Someone pulled a Timothy McVeigh on the Islamabad Marriott.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
the most dangerous country in the world — exploding sooner than expected. This is the ticking bomb. Nukes. We’ll be going in to secure the nukes.
In play:
was this blast intended for Ali Zardari because he’s seen to be the new US puppet?
the Green Light ..the US has taken the war to Pakistan but we’re already there –
“the most dangerous country in the world“
Rubbish. The most dangerous country in the world is the United States of America – its supremacy in that honour is unchallengeable.
if we live long enough…..we’ll see.
I’ll repeat. Pakistan IS Taleban country.
The so called ‘elected’ governors are not in charge.
Pakistan is a failed state with nukes.
And what do you call the United States? A failed state with orders of magnitude more nukes than Pakistan, and enormously more resources for wreaking havoc in the world.
Your statement that Pakistan IS Taliban country is, I repeat, hyperbolic and hysterical.
And what do you propose doing about it even if it were not hyperbole to say Pakistan IS Taliban country? Bomb? Invade? “Regime change”? Add it to the empire – after all, Pakistan does have quite a bit of natural gas.*
* How many Americans know that nearly all motor vehicles in Pakistan run on natural gas, not liquid gasoline?
I’m not advocating bombing Pakistan. I’ve cautioned on the danger of wading into the AF/Pak – that’ll be the mother of all quagmires.
But for you to posit that US is a failed state with nukes is, really as you write, hysterical.
The US dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. OIL is PRICED in dollars. The US can still print dollars as much as it needs until hyper-inflation puts an end to things.
Here is what’s going on from different sources. You ain’t the only one with “connections” or who have visited Pakistan.
BTW, your comment ” nearly all motor vehicles run on natural gas Hope for no unintended interruptions of oil…it’s still a fossil fuel.
Wake UP. AF/PAK is the world’s most dangerous country. AF/Pak is ONE country, – an imaginary line between the two; drawn by the Brits in 1893. It won’t be a winner for anyone taking on this challenge under the guise of the WoT:
Not reported in US media:
idredit, the United States has been called a failed state by far better and more informed minds than I, but if you prefer we can call it a failed state in the making.
And idredit, you can dig up all you want from simple-minded MSM sources, or from your favourite right wing Zionist anti-Muslim fear mongering sources, but I, for one, will not be convinced by those sources that “Pakistan IS Taliban country”.
Let’s look together at real experts who are more interested in understanding and providing information that provides a full, realistic, nuanced picture than in spreading around propaganda of the Chicken Little variety. Let’s listen to people who bother to look beyond the talking points they are given in daily press briefings, and develop a full multi-dimensional picture instead of the black and white one-dimensional one we are constantly being fed by self-serving, know-nothing politicians and the lazy, ignorant media.
As for the United States being the most dangerous country in the world, that is such an obvious fact based on the abundance of real factual evidence right in front of all of our eyes as to be indisputable. One only has to look at the amount and magnitude of death, destruction, and havoc wreaked directly by the United States to see it, and if one looks beneath the surface and untangles the web of havoc that has occurred as a result of American depredations, it becomes clear as crystal which country is the most dangerous.
Do I have to spell it out? What one country was responsible in 1950’s for cutting off the head of Iran’s movement toward secular democracy and creating the conditions that led to the Islamic Revolution of the ’70’s? What series of actions by what one country has made the Taliban stronger and stronger, and allowed them to spread their influence geographically, and what one country is continuing to aid and abet the growth and progress of the Taliban every single day by its actions in both Afghanistan and now Pakistan? What one country has put its fingers into Pakistan for decades and helped turn it from a country moving toward a modern and socially progressive country to a country driven more and more by a combination of corrupt dictatorship (supported whole heartedly by the United States), and an increasingly backward religious ideology? Where did bin Laden and Al Qa`eda arise from in the first place? And what one country has done the most to turn the Middle East and the Muslim world more and more against the west in general and the United States in particular, and toward a model governed by an increasingly medieval religious model?
Volumes and volumes could be spoken and written showing just how dangerous the United States is, from being the only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons, to helping to create bin Laden and his ilk, to taking the Taliban from an obscure group of religious wackos whose influence was limited, and transmogrifying it into an increasingly influential movement, from turning Iraq from a secular state with a pluralistic, progressive society into one of the most backward theocracies-in-the-making, from setting in motion circumstances that have radically altered the society and politics of Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and numerous other countries.
So don’t talk to me about Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world. And admit that to the extent that Pakistan IS dangerous, the United States bears the greatest share of responsibility as a result of its incessant meddling where it has no business or right to meddle, and where it has never had a clue or a thought about what it was meddling in or what the consequences might be.
Oh, and by the way, I KNOW natural gas is a fossil fuel. That was not my point.
I can accept much of your critique of American policy (although I would be careful to explain the reasoning of the policy even where I strongly disagreed with it).
But the fact that the U.S. has a lot of culpability for the way Pakistan is today doesn’t change the fact that Pakistan created the Taliban by schooling them in Saudi-funded madrassas. Nor does it change the fact that they let the Taliban roam unmolested in Quetta to this day. Nor does it change the fact that the ISI has used the Taliban and Arab and Central Asian volunteers to wage war and terrorism on the people of Kashmir and India and Afghanistan.
To top it all off, the ISI has been working very hard among the Pashtuns to undermine effective government in the south of Afghanistan. Our enemy in Afghanistan has been the ISI more than any native resistance.
And Pakistan is without any question the most unstable nuclear power in the world. That alone makes them the most dangerous.
Fortunately, the people of Pakistan just voted in a very pro-American government. For the first time in a long time, there is some natural confluence of interests between the Pakistani people and the American people. And, that, I hope, will lead over time to better relations and less violence.
“Fortunately, the people of Pakistan just voted in a very pro-American government.“
Fortunately? No, not fortunately at all. UNfortunately, that government is, like virtually every “pro-American” government in the third world, about as corrupt and self-serving as it is possible to be. In fact, Zardari makes Musharraf look like an angel. Whether or not this government will be “good for America” it will not be good for Pakistan.
“For the first time in a long time, there is some natural confluence of interests between the Pakistani people and the American people.“
Don’t count on it, and don’t make the mistake of confusing the Pakistani and American people with their governments – I know you are much too sophisticated for that.
The one thing you can be sure of is that the majority of the Pakistani people do not see any confluence whatsoever between their interests and those of any American government. The American people are quite another matter, and Pakistani people tend to understand far better than most Americans seem to that there is a huge difference between the interests of the American people and the agenda followed by their government(s), particularly when it comes to the Middle East and South Asia.
“And, that, I hope, will lead over time to better relations and less violence.“
If there are better relations and less violence over time it will not be because the Pakistanis supposedly elected a “pro-American government”.
“(I would be careful to explain the reasoning of the policy even where I strongly disagreed with it).“
The twisted “reasoning” by which criminals rationalize their crimes is irrelevant. I am no more interested in the “reasoning” of a self-absorbed, self-important, self-serving murderous and criminal American foreign policy than I am in the “reasoning” of the mugger who holds up people and steals their money, or the rapist who violently attacks women, or the child molester who destroys children’s innocence, or the burglar who violates the sanctity of the home and steals what is within.
“Pakistan created the Taliban by schooling them in Saudi-funded madrassas.“
“Pakistan” did not create the Taliban any more than “America” created the KKK.
“Nor does it change the fact that they let the Taliban roam unmolested in Quetta to this day.“
And by your way of thinking, because the Taliban are seen as enemies of the United States, Pakistan has an obligation to attack them, because after all it is the obligation of the entire world to serve the interests of the United States no matter what difficulties and complications that might cause?
And what about the United States’ harboring and protecting of certain Latin American and other terrorists? And what about the international criminals that the United States allows to roam unmolested in its cities? And come to think about it, what about the terrorists and international criminals the United States sponsors and rewards (Iyad Allawi, the former Baghdad CIA asset car bomber, and Ahmad Chalabi are two of many that come immediately to mind). Double standard, anyone?
“Nor does it change the fact that the ISI has used the Taliban and Arab and Central Asian volunteers to wage war and terrorism on the people of Kashmir and India and Afghanistan.“
So the State of Pakistan is using violence on the part of “volunteers” to pursue its interests in Kashmir, India, and Afghanistan. Aren’t you even a little bit interested in an explanation of the reasoning behind the policy, or are you applying a double standard?
And that makes Pakistan different from the U.S. exactly how? What is Pakistan doing exactly that the United States has not traditionally done and is not doing now in much greater quantity and magnitude, including in Pakistan itself? What is the difference between Pakistan recruiting Taliban volunteers to violently force Pakistan’s will on Kashmiris and Afghans, and to fight its “enemy”, India, and the United States recruiting and brainwashing “volunteers” to violently impose America’s will on the rest of the world, and fight its “enemies”? More double standard?
“To top it all off, the ISI has been working very hard among the Pashtuns to undermine effective government in the south of Afghanistan.“
Just the kind of thing the United States would never DREAM of doing anywhere, right?
“Our enemy in Afghanistan has been the ISI more than any native resistance.“
Your enemies in Afghanistan, including the ISI, are entirely of your own making as are your “enemies” in Iraq, and everywhere else. Did anyone ever stop to wonder why Sweden, a rich country, has no enemies? Ditto for Norway, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, etc., etc., etc.?
“And Pakistan is without any question the most unstable nuclear power in the world.“
And who is largely responsible for that? Who has meddled directly in Pakistan’s political, social, and economic structure, causing it to destabilize and move backward? Who has tried to manipulate Pakistani politics in a manner that has, quite predictably, destabilized it? And who unfailingly takes whatever actions are guaranteed to make the situation worse?
“That alone makes them the most dangerous.“
The United States bears the lion’s share of responsibility for Pakistan’s current political and social state. Pakistan is hardly the first or the last country that the United States has destabilized politically and socially. That alone makes the United States more dangerous because the United States has orders of magnitude more capacity to do do harm in the world, both directly with its bombs and missiles and tanks, and indirectly by creating instability and chaos wherever it sticks its fingers.
Right at this moment in time the United States is doing more damage to the world than Pakistan has ever done. Based on its history, and its current actions, the United States is the most dangerous country in the world, without question. Look to your own glass house before you try to force others to clean up theirs. You might find that the mess in others’ houses has something to do with the way you run your own.
that’s a lot of passing the buck and excuse making.
Your answer to Pakistan’s sins is to either say that American does the same or worse, or to shift all the blame to America.
There are people in Pakistan that are the enemies of all humanity, and they are sponsored, trained, and directed by the government there.
The answer to that cannot be to blame America for it. We have a piece of blame, but not the lion’s share.
Ummmm – no, BooMan. I am not making any excuses for Pakistan’s “sins” any more than I have been making excuses for Saddam’s sins when I have pointed out the United States’ participation in his career, and its direct culpability for Iraq’s woes, including keeping him in power, aiding and abetting his crimes and abuses, sometimes quite directly, and strengthening him by starving the Iraqi people to death by the hundreds of thousands. Saddam – and the Pakistani government – are responsible for their sins and crimes, and the United States is culpable for its sins and crimes.
I don’t like the double standard that condemns Pakistan or any other country for doing the same kinds of things the United States does routinely and without flinching. It is a sign of the American exceptionalism that unfortunately is still a kind of knee jerk reaction even on the part of most progressives. Kind of like the automatic horrified and outraged reaction I get even from progressives when I point out that Iraqis who collaborate with the occupation are committing treason. I have been ripped open for suggesting what should be a given.
So, I am mainly pointing out the unfortunate double standard that is routinely applied even by decent, smart, reasonably well-informed, liberal and progressive Americans. You know, the kind of knee-jerk double standard that makes you think it is important to “explain the reasons” for the United States’ criminal acts while not thinking about the fact that other countries have similar “explanations” for theirs, and that both have exactly the same validity as the “explanation” for a mugging, or a rape, or a burglary, or any other type of crime.
Nothing absolves the Pakistani or any other government of its “sins”, but it is essential to see them in context, and not to hold other countries to a different standard by making rationalizations for the United States while refusing to consider them for other governments. The United States cannot keep its self-serving fingers out of the business of other countries, and every time it manipulates the political, economic, and social situation in another country for its own benefit it creates enormous trouble for the people of that country and sooner or later very big trouble for itself, and most likely for others as well.
The United States destroys democratic movements, removes democratic governments, and replaces them with corrupt and brutal dictators who will do their bidding. And when those dictators become a bit too independent it’s off with their heads, and on to the next nasty piece of business they can use to their advantage.
One of the principle reasons the United States is so hated in the Arab and Muslim worlds is its preference for anti-democratic, brutal, oppressive, and regressive dictators that are more focused on keeping their American sponsors happy than in doing anything at all for their country and its people. These are the people they keep in power, and in some cases these are the people they put into power.
Of course, in Pakistan the U.S. kept Musharraf in his job for months after the Pakistani people had clearly and democratically demonstrated their wish to be rid of him. But not to worry! Now they have a deeply corrupt, and quite possibly mentally unstable head of a dynasty in power with his very young, inexperienced, and probably equally corrupt son waiting in the wings. But hey, “fortunately” this guy is “pro-American”, so who cares about the reality or the context?
Hey wait! Isn’t he the guy who said “foreign troops” are not welcome to come into Pakistan and murder Pakistani women and children by the tens, and isn’t it his government that issued orders to the Pakistani military to defend the people and the land by firing on any American forces that violate Pakistani territory or air space? If that’s what it means to be pro-American, then maybe this guy is not so bad after all. :o}
The Pakistanis elected him knowing full well about his corrupt past and his penchant for Western life.
Let him say anything he wants about protecting his sovereignty. He’s still a friend of the United States. We wanted his wife in power, but she’s dead now.
What amazes me is that you blame the U.S. for this guy being in power. Why not give us credit? The Pakistani people wanted him and we made it possible for them to vote for him. What’s the problem?
As for your accusation that I apply some double standard to Pakistan, you must not have been reading this blog for very long. We have been blasting U.S. foreign policy and human rights record for four years.
I will complain about the ISI whenever I like without fear of double standards.
“The Pakistanis elected him knowing full well about his corrupt past and his penchant for Western life.“
If by “the Pakistanis” you mean the Pakistani people, that would be incorrect. The President is not elected by the people. And in any case, how does any of that bring you logically to the conclusion that Zardari was chosen because he is a “friend of America”, that he truly IS a “friend of America” as opposed to just another corrupt opportunist, or that any of this will bring about a “confluence of interests” between the Pakistani people and the American people?
“Let him say anything he wants about protecting his sovereignty. He’s still a friend of the United States.“
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “friend”. Perhaps your definition is different from mine.
And how interesting that whether or not he is a “friend of the United States” is your first focus. I am sure that is uppermost in the minds of the majority of Pakistanis, too – there you go with the confluence of interests already. Everyone’s big priority is to have a Pakistani government that is a “friend of the United States” :o}
“We wanted his wife in power, but she’s dead now.“
“WE wanted….WE wanted” – exactly! So you managed to get what you think is the next best thing, I guess. And everyone knows by now that it’s all about America getting what it thinks it wants. Screw the Pakistanis. Their government does not exist for them and to serve their needs, it exists for or against the United States and its interests (yeah, that was an overstatement, but there is more than a grain of reality in it).
And by the way, how much responsibility should America accept for Benazir’s death, given that she was there, not without hesitation, at the behest of the United States in order to serve their interests, and was given zero protection by her U.S. sponsors – like they really believed Musharraf, whose rule she was challenging, would protect her (by the way, Musharraf is one of the primary suspects for her murder in the thinking of a hell of a lot of Pakistanis, including many who did not like or support her at all)?
“What amazes me is that you blame the U.S. for this guy being in power.“
I don’t know how much the U.S. had to do with Zardari being selected President, but I don’t “blame” the U.S. for everything that happens. On the other hand, you cannot deny that if they can at all they will have their fingers in there trying to make things happen “their way” by hook or by crook. It is not out of the question that the selection process was manipulated by the U.S. – that would be very easy to do, though not as easy as it was for them in Iraq, of course. I’m not sayin’ they DID, I’m just sayin’…
“Why not give us credit?“
Oh – are you suggesting the U.S. DID manipulate the selection process, and therefore deserves the credit/blame for the result?
“The Pakistani people wanted him and we made it possible for them to vote for him.“
Oh, no you di’int! The people did not vote either for him or against him. The people do not vote for the President of Pakistan. And it was largely the doing of the U.S. that Musharraf stayed in his job long after he should have been replaced, so your mistaken claim that you “made it possible for them to vote for him” is doubly specious.
“What’s the problem?“
The problem is with your automatic assumption that that it’s a good day for the Pakistani people when they have what you see as a pro-American President, no matter how corrupt and potentially unstable he might be. The problem is with your additional automatic assumption that the Pakistani people voted for Zardari at least in part because he is pro-American, neither of which is correct – the people do not even vote for the President in Pakistan, and for the most part Pakistanis’ are not focused on whether they are electing politicians who are “friends of America” – they have other priorities having more to do with their own interests than with the interests of those in power in the United States, and one of the reasons they disliked Musharraf so much was that he opportunistically put the United States’ demands above their own.
And a further problem is your surprisingly very simple-minded assumption that having politicians in power in Pakistan who are “friends of America” means that there is a perceived or real “confluence of interests” between the people of Pakistan and the people of America.
By inference, of course, having a “friend of America” as President is good for the people of his country, and not having such a President is bad for the people. By your logic, Mubarak is fabulous for the Egyptian people, the Saudis are WONDERFUL for the people of Arabia, The Emir of Kuwait is a dream come true for the Kuwaiti people, Saddam was great for the Iraqi people (until he stopped dancing to the American tune, that is, when he became the worst thing that ever happened to Iraqis – except those evil Sunnis, of course, all of whom lived fabulous lives of power and privilege, and abused or slaughtered any and all Shi’ites and Kurds they came across), the Uzbeks should be ECSTATIC over having a “friend of America” President whose government tortures and kills anyone who opposes them by boiling them alive, the Shah was a gift (from America, as it turns out) for the Iranian people, King Hussein and now King Abdullah are terrific for the Jordanian people, Sanyourah is lovely for the Lebanese people, Mahmoud Abbas is a wonderful advocate for the interests of the Palestinian people etc., etc. – Oh yes, and there is a strong “confluence of interests” between American people and all the above-listed people because, after all, their brutal and repressive dictators are “friends of the United States”.
And of course by inference Hamas, chosen by the Palestinian people in a certified free and fair election to lead their government-under-occupation, is JUST AWFUL for the Palestinian people because Hamas is not a “friend of the United States” (and the U.S. and Israel are REALLY thinking only about the Palestinians’ best interest when they arm Fatah and tell Mahmoud Abbas and the thug Dahlan to conduct a civil war against Hamas, and when they murder and arrest Hamas parliamentarians and political leaders, and especially when they brutally collectively punish the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere for exercising their democratic right to choose leaders who are not “friends of America” – it’s really for the Palestinians’ own good, and it hurts Israel and America more than it hurts the Palestinians and their children).
And we all know that Bashar Al Asad, not being a “friend to America”, is TERRIBLE for the Syrian people (and having him as President obliterates any possible “confluence of interests” between Syrian and American people) despite the many improvements he has brought to the country, and the way he has attempted to open discussions and improve relations with the West and Israel since he succeeded his father.
And, of course, there can be no confluence of interests between the Palestinian or Syrian people and the American people as long as the former two have leaders who are not “friends of America”.
Oh yes, and then there is Gaddafi! Why he was a HORRIBLE dictator who abused his people unspeakably until a couple of years ago when he became a “friend of the United States”, and suddenly overnight he became an enlightened leader for his people.
“As for your accusation that I apply some double standard to Pakistan, you must not have been reading this blog for very long. We have been blasting U.S. foreign policy and human rights record for four years.“
Yes, I know you have been blasting U.S. foreign policy and human rights, and I have noted and appreciated it on numerous occasions – probably would not hang out here as much if you did not. However, that does not mean you do not still have an America-centric view that results in applying a double standard, albeit a more subtle one. Just as an exercise, you might ask yourself why you find it necessary to rationalize what you consider to be U.S. crimes by explaining the “reasoning of the policy”. I doubt very much you would be interested in hearing the “reasoning” Pakistan uses to rationalize its crimes any more than you would be interested in seriously listening to the “reasoning” a mugger uses to rationalize what he does. And it is also not at all clear that you are entirely consistent in what you consider acceptable conduct depending upon whose conduct it is. That constitutes a double standard, and the fact that it is less egregious than the double standards applied by many others, it is still a double standard.
“I will complain about the ISI whenever I like without fear of double standards.“
By all means. You have that right, and besides it’s your blog. And as long as I am allowed to post here, I will continue to point out where I see a double standard or faulty reasoning, or incorrect information being applied, as is my right also. :o}
“we made it possible for them to vote for him.“
PS In addition to being factually incorrect, that is awfully paternalistic, oh Sahib/Bwana!
PS How is it that you can attribute this “If America doesn’t stop attacks in the tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar (army) to attack US forces in Afghanistan,” to anything but the right of the tribes in northern Pakistan to defend themselves and their people and their towns and villages and land from foreign attack? How is this a sign that “Pakistan IS Taliban country” rather than a sign that the people of northern Pakistan are not going to allow the United States to attack them without fighting back? It seems so obvious to me that it does not even need to be discussed.
Or have I misconstrued your point? If so, please clarify for me because in that case we should be having a completely different conversation.
there’s a good diary about this in orange
the pictures are scary, that hotel is completely burning.
as idredit says above, Pakistan probably is the most dangerous country in the world right now, and there are a LOT of potential “someone”s who might have done this for a lot of different reasons.
Pakistan IS Taleban country, they own the real levers of power, the ISI.
In my first link is the Video of the hotel in flames.
As someone who has actually BEEN in Pakistan, and who has near-daily contact with people there, I can assure you that the statement that Pakistan IS Taliban country is hyperbole and unnecessarily hysterical.
Pakistani Taleban claims responsibility
Sorry, your logic just doesn’t cut it.
PS The most dangerous country in the world is demonstrably the United States of America.
And the most dangerous people in the world are the American electorate.
And people on this blog should read something besides American media–which is, after all, just lies and propaganda.
You can see through domestic Republican bullshit. Why can’t you see through foreign-policy Republican bullshit?
The narrative of “dangerous muslims” is just that–a narrative–created by neo-cons when people in the Middle East started organizing to throw out the western corporations that had been exploiting them for decades.
The bombing of the Marriot could be anything. It could be false flag–done by the West and blamed on “the taliban” to excuse another intervention. Or it might have been done by any number of parties hoping to gain from the chaos and confusion. It might be an attempt to destabilize the new puppet government. It is literally to soon to tell. Eventually we will get good clues from what unfolds, but if you are truly interested in what happened and who did it, this is a good time to hold your tongue and wait, rather than jumping to cluelessly push somebody’s narrative.
OK, maybe it WAS the Taliban. Maybe it WAS Al Qa`eda. Maybe it WAS the two working together. But there are sooooo many other equally likely suspects. The trouble is that none of the other likely suspects serves the needs and interests of the ruling part at the moment, so Al Qa`eda and/or Taliban it is and ever will be – until, of course, they need to pin something on Iran. Then it will magically become Iran.
Point One–taken.
Decided NOT to write an Americans-are-ALL-crazed,-violent-idiots-and-will-go-down-like-ancient-Assyria post!
The Media is propaganda, but if are patient and wait, clues will make their way onto the internet. The War Nerd over at the Exhile may be a good source for this. I am wondering what ISI–which seems to be the real government of Pakistan–thinks about this: Was it actually one of theirs, or contrarily are they angry about it?
anyone heard Bush in his presser on the economy, warning:
“anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions – stock selling – will be caught and – persecuted !!!?
Will he send the banksters to Gitmo?
Be careful all.
91 days to go
that’s right everything W touches turns to crap..1 trillion for Iraq, 700 Billion to bail out Wall Street,
he’s just about ruined the US economically, and he likes to act tough when the shit starts piling up.
that $700 billion is ONLY a down payment. It’ll be incremental as the banksters (coined by FDR) get bailed.
CDS sunk AIG. CDS are in the trillions. On top of the other MBS as Paulson called them “illiquid assets” – are OTC derivatives, another $596 trillion.
Where did all that money go?
To save the banksters in the Wall Street casino, the computer keyboards will be working overtime, putting us joe and jill sixpack into hyper-inflation.
It was the computer “terminator” machines that created these time bombs financial WMDs.
These are exploding and MUGabe’s hyper-inflation will result.
What a bloody shame he cannot find it in his heart or in his language to condemn the DAILY terrorist attacks by Israel on Palestinians living under their bootheel, or the month-long ceaseless terrorist attack conducted by Israel against the Lebanese people, including carpeting southern Lebanon with cluster bombs – the gift that keeps on killing, especially children.
And what an even more bloody shame that he cannot put the words in his mouth to condemn the constant terrorist attacks by the United States on Iraqs, Afghans, and whatever other unfortunates manage to get in the way of what the United States wants.
Hypocrisy. It’s all hypocrisy.
some months back TPM had a piece on Zbig Brzezinski cautioning Obama on the thought of embracing a wider war in Afghanistan/Pakistan under the guise of WoT – kinda “you don’t want to do that.
But Steve Clemons notes Zbig’s son in on Obama’s team and Zbig is an outside advisor.
There’ll be enough money wars to fight at home. Hank and Ben have called in the Air Force B52’s. Helios are no longer adequate.
At the current clip, by January 20, US may be placed in “Conservatorship” by its creditors. Paulson was hoping one of these fWMDs would not explode on his watch.
.
To have spent 4,000 American lives, multiple thousands of wounded, 100,000 Iraqi lives in the pursuit of a Neocon fata morgana, a highway to the oil fields and provide Israel with a buffer zone to secure occupation happiness of the West Bank. One can easily call the U.S. of America a failed state: economically, morally and politically. In Europe the crisis is referred to as the collapse of capitalism.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Multiply that 100,000 by 10, and you will be much closer to the correct number.
Humph.
A bombing on the heels of Pakistan threatening to cut off the supply route to NATO soldiers and as the new president said that foreign forces aren’t welcomed on Pakistan soil.
I have a suspect or two in mind.
Has McCain tried to change the subject from the economy yet?
Oh yes! I forgot about the President saying foreign forces are not welcome on Pakistani soil. Of course, that had nothing to do with the fact that American – excuse me, “coalition” – forces have repeatedly violated Pakistan’s territorial rights in order to kill Pakistani citizens. And even if it did, what right on earth has Pakistan’s government to object to having its territory invaded and its citizens murdered by Americans? After all, isn’t this supposed to be a pro-American government?!
Uh-oh!
Someone pulled a Timothy McVeigh on the Islamabad Marriot
Since you bring up McVeigh, have you forgotten the Oklahoma City bombing was a false-flag operation?
Within hours the American media was pumping out the story of Islamic terrorists. (This was during Clinton’s time, so the “dangerous Muslim” story-line does go back a bit). Then as someone was looking over the security-camera footage, there was this white guy, stupidly getting caught on camera and not looking very Arabic either. And the whole narrative went in the toilet.
Oh well.
So we settled for the lone-nut theory once again, wrote off the deaths of two dozen children as a propaganda failure, and moved on to other matters, forgetting to ask why the bombing had occurred in the first place.
If we can give the Marriot bombing no more thought and attention than this, we will remain similarly clueless.