I saw this in my local newspaper a few days ago and haven't been able to stop thinking about it. It was at the end of a very narrow column with no explanation.
I'll write more later, but maybe some others want to spend time thinking about why it only took about 3 square centimeters of column space in contrast with the significance of what is actually being said in the quote.
"Why is Bin Laden talking about Palestine now? Bin Laden never, not ever, stressed this issue. He never helped us.. He was working in a completely different area and against our interests. I am telling him directly not to hide behind the Palestinian cause."-Yasser Arafat
24-12-2002
The Dominion Post
Similarly, last night on TV3 at the end of the main news there was a very brief mention that the US has declared that it is henceforth treating Iran with 'vigorous hostility' (I think I have the details and the quote there right). Any idea what this is about?
Yeah, basically it's part of what they're now calling the 'neo-conservative agenda' which is about getting the middle east to fall into line with U.S. interests. Some of it's conspiracy theory type stuff, but mostly it has to do with the number of neo-conservative "intellectuals" who have managed to have an influence on George Jr. Check out:
http://www.aei.org/
The "scholars" page alone is like a who's who of neo-conservatism, including the vice-pres' wife.
Remember when they started yammering on about Syria? Essentially the same thing is happening now with Iran, and they have made noises about Egypt too. Depending on what side of the ideological fence you sit on, this can be perceived as a pro-Israeli stance or a anti-terrorist/pro-democracy stance and this why so many folks are confused.
Unfortunately it all boils down to the same thing, you're either with us (democratic and capitalist) or against us (US). I actually heard one of the U.S. policy makers say last night that France should possibly be thought of as a 'strategic enemy'. One guy in the audience was wearing a shirt which read 'Iraq First, France Second'.
The funny thing, well, serious thing actually, there would be enormous civil unrest if they try and pull this off in the next 12 months--especially without a 'bad guy.'
Thanks for that link, I'll go have a read.
I guess they only need to dig (or should that read 'cook'?) up and disseminate 'bad guy' details about the leader of whichever nation they are wanting to focus on, then go from there. I am guessing that what is going on at the moment in the UN - focusing on the nuclear programme of Iran, as well as North Korea - is all part of this strategy (the UN trying to get back on the US's good side - which is probably too simplistic a reading, but it's bound to be a consideration).
Have you looked at www.newamericancentury.org (the site of the The Project for a New American Century)? An article there, dated 29 July 2002: 'Regime Change in Iran?', makes an interesting point about George W Bush's religious beliefs - essentially that he believes the morality behind Christianity and US rights/
freedoms is an objective fact, consequently everyone in the world is entitled (read 'should') to partake of them and it is within his authority (read 'duty') to bestow them. Also interesting final paragraph that says, in essence, if Bush plays it right and 'liberates' Iran, he will be able to do the same throughout the rest of the Arab World.
Yeah, i went to that site about a year ago when they were cooking stuff up in Afghanistan. It's totally filled with some very creepy shit (to use a very academic tone of voice-ahem). I haven't cross-checked the members of the two organisations, but i know there is some sharing of members between the two, or if not, then certainly relationships between the two.
I think the stuff about taking Iran and having access to the rest of the middle-east is kinda funny, and not in a haha way either. Mostly because it's exactly what they said about Iraq, what they have said in the past about Palestine, and probably what they'll say in the future should anyone else in the middle east be in some way against U.S. interests or be in their best interests to "liberate".
Seemingly Korea tries this stance every couple of years to ostensibly get cash out of the U.S. I sometimes wonder if the latest attention upon nuclear weapons is somehow tied to that 'nuclear defence system' George wanted to build before Sept 11. Do you remember that? Before Sept 11 George was intent on focussing upon domestic affairs and a defense system that was pissing off Putin and Russia no-end because it was destroying all of the anti-ballistic treaties they had made. Lets face it, if you can get other nations to get rid of their weapons, it may mean there are less to "fall into the hands of terrorists" and it also means there are a whole lot less to blow up later if they attack you.
Actually, we should probably continue this on the forum
I wonder if the NSA, CIA or FBI have monitored this? Given some of the words above...Hi Guys!