Investigating the Iraq War... Officially

Lord Goldsmith got taxpayer help for Iraq war inquiry legal advice | UK news | The Guardian

This is from the 'Chilcot Panel, set up to investigate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq. As the article says...

"At one point, as he continued to question the advice of Foreign Office lawyers, Straw accused Wood of being "very dogmatic" by warning that an invasion would be unlawful, the inquiry heard. It was told that Downing Street was reluctant to hear arguments about whether an invasion would be legal. Wood described how he received what he called a "curious request" from Straw in October 2002 asking for his views on the consequences of acting without international legal authority in using force against Iraq. He responded by saying that it was "inconceivable that a government which has on numerous occasions made clear its intentions to comply with international law would order troops into a conflict without justification in international law". He also reminded Straw that under their official code of conduct, ministers had a duty to "comply with the law, including international law".

He said his warnings were sent to Downing Street. Worried officials there asked: "Why has this been put in writing?"

Straw will give evidence on the legality of the war in a second round of evidence from him on 8 February."

It seems to be turning out that the Iraq invasion, rather than being of 'dubious legality', as we have been told for so long, may actually be demonstrably illegal. The government lawyers consulted about it were actually, it seems unanimous on this point- that "without a specific UN resolution" it would be illegal. Now for many this is no news, but I hasten to add to them that their opinion is not only lacking in the legally binding power of a court, but also open to accusations of bias. The truth remains true (it is also my opinion, I might add, as it has consistently been throughout the whole affair), yet the legally enshrined powers will effect how much influence it has over decisions made.

What the inquiry is uncovering, which will probably not be the closed and toothless affair that the Labour Party wanted, is a consistent bullying from those higher up to rubber stamp an illegal invasion that wasn't just catastrophic- and I use the word advisedly, catastrophic, for the people in Iraq, but also for the reputation of the US and Britain in world affairs in general. The 'world's policemen' were seen to be bending the law in a way that suited them, even as it took place. Unprecedented demonstrations erupted as a result of this assumption of their own omnipotence. Now, tragically belatedly, but still welcome, courts are issuing verdicts that it was actually clearly illegal and as such people who lied about this will have to pay for their crimes. How far up the chain this will go is as yet unclear, though it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less severe offenses. Those with faith in the power of justice know that even if this particular enquiry falls short of the whole truth, others will pick up where they left off in due course. There is a word for what they got into that has stood the test of time... hubris.

Assuming it is established that it was an illegal war and that this is something they knew all along, the next question to answer- properly, not by the mob but by the jury- is why? Was it to increase the Western access to oil reserves, as is popularly believed, a classic neo-colonial war for resources much like Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait? Was it because they believed him to be a dangerous tyrant who's wings were not yet firmly clipped and that they would help the world by ridding it of him? Did they really believe that he might supply WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against Western cities (the most common reason given and one still being used for the controversial campaign or 'military adventure', depending on who you ask, in Afghanistan)? To my mind, the most plausible is the first answer- the invasion was clearly planned, both tactically and logistically well before the 'terrorist' attack of 9/11. The intention to take over the country, whether or not Saddam complied was established- if only by the moving of so many troops into position, at such great expense. It is almost inconceivable that they would be willing to go home 'empty handed'. It is also quite likely that the events of 9/11 were either permitted or even, (God forbid), staged so as to give some plausible reason for the whole invasion. Of course, all this is just my view, yet it seems to be increasingly widely accepted as more evidence emerges, most notably through inquiries such as these.

Yet it is also important to note just how badly Bush and Blair miscalculated. Their arguments failed to convince as many people or for that matter countries as they were hoping. Not only were tens of thousands of lives lost, but also their reputations. Resistance, both in the population and in the streets of Iraq was far fiercer than they anticipated and far less moderated. They succeeded in doing what many warned would happen- lionising Islamic Militancy and helping add fuel to it's fires throughout the Islamic world. They also weakened our on military deterrent by showing how our troops could be vulnerable to certain weaponry and how our strategies can be undermined by the power of the media itself to expose our hypocrisy. Rather than being lauded as heroes who understood the system enough to circumvent it, they are seen as tax avoiders who are yet to stand trial. This isn't just a 'liberal view'. It's one based around moral and legal facts, facts that are emerging ever more clearly into the limelight as I speak. I foresee a day when they really do stand trial, if for no other reason than the fact that whoever puts them on the stand will themselves be lauded as a hero and the media that supported them will have their own fresh story. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter.

The main thing to remember is that they weren't just attacking Iraq. They were demonstrating an extreme contempt for the whole international order, including the democratic laws of their own countries. It is hard to say anything that hasn't yet been said. As a morality tale, it shows the bankruptcy of Machiavellian tactics, especially in a modern context in which information is freely available. The only hope they have is that they can demonstrate that they were sincerely pursuing 'good motives', so the judgment of history will be gentler than if it turns out to just be a search for personal profit.

Now for the most difficult question- one I have to admit I don't have a satisfactory answer for. What can we do about it all now? What would be a suitable way of finding 'closure', so that we can return to, or perhaps create in a purer way than ever before, a more honest and good government? Although many are baying for blood and crying 'war criminal' or 'traitor', I personally dislike the idea of punishments, which seem to me to be a crude way to deal with misdeeds- far better to teach by example and help others realise that lying is wrong than look for some dark satisfaction in vengeful suffering. Many say that they are responsible for immense suffering, yet I think it more the case that their miscalculations were responsible for said suffering. If it sounds like I am letting them off the hook, it's not the case. Their disregard for the law, their incompetence, is criminal. But I need to know that they really did have darker motives, darker than those publicly stated, before I can move down the path of wanting their punishment as such. We should be looking to establish ideals in government and remember important lessons learned. One is that international law is there to protect us all, if it slows the resolution of things down, than that is a necessary compromise and a path to goodness. Impatience itself demonstrates lack of compassion for those effected by it and is therefor a vice.

A civilised, nuanced approach is needed to these official investigations and thankfully, this seems to be the approach taken, even if it takes longer, it is so much more exhaustive. We should be wary of repeating the mistakes of the pair in seeking to resolve a problem faster than is possible to and thereby robbing ourselves of good results. Humiliating show trials (even if they were possible) could be a mistake, softer means need to be used to coax out the truth and hopefully- unlikely as it is- gain their repentance. I also am not sure if it is likely. Can the system really examine itself? I prefer a South African 'truth and reconciliation' approach, for being less divisive and serving the far more important goals of moving on.

If they had ruled as absolute dictators, it would be a different matter, we have to keep things in perspective if we are to make choices conductive to a better future. Justice needs to be tempered with compassion, for something good to come out of the whole, sordid affair. I am not alone in my view- it is being seen as one of the main weapons in the fight against Islamic militants, so why not use it with the neo-conservatives that paid and created them (a major problem of course is how to gauge when the repentance is genuine and when it is just 'buying time')? Maybe a compulsory spell in 'megalomaniacs anonymous', followed by international community service requiring them to go around lecturing on the importance of telling the truth and respecting human dignity. In a sense, they have already started to pay. Tony Blair lost his chance to be the President of the EU, which he would otherwise be a natural candidate for, and whilst he still gets paid millions to speak, George Bush Jr. more likely has to pay people to listen to him.

Now all these calls for moderation are what I think is best, but it has already been taking many years, with the whole world being forced to endure the most diabolical lies, just so this incompetent pair can mire us in ever-deepening quagmires of their own making. It is becoming hard for good, decent politicians such as Barak Obama to rule effectively, such is the confusion created as to right and wrong, left and right. The toxic mix of lies and military adventures have actually come close to wrecking our countries' economies, not just our reputations. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had their lives disrupted and even destroyed, all for 'freedom'? Really?

The only way to overcome this confusion of priorities is to put the culprits on trial- real, civilised trials, for jeopardising the greater good to their own agendas. Only then can we know for sure whether they really believed (falsely) that they were helping and then can repent for such costly, malpractice-like mistakes. Or, if as many suspect, pure greed for profit was the cause, the military-industrial complex up to it's old, dirty tricks, well then, if we can't get whichever dark actors are secretly responsible for the orders being followed, then at least we can criminalise those who go along with it and show that really, they would have been better off listening to the legal advice available to them in the first place. If such is the case, they can't claim now that they were never warned, nor can they escape censure for their attempts to 'shoot the messenger' for the news they brought.

Now for my temporary closure on this article, which turned out to be much longer than I envisioned and was not exactly easy to write. Let's remember that everything in this life is an opportunity for a learning experience. Whether it is politics, love, history, past-times, anything. Hence criticism, made in a spirit of love, is necessary, or else we can never move on. Mistakes can lead to evil- in fact they always lead to evil results, yet often their authors simply didn't foresee that, even if they should have. Intentional wrongdoing for personal gain, however, is closer to the definition of sin. Such actions are in their very nature unforgivable and the only way out of their karmic chains is repentance. The Iraq war and it's continuing counterpart, the invasion of Afghanistan, are certainly at the very least the former. In any case in which the latter is playing apart, it is absolutely imperative that we know, so that amends can be made, compensation paid, repentance started. Imperative, as we all live in a legal, faithful universe and however darkly buried, such thing simply must come to light if we are to be freed from the peril of their bad affects. Knowing, for sure, is the first step towards healing. It is my sincere wish that these inquiries do just that and unmask the truth, so we can be free from the confusion of half-truths and innuendos and, even worse, excuse-making, once and for all. We need to move on, we need closure. That will only be possible when all the facts are in the public eye, however embarrassing they may be to their actors. Living in Japan I can see the strain of a society essentially at war with itself about it's past, at least partly because it has yet to come clean about it. I want my own society to be spared the pain of this and I hope, as a democracy, we have the tools to do this and recover that most treasured virtue- clarity of mind.

May God have mercy on us all,

Amen.

Starfire

Symbols of Apocalypse?

The influence of numbers as symbols cannot be underestimated.

The Dow Jones suddenly fell 777 points, being a 7% drop, when the measure of $700 billion bailout was refused.

The Russian War in Georgia commenced on 8/8/08.

7 is generally seen as a lucky number. The appearance of it may well be a good sign, showing that democracy was still active even faced with terrible threats. Or of course, it may have all been engineered. Etith way, it is significant.

Also, the Russian war with Georgia could be with Gog- take away the 'ia' that denotes a country and you have Georg- basically an accented 'Gog'. There is even such a place named around there. How does one find this- through using the internet, via Google Earth- another 'Gog'- as this is no doubt the time and one of the mechanisms for unmasking these entities.

Any meaning? For sure, but the pattern is not complete. Writing here it seems more positive than before, when it was all a conspiracy for me- yet this could well be the forces that can limit and ultimately defeat the Illuminatti, or whoever. Despite being clever and enginneering a financial collapse so as to have a better reason to 'take over for the common good', they ultimately cannot win. God, as shown in us as the spirti of Humanity will never stand for it. Even many of their number may at any time defect- yet the story will not be complete until every detail has been unveiled.

God save us from craziness, keep our eyes open to see what is true, oh Lord!

J. R. Nyquist "The Danger is Not Fully Appreciated" 09/12/2008

Global Analysis - J. R. Nyquist "The Danger is Not Fully Appreciated" 09/12/2008

Firstly, I should say that featuring the above article is not intended as an acceptance of it. Rather, it is being held up here as a talking point, a juncture at which we may discusss possibilities more extreme than are usually entertained. In this case, it is the possibility that Russia is in fact preparing for a conflict with the USA, be it 'cold' or 'hot' and that the USA knows it- has known it for some time. What might Russia's motives be? Perhaps to re-establish their lost emminence as a power, perhaps revenge for their defeat in the former Cold War. Perhaps just to reassert the power they have. Either way, here we examine the possibility- in the intuitive and some might say rambling Starfire style- that Russia is indeed ready to go to conflict and is 'awaking' in a danger way.

Recently, some very strange and extreme events have emerged. Thinking along Apocalyptic lines, it would seem that there could well be forces aligned, using secretive short-selling tactics, designed to bring the US to their knees, financially speaking. Of course, it could all be an unlucky co-incidence and the appearance of 'untrammelled greed' on the part of groups of investors. But a more sinister possibility exists- that, along with the invasion of Georgia, a hard-line KGB is viewing the US government as a mortal enemy, despite all the processes that have happened since the end of the 'cold war'.

Venezuela has hosted Russian strategic bombers in recent days and has brazenly threatened war in response to the missile shield being erected in Poland. I followed the media and believed it was designed for 'Rouge States'. But in the thought of the Cold War, there were no 'rogue states', just ones aligned with the Soviet Union or the USA. Certainly, if mishandled, Russia may well seek to return to that strategy- in fact, as I speak, they have threatened to do so.

A cornered animal is all the more dangerous. With the expansion of NATO to their doorstep, Russia may well be feeling just that way. A media that harps on about neo-colonial conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as if they were vital battles on the scale of WW2 may have a lot of people fooled. Yet the wiser can see that this is, like so many other incidences, a symptom of the world power-play between the great powers for vital resources and to establish 'friendly governments' in areas where there are none.

Rival powers remain the real threat- a rogue state alone is no more than a psychotic trouble-maker. Direct battles between the titans of global politics still pose risks of much greater destruction. An increasingly authoritarian Russia is a threat from the past that haunts the present like never before.

Nature or HARRP?

Recently, there have been several attacks on the Chinese- aligned powers of China and Burma. One wonders where these have come from and what set them off. The persecution of monks and a lack of respect for divine values has driven a lot of people against their Communistic and Godless system. Yet, I do not believe in a punishing God. No good God would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, with all the suffering of their relatives, intentionally. No real God would do anything without a full intention.

Having said this, by denying God and closing their ears to the great spiritual leaders of the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, it is hard to sympathise with the wretchedly evil Chinese political system- with the government, if not the innocent people. If something was to weaken those governments and bring democracy closer, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Yet the suffering of the innocent is something no good God would cause.

For some, it seems that evidence points towards this being a use of the HARRP project, which they say involves beaming intense electromagnetic energy into the atmosphere to affect weather systems. In short, cyclones and earthquakes being used as weapons in an attempt to extend control over weakened opponents. As the new world order extends itself, it takes out other, smaller, despotic governments along the way. Yet there is always a bigger fish, and the Illuminati shall sooner or later meet their match.

I for one am not sure what is really going on, I have yet to be fully convinced even that the Illuminati exist. Yet it does seem that in such a scheme, evil forces would ultimately cancel one another out, the way the Nazis and Soviets fought so viciously in the past- with millions of innocents being caught in the crossfire. The main reason not to believe this is happening is the scarcity of evidence- just because it 'explains' everything, that doesn't mean it's true- though the lack of evidence avaliable also doesn't 'prove' it's not taking place this way.

Cling to God, the Eternal family and find your safety there. This unstable world offers no true sanctuary as does His Kingdom, which offers, "A peace this world cannot give". Whether this will save you from natural disasters or wars, or just assure a peaceful afterlife if you fall victim to them, we have to trust in the Eternal and not be fools, placing faith in the untrustworthy things of this world. Righteousness streams forth from the Godly, they are not led astray by the glimmer of false gold or the allure of unjust power. Their testament shall endure forever, in the Askasic records of our universe, being written in the Book of Life itself.

Pray for the innocent victims of these terrible disasters and let their communities find peace, comfort, freedom and true faith. Whatever brought them on- be it national sin, global warming, overpopulation, HARRP, or just the movement of tectonic plates, those individuals suffering were just living a normal life with those they love. We need to remember tham and keep our humanity intact.

All are God's beloved children.
Amen.

Democratic Statements

I

Starfire applauds the majority decisions of the USA, to eject the Republican dellusionists from their posts as fully as is currently possible and to say 'enough is enough' to their imperialist pretensions. This action shows not just the ability of the US citizens to see through media smokescreens designed to protect their rulers from criticism, but also the wisdom of this great nation's founding fathers; enshrining a balance of power, to prevent too much from accumulating in one branch of government to the detriment of the nation as a whole. I can only hope that things do indeed get better, if not in Iraq then at least in terms of the West's relationship with that part of the world. Soldiers dying to make the world a better place is hard to accept, but at least makes sense; soldiers dying in a situation which they simply can't improve makes no sense whatever. Let the tide of bloodletting be stopped. Let sense prevail.

Yet, also, forget not the powerful forces in the maelstrom of this crisis- those in the oil and arms industries, who no matter what dream of increasing their profits. Talk of conspiracies and secretive religious groups cannot be simply put aside whilst evidence of their manipulations continues to mount. Somewhere between paranoia and naivety lies the truth, something which we will have to fight just as hard for as in any previous struggle that we have faced, against those who seek to hide it from the public eye.

We who witnessed the spread of the poison of tyranny into America's veins throughout the
Clinton era, with it's seeping dictatorial tendencies, cannot just sit back and accept a mere appeasement of populist desires on one particular issue. A deep and total resurgence of democracy and respect for human rights is needed- the possibility of an overt coup de ta still exists and our main defense against this is by continuing to unearth the truth. We must keep any such scandalous notions as dictatorship remain just that- unthinkably wrong and something that, no matter the manipulation, something the US citizens would not countenance, remaining instead loyal to the constitution. Rumours of vast, secret prison-camps and the fanatical implementation of Patriot Act or similarly unconstitutional legislation are currently just that, but in the current environment we would be foolish to in any way relax our vigilance.

II

The constitution is very clear in it's banning of cruel and unusual (sadistic) punishments for all and any crime. It would seem that the media and right-wing forces are trying to amend this restriction of their own accord, but they must be reminded of the binding nature of constitutional law and that any breach of it is merit-less vigilante-ism. Liberalism and a strong line against any threats to Liberalism will persevere and save the US from the horrendous fates of it's southern neighbours.

However, Starfire has detected certain strands in the media trying to make torture an acceptable practice in the 'war on terror', a 'war' which may well be forged by secretive groups in the midst of the US itself, creating a phantom menace so as to have an excuse for an 'endless war'; one unwinnable, yet self-justifying. As such, it does very much seem that the following of the constitution is in real peril and that more severe breaches may follow- something the general public is currently being 'softened up' for by so-called conservatives, who are anything but guardians of the established constitutional and legitimate order, demonising it's democratic defenders. So, at the same time as seeking to preserve this order by exposing it's enemies in places high and low, we must lay the seeds of a movement to return to it should it, in fact, for a time, fall.

"Prepare for war, and you will have peace." "Freedom is not free." Such statements apply just as much to domestic freedoms and the legal battles to protect them, as to external conflicts. The intelligentsia of America will have to remember their duties to protect freedoms won from former imperialists in the surge of revolution, yet also to be guided by contemporary figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King- such battles should be entirely peaceful and principled affairs, appealing to the better instincts of our opponents and aiming to rescue them just as much from their delusions as we from their wrong-headed oppression.

Note 18/11/2006: The fact that Bush has contradicted those opposing the Iraq war by suggesting sending an additional 20,000 soldiers can only indicate his lack of respect for the poll's findings. Whether as Commander in Chief this is the responsible thing to do, lest the insurgents detect a lessening of resolve, is another matter, a line of reasoning that can't be used forever- he is clearly on the road of putting military fantasies ahead of democratic reasoning. Only time will tell if the democracy can resolve this.

Remembering 9/11

Today, being the anniversary of the events of 9/11, we all should pause to consider what has been going on ever since those moments. We saw on TV the victims of what can only be described as a crime against humanity and also how the usual police investigations were buried under the rush to war. Many questions remain unanswered to this day- why did NORAD stand down? Why were FBI investigators hot on the trail of the perpetrators turned away and even warned not to proceed in a 'matter that didn't concern them'? One feels that justice for the victims is something yet to come.

In the aftermath of this depressing shock, this intrusion into the very depths of our civil society and the securities that Pax Americana had hitherto ensured, we were further startled by the campaign of 'Shock and Awe' unleashed upon certain countries, with an as-yet unfulfilled promise to turn them into stable democracies. Horrendous suffering has ensued, especially for the inhabitants but also for the young soldiers being sent there, and it shows no sign of abating.

Many questions remain to be answered and the end result of many strategies remains to be seen. Yet we will have lost a very essential thing if any of this makes us value less the lives of the innocent, if we forswear compassion and faith in the benefits of the civil society and the securities it brings. If we lose this, if we allow ourselves to plumb to long-forgotten depths, then indeed the terrorists will have won. However harsh the realities of war may be, compassion is a greater truth. A truth worth clinging to in an often disorientatingly shocking world.

Where is Democracy?

It would be easy to see the current crisis in the middle East as a break-out of war between democracy and fundamentalist Islamic forces. But, it would also be wrong to see it this way. It needs to be remembered that the current leaders of America and Israel were never authentically elected. In the case of Bush, his first election was a fraudulent one, in which democratic votes from black people were systematically destroyed. Also, there is a certain amount of evidence from his verbal mistakes and lengthly public absences that we are dealing with an alcoholic (the excuse that he is merely stupid is pretty unrealistic- no-one merely stupid could survive as long in politics as he has). His second election was secured only by the events of 9/11, which fellow right-wingers could well have been responsible for allowing to happen, if not even helping to happen- which is another manipulation of the democratic process.

Meanwhile, in Israel, we had the situation in which Ariel Sharon had the unpopular idea of unilateral disengagement from The Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon. Unpopular in Israel with his own elected party and their allies who were not prepared to leave such areas at that point, and unpopular with the world, which was urging the negotiations. So he formed a new political party to support these ideas and overcome his coalition's objections and simply forced the policy.

Now whilst it was good to withdraw from unnecessary entanglements for Israel, anything that gives the impression of retreat rather than of moral choice could well strengthen the fanatical enemies that lurk in the area, and we can see this in the assention of Hamas and Hezbollah to actually winning certain elections, if only as a protest vote. They didn't win just because of their militancy, but because of their impression of being freer from corruption than the alternatives to them, such as the Palestinian authority and their involvement in social programs in deprived neighbourhoods. Whilst this may have been more to do with encouraging support than a sincere regard for human well-being, it has built up their popularity in neglected areas, with people who were left with the feeling that no-one else really cared about them. This desperation makes such populations ripe for exploitation of the very worst kind, they need people who sincerely want to help them, not to use them as 'human shields'. Still, as terrorist groups, their election is widely regarded as illegitimate- election or no election, they in no way represent democracy itself, with it's implicit assertion of the rights of minorities and the duty to coexist with those who differ from ourselves.

From stress or simply age, Sharon quite recently succumbed to a coma, leaving in charge the inexperienced and unelected Olmert- an acting Prime Minister, though an unelected one. Like George Bush junior, he looks up to an older, more experienced and more respected leader. This leaves him to want to shore up his position and authority not only with those inside the country, but also in the eyes of external adversaries who are always on the lookout for weakness. He also seeks to use military power as a means to resolve a situation that requires long-term diplomatic commitments that can appear fruitless at first glance. Many have commented that it was unnecessary to use full-blown military power in Iraq at specifically the time of the invasion there- and have been more or less vindicated by the endless guerrilla entanglements that have followed it. Similarly, whilst it was certainly a great temptation to try to use the high-tech army to respond to the provocation when Hezboullah attacked and kidnapped soldiers from an Israeli patrol, we need to remember the need to be carful on this point and remember the nature of 'asymetrical warfare' that uses low-tech weapons and treats local populations as if they were the notorious 'human shields' by hiding amongst them.

The historical resistance of guerrilla fighters to even far more technologically proficient armies means that they should only be encountered when victory is virtually assured and there is wide support for such a risky and costly venture. Guerillas can marshall support even in the face of very wide-spread attacks and have ways to make themselves look like the victim- only by making it clearly morally reprehensible to support them can their lines of support- those of the local population, whoever their real backers may be- be effectively broken. If they are to be defeated, they can never seem to have the moral high-ground. Of course, they can also be politically eroded from within, as should have happened in Lebanon long before, as the central government took over and rebuilt the country.

Basically we have a situation in which two leaders whose democratic credentials are very much in doubt turning to military force as a way of imposing security and democratic norms on an admittedly lawless region. They claim to have liberal aspirations, but are using techniques that would make even the right-wing blush and especially in Bush's case have caused terrible damage to the lives of civilians and the stability of society in the affected region. It seems to be to be a very unfortunate, even tragic misuse of force (especially in the case of Iraq), which leaves me wondering why it should happen, although there may be some reasons known to intelligence sources that make it all neccessary, as part of a grand strategy, but it seems like an inflamation of the disease more than a cure. This doesn' seem to be a case of Western democracy fighting radical Islam, however reprehensible extremist Islam is. It is something else.... I'm not sure what, exactly, but something else...

Which leaves me apprehensive that more rough beasts await to be born..

Lest We Forget

September 11th and July 7th

In these times, we should all remember just how important ‘Truth’ is. Lies can kill, whereas truth can save life. We should remember this in the context of governments as well as individuals. Governments in the past have been known to lie- in the case of Totalitarian dictatorships this has been the norm. In the case of democracies, perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule- but it has been known to happen- for instance in the case of Richard Nixon.

In our present situation in the ‘War on Terror’ there can be little doubt that the stated enemy is indeed quite capable of evil. It is indeed an ideology that leads to the grossest abuse of human rights and also lacks the respect for the sanctity of life which we hold so dear. Much like ‘Bolshevism’ before it, it is an ultimately irrational and dishonest doctrine which leads to evils too numerous to elucidate here. Yet, just as Fascism rose, ostensibly to combat Bolshevism, in its day, we should beware of something similar arising in the midst of our societies- perhaps a more refined one, relying less on Nationalist aspirations- but a threat to that which we hold dear none the less.

We should, therefore, cling to Truth, that which can keep us in a state of inner peace. Guns don’t kill and imprison innocent people- it is lies that do that. We should look at the available evidence before reaching conclusions. I mention this more specifically in the context of large-scale atrocities carried out against our own people, which are creating a climate of ever-greater fear and in some instances of outright panic. We should look closely and critically at the evidence of how they happened and who was responsible. This is not so much to point fingers- this is not about accusing people, much less social groups. This is so as to have the necessary skepticism towards any false claims that may be forwarded. ‘Justice at any price’ should not be our motto- protecting the innocent should. After all this may, one day, include us, or someone we know.

Take for instance the case of the atrocities committed on September 11th. On this day we have been lead to understand that high jacked airliners being crashed into buildings actually destroyed the World Trade Center Towers and part of the Pentagon. Yet other evidence has come to light which brings an element of doubt to this proposal- a proposal widely accepted as fact. For instance, the air-defense squadron responsible for security in the area was strangely inactive at the time. This is because they were involved in a training exercise at a nearby base. This exercise was nothing other than a mock-up of exactly what happened that day. Any off-course planes that they may have seen on their radar would have probably havebeen ignored, and treated as part of the exercise. Also, eye-witness reports from firemen at the time, available on the internet, describe seeing explosives going off within the lower levels of the towers themselves, something which close-ups of the external views also show, with shoots of flame bursting out from the doomed buildings. Experts surveying the damage afterwards also reported what they could only describe as the effects of high-explosives from within the building. Such evidence, much like the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, will not easily go away. They cast doubt on the official explanation for the days’ events, however preferable it may be to accept official explanations as a matter of course and thereby avoid difficult and uncomfortable questions. Yet if the official explanation is a premeditated forgery, where does that leave us? These are issues that we cannot easily ignore, lest we be lead to accept further lies, as well.

A much more recent event is that of the tragedy in London on 7/7, which due to it’s recency is probably fresh in our minds. Much like in the case of September 11, the images we saw of this through the portal of the media are truly shocking and horrible. The response to the events by those in the area was equally brave, inspiring and, showed an incredible amount of self- control. Yet, nevertheless, it is important that we keep our minds clear and find out what really happened on that day- and the sooner the better. Facts inconsistent with the official position have already come to light. I hope it does not seem disrespectful to the suffering participants in this atrocity and also to the truly heroic emergency workers, to be asking such questions at such a time. On the contrary, I believe it honours their memory to do so. Let us remember that we are first and foremost called upon to protect innocent lives and also, may I add, the reputations of the innocent. The importance of this outweighs the importance of finding quick, emotionally-satiating ‘answers’. Also, it is essential to our long-term security that we can be safe from whoever really did carry out such attacks.

Here are some of the unsettling contradictions and inconsistencies so far found-

Peter Power, working for the consultancy group Visor Consultants, was doing a drill of the exact same sequence of events- bombs exploding simultaneously on three underground trains at those specific stations- at the time when it happened. This reminds us of the ‘out of action’ air defense squadron in New York, so caught up in a simulation of the events unfolding nearby that they would have been unable to interfere had they noticed it.

In the Evening Standard, passengers report being turned away from ‘tube’ trains in the early hours of the morning. If the authorities knew nothing about what was to happen, why would this have been the case?

There were false bomb alerts in other major cities in Britain before the attacks. This indicates perhaps that something was known, though maybe the information was not exact enough to pinpoint it taking place in London. So far we have been told of no such advance knowledge of the events.

The Israeli ambassador was warned of the first bomb going off near the hotel in which he was to attend an economic conference. Yet while he was being warned, the explosions were being officially blamed on a ‘power surge’. Which version of events did the authorities really believe? Why have Israeli officials been asked to stay quiet about the entire set of incidents- was there a warning given from them to the British government that was too vague to be effectively acted upon? Was it unclear which city the attacks would take place, which the bomb scares in other major cities would point to? Or, more chillingly, was it seen as somehow better for the government to let them take place anyway, for monstrous geo-political reasons?
The later has often been suggested in the case of the September 11th Attacks- that the government did nothing at the time, but then used the incidents as ‘political capital’ to carry through with prearranged plans. In the case of London, the alert level had been lowered a month earlier- this in spite of the G8 conference being held at the time and any possible advance warnings- however unclear- from intelligence agencies, that something was about to happen.

The story about who was responsible changed very quickly. This could be in response to new evidence gradually coming to light, discounting earlier theories. At first they were said to be backpacks filled with explosives, detonated remotely. The detonations were said to be ‘seconds apart’, an indication of military-level precision. Then, only a day or two later it was said that all were suicide bombers from suburbia. This would mean that there are no direct culprits who could be interviewed. Perhaps, on the other hand, the negative publicity making it’s way to the government for it’s participation in the Iraq War and also for letting foreign extremists settle in ‘Londonstan’ made blaming foreign Al-Qaeda terrorists too politically damaging to contemplate for very long. In other words, the official story may have been changed to avoid government embarrassment.

Is it not possible that in reality the accused were not really responsible? One was an apolitical chap who liked cricket, another had a Hindu wife- not the usual model of ‘extremists’. Unless, as we are asked to believe, they had an immensely different double-life, is it not more possible that they were either victims of the bombings or in some other fashion ‘set up’? Such has happened before and been admitted to later- for example the case of the Guilford Four. The authorities must have been under immense pressure to end the period of uncertainty and be seen to be ‘doing their job’. Yet no such retrial is possible in the case of ‘suicide bombers’. That there are dangerous Islamic radicals who have been born in Britain there is little question. That would mean that it would be possible for such a thing to happen as ‘bombers to come from suburbia’. The fact that something is possible does not, however, make it likely, and as in any criminal case, proper evidence is needed before guilt can be established. So far, none has been released and we are left with ‘reports’ of CCTV records in the train stations. On the bus itself, all the CCTV cameras were mysteriously not working.


So here we reach the end of this study- for now. With all said above in mind, let one thing be clear-

Our duty is to protect the innocent- innocent lives as well as innocent reputations. Only by taking the trouble to examine the truth, clearly and free from bias, will this be possible. This is no time for intellectual laziness. It is a time for intellectual rigueur and for honesty. Only then can we do our best, in an uncertain world, to make it as safe as we possibly can. For the present, this is as much as we can do.

And also let us remember that by bitter coincidence, just as the suspects were being accused, 120 people died when three trains collided in a station in Pakistan. The event received a mere note in the press and little commentary. Yet the passengers suffering was every bit as real as that experienced in London.

International Law and International Lawlessness (Emailed on November 14th 2004)

I really appreciate your reply. I don't get the BBC television here though I do visit their web-page daily and see a lot critical of the war and the Bush administration and the humanitarian crisis there. I'm pretty sure the Japanese media is also critical (thought they outsource for journalists often). CNN on the whole wasn't and also isn't and I see this as a problem, as they can probably get tax-breaks or something from the Bush administration, as do Murdock's enterprises. I am aware that there is a lot of freedom of expression. From what you say, there is a lot more attention paid to individuals’ views than I realised. But I wonder if articulate intellectuals (Iraqi or Western) are given sufficient airtime. The reason I say this is that articulate criticisms resonate far more deeply and may contain more analysis. This analysis is the key, as it unveils underlying causes and perhaps intentions, in a way that an individual's views, however poignant, may not. It can present an alternative source of authority and understanding.

As for the BBC, it is their partisan emotionality that bothers me. From what I have seen of them, I get the sense that they are towing a 'pro-Arab' line rather than being impartial, and they do not seem to favour progressive elements in those regions. So, in a sense, they seem to prop up a dichotomy of the status-quo and those resisting it by force, which the BBC seems to have great affection for. This leaves progressive, rational elements without much support (trusting that they exist, though are drowned out by the radical elements). In my time of watching the BBC in the past I saw very little of interviews with Arabs and Jews who wanted to live in peace, which I expect isn't as 'sexy' or 'shocking' for viewers as outrages are. They actually give the impression of seeing terrorists who attack civilians as legitimate and seem to have little time for peacemakers.


I blame historical politics and policies for the situation, not religions or fiery temperaments, and believe that the failure to correct them has resulted in the present 'post-colonial' or even 'late-colonial' chaos. Many well-meaning Israelis I met blame the post-colonial borders for the trouble in the Middle-East. By pointing out humanitarian problems without delving into the source of them, the liberal media may win praise and viewers, but it won't help to help solve problems, in fact it may just numb viewers with horror. Such images certainly emanate a sense of hopelessness and despair. There are indeed no easy answers, though I believe stable and reasonable national borders are the real answer. Without this, civil wars may be unavoidable. Why are thousands willing to die in civil wars? Because they believe that their families or tribes will benefit in the long run. Why do they feel the need? Because it is preferable to being oppressed by another ethnic group, with a seemingly infinite antagonism towards them. The only answer to this, as far as I can see, is a federal system that grants the right of territory, yet also balances this with a co-operative system with other tribes or 'nations'. A rational solution that calms emotions by providing what they truly seek.

It seems quite clear to me that the media has failed us thus far to effectively challenge the 'right' of whoever is strongest to impose a 'winner-takes-all' answer to problems. By implicitly supporting groups like Hamas and calling them merely 'militants' they fail to recognise Israel's right to exist. By focusing on the 'Right' in Israel, they weaken those there who want to find a negotiated solution. By quoting Bush and Blair without presenting experts in international law in the same presentation they confer legitimacy on what would be considered the actions of 'Rogue States' were they 'foreigners'. They fail in that they don’t present viable alternatives.


International law, rather than seeming expediency, is the only benchmark for international relations. It is to everyone's detriment that this has been ignored by Britain and America, who pride themselves on being its chief enforcers. How could this have happened in such a spectacular and terrible way? Well, my analysis is as follows-

Realising they were incapable of otherwise gaining office, and unable to get enough of the mainstream media to support their more 'progressive' policies, the Labour and Democratic parties came to support the interests of big-business elites, at the expense of their traditional liberal values. These values were perhaps never real vote-winners as their immediate benefits are hard to see. Having done this, they watered down the available channel of opposition to big-business interests, which allowed the latter to consolidate, until we have the 'fat cats' and conglomerates of today. The gap between rich and poor widened and so did the sense of accountability held by the rich. So when a decision was made to blatantly breach international law, in the case of the Iraq invasion, there was no longer the traditional opposition to stop them. I don't count the general public or public opinion as opposition- I count a counterbalance in government, i.e. with power to effectively vote. Back-benchers could vote, but only as 'rebels' and thus even less effectively than when they could create a larger block vote with the rest of the opposition- much of it now pressed into a pragmatic silence to support their leader. It is a kind of Faustian Pact, in which the natural opposition supports what would be unthinkable for them otherwise, so as to have a taste of power. This breakdown actually didn't start with the Iraq war- it started with the war in Kosovo. This proceeded without security-council authorisation, yet with massive co-operation from the media, who seemed to believe that it was being done for 'liberal' reasons rather than to expand the reach of NATO. From my understanding, it's main result has been a kind of 'ethnic-cleansing' of Serb Christians from the region, for whom it is now unsafe.

It may seem legalistic, but for me the legal angle is the key- all governments by their nature seek national interest and their own survival. They can say whatever they like, but as leaders are great actors, we cannot know whether their intentions are hypocritical or not. We may not even be able to analyse their chosen courses of action easily on their own merits. Thus, we need an authentic and trustworthy benchmark- international law, agreed upon by the nations. With little internal opposition (in a position of power, which for me includes the 'opposition party' that parliament depends upon) and a lack of respect for international checks and balances, this was an accident waiting to happen.

If the BBC et all quoted lawyers and intellectuals more, then they would be more convincing and able to propose intelligent alternatives to senseless belligerence. Their seeming legal ignorance and accepting of operations so long as they 'seem to be going okay' makes their protestations when things go wrong rather futile. Supposing things were going wrong and everything was legal and necessary, however unlikely this may be, seeing as the law is our protection as well as our deterrent. What would they say then? I see sensationalism in the media, not reasonable, calm analysis. I see an obsession with results to the exclusion of causes, with the belittling of those intelligent voices who actually could guide us rightly.

Opposition is a check and a balance. We are now seeing, I believe, what happens when it is sufficiently emasculated and driven underground. Hopefully people will learn more respect for it now- it may not have the power to make decisions, nut it is a necessary element to challenge and deter wrong ones. In terms of Britain, I would hope that the Conservatives fail to recover and the Liberal-Democrats become an effective and respected opposition, as what they have to say may seem a little less naive and foolish now. In terms of the US, there are great swaths of 'Blue states' who voted against Bush, and perhaps at least in those regions opposing views will find a home and a voice- again, this time a respected voice rather than a mocked one.



As for the issue of troops suddenly leaving, well I can see that this could produce chaos, yet the present time seems to be one of chaos too- some would say it verges on genocide. You do have a good point about the French and Portuguese colonies, (though of course people there had less to lose there in the sense that they don't have oil supplies to sell), and this almost makes me support the 'Coalition's' presence. Yet, the early refusal to hand control over to a responsible body such as the UN is really to blame here, not the ethnic divisions themselves, which need to be governed and their energy channeled in every existing state. Images of tanks defending oil-installations whilst looting and pillaging went on around them spoke volumes.

People cannot simply organise themselves, they need government to do so, whatever region of the world we are dealing with. Even now, my prescription would be to somehow hand control over to the UN and let them organise a new government on a Federal basis, working with educated Iraqis to do so, as is happening in Afghanistan and happened in South Africa and many other places. People have similar needs everywhere and they can be understood and accommodated by trained professionals. The present plan, though, seems to be to maintain a puppet police-state. We will have to see if there really are elections in the future. Whilst I am sure a lot of Iraqis would like to see a real democracy, this would need a lot of nurturing, and I can't see anyone other than the 'good' UN having the time, patience, neutrality, or resources for that. I am aware of course that corrupt elements exist in the UN, but then again so also does a unique source of 'nation-building' resources and professionals. If the foreign troops are seen as a necessary evil, then surely more so the UN, who are actually competent at nation-building processes and respected by most people in the world today?

The only answer I can see to preventing this from happening again is a body powerful enough to be a fair and reasonable, yet powerful, 'world policeman' that can arbitrate and deter. An evolution of the role the US has taken upon itself, though with her recent swing to the right is less able to perform in a humanitarian manner. If the UN is now especially corrupt (i.e. the scandal of the oil-for food stamps) and controlled by dictators then we'll need a new institution, but letting superpowers run rampant is a terrible atavism. One that, I would think, the world will not accept.

Nuclear War? (Emailed in Autumn 2004)

I like the way you put that. It also seems to be true.

I think it is very significant that the lands where humanity is said to have originated are engulfed by both conflict and promise. Things can truly go either way.

It is a beautiful story, in the sense that things may end where they begun... or of course blossom anew with emerging technologies.

I am suspecting that Iran may play a decisive role, and how that country is handled. After the Iraq debacle nations are loath to join a coalition against any particular state. Yet Iran seems to be developing nuclear weapons, which they could well discretely pass onto terrorists for them to use. Iran is a most isolated country- a Shiite nation of Persian stock surrounded by Sunni Arabs. Their natural friend may well be the West in such a case, yet they are overflowing with anti-Western vitriol, and viewed with deep suspicion. To complicate matters, there are also the beginnings of democracy there, along with an articulate president, though probably not an honest or straightforward one.

It is a very delicate situation.

I am assuming they are involved with elements of the resistance and kidnappers in Iraq. This would mean that they have moved from seeking sympathy, to making threats and blackmails. Could this grow into a nuclear blackmail? 'Do what we want or we set off the bomb'- another movie plot in our real world? Factor in also the continued development of missiles, and unprecedentedly large underground complexes, and we can see just what is possible.

I am left wondering at the inherent cruelty, in the kindness of granting us nuclear technology. On the one hand, it may be the only thing that could give us energy whilst staving off the effects of burning fossil fuels. Also, it can make conventional war redundant, and provides the ultimate deterrent. Yet should common sense and a sense of decency fail, it will surely be our undoing and time to start again.

One 'positive' note regarding this- the areas around Chernobyl are apparently as abundant with life as any nature reserve, with no more mutation than normal. Animals and plants seem to live with levels of radiation far higher than humans can bear- which came as a surprise to many scientists. There will probably be no 'nuclear wasteland'- just impassable zones, in which nature is in fact recuperating from humanity's previous expansion. The one species with no natural enemy- other than themselves. Should they require an enemy!

We cannot speak of nuclear war. We can only speak of nuclear destruction.

On a lighter note, I managed to take part in an interview with a very intelligent and ancient space-being, telepathically, a couple of nights ago. I mostly remember a scene in which sunlight was streaming through an open window onto me, and the message was that the real meaning of life is to be found in the beauty of the everyday. Everyday life is full of much more than we might see if we don't bother to look- and photography is a way of finding this. It came at a good time- the night before I took photos at AJ's wedding party, which I went to with him and T. I may follow this wisdom and see more in each day at a time- and I think being in a High School is a good place for this.

Patterns of Armageddon? (Emailed in Autumn 2004)

As for the Iran stuff, if you are not too skeptical you could read The Bible Code Book 2, which talks about something like this from passages encoded in the Bible's text. It certainly sounds like the threat of our times. Also the EU seems to be growing quickly and whilst their army is now very small, all they need to do is go out shopping for the latest equipment and 'bingo' they have a conquering force with the ability to give orders to people. All they need then is a President and there you have it- they'll want an empire to rule.

I see what you mean about a 'breaking point'. Everything we've seen so far is relatively moderate compared to what could be. A catalyst could ironically be a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Considering this a betrayal, Hamas assassinates Yasser Arafat, just as Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli radical. The situation breaks down and under the doctrine of 'extreme force to make peace', Israel opts for the costly option of retaking the entire West Bank. The carnage rises and finally a little-known terrorist group threatens the ultimate blackmail if Israel won't withdraw- with a nuclear weapon made in Iran. What they may have forgotten is a decision that Israel made long ago- that if they're going down they'll be taking the Arab nations and Iran along with them. Goodbye world.

I would see Iran as the place with the most extreme, end-of-world-hoping radicals. It really is something like a medieval society from what I have seen- and this seems to be forced on many of the inhabitants. Europe seems to be very comfortable with their current self-righteous and largely uninvolved position. This will be fine if everything turns out okay, but if it doesn’t then I imagine they will switch and decide to get involved- like you said, probably pressuring Israel. This pressure could lead to an illusionary 'peace agreement' that really ends up making the conflict worse. Israel trades a lot with the EU so if sanctions were threatened, that is all a believable path.

But as I always like to say- there is probably a sincere, diplomatic solution, too. Yet the 'Armageddon' option makes a lot of sense as a possibility. I wonder what could possibly intervene to stop it? Also, I like your garden of Eden analogy. It is kind of knowledge of Good and Evil- which we seem to have evolved to the state of needing, but in other ways we may be too young and unstable a species to handle it safely ourselves.

Whatever else we can say, interesting times are ahead. I agree with Christian fundamentalists that these are the 'end times'- but I probably see them a bit differently.