Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist”

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 02:45 PM
Original message
General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist”
Below are Press Releases and they are not under copyright as far as I know.

General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. This military man, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different to that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a “world war on terror”, the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html

General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist”
by General Leonid Ivashov

17 January 2006 From Brussels (Belgium)

As the current international situation shows, terrorism emerges where contradiction aggravate, where there is a change of social relations or a change of regime, where there is political, economic or social instability, where there is moral decadence, where cynicism and nihilism triumph, where vice is legalized and where crime spreads.

It is globalization what creates the conditions for the emergence of these extremely dangerous phenomena. It is in this context that the new world geo-strategic map is being designed, that the resources of the planet are being re-distributed, that borders are disappearing, that international law is being torn into pieces, that cultural identities are being erased, that spiritual life becomes impoverished...

The analysis of the essence of the globalization process, the military and political doctrines of the United States and other countries, shows that terrorism contributes to a world dominance and the submissiveness of states to a global oligarchy. This means that terrorism is not something independent of world politics but simply an instrument, a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its “godfather”. The main target of the world elite is the historical, cultural, traditional and natural reality; the existing system of relations among states; the world national and state order of human civilization and national identity.

Today’s international terrorism is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance from power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.

Terrorism is the weapon used in a new type of war. At the same time, international terrorism, in complicity with the media, becomes the manager of global processes. It is precisely the symbiosis between media and terror, which allows modifying international politics and the exiting reality.

In this context, if we analyze what happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States, we can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. The organizers of those attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation. The political conception of this action matured there where tensions emerged in the administration of financial and other types of resources. We have to look for the reasons of the attacks in the coincidence of interests of the big capital at global and transnational levels, in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction.

Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians submitted to the former were the ones who did it this time.

2. Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist – let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this scale is extremely complex.

3. Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.

The September 11 operation modified the course of events in the world in the direction chosen by transnational mafias and international oligarchs; that is, those who hope to control the planet’s natural resources, the world information network and the financial flows. This operation also favored the US economic and political elite that also seeks world dominance.

====================================================================================
The use of the term “international terrorism” has the following goals:
Hiding the real objectives of the forces deployed all over the world in the struggle for dominance and control;
Turning the people’s demands to a struggle of undefined goals against an invisible enemy;
Destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation;
Depriving peoples of their legitimate right to fight against aggressions and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services;
Establishing the principle of renunciation to national interests, transforming objectives in the military field by giving priority to the war on terror, violating the logic of military alliances to the detriment of a joint defense and to favor the anti-terrorist coalition;
Solving economic problems through a tough military rule using the war on terror as a pretext. In order to fight in an efficient way against international terrorism it is necessary to take the following steps:
To confirm before the UN General Assembly the principles of the UN Charter and international law as principles that all states are obliged to respect;
To create a geo-strategic organization (perhaps inspired in the Cooperation Organization of Shanghai comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) with a set of values different to that of the Atlantists; to design a strategy of development of states, a system of international security, another financial and economic model (which would mean that the world would again rest on two pillars);
To associate (under the United Nations) the scientific elites in the design and promotion of the philosophical concepts of the Human Being of the 21st Century.
To organize the interaction of all religious denominations in the world, on behalf of the stability of humanity’s development, security and mutual support.
===================================================================================

General Leonid Ivashov
General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies

=====================================================================




Axis for Peace http://www.axisforpeace.net/article354.html

General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist”

by General Leonid Ivashov

General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. This military man, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different to that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a “world war on terror”, the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens.
=============================================================================

Press releases

“Axis for Peace” conference to appeal to the UN Security Council
Paris, 9 November 2005
The Réseau Voltaire is organising an international conference in Brussels on 17 and 18 November 2005, “Axis for Peace”. The aim is to bring together opinion leaders of all countries to elaborate common arguments in favour of peace. Well-known participants, among which MEPs, writers, journalists, politicians and intellectuals, will jointly assess contemporary forms of conflict and interference, and shape a relevant and effective discourse in favour of peace. The <snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ivashov says forget the past. Iran is now controlled by good people who
can be trusted with nuclear and ballistic missile technologies.

"The main attention in the course of the visit will be paid to prospects of developing military co-operation between Russia and Iran," head of the Defence Ministry's Main Department for International Military Cooperation Col.-Gen.Leonid Ivashov told Itar-Tass on Monday.

The visit also comes almost one month after Moscow denounced a secret agreement that had been reached between the outgoing US vice-President Al Gore and the former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyerdin halting Russian modern arms sales to Iran and particularly the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies.

Both Moscow and Tehran reacted rather sharply toward statements by US and Israelis criticising the Russian-Iranian military relations.

"Russia will not adjust to anyone's wishes or foreign interests. It has been changing, Iran has been changing, there have been changes in their policies, so it makes no sense to stick to positions of ten years standing. It seems that Iran shares this point of view", Ivashov further added.

Source:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2000/dec_2000/iran_russia_defence_271200.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. :-( what a choice - we either trust Bush or Trust Iran?
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Your choice is: trust Ivashov or do not trust Ivashov.
Edited on Mon Jan-23-06 04:08 PM by Boojatta
You have the option of trusting neither Iran nor W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Can not an untrustworthy person still tell truth? The statement stands on
its own and the true/false choice leads to the choice of trust Bush, or trust Iran.

And that choice sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. "the true/false choice leads to the choice of trust Bush, or trust Iran."
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The statement is either true, or it is false. If True, I should not trust
Edited on Mon Jan-23-06 04:43 PM by papau
Bush.

If not true, Iran becomes suspect.

Short of giving up any hope of Iran not getting Nuke arms, which view do I push/promote so as to help, in whatever small way, getting to the result of a non-Nuke Iran?

If I go with Bush I must say OK to war, and therefore must trust Bush.

If I go with Iran, I must believe Bush is a liar and that Iran does not intend a Nuke weapon future.

Or can "Someone powerful enough to make it happen is working on making sure Iran will not become a Nuke weapon producer" be true if I do not trust either? Someone powerful enough to make it happen seems limited to Bush and the Gov of Iran.

Granted the act of trust on my part has little to do with what happens in the end - but I like to pretend my opinion counts - or better - that there is a "right" and a "wrong" view of the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sorry, that's not clear to me. What is your starting point? How do you
get from your starting point to the conclusion that you should trust Iran or W?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. We agree a statement is either true - or false - and trusting the speaker
has nothing to do with the statement being true - or false?

Then do we agree on "Someone powerful enough to make it happen is working on making sure Iran will not become a Nuke weapon producer and needs my support" is the rule by which I chose my actions?

Do we agree that "Someone powerful enough to make it happen" is limited to (1)Bush, or (2)the Gov of Iran?

Then if statement is not true, I am left with the Gov of Iran must be stopped - and only Bush can stop them - leading me to say I must trust Bush so as to feel good about supporting the war he is starting.

If the statement is true, I can distrust Bush and still feel good because the Gov of Iran can be trusted to not go after Nukes.

If I go with Bush I must say OK to war, and trust Bush, if I am to feel "good".

If I go with Iran, I must believe Bush is a liar and that Iran does not intend a Nuke weapon future, if I am to feel good.

Granted the act of trust on my part has little to do with what happens in the end - but I like to pretend my opinion counts - or better - that there is a "right" and a "wrong" view of the situation, and that I have the "right" view, so as to feel good about myself.

If you are asking a mathematical question re logic and are saying my givens are not forcing my conclusion to trust or distrust anyone, I suggest that the given that I want to feel good about my view and subsequent actions is not in the set of equations you are looking at, but should be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hey! This post qualifies as something one SHOULD READ...that maybe
you would feel guilty "TODAY" checking out of the Library...

It's sort of a "book burner post" ...but so fascinating that if you get "insomnia late in the night" you might just click "the profiles" of the folks on this website and get your brain "thinking."

It's a good read if one finds the time and to "bookmark" for later.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC