war

Despite the near daily news coverage of many poor countries suffering conflict and disaster, critical, underlying issues are almost never mentioned by journalists reporting endless symptoms and predicaments. The issues covered in this article add insight into the key development challenges facing the countries concerned and, by implication, the policies of countries like the US, UK, Australia and Canada, where billions are being spent in aid and military interventions to try and stabilise failing states.

To News editors: Raising news awareness on driving forces behind failing states

Click on picture for film from the Population Media Center - http://www.populationmedia.org

By Brian McGavin, writer and analyst. August 2011.

Below I give some interesting and generally unreported facts that provide important background on many of the failing states regularly in the news. For example, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Palestinian Territory and Afghanistan. It also includes Pakistan and Iran.

Despite the near daily news coverage of these countries, critical, underlying issues are almost never mentioned by journalists reporting endless symptoms and predicaments. These issues add a great deal of insight into the key development challenges facing the countries concerned and by implication the policies of countries like the US, UK and Canada, where billions are being spent in aid and military interventions to try and stabilise failing states.

The aim is to give journalists more balance and context to reports. A simple one or two-sentence addition of data gives a far better understanding of the significance of demographics to a country’s geo-political profile, its aid dependency and social and economic future.
(See table below*)

Through 2011 we have seen almost daily coverage of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ and armed conflict. While some underlying factors of high youth unemployment, rising food prices, water shortages and fears of growing Islamic fundamentalism are mentioned, the media has decidedly not focused on the troubling demographic realities the Middle East and other crisis-ridden countries face. Good news coverage is not just about immediate events, but fundamental causal symptoms. Here are some examples.

1) Egypt. Hardly any mention has been made of the large and rapidly growing population of Egypt, its extremely small arable land area of just 3 per cent, food imports of 40 per cent and the total dependence now on food imports and aid to sustain the population.

Egypt’s population almost quadrupled in just 60 years, from 21 million in 1950 to 81 million in 2010 and at its current 1.8 per cent annual increase in population, the population could hit 150 million before 2050, unless the birth rate declines. (UNPD data). Consider the potential for endless and costly food aid and the rapidly growing numbers of unemployed and disaffected young people attracted to violence and extremism.

2) Afghanistan. On December 23, 2009, UK Channel 4 TV news ran a 20-minute lead on selling children and kidnapping people in Afghanistan. The father selling two of his children was portrayed as a ‘victim’ of poverty in being unable to feed or care for his family. The size of his family was not mentioned – but he had a lot of children.

The reporter asked what would happen to the child and was told it was an opportunity for a better education, but no more was asked about the child’s fate. Various ‘experts’ including Joe Klein of the New York Times and the CEO of Oxfam UK were asked for their view. Corruption, poverty and criminality were discussed, but what was not mentioned was the country’s demographic trajectory that would add a great deal of context to the discussion.

The UK Guardian newspaper on 14/9/10 ran a four-page spread on progress in Afghanistan towards meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The prognosis was gloomy, but in all this verbiage, there was just one minor mention of a 'rising population in Afghanistan' as one of several environmental factors that may see the country not being able to produce enough food to feed its people. In fact, several interesting factors were mentioned in the article, but does any of this important information get covered in the almost daily news reports of more coalition troops being flown home in coffins?

Among the largely unreported gems was that remaining forests were being chopped down for firewood; water shortages and contamination was growing, with thousands of hungry people fleeing the countryside to cities - particularly Kabul, which at 5m people is now the fastest growing capital city in the world. It is also one of the only capital cities without a proper sewage system. Yet Coalition forces have spent years and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in the country without these issues being reported in mainstream media.

3) Haiti, like many of the poorest countries in the world, has one of the lowest per person consumption footprints in the world. In Spring 2010 a world-wide media bonanza descended on the earthquake-stricken island, bringing daily live reports of a human disaster: Almost 98 percent of the forests cut down; raw sewage flushing into the ocean; large-scale illiteracy; lack of fresh water, and not enough food for an island on permanent food aid.

But the media reports never mentioned this was happening on an island that possesses the carrying capacity for perhaps 500,000 people, but the culture of Haiti and the Catholic Church ‘encouraged’ it to grow to over 10 million and counting. Haiti has already wrecked much of its ecological assets and relies on exporting people to USA, Canada, the neighbouring Dominican Republic and even the Bahamas as a safety valve for its extreme population pressures.

US Census Bureau records give the legal Haitian population in the United States exceeding 850,000. In Canada the Haitian diaspora is estimated to be around 1 million. There are also estimated to be over 800,000 illegal Haitians living in the neighbouring Dominican Republic, which accounts for about 10% of its national population. (Wikipedia).

While an increase of rape cases has been mentioned in some news reports since the disaster, a reproductive health survey, conducted by UNFPA Haiti in October 2010, found that the fertility rate in urban areas has tripled from four per cent to 12 per cent. But this was never mentioned in on-going media coverage of the disaster or in NGO aid appeals.

4) In Gaza, around 1.5 million people are crammed onto an arid strip of land 40km (25 miles) long and 6 to 12km wide. Many people live in poverty, with unemployment at 45 percent in late 2010, one of the highest in the world according to the UN. The population has grown by 40 per cent in the past 10 years and is rising by about 5% every year. It is expected to double by 2030 – with family sizes of eight or more not unusual.

5) In Libya, repeated stories of ‘refugees’ - alternatively described as ‘migrant workers’ trying to leave the country were shown on TV, many of them sub-Saharan Africans. What was not reported is that an estimated one in six of Libya’s population is made up of illegal sub-Saharan immigrants trying to reach Europe. Italy eventually paid the Libyan Government to help stop them moving on to Italy. With the chaos, where are these illegal residents heading now, aided by International Refugee Agencies and how did the Libyan Government suddenly acquire so many sub-Saharan mercenaries to brutally attack its own people?[1]

6) Pakistan. The media spent weeks looking at the late 2010 disaster in Pakistan, where one-fifth of the country was flooded by the Indus River. But you don’t hear any information that Pakistan is housing 174 million people on a flood plain and at its current birth-rate the population is set to more than double over the next forty years. That ‘core’ challenge never crosses the lips of CNN, NPR, NBC or the BBC.

7) In Yemen, a nation of 22 million and rising rapidly, grain production has fallen by two thirds over the last 20 years and 19 of Yemen’s 21 aquifers are severely stressed. Yemen now imports 89 per cent of the food it needs according to a recent EU report. World Bank projections say the area around the capital, San’a’ - home to 2 million people and one of the world’s fastest growing cities, may be pumped dry in a few years.

In October, we will have seven billion people in the world. I am sure you will agree that these core issues on huge challenges we are facing need to be brought fully to the public's attention. I hope you will cascade this information round your teams and let me know. I can add much more.

Sincerely,

Brian McGavin,
(UK-based writer, geo-political and environmental analyst)

*The UNPD 2010 population data gives population in 1950, 2010 and projected in 2050 and current average number of births per woman (total fertility rate TFR). The table also shows the potential self-sufficiency or bio-reserve deficit exposure for these countries, taken from the Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (appendix F, Table 1) - based on most recent 2007 data.

• Bio-capacity reserves or deficits are in global hectares (gha) per person. Plus (+) is current reserve bio-capacity. Minus (-) is a biocapacity deficit. (Rounded to nearest decimal and percentage).
• Climate change impacts will likely increase pressure on many countries’ bio-capacity.
• The 2010 UNPD population data shows ‘medium variant’ estimates of population growth This assumes an often quoted presumption that total fertility rates will fall to the lower levels of many developed countries and the population will reach 9.3 billion by 2050 and then hold steady. (2.1 children is replacement fertility). So far, this shows little sign of happening in most African countries and many areas of the Middle East.
• If the global Total Fertility Rate continues at its current path, population projections will be far higher and the impact on people and the planet in just 39 years will be immense. (See the constant fertility projection in the table). A UN news release issued on March 11, 2009 warned that if fertility rates don’t fall, the medium variant projection of around 9.3 billion people by 2050 would instead rise to 11.1 billion people by 2050. In addition, many developed countries are now offering ‘baby bonuses’ to increase their populations.
• Projections for 2100* are shown for Nigeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to demonstrate the frightening demographic position in the lifetime of many of our children if current birth rates persist. (Rounded to nearest million).
• Because Pakistan has not conducted a census since 1998, the country’s population size is conjectural. The government estimates the 2010 figure at about 175 million people, while the United Nations believes the number is around 185 million.

The Washington-based Population Reference Bureau (PRB) latest 2011 data shows more pessimistic projections on fertility decline in many developing countries, so they use the High Variant projection. Note PRB’s 2050 projections for Nigeria, at 433m as against UNPD 390m and Pakistan at 314m as against UNPD 275m.

[1] Ed. The remark about Libya is based on a perspective contested in some quarters, e.g. global research and ”candobetter.net – libya”, due to the lack of objective evidence for Gaddafi attacking his own people, their apparent willingness to defend him, and the conspicuous motives of the US, the UK and France to preserve first-world hegemony in the oil-producing region against China and coalitions of the third world with Gaddafi, the brilliant originator of OPEC in the 1970s.

Some, who present themselves as opponents of war, have spent more time cataloguing Gadhafi's past real or alleged shortcomings than rallying people to oppose the current, all-out military attack on the sovereign nation of Libya by the United States and its NATO allies. Their influence would be small, except that it coincides with the opinions of the U.S. ruling class. Thus it is important to thoroughly answer their arguments.

Article re-published from original of 25 Jul 2011 by Sara Flounders in Global Research. See also: Washington’s Allies Run Amok: Saudi and Emirati Forces Open Fire on Unarmed Protesters in Bahrain of 24 Jul 11 by Finian Cunningham, BAHRAIN - National General Strike - Demand for Representative Democracy in an immigrant overloaded state of 21 Feb 11.

If you went to a shopping center, a street corner or a graduate school of a top university in the U.S. and conducted a pop quiz asking who are the kings or crown princes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain; the emir of Kuwait, Qatar or Dubai; and the sultan of Oman, most people would not be able to name any of them.

These dictators and feudal monarchs hold absolute control in corrupt and brutal regimes. Their rule is kept in place by U.S. arms, troops and mercenaries, but they are anonymous to the U.S. population and to most of the world's people.

But if you went anywhere in the U.S. today and asked who lives in Libya, there is only one name that a large part of the population could tell you: Gadhafi. Many people, even if they do not know that Libya is in Africa, might tell you that Gadhafi is an evil man who "must go."

The corporate media can demonize the leader of a country targeted by the Pentagon to the point that the consequences of using the most deadly weapons against a totally defenseless population are hidden and dismissed.

No other country in history has the capacity to wreak such havoc, using cruise missiles, bunker busters, drones, depleted uranium and dense inert metal explosive bombs, anti-personnel razor shredding bomblets, and anti-personal mines.

What should be the response to this terror?

Unfortunately, a minority of groups or individuals who present themselves as opponents of war spend more time cataloguing Gadhafi's past real or alleged shortcomings than rallying people to respond to this criminal, all-out U.S. attack. Their influence would be small, except that it coincides with the opinions of the U.S. ruling class. Thus it is important to thoroughly answer their arguments.

Whatever mistakes made by the leaders of a small, underdeveloped country facing U.S. sanctions, sabotage and assassination attempts, they are not the reason the U.S. is hell-bent on destroying Libya today.

What is at stake?

U.S., French, British and Italian imperialists are determined to lay hold of Libya's now well-developed infrastructure of oil refineries, pumping stations, gas lines, ports and pipelines directly into Europe, as well as billions of dollars in gold reserves, oil reserves — the largest in Africa — and Libya's other rich assets. All of this has been built up over the four decades since U.S. and British imperialism were kicked out of the country.

The imperialists are especially determined to stop Libya's assistance in the development of other African countries. The plans for a United Federation of Africa, which were put forth by Libya and backed with $90 billion in investment funds, deeply threaten the continued multinational corporate looting of the continent.

The people of Libya have resisted more than four months of nonstop aerial assault. The bombing has united the population. Their cohesion has grown. More than 1 million people hold giant rallies in Tripoli.

A government in fear of its population would never hand guns to the public, but Libya's government has distributed more than 3 million weapons in a country of 6.5 million people to enable them to resist occupation.

Incredibly, it looks like the imperialists are facing still another failed war. A falling out among thieves seems to be taking place as NATO's frustration mounts.

The response to this colonial war of aggression should be the same as the response to a racist mobilization, a racist lynch mob or a police attack on an oppressed community: Mobilize all possible forces to stand up to the crime and say "no!" Refuse to take part in the orchestrated campaign of vilification.

This may not be an easy position to take. But it is essential to reject the racist political onslaught that accompanies the military onslaught.

Demonization is meant to disorient and put the massive, criminal destruction planned by U.S. imperialism beyond debate. Enormous pressure is placed on every level of the U.S. population to accept the premise that the targeted country and its leadership are to blame. The attacks are presented as if only one person lives in Libya, and not 6.5 million people.

In preparation for a war of conquest, the role of the corporate media is to endlessly repeat every charge and statement made by the institutions of U.S. power. An almost frenzied level of lies, wild fabrications, racist stereotyping and ugly caricatures saturates all political discussion.

The corporate media spread the demands that the Pentagon death machine must act in the name of "humanity" in order to "save lives." The war itself is cloaked in neutral terms. In the case of Libya, more than 16,000 bombing sorties against people are described as implementing a "no-fly zone." The White House has assured the population that this bombing is not an act of war. The administration won't even discuss it with Congress.

The response to media demonization in the midst of a war mobilization must be to focus on the outrageous crime being committed and refuse to accept or give weight to any justification for it.

Despite an ocean of propaganda, poll after poll has confirmed that from 60 percent to 65 percent of the U.S. population is against the U.S. war on Libya. This should give all opponents of this imperialist war great hope and confidence.

But the demonization and racist war propaganda have seeped down into a layer of the progressive and anti-war movement.

In every imperialist war for decades, a whole series of writers, commentators and political organizations considered to be progressive have buckled under enormous social pressure. While claiming to be against U.S wars, they allocate their greatest energies to focusing on and discussing every shortcoming, mistake and inconsistency of the targeted country — in the very same condemnatory tone as the corporate media.

They have said "neither NATO nor Milosevic," "neither Bush nor Saddam," "neither Israel nor Hizbollah," thus helping to weaken the anti-war forces.

The responsibility of progressive intellectuals and groups in the United States is to utilize their considerable research skills to extract every piece of information that could explain the corporate stakes — the anticipated profits behind the imperialist war. And never to echo in left terminology the charges made in the imperialist media.

Working people need to know the real reason behind the attack. Thus every effort must be made to avoid reinforcing government propaganda. Progressives should look to build the broadest possible unity in order to speak with one voice against the war.

Of course, such misguided groups are a small minority in the progressive movement. But there are those political organizations, which six months ago had not bothered to mention Libya, that now suddenly seek out respectable venues to add their own reasons that the dictator Gadhafi "must go" — an echo of the imperialist demand. Some even insist that in order to be part of the political discourse, every anti-war voice must first join in condemnation of Gadhafi.

In a few places this chorus on the sidelines has even disrupted anti-war meetings, calling on the anti-war movement to fall in line and echo the racist ruling class.

The Cynthia McKinney tour

In their determination to join with all the "respectable voices" condemning Libya, some groups have even sounded just like the imperialist media by seeking to silence the courageous voice of former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney. This is how arrogant and offensive those who demand collusion in U.S. wars have become.

McKinney risked her life to visit Libya with a U.S. delegation in the midst of the U.S./NATO bombing. She deserves respect.

McKinney was first a target of national media condemnation as a young, first-term state representative in the Georgia Assembly, when she dared to speak out against the U.S. war on Iraq. The entire chamber of representatives stood up, turned their backs on her and walked out.

When elected to the U.S. Congress, her outspoken opposition to and questioning of the orchestrated national frenzy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attack; her clear opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement; her defense of political prisoners; and her support of the Palestinian people generated national campaigns to pour funds into opposing candidates in her small Georgia congressional district. Again and again the district lines were redrawn in an attempt to disqualify McKinney from the U.S. Congress. She has earned international acclaim for her candidacy for president on the Green Party ticket, for her participation in humanitarian convoys to Gaza and for being jailed by Israel.

McKinney's tour to six cities organized by the Answer Coalition, and now to 15 cities organized by the International Action Center — all of which have successfully mobilized forces against the U.S./NATO invasion of Africa — have also come under criticism and cowardly attack. Some of these elements are even writing and speaking against McKinney's right to speak against the war in Libya.

Even more arrogant and insensitive are their attacks on the Nation of Islam and Pan-African voices opposing the war.

For more than three decades many Pan-African activists, African people and Muslims have followed developments in Libya with great interest and enthusiasm. Many people traveled to Libya and favorably compared the social accomplishments in Libya — which, according to the U.N., scored highest in Africa on the Human Development Index in education, housing, length of life, nutrition and infant mortality — to the enormous poverty and glaring underdevelopment of most of the continent. They have spoken out forcefully against the looting of Africa and defended Libya as a country that, although sanctioned, sabotaged and under continuing attack, managed to maintain a level of independence from imperialism.

It is criminal to dismiss those actually mobilizing, writing and speaking against war as just pro-Gadhafi.

Pentagon lynch mob

What should be the attitude toward a family or a town seized by a lynch mob?

How does one respond if a racist gang of thugs, with torches and gasoline, is ready to set fire to a home with children inside, or is determined to capture someone who they felt had not shown proper "respect?" Is that a time to wander off into analysis of the targeted victims' credit card payments, driving record or other possible past mistakes or personal shortcomings?

Bombs are falling on Tripoli. Isn't that a Pentagon lynching?

In the face of a criminal terror campaign against a whole country, it's imperative not to do anything to support the attack. It's essential to do everything in your power to mobilize people to resist.

To use every possible argument of defense, and not give a shred of legitimacy to the racists who are attempting to burn the whole country down, along with all of its proud accomplishments.

Don't allow yourself to be on the same side as the imperialist war makers.

Leave it to the Libyan people to decide their own future without U.S./NATO bombs. Leave it to African, Arab and especially Libyan people to discuss and debate, without outside interference.

But here in the center of the U.S. empire, it is important to refuse to join in the demonization and attacks used to justify atrocities committed by corporate power. Most important: Don't echo imperialist propaganda in the midst of a war of aggression. Don't join in a lynch mob being organized by the Pentagon!

Unite behind one clear slogan:

Stop the U.S./NATO war on Libya.

Sara Flounders is Co-Director of the International Action Center

This article argues that Australian Refugee Activism has been used to divert the public eye from attacks on Australian democracy and away from questioning the very wars that cause refugees. If we judge this political movement by its outcomes, then the Australian "refugee rights" activism has been worse than a total failure for all but a very few international refugees, specifically those who arrive clandestinely on boats.

See also: UN's outdated Refugee Convention - an immigration smoke-screen

A defense might be raised by refugee activists that the absence of serious discussion of the causative issues is the product of biased mainstream media reporting. A look at the blogs strongly associated with the movement, however, reveals that they also fail to seriously confront the causes. See for example socialist-alliance.org and directaction.org.au and greenleft.org.au

The writer contends that Australians and the rest of the world have had to put up with very poor coverage and discussion of the events described below which have given rise to huge numbers of refugees:

* The Hawke 'Labour' Government's support for the 1991 war against Iraq, based upon fraudulent pretexts including the "incubator babies" lie and the set-up of Saddam Hussein by then US Amabassador to Iraq April Glaspie.

This war and the 2003 wars which followed it produced many Iraqi refugees and continue to do so. The focus of refugee activists helped to disorientate Australians politically because it concentrated on only a few landed asylum-seekers rather than protesting against the causes, which lay in war. This probably made it easier for government to wage these wars.

* The Howard Government's re-election in 2001 in spite of broken 1998 election promises, its failed attempt to break the Maritime Union of Australia in 1998 using mercenary strikebreakers and the imposition of its regressive and unpopular Goods and Services tax (GST).

Howard's re-election in the face of all these handicaps was only made possible because of the political disorientation caused by the Tampa 'boat people' incident of 2001, combined with 'refugee rights' activism.

Here is how it happened: When the election was approaching there were a lot of things the Government had done since its election in 1998 that the Australian public should have been thinking critically about. Instead, everything preceding was sort of swept away with the blow-up over the Tampa incident just before the election. This focus on one event allowed the media to ignore many other issues which would have done the Howard government a huge amount of damage if canvassed in the election.

* The Howard Government's support for and participation in the invasion of Afghanistan based on the fraud of the September 11 false flag terrorist attack.

This illegal invasion has cost the lives of 27 Australians and of considerably more Afghanis so far. It has also helped increase to record levels Afghan production of opium, which the overthrown Taliban regime had tried to stop.

Press coverage of the activities of refugee activists distracted people from the really important issues of the time, which included the fraudulent use of the false-flag terrorist attack of September 11 to start the Afghanistan war. The upshot was a whole nation of people turned into a basket case, of which many could qualify as refugees.

* The Howard Government's support for, and participation in, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The main pretext for the invasion, the claim that Iraq was attempting to build nuclear weapons has been shown to be a lie. The truth about the WMD lie can be found in the Hollywood movie Fair Game which concludes with live footage of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, (played by Naomi Watts in the movie), testifying to US congress about the WMD lie. Howard's election in 2001 was helped by press diversion onto refugee activism.

The same thing happened again in 2004 when the press should have been drawing public attention to the WMD and Iraq invasion fiasco and international debacle, which itself has also produced many refugees, quite a few of whom have arrived on Australian shores.

* The re-election of the Howard Government in 2004 with outright Senate and House of Representatives majorities, in spite of the most massive anti-war demonstrations since the 1960's demonstrations against the Vietnam war, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

This re-election left the Howard Government free to pursue its participation in the Iraq war and to pursue other regressive domestic policies. The ongoing issue of refugee and asylum-seeker procedures, as represented by refugee activists, continued chronically to hold the front pages, again dwarfing a major world conflict and creator of many refugees.

* The 'Labor' governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard continue the Howard Government's Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This is an ongoing consequence of the Australian media's failure to adequately question the rationales of these wars, whilst continuing to feature refugee activism day after day.

* The current 'Labor' Government of Julia Gillard further fanning the flames of civil war in Libya by, at one point, recognising the US/NATO backed National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya.

Australian procedures for dealing with asylum seekers continue to overshadow the necessary public debate and press coverage of our poorly justified recognition of and support for the dubious representatives of the National Transitional Council.

Over the period that 'refugee rights' activists have been able repeatedly to reach large sections of Australian public opinion with their message, the Australian Government has succeeded in helping its US, UK and other allies inflict unprecedented harm in the world, causing the world population of refugees to rise by many millions.

It is not the intention of this article to disparage the cause of individual refugees or the good work of people who help them. The author wonders, however, why the refugee action movement has so little to say about the wars that give rise to much of its existence. Why is it so uncritical and apparently disengaged in regard to the wider political issues that produce refugees?

This extraordinary news report (available on YouTube Obama 'ignore' button: Congress has a say? (also embedded within this article) describes U.S Congress's challenges to President Obama's powers to make war against a foreign nation without approval from congress.

See also: Libya conflict: Backlash ensues to Obama's refusal to seek Congress's nod of 18 Jun 11 by Cheryl Sullivan on Christian Science Monitor, US-NATO are Planning a Ground War in Libya, Military Intervention in Syria of 18 Jun 11 by Bob Chapman on Global Research.

The YouTube broadcast Obama 'ignore' button: Congress has a say? (also embedded below) describes U.S Congress's challenges to President Obama's powers to make war against a foreign nation without approval from congress. Near the end of the broadcast (3' 46" into the 4' 22" broadcast) Author David Swanson remarked:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich was debating a former lawyer from the Reagan White House who was defending Obama and he asked this guy twice -- never got an answer -- "If there were 2,000 missions over the United States by a foreign nation and many of them were dropping bombs, would that be war? Would that be hostilities?"

See also: Libya conflict: Backlash ensues to Obama's refusal to seek Congress's nod of 18 Jun 11 by Cheryl Sullivan on Christian Science Monitor, US-NATO are Planning a Ground War in Libya, Military Intervention in Syria of 18 Jun 11 by Bob Chapman on Global Research.

by (retired) General Lewis MacKenzie, previously published in Global Research and The Globe and Mail, June 10, 2011

We are now in the 84th day of the bombing campaign that the United Nations Security Council authorized to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in a bid to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In a bizarre development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has said it will extend the campaign for 90 days, surely a first in the history of war when one side "extends the contract" for a set period. This presumably occurred because NATO's strategy is still based on the flimsy hope that Colonel Gadhafi will see the error of his ways and capitulate before his surroundings and his supporters are bombed back to the Stone Age.

NATO's obsession with its strategy of hope was tried once before in 1999, with the bombing of Serbia and the breakaway province of Kosovo. A myth that the 78-day bombing campaign persuaded Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo continues to grow despite overwhelming facts to the contrary.

Before that war – and contributing to its start – the international community gathered in Rambouillet, France, and, on March 18, 1999, produced an accord that spelled out a peace plan to deal with the armed insurrection by the Kosovo Liberation Army (designated at the time by the CIA as a terrorist organization).

Unfortunately – but intentionally – the accord contained two poison pills that Mr. Milosevic could never accept, making war or at least the allied bombing of a sovereign state inevitable. The first pill demanded that NATO have freedom of movement throughout the entire land, sea and airspace of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, NATO would have the right to park its tanks around Mr. Milosevic's downtown office in Belgrade. The other pill required that a referendum be held within three years to determine the will of those citizens living in Kosovo regarding independence. The fact that Kosovo's population was overwhelmingly Albanian Muslim guaranteed that the outcome of any such referendum would be a vote for independence and the loss of the Serbian nation's historic heart.

Mr. Milosevic refused to sign the accord, and NATO began bombing Serbia on March 24, 1999, without a Security Council resolution, citing a "humanitarian emergency" – a decision still widely challenged by many international legal scholars. NATO said it would take only a few days of bombing to persuade Mr. Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo.

As the weeks dragged on, NATO's strategy of hope appeared to be in serious trouble. Its aircraft, incapable of destroying to any significant degree the Serbian military's personnel and equipment, had turned to bombing fixed infrastructure: bridges, roads, factories, refineries, TV stations. As in all wars conducted from thousands of feet above the target, mistakes were made and civilians were killed. In one town I visited during the campaign, a medical clinic and a 10-storey apartment building had been demolished, with no "legitimate" targets anywhere to be seen.

With no indication that Mr. Milosevic was going to give in, diplomacy was given a long overdue chance. Led by Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin, Mr. Milosevic was told that, if he withdrew from Kosovo, the two poison pills would be removed from the Rambouillet accord. Within days, Mr. Milosevic agreed.

Myth buster: Diplomacy, not bombing, played the key role in bringing a punitive bombing campaign based on hope to an end.

The same solution should be pursued in the case of Libya. The main obstacle is the rebel leadership. The UN envoy to Libya has requested that the rebels call for a ceasefire, but they have steadfastly refused to do so until Col. Gadhafi is gone. NATO leaders are no longer demanding Col. Gadhafi's removal as a prerequisite for stopping the bombing. So where do the rebels get off refusing to accede to a request from the very organization that authorized the bombing in the first place? They should be told in no uncertain terms that, if they're not prepared to negotiate with Col. Gadhafi's representatives, NATO's support in the air and at sea will cease.

Even if Gaddafi and his sons leave Libya, fighting will continue. The hostilities now run even deeper. The Transitional Council is not accepted by all of Libya either. What about the voices of the rest of Libya who do not want the Transitional Council to be imposed on them?
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya from Global Research, June 3, 2011

Even if Gaddafi Leaves the war will not end

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

From Global Research, June 3, 2011

Washington, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the European Union (EU) are talking about an endgame in Libya. David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy are talking about a new phase in the war as they prepare to send helicopter gunship squadrons to fight inside Libya. They claim that the departure of Colonel Gaddafi is imminent. The Italian Foreign Minister says Colonel Gaddafi is finished too. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the same. The leaders of the Benghazi-based Transitional Council are already speaking about victory.

There is despair in Tripoli now. Fuel and food are running out. People have to sleep next to gas stations overnight so they can get gasoline. The inhabitants of Tripoli and its surrounding districts are living under a feeling of virtual siege. The NATO bombings have even gotten much worse despite the fact that Libya's military infrastructure has been destroyed and bombed multiple times. NATO is clearly now bombing Libya to break its spirit and force it to submit.

Rumours and misinformation is also being spread to divide Libyans. Under the watch of NATO and US satellites, weapons have been smuggled into Libya from Tunisia and Egypt with the collaboration of both regimes. The Emir of Qatar even publicly flaunts the Qatari role in arming the Transitional Council. The whole world also knows about the role of the US in sending weapons to the Transitional Council through Egypt. This is yet another example that international law is only lectured about by the US and the EU when they intent to use it to handicap or attack other countries.

What if Colonel Gaddafi and his family leave their country?

What then? Will the war and fighting be over?

That is doubtful. Even if Gaddafi and his sons leave there will be continued fighting and resistance.

The hostilities now run even deeper.

The Transitional Council is not accepted by all of Libya either.

What about the voices of the rest of Libya who do not want the Transitional Council to be imposed on them?

Nor is the Transitional Council a cohesive body. There are real differences within its leadership. These differences will emerge once the Transitional Council comes to its full power in Libya and there will be further internal fighting.

Despite their talk about democracy, the Transitional Council does not tolerate any opposition towards it in the Libyan territory it administers.

Even now there are massacres taking place in Eastern Libya. Those Libyans who are opposed to the Transitional Council are being killed in the dead of night or taken away by the militias patrolling Benghazi. The killings in Easter Libya are casually being whitewashed. The victims are being presented as the perpetrators.

It is being claimed that these victims were figures of the Gaddafi regime or responsible for oppression in the past. It is true that some are supporters of Gaddafi or worked for the Libyan government, but then again so did almost all the people in the Transitional Council. Moreover, was not General Al-Yunis, who was the interior minister for Gaddafi, reasonable for oppression? And what happened to the process of due justice through a trial for these people who are disappearing and being killed around Benghazi? These are not the characteristics of a would-be democratic government.

The fighting in Libya will not end with the departure of Gaddafi. The seeds of division have been planted in the soil of Libya and North Africa. Washington and NATO know this very well too. Anders Fogh Rasmussen has even told the world now that NATO plans on staying in Libya after the war. This is nothing more than modern-day colonialism. With this understanding in mind, the US and NATO are now beginning to amass more military forces off the coast of Libya. This force is a naval armada that includes amphibious military vessels, land troops, and has the capability to invade Libya. Just like Iraq, the war will be far from over when Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy say "mission accomplished."

The war in Libya had and has nothing to do with saving civilian lives. It seems that Bahrain and Yemen are non-existent problems for Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, and NATO. In fact, Bahrain is a coalition partner in this illegal war. The US and Britain have even been helping and training the Arab sheikdoms repress their own citizens. In an unholy alliance, the media in North America, Western Europe, and the Arab sheikhdoms have helped sell this offensive war too. The truth has been turned on its head. Killing is presented as saving lives, war is peace, destruction is preservation, and open lies are presented as the truth. Libya, the crown of Africa, has been handicapped and a plague will now spread amongst the Arabs and Africa.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Canadian sociologist. He is a research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has written extensively and been consulted internationally on the war in Libya.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Unless there's economic growth, we're not making progress
Unless the trucks rumble along the roads, we're not making progress
Unless the engines of industry are turning, we're not making progress
Unless the factories and mills belch out smoke, we're not making progress
Unless our armies are on the move, we're not making progress

Until we respect the planet, we won't progress.

Illustration adapted from original at http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2008/02/george-w-bush.jpg

Uncharitable

I think you have all been most unappreciative of President Bush's achievements. Not just uncharitable but lacking in insight about the way the world works and what has to be done to maintain our way of life. President Bush has done a great job here in very difficult circumstances, and he does not get due credit.

The basics

Let's sketch the basics. We 1.5 billion in rich countries could not have anything like our affluent living standards, our good health standards, our security, indeed our cultural life if we were not getting far more than our fair share of the world's resources. We consume something like 17 times the per capita amount of things like oil that the poorest half of the world's people average. Now that doesn't happen automatically. It has to be organised, and that takes a lot of difficult work. Billions of poor people in the Third World would rather not see their resources and their own labour used to produce wealth to ship out to enrich the corporations and the supermarket shoppers in the rich countries.

Realpolitix

So the first task is to make sure they don't see the situation as illegitimate. This is fairly easily done by the economists who explain that the only and the right way for things to be produced and allocated is by allowing the market to make the decisions. Or course markets always let the rich take everything, because they can outbid the poor. If there's ever any grumbling about this the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO are on hand to let them know that if any government was silly enough to depart from sound market principles then they would get no loans, or assistance with their impossible debt, and they would be banned from exporting anything. They usually get the message and shape up.

Ah, but unfortunately there are always a few knucklehead governments and rebel groups which persist in wanting to devote their nation's resources directly to the improvement of their people's welfare rather than see them flow out to enrich others. These people often call themselves "nationalists" but of course we identify them as subversives, insurgents, communists and/or terrorists. They do things like cut oil pipelines, wage civil war, sell drugs, and try to depose legitimate governments, and cause refugees and famines. Nice people in orderly rich countries despair at these silly people who don't understand proper economics and seem to delight in beating each other up and disrupting sensible development.

Good old-fashioned approach

So from time to time we have to take on the burden of straightening things out, banging a few heads together, supporting the correct faction with money and arms and getting rid of "uncooperative" governments, so that peace can be restored under governments that will rule properly. Sometimes we have to act pretty decisively to restore order, in fact sometimes we have to smash the country to shreds and kill several hundred thousand people in the process, but as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said when our sanctions killed an estimated 500,000 people in Iraq, it's worth it.

More basics

Look, people at the supermarket checkout counter don't understand how serious the situation is. If we can't go on getting oil at the rate we have become accustomed to those shelves will be bare. The stuff's getting scarce now. The Chinese are after it; that's why they're supporting murderous regimes in Africa without asking any questions. Now you can't secure the stuff just by being nice and asking to buy some; you have to go after it strenuously and sometimes you have to throw a little weight around, or some other bastard will get it first. That's what geopolitics is about. It's dog eat dog and devil take the hindmost out there. Most wars in history have been about grabs for resources. That's what The Great game in central Asia has been about and is about now. We have to secure our oil fields and we have to get safe routes for those long pipelines to sea ports, through foreign countries, some of which don't like us much. We can't build them and we can't protect them unless we have military bases and unless we bribe or bully some of those regimes into doing what we want.

Securing the Empire

So can't you see that we had to take Iraq and Afghanistan. And what if Saddam had decided to stop trading oil in US dollars! GW and the team bit the bullet; they did what was necessary. And GW has been a great front man; he's taken the flak for a tough and dirty but crucial job. When everyone's criticising and you can't tell them what you are really doing its best if the mess looks like a mistake made by a buffoon.

Yes of course they were clumsy. In the past they have pulled off most of the coups and assassinations and invasions neatly and quietly - got rid of Noriega, Lumumba, the Sandinistas, put in the Shah, supported our kleptocrat Suharto in Indonesia for 30 years, eliminated deviance in Haiti and Grenada (especially important that, can't let the little ones get away with deviatingŠsets a bad example the rest might see they can follow)Šwith not a grumble at home. Mind you they did stuff up a bit on Cuba and Venezuela.

So yes they did miscalculate in Iraq and Afghanistan but securing the empire is a difficult job, and it's a vital job. You cannot live in the way you have become accustomed, let alone have the 3% p. growth you insist on, unless we go on getting control of most of the dwindling resources an that means running those countries to our benefit not theirs. George and the Neo-cons have done it for you, in difficult circumstances. I think their critics should just be a bit more understanding and appreciative. If you want to go on living with your too-big houses and your plasmas and your jet-away vacations just quit the backchat and support your empire and those who secure it for you.

The last thing that Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer expected as he surveyed the dwindling flames on the 78th floor of the World Trade Center South Tower at 9:54am on 11 September 2001 was, seven minutes from then, for the South Tower to come crashing down on him and to collapse almost completely into dust at a rate barely slower than free fall. Many scientists and engineers, who have since disputed the official US Government explanation of the World Trade Center collapses, would have agreed with Palmer's judgement on the day, however the ABC's Science Show, presented by Robyn Williams seems reluctant to let its listeners know of their views.

See also: articles: "Fire Department Tape Reveals No Awareness of Imminent Doom" In New York Times of 9 November 2002, "NY firefighters reached South Tower crash zone" in the Guardian of 5 Aug 2002
sites: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, www.911oz.com, wearechange.org.au, 911research.wtc7.net, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Patriots Question 9/11, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 911truth.org, 911blogger.com

Veteran firefighters at impact scene expected South Tower to remain standing

At 9:54AM on 11 September 2001, seven minutes before he perished in the first of the two Twin Tower collapses, Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer radioed his unit, Ladder Company 15, this message, from the 78th floor, close to where United Airlines Flight 175 had slammed into the World Trade Center South Tower, only 51 minutes earlier :

"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

The Port Authority of New York refused to release the recording for over a year after the attack until forced to do so by the New York Times.

When Oreo Palmer's widow heard the recording of her doomed husband, she said:

"I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly."

Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca had caught the elevator to the 44th floor_#main-fn1">1 and had then climbed 34 floors to the 78th, the floor immediately below where flight 175 had hit. Palmer had found wounded needing evacuation and fires he had judged could be doused with water pumped from two fire trucks.

Palmer and Bucca had every expectation that the South Tower would remain fully standing as they proceeded to extinguish the flames and attend to or evacuate the wounded.

The last thing that Palmer, Bucca and many other veteran firefighters, then making their ways up to 78th floor, expected to happen only 7 minutes from then was for the whole of the South Tower to collapse in an explosive spectacle that has imprinted memories round the world.

The point to take in here is that, seven minutes before that final collapse, the temperature on the 78th floor was not sufficient to cause professional fire-fighters to panic, let alone present a threat to their lives or the steel structure of the building.

Whilst each of the two towers had suffered, respectively, the unprecedented impact of a jet-fueled passenger aircraft, both had withstood the impact with most supporting pylons in their cores undamaged and few entirely severed. The buildings had been designed in the 1960's to withstand a head-on impact from a Boeing 707, comparable in size to the Boeing 767's which had struck the towers. Even if the structure had been fatally weakened, the collapses should have occurred at the time of the impact and not 58 minutes later, in the case of the South Tower, when the strength of the oxygen-starved fires had greatly diminished.

Oreo Palmer's assessment of the situation he faced on the 78th floor, and, indeed, the fact that he was even able to be there, stands in flat contradiction to what 'structural engineer' Chris Wise told the BBC on 13 December 2001:

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

Many well-credentialed and credible scientists and engineers, stand by the judgment on that day of Oreo Palmer and the other 342 members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) who unexpectedly perished there. These scientists and engineers disputed Chris Wise's pronouncement about the inevitability of the unprecedented engineering failure which occurred on that day. These include:

• Steven Jones, Physics Professor, Brigham Young University (BYU)
• Kevin Ryan, former Department Head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) company which certified the steel which went into the World Trade Center buildings at construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001;
• Alexander K. Dewdney, Professor Emeritus of the University of Western Ontario
• 552 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

They argue, firstly, as Palmer intuitively knew, that there should have been abundant strength left in the structural steel of the towers to keep both standing. They maintain that, even if the structure of the towers had somehow failed, it would have been impossible for these buildings to have collapsed at a rate barely slower than free fall straight down, through the path of most resistance. Rather, they would have expected the collapses to have been more irregular, and the buildings to have toppled in one direction or another. They don't believe it possible that the impacts and fires could have caused the structural steel to have been almost completely dismembered and for nearly all the concrete in the buildings to have been pulverised to dust simply as a result of the planes' impact and the fires afterwards.

"No office-building has collapsed just because of fire."

In fact, they argue that no office-building has collapsed just because of fire. If that seems hard to believe, have a look here for examples of similar skyscraper-fires. (Please let us know of any contradictory examples).

They argue that the only explanation which fits all the recorded evidence and all observations made, was that all three towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. They have called for new investigations into the collapses which would not rule out in advance the controlled demolition hypothesis and which would take full account of all the available evidence.

As the controlled demolition explanation must necessarily implicate many senior figures within the US Government, fierce controversy has raged over these questions for more than seven years.

Science Show uncritically broadcasts controversial 'collapse' explanation

Australians rightly esteem and enjoy Robin William's popular and educational Science Show, but this listener was disappointed and irritated by what seemed one-sided treatment of this issue.

On the Science Show of 20 September 2008, Dr Sergei Dudarev of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was presented to the listeners of the Science Show as having the final word on the controversy.

Dr Dudarev's argument relies on the idea that the towers would have reached a temperature of around 600 degrees centigrade. Even though this temperature is well below the 1,500 degrees centigrade melting-temperature of steel, Dudarev thinks it likely that, at 600 degrees centigrade, changes to the steel's magnetic properties - similar to those exploited by blacksmiths when forging metals - would have caused a fatal weakening in its strength. That weakening would have started the collapse.

Even if we were to accept that theory, it remains inconceivable that Oreo Palmer would have been able to stand on the 78th floor as he did, only seven minutes before the collapse, if the steel above and below him really were at temperatures reaching 500 degrees Centigrade. Dr Dudarev's theory also fails to explain how the temperatures could have subsequently risen so dramatically, in such a short time, when the ferocity of the fires was diminishing.

If, in spite of that failure of his argument, we were to accept that the fires around the impact scene could somehow have initiated the collapse, Dudarev's theory could only possibly explain the commencement of the collapse and not its subsequent astonishingly rapid progression and its totality.

In regard to Dudarev's hypothesis of structural steel being weakened, in a letter dated 9 November 2008, Judy Shelton of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, pointed out that tests conducted by the the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) showed that steel in the towers was unlikely to have reached temperatures anywhere near 600 degrees as a result of the fires_#main-fn2">2 (see #LetterFromJudyShelton">Appendix 1 below).

Robyn Williams final question to Dr Sergei Dudarev was:

"Does this scotch some of those many conspiracy theories (I'm sure you're familiar with them) and explain actually what happened?"

Sergei Dudarev answered:

"The answer to the terrible tragedy is had the thermal insulating panels been glued better to the steel structures, nothing would have happened, or at least the buildings could have been evacuated before they collapsed. It is a predictable outcome of very strong fire in a building where a conventional steel proved to be unsuitable for the purpose, so partially the answer might be in the use of different steel that remains mechanically stable at high temperatures, or partially in the design of better protected structures using thermal insulation materials."

Science Show and 'right of reply' request

Although Dudarev had not directly answered the question, Robyn Williams pursued it no further, so the impression that many Science Show listeners would have gained was that all controversy had ended.

Knowing this not to be the case, I contacted the Science Show on Sunday 2 November. I wrote:

I note that Sergei Dudarev's theory which ostensibly explains how the Twin Towers collapsed at www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm is hotly disputed by many credible scientists, engineers and architects, including whistleblower Kevin Ryan who was sacked from Underwriters Laboratories for publicly questioning the way his company was investigating the collapses.

Is the Science Show intending to let its listeners know why they [meaning the abovementioned scientists and engineers et al] believe Sergei Dudarev to be wrong?

Would the Science Show be intending to cover the science of the WTC collapses and other aspects of the 9/11 attacks some time and allow all sides of the raging controversy to be aired?

Robyn Williams gave the following general response to my question in his response of Wednesday 5 November:

"Dudarev was at a conference organised by the BA and vetted accordingly. His paper was put to in depth questioning by science journalists for one hour before I took over.

"When new evidence appears, vetted by the usual processes, we shall report it. It is a recurring topic."

A rather circular correspondence followed, which I have appended below this article. I argued that either Sergei Dudarev was wrong or that his explanation for the collapses was at the leading edge of science and opposed to current knowledge of physics and structural engineering. In either case, I believed that listeners were entitled to be made aware of all sides of the controversy. I only got general replies which gave me the impression that the Science Show must think that peer review among the scientists for 9/11 Truth is perhaps inferior to peer review among scientists from the ITER Project, to which Sergei Dudarev belongs, and which he managed to publicise in his comments about 9/11.

Perhaps if the 9/11 Truth science project were backed to the tune of 10 billion Euros, like the ITER Project, the BBC and Australia's ABC would take it more seriously. After reading particle physicist, Michael Dittmar's damning analysis of the ITER project, "Fusion Illusions," in Sheila Newman (ed) The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto UK, 2008, however, I think the Science show should be more cautious about Dr Dudarev's ITER-association, let alone his theory on 9/11 building-collapse.

Unfortunately, the Science Show is far from alone in keeping the Australian public ignorant about the of 9/11 controversy, despite its enormous political consequences. That is a subject for another article, except to say that rest of the ABC, together with the corporate newsmedia and even, surprisingly, the 'alternative' media and the supposed far left of politics have acted almost in uniformity to suppress open discussion on this seminal issue of the twenty first century.

As a consequence, Australians remain amongst the most ignorant in the world about this issue.

See also: "Fire Department Tape Reveals No Awareness of Imminent Doom" In New York Times of 9 November 2002, "NY firefighters reached South Tower crash zone" in the Guardian of 5 Aug 2002
sites: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, www.911oz.com, wearechange.org.au, 911research.wtc7.net, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Patriots Question 9/11, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 911truth.org, 911blogger.com

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑I thought I had read somewhere of Ronald Bucca having ascended all 78 floors on foot, but it is difficult enough for me to imagine anyone ascending 34 floors on foot, let alone 78 in 51 minutes at most.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ Judy Shelton's e-mail does not directly address Dr Dudarev's argument about the likelihood of magnetic properties of steel changing to fatally weaken steel at 500 degrees - 600 degrees Centigrade, but #10;<h3><a href=" id="LetterFromJudyShelton">Appendix 1: Letter of 9 Nov 08 from Judy Shelton refuting Sergei Dudarev's explanation_#main-fn2">2

Many learned scientists have been drawn to the challenge of trying to explain the anomalies of the World Trade Center collapses, and some have offered imaginative, creative, and ingenious theories. Dr. Dudarev's information on the magnetic and quantum mechanical properties of steel is very interesting, but it's not very illuminating because there is no evidence that the World Trade Center steel suffered the 600 degree Centigrade temperatures Dr. Dudarev's theory relies on. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.

NIST has said that the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes, and that office fires burn at most twenty minutes in a given area before the fuel is consumed. Firemen radioed from the south tower at the impact zone, reporting that they saw a couple of isolated pockets of fire. Photos of the burning towers show black smoke, indicative of oxygen-starved fires.

It is well to consider all hypotheses, but Dr. Dudarev's theory is not consistent with the evidence.

#LetterToScienceShow-9nov08" id="LetterToScienceShow-9nov08">Appendix 2: Letter to the Science Show of 9 Nov 08

Dear Robyn Williams,

Firstly, thanks for your reply.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, you wrote:
>  Dear James Sinnamon,
>
> Dudarev was at a conference organised by the BA and vetted accordingly.
> His paper was put to in depth questioning by science journalists for one
> hour before I took over.

Is there any record of this questioning - perhaps an MP3 recording or a transcript?

It seems to me that more likely that Dudarev is plain wrong, but if he is not wrong, then he is
at the leading edge of a change in scientific knowledge with profound implications for
structural engineering.

In either case, what he said should be subject to closer scientific scrutiny than what I was
able to read on the Science Show at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm If you believe that the one
hour questioning by science journalists amounted to proper scientific scrutiny, then perhaps
that should be shared with your audience.

However, I think it would be easier and fairer to just allow someone who completely rejects
Dudarev's hypothesis, in line with current engineering knowledge and physics, to be given a
right of reply, so that, at least your audience can know that Dudarev's views are far from
uncontroversial. 

> When new evidence appears, vetted by the usual processes, we shall
> report it. It is a recurring topic.

There is a good deal of 'old' evidence of which I am aware, which, as far as I know, has not
been given air time on the Science Show.  Examples include scientific peer-reviewed articles
on http://journalof911studies.com/ and a good deal of material on the site of Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth at http://ae911truth.org

I myself did not even seriously entertain the idea that the US government itself was
implicated in September 11 attacks until little over a year ago.  Now, having studied a great
deal of evidence and having given what I believe to be a fair hearing  to both sides of the
argument, I can't come up with any other explanation which would account for the strange
phenomena, unusual behaviour, suppression of documents and astonishing coincidences
associated with the September 11 attacks.

If the 9/11 Truth movement are right, then the implications for US and world democracy are
profound.

Whatever the Australian public should at least be made aware of the controversy and made
aware that many well-credentialed and highly credible people reject the Official US
Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks and want a proper investigation unlike the joke
that was the 9/11 Commission so that they can make up their own minds.

Some who question the official explanation are listed at 
http://www.911truthgroups.org/911Truth101/Step2ProminentSupporters/tabid/633/Default.aspx

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

#LetterFromScienceShow-12nov08" id="LetterFromScienceShow-12nov08">Appendix 3: Letter from the Science Show of 12 Nov 08

Dear James Sinnamon,

Could you exchange points of view with him? I was simply covering an event.

No, the PC was not recorded but several press reports ensued.

RW

#LetterToScienceShow-30nov08" id="LetterToScienceShow-30nov08">Appendix 4: Letter to the Science Show of 30 Nov 08

Dear Robyn Williams,

Thanks for your further reply and my apologies on my part for my slow response.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, you wrote:
>  Dear James Sinnamon,
>
> Could you exchange points of view with him? I was simply covering an
> event.


I am afraid that this doesn't address the concerns I raised in my previous e-mails.

I requested that you allow other scientists, who reject Sergei Dudarev's explanation of the
collapses of the Twin Towers in accord with current knowledge of engineering and physics,
be given the opportunity to do so on the Science Show.

I would appreciate it if you would indicate to me whether or not you would be prepared to
agree to this.

If your listeners are not given the opportunity to hear from those who reject Sergei
Dudarev's explanation, then it seems to me that they will have been misled into believing
that his views are not controversial and that the collapses of the Twin Towers have been fully
explained.

It is noteworthy that even though the implications of Sergei Dudarev's theory would have to
be groundbreaking, if true, that nothing more has been heard of it since September, as far as
I can tell.

So this further confirms my suspicion that Sergei Dudarev is plain wrong.

I will include a response to Sergei Dudarev in an e-mail I received from Judy Shelton of
 Achitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on 9 November :

"Many learned scientists have been drawn to the challenge of trying to explain the anomalies
of the World Trade Center collapses, and some have offered imaginative, creative, and
ingenious theories. Dr. Dudarev's information on the magnetic and quantum mechanical
properties of steel is very interesting, but it's not very illuminating because there is no
evidence that the World Trade Center steel suffered the 600 degree Centigrade temperatures
Dr. Dudarev cites (at least, not as a result of office fires; higher temperatures did occur, but
office fires don't burn at 600 degrees Centigrade).  NIST has not one piece of core steel
showing heating above 250 degrees C.

"NIST has said that the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes, and that office fires burn at most
twenty minutes in a given area before the fuel is consumed.  Firemen radioed from the south
tower at the impact zone, reporting that they saw a couple of isolated pockets of fire.  Photos
of the burning towers show black smoke, indicative of oxygen-starved fires.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/idiotbastard/wtcburnssmall.jpg

"It is well to consider all hypotheses, but Dr. Dudarev's theory is not consistent with the
evidence."

I am sure that if you were to contact Judy Shelton through  http://www.ae911truth.org/contactus.php
she would be more than willing to find a suitably qualified and knowledgeable scientist who
would be willing to respond on your program to Sergei Dudarev.

Thank you,

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

#LetterFromScienceShow-1dec08" id="LetterFromScienceShow-1dec08">Appendix 5: Letter from the Science Show of 1 Dec 08

I'm afraid I have to make 32 programs in the next two weeks. We shall no doubt 
return to this topic.

#LetterToScienceShow-4dec08" id="LetterToScienceShow-4dec08">Appendix 6: Letter to the Science Show of 4 Dec 08

Dear Robyn Williams,

Further to my previous e-mail included below.

I would appreciate at least a response, one way or another, to my request that a scientist
who disputes Dr Sergei Dudarev's highly unorthodox views about engineering and physics,
be, as soon as is practical, given air time on the Science Show to rebut those views.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

#LetterFromScienceShow-8dec08" id="LetterFromScienceShow-8dec08">Appendix 6: Letter from Lynne Malcolm of 8 Dec 08

Dear James,

I am writing in response to your most recent email (4th December) to Robyn Williams,
presenter of Radio National's Science Unit program, "The Science Show ".

Please note that Robyn Williams has stated that the program will return to the matter in due
course, as we see fit.

Thank you for your interest.

Regards,

Lynne Malcolm

Executive Producer

Science Unit

ABC Radio National

#LetterToScienceShow-12dec08" id="LetterToScienceShow-12dec08">Appendix 7: Letter to Lynne Malcolm and Robyn Williams of 12 Dec 08

Dear Lynne Malcolm,

Firstly, thank you for having contacted me.

I will take your reply as meaning that my request, that the audience of the Science Show be
given an opportunity to hear views opposed to Dr Sergei Dudarev's novel and controversial
explanation of the collapses of the World Trade Center twin towers on 11 September 2001 at 
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm, has been refused.

In my view, that is poor journalistic and scientific practice for reasons that should already be
implicit from my previous correspondences.


I will now be pursuing my complaint through other channels.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon.

One impact of Georgia's nose-thumbing Russia has been for the US and Europe to take a step backwards, away from it. This leaves Georgia, not only vulnerable to a Russian take-over, but it also frees Georgia to succumb to Russia.

See also: Russia Never Wanted a War by Mihkail Gorbachev in New York Times of 19 Aug 08 for a view critical of Georgia's role in the conflict.

The US invasion of Iraq was identified by many oil 'peakniks' as the first of the oil depletion wars. Hostilities around Ossetia between Georgia and Russia, identify this region as the second of the oil depletion warzones.

The World’s longest oil pipeline runs through Georgia

Illustration source: http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/ossetia.htm
South Ossetia is a Georgian state, north of Tbilisi, Georgia, where the world's longest oil pipeline - the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline - runs through on its politically and geographically circuitous route to the Mediterranean from the Caspian Sea. The Caspian Sea is the largest closed body of water in an ancient fiery region full of legend, bordering central Asia. It is also an international wildlife preserve,[1] with many threatened species, including the near-extinct Caspian sturgeon (source of caviar and little sturgeons).

(Photo of Caspian Seal from Wikipedia)

The entire pipeline is underground and fascinatingly high-tech,[2] to cope with the climate, seismic, and gravity features of the regions it tunnels through as well as the high wax content of the oil. It is patrolled by US trained Georgian soldiers. [2] The crude comes from the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli oil field in the Caspian Sea, which has slowly been coming on line since 2005 with Gunashli only beginning production in May 2008.

There has been for a long time conflict as to whether the inland body of water known as the Caspian Sea is a sea or a lake. The political difference is that, if it is a lake, then the hydrocarbons (oils and gases) it produces belong to the countries bordering its shores. These are, clockwise from the port of Baku: Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. If it is a sea, however, such products are divided up by median lines.

Caspian oil and gas

Much has been hoped for from the Caspian's oil and gas reserves.

Their location, however, for many reasons, makes profitable oil extraction especially difficult and probably impossible in many cases.

Source: http://www.martinhovland.com/mud_volcanoes_files/garadag2.jpg
The highest density of mud volcanoes occurs in Azerebaijan and in the Caspian Sea

Conditions make the region sound like a strange and hostile planet, scorching in summer and frigid in winter. Caspian oil has a super-dangerous high sulphur content which means that workers need to wear oxygen tanks to avoid hydrogen sulphide during exploration and extraction. The water is often ice-bound. The winter climate, as well as wet and freezing, is stormy with severe winds. The site of the most important oil reserves off Kazakhstan, in Kashagan field, are located in shallow water which is hard to navigate, and the deposits are in pockets, inconveniently separated by rock layers, 4.02 km or 2.5 miles below the seabed at pressures around 500 times sea level. It has been necessary to build special platforms and equipment. An offshore gas platform and plant for Stage 2 of the Shah Deniz project was costed at $10 billion plus.

Even if the reserves in the Caspian do prove to be huge, and it becomes possible to extract a good portion, the amount of petroleum and other fuels and materials expended in order to do so mean that the margin for profit is much smaller than with wells in the past. This is just one of the reasons why oil is becoming so dear; the easy to get supplies were taken first; now only obscure and difficult deposits remain. On top of this, demand for an ultimately finite supply is rising daily along with population numbers and economic activity.

Geopolitics

Although it is true that the pipeline avoids "using tanker transport along the Black Sea and the highly congested Bosporus, "[2] which a shorter pipeline through Russia would have led to, other, more political reasons, have been highlighted by the August Georgia-Russian confrontation.

It is largely these political associations which caused the pipeline to be much longer than it might have been, adding an estimated $3.20 per barrel to the cost of transporting the oil.[2]

Russia is the big power in the area, yet it has been left out of the pipeline in question. What is more, there are several more pipelines in the … um… pipeline and none of them involve Russia. Prior to this one there was the Baku-Supsa pipeline, which transports oil from Azerbaijan to the Black Sea coast of Georgia. Sohbut Kabuz reports that there is a preliminary agreement for construction of a pipeline to ‘connect Romania's Konstanza port to Italy's port of Trieste.” There is another planned to link Ukraine's Odessa-Brodi pipeline to Poland's Gdansk port in the Baltic Sea, and another to transport Azerbaijani and Turkmen natural gas to Europe via Romania and Ukraine. “All give key roles to Georgia,” Kabuz says. [3]

But Russia obviously believes that the countries around the Caspian, and their product, should be within its hegemony. Unsurprisingly, it is suspicious of US 'democracy' missions and gifts and influence in the area. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is not just an insulting symbol, it is actually siphoning oil out of the area beyond the reach of Russian taxes, and more like this are planned.[3]

Logically, a pipeline through Russia and Iran would have made more sense.
On the face of it, the pipeline took a very strange route when there was a much shorter one available with less geologically unstable terrain (high seismic activity). But that route went through Russia or Iran. Although Russia's oil supply appears to have peaked, the US supply peaked ages ago (in about 1973), but the US is a glutton for oil. Obviously the US does not want to deal with Russia any more than it has to. Not surprisingly the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline was the outcome of US influence in the region. The US paid Turkey something like one fifth of the construction costs ($823m) and has been extending its influence via NATO in the area for some time. The pipeline was designed to accommodate an oil throughput of one million barrels per day, which is around 1/87th of recent daily world demand. (EIA stats)

Colin Campbell, thought that the US invasion of Iraq might have indicated that US expectations may have diminished in the light of the many difficulties associated with extraction and transport in the Caspian region.[4] This disappointment factor might explain, in part, why the US cavalry did not come galloping to Georgia's rescue in the latest hostilities.

Sharing the Caspian coastline, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan gained independence following the fall of the Soviets in 1991. Campbell writes in his superbly informed article on this complex subject, “The Caspian Chimera,” that Dagestan and Chechnya reluctantly remain part of federated Russia but “still seek independence, in a vicious campaign attended by many acts of terror. (...) [adding that] “Tehran, the capital of Iran, lies only 100km from the Caspian shore, so its role in the future of the region cannot be ignored." [4]

The position of Iran vis a vis the Caspian Sea (or lake) also explains some of the US interest in that country. Both Iran and Russia were obviously excluded from any participation in the construction of the pipeline.

China has been negotiating now since at least 2004 with Kazakhstan to build a 750 km extension of the Atasu-Alasankou oil pipeline to connect with the Kenkiyak and Kumkol oil fields, which are operated by China National Petroleum Company in Kazakh. CNPC stated that it expects to obtain about 5 per cent of its current requirements from the pipeline – 400,000 barrels a day. China's interest in the area could overshadow Europe's because the projected growth in demand from China is greater than Europe's.

Azerbaijan and Georgia receive gas from the Shah Deniz project in Azerbaijan. Interruption of supply forced Georgia to purchase gas at very high prices from Russia between January and July 2007. Georgia was desperate to lose its energy — and political — dependence on Russia and hopes that Shah Deniz may allow her to do this for a while. In the current petroleum gas and oil supply scenario, any country which has a reliable supply for a few years into the future becomes a potential magnet for development or for exploitation, and, in this region, US support.

Europe currently relies on Russia for a quarter of its gas supplies. More diverse supplies would be desirable.

Russia has developed a reciprocal relationship with Venezuelan oil in supplying oil to different customers.[5] Chavez in Venezuela has a strong relationship with Cuba and is a strong promoter of Latin American oil and solidarity with non-US states, especially in the third world. Not insignificantly, on 5 August, Putin announced that Russia ought to "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries." This was after a visit to Cuba in July from Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. It is well-known that Latin America has good reason to fear interference by the US in its politics and its oil. [3]

Sorbet Khabuz feels that Russia percieves its old allies as disloyal when they cooperate on oil-ventures with the EU or the US. He says that Putin objected strongly to Kosovo's independence and "was unhappy that the Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil pipeline (AMBO), extending from Bulgaria's coastal city of Burgaz through Macedonia and ending at Albania's Vlora port, would pass through Kosovo." [Referring to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyan pipeline], he notes that, "The pipeline project in question is being actively supported by the EU and the US with the goal of carrying Azerbaijani and Kazakh oil to the Black Sea via Georgia." [3]

Why did Georgia rattle its sabers?

On the face of it, it seems very unlikely that Georgia would have picked a fight with Russia if the Georgian president had not believed that he would receive backing from the US and Europe. Neither the US nor the EU have the means to enter into serious new wars, however. The US is already involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because of its own dwindling oil and gas supplies. Russia does have a reasonable supply of oil, coal and lots of gas and the capacity to defend itself. It can be very tough about managing its oil exports and it can form alliances with other oil exporters. It has also been suggested that Russia would not like Iran to develop nuclear capabilities and that this would provide a common point with the US.

One impact of Georgia's nose-thumbing Russia has been for the US and Europe to take a step backwards, away from it. This leaves Georgia, not only vulnerable to a Russian take-over, but it also frees Georgia to succumb to Russia.

Of course, Russia has evacuated, for the time being. If, however, we treat the recent (tragic for the civilians who have been victimised) events as a dress rehearsal, we now know that no-one is going to stop Russia from taking Georgia. A respectable ostensible reason may be to unite Georgian South Ossetia with Russian Northern Ossetia. From there it would be but a small step for Russia to assimilate Georgia. This would then solve Russia's problem of being kept out of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyan pipeline and the Baku Supsa pipeline and all the planned pipelines.

Russia has oil and gas, but it has probably passed its oil peak. If Russia were to acquire Georgia it would then control the BTC pipeline and become oil-rich as well as gas-rich. Although the US and the EU won't like buying the oil from their pipeline in Georgia from Russia, they have already shown that they don't intend to go to war over this prospect. The incentives for Russia to take Georgia and the pipeline are enormous; face-saving and energy securing in a region and a world where most powers are receding in their capacity to fuel daily business, let alone wars.

Historic precedents

There is an historic pattern of Russia taking over Georgia in exchange for protection from regional enemies, particularly Persia (old name for Iran) and Turkey. From 1810 to 1878, beginning with Western Georgia, most of Georgia was annexed to the Russian Empire, in an association which, after an initial unsettled period, was not too uncomfortable for the land-owning aristocracy of Georgia and probably made little difference to the severely ill-treated serfs. (Georgia freed its serfs even later than Russia did.)

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia declared independence from Russia. In 1921 the Red Army occupied Georgia and, Georgia remained a Soviet Republic (state) until 1990.

Historically the Caucasus oilfields were one of the main objectives of Hitler's invasion of the USSR in August 1941, but the German army and its allies failed to reach them. Georgia furnished the Red Army 700,000 soldiers (of which 350,000 died). There were, however German sympathisers who formed the Georgian Legion and fought with the Germans.

Political tension in Georgia prior to the Ossetia incident
There have been many historical tensions within post-soviet Georgia, principally from ethnic separatists in South Ossetia. The country has a history of corruption, even in Communist times by Russian standards.
In November 2003 the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia carried pro-Western Mikheil Saakashvili to power. Georgia accuses Russia of fanning separatism in Abkhaszia and south Ossetia in order to undermine Georgia's government. Russia has accused Georgia of spying and vice versa. Russia maintained or maintains two military bases in Georgia, scheduled to be withdrawn in 2007 and 2008. The United Nations has been involved in Peace Keeping in South Ossetia for some time and there are thousands of displaced people in Georgia. In November 2, 2007 Georgians demonstrated against the government, protesting that President Mikheil Saakashvili's government was corrupt. [6]

Also, if we know the United States, their versions of economic reform and democracy carry very heavy penalties for ordinary people. Wikipedia reports that

"The Georgian Government is committed to economic reform in cooperation with the IMF and World Bank." "Saakashvili is still (2006) under significant pressure to deliver on his promised reforms. Organisations such as Amnesty International have serious concerns over human rights [3], and discontent over unemployment, pensions and corruption (...).Georgia's relationships with Russia are at it lowest point in modern history due to Georgian-Russian espionage controversy and related events."

Sounds like the usual privatisation and asset-stripping drill that accompanies friendships with the USA to me. See review of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine

All in all, it might be very hard for Georgia to remain friends with the US if Russia and many of its own citizens did not want it to. Such sentiments are expressed here in a pro-Russian page. And the US doesn't seem all that keen either. One hopes not to see a re-run of situations like the one where the US encouraged the Kurds and Shi'ites to rise up against the Iraqi goverment, but left them to be slaughtered. And was Hussein set up by the US when he asked diplomat, April Glaspie, if Kuwait was important to the US, and she said, "No," and then he invaded, presumably believing that the US would turn a blind eye. After this the US went to the UN and the UN authorised force to get Hussein to withdraw his troops. Hussein agreed to withdraw, but the US seems to have used the opportunity then to attack his troops anyway.[7]

Alternative to war

Instead of war, there may be a different outcome, as oil-writer, Mark Jones suggested [6]:

"It should be borne in mind that the changeover from declining to ascending hegemony can happen - and has historically - not by means of war but with the consent and active participation of the declining power (...) Since the 1939–45 war, the US has in fact made a practice of co-opting present and potential rivals into junior partnership. It has done this not only to Britain, but also to Germany (1960s), Japan (1970s and 1980s) and latterly even to Russia (from 1991).(...)

Of the US situation, he observed,

"If the US has to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world, then it may find that its urban infrastructure is just as uneconomic and unsustainable as was the Soviet Union’s loss-making effort to base itself on the industrialization of the Urals and Siberia. The US currently uses twice as much energy and raw materials per capita as the EU-15 average, and more than ten times that of China. It is desperately uncompetitive. When the dollar has to be backed up by real values, US per capita GNP may fall by half in just a few years, as in the Great Depression. Under these conditions it is hard to see how the US can hope to maintain its global reach and present hegemonic position. (...)

And, in the case of global war:

If, on the other hand, we are set on a course of global war, which was the outcome for “classic” economic depressions before 1914, and again through 1929–36, then Americans have only a very small window of opportunity (like Hitler enjoyed in 1939) before their military advantage evaporates." - Mark Jones, Battle of the Titans in Sheila Newman, (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto, UK 2008.

See also: Russia Never Wanted a War by Mihkail Gorbachev in New York Times of 19 Aug 08 for a view critical of Georgia's role in the conflict.

Sheila Newman is the editor of Sheila Newman, (Ed.)The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, UK, 2008 which is due out around August 27 in Australia and round about the same time in the US. It should already be available in Britain. It is a collection of scientific, economic and political articles about oil depletion and other fuels and new technologies, including fission, fusion, geothermal, cellulosic biofuels and terra preta, by ten different authors.

ENDNOTES

[1] The Caspian Sea is considered an independent zoogeographical region due to the diversity, specificity and endemism of its fauna. Waters of the Caspian Sea house 400 endemic aquatic animal species, including the Caspian seal (Phoca caspica) and sturgeons (90% of the world catch). The sea coast provides important sites for many nesting and migratory birds such as flamingoes, geese, ducks, gulls, terns, swans. Many multinational companies are exploring the region for oil and gas. Source (with interesting descriptions of geophysical features and wildlife: http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/pa/pa1308_full.html

[2] "Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Caspian Pipeline" at Hydrocarbons Technology com, http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/bp/)

[3] Sohbet Karbuz, “War stirs energy corridor in Georgia,” in Today’s Zaman//www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=150151&bolum=109

[4] Colin Campbell, "The Caspian Chimera," in Sheila Newman, (Ed.)The Final Energy CrisisSecond Edition, Pluto, UK, 2008.

[5] Sheila Newman, “Venezuela, Chavez and Latin-American oil on the world stage,” in Sheila Newman (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, Second Edition, Pluto UK, 2008.

[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Georgia_(country); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Georgian-Russian_espionage_controversy;

[7] "Please cast your minds back to 1990. We must remember the complete history of James Baker, the aristocratic Secretary of State to Bush 41. He instructed our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspy, (remember her?) to tell Saddam Hussein that we had no interest in his fight with Kuwait. Saddam was itching for war with Kuwait whom he accused of slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. Right after receiving Baker's message sent through Ambassador Glaspy, Saddam invaded Iraq. From that moment on Mr. Baker left April out there turning slowly in the wind. He denied all knowledge of her conversation. (Someone please tell me what lowly ambassador writes their own portfolio?)" Source: Re: Philip Klein's Talking with the Enemy, "Baker's World", The American Spectator, http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10496

[8] Mark Jones, Battle of the Titans in Sheila Newman, (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, Second Edition, Pluto, UK 2008.