For Those Conspiracy Nuts
Let's dispose of the idea that there is some conspiracy afoot to pass off an Osama Doppelganger. Assume for a moment that this were true. Then one of two things would also follow. One : He was already dead and his burial place would be known and remains could, at some point, be identified. Two: He is still alive and could prove to be an embarassment. Most especially if he popped up before 2012. One is led to the conclusion that he was killed as reported.
Osama's Death
While the news outlets are reporting Osama as being "killed" there is absolutely no doubt that he was, in fact, assassinated. A live Osama bin Laden would have proved to be a nightmare. He may have been kept at Gitmo but the security aspects alone would have been daunting. Everything from terrorist acts at home to kidnaps for swaps and maybe even an attempt at springing him. A trial would have provided Osama with one last pulpit and given that the U.S. is not "clean" that would have been, in itself problematic. If he was shot in the head as reported, it was an execution and not a result of some fire fight. As Obama stated "killed or captured" ... the reversal in that sequence is significant.
He was given a burial at sea, the purpose of which was not, as stated, in keeping with Moslem tradition (quick disposal), although that was a "bonus". That claim is, on it's face, false. The existence of a corpse would have been a focus for his followers. A sort of Lenin's tomb for Al Qaeda. They could not even chop his hands off, as they did in Che Guavera's case, in order to provide proof. The existence of even a fingerbone would have been too much. Further, had they attempted to bury him somewhere in secret kidnappings and other mayhem may well have followed until he was "reclaimed".
What It Means
In terms of the War on Terrorism (TM) Osama's death means almost nothing. He was largely irrelevant. He may have started the train (or A train) but once it got going it no longer required an engineer. The U.S. was all too willing to supply the fuel. Unlike Bush, Osama's mission was accomplished. Probably beyond his wildest dreams. He may well have started the downfall of an empire. George Bush basically admitted, as early as 2006, that he was no longer particularly interested in Osama bin Laden.
Questions remain, however. Osama was at large for a long time and very probably had support from the perfidious Pakistani ISI. They have been both ally and enemy of the U.S. SIMULTANEOUSLY. The assassination of bin Laden was not due to a concerted effort to comb the earth and find him. Most probably, he was given up by the ISI because he was either proving to be a liability with respect to domestic politics or Osama could no longer supply sufficient bakshish. I suspect it was the former.
It's All So Tawdry
The chest thumping jingoism shown by people in the streets (U S A! U S A ! ) reminds one of the people dancing in the streets in the Middle East after the towers fell. Yes he deserved to die for his crimes but it is not something to celebrate with a six-pack.
The poignant words of Obama, ever the speechmaker extraordinaire, when he spoke of the 3000 killed and their survivors must have tasted of ashes to Iraqis who have lost in excess of 100,000 through American violence even though they were completely, totally, entirely, innocent in terms of 9/11... and to all the loved ones of those killed and being killed through American auspices to this day. Mourn the dead but, please, spare me the rank hypocrisy.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Why is Canada in Afghanistan? No,really.
Why is Canada in Afghanistan?
By the time Canada was seriously involved in Afghanistan (2006) George W. Bush was ready to forget about Osama bin Laden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=related) so Canada was not there to "get bin Laden". In fact such efforts were spotty at best. There is evidence to suggest that it was due to internecine rivalries between U.S. forces and agencies (but that is another story).
Rick Hillier, commander of Canadian forces, in a CBC interview, parroted Bushes ludicrous "because they hate our freedoms" drivel. Gordon O'Connor the Defense Minister, when asked about Canada's involvement said words to the effect: "If we don't fight them there we will have to fight them here" ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/07/28/231368/-Canadas-PM-Flatters-Bush) which was exactly wrong. This was the abysmal level of discourse. This was the leadership of Canada's armed forces. Mutt and Jeff.
The U.S. claims that it brought down a regime that supported terror. First of all the terrorists had their origins in the Mujahideen that the U.S. supplied with arms (via the Pakistani ISI) in order to, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski "give the Russians their Vietnam". Second the Afghan government, in fact, offered to hand over bin Laden if proof were supplied. The U.S., as is its habit, decided to shoot first and be sorry later.
I heard an interview with a soldier that was shipping out to Afghanistan. He had lost a buddy over there and was ready to go because, otherwise his buddy would have "died for nothing". Months later, in another interview a mother, having lost her son, opined that the effort should continue else her son would have "died for nothing". The logic here appears to be that the deaths of more Canadians in Afghanistan will make it all, somehow, "for something".
And it must actually be for something. But what? The stated reasons vary, they mix and match. "Fight terrorism", "Nation building", "Democracy", "Rights of Women" and so on. The latest version is "Train Afghanis to take over the security role". Most are not credible, others are illegitimate.
You do not fight "terrorism" with an army. The other side does not have assets you can easily destroy or a standing army you can fight. You cannot bring democracy at the point of a gun. That's an oxymoron. You cannot build a nation in the middle of what is, in reality, a civil war. The person you are training and arming today may be shooting at you tomorrow. Whatever you may think, you are the outsider. It is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. The whole enterprise, under international law, is a war crime. And I don't care how many schools you build. They will be destroyed. I don't care how many women you "help". When it's over their lives will be somewhere between hell and the grave unless there is a massive effort to get them out.
The purported "good guys" are not in any way "nice guys". Their attitude towards women is not all that different from the "bad guys". They are merely impeded by the presence of NATO. Many are narco-trafficers. The government itself is acknowledged to be among the, if not the most, corrupt on the face of the planet.
So I ask again, why is Canada in Afghanistan? I mean really.
The armed forces fall under the Department of National Defense. Are they defending the nation in Afghanistan? How? Against whom? The majority of Afghani's don't even know where or what Canada is.
Are Canadians dying merely to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to American aspirations? Such as a pipeline from the "Stans" to Turkey? Are Canadians dying because we are "sucking up" to the U.S.? One can only imagine the behind-the-scenes pressure that was placed on the Chretien government. It was a time when Canada had refused to be one of the "willing" in Iraq and American jingoism went into overdrive. Remember how they went after the French? : "Freedom fries". Or the French's mustard commercial? : "The only thing French about us is the name". No such pressure is required on the Harper government. Like Mulroney, practically sitting on Reagan's knee, singing "Danny Boy" Harper is all too ready to worship at America's altar. To that end he has worked to make Canada's Peace Keepers into a war fighting army. An appendage of American foreign policy.
And by the way, make no mistake, if it had have been Harper or if it had have been Ignatieff instead of Jean Chretien, Canada would be in Iraq today. We owe Monsieur Chretien for that at least ...big time.
By the time Canada was seriously involved in Afghanistan (2006) George W. Bush was ready to forget about Osama bin Laden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=related) so Canada was not there to "get bin Laden". In fact such efforts were spotty at best. There is evidence to suggest that it was due to internecine rivalries between U.S. forces and agencies (but that is another story).
Rick Hillier, commander of Canadian forces, in a CBC interview, parroted Bushes ludicrous "because they hate our freedoms" drivel. Gordon O'Connor the Defense Minister, when asked about Canada's involvement said words to the effect: "If we don't fight them there we will have to fight them here" ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/07/28/231368/-Canadas-PM-Flatters-Bush) which was exactly wrong. This was the abysmal level of discourse. This was the leadership of Canada's armed forces. Mutt and Jeff.
The U.S. claims that it brought down a regime that supported terror. First of all the terrorists had their origins in the Mujahideen that the U.S. supplied with arms (via the Pakistani ISI) in order to, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski "give the Russians their Vietnam". Second the Afghan government, in fact, offered to hand over bin Laden if proof were supplied. The U.S., as is its habit, decided to shoot first and be sorry later.
I heard an interview with a soldier that was shipping out to Afghanistan. He had lost a buddy over there and was ready to go because, otherwise his buddy would have "died for nothing". Months later, in another interview a mother, having lost her son, opined that the effort should continue else her son would have "died for nothing". The logic here appears to be that the deaths of more Canadians in Afghanistan will make it all, somehow, "for something".
And it must actually be for something. But what? The stated reasons vary, they mix and match. "Fight terrorism", "Nation building", "Democracy", "Rights of Women" and so on. The latest version is "Train Afghanis to take over the security role". Most are not credible, others are illegitimate.
You do not fight "terrorism" with an army. The other side does not have assets you can easily destroy or a standing army you can fight. You cannot bring democracy at the point of a gun. That's an oxymoron. You cannot build a nation in the middle of what is, in reality, a civil war. The person you are training and arming today may be shooting at you tomorrow. Whatever you may think, you are the outsider. It is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. The whole enterprise, under international law, is a war crime. And I don't care how many schools you build. They will be destroyed. I don't care how many women you "help". When it's over their lives will be somewhere between hell and the grave unless there is a massive effort to get them out.
The purported "good guys" are not in any way "nice guys". Their attitude towards women is not all that different from the "bad guys". They are merely impeded by the presence of NATO. Many are narco-trafficers. The government itself is acknowledged to be among the, if not the most, corrupt on the face of the planet.
So I ask again, why is Canada in Afghanistan? I mean really.
The armed forces fall under the Department of National Defense. Are they defending the nation in Afghanistan? How? Against whom? The majority of Afghani's don't even know where or what Canada is.
Are Canadians dying merely to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to American aspirations? Such as a pipeline from the "Stans" to Turkey? Are Canadians dying because we are "sucking up" to the U.S.? One can only imagine the behind-the-scenes pressure that was placed on the Chretien government. It was a time when Canada had refused to be one of the "willing" in Iraq and American jingoism went into overdrive. Remember how they went after the French? : "Freedom fries". Or the French's mustard commercial? : "The only thing French about us is the name". No such pressure is required on the Harper government. Like Mulroney, practically sitting on Reagan's knee, singing "Danny Boy" Harper is all too ready to worship at America's altar. To that end he has worked to make Canada's Peace Keepers into a war fighting army. An appendage of American foreign policy.
And by the way, make no mistake, if it had have been Harper or if it had have been Ignatieff instead of Jean Chretien, Canada would be in Iraq today. We owe Monsieur Chretien for that at least ...big time.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Faux News North 1.0
In what will predictably be a parallel of the situation in the U.S. the Sun News Network will become the propaganda arm of the Reform Conservative Party of Harper beginning on 18 April the year of Our Lord's abandonment 2011. They will have some pre-election time to ply their trade.
You do not need to be Nostradamus or consult a Mayan calendar to see what's coming. Sun Network is led by Luc Lavoie once employed by Quebecor (he's baaak) and a former Mulroney henchman. Lavoie was preceded by Kory Teneyke a former Tory spin doctor (also formerly of Quebecor) . Brian Mulroney sits on the Board of Directors at Quebecor. The whole shebang is owned by the union busting Pierre Karl Peladeau (say hello to Rupert Murdoch North).
In the run up, Sun Newspapers have been doing a hit job on the CBC and filling pages with puff pieces on the Sun News Network which should rightly be labeled "Advertisement".
You can expect more attacks on the "liberal media" ... this is the right wing code everywhere for "fact based". The right wing media (read Fox in particular) in the U.S. prefer to manufacture their own facts and cobble them into their own "realities" and serve them up to an increasingly dumbed down audience.
One likes to think of Canadians as being little better educated and more discerning even if there is, as a counter example, an actual Creationist museum in Alberta. But, expect the production to be slick and extremely well financed in the beginning with as much snake oil as the traffic will bear. I mean they promise "colourful intelligent commentary" ... from the likes of Ezra Levant?? You have to be joking.
The CRTC, already under fire from the Harperites, can expect even more of the same as Fox North will not have as much "freedom" to be "inventive" with the news as their model to the south.
If everything turns sour and Harper becomes that which he aspires to be, President of Canada, then watch as the game rules change and the propaganda arm becomes "unfettered" (Regulations? We don't need no steenking regulations!)... Avec lui, le deluge, to twist a phrase.
Then? ....Version 2.0 coming to a cable near you.
You do not need to be Nostradamus or consult a Mayan calendar to see what's coming. Sun Network is led by Luc Lavoie once employed by Quebecor (he's baaak) and a former Mulroney henchman. Lavoie was preceded by Kory Teneyke a former Tory spin doctor (also formerly of Quebecor) . Brian Mulroney sits on the Board of Directors at Quebecor. The whole shebang is owned by the union busting Pierre Karl Peladeau (say hello to Rupert Murdoch North).
In the run up, Sun Newspapers have been doing a hit job on the CBC and filling pages with puff pieces on the Sun News Network which should rightly be labeled "Advertisement".
You can expect more attacks on the "liberal media" ... this is the right wing code everywhere for "fact based". The right wing media (read Fox in particular) in the U.S. prefer to manufacture their own facts and cobble them into their own "realities" and serve them up to an increasingly dumbed down audience.
One likes to think of Canadians as being little better educated and more discerning even if there is, as a counter example, an actual Creationist museum in Alberta. But, expect the production to be slick and extremely well financed in the beginning with as much snake oil as the traffic will bear. I mean they promise "colourful intelligent commentary" ... from the likes of Ezra Levant?? You have to be joking.
The CRTC, already under fire from the Harperites, can expect even more of the same as Fox North will not have as much "freedom" to be "inventive" with the news as their model to the south.
If everything turns sour and Harper becomes that which he aspires to be, President of Canada, then watch as the game rules change and the propaganda arm becomes "unfettered" (Regulations? We don't need no steenking regulations!)... Avec lui, le deluge, to twist a phrase.
Then? ....Version 2.0 coming to a cable near you.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
How Foreign Entities Can Buy U.S. Elections
Let us assume there is a fictional organization called U.S. Commerce 'R Us whose stated goal is:
To be the voice of business and fight for free enterprise at home and abroad.
They subsist on donations from businesses both domestic and international.
Money is used to buy influence in Government by essentially bankrolling the elections of "business friendly" candidates.
While U.S. Commerce 'R Us does get donations from foreign entities it insists that these funds are not commingled with domestic funds and are not used to buy representatives ...errr I mean representation. In effect there is a "Chinese Wall" between these funds.
Let's say that funds coming from external sources can be used for such things as overhead, events and programs of U.S. Commerce 'R Us.
Say the fictional Chinindia Industries donates $1.00 dollar. Much as they would like to buy Congress they can't. It would be illegal and besides there is that Chinese Wall (and a buck won't get you much anyway).
BUT that Chinese Wall is a sophistry because, for every dollar Chinindia Industries donates, a dollar of domestic funds is freed up to buy a Senator rather than having to spend it on, say, programming. OR you could just cut the pretense and say the Chinindia Industries dollar bought a Senator ... which was, after all, its intended purpose.
To be the voice of business and fight for free enterprise at home and abroad.
They subsist on donations from businesses both domestic and international.
Money is used to buy influence in Government by essentially bankrolling the elections of "business friendly" candidates.
While U.S. Commerce 'R Us does get donations from foreign entities it insists that these funds are not commingled with domestic funds and are not used to buy representatives ...errr I mean representation. In effect there is a "Chinese Wall" between these funds.
Let's say that funds coming from external sources can be used for such things as overhead, events and programs of U.S. Commerce 'R Us.
Say the fictional Chinindia Industries donates $1.00 dollar. Much as they would like to buy Congress they can't. It would be illegal and besides there is that Chinese Wall (and a buck won't get you much anyway).
BUT that Chinese Wall is a sophistry because, for every dollar Chinindia Industries donates, a dollar of domestic funds is freed up to buy a Senator rather than having to spend it on, say, programming. OR you could just cut the pretense and say the Chinindia Industries dollar bought a Senator ... which was, after all, its intended purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)