|
by Michel Chossudovsky
|
|
 |
|
|
Global Research, October 31, 2008
|
|
|
For several years now, senior officials of the Bush administration including the President and the Vice President have intimated, in no certain terms, that there will be "a Second 9/11". Quotations from presidential speeches and official documents abound. America is threatened:
Al these authoritative statements point in chorus in the same direction: The enemy will strike again!
"Second 9/11": Historical Background
The presumption of a Second 9/11 has become an integral part of US military doctrine. America is under attack. The US military must respond preemptively.
In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various national security measures were put in place focusing explicitly on the eventuality of a second attack on America. In fact these procedures were launched simultaneously with the first stage of war plans directed against Iran in May 2003 under Operation Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT). (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT), Global Research, February 21, 2007).
The Role of a "Massive Casualty Producing Event"
Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, in an magazine interview in December 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as "a massive casualty producing event" on American soil [a Second 9/11. Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the "global war on terrorism":
Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of martial law.
 General Tommy Franks The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil resulting from the civilian casualties would facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures, leading to the suspension of constitutional government. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? Global Research, June 24, 2007) Operation Northwoods
The concept of "massive casualty producing event" is part of military planning. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties among the Cuban community in Miami (i.e. "staging the assassination of Cuban living in the US") to justify an invasion of Cuba:
Operation Northwoods was submitted to President Kennedy. The project was not carried out.  To consult the Northwoods Archive click here Military Doctrine General Franks was not giving a personal opinion regarding the role of civilian deaths. He was describing a central feature of a covert military-inteligence operation going back to Operation Northwoods.
The triggering of civilian deaths in the Homeland is used as an instrument of war propaganda. The objective is to turn realities upside down. The agressor nation is being attacked. the USA is a victim of war by the State sponsors of Islamic terrorism, when in reality it is the perpetrator of a large scale theater war in the Middle East. The entire "Global War on Terrorism" construct is consistent with the logic of Operation Northwoods: Civilian casualties in America resulting from the September 11 attacks are used as "a war pretext incident" to galvanize public support for a military intervention in Afghanstan and Iraq. As of 2005, the presumption of a Second 9/11 had become an integral part of military planning.
Statements emanating from the White House, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security point to a growing consensus on the necessity and inevitability of a second terrorist attack on a major urban area in the US.
In the month following the July 2005 London bombings, Vice President Cheney is reported to have instructed US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". The "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" to prepare for a major military operation against Iran. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
In April 2006, the Pentagon, under the helm of Donald Rumsfeld, launched a far-reaching military plan to "fight terrorism" around the World, with a view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.
The presumption of the Pentagon project was that this presumed attack on America by an outside enemy would result in the loss of American lives, which in turn would be used to justify US military actions in the Middle East war theater. The covert support of US intelligence to Islamic terrorist organizations (the outside enemy) slated to carry out the attacks, was of course not mentioned.
Various "scenarios" of a second 9/11 attack on the Homeland were envisaged. According to the Pentagon a Second attack on America, would serve an important policy objective.
The three Pentagon documents consisted of an overall "campaign plan" plus two "subordinate plans". The second "subordinate plan" explicitly focused on the possibility of a "Second 9/11" and how a second major attack on American soil might provide "an opportunity" to extend the US led war in the Middle East into new frontiers:
Martial Law
Since 2003, various procedures have been adopted regarding the enactment of Martial Law in the case of a so-called "National Catastrophic Emergency".
Under martial law, the military would take over several functions of civilian government including justice and law enforcement.
Initiatives in the area of Homeland Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could be declared in the case of a second 9/11.
In May 2007, a major presidential National Security Directive was issued (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20) which explicitly envisaged the possibility of a Second 9/11:
NSPD 51 is tailor-made to fit the premises of both the Pentagon's 2006 "Anti-terrorist Plan" as well Vice President Cheney's 2005 "Contingency Plan". (See Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?, Global Research, June 24, 2007). The directive establishes procedures for "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". The latter is defined in NSPD 51/HSPD 20, as
NSPD 51 is predicated on the notion that America is under attack and that the "Catastrophic Emergency" would take the form of a terror attack on a major urban area.
"Continuity of Government," or "COG," is defined in NSPD 51 as "a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency."
More recently, in May 2008, another National Security Presidential Directive was put forth by the White House entitled Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security (NSPD 59, HSPD 24).
NSPD59 complements NSPD 51. The new directive is not limited to KSTs, which in Homeland Security jargon stands for "Known and Suspected Terrorists", it includes various categories of domestic terrorists, the presumption being that these domestic groups are working hand in glove with the Islamists.
NSPD 59 goes far beyond the issue of biometric identification, it recommends the collection and storage of "associated biographic" information, meaning information on the private lives of US citizens, in minute detail, all of which will be "accomplished within the law" (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Big Brother" Presidential Directive: "Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security", Global Research, June 2008).
NSPD is explicitly directed against American citizens, who are now categorized as potential terrorists.
While "conspiracy theorists" have been accused of cogitating regarding the possibility of a Second 9/11, most of the insinuations emanate from official US sources including the White House, the Pentagon and Homeland Security.
The fact that a "massive casualty producing events" could be used as part of a US foreign policy agenda is diabolical. The official statements are grotesque.
Bipartisan Consensus in the Presidential Election Campaign: "Al Qaeda will Strike Again"
While the presidential election campaign has avoided the issue of a Second 9/11, both candidates have acknowledged the dangers of a second attack. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have underscored their resolve to protect America against Al Qaeda:
Mainstream Media Report: "The Need" for a Second 9/11
While the Washington Post leaked the substance of the Pentagon's classified documents pertaining to the "opportunity" of a Second 9/11, the issue has not been the object of mainstream commentary or analysis.
It is worth noting, however, that in an August 2007 Fox News interview, "A Second 9/11" was heralded as a means to create awareness and unite Americans against the enemy.
Broadcast on Fox News, Columnist Stu Bykofsky claimed that America "needs" a new 9/11 to unite the American people, because they have "forgotten" who the enemy is. He also claimed that "there will be another 9/11", and Fox New Anchorman John Gibson concurred. Civilian casualties would contribute to uniting the country and creating awareness:
While Stu Bykofsky's controversial article in the Philadelphia Daily News (August 9, 2007) was, at the time, considered as outlandish, what Bykovsky was actually saying was not very different from The Pentagon's ploy (modeled on Operation Northwoods) concerning the role of massive casualty producing events in triggering "a useful wave of indignation". Transcript Fox News Network THE BIG STORY WITH JOHN GIBSON August 7, 2007, 5PM, EST Columnist Comes Under Fire for Saying "We Need Another 9/11 Attack"
Anchorman: John Gibson
Interview with Columnist Stu Bykofsky
To view the TV interview click here or go to: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10758 VIDEO: FOX NEWS: " We Need Another 9/11"
Interview with Columnist Stu Bykofsky
Columnist Stu Bykofsky: We need another 9/11 Broadcast on Fox News (August 2007), Columnist Stu Bykofsky claims that America needs a new 9/11 to unite the American people, because they have "forgotten" who the enemy is. He also claims that "there will be another 9/11", and Fox News Anchorman concurs: "Does this columnist have a valid point?" "its going to take a lot of dead people to wake people up." "Another attack on America is inevitable" |
|
| Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky | |
Submitted by Cherifa Sirry on Sat, 2008-11-01 23:07
- Cherifa Sirry's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 193 reads
-
Wish there actually was one.
Biden's been talking about some horrible 'generated crisis' that's going to happen inevitably once Obama comes into office & Colin Powell has come out & mysteriously agreed with him that it's going to happen.
How the hell did you get the idea that this post was about Obama? I get the feeling you never stop thinking about Obama. Obama the feeling you Obama stop thinking about Obama. Obama Obama Obama.
Apparently this is how Sparky sees and interprets posts here.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go take a piss.
"What did you say about Obama?"
This post is indeed not about Obama per se. It is about US foreign policy… and US foreign policy is hardly the product of one person. Did you ever watch the film “Wag the Dog”? It’s old, but interesting to watch. Of course to an extent Obama is in league with the neo zioncons. He could never have gone this far without them. Haven’t you noticed how many pro-Israelis (or rather dual nationals) are being considered for important posts in his administration? Do you think that Obama would have had a chance had he not licked Israeli bottoms? All you have to do is watch the fate of Ron Paul or Nader to see what happens to them. I admit that I do feel that there is a difference in the way I think Obama would like to conduct foreign policy with the world that Bush has completely isolated. I feel that Obama doesn’t say the half of what he would like to say… simply and unfortunately US voters need to hear a certain amount and type of rhetoric to elect a candidate.
With the best of intentions, would Obama be able to implement foreign policy changes which he has in mind? I don’t think that he can. Obama has a lot of enemies for different reasons. Obama has more challenges than he imagines... especially in the Middle East because of Israel.
I just emailed this article to some friends. Read it if you have a moment. It is quite interesting.
PS. Many Americans officials didn't know about 9/11. Many know and can't speak about it. Many officials have now found out and also are bound to silence. When 9/11's are organized and implemented, not everyone is privi to them, but everyone has to deal with them. Some officials and people are killed in the process because they reactions are unwelcomed by the powers to be.
I will place for you another article at the bottom on the organization and implementation of "9/11's" while we the people remain stupid and react as was planned for us to react. Obama is certainly not a stupid or innocent man but he will still have to deal with the organizers or the 9/11... or 9/11's (London... Madrid... Lebanon... and on and on....) These people too are not stupid and the enemies of the US regime are also not as stupid as the US thinks.
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">If Obama Wins, Can He Really Leave Iraq?#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
New Republic: A President Obama Will Face Huge Opposition To An Iraq Pullout, From All Circles - Even His Own Part#3162a6; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">Nov. 2, 2008
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">(The Nation) #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">This column was written by Robert Dreyfuss.#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-no-proof: yes">@0 1 0"> @1"> @2 1 2"> @3 21600 pixelWidth"> @3 21600 pixelHeight"> @0 0 1"> @6 1 2"> @7 21600 pixelWidth"> @8 21600 0"> @7 21600 pixelHeight"> @10 21600 0">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">Barack Obama, left, talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, right, in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, July 21, 2008. (AP)
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">There's no doubt that the financial crisis, job insecurity, and fundamental economic worries are the No. 1 issue in Tuesday's vote. But that raises a critical question: If #003377; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none">Barack Obama is elected, will he have an antiwar mandate?
The answer isn't clear.
In 2006, when Democrats reconquered the House and Senate, the election was widely seen as a referendum on the failing war in Iraq. Many Democrats, including those who had previously been supporters of the war, felt tremendous pressure from that public expression of antiwar sentiment, even if the Democratic majority in Congress was either unable either to block the so-called surge or to pass legislation halting the war. Their inability to do so was largely the result of President Bush's veto powers and the Senate minority's ability to filibuster defense spending bills and other measures.
If Obama wins, he will face enormous pressure to abandon his pledge to stop the war in Iraq. That pressure will come from some within his own circle of advisers, many of whom saw Obama's antiwar stance as good politics but bad policy.#0000bf; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif""> It will come from hawkish Democrats outside Obama's circle, from those elbowing their way to get in, typified by #0000bf; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">Richard Holbrooke#0000bf; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">, who found himself shut out of Obamaland after he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primaries.#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif""> It may come from more hawkish Democrats close to Senator Biden, who voted for the Iraq war in 2002. It will certainly come from conservatives, neoconservatives, and the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. It will come from thinktanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Center for a New American Security, which have close ties both to Obama and to the Democratic establishment.
And most of all, the pressure on Obama will come from the US military and General Petraeus, who won't look kindly on an incoming administration that wants to change course. Early in his administration, Obama is going to have to sit down, face to face, with Petraeus -- a politically savvy general who, it is rumored, is thinking about running for office himself -- and say something like this:
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">"General Petraeus, I value your service to our country. But under our system, I am the commander-in-chief. I'm the boss, not you. We're getting out of Iraq, and we're doing it quickly. I want a plan on my desk in 24 hours for the withdrawal of at least one to two brigades per month, and I want the withdrawal completed by the summer of 2010 at the latest. If we can do it more quickly, tell me. Anyone who doesn't like this new policy, well, there's the door."
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">And he'll have to look around the room, one by one, at the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Ray Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, and others.
Each one of them will know the pressure that Obama will be under from hawks and right-wingers. The constitution gives Obama the power to order them to carry out the new policy, whether they like it or not -- and they won't like it. But Obama will be a lot stronger if he goes into that room with a mandate from the Nov. 4 election.
Problem is, Iraq has receded so far in the public's consciousness that it isn't entirely clear what next Tuesday's vote will mean for Iraq.
#0000bf; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">Certainly, Obama catapulted over Hillary Clinton in the primaries #0000bf; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">because he mobilized antiwar voters against#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif""> her, based on his 2002 speech opposing the war and Clinton's vote, in October, 2002, for it. Since then, however, the war has become less and less prominent, especially during the general election campaign. During the debates between Obama and #003377; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none">John McCain, it hardly came up, although Obama did slam McCain for his poor judgment in supporting the war in 2003. Still, Obama did not aggressively put forward his plan to get out of Iraq during the debates, and he was oddly defensive whenever McCain challenged him over the "surge." Obama could have said that the surge was a fiasco and that Iraq is poised to explode in renewed civil war because there is no political agreement among Iraq's various armed factions.. He could have said:
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">"Senator McCain, in 2006 I called for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, and so did General Casey and General Abizaid, who were commanding our troops. And so did the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Had we done so, the war would be over now, and American troops would have long been home. But we didn't. Instead, President Bush listened to you, and to the neocons, and two years later we are still stuck in Iraq."
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">He could have said that, but he didn't. #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
It's true that, among voters, Obama is widely seen as the antiwar candidate. In the New York Times, for instance, there is a poll today that asks: "Would the candidate's policies lead to greater US military involvement in Iraq, less US military involvement, or wouldn't they have any effect on US military involvement?" According to those polled, 80 percent said that Obama would order "less US military involvement" and only 7 percent answered that he would order "more." In contrast, only 18 percent responded "less" for McCain and 56 percent said McCain would order "more US military involvement."
Still, polls across the board have shown that Iraq has dropped for fourth, fifth, or even lower among things that voters are concerned about in 2008. The Baltimore Sun reports on one such result, but there are many:
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">"According to a Gallup poll last December, one in three Americans surveyed felt that the war in Iraq was the most important issue facing the country, more than selected the economy and health care combined. But a Pew Research Center survey this month indicated that only one in 10 still say that Iraq is the most pressing issue. ... Both campaigns have moved on to other issues."
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">That will make it hard, but not impossible, for Obama to argue that he has a mandate to end the war on Nov. 5.
Obama hasn't helped his case by downplaying his opposition to war. He hasn't helped by refusing to say much about his plans for Iraq besides the withdrawal, including what a residual force might look like, i.e., how many troops might remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of the US combat brigades, and what their mission might be. (During the summer, some advisers to Obama wanted to draw a starker contrast with McCain over Iraq, and some wanted to muddy the differences. The mud advocates seem to have prevailed.) And Obama hasn't made his mandate stronger by adopting hawkish views on other, non-Iraq related issues: he supports a bigger military; he supports an expansion of NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia; he supports more troops for Afghanistan; he has called for cross-border raids into Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda officials; and, of course, he has hewed closely to orthodoxy in support of Israel.
In his most recent speech, yesterday in Sarasota, Florida, Obama didn't mention at all his plan to end the war in Iraq. He said nothing -- yes, nothing -- about withdrawing US forces. Here is the full text of what he said about Iraq in that speech:
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">When it comes to keeping this country safe, we don't have to choose between retreating from the world and fighting a war without end in Iraq. It's time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a huge surplus. As President, I will end this war by asking the Iraqi government to step up, and I will finally finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. I will never hesitate to defend this nation. From day one of this campaign, I have made clear that we will increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force the world has ever known. Watching our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has only deepened my commitment to invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home.
I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy - especially now. The cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq, means that Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending on things we don't need.
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">Let's analyze that.
First, he doesn't reiterate that he is pulling US forces out. Instead, he appears to say that the key is to get Iraq (??) to pay for the war, to get the Iraqis to use their surplus. That may appeal to budget-conscious US voters, but -- especially with the price of oil dropping fast -- Iraq, which is a poor, Third World nation with a devastated economy, isn't going to pay for the war.
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
#7f007f; font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> My personal comment: the Arabs are of course....
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
Second, he says that he wants "the Iraqi government to step up," meaning, presumably, to fight its own war. That, of course, is exactly what President Bush can been saying, namely, that the US will "stand down" when the Iraqis "stand up." Problem is, the Iraqis need to be handed an unconditional timetable that doesn't depend on what they do or don't do. Iraq doesn't need President Obama to "asking" it to step up.
Third, and most troubling, Obama says that Americans will have to tighten their belts because of the "cost of the war in Iraq." Doesn't that mean that the war will continue?
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">By Robert Dreyfuss
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
#333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"">
+++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7550
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of #0066cc 1px dashed">Operation Gladio, #0066cc 1px dashed">Francesco Cossiga, has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.
"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a "sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml
Osama Bin Laden in esso 'confessa' che Al Qaeda sarebbe stato l'autore dell'attentato dell'11 settembre alle due torri in New York, mentre tutti gli ambienti democratici d'America e d'Europa, con in prima linea quelli del centrosinistra italiano, sanno ormai bene che il disastroso attentato è stato pianificato e realizzato dalla Cia americana e dal Mossad con l'aiuto del mondo sionista per mettere sotto accusa i Paesi arabi e per indurre le potenze occidentali ad intervenire sia in Iraq sia in Afghanistan
Bullshit posts? That's pretty rich coming you. Is this a bullshit post? Is this, this or this? Have your articles ever been published by other websites? Has WRH ever linked to your posts? They've linked to five of mine. Is this a bullshit post? Is this, or this? They've all been published on WUFYS. You can find them in my blog here.
These are all original articles. Let me know when you come up with something comparable to any of the above.
I'm surprised it wasn't 'Obama'.
I always see you complaining about 'ad hominem attacks' here at WUFYS. Now you call me a poser for defending myself against your claim that my posts are 'bullshit'. It's pretty clear who the bullshit is coming from.
I think i do, but I think you may not. Here's the definition:
In my Obamamania comment, I 'attacked' your ideas by pointing out that you see Obama in everything you read. It wasn't an attack on you as a person. I didn't call you names, I commented on your perception of, and your ideas about, Cherifa's post.
In your comment, you called me a 'poser' and criticised my 'bullshit posts'. There was no reference to the facts in your criticism of this comment, just the 'poser' remark. That's an ad hom attack.
You just can't stop putting your foot in your mouth.
What's sad, Sparky, is that I do in fact know more about American politics and politicians than you do, as evidenced by almost everything you say, and almost everything I post. You can condescend to me as much you like, but it won't change a thing.
Read this and tell me again how little I know about your government. And point me to some original material that supports the theory that you know more about U.S. politics than I do. In fact, show me something that indicates you know anything at all about anything. That's a direct challenge. Don't disappoint me.
Couldn't make it past the first paragraph? 'Opinion piece'?
You failed the challenge, Spanky. One more chance to redeem yourself before I give up on you.Show me the goods, boyo.
The first paragraph simply states that the anti-war left like to believe that Iraq is a war for oil. There's nothing flawed about that. It's self-evident, if you know anything about the views of the mainstream left.
You're transparent as all fuck. You say I don't know anything about U.S. politics, and when I provide some evidence that I do, you head me off by refusing to go past a single paragraph. You refuse to look, like a stubborn little kid with his fingers in his ears. You say I don't know anything about U.S. politics and politicians, but you didn't know shit about Rahm Emanuel until I and others filled you in. You come here admitting that you're new to the study of Zionism, but in the same breath you say that after six months you know "everything... EVERYFUCKINGTHING." You say I don't know anything about American politics and yet, you actually believe Obama will bring change and that he's not a Zionist, even as he pledges his undying support for the Apartheid State. His running mate, Joe Biden, has openly admitted to the Israeli press that he's a Zionist. You say you're anti-Zionist, but you're actually going to give him your vote. And you have the nerve to call Counterpunch 'Zionist'. Something about pots and kettles and stunning hypocrisy comes to mind.
What do I expect? You heard me the first time, but you know you don't have anything to show me so you engage in sophistry and post evasive bullshit to wriggle out of it. You're almost always wrong, your understanding of the term ad hominem being just one case in point.
Anyway, this is where I give up on you bro.