MUST SEE! World War 3 is upon us! #WW3

Pulitzer-prize winning reporter reminds us: We are now in the longest continuous period of war in American history.

Pulitzer-prize winning reporter James Risen reminds us:

We are now in the longest continuous period of war in American history. And yet there is remarkably little debate about it.

Many Americans assume “because 9/11″.
But regime change in Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Afganistan (and see this) was planned before 9/11.
Let’s take Iraq, for example.  Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.”

Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And the Sunday Herald reported: “Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.” (remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.)
Indeed, we’ve seen it all before.
We explained last year:

We are in the middle of a perpetual series of wars. See this, this, this and this.

As just one example, in 2010 the war in Afghanistan became the longest war in U.S. history. 

***

Why is the war of terror being waged indefinitely?

Many have said that “war is the health of the state”,  and Thomas Paine wrote in the Rights of Man:

In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.

George Washington – in his farewell address of 1796 – said:

Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty.

James Madison said:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Greenwald noted in October:

As the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power – and profit – more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be substantial barriers to having them start and continue – the need for a Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:

“It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”

In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and profit most abundant.

Indeed, top American military officials and national defense experts say that our specific actions in the “war on terror” are creating more terrorists and more war.

As Greenwald points out today, the endless nature of the war on terror is a feature, not a bug:

There’s a good reason US officials are assuming the “War on Terror” will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs.

***

There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question – and it’s becoming less of a question for me all the time – is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.

It’s increasingly hard to make the case that it’s the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded, that “terrorism” is motivated not by a “hatred of our freedoms” but by US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is not news to the US government. Despite this – or, more accurately, because of it – they continue with these policies.

***

There is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it to continue. It’s always been the case that the power of political officials is at its greatest, its most unrestrained, in a state of war. Cicero, two thousand years ago, warned that “In times of war, the law falls silent” (Inter arma enim silent leges).

***

If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.

Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times and the ACLU’s mere request to disclose the government’s legal rationale for why the President believes he can target US citizens for assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse her own ruling was – “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me” and it imposes “a veritable Catch-22″ – the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate even the most basic rights: “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret” (emphasis added).

Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit called “the war on terror”? Johnson is right that there must be an end to this war imminently, and Maddow is right that the failure to do so will render all the due-process-free and lawless killing and imprisoning and invading and bombing morally indefensible and historically unforgivable.

But the notion that the US government is even entertaining putting an end to any of this is a pipe dream, and the belief that they even want to is fantasy. They’re preparing for more endless war; their actions are fueling that war; and they continue to reap untold benefits from its continuation. Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make an end to all of this possible.

Indeed,  the American government has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade.  See this, this, this, this and this.

***

And the American government lies – and even kills its own – to justify new wars.

Top American economists say that endless war has ruined our economy.  It benefits a handful of elites, while levying a tax on the vast majority of Americans.

Congress members – part of the super-elite which has made money hand over fist during this economic downturn – are heavily invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information … perhaps even including planned military actions.

No wonder the American government is making the state of war permanent, and planning to unleash new, widespread  wars in the near future.

Postscript: Under Bush, it was the “war on terror”. Obama has re-branded the perpetual fighting as “humanitarian war”.

But - underneath the ever-changing marketing and branding campaign – it’s really just the good ‘ole military-industrial-and-banking complex consolidating their power and making money hand over fist.

Obama Supports Al-Qaeda. Blowback is Inevitable. Americans should be FURIOUS!

"Blowback" - invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended results of American actions abroad. Chalmers Johnson wrote a great book on it.  If you do not describe American foreign policy as "empire building" then you are a MORON.  If you blame just Obama, then you are a MORON because regime change has been in the works since before George Bush took office.  For more on that, read The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski.  He's the guy who CREATED the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1970's, provoking the USSR to invade, which ultimately caused their bankruptcy.  

At the very least read this passage:

Indeed, the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Mali, Bosnia and other countries – and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries.  So moderate Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa are becoming furious at U.S. interventionist policies.

---From Zerohedge---

The protests in Egypt against president Mohammed Morsi were – according to the BBC – the largest in history.

The Egyptian military threw Morsi out in a coup today.

Why?

Irish Times reports:

Army concern about the way President Mohamed Morsi was governing Egypt reached tipping point when the head of state attended a rally packed with hardline fellow Islamists calling for holy war in Syria, military sources have said.

***

Mr Morsi himself called for foreign intervention in Syria against Mr Assad, leading to a veiled rebuke from the army, which issued an apparently bland but sharp-edged statement the next day stressing that its only role was guarding Egypt’s borders.

***

“The armed forces were very alarmed by the Syrian conference at a time the state was going through a major political crisis,” said one officer, whose comments reflected remarks made privately by other army staff. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to talk to the media.

***

For the army, the Syria rally had crossed “a national security red line” by encouraging Egyptians to fight abroad, risking creating a new generation of jihadists, said Yasser El-Shimy, analyst with the International Crisis Group.

At the heart of the military’s concern is the history of militant Islam in Egypt, homeland of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The military source condemned recent remarks made by “retired terrorists” allied to Mr Morsi, who has deepened his ties with the once-armed group al-Gamaa al-Islamiya.

Obama had recently sent American troops to prop up Mursi, and the protesters were furious at the U.S. for backing Islamic radicals.

(The U.S. backed Egypt's previous dictator, as well).

Support of Western intervention in Syria was also one of the main causes of the recent enormous protests in Turkey … which came close to toppling the Turkish leadership.

Indeed, the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Mali, Bosnia and other countries – and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries.  So moderate Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa are becoming furious at U.S. interventionist policies.

Note:  The coup is a set-back for the U.S., because Egypt - unlike Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran - isn't on the 20-year-old list of countries targeted for regime change.

Chinese national bank in terror financing

Is the Cold War part 2 the endless war on terror financed by chinese and russian banks as well as by Iran and OPEC nations that gain from the sale of oil to the USA?

Clipped from www.southasiaanalysis.org

Chinese Bank in terror Financing

By Bhaskar Roy  In a startling development, one hundred plaintiffs filed a case last week with a Los Angeles Circuit Court that a Chinese state-owned bank was acting as a financial conduit for terrorist groups Islamic Jihad (IJ) and Hamas. The Bank of China Ltd. China’s third largest bank, has expectedly denied the charge saying it would contest the suit.   The law suit alleged that the bank was aware of these illegal transactions but did nothing to stop them. It claimed, through certain supportive documents, that millions of dollars were sent through the Bank of China to finance attacks by the two terrorist outfits, resulting in death and injuries to innocent people.   The charges add that the illegal transfers emanated from the Middle East, sent to the banks’ branches in the USA, and were then transferred to accounts at the Bank of China branch in Guangzhou in Southern China, and finally wire-transferred to Hamas and IJ leaders in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This money helped terrorist attacks between 2004 and 2007.   Israeli officials in 2005, brought these activities of the bank to the notice of officials of China’s Central Bank but the practice continued, the law suit said.   Following the war on terror led by the USA from 2001, US intelligence and federal justice department officials started working with a large number of countries including China to block the routes of terror financing. For example, US Justice Department officials have trained Bangladesh central bank officials on tracking illegal money transactions. This happened following the 2005 country-wide terrorist bombings in Bangladesh and it was discovered that a number of Gulf NGOs like the Al Hamrain trust and the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS) of Kuwait were funding Islamic terrorist groups in the country.   According to the Bank of China’s website, it reported by 2006 more than one thousand cases of suspicious transactions amounting to $ 56.5 billion to the Chinese police, but there is no official report on how these cases were dealt with.   Illegal monetary transactions are also hidden in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China. Money sent out illegally by some companies about which not much is known,      return as FDI. Information on such financial flows is rarely sought by the government agencies. One partner involved in illegality will surely need an unscrupulous partner outside China. Money laundering is a murky world where all the undesirable people – gun runners, narco traders, terrorists and black marketers are partners – with no questions asked.   It is well known that China assisted the Taliban during the war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But it was not China alone who supported the Taliban – the USA was the main culprit along with king pin Pakistan. While the western countries withdrew from Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left to gradually implode, China, with assistance from Pakistan, stayed with the new rulers of Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda indoctrinated Taliban. China’s commitment to counter terrorism has always been suspect, although it has its own problems with the Muslim Uighur separatists in the western region of Xinjiang. This problem is not receding.   At a particular period of the cold war, China maximized its gains from most sides. The experience may have encouraged the Beijing leaders to sit in the middle and fish in troubled waters.   China was very much aware that its Uighur militants were being trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan by Pakistani Jehadis of ISI creation, the Taliban and even the Al Qaeda. Some of these training camps were common to both Uighurs and Kashmiri militants.It hoped that with good relations with Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Uighur separatist menace would be resolved or, at least, kept within manageable limits. It may be recalled that even after the US missile attacks on Taliban post 9/11, China maintained for some time that there was no evidence that the Taliban was involved in terrorism. Chinese companies were entering Taliban controlled Afghanistan in a big way in telecommunication, military informatics, and oil and gas survey. Further, Afghanistan was seen as a strategic gateway to Central Asia.  Pakistan was, and remains, China’s gateway to the Gulf and West Asia or as the Chinese prefer to call it these days, the “Golden Gate” out of US encirclement. The route from western China to Pakistan extending to Afghanistan into Central Asia was also very important to consolidate its multi-pronged surge in that ex-Soviet region.  Simultaneously, growing militancy in countries perceived to be potential competitors or adversaries was apparently seen as a bonus by the Chinese security establishment. China’s larger regional strategy seemed to have given some cover to Islamic terrorism and militancy, at least by omission. This strategy has also enabled terrorists to sneak into southern China from Hong Kong and near by areas in the cover of petty businessmen. Terrorist money laundering from Guangdong province bordering Hong Kong was reported as early as 2002.  The Bank of China case raises the question whether there is disconnect between the hard line intelligence and security establishment and the top section of the Central leadership group led by President Hu Jintao? If that is so, this is a dangerous call for the rest of the world, especially neighbouring regions troubled by Islamic militancy and terrorism. The West, of course, would be a major target.   Otherwise, it is difficult to find an answer how such huge illegal transfers through the Bank of China in Guangzhou has remained unaddressed for so long when evidence was staring the Chinese security in the face. The related question is whether the Bank of China case is the tip of the iceberg, given the fact that terrorists in UK, Europe and India appear financially well-supported.   Read more at www.southasiaanalysis.org

 

US Senators Brainwashed by American Military to Keep War Going

URL:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

 

 

FUD To bolster military spending, sounds like the cold war years.

Either we haven't learned that this is obvious or we dont care?

Meanwhile the GOP wants to cut education, social security, and healthcare benefits here at home.

And people vote for them? Why? FUD works on them too