Tintin in Congo

Will he or won't he? The question is tearing Belgium apart. Some say King Albert II should definitely visit Belgium's erstwhile colony of Congo to congratulate president Kabila for holding democratic elections and forming a new government. Not so fast, others say, let's wait and see... We don't know yet whether Kabila is really building a clean government.

Hogwash! Both sides of the argument are wrong. First things first: king Albert shouldn't go anywhere because the monarchy should be abolished without any further delay, the jolly old chap should be given a handsome pension (even hardline Republicans can't find anything wrong with Albert) and be allowed to travel as an ordinary citizen wherever he wishes to go.

Second, Belgian politicians should stop lecturing the Congolese about what they should or shouldn't do. Just shut up. The Holocaust of the Congolese perpetrated by Leopold II and his ilk is worse than the Holocaust of the Jews.

Third, why would a Belgian king visit Congo again, not Tanzania, or Zambia, or Kenya, or Cameroon?

Fourth, those who favor a royal visit say Albert could deliver a message of "good governance". Surely not his own message, but one drafted by the prime minister. Why do we need the king to deliver the message, can't the prime minister do that? At least his forefathers don't have that much blood on their hands.

Fifth, opponents say, you shouldn't reward Kabila with a royal visit before he proves to be any better than Mobutu. Playing colonial games again: we, the white men, know what's best for the niggers.

The liberals (pro) and the socialists (contra) are all wrong. Albert II should stay away from Kinshasa for ever, never mind what Kabila proves or doesn't prove to be. Let the proud people of Congo decide their own future. Without the meddling of the Belgians.

"The smiling assassin"

“He's always cordial, but he is pretty effective. Sometimes you may not realize what's happening, but it's just him getting the job done”, an official said. And so they call Kim Kye-gwan “the smiling assassin”. (CNN: Pyongyang's nuke envoy dubbed 'the smiling assassin') Isn't anybody getting a diplomatic job done, doing a lot better than Condi Rice? And besides assassinating the lies of the Bush administration, exactly how many real people has Kim assassinated?

The bottom line is, the U.S. diplomats are no match for Comrade Kim. They lose and so they get pissed off. The U.S. violated every commitment it ever made to North Korea. It promised to provide light-water reactors to produce electricity. Nothing ever materialized. When the DPRK agreed at the six party talks to dismantle its nuclear program, the U.S. invented a story about fake dollars to torpedo the talks. Even if..., if..., North Korea would have been clever enough to print fake dollars, what has this got to do with nuclear arms?

The policy of the U.S. is sabotage. The third member of the 'Axis of Evil' is holding out. Iraq is a bloody mess, Iran will be a fatal disaster. Maybe the U.S. itself will collapse before it can attempt to invade North Korea.

In the meantime, smiling Kim Kye-gwan is doing his job. Assassinating nobody. While Bush isn't doing his job of protecting the 'homeland' and playing genocide in Iraq. Bush can only smirk. Kim can smile.

A palace for Sudan

According to Washington Post Op-ed columnist Sebastian Mallaby (The Washington Post: A Palace for Sudan), while visiting Sudan, Chinese president Hu Jintao “demonstrated his contempt for the Western understanding of the world, while 'everybody' was hoping he would “back the West's Sudan policy”.

Mallaby goes on to rambble: “the United States and its allies have flown in food and medicines, provided logistical help and money [...] because tossing babies into bonfires is a crime against humanity.” Nice! Who's is doing the tossing in Iraq? And who is preparing to paint a mushroom cloud in the nighttime skies above Tehran?

Hu called on nations to “respect the sovereignty of Sudan”, Mallaby laments. What's wrong with that? The U.S. certainly didn't respect the “sovereignty of Iraq”. “If a nation slaughters its civilians, harbors terrorists or refuses to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, it forfeits its right to sovereignty.” Isn't that a nice description of the U.S.? Sending its men and women (with or without uniform) to die in Iraq, harboring the world's most famous terrorists Bush and Cheney, and refusing to let U.N. weapons inspectors force it to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

What exactly is president's Hu's crime while visiting Sudan? “Hu used his trip to cancel $80 million of Sudanese debt, to announce a plan to build a railway line and to visit an oil refinery that China partly owns”. Wow, that's a real Vista.

Mallaby even manages to add that “Hu's visit was a statement that [...] brushed aside the memory of the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust.” And “Hu was implicitly saying that economic development comes first and that political development is unimportant”. Mallaby is sinking ever more deeper in the swamp of hypocrisy. Wasn't it the West that put economic plunder before anything else? And if Hu would preach a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Proletarian Revolution to let politics play its prime role, wouldn't Mallaby be the first to castigate it?

“This Chinese understanding of development threatens to undermine the Western one”, Mallaby concludes. Let's hope it does.

State propaganda

The United States is usually described as the land of press freedom. And the Chinese press as only publishing propaganda. Yes, almost anything can get published in the U.S., but the major TV stations and newspapers are also serving as propagandists for the U.S. government.

Here's what Paul Craig Roberts has to say about press freedom in the U.S. (Counterpunch: The US and Israel, the Real Failed States):

“The people are enfeebled because the media no longer has independence. The US media serves as propagandist for the state. It cannot be otherwise in a highly concentrated media run not by journalists but by advertising executives protecting stock values that derive from federal broadcast licenses granted by the state.”

“Like the three monkeys, Congress sees no evil, the media speaks no evil, and the people hear no evil. In the US "news" consists of the government's propaganda. "News" in America is exactly like the "news" in George Orwell's 1984.”

Because of the absence of independent news organizations, the lies and deceit of the Bush administration are underreported. The actions of the peace movement are likewise underreported. The major American media are propagandists of the Empire. But the Internet allows the peoples of the world to get organized to strike back.

The U.S. media are stirring up a frenzy in preparation for the war on Iran allegedly to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani once again declared that Iran is not seeking to build nuclear weapons. Where could you read that? Not in the major American media. On the People's Daily website: Iran never wants to make nuclear bombs: chief negotiator.

The U.S. top non-diplomat

Up to now, Neocon top fashion girl Condi Rice could hide behind the worst Neocons on the block. She kept herself out of the blowing wind. Commander-in-Chief Bush will take the blame and re-confirm he had been right all along. No more. Dick Cheney could swipe away critical questions with a “hogwash”. No more. Rumsfeld? He's gone... While there are those who have gone and we know where they have gone, there are also those who have gone but it's unclear where they have gone and there are also those who should have gone but are still going.

See, anybody can compose a shitty Rumsfeldian ditty. Well, he's gone too. The spotlight is now on the top Miss. (The New York Times: With Rumsfeld Gone, Critics of War Look to Rice).

The bottom line is: America's top diplomat is not doing any diplomacy. Even the old croc Henry Kissinger is slowly becoming exasperated. America should always be ready to negotiate with Iran and Syria, he uttered. Anybody seen Condi in Damascus or Tehran lately?

America's diplomats of old, Warren Christopher, James Baker, Madeleine Albright, even Colin Powell, were globe trotting all over the world, talking to America's friends, but also to its enemies. Defending the interests of the Empire. Condi is sitting on her pretty ass, doing nothing. Not even defending the interests of the Empire. Apart from her hairdo and fashion clothes, nobody is much interested in Condi.

Even Republican representatives and senators are getting nervous about her lack of diplomatic action. She's finished. One more Neocon going to be gone where many have gone before. Here comes the President of the United States of America... Condoleezza Rice (Draft Condi Rice!). Going, gone...

A Chinese general's view

Beijing Review on February 1 carried an interesting view of international developments by general Xiong Guangkai, former deputy chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army and currently president of the China Institute for International Strategic Studies. (Beijing Review: Adapting to Change).

“By the end of November 2006, there were 593 terrorist attacks around the world, 65% higher than that of the same period of the previous year. They had killed 4,500 people and left more than 9,700 injured, up 55% and 35%, respectively.”

It depends of course what you call “a terrorist attack”, but let's assume the general's figures are correct. It shows that more than 5 years after Bush launched the “war on terror”, things are only getting worse. The military solution isn't working, because it is only converting more 'good' guys into 'bad' guys. This has nothing to do with ideology. The root cause of 'terrorism' is imperialism.

Back to general Xiong: “By December 15, 2006, the UN Security Council passed 78 resolutions, making it the most fruitful year in terms of resolution approvals.” And “in 2006, various regional organizations throughout the world convened over 40 summits, something rarely seen in recent years.”

While the international community is become ever more active, it seems to be incapable to rein in the No 1 rogue state, the major danger to international peace and security: the United States. One problem is that general Xiong and the Chinese leadership don't see the U.S. as a major danger, but as a “constructive partner”. Basically this is a tactic: keeping the U.S. as a friend as long as China is not strong enough to stand up to it. But in the meantime the U.S. is getting a free reign. China could do more to preserve international peace by opposing the warmongering of the U.S.

Liberals and judeophobes

Slate is clearly worried about rising left-wing anti-Semitism. (Slate: Are you a Liberal Anti-Semite?) So how do you know you're an anti-Semite or just a good liberal criticizing Israel's bad policies? That's a question you never dared to ask your mother, right? So here comes professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University to the rescue with a nifty little questionnaire to settle the matter once and for all.

Please, answer the questions first before reading any further...

My score: 18. Rosenfeld's verdict: You're an anti-Semite! Well, thanks, Honorable Professor, I really didn't know that!

Let's first examine the questions and answers. In 8 out of the 10 questions, a B is definitely the right answer for anyone who is not on the payroll of the Mossad. Exceptions are:

Question 1: Who deserves the most blame for the Iraq war?
a) George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld
b) Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol
It's just a dirty trick, because the persons under b) are all Jews. They played their dirty behind-the-scenes role, but that can't absolve the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld trio.

Question 6: What do you think of Joe Lieberman?
a) I liked him OK when he ran with Gore, but he lost me on Iraq, school vouchers, and Social Security.
b) The most dangerous man in the Senate
I don't agree with a) because I never liked him, but b) is not right either. He is not the most dangerous man in the Senate. It's another dirty trick question, Lieberman is Jewish.

By the way, never mind about the c) answers. They are reserved for Bush and Olmert.

The Zionists are always deliberately confusing anti-Semitism with anti-Jew and anti-Zionism. Arab people are also Semites, just like the Jews. So to be qualified to be an anti-Semite, you have to be against the Jews AND against the Arabs. Once at a dinner I was sitting next to an old-fashioned Flemish fascist. (Sometimes you can't avoid bad company...) When I started criticizing Israel, he was jumping up and down with joy, a rather peculiar performance considering his age. Well, five minutes later I started to defend our fellow-citizens of Turkish, Algerian and Moroccan origin, and he almost started vomiting up his dinner.

This guy is an anti-Semite, against the Jews, against the Arabs, no doubt also against the Blacks and the Chinese menace. I am not. I am only against the Zionists, because they are the successors of the Nazis.

Rosenfeld's questionnaire is disgusting, aiming to stick the label of anti-Semite to anyone criticizing the Ziocons.

Refuse to be a war criminal

Next Monday, the court-martial of First Lieutenant Ehren Watada is set to commence at Fort Lewis near Seattle. (The Baltimore Sun: Truth has consequences for soldier of conscience) 1st Lt. Watada is a hero for refusing to follow War-Criminal-in-Chief George W. Bush's order to commit the crime of aggression, crimes against peace, to commit war crimes and to be an accessory to genocide and crimes against humanity. He is the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

Finally, nearly four years after the invasion, the U.S. Army produces a hero! Because of his heroic conduct, Officer Watada is being court-martialed. He should receive the Purple Hart for exemplary conduct, standing up to his war criminal commander and refusing to become a war criminal.

Officer Watada is also accused of the “use of contemptuous words for the president”, at a time when a majority in the U.S. Congress is publicly uttering “contemptuous words for the president”.

American soldiers 'serving' or having 'served' in Iraq are all war criminals, guilty of the crime of aggression. It is they who should be court-martialed. They have the blood of innocent Iraqi civilians on their hands. Or the blood of Iraqi resistance fighters, who have every right, according to international law and the U.N. Charter, to defend their homeland against the American imperial stormtroopers.

Most of those soldiers are ignorant, stupid, bumpkins who learned in primary school to follow the Commander-in-Chief and never learned to use their brains. It is not their fault. The American Empire never taught them to think independently. But if they want to receive clemency, they should help bring Bush to justice. The world is waiting for the court-martial of George W. Bush!

As the story in the Baltimore Sun points out, war is only legal if authorized by the U.N. Security Council or in self-defense. The U.N. Security Council didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq, nor did Saddam's Iraq ever attacked the United States.

Lieutenant Watada believes no soldier should give a life, or take a life, for a lie. Every soldier has the duty to disobey illegal orders or refuse to violate the Geneva Conventions. It is those who obey who are breaking the law. May this soldier of conscience win his heroic battle.

On the record, please...

French President Jacques Chirac was interviewed by colleagues from the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur. The topic was the environment, which led to nuclear energy, which led to Iranian nukes,... and this Monsieur le Président, didn't want to have on the record. So he called the journalists back to retract and adapt his comments.

The discussion about Iran should be 'on the record' (The New York Times: Chirac Strays From Assailing a Nuclear Iran, Interview 1, Interview 2), so it will be clear for all to see how high the stakes are.

The French president is indeed a bit muddle-headed. Let's examine a few of his comments:

+ “if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger”. No it won't. But first of all, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, Ayatollah Khomeini has declared that possession of nuclear weapons is against Islam. The Iranians still take him seriously. Secondly, the bottom line is, no country should possess nuclear weapons, they should all be destroyed, including those of France.

+ “the bomb will be of no use [to Iran]”. No, but if nuclear bombs are of no use, why does France still have them?

+ “what is very dangerous is proliferation”. Yes, and the reason why there is proliferation is because the existing nuclear powers refuse to dismantle their arsenals. If they dump their nukes, other countries will not be so tempted to also try to possess them.

+ Chirac says uranium enrichment is of no use to produce electric power. Yes it is, if you want to produce your own nuclear fuel not to be dependent on foreign countries which may not want to sell it to you. If you know how to enrich to 3% (for power generation), you also know how to enrich to 95% (to make a bomb). It just takes a bit longer...

+ If Iran drops the bomb on Israel, Tehran is going to get razed. That's indeed rather likely, so it was not necessary for the president to retract this comment. The point is, Iran is not going to drop a bomb on Israel. Ahmadinejad doesn't hate the Jews, he hates the Zionists. And there is no bomb which can spare the Jews and kill the Zionists.

+ While Chirac had the luxury to retract his comments or to clarify them, no such privilege was offered to Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president never said that Israel “should be wiped of the map”. That is the translation of the Ziocons. He said the Zionist regime would disappear, like the Soviet regime disappeared. But because Chirac still believes the translation of the Ziocons, he even refuses to talk to Ahmadinejad, who now also has a reason not to talk to Chirac, because he brought up the matter of “razing Tehran”.

+ Chirac believes that if Iran launches a nuclear tipped missile, “Tehran would be razed” before the missile got 200 meters in the atmosphere. It's scary that presidents of nuclear powers are so stupid to believe this. Sure, the U.S. and a few other countries can detect a ballistic missile launch. The problem is, you don't know what it's carrying until it's too late. A bag of confetti or a nuke? You don't know until it comes down. The Chinese launched a missile to destroy one of their satellites. The U.S. detected the launch, but didn't destroy it. You just can't start launching anti-missile missiles against every missile that is launched. And so it will be too late... A mushroom cloud razing one city will be followed by another mushroom cloud in retaliation.

And finally, Monsieur le Président, the U.S. and Israel are much more likely to use the bomb than Iran or North Korea. Better start thinking what you are going to “raze” in that case.

007 in Beijing

For the first time a James Bond movie has premiered in China... uncut. The censors always found something objectionable in previous movies: too much sex, too much pretty girls, too much British propaganda, an ally portrayed in a bad light (North Korea) or misplaced laundry in Shanghai. Not so this time. In Casino Royale, Bond is battling the terrorists and China doesn't object.

But will Casino Royale become a box office hit? That's doubtful. Because if the censors didn't cut anything what is there to see? Surely nothing exhilarating. Some fans say this 007 is more real. “A man willing to lose his own life for his true love is more three-dimensional,” commented one fan. Perhaps, but cinema is all about fantasy. Beam me up, Scotty.

How many people will want to spend money in the theaters? Grainy copies are already circulating on pirated DVDs. It's not a pretty sight, but you can follow the story. This is no Zhang Yimou costume drama in a gazillion hues of gold. No Gong Li cleavage either (Bond girl Eva Green doesn't measure up). Who needs a big screen for this 007 flick? A 7 kuai DVD will do.

Wow, the Great Swindle

Today, Vista, the latest incarnation of Microsoft's Windows operating system, hits the store shelves. It is really amazing that anybody is getting exited about it and even more amazing that anybody is willing to pay a dime for Vista.

The richest man in the world is trying to force you and me to pay €279 to €549 for a brand new copy of Vista and a little bit less for an upgrade. The new MS Office 2007 is also priced at hundreds of euros. So what do you get? A slightly improved version of Windows XP with a few extra embellishments and bug fixes. And security will surely crumble the moment the first hacker lays its hands on it.

Why not choose one of the more than 500 Linux distributions on the Distrowatch website, most of them free of charge and all of them cheaper than Vista? Why not try OpenOffice instead of MS Office? You won't have to wait another five years for the next upgrade. Most Linux distros are upgraded with the latest features twice a year. You don't have to run to the store to get a shrink-wrapped box and contribute to environmental pollution. You can download your Linux OS online. Now Microsoft also wants to make Vista available for download. But only in the United States. In the eyes of Bill Gates, the other peoples of the world are clearly inferior.

Dump Vista and get a Linux!

A pig problem

The Year of the Pig will start on February 18, but China's CCTV has banned all pig images from commercials in order not to hurt the feelings of Muslims.

I am all for tolerance and respect for other people's religion and feelings, but in this case CCTV is overstepping the line. Muslims constitute less than 2% of China's population. The majority Han and many other minorities like pigs. Why would 98% of the Chinese people not be allowed to see a little fat pig in a commercial, because 2% think it's dirty. What's next? Banning the consumption of pork and alcohol?

On the other hand, I am opposed to the prohibition for Muslim women working in the city administration of Antwerp, Belgium, to wear the headscarf if their work brings them into contact with the public. What's so terrible about a lady wearing a headscarf?

In the first example, a minority custom is imposed on the majority (no pigs), in the second a majority custom is imposed on the minority (no headscarf). Nobody should impose anything on anybody else and everyone will be able to live in peace with due respect for others.

Once I was traveling in China in the company of an Egyptian colleague who had amassed a rather voluminous amount of documentation. So I volunteered to help her carry it. To thank me, she offered me a coffee in the airport coffee shop. Of course I preferred to have a beer (or two). I politely inquired whether she had any objection that I drank a beer in her company. Well, of course not, she replied. When I picked up the bill, she was surprised, because she wanted to pay the tab. I said no, because I didn't want her to pay with her money for my beer. She was pleasantly surprised about my consideration for her customs and religious prohibitions. No clash of civilizations here!

Now where our those little piggies to bring on the Year of the Pig?

Shame on CNN!

One of the top stories today is – or at least should be – the anti-war protests in Washington.

MSNBC: War protesters demand U.S. troop withdrawal
ABC: Crowds on Both Coasts Protest Iraq War
CBS News: Protesters Feel "Obligation" To Stop War
France 24: Mobilisation massive contre la guerre en Irak
Aljazeera: Washington rally urges end to war
Washington Post: Tens of Thousands Rally Against Bush Policy

On the above mentioned web sites, the protests were among the top stories. So what about CNN? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Except, buried under the U.S. section, as yesterday's story, 'Stars, vets kick off protest' is an updated 'Fonda, Sarandon among Iraq war protesters'. Not the major story, nor one of the 14 on the right of the CNN website. Buried under U.S. news. Buried under an outdated heading. Barely worth mentioning. (Web sites accessed around 9 p.m. on January 28 Beijing time)

Obviously, CNN doesn't want to cause further embarrassment to the Decider-in-Chief... They are joining Fox News. From now on we'll have to look elsewhere for our 'Breaking News' and 'Developing Stories'.

The rich and the famous

Tomorrow the world's most celebrated talking shop, organized by the World Economic Forum in Davos, closes its doors. Will anything have been achieved? Very little, no doubt. There is nothing wrong with talking, and some of the participants to the Davos meeting will not have many opportunities to meet each other elsewhere. But it is basically one more venue for the rich and famous to bask in the limelight.

Attendance is arbitrary. Anybody who is rich or famous or both is basically welcome. Some go to Davos, some don't. There is no guarantee that those who should be sitting around the table are there.

There are basically three kinds of people in Davos.
+ the politicians, like Tony Blair. They already meet each other at all kinds of summits, at the U.N., on bilateral visits.
+ the CEOs, like Bill Gates. They only want to make money and consider Davos a nice place for networking.
+ the celebrities, like Bono. They shine once more in the limelight, like they do elsewhere.
Perhaps the added value of Davos is that those three kinds of people are meeting. And talking. And schmoozing. Will that solve any problems? Unlikely.

The major beneficiary of the WEF-meeting is the local economy of Davos.

The arrogance of power

Not only royalty is afflicted with the virus of arrogance. Uncrowned heads are also dizzy with preposterous idiocy. Prince Philippe of Belgium has no power, will never have any and is only uttering nonsensical gibberish.

On to another power holder without much power, Israel's president Moshe Katsav, standing accused of rape, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, fraud, sexual harassment and breach of trust. Clinging to his ceremonial power even when his prime minister is calling for his resignation and the Knesset is starting impeachment procedures. At least he can be impeached, royalty usually can only be thrown out manu military from their imperial palaces.

The third arrogant dickhead, unlike the former two, does have a lot of power and his arrogance far exceeds Philippe and Katsav's. Dick Cheney, vice president of the United States, is no doubt the most arrogant of all. “Talk of blunders in Iraq is hogwash”, according to the veep. Sure, everything is going America's way in the land of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Even if Congress passes a resolution opposing a troop increase, Cheney will go ahead. American-style democracy, never mind the votes of the electorate, never mind the elected representatives in Congress, Dick is staying the course.

The world is safer because the U.S. ousted Saddam, Hillary Clinton should not be president because “she is a Democrat” and Ronald Rumsfeld did a superb job during his six years as defense secretary. (CNN: Talk of blunders in Iraq is 'hogwash')

Can arrogance get any worse than this?

The arrogance of royalty

At a New Year's reception at the Royal Palace in Brussels, crown-prince Philippe of Belgium severely criticized two editors-in-chief, Yves Desmet of the daily De Morgen and Pol Van Den Driessche of VTM TV because they made reports critical of him following a trade mission to South Africa. Once again prime minister Verhofstadt had to reprimand the prince, whose outburst he called “unwarranted”.

Prince Philippe told the editors they should show him “awe and respect” because he would be Belgium's next king. For good measure he threatened to declare them persona non grata at the palace if they wouldn't change their reporting in the future.

This is really utterly disgusting and repulsive. Who does this little shit thinks he is or represents? This good-for-nothing has on numerous occasions caused embarrassment to his country by uttering stupid comments and behaving like an asshole. Some say he is “opening doors” abroad. The door to the toilet no doubt.

The Belgian monarchy should be abolished without any further delay and its ill-gotten wealth confiscated. It will come in handy to fill up the government's budget deficit. Let's not forget that the Saxen-Coburg's started garnering their wealth by plundering Congo and slaughtering ten million of its inhabitants in the process.

And what is one of Leopold II's dependants doing now? Lecturing two professional journalists as if they were black slaves. What is he going to do next? Cut of their hands or heads like his forefather commanded his minions to do in Congo. Does Philippe know in which century we are living? The times of trembling in awe at the sight of a crowned head or head-to-be are long gone. Never to return.

If it is too difficult to turn Belgium into a republic because you can't have a Dutch-speaking and a French-speaking president at the same time, let's set up the Republic of Flanders. The Walloons can set up their own or join France.

But first, end this Saxen-Coburg farce.

Give Bush no chance

In his State of the Union, Bush asked the U.S. Congress to give his Iraq surge plan “a chance”. To increase troop levels in Iraq provides “the best chance of success”, Bush rambled. In a way he's right. But success for whom? Success for the resistance, because they get an additional 21,500 targets to shoot at. If 140,000 American troops can't “do the job”, 160,000 won't do either.

Even if Bush takes up the suggestion of Ayman al-Zawahiri and sends all American armed forces up to the last “man and woman in uniform” to Iraq, Bush will lose. Sure, the U.S. army, air force, marines, navy and national guard, equipped with the world's most sophisticated weapons, is a formidable fighting force. But that's besides the point.

Mao pointed out that a just war enjoys the support of the people and a wrong war gets no support. It is the people who determine the outcome of war, not the number of soldiers or their armaments. According to Bush “To win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy”. Translation: launch aggression against other countries. That's a recipe for disaster. Fight the enemy at home and you will win, because in that case the enemy is the aggressor.

Buried in his speech, we find Bush's real intention: launch a war against Iran. He accused Iran of arming terrorists and we know he will make no distinction between the terrorists and those harboring them. Today Bush issued a declaration of war on Iran. That is his State of Mind.

Don't give Bush a chance. Give peace a chance.

5 minutes to midnight

In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists first unveiled its Doomsday Clock and set it at seven minutes to midnight. In 1953 it moved forward to two minutes to midnight, in 1991 it moved back to 17 minutes to midnight. What will happen when the clock strikes midnight? The world will experience nuclear Armageddon and may very well be destroyed in the process.

The closest the world got to Doomsday was in 1953, the furthest it got away from it was in 1991 when the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). On January 17, the Bulletin moved the clock's hand forward again by two minutes, from seven to five minutes to midnight. Once again the world is becoming a more dangerous place.

During the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the U.S. and the Soviet Union from using their nuclear arsenal. But they still keep 2,000 warheads ready for launch within minutes. And the number of nuclear powers is rising: Pakistan, India and North Korea joined the club. There is no MAD anymore today and the war may turn hot.

Civil nuclear power is becoming fashionable again. In the past two or three decades many opposed the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity. Accidents could happen, as Chernobyl showed, and leaving future generations with nuclear waste was considered 'not done'. But global warning requires that the use of fossil fuels is scaled back and 'clean' nuclear power is making a comeback. Global warming, biological experiments and advances in nanotechnology may also bring doomsday nearer. Imagine a destructive missile the size of an insect...

One problem is that if you are capable of producing nuclear energy, you are also clever enough to make the bomb. Sometimes it is not clear which is which. Iran says it is pursuing the peaceful use of the atom, U.S. and Israeli Ziocons say it is preparing to acquire nuclear weapons. The Ziocons themselves are actively preparing to use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Let's turn the clock back by exposing the warmongers.

"World's #1 Terrorist"

When Allen Jasson tried to board a Melbourne to London Qantas flight wearing a T-shirt proclaiming the truth and nothing but the truth, he was prevented from boarding the aircraft because the truth may offend fellow passengers.

Somebody wearing a T-shirt proclaiming blatant lies, would no doubt be allowed to board. What does this say about the view Qantas management has about its passengers. Bloody fools?

So what did Allen's T-shirt proclaim? “World's #1 Terrorist” above a picture of the world's Number One terrorist. What's wrong with that? Of course we may disagree about who is the world's number one terrorist. But it's not quite like disagreeing about who is the world's most beautiful woman. The latter is a matter of taste, and tastes may differ. The first is a matter of logic and mathematics.

Osama perhaps? No, he's not the most beautiful woman. He didn't even have a sex change last time we checked. We're talking about the terrorist. Does Brother Osama merit this honor? Let's see, 3,000 deaths on 9/11, plus a few other terrorist attacks, now let's be generous, won't we? 10,000? Let's give Osama a bonus! Let's add a zero on the house. Here you go, a hundred thousand for Osama bin Laden. Not that it's true, we're way off the mark here, but we're only being generous to help Osama to the coveted number one spot so his photogenic face may grace a T-shirt or two.

Sorry Mate! Really, Osama, you still have some work ahead of you. Who caused the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis, a hundred thousand Afghanis and is planning to murder a million Iranians? No, not Osama bin Laden.

Gimme that paper, will you? And the winner is ...

George Walker Bush. [Thunderous applause]

The managers of Qantas are a bunch of idiots, no doubt in part because of the number of criminals among their forefathers. Qantas should be grounded. (BBC News: Flight ban for anti-Bush T-shirt)

Please note: In no way did I associate Australians with criminals. Many Australians are wonderful people (and I am not only talking about the girls). Qantas management is a disgrace to Australia!

Hebron settlers act as Nazis

Every clear-headed observer can see the parallels between Hitler's Nazis and Olmert's Zionists. Before and during the second World War, Jews suffered “persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn” and this treatment escalated further in pogroms and gas chambers.

Compare this to how Zionist settlers in Hebron are treating the Palestinians: “a Hebron settler woman hissing "whore" at her Palestinian neighbor and settler children lobbing rocks at Arab homes”.

Denunciation of the Zionists this time did not come from Hamas, Hezbollah or left-wing supporters of the Palestinians, but from a rather unlikely source: Yosef Lapid, the chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel's largest Holocaust memorial and a former Israeli minister of justice. (Aljazeera: Israel's Hebron settlers criticised)

In a weekly commentary on Israeli Radio, Lapid said that the acts of some Hebron settlers reminded him of persecution endured by Jews in his native Yugoslavia on the eve of the second world war. “I was afraid to go to school, because of the little anti-Semites who used to lay in ambush on the way and beat us up. How is that different from a Palestinian child in Hebron?”, Lapid asked, to go on “It is inconceivable for the memory of Auschwitz to warrant ignoring the fact that there are Jews among us who behave today towards Palestinians just like German, Hungarian, Polish and other anti-Semites behaved towards Jews.”

Mr Lapid, nobody has the right to deny the Holocaust to support the Palestinian people. The treatment of the Jews by the Nazis was a horrible crime, the treatment of the Palestinians by the Zionists is likewise a horrible crime. Measuring degrees of horribleness is not required. More than 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. That crime cannot be stopped anymore, it is part of history. The Holocaust of the Palestinians is ongoing. It can still be stopped, before 6 million Palestinians are dead.

Mr Lapid, open the doors of Yad Vashem to Palestinian victims of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Zionist Jews!