global terrorism and scapegoats

Corinne, married with no kids, once made a mistake at work and since then she's been blamed for everything that goes wrong, whether it's in her department or not, so she knows what it's like to be made a scapegoat and she understands the ultererior motives of the globalists -- all of whom, according to her, are little better than terrorists.

"If that sort of thing can happen to a little thing like me," laughs Corinne, "then I can understand why someone like Saddam Hussein gets blamed for 9/11 and every terrorist activity anywhere in the world. Sure, he's an evil monster and deserves to be hanged, but invading Iraq was an evil, monstrous thing to do, too."

"As soon as Bush announced the axis of evil." says Corinne, "I knew that Iraq rather than Iran or North Korea was going to get targeted, and I knew that Saddam was going to bear the brunt for Bush's failure to capture Osama. Someone had to be made a scapegoat, and Saddam was it."

"Theoretically, any country has the potential to produce chemicals of mass destruction," adds Corinne, "so it is the potential and capacity to use such weapons that needs to be examined, along with the motive for doing so."

"Why would Iraq, Iran or North Korea want to use weapons of mass destruction against the USA, and do they have the geographic and military capacity to do so?"

"Iran's military presence was decimated following the US supported war on Iran conducted by Saddam many years ago," explains Corinne. "Iran is unfriendly towards the USA because of its support of Iraq in that war, but it has no known program of chemical weaponry or use and it definitely does not have the geographic or military capacity to launch any sort of attack on the USA."

"Similarly, Iraq's military presence was decimated following the UN supported Gulf War of 1991," says Corinne. "The Gulf War was legitimate as it was a consequence of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - a protectorate set up by Great Britain to safeguard oil supply -and Iraq is definitely unfriendly towards the USA because of its participation in that war. But despite its past program of chemical weaponry and the use of same on its own dissidents Iraq has willingly accepted UN inspectors to confirm it has no ongoing program."

"Iraq was a hardly a threat to the US in terms of weapons of mass destruction," explains Corinne, "and it also did not have the geographic or military capacity to launch any sort of attack on the USA."

"Also," adds Corinne, "it may have had the geographic capacity to attack British protected Kuwait and US protected Israel but it did not have the the military capacity to do so. It was no real threat."

"Unlike Iraq and Iran, North Korea has nuclear capacity," says Corinne. "It has a formidable military presence and has been locked in a stand-off with America over the US protected South Korea for nearly half a century - a situation that is getting worse rather than better over the years."

"If the potential to produce and use weapons of mass destruction against the USA were truly the main concern of Bush," explains Corinne, "then North Korea would have been the logical target, not Iraq, because its regime is secretive - nobody knows what is going on there."

"Geographically, North Korea does not have the capacity to launch any sort of attack on the USA, but it most definitely does have the geographic capacity as well as the military capacity to attack Japan and US protected South Korea."

"North Korea, not Iran and Iraq, is thus a far more potential enemy for the USA," says Corinne, "but to impose any sort of action on North Korea in terms of the War of Terror cannot be justified without a terrible price being paid."

"North Korea is isolationist and pays no attention to UN dictates. To achieve security from any sort of attack by North Korea, America would need to use massive military force."

"Support for a war on North Korea would not be gained at home," says Corinne," nor in the UN. There is nothing to tie North Korea with 9/11 or any terrorist activity."

"Furthermore, victory would be not assured against such a formidable military force as North Korea, and basically there would be nothing tangible to be gained by going to war with North Korea - expect, of course, for the reunification of the country."

"Similarly, although targeting Iran would be easier in terms of a fundamentalist Islam connection - possibly an al-Qaeda link," says Corinne, "there is nothing tangible to be gained by such action."

"So, we're left with Iraq," sighs Corinne. "There's everything to gain in terms of the world's richest oil fields, and nothing much to lose besides a bit of human collateral. It was expected to be a pushover and initially it was."

"After the quick and relative painless Afghanistan pushover, the military machine was fired and ready for more," explains Corinne. "Bush couldn't get Osama and the al-Qaeda, so he needed another target to wreak revenge on for the 9/11 tragedy."

"Iraq was the perfect target and Saddam was the perfect scapegoat."

"Iraq is a Islam nation so it was not be too hard to foment fear at home that it is harboring some terrorists," explains Corinne. "It was a pushover in the 1991 Gulf War and was weakened by 12 years of sanctions against it and would be another easy victory."

"Also, Iraq is unfinished business," explains Corinne. "Bush's father had wanted to get rid of Saddam but the UN didn't sanction a regime change. Despite the UN not supporting a war, Section 1433 gave the USA a loophole to go in and invade the country on its own if necessary."

"Bush maintains that the potential to produce and use weapons of mass destruction against the USA was a valid reason to focus attention on Iraq," says Corinne, "and in failing to allow the UN weapons inspectors the time they need to do their job and prove Iraq's claim that it had no such weapons, Bush showed that he wants war and revenge for 9/11 and that weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with it."

"Because Bush knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction," says Corinne, "he needed a big excuse to go to war and win the support of allies."

"This excuse came in the final weeks before invading Iraq when rumors were spread that Osama and Saddam were in cahoots," says Corinne. "This was a lie because Osama hates Saddam and his liberal Islamic beliefs more than the Americans do, and vice versa!"

"And then finally Saddam's human rights record was trotted out."

"Very few people had cared about Saddam and his human rights abominations before this," explains Corinne. "All of a sudden, the world's attention became focused on shredding machines allegedly used for human extermination."

"All other despots and their human rights abominations were conveniently ignored."

"I watched in disbelief as the world was whipped by the US propaganda machine into wanting to get rid of the Saddam regime," sighs Corinne.

"A war ostensibly against weapons of mass destruction had become one against Saddam and his regime."

"Saddam had supplanted Osama."

"As nasty as Saddam is," says Corinne, "he had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and to use him as a scapegoat for Osama's abominations is an abomination in itself."

"The whole nasty operation was so similar to the sort of office politics that go on where my husband and I work that I despair of any imperfect human goverment being capable of governing us honorably and rationally," says Corinne. "We'd be better off with computers doing the job."

This story first appeared as saddam the scapegoat

global warmongering

Mia is married with two small children and has always supported peaceful solutions to conflict, but after 9/11 she was overjoyed, initially, when Bush went after Osama bin Laden, declaring a War on Terror.

"I felt so bad about those poor people who had died horrible deaths on 9/11 and I couldn't wait for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network to be wiped off the face of the earth," explains Mia.

"It was all very simple at first," says Mia. "We had a legitimate enemy in Osama, a legitimate target in Afghanistan for harboring him and a legitimate reason for causing the unavoidable death or displacement of thousands of innocent people."

"And then, after the regime change in Afghanistan - and Osama's escape - I couldn't understand why the focus of the war on terrorists changed completely."

"The propaganda machine started pumping out stories about weapons of mass destruction and rogue countries that allegedly produced them and we were all distracted away from Osama and terrorists who crash planes into buildings towards imaginary enemies and weapons."

"Afghanistan legitimately became a military target with UN support because its regime, ruled by the Taliban, refused to hand over Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network of Moslem fundamentalists responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack." explains Mia, "but bombing the guts out of rogue countries without UN support is something else."

"I don't mean to be offensive," apologizes Mia, "but all the talk about rogue countries and weapons of mass destruction seemed, to me, to be nothing more than an excuse for Bush to cover up his abysmal failure to capture Osama and the al-Qaeda leadership and to go on a global warmongering spree."

"It really upset me when Bush dropped the search for Osama, and stopped routing the al-Qaeda network embedded within the USA and elsewhere in the world, and stopped concentrating on the weapons that terrorists had used to wreak havoc."

"All of a sudden, Bush changed tack and our enemy was no longer Osama and the al-Qaeda network, and the terrorist weapon was no longer civilian airlines and suicide bombers."

"Our new enemy was an 'axis of evil'," sighs Mia, "and the new terrorist weapon was 'weapons of mass destruction'."

"Sorry, but I just can't get riled up about the axis of evil," says Mia, "and I just can't accept that terrorists are going to start using weapons of mass destruction rather than the weapons they've always used."

"By declaring Iraq, Iran and North Korea an axis of evil Bush successfully turned the world's attention away from Osama and al-Qaeda towards countries that had no bearing whatsoever on the 9/11 terrorist attack."

"As far as I can see," says Mia, "none of these countries were suspected of harboring Osama and the al-Qaeda network, and to all intents and purposes they were minding their own business on the world stage."

"Bush maintained that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were legitimate targets in the broader War on Terror for the simple reason that they were ruled by regimes unfriendly towards the USA," explains Mia.

"The President's message "if you're not with us, you're against us" simplistically turned all regimes unfriendly towards the USA into potential enemies and all other regimes into potential allies."

"No allowance was made for neutrality and no allowance was made for the possibility of potential allies being a bigger threat to the USA than the potential enemies." says Mia.

"What is more horrible," explains Mia, "is that irrespective of the fact that the USA and some of its potential allies possess more weapons of mass destruction than the axis of evil put together tenfold, Bush maintains that the potential of the axis of evil to produce and use weapons of mass destruction against the USA was a valid reason to focus attention on them."

"With this rhetoric," explains Mia, "Bush distracted us. He pulled the wool over everybody's eyes and replaced Osama and the al-Qaeda network with a new target (Iraq) that was far more easily discernible and punishable."

"And what is even more horrible, " sighs Mia, "is that just about everybody accepted the sleight of hand without protest."

"As I see it, we neither had a legitimate enemy in Saddam, nor a legitimate target in Iraq, Iran or North Korea nor a legitimate reason for causing the unavoidable death or displacement of thousands of innocent people in these countries. It was pure warmongering, nothing else."

"I suppose the reason why so few people see this new war in a different light to the Afghan war has a lot to do with basic human nature," laments Mia.

"Bush must have factored into his sleight of hand four facts about the average western human being - stupidity (an inability to discern truth from lies), indifference (an ability to get on with life no matter what atrocities are happening in the world), distractibility (a facility to turn from one thing to another with the greatest of ease, totally forgetting the past) and desensitization (we are fed so much violence as entertainment that we're unable to empathize with real suffering)".

"Whoever invented the term 'weapons of mass distraction' is a genius." says Mia, "because that is exactly what weapons of mass destruction are."

"There's no way Bush would have committed us to a war against Iraq if he truly believed Saddam had such weapons, and it would come as no surprise to me if a cache of such weapons were mysteriously found during or after the war in order to justify the illegal invasion."

"No matter what Bush says," says Mia, "my enemy is still Osama bin Laden and my fear is still flying, traveling on any sort of public transport or being in any sort of crowd where a terrorist may operate."

I don't suffer from stupidity, indifference, distractibility or desensitization," says Mia, "and I know that protesting against the war in a world that is largely populated by people who do suffer from such infirmities is a waste of time, but I nevertheless need to voice my opinion for the sake of my sanity."

"Mr Bush, I was never distracted," says Mia, "and now that the Democrats have the numbers I hope you and your Republican warmongers are brought to task for the lies that were told and the brutal warmongering that has brought more misery to the world than 9/11 ever did."

Mia's story first appeared as weapons of mass distraction?

subprime winners and losers

Because of our global economy and the ongoing war on terror, Phyllis points out that the current subprime credit crunch could very well be the result of deliberate economic warfare against us and if so what happens next will be far more devastating than 9/11.

"When the French bankers froze billions saying words to the effect that the complete evaporation of liquidity in certain US securitization markets has made it impossible to value certain assets they were telling us that we're on shaky ground," says Phyllis. "And when the Saudis do the same thing -- and the Chinese -- we will be exposed for what we are, a nation existing purely on credit and nothing else."

"While I feel sorry for our own people who have lost their homes, jobs and investments," says Phyllis, "I feel sorrier for the poor people in Third World countries who were suckered into signing trade agreements with the USA because their economies are going to crash first when the final crunch comes."

"Investors rely upon a system of checks and balances (audits) to give them a level
of security as to where their money is parked," says Phyllis, "but when these rogue financial institutions were audited, why weren't the potential liabilities picked up?"

"Also, when credit requirements are relaxed without a corresponding increase in bank reserves to cover the risky loans, you not only have an entirely new class of home owners but a new level of risk, too."

"Have we been misled or deliberately cheated by enemies among us wanting to ruin our economy?" asks Phyllis. "Why didn't someone recognize something funny was going on and blow the whistle? You know, like the pilot training operators who skilled up the 9/11 suicide bombers."

"When the real estate and the mortgage people walked off with their profit, leaving the hot potato subprime mortgages to be bundled together and shipped around the world until they were unrecognizable, did they know they were involved in economic warfare? Or didn't they care?"

"The bankers are all sitting on their profits acting smug as though they had nothing to do with it, and so are the mortgage companies and the real estate people," sighs Phyllis. "Whatever, the finger is pointing very strongly at the government for allowing this debacle to happen in the first place by relying so heavily on foreign money."

"Didn't it tell us after 9/11 to go out and shop and keep the economy afloat?" asks Phyllis. "Well, that's exactly what we have been doing, all on credit, and now look at the mess our shopping sprees are getting us into."

"China's economy is based on our rampant consumerism, and as more of us lose our homes and jobs we are not going to have the money to splash around and we will take China down with us (if she doesn't pull the plug on us first)."

"The damage isn't just in the subprime market," explains Phyllis. "It's also happening in the regular mortgage market. People who qualified for home loans with good credit, a solid deposit and a low fixed interest rate are also experiencing foreclosure."

"Job losses, outsourcing, off-shoring and lax regulation of financial institutions and funders have all contributed to collapsing real estate markets in many parts of America," says Phyllis. "I have no idea what the banks and other lenders are going to do with an inventory of foreclosed properties that they can't auction off to recover even a percentage of their investments, but I do know that by allowing this situation to develop all of the people involved were guilty of colluding in economic warfare."

"News of financial instability in the USA has really spooked international stock markets and because of the global economy each and every one of us -- at home and overseas -- will be paying for this in any number of ways as the effect ripples through."

"Already, many nations are buying Euros not American dollars, and when the USA loses its financial pre-eminence, like Great Britain did after WWII, we are finished as a world power."

"When you have European, Australian, Chinese and Japanese central banks bailing out American businesses you get to wonder whether we are already a third rate nation."

"When a French bank freezes funds, and China threatens to dump their $1 trillion in US currency we should really worry," says Phyllis. "China has been keeping its export wealth in US Treasury Bonds, which they presumed were secure. They are easily converted to cash and if China pulls a trillion dollars out of the US Treasury in fear of an impending crisis due to the ripple on effect of the subprime credit debacle we are sunk."

"Thanks to the globalization programs, the trade agreements pushed by Clinton and by Bush -- and the dishonesty of the corporate media -- our future now belongs to China," laughs Phyllis. "But don't worry, I don't think China is likely to pull the plug until after the 2008 Olympic Games."

"Wherever he is, Osama bin Laden must be laughing his head off at what is happening -- with or without his input -- because economic warfare is ultimately going to be more devastating than any of the actions taken by his suicide bombers -- and less bloody, too."


(Phyllis' story first appeared as subprime economic warfare? and is reprinted with permission.)