Paul Wolf: Putting Fallujah to the Torch


Richard Moore

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:55:28 -0500
From: Paul Wolf <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Putting Fallujah to the Torch

1. Putting Fallujah to the Torch

2. Counterinsurgency run amok

3. Don't Support the Troops! Not When They Commit War Crimes

4. US accused of 'torture flights'

Putting Fallujah to the Torch

By Assaf Kfoury,, November 14, 2004

The conduct of US troops in Iraq has been a combination of
extreme brutality and wholesale destruction. Brutality towards
Iraqis has routinely come with systematic pillaging, if not
wrecking, of the country's civil institutions and productive
capacity. As if, when the time will finally come for US troops
to go, they are determined to leave behind a landscape of
ruins and carnage. Events in Falluja this past week epitomized
this conduct once again.

American troops started their offensive against Falluja on
November 8 by occupying the main city hospital. According to
the embedded New York Times reporter, soldiers "eagerly"
kicked in the doors of Falluja General Hospital, and patients
and hospital employees were forced to lie on the floor while
troops tied their hands behind their backs. Although the NY
Times reporter did not call it by its name, this was a war
crime, turning a medical facility into a theatre of combat:

Early Target of Offensive is a Hospital
by Richard A. Oppel Jr.

Two days earlier, another hospital in the city center had been
razed to the ground by massive US air raids:

US strikes raze Falluja hospital
BBC News

What followed was an orgy of killing and destruction, pitting
warplanes, tanks and armored vehicles against insurgents armed
with Kalashnikov rifles. Even when embedded reporters revel in
the killing efficiency of US marines, they still describe the
scene for what it is, a "sliver of apocalypse" -- not the
scene of a movie set but of a real massacre, however casually

Will Meets Resistance in Deadly Logic of War
by Dexter Filkins & Robert F. Worth

Terrified civilians trying to flee the city were pushed back, to face
almost-certain death:

Rights Lawyers See Possibility of a War Crime
by Michael Janofsky

By the end of the week, the US war machine had swept through most of
the city, leaving behind shelled buildings, bullet-riddled cars and
rotting corpses:

Breaking a City in Order to Fix It
by Edward Wong

Ten days ago, commenting on the re-election of US President
Bush on November 2nd, former British foreign secretary Robin
Cook wrote:

Bush will now celebrate by putting Falluja to the torch
by Robin Cook

Put Falluja to the torch, he did indeed. The logic is to put Iraqi
insurgents on notice that they can expect horror in exchange for
daring to resist a foreign occupier. Events of this past week bear
witness to this criminal policy. The US government and its puppet
regime in Baghdad will undoubtedly claim victory after laying waste to
Falluja. This may turn out a Pyrrhic victory. As Patrick Cockburn
notes, "it is likely to be as disappointing in terms of ending the
resistance as the capture of Saddam":

The Crushing of Fallujah Will Not End the War in Iraq
by Patrick Cockburn

Former UN arms-inspector Scott Ritter observes that, "far from
facing off in a decisive battle against the resistance
fighters, it seems the more Americans squeeze Falluja, the
more the violence explodes elsewhere. It is exercises in
futility, akin to squeezing jello."

Squeezing Jello in Iraq
by Scott Ritter

Violence erupts across Iraq and aid agencies warn of disaster
as US declares battle of Fallujah is over
by Kim Sengupta

New insurgency confronts US forces
by Rory McCarthy and Michael Howard

The overwhelming majority of the world remains opposed to this
ruthless occupation. While Iraqis continue to pay its terrible
price, they may take some comfort from world-wide sympathy for
their agony. Several opinions from around the world were
collected by the Toronto Star:

'What did Falluja do to deserve this?'
Toronto Star

Counterinsurgency run amok

By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online, Nov. 18, 2004

"The people who are doing the beheadings are extremists ...
the people slaughtering Iraqis - torturing in prisons and
shooting wounded prisoners - are 'American heroes'.
Congratulations, you must be so proud of yourselves today." -
Iraqi girl blogger Riverbend

Whom are you going to trust: Fallujah civilians who risked
their lives to escape, witnesses such as Associated Press
photographer Bilal Hussein, hospital doctors, Amnesty
International, top United Nations human-rights official Louise
Arbour, the International Committee of the Red Cross; or the
Pentagon and US-installed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi?

On the humanitarian front, Fallujah is a tragedy. The city has
virtually been reduced to rubble. Remaining residents, the Red
Cross confirms, are eating roots and burying the dead in their
gardens. There's no medicine in the hospitals to help anybody.
The wounded are left to die in the streets - their remains to
be consumed by packs of stray dogs. As, a
Europe-wide collective, puts it, "World governments,
international organizations, nobody raises a finger to stop
the killing." The global reaction is apathy.

Civilians? What civilians?

Asia Times Online sources in Baghdad confirm the anger across
the Sunni heartland - even among moderates - against the
occupation and Allawi has reached incendiary proportions. His
credibility - already low before the Fallujah massacre - is
now completely gone.

Allawi insists on the record that not a single civilian has
died in Fallujah. Obviously nobody in his cabinet told him
what Baghdad is talking about - the hundreds of rotting
corpses in the streets, the thousands of civilians still
trapped inside their homes, starving, many of them wounded,
with no water and no medical aid. And nobody has told him of
dozens of children now in Baghdad's Naaman hospital who lost
their limbs, victims of US air strikes and artillery shells.

A top Red Cross official in Baghdad now estimates that at
least 800 civilians have been killed so far - and this is a
"low" figure, based on accounts by Red Crescent aid workers
barred by the Americans from entering the city, residents
still inside Fallujah, and refugees now huddling in camps in
the desert near Fallujah. The refugees tell horror stories -
including confirmation, already reported by Asia Times Online,
of the Americans using cluster bombs and spraying white
phosphorus, a banned chemical weapon.

The talk in the streets of Baghdad, always referring to
accounts by families and friends in and around Fallujah,
confirms that there have been hundreds of civilian deaths.
Moreover, according to the Red Cross official, since September
Allawi's Ministry of Health has not provided any medical
supplies to hospitals and clinics in Fallujah: "The hospitals
do not even have aspirin," he said, confirming many accounts
in these past few days from despairing Fallujah doctors. The
official spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of US
military reprisal.

Even submitted to media blackout - an al-Arabiya reporter, for
instance, was arrested by the Americans because he was trying
to enter Fallujah - the Arab press is slowly waking up to the
full extent of the tragedy, not only on networks such as
al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, but also in newspapers like the
pro-American Saudi daily Asharq a-Awsat. Our sources say that
most of Baghdad and the whole Sunni triangle is already
convinced that the Americans "captured" Fallujah general
hospital, bombed at least two clinics and are preventing the
Red Crescent from delivering urgent help because as many
bodies as possible must be removed before any independent
observers have a chance to evaluate the real extent of the

Al-Jazeera continues to apologize for not offering more
in-depth coverage, always reminding its viewers that its
Baghdad bureau was shut down indefinitely by Allawi in August.
But many in the Arab world saw its interview with Dr Asma
Khamis al- Muhannadi of Fallujah's general hospital, invaded
and "captured" by the marines. She confirmed that "we were
tied up and beaten despite being unarmed and having only our
medical instruments"; and that the hospital was targeted by
bombs and rockets during the initial siege of Fallujah. When
the marines came she "was with a woman in labor. The umbilical
cord had not yet been cut. At that time, a US soldier shouted
at one of the [Iraqi] National Guards to arrest me and tie my
hands while I was helping the mother to deliver. I will never
forget this incident in my life."

Crucially, Dr al-Muhannadi also confirmed that American
snipers killed more than 17 Iraqi doctors who had mobilized to
answer an appeal from Fallujah's doctors broadcast on
al-Jazeera: information on the massacre has been circulating
in Baghdad for days. Amnesty International, based on the
account of a doctor at the scene, says that 20 Fallujah
medical staff and dozens of civilians were killed when an
American missile destroyed a clinic on November 9.

The failure of 'Iraqification'

On the military front, roughly 3,000 urban guerrillas with
mortars, Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades have
resisted more than 12,000 marines supported by F-16s, AC-130
gunships, Cobra and Apache helicopters, an array of missiles,
500-pound and 2,000-pound bombs, tanks and Bradleys. Sources
in Baghdad close to the resistance tell Asia Times Online that
at least 200 marines are dead, and more than 800 wounded. The
Pentagon - exercising total media blackout - will only admit
to about 50 dead and 350 wounded. Allawi and his cabinet are
spinning more than 1,600 "insurgents" dead; the resistance so
far only admits to a little more than 100.

The resistance says that dozens of marine snipers have taken
six or seven positions along Tharthar Street, the main street
leading to Ramadi, and a few buildings overlooking the
Euphrates in western Fallujah. But residents seem to be free
to move in the narrow alleyways: the Americans only control
the main roads. According to resistance reports, the
mujahideen are constantly changing their positions, moving
apparently undetected inside the areas they still control and
reinforcing different neighborhoods with more cells of five to
20 fighters each.

"Iraqification" - the Mesopotamian counterpart of
Vietnamization - is floundering. After 19 months of
occupation, the Pentagon still has not been able to put an
Iraqi army in place. Baghdad sources confirm the backup plan
has been to give US troops a counterinsurgency field manual.
(The exhaustive 182-page document will be discussed in a
separate article.)

During the Vietnam War, counterinsurgency was conducted by
Special Forces. In Vietnam, the US simply did not understand
that the force of the resistance was its complex clandestine
infrastructure. By killing indiscriminately in covert
operations like Operation Phoenix, the Americans totally
alienated the average Vietnamese.

In Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (Penguin
Press, New York, 2004), Tony Negri and Michael Hardt,
discussing counterinsurgencies, point out how "guerrilla
forces cannot survive without the support of the population
and a superior knowledge of the social and physical terrain".
They could be describing the guerrillas in the Sunni triangle.
"Guerrillas force the dominant military power to live in a
state of perpetual paranoia." In asymmetrical wars like
Vietnam and Iraq, US counterinsurgency tactics must not only
lead to a military victory but to control of the enemy with
"social, political, ideological and psychological weapons".
There's ample evidence these tactics are failing in Iraq.

Like a fish out of water

Negri and Hardt argue that in counterinsurgency "success does
not require attacking the enemy directly but destroying the
environment, physical and social, that supports it. Take away
the water and the fish will die. This strategy of destroying
the support environment led, for example, to indiscriminate
bombings in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, to widespread killing,
torture and harassment of peasants in Central and South
America." This - "take away the water and the fish will die" -
is exactly what's happening in Fallujah. And it won't work,
because "the many noncombatants who suffer cannot be called
collateral damage because they are in fact the direct targets,
even if their destruction is really a means to attack the
primary enemy". Fallujah's population has been the direct
target this time - the "water" that was essential to the
resistance "fish".

But the "fish" are always able to turn the tables "as the
rebellious groups develop more complex, distributed network
structures. As the enemy becomes increasingly dispersed,
unlocalizable, and unknowable, the support environment becomes
increasingly large and indiscriminate." This is exactly the
post-Fallujah scenario - see The real fury of Fallujah,
November 10.

The political infrastructure in Iraq controlled by the Ba'ath
Party for many decades has integrated most of the Islamic
resistance groups under its command with great efficiency. It
has also managed to infiltrate and smash the Iraqi
counterinsurgency force that the Americans were trying to
assemble. The new counterinsurgency field manual means that
unlike Vietnam, counterinsurgency is now being conducted by
marines and GIs. Intuitively, the totally alienated population
of the Sunni triangle (the "water") has already identified the

Iraqification mimics Vietnamization in at least one aspect:
the logic of collective punishment (once again "take away the
water and the fish will die"). The Fallujah assault proved
that for the Pentagon every Sunni Iraqi is the enemy.

The Pentagon maintains there are no civilians in Fallujah. The
horror faced by these "invisible" civilians has not even begun
to emerge, even though precision-strike democracy is being
denounced by those who risked their lives to escape. The
"water" is represented by the "invisible" civilian population
in Fallujah.

In yet another echo of Vietnam, for the Pentagon any dead
Iraqi in Fallujah is a dead guerrilla fighter - and just like
in Vietnam this figure includes "noncombatants", women and
children. In Fallujah, the Pentagon declared, after fully
encircling the city, that women, children and the elderly
might leave, but not men and boys from ages 15 to 55. This
implies that most of the 50,000 to 100,000 civilians trapped
in the city may be these men and boys - many with no taste for
war - along with the unlucky elderly, women and children who
were too poor to leave. But under Pentagon logic the problem
is solved: everyone inside the city is a fighter. Thus no need
for relief from the Iraqi Red Crescent or anyone else.

Counterinsurgency meets 'invisible' civilians

In a press conference in Baghdad, Allawi's Interior Minister
Faleh Hassan al-Naqib finally was forced to admit what Asia
Times Online and an array of independent media have been
reporting since the spring of 2003: that the resistance spans
the whole Sunni heartland, not only Fallujah and the Sunni
triangle (a lot of "water" for a few thousand "fish"); that
the resistance is unified under some form of central command
and control, and is not a bunch of uncoordinated groups; that
the majority, at least 95%, are Iraqis, and not "foreign
fighters" (thus ridiculing the Pentagon's designation of the
resistance as "anti-Iraqi forces"); that former Ba'ath Party
officials and former Iraqi army officers are essential
protagonists; and that they have prepared for urban guerrilla
warfare long before the US invasion.

With Fallujah, the guerrilla strategy has changed. No more
occupying a territory that could be organized as a safe haven
(the city of Fallujah, for instance). The guerrillas are now
network-centered. Negri and Hardt: "The network tends to
transform every boundary into a threshold. Networks are in
this sense essentially elusive, ephemeral, perpetually in
flight ... And, even more frighteningly, the network can
appear anywhere at any time." Think of the new Iraqi
resistance as small, mobile armies striking in Baqubah,
Samarra and Mosul, running away and melting into the local
population, which fully supports them. This is pure Vietminh
tactics - Saddam Hussein's officers were all keen students of
the Vietnam War.

The Americans in Iraq are now confronting a network enemy.
Negri and Hardt say that "confronting a network enemy can
certainly throw an old form of power into a state of universal
paranoia". Thus the fiction of "invisible" civilians in
Fallujah. Thus the "capture" of Fallujah general hospital.
Thus destroying Fallujah in order to "save it". Thus the
marine executing a wounded man, on camera, inside a mosque.
Thus the Vietnam nightmare all over again.

Don't Support the Troops! Not When They Commit War Crimes
By Dave Lindorff, Nov. 16, 2004

It is depressingly predictable how "worked up" the Pentagon
brass gets about an atrocity committed in gross violation of
the Geneva Conventions when the crime is captured on film, as
happened during this recent Fallujah action in the case of an
NBC pool cameraman showing the execution by a US Marine of a
wounded Iraqi captive, and the apparent execution of several
other wounded captives later on.

But does anyone seriously believe that this particularly
grisly atrocity is the only one that occurred during the
week-long and ongoing assault?

The casual way it was done, in front of the embedded
cameraman, makes it clear that quite to the contrary, this
must be standard operating procedure for the American
soldiers, who weren't even worried about about the possible
consequences of their being photographed. (Remember, the
executioner was not alone, and none of his colleagues tried to
stop him.)

How surprised should we be at this bloodthirsty and criminal
behavior? The goal of the assault on Fallujah was not the
capture of a city -- the normal situation in a war. It was the
killing of all the insurgents who were in the city.

Consider this. The approach taken to this assault was first to
ring the city with a cordon of over 10,000 heavily armed
troops, supported by virtually the entire fleet of U.S.
warplanes in the Iraq theater--F-15s, F-18s, A-10 Warthogs and
helicopter and fixed- wing gunships. Women and children were
allowed to leave the doomed city, but all males "of fighting
age" were turned back if they tried to leave.

You have to ask: turned back for what purpose?

If the goal was to capture potential guerrillas, here were the
men and boys trying to leave, offering themselves up to be
arrested, investigated, interrogated and even held in
detention. But instead of this, they were turned back to face
the coming attack (this action in itself was a major violation
of the Geneva Conventions, which require armies to allow
non-combatants to leave the scene of combat). If they were
really fighters, did it make sense to send them back into
Fallujah where they could pick up weapons and possibly kill
U.S. soldiers? If the goal was to capture insurgents, then
these unfortunates would simply have to be captured later,
accomplishing the same thing, but under much more dangerous
circumstances for both them and for their U.S. attackers.

Clearly the real goal all along was something else: to kill
them all - insurgents, potential insurgents, and any other
"fighting age" males (that included little boys as young as
15!) unlucky enough to be residents of Fallujah.

That such horrors are going on in our name should be no
surprise. This war was never about "liberation." It is about

That so little is being said about it here in the U.S. is a

"Support the troops" we are told.

But we cannot do that, if the troops are engaged in criminal

Surely no American would wish harm to the many thousands of
good men and women, boys and girls who have been snatched away
from their families and their lives to fight Bush's war in
Iraq. We want them all home safe, immediately. But no one
should be blindly adopting a slogan that implies supporting
what the troops are doing in Iraq, which we know includes
atrocities worthy of the German SS.

It should be clear to any thinking person that the U.S. cannot
win in Iraq. Unable to defeat the insurgency in there, the
U.S. has turned to terror and to military tactics -- the
executing of wounded and captured fighters, the turning back
of refugees, the denial of water and food to people in
Fallujah, the barring of ambulances and medics from the scene
of battle, the deliberate destruction of medical facilities
and the capture and closure of hospitals -- that are on their
face war crimes. Yet in adopting such tactics, the U.S. is
ensuring that it cannot win either. The criminal behavior of
American troops in Fallujah, so reminiscent of the behavior of
Serbian troops in Bosnia, now broadcast over all of the Middle
East, merely encourages more Arab and Iraqi fighters to enlist
in the growing anti-American jihad.

And let's face it, the confining of fleeing, unarmed males to
Fallujah on the eve of the assault of that city, and the
return of fleeing unarmed men and boys during the heat of
battle (reporrted widely in the U.S. media), is no different
than the herding up and execution of adult males in Sbrynica
by Serb militia. The Serb war criminals, who had no air force,
had to kill their victims by small arms fire. All the U.S. war
criminals (and here I'm referring to the colonels and generals
and Defense Department officials who set the policy on
refugees) have had to do is force them to stay trapped in the
killing zone.

If you want to support the troops, bring them home.

Nothing else is going to save them, either from the enemy, or
from the criminal policies of their own leadership.,,2089-1357699,00.html

US accused of 'torture flights'

By Stephen Grey, The Times of London, Nov. 14, 2004

An executive jet is being used by the American intelligence
agencies to fly terrorist suspects to countries that routinely
use torture in their prisons.

The movements of the Gulfstream 5 leased by agents from the
United States defence department and the CIA are detailed in
confidential logs obtained by The Sunday Times which cover
more than 300 flights.

Countries with poor human rights records to which the
Americans have delivered prisoners include Egypt, Syria and
Uzbekistan, according to the files. The logs have prompted
allegations from critics that the agency is using such regimes
to carry out "torture by proxy" - a charge denied by the
American government.

Some of the information from the suspects is said to have been
used by MI5 and MI6, the British intelligence services. The
admissibility in court of evidence gained under torture is
being considered in the House of Lords in an appeal by
foreign-born prisoners at Belmarsh jail, south London, against
their detention without trial on suspicion of terrorism.

Over the past two years the unmarked Gulfstream has visited
British airports on many occasions, although it is not
believed to have been carrying suspects at the time.

The Gulfstream and a similarly anonymous-looking Boeing 737
are hired by American agents from Premier Executive Transport
Services, a private company in Massachusetts.

The white 737, registration number N313P, has 32 seats.

It is a frequent visitor to American military bases, although
its exact role has not been revealed.

More is known about the Gulfstream, which has the registration
number N379P and can carry 14 passengers. Movements detailed
in the logs can be matched with several sightings of the
Gulfstream at airports when terrorist suspects have been
bundled away by US counterterrorist agents.

Analysis of the plane's flight plans, covering more than two
years, shows that it always departs from Washington DC. It has
flown to 49 destinations outside America, including the
Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba and other US military
bases, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan,
Libya and Uzbekistan.

Witnesses have claimed that the suspects are frequently bound,
gagged and sedated before being put on board the planes, which
do not have special facilities for prisoners but are kitted
out with tables for meetings and screens for presentations and
in-flight films.

The US plane is not used just for carrying prisoners but also
appears to be at the disposal of defence and intelligence
officials on assignments from Washington.

Its prisoner transfer missions were first reported in May by
the Swedish television programme Cold Facts. It described how
American agents had arrived in Stockholm in the Gulfstream in
December 2001 to take two suspected terrorists from Sweden to

At the time of what was presented as an "extradition" to
Egypt, Swedish ministers made no public mention of American
involvement in the detention of Ahmed Agiza, 42, and Muhammed
Zery, 35, who was later cleared.

Witnesses described seeing the prisoners handed to US agents
whose faces were masked by hoods. The clothes of the
handcuffed prisoners were cut off and they were dressed in
nappies covered by orange overalls before being forcibly given
sedatives by suppository.

The Gulfstream flew them to Egypt, where both prisoners
claimed they were beaten and tortured with electric shocks to
their genitals. Despite liberal Swedish laws on freedom of
information, diplomatic telegrams on the case released to the
media were edited to conceal the complaints of torture.

Hamida Shalaby, Agiza's mother, said: "The mattress had
electricity . . . When they connected to the electricity, his
body would rise up and then fall down and this up and down
would go on until they unplugged electricity."

A month before the Swedish extradition, the same Gulfstream
was identified by Masood Anwar, a Pakistani newspaper reporter
in Karachi. Airport staff told Anwar they had seen Jamil
Gasim, a Yemeni student who was suspected of links to
Al-Qaeda, being bundled aboard the jet by a group of white men
wearing masks. The jet took Gasim to Jordan, since when he has

"The entire operation was so mysterious that all persons
involved in the operation, including US troops, were wearing
masks," a source at the airport told Anwar.

On another mission, in January 2002, a Gulfstream was seen at
Jakarta airport to deport Muhammad Saad Iqbal, 24, an Al-Qaeda
suspect who was said by US officials to be an acquaintance of
Richard Reid, the British "shoe-bomber" jailed in America for
trying to blow up a flight from Paris to Miami.

An Indonesian official told an American newspaper that Iqbal
was "hustled aboard an unmarked, US-registered Gulfstream . .
. and flown to Egypt", where almost nothing has been heard of
him since.

The CIA Gulfstream's flight logs show it flew from Washington
to Cairo, where it picked up Egyptian security agents, before
apparently going on to Jakarta to take Iqbal to Egypt.

Another transfer involved a British citizen. On November 8,
2002, the Gulfstream took off for Banjul in Gambia. On the
same day Wahab Al-Rawi, a 38-year-old Briton, was among four
people arrested at the airport by local secret police and
handed over to interrogators who said they were "from the US

Wahab said he had previously been questioned by MI5 because
his brother Basher, an Iraqi national, was an acquaintance of
Abu Qatada, the radical London-based cleric.

When Wahab asked the CIA agents for access to the British
consul, as required under the Vienna Convention signed by
America, the agents are said to have laughed. "Why do you
think you're here?" one agent said to Wahab. "It's your
government that tipped us off in the first place." Wahab was
later released but Basher was sent to Guantanamo and remains
there and has yet to be accused of any specific crime.

Some former CIA operatives and human rights campaigners claim
the agency and the Pentagon use a process called "rendition"
to send suspects to countries such as Egypt and Jordan. They
are then tortured largely to gain information for the
Americans who, it is alleged, encourage these countries to use
aggressive interrogation methods banned under US law.

Bob Baer, a former CIA operative in the Middle East, said: "If
you want a serious interrogation you send a prisoner to
Jordan. If you want them to be tortured you send them to
Syria. If you want someone to disappear . . . you send them to

Among the countries where prisoners have been sent by America
is Uzbekistan, a close ally and a dictatorship whose secret
police are notorious for their interrogation methods,
including the alleged boiling of prisoners. The Gulfstream
made at least seven trips to the Uzbek capital.

The details bolster claims by Craig Murray, the former British
ambassador, that America has sent terrorist suspects from
Afghanistan to Uzbekistan to be interrogated by torture.

In a memo, whose disclosure last month contributed to Murray's
removal, he told Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, that the
CIA station chief in Tashkent had "readily acknowledged
torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence".

The CIA and Premier declined to discuss the allegations over
the planes. The American government, however, denies it is in
any way complicit in torture and says it is actively working
to stamp out the practice.


If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
( or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and
this disclaimer.

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland

"Escaping The Matrix - 
Global Transformation: 
    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:
Informative links: