Is the US a Rogue State? [Tyrants R US, WTC= Inside]

Massimo's Skeptic Web

V. Foreign policy: Is the US a rogue state?

The United States is without a doubt one of the best places in the world where to live, and I am grateful I am here. It is a fairly liberal democratic republic which -- even though by no means a perfect type of government -- seems to be the best that humankind has been able to engineer so far. This said, let me make a case for the idea that the United States is, in fact, a “rogue” state and that it — therefore — cannot rationally use the label on other nations as an excuse to attack them, as it happened with Iraq in 2003. Let’s start from the basics: the Oxford dictionary defines rogue (first meaning) as: “Dishonest or unprincipled person; mischievous child.” I assume we can transfer this definition to the level of state, though that raises interesting philosophical questions about the “character” of a nation -- which we will need to set aside for now.

Here, then, is my evidence for the conclusion that the US is the mother of all modern rogue states. First, arguing for a pre-emptive strike against another sovereign nation is in direct violation of the United Nations charter, and therefore puts the US outside of the international community. To vow to abide by a certain code of conduct and then refuse to do so when it is inconvenient for one’s self interest surely qualifies as “mischievous” behavior.

Second, the US has consistently avoided joining the international community in a number of treaties that have — ironically — seen it side with “rogue” states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq (in other words, seen from outside, America looks a lot like part of the “axis of evil”). Examples include: back-pedaling on the Kyoto accord on the environment; refusing to join the anti-land mine treaty; refusing to join and actively sabotaging the international tribunal. It is “dishonest” and “unprincipled” to ask for other people to respect international law and then arrogate for one self the right to violate it.

Third, before the onset of the second Iraq war, the US allocated funds to train anti-Iraqi militias recruited among the many dissenting minorities harassed by Saddam Hussein. How, exactly, is this not equivalent to setting up a terrorist training camp? Is it just because these people will be doing the dirty work for and not against the US? Because we are right and they are wrong? I am reminded of a Star Trek—Next Generation episode (one of the highest sources of my enlightenment), in which an otherwise seldom judgmental Captain Picard is reproaching a defecting Romulan general for his past military actions against the Federation. The general reminds Picard that one people’s butcher is another people’s hero. What should distinguish the US as a liberal democracy are not only its principles, but the way they are defended. If the end justifies the means -- Machiavelli-style -- then the US is moving perilously close to the sort of behavior that it condemns in others.

Which brings me to the fourth point: surely the 2003 aggression of Iraq cannot seriously be framed as a defense of democracy. Doing so would be another example of dishonesty and lack of principles. If the US is really interested in democracy, why on earth did it decide to attack puny Iraq while at the same time give permanent most favorite nation status to, say, China? Have we forgotten Tien An Mein? Do we really think that the Chinese leaders threat their people better than Hussein did his? And don’t we know for sure that the Chinese (or the North Koreans, or the Pakistani) do have plenty of weapons of mass destruction, while the ones that were allegedly all over Iraq have never been found? I am not, of course, suggesting that the US declare war to China, North Korea or Pakistan -- just that it be a bit more consistent (principled, not rogue) in its foreign policy.

Now, being a rogue state in the sense in which the US surely is can, and has been, defended on rational principles. Robert Kaplan, for example, has written a book entitled Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, in which he makes the argument that the US, as the only superpower in the world, should behave outside of international law. Indeed, Kaplan criticizes most American politicians for being held back (ironically, I would add) by their Christian ethos. In fact, he claims that they should explictly embrace Machiavelli’s “pagan” attitude, and do what needs to be done.

Kaplan’s dichotomy is, I think, the real conundrum that the US has to resolve during the 21st century. Do the United States of America want to be seen by the rest of the world as a principled nation, fighting fairly for what it sees is right, or as a Machiavellian entity willing to lie and cheat to get whatever it feels is due it? The American people should think about it really hard, because this will determine how history will see the US and, more importantly, is already affecting the lives of millions of people on this planet.

================
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-20-03/discussion.cgi.52.html
And this is where we begin to "close the circle" of our close-knit pre-9/11 propaganda clique. Returning again to the above-mentioned Dan Eggen and Vernon Loeb Post article of September 12, we're offered - in a powerful little side-bar - more critical evidence implicating bin Laden for the attacks the day before. This time, the bombshell is offered by Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television's bureau chief in Islamabad. According to Ismail, a bin Laden aide called him "early Wednesday on a satellite telephone from a hide-out in Afghanistan," praising the attack yet denying any responsibility for it. As it turns out, Ismail was also among the select few to conduct his very own bin Laden interview, published by Newsweek in its April 1, 1999 issue. Here is how Newsweek described Ismail's good fortune: "Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail's mobile phone rang just before prayers on December 18. 'Peace be upon you, ' said the voice on the line. 'You may not recognize me, but I know you.' " And thus was Jamal Ismail invited on his own mud-soaked incursion to the bin Laden [bat]cave.

Searching deeper, I found an interesting obscure article penned by respected Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufszai in The News Jang, and dated May 3, 2000. It details the detention of two men of Kurdish origin, accused by the Taliban of spying for American and Israeli intelligence. As Yusufszai relates it, he spoke to the only journalists allowed by the Taliban to interview the detained men - Jamal Ismail and his cameraman. Apparently, Ismail had a special relationship with the Taliban, allowing him this rare privilege above other journalists. And, as we shall shortly see, so does Yusufszai. One wonders who debriefs them at the end of a workday. But more interestingly, by May 5, as reported by Kathy Gannon for the Associated Press, the story acquires - as they say - "new legs." Not only are the basic elements of the Yusufszai story mentioned, but the article leads off with the bombshell that one of the detained men revealed that he was recruited by the United States to find Osama bin Laden. It finishes with a little coda implicating bin Laden in the 1998 embassy bombings. Thus, in the space of two days, Yusufszai's Pakistani "spy" article sprouts a bin Laden addition when fertilized by the American Associated Press - and nicely provides a plausible explanation as to why a Kurd would be prowling around Afghanistan on behalf of the United States.

Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged with guiding ABC News correspondent

• Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted (Cont'd) — Chaim Kupferberg, Thu Jun 19 19:48
• And, as we so often find with events surrounding 9/11 — Chaim Kupferberg, Thu Jun 19 19:51

And this is where we begin to "close the circle" of our close-knit pre-9/11 propaganda clique. Returning again to the above-mentioned Dan Eggen and Vernon Loeb Post article of September 12, we're offered - in a powerful little side-bar - more critical evidence implicating bin Laden for the attacks the day before. This time, the bombshell is offered by Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television's bureau chief in Islamabad. According to Ismail, a bin Laden aide called him "early Wednesday on a satellite telephone from a hide-out in Afghanistan," praising the attack yet denying any responsibility for it. As it turns out, Ismail was also among the select few to conduct his very own bin Laden interview, published by Newsweek in its April 1, 1999 issue. Here is how Newsweek described Ismail's good fortune: "Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail's mobile phone rang just before prayers on December 18. 'Peace be upon you, ' said the voice on the line. 'You may not recognize me, but I know you.' " And thus was Jamal Ismail invited on his own mud-soaked incursion to the bin Laden [bat]cave.

Searching deeper, I found an interesting obscure article penned by respected Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufszai in The News Jang, and dated May 3, 2000. It details the detention of two men of Kurdish origin, accused by the Taliban of spying for American and Israeli intelligence. As Yusufszai relates it, he spoke to the only journalists allowed by the Taliban to interview the detained men - Jamal Ismail and his cameraman. Apparently, Ismail had a special relationship with the Taliban, allowing him this rare privilege above other journalists. And, as we shall shortly see, so does Yusufszai. One wonders who debriefs them at the end of a workday. But more interestingly, by May 5, as reported by Kathy Gannon for the Associated Press, the story acquires - as they say - "new legs." Not only are the basic elements of the Yusufszai story mentioned, but the article leads off with the bombshell that one of the detained men revealed that he was recruited by the United States to find Osama bin Laden. It finishes with a little coda implicating bin Laden in the 1998 embassy bombings. Thus, in the space of two days, Yusufszai's Pakistani "spy" article sprouts a bin Laden addition when fertilized by the American Associated Press - and nicely provides a plausible explanation as to why a Kurd would be prowling around Afghanistan on behalf of the United States.

Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged with guiding ABC News correspondent

• Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted (Cont'd) — Chaim Kupferberg, Thu Jun 19 19:48
• And, as we so often find with events surrounding 9/11 — Chaim Kupferberg, Thu Jun 19 19:51
• ========================================
• http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-20-03/discussion.cgi.51.html
• Aftermath News
  9/11 Families: Bush has smothered all investigation
  Thu Jun 19 19:28:05 2003
  208.152.73.8
  
  9/11 Families: Bush has smothered all investigation
  
  It should now be obvious to all, that the Bush cabal has something to hide and is doing everything in its mighty powers to keep the lid on the truth. For those who have bothered to study the entire stinking mess over the past 21 months, we are just asking the families, "What took you so long to figure out that the government doesn't want you to know the truth?"
  
  Of course, if we put ourselves in their shoes, we would want to think that the government is not so corrupt and foul. We would like to think that there was some shred of hope that they are here to help and that we might get some answers on why our loved ones had to die on September 11th.
  
  But the horrible truth that few can bear to face is this:
  
  Bush & Co not only had prior knowledge, they not only allowed the attacks to take place, they actually planned and executed them as a military psychological operation. Then they proceeded to use 9/11 as a pretext for perpetual war, for plunder and power, mass murder and the incremental institution of a global government police state system, known as the New World Order which the entire world is now busily adopting. Yes, most people, laboring under the Big Lie, are even helping to build their own prison system in which they themselves will be the inmates.
  
  And of course the Bush criminal syndicate and their allies have diligently convered up every detail about 9/11 and their real motives and agendas and they have refused to admit anything but the cover-story that there were "failures" and that they just need more power and funding and that we all just need to give up all our rights and everything will then MIGHT get better...
  
  Most importantly, we need to make this distinction:
  
  Its not merely about hiding a "political embarrassment for failures". There was no failure involved at all. None! Instead, for them, it was a stunning success. A coup. An incredible boon. Bush's popularity skyrocketed. Their entire plan came off beautifully and the American people, really most of the world, took the bait hook, line and sinker, including the surviving family members.
  
  When the families finally realize this glaring fact, that the globalists carried out the attacks to serve their agenda, then maybe we will get some action on the perpetrators. As long as they remain in the dark, nothing can be done to serve justice on Bush, his co-conspirators and his masonic masters who are the real orchestrators of that terror-filled event.
  
  PW
  --------------------
  Bush's 9/11 coverup?
  Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch.
  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/18/911/index_np.html
  
  -----------------------------
  
  911 Exposed! Because truth is that this government enjoys murdering Americans.
  Americans
  http://www.911exposed.com/ - 626 B