KHALED SHEIKH MOHAMMED ON TRIAL? ARE YOU KIDDING!

Theme: Shadowboxing

Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the self-confessed mastermind and organiser of the 9/11 attacks was arrested in Rawalpindi in 2003. He has still not stood trial. Originally he was to be tried by a military commission, then a civilian court, and now a military commission again. There have been three different judges in charge at my last count. His defence lawyer commented that he did not now expect KSM to go on trial until 2017 at the earliest.

The proceedings have been shrouded in intense secrecy. Even those journalists sitting in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom are separated from the legal teams, defendants and judge by a soundproof glass screen. In one bizarre incident the judge, Col. James Pohl, who had agreed to a forty second delay in the audio playback enabling these observers to hear what is being said, was surprised when the censor button was activated. It seems he did not know who was in control of this censor button, or why they had pressed it!

By the time his trial actually comes around maybe he’ll have died of old age! It is difficult not to feel that there are some powerful interests who would rather he never came to trial. Perhaps someone is afraid he has a tale to tell which they would rather as few people as possible get to hear. There was plenty in the original 9/11 Commission Report to raise suspicions about the terrorism career of KSM and who his true sponsors were. Below I have listed some early evidence linking KSM and Al-Qaida to the Qatari Royal family, the close strategic allies of the west.

Much shocking & startling evidence against Qatar was seen by the 9/11 commission. Much of this evidence is summarised in a remarkable Congressional Research Service report entitled “Qatar: Background & US RelationsRL31718, written by Middle East analyst Christopher M. Blanchard for the Library of Congress. This report was updated in December 2005.

  • Former Qatari Interior minister Abdullah bin Khalid Al-Thani “provided safe harbor and assistance to Al-Qaeda leaders during the mid-1990s, including the suspected mastermind of the September 11 hijacking plot, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.Source: 9/11 Commission Report & former US government officials (see Blanchard p.9)
  • Note the 9/11 Commission report identified KSM as the main source of the at least US$ 400,000 in finance for the 9/11 attacks, but failed to discover the source of his funds. Source: 9/11 Commission Report, p. 172.
  • KSM moved to Qatar at the suggestion of Qatari minister Abdullah bin Khalid Al-Thani in the early 1990s and was given a job as an engineer in the Qatari Ministry of Electricity & Water until he fled the country in 1996. During this time he travelled abroad much in connection with terrorist activity. Source: 9/11 Commission Report, p. 147.
  • Former U.S. officials and leaked U.S.government reports state that Osama Bin Laden also visited Doha twice during the mid-1990s as a guest of Shaikh Abdullah bin Khalid…”           “During a January 1996 visit to Doha, Bin Laden reportedly ‘discussed the movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia’” Apparently these were preparations for the attack on the Khobar Towers military barracks which killed 19 US servicemen. Source: “Case Closed” by Steven F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, 24 Nov. 2003. (The article was based on a memo from the US Department of Defence to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee.).
  • In January 1996 FBI officials narrowly failed to arrest Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, then an employee of the Qatari government in the Ministry of Electricity & Water. He was to be arrested in connection with an investigation of his nephew Ramzi Yousef, thought to be the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing. He had fled the country. “Some former U.S. officials have since stated their belief that a high ranking member of the Qatari government alerted Mohammed to the impending raid.”   Source: 9/11 Commission Report p.73
  • One news report quotes Jack Cloonan the lead FBI agent on the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as claiming someone tipped off Mohammed shortly after Qatari officials were told of the plan to arrest him.       The article also quotes a former CIA official who wanted to remain anonymous, that there were others in the Qatari royal family who provided safe haven for Al-Qaida, not just Abdallah Khalid Al-Thani.   Source: “Al Qaeda Ally?” by Brian Ross & David Scott of ABC News 7/2/04

 

  • Another news report quotes Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism director for the White House, as accusing Abdallah Khalid Al-Thani of channelling both personal & Qatari state monies into al-Qaida front organisations disguised as charities.   Source: “Qatar security chief has alleged ties to al-Qaida” by Josh Meyer & John Goetz in the Los Angeles Times, 28/3/03. (These journalists wrote to the pentagon alerting them to concerns that US military forces were based in a state whose head of internal security is linked to al-Qaida, the reply they received simply professed ignorance of the situation, but no further investigations or actions are known to have followed from their warnings.)

 

  • The CRS report continues that more recent terrorism concerns centre on claims that the late Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi may have transited Qatar after September 11th. 2001 and benefited from a safehouse and financial support of a member of the ruling Al-Thani family. Source: “Intelligence Break Let Powell Link Iraq & Al-Qaeda”, Patrick E. Tyler in the New York Times, 3 Feb. 2003.

 

ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LINKING QATAR & AL-QAIDA

  • Qatar was been singularly free of terrorist attacks in spite of the large concentrations of US military personnel & security considered by some to be relatively relaxed.
  • Exceptionally on the 19 March 2005 a theatre in Doha was attacked by a car bomb during the performance of a Shakespeare play. Western expatriates were the apparent target, a British teacher was killed. It was a suicide attack by an Egyptian called Omar Ahmad Abdullah Ali, an employee of the Qatari state petroleum company with no known links to any terrorist organisation, and no history of militancy. The attack has not been firmly attributed to any known terrorist group.
  • Some attributed the attack to al-Qaida, but this was rejected by the then Qatari foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani on 28 March 2005. He did not explain why. S. Ulph in ‘Terrorism Focus’, Jamestown Volume 2, Issue 7, 31/3/05.

 

  • His rejection of a link with al-Qaida may have followed from a denial by an un-named al-Qaida spokesman reported in the Arabic newspaper Elaph on 20 March 2005.       The spokesman stated that Qatar was not on a list of al-Qaeda targets and that the attack was made by a lone individual acting on his own account.

 

  • The spokesman continued that bin Laden had not authorised the attack, and that he had called a meeting of the al-Qaida leadership to condemn the attack. The reason for bin Laden’s friendliness towards Qatar was explained by the role Al-Jazeera had played in calling for the release of Tayseer Alouni, a leading member in Spain.

 

  • The report continued with an affirmation that al-Qaida would continue to observe an agreement with Qatar not to undertake any attacks on Americans inside Qatari territory. The Qatari foreign minister is also reported to have been enraged by the “act of unpardonable treachery by bin Laden”.

 

  • These reports were followed by attempts to “explain” the peculiar agreement between Qatar & al-Qaida in the Western media. Official Qatari sources claimed the state was paying protection money to al-Qaida. The money is reported to be funnelled via spiritual leaders sympathetic to al-Qaida & is thought to fund its terrorist activities in Iraq. It is claimed the agreement only dates back to 2003, just before Qatar played an important role in the US invasion of Iraq. The agreement is reported to have been renewed following the Doha car bomb attack in March 2005. The report also observes that Qatar has “offered a haven for a number of extremists”, citing the example of Kifah Jayyousi. “Qatar buys off Al-Qaeda attacks with oil millions” by U. Mahnaimi, Sunday Times, 1/5/05.

 

  • In addition Qatar has also hosted a number of politically active muslim militant leaders, for example leading to an assassination by Russian agents in Doha of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a former Chechen president and rebel leader.
  • For some years many of Usama bin Laden’s and Zawahiri’s audio & video messages have been exclusively provided for broadcast to the Qatari TV station Al-Jazeera. This suggests the Al-Qaida leaders had safe lines of communication with Al-Jazeera.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE DEFENCE SECRETARY ON THE ERUPTION OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS (NEVER SENT)

June 2014

Dear Mr. Hammond,

I hope you will agree that those who make foreign policy or defence policy are in the business of strategy. I hope you will also agree that the very essence of strategy is to be able to ‘put yourself in the shoes’ of an opponent to consider how they see things and how they might react to your own actions.

What worries me today is that our leaders, absorbing the current cultural fashion which rejects all attempts at objective or systemic thinking, no longer analyse situations in this strategic way, preferring the lazy option of viewing everything from a totally subjective, self-centred and self-serving perspective. The consequences of this are potentially disastrous.

Please consider for just one moment the possibility that the actions of Russia in Ukraine are defensive, and not as the media would universally have it, part of a grand plan to expand aggressively. Whether you favour this view or not you must consider it. If Russia is acting in this way because it feels threatened by Nato, then the unthinking, stereotyped response of ‘deterring further expansion’ by ‘standing up to an aggressive expansionist Russia’ will actually backfire, escalate the conflict and eventually pave the road to full scale war. The dangerously unfortunate ‘coincidence’ of collapsing oil prices also increases Russia’s sense of threat and risks accelerating the process of military escalation.

What Russia wants in Ukraine becomes transparent if we consider this view. Russia wants the ‘neutralisation’ of Ukraine, meaning an undertaking from the Nato powers that Ukraine will not become a base for Western military operations. You will ask why should the West want the neutralisation of Ukraine? I will answer to prevent a full scale war with Russia, the costs of which are unconscionable. You need to consider realistically that the Russians may now view Nato as a threat to their existence.

The practical details of neutralising Ukraine may be difficult and subject to complex negotiations, the aim must be for Ukraine to have as much freedom from internal interference by Russia in return for security guarantees to Russia. The principle however, is not problematic as membership of any alliance or union requires the agreement of those admitting the new member, not just the wishes of that ‘would be’ member. Part of this problem is membership of the EU which becomes problematic because of the ‘common defence and security policy’, for example Article V of the Lisbon treaty which is modelled on Article V of the Nato treaty. (For those who don’t know, it commits all members of the EU to come to the military defence of an EU member attacked by an outside state. Most EU members are also Nato members, so it is effectively an extension of Nato.) Future EU membership of a neutral Ukraine could be achieved by selective signing of treaties so as not to compromise the country’s neutrality.

Today our leaders seek to posture that our policy in Ukraine must be based solely on Ukraine’s sovereign rights and that issues such as Russia’s national security interests are not even admissible for consideration. Apart from the fact that this is disingenuous, because it is applied selectively in a politically motivated way, this is not the way things have been done for centuries. Realpolitik has generally been a feature of international relations. There has been a good reason for this, because in the past people thought peace was important. You can adopt this ‘holier than thou’ posture but the outcome is a major European war. The ugly truth is that in the post Cold War world there are those in high places for who peace is not important, only winning.

For twenty years now I have been trying to warn anyone who would listen that the US and Nato policies followed since the end of the Cold War are leading inevitably to war in Europe. Needless to say no one was interested and nobody cared. It started for me with watching film of military exercises between Nato and Poland in the early nineteen nineties under the Orwellian title ‘Partnership for Peace’. I immediately dubbed it ‘Partnership for War’. There was clearly only one country such exercises could be aimed at. It was clear we were putting in place piece by piece everything needed to go to war with Russia. The US National Security Revitalisation Act of 1995 was nothing less than a transparent declaration of intent to go to war with Russia should it ever recover from its desperate state of collapse at that time.

The massive eastward expansion of Nato finally reaching Russia’s borders could only have one realistic interpretation. It was the determination of Nato to improve its ability to exert military threats against Russia, or even to effect regime change. Simultaneously the US was trying its best to develop new technologies which would deprive Russia of its nuclear deterrent and give the USA a nuclear monopoly. “Prompt Global Strike” might one day enable Nato to destroy most of Russia’s nuclear weapons on the ground in a surprise first strike within one hour. Meanwhile a missile defence shield would pick off those remaining weapons missed by PGS. Denuded of a nuclear deterrent Russia becomes a target for conventional warfare.

Far and away the issue which has made the world infinitely more dangerous since the end of the Cold War, and which is contributing most to tension with Russia and China, has been the West’s enthusiasm for using war as a tool of foreign policy. War making has been rehabilitated from the status of ‘ghastly last resort’ to a routine tool, just another little tool in the tool box. We get to destroy your country because we’re the ‘goodies’. Whether the West likes it or not Russia and China just see themselves as another future victim on the list and that an attack on their national security is just a matter of time. This is the extremely dangerous world your aggressive war addicted foreign policy has made, a self-fulfilling prophecy of ever more war.

At the same time while Russia has been recovering internally, the West has deliberately sought to drive a wedge between Russia and its neighbours by supporting any political elements, it doesn’t matter who, hostile to Russians. In some states ‘Colour Revolutions’ have removed those who are happy to coexist peacefully with Russia and replaced them with those who wish to start conflict and hostility with Russia. I first became aware of this when listening to BBC coverage of elections in Georgia. Eduard Shevednadze being attacked because he won an internationally monitored election which was criticised as flawed, was then over thrown by a clearly Western backed Shakashvilli who seized power in a mob coup, no democratic process. The real eye opener was when the BBC journalist commented on his winning 98 percent in a subsequent unmonitored election, gushing with enthusiasm saying “This shows how much the Georgian people love him!”. The next day he was warmly congratulated on the phone by President George W. Bush. Objective reporting? I’ve never seen it in this country.

Social Engineering?

Theme: Consumerism, the Terminal Stage of Capitalism

“We don’t do social engineering!” We’ll I‘ve got news for you, if you are a human being you do do ‘social engineering’. You do it all the time, whether you like it or not. Call it ‘brining up your children’, call it ‘education’, call it ‘entertaining people’ or call it the ‘mass media’. It’s all social engineering. Everything you say and do is sending out messages to other people, and everything you don’t say, and don’t do is also sending out messages about attitudes, values, what you think is important, what’s ‘right or wrong’.

Children learn by imitation. Human beings are social animals, adults learn by imitation just as much as children do. Humans have a desire to conform and fit in. They feel the need to adopt the attitudes and values of those around them to be accepted and to bond.

The mutation of all channels of mass communication into a means of business only is derailing the very foundations of the culture without which a civilisation cannot exist stably. First we were told, “Oh it must be entertaining, if you want to get your message across” (Of course, so we can get our message across! We really want that!). How quickly and easily this transforms into “It must only be entertaining, nothing more can be tolerated!”

When all mass communication has simply become a means of making profits for business owners, and all mass communication must only be allowed to entertain, the content of the social engineering it actively carries out is beyond scrutiny, it is unguided. Thus it accidentally or otherwise engineers an amoral, vacuous, inward looking, self-obsessed, ultra-materialistic culture with no values.

  Just remember when you are old you will be at the mercy of these little people whose minds you have connected to the open sewer pipe of the mass media from the day they were born. Happy retirement!

Cutting your Staff Down to Size

Somewhere along the way, no doubt trying to be ‘up to date’ with their methods, British employers all began to change the name of their Personnel departments to ‘Human Resources’. The change in name feels like an Orwellian use of language. It is pregnant with messages to the employees.

The message is before we were all people working together on an enterprise, now only the owners and senior managers are people, you all are just disposable bits of equipment, like an office chair or a desk, we hire you, fire you, you’re all replaceable and have no intrinsic value of your own. You are less than human.

Humiliating staff, trying to degrade them to continuously varying quantities of labour which are all interchangeable. We don’t want you, we just want your units of labour. Measured as a real number at that!

It is another way in which the culture surrounding modern capitalism seeks to make people unhappy and dissatisfied, offering the false road to happiness. The only way you can live without being kicked around like a dog is to get your hands on more wealth than most people by any means necessary, not necessarily legally either, so you can kick everyone else around. It is a programme for a violent, unstable and anti-social society. The majority must always suffer so a tiny minority can swagger around vacuously.

The naïve and stupid idea that all people doing the same job do it in the same way, so they are all interchangeable, and there are no qualitative differences seems to have taken over management thinking. Expert advice on the leadership of people now comes from those who are practically autistic, or at least anti-social.

The way someone does a job is very much a reflection of their own character, and their personal values. Unfortunately the Anglo-American culture is not one in which people take pride in, or get status and recognition for how well they do their job. This differs from cultures like Japan and Korea. So the Anglo-American culture seeks to bribe its staff with offers of more money if they are obedient, but the staff just see the chance to rob their employers as a way to scratch back some human dignity. Take but don’t give back. It’s a ‘them and us’ culture and attitudes such as viewing staff as ‘Human Resources’ simply reinforce this set of values. Lack of values is a better description. The end result is to create a hostile demoralised workforce which feels it has no stake in the organisation except to rob it of whatever they can get away with.

If you don’t invest in your staff, as people, not just with money and training, then they won’t invest in your goals for the organisation. The message is it’s all clearly NOT for their benefit so why should they care, we all just become flotsam in a flexible labour market where we move jobs as quickly as possible because we hate the organisation that employs us.

Capitalism as ever destroys itself if left to its own devices. It’s not left wing people the capitalists have to fear, we will seek to do many things that rescue the system from itself, rather it’s the freedom to abuse power and for those with power to immerse themselves in unbridled greed that destroys capitalism.

Uncontrolled capitalism eats itself through sheer greed.

LIES THEY TOLD US – INFLATION

Theme: Lies we were told

I remember well the stagflation of the nineteen seventies. I also remember how politicians and the mass media all agreed that it was ‘our fault’. By ‘us’ I mean the ordinary working people of Britain. Greedy, lazy workers, over-powerful trades unions and an inflexible labour market with good pensions, jobs for life and other outrageous luxuries were the cause of all out suffering and we were being justly punished by the gods of economics.

Our punishment would not cease until we all returned to path of righteousness, of low wages, weak labour unions, lousy conditions and no job security. The decadence of our civilised way of life was to be replaced with the law of the jungle favoured, as ever by those who are most disproportionately well rewarded for every little thing they do. Apparently they deserve it, (so they say anyway!).

As is usual for our great democracy, with its wonderful press, the best in the world, what we were not told was what all the experts knew, but the general public didn’t, namely that the inflation was triggered by the Vietnam war. This may sound strange to those who do not know about it, but the chain of cause and effect went like this.

After the Second World War the western leadership set up an international monetary system in which the major currencies did not move much, their exchange rates being pegged to each other. Adjustments were occasional. Underpinning the system was the US Dollar as the world’s main reserve currency which was pegged against gold. The international monetary system was a Dollar-gold standard.

During the Vietnam War the US government became so determined on victory, later renamed ‘peace with honour’ under President Nixon, that it was decided to just spend as much as was necessary to achieve this victory. America’s credibility as a global power was at stake, no cost was too high to prevent national humiliation. What this meant in practice was printing vast amounts of US Dollars. The outcome was that by the early nineteen seventies the US could no longer maintain the Dollar-gold standard. In August 1971 President Nixon announced that the US Dollar would no longer be fixed against gold, and a new era of floating exchange rates steadily spread through the world.

This world of volatile exchange rates was one in which inflation could easily result, and easily be exported around the world. One effect was that oil exporting nations who were used to earning hard US dollars for their petroleum steadily found the purchasing power of their oil revenues declining. This led to them calling for price rises, leading to the Geneva I and Geneva II oil price negotiations.

The outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973 and the resulting oil embargo led to the discovery by major oil producers that years of low oil prices, and the consequent under-investment in oil exploration and production at a time of steady global economic growth, had created a physical shortage of oil. OPEC now had the bit between their teeth and ran with it. By the end of 1973 the nominal price of crude oil had quadrupled.

This ‘First Oil Shock’ had an immediate inflationary effect. A rise in the price of oil meant a rise in the price of energy, and anything that used energy. This was practically everything, electricity, practically all manufacturing, heating, lighting, shipping and transport costs. Naturally prices started to rise and workers demanded wage increases to compensate for their falling standard of living. Thus a wage-price spiral took off.

However as was later pointed out by right wing leaders, inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon caused by an increase in the money supply. Thus it was no more logical to blame greedy workers for demanding higher wages than to blame shop keepers for raising prices. However these theoretical niceties were not going to be allowed to get in the way of creating a more ‘flexible’ labour market. In other words it would be the least powerful in society who would bear the brunt of the costs of fighting inflation. What a surprise!

Needless to say the only people who really suffer from long term inflation are those at the top, ‘creditors’, those who invest and lend money, who see the value of the debts they hold steadily eroded. Thus fighting inflation became the central obsession of right wing politicians in the nineteen eighties.

DIVIDE AND RULE (You’re Only a Tool)

In the Divide and Rule game,

We assign the blame,

With show trials for the losers,

Courtrooms always have their uses.

**

Ten million televisions,

One million radios,

Endlessly repeat,

The horrors we expose.

**

Slap on sanctions,

Pour in guns,

Fear not victims,

In we come!

**

“Are you qualified to hate?”

“We’ve got weapons for you mate.”

You idiot! You fool!

You’re nothing but our tool.

**

Children carry rifles,

Firearms bought with drugs,

You cynically promote,

An army full of thugs.

**

Try to take our friends to court?

Your plans will come to nought.

A hostile UN mission,

Will never get permission.

**

In the Divide and Rule game,

We assign the blame,

With show trials for the losers,

Courtrooms always have their uses.

**

It’s a stagnant land of death,

The young ones have all left.

After twenty years of ‘peace’,

The economy has ceased.

**

Why d’you endlessly declaim,

The sins of foes long beaten.

Our children clothed in rags,

Their mother has not eaten.

**

Well paid experts from the West,

Travel heavy in flak vest,

They come to write reports,

But nothing ever gets support.

You idiot! You fool!

You’re nothing but a tool.

**

In the mixed up world you’ve made,

Invaders are all victims,

Aggressors in the right,

All problems solved by might.

SOMETIMES THEY DO LIE

Theme: Manufacturing ‘Public Opinion’

In my many criticisms of the western mass media coverage of foreign stories and how it is used to manipulate, or even manufacture public opinion, I am usually careful to point out that our ‘fine journalists’ do not actually say things that are untrue. Our form of propaganda and manipulation are much more sophisticated and subtle. They work through “lies of omission”, leaving out key facts and events that would cause the viewer, reader or listener to get a completely different understanding of what is happening. The ignorance of the public, who are deprived of any context, timeline or understanding of the evolution of situations, is carefully protected and husbanded by media who are not there to give us facts but to insert opinions into our heads ready formed.

Watching ITN reports on the final departure of British troops from Afghanistan I was stunned to hear the reporter say to the millions of Britons watching that “Ten million girls are now going to school in Afghanistan”. He then went on to ascribe this ‘factoid’ to the help given to the country by Britain. Leaving aside the fact that Britain was just one NATO member occupying Afghanistan, and that there were many other countries and the UN giving assistance to Afghanistan which might share any credit, this ‘fact’ was astounding.

The reason this fact was so astounding was because it seemed to fly in the face of everything that I thought I knew about Afghanistan, having followed closely the fate of this country since the end of the nineteen seventies. So I went back to a source which I thought would be reputable and uncontroversial, the current “CIA Factbook” on Afghanistan to check a few basic facts about the country.

I found that this document confirmed exactly all the facts and figures I knew about the country already. The entire population of Afghanistan is only about 32 million, thus we were being told that one third of the country’s population consists of school girls. This is particularly surprising when total Afghan government spending adds up to approximately US $60 per person per year. Interestingly figures for education spending are listed as ‘Not Available’. Current figures for adult literacy show that over 57% of Afghan males are illiterate, while 87% of Afghan women are illiterate. Afghanistan’s most notable ‘achievement’ in the world of national statistics comparisons is that out of over 200 UN member states it has the worst infant mortality. This is current data, following more than a decade of the country being occupied by over twenty of the world’s richest nations all boasting about how much they are doing for the country.

Let’s get real about Afghanistan. It’s a country three times the size of the UK with half its population, has less than one thirtieth of the metalled road network, no railways and total electricity generation capacity about enough to serve Leicester. Only a quarter of the population live in towns or cities. Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished and least developed of countries in the world. In economic terms it is more akin to an African nation than an Asian one.

The fact is that most people in Afghanistan live in villages in remote valleys and planes where life has changed little in hundreds of years. They know little or nothing of the government in Kabul, except when armed men enter their world from outside. There is no ‘Afghan Nation’, it is a bewildering patchwork of different ethnic and tribal groups with competing loyalties and no unifying factor. Decades of foreign interference and ‘tribal’ war have destroyed much of what little infrastructural development took place when the USA and USSR competed with each other to be the country’s ‘friend’ during the Cold War. The truth is our most recent occupation has done nothing for the country outside of some efforts in the field of security which look like proving short lived.

CONSUMING THE WORLD

My Country is destroyed,

By a Nation far away,

They call themselves democracy,

And through the World hold sway.

 ***

Soldiers in our village,

Killers in our skies,

Know nothing of our people,

With us they have no ties.

 ***

What is it they really want?

None of them can tell!

They seek to teach our leaders,

But all they’ve brought is Hell.

 ***

Who’s in charge?

Who makes the rules?

No one seems to know.

Some answer me ‘The People’,

Who are these ‘people’ though?

 ***

They stuff their eyes,

They stuff their ears,

They stuff their empty days,

Distracted by such spectacles,

They never turn their gaze.

 ***

It is a vacant circus,

A world they fill with ghosts,

There is no room for us,

In the pageants they all host.

 ***

Do not ask me questions,

And I’ll tell you no lies,

Free the hands of power,

So another nation dies.

 ***

We never can conceive,

A World we do not rule,

And so we must obliterate,

All those we cannot school.