Sustainers of the darkness

The most interesting aspect of the “enlightened” age is that despite an unprecedented success in telecommunication technology, almost 99.9 percent of the world population is passing through the darkest period of human existence.

It is the darkest of all times because a vast majority is unable to penetrate the smokescreen of lies to identify the real culprits behind the ideology and events that intensify the ongoing world war.

Like the previous world wars, human beings are both the cannon fodder and victims of the ever increasing scale of destruction. The only factor that makes it different from the previous world wars is the range of dedicated actors involved in intensifying darkness and war through repeated lies.

The most horrible reality of this war is that apparently the most humane of the faces –” lecturing us on human rights, human dignity, freedom and democracy –” are the most active partners of the dark alliance.

The dark alliance is comprised of the military generals, intelligence agents and a legion of local agents on the war front, and a number of political leaders, opinion makers and some seemingly benign journalists at the rear ranks.

November 30 article of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is a glaring example of how some journalists work hand in hand with the perpetrators behind the terrorist attacks and the subsequent military invasions and occupations.

Motive is a prime factor to look at for resolving mysteries of serious crimes. Yet discussion on the issue of motive has been the most convoluted part of all analysis that blames “fundamentalist” Muslims and “misinterpreted” Islam for every act of terrorism. The motive of the alleged terrorists is reduced for the sake of propaganda to: “Terrorists hate our freedom and democracy.”

Impartial analysis of the events surrounding terrorist attacks is necessary for identifying the dark faces in pitch darkness, which are responsible for the crimes against humanity. Their interest lies in sustaining the unprecedented darkness of human history.

This is how their latest plan unfolded: Political leadership went for more support on the most controversial trip to UK; the terror department carried out the attacks and the media department came out on the already set stage for telling the people in the dark: “nowhere could I find a single sign in London reading, ‘Osama, How Many Innocents Did You Kill Today?’ or ‘Baathists –” Hands Off the U.N. and the Red Cross in Iraq.'”[1]

What a time for Friedman to ridicule anti-war movement and sarcastically state: “there is something morally obtuse about holding an antiwar rally on a day when your own people have been murdered –” and not even mentioning it or those who perpetrated it.” [2]

It does not need Thomas Friedman and the New York Times to fix the blame on Osama or other Muslims for any terrorist acts. This is the easiest feat almost everyone could perform these days. The hardest fact to realize is: Why is Turkey reluctant to blame Al-Qaeda?

Before claiming that terrorism “is growing in the darkest corners of the Muslim world,” Friedman would have done a favour to distinguish Turkey from the rest of the Muslim world. Turkey is widely described as the flag bearer of Western values. It, however, did not allow US to use its soil for attack on Iraq, and it has refused to send troops to help US in occupied Iraq.

For these “crimes,” Turkey deserved a dose of reality from the dark alliance, and a few words of thanks from Al-Qaeda, if it exists. The attack was intended to: a) give journalist in the dark alliance an opportunity to attack anti-war protestors; b) secure Turkey and others’ assistance in inflaming the ongoing world war; and c) pacify public reaction over their government’s participation in illegal wars.

Friedman, sitting thousands of miles away, could not be so sure of Muslims’ involvement in the attack unless he is either their partner or he has evidence to prove their guilt in a court of law. This becomes impossible when the Turkish Prime Minister, while sitting in Turkey, said that he was not sure that Al-Qaeda is behind the bombing.

Compare it with the same pattern of terrorist attack and its timing. Remember Bali? Before the terrorist attack against Australians, there was a nation wide TV warning by one Rohan Gunaratna, another Friedman and Pipes, the author of "Inside Al Qaeda".

This previously unknown "expert on terrorism" issued a specific warning that Al Qaeda members have been trained to attack Australia, stating that he had been given the information during debriefings of captured Al Qaeda members.

Amazing how this author got access to these prisoners –” the most tightly held since the Gulag Archipelago –” and national TV airtime across Australia. He must have some very interesting connections with the architects of darkness and war.

According to BBC correspondent, the Bali Club had "no strategic value." It didn’t "hurt a Western government, and it was not a favored haunt of al-Qaeda’s preferred targets: Americans and Jews."[3]

Many Australians believe that the US government is directly behind the Bali bombing to teach Australians a lesson for "a rising anguish at the treatment of the Palestinians by the forces of Israel as directed by Sharon and supported by Bush, and a very widespread and fast setting view against helping in the US plans for a military invasion of Iraq."[4]

The US officials were more concerned with the developments in Turkey and UK than their worries in the case of Australia, where the US Ambassador to Australia was upset with the popular objection of Australian citizens to their government’s involvement in the American invasion of Iraq.

The US Ambassador to Australia could clearly warn the Australians before the Bali bombing that they are not immune to terrorist actions.

However, in the case of attacks on UK interests in Turkey, there was considerable movement and interaction between top US and Turkish officials, who did not break their silence before the event.
The attacks took place one day following the completion of the annual Turkish-US Joint Defence Group meeting (November 17-19, 2003) for discussion issues pertaining inter alia to the “war on terrorism.”

The Turkish delegation to this meeting was led by Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen Ilker Basbug, who met his US counterpart US Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen Peter Pace.

Basbug met in two separate meetings with one of the chief architects of the unfolding world war, Paul Wolfowitz, at the Pentagon and at a luncheon hosted by Deputy Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace.[5]

General Basbug later met with Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. On the day of the attacks, Paul Wolfowitz held a mission-completion press conference. General Busbag left Washington after participating in the press conference. ."[6]

Further analysis of these and other terrorist attacks would help us understand the pattern of terrorism, the motives behind this inhumanity and value of biased analysis presented by co-opted journalists.

Unless we identify the criminals in this dark alliance, we will continue to believe sustainers of the darkness, who want Thomas Friedman to make us believe that the US-led invasions and occupations are part of “the noblest things this country [US] has ever attempted abroad and it is a moral and strategic imperative that we give it our best shot.”


[1] Thomas Friedman, “The chant not heard,” New York Times, November 30, 2003.

[2] Ibid. Thomas Friedman

[3] Gardner, Frank. "Who bombed Bali?" BBC security correspondent, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 17:19 GMT 18:19 UK.

[4] Mason, Harry. See:, October 13, 2002

[5] Asia Africa Intelligence News Wire, 20 November 2003.

[6] See Michel Chossudovsky’s detailed report and the pre-attack activities at the Turkish stock market at Centre for Research on Globalization web site