//Defining Terrorism

Defining Terrorism

By Emmanuel Goldstein, Al-Jazeerah, July 30, 2006

Bush consistently asserts that that the United States is fighting a global war against terrorism.  To try to make sense of what the leader of the sophomoric American public is talking about, one needs to try to understand exactly what is meant by the word terrorism.  The noun terrorism is an abstract noun, such as the nouns love and hate; as such, the word terrorism represents no known substance—such as a rock or a tree.  The word does not represent something that exists in the material world; it merely represents an abstraction or concept that exists in the minds of literate individuals.  If one does not accept a consensus definition (one determined by group consensus) of terrorism provided by the publishers of military manuals, dictionaries, encyclopaedias and the mass media, one is capable of having his/her own personal definition of terrorism, just as one has his/her own definition of what constitutes love and hate. With no uncertainty, a great deal of truth lies in the maxim “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter

To have a clear understanding of terrorism, it is imperative that one realize that   militaristic terrorism  is nothing more than a form of unconventional warfare that usually arises when opponents are unevenly matched in conflict.  Unfortunately, unconventional warfare includes elements of behavior that are judged from  relativistic perspectives that are fluid and change over time and change from situation to situation creating complex moral dilemmas and contradictions both in current and historical time frames.

Understanding relativism is essential to understanding how one distinguishes war from terrorism. However, most communities reject relativism in pursuit of ethnocentrism, religious singularity and dogmatic adherence to cultural traditions.  For example, the British, for centuries, have embroidered their militarism in lofty moralisms.  The British and their American descendants argue that rules of war and concepts such as gallantry and honor should extend to the battlefields of civilized warriors (the concept of civilized war is a euphemistic oxymoron created by race supremacist who consider themselves more civilized than the people they seek to kill and dominate and who fail to realize that civilized people should be able to resolve differences without warring).

The concept of European gallantry and honor is clearly illustrated by the July 11, 1804 duel between Alexander Hamilton (former Treasury Secretary) and Aaron Burr (the sitting Vice President of America) who became adversaries on the field of battle.  Without subterfuge or deceit, they separated themselves by ten paces and engaged in an honorable gentleman’s duel, which resulted in Alexander Hamilton’s death and the Vice President being unsuccessfully prosecuted for murder.  Likewise the armies of Napoleonic Europe and the armies of the American Revolution and the American Civil War foolishly lined themselves up face-to-face on countless battlefields to become canon fodder and easy targets for volleys of bullets and buckshot, only to be rendered fallen soldiers or dead heroes, depending on the chronicler’s relative perspective.

An example of Europeans’ fixation with just and honorable warfare (once again an oxymoron) is also illustrated in the article, Chasing U-Boats and Hunting Insurgents: Lessons from an Underhanded Way of War,  Joint Force Quarterly, 1st Quarter 2006.  The article also clearly illustrates how relativism helps to define and frame civilized warfare and terrorism in the best interest of the framer.  Jan Breemer writes that over a century ago, a British admiral called the newly invented submarine an “underhand, unfair, and damned un-English weapon” and urged that submarine crews be treated as pirates and hanged. Breemer notes that, during World War I, as the Royal Navy’s political head, Winston Churchill ordered that captured U-boat crews be treated as criminals, not prisoners of war. (If Churchill was a political player in today’s world, he would refer to U-boat crews as terrorists, just as Bush/Blair refer to individuals trying to expel imperial invaders from Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine as terrorists).  Breemer writes:

Churchill’s action was symptomatic of the professional naval attitude toward this below-the-belt weapon: sinking merchant ships without warning was not “legitimate” warfare as behooved a civilized power.  Churchill himself had said before the war that doing so was akin to “the spreading of pestilence and the assassination of individuals.” Those sentiments of long ago have a familiar ring, albeit in a different context: insurgency warfare. Regular soldiers have historically looked on insurgency warfare as underhanded and unfair and, a U.S. combatant in Iraq might add, “damned un-American.” From the Soldier’s perspective, the insurgents’ war-making methods are neither those of a civilized opponent nor in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Particularly objectionable is the insurgent’s stealthiness: “the man, or woman, who appears to be a peaceable citizen but who may at any moment become ‘a spy, a brigand, and assassin and a rebel.’”  The soldier’s horror at “war in the shadows” and the sailor’s disgust at war “below the belt” are rooted in two sources.  The first is a moral and professional revulsion against what is seen as a particularly non-heroic and inhumane form of warfare.  Submarines and insurgents do not fight according the Western way of war, in which the opponents declare themselves and slug it out face to face.  Because of the way submarines have been used in two World Wars, they and insurgents share a reputation for being indiscriminate.  Because the U-boats refused to distinguish between civilian and military shipping, or between neutrals and enemies, they acquired the “terrorist” sobriquet.  The second, more practical reason for the submarine and the insurgent’s ill repute has to do with the difficulty for the conventional sailor and soldier in finding—and therefore defeating—their respective opponents.  Submarine and insurgency opponents involve asymmetric warfare; both have historically tied down disproportionately large numbers of forces. As many as 10 counterinsurgent or antisubmarine defenders can be needed for each enemy operative”.

In spite of the European/American gentleman’s view of warfare, Americans and Europeans have never (not surprisingly—hypocrites never practice what they preach) forsaken the opportunity to ambush or utilize surprise attacks to defeat a stronger or weaker opponent.  Nor, have they ever defined such tactics as terrorism.  For example, during the world wars, groups of people in countries such as France and Poland who engaged in sneak attacks against Germans invaders were referred to as the “Resistance” engaged in guerrilla warfare.

The problem of properly defining and classifying groups and individuals engaged in armed conflict is concisely illustrated in Dr. Anthony Vinci’s article, The “Problems of Mobilization” and the Analysis of Armed Groups, (Parameters, Spring 2006).  Dr. Vinci indicates that when dealing with non-state, armed groups, the first problem is to define and categorize them and he provides a limited list of categories: insurgent, guerilla, warlord, terrorist, and militia.  He states, “From this initial classification we tend to apply a set of assumptions about the groups for our analysis and response.  For instance, if we believe we are fighting a guerilla insurgency, we ask where the popular support is coming from; or if it is a terrorist group, we
apply counter-terror tactics.”  However, he notes that the classification process is not a concise or objective science and can result in improper analysis, improper classification and improper responses (recent examples of improper responses have manifested in Iraq and Afghanistan).

To add to Dr. Vinci’s illustration of the problematic nature of defining the character of the rebellious victims of American imperialism, we find that articles found in most military journals, unlike references made in the mass media and those made by politicians, refer to the rebellious victims as insurgents or individuals engaged in asymmetrical or irregular warfare—not terrorists.  For example, Major Norman Emery (USA), Major Jason Werchan (USAF) and Major Donald Mowles, Jr. (USAF) refer to the actions of groups considered high profile terrorist groups, by America’s mass media, as nontraditional warfare—not  terrorism (Fighting Terrorism and Insurgency: Shaping the Information Environment.  Military Review, January – February 2005).  Lieutenant General David Barno, US Army (Ret.) also refers to the actions of America’s rebellious victims in Iraq and Afghanistan as asymmetrical warfare (not terrorism) designed to deal with the overwhelming conventional combat power of the United States military.  Parameters, Summer 2006.
The editors of Britannica Book of the Year 2005 define terrorism as: The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

POWs and the Global War on Terrorism Britannica Book of the Year 2005 http://www.britannica.com/memberlogin

Britannica’s definition of terrorism allows for a global and historical examination of the systematic use of violence.  Such an analysis clearly reveals that foreign ideologues and foreign (non-American) religious groups have not held a monopoly on the use of systematic violence as America’s mass media leads a gullible American public to believe.  History shows that imperialistic states/tribes (America/Britain), ideological and religious groups (American Ku Klux Klan/Christian extremists) and lone individuals with intense personal views, such as the American Uni-bomber and Timothy McVeigh have routinely used and continue to use systematic violence to create a general climate of fear in order  to achieve particular political objectives.
States with long histories of being wealthy in weapons of mass destruction, such as America, have the ability to systematically kill thousands of people in a single moment, striking fear into the heart of a nation or group of people, to bring about political objectives.  At the close of World War II, America systematically bombed Japanese cities with atomic weapons in order to create a general climate of fear and attain political objectives—Japan's surrender and compliance with the political will of the Allies.  What is the moral difference between Americans killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a few minutes with an atomic bomb and insurgents killing fifty to one hundred civilians with a car bomb?  What is the moral difference between killing generations of innocent Vietnamese civilians with residue from chemicals such as Agent Orange and killing generations of Iraqi and Afghani civilians with residue from depleted uranium bombs?  What is the moral difference between Anglo Americans committing systemic genocide against the Black, Brown and Red people of the Americas and Insurgents attempting to drive the British/American barbarians from their homelands?

While the historical social and military behavior of America, both within and outside of the Americas, clearly fits Britannica’s definition of terrorism, the person or persons most often defined as terrorists are individuals who, lacking the military sophistication and weaponry of American/British imperialists, resort to unconventional warfare.  Such underdogs use unconventional military tactics to battle superior armies, police forces and paramilitary groups that utilize classical military weapons and tactics.  They engage in sneak attacks on enemies and the general populations from which the enemy combatants are recruited or draw assistance; and, they attack their enemy's infrastructure using whatever weapon(s) they can create or obtain.  Such individuals are labeled terrorists because they strike terror in the hearts of their adversaries.  They are perceived as terrorists because their methods of waging war or fighting their foes fall outside the realm of conventional military tactics and are unpredictable, frequently targeting peaceful pedestrians who have only a tangential or no connection with direct military operations.

A soldier on the battlefield knows that death is always immanent and anticipates attacks by conventional and unconventional forces on his life and his bases of operation. The same cannot be said for the civilian dining at a sidewalk café or dancing and drinking in a nightclub.  The terror experienced by an unsuspecting civilian population, after an attack, is magnified many times over by the fact that the victims are most often unarmed and going about their daily activities, rarely or never expecting an assault on their tranquil lives. Civilians expect to die peacefully in their beds and the thought of being blown to kingdom come without warning can do nothing but terrorize the hearts of civilians.  

America’s historical relationship with its own Native and Black Americans has been one of terror and offers an abundance of irrefutable and documented evidence that Anglo- Americans care nothing about civilians—not their own or those of other nations.  Consequently, it is totally mystifying and baffling why the people of the Middle East believe that they can have a mutually just and honorable relationship with Britain and America—two Anglo countries responsible for the majority of misery wrought by colonialism and neo-colonialism in the middle east and around the world.

 Perhaps the fair-skinned leaders of the Middle East feel that their complexions and facial features engender some sort of commonality and/or human equality in their dealings with American/British Anglos.  For the fair-skinned people of the Middle East to think that their facial features and fair complexes put them on equal footing with American/British Anglos is a dangerous act of self-deception.  Anglos lump all Arab speaking people of the Middle East into one racial category—Arab, and secretly refer to all Arabs as Sand Niggers.  The history of Anglo’s relationships with its non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants (Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Japanese, Chinese—all fair skin people) offers an abundance of documented evidence that Anglo Americans are not phased by the fair complexions of non-Anglos and harbor a race supremacy attitude toward all non-Anglo-Saxons, an attitude that makes it forever impossible for them to live peacefully with other races.

Considering Britannica’s definition of terrorism, simple logic shows that all warfare, regardless of how it is fought, involves elements of terrorism.  Wars, military battles or invasions are conducted with the intention of either totally annihilating an opposing army or through the massive slaughter of the opponent's soldiers and/or citizens to terrorize the populace into surrendering.  Killing and destroying during a military conflict has only one purpose: to create a remnant population so terrorized or fearful of immanent death that it will retreat and/or surrender and submit to the political will of the victorious army. The purpose of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to terrorize a remnant of Japanese citizens and government officials into surrendering and submitting to the political will of the allied armies.

The Americans referred to their battle plans in Iraq as "shock and awe" and shock and awe means the same thing as to terrorize. So, war is terrorism and terrorism is war, both are one and the same. Unlike Bush/Blair and American media manipulators would have the world believe; Bush/Blair and the so called terrorist all seek the same objective—to bring about particular political objectives using military tactics that include killing opponents.
During a war, there is no civilized way to kill human beings because war is axiomatic with a breakdown in civilized behavior.  All methods of killing achieve the same end result—people die. Consequently, it is inexplicable how the Americans can discern a moral difference in using their weapons of mass destruction—nuclear bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, chemical weapons, HIV genocide (as currently waged in Africa, China, Russia and India) genocide through the use of narcotics and economic warfare (as waged against Black, Native and Mexican Americans)—and Iraqis using roadside bombs and suicide bombers to kill American/British soldiers who have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.       

The religious and cultural crusaders of America and the Neo Con imperialists in Washington D.C. and London advocating a new world order persistently argue that America is fighting a legitimate, endless WAR on terrorism   However, the Americans and their henchmen illegally invaded Iraq using what they called overwhelming force, which, in reality, was a systematic use of violence designed to create a general climate of fear in the population of ordinary Iraqi citizens and citizens throughout the Middle East in order to bring about political, cultural, religious and military objectives—the democratization and re-culturalization or Americanization of the Middle East, designed to further the globalization of laissez-faire capitalism and to achieve unspecified military objectives.  America’s endless or systematic WAR on alleged terrorism is itself naked terrorism, making the Bush/Blair war on terrorism a paradoxical war unless the Anglo-Americans/British are prepared to wage war on themselves.  

To the Anglos and their henchmen who continue to support the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq and have needlessly lost sons and daughters in Iraq, in your defense, at best, one can say you have been brainwashed or deceived by American political sophistry about Muslims hating Western Civilization’s way of life.  A way of life that has roots extending back to Babylon’s Hammurabi’s Code of Laws (Ca.1792-1750 BC), which provided woman more protection than the original American Constitution), the Democracies of Greece and human rights enshrined in political documents such as the Magna Carta and the American Bill of Rights.  At worse, one can attribute your undying loyalty to Anglo-Saxon xenophobia  or your lack of education, particularly in America, where the average American, even though he/she may have graduated from high school, has the equivalent of an eighth grade education and would not be able to identify Iraq on a map if his/her life depended on doing so.

Those Americans and Englishmen who believe that Muslims hate the Anglo-Saxon British/American way of life, as declared by their idiot president and idiot prime minister  in order to justify their illegal and uncivilized behavior in the Afghanistan and Iraq, need to clearly understand that not unlike the average American/Britain, the average Muslim, anywhere in the third world is an uneducated/undereducated person who does not understand the historical complexities of the development of modern western democracies.  The average Muslim, anywhere in the world, particularly the Third World, from day-to-day has no reason to ever give a passing thought to the concepts of democracy and freedom in America and Britain.  The Average Muslim, just as the average American, is a poor man of non-Anglo-Saxon decent who has his daily survival to worry about as opposed to envying or hating the abstract concepts of freedom and democracy, of which he knows nothing as they are corruptly manifested and practiced in America and Britain.

American and British people, in their reverie of ignorance need to realize that even the Taliban and other fundamentalists Muslims do not want to invade America and Britain to destroy the countries’ political systems and morally degenerate, capitalistic ways of life.  Fundamentalist Muslims realize full well that they do not have the military capability of invading North America or Europe.  Fundamentalist Muslims have no navy or air force capable of attacking North America or Europe and have no munitions industries capable of supporting such a war. The whole notion of Muslims fundamentalists attempting to annihilate Western civilization amounts to nothing more than a moronic charade designed to instill fear in and manipulate the American public’s political judgment, just as American slave owners controlled their slaves’ behavior by telling them that ghost would kill them if they went outside at night.

Throughout the late 20th century and thus far into the 21st century, the focus of Muslim fundamentalist has been to preserve their people’s devotion to Islam and to prevent Western cultural and militaristic imperialism from overwhelming and destroying Islam and the various cultures of the practitioners of Islam.  Muslims wish only to prevent the West from recreating the world in its own image—the golden calf crafted by the hands of Aaron.

The fear that all Moslems, both moderates and fundamentalists, have of Western cultural and militaristic imperialism are totally justified considering the goals of the American/British Axis of Evil that are concisely expressed by the imperialistic sentiments of America’s Neo Conservatives and clearly laid out in John Lynn’s Patterns of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency (Military Review, July-August 2005). Echoing the words of U.S.  Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, Lynn argues that defeating nation-state forces in conventional battle is not the task for the 21st century.  He argues that state building, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency have become the primary tasks for U.S. Armed Forces and that such operations are not military operations but constitute war. The question to answer becomes: “war against whom”?  Lynn provides the answer in quoting Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map, who argues that, “to extinguish terrorism we must integrate the entire world into the global economy and thus give everyone a stake in it, which amounts to saying that if the terrorists are on the train they will not want to blow up the tracks.”  Quoting Barnett, Lynn notes “that when incentives fail in a quest for the greater good, we might have to force reluctant regimes to get on board. This would require maneuver forces to execute a coerced regime change, followed by state building to create stability and security in the face of some level of insurgency.  www.smallwarsjournal.com.

Experience tells us that “American state building” means creating banana republics (puppet states) that provide cheap labor for America’s multinational corporations and creating criminal enterprises (largely in the drugs trade, e.g. Afghanistan and Columbia).

If the Anglo-Saxon race supremacist and Jewish Neo-Cons in Washington (who are mostly Jewish only in name because the blood flowing through their veins is largely or totally European) would desist in their attempts to exert cultural, religious and military control over the non-Anglo-Saxons, they would not have to contend with revolts, which they call terrorism, against their imperialism.  If Anglo-Saxons in American/Britain seek honesty verses self-deception, hypocrisy and lies with regard to the meaning of terrorism, they need onl
y look to the events that transpired in the village of Haditha in November of 2005. The slaughter of 20 innocent people in the village of Haditha, by American Marines, was designed to terrorize Iraqi civilians into blindly complying with the political and cultural will of Anglo-Americans. If the Young Marines who killed the innocent people of Haditha were at home, in American/Britain, they would be spending their time hating and terrorizing people of color and foreigners.  Many would be prepared to hang a Black man or firebomb his home or church. Many would be prepared to burn a Synagogue to the ground or kill a Jewish person.  Many American Marines would be members of a local Ku Klux Klan chapter or a racist militia group and would be killing illegal Mexicans to keep them from crossing into land that was stolen from Mexico only because America had the military power to take the land by force and because American imperialists such as Vice President Aaron Burr felt that Mexican rights to the land were inconsequential in contrast to Anglo-Americans’ rights to the territory.

In light of relationships that Anglo-America/Britain has maintained with other races, it is totally mystifying why anyone who knows their histories is surprised by the racist and xenophobic massacre in Haditha.  Any student of history knows that for centuries Anglo-Saxons have treated people of color and non-Anglo-Saxons (Polish, Irish, Italians, Welch, Scottish, Jews, East-Indians, Asians, and Arabs etc.) with total contempt, as if they were less than human.

The American/British Anglo Axis of evil is the eminent enemy of peace in the world and anyone who opposes the axis of evil is naïve to expect that axis will ever honor the dignity and sovereignty of independent nations.  The machinations of the Anglo Axis in the world today constitute a reinvigorated attempt by British/ American  Anglos to re-institute colonial rule (re-phrased for the 21st century as the spread democracy and economic and cultural globalization) in a world where the sun will never set on the new Anglo empire that is replacing the old British Empire.

The American/British move to re-colonize the world represents a 21st century version of America’s 19th century ideology of manifest destiny—the belief that Anglo-Americans should rule all of North and South America.  American Neo-Cons and their military/CIA counterparts view America’s destiny as that of a civilizing imperialist, establishing nation states that serve the interest of “the greater good” (the greater good being an euphemism for the interests of the Anglo empire—the American/British Anglo Axis of evil).  The people of the world who seek to remain sovereign entities must realize that their future does not lie in negotiating with Anglo barbarians.

Anglo barbarians understand and respond only to might.  They are Social Darwinist and perceive that “White (Anglo) is right and that might makes right”.  The “might” that the American/British Anglo’s realize they hold in their weapons of mass destruction is the might that makes right their imperialism and the globalization of their way of life—the “interest of the greater good”.

While the American/British Axis of Evil feels that the power of its mass media can create reality, its mass media serves up only distorted versions of reality that define all of the Axis’s opponents in negative terms—terrorists, guerrillas, insurgents, etc.  However, while the Axis has presented a distorted view of both the battlefield tactics of conventional European warfare and the tactics of irregular warfare adopted by Third World people, defending themselves from Western imperialists, the practitioners of irregular warfare likewise hold a distorted view of reality.

While so called honorable military charges between opposing armies that result in thousands of deaths in a matter of hours, make little sense, a suicide bomber blowing up civilians makes no sense.  Killing civilians only creates public animosity for the suicide/car bomber, his cause and his political/military group. Such killings do not incite a public to demand that its government capitulate to the will of the adversary.  If anything, civilian killings incite publics to demand that their governments take stronger actions against those killing their spouses, children, parents and loved ones.  Such illogical killings incite civilians to become soldiers seeking revenge on the field of battle and help to destroy the perpetrators legitimate cause and credibility.

Israel’s former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, learned the futility of killing civilians.  He came to realize that killing innocent civilians only damaged Israel’s moral reputation in the world.  Like the American CIA, Ariel Sharon came to realize the prudence in executing precision attacks designed to kill the leaders of one’s designated military opponents; and learned that doing so was a more terrorizing option than blowing up innocent women and children civilians.  

If Arabs are truly responsible for the civilian killings in Iraq; and, the killings are not being conducted by mercenaries sponsored by the American CIA and/or Israel’s Mossad, the Arabs have proven themselves to be one of the most gullible and foolish group of people on the face of the earth, whose military and political stupidity will seal their doom.    Shiites killing Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shiites will never bring about the liberation of Iraq.  Sectarian violence in Iraq will only insure its continued occupation and the eventual division of Iraq by the American invaders and their henchmen, which is the true goal of the American/British Axis of Evil as it prepares for war with China and seeks permanent bases in the Middle East.  A divided Iraq will necessitate the continue presence of American troops in Iraq for the next fifty years in order to stabilize the tripartite division of the country and prevent an indigenous un-doing of the break-up of the country.

A prolonged and indefinite occupation of Iraq, not a withdraw, is exactly what America’s CIA and Pentagon wants; and, if the Shiites and Sunnis are actually responsible for the sectarian violence in Iraq, they are giving the American Axis of Evil the excuses it needs to justify its continued occupation of Iraq.  However, evidence indicates that many of the car bombings in Iraq are American CIA/Military operations designed to instigate sectarian violence in Iraq that will reach a boiling and cause all parties involved to demand that the country be split in three; and, insure that the three regions be secured with American peace keepers (troops).      

The political and military naiveté of the Arabs, Kurds, and Iraqis etc. of the Middle East has allowed them to be used and manipulated by America and Israel to America’s geo-political advantage.  America was instrumental in instigating and perpetuating the Iran/Iraq war, a war that weakened both countries and prepared the way for America’s invasion of Iraq.  America tricked Sadam Hussein into believing that he could invade Kuwait, without consequences, simply so that America would have a just cause for invading, occupying and establishing a forward military base of operations in Iraq in preparation for war with China; and, simultaneously, insure that Iraq will never again be a military power in the Middle East.

In preparing for war with China the American/British Axis of Evil feels that it also needs to establish military bases in yet another outpost—Iran. America’s occupation of Iran will allow American/British military forces to establish a direct overland supply route and air space from the Mediterranean Sea to China via Israel, its puppet state of Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. With the occupati
on of Iran and the establishment of a secular government in Iran, the placement of a major building block in America’s plans to war with China will be completed.

With Libya neutralized, the Bush/Blair Axis of Evil has no foes in Northern Africa and because of the recent actions of Hezballah, which may be a tentacle of the CIA/Mossad Axis of evil, or may be a victim of a CIA/Mossad operation (the kidnapping Israeli soldiers) or may be the victim of CIA/Mossad infiltration (counter-intelligence) that is allowing America/Israel to directly influence the actions of Hezballah to the advantage of America/Israel.

 One would think that after the Muslim world was exposed to the West’s duplicity and shenanigans with Al-Quada in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union and America’s manipulation of Sadam Hussein, which eventually led to the invasion of his country and his illegal imprisonment, that the people of the Middle East would be more astute with regard to the clever ways in which America and Israel manipulate and manufacture events in the Middle East to their political/military advantage.  

The war that the west is fighting in the Middle East is not a conventional war.  The Americans are engaged in a form of covert warfare that is played out as a clever chess game.  The Americans secretly manipulate situations that trigger actions, by parties in the Middle East, which Americans and Israelis can use to justify military intervention and occupation of territory.  Usually, the actions taken by parties in the Middle East are portrayed in the mass media as atrocities or threats to world peace or the security of America, justifying intervention and making America look as if it is the defender of righteousness.

In light of naiveté and the susceptibility of the Muslim players in the Middle East to be manipulated into engaging in illogical and self-destructive quasi-military actions, it appears that Lebanon and Syria will soon no longer constitute a threat to an American/British land route from the Mediterranean Sea to the Afghanistan/China border.  The military machinations that the Americans are carrying out in the Middle East in order to prepare for war with China will also allow NATO to contain Russia’s Western front and its Southern front all the way to China’s border and allow American imperialist direct and unhindered access to China’s western border, which is the main goal of America’s CIA/Military think tanks.  The spread of democracy and securing oil reserves necessary to America’s vital interest are only secondary goals and primarily serve as cover stories used to divert the American public’s attention away from thoughts of a nuclear war with China and serve to deceive China and Russia into believing that America’s intentions in the Middle East are benign with regard to the security of Russia and China.

Bush’s sermons about spreading democracy are lies.  Bush does not believe in democracy, not for Americans or anyone else. The fraud and corruption of Bush’s cronies—denying a large number of minorities their right to vote and destroying ballots, allowed Bush to be fraudulently elected president twice.  What Bush says about spreading democracy to the Middle East is simply a CIA/Pentagon cover story for the occupation of Middle Eastern countries.  America’s invasion of the Middle East is simply the first phase of war with China and the Arabs and others in the Middle East have been tricked and manipulated by the American/British Axis of Evil into losing their geo-political sovereignty so that the axis of evil can gain a geographic military advantage in its anticipated war with China, a war that will possibly turn into a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and bring an end to all life in the region.   

When George Bush senior invaded Iraq, other countries of the region placated the West, called Sadam Hussein and evil despot and failed to help him defend his country from the epitome of evil—the American/British Axis. Those who failed to assist Sadam Hussein, a victim of America’s deception and manipulation, are now receiving  but a foretaste of the bitter fruit harvested as a consequences of their timidity and fear of losing the American dollars and weapons for which they prostitute their morals and human dignity.  The American/British Axis of Evil with Israel’s assistance is prepared to defeat and occupy the countries of all of their perceived enemies, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, one or two at a time under the pretext of fighting “Terrorism”—and abstract noun, defined by renown terrorist states—America and Britain.

It is essential that victims of American/British imperialism realize that American/British Anglo politicians have no regard for the sanctity of human life or the death of civilians—their own and/or foreign.  The deaths of civilians of any race have no impact on the psychology and/or the pathological actions of racist American political and military leaders.  Americans have callously killed civilians in very military action in which they have engaged; only to explain the deaths by arguing collateral damage or by offering some other equally spurious explanation.

The author, Emmanuel Goldstein, is the president of the International Coalition of Social Workers, an organization that I co-founded in 1991 with the goal of opposing social injustice wherever it occurs in the world. I hold a Masters Degree in social work and bachelor degrees in English Literature, Sociology, Psychology and Communication Studies. The International Coalition of Social Workers has worked extensively with the United Auto Workers Union in the United States, with social action groups in Canada and development groups in Ghana, Kenya and Somalia.