It was said of interim US President Gerald Ford that he would have problems walking and chewing gum at the same time.

The same problem seems to confound many others.

Yes the Western powers have no right to invade other countries unless they themselves were committing aggression and yes it's a despicable crime today as it was when the Germans invaded Belgium and France in 1914 and Poland and the USSR in 1939 and 1941. In the war crimes trials, the worst of the perps rightly met Mr Pierrepoint to stretch their necks.

And 14 centuries of the same aggression perpetrated by the Moslems was and is a despicable crime whjich must be comforted with a view to crushing their programme both ideologically and physically.

PNAC today for the West and jihad for the Moslems. And apologists for either bunch of criminals point to to the other one in order no deflect from appeasement. Motive: at best Gerald Ford syndrome (he wasn't all that bright) or at worse craven dhimmitude or at very worst collusion.

Neither of these two programmes of aggression was/is perpetrated in order to attack the other. Western imperialism is pursued for base geopolitical reasons and Moslem jihad is pursued with disgusting aims set out in the 7th century.

The practice of pointing to one evil to cover ideological service to the other is very common. Scroll back and have a look.

Thankfully John Perkins has stated the obvious.

"whjich must be comforted" should be "which must be confronted"

The article was interesting to read.

To those who have read this far, suggest re-read Dr John L Perkins' earlier article:

"Mass delusions and their consequences"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8121

.

Emperor Julian

'The practice of pointing to one evil to cover ideological service to the other is very common.'

I assume this is being directed at my comment. If so, then it's a misinterpretation - albeit a very common one. This is a claim much favoured by the Western political/media establishment, i.e. that those who warn of imperial blowback are using it to excuse terrorism and to claim that terrorism victims deserve what they get.

In fact, this is a reverse projection of the very same imperial mindset that gives rise to blowback. That is ... to use terrorism to excuse imperialism and to claim that victims of imperialism deserve what they get. In other words - because terrorists are attacking one another and attacking us, they deserve to have their economies destabilised, their countries bombed, invaded and occupied, and their governments overthrown.

Imperialism has always used this formula to justify itself and, at the same time, invent all kinds of occult reasons for why terrorism exists - religious indoctrination, mass psychopathology, cultural inferiority, pure evil etc. Yet, it is imperialism itself that has always created terrorist blowback. Wherever imperialism operates, you get terrorism. Once imperial nations pull back or physically withdraw from the countries they occupy and interfere with, terrorism goes away. You can throw a dart at any historical example - from Ireland to Kenya to South Africa to Malaya to Latin America to Palestine and so on - and the scenario is so consistent as to be downright mathematical.

Killarney, the exact opposite happened in Sri Lanka.

Decolonisation works best if all the paramilitary organisations are crushed first.
Otherwise there's a very high risk of one section of the population opressing another.

Aidan

Absolutely not true! Sri Lanka is a textbook case of imperialism generating terrorism. Successive Western empires completely crushed Tamil sovereignty, transferred complete power to the Sinhalese who in turn refused any form of peaceful negotiation, thus leaving the Tamils with no choice but to turn to violence.

The supposed military defeat of Tamil 'terrorism' is rubbish - it was a genocide in the true sense of the word, one that was fully endorsed by the British-led international community, based almost entirely on disinformation. Over 150,000 Tamils were annihilated, including tens of thousands of intellectuals, politicians, writers and journalists.

Rather than Tamil terrorism being 'crushed', the Sinhalese regime spends a major part of its domestic and military budget (75%) on maintaining a military occupation of Tamil territory and ongoing repression of the Tamil people. If Tamil terrorism has been 'crushed' as you say, there would be no need for such expensive sledgehammer policies. The Sinhalese regime is behaving entirely according to imperialist criteria - and as such, is sowing the seeds for more Tamil civil unrest, out of which terrorism in one form or another will almost certainly reassert itself.