Today’s stunning defeat of the colorless hack Martha Coakley by the Republican challenger in Massachusetts must be interpreted as crucial proof that the American electorate is hungry for populism in the midst of a worsening world economic depression. The kind of populism Massachusetts voters really wanted was New Deal economic populism in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, meaning concrete measures to break the power of Wall Street and deliver economic benefits to the broad middle class and working people generally. This was the kind of economic populism which was nowhere in sight. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and Barney Frank is a party of Wall Street shills and puppets. Since no economic populists were in sight, Massachusetts voters settled for second best in the form of cultural populism as represented by the Republican Scott Brown, whose main claim to fame was that he drove a truck with 200,000 miles on it. That is the demagogic essence of cultural populism, the only kind of populism of which Republicans and reactionaries in general are capable. Cultural populism is what Rush Limbaugh sells on the radio every day, mocking the elitist cultural pretensions of politically correct Democrats. Cultural populism is the stock in trade of Sarah Palin, who uses it to try to make Tea Party supporters forget her warm support for the Bush-Paulson $700 billion bailout of Wall Street in October 2008, when Palin was running for vice president. Coakley, by contrast, was a prim elitist who showed her contempt for Joe Sixpack by going on a two-week vacation in the middle of her alleged Senate campaign.

The current tenant of the White House is an elitist snob who functions from day to day as a wholly owned Wall Street puppet, and Massachusetts voters recognized this very early on. They had been educated in these matters by their own governor, Deval Patrick, who spouted the very same kind of messianic and utopian rhetoric purveyed by Obama when he won the governorship some years ago. Perhaps because they had already been disillusioned by Patrick, Massachusetts Democrats made sure Obama was defeated by Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primary there in spring 2008.

The boiling rage of the American electorate is directed against the two-party consensus which has made possible the transfer of between $25 and $30 trillion of US government money — Treasury, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, etc. — in the form of the TARP or bailout, while the official rate of unemployment and underemployment approaches 18%. Voters are angry in particular about tax cheat Tim Geithner, generally the most prominent representative of the Obama regime. They know that Geithner’s cell phone is programmed for speed dialing the numbers of Citibank’s Vikram Pandit, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase, and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. They know that Geithner takes orders from these Wall Street bandits. Voters know that Geithner committed a federal crime when he ordered AIG to falsify its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission to cover up almost $70 billion of US treasury funds which the bankrupt insurance company was using to pay off financial derivatives in the form of toxic credit default swaps at 100 cents on the dollar to a group of Wall Street banks, and even worse, European banks. These are the roots of the rage against Obama and the Democratic Party displayed today in Massachusetts.

Voters can see that Obama’s much touted health care reform plan includes the massive looting of Medicare, upon which senior citizens depend for their very lives, to the tune of $500 billion. Voters can understand that Obama’s health care bill involves an unconstitutional compulsion of the average person to bail out bankrupt health insurance companies by buying dubious policies from companies which are private, for-profit, and deregulated. Voters know that Obama’s legislation makes the Medicare MEDPAC into a death panel in the very real sense of the term. Voters may also know that Obama’s budget czar, Orszag, wants to deprive Americans of medical tests and probably represents the hidden hand behind recent efforts to limit mammograms and Pap smears — all to save money for bigger and better Wall Street bailouts. Under these circumstances, no one can be surprised by the massive vote of no confidence in Obama and the Democratic Party carried out today by Massachusetts voters.

Democrats did not turn out today in Massachusetts because they have been systematically disappointed, betrayed, and attacked by the Obama regime and its congressional allies. Antiwar activists have been appalled by Obama’s tripling of the US troop strength in Afghanistan and his evident resolve to export that civil war in neighboring Pakistan, with massacres carried out by private military contractors and Predator drones. Those concerned about civil liberties have been deeply antagonized by Obama’s claims of authority for indefinite detention, his continuation of illegal renditions, and his probable maintenance of illegal black sites across the world. Trade unionists have been enraged by the Obama regime’s demands for vicious wage cuts on the part of UAW members working for the Detroit auto companies which Obama deliberately and cynically drove into bankruptcy, even as Obama’s fatcat contributors at Goldman Sachs have been laughing all the way to the bank with tens of billions of dollars of bonuses racked up with the help of low-interest loans from the US government. Teachers and other public sector trade unionists are equally shocked by the unionbusting tactics of Obama and his sidekick Arne Duncan, who are using charter schools and merit pay as the centerpiece of the unionbusting strategy against the American Federation of Teachers. The best informed members of the black community are acutely aware that Obama has done nothing to address sky high jobless rates in the inner city. Gay activists are resentful that Obama has not acted on any of their concerns. All in all, Obama has already managed to alienate virtually all of the key constituency groups of the Democratic Party, including women, whom he already alienated in his misogynist presidential campaign.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Democratic base is fragmented and demoralized, as a direct result of Obama’s multiple betrayals of his explicit and implied promises. Both major US political parties have now been roundly repudiated at the polls — this applies to the reactionary Republicans and the Democrats, whose economic doctrine might best be summed up as a slightly modernized and watered down version of the Mussolini fascist corporate state. We note in passing that the Libertarian candidate in Massachusetts gained no traction, not least because libertarianism of the Austrian and Chicago schools offers nothing whatsoever in terms of populism, and mainly concentrates and demands that the American people he stripped of their existing economic rights to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other benefits.

Scott Brown appears to have run as a clone of Virginia’s new GOP Governor McDonnell, who took pains to conceal how reactionary he actually was under a cloak of amiable moderation. Brown can best be defined as a reactionary gigolo, who got his start as a male model posing seminude for risqué photographs. But anybody ostentatiously riding in a truck with 200,000 miles on it qualifies a cultural populist, and so Brown carried the day. But if Brown brings gridlock and paralysis U.S. Congress, he will be doing everybody a favor. It is imperative to block Obama’s destruction of Medicare, one of the last fruits of the New Deal-Great Society era. It is imperative to block Obama’s attempted carbon dictatorship under the cap and trade lunacy favored by lunatic Democratic Party radical ecologist ideologues. It is basically better to block Obama’s entire congressional agenda, with the hope that some clarity on economic program might emerge over the next year or so as the depression worsens. In the meantime, divided government is best. The Democratic preponderance in Washington is one of the most toxic legacies of the hated regime of Bush the younger, and ironically it is part of this problem which Massachusetts is helping to fix.

In a depression, voters want populism. If they can find potent New Deal economic populism, they will vote for it every time, as US elections between 1932 and 1944 show without a shadow of a doubt. But if they do not find economic populism, they can easily fall prey to the cynical demagogy of cultural populism. That is what has happened in Massachusetts. The only way to be an economic populist is the shift the cost of the world economic depression and the tax burden generally onto Wall Street financial interests, that is to say onto the malefactors of great wealth who created this crisis in the first place. That is the recipe for winning elections in a depression. Most Democrats appear to be too far gone on the road to plutocracy to learn that lesson. It therefore may well be time to create a new party to represent the one major political current in American life which is not represented by either of the two big parties of the day. In other words, we desperately need, one way or another, a New Deal economic populist party to lead this country and much of the world out of the world economic depression.

Any Democrat now wishing to survive must immediately carry out a sharp anti-Wall Street, economic populist turn. A few ideas in that regard, to be supplemented by the detailed economic recovery program the displayed on my website: make Wall Street pay for the depression by enacting a 1% Tobin tax on all Wall Street financial transactions and turnover, including stocks, bonds, and above all financial derivatives. Claw back any remaining money of the bailout or TARP. Reimpose the Glass-Steagall law to separate commercial banking, insurance, and stock brokerage. Outlaw credit default swaps and adjustable rate mortgages. Enact a 10% federal usury law to limit interest rates on credit cards and payday loans. Stop all home foreclosures for five years or for the duration of the present economic emergency, whichever lasts longer. Seize the Federal Reserve and make it a bureau of the Treasury, passing to issue 0% federal credit for industry and agriculture, not speculation and financial services; stop federal borrowing and start federal lending. Launch a massive program of infrastructure in the spirit of the Tennessee Valley Authority, featuring 100 nuclear reactors of the most modern type, 1,000 modern hospitals, and 50,000 miles of maglev and high-speed rail, while rebuilding the entire interstate highway system in the water systems of every American city. This is the kind of program which can create 30 million new jobs over just a few years, creating full employment in this country for the first time since 1945. The only interests that need to be sacrificed in order to get out of the depression in this way are Wall Street interests, and it is time for politicians desirous of survival to begin taking the struggle to Wall Street. Otherwise, we appear to be heading for for a seizure of power by a bonapartist regime of General Petraeus and Mitt Romney, the notorious Wall Street asset stripper and hedge fund hyena who was much in evidence at the Scott Brown rally tonight.

With permission – courtesy www.tarpley.net

Speaking to a hall full of cadets at the US Military Academy of West Point, President Barack Obama almost seemed like he might be declaring war on Pakistan. Every time he mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan preceded mention.

Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: “the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”  I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. Through leaks that are whispered in our ears, however, we were told that Americans commissioned studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads. Talk like this only serves to embolden those terrorist elements that seek to destabilize the entire region.

I didn’t get a clear sense as to what President Obama might do in Pakistan – and that makes me more nervous. What we hear is that the US will not do anything overt in Pakistan to deflect criticism and mitigate risk. A report in New York Times suggest (again based on leaks) that there will be a two pronged approach- CIA  led covert operations and, to mitigate risks ,the US will sub-contract the overt war within Pakistani borders to the nation’s army.

So basically President Obama confirmed the narrative that was being constructed through leaks to the media for the past 8 years.

Report also claim that President Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan and the Pakistan army is onboard. Many Pakistanis fear that more U.S. troops mean more of the nightmare that we have been living with for the past several years including  more drones, additional CIA and private boots on the ground operating co-overtly, more money for the ISI, and moral support for the army.  Don’t be surprised by drone attacks in Baluchistan as well.

President Obama defined his strategy with three core elements: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

In the corridors of West Point we met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I asked her what will happen if Pakistan’s democratic government was destabilized. She said “we hope it won’t come to that”. We know people of Pakistan want democracy. We hope whatever the political problems are internally they will be worked out in a lawful and constitutional manner.”  When asked if her government will engage with a dictator should martial law be implemented in Pakistan, she responded, “ in my dealings with the military leadership I have no indication that they are looking to do anything except supporting the democratically elected government.”

Here is the transcript because YouTube audio is not that good:  

{Obama administration has been very supportive of democratic process in Pakistan but the democratic government seems instable. What will be the impact if current government is destabilized?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that because the people of Pakistan want democracy and we hope whatever internal political problems there might be can be worked out in lawful and constitutional manner. What’s important is for us to partner with Pakistani people. So of course when I came to visit I met with democratically elected government officials – president and prime minister and foreign minister and other ministers as well as members  of parliament. We also met with the military, head of ISI. We believe the future for Pakistan is so positive but of course there has to be stability. There has to be kind of security that military is fighting for in South Waziristan. And, there has to be kind of political stability that comes with a solid democracy. We hope that can be worked out.

Will you engage with Pakistani military if there was a martial law?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t want to speculate. I think that — in my talking to the military I didn’t get any indication that they have any intention of doing anything except supporting democratically elected government. Now, I know there are all kinds of challenges to the current government that is for the people of Pakistan- your political process to work out. But of course we want to see a strong, vibrant democracy. And, that is what we are going to continue to support.}

Off the record conversations with US officials indicated that they have diversified contacts in Pakistan: Mr. Hollbrooke called Mr. Nawaz Sharif prior to Obama’s Afghanistan strategy speech. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is talked about with more respect than ever before.

It is pretty evident from Ms. Clinton’s response above as well that democratic process should not be confused with President Zardari’s rule. I believe Americans realize that President Zardari may have only symbolic position going forward and they are prepared to deal with anyone and everyone who represents Pakistan.

I really hope New York Times report is incorrect that there is no expansion of the war. I, absolutely support eradicating terrorists where ever they maybe: but in the process let’s not create more terrorists.

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington DC next week his priority number one will be to dispel any doubts of Washington’s commitment to New Delhi in a region where it rivals China and Pakistan — both seen as U.S. foreign policy priorities.

Indian diplomats and White House representative tell us that two leaders will discuss issues ranging from environment to accelerating the completion of a landmark civilian nuclear deal signed last year with Bush administration. It is rather interesting that Mr. Singh will be in Washington a week after President Obama in Beijing pledged to strengthen ties with China.

It is no secret that America views India as a countervailing force against rising China. America encourages India’s increasing involvement in Afghanistan, and calculates that Indian and American interests coincide in seeking to develop pipelines that would draw central Asia’s oil reserves toward the Indian Ocean.

Analysts argue that the current Indo-US relationship is good, but lacks a central defining issue, such as the civilian nuclear deal, that shaped the relationship during the presidency of George Bush.

Singh and Obama will try to regain some of the momentum back- with possibly more Indian involvement in Afghanistan.  India has been critical of the Obama administrations Afghan strategy and claims it’s focus on Pakistan comes at the expense of other regional stakeholders such as India. India and the US have been concerned with China’s engagement in Afghanistan as well.

Indian policy makers viewed the Afghan war a godsend – an opportunity to reverse Pakistan’s increased influence in Afghanistan and more importantly to advance its geopolitical interests in oil-rich central Asia. It was based on these two key fundamentals that India decided to support the US invasion of Afghanistan. India facilitated contact with  Northern Alliance and provided intelligence from ground.

Just like America had showered Pakistan with ‘blessings’, Bush administration also expanded ties with India for being it’s eyes and ears on Afghan soil. This romance developed so rapidly that the US declared its eagerness to assist India in becoming a “world power.”  For the services rendered to the ‘new masters,’ India received a unique status within the world nuclear regulatory regime – despite being a non signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But India has been sensitive to Washington’s perceived growing ties with China and Pakistan. During his presidential campaign, Obama had committed to addressing regional issues including Kashmir.

India has also complained abut Obama administrations’ stance on a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). India has refused to sign the CTBT on the grounds that it could imperil the development of India’s “strategic deterrent,” i.e. its nuclear weapons arsenal.

This week Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement pledging to “promote peace, stability and development” in south Asia. Indian Foreign Ministry fired back: “The Government of India is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. A third country role cannot be envisaged.”

India has been inserting itself in Afghanistan in past years. But India is not completely behind Karzai government either- Hamid Karzai believes a negotiated solution of Afghan problem is possible. He is intent on persuading sections of the Taliban to enter into peace negotiations and ultimately incorporating them into Afghanistan’s government. Indian officials and media commentators have repeatedly declared that there is no such thing as “good Taliban.”  Indians fear that Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan will grow significantly in the event of a rapprochement with elements hitherto associated with the Taliban.

Obama is likely to assure Singh that his country’s interest will be protected in Afghanistan.

Singh needs this assurance specially because General Stanley McChrystal in a confidential report submitted to the US President Barack Obama on August 30 wrote: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.”

Needless to say Indians did not fancy McChrystal’s recommendation.

The Indian government has invested more than $1.2 billion since 2001. Mr. Singh will want Obama to ensure that McChrystal’s reports lands in the trash and a guarantee Obama will facilitate India’s regional hegemonic role. From what I hear in Washington DC, it seems Singh will leave happy.

Indians were busy today (Friday) on the Hill to make progress on the civilian nuclear deal. America wants guarantees from New Delhi — that it won’t pass on its nuclear know-how. In other words- India will not proliferate but India refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

During her recent visit to India Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a deal allowing two US companies, General Electric and Westingouse, to build a pair of new nuclear power reactors at a cost of $10 billion. Before any contracts are signed, the US companies are asking the Indian parliament to pass legislation which would limit the companies’ liability in case of nuclear accidents.

Before this deal goes any further, Indian law needs to be modified to set limits on the liability assessed to American companies involved with any kind of nuclear development. Even in the United States, liability is limited to about $11 billion, whereas the damage caused by accidents at nuclear power plants are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. US companies want similar liability protections, and it remains to be seen whether the Indian parliament will satisfy those requests.

Under current international law, the nuclear industry, or rather, state-owned nuclear enterprises, operate under sovereign limitation. In other words, Russian and French nuclear reactors can protected by the built-in liability insurance provided by their respective governments, since they are publicly owned. However, Westinghouse and General Electric are not accorded this same security, as they are privately owned. In an analogous circumstance, during the US-Russia negotiations over the use of Cold War plutonium, including surplus plutonium from weapons in Russian reactors, the failure to arrive at a liability agreement was the major stumbling block in the execution of the deal.

The Convention on Supplementary Compensation is a UN convention responsible for limited liability, and its aim is essentially to deny fair compensation. Basically, the US wants India to sign and ratify this convention as a precondition of their participation in the deal. This is a topic that has not been the subject of the domestic debate as of yet, because there were bigger barriers the governments of India and the US government had to cross. Now that those obstacles have all but been bulldozed, this issue of liability protection is bound to be quite politically sensitive. The text of the defense agreement has not been made public, and chances are slim that it will be made public in its full form. Nor do we know, as of now, the future locations of the specific reactor sites.

The US-China summit level joint pledge of support for the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan is a significant first step towards possibility of peace in the region; that is if you are a Pakistani. For, Indians yesterday’s joint statement was affront to their national pride; how dare China tells them to befriend Pakistan. 

As the world keenly watched leaders of the two world powers Obama and Hu appear in the Great Hall of the People overlooking Tiananmen Square people saw what they wanted to see. For Pakistani analysts it was a sign of substantial progress in China-U.S. relations over the past 30 years, but to others this summit was “increasingly important to both countries, but also curiously bereft of warmth or intimacy.” For American observers, Obama walked away without any concrete agreements on currency, environment or human rights issues, but for my Chinese friends at the United Nations, it was the dawn of a ‘new era’ of global cooperation. 

For South Asian analysts the mention of India and Pakistan in the joint statement was significant. China and the United States voiced support for  peace and stability in South Asia. According to the joint statement both countries support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability, and achieve sustainable economic and social development. Their statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan was expected.

Surprising, however,  was the joint pledge to support “improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.”  

The joint statement said: “the two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.”

This statement has dual implications; first, Afghanistan-Pakistan security concerns are viewed through the larger regional perspective which includes India, and secondly, India’s perceived regional role. Although India has restrained itself and there were no immediate official responses (at the time of writing of this article), but Indian analysts have begun taking note.

I juts saw Natwar Singh, former External Affairs Minister telling an Indian TV:“ Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu Jintao are confusing hope with facts. India has consistently extended its hand of friendship to Pakistan but the response has been wholly unsatisfactory. The government and the people of India want warm and cordial relations with Pakistan, so do the people of Pakistan. Regrettably the establishment of Pakistan is not in favor.”

Salman Haider, former Foreign Secretary, was upset that such a ‘pledge’ was made because the U.S. knows it would be regarded as some sort of provocation to India. He told the Indian TV: “the statement should not give a message to Pakistan that it could start attempting the involvement of others in our bilateral affairs. We have repeatedly told our friends not to interfere. This is not a good formulation and is not at all helpful.”

Indians have become accustomed to the American administration talk about South Asian countries, but ‘red flags’ go up when China mentions Indo-Pak ties. India has a baggage of confrontational diplomacy with China- history of war, border conflicts, water rights issues, and lately economic and military competition.  India has amplified its rhetoric against China, and Beijing has been frank in expressing concern over India’s planned Agni-V ballistic missile test. From Arunachal Pradesh to Azad Kashmir, there have been several key instances recently in which Indian foreign policymakers seem to have been unnerved, even alleging China is constructing a dam on the Brahmaputra.

Indian External Affairs Minster and Foreign Secretary were unhappy about this US-China joint statement because China has a long history of cooperation with Pakistan; relations that reach back through six decades of trust.

Although it was a good surprise for Pakistan but it did not have all the elements to make it substantial. The Obama-Hu joint statement did not invoke the Kashmir issue. Meeting soon after the Pokhran tests in 1998, the then U.S. President Bill Clinton and the former Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, had issued a statement that was more specific on Kashmir. The statement expressed the “commitment” of the U.S. and China to help peacefully resolve “the difficult and long-standing differences between them including the pending issue of Kashmir.”

I agree with the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs that one should not expect “that the waters would part and everything would change over our almost 2 1/2-day trip to China,’’ but I am hoping that the sObama administration start looking at India as a key variable for security and stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Resolution of the India-Pakistan conflict, I am convinced, will bring peace and prosperity to the region.

Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies, and in our case, a territorial dispute. Unless Kashmir’s link with water is addressed and resolved, these other crises may intensify leading to further political insecurity and conflict at various levels.

It is abundantly clear to most educated Pakistanis that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved until every Pakistani citizen is assured access to water – today, tomorrow and for times to come. I am hoping that China and the US will have the courage to stop India from building dams that will deprive Pakistani farmers of vital water supplies.

Joint statements without concrete follow-ups serve no purpose. I am hoping China and the US will play an active role in resolving the critical issue of the Tulbul Navigation project on Wular Lake in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir.

Standing at the media stakeout at the corner of Liberty and Broadway in lower Manhattan as I tried to get a sound byte from family members of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, I vividly remembered that unfortunate morning; Minute-by-minute, second-by-second. I could almost hear the screams and smell the smoke.

A big sign was hanging right over my head: “We Will Never Forget.” How can I forget September 11- the day when Al Qaeda hijackers took control of four passenger planes crashing two into the World Trade Center in New York and a third into the Pentagon. A fourth, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers and crew tried to retake control of the plane.

I can never forget the goose bumps, nightmares, and the soot that had covered my downtown apartment? How can I ever forget that I saw people jumping from the WTC buildings?

 I don’t need to be reminded anymore!

We of course have a choice of either living with the mantra “we will never forget” or we can use this tragic and vile moment of our history to build cultures of unity, peace and prosperity. In remembering the victims of 9/11 we should also strengthen our solidarity with victims of other forms of terrorism and violence around the world. The forms of terrorism that are often difficult to discern and violence that can be difficult ascertain: violence that threatens the future of our planet.

We can resolve to “never forget” or to be mindful of the world’s resources like food, fossil fuel, water, and of course biodiversity.

In the present period of instability and contest over access to food, water, fuel – sometimes enacted in the form of armed hostilities – war and acts of terrorism – our resolution requires careful scrutiny. We must question why some have, in orders of magnitude, more than others? Why inequities within states and around the globe continue to grow? Why we are selective in remembering acts of violence, wars, and torture? Seldom has the urgency of such questions been more critical.

We can resolve to “never forget” and let a few driven by greed continue to wage wars, and perpetrate injustice. On September 12th 2001, my neighbor, a good friend who happens be a republican asked: “why did those hijackers attack us.” I remember telling him that greed and appropriation of other people’s share of the planet’s means are at the root of most conflicts, including the root of terrorism. He was disappointed and gave me a look as if I was condoning terrorism. I was very careful of what I said around my neo-con friends from there on.

When former President George W. Bush declared that the goal of the War Against Terror was to defend the American way of life, in effect he had declared war against the planet – its resources; fuel, water, food and of course any unfortunate human souls who got in the way; to protect a way of life for the 20 percent American and Europeans who consume eighty percent of our planet’s resources.

But of course our new president will no longer use the word “terrorism.” Today we are asked by President Obama to “renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and plot against us still. In pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies we will never falter.” It seems Obama has replaced the word ‘terrorism’ with ‘extremism’, but the narrative stays the same. This play on words – can be at best linguistic acrobatics at worst more smoke and mirrors.

But I want to be very clear. We should not absolve Osama bin Laden. We should be constantly reminded that Mullahs like him have a long history of wreaking havoc: Once when they teamed with Americans to “fight communism”; and later when they were ditched by their masters. So we must reject Mullahs and fundamentalists.

We can’t let the extremists, the jehadis, the suicide bombers destroy our lives. These fundamentalists are fighting for the same resources – and just because they are in conflict with the West and America, these Mullahs are not anti-imperialists.

In our loyalty with a nation, community, sect, or religion we should not be blinded to the extent that we are unable to spot extremism. This illness manifests itself everywhere- at your home and school, shops and offices, streets and markets, playgrounds and café.

Reading the reactions of some on this blog reminds me of that erstwhile ‘dulha bhai’. You never know what will upset these hyper sensitive creatures of Allah. You make a cartoon, or take a position they disagree with, or even look at them funny and you will have people threatening to kill you. It used to be that these Mullahs would go to streets to raise fists, burn flags and effigies – but now they can blog from the comfort of their home. We must stay on high alert- learn to be vigilant and denounce injustice in all forms and shapes.