Posts
2:00PM Water Cooler 11/21/2024
13 hours ago
Friday, December 19, 2008
Chossudovsky claims USA behind Mumbai attacks
Finally a decent answer to the cui bono? question that any intelligent person should ask in these cases. I won't claim it's the only possible one but it makes some sense, what is interesting in itself, and it's signed by a respectable analyst who has been claiming for years that Bin Laden is nothing but a puppet of US intelligence, as I do believe too.
Link: India's 9/11. Who was behind the Mumbai attack? Washington is fostering political divisions between India and Pakistan, by M. Chossudovsky.
The Canadian author claims that the USA exerts much more control over the dark alleys of Pakistani intelligence agency than the new civilian government (that obviously was not interested at all in such attack but rather in improving the relations with its neighbours) and that the main reason for the attack is to sabotage the Indian-Pakistani diplomatic improvements (divide et impera), promote further internal ethnic tensions in both countries and justify even further the intervention in Afghanistan (already declared primary goal by the new Emperor Barack I) and neighbouring Pakistani tribal areas. He also claims that the FBI, along with British M16 and Israeli Mossad, is manipulating the investigation and that, as happened with the Bali attacks, the true masterminds of the crime will never been found.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That's a great relief. As long as any open society controls the closed society then it's not really an issue. My definition of open society is freedom to women in sexual relationships and religious convictions(or identity).
Of course, I consider the article total rubbish.
I'm always interested in how people in other countries view Americans-- and in particular, American international policy.
Maju, you're right about a lot of things, but this is one instance in which I will have to respectfully disagree. America was very disturbed by the Mubai attacks, both because we are sensatized to the suffering of others at the hands of terrorists--and for reasons of simple self-interest. If Pakistan has to divert resources to it's border with India because of increased tension there, then it will have fewer resources to contribute to helping American interests in Afganastan.
And contrary to what some believe, America is sick of fighting. The American people want this war over with. The economy is sliding into depression, and we're having to bail out our banks, and our housing industry, and now our auto industry, and the whole thing is collapsing like a house of cards. The last thing America wants, at this point, is for MORE tension between India and Pakistan.
The last eight years under Bush have been a nightmare. But America is finally waking up. (at least I hope so.)
Oh, and when I say the last 8 years have been a nightmare, I'm talking about American international policy and the constant conflict we've been involved in. That's what I'm hoping America is waking up from.
But I don't think there's much of a chance we're going to wake up from this economic crisis anytime soon. If anything, THAT nightmare might just be starting. Ugh.
@Manjunat:
I consider the article total rubbish.
Thanks for clarifying it. I still think hat the "cui bono" question matters. Chossudovsky may be wrong but, well, I do think that Al Qaeda and network are not anything independent but rather a very smart way to get everybody confused and annoyed.
This should not surprise anyone, specially those with some knowledge of the lead years in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, of the dark Gladio network of counter-insurgency, of the many convolutions that the NATO secret services' network have.
But, of course, even if Bin Ladin is well known as the historical CIA's man in Afghanistan, for most people only the apparence counts - they "know" that reality can't be that complex. Ask any illusionist: they are wrong. What you see is not always what you get.
@Kosmo:
Let's not confuse US people and US government. Equally wit any other nation. We have been sold that nice illusion of "democracy" but actually the choices are very limited and the power of corporations and other interest groups in all the process is immense. Democratic governments do need legitimacy and some consensus but, well, Hitler also needed it.
Let's put it clear: I do not blame the US people. I actually think many of you are very nice people in fact. It's not a peoples' problem it is a problem of world government networks and the very US president is just but a piece in all that. Have you heard of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Comission, AIPAC, Davos? None of them is a single governing body, they are more like country clubs to make deals and forge consensus among the top elites of Earth... but they (and possibly others) do forge networks of real power and cling to them. Then you also have the many secret services and their own networks (just mentioned Gladio but there are others for sure). And finally are the real administrations we see on TV and think that control the world, when they are in many senses just a facade (of course they do administrate... but more like a provincial governor would do than like a sovereign ruler).
And contrary to what some believe, America is sick of fighting. The American people want this war over with.
And probably in the mid run you'll get it... But it's not the people what I'm talking about but the power network. And not just the USA, even if it is still also the main actor.
Obama may pull out of Iraq (more or less) but he has wowed to persist in Afghanistan and has made all signs of vassallage to Israel (apparently compulsory to get to the White House in this day and age). There will not be a substantial change of US/NATO international policy and all the plotters behind 9/11 and everything related seem to stay reasonably safe from public scrutiny and still well connected in the real power network behind the secenes.
And all the comments I've read on Obama's appointments are: "continuity" with a nicer face. I'd like to thik that Obama is really as smart and indepdent thinker as to outwit those behind him and become a real statesman but I suspect it won't be the case. And if that would happen... well, he would not be the first US president to be murdered in strange circumstances. But anyhow, I fear that the time of the statesmen is gone and now it's more like the time of the salesmen (not sure about Obama but Bush Jr. was very good at that - if at nothing else).
The position of Obama is fragile anyhow. I admire the guy in many senses and would like to think he's as smart as to really become an independent president and not just another puppet of corporations and Zionism. But he seems very much aware that he is not just himself but a wide network of supports, supports that are demands as well (and I'm not talking votes here but cheques and private calls).
He has a huge challenge ahead in any case.
But I don't think there's much of a chance we're going to wake up from this economic crisis anytime soon. If anything, THAT nightmare might just be starting. Ugh.
IMO this is a true structural crisis that can only be compared to 1929 and maybe to the crisis that shook the world before the American and French revolutions, the ones that left the Ancien Regime rip for radical change, the one that allowed our age to begin.
This probably means that many many people, all around the planet, will suffer very badly before change is finally achieved. This is of course horrible, but the good thing about crisis is that a radical change of direction can be achieved, that they open a true window of opportunity for change. And that such a change can revive the hope and the faith in humankind we need to keep going.
After the storm, calm must come... but the storm has just begun and looks like a truly bad hurricane. Brace yourselves.
"Let's not confuse US people and US government."
--That's a good point.
"After the storm, calm must come... but the storm has just begun and looks like a truly bad hurricane. Brace yourselves"
I think you are right. The current world system cannot survive. It has a rotted core.
The current world system cannot survive. It has a rotted core.
I think it's a good time to re-read the Marxist economists, specially Marx himself. I have been always been frustrated when studying economy that so much emphasis is given to Ricardian-Smithian theories, like if they were an exact science (what they are not, obviously) and so little to those I think have a very good critical approach to Capitalism (you don't need to be socialist to understand or even agree with Marx' criticism or with his theory of value). In my opinion, Marx is at least as good economist as Ricardo and Smith together and his theory of Capital, with all the reserves one must always have, is a very valuable tool that actually predicts that these kind of crisis are unavoidable within capitalism.
In simple terms: Capital needs workers to be paid less (decrease producton costs) and to consume more (sustain an increasing demand), these two needs, even if temporarily balanced at the expense of other elements (like ecology or marginal/colonized groups), are contradictory and must eventually end in a situation like the one we live now, when the demand, artificially inflated beyond its limits by crazy credit, simply collapses. It already happened in 1929 and then it caused a major global war (and the Cold War that ensued). In fact it was probably the war what helped to recover from the crisis (by feeding the industrial-military complex - not very differen of Hitler's econmical "remedies" that necesarly demanded an imperialist war to pay for them). But now such a global war is impossible (because of nuclear deterrance) and also there are further contradictions.
What Marx did not include in the equation, but many 20th century economists have noticed, was the hidden costs paid by Nature. The very concept of "production" is a fallacy: nothing is ever created as such, just transfomed. Capitalism simply declares Nature of zero value: what is freely available, what is not scarce and owned by someone, has not commercial value, no matter how valuable it actually is. Nature can stomach a lot, it seems, but it also has its limits... and we have reached them already (global warming specially but not only).
Well, the case is that all those contradictions need to be adressed properly and the liberal (meaning "capitalist") economic pseudo-science can't. They just don't have the theoretical tools. As some Spanish economist whose name I can't recall right now denounced: official economic "science" is nothing but erudite contability... it has nothing or very little to do with the real meaning of the word economics, in Greek meaning "enviromental management". This economics does not manage the enviroment: it just predates it (unless laws and governments intervene, out of the market system), and it does not even manage production (transformation) to secure a reasonable aboundance of resources for humankind but to secure scarcity and therefore market.
Of course, as we already know, doing something different has many difficulties but, in any case, we need at least a different much more realistic and less ideological economic science to be able to manage succesfully the planet and our use of it.
Sorry for the long post. Just that you are very much right about the core of all being definitively rotten, and a good deal of it is, I think, economic science as such.
Post a Comment