Website: http://cyberjournal.org Bcc: contributors ============================================================================ Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:27:44 -0400 To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> From: Michel Chossudovsky Subject: Re: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III rkm > Our featured article is by an author I hold in the highest respect, Michel Chossudovsky. Perhaps a few comments at the end... thanks for your kind words, your writings and analysis and web page are much appreciated, with kind regards, Michel ============ Dear Michel, I'm honored to hear from you, and more so that you're familiar with my work. Your "Globalization of Poverty" opened my eyes about many things. But my highest praise goes for your ongoing work in debunking media reality as fast as it gets invented. Your articles on Yugoslavia, on 911, and many others, have been important and timely sources of information and perspective for many of us. all the best, rkm wexford, ireland ============================================================================ From: "Nicola Furey" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:42:06 +0200 Dear Richard, Thank you for the continuing information. In our local Geneva Sunday newspaper was a short quote of Professor Jean Ziegler, a controversial and brilliant Geneva figure who taught at the university and now will be the U.N. (Sunday May 2002) ........GEORGE W. BUSH ¨¨C'est l'incarnation de la pire arrogance impériale. Tout ce qu'il y a de pire dans un très grand et admirable pays que sont les Etats-Unis: la bigoterie baptiste du Sud; la violence texane, comme le montre la condamnation à mort de centaines de jeunes gens, en général noirs, sur des indices tout à fit douteux; l'ignorance totale du monde et la stupide brutalité du militaire. Et, en plus, une légitimité électorale incertaine.` (The incarnation of the worst imperial arrogance. All there is of the worst in a large and admirable country such as the United States: the baptist bigotry of the South; the Texan violence, as shown in the condemning to death of hundreds of young people, generally black, on totally doubtful indications, the total ignorance of the world and the stupid brutality of the military. And, as well, an uncertain electoral legitimacy) (Translation) For those of us who lived, admired and have never forgotten the shock of Kennedy, these times are extremely painful. ============ Dear Nicola, Thanks for the translation. One wonders why they chose Bush for the job. He's proof that anyone could do it, so they had plenty of other choices. As long as you can read cue cards more than 50% of the time, you qualify. I suspect the reason is that with him acting as the national figurehead, unpredictability becomes the general expectation. Elite policy makers can follow whatever course they consider necessary, and Bush-the-image will serve as the convenient lightning rod for all the 'collateral damage'. cheers, rkm ============================================================================ Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.••• From: "Peter Murphy" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: Chossudovsky: Welcome to World War III Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:22:18 +1000 Richard, When an article states the following: > General Pervez Musharraf is a US puppet. I'm inclined to believe it is nonsense. C'mon, even Blind Freddy would be aware of the links between the ISI and the CIA - but you naturally assume that the CIA is controlling the ISI. As if. (Ironic chuckle.) No, General Musharraf and the ISI are fools, but they are fools of their own making. They're happy to take funding from the United States, but does that make them take orders? Bollocks. Remember how the Taliban was harboring old Osama after those bombings in Kenya, and how the United States wanted Osama for justice? That's would have been the time for the United States to use its supernatural powers of puppetry over the ISI - because the ISI were one of the major supporters of the Taliban. It wasn't very effective, was it? And if the United States was so powerful, why didn't they have any of their own agents on the ground in Afghanistan? Well, because the CIA has turned into several fiefdoms of bureaucrats more concerned about their comfortable houses in the Virginia countryside and fights with rival directorates in the Company. And if you sent them as a field agent to the dirt and poverty of rural Afghanistan, most would squeal with horror... But that's where the ISI were so "convenient" - they would have their own "cadre" of agents speaking fluent Pashto and directing the intelligence to the US. It was convenient, of course - the paper-shufflers at Langley wouldn't have to dirty their hands with blood, or face the indignity of catching cholera. And how useful was this intelligence? Well, let's look at the current revelations about how much the United States knew about September the eleventh in advance. A lot, as it seems. But notice where this intelligence came from? Suspicious FBI agents in the field. European police agencies. But how much came via the ISI - the ones who should be keeping tabs on the Taliban? Bloody little. If the ISI knew about it (and I suspect a lot of them do), they were keeping the information to themselves. Let's get this straight. The United States did not use Pakistan - Pakistan used the United States. Clear now? That's the problem with Chossudovsky's article. It is easy enough to prove collusion between the US and Pakistan. Unfortunately for him, he has to prove control - that the United States are actually controlling Pakistan from behind the scenes. And none of the information in the article actually does this. I think it's his implicit assumption that collusion and control are the same thing when the United States are involved; however, that doesn't convince me. He shows that funding is going from the US to Kashmiri militants, but funding doesn't mean control, does it? After all, Osama also took money from the US once upon a time, and look what he did with it. :-( (Of course you could fall back to the position that Osama is also the US's puppet - but that's even more dubious to me. ) Richard: you - and too many other members of the American Left - share a delusion with the nutters at the Weekly Standard and other American conservatives: the world revolves around America. Of course, you are mirror images of each other: the conservatives and neo-conservatives think that the United States is a "beacon for decency", while you seem to think it's the source of all Evil and Darkness. Presumptuous as I sound, perhaps you may consider - perhaps you may venture - perhaps you could even dream that bad things DO happen without Uncle Sam's say-so, and Pakistan is one of these instances. Unfortunately, that seems hard for you. In your mind, the Universe really does revolve around the United States - the original Axis of Evil incarnate - all knowing and all controlling. I don't know how you live with such national self-hatred. Consolatory, Peter. ============= Dear Peter, I find your response intriguing. You seem to be knowledgeable about Pakistan, the ISI, etc... and I wonder what your background might be. In what circles can one assume that "even Blind Freddy would be aware of the links between the ISI and the CIA"? This business of who is controlling who, who is manipulating who, as regards the CIA vs. ISI (or Taliban, or whomever), depends on what level of the game you are looking at. As even blind Freddy knows, the CIA created the Afghan-based Islamic Jihad phenomenon. Those groups used the CIA to become what they are, and the CIA used them to destabilize the Soviet Union. Clearly each side gets something out of such transactions, and each tries to maximize its relative gain. You emphasize the issue of 'control', and I think that's a red herring. The CIA unleashes a Jihad movement; it fights fiercely and accomplishes the intended objectives vis a vis the Soviets. In the process, the CIA may or may not have much control over how things are done on the ground. And that may or may not be important. Even our Freddy knows that Washington doesn't care a rats ass about the population of Afghanistan, and so in that case I doubt if there was much concern about micro-management. If the objective is to stir up trouble, then detailed control can often be a total side issue. In that sense, your elaborate critique of Chossudovsky is a bit like a well-kicked soccer ball that unfortunately bounces off the wrong side of the net. --- This statement is rather revealing: > And if the United States was so powerful, why didn't they have any of their own agents on the ground in Afghanistan? Well, because the CIA has turned into several fiefdoms of bureaucrats... This is fairy tale stuff. This is the image of the CIA you'd get from thriller cinema, or the New York Times, or any other mainstream propaganda channel. What makes you think they had no agents on the ground in Afghanistan? Because one of their PR people said so in a newspaper interview? What do you know about how the CIA operates internally, what its actual missions are, or how effective it is in achieving them? From what you say, I don't think you have much of a clue. The world revolves around America to the extent it does. Even blind Freddy would acknowledge that extent to be non-trivial. And post-911, that extent has clearly expanded. I have no reason to exaggerate US centrality, but one cannot avoid noticing US involvement, to one degree or another, in nearly everything going on in the world that is of political or economic significance. That's just fact. "...source of all Evil and Darkness", "National self-hatred"... Why such hyperbole? I see the US, as a nation, as victim rather than perpetrator.... Television, the drug of the nation, breeding ignorance and spreading radiation. Television, the drug of the nation... (Disposable Heroes). A member of the American Left? Give me a break. The Left and its mentality are some of the main things that have gotten us into the mess we're in. Always thinking they can legislate a good society, and never noticing that the resulting 'reforms' always make things worse. Their basic sin is not understanding power, confusing it with political institutions and rhetoric. They overlook the camels being smuggled every time their liberal sentiments are aroused to support this or that cause. Thank you for sharing, rkm ============================================================================
Share: