It is time for Harry Reid – the Majority Leader of the Democrats – to strip Joe Lieberman of his Chair on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In the past week, Lieberman has made several outrageous comments, directed at Obama, that were malicious and dishonest. Lieberman, who apparently has assumed the role of hit man for the McCain Campaign, has slurred the kind of rhetoric we should expect of a Fox peon, such as Hannity; someone who is utterly bankrupt when it comes to intellectual integrity and will say anything in order to defend any of his partisan positions.

Lieberman went so far as to accuse Obama, reverberating what was babbled by Bush when speaking in Israel, of advocating a foreign policy of appeasement when it comes to dealing with terrorists in Muslim countries.

For clarification, Lieberman should, at the very least, identity to whom he is precisely referring when he uses the term, terrorists. Is he referring to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, whom this country has ignored for the most part over the past 5 years, in order to direct our military resources toward the invasion and pacification of Iraq; a country that had no connections to terrorism prior to our destabilization of the foundations of their society? Moreover, what ‘head of state’ – or, more plainly, what fictional leadership is Lieberman alluding to when he invokes this vacuous terminology, using references, such as ‘appeasing terrorists,’ as though American is at war with an integrated, cohesive adversary in possession of a body politic capable of conducting diplomacy?

Perhaps even worse, Lieberman said that the fact that the supposed, according to the McCain Campaign, North American spokesman for Hamas has ‘endorsed,’ Obama raises justifiable concerns over Obama’s candidacy for President. No doubt speaking to the most uninformed and intellectual impoverished segments of America’s electorate, Lieberman asserted that Hamas actually endorses American candidates for President, as though Hamas is entirely oblivious to the fact that their public support of a candidate would probably have only negative effects for that individual’s campaign.

How stupid does Lieberman think that we are? and to what depths will he sink in order to propagate his militaristic vision for the United State’s role in the Middle East? a policy of aggression that is so unmistakably a reflection of right-wing Israeli colonialist interests; certainly not the foreign policy interests of the United States.

At this point, Lieberman, in my own assessment, is more a cartoon character than a statesman who embodies the prudence and judicious temperaments that one would expect of a Chair for one of the Senate’s most influential committees.

It is time for Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all of the privileges he has acquired through his accumulation of seniority as a Democratic, because Lieberman – judging from his performance when campaigning as Vice Presidential nominee to Gore’s Presidential bid – never was a Democrat from the beginning.

Russell Cole

Tags: american empire, congress, foreign policy, Harry Reid, homeland security, Joe Lieberman, politics, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Terrorism
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Congress, Homeland Security, Terrorism
1 Comment »

An Article by:
Russell Cole

Mukasey – the United States Attorney General – stated on March 28th that pirating of digital copy righted materials was funding terrorism. The statement by the Attorney General was made after he met privately with executives from the entertainment industry as well as software vendors, such as Adobe.

I do not have much to say about this announcement other than the fact that it appears to be another fabrication that has been injected into the Discourse of Terror: a type of speech that serves as a justificatory device lending support to public initiatives that might otherwise appear undesirable if not absurd. This rhetoric that has been developed by the Bush Administration consists of a linguistic operation in which a policy position – that if viewed independently, might be unpopular - declares the policy to be a subsidiary of the larger War on Terror, even if the connections establishing such a relationship are lacking in evidential support; after all, there is always a black box, States Secrets, to reference if an Administration representative is pressed for empirical substantiation for an alleged scenario in which terror and its prosecution are invoked.

We can observe this same speech pattern in the latest canard; this time attempting to offer credence for increased resources being devoted by the Department of Justice for the investigation of individuals and syndicates engaging in IP, (intellectual property crimes). Under normal speech conditions – since we are, after all, presently fighting a war against terror – such a proposition might be difficult to sell to the public. IP - although not victimless – is certainly not violent, and IP surely does not qualify as publicly harmful. It is damaging to major software vendors and movie industry moguls, not the ordinary public. Therefore, the initiative by the Justice Department against IP might appear, if not cloaked in the prototypical terror-inciting garb, as an allocation of resources that is directed to protect the interests of the few, and the wealthy, and it might seem as though it is a distraction from more pressing matters, such as the actual War on Terrorism.

Therefore, how better alter the public’s opinion of such a policy announcement than to reconstitute its semiology, so that the increased expenditures against IP are subsequently understood as an extension of the War on Terror.

Tags: economics, foreign policy, government, homeland security, justice department, political rhetoric, politics, Terrorism, War on Terror
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Politics, Homeland Security, Terrorism, Foreign Policy, War on Terror
No Comments »

An Article by:

Steve Hammons

December 21, 2007

According to a recent Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll, “Nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.”

That was the conclusion explored in a Nov. 20, 2007 article by Kevin Crowe, a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service, and Guido H. Stempel III, director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.

Crowe and Stempel noted that in a Scripps Howard/Ohio University survey in July 2006, “more than one-third of Americans thought federal officials assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.”

The survey looked at Americans’ distrust of the federal government in general and at specific topics like the 9/11 attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, rigging of international oil prices and questions about what the federal government knows about UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation to Earth.

Crowe and Stempel reported that the survey “was conducted by telephone Sept. 24 to Oct. 10 among 811 adult residents of the United States who were selected at random. The survey was conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation and has a margin of error of about 4 percent.”

In their article, Crowe and Stempel quote several experts and authors on facts and theories involved that may affect Americans’ views on alleged cover-ups and conspiracies.

Of course, when we say “the federal government,” we must look at many individuals, groups, departments and agencies as well as forces behind the scenes. There are many good and honorable people and groups within the federal government. There may also be people and groups that do not fit into these categories.

Two apparently unrelated topics of interest addressed in the survey were the 9/11 attacks and questions about UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation. Looking at these might provide examples of the reasons for doubts by Americans.

QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11

Various questions have been raised by the 9/11 Commission, experts, investigators and the general public. These questions apparently have fueled mistrust of the “official story” of the 9/11 attacks.

Some of these questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

- FBI agents, intelligence officers, national security officials and international intelligence personnel reportedly were raising red flags about a pending attack, but their intelligence allegedly was not responded to by the appropriate civilian chains of command.

- Certain people and groups publicly indicated that “a new Pearl Harbor” was needed to provoke Americans to expand certain military operations and defense spending.

- There reportedly was a desire by some to invade Iraq (and possibly Iran and/or Syria) and a justification for the American people and the international community was needed.

- Several air defense military maneuvers and training activities were ongoing around the time frame of 9/11. These exercises depleted available U.S. Air Force air assets and caused confusion among military and civilian air traffic controllers and air defense personnel.

- Stock market transactions, known as “put options,” were made regarding the stock of the two airlines involved prior to the 9/11 attacks. These particular transactions were especially unusual.

- Certain officials were reportedly advised not to fly around the time frame of 9/11.

- At the Pentagon, the debris and type of damage done to the building is not consistent with the impact of a passenger jet, according to some determinations by experts.

- In Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the debris field at the alleged impact site seemed inconsistent with the crash of a passenger jet, some people state.

EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION

Since the late 1940s, the sightings of unusual objects in the sky have been a topic of great interest in the U.S. and around the world. There have been many indications that some of these objects could possibly be related to spacecraft from outside our normal understanding. That is, they may not be conventional human-made craft or other technology.

Some of the questions and discussion about so-called “unidentified flying objects (UFOs)” include, but are not limited to the following:

- References to unusual flying objects can be found throughout human history in written material and art.

- American WWII pilots reported seeing “foo fighters” during military operations. These were unusual objects flying near U.S. aircraft.

- In 1947, Army Air Corps personnel at Roswell Army Air Base in Roswell, New Mexico, apparently concluded that a “flying saucer” that may have been extraterrestrial in origin had crashed nearby.

- After that event, some researchers allege that President Harry Truman created a special group of scientists and top military officials to try to understand and coordinate this challenging situation.

- There are reports that as part of the evolving developments, further U.S. diplomatic contact was made with more than one extraterrestrial race that was visiting Earth. According to some of these claims, advanced technology was provided to U.S. officials in exchange for cooperation.

- Sightings and contacts of various kinds between people around the world and what are alleged to be extraterrestrial activities have been reported in many countries.

- Other aspects of the alleged situation involve efforts to prepare the American people, and people around the world, about the surprising development of contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. Books, articles, movies and other communications platforms reportedly have been used to help in this process.

NEED TO KNOW

The concept of “need to know” is one used in various military, intelligence and other circles. That is, some information is sensitive and if a person does not have a need to know it, don’t tell them.

Certainly, information security can be important and this has its place. At the same time, freedom of information, knowledge and understanding are also important for us, especially in a democracy. Secrecy can sometimes be unwise, unethical or dangerous.

The distrust of certain elements of the federal government reported in the Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll are both cause for concern and might also be a healthy and natural response to our current situation. There may very well be valid justifications for this distrust.

As we decide what we have a need to know and what we do not, Americans will undoubtedly continue to be vigilant in protecting their Constitutional rights and liberties, perceiving various internal and external dangers, and maintaining a healthy understanding about the dangers of excessive secrecy and power on the part of the federal government.

Research like that in the Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll can help us “get on the same page” and recognize that many of us are thinking along similar lines. This might unify us and move us toward success, peace, progress, preparedness and prosperity in the future.
- - -
To read the article on the Web site of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, visit:

http://newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=66

******************

AmericanChronicle.com
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=46800

Tags: agency, anomalous cognition, citizens, government, military, Steve Hammons, Terrorism
Categories: Commentary, government, Terrorism, military, Steve Hammons
No Comments »

For those of us who have had considerable doubts as to the veracity of the latest claims coming from the Bush Administration and the select members of the Military Generalship, who serve as the Administration’s proxies, regarding the current success of the “Surge,” in Iraq, I can assure you that your cynicism is well founded.

As was reported in the Washington Post on Sunday, August 5th * - the Bush Administration has been less than candid and, in fact, deceitful with respect to the current, “Surge;” not to mention every other aspect of their conduct in the Executive Branch of Government. As it turns out, the reduction of violence in Iraq, which the Generalship has attributed to the cooperation of local tribal leaders, is certainly not the consequence of the American Military forging alliances with organic elements in the Iraqi population; instead, we have merely been arming as well as bribing Sunni sections of the Baghdad population, in order to entice them into suppressing the violence in the neighborhoods in which they have influence, which I suspect to be a social dynamic comparable to the power wielded by a warlord, or something along those lines.

* http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080407A.shtml

—————————————————————-

As to whether the local tribal leaders are, indeed, turning against al-Qaeda is an issue that remains unresolved, due to the ambiguities resulting from the morphing semantics with which the lexicon, al-Qaeda, has been endowed on occasions involving various circumstances, in which the expression has been appropriated for purposes of political expediency.

Therefore, the banner, al-Qaeda, has been deployed in modes not keeping with conventions or standards of veracity or consistency; other than a congruency resulting from the Administration’s relentless introduction of the phrase, al-Qaeda, into public discourse every opportunity that the Administration gets. In fact, since the Bush Administration uses this label to depict nearly every instance of insurgent or terrorist violence, it is probably better at this point to discard with the term, al-Qaeda, altogether. The significance of the expression has been so depreciated that its continued invocation might result in an inadvertent contribution to the persistent and over arching disinformation campaign being waged by the Bush Administration upon the American public.

——————————————————————————————–

Interestingly, however, there is more to this scenario with respect to the larger political dimensions compelling these unruly and unpredictable flows and collisions of human interaction in Iraq. Assuming one has not been living in cave - or, to qualify: a cave that is unlike the one inhabited by Bin Laden, which, apparently, is furnished with the necessary technology to keep abreast of recent events as well as producing an occasional press release; not to mention the medical equipment necessary for kidney dialysis - he or she should be well aware of the parliamentary stagnation that is preventing Iraqi sectional reconciliation.

The indications of discontent among the Shiites in Iraq’s Parliament - who, despite the pressures placed upon it by the American Embassy, went on recess during the month of August - point to the fact that the American Generalship is actively arming Sunni sections of the Iraqi population. For the Shiites, this amounts to nothing less than an existential threat. We must not forget that the battles being waged by Sunni organic elements upon, ‘al-Qaeda,’ are occurring within the context of a lager conflict: the Iraqi Civil War, which amounts to a conflict drawn along the lines Islamic sectarianism - the Sunni and the Shiites.

——————————————————————————-

With the aforementioned considerations in mind, it is nearly unimaginable how the current policies in Iraq - which, granted, might be quelling violence to some degree in the streets of Baghdad - could possible lead to a larger political accomplishment, where the sections of Iraq came to a consensus, forming some treaty upon which the future organization of the country could be based.

Sadly, in my own opinion, this surge - similarly to every other strategy undertaken in Iraq and, let us be frank, in the, ‘War on Terror:’ another expression that is literally void of substantive meaning - is just another folly in a long chain of mishaps that are metaphorically comparable to the treatment of walking pneumonia with opiates: the pain might subside as the patient’s illness intensifies.

Russell Cole

Tags: foreign policy, Global, media, politics, Terrorism, war
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, War, Media, Terrorism, Foreign Policy
No Comments »

by Russell Cole

What is more dangerous to passenger airplanes, human breastmilk or Dell laptop computers?

It is a good thing that the security measures safeguarding passengers of jet airplanes against threats that are conceived on an ad hoc basis, only after they are learned from the intending terrorists themselves, are finally being implemented.

It is only natural to suspect that terrorists will deploy the exact same techniques that have already been discovered by Homeland Security. Therefore, it is a good thing that our safties are in the hands of officials who are more than capable of ignoring potential threats that might be actualized by terrorists in the future in order to exhaust their energies upon developing measures to guard against terrorist techniques that have already been attempted.

An excellent exemplar of this philosophy of law enforcement is the current security measures being institutionalized at airports. Since terrorists have already attempted to use liquid explosives, we can infer that they are going to use the same technique in furture operations. This is why it is so important that liquids such as human breast milk are being guarded against.

I have never personally seen breast milk explode. Then again, I have had few encounters with breast milk of which I am aware. On the other, the explosion of Dell laptop computers is something that might occur in the present and future, and, therefore, should not consume the precious intellectual resources of those who are commissioned with assuring our security on planes. Consequently, we can thank those in charge of Homeland Security for preventing against plots that have already been foiled while ignoring potential threats, such as the explosion of a Dell Laptop computer during a flight.

Tags: airport security, big brother, bill of rights, empire, flying, homeland security, liberty, National, power, Russell Coles Blog, Terrorism, TSA
Categories: Commentary, National, liberty, bill of rights, Russell Cole's Blog, Power, Homeland Security, Terrorism
2 Comments »

An article by Joseph Murtagh, originally published in the Muckracker Report For the last six years, there’s been this assumption about George W. Bush that has occupied roughly the same place in people’s minds as the second law of thermal dynamics, or the existence of the moon, and which goes something like this: while the president might not be so strong on domestic issues, he’s very good at Protecting The Country From Terrorism.

Well, according to a story that came out recently, and which was mostly drowned out by the elections, the federal government’s record on fighting terrorism may not be as impressive as you think.

Researchers at Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) recently discovered that in the first nine months of fiscal year 2006 federal prosecutors rejected 87% of the international terrorism cases brought by the FBI, and the rejections have been increasing steadily since 2001.

The White House responded to the report the way they’ve always responded to empirical facts: by calling it “faulty” and “inaccurate,” and deriding its findings as “intellectually dishonest.”

Judging from last week’s election, though, I think the nation has already made up its mind about who’s being intellectually dishonest, and it’s definitely not the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. On the contrary, it’s the same bunch of yo-yos who cooked up false intelligence to dupe us into going to war with Iraq. Who held closed door meetings in Washington the day before 9/11 with a Pakistani general who a few weeks earlier had sent a $100,000 check to hijacker Mohammad Atta. Who granted no-bid contracts to a bunch of oil-rich mafia goons who were willing to sell our troops poisoned drinking water to save a buck.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, how about exploiting religious conservatives for political gains and then laughing about them behind their backs? Or cheating black people in Florida and Ohio out of their vote? Or leaking the name of a CIA officer to settle a political score? Or refusing to declassify important documents about 9/11? Or torturing innocent people and then lying about it? Or pretending to fight a phony war on terrorism while stealing our liberties from behind our backs?

In fact, the only honest moment in George W. Bush’s entire presidency came recently on the campaign trail when he finally admitted to voters in Nebraska the real reason why we’re in Iraq. “You can imagine a world,” he said, “in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources and then you can imagine them saying, ‘we’re going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following.’”

No wonder the Republicans lost. I think Keith Olbermann said it best on Countdown: “Having frightened us, having bullied us, having lied to us, having ignored and rewritten the Constitution under our noses, having stayed the course, having denied you’ve stayed the course, having belittled us about ‘timelines’ but instead extolled ‘benchmarks,’ you’ve now resorted, sir, to this? We must stay in Iraq to save the $2 gallon of gas?”

If you spend time with the sorts of people I spend time with, you’ll probably have cynics in your life trying to persuade you from feeling overwhelmingly joyful at the results of this election, but for the moment at least, I think you should ignore them. We’ve witnessed an extraordinary thing in this country: the checking of a powerful totalitarian movement by the will of the people, just when a lot of us were beginning to fear that the system was beyond repair. There’s nothing phony or indoctrinated about the message Americans sent to Washington on Tuesday, and when you consider that it happened in spite of one of the most vicious propaganda campaigns in modern history, Americans have all the more reason to feel proud.

But this election hasn’t changed the fact that there are still people in the world who are being tortured and maimed and killed at the hands of this administration, and it’s for their sake that we must make Bush and the rest of them pay for their crimes. Read the following to find out what you can do to make that happen:

Subpoena Power, Congressional Hearings, and Special Counsel

But in the meantime, take faith that the America of Geronimo, Jefferson, and Muhammad Ali is live and kicking.

Tags: bush, Democrats, Elections, Global, homeland security, legislation, power, Republicans, society, Terrorism
Categories: Commentary, Global, Society, Power, Legislation, Homeland Security, Terrorism
No Comments »

‘Mistakes’ or ‘plans’ in 9/11, Iraq invasion and occupation, War on Terror?

Authored by: Steve Hammons

Originally published in American Chronicle:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11401

In recent years, much been written and discussed about alleged ‘mistakes’ made prior to the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, the so-called ‘War on Terror,’ the attempted capture of Osama bin Laden and the dramatic increase in national spending and the national debt.While some have claimed that mistakes were made and that these mistakes led to problematic outcomes, others have suggested that the apparent failures or blunders were actually part of larger and hidden plans. Some combination of mistakes and planned outcomes might also be in play.

In examining important events and developments over the last five years, these differing views seem to emerge as something worth considering carefully, although some seem outlandish and little more than conspiracy theories.

However, the claims that mistakes could actually be part of well-thought-out planning can be explored by addressing the following topics which are typically used as the major examples of various ‘mistake theories’ and’ plan theories:’

- 9/11 attacks

- Invasion of Iraq

- Occupation of Iraq

- War on Terror

- Capture of Osama bin Laden

- Dramatically increased federal spending and national debt

It may be worth noting that in the cases of many of the current elected and appointed national leaders pulling the strings in Washington, D.C., and those behind the scenes, they have been accused of many things. But, for most of them, being stupid is not one of the accusations.

Below are just some of the theories that these recent developments were either based on mistakes or on plans. And, as mentioned, some combination of the two could be considered.

9/11 ATTACKS

Mistake theory:

Our intelligence and law enforcement services and those of our allies failed to understand, detect and prevent the 9/11 planning and attacks.

Plan theory:

The attacks were predicted by our own and allied intelligence and law enforcement services and were, at a minimum, allowed to happen. The motivation was to create ‘A New Pearl Harbor’ that would facilitate other agendas such as invading Iraq and establishing permanent bases there, boosting defense spending, protecting allies in the region and attaining domestic political advantage.

INVASION OF IRAQ

Mistake theory:

Our intelligence services believed that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq and reported it to political leaders who felt this was an unreasonable risk.

Plan theory:

There was ample evidence that there were no significant WMDs in Iraq that would pose a serious threat to the United States. The WMD threat was just a convenient way to make a case for invasion. The real reasons had more to do with securing Iraq’s oil supply, establishing permanent bases there, boosting defense spending, protecting allies in the region and political advantage.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ

Mistake theory:

Despite recommendations by seasoned military leaders and others, U.S. troop levels were not sufficient for smooth occupation and establishment of peace and order in Iraq. Disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing chaos in the streets and other mistakes resulted in a significant ongoing insurgency, near-civil war and deaths and injuries to U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.

Plan theory:

If the goal was actually to stay in Iraq indefinitely, it might have been counterproductive to establish order, a working government, some measure of social cohesion and peace. If all had gone smoothly in the post-invasion occupation, many would call for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, mission accomplished. The turmoil and violence there actually provide a rationale for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

WAR ON TERROR

Mistake theory:

Dehumanizing torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, war crimes and atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. personnel, inadvertent ‘collateral damage’ of death and injury to Iraq civilians including women and children, and other factors have made more people worldwide hostile toward the U.S. This has created more potential terrorists and increased the resolve of terrorists and enemies.

Plan theory:

Creating a never-ending threat of terrorism, and amplifying and expanding the hostility to the U.S. create continued opportunity for increased defense spending, military intervention and political advantage.

CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

Mistake theory:

After the successful CIA and Army Special Forces-led invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. forces and leaders missed an opportunity to capture bin Laden in Tora Bora due to mistaken tactical decisions.

Plan theory:

U.S. leaders might not have wanted to capture bin Laden. His family is associated with powerful business interests and connections in the U.S. Keeping him at large might create a more vivid picture of an ongoing terror threat.

DRAMATICALLY INCREASED FEDERAL SPENDING AND NATIONAL DEBT

Mistake theory:

The billions of spending on the Iraq War, related expenditures and other unrelated spending has been a mistake by leaders that will cause future severe difficulties for the U.S.

Plan theory:

The billions spent on defense and war will enrich those who are politically connected. In addition, the tremendous overspending helps ‘Starve the Beast.’ The Starve the Beast view is that if U.S. social safety net programs like Social Security cannot be defeated politically, then by simply treating significant financial stresses on the U.S. Government in future years, these programs can be curtailed or eliminated due to future fiscal limitations.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

There seem to be many ideas and viewpoints about the alleged mistakes, plans and secret agendas that may be in play. It is obviously difficult to come to a clear conclusion on many of these topics.

Only the most naïve will take events and government actions at face value, for there are often many agendas going on behind the scenes. Legitimate and not-so-legitimate factors exist on many levels.

As outlandish and far-fetched as some of the views seem, it may be worthwhile for us to consider all possibilities and to look beneath the surface for answers.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11401

Tags: economics, economy, empire, foreign policy, Global, government, homeland security, Iraq, National, national debt, power, Terrorism, war
Categories: Commentary, National, Global, Economics, government, Power, War, Empire, Homeland Security, Terrorism, Foreign Policy
2 Comments »

I find it ironic that an ethnicity that has been so toiled by a history of oppression, persecution, and bigotry has so little sympathy for those who suffer under conditions that approximate some of the frightful circumstances that the Jewish ethnicity has found itself, in many varying forms, with respect to its history.

Indeed, many Jews, who espouse a camouflaged guise of the Zionist discourse, possess a metropolitan world-view with respect to the Palestinians and their history in this and the previous century, which amounts to nothing less than victimization as the subjects of the ethnic cleansing practices of an imperial culture, the Israelis.

I would like to perform some historical revision 101 for those who seem to lack the ability to adequately conceptualize the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not voluntarily hand over their homeland to the influx of Jewish colonialist immigrants, occurring under the auspices of Zionism. The Palestinians were systematically routed by the Zionists.

Furthermore, the Palestinians, who were under the rule of the Egyptians and the Jordanians in Gaza and the West Bank, did not launch the second conflict against the Israelis in the last century; rather, it was the Israelites, who struck first upon the Egyptians, whom, according to the Israelis, where about to strike the state of Israel in order to initiated an anti-colonialist struggle; thus constituting what Israel refers to under the rhetorical ploy of an, ‘existential threat.’ Therefore, the Palestinians living in these two occupied territories did not concede their autonomy through some process of military defeat. Instead, similarly to the Checks in the Sudetenland, they came to be occupied by the Israelis due to the foreign-policy decisions of other nations.

Therefore, there is no justification for the state sponsored terrorism enacted by the Israelis against the Palestinians in the occupied territories; (notice the lexiconic relationship between territory and terrorism: they both possess the same stem, TERROR). So, perhaps, now, all those who scream, “Anti-Semite!” when anyone accumulates the necessary courage to speak out against the insidious assassinations conducted by the Israelis, always with a manifold of ‘collateral damage,’ can realize who the real terrorists are with respect to this ghastly situation in the Middle-east.

Perhaps, even, these profoundly insincere people - mostly Zionists and Evangelicals - will begin to realize the symbolic isomorphism, with regards to the significance these two concepts assume within their respective mythologies, between “Reich” and “Zion.”

Russell Cole

Tags: empire, ethniciy, foreign policy, Global, imperialism, israel, middle east, oppression, palestine, Russell Coles Blog, society, Terrorism, war, zionism, zionist
Categories: Commentary, Global, Society, Russell Cole's Blog, War, Empire, Terrorism, Foreign Policy, Imperialism
No Comments »