Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Manufacturing Opposition

General David "Betray Us" Petraeus

How America Supports Our So-Called Enemies

By Madison Ruppert
Courtesy Of "End The Lie"

To some people, the concept of “full spectrum dominance” is completely foreign. To the upper echelons of the government of the United States, it is a tactic utilized on a regular basis.

Full spectrum dominance is achieved through controlling the groups and individuals that are the supposed enemies of the government through infiltration and/or funding.

A new military report reveals how this practice still occurs in the Middle East, just like in the Soviet-Afghan war in which we armed, funded, trained, and assisted the likes of Osama bin Laden and others who have grown to become known as the Taliban and even the ghost-group al Qaeda.

Of course the mainstream corporate media who unquestioningly supports the corrupt government of the United States and their international imperialist adventures has simply chalked this up to mismanagement.

They act as if the $360 million funneled to Taliban insurgents and other criminals in Afghanistan was simply “lost” and not intentionally handed out to those who received it.

If this were true, we would have to assume that there is absolutely no research done into where the contracts are going and in what hands our taxpayer dollars will end up.

The investigation was started last year by General David Petraeus, former commander of the allied forces in Afghanistan and current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Before this investigation began, the American-led coalition allegedly had “little visibility” into connections between Afghan companies, their subcontractors, and the Taliban and other criminals.

If we are to accept this, we have to ignore the surveillance and investigative activity of the Central Intelligence Agency along with military intelligence. They would have to be painfully incompetent or outright delinquent in their responsibilities if this was the case.

According to an AP report, the $360 million were given to our supposed opposition through a process called “reverse money laundering” in which American taxpayer dollars are given to contractors hired by the military who just happen to be “businesses and individuals with ties to the insurgency or criminal networks.”

When people in the United States are arrested for making donations to charities that are allegedly tied to terrorist groups with little evidence to support it and people with loose ties to terrorism (or no ties at all) are thrown on planes to Guantanamo Bay on a regular basis, how can our behemoth intelligence network miss such direct ties?

I, for one, am not prepared to think that they could be so incredibly incompetent only when it comes to investigating to whom our contracts go in Afghanistan. I find this quite hard to believe given the size and sophistication of the international intelligence community and its presence in the Middle East.

Take, for instance, Enaam M. Arnaout, a Syrian-American who was accused of supporting terrorism and al Qaeda specifically through his charity Benevolence International Foundation.

The government acknowledged that Arnaout and Benevolence International Foundation never acted contrary to the interests of the United States, nor had any ties to Osama bin Laden, or even al Qaeda.

Arnaout diverted $300,000-400,000 of funds raised by BIF (out of roughly $20,000,000 in total funds raised by the charity) to Bosnian fighters to buy uniforms, boots, tents, and an ambulance without the foreknowledge of the donors.

Arnaout plead guilty to racketeering but as a part of the agreement the prosecution had to recognize that they never acted contrary to American interests and never had ties to bin Laden or al Qaeda. In exchange he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

If someone who, by the government’s own admission, never actually had ties to al Qaeda and never acted contrary to United States interests could be so easily discovered, prosecuted, sentenced, and his charity internationally banned by the UN, how could the government miss $360 million in funds diverted to our so-called enemies?

If our intelligence community back in 2002 and earlier could track down a measly $300,000-400,000 in charitable funds, how could they allow $360 million over many years to go unchecked?

Well, they couldn’t. Clearly they allowed this to happen just like they allowed the money to “disappear” from Iraqi reconstruction funds.

To make matters worse for the government and their attempts to make this seem like a mere accident, more than half of the $360 million in taxpayer dollars went through a single contractor!
If you can honestly contend that the United States intelligence apparatus is not capable of thoroughly investigating even one contractor in Afghanistan I have a glacier in Antarctica to sell you.
One of the documents obtained by AP hilariously claims that the “Funds begin as clean monies” as if robbing the American people to murder civilians and conduct imperialistic crusades throughout the middle east produced “clean monies.”

That being said, military officials are already attempting to mitigate the fallout of the study’s conclusions by claiming that, “Only a small percentage of the $360 million has been garnered by the Taliban and insurgent groups […] [t]he bulk of the money was lost to profiteering, bribery and extortion by criminals and power brokers.”

Of course this unnamed “senior U.S. military official in Kabul” (an obviously biased and questionable source) “declined to provide a specific breakdown” to support his claims. This official supposedly requested anonymity but his reasoning behind this request, and thus AP’s fulfillment, is questionable at best.

The AP report also manages to throw in the globalist International Crisis Group into the mix, an organization which is completely illegitimate and corrupt.

The ICG is unarguably a group of democracy-manipulating criminals like George Soros who fight to protect imperialism and support the installation of puppet regimes around the globe along with other so-called “human rights” groups.

The ICG continues to paint an inaccurate picture of Afghanistan, calling it a “nexus between criminal enterprises, insurgent networks and corrupt political elites.”

This would be completely accurate if they were referring to the nexus between the United States’ criminal enterprises and Afghan drug lords, the American-founded and supported insurgent networks and the corrupt political elites that include those behind ICG.

However, when the ICG uses this kind of language they are pointing the finger in the opposite direction of the real colonialist criminals behind the madness in the Middle East in order to continue their imperialist crusades which fuel massive corporate profits as well as illicit income streamsthrough the drug trade.

On Monday, the Department of Defense announced that they had already chosen 20 different contractors to replace the former contractor, Host Nation Trucking.

The new transportation contracts amount to up to $983.5 million in taxpayer dollars and they hope the new arrangement will “diminish the risk of money being lost.”

Not surprisingly, there is no mention of deeper investigations into who is actually running these companies and benefiting from the contracts, since it will be the same exact people under a different name.

The report starts to contradict itself when it claims that $1.7 million in payments were given to a warlord controlling convoy security on the roads between Kabul and Kandahar known as “Rohullah” or “Ruhallah” who allegedly ran a typical mafia-style protection racket.

They claim that Rohullah would do battle with the Taliban in protecting convoys and in the same sentence declares that “investigators believe Rohullah moved money to the Taliban when it was in his interest to do so.”

Rohullah and Watan Risk Management, the security company he was linked to, denied ever making any payments to Taliban insurgents.

In a ceremonial move, the United States put Watan Risk Management in “proposed debarment status” which would prevent Watan from receiving new contracts or renewing existing ones. 

However, two weeks ago the U.S. signed a deal with Watan stating that they merely cannot bid on mobile security contracts for three years while all of the other companies controlled by the owners of Watan are unaffected.

Clearly the United States has no interest in actually tracking and punishing those who are involved with the insurgents as this would severely infringe on the security of the future of American operations in Afghanistan.

The United States government pretends to be concerned with the fact that Afghan contractors supply the Taliban. Yet, when our own defense contractors do it, it flies under the radar.

If the Taliban was completely eliminated, which they easily could be if this was intended, there would be no justification for our continued presence there and thus billions in profit going into the hands of the war profiteers would cease flowing and this is just unacceptable.

Shockingly, it seems that the United States “authorities” have implicitly said that they did absolutely no screening of contractors, or if they did, it was so incredibly ineffectual that so many contracts were allowed to be given to Taliban-affiliated individuals and other criminals.

General David Petraeus wrote in a September 2010 memo to his commanders, “know those with whom we are contracting” since failure to do so would “unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks, and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan.”

This shows that they were not keeping close watch over where taxpayer dollars are going, and likely are continuing this practice. Hundreds of American dollars are flushed down the toilet on a daily basis just to be lodged in the sewer that is the pockets of the criminal elite.

In part two of this series I will cover how the United States controls the manufactured opposition in North America through drug trafficking, gun smuggling and support of rabidly racist groups like La Raza.

Without shining the light on how our so-called government is creating and maintaining enemies in order to keep robbing the American people and transferring wealth to those controlling the corrupt multinational corporations that are tied into Washington in a purely corpora-fascistic system, these disgusting criminals will continue this practice unabated.

Anti-Arab Racism Rampant In Israel

By Eli Ungar-Sargon
18 August 2011
Courtesy Of "The Electronic Intifada"

Over the past three years, my wife Pennie and I have been working on a documentary film about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During our second production trip to the region, one of the many remarkable people we encountered was Uri Davis. He is one of a handful of Israelis who has built a life for himself among the Palestinians of the West Bank. This made him a very interesting subject for our film, which examines the practical and moral failings of the two-state solution.
During our interview with Davis, one of the questions we asked was whether he had encountered any anti-Semitism in the West Bank. The question was motivated by a desire on our part to address a narrative — prevalent among American and Israeli Jews — which claims that anti-Semitism is an obvious feature of Palestinian culture.
As these two groups are an important part of our target audience, we felt that it was our responsibility to address this perception. Who better to ask about the veracity of this narrative than a Jew living among Palestinians? Davis answered by saying that although Palestinian anti-Semitism does exist, it is a marginal phenomenon, while anti-Arab sentiment among Israelis is a mainstream phenomenon. Shortly after the interview, it occurred to us that we could either substantiate or disprove Davis’s provocative statement with our cameras.
We began our survey in February 2011 and completed it in early March. On the Israeli side, we interviewed a total of 250 Jewish Israelis in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Herzliya, Jerusalem and Beersheba. For this part of the survey I conducted the interviews myself from behind the camera in Hebrew. On the Palestinian side, we interviewed a total of 250 Palestinians in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Hebron. (Despite multiple attempts, we were unable to procure permission to enter the Gaza Strip.) Here, we collaborated with local journalist Mohammad Jaradat who, using my questions, conducted the interviews in Arabic.
The questions we asked pertained to a number of sensitive political topics and the idea was to get people to talk long enough to detect if there was any racism at play in their answers. In sociological terms, we were engaged in qualitative analysis, but unlike typical qualitative interviews, we spent minutes, not hours with our subjects. Our survey is not exhaustive and our method was very simple. We went to public places and asked people to talk to us on camera. In designing the questions, I set out to distinguish actual racism from conflict-based animosity. That is, to allow for the possibility that Israelis might exhibit animosity towards Palestinians without being racist and to allow the same on the Palestinian side in reverse.
The very first question we asked of Jewish Israelis was the extremely broad “What do you think about Arabs?” It is only reasonable to expect that people who harbor anti-Arab sentiment would mask their feelings when answering such a direct question on camera. Most people responded to this question with some variation of “They are people,” although we were surprised that a sizable minority used the opportunity to launch into anti-Arab diatribes.
One of the most disturbing trends that we noticed was the strong correlation between age and anti-Arab sentiment. The majority of Israeli teenagers that we spoke to expressed unabashed and open racism towards Arabs. Statements like “I hate them,” or “they should all be killed” were common in this age group.
When looking over the data, we divided the respondents into three groups: those who were neutral about Arabs; those who were positive about them; and those who expressed negative attitudes. Amongst the responses, 60 percent were neutral, 25 percent negative and 15 percent positive.
Rights Misunderstood
Interestingly, some of the same people who answered the first question by saying that Arabs are people, went on to say that they wouldn’t be willing to live next door to them. Internal inconsistencies of this nature cropped up in many of the interviews and it is for this reason that we reserved our overall judgment on the prevalence of anti-Arab sentiment until all of the answers were tabulated. Our results show that 71 percent were willing to live next door to Arab neighbors, while 24 percent were unwilling. Five percent failed to answer this question with either a “yes” or a “no.”
It should be noted that the Israel Democracy Institute received dramatically different numbers in response to the above question. In its 2010 survey, it found that 46 percent of Jewish Israelis were unwilling to live next door to an Arab. The implication of this discrepancy is that our survey sample was much less anti-Arab than the population at large.
When it came to equal rights, a clear majority of our respondents answered that they felt it was important for Arab citizens of the state of Israel to enjoy equal rights. Upon review of the data, one of the significant trends that emerged in these answers was the recurrent use of the phrase “rights and responsibilities.” Many people openly resented the fact that most Arab citizens of the state don’t perform military service and argued that Arabs should only have equal rights if they are held to the same responsibilities as Jews. This response demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the very concept of rights, but it was prevalent enough that we felt it justified its own category. We called this category “conditional.” Of these responses, 64 percent were in favor of equal rights, 16 percent were opposed and 20 percent were in favor of conditional rights.
Once again, we saw a clear discrepancy from the Israel Democracy Institute numbers, which showed that 46 percent of Israelis were opposed to full and equal rights for Arab citizens of the state.
Democracy For Jews Only?
Israel defines itself as a “Jewish democracy” but we were interested in discovering which part of that definition is more important to Jewish Israelis. We went about doing this by asking: “What’s more important: that Israel be a Jewish state or a democratic state?” What we discovered was that a clear majority of the people we spoke to felt that the Jewish character of the state was at least equally if not more important than the democratic character. There was, however, an impressive minority who were clear about the fact that it was more important to them that Israel be a democratic state. This last category represents, by a slim margin, the single largest group of our respondents: 37 percent felt that a democratic character was more important, 36 percent felt that a Jewish character was more important and 27 percent felt that both were equally important.
On the subject of the settlers, we asked a more leading question: “What do you think about the settlers? Are they an impediment to peace?” We broke the responses down into three groups: those who were neutral about the settlers; those who were positive about them; and those who expressed negativity. In this instance, answering “yes” was taken as evidence of negative feelings towards the settlers, answering “no” without qualification was taken as a neutral stance and answering “no” followed by something like “they are the heroes of the Jewish people” — a phrase that we heard a number of times — was taken as evidence of positive feelings. What we discovered was that more than 70 percent of the people we spoke to were either neutral or positive towards the settlers. Of the responses, 45 percent were neutral, 28 percent were positive and 27 percent were negative about the settlers.
Many of the people we spoke to exhibited a deep suspicion and mistrust of the Palestinian people. When asked whether it was possible to make peace with the Palestinians, less than half of our respondents answered “yes.” This is a sobering statistic for anyone invested in the peace process. It would seem that most of the people we spoke to have given up on the prospect of peace. Even among the Israelis who believed that peace is possible, a recurrent theme was “not in this generation.” Another important trend in this part of the survey was blaming the Palestinian leadership for the lack of progress in the peace process. Many of the people who answered “yes” stated that peace was possible with the Palestinian people but not with their leaders. Of the responses, 48 percent believed that peace with the Palestinians is possible, while 40 percent felt that peace is not possible. Thirteen percent failed to answer this question with either a “yes” or a “no.”
Little Knowledge Of One-State Solution
Given the subject of our film, we were very interested in exploring people’s preferences for potential solutions to the conflict. What we noticed almost immediately was that it was very important to clarify to our respondents exactly what we meant by one state or two states. For the purposes of our survey, we defined the one-state solution as a secular democracy with equal rights on all of historic Palestine, while we defined the two-state solution as two states more or less along the lines of the 1967 boundaries, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. It was important that we were able to explain exactly what we meant, because many Israelis answered one way but meant something entirely different.
For example, when asked whether they preferred the one-state solution or the two-state solution, many respondents answered that they preferred the two-state solution. But when we followed up and asked what territorial concessions they would be willing to make, these same people said that they wouldn’t agree to any concessions.
Furthermore, almost no one that we spoke to was familiar with the concept of the one-state solution. Many people even took this to mean one state for Jews only, until we clarified our meaning. When we reviewed the data from this section of the survey, we decided to break down the responses into seven different categories: one state; one state (i.e. a state for Jews only); two states; two states (i.e. without territorial concessions); either one or two states; neither one nor two states; and other. What is really fascinating about our results is that over two thirds of the people we spoke to were actively opposed to the classic two-state solution on the 1967 borders. Furthermore, there were almost as many true one-state solution supporters as there were classic two-state supporters. Amongst those we surveyed, 27 percent were true two-state supporters, 23 percent were true one state supporters, 22 percent supported neither, 16 percent were in favor of two states without territorial concessions, 6 percent were okay with either one or two states, 4 percent were in favor of one state for Jews only, and 2 percent didn’t fit into any of these categories.
Racism Highest In Jerusalem
In trying to answer the question of whether anti-Arab sentiment is a mainstream phenomenon among Israelis, we looked at all of the answers and divided the data into three categories: not anti-Arab; mildly anti-Arab; and strongly anti-Arab. Once again, we allowed for the possibility that a person might exhibit animosity towards Palestinians without being anti-Arab and we did not put people into one of the anti-Arab columns simply because he or she expressed right-wing political views. So, for example, if the only evidence in an interview of anti-Arab sentiment was that the respondent said that equal rights for Arabs are conditional upon equal responsibilities, we did not put them in an anti-Arab column. However, if a respondent stated that they wouldn’t live next door to an Arab, this was sufficient to push him or her into the mildly anti-Arab column. To qualify for the strongly anti-Arab category, a respondent needed to exhibit anti-Arab sentiment in two or more answers.
Our results showed that 46 percent of our respondents were either mildly or strongly anti-Arab. When we broke these numbers down according to city, there were obvious regional differences. Jerusalem was by far the most anti-Arab of the five cities we visited, with 58 percent exhibiting some level of anti-Arab sentiment, while Haifa was the least with 32 percent. Interestingly, after Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was the city with the most anti-Arab sentiment (49 percent).
The data we gathered substantiates the idea that anti-Arab sentiment is a mainstream phenomenon in Israel. Almost half of all the Jewish Israelis we spoke to exhibited some level of anti-Arab sentiment. The single most disturbing trend that emerged was the correlation between youth and strong anti-Arab sentiment. We also learned that support for the classic two-state solution along the 1967 lines was very low among the people we spoke to. This data point was reinforced by the strong support that we saw for the settlers. Given our leading question, the fact that less than a third of respondents were willing to characterize the settlers as an impediment to peace, is further evidence that the two-state solution, as it is currently being proposed by the international community, is decidedly unpopular in Israel.
Despite the lack of knowledge about the one-state solution idea, some respondents appeared willing to consider it. Once this solution was explained to them, 22 percent preferred it and around 6 percent did not object to it. Finally, when we asked Jewish Israelis to choose between the Jewish character of the state and the democratic character, 36 percent opted for the latter. All of these results must be taken with a grain of salt.
We can report anecdotally that many of the people who refused to be interviewed told us that they wouldn’t participate, because they felt that we were part of the “leftist media.” For these reasons, we feel that it is likely, if anything, that our data underestimates the actual amount of anti-Arab sentiment in Israel.
Eli Ungar-Sargon is a documentary filmmaker based in Los Angeles. He and his wife Pennie are currently looking for translators to facilitate the data analysis on the Palestinian side of this survey. Anyone interested should email withoutaland A T gmail D O T com. To learn more about the film and see a visual representation of the data discussed in this article, please