Unwarranted Violence Can Never Be Right

And this applies to Canadians how?

Our volunteer soldiers are in Afghanistan trying to help a a nation rebuild from the failed terrorist state it was. They aren't outsourced. Neither were our soldiers in Korea, Normandy, or Vimy. Mr. Steinback should walk into a veterans hall and try out that line. Would love to see some 70 year old knock him on his ass. He claims to be so above the "sanctimonious" judgement of rioters smashing embassies then refers to "we" as if he has been elected to speak on behalf of anyone. As if his flippant judgement of American soldiers, their families, the public or the rest of the entire Western world isn't "sanctimonious".

If a cadre of evil intentioned politicians with powerful business and corporate backing sanction the deaths of others "in my name", I am not guilty of their actions regardless of the spin they put on it.

The only way I can be held in any way responsible is if I blindly have faith in everything they tell me and encourage others to do the same.

I lost my faith in the system before I even graduated from high school back in 1980.

Eliminating violence across the world is one of the noblest causes. But unless we can get everyone to stop all at the same time, and stay that way, I just don't see it happening in real life. Some days I don't think that we as a human race are all that deserving of a species.

<i>Our volunteer soldiers are in Afghanistan trying to help a a nation rebuild from the failed terrorist state it was.</i><BR><BR> And good luck to them. They've got a long row to hoe, after the US has done such a fine job of screwing the country over and directly contributing to making it into a failed terrorist state in the first place. However I guess now that Iran is in the gun sites, Iraq still one hell of a mess and with the defict still growing like topsy, Uncle Sam will be grateful that it can count on Canada and NATO to go in and tidy up the place a bit after they busted up all the furniture, punched holes in the walls and left cigarette burns all over the carpets.<BR><BR> <b>Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear: The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon</B><br><br> Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,<br> President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser<br> Published 15-21 January 1998<br><br> Translated by Jean Martineau<br><br> <b>- Comments -</b><br><br> Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons.<br><br> First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.<br><br> Not so, says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:<br><br> "I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets."<br><br> Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called "conspiracy theory." To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories. But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.<br><br> One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again?<br><br> We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).<br><br> SNIP<br><br> In Afghanistan (as Brzezinski proudly states) and then in Bosnia, the US sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it. Because ordinary people would never support such a policy, it was sold to the public as support for freedom fighters (Afghanistan) or as defense of abused Muslims (Bosnia.)<br><br> By the late 1980s Brzezinski's protégé, Prof. Zalmay Khalilzad, was the top strategist of the Afghan war.<br><br> Under the administration of Bush, Sr., Khalilzad was in charge of strategy at the Pentagon. We have substantial evidence that it was under Bush, Sr., not Clinton, that the US began assisting the mujahideen in Bosnia.<br><br> So, in both cases, we have Brzezinski's protégé directing the use of Muslim extremism as a weapon against a secular state, with the media misrepresenting the nature of the fight. The Brzezinski Doctrine in action.<br><br> SNIP<br><br> <b>Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur</b><br><br> <b>Le Nouvel Observateur:</b> Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?<br><br> <b>Zbigniew Brzezinski:</b></b> Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.<br><br> <b>Le Nouvel Observateur:</b> Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?<br><br> <b>Zbigniew Brzezinski:</b> It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.<br><br> <b>Le Nouvel Observateur:</b> When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?<br><br> <b>Zbigniew Brzezinski:</b> Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.<br><br> <b>Le Nouvel Observateur:</b> And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?<br><br> <b>Zbigniew Brzezinski:</b> What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?<br><br> <b>Le Nouvel Observateur:</b> "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...<br><br> <b>Zbigniew Brzezinski:</b> Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...<br><br> Link: <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm">Brzezinski interview</A><br><br> Read how the US spent millions of dollars over a period of some 20 years sending jihad preaching fudamentalist textbooks to Afghanistan, the same textbooks were used by the Taliban in Afghanistan schools. <br><br> <b>The Jihad Schoolbook Scandal...<br><br> Why has the US been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years?</br><br> And why is President Bush hiding it?</b><br> By Jared Israel</b><br> [Posted 9 April 2002]</b><br><br> =======================================<br><br> Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?<br><br> Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"<br><br> Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan. <br><br> Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd. (1)<br><br> Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.<br><br> "The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)<br><br> According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."<br><br> Link: <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm">Jihad Schoolbooks</a>

Now the question comes up, as hinted in this story, and in many others lately, that the Mohammed cartoon was a direct provocation, repeated all over the world, to cause violence. <br />
<br />
Such provocation has been the tool of aristocracies of history forever. E.g. The German - Polish war, or rather WW2 started when a group of Polish soldiers allegedly attacked a German radio station in Danzig, now called Gdansk, on August 31. 1939. In reality, they were SS troups under the command of a 26year old SS officer by the name of Alfred Naujocks, who survived the war.<br />
<br />
The long and short of it is that a certain spcial interest, neocon sector wants to start a permanent war, or wipe out half of the world with nuclear weapons to prove their superiority. In the name of religion and economic efficiency, of course. <br />
<br />
Ed Deak,<br />
=========================================================== <br />
<br />
<br />
Flemming Rose and the Straussian Art of Provocation <br />
<br />
Tuesday February 07th 2006, 3:24 pm <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211">http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211</a><br />
<br />
As suspected, and claimed on this blog over the weekend, the inflammatory anti-Muslim cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were a deliberate provocation designed to outrage and incite Muslims and thus engender support in Europe and America for the manufactured “clash of civilizations” engineered by the Straussian neocons. As Christopher Bollyn writes for the American Free Press, the neocon operative behind the cartoon scheme is Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, who has “has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons.” Rose “traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares ‘militant Islam’ with fascism and communism,” Bollyn reveals. <br />
<br />
Daniel Pipes is one of the more virulent and hateful of the Straussian neocons, famous for his racist and xenophobic statement that Muslim immigrants are “brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene,” an attitude straight out of the Nazi school of racial hyperbole (a philosophy embraced by no small number of Jabotinsky Likudites and their fellow travelers among the traitorous Straussian neocons). <br />
<br />
Bollyn continues:<br />
<br />
“Agents of certain persuasion” are behind the egregious affront to Islam in order to provoke Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen told the BBC. The key “agent” is Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of JP, who commissioned cartoonists to produce the blasphemous images and then published them in Denmark’s leading morning paper last September….<br />
<br />
Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that “he would not publish a cartoon of Israel’s Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as ‘racist.’”<br />
<br />
As Daniel Pipes and his ilk have repeatedly demonstrated, it is not racist to characterize Arabs and Muslims as “brown-skinned peoples” suffering from bad hygiene, although it is a crime to take the apartheid state of Israel to task for murdering Palestinian children. But then, as Lenni Brenner has documented, the followers of Ze’ev Jabotinsky—and his political creation, the reactionary Likud Party in Israel—are not only well versed in fascism, but murderous racism as well. <br />
<br />
As for the unapologetic stance of the Danes in regard to publishing the cartoons, Bollyn comments:<br />
<br />
There is clearly a more sinister reason why the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to issue a formal apology as demanded by Arab and Muslim governments. The hard-line position taken by Rasmussen, an ally in the “war on terror,” has more to do with advancing the “clash of civilizations” than defending free speech in Europe….<br />
<br />
There is a deeper reason behind the publication of the offensive cartoons. Given the unapologetic position taken by the Danish government and the editors it appears very likely that tension with Islamic nations will increase and the international crisis will deepen. This is, after all, exactly what the global planners behind the “clash of civilizations” want.<br />
<br />
The completely predictable reaction among Muslims sets the stage for violence and “false-flag” terror attacks as Europeans prepare to host the Olympics in Turin, Italy. The Turin-based La Stampa irresponsibly published the cartoons on Feb. 1, two days after Milan’s Corriere della Sera.<br />
<br />
The anti-Islamic cartoon scandal is no laughing matter. If and when a terror attack does occur and the cartoons and angry Muslims are blamed for being the cause, the reason they were published will become clear. Europeans will become increasingly polarized and hostility to Islam will grow. <br />
<br />
Of course, as the Straussian neocons prepare the next phase of their total war against Islam master plan—attacking Iran and possibly soon after Syria—tacit support from Europe will be a plus, especially after the false flag Gladio-like terror attacks in Madrid produced undesirable results (the Spanish people rejected José María Aznar, a neocon toady and grandson of a prominent fascist journalist). <br />
<br />
So if terror attacks do indeed occur during the Olympics in Turin, we can point an accusatory finger quite naturally in the direction of the Straussian neocons, linked to Operation Gladio terrorism through Michael Ledeen, who is connected to Francesco Pazienza and the P2 Masonic Lodge responsible for the CIA-NATO sponsored Strategy of Tension terrorism campaign in Italy (an Italian criminal court convicted Pazienza in 1985 of political manipulation, forgery, and the protection of criminals and terrorists, among other offenses, in relation to the Gladio bombing of a Bologna train station, killing more than 80 people; see Jeff Wells’ Rigorous Intuition). <br />
<br />
“One of P-2’s specialties was the art of provocation,” writes Mark Zepezauer. “Leftist organizations like the Red Brigades were infiltrated, financed and / or created, and the resulting acts of terrorism, like the assassination of Italy’s premier in 1978 and the bombing of the railway station in Bologna in 1980, were blamed on the left. The goal of this ’strategy of tension’ was to convince Italian voters that the left was violent and dangerous—by helping make it so.” <br />
<br />
In the same way, the Straussian neocons, taking a page from the P-2 provocation playbook, are attempting to convince Europeans and Americans that Muslims are “violent and dangerous” by “helping make it so,” as Bollyn’s revelations about Flemming Rose’s role in the inflammatory publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons in Jyllands-Posten and other newspapers make obvious.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />

Speaking of high horses, whats all the junk about Canada's military? What do you think koreans say about Canada? You think Afghanis think that about canada? Cleaning up messes?

Read some papers from the area sometime where they actually talk to people. If the military left, the suicide bombers would stop.

Think Canada is 'helping' in Haiti? How about the massive aide that has been sent to our lovely mining partners in the Phillipines and Indonesia.

Take a look around the world, wherever there's a mine there's a crooked mining company, backed up by you know who. WHereever there's a developing country, there's the AECL, guess who that is. Get out of your dreams, your government hasn't been doing anything to be proud of for decades.

I think you need a thorazine drip.

"Now the question comes up, as hinted in this story, and in many others lately, that the Mohammed cartoon was a direct provocation, repeated all over the world, to cause violence."

Where have you been? Offensive cartoons are constantly being drawn all over the world. You can't live in the modern world without encountering something offensive. The Danish cartoons were the unlucky ones singled out for organized and manufactured outrage by muslim states. If the Jyllands-Posten never published those cartoons, the islamist manufactured controversy would have focused on something else.

Open any newspaper, or turn on your TV, and you will see that muslim countries all over the world are fanning the flames of this controversy all by themselves. They don't need Neocons. They're falling over each other in eagerness to spread the outrage. I hardly think that every mosque in the world is controlled by the neocon agenda. If neocons really had that much control over islamicists, there would be no need for a clash of civilizations. It takes two to tango, and I see the muslim world trying very hard for a clash of civilizations.

Have a look at who is fanning the flames of this controversy. Not a single one is a neocon. They are all state-sponsored radical muslims with their own agendas. If it wasn't for government sanctioned muslims pushing for outrage, these cartoons would have been as memorable as last week's Garfield comic.

So take your neocon conspiracies and shove them.

Oh look, the apologist is hard at work ignoring everything that the fascist regime does in the world while proclaiming that any reaction to "shock and awe" is a justification for more crimes against humanity. Way to go Stoutlimb, pretend that psyops and black ops don't exist. Operation Gladio, never heard of it, operation Northwoods, never heard of it... Gloss everything over with a dose of "if we don't do it, somebody else will".

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

Stoutlimb, it is fairly assumed, knowing full well prejudicial thinking would exact its toll, entered the fray after paying the toll - plus a generous tip!

He further exasperates all conversation by proving William James observation.” A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

All that he has done is to formulate an offering by focusing on the opening statement of Ed Deak’s post.

Had he the capabilities to fathom Ed Deak’s post … but then comprehension would be a tool readers have seen him to be familiar with, and it is not and so instead he resorted to that which he accuse others using towards him: ad homenim retorts.

It would be expected of him to frame his counter claim in language befitting that of the ego-based opinion appears to hold of himself. In his prejudicial view of Moslems it is they who are at the source of the current c controversy. This is simply not the case, especially to anyone who has delved into the matter.

Refusals to accept provocation towards Moslems regarding the caricatures of the prophet Mohammad have no bearing on the now established fact that was the raison d'etre for the caricatures insistent promotion(s).


---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al EINSTEIN

For the record, we were discussing the disproportionate response of Muslims nations to a mere cartoon. It's unreasonable to assume that they are all controlled by the CIA. It's obvious they are doing it of their own free will, and are encouraged by their local governments. Contryary to your paranoid delusions, the USA is hardly the only country to conduct psyops.

If you can't stay on topic, don't reply.

“For the record, we were discussing the disproportionate response of Muslims nations to a mere cartoon”

Au contraire, My dismissive adversary, what the article from Common Dreams is fully about and the more astute of us, (you not being one of course have once again missed the point) grasp is and I quote “This is a condemnation of unwarranted, unjustified violence no matter who commits it.”
You have either missed this pertinent fact or ignored it in favour of your hallucination of the world, either way what it boils down to is your inability to recognise a topic much less stay on one.



---
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?-Anon

Americans have different ways of saying things. They say `elevator', we say `lift'...they say `President', we say `stu