DO YOU BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU SEE THEN READ THIS
Just war theory is the traditional approach taken to questions of the morality of war, but war today is far from traditional. War has been deeply affected in recent years by a variety of social and technological developments in areas such as international terrorism, campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing, the global human rights movement, economic globalization, and military technology. This book asks whether just war theory is adequate to the challenges these developments pose. Just war theory provides rules for determining when it is justified to fight a war. But some have argued that the nature of contemporary war makes these rules obsolete. For example, genocidal and aggressive regimes may require the use of military force that is not strictly in self-defense, as just war theory requires. In addition, the theory provides rules for determining what the limits are on justified conduct in war. But the random violence of terrorism and the deliberately inflicted violence of torture seem endemic to our age, yet take us beyond the limits set by these rules of conduct in war. By carefully examining the phenomena of intervention, terrorism, and torture from a number of different perspectives. Some have argued that the nature of contemporary war makes these rules obsolete. For example, genocidal and aggressive regimes may require the use of military force that is not strictly in self-defense, as just war theory requires.
The war that has taken millions of lives around the globe and the terrosim that has deep routed its roots in our society has no other question marks than "who is responsible?" by asking these sets of question to the great leaders of the world the answer they give will always be a blame upon someone else but nevertheless noone knows the fact behind the scenes.
General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
War on Terrorism
America fight against terrorism:
Well we all have already acknwoleged about the fight of United States Of America against the terrorist mastermind Osama bin laden now lets take journey towards it...and find the fact:
If there is a God, he’s into the blackest humor. Consider this: the agenda of the entire world over the past six years has been driven by two black-sheep sons of two prominent families whose fathers have been in business together: George Bush and Osama Bin Laden.
Here’s what they have in common:
1. They were born extremely privileged, and come from rich, elite families in their societies.
2. Their dads are friends and were in business together in the Carlyle Group.
3. They have Oedipal issues with their dads; both of them are not the favorite sons of their dads, and their actions can be interpreted as rebellions against their dads.
4. They’re extremely arrogant.
5. They’re extremely stubborn.
6. They both have a strong #2 man, who acts as their mentor — Dick Cheney for Bush; for Bin Laden, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad eye doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri.
7. They had black-sheep youths, but were converted to a new life.
8. They are fundamentalist believers. They believe they are on a mission from God, and have a direct line with the Almighty. They see the world in black and white, divided between good and evil, and they’re the good fighting the evil. They believe the world should be like them. In fact, they believe the world wants to be like them.
9. They were up-and-down in business, but after spotty business careers, they became extremely successful at the jihad and killing business. Number of Americans killed by Osama: over 4,000. Number of Americans sent to their deaths by Bush: over 4000 — that’s soldiers plus US mercenaries killed in Iraq. Number of Arab deaths caused by Bin Laden: between 5,000 and 20,000. Number of Arab deaths caused by Bush — between 100,000 and 700,000. These guys believe in violence as an instrument of policy. They will use any means to achieve their ends. Calling the one a terrorist and the other a fighter for freedom is pretty meaningless: they both kill to prevail.
10. They deserve each other.
The big question is: does the world deserve them? Unfortunately, given the world’s sheep-like adherence to the violent agendas of these guys, both in America and in the Arab world, we do
Now take a look at the former relations between them:
FTW - Money connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden go way back and the political and economic connections have remained unbroken for 20 years. And what appears to be a "new" alliance with Pakistan is merely a new manifestation of a decades-long partnership in the heroin trade.
Conveniently ignored in all of the press coverage since the tragic events of Sept. 11 is the fact that on May 17 Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a gift of $43 million to the Taliban as a purported reward for its eradication of Afghanistan's opium crop this February. That, in effect, made the U.S. the Taliban's largest financial benefactor according to syndicated columnist Robert Scheer writing in The Los Angeles times on May 22. But -- as we described in FTW's March 2001 issue -- the Taliban's destruction of that crop was apparently the single most important act of economic warfare against U.S. economic interests that the Taliban had ever committed. So why the gift?
Critics of the Gulf War well recall how, just prior to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, President Bush (Sr.) dispatched Ambassador April Glaspie to visit Saddam with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling the Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade his smaller neighbor. The May gift from Uncle Sam could well have been sending the same kind of message, along with necessary funds to complete the attacks. Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand.
Until February, Afghanistan had been the world's largest producer of opium/heroin, claiming close to 70% of the world's total production. That opium, consumed largely in Western Europe and smuggled through the Balkans, was a direct source of cash deposits in Western financial institutions and markets.
I specifically commented on this at an economic crisis conference in Moscow, Russia on March 7. In my formal statement to the Russian conference I said,
"Just before coming to this conference I read in the Associated Press, Agence France Press and other reliable sources that the Taliban has recently eradicated most of its 3000 ton opium crop in Afghanistan. If true, I view this as a form of economic warfare against Russia [and the U.S.] because it would drive opium production more into Southeast Asia and Colombia. However, I now suspect that this will result in a shift of opium production to the Caucasus under the Kurds which will see an increase in smuggling through Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. I should note that both Vice President Richard Cheney and the designated Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage are members of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. Such a move would have the effect of drastically shortening smuggling routes and costs into Western Europe and of bypassing unstable areas of the Balkans.
I have received additional reports that Uzbekistan is now awash in the opium poppy and, as in the US with the CIA, that Russian military and intelligence agencies facilitate the trade as a means of protecting access to hard currency. The point here is not that the US it totally evil or the only country doing these things. But the US is far and away the most advanced nation when it comes to the use of such methods to achieve superiority. As [Russian economist Michael] Khazin has noted, the US and Britain and Germany started the conflict in Kosovo in 1999 to stave off a collapse of western markets following the Asian collapse of 1997-8. Now Colombia is a last-ditch effort to protect the US markets and European opposition is jeopardizing that plan."
The Taliban's actions this year severed the ruling military junta in Pakistan from its primary source of foreign revenues and made bin Laden and the Taliban completely expendable in the eyes of the Pakistani government. It also cut off billions of dollars in revenues that had been previously laundered through western banks and Russian financial institutions connected to them. 
Now as US military action will replace the Taliban government and fresh crops will be planted in Afghanistan, the slack in cash flow will assuredly be replaced by dramatically increased opium production in Colombia; the revenues from that effort being needed to maintain the revenue streams into Wall Street. Prior to the WTC attacks, credible sources, including the U.S. government, the IMF, Le Monde and the U.S. Senate placed the amount of drug cash flowing into Wall Street and U.S. banks at around $250-$300 billion a year.
In that context, the real history of Osama bin Laden, as America's useful terrorist-du-jour reveals a long and continuous history, interwoven with the drug trade and the Bush family, of supporting conflicts that have benefited U.S. military and economic interests.
bin Laden
There are direct historical links between Osama bin Laden's business interests and those of the Bush family. On September 15 I received the following message from FTW subscriber, Professor John Metzger of Michigan State University:
"We should revisit the history of BCCI, a bank used by the legendary Palestinian terrorist known as Abu Nidal. BCCI was closely tied to American and Pakistan intelligence. Its clients included the Afghan rebels, and the brother of Osama bin Laden, Salem. Salem bin Laden named Houston investment broker James R. Bath as his business representative in Texas, right after George W. BushÕs father became CIA director in 1976. By 1977, Bath invested $50,000 into juniorÕs first business, Arbusto Energy, while Osama bin Laden would soon become a CIA asset. George W. BushÕs FBI director Robert Mueller was part of the Justice DepartmentÕs questionable investigation of BCCI. (On BCCI, the bin Ladens, and the Bushes, see the books, The Outlaw Bank, A Full Service Bank, and Fortunate Son)." Further details of the business and financial relationships between the Bush and bin Laden family are found in Peter Brewton's 1992 book The Mafia, CIA and George Bush. BCCI, incidentally, was founded by a Pakistani.
Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa has just completed a detailed history of bin Laden's career detailing his secret funding and logistical support to terrorist organizations beginning from his early CIA-supported roots in the 1980s as a "freedom fighter" through to the present day. Chossudovsky's compelling and well documented article, Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
Bin Laden's role has not just been as a practitioner of terrorist acts but as a trainer and supplier of terrorist organizations around the world. Included in bin Laden's coterie are terrorist groups linked to the Balkans, Albania, the KLA (a U.S. ally), and rebel groups leading the insurrection against Russia in Chechnya.
As FTW described in 1998, and as confirmed by Chossudovsky, the key to understanding U.S. support of bin Laden is to grasp that he has always been controlled by a cutout, the Pakistani government and its intelligence service the ISI. In this manner there has been virtually no direct contact between bin Laden and the CIA. This has served the dual purpose of maintaining his apparent "purity" with his followers and providing plausible deniability for the CIA. The whole underlying pretext for this relationship evaporated with the Taliban's destruction of the opium crop in February.
Chossudovsky writes:
"The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. In this regard [Professor] Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, 'the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per sent of the U.S. demandÉ
"With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics -- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons. Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.
"The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of PakistanÉ"
"É The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In the last few months there is evidence that Mujhideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of the KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into MacedoniaÉ
"É With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and PakistanÉ In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war.
"Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin."
The oil and drug connections were the subject of FTW's story, The Bush-Cheney drug Empire in October, 2000. Both Bush and Cheney are oil men.
George Bush, Sr. was Vice President and, by virtue of executive Order 12333, in charge of all U.S. intelligence and narcotics operations from 1981 through 1989. As President from 1989 through 1993, he continued and expanded his control in these areas. Thus, it was Bush (the elder) who directly nourished and nurtured bin Laden's evolution.
Dramatic Confirmation From Indian Government
The web site of the Indian Embassy in Washington contains dramatic confirmation for these positions. On September 4, 2000, B. Raman, Director of India's Institute for Topical Studies wrote an open letter to the U.S. Congress entitled Pakistan's Noriega's. That eight-page article exposed the depth of Pakistani government involvement in the drug trade.
The letter said, in part:
"For more than a decade, the people of India have been living in a state of half-war and half-peace due to the depredations of a large number of terrorists, outrageously called jehadists, who have been trained, armed and funded and infiltrated into the State of Jammu & Kashmir and other parts of India by Pakistan in order to make the people of India and its security forces bleed in the name of religion.
"More people belonging to different religions -- Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and others -- have been killed in India by these mercenary-terrorists sponsored by the State of Pakistan than by any other terrorist groups anywhere else in the worldÉ"
"ÉMany other States have suffered and have been suffering due to the depredations of terrorists, made in and exported from Pakistan and the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan -- [these include] Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Central Asian Republics, the Chechnya and Dagestan areas of Russia, the Xinjiang province of China, Bangladesh, the Arakan area of Burma and the southern Philippines..."
"After his [1993] removal, [as official head of Pakistani intelligence, trusted advisor to Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf] Lt. Gen. Nasir traveled to Somalia, Chechnya, Dagestan, the Central Asian Republics, ÉChina, and the Southern Philippines as a preacherÉ and helped Islamic organizations, including the group which killed U.S. troopsÉ in Somalia."
"ÉIt was he, who, during his tenure as the DG [Director General] of the ISIÉ has entered into an agreement with the LTTE of Sri Lanka [which secured] LTTE's assistance in smuggling Afghanistan produced heroin in its ships to West Europe, the USA and CanadaÉ"
"ÉAnother reason for the ISI's helping the LTTE, despite its anti-Muslim policies, was to use it for smuggling heroin to West Europe, the U.S. and Canada. During Zia-ul-Haq's regime in the 1980s, heroin had become a major source of extra revenue not only for the State of Pakistan, especially the ISI and Pakistan's nuclear and missile establishment, but also to many senior officers of the Pakistan Army, including [Musharraf et al]É"
"The way Mr. Sharif before October 1999 and Gen. Musharraf since then have been using the heroin money to prevent the Pakistani economy from collapsing has not received due attention in the U.S. ..."
"If one goes purely by economic indicators, Pakistan's must be in as bad a shape as that of Russia, or even worse, since Russia has been in receipt of Western and IMF assistanceÉ"
"Where does the money come from? From the smuggling of heroin to West Europe, the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Government might have stopped economic assistanceÉ from the taxpayers' money. But why should the Noriegas of Pakistan be worried when they get billions of dollars from the heroin sale in the U.S.?É "
Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comment that the CIA needs to get in bed with "unsavory characters" is a joke. That's a bed that the CIA has never left. And it's a marriage vow that President Bush has just reaffirmed for all the world to see.
Now just take a deep look at this:
Richard ClarkeExposes Bush Inaction on Al Quaida, Bush Lies About Iraq
Richard Clarke, a Reagan appointee and registered Republican who was the top official of counter-terrorism activities for the Bush Administration at the time of September 11, 2001, has revealed that he, CIA director George Tenet, and other intelligence officials warned George W. Bush that an attack by Osama Bin Laden's Al Quaida terrorist organization was likely imminent. According to Clarke, Bush failed to order counter-terrorist units to battle stations, the action that is the standard reaction to an imminent terrorist attack.
Clarke's new book, Against All Enemies, reveals that George W. Bush was soft on Al Quaida, and did not do what his counter-terrorism officials recommended to stop September 11 from happening.
Clarke explains that he has decided to reveal George W. Bush's terrible mistakes in combatting terrorism that he is outraged that Bush has the audacity to campaign on the basis of his reaction to September 11, 2001. He says, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop September 11." Further, Bush "failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."
Clarke revealed that just days after George W. Bush came into office, he sent a memo labeled "urgent" to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, asking for a cabinet-level meeting to discuss the serious danger that Al Quaida posed to the United States. Bush Administration officials did not bother holding such a meeting until one week before September 11, 2001.
When Richard Clarke tried to get the Bush Administration to hold high level meetings about the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden, his requests were rejected, and Bush appointees such as Paul Wolfowitz insisted that Al Quaida was not a serious enough threat to merit their attention. These Bush Administration officials criticized President Clinton for focusing too much on the threat from Al Quaida. So, in what proved to be a fatal lapse in judgment, the Bush Administration relaxed the campaign to counter Bin Laden. This lapse would be repeated later, when Bush took resources from the hunt for Bin Laden in order to invade Iraq.
Clarke further comments that George W. Bush pressured him and other intelligence officials to create an official report linking Iraq and Al Quaida. When Clarke's report clearly stated that Iraq had no relationship with Al Quaida, he was told that his report had the "wrong answer" and that he should come back with a new report. Clarke says that all the intelligence Bush had told him that Iraq "did nothing to threaten us." Yet, Bush chose to ignore this intelligence.
Clarke served as a first hand witness to the plans of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to invade Iraq, even without any reason to believe that Iraq posed any significant threat to the United States. According to Clarke, "The crisis was manufactured, and Bush political adviser Karl Rove was telling Republicans to 'run on the war." Apparently, the day after September 11, 2001, when it was already clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld proposed bombing Iraq instead of Afghanistan simply because Iraq had more targets that would be easy to bomb. Rumsfeld, supported by Bush, continued to push for an invasion of Iraq in spite of information from the CIA, FBI and Richard Clarke himself that Iraq had done nothing to contribute to any attacks against America.
Richard Clarke's assessment of George W. Bush's record on national security? He says that George W. Bush "has made us less safe" and that "I think he's done a terrible job on the war on terrorism."
Principled stand under attack
For the record, Richard Clarke was never fired. He worked in counter terrorism for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. He chose to resign from the White House of George W. Bush in 2003, after doing his best for two years to buttress the Bush Administration's weak and misdirected strategies to counter terrorist threats. There are no sour grapes here, just a leader with experience who is finally willing to tell the truth about George W. Bush's weakness in the face of terrorism.
We thank you, Mr. Clarke, for coming clean and telling the American public the uncomfortable truths that we should have heard from the lips of George W. Bush himself. We must now judge the Bush Administration for their reaction to Clarke's revelations. Will Bush and Cheney finally decide to be honest and tell the American people the whole truth?
Clarke, who has more experience dealing directly with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than most Americans could ever dream of, isn't holding his breath. Rather, he expects the Bush Administration to try to cover up the truths he has exposed. "I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," Clarke says, "and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."
We have seen too much of Bush's Republican attack squads to expect any better.
America's Choice:
Clarke's revelations do not stand on their own, of course. Rather, they are part of a picture that is so damning and so complete that it forces Americans to make a difficult choice. Americans must now decide that they have had enough of being lied to by Bush, or that they just don't mind being lied to, and are willing to let the people in the White House do whatever they want.
Blind trust in the truthfulness of George W. Bush is simply no longer an option. Too many people from the Bush Administration have independently described the same story that Richard Clarke has provided. Perhaps Americans might disbelieve one of these witnesses on their own. An American might disbelieve Richard Clarke, or Paul O'Neill, or Wesley Clark, or Joseph Wilson, or one of the other former Bush Administration officials who have described exactly the same scenario of a Bush Administration determined to attack Iraq from the very start, refusing to heed the warnings of intelligence officials who provided evidence that undermined that course of action. It's become clear that the Bush Administration knew very well that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in general, and nothing to do with Al Quaida in particular. It's become clear that George W. Bush was desperate to attack Iraq even before he became president, and that the weapons of mass destruction lies were nothing more than a bad excuse for another, hidden agenda. It's become clear that George W. Bush and his top aides knowingly made inaccurate statements, and intentionally ignored the advice of the FBI, CIA and other intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies.
The debate about Bush's lies is settled. Now, the only question that honest Americans need to ask themselves is this: Do I mind it when the President lies to me?
THE WAR HAS ONLY ONE PROSPECTIVE THAT IS DEATH
