Tibet China and India

China: Military Media Attacks on India- A Tibet issue fall out?
by D. S. Rajan in SAAG

Almost coinciding with the beginning of the Tibetan unrest, several articles highly critical of India have started appearing in the Chinese language strategic journals and military media in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Their accusations, in the main, concern the alleged regional and global power ambitions of India, increase in defence outlay and further signs of New Delhi-Washington military collusion. What do these comments mean at this juncture when the Tibet developments are apparently casting a shadow on Sino-Indian ties? Prior to any analysis, a look at the contents of the relevant material would be necessary.

A comment in the Yadong Military website
[1] (16 March 2008) while taking note of the holding of India’s “Dakshin Shakti” military exercise in the ‘Sino-Indian border’, has raised a question whether or not the simulated manoeuvres, in which formations from the infantry, armoured and artillery units as well as fighter aircraft like Su-30 and MIG-29 took part, had China’s Southwest, even Beijing, as targets. Revealing suspicions that India has such objectives, which the “even mighty US cannot think of”’, it said that the exercise appears to reflect India’s “strategic defence” needs, i.e ‘using defence for offence and vice versa’

An article (Zhongguo Xinwen, 25 March 2008)
[2], published by the pro-Beijing Ta Kungbao of Hongkong, has alleged that India’s move to raise its defence outlay for the financial year 2008, is in response to the need felt by it to augment the country’s defence potentials, taking note of the prevailing conflict situation in the international political and military fields and the instability which has risen in South Asia. The necessity for New Delhi to dominate the Indian Ocean and protect oil transport sea-lanes, are equally important motivators. This year’s defence allocation has brought India closer to China in the Asian ranking; third along with South Korea, after Japan and China. India is also among the first 10 nations in the world in respect of defence expenditure.

A China Radio International Commentary (25 March 2008)
[3] has accused the US for its plans to search for American airmen missing in action during the second world war, in “Arunachal Pradesh, the so-called Province set up forcibly and illegally by India in Chinese territory”. Declaring that the ‘Chinese government has never recognised the legality of this province’, it alleged that after a change in its erstwhile stand in January 2008, India is cooperating with US in this regard, scheduling a meeting between the two sides in New Delhi in March 2008. The Indian Intelligence Bureau had opposed the US idea from the point of view of the region’s sensitivity, particularly in respect of entry of foreigners, but the country’s Home Ministry has not accepted such objections. The Commentary then identified New Delhi’s motivations in this regard as attempting to strengthen military ties with Washington and legalise the status of Arunachal Pradesh as an Indian province, expecting that it will contribute to an increase in India’s weight in the ongoing negotiations with China on the disputed border. The US motivations, according to the Commentary, are to further develop its military relation with India and use the Arunachal issue as means to restrain China’s intentions.

A rather ‘jingoistic’ article (authoritative China Institute of International Strategic Studies
[4], March 26, 2008, written by “Zhan Lue”, believed to be a high level cadre) has compared the situations in the 1962 war and of now. Alleging that in the last Sino-Indian conflict, India had the support of two super powers to fight China (implied reference to the former Soviet Union and the US), the writer claimed that the People’s Liberation Army is strong now in Tibet after several years of deployment and ‘will not repeat the past 30km withdrawal’. Touching the current picture, the article has found that with the ability gained to increase its military build-up and possess nuclear weapons, India is not only aiming at opposing Pakistan, but also at realising its ‘world and regional big power ambition’, for which China is looked upon as a ‘greatest obstacle’. “ Zhan Lue” has further charged that India is stationing its border troops perceiving China as enemy, conducting ‘massive’ military exercises as means to suppress China’s preparedness and continuously importing arms, to use against China. Posing a question as to what does India think ultimately, he accused the Indian government of “walking today along the old road of resisting China”, adding that New Delhi should be told “not to requite kindness with ingratitude”.

Needless to say that in China, opinions expressed in the state- controlled media always enjoy the blessings of authorities. What looks new in the latest material is the direct Chinese media attack on India, unlike in the past when the practice has been not to single out the country for criticism. The farthest the Chinese organs went was at the time of their making comments on the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement when India was identified by name as an agreed partner of the US in the latter’s efforts to ‘balance the forces of Asia’ (People’s Daily, August 2007),

Looking from a larger context, a question arises - Are the latest outbursts, though confined to Chinese language media and not meant for international audience, a precursor to a hardening of attitude on the part of the Chinese government towards India as a sequel to Tibet developments? This needs to be addressed carefully at this juncture marked by definite differences in perceptions of Beijing and New Delhi on the unrest in Tibet.

It will be worthwhile to first mention about the definite divergence of opinion between Beijing and New Delhi on the Dalai Lama’s role. Though Beijing is fully convinced of India’s position that Tibet is a part of China, it is definitely not going to be happy over India’s not sharing the Chinese position that the Dalai Lama is the instigator of Tibet unrest. India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee has on the other hand acknowledged in Washington the pre-eminent spiritual position of the exiled leader. Also, New Delhi’s position for “dialogue” with the Dalai Lama, stands in contrast to Beijing’s “ conditional dialogue” line.

Secondly, as it appears, China may have developed fears of an India-US understanding on the Tibet issue, based on, as it sees, New Delhi’s failure to prevent the visiting Speaker of the US House of Representatives from criticising China on the Tibet issue from the Indian soil and the figuring of Tibet issue, considered by China as an internal matter, in the agenda for Mukherjee-Bush discussions.

Lastly, it may not escape the attention of China that its border claims vis- a- vis India have somewhat been weakened as a result of Tibetan unrest; more importantly, with the loyalty of Tibetan population coming under a question now, Beijing may be concerned about the likely negative implication of the issue for Tibet’s defence including in the borders. After all, no defence operation can be effective without the support of local population. The Chinese summoning of Indian Ambassador at Beijing at odd hours and the reported Indian cancellation of Commerce Minister Kamal Nath’s visit to Beijing (attributed to reasons of dates etc. later), could only be seen as mere symbols of the storm which appear to be brewing now in New Delhi-Beijing ties.
India can expect further media barbs from China.

(The writer, Mr D. S. Rajan, is Director, Chennai Centre for China Studies. Email:

[1] Yadong Junshi Gang, March 16, 2008; www.warchina.com/n53470c41.aspx
[2] http://top.chinaiiss.org/content/2008-3-25/25204353.shtml
[3] http://mil.chinaiis.org/content/2008-3-26/269543.shtml
[4] http://str.chinaiiss.org/content/2008-3-26/26211952.shtml


South Asian situation.

From my historical understanding of the two nations relations it is the Indian state which has maintained a passive stance against Chinese hegemony, and the Chinese desire to be recognized as number one in Asia, and later as number one in the world. This passive Indian position was badly repaid in 1962, through Indian weakness, when the Indian politicians stood down their air force against naked Chinese aggression! The Indian politicians lost that war.

To my mind India is not attempting to compete with China, which is to the detriment of China in the long term, because India can't. But this fact is not accepted in sections of the Chinese security establishment, and hence the covert/overt aggression against India's 'natural expansion'------India in many ways is a severely poor nation with perhaps 800+ millions Indians living on 20 rupees a day, attempting to pull itself out of backwardness-----there are no grand ambitions here. We are not looking at a historically aggressive nation, accept for the fringe utterings from the sections of the far right in the BJP, with linkages to Israel/Mossad. They have their own agendas, and it is not representative of mainstream India.

But we understand where the Israelis are coming from. We understand why they would want to entice the gullible in India into false illusions, of great power, of blue water navies, of the purchase of the wrong types of defense systems. Why? Is this not what the Israelis are doing with the Americans? Destroying that great country in the process. Is this not patently obvious? Isn't the PNAC 2000 a Zionist document, masked as an American doctrine of world domination?

So to all the naive Indians running off to Tel a Viv to sign on to the PNIC 2005 document, pause and just look at America, and what is happening inside and outside of that once great country.

India is being very diplomatic towards the current issue of Tibet, and China's problems there. The issue of Tibet is a Chinese problem, not an Indian problem. It arises out of the fact that there has been a Han ethnic invasion into the state, and the slow perception in the locals that Tibet will in the near future have a Han majority. The same with Sinkiang province. This has nothing to do with India. The Tibetans appreciate the infrastructure and development in Tibet, but don't appreciate being a minority, or being treated as a minority in their own country.

In the full spectrum of China/India relations, it is China which has violated the relationship repeatedly. These violations will not be listed here---they have been listed earlier. Thus India must be fully prepared militarily should China use this as an excuse to attack and annex parts of Arunchal Pradesh. The Chinese have learnt from the Pakistanis in Kargil, that a nuclear armed India can be attacked conventionally, without all hell breaking loose. This dangerous perception has been aided by sections of the Indian security establishment and national leaders.

Further added to this is the issue of cultivation, and scarce resources. China has run out of cultivable land, and is in a dangerous situation. Food and other essential items have been rationed. Thus areas such as Arunchal Pradesh, or even the whole of Assam would satisfy China's requirements. Desperate situations lead to desperate acts by governments used to using military options to solving essentially socio-economic problems. It is not inconceivable, except for India's security establishment, that China might annex the whole North East India for food/resource purposes. India must take this Han lebensraum drive Westwards seriously, as it is visibly taking place in Tibet and Sinkiang already.

So what must India do?

Stay calm and out of the fray, and avoid any Chinese baiting over Tibet. Create a separate command in the East consisting of Arunchal Pradesh, Sikkim, Assam and the Hill tribal areas, with 300,000 troops up the mountains of Arunchal, and 400,000 in the plains in Assam. They are backed by a separate Eastern command in Calcutta, with troops mobilizable to 1,000,000. Then the rest of the 1,300,000 can be an active reserve or stationed against Pakistan. The size of the army needs to increase from the present 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 , and the expansion of mountain divisions to perhaps 30.

Allied to this is the ordinance capacity which needs to expand from the current 50 odd production and research facilities to over 200. The defense budget also needs to dramatically increase from its present pitiful level. Finally on this point, can a serious individual be appointed to the defense ministry portfolio, for once, and not another light weight political non-entity?

On a separate issue, can India handle both China and Pakistan simultaneously? Yes India can but it would be a stretch, and would require a thorough pre investment plan; much more than the present effort by the babu's in Delhi. Always surprises me how the Indians are always wrong footed by war at least initially, against little weak Pakistan.

In addition with the inauguration of a civilian government the oppertunity of bringing Pakistan to the South Asian fold provides many possibilities. The Raj inherited and Anglo trained Pakistani military elite were never too keen to get too close to India------because that would defeat the objective why Pakistan was created initially by the British, and explains why Musharaf attacked India in Kargil in 1999, just when Bhajpayee was about to sign a historic agreement with Sharif's Pakistan over Kashmir. India has been used as the perennial bogey justifying the huge unofficial Pakistani military of 800,000 men under arms. From a historic perspective calls against India had been a unifying factor in Pakistan.

India can remove this historic misconceptions from Pakistan if India is serious and level headed, and embarks on a comprehensive effort to bring Pakistan closer to India---the time is now. It requires a clear effort by the Congress government as it heads towards its last year in office, and would be a perfect way to finish this term, and boost the chances for the next term.

We have a new civilian regime which is feeling its way in Pakistan, desperate to reign in the military and stamp their authority. The civilian government in Delhi should aid them in this endevour, by launching a full diplomatic mission to Pakistan to invite them for a cross-border meeting between them (Punjab border)? Where India signs a full FTA agreement with Pakistan that comes into effect very soon. In addition the Indian delegation take with them the heads of Tata, Birla and the Ambanis, and all other leading Indian business houses with a promise to invest in Pakistan and set up industrial parks to the tune of $30-40 billion over the next 10 years, which is guaranteed by contract.

Investment of such an amount is an act of good faith, and is a symbolic act between the two nations and goes beyond regionalism and petty politics. It is a statement of belief in Pakistan by her much bigger and economically successful neighbor. "We are successful, but we want you to be successful with us". I read daily that Indian companies on their own are making such commitments in other nations not related to India's geo-strategic interests. This requires character, courage and vision, not petty mindedness from the leaders of South Asia.

Pieces of paper invoking peace between nations don't guarantee anything-----real agreements and inter-actions between nations and their people do. A proper trade agreement will generate greater interaction between the two nations. These things need to be done before any relations with China deteriorates, otherwise it looks like overt political opportunism on the part of Congress. Or the situation changes for the worse as they invariably do for the Pakistani civilian governments into their 2nd or 3rd year, as the military flex themselves yet again. 60 years of habit encouraged by outsiders doesn't change over night.

The touchy issue of Kashmir is avoided for now, and this FTA agreement with guaranteed investments boosts the civilian government in Pakistan viz the Pak military, which can then be built on towards a comprehensive peace settlement with India later.

The time to act is now.


Identifying the problems, not baming the victim, and not focusing on irrelevance.

We have numerous articles and commentaries about 'dumb Americans' including those published on this website, though not fully endorsed by this writer. But there it is time and again in the alternative and MSM about 'dumb Americans'. Can there be any truth in this?

No and a partial yes.

No, because America is the most advanced, richest nation on earth, which each year patents more things, and produces scientific papers which is greater than the sum total compared to the rest of the world. That is one hell of an intelligent nation to achieve such things. Of course there are many different types of intelligence------but to call such a nation and its people dumb given their overall achievement over two centuries is factually wrong. And yes of course they do have a certain %, much debated as to its actual size, who one may term under educated low achievers-----but don't all nations have such people?

The 'dumb American' label comes from several quarters, some malicious with hidden agenda's whilst others are the harmless mutterings of otherwise frustrated well wishers who see what is really going on in America, with the benefit of being an out side observer, but have problems explaining it, so they fall back and dismiss it as 'Ah those dumb Americans'---its easy and its intellectual laziness.

Those malicious elements say how dumb Americans are, engrossed in their consumerism, TV's and 'little' parochial world. What these malicious elements in America don't tell us is that this has been a well guided coordinated program by the very same malicious labelers to enslave America to their agenda. The dumbing down of America is their brain child, and not an inexplicable social phenomenon, or even the result of too much consumerism; consumerism does not lead to lower IQ, or even explain lower IQ------This malicious program has produced a partial result, not the full result; America still contains a lot of smart people, who confidently go around the world exchanging and interacting with the rest of the world. Plus its part of their psychological warfare, with the aid of TV's and cinema with certain types of images----'You are dumb' 'You are dumb' 'You are dumb' 'You are dumb' 'You are dumb, so obey us' 'You are dumb, so obey us'................Dumb and dumber......so on.....such images empower certain groups, but is not the genuine reflection of the whole nation.

To the frustrated well wishers outside, or even inside America I say this, don't blame the victim, but carefully dissect the problem, point it out, identify it, call it as it is, and then provide constructive solutions. If America suffers the rest of the world suffers.

When the Germans were grabbed by their short and curlies between 1919-1933 (though some say up to 1945) no one would suggest that they were 'dumb Germans'.

When the Russian or Ukrainian people were grabbed by their short and curlies between 1918-2000, loosing upwards of 60 million people in that time, one could say 'dumb Russians' or 'dumb Ukrainians', though I think this would be unkind to call such a people who have suffered so much.

No ladies and gentlemen, such illustrious people who have given to civilization so much are not, and were not dumb, but the victims of a malicious and evil clique------The Jews, The international Jew, the international financier Jews based in London in 'The City' and their lieutenants in New York, and their foot soldiers in Russia, Ukraine, Germany and now the USA. These are evil beings who have practiced their art for thousands of years, only to be booted out from country to country 79 times, until now, when they seem to have global reach with consequences for us all, interested and dis-interested parties alike.

Calling Americans dumb does not begin to address the problem, and is an injustice to their victim.


Israel's wars of self destruction.

Jewish Writers Claim Powerful Zionists Drove USA Into...War For Israel's Sake!
By William Shannon


JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM POWERFUL ZIONISTS DROVE USA INTO MID-EAST WAR FOR SAKE OF ISRAEL! When Congressman James Moran (D-VA) told an audience that leaders of American Jewish groups were pushing America into a war with Iraq, he was denounced as an "anti-Semite" and pressured to resign. (click here)

When Syndicated columnist and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan accused Jewish neo-conservatives and the US-Israeli lobby of pushing America into a war against Israel's enemies, he was also widely denounced as an "anti-Semite." (click here)

But what are we to make of the many outspoken Jewish writers, Jewish intellectuals and Jewish activists who have been warning us about the exact same thing? Should we dismiss these jews as "anti-Semites" or "self-hating Jews"? Following are some very revealing quotes from just a few of these Jewish writers and journalists.


Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003"A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community. The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam's Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own." (click here)

Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe.The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. (click here)

Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service (Israel)"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town (Washington): the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history." (click here)

James Rosen, April 6, 2003 The Sacramento Bee (California)"In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the control of Jordan. The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced in the wake of Saddam's ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the Palestinians. Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton, undersecretary of state. Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush's foreign policy." (click here)

Thomas Friedman, April 4 2003 New York Time ColumnistI could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris."(click here)

Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003 Writer, Inventor of Board game "Scruples"If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess. Everybody knows that:1. The only country that fears Iraq's WMD's is Israel; 2. American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defence Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy; 3. The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and 4. Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, "AIPAC." At this perilous juncture in US history, there is no effective opposition because Zionist Jews appear to control both parties. The Jewish "Anti Defamation League" considers it a barometer of anti Semitism to say, "Jews have too much power." But is something anti- Semitic if it is true? Anti Semitism is racial prejudice. Zionist power is not a racial prejudice; it is a fact of life. When a special interest group hijacks American foreign policy, it is a patriotic duty to say so. In recent decades, Zionists have succeeded in making support for Zionism synonymous with "Jewish." They have made Israel appear to be a vulnerable country facing annihilation in a sea of bloodthirsty Arabs. In fact, Israel has 200-400 nuclear bombs and is one of the most powerful nations on earth. It has evaded many opportunities for a just peace because it's secret agenda is to dominate the region. Israel keeps this quiet because most Jews, including Israelis, did not sign on for that. (click here)

Israel Shamir, Israeli Author"The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all." Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to 'Jewish media lords' during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience's hearts missed a beat. The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. Purim, 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war." “The powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has seen to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration…” (click here)

Jack Bernstein, Author, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Israel (following prediction was made in 1984!)"The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel. They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982. The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists. If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends. (CLICK HERE)


More on Iraq

The Iraq War was a Conspiracy

By Zymphora

Juan Cole reprints Craig Unger's refutation of arguments that Jim Lobe is wrong in ascribing conspiratorial motives and methods to the neocons in their various efforts to trick the United States into attacking Iraq. Unger reminds us of the critical importance of the forged Niger documents (and we can't forget that these documents arose out of the Italian circle of Ledeen, which is quite a coincidence, even if you have a lot of faith in coincidences). The only unfortunate part of Unger's refutation is his last word, when any fool can now see that oil, at least American access to oil, had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq. As predicted by many smart people, including the American oil companies, the attack has actually gravely decreased American energy security (although, as I have pointed out, this may have been part of a larger plan to reconfigure world oil dependencies, with the U. S. looking more and more to Canada for oil). The motivation of the deceiving neocons was entirely Zionist, and Zionist motives are the only explanation for the 'surge', which is intended to break up Iraq into three parts, a prospect with no possible strategic benefits to the United States.

More war for the Jews?

Another tongue in cheek comment from Zymphora. Iran has between 400-600 missiles that can reach Israel. Perhaps 25 launchers or more. In 1991 they managed to smuggle in from the Soviet Union, during its collapse, between 8-12 nuclear armed ballistic missiles, maintained since then by the Pakistanis, and upgraded. The best option for Israel if they really want to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons is concentrate on toppling the unpopular mullah regime, and get Israel friendly people into power. Attacking it will unite Iran, and encourage a dozen other Muslim countries to go nuclear...and a few other unforeseen consequences...........and the Israelis permanently living in bunkers for the next hundred years. End of Israel-----the Middle Class flee more ........

I don't think Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but then what do I know.

MWFTJ Forecast

By Zymphora

In case you're worried, the forecast on the likelihood of More Wars For The Jews is good, at least in the near future (somehow getting the issue into the mainstream of American discourse - a problem caused by all the slurrers who attack if you even raise the issue - is the only way to permanently fix this problem).

Dick went begging, cap in hand, to the Saudi king, for a war against Iran, and got shot down (he didn't get much help on oil prices either!). More importantly, the next WFTJ, the next utterly illegal and unprovoked slaughter of innocent civilians on behalf of Jewish supremacism, will be met by retaliatory and completely self-defensive rocket fire from whomever the victim country is, whether the attacker is Israel itself or the Americans, tricked yet again into fighting another WFTJ.

The rockets will be a decisive PR problem for Israel, and one for which the Israeli leaders need to prepare. The had rejected their own system, the useless 'Iron Dome', as it would not be ready until at least 2010. They went shopping for an American system, but rejected it when a rigged sales demonstration showed only eight of thirty-six test rockets shot down (excuse me while I indulge myself in a little laugh). No rocket defense system will work (a fact which hasn't forced its way through the 'Iron Domes' of the Israeli defense establishment, probably because they refuse to admit that rockets have ruined their violent plans), but the Israelis aren't even attempting to fool their own citizens that there will be a semblance of protection until at least 2010. So no WFTJ until then.

Response to Tarik Ali's article.

Where has all the rage gone?
By Tarik Ali.

"And then in November 1968 Pakistan erupted. Students took on the state apparatus of a corrupt and decaying military dictatorship backed by the US (sound familiar?). They were joined by workers, lawyers, white-collar employees, prostitutes, and other social layers, and despite the severe repression (hundreds were killed), the struggle increased in intensity and, the following year, toppled Field Marshal Ayub Khan."

WRONG----Ayub Khan was toppled by his 'allies' because he had done some 'wrong' things from 1964--1969. Lets not get into false premised myth building---it distorts.

1. In 1963 he signed a treaty with China giving part of Pakistan away to China--near K2, to curry favor with the Chinese, in response to American arms supplies to India in the wake of the 1962 war. Also he took arms deliveries from China------obviously angered the Americans, who believed he was their puppet who shouldn't be buying arms from a Communist country.

2. He attacked India in 1965, using arms supplied by the USA, which were originally intended to be used as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in South Asia---The Americans imposed an arms embargo against Pakistan, but allowed arms to be covertly shipped to Pakistan via, Iran, Canada, and Vietnam.

3. Went to Tashkent in the Soviet Union, and signed a peace agreement with India, with Russia as mediators! In 1966----major no no from the USA perspective.

4. I think he went on an interview on British television and described in one part of the interview his attitude towards Britain, 'Your little Island'----given the level of chauvinism and colonialism at that in the UK, with the decline of the much cherished British empire by the elite (read Salman Rushdies early eighties work/essays--before he went into silly fiction----and you begin to see why Britain is back in the empire game, using Israel and America)---a casual remark like that by the head of state of a Third World banana republic who was bought into power by them would again be a no, no.

Just another example which has similar overtones, of Third World leaders being undiplomatic, and the over reaction from the West---The journalist Fazad Bazoft case, and the British request for him to be released after being arrested in Iraq for spying, to which Saddam in 1990 sent a letter with his dead body saying, 'here you are you can have him back'----result the British used the Kuwaitis to deliberately incite the Iraqis to invade Kuwait, and nudged the reluctant Americans to attack Iraq, instead of settling for an embargo, 'Don't go wobbly on me George'. Yes the Israelis were a major component, but lets not underestimate the role of the British.

For these reasons Tarik bhai Field Marshal Ayub Khan was destabilized between 1964-69, and eventually toppled. IT WAS NOT AS A RESULT OF A POPULAR PEOPLES UPRISING. Things like that require organization and money. Same with the anti-Musharaf campaign more recently. Obviously sections of the Pakistan people were not happy with Ayub---out of 136 million at that time, you could find a few million to protest against him, with a little foreign help and organization. BUT tell me Tarik bhai with which government have Pakistanis been totally happy with 100%? With which government have the British people been happy with 100%?---NAME ME ONE. Answer non.

What has got to stop is foreign backed destabilization programs, and for local Pakistani governments to make honest mistakes and move on, but not be toppled.
Champagne Socialist lording it in Bilaat, throwing stones at regimes from South Asia from the safety of Bilaat, whilst never rolling up his sleeve and getting his hands dirty, and being/giving constructive advice as to how to help the people of the region.

kudos and salute to Ayub for surviving 5 years of destabilization. Best leader Pakistan ever had.
OK he wasn't perfect, making his sons multi millionaires, and frequently visiting his friend John Perfumo in bilaat the British defense secretary, in private parties in swimming pools with teenage call girls-----but on balance an effective leader.

"When I arrived in February 1969, the mood of the country was joyous. Speaking at rallies all over the country with the poet Habib Jalib, we encountered a very different atmosphere from that in Europe. Here power did not seem so remote. The victory over Ayub Khan led to the first general election in the country's history. The Bengali nationalists in east Pakistan won a majority that the elite and key politicians refused to accept. Civil war led to Indian military intervention and that ended the old Pakistan. Bangladesh was the result of a bloody caesarean."

Yes its fun when you over throw a regime, but not so fun when you have to live through what follows with the next regime. The treatment of West Pakistan towards East Pakistan leading to separation is understandable, especially after March 25th 1971, but independence was not inevitable---Mujib didn't want it. Ayub would have handled the situation a lot better than the ham fisted Yahya and self promoter 'me first' Bhutto. But after the destabilization of the Ayub regime, and his stepping down, things became fluid, uncertain and ........the wrong people made the wrong decisions under stress/duress with a significant amount of outside contribution.

Please don't leave out the contribution of RAW in the creation of Bangladesh. RAW was established in 1968, with British help, and it went to work soon afterwards.

As to the overall point why people seem so docile to the present day genocides by the usual suspects in the West, in contrast to the activism of the sixties----just one word----- JEWS---The contribution of the Jews and their media more specifically, then and now.
In the sixties Jews in France, Europe and America thought it was in their interests to attack American imperialism, and hence you had Jews in the forefront of the radical movement---they were falling over themselves.

BUT NOW, Jews generally on the 'left' and 'right' in inverted commas see GWOT (war against terror) as an Israeli, and thus Jewish struggle. So the Jewish MSM is turned off in relation to this fake war---because it is perceived by them as 'their' war for 'their' interests. All you have to do to verify this fact is go to the Jewish run Human Rights Watch website over the last couple of years, and see that the mention of and pictures of Israeli abuse is missing, and this 'radical' organization based in New York is silent on this one critical matter.

Tarik bhai when you finally renounce your Jewish Communist champagne socialism 'activism'--funded by 'them'----you will see the truth. Of course I am not here implying for one minute that global protest movements require the participation of and consent of Jews for their legitimacy and eventual success. Your Western centric arguments leave out the fact that the rest of the world is indeed actively expressing rage at various levels and protesting, but with your head in the Western butt, you do not see this. In addition in relation to the West a more coercive police state has been enacted by the Jews, so that logical and natural protest and criticism of the kind you saw in the sixties is now not so possible in countries such as the UK, and USA.

As to the ever radical French, they now have a Jewish President who is a Mossad agent, and the radical French intelligensia dominated by Jews aren't interested in criticising the genocide in Iraq.


The folly of Iraq and the decline of America.

Obviously the attack on Iraq was about ameliorating Israeli paranoia, historically embedded by their Rabbis, and reinforced by personal experience dating back 3,000 years to the time of the Assyrians. These are psychopaths who stew in their past woes real or imagined----its called Judaism, whilst others less charitable prefer to call it the North African cult from hell. Its blatant paranoia and siege mentality keeps them united, and going.

Matters didn't help when Saddam let be known that he was a modern day reincarnation of Saladin-----(usual harmless basic Third World populism) , and by 1990, two years after the Gulf war with Iran had ended, he still maintained an armed force of 1,000,000 men with 4,000 artillery pieces and 6,000 tanks. Still spending 25% of the GDP on defense----defacto war footing. The Israelis were suspicious. By attacking Iraq's nuclear reactor Israel had entered into an undeclared war scenario with Iraq from 1981. The same with Syria now. The Israelis have an obsession with Muslim countries in the vicinity amassing too many tanks, and of course the other issue of concern to them, nuclear programs.

So what are the Israelis going to do now, when a dozen or so IAEA approved countries which are Muslim, embark on comprehensive nuclear programs---Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh...............the unintended result no less of the Jewish declared conquest for empire which has artificially pushed up oil prices to unacceptable levels and so poor Third World Muslim countries seek alternative cheaper forms of fuel as a consequence.

Israel is not The USA, and the USA is not Israel. Israel does however control two key institutions in the USA; the media and American politics. So this Jewish paranoia, stated above, was able to be translated/articulated into action on the ground against Iraq by the USA even though:

1) Iraq was an ally of the USA.

2) Saddam was a American picked agent from the 1960's, 'Out with the apprentice, and in with the master' popular saying in Iraq since 2003.

3) Iraq was good for American business in a healthy commercial way, and not as now in the corrupt invade/destroy/build in closed bids military/industrial 'commercial' way which benefit the few to the detriment of the overall economy.

4) Saddam defacto indirectly asked for American permission to attack Kuwait in 1990, which the Americans deceitfully gave.

Obviously Americans with their media and political system subverted have problems identifying whats good for their country, and what is good for Israel. The two countries interests aren't mutual. The inevitable result-----a rapid and accelerating American decline militarily and economically.

Jews are not good for Israel either. Come to think of it, I sometimes wonder why there was no Jewish state for the better part of 2000 years. Was it really all just bad luck? Or why they have been expelled from 79 countries over three millennium; from some countries several times. Or the peculiar history of Israel since 1948---as in the real history from non-Israeli sources.

Oil prices stand $110 a barrel, and could well go even higher to $200 a barrel by the end of the decade. In Iraq the 'real' price of a barrel if you factor in the security cost could be anything from $500--$800. Makes economic or strategic sense?---of course not. The ongoing war itself is fueling the spiraling oil prices. Better to have just done business with their ally and puppet Saddam Hussein, who at least wasn't massacring that many Iraqis as an absolute dictator. Then maybe oil prices could have been between $15-20 a barrel as in the mid--1990's.

So whats the future outcome, for Iraq and America? The Jews aren't going to back down, moderation, circumspection, retrospection isn't their forte (live for the moment as there isn't an afterlife---their motto), and in fact starting from the 'doves' like Peres, they want more ! and more! and more!

Which means in America a gradual drive towards dictatorship for absolute control of the country and its resources for their agenda's---hence the massive gulag program; gun ban program; police state program; fear and obey program; multiculturalism program---to weaken the WASP target group; dumbing down program..................its not going to be a pretty site in America, aka Soviet Union under Uncle Joe Stalin (Joseph David Jewison). There will be no shortage of dumb amoral WASP's to front their program's as there were no shortage of ethnic Christian Slav's fronting their program in the Jewish Bolshevik revolution from 1918, which killed 40-50 million of them. Clinton, McCain and of course CFR Obama........Hagee.....Roberts...

The Jews get paid for one fake holocaust but don't get to pay for a real kosher one against the Soviet people by them. Who controls the media?

In Iraq, 1 million dead, or 2 million since 1991, and 4 million internal and external refugees. Maybe a few more millions will die before the Jews are done---and the Eretz Israel project becomes patently obvious as a no can do.


American Confused Conservative

By Zymphora.


Useful but fundamentally flawed article from the American Conservative by Robert Bryce on the amount of oil being used by the American military in killing the innocent civilians of Iraq, and the fact that almost none of it is coming from Iraq. We all remember how the neocons insisted that all that Iraqi oil was going to pay for the war and the occupation and the rebuilding (for the real world, see here and, taking into account the unreliable source, (Oh pleez!) here). There is a slow dawning that it is the cost of the fuel used by the Americans in Iraq - both the sheer quantity of it and the fact that the military has to source it at ultra-premium prices - that has led to an increase in the price of oil. Of course, the main reason for the price increase has been the fact that oil has been denominated in increasingly worthless American dollars. American Dollars are increasingly worthless due to the fact that the U. S. government had to finance the war by borrowing money it didn't have on a massive scale, thus permanently destroying the complicated mechanism by which the American economy soared on the basis of borrowed money, and leading directly to the current sub-prime crisis (aka, New Great Depression) and the plummeting American Dollar (aka, American Peso). The system of financing American consumerism was so finely calibrated that it simply couldn't take the competition for new borrowed money required by the American Treasury to pay for the Iraq war, and the house of cards came tumbling down.

The article is flawed for two reasons:
  1. it refuses to abandon the idea that the war was fought for oil, even when everything in the article conclusively proves that it could not possibly have been fought for oil; and
  2. it falls back on a no less silly argument - which is largely that of the American isolationist Right - that you can no longer control resources by fighting wars, based on the conservative view of the supremacy of international trade and markets.
The two issues are connected, and the connection shows how the American isolationist Right is no better than the neo-cons. (****Blogger's note: I disagree here with this point.......at least 'American firsters' or the Founding Fathers Principled Groups won't do silly unnecessary wars for a tiny country in the Levant. The so called 'Isolationist Right' which almost sounds like a dirty slur, whilst perhaps theoretically wrong on one point, are never the less broadly right on what is historically good for America, and have their loyalties in the right place. Americans do have options, and this doesn't have to be slomo Jewish train ride to hell. Its not all doom and gloom, and ONE of these options is Ron Paul. Now all we need is a leak of the 'song bird' files asap. And for the ordinary Americans to see the space cadet as he really is; a Zion puppet who passes on the baton mid term to Lieberman.)

We all know that the war wasn't directly about oil: it was a War For The Jews. We are also seeing a great danger that the next American Presidential election will be fought between two candidates for the More Wars For The Jews Party, a direct result of the failure to acknowledge the real reason for the attack on Iraq by the American chattering classes.

Falling back on market explanations won't help. The market doesn't explain years of Saudi cooperation, and the decision in the last few years that Saudi cooperation will become much more selective. It doesn't explain why every major oil company in the world that isn't associated with the Anglo-American Empire is getting hugely lucrative deals in Iran (and elsewhere in the Middle East). The rest of the world is completely fed up with Americans squandering their wealth on Wars For The Jews, partly because of the extreme immorality of these wars, and partly because of their extreme stupidity. People who have cooperated with the inevitability of American strength for decades have decided that they no longer can do business with people who are so stupid they can't even grasp their own basic self-interest. Oil development contracts are being awarded on the basis of ideology. Markets have very little to do with it.

The article is a classic example of what happens when you try to deal with a subject while avoiding the only issue that matters.

Why Did the US Invade Iraq?

By Zymphora.

Jim Lobe is slightly tentative in considering the question "Why Did the US Invade Iraq?", and settles on a combination of 'imperial reach' and, of course, Israel. He rightly rejects the light-Zionist theory of oil, which is practically an insult to the intelligence. I think that the sales pitch crafted by the Zionists to some American leaders did probably include an aspect of imperial reach, as that fitted into the 'end of history' ideas made popular in the 90s by some of the dumber American Empire academics, who felt that the U. S. had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to take over the entire world after the fall of the Soviet Union. The sales pitch was a trick, which is obvious to everybody now. The invasion of Iraq was just another War For The Jews.


The Great Game

Replaying the 'Great Game'

By Jeffrey Steinberg

Maybe it was unintended in Washington and Langley, but not so elsewhere. Such American naiveté was anticipated in London, where British intelligence had a 200-year history of playing what Rudyard Kipling had dubbed the "Great Game" across the steppes of Central Asia, and where Islam had been probed, prodded, and profiled by the British East India Company, and by the successor British India Office's Arab Bureau, since the time of James Mill, and, later, Lawrence of Arabia.

Great Britain jealously guarded its Great Game, and, at times, fiercely fought to keep the United States out of the picture.

In 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had gone so far as to assert that Afghanistan was "denied territory" to the Americans, when President Franklin Roosevelt dispatched his most trusted military aide, Gen. Patrick Hurley, to Kabul to get a first-hand picture of how Afghanistan might be drawn into FDR's vision of a postwar decolonized world. British intelligence did everything short of assassinating Hurley to prevent him from successfully reaching the Afghan capital. When Hurley did finally get to Kabul and spend four days with the king and senior government officials, he made such a lasting impression that the Afghanis immediately declared themselves anxious to forge a partnership with the Americans, whom they saw as totally different from the two imperial Great Game rivals, England and Russia, who had kept the country in a state of enforced backwardness and poverty for half a century, preventing the construction of even a railroad or a paved highway. Senior British military officials, based out of the Northwest Frontier Province across the border in Pakistan, had, however, put their stamp of approval on the production of vast crops of opium poppy in the rich mountains of Afghanistan, and had facilitated the processing and distribution of that opium in the South Asian and Chinese markets.

With the death of FDR, Afghanistan's vision of economic partnership with America died as well. Once again, Afghanistan fell into the category of denied territory for the United States.

The British destabilization of the "arc of crisis" began with the Khomeini Revolution in Iran, which overthrew the Shah in February 1979. Khomeini had been a longstanding British intelligence tool, and Khomeini's Islamic Revolution was a crucial ingredient in the Bernard Lewis Plan.

Brzezinski, long schooled in British geopolitics, had locked the United States into the British Great Game in the early days of the Carter administration, when he rejected Japanese offers to finance major development projects in Iran and Mexico. Brzezinski had declared that there would be "no new Japans in the Persian Gulf or south of the Rio Grande." That American embrace of British geopolitics doomed the Shah, and drew the United States into the British covert drive to install Khomeini in power. With the taking of the American embassy hostages in November 1979, the United States was drawn ever deeper into the "arc of crisis."

It would be an oversimplification to say that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the result of a fine-tuned British conspiracy. However, mujahideen operations had been launched inside Afghanistan as early as 1974, when Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was manipulated into sponsoring a 5,000-man guerrilla force under the direction of a young Islamic fanatic, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to destabilize the country and dissuade Afghanistan's President Muhammed Daud from pursuing a "Greater Pushtun" nation extending into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Territory. Back at the height of the Great Game in the late nineteenth century, the British had deliberately created an Indian-Afghan border that cut through the middle of the Pushtun tribal territory, thereby setting up a border crisis that could be manipulated at will.

Although Hekmatyar's forces were soundly defeated in 1974, the effort did result in Muhammed Daud's decision to negotiate a border deal with Primen Minister Bhutto that brought a temporary peace to the area. The situation dramatically changed when Prime Minister Bhutto was overthrown in 1977 by the Pakistani military, under the direction of Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. During the same period, the Soviet-backed Afghani communists launched their own drive to power, which ultimately resulted in the overthrow of Muhammed Daud and the installation of a Soviet-puppet regime in April 1978.

British brains and American dollars

A careful review of the covert apparatus established to support the Afghan mujahideen effort against the Red Army (see other articles in this section) shows that the entire program was directed, top-down, from London—either directly through senior British intelligence figures like the Privy Council head, Lord Cranborne, or through notorious Anglophiles within the U.S. intelligence establishment, like Wall Street banker John Train and International Rescue Committee President Leo Cherne.

Under National Security Directive 3, signed by President Reagan in early 1982, Vice President George Bush was placed in charge of the entire global covert action program. It was Bush's Special Situation Group (SSG) and Crisis Pre-Planning Group (CPPG) at the White House, that deployed Oliver North, Richard Secord, "Public Diplomacy" head Walter Raymond, and the entire Iran-Contra crew. Throughout the 1980s, the Afghan War was the largest single program under this Bush chain of command. And because the Afghan program was sold to the U.S. Congress as an opportunity to give the Soviets "their own Vietnam," it enjoyed nearly unanimous support and financing—and was to remain a well-kept secret.

Private sector figures like John Train and Leo Cherne (who also served on President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, PFIAB), who coordinated the American aid program to the Hekmatyar forces, were senior officials in the Bush-directed program.

Bernard Lewis

British Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations

by Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review

On Nov. 19, octogenarian British Orientalist spook Bernard Lewis wrote an elaborate apologia for Osama bin Laden, a fervent pitch for the inevitability of the "Clash of Civilizations," in the pages of New Yorker magazine. Under the headline "The Revolt of Islam," Lewis lied that the emergence of "Islamic terrorism" in the recent decades, is completely consistent with mainstream Islam, which is committed to the subjugation of the infidels to Islamic law. He went through 14 pages of a fractured fairy-tale history of Islam, quoting bin Laden's Oct. 7, 2001 videotape, where the Saudi expatriate spoke of Islam's "humiliation and disgrace ... for more than 80 years"—a reference to the crushing of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in 1918. Lewis invented a tradition of jihad, "bequeathed to Muslims by the Prophet":

"In principle," Lewis explained, "the world was divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which a Muslim government ruled and Muslim law prevailed, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. Between the two, there was to be a perpetual state of war until the entire world either embraced Islam or submitted to the rule of the Muslim state." Among all the different "infidels" ruling the House of War, Lewis asserted, Christianity was singled out as "their primary rival in the struggle for world domination." Lewis cited slogans painted on the walls of Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock from the Seventh Century, assailing Christianity.

Lewis then claimed that the evolution of modern Islamic terrorism, specifically the al-Qaeda terrorism, had a long proud history within Islam, dating to the Assassins cult of the 11th-13th Centuries. (Lewis wrote a 1967 book, The Assassins, extolling the virtues of this secret society.) He also identified Saudi Arabia and Egypt as two regimes legitimately singled out by the Islamic jihadists, for their corruption by "modernism."

He concluded, ominously: "For Osama bin Laden, 2001 marks the resumption of the war for the religious dominance of the world, that began in the Seventh Century.... If bin Laden can persuade the world of Islam to accept his views and his leadership, then a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, and not only for America. Sooner or later, al-Qaeda and related groups will clash with the other neighbors of Islam—Russia, China, India—who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities. If bin Laden is correct in his calculations and succeeds in his war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam."

Bernard Lewis Plan, Take II

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Lewis has, not surprisingly, resurfaced in numerous locations. After all, the 85-year old British Arab Bureau mandarin has been London's point-man in the United States since 1974, when he was posted to H.G. Wells' outpost at Princeton University's Center for Advanced Studies, to secure American compliance with British geopolitical manipulations in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Caspian Basin, and Central Asia.

To put it bluntly: British intelligence senior operator Lewis is the guiding hand behind the ongoing U.S. neo-conservative drive for a new "Thirty Years War" in Eurasia. This drive is at the heart of the ongoing coup d'état attempt against the George W. Bush Administration, which began with the Sept. 11 irregular warfare attacks on New York City and Washington.

Lewis' arrival at Princeton, after serving on the faculty of the University of London's Middle East and Africa faculty (the repository of the original India House files, long officially referred to as the Colonial Department), coincided with then-Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's fomenting of the civil war in Lebanon. That persists to the present day, and served as a laboratory for the later "Islamic revolution" in Iran.

Lewis is no mere British quackademic. After obtaining his doctorate in the history of Islam from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, he joined the university faculty in 1938. From 1940-45, Lewis was, in his own understated words, "otherwise engaged," as a wartime British Military Intelligence officer, later seconded to the British Foreign Office. To this day, Lewis remains mum about his wartime "engagements."

Since arriving at Princeton, Lewis has been demonstrably responsible for every piece of strategic folly and insanity into which the United States has been suckered in Asia Minor. The Wellsian "method to his madness" has been the persistent push to eliminate the nation-state system, and launch murderous wars stretching across the Eurasian region.

* During the Carter Administration, Lewis was the architect of madman Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Arc of Crisis" policy of fomenting Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist insurrections all along the southern tier of the Soviet Union. The planned fostering of radical Islamist war provocations was known, at the time, as "the Bernard Lewis Plan." Among the fruits of this Lewis-Brzezinski collusion: the February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini "Islamic Revolution" in Iran, which overthrew the Shah, and sent the once-proud center of the Islamic Renaissance back into a 20-year dark age; and the 1979-1988 Afghanistan War, provoked by Brzezinski's July 1979 launching of covert support for Afghan mujahideen "Contras" inside Afghanistan—six months prior to the Soviet Red Army's Christmas Eve invasion.

As early as 1960, in a book-length study he prepared for the Royal Institute for International Affairs, under the title The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Lewis polemicized against the modernizing, nation-building legacy of Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He argued instead for the revival of an Ottoman Empire that could be used as a British geopolitical battering ram against Russia and against the Arab states of the Persian Gulf—in alliance with Israel.

* It was Bernard Lewis who launched the hoax of the "Clash of Civilizations"—in a September 1990 Atlantic Monthly article on "The Roots of Muslim Rage," which appeared three years before Brzezinski clone Samuel Huntington's publication of his Foreign Affairs diatribe, "The Clash Of Civilizations." Huntington's article, and his subsequent book-length treatment of the same subject, were caricatures of Lewis' more sophisticated British Orientalist historical fraud, which painted Islam as engaged in a 14-century-long war against Christianity. Huntington acknowledged that Lewis' 1990 piece coined the term "Clash of Civilizations."

* In 1992, in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Lewis celebrated in the pages of the New York Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs that the era of the nation-state in the Middle East had come to an inglorious end, and the entire region should expect to go through a prolonged period of "Lebanonization"—i.e., degeneration into fratricidal, parochialist violence and chaos.

"The eclipse of pan-Arabism," he wrote, "has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer, and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside." The Islamists represent "a network outside the control of the state.... The more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositionists."

He concluded the Foreign Affairs piece by forecasting the "Lebanonization" of the entire region, save Israel: "Most of the states of the Middle East ... are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."

* In 1998, it was Lewis who catapulted Osama bin Laden into prominence with a November/December Foreign Affairs article, legitimizing the Saudi black sheep as a serious proponent of mainstream, militant Islam. Lewis' piece, "License To Kill: Osama bin Laden's Declaration Of Jihad," showered praise on bin Laden, pronouncing his "Declaration of Jihad Versus Jews and Crusaders" "a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose ... which reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar."

Caught In The Act

Osama bin Laden released his 1998 jihad call on Feb. 23, 1998, six months before the truck bombing attacks against the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The very next day, Bernard Lewis' signature appeared on a widely circulated Open Letter To President Bill Clinton, released by a previously unheard-of entity called the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, demanding that the U.S. government throw its full support behind a military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Open Letter called for carpet bombing Iraq, and for the United States to aggressively give financial and military support for the Iraqi National Congress, yet another corrupt and inept "Contra" pseudo-gang, created by U.S. and British intelligence elements, and based in London.

In addition to Bernard Lewis, the Open Letter was endorsed by former U.S. Rep. Steven Solarz (D-N.Y.), notorious Anglo-Israeli propagandist and spy Richard Perle, convicted Iran-Contra criminal Elliott Abrams, Jonathan Pollard fellow-traveller Steven Bryen, Frank Gaffney, New Republic publisher and Al Gore mentor Martin Peretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) research director David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim.

Lewis' public alliance at that time with the leading lights of the "Mega" apparatus—now waging all-out war against the Bush Administration's efforts to box in Israeli madman Ariel Sharon—is noteworthy, but not surprising. Lewis is lionized inside Israel, and by the Israeli Lobby in America as a geopolitical giant. On Feb. 19, 1996, Lewis was feted in Jerusalem, where he delivered the ninth annual B'nai B'rith World Center "Jerusalem Address" on "The Middle East Towards the Year 2000." His son, Michael Lewis, is the director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee's super-secret "opposition research section." This is one of the most important wellsprings of propaganda and disinformation, presently saturating the U.S. Congress and American media with war-cries for precisely the Clash of Civilizations Bernard Lewis has been promoting for decades.

The fall of the Shah: The real story.

What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran

My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school ..............., I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historian . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.

I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.


"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.

Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,

I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.

[1][1] In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the Revolution. December 1987. The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001. The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.'

[2][2] Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff: Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.' Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979.