In the Line of Hell Fire: Chpater 12; The War of Terrorism

In the Line of Hell Fire

Chapter 12: The War of Terrorism

The War of Terrorism

The word Islam means submission to the God (In Arabic Allah) and peace. Both are interrelated and intertwined. No submission to Allah, no peace. It is as simple as that. The entire universe is submitting to Allah and there is peace there. As human beings are given choice of being obedient or disobedient, the disobedient ones loose peace and remain in constant turmoil and confusion, no matter in how much physical luxuries they may remain in. On the other hand truly obedient ones are at peace even in under worst circumstances. The word Muslim means one who possesses Islam (The letter M is for possession and it is combined with Islam). A Muslim is one who is obedient to the God and has peace. One who is not obedient could be a hypocrite but not a Muslim.

Peace is antagonist and opposite of terrorism. So how can a Muslim be a terrorist? It is simply not possible. Islam is peace and protects you even in your absence. It does not allow back biting. It does not allow verbal and physical abuse. It does not allow breaking of hearts. The current war which you may term as World War III is between Islam and SAM (Sub-Animal Materialism) and the latter is not only using brute force and violence but also a very loud and wide propaganda against Islam and Muslims. While creating all sorts of violence and terrorism, it is ascribing, assigning and attributing it to Islam. This is done in order to malign and defame Islam to lower the morale of Muslims and to prevent common people entering in the folds of Islam and thus stopping Islam from gaining strength and momentum. Mere verbal condemnation of terrorism will not stop Global Terrorists. Here comes the role of Jihad, a true and genuine Jihad against the terrorists. It is understandable that those who would involve in this operation against terrorism will be labeled as terrorists!

The global terrorists are agents of Satan. These SAM worshippers are worst than any animal and in the words of the glorious and majestic Quran these are lowest of the low. The Zionists and their comrades and brothers are among these groups. Under the self proclaimed slogan of being chosen people and which they are not any more as they have lost the book of the God and can’t be thus role model they are practicing the worst racism possible. They call non Jews gentile which means bastard and they allow all sorts of crimes against non Jews; whom they call talking animal to serve Zionists, absolutely kosher and automatically forgiven on Yom-e-Kippur. Of course these are their own fabrications, lies and inventions which hold no water and will lead to them straight in hell. The magnificent Quran has challenged the Zionists at many places that if you really think that you are chosen, then wish for death. But certainly they will never wish for death as deep in their heart they know what their hands had sent ahead for hereafter and what type of punishment is waiting for them.

As SAM (Sub Animal Materialism) worshippers are the lowest of the low, you must no expect any humanity, human values and any positive thing form them. They are simply infertile, barren and incapable of conceiving truth and following it. These are in fact dead and putrefied dead bodies with no vision, no hearing and no thinking. These are claiming to have been engaged in war on terrorism while they are actually committing and employing a war of terrorism. These people are like thieves who are shouting thief, thief as if they are chasing thieves. This act of deception is nothing new. Zionists are known for such treacheries and deceptions for centuries. In order to appear innocent and get a “justification” to commit terror they have hired and employed people to serve as their “enemies”. These puppet enemies do what their masters tell them to do. For example the master terrorists ask them to do some minor act of terrorism e.g. kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah and then master terrorists have a free hand to commit a much larger act of terrorism e.g. Israeli invasion of Lebanon with sole objective of getting UNO into Lebanon which then act as occupying force to the benefit of Israel. Thus Israel does not loose a drop of blood while UNO using non Jewish soldiers collect the booty for Israel. The master terrorists have thus several types of agents including:

Group 1: The one who are visibly serving them and doing their boot licking all the time e.g.

o Pervaiz Musharraf

o Karazai

o Hassni Mubarak

o Abdullah of Jordan

o Late Shah of Iran

Group 2: The one who are playing pseudo enemies or American Wrestling Matches and puppet shows e.g.

o Late Jamal Nasir

o Late Yaser Arafat

o Late Hafiz Assad

o Saddam Hussain

o Bashar Asad

o PLO

o Hizbullah

o Bathist party

o Several religious parties

o Several individuals including Aswat, Yousuf Ramzi etc.

Group 3: The so called neutral and welfare and humanity types of organizations e.g.

o UNO

o Free Masons

o Rotary Club

o Lions Club

o Human Rights Organization Including Amnesty International

Group 4: Religious groups created by the Zionists which serve as the most obedient servants of the Zionists while they speak the language of local people and have all physical and demographic characteristics of local people thus they have easy penetration in all places in a given society. With external and internal maneuvering Zionist bring them in top positions and thus carry out their aims and objectives from high offices e.g.

o Qadyanis and Pervaizees occupying most key positions in bureaucracy and military in Pakistan. Musharraf himself is a Perwaizee and his wife if a Qadyani. Shaukat Aziz is a Qadayni etc. (Please see chapters on Qadyani and Aga Khan connections)

o Ismailis in different countries at key positions. In Pakistan Aga Khan & Co are controlling big business ventures and other important positions. Saddam, Qaddafi and Asad are all Ismailis

o Bahis in Iran still at key positions with close networking with the Zionists (30,000 alone in Tehran and many more in Isfahan) These Zionists in Tehran in collaboration with CIA took USA embassy hostage and put the blame on Muslims in order to defame Islam as terrorist religion. Later USA green cards were issued to the hostage takers and several of them were working in USA!

Group V: Cyber and animation groups and persons which include the following

o Al-Qaeeda who only exists in the White House in Washington DC. Form here videos, movies, emails of accepting responsibilities are created and delivered to different mirror sites e.g. Al-Jazeera TV etc.

o Fake Osama Bin Laden and Fake Zahrawi etc.

o Islamic Jihad and other pseudo organizations and personalities to take credit of any thing which their Global Terrorist masters i.e. Israeli Government, Zionists, Bush, Blair, Puttin etc would like them to!

The group 1 is easily recognized and there is usually no confusion but many naïve and some intelligent people get confused about group 2. Many buy the propaganda and Zionist tactics and believe that the group 2 enemies are real and at times they start celebrating the “victories” of Group 2. Group 3 agents use masks of social welfare services e.g. WHO health programs and then make inroads in the power corridors. They implement the policies of Global Terrorists under the curtains of humanity. At times the Group 3 organizations may play the role of Group i.e. to engage in pseudo criticism but from deep inside they are the agents of Global Terrorists. UNO for example assured Bosnian citizens of their protection if they surrendered their arms. Once Bosnians trusted them and handed over arms, the UNO then facilitated massacre of Bosnian men. UNO carried out espionage for Serbs and in Lebanon UNO didn’t take any action against Israel when Israelis deliberately killed 4 UNO observers! But how can slaves take action against their masters?

The esteemed readers of “In the Line of Hell Fire” may like to read the following: from “Terror, war and semantics”, Published by Eric Blair on 17 October 2006 at 3:59 pm in Iraq, War, Middle East. “I’m sure most LPers and lurkers would be familiar with George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, and Don Watson’s Weasel Words. The thrust of the argument is that we should be giving ‘things’ their proper names, not using some obfuscatory delicacy to euphemise the real meaning.

I think it’s time we started doing the same thing with the current global ‘50 year’ conflict. I am, from now on, going to refer to the “war of terrorism”, or simply the terror war, rather than the “war on terrorism”. I’m sure this will get me in to trouble with the “no moral equivalence” brigade and it might stir the bampots to indignant explosion. But it has to be argued.

There is in fact some moral equivalence. There is a sense in which both sides are culpable, but there’s also a sense in which one side is more culpable than the other. I’m not talking about a “He started it!”, “No, you did!” argument. Nor is it simply a matter of body counts. Though from what’s been argued recently, the “Coalition of the Willing” is way ahead of the “terrorists”.

There are several reasons why I think this little semantic change is necessary and overdue.

First, the fighting in Iraq. All combatants are using tactics and strategies that fall within the definition of terrorism. There are many ways to defiine terrorism, but no matter how you cut it, this one stands out as simple and sane.

Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of coercion including the use of force, intended to intimidate or coerce, and committed in support of political or social objectives.

This is a definition provided in a glossary compiled by the Internal Audit Office at the Austin Community College in Austin, Texas. Does it apply to both sides in the war of terror? IMHO, yes.

Dealing with the easy ones first. Of course, nobody with any capacity for rational thought would deny that suicide bombs are terrorist activities. Kidnapping and executing civilians, whether local or foreign, in Iraq, is an act of terrorism; the arming and mission-tasking of death squads is an act of terrorism. Blowing up the World Trade Center was an act of terrorism. Now, can we apply the same test to the “allies”, to “our” side? I think we can. The occupation of Iraq, like the invasion of 2003, is certainly problematic under international law. The actions of American forces at Abu Ghraib were illegal under the rules of engagement. The rendition of prisoners and the use of stress-inducing techniques to elicit confessions are also legally dubious. Guantanamo Bay exists in legal limbo. The tactics of house-to-house searches; the hooding of detainees; sanctioned assassinations; cluster bombs; DU munitions; turning a bind eye to death squads: all of these meet some, if not all of the conditions to be called “terrorist activities”.

And now I’m going to upset the Zionists. Israel is also a terror state. Like I said, I don’t support rocket attacks on civilians, or suicide bombing and the history of Zionism is complex, caught up as it is with what Robert Fisk describes as the “war for civilisation” that has plagued the Middle East for the past 100 or so years. However, the state of Israel was imposed on the region, in the same manner in which Stalinism was imposed on Eastern Europe. it was a convenient card to play in the imperialist division of the spoils after the allied victory.

In the carve up that followed World War II, the British needed a proxy to defend their interests in Arab lands, particularly given the rise of pan-Arab nationalism and anti-British feeling in the post-war period. Israel fit the bill. How does this justify the military and intelligence operations that Israel have launched into Lebanaon? Not just those of recent months, but over a period of 50 years. Some of Israel’s founding fathers were members of terrorist organisations.

I suppose I should say something about culpability too. History will eventually allow us to understand all the complex causes of the terror war, but I am prepared to argue that the capitalist West is in fact more responsible than Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Taliban and al Qai’da. Imperialism is the problem, not Islamic fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism in the Middle East, Indonesia and other Islamic nations is not the root cause. It is a response (albeit a confused and politically useless one) to the renewed onslaught of imperialism and globalization. Suicide bombs are a response to the frustration, anger and impotence felt by a generation of dispossessed. It is impossible to understand what’s really happening if we attempt to shove all of this history and politics behind the word “terrorist”. However, for the moment this is an aside. I won’t shy away from these comments and I’m certainly prepared to take them up later. My argument for a semantic switch from “on” to “of” is part of the program to shift the debate onto this ground and away from the terrorists just hate us line.

The third reason that my suggested linguistic shift is important is because, once we start using it, the tendency to a knee-jerk support for “our” troops and “our” President/Prime Minister is able to be undercut.

If it’s a war “on” terror, it is a war against terrorism and the terrorists. In this construction and with this syntax there is an inbuilt ideological position. A war against terrorism is justified because the unstated ideological assumption is one of “right” versus “wrong”. Or, to use the parlance of the annointed, “Good” versus “Evil”.

Such assumptions make it easier and more “logical” therefore to talk about bringing the terrorists “to justice” and to argue that “freedom-loving peoples” should support such actions.

On the other hand, if it’s a war “of” terror, or simply a “terror war”, the implication is that neither side can claim the moral high ground. The motives of Bush-Blair-Howard are open to question.

Which brings us to the thorny “moral equivalence” argument. It sometimes goes like this: “You might not like the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the terrorists are worse.” That’s a simplification, but even the most sophisticated pro-war argument boils down to this eventually. It has to, because otherwise the pro-war lobby would have to defend atrocities that even they can’t stomach. Sometimes it seems that GWB even buys into this when he says that “God” is on his side in this war.

Bush invokes the Holy Spirit in every speech he makes about the war, usually to a sympathetic audience of men and women in uniform, or in this instance, the veterans of previous wars at the American Legion’s national convention in late August this year:

We believe that freedom is a gift from an almighty God, beyond any power on Earth to take away. (Applause.) …

May God bless our veterans. May God bless our troops. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

How is this so different from the apocalyptic pronouncements of the Islamic fundamentalists? Personally I prefer Bob Dylan’s ironic rendition of this dubious blessing:

So now as I’m leavin’
I’m weary as Hell
The confusion I’m feelin’
Ain’t no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God’s on our side
He’ll stop the next war.

There are many other examples of weasel words and many citations that reinforce Orwell’s arguments about euphemism, double-think and newspeak. “Good” versus “evil” is one that springs to mind. So too is the trippingly awful phrase that GWB uses constantly-rallying the world to confront the ideology of hate-that is dutifully echoed in choral harmonies from London and Canberra.

At the end of the day I’m not entirely happy with “war of terror”, or “terror war”. I’ve been mulling over things like “Bush the younger’s crusade”, but that’s not quite right either. How about “Daddy’s unfinished business”?

It’s not really about tactics or strategy, which is what using the word “terror” in any combination really draws attention to. I’d like to think of something that captures the war aims. These often get lost in the rhetoric about freedom, God, Allah and so on. In some senses it is a war about territory - the occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan) and attempts by the other side to get the occupiers out. Current military and political thinking is that this conflict has got at least another decade to run. If so we’re going to have a long time to think about this, to count the cost and consider the fall-out.

In 2003 when the conflict began in Iraq it was seen by many to be a war about controlling the oil reserves of the Middle East and access to lucrative pipelines. This has been successfully pushed off the front-page and out of public consciousness by the focus on terrorism. But this has not made the war any more popular according to most opinion polling in the USA, the UK and Australia. In the sense that all wars have an economic cause, it probably is still a war to conquer territory and control oil.

From the Islamic “side” there’s no doubt some sentiment that this is a war to establish a Sharia-ruled cosmos. This is no different from claims by the western powers that they’re bringing “democracy” to the Middle East. There’s no evidence that either side is morally right on that score. On both sides there is propaganda aimed at building and maintaining public enthusiasm for the fight.

It’s also a conflict about extending US global hegemony and strike power through forward bases and rapid deployment. Maybe we should just settle on “War of the world”.

Orwell was curmudgeonly and pedantic in many things, but he was right about politics and language.

When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. [Politics and the English Language, 1946]

When I read this I also see George Bush or Dick Cheney on the platform in front of sympathetic military audiences proclaiming a God-given right to obliterate and maim in the name of some ill-defined and cynically manipulated belief. The call to holy war in the name of a Christian God fills me with as much horror as any video of Osama bin Laden preaching jihad, or ritual beheading in the name of Allah.”

The author is little bit confused at a few places as he has not fully comprehended the depth of deception employed by Zionists through various groups as we have mentioned above. Overall his analysis is very close to truth and based on facts. Another view on War of Terrorism may interest your. This is published on September 11, 2004 titled: “The War OF Terrorism” by By Edward Herman. It says: “As the powerful seek domination their control of language is as important to their success as their possession of weapons to frighten and kill. The ability to pin the label of terrorist on their targets, and to have themselves (and clients) merely engaging in counter-terror and retaliation is a major advantage of the powerful, as terror is a highly invidious word. Who can oppose combating and defending against terror?

George Bush has won this war of language, whether he thinks "we" can or cannot win the war on terrorism. John Kerry and the Democrats have been delighted at Bush's momentary retreat on whether we (he) can win this war; but they believe in the war and have differentiated themselves from Bush mainly by claiming that they will do the job of winning it more efficiently than Bush.

Even many liberals and leftists contend that Bush's attack on Iraq was wrong mainly because it diverted attention from the war on terrorism, which they regard, explicitly or implicitly, as a legitimate enterprise, properly central as a foreign policy objective, and one that Bush is pursuing, even if incompetently.

An alternative view, rarely even mentioned in the mainstream and anathema to the "cruise missile left"--although not unfamiliar in much of the rest of the world-- is that the war on terrorism is a fraud and cover for a war of terrorism. This is not to deny that 9/11 was a major terrorist act and that a response against the perpetrators would be entirely justifiable.

But not much of Bush's alleged anti-terror effort has gone into pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists; much more has been put into a huge military buildup that has nothing to do with defending against terrorism, a great deal has been expending in direct U.S. terrorist operations (as in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, briefly described below), and substantial sums have been devoted to helping out clients who are "with us" and pleased to get U.S. help in dealing with their own dissidents ("terrorists").

The Bush triumph in the use of language requires a slithering past the essential meaning of terrorism, and even official definitions, in favor of the "only-if-they-do-it-is-it-to-be-called-terrorism" definition. The essential meaning is "A mode of governing, or opposing government, by intimidation" (Webster); the U.S. Code definition is "any activity...dangerous to human life?intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?[or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation."

It has long been recognized that states are the primary terrorists, as they have the resources to intimidate, and terrible forms of intimidation such as torture are engaged in almost entirely by states (in Abu Ghraib, by Saddam Hussein's Iraq and then by the United States). They are what we may call "wholesale" terrorists, who do their terror business on a large scale, in contrast with "retail" terrorists, who kill on a smaller scale with their more limited means.

But because the United States and many of its clients like Israel and Colombia--and for many years Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Uruguay, South Africa and Turkey, among others--have used terrorism as a mode of governing, or of extending their domains, by intimidation, official usage has downgraded state terrorism and tended to confine the use of the word to retail terrorism.

Exceptions are made where politically convenient, so that the former Soviet Union, Libya and Cuba can be guilty of terrorism and sponsoring terrorism, and retail terrorists under U.S. protection like Savimbi in Angola, the Nicaraguan contras, and the Cuban refugee network still engaging in hit and run attacks against Cuba, are classed as "freedom fighters" rather than terrorists (in contrast with Mandela's African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization, both long classed as terrorist groups).

Three of the four Cuban expatriate terrorists recently pardoned by the president of Panama are U.S. citizens, and after their release from prison returned immediately to their safe haven in Miami (perhaps to work, as some wag has suggested, on the Florida Board of Elections).

Naturally, officials can only get away with this ludicrous evasion of wholesale terrorism and focus on selected retail terrorisms with media cooperation, which has always been forthcoming.

Although the New York Times did very briefly mention the conclusion of Argentina's "National Commission on Disappeared Persons" whose work followed the ouster of the military government in 1983, that the terrorism of the military government had been "infinitely worse" than that of the retail terrorists they were exterminating (along with many many non-terrorist dissidents), throughout the years of Argentine state terrorism the Times confined the use of the word terrorism to the acts of the retail terrorists, also frequently referred to as "extremists," in accord with the official agenda.

It should be obvious that war and military conquest involves wholesale terrorism on an especially large scale, and state terrorism should also include a military buildup and development of weaponry designed to produce fear and compliance with the demands of the stronger. Is a nuclear war threat and the brandishing of nuclear weapons not a case of trying to "influence a government [or many governments] by intimidation"? As the United States has monopolized brandishing and using nuclear weapons, this is not found to be terrorism in the West, by application of the "only-if-they-do-it" definition and rule.

The same definition and rule explains why war and conquest are not terrorism: it fits the wrong party too often. But the fit is close: it was openly acknowledged during the bombing war against Yugoslavia in 1999 that the intent was to force a quick surrender by displaying overwhelming force and ravaging Serbia, and this plan was warmly greeted in the United States by liberal pundits like Thomas Friedman ("It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted.

Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too," "Stop the Music," New York Times, April 23, 1999). This was clearly an attempt to "influence the policy of the government by intimidation," the intimidation eventually explicitly aimed at civilians and civilian facilities, therefore constituting both "terrorism" and a clear violation of basic international law (but aggressively supported by Louise Arbour and the Yugoslavia Tribunal).

The ideas that this was self-defense or even defense of Kosovo Albanians, and was forced by Serbian violence and the exhaustion of negotiating options, are completely indefensible (see Diana Johnstone's Fools' Crusade and Michael Mandel's How America Gets Away With Murder).

The U.S. attack on Afghanistan was a source of widespread fear in that poor country which was receiving large-scale international aid to prevent mass starvation. Unknown numbers died in fear-based flight from U.S. bombs and the disruption of aid service, and many thousands?many more than died at 9/11--were victims of "collateral damage."

Collateral damage killings were exceptionally large because there was no political cost to killing Afghan civilians, so bombing civilian sites based on rumor and unverified "information" was commonplace, besides which many areas bombed contained civilians friendly to the Taliban and hence were more than expendable ("This is an area of enormous sympathy for the Taliban and Al Qaeda," said General Gregory Newbold, about the killings at the wedding ceremony at Kakrak; or "The people in this vicinity clearly were connected to those activities," as Rumsfeld said about a mass killing of civilians at Karam village).

This was wholesale terrorism, even if the United States had a right to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11?the thousands of dead Afghanis were not perpetrators and were not responsible for acts of the Taliban, and the U.S. attack was in straightforward violation of the UN Charter.

The same of course was true of the invasion-occupation of Iraq, the initial "Shock and Awe" invasion bombing plan pointing up the importance of the use of fear as well as force as means of intimidating the Iraqi army and populace. Both the invasion and occupation have been characterized by the lavish use of firepower, including cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions, in heavily populated areas to keep U.S. casualties low (at the expense of Iraqi civilian casualties) and to intimidate any opposition.

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths under the occupation run up to 37,000 and beyond. Sweeps with mass arrests based on minimal information stoked fear and anger, and helped fill Abu Ghraib and other prisons, the Red Cross claiming that U.S. officials acknowledged that 70-90 percent of those seized and imprisoned--with many tortured-- were taken "by mistake" and presumably on the basis of misinformation or no information of oppositional activity.

These terroristic practices, carried out in support of a completely illegal invasion and occupation, helped stoke a major insurgency in Iraq. However, for the U.S. establishment and media, local resistance to this wholesale terrorism was evil and outlawry, and the only behavior properly designated by the word terrorism. This requires eye aversion, internalization of the belief in the U.S. right to commit aggression and the absence of any right of the people attacked to resist, and the use of the "only-if-they-do-it" definition.

For the Bush administration the invasion-occupation of Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, and so is the support of the governments of Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, the Philippines, Russia, Turkey and Uzbekistan, all involved in local wars of repression that involve serious state terrorism. The buildup of U.S. arms and bases throughout the globe is part of the war on terrorism, but it and the underlying policy documents that give it intellectual rationale clearly relate to power projection and the determination to dominate, not reaction to "terrorism." These all bespeak a war OF terrorism, not a war on terrorism.”

Even Non Muslim countries are not spared when they speak against the Global Terrorists as mentioned in the following article: “US 'War of Terrorism' extends to Venezuela
By Andy Goodall, Oct 20, 2006, 13:2. On October 17th U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (TX), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report on border violence in the Southwest. The bulk of the report – 38 pages out of 39 - deals with the increasing violence and influence of Mexican drug cartels operating on the US southern flank and is obviously of great concern for US security and the health of its population from the increasing “drug menace” which is being pushed by more narcotics consumption at home. (See page 32 of the report, and footnote 117)

On October 17th Fox News interviewed McCaul and the next day CNN followed suit.

Both interviews allowed McCaul to bring Venezuela into the mix alleging that the Venezuelan government has been issuing ID documents to potential terrorists from Colombia, Cuba and the Middle East, countries which host foreign terrorist organizations.

The source for these revelations is an article written by one Linda Robinson in US News and World Report on October 6th 2003 and can hardly be classified as “intelligence information”. This article is a mix of hearsay and innuendo and when it was published three years ago was part of the campaign to discredit the democratically elected and constitutional government of President Hugo Chávez, who called the article “sewage and disgusting” when questioned about it in 2003.

Robinson provides no hard evidence for her claims in the article which was long since discredited in 2003. The US taxpayer should be asking the question why millions of dollars are spent producing House Subcommittee Reports based on spurious allegations from a paid hack?

At this time in 2003 Venezuelan authorities were issuing ID documents to millions of Venezuelans and foreign residents who did not possess such documents, since it is a constitutional right for everyone to have a legal identity in Venezuela and hence the right to vote in elections. In this context, unidentified US officials stated at that time: “The list easily totaled several thousand," the official says. "Colombians were the largest group; there were more than a thousand of them. It also included many from Middle Eastern `countries of interest' like Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon." The official adds: "It was shocking to see how extensive the list was."

What is not mentioned is that there are at least four million Colombians historically living in Venezuela and the other countries mentioned also have large populations in Venezuela as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. None of this is new. However, it was twisted into a red herring in 2003 and has now been revived by McCaul in his October 17th report.

In the report there are implicit accusations that the Venezuelan government continues with this alleged policy of issuing ID documents to “terrorists”, who could then obtain Venezuelan passports and US visas to enter the US. Same unreliable source from Robinson. The only evidence in the report is that “several Pakistanis were apprehended at the US-Mexican border with fraudulent Venezuelan documents”. In the CNN interview McCaul lies when he says that Venezuela is issuing ID documents to alleged terrorists, when the only documents found were fraudulent.

There has been no official protest from Ambassador Brownfield in Caracas about these wild, unfounded allegations, nor has there been a diplomatic note sent to Venezuelan Ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvárez. To obtain a US visa in Caracas is extremely difficult and fewer and fewer are being issued. So where is the scandal?

The scandal is firmly entrenched in the editorial line of Fox News and CNN who are clearly participating in the media judgment together with McCaul of Venezuela somehow being involved with international terrorist activities.

And all this has suddenly been revealed when there is a titanic struggle taking place in the UN for the remaining seat for Latin America on the non-permanent Security Council. Guatemala – in reality the US – has been thwarted from imposing its will by Venezuela since after 35 rounds of voting, no country has obtained the two thirds majority necessary to occupy this seat for the next two years. This is not a coincidence and so it is necessary to discredit Venezuela by any means. Call in the media troops to lay the terrain.

US actions of actively lobbying for Guatemala also indicate that the US must be convinced that Chávez will be reelected in December. If Chávez contender had any chance then the US would probably have let Venezuela accede to the UN seat in the secure knowledge that a new lackey would be president of Venezuela from February 2nd 2007 onwards.

In the CNN interview McCaul spins several lies to make his case against Venezuela:

• Hezbollah training camps on Margarita Island – a a long-standing Venezuelan international holiday island for the rich in the Caribbean Sea. This allegation started in 2003, but then the “training camps” belonged to Al Qaeda. US spokesmen should make up their minds and provide photographs of these Islamic groups training. In fact, no news agency has managed to do this in more than three years.
  
  Note for readers: Exiled Venezuelan and Cuban opposition terrorists are still training militias in Florida to invade Cuba and Venezuela, but not one word is uttered by Governor Jeb Bush.
• Venezuela is supporting Iran’s nuclear arms program and “talking to Iran about uranium” There is no evidence anywhere that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb and even less that Venezuela is going to sell uranium to Iran. Just speculative news reports from unethical sources such as CNN, Fox News and other news outlets at the service of the Bush administration. The only evidence offered has been by radical Venezuelan opposition groups in Miami alleging that there is a “uranium enrichment plant” under an bicycle factory set up jointly by Iran and Venezuela in Bolivar State (south east Venezuela) and that Venezuela is “flying uranium directly to Iran from Amazonas”. Venezuela has consistently stated that it supports Iran’s right and that of any other country, to develop nuclear power “for peaceful purposes” and condemned North Korea’s recent nuclear underground test.
• McCaul even mentions that “Islamic terrorists” could in fact introduce WMD’s over the Mexican border into the US. This is not even worth commenting on as it goes beyond the realm of barefaced lies, into the realm of paranoid schizophrenic fantasy. Let’s be clear, the aim is to terrorize the US population into more fear from terrorist attacks and then pass new laws to infringe the basic human rights of US citizens in the name of National Security.

The terrorism being practiced is media terrorism by major US news agencies and endorsed by the hawks in the Bush administration. This is without mentioning US military terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq where the war is being lost in a dust cloud of attrition accompanied by the deaths of US soldiers and innocent civilians.

The conclusion to be drawn by this unsubstantiated attack on Venezuela is that it is not only a question of the deadlock in the UN, but also that the US is laying the ground to destabilize Venezuela before the December 3rd presidential elections and distort its image internationally after Chavez’s firm stand on being an independent, sovereign nation out of the orbit of US hegemony. http://venezuelasolidarity.org.uk/ven/web/2006/
articles/media_war_of_terrorism.html”

We must not buy the terms, meanings and implications of Global Terrorists and must always regard Terrorist (Ter.) Bush, Ter. Blair, Ter. Musharraf and Ter. Puttin as such in our writings. We must say a spade a spade and to clear the confusion created by the Terrorists medias like Ter. CNN, Ter. BBC, Ter. Time, Ter. Newsweek, Ter. Fox etc.