The US has concocted a "war on terrorism" in order to justify, defend and expand it's global agenda.
THE BUSH PRESIDENCY: GUILTY OF EXACERBATING OF TERRORISM
America has concocted a “war on terrorism” to justify, defend and expand its status as global super power. In so doing, it has ignored it’s own participation in terrorism and ignored the inequality and injustice that perpetrates and promotes acts of terrorism.
One
It is often stated that the events of September11, 2001 changed everything. September 11, 2001 changed nothing. For the family and friends of the 2,500 people who lost their lives it was a tragedy. But we must view the event in context and not be taken in by the propagandist “spin” 2,500 people are being killed everywhere, all the time but no one seems to care too much about them. This is a trifling number of dead in terms of lives lost in the undeveloped and third world on a daily basis, so often in fact that they're deaths are barely considered "news worthy”. But then that is logical considering the first world’s most powerful player, the United States of America through control of the World Bank and IMF indirectly determine the conditions in which two thirds of the planets people live, and die. Why should these people, barely able to survive day to day, care that a small number of Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack?
The powerful never easily relinquish power. Where there is an opportunity to increase that power it will not allow such an opportunity to pass. Power, as has often been said, is addictive. Any attempt to take power from the powerful usually involves a war. It has to be wrestled from them in some manner of confrontation, or through a bargaining process. Such is the case with America. It will require many September 11's before the inequities it perpetrates are realized. It will also make great sacrifices to maintain its power.
Prior to September 2001, various people in Washington, principally from PNAC (Project For A New American Century) had been pushing the Bush Administration to adopt an agenda involving the re-shaping of The Middle East. In order to do so an impetus was naturally required. Even the US cannot (or could not) wage war on sovereign States without cause. The events of September 11, 2001 provided the climate of fear necessary to implement PNAC's agenda.
On September 11, 2001 America was attacked. This act of revenge was committed in a manner that indicated that those responsible lacked any conventional method of declaring an act of war. The desperate measure of suicidal attacks at the heart of the perceived enemy allows us some indication of the depth of injustice those who forfeited their lives felt that the United States perpetrates in the pursuit of the national interest.
The message to the world on September 11, 2001 was that it is no longer acceptable for the world's wealthiest nation to sustain such a status at the expense of the vast majority of the world's struggling and impoverished people. Other nations could be accused of similar failings to address the inequities between themselves and the millions they exploit. But America is an icon, a symbol interpreted by many as that of western decadence; the embodiment of the very worst aspects of the capitalist mass consumerist society, with all the excesses and waste that is generated by such societies.
September 11, 2001 was chosen as the day to implement the neo-conservatives agenda. The cold war was over. There was no longer any serious threat to the US. It had attained global dominance. Having power is one thing; using it quite another. The Middle East has long been a ‘thorn in America's side'. The vast reserves of oil are of course paramount in importance. More important is the gateway through Iraq and Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea Basin and the oil rich Eurasia’s. To have complete control of Middle East oil, whilst simultaneously increasing Israel’s power and status in the region would require military action and regime change. Those in turn required a threat to the US, or better yet, the world.
Since none was presenting itself, the world’s greatest military was of little use. The "war on terror" was a political masterstroke or an act of the gravest human depravity, depending on how you view the world. But let it be clear, there is no doubt that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001 principally for the above reasons. No small prize when supply of oil begins to dwindle within twenty years and demand increases yearly. China in particular will be focusing on the Eurasia’s for it’s fuel need as it develops into a world power, perhaps to the extent to challenge the US.
There would be no criminal investigation or national inquiry; the preferred response entirely in keeping with America’s cultural self-perception entrenched over the years by Hollywood, that being “the tough “good guys”, saddling up and going after the “evil” doers”. Not for a moment was it considered that a more sensible response might be to instigate a criminal investigation. In view of the fact that it has taken the Indonesian police, assisted by their Australian counterparts less than six months to find, arrest and charge the perpetrators of the Bali bombing terrorist attacks, the US response looks completely at odds with how to respond to a terrorist attack. Quite obviously the Bush Administration had an alternative agenda.
Those not astounded by the American response to that which occurred on September 11, 2001 might consider another act of terrorism in Bali, Indonesia. This terrorist attack killed some two hundred people killed some two hundred people in 2002. The immediate response to the crime was (amazingly enough) to instigate an official criminal investigation into the attacks, and with the help of Australian police, the Indonesian police force apprehended all of those involved (approximately twenty), tried and sentenced them within a matter of months.
How can first world nations be so conceited as to consider this attack upon America warrants such a response reprehensible and shocking as all such acts of war are? Is the response appropriate in view of the increased level of risk since 2001 and considering the Indonesian police’s criminal investigation that was so successful? World leaders have unanimously used the event to manipulate their domestic political agenda's labeling all dissenters "Terrorists" and curtailing civil and human rights. Pronouncements that the "the world is changed forever" and "the world, as we know it has been fundamentally changed" are gross exaggerations and used only to play on the 'politics of fear'. Any changes brought about by the September 11 attacks on the US will be detrimental to all except Americans themselves, which of course is no coincidence.
Such is a perfect illustration of how completely stupid and imbecilic the American response has been to "9/11", and which, because we know the majority of Americans are not so stupid, causes one to question whether other factors which will remain unknown, joining the ranks of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald in the aftermath of President Kennedy's assassination and the "suicide" of Marilyn Monroe.
Whilst the Indonesians have dealt with the Bali bombing so effectively, the Americans for reasons officially unknown, but patently obvious to all who know what an occupation looks like when they see one, made no progress whatsoever. In fact the situation is dramatically worse since September 11, 2001. And because of the way the event was mismanaged from the beginning, are irrevocably increasing the risk and danger of further terrorist acts against themselves and the world in general. Obviously in order to allow for such, the potential gain or prize must be very great indeed. And so it is.
Why a criminal investigation to solve that that was essentially a crime against the US was not instigated is perplexing. For such reasons a Pandora’s box of conjecture, suspicion and conspiracy has justifiably been unleashed and many crucial questions either cannot, or will not be answered. Those who believe everything George Bush’s Administration and it's neo-conservative colleagues led by Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle amongst others inform them, would be well advised to do a little research into the nature of why the "9/11"attacks which were not quite as unexpected as we are led to believe.
There is a complete lack of explanation (due to the administrations refusal to allow for an independent inquiry) for a number of crucial facts regarding the events which led to the incredulous simultaneous high jacking of four commercial aircraft from airports within the US (without anyone being any the wiser until it was too late) and which had deviated from their designated flight plans for at least an hour before two of them hit the twin towers in New York causing the deaths of 2,500 people, is not acceptable.
The message to the world was that it is no longer acceptable for the wealthiest nation to sustain such a status at the expense of the majority who must fight for their survival. Other nations could be accused of similar failings to address the inequities between themselves and the millions they exploit, but America is an icon, a symbol interpreted by many of western decadence and excess; the embodiment of the very worst aspects of the capitalist, mass consumerist society, with all the excesses and waste which they generate.
It is conceivable that the US, whilst at the zenith of it's global status as world superpower, chose to act now rather than wait since it is widely predicted that world demand for oil will surpass supply within the next twenty to twenty-five years. Whether or not the events of September 11, 2001 were deliberately permitted to transpire in order to create the threat to the national security that would enable the radical measures we have seen, such as pre-emptive and unilateral war to be introduced as policy enabling the US to take control of The Middle East's oil fields, and gain access to those of Eurasia, we will possibly never know. Either way it makes little difference.
Where is the fundamental human morality essential to our societies? Where are our aspirations for global equality, of Justice and humanity? Are death, oppression, suffering and tragedy acceptable as viewed through a television lens? Not to be considered an issue whilst they occur beyond the boundaries of our privileged first world "individualized" societies? Irrelevant, inconsequential and permissible as long as it does not touch us personally, as was the case during world war two whilst a people were being exterminated? The irony is palpable in that the victims (Israeli’s) have become the oppressor over the Palestinians (the oppressed).
What makes one life worth more than another? Wealth and power. In 1939 the Nazi’s had it. In the 21st century the Israeli’s have it. The unavoidable collateral damage, essential for the sustaining of our postmodern societies is the de-valuation of human beings in the undeveloped and third world. Unless the imbalances throughout the world are addressed we can expect many more, and far graver acts of terrorism as we progress into the 21st century.
It is long past time that capitalism's fundamental inequities, rather than being compounded in the present age of economic rationalism and downsizing, were dispatched into the wastebasket of history and a more equitable, contributive, participatory form of democracy be implemented based upon a solid public sector. It has to recognize that the world is no longer a conglomeration of individual, isolated nations, but one interconnected entity.
Two
The problem is that one man in the United States could give every person in the world ten dollars from his own personal bank account and not be unduly concerned financially. His name is Bill Gates, the creator of a computer programme. Why should the world care that the wealthiest and most wasteful nation on the planet lost 2.500 of its affluent members? Those who die of hunger and poverty in their thousands every day through no fault of their own, but rather by decisions made by those global financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are primarily operated by the US with US interests foremost in mind.
Yet who loses sleep over aggrieved farmers in South America suffering the merciless injustice of US farming subsidies? Are we, in our wealthy elitist western societies more valuable human beings? Is yours a more precious life than that of a child's in the third world? Who determines whose death is acceptable and whose are not? The loss of 2,500 American lives it seems is enough to "change the world, as we know it forever". Though I truly fail to comprehend that such an interpretation of the terrorist attacks on America is just, moral and ethical.
That which the attacks did allow the worlds unchallengeable superpower, was a chance to "test the water" in order to assess the measure of global resistance it might confront (and from which quarters) in this, the Neo-Conservative’s "New American Century”. A century that will demand of the United States that it aggressively pursue, and gain control of essential geo-strategic imperatives and political alliances. The opening moves in that which former Carter Administration foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brezinski calls “the grand Chessboard”. A game of political chess that has already seen the United States opening moves; the events of September 11, 2001 and the bombing of Afghanistan and illegal, unjust, unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The mass media’s negative stereotyping of an enemy known only to be of Islamic origin which is an identical description as that of the enemy being of Christian heritage. The result is a media with little or no knowledge of Islam and the Muslim faith depicting an entire people as terrorists’ first, culturally and traditionally backward second and fanatical devotees of a brutal fundamentalist religion. The "War on terrorism" has become entrenched in to contemporary life, though it is not a war on terrorism, but rather one against Islam.
A BBC survey has revealed that the majority of British Muslims consider the "war on terror" to be a war on Islam. More than half those surveyed believed Osama Bin laden and his al-Qaeda network should not have been blamed for the September 11 attacks on the US. It is common for Muslims to believe that they have replaced communists as the West's enemy. This is blamed mostly on the fact that the inappropriately coined "war on terrorism" with its lack of clear goals generates much speculation about the wars real motives and aims.
Two years after that which is now universally known as "9/11" the people of the Middle East can see that a culture of hate and prejudice is being sown by some of the domestic allies of the Bush administration on the Christian far right. Whilst the finger is being pointed at Arab States in general by the administration, it is Islam itself that is evil according to mainstream fundamentalist America, and as a consequence the enemy of America's contemporary interpretation of " freedom" and "democracy"
There are many in the US and throughout the world that maintain that those behind the scenes figures who dictate policy to the Bush administration such as the various right wing fundamentalist “think tanks” and “Defense policy boards”, declared a "war on terrorism" publicly, but a "war against Islam" privately. Islam and the West were always destined to "clash" if for no other reason than because the western industrialized nations most sought essential commodity is oil, and the greatest reserves lie beneath Islamic soil.
The fact that it is a completely logical and reasonable opinion to maintain by those amongst us aware of the depths of moral and ethical depravity characteristic of politicians everywhere whilst attending to ‘the national interest’. Little has changed since the days of Machiavellian deceit, lies, double talk, ingenuity and the immorality and deplorable ethical standards of his Prince.
Those who accept that terrorism, as defined; "the policy of using violence and intimidation to obtain political demands, or enforce political authority" has been a part of the human experience since democratic governments were first formed and implemented in ancient Greece, will have no difficulty accepting the allegation and implications of the measures the United States will take to deal with an Islamic world it views as hostile, and a threat to it’s 'national interest'.
The fraudulent claims made by the US and it's allies in the "war against evil" (suggesting "evil" is a straight forward concept such as walking as opposed to standing still, and has some universal definition which I for one would be very much obliged to hear as well as the supporting conclusive evidence. But please, no Christian or Islamic fundamentalist interpretations) in the immediate aftermath of "9/11", that the “war on terrorism” was not a war against Islamists, were obviously frantic attempts to seize the moment and deceive a shell-shocked and traumatized public.
The sheer spectacle and audacity of the attacks guaranteed that if the Administration moved quickly enough, the public would give it's consent to virtually any response, against whomsoever, as long as blood was spilt and vengeance sated. However, two years after the attacks people are beginning to re-acquaint themselves with their sanity and question the wisdom of the Administrations actions. Likewise the political opposition is beginning to experience some apprehension in regards to that, which is transpiring in the Middle East.
After all, they were simply not being informed. The American media is the world’s greatest propaganda machine, surpassing anything the Soviet Union came up with during the cold war years One would assume however that today, with so much alternative information available, not quite so many are asking such ridiculous questions heard as “Why do they hate us?” and "what did we do to deserve this?"
September 11 allowed for the implementation of the radical agenda of the Neo-Conservatives; the key Bush administration advisory people. These ultra right wing fundamentalists closely avowed to a greater Israel and led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Chenney (amongst many others) consider present policy of “re-shaping” the map of the Middle East as part of the war on Islam. Any denial of this deserves to be treated with contempt. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard proclaimed during the anti-Iraq invasion protests, “ there are more complex issues that “the mob” do not understand”. But an increasing number of “the mob” does understand.
Global circumstances may not have arisen that would allow for the implementation of that which has transpired in the past two years, that is policy introduced by the neo-conservative's of PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to pursue geo-strategic policies in The Middle East of their own accord. A tremendous impetus such as a grave and serious threat to the national security was required, and the fact that the enemy chosen could also be considered one presumed a threat to all western governments was an added bonus. For the Neo-Conservatives, the war on Islam was a strategic stroke of genius. The far right Christian fundamentalist Bush administration has, since September 11, 2001 exploited the concept to its furthest limits. Only now when things are turning ugly in Iraq does it appear to be looking precarious.
Three
September 11 allowed for the implementation of the radical agenda of the Neo-Conservatives; the key Bush administration advisory people. These ultra right wing fundamentalists closely avowed to a greater Israel and led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Chenney (amongst many others) consider present policy of “re-shaping” the map of the Middle East as part of the war on Islam. Any denial of this deserves to be treated with contempt. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard proclaimed during the anti-Iraq invasion protests, “ there are more complex issues that “the mob” do not understand”. But an increasing number of “the mob” does understand.
There are conceivably three reasons why the US is still in Iraq despite what must be an overwhelming urge to pack up and go home in view of the increasing level of hostility and opposition to occupation which could very likely see the Bush Administration lose the Presidency at the next election. The first is the protection of oil industry infrastructure to ensure that petro-dollars continue to flow for US corporations. Secondly, to increase Israel's status in the region as the dominant power representing US interests. And third to make secure a region in which the US can begin to gain access to the resource rich “Eurasian Balkans” surrounding the Caspian Sea basin.
The West’s reaction to the world trade center attacks leaves no room for doubt that what is being declared in the name of the people is a religious fundamentalist war on an adjacent culture. One with a different religion, a different heritage and a different set of cultural traditions - all of which have been stereotyped in the Western media in a negative and disparaging light.
The West’s reactions to the events of September 11, 2001 have been revealing. Immediately a “War on terrorism/Islam" was declared and Osama Bin Laden overnight became a household name before there was any consideration, let alone investigation into the possible suspects. The 'Oklahoma bombing' had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, why then were other possible suspects not considered?
The immediate conclusion that this was an act of terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists supports allegations that the administration was forewarned. Many known terrorist organizations were not even considered, though they may have just as likely carried out the attack as Islamic fundamentalists as far as the inept and in cohesive US intelligence community later revealed. All were dismissed. The ETA, The Tamil Tigers. The IRA, various South American guerilla groups, and the far right extremist Christian fundamentalist groups within the US. All eyes turned to Islamic terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden.
The Bush administration was intent on casting the blame squarely at those originating from the Middle East because of the Neo-Conservative doctrine that called for Middle East regime change and policy designed for control of the Middle East oil fields and the gateway to the Eurasian Balkans. The threat to the US is not one of terrorism; it is one of losing control of Middle Eastern and Eurasian oil. This also explains Russia’s acquiescence. They too face the same problem with Islamic fundamentalists in Chechnya.
Because of the present situation confronting the coalition in Iraq, it might be expected that the Bush administration would reconsider its neo-colonialist foreign policy and rein it in. This is wishful thinking, for the agenda is far bigger than a few hundred American military lives, even in an age such as ours where soldiers are not supposed to actually die on the battlefield any longer.
Washington's approval of Israeli war criminal and President of Israel Arial Sharon's bombing raid on Syria in October is no more than an expansion of the Bush crusade. The words of Vice President Dick Chenney sum up the philosophy of the Bush administration. "As long as George Bush is President of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies".
The early cautious attitude of the Bush administration that had turned toward Islam has now given way to what most in the Middle East perceive to be a "war on Islam". Afghanistan and Iraq and the one sided reports of the violence of Palestinian terrorism have convinced many that the US is using "the war on terror" as a façade for a war on Islam.
The fact that anger towards Arabs only came after the administration showed itself to be only interested in revenge and the US had little or no interest in re-considering it's long standing policy of supporting Israel on the one hand, whilst also helping maintain Arab authoritarianism (Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait) in return for oil and stability on the other. Israel was encouraged, and wasted no time in portraying its oppression of Palestinians as an extension of "the war on terrorism" which we now know to be a "war on Islam", and by March 2003 Israeli forces were free to occupy most of the West Bank.
Conclusion
Today every act of terrorism, no matter which it is committed against and in whatever part of the globe it occurs, it is invariably blamed on Al-queda. With no evidence to back up such allegations, media reports more often than not state, "the attacks bear all the hallmarks of an Al-queda operation". How many ways are there to blow up buildings that supporters of the war against Islam can draw such conclusions?
The author Enver Masud may be considered one of the few voices of reason and wisdom in an era which can be characterized by it's militancy, neo-colonialism, and consolidation of power in too few hands, all of which reveal the emotional depth of mental "unhingement" amongst the leaders of the worlds global superpower.
Masud has written a book titled " the war on Islam" but he is far from that which is considered an Islamic fundamentalist. An engineering management consultant by profession, he has worked for the World Bank and USAID. Perhaps two of the most notable quotations from his book are firstly, "It is dangerous to divorce terrorism from politics. Yet the US media continue to talk about an abstract war against terrorism without mention of the issues or context that lie behind them" and second, "Terrorism is a political act, a response to US foreign policy. It is an act of war waged by people too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States".
These words read like they were quoted yesterday yet the first quote comes from Graham E Fuller, former vice-chairman of the National Intelligence Council of the CIA spoken in August 1998 and the second is by Charley Reese, an ex soldier who did a column for the 'Orlando Sentinel' and were also spoken in 1998. The title of Reese's story was "Face it: US foreign policy contributes to acts of terrorism"
There is a new generation out there, just out of the line of vision, but passionate, committed and prepared to challenge the status quo. Inexorably, their day will come, for the present system is unsustainable and anti-humanitarian. The title of Reese's story is "Face it; US foreign policy contributes to acts of terrorism" - Prophetic words indeed.
William Hardiker
Copyright; William Hardiker
America has concocted a “war on terrorism” to justify, defend and expand its status as global super power. In so doing, it has ignored it’s own participation in terrorism and ignored the inequality and injustice that perpetrates and promotes acts of terrorism.
One
It is often stated that the events of September11, 2001 changed everything. September 11, 2001 changed nothing. For the family and friends of the 2,500 people who lost their lives it was a tragedy. But we must view the event in context and not be taken in by the propagandist “spin” 2,500 people are being killed everywhere, all the time but no one seems to care too much about them. This is a trifling number of dead in terms of lives lost in the undeveloped and third world on a daily basis, so often in fact that they're deaths are barely considered "news worthy”. But then that is logical considering the first world’s most powerful player, the United States of America through control of the World Bank and IMF indirectly determine the conditions in which two thirds of the planets people live, and die. Why should these people, barely able to survive day to day, care that a small number of Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack?
The powerful never easily relinquish power. Where there is an opportunity to increase that power it will not allow such an opportunity to pass. Power, as has often been said, is addictive. Any attempt to take power from the powerful usually involves a war. It has to be wrestled from them in some manner of confrontation, or through a bargaining process. Such is the case with America. It will require many September 11's before the inequities it perpetrates are realized. It will also make great sacrifices to maintain its power.
Prior to September 2001, various people in Washington, principally from PNAC (Project For A New American Century) had been pushing the Bush Administration to adopt an agenda involving the re-shaping of The Middle East. In order to do so an impetus was naturally required. Even the US cannot (or could not) wage war on sovereign States without cause. The events of September 11, 2001 provided the climate of fear necessary to implement PNAC's agenda.
On September 11, 2001 America was attacked. This act of revenge was committed in a manner that indicated that those responsible lacked any conventional method of declaring an act of war. The desperate measure of suicidal attacks at the heart of the perceived enemy allows us some indication of the depth of injustice those who forfeited their lives felt that the United States perpetrates in the pursuit of the national interest.
The message to the world on September 11, 2001 was that it is no longer acceptable for the world's wealthiest nation to sustain such a status at the expense of the vast majority of the world's struggling and impoverished people. Other nations could be accused of similar failings to address the inequities between themselves and the millions they exploit. But America is an icon, a symbol interpreted by many as that of western decadence; the embodiment of the very worst aspects of the capitalist mass consumerist society, with all the excesses and waste that is generated by such societies.
September 11, 2001 was chosen as the day to implement the neo-conservatives agenda. The cold war was over. There was no longer any serious threat to the US. It had attained global dominance. Having power is one thing; using it quite another. The Middle East has long been a ‘thorn in America's side'. The vast reserves of oil are of course paramount in importance. More important is the gateway through Iraq and Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea Basin and the oil rich Eurasia’s. To have complete control of Middle East oil, whilst simultaneously increasing Israel’s power and status in the region would require military action and regime change. Those in turn required a threat to the US, or better yet, the world.
Since none was presenting itself, the world’s greatest military was of little use. The "war on terror" was a political masterstroke or an act of the gravest human depravity, depending on how you view the world. But let it be clear, there is no doubt that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001 principally for the above reasons. No small prize when supply of oil begins to dwindle within twenty years and demand increases yearly. China in particular will be focusing on the Eurasia’s for it’s fuel need as it develops into a world power, perhaps to the extent to challenge the US.
There would be no criminal investigation or national inquiry; the preferred response entirely in keeping with America’s cultural self-perception entrenched over the years by Hollywood, that being “the tough “good guys”, saddling up and going after the “evil” doers”. Not for a moment was it considered that a more sensible response might be to instigate a criminal investigation. In view of the fact that it has taken the Indonesian police, assisted by their Australian counterparts less than six months to find, arrest and charge the perpetrators of the Bali bombing terrorist attacks, the US response looks completely at odds with how to respond to a terrorist attack. Quite obviously the Bush Administration had an alternative agenda.
Those not astounded by the American response to that which occurred on September 11, 2001 might consider another act of terrorism in Bali, Indonesia. This terrorist attack killed some two hundred people killed some two hundred people in 2002. The immediate response to the crime was (amazingly enough) to instigate an official criminal investigation into the attacks, and with the help of Australian police, the Indonesian police force apprehended all of those involved (approximately twenty), tried and sentenced them within a matter of months.
How can first world nations be so conceited as to consider this attack upon America warrants such a response reprehensible and shocking as all such acts of war are? Is the response appropriate in view of the increased level of risk since 2001 and considering the Indonesian police’s criminal investigation that was so successful? World leaders have unanimously used the event to manipulate their domestic political agenda's labeling all dissenters "Terrorists" and curtailing civil and human rights. Pronouncements that the "the world is changed forever" and "the world, as we know it has been fundamentally changed" are gross exaggerations and used only to play on the 'politics of fear'. Any changes brought about by the September 11 attacks on the US will be detrimental to all except Americans themselves, which of course is no coincidence.
Such is a perfect illustration of how completely stupid and imbecilic the American response has been to "9/11", and which, because we know the majority of Americans are not so stupid, causes one to question whether other factors which will remain unknown, joining the ranks of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald in the aftermath of President Kennedy's assassination and the "suicide" of Marilyn Monroe.
Whilst the Indonesians have dealt with the Bali bombing so effectively, the Americans for reasons officially unknown, but patently obvious to all who know what an occupation looks like when they see one, made no progress whatsoever. In fact the situation is dramatically worse since September 11, 2001. And because of the way the event was mismanaged from the beginning, are irrevocably increasing the risk and danger of further terrorist acts against themselves and the world in general. Obviously in order to allow for such, the potential gain or prize must be very great indeed. And so it is.
Why a criminal investigation to solve that that was essentially a crime against the US was not instigated is perplexing. For such reasons a Pandora’s box of conjecture, suspicion and conspiracy has justifiably been unleashed and many crucial questions either cannot, or will not be answered. Those who believe everything George Bush’s Administration and it's neo-conservative colleagues led by Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle amongst others inform them, would be well advised to do a little research into the nature of why the "9/11"attacks which were not quite as unexpected as we are led to believe.
There is a complete lack of explanation (due to the administrations refusal to allow for an independent inquiry) for a number of crucial facts regarding the events which led to the incredulous simultaneous high jacking of four commercial aircraft from airports within the US (without anyone being any the wiser until it was too late) and which had deviated from their designated flight plans for at least an hour before two of them hit the twin towers in New York causing the deaths of 2,500 people, is not acceptable.
The message to the world was that it is no longer acceptable for the wealthiest nation to sustain such a status at the expense of the majority who must fight for their survival. Other nations could be accused of similar failings to address the inequities between themselves and the millions they exploit, but America is an icon, a symbol interpreted by many of western decadence and excess; the embodiment of the very worst aspects of the capitalist, mass consumerist society, with all the excesses and waste which they generate.
It is conceivable that the US, whilst at the zenith of it's global status as world superpower, chose to act now rather than wait since it is widely predicted that world demand for oil will surpass supply within the next twenty to twenty-five years. Whether or not the events of September 11, 2001 were deliberately permitted to transpire in order to create the threat to the national security that would enable the radical measures we have seen, such as pre-emptive and unilateral war to be introduced as policy enabling the US to take control of The Middle East's oil fields, and gain access to those of Eurasia, we will possibly never know. Either way it makes little difference.
Where is the fundamental human morality essential to our societies? Where are our aspirations for global equality, of Justice and humanity? Are death, oppression, suffering and tragedy acceptable as viewed through a television lens? Not to be considered an issue whilst they occur beyond the boundaries of our privileged first world "individualized" societies? Irrelevant, inconsequential and permissible as long as it does not touch us personally, as was the case during world war two whilst a people were being exterminated? The irony is palpable in that the victims (Israeli’s) have become the oppressor over the Palestinians (the oppressed).
What makes one life worth more than another? Wealth and power. In 1939 the Nazi’s had it. In the 21st century the Israeli’s have it. The unavoidable collateral damage, essential for the sustaining of our postmodern societies is the de-valuation of human beings in the undeveloped and third world. Unless the imbalances throughout the world are addressed we can expect many more, and far graver acts of terrorism as we progress into the 21st century.
It is long past time that capitalism's fundamental inequities, rather than being compounded in the present age of economic rationalism and downsizing, were dispatched into the wastebasket of history and a more equitable, contributive, participatory form of democracy be implemented based upon a solid public sector. It has to recognize that the world is no longer a conglomeration of individual, isolated nations, but one interconnected entity.
Two
The problem is that one man in the United States could give every person in the world ten dollars from his own personal bank account and not be unduly concerned financially. His name is Bill Gates, the creator of a computer programme. Why should the world care that the wealthiest and most wasteful nation on the planet lost 2.500 of its affluent members? Those who die of hunger and poverty in their thousands every day through no fault of their own, but rather by decisions made by those global financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are primarily operated by the US with US interests foremost in mind.
Yet who loses sleep over aggrieved farmers in South America suffering the merciless injustice of US farming subsidies? Are we, in our wealthy elitist western societies more valuable human beings? Is yours a more precious life than that of a child's in the third world? Who determines whose death is acceptable and whose are not? The loss of 2,500 American lives it seems is enough to "change the world, as we know it forever". Though I truly fail to comprehend that such an interpretation of the terrorist attacks on America is just, moral and ethical.
That which the attacks did allow the worlds unchallengeable superpower, was a chance to "test the water" in order to assess the measure of global resistance it might confront (and from which quarters) in this, the Neo-Conservative’s "New American Century”. A century that will demand of the United States that it aggressively pursue, and gain control of essential geo-strategic imperatives and political alliances. The opening moves in that which former Carter Administration foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brezinski calls “the grand Chessboard”. A game of political chess that has already seen the United States opening moves; the events of September 11, 2001 and the bombing of Afghanistan and illegal, unjust, unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The mass media’s negative stereotyping of an enemy known only to be of Islamic origin which is an identical description as that of the enemy being of Christian heritage. The result is a media with little or no knowledge of Islam and the Muslim faith depicting an entire people as terrorists’ first, culturally and traditionally backward second and fanatical devotees of a brutal fundamentalist religion. The "War on terrorism" has become entrenched in to contemporary life, though it is not a war on terrorism, but rather one against Islam.
A BBC survey has revealed that the majority of British Muslims consider the "war on terror" to be a war on Islam. More than half those surveyed believed Osama Bin laden and his al-Qaeda network should not have been blamed for the September 11 attacks on the US. It is common for Muslims to believe that they have replaced communists as the West's enemy. This is blamed mostly on the fact that the inappropriately coined "war on terrorism" with its lack of clear goals generates much speculation about the wars real motives and aims.
Two years after that which is now universally known as "9/11" the people of the Middle East can see that a culture of hate and prejudice is being sown by some of the domestic allies of the Bush administration on the Christian far right. Whilst the finger is being pointed at Arab States in general by the administration, it is Islam itself that is evil according to mainstream fundamentalist America, and as a consequence the enemy of America's contemporary interpretation of " freedom" and "democracy"
There are many in the US and throughout the world that maintain that those behind the scenes figures who dictate policy to the Bush administration such as the various right wing fundamentalist “think tanks” and “Defense policy boards”, declared a "war on terrorism" publicly, but a "war against Islam" privately. Islam and the West were always destined to "clash" if for no other reason than because the western industrialized nations most sought essential commodity is oil, and the greatest reserves lie beneath Islamic soil.
The fact that it is a completely logical and reasonable opinion to maintain by those amongst us aware of the depths of moral and ethical depravity characteristic of politicians everywhere whilst attending to ‘the national interest’. Little has changed since the days of Machiavellian deceit, lies, double talk, ingenuity and the immorality and deplorable ethical standards of his Prince.
Those who accept that terrorism, as defined; "the policy of using violence and intimidation to obtain political demands, or enforce political authority" has been a part of the human experience since democratic governments were first formed and implemented in ancient Greece, will have no difficulty accepting the allegation and implications of the measures the United States will take to deal with an Islamic world it views as hostile, and a threat to it’s 'national interest'.
The fraudulent claims made by the US and it's allies in the "war against evil" (suggesting "evil" is a straight forward concept such as walking as opposed to standing still, and has some universal definition which I for one would be very much obliged to hear as well as the supporting conclusive evidence. But please, no Christian or Islamic fundamentalist interpretations) in the immediate aftermath of "9/11", that the “war on terrorism” was not a war against Islamists, were obviously frantic attempts to seize the moment and deceive a shell-shocked and traumatized public.
The sheer spectacle and audacity of the attacks guaranteed that if the Administration moved quickly enough, the public would give it's consent to virtually any response, against whomsoever, as long as blood was spilt and vengeance sated. However, two years after the attacks people are beginning to re-acquaint themselves with their sanity and question the wisdom of the Administrations actions. Likewise the political opposition is beginning to experience some apprehension in regards to that, which is transpiring in the Middle East.
After all, they were simply not being informed. The American media is the world’s greatest propaganda machine, surpassing anything the Soviet Union came up with during the cold war years One would assume however that today, with so much alternative information available, not quite so many are asking such ridiculous questions heard as “Why do they hate us?” and "what did we do to deserve this?"
September 11 allowed for the implementation of the radical agenda of the Neo-Conservatives; the key Bush administration advisory people. These ultra right wing fundamentalists closely avowed to a greater Israel and led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Chenney (amongst many others) consider present policy of “re-shaping” the map of the Middle East as part of the war on Islam. Any denial of this deserves to be treated with contempt. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard proclaimed during the anti-Iraq invasion protests, “ there are more complex issues that “the mob” do not understand”. But an increasing number of “the mob” does understand.
Global circumstances may not have arisen that would allow for the implementation of that which has transpired in the past two years, that is policy introduced by the neo-conservative's of PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to pursue geo-strategic policies in The Middle East of their own accord. A tremendous impetus such as a grave and serious threat to the national security was required, and the fact that the enemy chosen could also be considered one presumed a threat to all western governments was an added bonus. For the Neo-Conservatives, the war on Islam was a strategic stroke of genius. The far right Christian fundamentalist Bush administration has, since September 11, 2001 exploited the concept to its furthest limits. Only now when things are turning ugly in Iraq does it appear to be looking precarious.
Three
September 11 allowed for the implementation of the radical agenda of the Neo-Conservatives; the key Bush administration advisory people. These ultra right wing fundamentalists closely avowed to a greater Israel and led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Chenney (amongst many others) consider present policy of “re-shaping” the map of the Middle East as part of the war on Islam. Any denial of this deserves to be treated with contempt. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard proclaimed during the anti-Iraq invasion protests, “ there are more complex issues that “the mob” do not understand”. But an increasing number of “the mob” does understand.
There are conceivably three reasons why the US is still in Iraq despite what must be an overwhelming urge to pack up and go home in view of the increasing level of hostility and opposition to occupation which could very likely see the Bush Administration lose the Presidency at the next election. The first is the protection of oil industry infrastructure to ensure that petro-dollars continue to flow for US corporations. Secondly, to increase Israel's status in the region as the dominant power representing US interests. And third to make secure a region in which the US can begin to gain access to the resource rich “Eurasian Balkans” surrounding the Caspian Sea basin.
The West’s reaction to the world trade center attacks leaves no room for doubt that what is being declared in the name of the people is a religious fundamentalist war on an adjacent culture. One with a different religion, a different heritage and a different set of cultural traditions - all of which have been stereotyped in the Western media in a negative and disparaging light.
The West’s reactions to the events of September 11, 2001 have been revealing. Immediately a “War on terrorism/Islam" was declared and Osama Bin Laden overnight became a household name before there was any consideration, let alone investigation into the possible suspects. The 'Oklahoma bombing' had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, why then were other possible suspects not considered?
The immediate conclusion that this was an act of terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists supports allegations that the administration was forewarned. Many known terrorist organizations were not even considered, though they may have just as likely carried out the attack as Islamic fundamentalists as far as the inept and in cohesive US intelligence community later revealed. All were dismissed. The ETA, The Tamil Tigers. The IRA, various South American guerilla groups, and the far right extremist Christian fundamentalist groups within the US. All eyes turned to Islamic terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden.
The Bush administration was intent on casting the blame squarely at those originating from the Middle East because of the Neo-Conservative doctrine that called for Middle East regime change and policy designed for control of the Middle East oil fields and the gateway to the Eurasian Balkans. The threat to the US is not one of terrorism; it is one of losing control of Middle Eastern and Eurasian oil. This also explains Russia’s acquiescence. They too face the same problem with Islamic fundamentalists in Chechnya.
Because of the present situation confronting the coalition in Iraq, it might be expected that the Bush administration would reconsider its neo-colonialist foreign policy and rein it in. This is wishful thinking, for the agenda is far bigger than a few hundred American military lives, even in an age such as ours where soldiers are not supposed to actually die on the battlefield any longer.
Washington's approval of Israeli war criminal and President of Israel Arial Sharon's bombing raid on Syria in October is no more than an expansion of the Bush crusade. The words of Vice President Dick Chenney sum up the philosophy of the Bush administration. "As long as George Bush is President of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies".
The early cautious attitude of the Bush administration that had turned toward Islam has now given way to what most in the Middle East perceive to be a "war on Islam". Afghanistan and Iraq and the one sided reports of the violence of Palestinian terrorism have convinced many that the US is using "the war on terror" as a façade for a war on Islam.
The fact that anger towards Arabs only came after the administration showed itself to be only interested in revenge and the US had little or no interest in re-considering it's long standing policy of supporting Israel on the one hand, whilst also helping maintain Arab authoritarianism (Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait) in return for oil and stability on the other. Israel was encouraged, and wasted no time in portraying its oppression of Palestinians as an extension of "the war on terrorism" which we now know to be a "war on Islam", and by March 2003 Israeli forces were free to occupy most of the West Bank.
Conclusion
Today every act of terrorism, no matter which it is committed against and in whatever part of the globe it occurs, it is invariably blamed on Al-queda. With no evidence to back up such allegations, media reports more often than not state, "the attacks bear all the hallmarks of an Al-queda operation". How many ways are there to blow up buildings that supporters of the war against Islam can draw such conclusions?
The author Enver Masud may be considered one of the few voices of reason and wisdom in an era which can be characterized by it's militancy, neo-colonialism, and consolidation of power in too few hands, all of which reveal the emotional depth of mental "unhingement" amongst the leaders of the worlds global superpower.
Masud has written a book titled " the war on Islam" but he is far from that which is considered an Islamic fundamentalist. An engineering management consultant by profession, he has worked for the World Bank and USAID. Perhaps two of the most notable quotations from his book are firstly, "It is dangerous to divorce terrorism from politics. Yet the US media continue to talk about an abstract war against terrorism without mention of the issues or context that lie behind them" and second, "Terrorism is a political act, a response to US foreign policy. It is an act of war waged by people too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States".
These words read like they were quoted yesterday yet the first quote comes from Graham E Fuller, former vice-chairman of the National Intelligence Council of the CIA spoken in August 1998 and the second is by Charley Reese, an ex soldier who did a column for the 'Orlando Sentinel' and were also spoken in 1998. The title of Reese's story was "Face it: US foreign policy contributes to acts of terrorism"
There is a new generation out there, just out of the line of vision, but passionate, committed and prepared to challenge the status quo. Inexorably, their day will come, for the present system is unsustainable and anti-humanitarian. The title of Reese's story is "Face it; US foreign policy contributes to acts of terrorism" - Prophetic words indeed.
William Hardiker
Copyright; William Hardiker
e-mail:
