POLITICAL

Political and spiritual issues appear to be clashing in Tibet. Since I haven't studied the reports I'm not really able to comment - except to say that to side with the weakest and least brutal in any dispute seems only natural to me. Which means that despite the elitist overtones, I'd be inclined to support of the Dalai Lama and his followers in opposing Chinese force and aggression - as I believe, unlike in the west, is the Tibetans' honourable tradition.

See: http://www.avaaz.org/en/

and http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence/21.php

(avaaz = voice)

I R A Q

This has also been my position over the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - the reason for the latter was clarified officially by Bush yesterday for, to my knowledge, the first time, when he stated emphatically that Washington had to depose a dictator who paid the families of suicide bombers that attacked the holy land.

Stunning as this confession is - that an entire nation should be crushed, its infrastructure demolished, more than a million of its people killed, many millions displaced, and so on and on...and then occupied indefinitely, all because of the actions of its now dead dictator. This is a confession that should resound in everyone's ears like a thunderclap. It should wake the whole planet! Anyone who (like me) previously dismissed as absurd the far-fetched aims of the infamous 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - the Jews' supposed secret plan for taking over the world - must now be revising their position.

If Bush had included other pressing issues in this speech then they might have softened the power of this principle reason to invade. Instead, he merely added vague and mildly-voiced referrences to the continued need to fight terror, bring order, etc...(is this the ultimate hypocrisy or am I missing something? Who after all initiated, and continues to provoke, this monumental disorder?). But crucially, in emphasising this one key reason, Bush finally gave the game away.

Of course, everyone knew the truth anyway - most people have known it for more than 5-years; it just hadn't been stated officially before, not so clearly and on its own like that. As we all know also: there were secondary motivations for the invasion - the corporate and military, and especially the oil - of which there is an estimated 300bn barrels (at $100/barrel, guess what that comes to!).

But without that crucial Zionist cause, more than a million Iraqis would now be alive instead of dead (horrible deaths too mostly, and mostly civilians: women, children, the elderly... the poor devils who suffered most from the brutal and insane 'shock-&-awe' violence for kicks, from the totally demented, the certifiable insane many of whom remain in their powerful positions, still running the US and some in the UK). When interviewed by Tony Benn just over 5-years ago, Saddam Hussein voiced precisely this reason, which Bush gave in his speach, for the threat of invasion .

So Israeli Zionists have cost the poorest US taxpayers at least $500bn, mostly in cuts to services for the very poorest (this sum is expected to eventually exceed $3tn with everything taken into account) - while wealthy US taxpayers have received concessions.

It's pretty clear that the Zionists and their cohorts in Washington comprise the most malevolent cabal on the planet. Beside them the colonial racists of South African apartheid - though murderous enough - appear almost soft. Only the Nazis compare with the Zionist brutes who are obviously intent on tearing Iraq apart even now, never mind Palestine... and if they could they'd probably exterminate the entire Arab race. Not that I approve of the various Arab regimes and their bizarre and strict ethics, the violation of which frequently lead to summary execution. But at least they're not a threat to anyone else - or weren't before US/Iraeli hostilities alerted them to the need for an effective deterent... which can only be nuclear.

But the idea that the US could remain in Iraq for a 100-years is not as incredible as it sounds. This is because the Iraqis will never acquiesce (who would?); so until Washington and Tel Aviv yield and accept inevitable defeat, the occupation will continue - and will continue to be resisted. Nothing could be more obvious. The entire scenario is breathtakingly insane and barbaric.

None of this is my or anyone's subjective opinion. On the contrary, it is clear objective reality; history proves it; the facts speak for themselves. One only has to glance back over the past 50-years. There is no dispute over what's happened, only on how one interprets it. And this has nothing whatever to do with non-Israeli Jews, of course, who in my experience are very often the most decent people you'll find anywhere: ie, Chomsky, Zinn, Pinter, Jonathan Miller.... and on and on and on... who vigorously and passionately oppose the Zionist cause, and Israel and Washington's policies towards Arab nations.

Was it in Michael Morre's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' where I saw the report that shortly after the first 9/11 attack a minibus of Israeli Jews were seen in Manhatten clambering out, then looking towards the towers and dancing in the street in celebration?

Another unsettling detail is that the invasion of Iraq was only possible with the cooperation of the Saudis. The greed of the Saudi princes exceeds anything I'm capable of grasping - except in recognising the connection between power and insanity. Not content with merely enjoying the luxury of gilded palaces, these Saudi princes have traded what has turned out to be a monumental sacrifice of over a million Arab lives plus a possible $30tn worth of oil, and who knows what else, just so they can continue to reign supreme - by courtesy of Tel Aviv (ie,Washington). It is true that this colossal loss is not personal to the princes, but for sheer scale it must be the trade-off of the millennium - and all just to appease a tiny diabolic source of untold power, brutality and horror: Israel....