“Sacred” Ground Zero

Stop Islamization of America has launched a bus ad campaign in New York City entitled "Preservation of Ground Zero"

___________________________________________________________



Masterminds, mosques and mass insanity: “War on Terrorism” propaganda ratcheted up ahead of war escalation

by Larry Chin, 20 August 2010


Exemplified by the furor over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” in New York, and rumors of a new Al-Qaeda “mastermind”, 9/11 “war on terrorism” propaganda has been ramped up to deafening levels by various political factions.

Nearly a decade since Bush/Cheney’s 9/11 false flag deception, a fearful, self-destructive American mass public remains fully brainwashed by “war on terrorism” deception--- ignorant of history, and militantly oblivious to facts.


“Ground Zero mosque”: the art of missing the point

The ludicrous uproar over plans to build a Muslim community center in New York, the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” has dominated mainstream corporate news headlines. Political players from all sides, including President Barack Obama have joined the fray, attempting to prove themselves the superior “anti-terrorist”, or the better “commemorator of 9/11, when 3,000 people were killed by Muslim terrorists”. The right-wing is going berserk, gleefully.

Heated arguments have exploded around religion, tolerance, democracy, etc.---everything except the only fact that matters: 9/11 was a false flag operation, courtesy of the Bush-Cheney administration, carried out by an elite consensus, in order to justify the “war on terrorism”, and everything that came with it. Mass murder. Unending resource conquest. A police state within US borders. Open criminality.

The perpetual threat posed by a fabricated outside enemy, and a militarized, fearful populace, remain the centerpieces of elite policy, and they have been consistently maintained by both Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations. The demonization of Muslims continues to facilitate pillage.

While violent hatred continues to be directed at Muslims (and all “foreigners”), the criminals who truly massacred 3,000 people in the World Trade Center continue to enjoy power, wealth, and high positions of world “leadership” and remain in control of virtually every aspect of society. Those who perpetuate the cover-up (including the Obama administration) still “run the world”, to mass public enthusiasm.

As the “Ground Zero mosque” mushrooms into a full-blown election year battle cry by one faction or another, not whisper of truth appears in any corporate media coverage. Meanwhile, the exhaustive and available information thoroughly exposing and destroying the official “war on terrorism” narrative is unknown to a minority of people whose critical faculties remain intact.

Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon exposed why and how 9/11 was likely carried out by Bush/Cheney. Michel Chossudovsky’s America’s “War on Terrorism” thoroughly exposed the 9/11 deception, as well as the fact that 1) the “war on terrorism” is a fabrication that serves as the eternal pretext for global war, and that 2) “Al-Qaeda” and other “Islamic jihad” front are military-intelligence assets that have been continuously supported, managed and “run” by the CIA and affiliates such as Pakistan’s ISI on behalf of Anglo-American geostrategic interests (notably oil) going back to the Cold War. A vast number of researchers (all derided as “9/11 truthers”) such David Ray Griffin continue to detail various aspects of the case including physical evidence.

Oblivious to the availability of this mountain of “conspiracy fact”, the vast majority of the population chooses to embrace the Big Lie.


New “Al-Qaeda” mastermind named

In recent weeks, mainstream corporate news headlines have exploded with the “revelation” that “Al-Qaeda” has a new leader of global operations “in charge of planning future attacks”: Adnan Shukrijumah

According to Miami-based FBI counterterrorism agent Greg LeBlanc, whose Associated Press interview in early August is the single source for the new spate of repeated headlines, Shukrijumah is alleged to be a 15-year resident of the US “intimately familiar with American society”, and is the son of a Muslim cleric trained in Saudi Arabia. He have lived in Miramar, Florida before joining terror training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s, in order to fight the persecution of Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya and elsewhere.

Tagged by LeBlanc as the successor to his former boss Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), and taking orders directly from Osama bin Laden. A clip of Shukrijumah posted by the FBI is gibberish.

There is nothing new about the Shukrijumah narrative. It is an intelligence “legend” years in the making.

Chaim Kupferberg, whose classic analysis of post-9/11 “terror” propaganda (Part 1 and Part Two) are definitive, offered the following thoughts on Shukrijumah in 2004 in a piece titled The "Official" Operative Clique for the Next 9/11.

To quote Kupferberg at length [my emphasis in bold]:

“I'm sure many of you out there are noticing a unified narrative taking shape in advance of the next expected attack. In calibrated drips and dollops, the mainstream media, in partnership with the 9/11 panel, are laying the evidentiary trail pointing to the next "Atta" and his insular cell, which apparently already seems to be "in place" stateside.

“Having no access at all to any insider reports, one can almost foretell the Official Legend that will follow in the wake of this clique's first big explosion into the public consciousness - just by reading the mainstream news.

“Certainly, three of these major operatives - Adnan Shukrijumah, Abderrouf Jdey, and Aafia Siddiqui - are already being linked together. But Shukrijumah and Jdey are the ones to watch, for they are being intimately seeded into the Padilla/dirty bomb and Ahmed Ressam/Canadian clique/West Coast threads of 9/11.

“Recently, Shukrijumah was mentioned as the guy likely doing surveillance of the New York buildings in the latest terror alert. But that was supposed to be old information. Yet Shukrijumah has been showing up all over the radar in the past year alongside Jdey and Siddiqui.

“When Abu Musab Zarqawi was publicly unveiled by Colin Powell before the UN in February 2003, he had yet to make his very public splash as the next Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But in the opening months of 2004 - as I surmised back in October 2003 - Zarqawi would lay his own foundation in the public mind (particularly by way of the Daniel Pearl-like Berg killing) as the guy tagged to head up the next ‘big one’.

“If the Ressam-connected Canadian clique is involved, the likely target is the U.S. West Coast. I suspect this is the case due to three items: the bulletin last May that alerted the public to Shukrijumah, Jdey, Siddiqui, Gahdan, el-Maati, and others; a reported sighting the next day of Shukrijumah and Jdey at a Denny's in Colorado (they stated that they were "from Iran" and were en route to the West Coast from New York); the release, two weeks later, of the official 9/11 staff report that now placed Jdey (in cahoots with Moussaoui) as an original member of an aborted 9/11 "second wave" attack on the West Coast; and a reported sighting of Shukrijumah at a nuclear research facility in Ontario (while el-Maati had previously been reported casing nuclear facilities near Ottawa).

“…Shukrijumah (aka "the next Atta") apparently seems to be threaded into the 1993 bomb plots by way of his father's connection to Clement Hampton-El. But more strangely, it seems that Shukrijumah will make his way into the Oklahoma City Bomb thread by way of his Florida connection with "dirty bomb" guy Jose Padilla. To shore up the Oklahoma thread, we also have the Zarqawi/Moussaoui/ Nick Berg connection.

“But let's step back and take a stab at guessing at what is happening here. The new legends will be used to strengthen the foundations of the old ones. In parallel to the official account, however, the existing counter-legends will also be beefed up. In short, the narratives are getting all too muddled with the growing interlinking chains. The growing complexity of these new interlinking legends will operate to turn off a good portion of those who might be seriously interested in examining the truth behind 9/11.

“And what of the rest of us? Will we be locked in a never-ending cycle of polarized argument - with each of us picking his favorite conspiracy thread? How many of us will look at Shukrijumah and see the fingerprints of Iran? How many of us will look at the Canadian clique and sense the hand of Syria behind it all? And if they find that the next operation was pulled off with forged New Zealand passports, how many of us will dig up the newspaper account of the Mossad/ New Zealand passport scandal and go ‘Aha! Once again the Israelis!’

And what about the anthrax thread? In recent months, a writer by the name of Ross Getman has been posting accounts that read like excerpts from a future Official 9/11 Sequel Report. Going by Getman's writings, it would appear that a possible Boston connection would involve anthrax by way of Aafia Siddiqui's connection to Brandeis University and its anthrax facility. Also note that a first sighting of Shukrijumah and Jdey a year ago occurred in Maine, where they were spotted driving with a Massachusetts license plate.

So, to sum up: Shukrijumah seems to be part of a "dirty bomb" or radiological thread, while Siddiqui seems to be part of an anthrax thread. Perhaps the Shukrijumah/Jdey/Siddiqui clique is planning a bi-coastal attack involving radiological materials (or perhaps an attack on a nuclear facility) and a simultaneous attack involving anthrax. Shukrijumah has been marketed as an "Atta-level" pilot.

“Whatever the case, a definite evidentiary trail seems to be clearly laid so as to give the impression of the dots connecting up. Shukrijumah was also spotted recently in the Honduras, but I wouldn't give that one much credence. The Denny's item seems the most likely to be resurrected post-facto as an example of institutional incompetence and blindess. Perhaps the Honduras item was meant to give the impression that Shukrijumah was not yet in the U.S.

“…In the aftermath of this next one, there will be those who will point to new instances of incompetence and blindness - who will say that the dots couldn't be connected. Hopefully, perhaps none of the above will ever come to pass. Perhaps Shukrijumah, Jdey, and Siddiqui will never make their "historical" mark - and we've all been treated to nothing more than a cunningly orchestrated campaign of fear-mongering by the government.

“Whatever the case, it seems that a very clear narrative - with accompanying threads - is being built up for potential use. In the event this particular chapter of the narrative ever goes "operational" ... well, at least you'll all know that the mainstream media had put the dots in place beforehand.”

In the years since Kupferberg’s dead-on prediction, Shukrijumah has indeed “emerged” gradually. Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled Shukrijumah a “clear and present danger” in 2004. In 2009, authorities named Shukrijumah as a co-conspirator in the highly questionable New York subway bomb plot.

Shukrijumah has over the years been picked up as a cause célèbre by right-wing hacks such as Michelle Malkin, and the infamous Gerald Posner, who has built an entire malodorous career helping cover-up government crimes as a favored “anti-conspiracy” media shill.

There are many reasons for Shukrijumah to explode to official prominence now. President Barack Obama has declared an end to “combat operations in Iraq”, while maintaining the permanent US military presence in the country and a continuous “anti-terror” operation against “Al-Qaeda” in Iraq. The administration shift forces to Afghanistan, and continue to ramping up its long-promised goal of escalating the “war on terrorism” throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., With this in the works, along with congressional mid-term elections looming in the fall, all of Washington, from the White House and the FBI to the congressional nominees are refreshing the “terrorism” pretext.

It should be noted that no analysis was done by the various media organs to corroborate the details of LeBlanc’s story before it was repeated verbatim across the media. LeBlanc has also not been vetted as a credible, unbiased source.

Whether Shukrijumah is a intelligence “legend”, a low-level intelligence asset, or the “mastermind” that FBI agent LeBlanc claims, the discussion still collapses when viewed against the backdrop of known historical and post-9/11 fact. “Terrorism” is still a red herring.

As amply documented over the years by Michel Chossudovsky and others, “Islamic terrorism”, including “Al-Qaeda”, the Taliban, etc. are assets of the CIA a myth designed to obscure a vast covert operation and war plan. The “Militant Islamic Network” was created by the CIA, and has continued to operate on behalf of Anglo-American military-intelligence interests. “Terrorists” were key Washington CIA assets during the wars in Kosovo, Chechnya, etc.. Shukrijumah’s boss, Osama bin Laden is a product of the CIA, is a military-intelligence asset who may be dead, or a myth.

Covert Action Quarterly featured the following summation box in many of its post-9/11 issues:


“9/11 cover-up continues:

*Carter administration=CIA-Islamists of Afghanistan

*Carter administration=CIA=Islamists of Iran

*al-Qaeda=Saudi=CIA-=Reagan administration collaborations in Afghanistan and Sudan

*al-Qaeda=CIA=Clinton administration collaborations in Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Libya, Sudan”

We can now add to this:

*Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations=CIA=Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan

Put succinctly by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon:

“Given the degree of documented intelligence penetration of al Qaeda; the fact that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset during the first Afghan conflict against the Soviets; the fact that a number of the so-called hijackers and/or al Qaeda members had been trained in CIA training camps in Chechnya; had fought in CIA/US-sponsored guerrilla conflicts (e.g. in Kosovo with the KLA in 2000), or had received military training at US installations; given all that, it is reasonable to assume that one or more top al Qaeda officials were in fact double or triple agents. They worked to further an agenda originating out of Washington, strongly influenced by Tel Aviv, rather than out of some ill-defined Muslim hatred of the US. In this class I would include people like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM), Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Mohammad Atta.”

“…In covert operations, the best kind of an asset is one that has no idea who is really “running” him. That is not to say that I don’t believe there are terrorists out there who would do any kind of damage they possibly could to the United States. Even if there weren’t any before 9/11 (and there were), the US has gone out of its way to create animosity against this country that is in full flower all over the globe. What is clear is that the government’s assertions that 19 hijackers, funded from caves in Afghanistan, were able to excecute what happened on September 11th is beyond ludicrous. It is also that case that the government has never proven to anybody by any standard other than that used by Randolph Hearst.”

What about Shukrijumah’s link to the New York subway bomb plot? That incident has been linked to Jaish-e-Muhammad, a CIA front. Therefore, any Shukrijumah connection to this event also points to way to the CIA.

It is amusing that a USA Today article about Shukrijumah notes how the hunt for “Al-Qaeda” always comes back to Florida. If the writer of this piece had truly dug into Florida’s long history of covert operations, dirty politics (the Bushes), narcotrafficking, etc. the writer would not have to ask why.

Investigative journalist Dan Hopsicker exposed the Florida links to the so-called 9/11 hijackers, including their military training, and connections to Floridians with military-intelligence and the Bush family, in a series of articles, and in the video Mohammad Atta and the Venice Flying Circus. From a propaganda perspective, placing Shukrijumah into this same framework simply makes sense, as Kupferberg notes.

According to Shukrijumah's mother, her son is “not a mastermind, but a nice boy” who last contacted her right after 9/11, allegedly from Afghanistan. If Shukrijumah’s radicalization was triggered by 9/11 itself, one could argue that (assuming that he is a real terrorist) he is yet another by-product of Bush/Cheney’s violence.


The Big Lie redux

Both the “Ground Zero mosque” and Shukrijumah stories have gone “viral”. The noise surrounding both is certain to be even more deafening, even more outrageous, as election season intensifies, and Obama ramps up its war. Another anniversary of 9/11 approaches, complete with tear-soaked howling over the official lies.

The “terror” threat---perpetual fear of a fabricated outside enemy--- is central to Anglo-American geostrategy. It is being strenuously nurtured. Insanity continues to prevail.

“Al-Qaeda” the eternal covert operation and propaganda apparatus, is being given yet another new boogeyman’s face. All issues surrounding the 9/11 still set off paroxysms of fear, rage, hatred, and violence, nearly a decade later.

The militant public embrace of “war on terrorism” lies underscores how that the 9/11 false flag operation has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the Anglo-American war criminals who orchestrated it.

The American populace supports the most pernicious 9/11 myths. It is being played like a fiddle. It is being “run” as effectively as any military-intelligence asset.


_____________________


related articles:


WikiLeaks and the Iran-AQ connection

by Marc Lynch, Foreign Policy, 27 July 2010

 http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/27/wikileaks_and_the_iran _aq_connection



"A Second 9/11": An integral part of US military doctrine

by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 31 October 2008

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10767


_____________________

We have reached a decisive transition in the evolution of US military doctrine. The "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) directed against Al Qaeda launched in the wake of 9/11 is evolving towards a full-fledged "war of religion", a "holy crusade" directed against the Muslim World.

US military dogma and war propaganda under the Bush administration, was predicated on combating Islamic fundamentalism rather than targeting Muslims. "This is not a war between the West and Islam, but .. a war against terrorism." So-called "Good Muslims" are to be distinguished from "Bad Muslims":

"The dust from the collapse of the twin towers had hardly settled on 11 September 2001 when the febrile search began for "moderate Muslims", people who would provide answers, who would distance themselves from this outrage and condemn the violent acts of "Muslim extremists", "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamists". Two distinct categories of Muslims rapidly emerged: the "good" and the "bad"; the "moderates", "liberals" and "secularists" versus the "fundamentalists", the "extremists" and the "Islamists"." (Tariq Ramadan, Good Muslim, bad Muslim, New Statesman, February 12, 2010)

In the wake of 9/11, the Muslim community in most Western countries was markedly on the defensive. The "Good Muslim" "Bad Muslim" divide was broadly accepted. The 9/11 terrorist attacks allegedly perpetrated by Muslims were not only condemned, Muslim communities also supported the US-NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, as part of a campaign directed against Islamic fundamentalism.

The fact that the 9/11 attacks were not instigated by Muslims has rarely been acknowledged by the Muslim community. Al Qaeda's ongoing relationship to the CIA, its role as a US sponsored "intelligence asset" going back to to the Soviet-Afghan war is not mentioned. (Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism" Global Research, Montreal, 2005)

Since the early 1980s, Washington has covertly supported the most conservative and fundamentalist factions of Islam, largely with a view to weakening secular, nationalist and progressive movements in the Middle East and Central Asia. Known and documented, the fundamentalist Wahhabi and Salafi missions from Saudi Arabia, dispatched not only to Afghanistan but also to the Balkans and to the Muslim republics of the former Soviet republics were covertly supported by US intelligence. (Ibid) What is often referred to as "Political Islam" is in large part a creation of the US intelligence apparatus (with the support of Britain's MI6 and Israel's Mossad).


The Ground Zero Mosque

Recent developments suggest a breaking point, a transition from "the war on terrorism" to the outright demonization of Muslims. While underscoring the freedom of religion, the Obama administration is "beating the drums" of a broader war against Islam:

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country... This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable." (quoted in Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque; Iranian Link Questioned, Israel National News, August 15, 2010)

Beneath the political smokescreen, the distinction between "Good Muslims" and "Bad Muslims" is being scrapped. The proposed Ground Zero mosque is allegedly being funding by "the radical rogue Islamic state of Iran ... as the United States is stepping up sanctions on the regime in retaliation for its support of terrorism and what is feared to be an illegal nuclear-weapons development program." ( Ground Zero mosque developers refuse to outright reject funding from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - NYPOST.com, August 19, 2010)

The rising tide of xenophobia, sparked by the proposed Ground Zero mosque and community center, has all the appearances of a PSYOP (Psychological Operation) which contributes to fomenting hatred against Muslims throughout the Western World.

The objective is to instil fear, rouse and harness citizens' unbending support for the next stage of America's "long war", which consists in waging "humanitarian" aerial attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran, portrayed by the media as endorsing the terrorists.

While "all Muslim are not terrorists", all terrorist attacks (planned or realized) are reported by the media as being perpetrated by Muslims.

In America, the Muslim community as a whole is being targeted. Islam is described as a "religion of war". The proposed mosque and community center are being heralded as "violating the sanctity of Ground Zero".

"..opening a mosque at Ground Zero is offensive and disrespectful to the city and the people who died in the attacks. The project is “spitting in the face of everyone murdered on 9/11.” (Plan to build mosque at Ground Zero angers New Yorkers ,National Post, May 17, 2010)


"Homegrown Terrorists"

The arrests on trumped up charges, as well as the show trials of alleged "homegrown" Islamic terrorists, perform an important function. They sustain the illusion, in the inner consciousness of Americans, that "Islamic terrorists" not only constitute a real threat but that the Muslim community to which they belong is broadly supportive of their actions:

"[T]he threat increasingly comes not from strangers with rough English and dubious passports. Instead, it resides much closer to home: in urban townhouses, darkened basements -- anywhere with an Internet connection. Homegrown terrorism is the latest incarnation of the al-Qaeda threat." How terror came home to roost, Ottawa Citizen, August 27, 2010, report on an alleged homegrown terrorist attack in Canada)

From a process of selective targeting of Muslims with radical tendencies (or allegedly associated with "terrorist organizations"), what is now unfolding is a generalized process of demonization of an entire population group.

Muslims are increasingly the object of routine discrimination and ethnic profiling. They are considered a potential threat to national security. The threat is said to be "much closer to home", "within your neighborhood", in other words what is unfolding is an all out witch-hunt reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition.

In turn, Al Qaeda is described as a powerful multinational terrorist organization (possessing WMDs) with subsidiaries in a number of Muslim countries: Al Qaeda is present (with corresponding acronyms) in various geopolitical hotspots and war theaters:

-Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) (comprised of Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Jihad of Yemen), Al Qaeda in Southeast Asia (Jamaah Islamiyah), Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, Harakat al-Shabaab Mujahideen in Somalia, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, etc.

At no moment is the issue of atrocities committed against several million Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan considered a terrorist act by the occupation forces.


The American Inquisition

A "war of religion" is unfolding, with a view to justifying a global military crusade. In the inner consciousness of many Americans, the "holy crusade" against Muslims is justified. While President Obama may uphold freedom of religion, the US inquisitorial social order has institutionalized patterns of discrimination, prejudice and xenophobia directed against Muslims. Ethnic profiling applies to travel, the job market, access to social services and more generally to socila mobility.

The American Inquisition as an ideological construct, which is, in many regards, is similar to the inquisitorial social order prevailing in France and Spain during the Middle Ages. The inquisition, which started in France in the 12th century, was used as a justification for conquest and military intervention. (See Michel Chossudovsky, 9/11 and the "American Inquisition", Global Research, September 11, 2008).

The arrests, trials and sentences of so-called "homegrown" terrorists" (from within America's Muslim community) on trumped up charges sustain the legitimacy of the Homeland Security State and its inquisitorial legal and law enforcement apparatus.

An inquisitorial doctrine turns realities upside down. It is a social order based on lies and fabrications. But because these lies emanate from the highest political authority and are part of a widely held "consensus", they invariably remain unchallenged. And those who challenge the inquisitorial order or in any way oppose America's military or national security agenda are themselves branded as "conspiracy theorists" or outright terrorists.

Beyond the process of inquisitorial arrests and prosecution, which outdwarfs the Spanish inquisition, an expedient extrajudicial assassination program sanctioned by the White House has been launched. This program allows US special forces to kill American citizens and suspected homegrown terrorists:: "A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"? (See Chuck Norris, Obama's US Assassination Program? "A Shortlist of U.S. Citizens specifically Targeted for Killing"?,. Global Research, August 26, 2010)

The objective is to sustain the illusion that "America is under attack" and that Muslims across the land are complicit and supportive of "Islamic terrorism".

The demonization of Muslims sustains a global military agenda. Under the American inquisition, Washington has a self-proclaimed holy mandate to extirpate Islam and "spread democracy" throughout the world.

What we are dealing with is an outright and blind acceptance of the structures of power and political authority. America's holy crusade against the Muslim World is an outright criminal act directed against millions of people.

The ground-zero event happened a few years ago. Most people are still alive who were around then.

To compare it to something from the 1400s and the 1700s is just stupid. Everyone from that era is now dead.


If your going to rekindle that why not rekindle the 1st and 2nd world wars?
Things move on idiot

excerpt from:

Is it racist and/or Islamophobic to continue to subscribe to the official story of 9/11? Should we not denounce it as a racist rumour?

by Keith Mothersson, 9 July 2008


[...]

S is one of many good people who feel personally offended by my insistent plea that we should break with the hijacker story which we have unwittingly swallowed, and should now consider to be both false and racist.

A principal benefit of this choice of words is that by alleging racism we potentially make it harder and harder for the controllers of ‘politically correct’ progressive opinion to ignore our evidence about 9/11 being an inside job and frame-up, and our arguments about 9/11’s centrality to effectively resisting War, Islamophobia and creeping dictatorship.

However as we raise the ante, we inevitably walk a tight-rope. Precisely because of the emotional punch associated with the ‘R’ word, we run the risk of generating more heat than light, entrenching opinions behind renewed self-righteous defensiveness. So how can we increase the light-factor without also increasing the heat-factor, which detracts from enlightenment, unless any almost inevitable accompanying upset can be sympathetically handled and worked through?

Part of the hill we have to climb reflects the hyper judgmental way so many of us have fallen into thinking about racism, and even more about racists!

We don't think with compassionate wisdom of racism as a prevalent vulnerability to mistaken attitudes which all who grow up in Imperialist countries are perhaps especially liable to share to some extent and which easily cause harm because they impact negatively on certain people defined ethnically/'racially'.

Rather we have come to think of racism as a defining mark of Badness, something which resides in those evil Racists out there - who probably need to be chased down the street as the Anti-Nazi League did in the late seventies.

This idea that racism resides mainly in those others allows us to polish our egos quite cheaply, with self-assurance that we are on the side of the angels because

• we buy Fair Trade goods (at a labour-remuneration ratio of ten minutes work here for 100 there),

• oppose 'heavy-handed' immigration controls (but not ‘sensible legislation’),

• go along to Stop the War demos - which don’t, alas (but we don’t delve deeper into the reasons why we haven’t found a way, a voice and a unity to stop the Wars - though we should give ourselves one cheer for having limited Western militarism to a degree).


Us 'racist'? - Never!, a real affront to the narcissistic tendencies we all harbour to some extent or other.

Instead of being compassionate to ourselves, our harsh judgments of others are internalised as defensiveness which gets in the way of the needed revision of our views and perspective, both at the time someone is drawing our attention to the racism we too are perhaps practicing or complicit in, and as an on-going awareness-expanding process, whereby we hopefully shed more and more aspects of our imperial/racist conditioning - and hence become freer less-afraid human beings and better allies to the most oppressed people in the world and in the UK.

So I am not saying we good liberal progressive lefty green peace people are only racist. I am saying that people hold a spectrum of beliefs many of which are indeed anti-racist/pro-human, but we should all consider that it is likely that we also hold other assumptions/ identifications which may be unconsciously derogatory of 'others', and cherish other views which we may confidently assume to be universally valid, but merely reflect our relatively privileged position in the imperial hierarchy of class and global caste.

[...]

__________________________


Note: Keith Mothersson was the founder of 'Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth' (MUJCA)

 http://www.mujca.com/

He passed away on July 3, 2009.

Ok - in response to the suggestion that it's racist to believe the official story about 9/11. That's a funny accusation coming from the troofer movement, who seem only to happy to dismiss Islamic militants on the grounds they believe "a bunch of Arabs with box-cutters" or "some stone age guys in a cave" couldn't posssibly have orchestrated the attacks. No - something so fiendish and clever can only have been planned by white American generals. (Give me strength).

As for Global Research, if they're going to keep spamming this site with their obvious claptrap, then I'm going to repeat my responses to it. This is what I wrote about their piece yesterday arguing that the war on terror is a "war against Muslims" in which - for some reason that they don't quite explain - both sides are being operated by the CIA

--

Leaving aside the normal 9/11 conspiracy lunacy, this piece falls apart when you look at the three major assumptions it uses as its foundation:


1) The assumption that because the US once gave its backing to a group means it must have total control of it now.

Nope. It’s been a major embarassment to the US that groups it has backed covertly in the past have come back to bite it on the arse. By your logic anyone who has been employed by the US is still in its control – what, like Ken O Keefe? It's also like claiming that former-troothers who now slag off the troof movement must still be working for it.


2) The assumption that it’s a big hush-hush secret that the US covertly backed Islamic groups in Afghanistan.

Erm, it’s the topic of a Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts film. I’m not sure how much more mainstream it could get than that.


3) The assumption that the US really is driven by a desire for a “religious war” against Muslims.

Oh right. So the US will be invading Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar next, will it? No, of course it won't. And if this was the long game, why spend so much time helping to arm and train Muslim groups in Afghanistan back in the days when the big bad was the Commies?


These assumptions are not only wrong, they obviously contradict each other. Can't Global Research stick to spamming the US site rather than the UK one?

Reply to "Norvello":

You and your troll (*) colleagues who are systematically infesting Indymedia UK and any other alternative website where there is any trace of genuine dissent, are doing a great job in carving up those who oppose imperialist warfare. Well done!



(*) Definition of troll: An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Trolls delight in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence that what forum is all about is legitimate.

]He (and in at least 90% of cases it is he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Sometimes, he is skeptical, trying to scare people, trying to plant fear in their hearts. Sometimes, Internet troll is trying to spin conflicting information, is questioning in an insincere manner, flaming discussion, insulting people, turning people against each other, harassing forum members, ignoring warnings from forum moderators.

Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it, or to report a message to a forum moderator. Ubuntuforums moderators usually move troll messages to the jail and may even ban trolls after a few unheeded warnings. Negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

When trolls are completely ignored they sometimes step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed. Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a moderator is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, we have to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself. For this reason the staff here often intervene, either with a warning in a thread, jailing one or more posts, sending private messages to offenders, and even banning people--temporarily or permanently--from these forums.

You define a troll as someone who likes “carving up those who oppose imperialist warfare” and enjoys “trying to scare people, trying to plant fear in their hearts”.

That sounds like a pretty good definition of the truther movement to me. The version of events I believe in is a lot less of a spooky horror film version than yours.

I’ve repeated till I’m blue in the face that I was opposed to the war in Iraq, and I’m certainly opposed to action in Iran.

It’s the conspiracists who are the ones who are splitting up the “anti-imperialist” movement, because they make the rest look like paranoid idiots. Are we supposed to sit around twiddling our thumbs while this site gets spammed with more of this US nonsense?

Yes, there has been a split – and the truthers started it. In one corner, there seem to be a bunch of fairly rational anti-imperialists, such as Noamh Chomsky. In the other, there are a bunch of loons, led by Alex Jones and his ilk (it’s hard to imagine anyone British listening to his radio show and not giggling, particularly when he starts going on about how NHS hospitals are like Nazi death camps and so on, and urging everyone to stock up on food for their survivalist shelters). The moment any of the rational anti-imperialists choose to deny the conspiracy theory on 9/11, they are immediately labelled as CIA assets, “imperialist trolls” and so on.

Oh – and you insist and copying and pasting stuff, even the American troll definition above. Kindly go back to the US websites.

Your post is just a cut & paste of previous "no troll" posts.
In fact I actually think it is machine generated on some kind of scheduled basis.

Thats makes you the Troll. Trolls cut & paste lots of rubbish that no one reads

Write something original you troofing loon

SO WHAT IF IT IS A MOSQUE??? There is nothing "sacred" about "Ground Zero." Period. A horrible crime to be sure, but perpetrated by whom? Who stood to benefit from a "New Pearl Harbor?" Why the architects of the phony WOT, the Zionists and Neocons.

I hate to revert back to the tired and worn, "is the tail wagging the dog" analysis. But the fact of the matter to me is when you consider that money and the corruption, blackmail and influence that it buys is THE most important factor in politics, our bought and paid for political system, you have to consider the monetary influence of wealthy Jews, most of whom are Zionists. People like the owner of the LA Times or the Koch Bros. or Obama's financial posse/benefactors in Chicago, the Pritzkers. The reason for the inordinate influence of Zionism on our domestic and foreign policies is the shit load of cash the Zionists spend on think tanks, "study groups," "research," buying and shaping of public opinion, and their media stranglehold, and buying elections and elected officials. Aside from Christian Zionism, money is the only explanation for the inordinate Zionist influence on our body politic.

Secondly, who needs Israel? I'm not arguing for their destruction I'm talking economics. What do we import from Israel besides their fascist tendencies and their communications experts who rig our signals communications with their spy ware? I wonder whether its the Russians or the Israelis who has spied on America more? But my point is what RAW materials does Israel export to us that are essential to US industries? And even if there is a commodity or two we get from Israel, do they outweigh our need for oil, oil byproducts or other precious minerals like cobalt that are essential to our high tech industries that we obtain from other nations? So you see, unless someone can muster the facts to the contrary, there is little cost/benefit obtained from Israel in comparison to costs/benefits of maintaining relations with other countries/nations. Therefore, when you are confronted with this truth, it begs the question, why the unbalanced influence of the Israeli Lobby?

Americans only have sensitivity for themselves. It's okay for them to build churches and to flood countries with missionaries (many of whom are working for the CIA and hence Imperialism). Interesting how the colonial mindset has always been to raze the temples, places of worship of the conquered peoples and build their churches and cathedrals on top of the ruins. What about "that" sensitivity?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan

Americans are petulant, fraudulent, scared little nitwits. I often wonder why they are so fearful, so afraid of their shadows, and I've come to at least one conclusion: they are afraid of "blow-back" or revenge because they realize, in the midst of the phony proclamations and platitudes, they've fucked another nation over pretty good. They have a sense of karma but believe in the material vs. the spiritual world and thus brute force will overcome karma. (It won't) It's more than a sense of entitlement built on the cesspool of American Exceptionlism, it also boils down to the fact that Americans are scared little bitches when it comes to the "other" and they assume that everyone is a vengeful as they are. (They're not)

The Muslims and Nations practicing Islam were virtually invisible prior to 9/11, non existent in the minds of scary Americans. As long as Americans could get their cheap oil and hence cheap gas they are fine with their invisibility. The only Muslim country they could name would be Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Now all of a sudden Muslims are some existential threat? Puhleeze, the stupidity is only matched by the cowardice.

Last, the Israelis supported Iran, (who is now their phony existential threat), during Iran's war with Iraq. The Americans started Iran's nuclear program under Eisenhower when they overthrew the democratically elected Mosadegh and installed the Shah. But how many brain dead Americans know this? And, even if they did, would it matter, would it change their twisted and perverted world view? Sadly, "No." Because fear will always prevail over logic.

So what if it is a Mosque, a unique and singular place of worship and not a community center? The "facts on the ground" demonstrate conclusively that Muslims in America have been more ideal citizens and lived more peaceably with their fellow Americans than Christians could ever dream of. Much of the destruction of the political discourse and policy making abilities in this country, not to mention warmongering, are due to Christians.

I know not all Christians are assholes and fascists, and nitwits but yall know what I'm talking about. Too bad, when the White Nationalists hijacked Christianity somebody should have spoke up. Oh well, I hope those faith-based grants were worth the price of silence.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

p.s. In case you didn't get Murphs insights, Western Civilization wouldn't exist without the influence of Muslim Civilization. Didn't any of you so-called educated nitwits pick that up in Western Civilization classes your freshmen year of college? Do the rocket scientists know that almost 1/3 of Spanish is derived from Arabic? Or maybe I shouldn't say that, maybe the bigots and nitwits will conclude that the Mexicans, the "illegals," are closet Muslims like Obama. LOL

"Didn't any of you so-called educated nitwits pick that up in Western Civilization classes your freshmen year of college"

Didn't you pick up from the large sign saying Indymedia UK that this is a UK website? Our universitites don't work like that, you numpty.

That's another thing that's annoying me about all these copy-and-paste postings. So many of them, like the "troll" definition above are obviously pasted from US sites without the poster bothering to recognise that this site has a UK audience ("skeptic", indeed).