* "A bitter harvest" (The Economist)
* "Why Washington Wants Afghanistan" (J. Israel, R. Rozoff
& N. Varkevisser)
---
"...mia figlia da Londra mi ha inoltrato
un articolo apparso sull'Economist di questa settimana.
Ed � l'Economist!!
un abbraccio
m.m."
>
> Afghanistan
>
> A bitter harvest
> Sep 13th 2001 | LAHORE
> From The Economist print edition
>
> The sufferings of Afghanistan come to New York
>
> IN ITS understandable rage for justice, America may be tempted to
overlook
> one uncomfortable fact. Its own policies in Afghanistan a decade and
more
> ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist
Taliban
> regime that shelters him.
>
> The notion of jihad, or holy war, had almost ceased to exist in the
Muslim
> world after the tenth century until it was revived, with American
> encouragement, to fire an international pan-Islamic movement after the
> Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. For the next ten years, the
CIA
and
> Saudi intelligence together pumped in billions of dollars' worth of
arms
and
> ammunition through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI)
to
> the many mujahideen groups fighting in Afghanistan.
>
> The policy worked: the Soviet Union suffered such terrible loses in
> Afghanistan that it withdrew its forces in 1989, and the humiliation
of
that
> defeat, following on from the crippling cost of the campaign, helped
to
> undermine the Soviet system itself. But there was a terrible legacy:
> Afghanistan was left awash with weapons, warlords and extreme
religious
> zealotry.
>
> For the past ten years that deadly brew has spread its ill-effects
widely.
> Pakistan has suffered terrible destabilisation. But the afghanis, the
name
> given to the young Muslim men who fought the infidel in Afghanistan,
have
> carried their jihad far beyond: to the corrupt kingdoms of the Gulf,
to
the
> repressive states of the southern Mediterranean, and now, perhaps, to
New
> York and Washington, DC.
>
> Chief among the afghanis was Mr bin Laden, a scion of one of Saudi
Arabia's
> richest business families. Recruited by the Saudi intelligence chief,
Prince
> Turki al Faisal, to help raise funds for the jihad, he became central
to
the
> recruitment and training of mujahideen from across the Muslim world.
Mr
bin
> Laden fought against the Russians on the side of the ISI's favourite
Afghan,
> Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, whose Hezb-e-Islami party became the largest
recipient
> of CIA money.
>
> After the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the Americans
quickly
> lost interest in the country and a struggle for power erupted among
the
> mujahideen. But since no group was strong enough to capture and hold
Kabul,
> the capital, Afghanistan slumped into anarchy. In 1995-96, a movement
of
> Pathan students-Taliban-from religious schools in the border regions
of
> Afghanistan and Pakistan swept the country, promising a restoration of
> order. They enjoyed Pakistani backing, and almost certainly the
approval
of
> the Americans.
>
> Meanwhile, Mr bin Laden had become a self-avowed enemy of America,
appalled
> at the presence of American troops on holy Saudi soil during the Gulf
war.
> Exiled to Sudan, he was soon forced to leave. He secretly returned to
> Afghanistan, becoming a guest of the Taliban, whose interpretation of
Islam
> and hostility to the West he shares. After attacks on two American
embassies
> in 1998, America tried to persuade the Taliban to surrender him. When
the
> regime refused, the Americans retaliated by raining cruise missiles on
> guerrilla camps in Afghanistan. The Taliban have steadfastly refused
to
hand
> Mr bin Laden over. As their guest he remains.
>
---
URL for this article:
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
To join Emperor's Clothes email list,
please go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/feedback.htm.
Receive about one article/day.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
======================================Why Washington Wants Afghanistan (revised)
by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff & Nico
Varkevisser [posted 18 September 2001]
======================================
"Does my country really understand that
this is World War III? And if this
attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War
III, it means there is a long, long
war ahead." (Thomas Friedman, 'New York
Times,' September 13, 2001)
Key U.S. government representatives and
media figures have used the bombing
of the World Trade Center (WTC) and
Pentagon to create an international state
of fear.
This has swept Washington's closest allies
(notably Germany and England,
though not Italy) into agreeing carte
blanche to participate in U.S.
reprisals.
It has also served to obscure a most
important question: does Washington have
a hidden agenda here, a strategy other than
hurling bombs? If so, what is it,
and what does it mean for the world?
***
Amid the increasingly implausible and
frequently contradictory explanations
(2) offered by U.S. government officials
for their inability or unwillingness
to intervene effectively before and during
this past Tuesday's aerial attacks
in New York and Washington, D.C. - and as
the cries for war drown out the
voices of reason - a deadly scenario is
unfolding.
Columns in major mainstream newspapers have
borne such titles as:
"World War III" ('New York Times,' 9/13)
"Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia
Inquirer,' 9/13)
"Time To Use The Nuclear Option"
('Washington Times,' 9/14).
A government that claims it had no
knowledge of or was at a loss knowing how
to deal with painstakingly organized
terrorist attacks now calls for
"exterminating" previously unseen
assailants by, in the words of Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
"ending states who sponsor terrorism,"
Henry Kissinger argues ('Los Angeles
Times,' 9/14) that alleged terrorist
networks must be uprooted wherever they
exist. Former Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu writes an article entitled
"Dismantle Terrorist Supporting Regimes"
('Jerusalem Post,' 9/14). And to raise the
level of international
intimidation a notch, we have R.W. Apple,
Jr. in the 'Washington Post'
(9/14):
"In this new kind [of] war...there are no
neutral states or geographical
confines. Us or them. You are either with
us or against us."
Initially, a mix of countries was
threatened as so-called 'states supporting
terrorism,' who are not with us and
therefore must be against us: Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
Although differing in most
respects, especially political ideology,
they are indeed alike in three ways:
They all bear decades of U.S. government
hostility; they all have secular
governments; they all have no connection to
Osama bin Laden.
In, "Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia
Inquirer') David Perlmutter warns that
if these states do not do Washington's
bidding, they must:
"Prepare for the systematic destruction of
every power plant, every oil
refinery, every pipeline, every military
base, every government office in the
entire country...the complete collapse of
their economy and government for a
generation."
Meanwhile, the countries which collaborated
to create the Taliban, training
and financing the forces of Osama bin
Laden, and which have never stopped
pouring money into the Taliban - namely
Pakistan, close U.S. allies Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and
the United States itself - have not
been placed on the "we've got to get them"
list. Instead these states are
touted as core allies in the New World War
against terrorism.
Raising the pitch, yesterday:
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the
US would engage in a
'multi-headed effort' to target terrorist
organizations and up to 60
countries believed to be supporting them.
"The US, Mr. Rumsfeld told American TV,
"had no choice" other than to pursue
terrorists and countries giving them
refuge."
The threats to bomb up to a third of the
world's countries has scared many
people, worldwide. This, we think, is the
intention. It serves two functions.
First, it means that if Washington limits
its aggressive action mainly to
attacking Afghanistan, the world will
breathe a sigh of relief.
And we think Washington will mainly attack
Afghanistan - at first. Other
immediate violations of sovereignty, such
as the forced use of Pakistan, will
be backup action to support the attack on
Afghanistan. There may also be some
state terror, such as increased, unprovoked
bombing of Iraq, as a diversion.
But the main immediate focus will, we
think, be Afghanistan.
Second, this scare tactic is meant to
divert attention from Washington's real
strategy, far more dangerous than the
threat to bomb many states. Washington
wants to take over Afghanistan in order to
speed up the fulfillment of its
strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet
Republics in the same way
Washington has been pulverizing the former
Yugoslavia. This poses the gravest
risks to mankind.
WHAT DOES WASHINGTON WANT WITH IMPOVERISHED
AFGHANISTAN?
To answer this question, look at any map of
Europe and Asia. Consider the
immense spread of the former Soviet Union,
particularly Russia.
European Russia is 1,747,112 square miles.
That's between a third and half
the landmass of all Europe. Add the Asian
part of Russia and you get
6,592,800 sq. mi. That's equal to most of
the US and China combined. More
than half of Africa.
Russia borders Finland in the far West. It
borders Turkey and the Balkans in
the south. It extends to the edge of Asia
in the Far East. It is the rooftop
of Mongolia and China.
Not only is Russia spectacularly large,
with incalculable wealth, mostly
untapped, but it is the only world-class
nuclear power besides the U.S.
Contrary to popular opinion, Russia's
military might has not been destroyed;
indeed, it is arguably stronger, in
relation to the US, than during the early
period of the Cold War. It has the most
sophisticated submarine technology in
the world.
If the U.S. can break-up Russia and the
other former Soviet Republics into
weak territories, dominated by NATO,
Washington would have a free hand to
exploit Russia's great wealth and do
whatever it wanted elsewhere without
fear of Russian power.
Despite talk of Russia and the U.S. working
together, and despite the great
harm that has been done to Russia by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF),
this remains the thrust of US policy. (3)
Afghanistan is strategically placed, not
only bordering Iran, India, and
even, for a small stretch, China (!) but,
most important, sharing borders and
a common religion with the Central Asian
Republics of the former Soviet Union
(SU): Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and
Tajikistan. These in turn border
Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.
Central Asia is strategic not only for its
vast deposits of oil, as we are
often told, but more important for its
strategic position. Were Washington to
take control of these Republics, NATO would
have military bases in the
following key areas: the Baltic region; the
Balkans and Turkey; and these
Republics. This would constitute a noose
around Russia's neck.
Add to that Washington's effective
domination of the former Soviet Republics
of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the south,
and the US would be positioned to
launch externally instigated 'rebellions'
all over Russia.
NATO, whose current doctrine allows it to
intervene in states bordering NATO
members, could then initiate "low intensity
wars" including the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, also officially
endorsed by current NATO doctrine,
in 'response' to myriad 'human rights
abuses.'
It is ironic that Washington claims it must
return to Afghanistan to fight
Islamist terrorism, because it was
precisely in its effort to destroy Russian
power that Washington first created the
Islamist terrorist apparatus in
Afghanistan, during the '80s.
This was not, as some say, a matter of
aiding rebels against Russian
expansionism. Whatever one thinks about the
Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan, it was in fact conceived as a
defensive action to preserve, not
alter, the world balance of power. It was
the United States which took covert
action to 'encourage' Russian intervention,
with the goal of turning the
conservative rural Afghan tribesmen into a
force to drain the Soviet Union.
This is admitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
the key National Security chief at
the time.
Consider the following excerpts from two
newspaper reports.
First, from the 'N.Y. Times':
"The Afghan resistance was backed by the
intelligence services of the United
States and Saudi Arabia with nearly $6
billion worth of weapons. And the
territory targeted last week [this was
published after the August, 1998 U.S.
missile attack on Afghanistan], a set of
six encampments around Khost, where
the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden has
financed a kind of 'terrorist
university,' in the words of a senior
United States intelligence official, is
well known to the Central Intelligence
Agency.
"... some of the same warriors who fought
the Soviets with the C.I.A.'s help
are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden's
banner.... ('NY Times,' 24 August 1998
pages A1 & A7 )
And this from the London 'Independent':
"The Afghan Civil War was under way, and
America was in it from the start -
or even before the start, if [former
National Security Adviser, and currently
top foreign policy strategist Zbigniew]
Brzezinski himself is to be believed.
'"We didn't push the Russians to
intervene,' he told an interviewer in 1998,
'but we consciously increased the
probability that they would do so. This
secret operation was an excellent idea. Its
effect was to draw the Russians
into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret
that?' [said Brzezinski]
"The long-term effect of the American
intervention from cold-warrior
Brzezinski's perspective was 10 years later
to bring the Soviet Union to its
knees. But there were other effects, too.
"To keep the war going, the CIA, in cahoots
with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's
military intelligence agency ISI
(Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate),
funneled millions and millions of dollars
to the Mujahedeen. It was the
remotest and the safest form of warfare:
the US (and Saudi Arabia) provided
funds, and America also a very limited
amount of training. They also provided
the Stinger missiles that ultimately
changed the face of the war.
"Pakistan's ISI did everything else:
training, equipping, motivating, and
advising. And they did the job with
panache: Pakistan's military ruler at the
time, General Zia ul Haq, who himself held
strong fundamentalist leanings,
threw himself into the task with a
passion." ('The Independent' (London) 17
September 2001. Our emphasis.)
Right up to the present, U.S. ally Saudi
Arabia has been perhaps the key
force in financing the Taliban. But the
U.S. itself has provided direct
support despite the Taliban's monstrous
record of humanitarian abuse:
"The Bush administration has not been
deterred. Last week it pledged another
$ 43 million in assistance to Afghanistan,
raising total aid this year to $
124 million and making the United States
the largest humanitarian donor to
the country." ('The Washington Post,' 25
May 2001)
Why have the US and its allies continued -
up to now - to fund the Taliban?
And why nevertheless is the US now moving
to attack its monstrous creation?
It is our conviction, and that of many
observers from the region in question,
that Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan to fund the Taliban so the
Taliban could do a job: consolidate control
over Afghanistan and from there
move to destabilize the former Soviet
Central Asian Republics on its borders.
But the Taliban has failed. It has not
defeated the Russian-backed Northern
Alliance. Instead of subverting Central
Asia in businesslike fashion, it has
indulged in blowing up statues of Buddha
and terrorizing people who deviate
from the Taliban's super-repressive
interpretation of Islam.
At the same time, Russia has also been
moving in the 'wrong' direction, from
Washington's perspective. The completely
controllable Yeltsin has been
replaced with President Putin, who
partially resists the U.S. - for example,
putting down the CIA-backed takeover of
Chechnya by Islamist terrorists
linked to Afghanistan. Further, China and
Russia have signed a mutual defense
pact. And despite immense European/U.S.
pressure, Russian President Putin
refused to condemn Belarussian President
Lukashenko who, like the jailed but
unbroken Yugoslav President Milosevic,
calls for standing up to NATO. (3a)
It is this unfavorable series of
developments that has caused Washington to
increase its reliance on its all-time
favorite tactic: extreme brinkmanship.
An early sign of this brinkmanship appeared
two weeks ago, just before the
Presidential elections in the former Soviet
Republic of Belarus. Belarus is
in the Baltic region near Lithuania and
Poland. Washington and the European
Union loathe Lukashenko because he has
refused to turn his small country over
to the International Monetary Fund and
dismantle all the social guarantees of
the Soviet era. Moreover he called for
defending Yugoslavia. He even wants
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to reunite.
This desire to have former Soviet
Republics get back together puts him square
in the path of Washington's
policy, which is to break these Republics
up into even smaller pieces.
For months, Washington and the Europeans
have been meddling in the
Belarussian elections. Washington admits to
funding some 300
'Non-Governmental Organizations' in
Belarus. This in a country of some 10
million souls.
As if this wasn't sufficient, just before
the elections, U.S. Ambassador to
Belarus Michael Kozak issued a truly
startling statement:
"[Ambassador Kozak wrote to a British
newspaper that] America's 'objective
and to some degree methodology are the
same' in Belarus as in Nicaragua,
where the US backed the Contras against the
left-wing Sandinista Government
in a war that claimed at least 30,000
lives." ("The Times" (UK), 3 September
2001.) (4)
As you may recall, the Contras was a
terrorist outfit that Washington
financed during the 1980s to destroy the
Left-wing Nationalist Sandinista
government in Nicaragua. the Contras
specialized in raiding farming villages
where they slaughtered the inhabitants;
that when they were not smuggling
drugs. This all came out during the
Iran-Contra scandal.
Now Washington has cynically used the mass
slaughter at the World Trade
Center and the lesser attack on the
Pentagon to rally its NATO forces,
invoking Article Five of NATO's charter,
under which all members of NATO must
respond to an attack on any one. This has
the goal of a) putting together a
"peacekeeping force" for Afghanistan b)
launching air and possibly ground
attacks c) eliminating the obstinate and
incompetent leadership of the
Taliban and d) taking direct control
through the creation of a U.S.-dominated
NATO military occupation.
Some argue that NATO would be crazy to try
to pacify Afghanistan. They say
the British failed to do it in the 1800's,
and the Russians failed in the
1980's.
But Washington does not need or intend to
pacify Afghanistan. It needs a
military presence sufficient to organize
and direct indigenous forces to
penetrate the Central Asian republics and
instigate armed conflict.
Rather than trying to defeat the Taliban,
Washington will make the Taliban an
offer they cannot refuse: work with the
U.S.; get plenty of money and guns
plus a free hand to direct the drug trade,
just as the U.S. has permitted the
KLA to make a fortune from drugs in the
Balkans. (5)
Or oppose the U.S., and die.
In this way, Washington hopes to duplicate
what it did in Kosovo where NATO
took drug-dealing gangsters and violently
anti-Serbian secessionists and out
of that raw material fashioned the
terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army.
In this case the raw material would mainly
be members of the Taliban.
Reorganized and under strict direction,
reborn as Liberation Fighters, they
would be directed against the Central Asian
Republics of the former Soviet
Union. This would duplicate what NATO has
done in the Balkans. There it has
sent the KLA, beefed up by Islamist
reinforcements and 'advised' by U.S.
specialists, against neighboring Macedonia.
As the Central Asian Republics battle the
intruders, NATO could offer them
military assistance, thus penetrating the
region on both sides by means of a
conflict instigated by Washington. This
tactic of simultaneously attacking
and defending Central Asia - has been
employed to great effect against
Macedonia. The goal is to produce
decimated, NATO-dominated territories. No
more Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and
Tajikistan. (6) Then on to Kazakhstan, and
then Russia.
This strategy cannot be sold to the
American people. We repeat: it cannot be
sold.
It is for that reason that the Bush
administration is using the tragic
nightmare of murder in New York, which
itself occurred under circumstances
suggesting the complicity of Washington's
covert forces, to create
international hysteria sufficient to drag
NATO into the strategic occupation
of Afghanistan and an intensified assault
on the former Soviet Union. (7)
Before anyone sighs with relief, thinking,
"Thank God this is all that's
happening," consider that apart form the
violation of national sovereignty
and many other very negative aspects of
Washington's plans, the attack on
Afghanistan brings NATO to Russia's Central
Asian doorstep. This is a
strategic escalation of conflict, moving us
all much closer - nobody knows
how much closer and nobody knows how fast
things will escalate - to worldwide
nuclear war.
Will Washington get away with it?
Washington, and the giant capitalists who
control it, obviously think Russia will let
itself be destroyed. But then, as
the Greeks say, "Pride is followed by
self-destruction."
The Russians are very deceptive. They try
to avoid a fight. But as Mr. Hitler
discovered, when they are pushed to the
wall, they fight with the ferocity of
lions. And they have tens of thousands of
nuclear weapons.
Thus Washington is playing with the
possibility of a war which would make the
horror that occurred last Tuesday at the
World Trade Center, or even the much
larger-scale horror of the U.S.
terror-bombing of Yugoslavia, look like
previews of hell. (8)
- Emperor's Clothes
***
Further Reading:
1) Like a man with a guilty conscience, the
U.S. government and its NATO
allies constantly denounce terror while
routinely employing it in
international affairs. See for example:
'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND
COLOMBIAN 'DEATH SQUADS' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm
'WHAT NATO OCCUPATION WOULD MEAN FOR
MACEDONIANS'
First-hand report of the state of terror
instituted when NATO took over
Kosovo. Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/savethe-a.htm
''Five Years On & the Lies Continue.'
Discussion of the use by the
U.S.-sponsored Islamist regime in Sarajevo
of systematic terror against
Serbian villagers in Bosnia. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/texts.htm
'Meet Mr. Massacre' - Concerning U.S.
Balkans envoy William Walker's death
squad activities in Latin American. Can be
read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm
2) 'Criminal Negligence or Treason' Can be
read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm
3) 'Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and
Trying to Force Milosevic to
Surrender?' by Jared Israel and Nico
Varkevisser. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/whyisn.htm
3A) 'What The Hague Tribunal [sic!]
Wouldn't Let Milosevic Say' This is the
statement which Milosevic tried to give. To
prevent it 'Judge' May cut off
his mike. It can be read at
http://www.icdsm.org/more/aug30.htm
4) 'Tough Measures Justified in Belarus' by
Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/tough.htm
5) 'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND
COLOMBIAN DEATH SQUADS' by Jared
Israel. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm#a
6) 'SORRY VIRGINIA BUT THEY ARE NATO
TROOPS, NOT 'REBELS' Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
7) - Click here please.
8) 'Yugoslav Auto Workers Appealed to
NATO's Humanity...' Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/car.htm
9) Rick Rozoff takes a critical look at
Washington's response to Tuesday's
tragedies in 'Bush's Press Conference: Into
the Abyss' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/rozoff/abyss.htm
10) While Washington points to Osama bin
Laden as "suspect # 1" in
yesterday's horrific violence, the truth is
not being told to the American
people: 'Washington Created Osama bin
Laden' by Jared Israel can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html#w
11) If one looks carefully, one can find in
the Western media evidence that
bin Laden has been involved - on the
U.S.-backed side - in Kosovo, Bosnia and
now Macedonia. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm
12) Bin Laden was propelled into power as
part of the U.S. drive to create an
Islamist terrorist movement to crush the
former Soviet Union. See, the truly
amazing account from the 'Washington Post,'
'Washington's Backing of Afghan
Terrorists: Deliberate Policy.' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm
13) Head of Russian Navy says official
scenario couldn't have happened. See
'Russian Navy Chief Says Official 9-11
Story Impossible' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/navy.htm
14) Emperor's Clothes has interviewed Rudi
Dekkers from the Huffman Aviation
facility, at which two of the hijack
suspects were students a year ago.
Though Mr. Dekkers' told the interviewer he
had received many calls, the
media has not published his comments. The
interview was taped and the text on
Emperor's Clothes is a verbatim transcript,
including the grammatical errors
common in daily speech. See "Interview With
Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on
Official Story" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/dekkers.htm
URGENT APPEAL!
TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONATED TO OUR
FUNDRAISING DRIVE - THANK YOU!
BUT EMPEROR'S CLOTHES STILL NEEDS HELP!
The George Soros foundation does not fund
Emperor's Clothes. Our only source
of money is people like you. All
contributions help, big and small. Right
now, we're in serious need of financial
help from our friends.
If everyone who cares about Emperor's
Clothes chips in, we'll be out of
trouble in no time.
Any help you can send will be greatly
appreciated! $20, $50, $100 or $1000 -
it will all help.
You can make a credit card donation by
going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes,
P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation over the phone. Call us
at (U.S.) 617 916-1705 any time
and we will take your credit card
information over the phone.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by
secure server, please let us know
by email at emperors1000@..., just to
make sure we get it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!
www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
SEI UN PATITO DEL FITNESS? SEI UN NEOFITA CURIOSO?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta su
Fitness & Benessere prodotti di bellezza, consigli...
http://www.domeus.it/ad3709660/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
* "Why Washington Wants Afghanistan" (J. Israel, R. Rozoff
& N. Varkevisser)
---
"...mia figlia da Londra mi ha inoltrato
un articolo apparso sull'Economist di questa settimana.
Ed � l'Economist!!
un abbraccio
m.m."
>
> Afghanistan
>
> A bitter harvest
> Sep 13th 2001 | LAHORE
> From The Economist print edition
>
> The sufferings of Afghanistan come to New York
>
> IN ITS understandable rage for justice, America may be tempted to
overlook
> one uncomfortable fact. Its own policies in Afghanistan a decade and
more
> ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist
Taliban
> regime that shelters him.
>
> The notion of jihad, or holy war, had almost ceased to exist in the
Muslim
> world after the tenth century until it was revived, with American
> encouragement, to fire an international pan-Islamic movement after the
> Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. For the next ten years, the
CIA
and
> Saudi intelligence together pumped in billions of dollars' worth of
arms
and
> ammunition through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI)
to
> the many mujahideen groups fighting in Afghanistan.
>
> The policy worked: the Soviet Union suffered such terrible loses in
> Afghanistan that it withdrew its forces in 1989, and the humiliation
of
that
> defeat, following on from the crippling cost of the campaign, helped
to
> undermine the Soviet system itself. But there was a terrible legacy:
> Afghanistan was left awash with weapons, warlords and extreme
religious
> zealotry.
>
> For the past ten years that deadly brew has spread its ill-effects
widely.
> Pakistan has suffered terrible destabilisation. But the afghanis, the
name
> given to the young Muslim men who fought the infidel in Afghanistan,
have
> carried their jihad far beyond: to the corrupt kingdoms of the Gulf,
to
the
> repressive states of the southern Mediterranean, and now, perhaps, to
New
> York and Washington, DC.
>
> Chief among the afghanis was Mr bin Laden, a scion of one of Saudi
Arabia's
> richest business families. Recruited by the Saudi intelligence chief,
Prince
> Turki al Faisal, to help raise funds for the jihad, he became central
to
the
> recruitment and training of mujahideen from across the Muslim world.
Mr
bin
> Laden fought against the Russians on the side of the ISI's favourite
Afghan,
> Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, whose Hezb-e-Islami party became the largest
recipient
> of CIA money.
>
> After the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the Americans
quickly
> lost interest in the country and a struggle for power erupted among
the
> mujahideen. But since no group was strong enough to capture and hold
Kabul,
> the capital, Afghanistan slumped into anarchy. In 1995-96, a movement
of
> Pathan students-Taliban-from religious schools in the border regions
of
> Afghanistan and Pakistan swept the country, promising a restoration of
> order. They enjoyed Pakistani backing, and almost certainly the
approval
of
> the Americans.
>
> Meanwhile, Mr bin Laden had become a self-avowed enemy of America,
appalled
> at the presence of American troops on holy Saudi soil during the Gulf
war.
> Exiled to Sudan, he was soon forced to leave. He secretly returned to
> Afghanistan, becoming a guest of the Taliban, whose interpretation of
Islam
> and hostility to the West he shares. After attacks on two American
embassies
> in 1998, America tried to persuade the Taliban to surrender him. When
the
> regime refused, the Americans retaliated by raining cruise missiles on
> guerrilla camps in Afghanistan. The Taliban have steadfastly refused
to
hand
> Mr bin Laden over. As their guest he remains.
>
---
URL for this article:
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
To join Emperor's Clothes email list,
please go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/feedback.htm.
Receive about one article/day.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
======================================Why Washington Wants Afghanistan (revised)
by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff & Nico
Varkevisser [posted 18 September 2001]
======================================
"Does my country really understand that
this is World War III? And if this
attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War
III, it means there is a long, long
war ahead." (Thomas Friedman, 'New York
Times,' September 13, 2001)
Key U.S. government representatives and
media figures have used the bombing
of the World Trade Center (WTC) and
Pentagon to create an international state
of fear.
This has swept Washington's closest allies
(notably Germany and England,
though not Italy) into agreeing carte
blanche to participate in U.S.
reprisals.
It has also served to obscure a most
important question: does Washington have
a hidden agenda here, a strategy other than
hurling bombs? If so, what is it,
and what does it mean for the world?
***
Amid the increasingly implausible and
frequently contradictory explanations
(2) offered by U.S. government officials
for their inability or unwillingness
to intervene effectively before and during
this past Tuesday's aerial attacks
in New York and Washington, D.C. - and as
the cries for war drown out the
voices of reason - a deadly scenario is
unfolding.
Columns in major mainstream newspapers have
borne such titles as:
"World War III" ('New York Times,' 9/13)
"Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia
Inquirer,' 9/13)
"Time To Use The Nuclear Option"
('Washington Times,' 9/14).
A government that claims it had no
knowledge of or was at a loss knowing how
to deal with painstakingly organized
terrorist attacks now calls for
"exterminating" previously unseen
assailants by, in the words of Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
"ending states who sponsor terrorism,"
Henry Kissinger argues ('Los Angeles
Times,' 9/14) that alleged terrorist
networks must be uprooted wherever they
exist. Former Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu writes an article entitled
"Dismantle Terrorist Supporting Regimes"
('Jerusalem Post,' 9/14). And to raise the
level of international
intimidation a notch, we have R.W. Apple,
Jr. in the 'Washington Post'
(9/14):
"In this new kind [of] war...there are no
neutral states or geographical
confines. Us or them. You are either with
us or against us."
Initially, a mix of countries was
threatened as so-called 'states supporting
terrorism,' who are not with us and
therefore must be against us: Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
Although differing in most
respects, especially political ideology,
they are indeed alike in three ways:
They all bear decades of U.S. government
hostility; they all have secular
governments; they all have no connection to
Osama bin Laden.
In, "Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia
Inquirer') David Perlmutter warns that
if these states do not do Washington's
bidding, they must:
"Prepare for the systematic destruction of
every power plant, every oil
refinery, every pipeline, every military
base, every government office in the
entire country...the complete collapse of
their economy and government for a
generation."
Meanwhile, the countries which collaborated
to create the Taliban, training
and financing the forces of Osama bin
Laden, and which have never stopped
pouring money into the Taliban - namely
Pakistan, close U.S. allies Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and
the United States itself - have not
been placed on the "we've got to get them"
list. Instead these states are
touted as core allies in the New World War
against terrorism.
Raising the pitch, yesterday:
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the
US would engage in a
'multi-headed effort' to target terrorist
organizations and up to 60
countries believed to be supporting them.
"The US, Mr. Rumsfeld told American TV,
"had no choice" other than to pursue
terrorists and countries giving them
refuge."
The threats to bomb up to a third of the
world's countries has scared many
people, worldwide. This, we think, is the
intention. It serves two functions.
First, it means that if Washington limits
its aggressive action mainly to
attacking Afghanistan, the world will
breathe a sigh of relief.
And we think Washington will mainly attack
Afghanistan - at first. Other
immediate violations of sovereignty, such
as the forced use of Pakistan, will
be backup action to support the attack on
Afghanistan. There may also be some
state terror, such as increased, unprovoked
bombing of Iraq, as a diversion.
But the main immediate focus will, we
think, be Afghanistan.
Second, this scare tactic is meant to
divert attention from Washington's real
strategy, far more dangerous than the
threat to bomb many states. Washington
wants to take over Afghanistan in order to
speed up the fulfillment of its
strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet
Republics in the same way
Washington has been pulverizing the former
Yugoslavia. This poses the gravest
risks to mankind.
WHAT DOES WASHINGTON WANT WITH IMPOVERISHED
AFGHANISTAN?
To answer this question, look at any map of
Europe and Asia. Consider the
immense spread of the former Soviet Union,
particularly Russia.
European Russia is 1,747,112 square miles.
That's between a third and half
the landmass of all Europe. Add the Asian
part of Russia and you get
6,592,800 sq. mi. That's equal to most of
the US and China combined. More
than half of Africa.
Russia borders Finland in the far West. It
borders Turkey and the Balkans in
the south. It extends to the edge of Asia
in the Far East. It is the rooftop
of Mongolia and China.
Not only is Russia spectacularly large,
with incalculable wealth, mostly
untapped, but it is the only world-class
nuclear power besides the U.S.
Contrary to popular opinion, Russia's
military might has not been destroyed;
indeed, it is arguably stronger, in
relation to the US, than during the early
period of the Cold War. It has the most
sophisticated submarine technology in
the world.
If the U.S. can break-up Russia and the
other former Soviet Republics into
weak territories, dominated by NATO,
Washington would have a free hand to
exploit Russia's great wealth and do
whatever it wanted elsewhere without
fear of Russian power.
Despite talk of Russia and the U.S. working
together, and despite the great
harm that has been done to Russia by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF),
this remains the thrust of US policy. (3)
Afghanistan is strategically placed, not
only bordering Iran, India, and
even, for a small stretch, China (!) but,
most important, sharing borders and
a common religion with the Central Asian
Republics of the former Soviet Union
(SU): Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and
Tajikistan. These in turn border
Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.
Central Asia is strategic not only for its
vast deposits of oil, as we are
often told, but more important for its
strategic position. Were Washington to
take control of these Republics, NATO would
have military bases in the
following key areas: the Baltic region; the
Balkans and Turkey; and these
Republics. This would constitute a noose
around Russia's neck.
Add to that Washington's effective
domination of the former Soviet Republics
of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the south,
and the US would be positioned to
launch externally instigated 'rebellions'
all over Russia.
NATO, whose current doctrine allows it to
intervene in states bordering NATO
members, could then initiate "low intensity
wars" including the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, also officially
endorsed by current NATO doctrine,
in 'response' to myriad 'human rights
abuses.'
It is ironic that Washington claims it must
return to Afghanistan to fight
Islamist terrorism, because it was
precisely in its effort to destroy Russian
power that Washington first created the
Islamist terrorist apparatus in
Afghanistan, during the '80s.
This was not, as some say, a matter of
aiding rebels against Russian
expansionism. Whatever one thinks about the
Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan, it was in fact conceived as a
defensive action to preserve, not
alter, the world balance of power. It was
the United States which took covert
action to 'encourage' Russian intervention,
with the goal of turning the
conservative rural Afghan tribesmen into a
force to drain the Soviet Union.
This is admitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
the key National Security chief at
the time.
Consider the following excerpts from two
newspaper reports.
First, from the 'N.Y. Times':
"The Afghan resistance was backed by the
intelligence services of the United
States and Saudi Arabia with nearly $6
billion worth of weapons. And the
territory targeted last week [this was
published after the August, 1998 U.S.
missile attack on Afghanistan], a set of
six encampments around Khost, where
the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden has
financed a kind of 'terrorist
university,' in the words of a senior
United States intelligence official, is
well known to the Central Intelligence
Agency.
"... some of the same warriors who fought
the Soviets with the C.I.A.'s help
are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden's
banner.... ('NY Times,' 24 August 1998
pages A1 & A7 )
And this from the London 'Independent':
"The Afghan Civil War was under way, and
America was in it from the start -
or even before the start, if [former
National Security Adviser, and currently
top foreign policy strategist Zbigniew]
Brzezinski himself is to be believed.
'"We didn't push the Russians to
intervene,' he told an interviewer in 1998,
'but we consciously increased the
probability that they would do so. This
secret operation was an excellent idea. Its
effect was to draw the Russians
into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret
that?' [said Brzezinski]
"The long-term effect of the American
intervention from cold-warrior
Brzezinski's perspective was 10 years later
to bring the Soviet Union to its
knees. But there were other effects, too.
"To keep the war going, the CIA, in cahoots
with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's
military intelligence agency ISI
(Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate),
funneled millions and millions of dollars
to the Mujahedeen. It was the
remotest and the safest form of warfare:
the US (and Saudi Arabia) provided
funds, and America also a very limited
amount of training. They also provided
the Stinger missiles that ultimately
changed the face of the war.
"Pakistan's ISI did everything else:
training, equipping, motivating, and
advising. And they did the job with
panache: Pakistan's military ruler at the
time, General Zia ul Haq, who himself held
strong fundamentalist leanings,
threw himself into the task with a
passion." ('The Independent' (London) 17
September 2001. Our emphasis.)
Right up to the present, U.S. ally Saudi
Arabia has been perhaps the key
force in financing the Taliban. But the
U.S. itself has provided direct
support despite the Taliban's monstrous
record of humanitarian abuse:
"The Bush administration has not been
deterred. Last week it pledged another
$ 43 million in assistance to Afghanistan,
raising total aid this year to $
124 million and making the United States
the largest humanitarian donor to
the country." ('The Washington Post,' 25
May 2001)
Why have the US and its allies continued -
up to now - to fund the Taliban?
And why nevertheless is the US now moving
to attack its monstrous creation?
It is our conviction, and that of many
observers from the region in question,
that Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan to fund the Taliban so the
Taliban could do a job: consolidate control
over Afghanistan and from there
move to destabilize the former Soviet
Central Asian Republics on its borders.
But the Taliban has failed. It has not
defeated the Russian-backed Northern
Alliance. Instead of subverting Central
Asia in businesslike fashion, it has
indulged in blowing up statues of Buddha
and terrorizing people who deviate
from the Taliban's super-repressive
interpretation of Islam.
At the same time, Russia has also been
moving in the 'wrong' direction, from
Washington's perspective. The completely
controllable Yeltsin has been
replaced with President Putin, who
partially resists the U.S. - for example,
putting down the CIA-backed takeover of
Chechnya by Islamist terrorists
linked to Afghanistan. Further, China and
Russia have signed a mutual defense
pact. And despite immense European/U.S.
pressure, Russian President Putin
refused to condemn Belarussian President
Lukashenko who, like the jailed but
unbroken Yugoslav President Milosevic,
calls for standing up to NATO. (3a)
It is this unfavorable series of
developments that has caused Washington to
increase its reliance on its all-time
favorite tactic: extreme brinkmanship.
An early sign of this brinkmanship appeared
two weeks ago, just before the
Presidential elections in the former Soviet
Republic of Belarus. Belarus is
in the Baltic region near Lithuania and
Poland. Washington and the European
Union loathe Lukashenko because he has
refused to turn his small country over
to the International Monetary Fund and
dismantle all the social guarantees of
the Soviet era. Moreover he called for
defending Yugoslavia. He even wants
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to reunite.
This desire to have former Soviet
Republics get back together puts him square
in the path of Washington's
policy, which is to break these Republics
up into even smaller pieces.
For months, Washington and the Europeans
have been meddling in the
Belarussian elections. Washington admits to
funding some 300
'Non-Governmental Organizations' in
Belarus. This in a country of some 10
million souls.
As if this wasn't sufficient, just before
the elections, U.S. Ambassador to
Belarus Michael Kozak issued a truly
startling statement:
"[Ambassador Kozak wrote to a British
newspaper that] America's 'objective
and to some degree methodology are the
same' in Belarus as in Nicaragua,
where the US backed the Contras against the
left-wing Sandinista Government
in a war that claimed at least 30,000
lives." ("The Times" (UK), 3 September
2001.) (4)
As you may recall, the Contras was a
terrorist outfit that Washington
financed during the 1980s to destroy the
Left-wing Nationalist Sandinista
government in Nicaragua. the Contras
specialized in raiding farming villages
where they slaughtered the inhabitants;
that when they were not smuggling
drugs. This all came out during the
Iran-Contra scandal.
Now Washington has cynically used the mass
slaughter at the World Trade
Center and the lesser attack on the
Pentagon to rally its NATO forces,
invoking Article Five of NATO's charter,
under which all members of NATO must
respond to an attack on any one. This has
the goal of a) putting together a
"peacekeeping force" for Afghanistan b)
launching air and possibly ground
attacks c) eliminating the obstinate and
incompetent leadership of the
Taliban and d) taking direct control
through the creation of a U.S.-dominated
NATO military occupation.
Some argue that NATO would be crazy to try
to pacify Afghanistan. They say
the British failed to do it in the 1800's,
and the Russians failed in the
1980's.
But Washington does not need or intend to
pacify Afghanistan. It needs a
military presence sufficient to organize
and direct indigenous forces to
penetrate the Central Asian republics and
instigate armed conflict.
Rather than trying to defeat the Taliban,
Washington will make the Taliban an
offer they cannot refuse: work with the
U.S.; get plenty of money and guns
plus a free hand to direct the drug trade,
just as the U.S. has permitted the
KLA to make a fortune from drugs in the
Balkans. (5)
Or oppose the U.S., and die.
In this way, Washington hopes to duplicate
what it did in Kosovo where NATO
took drug-dealing gangsters and violently
anti-Serbian secessionists and out
of that raw material fashioned the
terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army.
In this case the raw material would mainly
be members of the Taliban.
Reorganized and under strict direction,
reborn as Liberation Fighters, they
would be directed against the Central Asian
Republics of the former Soviet
Union. This would duplicate what NATO has
done in the Balkans. There it has
sent the KLA, beefed up by Islamist
reinforcements and 'advised' by U.S.
specialists, against neighboring Macedonia.
As the Central Asian Republics battle the
intruders, NATO could offer them
military assistance, thus penetrating the
region on both sides by means of a
conflict instigated by Washington. This
tactic of simultaneously attacking
and defending Central Asia - has been
employed to great effect against
Macedonia. The goal is to produce
decimated, NATO-dominated territories. No
more Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and
Tajikistan. (6) Then on to Kazakhstan, and
then Russia.
This strategy cannot be sold to the
American people. We repeat: it cannot be
sold.
It is for that reason that the Bush
administration is using the tragic
nightmare of murder in New York, which
itself occurred under circumstances
suggesting the complicity of Washington's
covert forces, to create
international hysteria sufficient to drag
NATO into the strategic occupation
of Afghanistan and an intensified assault
on the former Soviet Union. (7)
Before anyone sighs with relief, thinking,
"Thank God this is all that's
happening," consider that apart form the
violation of national sovereignty
and many other very negative aspects of
Washington's plans, the attack on
Afghanistan brings NATO to Russia's Central
Asian doorstep. This is a
strategic escalation of conflict, moving us
all much closer - nobody knows
how much closer and nobody knows how fast
things will escalate - to worldwide
nuclear war.
Will Washington get away with it?
Washington, and the giant capitalists who
control it, obviously think Russia will let
itself be destroyed. But then, as
the Greeks say, "Pride is followed by
self-destruction."
The Russians are very deceptive. They try
to avoid a fight. But as Mr. Hitler
discovered, when they are pushed to the
wall, they fight with the ferocity of
lions. And they have tens of thousands of
nuclear weapons.
Thus Washington is playing with the
possibility of a war which would make the
horror that occurred last Tuesday at the
World Trade Center, or even the much
larger-scale horror of the U.S.
terror-bombing of Yugoslavia, look like
previews of hell. (8)
- Emperor's Clothes
***
Further Reading:
1) Like a man with a guilty conscience, the
U.S. government and its NATO
allies constantly denounce terror while
routinely employing it in
international affairs. See for example:
'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND
COLOMBIAN 'DEATH SQUADS' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm
'WHAT NATO OCCUPATION WOULD MEAN FOR
MACEDONIANS'
First-hand report of the state of terror
instituted when NATO took over
Kosovo. Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/savethe-a.htm
''Five Years On & the Lies Continue.'
Discussion of the use by the
U.S.-sponsored Islamist regime in Sarajevo
of systematic terror against
Serbian villagers in Bosnia. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/texts.htm
'Meet Mr. Massacre' - Concerning U.S.
Balkans envoy William Walker's death
squad activities in Latin American. Can be
read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm
2) 'Criminal Negligence or Treason' Can be
read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm
3) 'Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and
Trying to Force Milosevic to
Surrender?' by Jared Israel and Nico
Varkevisser. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/whyisn.htm
3A) 'What The Hague Tribunal [sic!]
Wouldn't Let Milosevic Say' This is the
statement which Milosevic tried to give. To
prevent it 'Judge' May cut off
his mike. It can be read at
http://www.icdsm.org/more/aug30.htm
4) 'Tough Measures Justified in Belarus' by
Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/tough.htm
5) 'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND
COLOMBIAN DEATH SQUADS' by Jared
Israel. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm#a
6) 'SORRY VIRGINIA BUT THEY ARE NATO
TROOPS, NOT 'REBELS' Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
7) - Click here please.
8) 'Yugoslav Auto Workers Appealed to
NATO's Humanity...' Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/car.htm
9) Rick Rozoff takes a critical look at
Washington's response to Tuesday's
tragedies in 'Bush's Press Conference: Into
the Abyss' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/rozoff/abyss.htm
10) While Washington points to Osama bin
Laden as "suspect # 1" in
yesterday's horrific violence, the truth is
not being told to the American
people: 'Washington Created Osama bin
Laden' by Jared Israel can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html#w
11) If one looks carefully, one can find in
the Western media evidence that
bin Laden has been involved - on the
U.S.-backed side - in Kosovo, Bosnia and
now Macedonia. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm
12) Bin Laden was propelled into power as
part of the U.S. drive to create an
Islamist terrorist movement to crush the
former Soviet Union. See, the truly
amazing account from the 'Washington Post,'
'Washington's Backing of Afghan
Terrorists: Deliberate Policy.' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm
13) Head of Russian Navy says official
scenario couldn't have happened. See
'Russian Navy Chief Says Official 9-11
Story Impossible' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/navy.htm
14) Emperor's Clothes has interviewed Rudi
Dekkers from the Huffman Aviation
facility, at which two of the hijack
suspects were students a year ago.
Though Mr. Dekkers' told the interviewer he
had received many calls, the
media has not published his comments. The
interview was taped and the text on
Emperor's Clothes is a verbatim transcript,
including the grammatical errors
common in daily speech. See "Interview With
Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on
Official Story" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/dekkers.htm
URGENT APPEAL!
TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONATED TO OUR
FUNDRAISING DRIVE - THANK YOU!
BUT EMPEROR'S CLOTHES STILL NEEDS HELP!
The George Soros foundation does not fund
Emperor's Clothes. Our only source
of money is people like you. All
contributions help, big and small. Right
now, we're in serious need of financial
help from our friends.
If everyone who cares about Emperor's
Clothes chips in, we'll be out of
trouble in no time.
Any help you can send will be greatly
appreciated! $20, $50, $100 or $1000 -
it will all help.
You can make a credit card donation by
going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes,
P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation over the phone. Call us
at (U.S.) 617 916-1705 any time
and we will take your credit card
information over the phone.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by
secure server, please let us know
by email at emperors1000@..., just to
make sure we get it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!
www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
SEI UN PATITO DEL FITNESS? SEI UN NEOFITA CURIOSO?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta su
Fitness & Benessere prodotti di bellezza, consigli...
http://www.domeus.it/ad3709660/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...