3/11/10 5:06 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Oh and while you are on a hiding to nothing, this link comprehensively rips Gosmans claim that Iraq wasn't a CIA client state to pieces and I think the evidence is so damning dear Gossy will go VERY quiet and I won't hear from him on this issue again, a little bit like how he is very quite about his claim that he had people on Hot Topic running to the hills. Your attempt to moderate your position on climate change as the evidence that man made pollution is causing it mounts is cute Goss.

Here's a taste of the link...

America aided Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq. Describing them as "...the political force of the future..." the CIA met with Ba'ath activists in the early 1960's. In the coup of 1963, thousands of Iraqi opposition political figures were murdered in three days, many them on a list which, according to journalist John Pilger, was supplied by the CIA. James Critchfield was the head of the CIA's Middle East Desk at the time. He later described the coup to authors Andrew and Patrick Cockburn for their book 'Out of the Ashes.' "It was a great victory. [....] It was an operation where all the 't's were really crossed." Another CIA agent testified to Congress: "He [Saddam] was a son of a bitch, but he was OUR son of a bitch." ['PAYING THE PRICE' - documentary by John Pilger, CARLTON TV, UK, 1999]

...ouch a public spanking like this can't be nice Gossy.

At 5/11/10 9:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Russian desire for re-engagement in ‘the Ghan’, apart from military means, which has been ruled out of order by former President Putin seeking another run at the top job in 2012, and which is outside the rules of spending more than two terms in power.Their very own bitter experience in this country cost more than 13,000 lives over a ten year occupation and which seems bloodier in terms of lives and treasure with some 140 infrastructure projects including power stations completed. Compare that with the couple of thousand Nato deaths so far over the same time frame and the allied forces seem lucky in comparison!

The first rule of politics, unlike Tony Blair claiming that there are no rules, is that there are in fact some basic rules of legitimacy or claiming the support of the people, and they must be followed accordingly.

As Rudyard Kipling wrote once upon a time in history, east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.

It was the Stinger missiles from the C.I.A that drove the Russians and their gunship helicopters out of Afghanistan. If the next country to invade had heeded this lesson of their own making they may never have gone there either. Also their closest ally Britain invaded in 1839 as a gambit in what war poets called the great game or the 100 year pre-cold-war contest with the Russians for power and influence in Asia Minor. Three years later they made a hasty retreat and were cut to pieces on the road out of Kabul. Promised safe passage they were in turn massacred. This remains one of the saddest military defeats in their history. The Soviets occupied to prop up worldwide communism and bombed the place back into the Stone Age. Afghanistan remains one of the five least developed countries in the world. They then pulled out and left them

At 5/11/10 9:10 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to fend for themselves against the Taliban.When George W Bush sent US forces to Afghanistan, he was effectively sending them back in time, to the middle ages. This mismatch doomed them all to be defeated.The longer a conflict or conflagration lasts the more people and countries get tied up in it. No one is in ultimate control.Saddam spearheaded Iraqi nationalisation and ultimate conquest of the western owned Iraq Petroleum Company which held an unfair monopoly on the country’s oil resources both during and after war with its neighbours Iran for eight long years and a million casualties as well.

Gaddafi today is a partner of B.P.

All this after Reagan killed some close members of his family with a stealth bomber. Turning down a request for training their troops added an extra year up to five years instead of 2-4 withdrawal dates. Then we should not be in any hurry to get out of Afghanistan today, as Paul Buchanan mentions in the Listener and Dominion Post we should not have eschewed our closest allies requests for 50 more ANZAC troops to train Afghan forces in Oruzgan. Now 3 diggers have been killed without us risking our necks beside our mates, 21 in total and 10 since June. August 2, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, igniting the possibility of war in the Persian Gulf. This area has long been a tinderbox, and I could see the world was about to be swept up into war. President George H.W.Bush was already trying to limit the conflict and avoided a war which would have swept the whole Arab and Muslim world up into arms by not going onto Baghdad. President Bush somehow knew through gut instinct or plain know how that it was not just seen as an attack on Iraq alone, but for Muslims religion is

At 5/11/10 9:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

of a higher order than the nation state, and if Iraq was finished off altogether the Arab world would join together in opposition to the Christian world and its leader the United States.On September 11th 2001 we all felt the visceral excitement and utter horror when the World Trade Centre twin towers in New York City were destroyed by mostly Saudi Al Qaeda terrorists. This was the inevitable Clash of Civilizations we had heard mentioned earlier, or even the end of history. In their purest forms however Islam and Christianity are not really religions of conflict and confrontation. It is bigoted ignorance to brand them as such as the fundamental essence of all religions which is Peace is the same. All Muslims were branded as Terrorist’s after the 9/11 attack, but for most people they are simply ordinary and above average behaviour wise and problem wise. Even though some people talk about peace and love they still fight each other. The late Yasser Arafat led the Palestinians for a long time. Like all political leaders he hoped for peace and was also associated with resolving strife in the region as Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and Arafat himself grew to embody the self-determination for Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem including Judaism to become an independent state, and many now argue that he had shifted his views away from fighting “to peace”; and to deter the activities of the extremist’s like Hamas after he was elected president of the Palestinian National Authority in 1996. Let’s start in the deserts of Iraq. Many people were perplexed by Tony Blair’s decision to back George W. Bush’s invasion, including Nelson Mandela a peace price winner and which has led to the deaths of 1.2 million people. Blair said he was motivated by opposition to two things-terrorism and tyranny.First off he said Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to jihadis.Then, when it was proven after the invasion that Saddam had no WMD and no links to jihadis-as many critics of the war had said; it turned out that he had blood on his hands after all!

Even after testimony to the Iraq inquiry this last week that saw the former head of intelligence at MI5 decry his opponents claims of no WMD within 45 minutes, and Hans Blix backed her up; Blair still declared when he appeared that he would ‘do it all again’ anyway, and that he had ‘no regrets’ because Saddam Hussein was just a simple dictator and a tyrant and therefore needed to be removed permanently: and then he left the Iraqi’s to hang him.
Most critics of the war said the real reason was a desire for western access to vast supplies of oil, and the media trumpet the same motives.
“Iraq is recovering from 30 years of dictatorship, and from 2-3 wars and sanctions. Saddam Hussein poured money into his self-inflicted war with Iran, leaving nothing for hospitals or schools.”
Saddam, carefully prepared and conducted the long and painstaking negotiations that led to the nationalization of Iraqi oil in 1972.Enormous revenues were freed from the

At 5/11/10 9:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hands of greedy international conglomerate corporations and their highly damaging ecological footprint, and meanwhile Obama should have had the same intentions as Saddam and Gaddafi did to nationalise B.P’s oil and minimise its harmful footprint.
Pre-emptive war is the BUSH DOCTRINE not Obama’s.
Saddam’s murder was a war crime, but some say his execution was his own fault as he was a butcher; literally. Saddam may have committed gross human rights violations as a Sovereign head of state in the past few decades, during his 24 year leadership from 1979-2003. He did crush the Kurds. About 180,000 Kurds were slaughtered during Saddam Hussein’s Anfal campaign in the late 1980’s. Tens of thousands of Shiites were killed when their uprising was crushed by the Iraqi army in 1991; an uprising after the first Gulf War with the President’s father the first Bush in the Oval office. For the Iraqi people the worst of all possible worlds has been realised from the illegal invasion and ongoing occupation by foreign powers as recorded recently on Tumeke of this War. I am very critical of a form of Green-zone-puppet-regime-politics after the illegal hanging of Saddam by Bush, Blair and Howard.
We are still following a Cold War foreign policy of the ALL-LIES from WW2 in much of the world. The ongoing state of emergency against terrorism in its illegality does not grant them broad powers to lock all radicalised opponents up indefinitely. During the Cold War the U.S decided they needed us on their side. Otago University Professor and Newstalk ZB commentator with Larry Williams on the Drive show 4-7pm weekdays Robert Patman claims that Phil Goff told him we have spent somewhere in the region of over $2 Billion dollars supporting the U.S, Britain and Australia, our once traditional wartime Allies war efforts.

This amount could have doubled or tripled if labour had not decided to not go through with the purchase of 28 f-16’s.Half this amount includes over 100 light armoured vehicles (L.A.V’S) for the Army at a cost of around the six hundred million dollar mark and 7 newly delivered but somewhat injury prone vessels or ships from Australia for the modestly priced (and some would say a bargain at half a billion, refunds from the mostly Australian builders not included ) Project Protector for the Navy. Nearly another billion or nine hundred million dollars worth of equipment is being targeted at an alternative strategy to a strike wing capability beyond taking the Skyhawks out of their wrapping for the air force or French NH90 helicopters which are on their way as well even before the White Paper on defence is complete, and similarly the Brits said they will share the capacity of 1 instead of 2 new aircraft carriers with the French at a projected cost of over five billion pounds for both and scrapping one to share patrols with them and any mergers between the air force or army would need further discussion in the STRATEGIC DEFENCE and SECURITY REVIEW due to report in October and until then it concludes speculation will continue as to its potential outcomes. They are remembered

At 5/11/10 9:22 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

every year on Anzac day by the young being indoctrinated into the power of being victors unleashed on the oppressed through an often jingoistic-nationalistic-fervour designed to make recent arrivals like political refugees from their Wars unsure of their place in this their new country. The U.S indifference of U.N. instructions for peace and the U.S and Britain vetoes of Security Council resolutions against War are a travesty of justice mostly for the unsuspecting and downtrodden Iraqi people. The worst of all possible worlds has been realised from the illegal invasion and ongoing occupation by foreign powers as recorded recently of this War. The sheer brutality of the period after the war was won supposedly still haunts us today, with the massacre of some 800 civilians, 308 or roughly half of the civilians killed total between 572 and 616 who were women and kids in Fallujah, (APRIL 2004 SEIGE.) A much lower and fallacious total of 280 dead came from the aptly named Iraqi Health Ministry or N.G.O (IRAQ BODY COUNT) .

No wonder the beheadings captured on the internet sent a wave of terror flooding throughout the television sets tuned into the news bulletins in the West as the very self same outcome had been unleashed from 10,000 feet on them. It’s nothing personal at that distance from your target. You don’t get to see the dead you’ve killed from afar face to face or look into the eyes you’ve taken the life out of.

At 5/11/10 9:34 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, in Fiji, some people who had been calling the Indians weeds that must be expelled and rooted out have ceased as the so-called threat of Indian domination numerically and politically seems a distant memory for Fiji after 4 coups. Together with Australia we have sent troops to the Solomons, Tonga and East Timor (Timor Lest) only recently to sure up support for the powers that be in the pacific region now known as the Asia Pacific (APEC) rim. We are performing the role of a "deputy sheriff" according to our Australian Muslim friends and neighbours like the Grand Mufti of the South Pacific. Our ongoing support for ‘the other’ War by the West in Afghanistan and several rotations of troops in their hundreds and thousands now shows that our Nationalism based National, Act, and Maori Party Coalition Government support the murderous and ongoing slaughter of so-called Insurgent forces in the Middle East.

At 5/11/10 9:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So in conclusion the war on terror is really just a continuation of the Cold War. Obama made a very controversial choice of location for his place to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo in Egpyt under another Middle Eastern Dictator Hosni Mubarak. The ongoing state of emergency grants him broad powers to lock opponents up indefinitely. During the cold war the U.S decided they needed this guy on their side, and the thin cigar smoking former president on the balcony in Baghdad with General Casey whom he later replaced thought that at the presidential level it is still very much a strongman dictatorship, much like Saddam Hussein, and the assassination of Sadat enabled this former air-force officer who had been vice-president to take over under a state of emergency which is still in force today.Thirty years later that was still in place, and is also illegal.

At 5/11/10 9:38 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He ran unopposed in 3 elections, then he finally ran for re-election under pressure from the $2 billion dollars aid from the U.S (Israel gets the other $3 billion for F-16’s etc and the rest up to $5 billion for the whole region). Seventy percent of American aid however is tied to buying back their weapons. In 2005 in an ostensibly open race against 2 opponents he banned the main opposition the radical Hamas styled Muslim brotherhood and arrested them during the elections. The police, said to be commonplace brandishing machine guns on every street corner virtually, beat protesters and jailed journalists and civil-rights advocates who spoke out too loudly for democratic reforms. He ended up with a 90% approval in a rigged election. All this is to keep a lid on Islamic extremists, like the Muslim brotherhood whose members are constantly being harassed and arrested by the government. During the likes of the Cold War the U.S decided they needed a guy like this on their side.


Post a Comment

<< Home