A rather bleak future ahead for the rest of the world...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm

  America's War for Global Domination
  by Michel Chossudovsky

  12/15/03: (Global Research)

  We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

  The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
  threatens the future of humanity.

  The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military
  agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing
  war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led
  wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).

  The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert
  intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were
  instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former
  republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia
  and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched
  with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline
  corridors.

  US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were
  led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed
  under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the
  Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies
  and the impoverishment of millions of people.

  The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries
  enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a
  large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries.
  This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or
  takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful
  Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt
  political practices.

  In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the
  recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into
  Central Asia.

  The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's
  economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent
  military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military
  bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western
  frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in
  the South China Sea.

  War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the
  conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of
  "free market" system.

  The Next Phase of the War

  The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next
  stage of "the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist
  bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to
  provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military
  interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of
  Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter
  2004)

  This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious
  implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in
  the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American
  coalition.

  The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which
  constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as
  'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also
  constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the
  flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the
  Iraqi resistance movement.

  This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel
  Sharon's plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of
  Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its
  territorial domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas
  of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are
  imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.

  In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions
  on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a
  'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up
  in Turkey.

  So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region
  extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent
  and China's Western frontier.

  The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons

  Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy,
  which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no
  longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

  The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy.
  Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle
  East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite
  openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use
  nuclear weapons "if they are attacked" with so-called "weapons of
  mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World.
  Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.

  Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into
  Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light
  to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in
  conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more
  powerful than the Hiroshima bomb".

  Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of
  its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from
  the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at
  Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in
  Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic
  bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.

  The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense
  contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the
  "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap
  multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs,
  they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use
  and deployment of nuclear weapons.

  Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public
  relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons
  for the "defense of the American Homeland."

  Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to
  be "safe for civilians".

  This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the
  next phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the
  Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.

  In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for
  2004, to develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons.

  The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion
  dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross
  Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.

  While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi
  and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical
  Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic
  radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium
  ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium
  contamination:

    "some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were
    astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and
    radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater
    than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net

  The Planning of War

  The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the
  mid-1990s.

  A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration
  stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to
  protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.

  In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W.
  Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century
  (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title:
  "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

  The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the
  Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the
  powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a
  behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.

  The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:

    "Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".

  This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved
  simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the
  World.

  Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald
  Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC
  blueprint prior to the presidential elections.

  The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct
  imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the
  Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the
  world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable
  alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See
  Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

  The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"

  The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war
  propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some
  catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which
  would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war
  agenda. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

  The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy,
  the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."

  The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes
  a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations
  Business Council in 1994:

    "We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the
    right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World
    Order."

  Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand
  Chessboard:.

      "it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in
    America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of
    a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

  Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President
  Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network,
  created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war
  (1979-1989).

  The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an
  integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks,
  who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October
  2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster
  support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General
  Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

  Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be
  established:

    "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur]
    somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of
    America - that causes our population to question our own
    Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to
    avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)

  This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in
  military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests
  that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
  assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It
  identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland
  Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the
  neoliberal agenda.

  The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by
  General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting
  crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in
  US political, social and institutional structures.

  General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military
  as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to
  provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
  with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

  Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist
  attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup
  d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used
  as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the
  establishment of a military government.

  In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in
  the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

  War Propaganda

  In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center,
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of
  Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was
  labeled by its critics:

    "The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they
    were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign
    countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the
    world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)

  And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following
  political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose
  was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force
  Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said
  this is embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite
  this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
  campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is
  not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military
  propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)

  Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no
  longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being
  carried out". (Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
  Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html
  , Rumsfeld's press interview can be consulted at:
  http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

  A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links
  to the Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the
  propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war
  are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime
  change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation and
  the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The
  derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called
  "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to providing
  "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

  The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

  Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive
  "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda
  constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's
  propaganda campaign.

  The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning
  war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies,
  "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":

    "The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise
    of uncertain duration. America will act against such emerging
    threats before they are fully formed.

    Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using
    conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead,
    they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
    of mass destruction ()

    The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our
    civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal
    norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on
    September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific
    objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially
    more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass
    destruction.

    The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
    actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
    The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and
    the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
    defend ourselves, (). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by
    our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
    preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

  To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security
  Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an
  outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to
  "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."

  But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing
  events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the
  National Security agenda.

  In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty
  tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence
  pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda,
  which was then fed into the news chain.

  In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al
  Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in
  official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily
  basis across the news tabloids.

  And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden"
  terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the
  next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

    1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign,
    which is fed into the news chain.

    2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as
    outlined in the PNAC

  What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing")
  terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.

  Actual Terrorist Attacks

  In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation
  campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future
  attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or
  "incidents", which provide credibility to the Washington's war plans.
  These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of
  "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They
  are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of "an
  outside enemy" that is threatening the American Homeland.

  The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's
  assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military
  history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a
  War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3,
  2002-2003).

  In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan
  entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian
  casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

    "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,"
    "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami
    area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty
    lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
    indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document
    titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16
    (See Operation Northwoods at
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

  There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct
  role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia
  (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

  According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by
  organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite
  independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence
  is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The
  «intelligence asset» is not in direct contact with its covert
  sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on
  behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

  The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources
  are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

  For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
  terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's
  military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and
  Australian intelligence.

  The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which
  contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were
  allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups,
  Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of
  Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council on Foreign
  Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign
  Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html ,
  Washington 2002).

  What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between
  the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support
  Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen
  (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details
  see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

  A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for
  the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations
  Group'  (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
  reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass
  destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into
  action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S.
  forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27
  October 2002)

  The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an
  existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA
  has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This
  "prodding of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations
  often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups
  linked to Al Qaeda.

  In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence
  apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist
  organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and
  intelligence proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US
  government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert
  operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party
  Committee of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997,
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during
  the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda
  operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian
  Muslim Army.

  In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring
  terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports
  confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
  operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and
  Macedonia (2001).(See See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation,
  The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3,
  http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

  The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia.
  And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001,
  Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on
  contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the
  terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is
  documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the
  Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S.
  government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in
  glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA),
  which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.

  In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al
  Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.

  Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

  It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
  occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and
  in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al
  Qaeda". This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course,
  the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned
  in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an
  understanding of these terrorist occurrences.

  The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in
  Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a
  few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the
  Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to
  have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these
  links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying
  the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is
  said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time
  maintaining close ties to the CIA.

  September 11

  While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his
  February 2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the
  Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and
  intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have
  supported and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship
  is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies,
  acknowledged by Washington's mainstream think tanks.

  Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months
  leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign
  governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at
  different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist
  organizations.

  Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the
  Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which
  involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the
  Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For
  further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al
  Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

  Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the
  9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last
  two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence
  reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned
  intelligence operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist
  organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research on
  Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)

  The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the
  role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report,
  the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from
  sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed
  that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred
  money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and
  Globalization, op.cit.)

  Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head
  of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of
  September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who
  allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close
  personal relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration
  officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and
  Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his
  visit to Washington. (Ibid)

  The Antiwar Movement

  A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the
  mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war
  criminals and question their right to rule.

  A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and
  eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.

  The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European
  Union and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent
  network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
  committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools,
  universities, etc. It is ultimately through this network that the
  legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.

  To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its
  propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across
  the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of
  ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences
  of this war.

  This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on
  terrorism" and revealing the political complicity of the Bush
  administration in the events of 9/11.

  September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.

  Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as
  pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van
  Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA
  and September 11:

    "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up
    behind bars."

  Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who
  are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks,
  corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind
  the military and political actors.

  Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than
  the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling
  the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the
  defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants,
  operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If
  politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can
  themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of
  political puppets can be brought to office.

  Criminalization of the State

  The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals
  legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to
  decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.

  In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda
  and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are
  complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world
  domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the
  criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the
  bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. .

  Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush
  administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the
  Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal
  acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are
  opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."

  More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and
  supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the
  build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free
  trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its
  military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy
  interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense
  bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various
  civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF,
  World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus
  and commitment to the New World Order.

  To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the
  war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like
  WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be
  dismantled. More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms,
  dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial
  markets.

  The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all
  sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a
  major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small
  businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the
  clergy, students and intellectuals.

  The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into
  a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors,
  "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective
  understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

  The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree
  of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history.
  This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and
  within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among
  diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is
  required which brings together social movements in all major regions
  of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of
  poverty and a lasting world peace.

  © Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>