|
|
Post by tombldr on Oct 29, 2004 18:57:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by POA on Oct 29, 2004 19:08:42 GMT -5
One October Surprise, coming right up....
|
|
Hanzo
Full Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Hanzo on Oct 30, 2004 17:54:34 GMT -5
I think this is Act I of the BFEE's performance piece. Anyone else expecting OBL's or someone resembling him capture soon or a staged attack as Act II ?  |
|
|
|
Post by POA on Oct 30, 2004 19:56:15 GMT -5
I think this is Act I of the BFEE's performance piece. Anyone else expecting OBL's or someone resembling him capture soon or a staged attack as Act II ? :( Actually, I really don't think they'll do that for once. I think that if they had that in mind, they would've already pulled it. Of course, I've been wrong (and spectacularly so) before, so YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Oct 31, 2004 0:08:57 GMT -5
The American Press is flexing its "TERROR" muscle this week-end. I've been surfing around and Bin Laden has supplanted both Bush and Kerry in the media, just two days before the election. Does anybody else ever get that feeling that we are all characters inside a Fellini movie ? Excerpt from BBC News: "The New York Daily News had its own messages for Bin Laden. "Butt out", it said in a front-page headline. "Osama rants in pre-election tape - Bush, Kerry tell him to stuff it". In an editorial, the paper said Bin Laden's video or "attention-seeking behaviour" seemed less of an attempt to influence the election and more just a reminder that he was still around. "We know he hasn't gone away. We know good and well he's still out there plotting unpleasant things, to whatever degree he's still able to do that on the run every day with what scattered lieutenants he's got left," it said. "And we know he's going to end up dead. And he does too. "The American people aren't impressed with the scarecrow act. Trust us on that one, Osama."_____________________________________ (bold by me) If Americans are not impressionable, why put Bin Laden's picture on the front page ? (Did I miss something here?) |
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Oct 31, 2004 11:02:02 GMT -5
Outside of believing that this tape is fake as a $3 bill, I'm still unsure of the source and their agenda. It doesn't really follow that it was RoveCo, as they surely wouldn't want to remind anyone of aWol's pathetic goat story behavior on 911. The Osama actor also said something about "liberals are security minded" or some such. If Ruppert's speculation is correct re Wall Street's disenchantment with cheneyco, reflected by the CIA which he asserts is principally a tool of Wall Street, then it would follow that the latest fake Osama tape is a CIA propaganda stunt to 1) hurt cheneyco and 2) fan/reinforce the war on terra hoax among the sheeple, which will remain in place regardless of which puppet administration is installed. I don't really see the fake polls moving decisively in either direction since the fake Osama tape hit, and I certainly don't pretend to know what the fake outcome of the fake election will be. I'll speculate Kerry by a fake nose, as the preponderance of (real!) evidence says a net-majority of Wall Street elites have decided that a regime rotation is in order. If nothing else, the Osama propaganda piece will achieve objective "B" among the sheeple. Booga Booga! Gold hit a 16-year high on Fridayas the dollar continues its slide into the abyssSomething is going to go "bang" very soon, probably on election day but certainly by inauguration, as the economic meltdown is imminent regardless and the elite need another fake ter'st attack to blame it on. Unsolicited advice: Get out of the dollar asap. If you have any cash laying around, look up the coin dealer in your city, and go in today or tomorrow and buy gold & silver coins. The fundamentals for silver are actually much more bullish than for gold, but I believe a global rush will be on for both metals very soon (already is in China & India), with silver doubling in spot price long before gold. Alternatively, buy gold/PM stocks/mutual fund tommorow. Be out of (or short) the stock market outside of PM stocks. When the elites stage another bang (election day?), the value of your PM-related assets will go pop, and will continue their run as the economic meltdown unfolds over the next year. Current metal spot pricesedit: bear in mind, it's also more likely than not that, with or without another false-flag ter'st attack by the elites Tuesday, the election outcome is virtually certain to be suspended in legal limbo. Both sides have kennels of 1000s of lawyers queued up to challenge any preliminary outcomes, as sure as the fraud and dirty tricks will be widespread. Tuesday will be a mess, and the world will still be in limbo when it's over. Bad for the markets, bad for the dollar, good for gold/PMs. Load up in some form of PM assets by tomorrow, and you'll be sitting on nice profits by Wednesday. |
|
Hanzo
Full Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Hanzo on Oct 31, 2004 14:36:28 GMT -5
The American Press is flexing its "TERROR" muscle this week-end. I've been surfing around and Bin Laden has supplanted both Bush and Kerry in the media, just two days before the election. Does anybody else ever get that feeling that we are all characters inside a Fellini movie ? Excerpt from BBC News: "The New York Daily News had its own messages for Bin Laden. "Butt out", it said in a front-page headline. "Osama rants in pre-election tape - Bush, Kerry tell him to stuff it". In an editorial, the paper said Bin Laden's video or "attention-seeking behaviour" seemed less of an attempt to influence the election and more just a reminder that he was still around. "We know he hasn't gone away. We know good and well he's still out there plotting unpleasant things, to whatever degree he's still able to do that on the run every day with what scattered lieutenants he's got left," it said. "And we know he's going to end up dead. And he does too. "The American people aren't impressed with the scarecrow act. Trust us on that one, Osama."_____________________________________ (bold by me) If Americans are not impressionable, why put Bin Laden's picture on the front page ? (Did I miss something here?) It could be to thwart any examination of the "official" story of 9/11 and the faux war on "terrorism" by the sheeple. I find it funny this "OBL" is now all of a sudden admitting to 9/11 after 3+ yrs. Also, funny how the roots of the Arab World's anger with the United States is mentioned again by "OBL" and how quickly again it is blown off by the press. But then that's to be expected. Those who benefit from American foreign policy are never going to allow any critical examination of it. |
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Oct 31, 2004 16:14:25 GMT -5
One October Surprise, coming right up.... Can I have a double serving please and hold the pickled-fear. |
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Oct 31, 2004 19:13:15 GMT -5
Those who benefit from American foreign policy are never going to allow any critical examination of it. Not all the world lives under the same time frame as America does. What happens today will not be forgotten next week. If the interest is compounded, unexamined policies risk costing more than what it was ever worth to begin with. OBL and twenty-year time bombsby Ahmed Amr (Sunday 31 October 2004) Osama Bin Laden was destined to be a major factor in this election from the moment the first plane struck the World Trade Center. The memories of that assault are deeply etched in the collective American psyche. Two days after the attack, George Bush assured a shaken nation that “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” Since he made that promise, Bush has often been asked about Osama’s exact whereabouts. A few months later on 3/13/2002, Bush acknowledged that “We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.” It was highly unlikely that Kerry would not bring up the president’s pledge during the debates. And so he did. Which led to the following exchange in the third debate in Tempe, Arizona on October 13, 2004 – only three weeks before the election. John Kerry: When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden? " He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned." George Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. Osama’s name came up dozens of times in all three debates. Even before the election got started, he was nominated most likely to be deliver an ‘October surprise”. And so he did. Other international figures also tried to rig this election. Two weeks before the election, Russian President Putin endorsed George Bush. At the central Asian summit in Tajikistan on October 18, 2004 he said "International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term. If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition.” Not to be outdone, Tony Blair sent a whole Black Watch battalion of her Majesty’s Scots Guards to Camp Dogwood. This was seen by many in Britain as a gift to the Bush campaign. Earlier on, Ariel Sharon weighed in by refusing to give Senator Kerry a photo opportunity. A shaken Kerry immediately dispatched Cameron, his Jewish brother, to Tel Aviv to beg for a little attention from the serial Israeli war criminal. Even Chirac found a way to weigh in on the American election. After giving his speech at the UN General Assembly, he hastily took off for Paris. Had he waited a few minutes, he could have heard Bush deliver his own views on the affairs of the world. Before his rapid departure, a reporter asked Chirac for his views on the election. He declined to comment, having already made it clear that he had no time for Bush. Then came Osama’s turn. This is how the Independent reported his intervention in the American elections. “With an aplomb verging on impertinence, the al-Qaida leader has delivered his own election message to the American people, just four days before they choose their next president.” By morning, OBL’s speech was stealing the headlines in every major American paper. Most Americans can’t name the Prime Minister of Canada or the president of Mexico. But they recognize the Al Qaida leader by his initials. JFK, FDR, LBJ, GWB and OBL are probably the only five people who can readily be identified in a major headline with only three bold letters. Because of his stature in America’s political imagination, Osama speech was widely quoted. “Contrary to what Bush says and claims - that we hate freedom - ask him why did we not attack Sweden? We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you. Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any state, which that does not mess with our security, will automatically ensure its own security.” Bush immediately responded to OBL. “Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country.” Maybe not. In any case, that’s one man’s opinion and GWB has been wrong before. Besides, why the need for such a rapid response? The fact is that the media will focus on Osama’s sound bites for the next four days. continued in next post |
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Oct 31, 2004 19:14:20 GMT -5
continues from previous post
So, what else did Osama say? He not only accepted full responsibility for the 9/11 atrocities. He went on to spell out his motives. This was the part of his speech that should influence more than a few voters. He said that he started thinking about taking down an American skyscraper back in 1982 after watching Towers go down in Beirut, victims of indiscriminate Israeli bombardment. “While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished the same way and we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."
As the 9/11 commission made clear, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was also motivated by his rage over American support for Israel.
Now, why would OBL and Shaikh want to wreak havoc on the United States for Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon two decades ago? Maybe it had something to do with Al Haig who gave a green light to the Israelis to unleash the carnage.
“Our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and the inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon. These special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And the American sixth fleet gave assistance. During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.”
This part of Bin Laden’s speech sounded like a passage from the Confessions of Nat Turner who was convinced that he “would never be of any use to any one as a slave”. In the southern states, angry memories of Turner’s atrocities lingered for a century in the minds of whites. Accounts of his 1831 slave revolt – burning, looting and murdering in acts of wild vengeance - can still stir up ugly raw emotions. Yet many Americans now understand that his violence was a reaction to the barbarous slavery of the south.
Al Jazeera cut off transmission after Osama turned his verbal assault on dictatorial Arab leaders and how they fleece their nations with the able assistance of GWB’s daddy. It is worth noting that Al Jazeera then continued with its regular programming after airing only seven minutes of the Al Qaida tape. After nearly two years of OBL’s absence from the public eye, one is left to speculate why Al Jazeera didn’t have time to air the last eleven minutes. Did they worry that their audience would switch the channel or did the Saudis and the State Department pull the plug?
The infantile wonks employed as pundits by CNN immediately started to speculate if Osama was signaling an imminent attack to disrupt the election. Intelligence officers were hard at work to determine the authenticity of the tape. Was the tape produced in late September or mid-October? Commentators were analyzing Osama’s skin tone and attire for clues as to his health. Sherlock Holmes impersonators were called in to figure out the address where the video was shot. Pollsters where monitoring their meters to see if the needle was moving. Will it influence the results on Tuesday? Would Bush or Kerry be the beneficiary of Osama’s intervention? Which candidate was Osama endorsing?
The tape was aired on the same day that reports emerged that nearly 100,000 civilians had perished since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Nothing on the tape was news to the residents of the Middle East who have lived through the events of the last five decades of American intervention in the region.
Even so, any sensible observer was left with a disturbing confirmation that, in this part of the world, blood feuds are never forgotten and a culture of vengeance is deeply rooted in the psyches of the man on the street. This is where they invented the ‘eye for an eye’ doctrine. For the OBL’s of the region – a very tiny but extremely lethal minority – Americans are now seen as another Middle Eastern tribe aligned with the Israelis. And in this part of the world, tribal blood feuds can go on for decades. One can only speculate how many witnesses to the current scale of violence are now bent on revenge. How many minds are thinking about “many things that are hard to describe?”
Regardless of the portion censored by the Arab satellite channel, Osama’s message was clear enough. Nineteen years before the slaughter at the WTC and the Pentagon, he had started plotting to take vengeance for Sharon’s bloody siege of Beirut in the summer of 1982.
George Bush or John Kerry might very well end up bringing OBL to justice. They might succeed in crushing Al Qaida. But even then, the terror threat will not have diminished. We will still have to worry about what goes on in the minds of young men standing in the bombed out ruins of Gaza and Fallujah. Are they ticking bombs timed to go off sometime in the next two decades?
The Pentagon might choose to account for the dead body of a child pulled from the rubble as “collateral damage”. But his relatives only see a murdered child. Some people tend to get angry and stay angry about that kind of thing.
So, forget about an imminent attack. We should worry more about twenty-year time bombs. They are the real weapons of mass destruction currently being manufactured by George Bush and his merry band of neo-cons in the rubble of the “Greater Middle East”.
|
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Nov 2, 2004 6:17:11 GMT -5
This is the best summary I've read so far about Bin Laden's coming out. (sarcasm abounds, that's why) Oh!-samaBy Gabriel Ash Nov 1, 2004, 16:51 Bin Laden’s October surprise unleashed a competition of open outrage and almost as open calculations. Bush and Kerry competed on who is most resolute and properly outraged, who is better able to say, “we will not be intimidated”, or “we are united”, or your favorite triteness. The calculations, on the other hand, are confusing. Is Bin Laden endorsing Kerry? If he is, does it mean that Bush benefits, because some voters will vote for Bush to spite Bin Laden? But if that is the expected outcome, doesn’t it mean that Bin Laden is trying to help Bush get a second term by appearing to attack him? To spite Bin Laden, shouldn’t voters then vote for Kerry? But what if Bin Laden wants to appear as if he is endorsing Kerry in order to help Bush, because he actually supports Kerry, but wants us to believe he supports Bush so we vote for Kerry? Does that mean that we should support Bush? The good news is that we can play this deeply satisfying game ad infinitum. American voters should be forgiven for being peevish. Bid Laden is (perhaps) against Bush. On the other hand, the Iranian clerics endorsed Bush. Putin, Sharon and Blair also tacitly support Bush. But the rest of the world’s elite—and most Europeans—are overwhelmingly for Kerry, including the Guardian, which is helping British leftists write letters to undecided voters. With so many contradictory attempts to influence voters, Americans who are earnestly trying to vote their anger at foreign meddlers must be scratching their heads. It’s a lost cause anyway; the election of the emperor is everybody’s business. <br> The Bush bandwagon is particularly gleeful about the opportunity to use Bin Laden’s tape as a gift against Kerry. Nothing is too low for the party that made voter intimidation and suppression the core of its November 2 strategy. David Brook, the Times’ genteel admirer of all things banal, defined Bin Laden’s message as a litmus test of outrage. Only Bush, Brooks wants to imply, “fundamentally gets the evil” of Bin Laden, and “feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him.” Bin Laden’s tape is an occasion for Brook to relive “the fundamental moral confrontation,” which just happens to be Bush’s fundamentalist crusader message from the get go (“you’re either with us or with the terrorists”). Brooks enjoys being outraged by “this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election.” Outrage purifies, elates, cleanses, washes away doubts and ambiguities, and excuses the disavowal of unpleasant knowledge. Instead of outrage, my feeling is weariness. So another mass murderer is speaking to us from the idiot box. Big deal! Aren’t we used to it? Isn’t that what television is for these days? Aren’t most of those who go about in black motorcades mass murderers of one sort or another? The thugs who run Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo. The generals in power, either overtly or behind the scenes, in Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Colombia, El Salvador, Myanmar. Then there are the first class murderers, Ariel Sharon in Israel, Vladimir Putin in Russia. Both are darlings of George Bush. Bush called the former mass murderer “a man of peace”, and saw the beautiful soul inside the cold blue eyes of the latter. Not a bit surprising, since Bush too is a well established mass murderer by now. He can mark his belt with thousands of Afghanis and tens of thousands of Iraqis (100,000 by the latest study). But he has so far failed to measure up to his predecessor, Clinton. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madleine Albright, admitted that causing the death of half a million Iraqi children, “was worth it” -- “it” being putting pressure on Saddam Hussein. But then, find me a single American President in the last century that passes Brook’s outrage test, a single American President whose total score in office is less than Bin Laden’s 3,000 deaths. Even Jimmy Carter probably fails (with his active support for mass murder in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere). And then there is John Kerry, an enthusiastic Vietnam killer who promises that, if elected, he will commit bigger and better crimes. In addition to the murderers themselves, TV news is the natural habitat of ex-mass murderers turned experts (Kissinger, for example), politicians with special skills in cover-up for mass murder (Colin Powell, for example), and journalists and pundits whose job is to excuse mass murder (“collateral damage”), glorify the tools with which mass murder is carried out, under-report mass murder or completely ignore it (except when the White House finds it convenient.) So really, David, why the sudden outrage? Bin Laden may be an irritating apprentice, but he certainly passed the qualifying exams for membership in the “world leaders” guild. Outrage, like yawning, is a way of blocking the auricular canal. What did Bin Laden say that is so important for Americans not to hear? Here are a few pointers: Bin Laden apparently saw “Farenheit 9/11”. He must have particularly enjoyed the jabs at the Saudi royals, as well as the stripping down of Bush’s fake war leader image. Does it matter? Expect shameless use of the Bin Laden tape to discredit Michael Moore and criticism of Bush in general. Thank God Bin Laden didn’t endorse Evolution, Einstein, and Set Theory. Bin Laden put some effort into explaining that he doesn’t hate American freedom: “Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?"….We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.”<br> Surely we shouldn’t accept Bin Laden’s word for it. But there is no reason to doubt him on this. Bush’s explanation of the motivation behind September 11 (“they hate our freedom”) is moronic, and has been widely debunked. It is saddening to hear Bin Laden lecture Americans about the root causes of terrorism as if he was the schoolteacher and they not-so-bright pupils. It is sad that three years after 9/11, most Americans are still clueless, and the U.S. political elite and media continue to lie with impunity about U.S. involvement in the Middle East. To explain why he orchestrated 9/11, Bin Laden weaves a sentimental, “confession”, relating how the idea of striking at America occurred to him as a reaction to Israeli crimes during the Lebanon war: “But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon.…During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors. And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.”<br> It is hard to tell how much truth this story contains. Easier to note that the simplified narrative seems tailored to the level of the American political discourse. There are no big words, geopolitical analysis, jargon, abstractions, religious quotations, etc. There is a personal narrative of a young man transformed into a warrior by the sight of injustice, a narrative fashioned like so many others told by dozens of American politicians. One can almost hear echoes of John Edwards. continued in next post |
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Nov 2, 2004 6:18:23 GMT -5
continues from previous post
Bin Laden doesn’t just intervene in the U.S. elections. He describes his “finding his mission,” his conversion experience to international terrorism, in the typical, my-personal-experience-guides-my-politics, emphatic language of an American professional politician.
However debased the storytelling, the “moral” of the story is on target. Four years ago it was fashionable to claim that Al Qaida wasn’t interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The recent 9/11 Report contains new evidence that U.S. support for Israel was always crucial for Bin-Laden, as well as for other participants in the 9/11 plot. But the issue is bigger than Bin Laden’s personal views. Israel, and U.S. support for Israel, fuel the anger that nourishes terrorism. That is certainly the one simple truth both Bush and Kerry would rather you didn’t pay attention to. It is depressing that nobody who isn’t a mass murderer is allowed to say it on U.S. network TV.
Not only Bin Laden doesn’t “hate our freedom,” he pays it tribute, extolling and, in fact, exaggerating it. Bush’s weakness, according to Bin Laden, is that he is as corrupt and militaristic as the hated autocratic Arab regimes. Bin Laden points out, and this is quite remarkable, that the Bush administration is moving the U.S. away from its democratic past. He specifically mentions the PATRIOT ACT. Apparently Bin Laden is receiving top rate public intelligence about the U.S., and is paying close attention to statements coming from the American anti-war movement. His purpose in doing that is far from clear, but Bin-Laden’s level of interest and “concern” for American democracy ought to highlight, again, that the U.S. is dealing with enemies that study it carefully. One can expect continuing calibration and improvement in the ability of Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to read and affect American politics.
Bin Laden closes with putting the responsibility for ending the war squarely at the door of the American public: “your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaida. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”
As long as the U.S. is belligerent, however, he warns the listeners that there will be more terrorist attacks; “the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.” However unpleasant it is to hear, Bin Laden is not far from the truth. Neither
Bush nor Kelly can make Americans safe while their policies inflame the Middle East. You cannot extinguish a fire while dozing it with gasoline.
Nor can Al Qaida. Bin Laden took the genie of retaliation out of the bottle. He taught the Middle East that the U.S. is vulnerable and can be harmed. This lesson cannot be unlearned. Even if the U.S. managed to kill every single member of every single terrorist organization, the new Jihad movement will regenerate; its only necessary ingredients are anger and knowledge.
Unfortunately, and this is where Bin Laden exaggerates, the American public does not control U.S. foreign policy. It suits Bin Laden to take American democracy at face value, since the imputation of responsibility to all U.S. citizens provides a commonplace justification for attacks on civilians. One way to read Bin Laden’s message is as a nobless-oblige peace offer, not made in the expectation that it will be accepted, but made in order to both legitimize and encourage the next phase of the war. <br>
The sad thing is that it is on target again. U.S. Middle East policy is morally wretched, and the right way to advance peace and safety is by changing it. But political reality precludes such changes. Americans can make themselves safe, but they also can’t. It all depends on the definition of “can”. The American public holds the controls but is not in control. It is in a semi-conscious state, easily manipulated, a state, in Emmanuel Kant’s words, of “self-imposed immaturity.”<br>
Power is in the hands of a small elite, an elite that couldn’t care less for the safety of Americans, but cares only for the safety of the American empire and the economic interests invested in it. The war between this imperial ruling elite and the people of the world will go on for a long time, with regular Americans alternatively cheering and booing, and serving as both cannon fodder and collateral damage.
Gabriel Ash was born in Romania and grew up in Israel. He is an activist and writer. He writes his columns because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword - and sometimes not.
|
|
