Washington’s official story unravels, confirming extra-legal execution of Bin Laden

By Barry Grey  | 5 May 2011

The "bipartisan" rot of the US party system becomes evident in moments such as this when the entire ruling class is united under a single purpose. Nancy Pelosi (as Obama) wasted no time before calling--of all people-- war criminal George Bush to thank him for his leadership in allowing the bin Laden rubout to come off as planned.

It took less than two days for Washington’s official story of the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden to unravel, revealing amidst the rubble of the initial lies a cold-blooded extra-legal execution.

The American media, in accordance with its willing and eager role as propaganda arm of the government, is doing its best to limit the damage from the retraction of earlier claims and continue utilizing the murder of Bin Laden and four others, including a woman, to intimidate, debase and brutalize public opinion.

On Monday, Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, told a press conference that Bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALs after having “engaged in a firefight,” weapon in hand. “Whether or not he got off any rounds, I frankly don’t know,” Brennan added.

Less than 24 hours later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney admitted that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot in the head.

Carney was obliged to correct another falsehood put forward the previous day by Brennan. The counter-terrorism official had reported that Bin Laden’s wife was killed after the terrorist leader used her as a human shield to protect himself. On Wednesday, Carney, reading from a brief statement drafted by the Pentagon, said Bin Laden’s wife had been wounded in the leg, not killed, and had not been used as a human shield.

The White House further acknowledged that it had misidentified which of Bin Laden’s sons was killed—it was Hamza, not Khalid. It said that the woman killed in the raid was the wife of Bin Laden’s courier. She was allegedly caught in the crossfire between the SEALs and Bin Laden’s defenders on the first floor of the three-story compound in a well-off section of Abbottabad, Pakistan.

According to official US accounts, Bin Laden and his family members were on the third floor when the attack came early Monday morning, Pakistan time.

The original version put out by Brennan was designed to debunk the view that the purpose of the mission was to execute Bin Laden and bolster the claim, made for legal reasons, that the commandos had orders to capture their target if he did not resist.

“If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat,” Brennan said, “the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.”

In his press conference Tuesday, Carney continued to claim that the commandos were prepared to take Bin Laden alive if he did not resist. Asked by a reporter how he could resist without a gun, Carney said vaguely that there were “other ways” to resist than with arms.

On Monday, Brennan made much of Bin Laden’s supposed use of his wife as a human shield. In line with the policy of demonizing and dehumanizing those singled out to serve as bogeymen and pretexts for US military aggression, Brennan said: “Here is Bin Laden, who has been calling for these attacks, living in this million-dollar-plus compound, living in an area that is far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield. I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years.”

This, it was soon revealed, was concocted out of whole cloth.

Come home, Georgie boy. "We have all recognized in our public comments that his role was important in having this success,” Nancy Pelosi declared. Does anyone still seriously think the Democrats represent a genuine alternative to the Republicans?

There is evidence that the new official version is no less a tissue of lies. Al Arabiya on Wednesday cited senior Pakistani security officials who said a 12-year-old daughter of Bin Laden who survived the attack and is in Pakistani custody told them the US forces captured her father alive and shot him dead in front of family members. The Pakistani officials added that Bin Laden was killed in the first few minutes of the operation and on the first floor of the compound.

This flatly contradicts the US government story that the commandoes had first to shoot their way into the first story in order to get to the third floor, and that they confronted Bin Laden in the midst of ongoing firefights with his defenders. Al Arabiya reported that there was no gunfire from the residents of the compound and that Pakistani officials who investigated the scene after the raid found no weapons.

The newspaper wrote: “According to information Pakistani officials collected from detained persons, Osama was neither armed nor did inmates at the compound fire at the US choppers or commandos.

“‘Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers. Their chopper developed some technical fault and crashed and the wreckage was left on the spot,’ a well-informed official explained.

“Security officials said they did not recover any arms and explosives during their detailed search of the compound on Monday and Tuesday.”

This report was almost universally ignored by the US media. At the daily White House press briefing on Wednesday, Carney announced that the White House would give out no further details on the raid, lamely asserting the need to protect counter-terrorism sources and operational methods.

The clumsy efforts to cover up the flagrant illegality of the raid—both the violation of Pakistani sovereignty and the extra-legal execution of Bin Laden and others—point to the broader context of unanswered questions and non-credible claims. US politicians and media outlets have railed against Pakistan for harboring Bin Laden in a mansion a few hundred yards from the Pakistani equivalent of America’s West Point military academy, in a town populated by retired military personnel and active military regiments, and only 35 miles from the capital city of Islamabad. There has been no explanation, however, as to how Washington could be unaware of Bin Laden’s presence.

If, as American officials are broadly asserting, Pakistan was aware of Bin Laden’s fortified safe house, how could Washington, which counts Pakistan as one of its closest allies in the “war on terror” and maintains the closest relations with the country’s intelligence and military establishment, be unaware?

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani implicitly raised this question on Wednesday, when he declared that Pakistan shared intelligence “with the rest of the world, including the United States,” so if there were what he called “lapses” in Pakistan “that means lapses from the whole world.”

Gilani went on to assert that the United States possessed the most extensive and sophisticated surveillance technology and networks, including spy satellites, and was in a better position to track down Bin Laden than Pakistan.

Punching a hole in the official story given out by President Obama Sunday night that the US first became aware only last August of the likely presence of Bin Laden in the Abbottabad compound, another senior Pakistani official, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, told the BBC that Pakistan had drawn the attention of American intelligence agencies in 2009 to suspicions about the building.

It is far more plausible that the US wanted to keep Bin Laden alive to serve as a useful focus of the post-9/11 “war on terror,” which has been used to justify wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya, until other strategic considerations, both foreign and domestic, argued for his elimination. Once the decision was made to get him—at a point when his real influence was generally agreed to be negligible—Washington had every reason to kill him, rather than capture him and bring him to trial for his crimes.

The last thing the US wanted was for the longstanding and intimate ties between Al Qaeda and US intelligence—dating back to Bin Laden’s days as a CIA contractor in the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerrilla movement in Afghanistan—as well as Al Qaeda’s ties to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other US allies in the “war on terror” to be exposed to the public.

There was also, no doubt, the belief that a sudden and bloody “hit” against Bin Laden would send a useful signal to other figures who have run afoul of the United States, such as Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Libya’s Gaddafi. The latter barely survived a targeted assassination attempt just one day before the killing of Bin Laden.

There has been some criticism of the execution of Bin Laden internationally. Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV, “It was quite clearly a violation of international law. The operation could also have incalculable consequences in the Arab world in light of all the unrest.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called on the United States to give the United Nations full details about Bin Laden’s killing. “The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law,” she said.

However, the Obama administration has vigorously asserted that the action was entirely lawful, and there has been virtually no dissent from within the political, media or academic establishment. In testimony Tuesday and Wednesday before the House and Senate judiciary committees, Attorney General Eric Holder hailed the killing of Bin Laden as a testament to American justice.

He told the House committee that the action was “lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.” He told the Senate, “I’m proud of what they did. And I really want to emphasize that what they did was entirely lawful and consistent with our values.”

The Media’s Moral Degeneracy

Congressional Democrats have competed with their Republican counterparts in their praise for the elimination of Bin Laden. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives, declared that the operation “will be a great source of pride to every American… It’s incredible what our people can do.”

Not deterred in the least from its propaganda in support of the killing by the admission that the victim was unarmed, the New York Times published a celebratory editorial Wednesday headlined “The Myth of Mr. Obama’s Weakness.”

“President Obama’s display of leadership in directing the killing of Osama bin Laden,” the principal organ of American imperialism wrote, “raises the prospect that American politics can move away from mindless debates over the president’s loyalties and fortitude…

“Mr. Obama’s risky and audacious decision to attack the Bin Laden compound in Pakistan has demolished the notion that he cannot make tough decisions or cares primarily about the nation’s image abroad.”

Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in an op-ed piece entitled “Cool Hand Barack,” approvingly compared Obama’s performance to that of Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

The Washington Post, in an editorial Wednesday headlined “Targeting Mr. Gaddafi,” wrote: “For the record, we think targeting Mr. Gaddafi and his sons—if that is what is really going on—is as legitimate as striking Al Qaeda.”

Sections of the US political and media establishment are seizing on the success of the raid to justify the use of torture and rehabilitate the barbaric practices developed first under Bush. In an interview on “NBC Nightly News” Tuesday, CIA Director Leon Panetta made a point of declaring that the team of Navy SEALs was authorized to kill Bin Laden. “The authority we had on Bin Laden was to kill him,” he said.

Panetta went on to claim that intelligence obtained by means of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture, against detainees in Guantanamo and CIA prisons had contributed to tracking down Bin Laden. He confirmed that those techniques included waterboarding.

The Financial Times published a column Wednesday entitled “Waterboarding Resurfaces as Tool that Helped Track Down Prey,” which cited New York Republican Congressman Peter King declaring that “we obtained vital information several years ago about the courier for Bin Laden—we obtained that through waterboarding.” The piece continued: “For those who say that waterboarding does not work, Mr. King concluded with the answer to end all questions: the practice gave the US ‘vital information that directly led us to bin Laden.’”

In a similar vein, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called former President George W. Bush to thank him. “We have all recognized in our public comments that his role was important in having this success,” she said.

Barry Grey is a senior political analyst with the World Socialist Web Site.

___________________________________________
To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.

[donation-can goal_id=’support-tgp-before-were-gone’ show_progress=true show_description=true show_donations=false show_title=true title=”]____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




The Politics Of Revenge And Submission: “When the individual feels, the community reels”

By Phil Rockstroh

Osama bin Laden is dead. And so is the U.S. republic. We had to destroy our freedoms in order to save them. What is left to save from the next rampaging dragon when the knights, sworn to kill the monster, destroy everything in their path in the pursuit of him? One killer is dead. Now what are we going to do with all the killers in our midst who killed him.

Since 9/11/2001, due to the lust for revenge of the people of the U.S., hundreds of thousands of innocent Islamic people are dead. These human beings were killed in our name. Be very careful when you proclaim: “I’m glad ‘we’ got bin Laden. He deserved it.” Be very grateful most of us don’t get what we deserve.

To appropriate a classical understanding of the situation: Aeschylus, in his Oresteia trilogy, dramatized that civilization begins when (in fact, civilization is not even possible until) retribution yields to justice i.e., The Furies, goddesses adorned with serpent-seething headdresses and an abiding passion for retribution, must be transformed into the Eumenides (the kindly ones). They must cease their seeking of revenge (which engenders endless revenge cycles, inflicting a trauma-wrought callowness on the people of a culture) and become the enemies of those who bear false witness and stand against the democratic process.

In contrast, in the U.S., a state policy of genocide against its native inhabitants determined the geographical dimensions of the nation itself, and, in many ways, determined the inner dimensions of its collective mindscape, which created and maintains the death cult calculus of U.S. militarist imperium. (The U.S. military still envisages its enemies as “Red Indian savages.” Witness: Osama bin Laden having been given the moniker, “Geronimo.”)

Hence the isolated, alienated U.S. populace (its males in particular) clutch, to the point of fetishizing, their guns, because they feel powerless before the depravations of an exploitive system rigged to benefit a small class of privileged insiders. Much damage is done by this compensatory fantasy: Vulnerable children and teens are bullied by their troubled peers to the point of clinical depression and suicide; in domestic situations, crimes of passion take deadly turns; and episodes of mass shootings erupt across the landscape of exploitation, alienation and anomie.

The collective mode of mind of the corporate consumer/militarist empire leaves both the hoi polloi and the privileged unable to even approach the problem of their alienation…thick walls of self-protection must be breached…In the U.S., individuals have become so withdrawn into themselves, it seems as if Home Depot outlets sell ready-to-assemble, prefab bubbles of self-enclosure, with optional mounted gun turrets.

How is it possible for troubled individuals to live in a culture in which the response of their government (mirrored in its movies, television programs, and video games) to almost every problem abroad involves military force and imperialist coercion — and not have these death-leveling policies leave their mark on the psyches of the populace?

All too frequently, in the increasingly desperate and denial-ridden nation, deranged chickens come home and reap havoc in the roost (also known as The Law Of Perpetual Poultry Return). As above with its government, so below with its populace: With troubling frequency, in shooting rampages, unhinged individuals stage freelance, military-style commando raids, defending (in the tormented perception of their besieged minds) their internal homeland.

The rigid hierarchical structure of U.S. corporate oligarchy (but veiled by the internalization of its upward class mobility hagiography) imposes a type of domination and control compulsion (and attendant low-level hysteria) in the psyches of the nation’s males. Hence, the need for disproportionate amounts of control to displace their own sense of being dominated by brutal power (e. g., they feel so deeply diminished by their own submissive position in the economic order that the men and boys of the nation are driven to taunt other males by bandying demeaning invectives, such as, “You’re my bitch.”)

What they are expressing is the displaced anger, engendered by their helplessness before the dictates of the corporate state. An insidious order that determines the course of their day: At what hour, they will rise (at the insistence of an alarm clock) to meet the day; what they will eat (generally, processed or fast food); the roads and routes they will travel (stranded in the grinding limbo of commuter traffic); who they will be in contact with during the day (the dharma-decimating exigencies of the workspaces of the neo-liberal economic order). In short, how their day unfolds (exploited for the benefit of the oligarchs of the corporate state) and how their day ends (on edge, enervated, muck-brained, in hyper-attenuated communion with some form of the mass media hologram).

The inimical effect of this mode of being has come to be known as “the American way of life.” Therein, individuals, reduced to mere assets of the economic elite, grow bereft of the means and motivation for personal transformation. Moreover, the culture — always an organic, collaborative effort between individuals and the collective mind of an age — withers into an economic, as well as, psychic wasteland, because the means of social engagement have been denuded due to the full-spectrum domination of both cultural real estate and individual mindscape by the corporate state.

Corporate domination of everyday life has left the soul with a scant amount of wiggle room. But it has not always been so, even in the Deep South, in the belligerent ignorance and staggering naivety, of my youth.

Homer counseled that we should straddle time with our backs to the future, our faces to the past. Thus this digression:

In the year, 1970, in the summer I turned fourteen, in Piedmont Park, in Atlanta, Georgia, the Allman Brothers, among other bands, would perform free, impromptu concerts for a tie-dye clad, reefer reeking, bell bottoms-caressing-the-Georgia-red-dirt gatherings of “freaks,” — which was the preferred tribalist term, as opposed to the media-created, socially pejorative — hippies…which, when bandied among counterculture insiders, was generally applied ironically.

Although the park was located only a few miles from my family’s home, undertaking the trip presented a degree of peril. To make ones way to the park included traversing a tough, in-town, white working class neighborhood (now a gentrified into soul-sucking blandness, yuppie enclave) where, from the perspective of its denizens, their world, and all they held in reverence and reference, was under siege. And, although inchoate, their animus was instantly distilled, simply upon a glimpse of the untamed tresses of a singular, thin of wrist, dirty hippie, commie faggot — whose mere presence was considered an affront to their pomade-crowned, muscle car-thundering parcel of redneck paradise.

Accordingly, the locals were pledged to do their part to fight the scourge…by increasing their intake of PBRs and Jack Daniels, and, upon sight of said dirty hippie interlopers, bestowing ass-stompings — and for no-extra-charge — involuntary haircuts upon errant longhairs caught in their midst.

Yet as the era progressed, the savage dance between hippie freak and redneck belligerent changed in tone and tempo, an extemporaneous type of metaphysical jiujitsu occurred, in which the predator was subdued and seduced by the prey…as if by cultural contact buzz, redneck fury yielded to counterculture insouciance.

“When the individual feels, the community reels” … Aldous Huxley

Briefly, this was the anatomy of the seduction: In their pursuit of fleeing freaks into the park, the young males of the cracker tribe happened upon a few of the things of this vast and vivid world even more compelling than the possibility of ass-kicking…in the form of attractive young women.

Yet to the young men, the hippie sphinxes, sirens, waifs, and gypsy queens were baffling, unapproachable; these women were less than taken by their greasy, pompadoured forelocks and aggressive bearing. In short, and to appropriate the parlance of the era, the hippie chicks didn’t get off on their “bad vibes…it, like, really harshed their high.”

But these great, great grandsons of the Lost Cause proved much more malleable in countenance than the ossified in memory, now enshrined in marble statuary, of their confederate forefathers.

Consequently, a kind of cracker Lysistrata started to unfold. The pomade lacquer faded from stiff pompadours, yielding to lank, draping locks of hippie plumage. The habit of rebel bellicosity was sublimated into an avidity to “boogie.” The zealots of ass-kicking became the acolytes of acid and devotees of the gospels of kicking back and getting down.

As time passed, on weekends, as the Allman Brothers preached Sunday sermons vis-a-vis guitar and drum solos, these newly minted freaks could be found in positions of repose and reflection upon the grassy hills of the park, eating Orange Sunshine and drawling, “aw mahn, Dwayne’s guitar is shootin’ sparks into mah brain…”

Or as Marcel Proust put it, “The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands but in seeing with new eyes.”

Yet, in our time, the fervor of the 1960s seems, in the words of a Latin proverb: “Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus” — The mountains have labor pains and a ridiculous little mouse is brought forth.”

As the psychedelic nimbus of the early nineteen seventies transmogrified into a Nixonian shit-storm, and the long, silent war waged by Disaster Capitalists on the US working class dissipated their hopes and buffeted their sense of wellbeing, a familiar class system wrought aura of misery and meanness began to reassert itself.

The Dixieland Woodstock Nation increasingly began to resemble a southern-fried Weimar Republic, as the Corporate State Altamont grew increasingly pervasive, punitive, and imposed more and more demeaning demands upon the lives of working class Americans.

Yet the present paradigm and its dependence upon a corporate consumer/militarist mindset persists because: “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”–Thomas Paine.

Osama bin Laden was taken out by a rival gang of terrorists: And, across the land, the parade of death-reveling fools prattles onward. Hence, the desperate, diminished souls of the empire are driven to contort themselves, collectively, into all manner of positions of casuistry, in a vain attempt to rationalize being complicit in the crimes of the state. Thus, in the compulsion to see ourselves as good and decent folk, we mistake the involuted course of our own dim and brutal thoughts for the darkness and evil of others.

Therefore: This is why self-knowledge is crucial: “When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate.”- Carl Jung.

Over the last few days, witnessing the blood-dimmed spectacle of witless celebrants frothing in glee at the news of the revenge killing of Osama bin Laden, I feel as though I’m having the dubious privilege of peering into an alternative universe where annoyances such as common decency whither into extinction, as all the while, vile, lurid delusions bloom like hot house flowers.

The noxious redolence of these fleur du mal can have an enervating effect on one’s will to resist and fight back.

But resist one must. And remember to savor the glorious failure of even a hopeless cause. The most naive and banal response would be to propagate the tired canard of the vacuous, crackpot realist mindset that: “That’s just the way it is…that’s just how things work…that’s the way it is, always was, and always will be.”

Dead ass wrong: That is the way a particular system is being operated at a particular time. Moreover, no system operates in stasis therefore are open to systemic change and random fluxes, by a host of variables, known and unknown. Although outcomes, for better or worse, and all combinations therein, are uncertain, thus the world before us remains an extraordinary thing to behold.

“Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself.”  – Carl Jung

Even though the earthly remains of Osama bin Laden are now entombed in the sea, the U.S. empire will continue to founder, its people have been made no safer nor have we been placed in an enhanced position to prosper. What would prove helpful would be to cease engaging in this constant, tedious dance with our homicidal shadow self, because every written-in-blood name, listed on every dance card at the Empire’s Ball, bears one’s own name.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: phil@philrockstroh.com. Visit Phil’s website http://philrockstroh.com/ And at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000711907499

_________________________________________
To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.

[donation-can goal_id=’support-tgp-before-were-gone’ show_progress=true show_description=true show_donations=false show_title=true title=”]

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




The Mohawk Nation: OBAMA RESTORES OLD ROMAN COLISEUM BLOODBATHS

PRESS COMMUNIQUE

Yale Skull-and-Bones members. George H.W. Bush stands next to clock, fourth from left.

MNN.  May 4, 2011.  US President Obama made the decision to send assassins to disfigure and brutally murder someone he said was Osama Bin Laden.  Rather than capture and question a mastermind, they kill him and cowardly feed him to the sharks.  Obama invited his powerful government decision makers to become desensitized to human slaughter by watching a live stream public killing.

Obama misnamed it “Operation Geronimo”.  Factually the Apache Warrior was a respected military genius who brilliantly evaded the US and Mexican armies simultaneously.  In 1889 he was forced to surrender when they threatened to capture and kill his people.  The US ignored these conditions.

Geronimo’s skull was taken to the Yale Skull and Crossbones Secret Society for use in their covert initiations of the elite.  Using his name to murder Osama Bin Laden indicates they are behind this bloody carnage and bragging about it.   Their message is, “We will eliminate anyone who opposes our worldwide totalitarian agenda and war against brown-skinned people”.

Osama Bin Laden was supposedly in a house near the US run Pakistani military academy.  The US Navy Seals wore helmets with cameras to film the operation.   They came down in choppers, shot him in the face in cold blood, took his body and dropped it into the ocean.

Obama’s staff watched it to be part of and to own it.  Like a school of sharks circling a bleeding body, they went into a feeding frenzy, transfixed as they watched the supposed Bin Laden die in agony.  The President stirred up the blood lust to prepare his officials for the attempted conquest and expansion of US imperialism.

Obama whet the public’s appetite for blood by organizing street celebrations and to promote vicious spectator sports, akin to snuff films.

This is reminicent of the Roman Coliseum blood spectacles where people were forced to watch their men kill each other to get used to how cheap their lives were.

Hitler mesmerized the German youth to march off to war by carefully conditioning and selecting those that would kill, torture and purge the world without blinking an eye.

President Obama told the media that Bin Laden fired shots from an automatic and used his wife as a shield.  This lie had to be retracted.  He was unarmed and did not hide behind his wife.

Are we sure it was Osama Bin Laden?  The victim’s face was blown apart.  Initial pictures [now recognized as fakes] looked like photo shop amalgamation of another dead man made to look like Bin Laden.

Bin Laden was never charged with 911 because there was no evidence.

The President and Congress congratulated themselves on the ruthless killing.  Their message is, “We don’t arrest.  There is no judicial process.  We kill you and then dump your body”, just like the mafia.

The President is trying to assert the law of the Obama jungle, “We can eliminate anyone who speaks against our totalitarian agenda”.  Dictators worldwide are being encouraged to do the same.

In our way when any warrior dies, we honor them, their nobility and dignify them with a respectful burial.

We Indigenous are being targeted to usurp our birthright and our rightful voice as the true spokespeople of Great Turtle Island and the Western Hemisphere.  White and Black people know they don’t naturally belong here and can’t legitimately speak for us.

To stop these indignities to our fellow humans, we must teach the Great Law of Peace and assert our voice.

Kahentinetha, MNN Mohawk Nation News Kahentinetha2@yahoo.com For more news, books, to donate to help pay legal fees and to sign up for MNN newsletters go to www.mohawknationnews.com More stories at MNN Category “Art & Culture”.  Address:  Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0

Store:  Indigenous authors – Kahnawake books – Mohawk Warriors Three – Warriors Hand Book – Rebuilding the Iroquois Confederacy.


_____________________________________
To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.

[donation-can goal_id=’support-tgp-before-were-gone’ show_progress=true show_description=true show_donations=false show_title=true title=”]

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




Osama bin Laden and America’s Unworthy and Invisible Victims Before and Since 9/11

Paul Street

One of the most memorable images of the Vietnam War.

The Indochinese died before their time in far greater number (to say the least) than the American invaders.  The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations killed at least 3 million human beings in Vietnam, Laos,  and Cambodia .  Much of Vietnam and its neighboring territory were bombed and burned “back to the stone age” by the American “liberators.”

“War” is a curious term for such one-sided imperial slaughter, which turned Vietnam into a “basket case” (the Pentagon’s own language) while many Americans enjoyed historically unprecedented mass affluence in relative freedom at home.

The imperial way of war: Unequal Terms
US Casualties & Vietnam War Statistics

As a result of the more than eight years of guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, it is estimated that more than 2 million Vietnamese were killed, 3 million wounded, and hundreds of thousands of children orphaned. Furthermore, it has been estimated that about 12 million people became refugees. Approximately 1 218 000 were resettled in more than 16 countries during the time period between April 1975 and July 1982. About 500 000 people tried to flee by sea. It has been estimated that 10 to 15 per cent of these people died, and those who survived faced extreme hardships and eventually immigration barriers.

The Vietnam War US casualties totaled 57 685 killed and about 153 303 wounded and at the time of the cease-fire agreement, there were 587 US military and civilian prisoners of war, all of whom were subsequently released. A current unofficial estimate puts the number still unaccounted for in the neighborhood of 2500.

TELLING RATIOS
For each American killed, 34 Vietnamese died.
For each American wounded, 20 Vietnamese were wounded.
Since the Vietnam War, the Pentagon, sensitive to the public relations/political aspects of war at home, has concentrated on more and more advanced technology to make American soldiers practically invulnerable. Further, since in most theaters the US has overwhelming firepower and air support, the casualties in many operations are next to zero.—Eds

 

Vietnam War: Iconic picture of napalmed children.

Not long after the full and direct attack receded, U.S. president Jimmy Carter proclaimed at a news conference that we owed no debt to Vietnam because “the destruction was mutual.” It was a remarkable comment, thoroughly uncontroversial in the dominant U.S. political and media culture, which renders invisible and officially unworthy the victims of American and U.S.-allied violence. The 3 million prematurely dead Indochinese met their demise on the wrong side of the imperial guns and the wrong side of the imperial cameras.  They did not and do not officially exist or matter according to the Orwellian rules of the dominant national and mass media culture.

Flash forward to the aftermath of the death of the former U.S. Cold War terror tool Osama bin Laden. Over the last two days, we have been fed images of al Qaeda’s criminal act of 9/11/2001, when bin Laden’s extremist warriors killed 3000 Americans on U.S. soil. Expect Obama to speak with flowers in hand at Ground Zero, saying that we must “never forget” the undeserved victimization we experienced on that sacred day of American martyrom. The wounds of what evil others from the Middle East did to us have been re-opened for public viewing like no time in recent years. The twin towers’ burning and collapse is all over the national Telescreens again, carrying the message: poor but now avenged America!

There’s nothing said in the dominant mass media and politics culture about the vastly larger number of Arabs and Muslim killed on their soil by the U.S. and its allies and clients (including the CIA-backed Osama back in the 1980s) before and since 9/11.

Last Monday night on the “Public” Broadcasting System’s News Hour, Madeline Albright applauded the death of a terrorist who had “killed not only Americans but a lot of other people.” The end of the criminal bin Laden should occasion no tears, of course, but a reasonably civilized culture would be skeptical about righteous expressions of concern for innocent victims from a woman who as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State said the following on national television about the killing of more than half a million Iraqi children by U.S.-led economic sanctions: “this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” The standard statistic for the number of Iraqis killed by the sanctions (1991-2003) is 1 million, considerably more than the 3000 Americans who died in September of 2001.  Never mind: the Iraqis died on the wrong side of the imperial culture and are thus invisible. Along with other and related aspects of U.S. policy in the Middle East (chiefly America’s sponsorship and protection of Israeli oppression and bloody dictatorships across the region’s arc of U.S.-backed despotism), those officially unworthy casualties were part of why a major Islamo-terrorist attack on the U.S. seemed likely well before 2001. The Islamist “blowback” (a CIA term that the left author Chalmers Johnson turned into a book title and prediction in 2000) was all too predictable.

Also unsurprising was Washington ’s exploitation of the predictable “blowback” as a pretext to launch an ambitious military campaign in the oil-rich Middle East and particularly in Iraq (second only to Saudi Arabia in petroleum reserves). The morning the Twin Towers fell in lower Manhattan, I sat mesmerized in front of my television, thinking that a large number of innocent people would be losing their lives in the Arab and Muslim worlds at the hands of a vengeful Empire (an empire that no longer seemed to face any relevant deterrent on the global scale) in coming months and years. I had no idea how big the body count would be. The brilliant British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk estimates “up to half a million Muslims dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, ” thanks to America’s post-9/11 wars. It’s a reasonable guess. Many, perhaps most of that half million have died indirectly, through health problems created by the American invasions’ terrible impact on daily life.  But many –far more than the American death count of 9/11 – have been directly slaughtered by U.S. forces, both uniformed and contracted-out.

The American petro-imperial revenge machine reached its mass-murderous apex, perhaps, in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in April of 2004.  That’s when the Marines responded to the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries with a quasi-genocidal assault that included the criminal bombing (including hyper-lethal cluster-bombing), mortaring, napalming, gassing, and shooting of civilians, the destruction of hospitals and clinics, and the targeting of ambulances. U.S. snipers boasted of killing anyone they could get in their sights and U.S. soldiers tossed grenades into civilian homes.  The assault considerably out-did al Qaeda’s 9/11 death count. An American video game (“Fallujah – Operation al-Fajr”) was subsequently released to celebrate and profit from the Fallujah slaughter. The game’s players join U.S. Marines and Army soldiers in their attack on the Jolan district in Fallujah. Kuma Reality Games used detailed satellite imagery of Jolan in making the popular game. Publicity material for the game enticed purchasers with the opportunity to “dodge sniper fire and protect civilians.”

Along the way we have seen well-documented mass torture and rape in the imperial American charnel houses of Guantanamo , Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, not to mention the capture and sending of often innocent accused terrorists to torture chambers in Egypt and other U.S.-allied states.

 

Rapid-deployment strikes using airships has become the signature of America’s war on insurgency around the world.

U.S. military personnel have routinely and preposterously justified disgraceful actions in the Middle East and Southwest Asia as “revenge for 9/11” – a frequent motivational theme in the preparation of U.S. troops to kill “Hajis” during the basic training that precedes deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. American troops, officers, intelligence operatives, and pilots have been conditioned to take out their hatred for Osama bin Laden on innocent men, women, and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Ethiopia .

The indiscriminate killing of civilians in the name of 9/11 retribution has continued into the age of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, who refused to apologize for the deadly bombing of dozens of women and children in the Afghan village of Bola Boluk even as he offered a formal apology to New Yorkers for an ill-advised Air Force One flyover that reminded some city residents of 9/11.

It is well understood in elite circles that the mass-murderous (dare we say “monstrous”?) U.S response to 9/11 has increased the Islamist terror threat to Americans and others by deepening the Arab and Muslim worlds’ alienation from the U.S. and the West. The Wall Street Journal reported last Monday that Al Qaeda had 200 members on the eve of 9/11. Today the group is larger and “more far-reaching than before the U.S. sought to take it down.” Independent offshoots have emerged in Yemen , Somalia and elsewhere. “New terrorist leaders,” New York Times columnist Joe Nocera writes, “include Nasir al-Wahishi, who leads Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula , and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric who has been involved in several terrorist plots, including the attempt to blow up a plane on Christmas Day in 2009.”

This makes perfect sense in light of U.S. Middle East policy, which continues under Obama to rest on alliance with military despotism and Israel and on the related threat and use of direct military force.  The increase of the terror threat by the U.S. “war on terror” (now speaking of its greatest victory) might seem paradoxical and dysfunctional from America ’s perspective but it keeps alive the threat of future Islamist attacks that can be used again to fuel and the military-media industrial complex’s seemingly insatiable thirst for the profits and diversions of endless war.

And here is something else that deserves at least brief mention – Osama’s Pentagon coding as “Geronimo EKIAm consistent (as is the naming of the United States’ military helicopter fleet after murdered Native American first nations) with the deeply racist Indian-genocidal and frontier-imperialist origins of America’s long quest for hemispheric and then global dominance.

paulstreet99@yahoo.com

___________________________________________
To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.

[donation-can goal_id=’support-tgp-before-were-gone’ show_progress=true show_description=true show_donations=false show_title=true title=”]

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




The Myth of Humanitarian Catastrophe

Counter-Insurgency Deceptions in Iraq and Afghanistan

By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

Baghdad orphanage. The children are not dead, merely near dead. We could show thousands of far more shocking images, all documenting the monstrosity that the US war and invasion of Iraq has wrought on this nation.

Despite a 2008 U.S.-Iraqi agreement requiring a total withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011, U.S. Admiral and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen is now “warning” Iraqi leaders that they only have a few weeks to decide if they want troops to remain in the country past the formal withdrawal date.  In recent weeks, Democrats and Republicans have also recently taken up “debate” over Obama’s alleged plan for “withdrawal” from Afghanistan.  U.S. military planners love to frame their violent occupations as necessary “humanitarian” interventions, aimed at “saving” the poor and downtrodden of the third world.  These claims have always been disingenuous, and the gravity of recent evidence suggests that efforts to entertain the humanitarian myth amount to little more than propaganda.   >>
Take for example, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Both occupations were vehemently defended by liberal and conservative political officials, as well as their counterparts in the mass media under the guise of pure intentions and selfless sacrifice.  Both occupations are opposed by the majority of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis on the grounds that the destruction they’ve caused leave countries worse off than if the U.S. had simply not intervened in the first place.

In the case of Afghanistan, the Obama administration announced that the beginning of a phased withdrawal could begin as early as July of 2011, and continue through 2014.  The 2011 withdrawal date was promised as far back as late 2009, at the same time that Obama announced his “surge” of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.  Obama’s ‘09 withdrawal announcement, made simultaneously alongside his announcement of the escalation of war, was unprecedented in U.S. history.  Rarely do aggressors provide an “exit strategy” at the onset of their onslaughts.  This novel development, however, reflected not so much the “democratic” responsiveness of the Obama administration to the public (considering that most Americans opposed the war at the time, and continue to do so today), but rather a begrudging concession on the part of the Democrats that they can no longer pursue (a la Bush) bloody wars without a (at least vague) promised end in sight.  Still the unprecedented escalation-de-escalation strategy should hardly be viewed as a “revolutionary” development in U.S. foreign policy.  After all, under Obama the Afghan war is set to endure for a grueling 13 years at minimum, considering the initial escalation of the conflict began immediately following the September 11th attacks.  Furthermore, through the first four years of his presidency, Obama will have spent more on the military than even George W. Bush did by the end of his first term.  If anything, Obama has demonstrated that imperialist policies and military escalation can be even more effectively pursued under Democratic regimes, with “anti-war” figures like Obama farcically celebrated as a proponent of “de-escalation” and “peace.”

Iraq: Victim of depleted uranium weapons.

Predictably, the even more hopelessly war-addicted Republicans have attacked Obama’s “withdrawal” timetable as dangerous, irresponsible, and naïvely “anti-war.”  John McCain announced shortly following the ’09 Afghanistan escalation that any inclusion of a withdrawal date was “dispiriting,” and would guarantee that Afghans would be less likely to “risk their lives to take our side in this fight.”  The withdrawal date, McCain argued, is one that “enemies can exploit to weaken and intimidate our friends.”  In March of this year, Republican Congressman Mike Coffman similarly announced that he was skeptical of a possible withdrawal, considering the “security interests in Afghanistan that we must accept…we need to make sure that the Taliban don’t take over the country.”  Coffman’s comments came at a time when a non-binding House resolution calling for a full, accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan (by year’s end) was defeated by a vote of 93-321, with only eight Republicans voting in support.

Efforts to establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq were similarly lambasted at every turn by liberals and conservatives during the early years of that war, and later by conservative hawks once mainstream liberals decided the war was no longer “worth it” in terms of financial cost and American lives.  U.S. officials repeatedly warn (no matter the conflict) that a withdrawal will inevitably result in increased instability, chaos, and bloodbath.  In 2008, for example, the neoconservative editors of the Washington Post were still chastising President Obama for his “unrealistic” withdrawal plan (7/8/2008).  The editors celebrated the U.S. for its supposedly successful “counterinsurgency strategy” which “helped bring about a dramatic drop in violence.”  They warned that “it would be folly to begin a forced march out of the country without regard to the risks of renewed sectarian warfare and escalating intervention in the country by Iran and other of Iraq’s neighbors.”

The occupation of Iraq never really ended, although one wouldn’t know this due to the meager-to-non-existent coverage of the conflict in the mass media.  The Associated Press reported in March of this year that, “Eight years later [after the U.S. invasion], thousands of U.S. troops remain in Iraq — and their mission may not be accomplished until far into the future.  Despite a security agreement requiring a full U.S. military withdrawal by the year’s end, hundreds if not thousands of American soldiers [47,000 more accurately] will continue to be in Iraq beyond 2011.”  It is true, as USA Today reported last year, that as of September 2010 the mandate for U.S. troops under the newly declared “Operation New Dawn” is to “focus on training Iraqis to handle their own security and have U.S. combat authority curtailed.”  This point, however, is extremely important because it establishes a marker date, which helps in comparing violence in Iraq prior to and following the end of major combat operations (excluding special ops campaigns, which have continued following August 2010).

How has Iraq fared after the end of major U.S. combat operations?  As the New York Times reported in December of 2010 (four months after the U.S. “withdrawal”), violence in Iraq was at its lowest levels since the start of the occupation in 2003.  Total recorded civilian casualties for 2010, as reported by the Iraq Body Count project, stood at 3,976, down from 4,680 in 2009, and from the high of 2,327 a month in 2006 at the height of Iraq’s civil war.  Monthly deaths in the last four months of 2010 (after the U.S. “withdrawal”) stood at 270 a month, amounting to a 27 percent reduction from the 370 a month average for the first eight months of 2010.  Casualties in early 2011 have remained at generally lower levels, as the country averaged 314 deaths a month – a 15 percent reduction from the first eight months of 2010 (before the end of major U.S. combat operations).

The implications of these figures were ignored in typical Orwellian fashion by the editors of the Washington Post, who celebrated “a good year in Iraq” in 2010, in which “violence, has dwindled to the lowest level Iraq probably has known in decades” (12/22/2010).  Presumably, the paper expected Americans to forget it had incompetently predicted that the exact opposite would happen if Obama was allowed to follow through with his tepid July 2008 call for a “phased redeployment of combat troops” that would culminate in a removal of “combat brigades” by July of 2010.

Anyone who critically followed the war in Iraq was aware of the poverty of warnings that withdrawal would lead to national collapse and civil war.  Quite the opposite, violence steadily escalated under the U.S. occupation and transformed into full-blown civil war throughout the first five years of U.S. combat operations in Iraq.

At every step of the war, the U.S. was responsible for escalating the conflict and violence – as consistently recognized by the majority of Iraqis themselves in surveys done over the years.  Bush’s staggering incompetence in dissolving Iraq’s military, government, and security forces led directly to the country’s deterioration into civil war, as Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish sectarian militias and “insurgents” stepped in to compete for control and in order to fill the power vacuum.  The U.S. washed its hands of responsibility for the destruction, as it announced its abandonment of reconstruction funding in January of 2006 – thereby ensuring that there would be no progress in improving Iraq’s infrastructure, devastated by decades of (U.S.-sponsored) war and sanctions.

The United States could hardly be divorced from Iraq’s destabilization in light of its own bombings and counter-insurgency operations, which were estimated to have led to more than half of the total 655,000 deaths in Iraq by 2006 (at the height of the country’s civil war).  Total deaths under the occupation were calculated to reach as high as 1.2 million by 2007, following the onset of Bush’s allegedly humanitarian “surge.”  Such destruction does not even take into account the humiliating torture suffered by countless Iraqis (a la Abu Ghraib) who were often collectively detained and terrorized during counter-insurgency operations, typically based on flimsy to non-existent evidence.

The Bush administration’s own support for the “Salvador Option,” in which the U.S. employed and trained death squads to help in “counter-insurgency” efforts was an ominous example of the United States’ total contempt for stability and human rights in Iraq.  Such efforts directly contributed to the deterioration of security throughout the country, encouraging the growth in violence between Kurdish, Shia and Sunni populations, and inciting the indiscriminate targeting of Iraqi civilians across ethnic-sectarian lines.

The presence of more than 150,000 American troops served as a lightning rod for attracting Islamist suicide bombers and other terrorists who played a key role in the emerging civil war.  The occupation and the Bush administration’s opposition to democratic elections (later begrudgingly reversed by the administration after mass national protests) also provided much encouragement for Iraqi nationals (who made up the vast majority of the “insurgency”), who wished to take up arms against an unresponsive, repressive foreign power.  Such animosity toward the U.S. was hardly surprising in light of Bush’s “pacification” campaign, which collectively punished entire towns and cities by cutting off their food and water, or by destroying them altogether (as in the cases of Fallujah and Ramadi).  The “logic” behind such attacks was that these cities were the sites of strong insurgent activity; in essence, collectively terrorizing the civilians in these areas was seen as a legitimate tool for coercing the Iraqi people into turning against the “insurgency.”

The last defense of the occupation typically starts by citing the 2007 “surge” of another 20,000 troops into Iraq as succeeding in reducing sectarian violence and ending the Iraqi civil war.  Careful analysis of the events surrounding the surge, however, suggests that this escalation succeeded in disarming Sunni communities in Baghdad, thereby enabling a massive ethnic cleansing (undertaken by Shia militias working under the cover of the Baghdad security forces) that eventually culminated with a decline in violence (only after large areas of the city were effectively cleared out of their Sunni inhabitants).  Even the National Intelligence Agency challenged the “surge worked” narrative, admitting in its 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that “population displacement [a la U.S.-enabled ethnic cleansing] has resulted from sectarian violence…the polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad…where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.”

The humiliation alone in the routine torture sessions dished out by the Americans and their allies is enough to make us enemies for life throughout the Arab nation.

Enter the war in Afghanistan.  Long promoted by Bush and Obama as necessary in fighting terror and promoting regional stability and democracy, the war has done anything but accomplish these goals.  Reconstruction was always a joke, as numerous critics have documented the overwhelming lack of funding allocated for rebuilding this war torn country.  Additionally, violence in Afghanistan remains at high levels today, as symbolized in a recent April attack in Kabul in which the New York Times reported that “an insurgent wearing an Afghan Army uniform and a vest laced with explosives opened fire inside the heavily fortified Ministry of Defense headquarters, killing at least two soldiers.”  The attack was intended to strike at France’s Minister of Defense, Gérard Longuet, who was supposed to be visiting the compound.

The targeting of NATO and U.S. forces has grown in light of Obama’s ‘09 escalation, as Taliban forces seek to expel the United States and its allies from the country.  Since the U.S. escalated its campaign two years ago, violence has increased significantly.  Afghan civilian casualties increased by 15 percent from 2009 to 2010, as the total number of recorded dead totaled 5,189 for both years (total deaths from 2007 to 2010 have reached nearly 10,000).

It is true that more than two-thirds of those killed in 2010 were the result of Taliban attacks (compared to sixteen percent that can be traced back to NATO and Afghan government forces).  Any attempt to exonerate the U.S. in light of the above statistics, however, is highly dubious.  As the Guardian reports, a now-declassified U.S. State Department cable (released via Wikileaks) one year before Obama’s ’09 escalation indicated that the U.S. had hoped for “a rising tide of chaos and violence, caused by increased NATO operations.”  As the cable explained, U.S. intelligence expressed support for putting increased pressure on the Taliban “in order to bring out their more violent and radical tendencies…this will alienate the population and give us an opportunity to separate the Taliban from the population.”  In other words, an active part of the U.S. plan was the encouragement of violence against civilians, in the hopes that the terror brought by the U.S. “surge” would end in the Afghan people turning against the Taliban.  It is within this context of U.S.-terror escalation that one should evaluate the steady growth in attacks (and the ensuing destabilization) that have taken place since Obama began his surge.

An honest evaluation of U.S. counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates that the U.S. is responsible for escalating, rather than reducing violence and destabilization.  This inconvenient truth is predictably ignored by media pundits and political officials who retain a vested political interest in perpetuating the myth that “humanitarian catastrophe” will ensue if the U.S. withdraws.  Critics of these wars know the opposite is true.  The sooner the U.S. fully withdraws from Afghanistan, the greater the chances that mass violence and social deterioration will subside.

Anthony DiMaggio is the co-author (with Paul Street) of the forthcoming “Crashing the Tea Party” (Paradigm Publishers) due out in May 2011.  He is also the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008).   He has taught U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University, and can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu_________________________________________
To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.

[donation-can goal_id=’support-tgp-before-were-gone’ show_progress=true show_description=true show_donations=false show_title=true title=”]

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.