Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

AMERICA'S CRIMINAL WAR HAWKS FIND THEIR SCHEMING PLANS FRUSTRATED: ‘Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki Stalls U.S. Plan to Frame Iran’ - ‘The Myth of the Iranian Sanctuary’ - ‘American Jewish Groups Break With Hawks’

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Whileyouslept

unread,

May 15, 2008, 10:21:16 AM5/15/08

U.S. CRIMINAL WAR HAWKS FIND THEIR SCHEMING PLANS FRUSTRATED: ‘Iraq’s
Prime Minister Maliki Stalls U.S. Plan to Frame Iran’ - ‘The Myth of
the Iranian Sanctuary’ - ‘American Jewish Groups Break With Hawks’

- o O o -

Maliki Stalls U.S. Plan to Frame Iran

by Gareth Porter,
Antiwar.Com,
15 May, 2008.

Early this month, the George W. Bush administration's plan to create a
new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms
to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse US
charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army,
and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in
and around Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that
none of the arms were of Iranian origin.

The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shiite
militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded
the US military from a much bigger blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus had
plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic US political
support for a possible strike against Iran over its "meddling" in Iraq
and especially its alleged export of arms to Shiite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus
on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shiite militias
that would be surfaced publicly after the al-Maliki government had
endorsed it and it used to accuse Iran publicly.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told
reporters on Apr. 25 that Petraeus was preparing a briefing to be
given "in the next couple of weeks" that would provide detailed
evidence of "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment
instability." The centerpiece of the Petraeus document, completed in
late April, was the claim that arms captured in Basra bore 2008
manufacture dates on them.

US officials also planned to display Iranian weapons captured in both
Basra and Karbala to reporters. That sequence of media events would
fill the airwaves with spectacular news framing Iran as the culprit in
Iraq for several days, aimed at breaking down Congressional and public
resistance to the idea that Iranian bases supporting the meddling
would have to be attacked.

But events in Iraq diverged from the plan. On May 4, after an Iraqi
delegation had returned from meetings in Iran, al-Maliki's spokesman,
Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a news conference that al-Maliki was forming
his own Cabinet committee to investigate the US claims. "We want to
find tangible information and not information based on speculation,"
he said.

Another adviser to al-Maliki, Haider Abadi, told the Los Angeles
Times' Alexandra Zavis that Iranian officials had given the delegation
evidence disproving the charges. "For us to be impartial, we have to
investigate," Abadi said.

Al-Dabbagh made it clear that the government considered the US
evidence of Iranian government arms smuggling insufficient. "The proof
we have is weapons which are shown to have been made in Iran," al-
Dabbagh said in a separate interview with Reuters. "We want to trace
back how they reached [Iraq], who is using them, where are they
getting it."

Senior US military officials were clearly furious with al-Maliki for
backtracking on the issue. "We were blindsided by this," one of them
told Zavis…

SOURCE: Continue reading this article at http://www.AntiWar.Com
Direct article link is: http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12841

simple_...@yahoo.com

unread,

May 15, 2008, 5:33:08 PM5/15/08

Do not feed the Muslim troll. The troll (Faris Jawad) emigrated from
southern India to Hamilton, Canada, where he makes a living as a
computer programmer. The troll uses many names including: Ramabriga,
ourfreedom...@lycos.com, Cosmic programmer,
visual...@yahoo.com, LeBlanc, Islamaphobia, Yaako Warrior,
global...@yahoo.ca, whiley...@live.ca, LuChuck, Matt, jamiil,
Anti-Muslim Bigots, V-for-Vendicar, fruitella, Zionism equal Racism,
The Chemical Oil Nazi, LORD RAMA RANTER, Muslim With Mission, Wayne,
Ian Balchin, Qahir Al-Ashrar, Venkataraman the Biiiig Hindu, Liu Yan,
ISLAMOPHOBIA, Möbius Pretzel, Buddy III, Mujahid, V i v a P a l e s t
i n e!, Burhan, Farid Ahmed, Kope, Death to Israel..Israel has no
Right to Exist, Franko Pizza, rick murphy, rich murphy, ISLAM - THE
SOLUTION OF MODERN PROBLEMS, Faris Jawad, Sabastawi, The Founding
Church, Ilan Ramon: Kike Lost in Space. Proudly serving Islam and al
Quds, Katrina, Ahura Mazda, TROLLS HUNTER, Kayid Al-Kuffar, Firnando,
R Geovani, Blondes Gaulloises, Zimbawi, Muslims Always Victorious,
Islam Will Replace Collapsing Amerikan Empire, Muslims Are Good Folks,
Katucha, katucha is the zionists worst nightmare, We are Muslims, and
we are extremely proud of it, Born To Serve Islam, All praise is due
to Allah Lord of the Worlds, the Owner of all of the creation, Ardalan
Keykavoussi, Tommy Davis, LORD RAMA. (The 19 terrorists who attacked
our nation on September 11, 2001 used a total of 364 aliases.)

Islam broke world records of genocide, slavery, religiously sanctioned
rape, abuse of human rights, and prohibition of scientific inquiry. It
forbids Muslim emigration to the lands of the infidels because a
Muslim minority cannot enslave the infidel majority. Despite this
prohibition Muslims emigrate to the West, not as migrants, but as
conquerors. They live in sharia mini-states and expand these mini-
states by terrorizing infidel neighbors and driving them out. Arabic
proverb says "first comes Saturday, then Sunday." It means that Arabs
are going to exterminate Jews before they exterminate Christians. It
also means that Israel is the first line of defense against Islam.

“I have been made victorious with terror.” - Muhammad (according to
Sahih Bukhari)

Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to
between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025. source:
http://news.scotsman.com/europeanunion/CIA-gives-grim-warning-on.2595505.jp

The average European couple now has fewer than 1.4 babies, compared to
3.6 babies born to the average Muslim immigrant couple in Europe.
Across Western Europe 16 to 20 percent of babies are being born into
Muslim families… By 2025, one-third of all European children will be
born to Muslims… In Italy, 95% of all rapists are Muslims. Eighty-five
percent of all murderers are Muslims… France will have a Muslim
majority in less than 25 years! Another telling statistic is that
although the Muslims are 12% of France's population, 70 percent of a
total of 60,775 prisoners in France are Muslims! All of France's urban
suburbs are being roamed by Muslim black African or Arabic gangs… A
very high proportion of French Muslims are in the underclass, that
segment of the population that relies not so much on education and
work as on welfare and predatory activities. In fact, over one
thousand Muslim neighborhoods are under monitoring throughout France.
Seven hundred of those Muslim neighborhoods are listed as "violent"
and nearly 400 hundred are listed as "very violent." Violence ranges
from rape (95% of rapists are Muslim), murder (85% of murderers are
Muslim), theft and looting of cars (58% committed by Muslims) and
street fighting to assault on teachers and civil servants… source:
http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

"There does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in
number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate"
by their repudiation of Muslim extremists. Violence has been an
integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is
sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to
advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their
faith culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then
deemed apostate and subject to harm. Consequently, what might pass for
"moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to
what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which
extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material
support, and to which they return for sanctuary." - Salim Mansur

Markku Grönroos

unread,

May 15, 2008, 6:20:55 PM5/15/08

menes nyt perversi muualle

<simple_...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:4ea84f17-b630-4586...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

ourfreedom...@lycos.com

unread,

May 15, 2008, 6:32:17 PM5/15/08

Message has been deleted

simple_...@yahoo.com

unread,

May 15, 2008, 7:04:29 PM5/15/08

On May 16, 12:48 am, Emil Tiades <emiltia...@marathon.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT), "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"

>
> <simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Do not feed the Muslim troll. The troll (Faris Jawad) emigrated from
> >southern India to Hamilton, Canada, where he makes a living as a
> >computer programmer.
>

> What's the piece of shit's real name?

I do not know. He is extremely fanatical Muslim, ripe to become
suicide bomber. For the past several years he has been spewing a few
thousand hateful newsgroup posts a month.

Whileyouslept

unread,

May 16, 2008, 1:02:34 AM5/16/08

Planned U.S. Israeli Attack On Iran: Will There Be A War Against Iran?

by Michel Chossudovsky,
Global Research,
May 14, 2008.

The media has failed to cover the history of US war preparations
directed against Iran. News coverage of US sponsored war preparations
in relation to Iran started to surface in early 2007 in scanty press
reports.

Although confirmed by official military documents and reports, public
opinion has largely been kept in the dark and misinformed on these war
preparations.

A war on Iran has been envisaged since the mid-1990s as part of a
strategic "sequencing" of theater operations. During the Clinton
administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war
theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's
National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United
States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states
of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S.
interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens.
Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the
region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater
strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S.
engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States'
vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied
access to Gulf oil."

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy
, emphasis added)

Consistent with CENTCOM's 1995 "sequencing", the plans to target Iran
were activated under TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term) in the immediate
wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. TIRANNT consisted in a model
scenario type analysis of a theater war directed against Iran. The
analysis, which involved senior military and intelligence experts,
consisted in examining different theater scenarios.

"The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle
plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation
Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command
[resigned in March 2008], has inherited computerized plans under the
name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, 19 Feb 2007)

The following text (in annex) entitled Planned US Israeli Attack on
Iran was published three years ago by Global Research in May 2005. It
outlines the earlier phase of US-Israel war preparations in relation
to Iran.

(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html)

While much of this analysis remains valid, military planning in
relation to Iran is now in a much more advanced stage. Moreover, the
structure of military alliances underlying the Pentagon's war plans
has also evolved. NATO is now part of the military alliance.

Under NATO auspices, in liaison with the Pentagon, British, German,
Turkish and French forces are slated to play a significant role in the
case of an attack on Iran and Syria.

In this regard, it is worth noting that already in 2005, NATO and
Israel had established the basis of a far-reaching military
cooperation agreement. In turn, Turkey, which from a military
standpoint constitutes a significant force within NATO, has a
comprehensive bilateral military cooperation agreement with Israel.

According to military documents and statements, US, Israeli and allied
forces are "in an advanced state of readiness". In fact much of the
war planning had already reached that "advanced stage" in 2005.

Several important variables come into play in assessing the
possibility of an all out war on Iran.

"An advanced stage of readiness" to attack Iran does not signify that
a war will actually occur. A number of important countervailing
factors must be addressed.

Saber Rattling

Apart from outright war, the US sponsored war preparations serve
several other foreign policy objectives.

The threat of war coupled by advanced military preparedness are often
used to bully countries into compliance, to oblige them to give up
their sovereignty, to open up their economy to Western investors, to
privatize and sell off their assets to American companies, etc. These
threats will only be effective if the country does not have the
ability to defend itself militarily. The strength of its national
economy is also a major consideration.

The Sabre rattling is ongoing in relation to Iran. The objective is
ultimately to subdue Iran as a regional power and take possession of
its oil wealth, which constitutes approximately ten percent of total
world reserves.

What are Iran's military capabilities, namely its ability to defend
itself and inflict damage on US and allied forces?

The answer to this question involves essentially two aspects.

First, Iran has an advanced air defense system, using both Iranian and
Russian technology. Moreover, it has, according to Western military
experts, perfected its ballistic missile capabilities to the extent
that it is capable of inflicting significant damage on US and allied
military installations in Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Israel.

Over the last few years, Iran has been actively preparing for a US
sponsored attack. Moreover, resulting from the surge in oil revenues,
the Tehran government has enhanced capabilities to finance its
military preparedness. In this regard, Iran is in a very different
situation to that of Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, targeted by
Anglo-American air attacks under the "No Fly Zone" coupled with more
than ten years of deadly economic sanctions.

US military planners are fully aware of the possibility of escalation.
If extensive air attacks were to be launched, Iranian conventional
forces would immediately cross the border into Iraq and attack US
military installations. This is a factor which has contributed to
"putting the war on hold".

Instead of extensive bombings which would result in retaliation.
Washington may decide as a first step in a broader military campaign
to launch limited air attacks, on the presumption that Iran would not
retaliate. According to Philip Giraldi, the attack would "be as
'pinpoint' and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods
and avoid civilian casualties." Before launching a "limited attack",
the US would attempt to ensure, through threat and secret
negotiations, that retaliation would not occur.

The US Military's "Ability to Fight Wars"

Adm. William Fallon, who was recently fired as Commander of US Central
Command (USCENTCOM) was acutely aware of Iran's ability to retaliate
militarily and inflict significant losses to US and coalition forces.
This understanding was in fact conveyed at the outset of the 2003 war
scenarios under TIRANNT.

Prior to his dimissal, Admiral Fallon played down the possibility of a
war with Iran: “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.”.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen,
while broadly supportive of the Bush-Cheney White House, has
officially acknowledged US military weaknesses. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan "may have undermined the military's ability to fight wars
against major adversaries - including Iran." ( quoted in Haaretz,
October 22, 2007).

In an interview with the New York Times, Mullen stated:

"...the risks could be very, very high.... We're in a conflict in two
countries out there right now... We have to be incredibly thoughtful
about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third
country in that part of the world."

These statements were made at the very outset of his mandate as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 2007.

Mullen's hesitations to wage war on Iran are not based on a divergent
political stance but on a realistic assessment of US military
capabilities. Admiral Mullen recognizes that the US military is
overstretched and that in relation to Iraq, the US military is facing
serious problems in military recruitment.

Moreover, tacitly acknowledged by the Pentagon, US and coalition
forces are facing fierce resistance in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Appointment of General David Petraeus as Head of USCENTCOM

The appointment of General David Petraeus to the Head of U.S. Central
Command (USCENTCOM) has served to neutralize potential opposition
within the US Armed Forces. It reinforces Vice President Cheney's
ability to order an attack and ensure that the Military will fully
support the Bush administration.

The objective is to "set up Iran for attack" using Iran's alleged
intervention in Iraq as a pretext and justification, "on [the] grounds
that Iran ... is responsible for the mounting death toll among
American troops in Iraq." (See Iran should be "Set Up for an Attack"
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Global Research, May 2008). Iran is also
accused of intervening in Afghanstan and Lebanon. In this regard, the
2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon are part of the roadmap of a broader
war directed against Iran and Syria. (See Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global
Research, May 2007)

Armed Clashes in Lebanon

The recent armed clashes in Lebanon opposing Hizbollah to the US-
Israeli supported May 14th Movement, have precipitated the country
into chaos. Fighting erupted after the pro-US Siniora government
announced a crackdown on Hizbollah.

Hizbollah has taken control of parts of West Beirut setting the stage
for a NATO "peacekeeping" intervention inside Lebanon. A greater
involvement of NATO coupled with the militarization of the entire
Eastern Mediterranean coastline is an integral part of the Iran-Syria
war scenario: "a peacekeeping" role by NATO forces, on behalf of
Israel, targetting Syria as well as Hizbollah and Hamas.

These recent events in Lebanon have been triggered quite deliberately
with a view to destabilzing the country. They are part of the US
sponsored military roadmap; they are intended to set the stage for a
confrontation with Syria.

The Structure of Military Alliances

The structure of military alliances is crucial. America's allies are
Israel and NATO.

Iran's allies are China and Russia and the member States of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Both China and Russia have far-reaching bilateral military cooperation
agreements with Iran. Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status
in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has
ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an
overlapping military cooperation agreement between Russia, Armenia,
Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan.

In October 2007, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding, laying the foundations for military cooperation between
the two organizations. This SCO-CSTO agreement, barely mentioned by
the Western media, involves the creation of a full-fledged military
alliance between China, Russia and the member states of SCO/CSTO. It
is worth noting that the SCTO and the SCO held joint military
exercises in 2006, which coincided with those conducted by Iran. (For
further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Russia and Central Asian
Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats, Global Research,
August 2006)

In the context of US war plans directed against Iran, the US is also
intent upon weakening Iran's allies, namely Russia and China. In the
case of China, Washington is seaking to disrupt Beijing's bilateral
ties with Tehran as well as Iran's rapprochement with the SCO, which
has its headquarters in Beijing.

In this regard, a military operation directed against Iran can only
succeed if the structure of military alliances which link Iran to
China and Russia is significantly weakened.

There are indicaitons that this Eurasian military alliance underlying
the SCO has in fact been strengthened. While currently Iran has
observer status, the Tehran government has indicated its desire to
become a full member of the SCO. Moreover, in the course of the last
year, Iran has strengthened its bilateral ties in the field of energy
and oil and gas pipelines with India as well as Pakistan. The
positioning of India on the side of Iran in the oil and energy field
is another factor which weakens Washington's influence in the
region.

"What Tehran is seaking is "nothing less than a blueprint for a new
correlation of nations in Eurasia, whose collaboration in developing
continental infrastucture--nuclear energy, gas and oil pipelines, and
transportation--should establish the economic, and therefore
political, basis for true independence" (see Muriel Mirak Weissbach,
May 2008)

History points to the importance of competing military alliances. In
the present context, the US and its NATO partners are seaking to
undermine the formation of a cohesive Eurasian SCO-CSTO military
alliance, which could effectively challenge and contain US-NATO
military expansionism in Eurasia, combining the military capabilities
not only of Russia and China, but also those of several former Soviet
republics including Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan
Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.

The Decision to go to War: Not a Rational Choice

The decision to go to war is not made by the Military high command.

The decision to go to war is taken by civilians.

The US Military is characterised by a hierarchy and command structure.
Orders come from above, emanating from the "civilian government",
namely the Bush administration. They are transmitted downwards
through the military command structure. Once the order to go to war is
taken, it is not discussed or debated, it is carried out by the
military. Moreover, in all likelihood, in implementing a "preemptive
attack" on Iran, the Bush administration would bypass the US Congress,
in blatant violation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution.

In practice, the President and Commander in Chief, namely George W.
Bush, does not decide. He also obeys orders from above. He follows the
diktats of powerful financial and corporate interests.

This war is profit-driven. "War is good for business". It is a money
making operation. It results in billions of dollar of profits for Wall
Street, the oil giants and the military industrial complex, not to
mention the institutional speculators in the oil, currency and
commodity markets.

The objective of the proposed war is to extend the frontiers of the
global capitalist economy, eventually taking control of Iran's oil
wealth. The broader implications of a war using tactical nuclear
weapons in the conventional war theater are of no concern to those who
decide to go to war.

The Central Role of Vice President Dick Cheney

In contrast to previous adminstrations, the Vice President has played
a central role in the Bush adminstration, overshadowing the office of
the President. In practice, Vice President Cheney, supported by an
army of senior officials and loyal advisers, controls the White House.
At the same time, Cheney is part of a powerful corporate apparatus,
through his links to Halliburton and the role Halliburton has played
in defining a profit-driven military agenda.

Cheney has personally played a key roie in activating war plans
directed against Iran.

"At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney
dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was
"right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and
that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without
US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do
it"." (Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005)

Cheney is the de facto Head of State, he overshadows George W. Bush,
who is mere figurehead. More recently, he has played a key role in
pressuring the frontline Arab states into supporting a preemptive
attack on Iran.

Vice President Cheney has little concern for the likely consequences
and the resulting loss of life which would result from the use of both
conventional and nuclear weapons. He is fully aware that even a
limited air attack on Iran could contribute to unleashing a broader
Middle East-Central Asian war, extending from the Eastern
Mediterranean to China's Western frontier. The various scenarios of
this broader war have already been envisaged.

Most serious Crisis in Modern History

We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.
These war plans coincide with a parallel process of economic
restructuring and a deepseated Worldwide economic depression. War and
globalization are intimately related processes. The militarisation of
the Middle East and Central Asia supports the extension of the global
"free market" system into new frontiers.

In turn, the war has heightened the economic crisis. The civilian
economy is collapsing, overshadowed and undermined by the dynamic
growth of the military industrial complex, which in a very real sense
produces "weapons of mass destruction. In turn, the concurrent hikes
in the price of crude oil, in the price of basic food staples, through
speculative activities on major commodity exchanges have contributed
to impoverishing millions of people.

"The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next
phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not
in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the
military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold
an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national
and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the
military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in
unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is
galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their
safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a
humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the
war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must
be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be
targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the
financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an
integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals
in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and
the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the
"war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public
opinion in support of a global war agenda." (Michel Chossudovsky, May
1st 2005)

SOURCE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8861