The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 9-11: treason in the academic comfort zone? > Comments

9-11: treason in the academic comfort zone? : Comments

By Mervyn Bendle, published 11/9/2006

There has been a scandalous lethargy among the Australian intelligentsia in terrorism research.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Hey guys n gals, lets get back to basics here, George Dubya announced his intentions back in 1998, that if elected to teh Presidency, he would launch invasions of Aghanistan, Iraq & Iran - presumably to reclaim US prestige in those areas.

Middle East instability is the bain of our European masters (G8, IMF et al) life, and most western and Asian cultures - we are all so dependant on oil. We are, literally speaking, being held over the proverbial oil barrel by Mid East instability - not am entirely new phenomonen - during WW2, the great battles waged in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and even Syria, were about denying the fascist enemy access to the mid-east oil fields.

It would appear that 9/11 was a most convenient attack on US soil, giving Bush just the excuse he needed to establish his war footing and, it would seem, an opportunity for the US to once again have a major military base in the mid-east - something lost when the Shah of Iran was deposed in 78-79.

Make no mistake here, the US and Australia are part of the New World Order's internationqal police force (Sherriff George and Deputy John). Who is the One World Govt first propogated by one Lord russell of Liverpool back in 1947 - I believe it is G8 and the Euro Union - they have the backing of the Hapsburg financial empire and its modern day disciples, including European royal families (with the promise of regaining their feudal empire thrones, and teh faceless, namelss gnomes of Zurich merchant bankers, multinational business empires who are answerable to no national govt. Instead so-called free-world governments are now answerable to these global conglomerates.

Why - we, the borrowers are subservant to the lenders! 80% of Australia's currency is owned by Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, London, Zurich, Brussels, The Hague etc. If you think that is bad - the same people own 90+% of the US currency. How did this happen? Easy, in 1973, One World Govt devotee Henry Kissinger persuaded Nixon to float the US dollar
Posted by Flezzey, Sunday, 17 September 2006 6:37:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ten years later, the "world's greatest treasurer," our own Paul Keating, floated our dollar, like most western democracies. In a short period of time, our respective country's economies were devalued by up to 50%. Governments had to borrow big time and we became the tails, rather than the heads of our own nations and destinies.

These same bankers, financiers and royal families, almost without exception, financed Mussolini and Hitler - they saw fascism as the way to go, bringing free citizens back into serfdom. Even the King of England, Churchill and many US industrialists.

Globilisation is NOT about bringing Third World countries up to Western strandards, it is about bringing Western nations and free people to heel - bringing us DOWN to Third World standards! Make no mmistake, and teh double bind is this - voting Liberal or Labor won't make any difference - they are all servants of their European masters. The downward slide, sadly, is looking irreversible.

I see the problem, but what is the solution? Journalists & academics are dependant on those currently in power, for their daily bread and butter - if they buck the system, ask the hard questions, or go public, they will starve or be looking for another career. Proposed defamation laws, industrial reform and the new boys network all conspire to keep their lips sealed.

It may be a new methodology, less brutal than Hitler, but it is all the more effective - and it is still FASCISM - I call it Neo-Fascism. Neo-Conservatism is too mild and inocquous a term. They have us where they want us at the present time and there seems little we can do about it.

I fear, the world has already begun to enter a new Dark Age. Where are the protestors against the war in Iraq and other of Bush's meglomaniacal plans? We need to expose these demagogues, a groundswell of opinion as happened during teh Vietnam War.

Well folks, that's my 24 hours worth!
Posted by Flezzey, Sunday, 17 September 2006 6:45:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting posts flezzey, I don't know if I agree on everything you say but you are certainly looking at the big picture. When analysing the 'war on terror' the media and forums like this get infested with muslim bashing or very empty analysis of the afghani/Iraqi front. What is so often forgotten, is the wider geopolitical goals of the US and Europe in this region. Pipelines to the Caspian sea, trade routes to Europe and a permanent military presence on China's western border is what the 'war on terror' is really about.

BOAZ,

I urge you to view this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q

While I beleive you are very well informed individual, I think this video could really open your eyes, it certainly did mine. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the psychological mindset of Islamic terrorists. Think about the issues discussed in this video and ask yourself if fundamentalist Islam really is the main issue at stake here.

Cheers.
Posted by Carl, Sunday, 17 September 2006 7:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bertrand Russel first coined the phrase "Coalition of the Willing" in 1947, as his solution to bringing errant world states like Iraq, Nth Korea into line (eg Iran, Nth Korea, Iraq etc and us, if needs be!)- he proposed a "coalition of the willing" as being a multi-national force formed from armies of countries sympathetic to his One World Govt idea - ie a World Police Force. Sheriff and Deputy!

Russell built on the ideas and ideologies of earlier philosophers like Huxley, HG Wells and others. They came to teh conclusion that the only way to world peace was a One World Govt with member states. This is the origin of phrases like Global Village etc - it is supposed to appeal to the public, suggesting we help poorer nations improve their standards of living. In reality it is quite the opposite - it is designed to bring the rest of us back into SERFDOM.

The apparatus of One World Govt is G8 - the individuals behind the countries involved, control most of teh world's agriculture, financing, shipping, production/manufacturing, through finances. Other apparatus is the World Bank, IMF and the so-called Central Banking systems of member nations like USA, UK & Australia.

The Central/Reserve Banks sound very official and are dressed up to look like responsible govt agencies but the most casual examination reveals they are tools of the European Oligarchy of financial interests and One World Govt - they are NOT accountable to the citizens of their country nor their government - to wit recent interest rate hikes here in Aust - that were totally un-warranted and even no0ur own govt says so!
Posted by Flezzey, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 9:40:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Flezzy

While your essay above indicates a good grasp of the history of ideas and organisations it appears to vindicate Bendle’s main point that there has been a scandalous lethargy among the Australian intelligentsia in terrorism research.

The tendency of the "intelligentsia" to get sidetracked into 9/11 mythology and an academics particular pursuits suggest that terrorism research (particularly concerning homegrown terrorism) should remain in academic bodies that include staff with a security or intelligence analysis past. Naturally the more classified end of terrorism research continues to go on among ASIO and ONA analysts.

So after equivicating I'm swinging back to the idea of keeping terrorism research within expert institutions.

Sociologists (Professors or otherwise) and reformist lawyers appear to see terrorism research as an anti capitalist, anti Western and anti authority research opportunity.

I think they forget, or are oblivious to the fact that compared to the West, Russia, China and India are much tougher in terms of counter terrorist laws. These 3 countries also use extra curricular, extra legal methods of coercion and revenge (including torture and summary execution) against terror suspects (usually Muslims).

Although it may be against the principles of many academics to admit it, I think, authorities in Australia give terror suspects a fair go by world standards.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 1:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete,

On reflection, you may well be right here, and I support Bendle on the study of terrorism, apart from political ideologies. The problem as I see it is can studies undertaken by government agencies, even universities dependant on govt funding, publish both sides of the picture? In other words all we may get is a sanitised western view.

This appears to be the political climate of our nation and, even more so, the USA at present.

Bendle's accusation of treason is a bit strong but they are certainly letting down the citizens of our nation by remaining silent.

Then again, have they been gagged by Chancellors desperate for funding? It would not surprise me. Political ideologies could well influence their research one way or the other, but we do need greater research, study and debate.

Sadly our politicos have pretty much polarised debate. As George Dubya said on the site of the Twin Towers, you are either for us, or you are against us. A simple, manipulative political ploy and we (US and Australia) fell for it, as if there were no middle ground. Two choices.

I know I am seen as something of a traitor by some of my old war veteran mates, and within the church, for daring to take the middle ground.

Anything that contradicts Howard or Bush's line is deemed as un-patriotic and even treasonable. Hence I can identify with academia and the media's reluctance to speak out. Things are very emotive, even hysterical, out there, though I still believe academia should be taking a lead.

Another issue I see is do the public want to know? I fear not, "just leave me alone to get on with my job and raise my family. The education system and mindless media drivel has dumb-downed the bulk of people - they are simply not interested. Instead of the predictably complex answers seriouos study is likely to find, people in the street just want little quips and one-liners to feed off. Murdoch has made sure of that.
Posted by Flezzey, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 5:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy