Bruce Bawer was foolish enough to go to a Johan Galtung lecture at the University of Oslo yesterday, about where "the next war" will be. You haven't begun thinking about the next war yet? The neo-cons certainly have, and Galtung's crystal ball - the same one he used to predict the nuking of Afghanistan - tells us where. Here's Bawer's report (translated):

The "lecture" was a mess. On 7.11.03 Saddam offered to negotiate about oil, wmd's, democracy in Iraq and the Israel/Palestine conflict, and Pentagon refused! The Americans killed 600 000 Filipinos in 1905! Eastern Europe is now part of NATO! When The US and Norway goes to war in Azerbaijan (which, btw, is the next war) to preserve existing borders, France will not oppose it, because they fear that if they support the new borders then the Catalans and Bretons will want new borders too! The US has killed 12-16 million people all over the world, 6 million of them by the CIA (covert), 6 million by the Pentagon (overt), most of them cooperative farmers and union workers! Kerry is no better than Bush - it would in fact be better to keep the idiot everyone sees through than to switch to a smart candidate who will continue the occupation of Iraq! We need a boycott of American products (Coke, McDonalds), but also a "girlcott" - ie. to buy more from the good countries. A Nazi inspired German American in the US State Department did something horrible once (can't remember what) in Venezuela!

After 9/11, Bush ought to have said: "That was horrible, but it's a signal that we have a flawed foreign policy." I laughed out loud (unintentionally).

We need a Truth and Reconciliation Committee in Iraq (to deal, not with what happened under Saddam, of course, but what happened under American rule!) There's also need for a Helsinki Commission in the Middle East. Galtung said (in English - a few times he switched to English, not sure why): "If you do this, terrorism will melt like snow in the early spring sunshine." Great applause.

There are 200 countries in the world, 2000 nations (ie. ethnic groups), but only 20 countries that are also nations, where the entire population belongs to the same ethnic group. These countries have solved their problems! Norway would be one of them if we didn't have the Sami. But Sweden is; and so is Denmark. (He forgets that 12% of the population in Sweden, 8% in Denmark, are first generation immigrants).

The "lecture" seemed incoherent, but it's all connected, of course - everything could be explained by the Protocols of the Elders of America, the Joint Chiefs of Staff document JCS 570/2, which he wrote up on the blackboard and mentioned repeatedly. (If you google for JCS 570/2, you mainly find documents written by Galtung and other "peace researchers".)

Depressingly, there were about 40 people in the audience who gave him a warm applaud at the end, and laughed at his "jokes".

It may be of interest to you to learn that he used the Pentagon quote again.

I think Bruce has learned his lesson. As much fun as it might seem to take a closer look into the mind of "Earth's foremost researcher on peace", don't. You don't want to know.

The Pentagon quote he refers to, btw, is the Ralph Peters out-of-context quote I wrote about earlier, where "Pentagon" supposedly reveals its wicked plan for the future. It's a favorite of peace activists who can't be bothered to look up sources.

Galtung confusing? Not very surprising. He mostly is.

But when it comes to the 'next' war being in Azerbaijan he might have a point. Central-Asia is becoming more an more strategically important, and it is an unknown "battleground" between major powers like the United States, Russia, China and regional powers like Iran.

In addition several central-Asian countries are facing Islamist insurgency. And most of the Central-Asian countries are anything but democratic (the worst example, perhaps, being Turkmenistan - see my article "En Saddam i ovnen" http://www.dilettant.no/index.php?page=vis_artikkel&ArtID=66)

Then, on the other hand, most of these despots are friendly towards the West, unlike the Iranian rulers or Saddam Hussein. Considering that, and that some neocons certainly enjoy the idea of attacking Iran (http://www.dilettant.no/index.php?page=vis_artikkel&ArtID=258) - maybe that's "our" next war.

Anyway, no one should focus too long on Galtungs prophecies. Though it has happened that he has been right about stuff few believed, he does have an ability to see very odd stuff in that crystal ball of his.

....6 million by the Pentagon (overt), most of them cooperative farmers

Yeah, we here in America just hate cooperative farmers.

The nice thing about making predictions, as Johan Galtung has done, is that if you make enough of them, eventually chances are that one will come true. People will then ignore the ones that failed to materialize and focus on the one/s that did. It’s an old ploy used by hucksters who predict earthquakes, tidal waves, famine, disease and war.

The key to success in this endeavor is to make plausible predictions. For example, if you predict an earthquake near San Francisco, there is an active fault there, so your chances are better at hitting the mark than if you predict an earthquake in a less geologically active region. Johan Galtung has done his homework and predicted a war in an already unstable region. I am not too familiar with the man or his level of credibility but maybe Azerbaijan is where the next war will be, Iran is also a good guess as is Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, Georgia, etc.

Øyvind, I would be interested to reads your articles in English. If you have any translations please link them.

-- Eastern Europe is now part of NATO!--

And this is a bad thing???

Only if you're a commie.

Sorry about that. Should have warned people about the language, I presume.

When it comes to the article about Turkmenistan it is, as mentioned, my own. I have not had the time to translate it into English, but you can read a more recent article about the country in The Telegraph.

The article about Perle and Frums book is an article I have translated from English. The original is available at for instance TomPaine.com

Øyvind

Mostof the US tabloids have house psychics, who every January trot out a laundry list of amazing things they predict will happen during the year. And then, throughout the year they manage to foresee more amazing things they missed at the year's beginning.

But what the tabloids unaccountably miss doing is publishing a scorecard at years end of which predictions came to pass and what the psychic's percentage is. I dunno, I'd figure it'd be big news: "Our house psychic scores 98% prediction fulfillment!" Maybe by then everyone already knows how the year went and is focussed on the next year's crop of amazing predictions.

Oh, and thanks to Norway in advance for your support in Azerbaijan (I assume you'll be on our side).

Well, Norwegian oil companies would probably be anyway. Azerbaijan is a major investment area for Statoil...

Note to Ayn Rand-supporters: You should start reading about Human Rights abusement in Azerbaijan already now. They're friendly now of course, but who knows who the next demon is. Is it you? Is it me? Is it some Azeri?

An Amnesty report on human rights and oil in Azerbaijan - in Norwegian

Amnestys themepage on the country

Øyvind

P.S: This is meant not only as sarcasm towards Ayn Rand supporters - I sincerely think that people should be more interested in what's going on in Central Asia, especially regarding human rights issues.

Steve Skubinna: "Oh, and thanks to Norway in advance for your support in Azerbaijan (I assume you'll be on our side)."

So Galtung tells us.

Øyvind: The review of An End to Evil is rather unfair. I'll admit there's something about the book, an easygoing attitude, that disturbs me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the book was part of the inspiration for my April 1 parody.

But it's just not true that Frum and Perle advocate an invasion of Iran - they specifically talk about supporting the Iranian opposition movement the way the US supported the Polish opposition movement. Nothing wrong with that.

Another example from the review: "It's a standard refrain for defenders of Israel's own excesses: if you dare to criticize Ariel Sharon's thuggish policy toward the occupied territories, the expansionist settler movement, the building of The Wall, etc., then you are prima facie anti-Semitic."

That's just ridiculous - both when applied to "defenders of Israel" in general, and to Frum and Perle. Pointing out the overlap between anti-semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric is not the same as calling all Israel critics anti-semites. Some people do seem to cross that line, but they're a fringe minority. The reviewer has no basis for making that statement.

The whole review has a condescending tone that settles for mocking straw men of Frum and Perle without seriously taking on their arguments. Okay, so it's not a very deep book, and it's essentially just a long op-ed, but it deserves to be taken seriously.

Regrettably I have not had the chance to read the book myself, I ordered it from Amazon, but for some strange reason (!) they could not get hold of it. Therefore I can not say that I agree or disagree with Dreyfuss' on his review.

However, I am not sure that it is the review which is unfair. I have also read quite a few other reviews suggesting similar things as Dreyfuss, for instance:

Washington Monthly

Christian Science Monitor

Intellectual Conservative

I on the other hand, might be unfair. What Perle and Frum are advocating is "regime change" in Iran, and not necessarily one by war. Still, there is no secret that quite a few neocons do enjoy the idea of a war against what the two of them call "the terrorist mullahs".

Maybe what they are saying about France is more worrisome.

Øyvind

Bjørn wrote:

That's just ridiculous - both when applied to "defenders of Israel" in general, and to Frum and Perle. Pointing out the overlap between anti-semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric is not the same as calling all Israel critics anti-semites. Some people do seem to cross that line, but they're a fringe minority.

-

As mentioned, Amazon never delivered my copy of their book, so I can not say for sure about Perle and Frum. However, I disagree with you about the "fringe minority" - and why?

Because I personally have been called anti-Semite, or at least anti-Semitism has been hinted, several times, even by members in the Norwegian Christian Democrats. They're not "fringe", are they?

Furthermore I have noticed, just like you, that artwork like Dror Feilers "Snowwhite..." have been referred to as anti-Semitic (and so have cartoon drawings of Ariel Sharon, eventhough the exact same methods are used as in cartoon drawings of for instance Arafat, Carl I. Hagen og Kristin Halvorsen).

This is truly unfair, but still something I have seen from far more people than a "fringe minority". I would not call mainstream Israeli politicians, nor Israeli newspapers, nor an Israeli ambassador "belonging to a fringe minority". The weapon of screaming anti-Semite is being used as a useful propaganda tool far too often and by people that should know better.

I do think that Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has quite a few points when it comes to anti-Semitism and critique of Israel. Of course, he too has been labeled an anti-Semite - this time, I admit, by "fringe" groups.

Sadly, however, anti-Semitism sometimes disguises itself as anti-Zionism or as critique of Israel. There's an overlap there, an overlap that is at least somewhat comparable to the overlap of rigid McCarthy-style anti-Communism and critique of Cuba.

Øyvind

Øyvind: I challenge you to find any significant support for an invasion of Iran among "neo-cons" or anyone else who wants Iranian regime change. It may exist, but the view I've encountered most often is that the Iranian regime must go - but that it's the people of Iran that must remove it, vocally, financially (and at most covertly) backed by the Americans.

That view may change of course as the Iranian nuclear programme continues, but if it has changed already that's news to me.

The three other reviews you link to are more serious than the Dreyfuss one. The second gives a fair overview of its message, and the other two argue against that message. I'm not saying you can't disagree with this book. (Its largest problem is that it preaches to the choir - few serious efforts are made to convince anyone who does not already share the worldview of the authors.) But the way Dreyfuss does it is superficial and inaccurate.

The best reason to read this book is to gain an insight into influential, conservative thinking on US foreign policy, to learn _what_ they believe. There's been amazingly little written about that in Norway. It's rare to see coverage go any deeper than the "Bush is dumb and evil" formula. The world's most powerful nation went to war last year, and most Norwegians never even knew why.

Re antisemitism/anti-Israelism: There's a difference between saying that "defenders of Israel equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism", which Dreyfuss does, and "defenders of Israel often exaggerate the overlap between anti-Israelism and antisemitism". The second is true, the first is not.

What concerns me most here is not antisemitism masquerading as criticism of Israel, but the probably unintentional import of old antisemitic rhetorics into modern Israel criticism. The "powerful Jewish lobby in Washington" is a good example. I won't call people who use that kind of rhetoric antisemites, but I will say that the historical origin of that rhetoric is probably antisemitic.

Have you got a link to the whole text by Bawer? The norwegian version that you translated?

Galtung is an excellent example of how far you can get with tons of self-confidence, good rhetorical skills and no regard to empirical evidence (which only get in the way anyway). In Bergen last year, when he presented his latest prediction - the demise of the "American empire" within 20 years - he took great care in relating to the fawning audience how he had been prodded by "high ranking EU officials" to share his latest insight with them, as well as reminding everyone who predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire.

He didn't mention the fate of some of his other ca 10 000 prophecies. Niels Chr Geelmuyden lists 50 of them in his book "Vår daglige død". A little cherrypicking: in 1992, Galtung suggested that a war between the US and Japan was imminent. In 1984, he predicted a new cultural revolution in China in 1986, arguing that this takes place in 9-year cycles. In 1991, he argued that "the conflict in Yugoslavia is nearing its end". In 1987 he claimed that the Norwegian political establishment would take Norway into the EU without a referendum (Norway said no in a referendum a few years later). In 1969, he suggested that "by 1980, marriages will no longer be common. Group marriages on the other hand will be a quite frequent phenomenon."

I can understand why some high school students are seduced by his simplified world view, but I dont understand why he is taken seriously by people who should know better, and why even "quality" Norwegian newspapers and magazines (like Samtiden) seem more than willing to serve as a mouth piece for his crackpot theories (which include heavy doses of anti-zionism and conspiracy theories). Maybe part of the explanation is the admiration we in Norway nourish for Norwegians with an "international reputation". Among Norwegian intellectuals, there seems to be an impression that Galtung is a huge name on the international intellectual scene. A friend of mine who's doing an MA in Philosophy even claimed that Galtung was "underrated" here in Norway.

Harald: "Have you got a link to the whole text by Bawer?"

No, this was a mail.

Interesting thread this. I can't go to all such events, and I am happy to read about them even though this was a very negative report of the event. I have heard Galtung twice, and his style and the reactions in the audience remind me of religious sects. Some of his statements are hard to understand in any conceivable kind of context... He's (erhm)... a LITTLE arrogant.

Bjørn said: "There's a difference between saying that "defenders of Israel equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism", which Dreyfuss does, and "defenders of Israel often exaggerate the overlap between anti-Israelism and antisemitism". The second is true, the first is not"

I do partly agree with you there. But you should keep in mind that some defenders of Israel actually do equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and quite a few tend to do a lot in practice even if they claim to restrain from it in theory.

The equation that often is being made is dangerous, not only can it fog the issues at hand in Israel, it can also help to legitimize genuine antisemitism in the eyes of those who are sceptical to Israelic policy.

"The world's most powerful nation went to war last year, and most Norwegians never even knew why"

Well, they did stress this point about weapons of mass destruction, didn't they? That was the argument used to convince both Americans and Europeans, and though other considerations obviously are a part of it, I think most Norwegians caught that one. I also think most people caught the word "liberate".

However, you are right that Norwegian media has written disappointly little on the neoconservative ideology. What has been written has often been oversimplified.

And now to the challenge (I love challenges)

Neocons wanting to attack Iran?

You're right that the stated view of most of them - including for instance Perle and Leeden - is that it is possible to liberate Iran from within. Diplomatic talks with the mullahs are considered rather despicable, of course,

Ledeen has said, in a speech at the Herzliya Conference:

" In short, I think that Iran is not going to change, and that what we have in Iran is an outright challenge that can best be met, and I am much more optimistic than Patrick [Clawson], they can be best met the same way we met the challenge of Afghanistan and Iraq, namely by changing the regime"

He claims that military action is not necessary to achieve this goal. Am I stupid to read the following between the lines: "but if it is..."?

Actually, president Bush - maybe not even truthfully a neocon - himself might have answered that one for me back in the 2002 State of the Union adress

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do WHAT IS NECESSARY to ensure our nation's security".

Anyway, there are neocons that are clearer, one of them is Charles Krauthammer. He writes:

"Syria is weak and deterred by Israel. North Korea, having gone nuclear, is untouchable. That leaves Iran. What to do? There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities. The country should be ripe for revolution. The regime is detested. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening, [w]hich makes the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent"

"There may be no deus ex machina. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the ``Great Satan'' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive strike. Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away -- in Iraq"

Øyvind

I should perhaps add one thing: I do not really believe that the next war the US will be involved in will be in Iran, I only argue that some neocons in the States seem more than willing to do further warfare, also in Iran.

I can not see to much fighting in the streets of Teheran in my very own crystal ball, and personally think that a revolution in the country is far more likely than any foreign military action against it. Or, at least, I hope so.

Oyvind, give us time, 3 years is too short.

The Iranians are still too disorganized, they protest piecemeal.

Iranian Students for Democracy is a good site.

If you don't get the vapors, Rantburg. Of course, it just might give you a grabber.....

Know your stuff and you'll do fine.

Besides, read Hammorabi.

What do you guys think of the black turban demands on the EU?

I think Britain should put a few bases in Iran, sure, we'll be delighted to give you security guarantees against Israel. Will 5 bases do it or would you prefer 10?

I think we might even be able to talk the Americans into providing some manpower.

Øyvind: I believe there will be a reluctant increase in support of a strike on/invasion of Iran as the revolution fails to arrive and nuclear research progresses, or at least a willingness to use tougher measures, with war being the final one. I may be forced to move in that direction myself, (though not yet).

But the keyword here is "reluctant", and the contrast to Iraq is striking. With Iraq, there were so many good reasons to overthrow Saddam. So what if the nukes weren't there? At least there's now the possibility of a democratic, pro-Western, peaceful oil state being created where there used to be a tyrannic, anti-Western and militaristic hell-hole, and we're now certain that there is no nuclear threat where there used to be confusion.

With Iran, there's no such enthusiasm for invasion. Nobody _wants_ to do it. Everyone can see that there's a great possibility of a democratic revolution in the near future, and there's no telling how an invasion (or a strike on nuclear installations) will affect that. Only fear of a very concrete nuclear threat in the immediate future will convince people, and there will be very little cheering for it.

The language Bush uses is of course intended as a threat (see what we're about to do to Iraq? You could be next). But one he'll be very reluctant to enforce militarily.

When the nuclear threat from Iran becomes obvious enough to convince neo-con style idealists, it will be obvious enough to convince others as well. Invasion of Iran is just not a neo-con issue, (unlike regime change in Iran, which is.)

What you say _does_ apply to Frum and Perle when it comes to North Korea. I don't have the book in front of me now, but from what I recall they did talk about strikes on North Korea. Which is completely reckless.

"Well, they did stress this point about weapons of mass destruction, didn't they? That was the argument used to convince both Americans and Europeans, and though other considerations obviously are a part of it, I think most Norwegians caught that one."

That's what they sold the war with to the UN, and of course they should be held accountable to that. But any real examination of the American motives behind the war on Iraq would have gone deeper than that, and investigated how supporters of the war actually thought about the issue. This wasn't very difficult, but it didn't happen. (For instance, the term "neo-conservative" itself only came in regular use after the war.)

The consequence of this has been to leave Norwegians open for conspiracy theories (Fahrenheit 9/11) and misapplied historical lessons (evil Vietnam Republicans).

I saw Fahrenheit 911 when I visited Belgium last month, they're ahead of us on the movie front. And, "conspiracy theories". Please, now it is you that are being unfair.

Michael Moore can be criticized for many things, but not for being a conspiracy buff (and this becomes even more obvious when reading his books).

The movie focuses on the relationship between Saudi officials and the Bush family, relationships that are very real. It also makes a point out of bin Ladens being flied out of the US after 911 - something that did happen. Furthermore, Moore suggests that the ties between the Saudis and al Qa'eda are more real than the ties between the Iraqis and al Qa'eda ever were. And he has a point.

When it comes to being 'reluctant' - when Clinton was president most Republicans where more than reluctant when it came to bombing Iraq. Clinton was in fact criticized for 'wagging the dog' and trying to take focus away from the Lewinsky affair. The scoundrel. You are perfectly right that there is reluctancy when it comes to an invasion of Iran (this would be almost as crazy as invading North Korea), but I think you will find plenty of voices that want limited military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Some just call for 'dealing with Iran' (Frontpagemag: "A litany of leftist lies") without saying how. Well, they do say diplomacy is useless.

John Hawkins in American Daily said it like this back in 2003:

"Iran also has WMD and is building nukes and they're the world's premier sponsor of terrorism. Why aren't we hitting them now instead of Iraq? Two reasons. First off, because of Iraq's defiance of the UN since the Gulf War, we can get much more worldwide support for an invasion of Iraq. There would be almost no worldwide support for an invasion of Iran. Secondly, the mullahs in Iran are holding on by their fingertips. It's entirely possible that the Iranian people may be able to overthrow their government without the US military having to get involved. Last but not least, do keep in mind that one way or the other, we're going to have to deal with Iran. Just because they're not next, doesn't mean they're off the agenda".

One way or the other.

And just look at this one:

"7) Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,

"(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan -- although they're not our last target".

"At least there's now the possibility of a democratic, pro-Western, peaceful oil state being created where there used to be a tyrannic, anti-Western and militaristic hell-hole, and we're now certain that there is no nuclear threat where there used to be confusion"

Confusion? Okay, I could understand that when it comes to bacterial or chemical weapons, I am actually quite surprised that no such weapons have yet to be found (and quite probably never will be found) - since several Western countries gladly contributed to Saddams arsenal when his country wasn't anti-western, but merely a tyrannic and militaristic hell-hole.

I was against the war in Iraq, for several reasons , and sadly - I must say - I have been proven right on several accords. Instead of removing a terrorist base the war has contributed to creating a new one. Iraq is still a militaristic hell-hole. I hope that democracy will prevail, but I fear that it won't, and then - perhaps - Iraq will return to being, once more, a tyrannic, but Western-friendly, country.

But let's get back to the confusion. Iraq did not have any potential to make nuclear weapons before the war and we knew it. We had it pointed out to us by people like Imad Khadduri and Scott Ritter. In addition, we knew that the IAEA reported in 1998 that the Iraqi nuclear abilities had been neutralized and we knew that the IAEA never found any hint of the Iraqi nuclear program being reinitiated, eventhough, as Mohamed El Baradei stated in his report to the UN the 14th February last year: ' Iraq has continued to provide immediate access to all locations'.

Amazingly enough this war has proven Colin Powell right. Back in February 2001 he said basically the same thing as Ritter said:

'[T]he Foreign Minister [of Egypt] and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors'

Freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator? Now, there you have a very valid argument! What I wish for however is that some neocon or some right-wing Norwegian for that matter could tell me: When are we going to 'deal with' the tyrannical hellholes that we are friendly with and even supportive of today? Wouldn't we have better chances reasoning with our friends than bullying around with our enemies?

When are we going to deal with Saudi-Arabia - a regime with so many disgusting similarities to Talibans? When are we going to protest against Saparmurad Niyazovs building of a personal cult in Turkmenistan? When are we going to do something in Azerbaijan, except of investing in their rich oil reserves? Why are we suddenly getting friendly with Libya - eventhough as good as nothing has changed there when it comes to human rights, except that Gadaffi has softened as a possible positive side effect of the Iraq war?

These are questions I think we all discuss too little, whether we are left-wing like me or right-wing like most of this blogs visitors.

Øyvind: “Michael Moore can be criticized for many things, but not for being a conspiracy buff (and this becomes even more obvious when reading his books).”

Not the traditional kind, perhaps, but the distance isn't so far. Conspiracy theories assign incredible powers to secret evil networks. They create versions of reality that are easy to visualize, because they're good stories and fit our prejudices, but only loosely related to the truth. In Moore's world, you have the military industrial complex, the oil companies, the Saudis, etc., pulling the strings, and behind every White House facade there are hidden motivations, skilled manipulation by evil power addicts. Real life isn't as simple as that. All politicians are a little dishonest, but almost no politicians are entirely dishonest. Moore implies more than he spells out, but his intellectual style is that of the conspiracy theorist, (and his artistic style that of the propagandist), not the style of the careful historian. He tells good stories, not true ones, and he'll settle for factoids and half-truths if it serves the overall point he's making.

“Furthermore, Moore suggests that the ties between the Saudis and al Qa'eda are more real than the ties between the Iraqis and al Qa'eda ever were. And he has a point.”

He does, and nobody has claimed otherwise. Bush may have dishonestly implied that Saddam was involved with 9/11, but he never spelled it out, and outside a small number of Saudi apologists you won't find many who deny that al-Qaeda is backed by powerful segments of the Saudi leadership and aristocracy.

“Some just call for 'dealing with Iran' (Frontpagemag: "A litany of leftist lies") without saying how.”

When they spell out “we should invade Iran”, let me know. There are many options left between standard diplomacy and full scale war. Iraq was invaded because Bush didn't want to explore those options. I believe he does when it comes to Iran.

The John Hawkins quote confirms my point. He's saying that we need to deal with Iran, but shouldn't do it with an invasion. That's what I believe too. Iran poses a serious problem, and the very least the West can do is to give moral support to the opposition. Ie a policy of regime change, of saying “we can't deal with this regime any longer – please have it removed”.

“Iraq is still a militaristic hell-hole. I hope that democracy will prevail, but I fear that it won't, and then - perhaps - Iraq will return to being, once more, a tyrannic, but Western-friendly, country.”

Perhaps. But it has a good chance of something better, if not a full democracy at once, then perhaps a peaceful and mildly repressive state that may take further steps later. Other considerations apart, that chance was worth taking for the Iraqi people. Iraq today is not a “militaristic hell-hole”, it's a chaotic society waiting for a form of government to stabilize, and where the outside world has a considerable interest in making that government democratic. Iraq may now be the first Arab country to become a democracy. Without this war, it might very well have become one of the last, after many more years of torture, repression, war and (after Saddam) civil war.

“ Iraq did not have any potential to make nuclear weapons before the war and we knew it.”

No - some people said they had no such potential. American and British intelligence said they did. Scott Ritter is a poor source. He first formed his view that Iraq posed no nuclear threat after quitting as an inspector. Imad Khadduri is a better source, but not an authoritative one. Even if you could assume that he wasn't lying, (and you couldn't), you certainly couldn't assume that any one Iraqi beneath the top leadership would have that kind of knowledge. The problem was that nobody had good, reliable intelligence from Iraq after the inspectors left. There was a big intelligence void, and in that void people saw their own biases and expectations confirmed. They saw Saddam's previous behavior extrapolated into the present.

And frankly, that was a rational extrapolation. I don't know why Saddam hadn't restarted his nuclear programme, but I find it really difficult to believe that he had no intention of doing it one day. Perhaps he was waiting for the sanctions to end – there was already considerable support for reducing the sanctions when Bush began to advocate war. Or perhaps he was just irrational. But that's my point – that particular fog is now gone. In its place is an Iraq decades ahead of any development that could have taken place without outside influence.

“What I wish for however is that some neocon or some right-wing Norwegian for that matter could tell me: When are we going to 'deal with' the tyrannical hellholes that we are friendly with and even supportive of today? Wouldn't we have better chances reasoning with our friends than bullying around with our enemies?”

“When are we going to deal with Saudi-Arabia - a regime with so many disgusting similarities to Talibans?”

Yes, when are we? I'd like to know that as well. So, in fact, would many Americans, from both sides of the spectrum. There is a large amount of disgust with the Saudis among pro-war bloggers and pundits, and has been since 9/11. I'm not sure why it hasn't translated into any visible change of policy, but this isn't a right-left/war-peace split. It is, perhaps, a realist/idealist split, where Bush on this particular issue has taken the side of the realists.

“ When are we going to protest against Saparmurad Niyazovs building of a personal cult in Turkmenistan? When are we going to do something in Azerbaijan, except of investing in their rich oil reserves?”

Indeed. But again, this isn't about right vs left, or US vs Europe. Nobody really cares about that part of the world beyond practical concerns. I applaud you for trying to change that.

“Why are we suddenly getting friendly with Libya”

That's payment for their coming clean on their nuclear research. I don't see a problem with that, as long as it doesn't translate into permanent acceptance of the Gadaffi regime. Gadaffi has no doubt figured out that he's safer playing by America's rules than by threatening it. That's a lesson other dictators should learn.

Oyvind - you really swallowed the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

Soros directly and Moore indirectly, also have ties to The Carlyle Group.

There are over 60 errors in the movie. No, I refused to see it, but the American blogosphere was abuzz.

--“ Iraq did not have any potential to make nuclear weapons before the war and we knew it.”--

They had enough material to make quite a few bombs.

The next report is due out in September.

--
“What I wish for however is that some neocon or some right-wing Norwegian for that matter could tell me: When are we going to 'deal with' the tyrannical hellholes that we are friendly with and even supportive of today? Wouldn't we have better chances reasoning with our friends than bullying around with our enemies?”--

1. Look to history. Fit Libya into that statement.

2. We don't need to overthrow them all, just enough.

3. When was perfection required? If you can't do it, then don't do it at all?

4. Europe can handle some of these smaller countries, why haven't or don't you? Kosovo comes to mind. Handle Zimbabwe. A complaint from we Americans who pay attention is DO SOMETHING except bitch, moan, whine and complain.

We are not going to allow Europe to cut its' militaries and tell us to DO SOMETHING!, fund it and die while you supervise. Time to put your money where your mouth is. We've been putting our money into you for 60 years.

We're finally bringing another 70K soldiers home from Germany.

And I still want to know about Iraq, the 1st WTC attempt and Oklahoma City. Lots of unanswered questions there. Iraq wasn't about 9/11, I call it unfinished business and location, location, location. Korea and Iran are also unfinished business. Win or lose, we press on, no hudnas.

And why in the world would you want us to tell our enemies our plans?

For what it's worth, there was an off-hand comment in The New York Times recently that Israel is sending signals to the US that if the west fails to get Iran's nuclear program under control, Israel may be forced destroy the nuclear facilities, just like it did in Iraq in 1981.

As I see it, they won't do anything before the November elections, but should Kerry be elected, they might make a move between November and the inauguration in January.

In either case, Israel would be doing the US - and the rest of the world - a great service if it would take such a task upon itself. Let's hope that they do.

This discussion has moved quite a far way from Galtung, hasn't it :).

"[Michael Moore] tells good stories, not true ones, and he'll settle for factoids and half-truths if it serves the overall point he's making".

But at the same time he provides all his sources on his website. You will not find many documentary makers doing that. I have read several discussions on what is facts and not in "Fahrenheit 911", and that he makes some shortcuts is obvious, but how many? I think this summary is one of the best, as it also gives us a walkthrough of some his opponents very own deceits.

And yes - he does hint at "hidden motivations", or rather at motivations that are not that hidden at all. To call his movie a "conspiracy theory" is anyway undoubtly unfair. They are made in the tradition of "New Journalism", are in no way objective, and never pretends to be. They can easily be considered manipulative. But a conspiracy theory? As I said... please!

"There is a large amount of disgust with the Saudis among pro-war bloggers and pundits, and has been since 9/11. I'm not sure why it hasn't translated into any visible change of policy"

Well, I think Michael Moore might have a couple of good suggestions.

"Perhaps. But [Iraq] has a good chance of something better, if not a full democracy at once, then perhaps a peaceful and mildly repressive state that may take further steps later".

I could of course go on for ever with the discussion about Iraqs nuclear and WMD potential. I could also discuss whether Iraq is a militaristic hellhole or not today. I will not.

We are probably not going to agree, and it is of little matter to what should be done in the present situation. What is needed now is to promote democracy in Iraq (alas, many peace activists seem to cross their fingers for the opposite, some go as far as supporting so-called "anti-imperialist fighters").

How should this be done? Well, the States could start by promoting democracy in the entire Middle East - this far they have only launched a couple of minor initiatives which are - in stark contrast to the Iraq-war - not properly funded.

Do like Perle and Frum suggests - support those who fight for democracy in Iran, but do the same in Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, other "friendly" countries. If you don't do it? Well, then you support al Qa'edas recruiting campaign (torturing prisoners won't help, either)

The cooperation between the US and for instance the corrupt Saudi royal family does not go unnoticed in the Muslim world. Alienated young people that see the social injustice around them have few friends to turn to. The US supports their suppressive governments and the news they hear from Iraq aren't very good. Few of their own governments are likely to conduct the necessary reforms. These young men and women often are left with solely one alternative:

The islamists. They promise social justice! They oppose the corrupt regimes! They criticize the West and work for a new and independent era for the Muslim world! They fight for our brothers in Palestine! They... they... they...

What the US, and we in Norway, need to do, Bjørn, is to give those people a realistic alternative. If we don't do that I am afraid the other side is going to win the so-called war on terror.

Sandy P:

The "over 60" errors are quite deceitful themselves - some of them are outright rediculous.

There are quite a few people out there in the blogosphere that will make all sorts of claims against Michael Moore. New journalism often does that to people.

I am sure Mikey finds it amusing really. And sadly, he has a good reason to laugh - because when people make up rediculous "errors" their credibility disappears when they point out those factual mistakes and distortions that actually do exist as well.

"Europe can handle some of these smaller countries, why haven't or don't you? Kosovo comes to mind. Handle Zimbabwe. A complaint from we Americans who pay attention is DO SOMETHING except bitch, moan, whine and complain"

Please notice that I said we in the post you responded to. Since I am a European "we" does not mean "The United States", well, at least not "The United States alone".

In my response to Bjørn I have pointed out one of the things I think the states should do. For Norway it is much the same - we should support those people that work for democracy in the Middle East a lot more than we do today.

If Norway had used to money we used on sending a miniscule contigent to Iraq on this instead I am sure that would make some happy faces around the Arab peninsula. If we used a bit more - who knows what we could achieve? If we focused not only on using money, but also on criticizing our business partners in for instance Iran and Libya in more than a "well, I have to do this, but then we can get on with business"-sort of way that could help too.

Today Norway is like in the old leftist song:

Sjå fridomskjempa Noreg
som fyk opp som ei løve
men fell ned som ein skinnfell
når ho blir sett på prøve

(Look at Norway, the giant of freedom, she rises like a lion, but falls like an empty hide, when she is tested)

Øyvind

P.S: Oklahoma City? Unanswered questions? Please indulge me.

Oyvind, Bergen . . .

Hello. I really love your tone. WE should do everything. YOU don't have to do anything. WE are
ignorant, yet crazy RIGHTWINGERS. YOU are the rational humanitarian LEFTWINGER.

You are hiding behind labels instead of thinking things through. Why not mentally join the fight against chaos and antidemocratic forces that have billions and billions of oil dollars with which to spread their poisonous creeds.

You're a bit parasitical aren't you? Expecting others to do all your dirty work and chastizing them because they don't do it fast enough for Your Highness.

Have I ever referred to you as crazy or as ignorant? Don't think so. Have I ever said that "you" are to do this and that.

What have I done? Well, I have stated my opinion on what the United States should do, and I have stated my opinion on what Norway should do. Is there something wrong with that, or am I writing something between the lines without even knowing it myself?

I am not a guru, just a freelance journalist who at times does voluntary work for Amnesty. I could probably have done a lot more to promote human rights. Hopefully, some day I will.

Øyvind: “This discussion has moved quite a far way from Galtung, hasn't it :).”

Don't worry. There's not much to say about Galtung, so this thread is open.

“I have read several discussions on what is facts and not in "Fahrenheit 911", and that he makes some shortcuts is obvious, but how many?”

Yeah, how many? That's the problem. I agree that the search for "lies" in Moore's books and movies can become as desperate as Slate's search for Bushisms, and that some conservatives put Moore to a level of scrutiny they'd never consider for equally dishonest people on their own side, like Ann Coulter. But it's pretty well documented that Moore often lies and distorts the truth. Not always. But a person who lies 10% of the time is untrustworthy 100% of the time.

Of all the distortions that are documented in Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man (which has only the title and one chapter in common with Moore's style), perhaps the sleaziest is his treatment of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. His speeches are cut apart and reassembled, false timelines are presented (or implied), and Moore even implies that Heston (who was part of the civil rights movement in the 60's) is a racist. A totally dishonest character assasination.

Why trust a man who would do that? Everything of value in Moore's work is usually done better and more honestly by other people. Others (like Robert Baer) have written about Saudi influence in Washington. Al Franken does conservative mocking better – he's funnier, and generally honest. All Moore adds is lazyness and distortion, and solid propaganda skills.

I agree with you about promoting democracy in the Middle East. Bush speaks more about democracy than his predecessors, in accordance with neo-con idealism, but he appears to have abandoned Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to realism. It is often necessary to cooperate with these regimes, and we have to remember that there is no viable democratic alternative (the opposition is worse than the regime), but you still can't form stable relationships with them. Both Musharraf and the Saudi royalty may fall any day – investing too much in their regimes is as foolish and wrong as the American investment in Pahlavi in the 70's.

The template for European and American policy on the Middle East should be Bush's new line on Arafat: Regime change before statehood. Similar concrete demands should be made to other countries. Not any openly suicidal demands, but the alternative to risk-taking is to lose all control over how these regimes fall apart.

Totoro: That's a cheap straw man attack. Did you even read what you were replying to?

Øyvind:
Christopher Hitchens - a left-winger- has a good article on Fahrenheit 9/11
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

To O\yvind,

>I would not call mainstream Israeli politicians,
>nor Israeli newspapers, nor an Israeli ambassador
>"belonging to a fringe minority". The weapon of
>screaming anti-Semite is being used as a useful
>propaganda tool far too often and by people that
>should know better.

You can read Israeli media on the web, and I don't think there's too much (if any) "screaming anti-Semite" in response to criticism of Israeli policies. There is a pervasive sense of not getting a fair shake from the Europeans and their media however.

>I do think that Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery
>has quite a few points when it comes to
>anti-Semitism and critique of Israel. Of course,
>he too has been labeled an anti-Semite - this
>time, I admit, by "fringe" groups.

I wouldn't rely on Avnery for information on anything. Avnery's "Peace bloc" is pretty much a fringe group itself - and seems to be treated that way even by the Israeli left.

Shalom, Ohad

"You can read Israeli media on the web, and I don't think there's too much (if any) 'screaming anti-Semite'"

I do read Israeli media on the web, mainly Maariv, Haaretz and Jerusalem Post - because these newspapers obviously all give a better overview of the situation in Israel than any Norwegian publication. I agree with you that there aren't that much of screaming 'anti-Semite'. However, it is done. And when this brand is used unfairly even one time it is too much. The reactions towards for instance "Snowwhite..." where varied, but I often saw claims of anti-Semitism against Feiler.

"I wouldn't rely on Avnery for information on anything. Avnery's "Peace bloc" is pretty much a fringe group itself - and seems to be treated that way even by the Israeli left".

It is true that Gush Shalom can be considered a fringe group. Being "fringe", however, is not necessarily the same as being wrong. And in this case I still think Avnery has quite a few good points. I would like a discussion to focus on these points, instead of focusing on Avnery.

Øyvind

Bjørn:

First of all I think the critique of 'Bowling for Columbine' is rather unfair. It is true that Moore has cutted and pasted from Hestons speaches, but I can not - even with loads of goodwill - see that he has distorted the message given by Heston and the NRA.

A claim that he lies 10% of the time is also highly unfair. Moore is manipulative. He finishes peoples sentences. Sometimes he makes silly mistakes. Sometimes he trusts his liberal newsmedia sources more than a tad too much. Sometimes he deliberately fails to give information that could set other information he gives in perspective.

However, for Republicans to criticize this at the same time as they run a smearing campaign against Kerry (the worst I've seen this far is that they point out that he's rich! Yeah, he's rich. It has been too long of a time since we last saw any realistic American presidential candidate without a fat bank account - and that for sure includes both the Bushes) and following oh-so-many-halftruths about Iraq, connections to al-Qa'ida and WMDs - well, that's just hypocritical. Also - and I feel the need to stress this again - Moore never claims to be objective or even fair.

The Slate-article referred to in a previous post tells us, although the article is highly critical of the movie, about the points Moore tries to make. Let's take a look at those points:

"1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group"

Well, that's true, isn't it?

"2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States"

True again, isn't it?

"3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests"

And... true again?

"4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape."

A point for discussion, this one. But it can hardly be called a lie or a conspiracy theory.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

If you read 'Dude, where's my country' I think it is fairly obvious that this is not the point Moore tries to make. His point is that there are many members of the "Coalition of the Willing" that are somewhat laughable - he should of course have taken the whole list of them in the movie, as he does in his book, because now he only mentions a few, and that can obviously give someone the impression that he's trying to deceit us. Well, he doesn't mention the United Kingdom. But we knew they went along, didn't we?

"6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"

Again, something to discuss. But hardly a lie.

I am not a big Moore fan, as it seems some of the readers of this blog now think. He's a decent movie maker, but his greatest strength is being a satirist, not being a documentarist. His movies and books are all highly subjective and they need to be taken with a grain of salt. And some more. But please don't go "Great Salt Lake" here. And Bjørn, calling it "conspiracy theories" is dangerously close to Salt Lake City.

I have many objections against Moore (I do not really need to take them here, since you do that part of the job for me for free). I have to admit, though, that I do love him for one thing; that's the ability he has proven to raise important questions in American public opinion. If mainstream American media had done it's job properly there wouldn't be a market for Moore.

And in the end, Bjørn, I will have to agree with you - there are others that do what Moore does much better than him. But they don't make that much of a stir, do they? And in my opinion... a stir is needed.

Ok -

After European representatives launched a campaign against Israel’s separation fence, and voted against Israel at the UN general assembly, the EU is planning a separation fence of its own. The EU plans to build a fence to separate its new members - Poland and Hungary - from its new neighbors - Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - to prevent the free movement of migrants seeking to enter the EU.

Israeli companies that specialize in the construction of warning fences and security systems will participate in tenders to build hundreds of kilometers of fences along the EU’s new eastern border.

--"3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests"

And... true again?--

And others hadn't? Only the US was there?

...By 2004, however, when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, things had changed. True, this movie—a compendium of every scurrility ever hurled at George W. Bush, and a few new ones besides, all gleefully stitched together in the best conspiratorial traditions of the “paranoid style in American politics”—did manage to embarrass even several liberal commentators. One of them described the film as a product of the “loony Left,” and feared that its extremism might discredit the “legitimate” case against Bush and the war. Yet in an amazing reversal of the normal pattern in the distribution of prudence, such fears of extremism were more pronounced among liberal pundits than among mainstream Democratic politicians....

From the article I linked above from Podhoretz- the whackadoo wing of the party has taken over.

Start reading Chrenkoff.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/tartakovsky072804.htm

Hanson's rebuttal to F911

Oh, yeah, the defaming of Mo worldwide:

http://thepakistaninewspaper.com/news_detail.php?id=1078

It's not just hate speech in Norway,they want the world.

Øyvind: "It is true that Moore has cutted and pasted from Hestons speaches, but I can not - even with loads of goodwill - see that he has distorted the message given by Heston and the NRA."

He severely distorts their actions. The claim that they deliberately go to post-shoot out areas to spread their message. (The meeting in Denver had been planned long in advance, the second Heston speech Moore refers to took place long after the shooting he ties it too.) And if you compare what Heston actually said in those couple of speeches Moore took quotes from, to what you hear in the movie, the tone is completely different. Moore's whole point here is that the NRA has an angry, callous message it deliberately spreads in recently grief-struck areas. Both these claims are exaggerated. So what, of value, is left? I just don't see the point in commending Moore for the things he say that are actually true, when he is so eager to lie when it fits his message, and so reluctant to admit it afterwards. (Critics of Bowling for Columbine are wacko gun nuts with suspect motives, for instance.)

It's just not worth it scrutinizing Moore for the claims we can actually trust. Yeah, he's a good satirist. I've been watching The Awful Truth, where he mostly goes after smaller fish, (stupid local officials, evil small corporations, etc.), and that's a pretty good show. I'm tempted to like the guy, standing up for the little people like that, even when he makes ridiculous general claims. But then I remember how few scruples he has about distortion, and I realize that I'll just have to double-check everything he's telling me in every single episode to make sure I haven't overlooked any crucial lies. It's not supposed to work like that. You're supposed to at least have some faith that people are fairly honest about their views, that whether or not they're right, they did a fair job to look for the truth. I just can't say that about Moore.

Spinsanity shows the right way here. That's the kind of punditry we need more of - both in the US, Europe and Norway.

"However, for Republicans to criticize this at the same time as they run a smearing campaign against Kerry .. and following oh-so-many-halftruths about Iraq, connections to al-Qa'ida and WMDs - well, that's just hypocritical."

But I'm not a Republican. Careful with "yes but the other side does it worse!"-logic. That's what enables fans of Moore, Coulter and their like to apply their critical skills so selectively.

"Also - and I feel the need to stress this again - Moore never claims to be objective or even fair."

No, but he claims to be truthful.

"I have to admit, though, that I do love him for one thing; that's the ability he has proven to raise important questions in American public opinion."

But he does it in a way that increases hypocrisy on both sides of the big American trench war. Those inclined to believe him are confirmed in their rightousness - look how the evil Republicans are destroying our country! Those who are disinclined to believe him are confirmed in their rightousness as well - look how those lying liberals are trying to destroy America! That trench war, though an improvement of the situation in Norway, is the single biggest problem with American political debate today, because it corrupts all other debates. And because we've imported the views of one side of that war, it also corrupts our debate. Moore is only making this worse.

Øyvind:
""3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests"

And... true again?"

Yes, as had others. The problem is the way this fact is linked to the invasion of Afghanistan, like when Moore wrongly claims that Hamid Karzai had been employed by Unocal. This and other claims lead up to Moore's final "proof":

[in 2002]"Afghanistan signed the agreement to build a pipeline through its country carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea ." http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=21

Most viewers will by now assume that "the" agreement referred to is related to the pipeline planned by Unocal, whereas in fact Unocal shelved their Afghan plans a long time ago. The agreement Moore refers to has no relation the talks in 1998 and is unlikely ever (or in the foreseeable future) to result in any trans-Afghan pipeline. From US Dep of Energy's 2004 analysis:(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html)

"Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.

Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan remains an obvious problem, while tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India and its large (and growing) gas market. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem for construction of the TAP line. Finally, the pipeline's $2.5-$3.5 billion estimated cost poses a significant obstacle to its construction."

See this article for a debunking of the Afghan pipeline theory: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178920/posts

So even though some of the facts may be correct as such(though many are not, as the Slate-article I linked to shows), it nevertheless qualifies as a lie if Moore consciously presents facts in a way as to suggest a causal relation that in fact does not exist. Agree?

Just an FYI:

Dutch media states that the terror group al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad has made a "last" warning to the Dutch government to pull- back it’s troops from Iraq. On an Arab web site they seem to say the following: "You will be surprised by the Islamic earthquake that will awaken your country. You haven’t learnt from the lessons in Spain and other countries. You only understand the language of blood and car bombs".

"Anyway, there are neocons that are clearer, one of them is Charles Krauthammer."

Krauthammer is just a journalist, not a policy maker.

"They are made in the tradition of 'New Journalism', are in no way objective, and never pretends to be."

New Journalism? Now that sounds like a concept torn straight from 1930s Germany.

Actually, Krauthammer is not "just a journalist", he's also a medical doctor.

"...he's also a medical doctor."

True, somewhat...he does not make his living that way anymore. In any case, he does not make policy decisions within the US Government.

Oyvind,

Do you think Norwegians should do any fighting, or is that an activity that should be reserved for Americans, Brits, Australians, and Poles (hope I didn't forget anyone).

Sorry, I checked back, and you did not call us "right-wingers" crazy. That was unfair. Your tone, however, implies that Americans should be doing "more" in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and other places. I challenge you to spell out exactly what Americans should be doing that Norwegians shouldn't also be doing.

Totoro:

When it is necessary, yes, I do support military action - also Norwegian military action. However,

I do think that Norway could have achieved a lot more by using our money on democracy-promoting initiatives in countries were we are already present - like Azerbaijan - than by sending a miniscule contigent of soldiers to Iraq. In the first example we could make a change. In the second we are not doing anything that would not be done anyway.

Furthermore, doing 'more' does not necessarily mean military action, and I do think military action like for instance Saudi Arabia would be pure stupidness.

A E Hansen:

"New Journalism? Now that sounds like a concept torn straight from 1930s Germany."

Actually it is a concept taken from the United States in the 1960s - and even a leftist like me would not claim that many similarities between those two societies. Ever heard of Tom Wolfe? He did New Journalism, that is journalism that does not pretend to be objective, but shows itself of as the highly subjective genre it normally is. New journalism also use methods from literature when it comes to story telling.

"Krauthammer is just a journalist, not a policy maker"

So... I'm just a journalist too - but I'm still leftist. Neoconservatism is an ideology - not a title given solely to policy makers. And by the way, journalists are policy maker quite too often.

Terje:

"Yes, as had others. The problem is the way this fact is linked to the invasion of Afghanistan, like when Moore wrongly claims that Hamid Karzai had been employed by Unocal. This and other claims lead up to Moore's final "proof""

Yes, the claim about Karzai is a doubtful one, denied by Unocal themselves. However, it is not Moores claim, he's taken it from Le Monde and Christian Science Monitor, two sources that could be regarded as quite solid. Moore has trusted his sources too much, as I said, and these sources aren't even "alternative", liberal American newspapers like Common Dreams. Trusting your sources too much, however, is not necessarily the same as lying, as many supporters of the war on Iraq would probably also tell you.

To ask the connection between the oil pipe and the war, though, is highly valid. Zalmay Khalilzad was indeed (though indirectly) an advisor to Unocal, and in the late nineties he wrote that Taliban was showing off a new kind of Islamic fundamentalism that wasn't anti-American. Turned out otherwise.

Of course, Unocal was not alone. Several oil companies in this world have few problems with working with lousy regimes, including our Norwegian Statoil and Hydro. Amongst the others were Delta Oil, Bridas and several others.

Bjørn:

"He severely distorts their actions. The claim that they deliberately go to post-shoot out areas to spread their message. (The meeting in Denver had been planned long in advance, the second Heston speech Moore refers to took place long after the shooting he ties it too.)"

Have you actually seen the movie "Bowling for Columbine..."? Your message here makes me doubt, but if you have seen it you might remember what words where used by Heston as an answer to the Denver mayor. These are not a distortion.

The only thing that can claimed to be a true distortion is the line "From my cold dead hands" used twice in Moores movie. It is true that this was made a year later. However, it is quite obvious that Moore does use this as a way to characterize Heston (fairly or not) and not as a claim that this is what he actually said at the meetings in Flint or in Denver.

The claim that Moore brands Heston a racist is outright rediculous. I watched the movie again yesterday - carefully looking for any such references. The only hint of any such thing is a statement made by, guess who, Heston himself (he wonders out loud whether gun violence in the US is related to the countrys ethnic diversity).

It is merely stupidity to criticize Moore because he cuts from one scene (a sobbing student) to another (Heston) - and that's the claims I've seen made by people trying to smear 'Bowling for Columbine'. I'm sorry, Bjørn, but both that claim and the claim about 'conspiracy theories' seem quite absurd to me.

"Moore is only making this worse."

Well, maybe he is. But he is still one of very few that has managed to break American medias silence or half-silence on several important issues. In a speach in Boston recently he said it himself:

'But there's the unstated villain in the film. And that's our national media. You've seen the film, right? (applause). A lot of them are mad at me right now because - I can't go on a show without them, you know. But I would be mad if I were them, too, because the film outs them. It outs them as shills for the Bush administration. It outs them as people who were cheerleaders for this war. It outs them as, to be kind to those who are actually good journalists, journalists who fell asleep on the job, journalists who didn't ask the hard questions. The one thing I hear when people come out of the theater over and over again is, "I never saw that on the news." Right?

Isn't that like -I never- Why didn't I see that? I never saw those Black congressmen being shut down one after another. Did anyone see that?

I didn't know there was a riot at the inauguration parade. I never saw the eggs hit the limo. I never saw that! I don't hear from the amputees who sit in our hospitals, 5,000 - 6,000 of them. How come I don't hear from them on the nightly news? I don't hear from the mothers. I don't see them on the evening news, the mothers of children who have been killed in Iraq and who state their opposition to this war. I haven't seen them on the news. Why haven't I seen this? I live in a free and open country that has a free and open press where you can show us anything. That's the great thing about America. You can show us anything! You can ask any question you want to ask. And this is my humble plea to those of you from the press here. And don't any of you take this personally. I don't mean it this way, but I -- we, the people, we need you"

And because of this, Bjørn, I will continue to support Moore. To flame him for mistakes - sure, you're welcome - but this far I've not seen any of those attempts coming up with factual errors or distortions or anything that change the main points Moore are making. Sure, there's the Karzai thing, as mentioned, but hey - Americas media should have pointed out the connection between Khalilzad and Unocal. Who did? Not many. Well, Moore does. And America needs that much more than they need to get out of any trench war (except, perhaps, the one in Iraq).

By the way, I never thought you were a Repuclican, when I made my reference to Republicans (a bit blunt, I admit) it was because your sources are - indeed - Republican. To use "Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man" as a source for criticizing him is, in my opinion, as using Ann Coulter to form your ideas about how American policy against France should be.

Øyvind

"and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project"

Terje:

This is also true. However, none of this means that the issue about Khalilzad, Unocal and the sudden change of climate for the oil pipe in Afgh. should not be discussed.

And you should perhaps see this in connection with another line being built at the time - the one from Baku, Azerbaijan, via Tbilisi, Georgia ending up in Ceyhan, Turkey. Western oil companies, with heavy subsidies, have found another way out of Central Asia.

(The Russians have their way as well. A pipeline that runs through a tiny speck on the map called Chechnya. This might explain some of their actions - and some of the atrocities conducted there, atrocities that sadly have gone rather unnoticed by both right-wing and left-wing Norwegians - and Americans)

Understanding the importance of oil and gas reserves in Central Asia is crucial to understanding what's going on in the world. It can be given too much weight - but right now: It's being given far too little.

Øyvind

There are some strinking co-incidences in that the OIL seems to be very near by recent turmoil.

Why be surprised - We don't think this world's modern day infrastructure was build at peace time do we ?

_______________
Help Desk Software Consultant

Oyvind,

Two points:

(1) You said: "Furthermore, doing 'more' does not necessarily mean military action, and I do think military action like for instance Saudi Arabia would be pure stupidness."

I agree. Then why should you expect the U.S. to be fighting Saudi Arabia instead of working with its regime?

(2) You said: "Yes, the claim about Karzai is a doubtful one . . .However, he's taken it from Le Monde and Christian Science Monitor, two sources that could be regarded as quite solid."

There are no longer ANY newspapers that can be regarded as solid. That's the great contribution of the blogosphere, including LGF, condemned by Bjorn and others as a "hate site" because it bring ups and discusses topics once controlled by the NYTimes, Christian Science Monitor, LeMonde, etc. in favor of an open discussion. Journalists and journalism are no longer the respected pundits they once were.

In fact, that's exactly why I read Bjorn's site. Quoting newspapers is useful (no one can be everywhere and no everything, so we need them), but they never again will serve as authoritative sources.

Totoro: "including LGF, condemned by Bjorn and others as a "hate site""

Where did I call LGF a hate site? I criticized many of the commenters on LGF for having abandoned democratic ideals, and many of the other commenters for making apologies for them. Unlike shouting "hate site! hate site!" that's a fair tactic.

Bjorn,

I appreciate all the work you put into being rational, and that's what makes your blog such an excellent one. However, you should be aware that when you criticize the infinitisimal number of posters who want to ban Islam on a site like LGF, you help paint the picture that LGF is a hate site that generally attracts people who are undemocratic and irrational.

LGF is often called a hate site because there's a lot of anti-Muslim material on it--posts and comments both. It is one of the few places I know that attracts people of wildly different backgrounds. Only a tiny few of the commenters think Islam should be banned.

Yesterday I was going to write you about your comments re LGF that appeared on Instapundit, but for some reason, a lot of blue lines appeared and I was unable to post. At first I thought you had banned me because I had been unfair to Oyvind. Later I realized that maybe you were having an "Instalanche."

Right now I don't have time to go through all the comments to see what you actually said. My impression was that you disapproved of the view of many of LGF's commenters. As I said above, only a tiny few call for the banning of Islam, but now thousands more think of LGF as a site that encourages this view.

Free speech is a delicate thing to defend. I had a terrible experience last night when a guest of mine discovered that I support Ariel Sharon. She had assumed that I had the same political views as she had and that Sharon was a monster because her Palestinian friends had told her so. I was once again reminded that the art of discussing varied viewpoints is almost dead--at least among the so-called educated liberals (U.S.term) in America. Reading your blog, I see the same kind of groupthink in Norway. Therefore, it is my self-appointed task to open the doors to wider discussions in both the U.S. and Norway. By spreading the view that LGF is a bad site, the discussion is narrowed. Maybe you are only attacking those commenters who want to ban Islam, but who are those commenters and what did they say?

Maybe my objection to your chastizing the tiny few can be termed "straw man." Banning Islam is way way way way way down on the list of things people on LGF discuss re Islam. LGF is one of the few places that actually discusses Islam and Islamofascism. I dislike seeing it painted with an ugly brush because some people who post on it have an extreme view of something.

Because you are so rational, I have to spend a long time writing in order not to offend you. I hope I'm not misquoting you. To sum up: I BELIEVE that you gave the impression that LGF posters frequently call for banning Islam, and I BELIEVE that LGF is too valuable a site to be attacked for this matter. If I've misrepresented your views, let me know, and I'll read over what you wrote, what Instapundit wrote, and what I wrote and will apologize if necessary. But I hope you move forward to my point and my concerns, which are: it's good to have a site that encourages people from around the world to discuss Islam and the dangers of Islamofascism and it should not be harmed by giving people the impression that many people who read LGF want to ban Islam.

Whew, I'm finished. Will read your response, if any, later.

--Well, maybe he is. But he is still one of very few that has managed to break American medias silence or half-silence on several important issues. In a speach in Boston recently he said it himself:--

If you're a jounalist, and you think Norway should be doing more, why don't you start writing a few articles and break that wall of silence or half-silence?

Maybe you have already, I think we'd like to read them.

--Please notice that I said we in the post you responded to. Since I am a European "we" does not mean "The United States", well, at least not "The United States alone". --

I know that. Do something except whine, moan, bitch and complain. Please show us the way.

Especially since you're a journalist.

--Instead of removing a terrorist base the war has contributed to creating a new one.--

Or - draining the swamp, take your pick. No offense, but I've read this more than once from others and it's a well, duh! statement. Or just growing the base itself. Iraqis are going to have to make a choice.

It's also easier if you have the Iranians busy in Iraq, and boy, have they been busy little beavers.

Kind of like when the Sauds asked their people to tell them if they hadn't seen their sons in awhile.

"Neoconservatism is an ideology - not a title given solely to policy makers. And by the way, journalists are policy maker quite too often."

So? The best representative of an ideology is not really the writer who churns out a few barely influential columns, but instead we shoudl looke to the polcy makers that are actually putting the ideology into action. It really matters very little what Krauthhammer writes...it matters much more what the neo-conservatives in government do. (Unless, of course, we are only concerned about neo-conservatism as a theoretical idea.)

"Neoconservatism is an ideology - not a title given solely to policy makers. And by the way, journalists are policy maker quite too often."

So? The best representative of an ideology is not really the writer who churns out a few barely influential columns, but instead we shoudl looke to the polcy makers that are actually putting the ideology into action. It really matters very little what Krauthhammer writes...it matters much more what the neo-conservatives in government do. (Unless, of course, we are only concerned about neo-conservatism as a theoretical idea.)

"Actually it is a concept taken from the United States in the 1960s - and even a leftist like me would not claim that many similarities between those two societies. Ever heard of Tom Wolfe? He did New Journalism, that is journalism that does not pretend to be objective, but shows itself of as the highly subjective genre it normally is. New journalism also use methods from literature when it comes to story telling."

Huh...learn something new everyday. So, what exactly is the difference between new journalism and propaganda?

--Huh...learn something new everyday. So, what exactly is the difference between new journalism and propaganda?--

Depends on who's writing it???

Totoro: "However, you should be aware that when you criticize the infinitisimal number of posters who want to ban Islam on a site like LGF, you help paint the picture that LGF is a hate site that generally attracts people who are undemocratic and irrational."

Ah. So I should be careful not to criticize fellow Islam critics, even when I think they're dangerously wrong, because I provide the real enemy with ammunition? I'm sorry, but the real enemy here is irrational and anti-democratic thinking. That's what I'm fighting against. Usually that takes me into multiculturalist territory, but I'm not going to sit here and ignore what's going on at LGF just because my enemies are a subset of their enemies. My criticism of LGF has been fair and factual. And if multiculturalists and Islam apologists find it convenient to reuse that criticism, what is wrong with that? Does a rational argument become irrational if the wrong person says it? And isn't it in fact an improvement if we can replace the "hate speech" rhetoric against LGF with something better and more fair?

"LGF is often called a hate site because there's a lot of anti-Muslim material on it--posts and comments both. It is one of the few places I know that attracts people of wildly different backgrounds."

Again - I haven't called LGF a hate site. Others linking to my piece has, but I don't agree, and if I believed that it is I would have said so. I don't see how criticizing those commenters for being excessively anti-Islam has anything to do with calling LGF a hate site. Others added that of their own free will, not because my piece implied it, but for reasons of their own. So I don't see the relevance.

"Only a tiny few of the commenters think Islam should be banned."

Did you actually read the Kristiansand-FrP thread I linked to? I didn't skew anything here, there were many posts like that. And many others who didn't even bother to object. Only a minority clearly spoke up against this on principle, as opposed to on merely practical grounds. This is a mirror of the situation in the Muslim world. There are a small number of extremists, and a large number who tolerate them, either by being openly apologetic, or by failing to speak up against them. I'm not of course comparing LGF commenters to al-Qaeda, but I am comparing the relationship between Muslim extremists and Muslim apologists to anti-Muslim extremists and anti-Muslim apologists. There's the same relationship at work. The silence of the many aids the extremist few.

See it from my point of view for a moment. I've been more or less silent about LGF for three years. Charles and I actually started out doing much the same thing, scouring the Arab media for examples of extremism. He was better at it, and stuck with it while I found other things to write about. I didn't say anything as extremist views began showing up in his comment section, eventually making up a very large minority. I just stopped reading. Now those views have made it out of his blog and into mine and many others. So it's time to act.

"LGF is one of the few places that actually discusses Islam and Islamofascism."

Really? Then you're not reading many blogs. All the warblogs started out discussing Islamofascism, and most of them have stuck with it, though most have also added other subjects. There are no indispensable blogs. That's the beauty of blogging - it's so cheap and simple that we don't have to settle for anything but the best.

"To sum up: I BELIEVE that you gave the impression that LGF posters frequently call for banning Islam, and I BELIEVE that LGF is too valuable a site to be attacked for this matter."

But it's true that many LGF posters want to ban Islam, and that (more disturbingly) those who are smart enough to realize that this is impossible don't really see anything wrong with it. They're the ones I'm most concerned about. They're the ones who say that Islam is the same as Islamism, that Islam itself has declared total war on the West. Their failure to object to anti-democratic views is a symptom of a more general problem, and it's that general problem I'm attacking. LGF represents that problem better than any other blog I know off. And you're saying I should just keep quiet about that? Haven't you learned anything from the intellectual corruption of the left?

A.E.Hansen:

"Huh...learn something new everyday. So, what exactly is the difference between new journalism and propaganda?"

I suggest you read Tom Wolfes book on New Journalism, filled with examples of new journalistic peaces. Also you could do a google on "new journalism" or "literary journalism".

totoro:

"I agree. Then why should you expect the U.S. to be fighting Saudi Arabia instead of working with its regime?"

Because 'fighting' is not the same as war. And 'working with its regime' definitely is not the same as 'working for regime change'. Regime change is highly needed in Saudi Arabia, a "talibanish" society. The States, and - to a somewhat lesser degree - Norway yet chooses to work with that regime and more often than not consider it a part of the alliance against terrorism.

What the US should do first is to increase funding and support to their already praiseworthy programs for democracy in the Middle East. Today these projects are sadly reduced to talk, talk, talk, no action, and even the talk disappears in all the propaganda about Iraq.

Norway should spend some bucks as well.

"Journalists and journalism are no longer the respected pundits they once were"

Perhaps not, and questioning us is absolutely a good thing, since we're only people and since we're coloured by our on opinions no matter how objective we try or pretend to be. However, calling Moore a liar because he believed Le Monde and Christian Science Monitor on a disputed claim, seems a bit far-fetched to me (eventhough, the claim about Karzai immediately made me react when I saw the movie; and I even written angry emails to leftist journalists pointing out that they, too, should be careful trusting Le Monde and Christian Science Monitor blindly).

Alas, Republican and other right-wing critique of Moore often seems far-fetched. That way it makes Moore look like a terrible reasonable man, quite an achievement, some would say.

Øyvind

To Øyvind:

Suppose somebody were to make a documentary about Michael Moore himself that went like this:

** begin sample script **

NARRATOR: "Michael Moore has been a supporter of numerous left-wing causes for many years. In fact, he was born the very same day as the leftist cause celebre and notorious cop-killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal."

CUT TO: Protest rally footage showing people holding signs saying "Free Mumia."

** end sample script **

Now, it is true that Moore has supported numerous left-wing causes for years. It is also true, according to the Internet Movie Database, that both Moore and Mumia Abu-Jamal were born on April 23, 1954. It is also true that Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing a policeman. It is also true that there have been various protest rallies to call for Abu-Jamal to be freed and that freeing him is a leftist cause celebre. See http://www.sinkers.org/mumia_demo/ for an example, or just do a web search for "free Mumia."

Every actual statement in the sample script is true. And if the script were filmed, casual viewers might come away thinking that Moore supports freeing Abu-Jamal.

Except that Moore doesn't support freeing Abu-Jamal. In Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore mentions that he believes Abu-Jamal is probably guilty.

Nevertheless, by juxtaposing these statements with the footage, the film would falsely imply that Moore, by virtue of supporting many left-wing causes, naturally also supports the specific left-wing cause of freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal. It would also tend to create a negative impression of Moore by mentioning him as having something in common with another person (truthfully) described as a notorious cop-killer.

And, of course, it would include a complete non sequitur by implying (through the use of the phrase "in fact") that two people born the same day would tend to be associated with each other in some way -- not really true unless they are twins or triplets or something like that.

The question is, would Moore and his fans be able to recognize that similar techniques are used in Moore's own movies?

I wrote: "It would also tend to create a negative impression of Moore by mentioning him as having something in common with another person (truthfully) described as a notorious cop-killer."

I mean "... with another person described (truthfully) as a notorious cop-killer." It's true that Mumia is a notorious cop-killer, but the only notable thing he and Moore have in common is their date of birth.

Joshua, excellent points.

In this age of "spin," the truth often gets obscured. Common sense seems to be a rare trait. What's wrong? Is it our educational system? Why are people so vulnerable to propaganda? Why are they so anxious to tear down our leaders and replace them with demagogues and utopian fools? What are they looking for that would be so much better than what we already have?

Nice example, I see. The problem - however - is that there's another thing I can not see and that is where mr. Moore has made ANY claim that can be compared to the ones in your said documentary. Please point them out to me.

I've read several critiques of his two latest movies and I have still not found a SINGLE evidence that he has seriously distorted the message of either the NRA, Charles Heston, or of George W. Bush and mates. Maybe I am blind. Or maybe the critique is just not that relevant to what Moore actually discusses.

Let's take a look at 'Bowling for Columbine'. It is true that Moore takes one sentence from another happening ('dead, cold hands). He uses this as an introduction of Heston, and he uses it TWICE - it's the same cut (once with pictures, once without) and this is OBVIOUS to anyone that cares to pay any attention. Maybe it's unfair, but it's not 'a distortion'.

After the first introduction he shows from the actual speech held by Heston in Denver following the Columbine shootings. These are words said by Heston when Moore says he said them, and... they don't make Heston look good do they? (By the way, the entire transcript of that speech is available on the net)

He never ever implies that Heston is a racist. Not once. He moves from one theme in his documentary to another - something ALL and EVERY documentarists have to do and do. Criticizing him for placing a part about Heston after a part where an interviewed person talks about - amongst other things - racism is OUTRIGHT SILLY.

That such a claim is made in the aforementioned book is perhaps not a big surprise, but when people go after it like fishes after a shiny hook it makes me wonder: Have they even seen the movie? Or are they just looking for a leftist posterboy to hate?

Sure, there are mistakes in Moores two latest movies (calling Karzai a Unocal advisor), and there are some examples of what could be called distortions if you look for them (blowing up a title of a letter to the editor so it looks like something else).

So, I challenge you: Point out to me how Moore has distorted Hestons message to Denver, tell me how Heston is being portrayed as a racist when the ONLY thing that can be interpreted this way are statements made by Heston himself?

Please tell me: Where are these mistakes and distortions of Moores movie which are so terrible that it removes the actual meaning of Hestons own words? Where are these mistakes that makes 'Fahrenheit 911' a 'conspiracy theory' (in one of his books Moore actully denounces some conspiracy buffs) - while saying that some questions still should be answered by the Bush administration)? Where are the mistakes that are so big that they are in fact, a more important theme to discuss, than those facts that Moore undoubtably brings to the arena of discussion?

Personally, I am starting to believe that the critique against Moore is the technique of cowards. When you don't want to discuss uncomfortable, but important, truths (like Saudi influence in the US or the amount of gun violence in the States)- find miniscule errors or journalist techniques that you personally disagree with.

I grow tired of it. Moore, on the other hand, surely enjoys it. It gives him free PR and quite often it proves him right: Bjørn, some of his opponents are indeed gun wackos.

Øyvind

Øyvind wrote: The Russians have their way as well. A pipeline that runs through a tiny speck on the map called Chechnya.

Yes, I'm correcting myself. That pipeline doesn't run through Chechnya anymore, but around it. IT still explains some of their actions, though.

Øyvind

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/768