BS: War on terror called 'bogus'

Subject: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 11:40 PM

This won't be news to most folks here but at least Michael Meacher, MP and former environment minister, is brave enough to say so in public and to document his case. Check out the Guardian piece “This war on terror is bogus.”

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 12:07 AM

The bombs, threats, killings are real, why is the war on terror bogus?

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 12:33 AM

GUEST, I'm guesing you didn't read the piece but merely responded to the headline. Mr. Meacher is basically saying what DG, Bobert and a few other have been telling us for a long time. The difference is that now it's being said by a member of Parliment in broad daylight.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 01:27 AM

I read the piece....and to dilute its message to "the war on terrorism is bogus" bothers me. (Yeah, I know...it's hard to cram a full paragraph into the title box) The war on terrorism is quite real, but the reasons we need the war, and what we really expect to accomplish, are suspect. If half the assertions in that piece is true, it's very scary stuff.

I don't LIKE having to be suspicious of the basic motivations of my own government, nor do I appreciate being lied to...even if they explain "it's ultimately for your own good"!

I think I'll re-read all this tomorrow in the light of day and see if I can sort out what seems to be 'truth' from what might be paranoid speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 03:55 AM

Seems to me that war on an abstract noun is a bogus concept to begin with.

What'll we do, get Terrorism to admit defeat and occupy it until it's ready for self-government? More likely we'll colonize it and then we'll have access to all its natural resources.

The advantage to a War on Terrorism is that it can't be won, any more than a War on Bad Taste, and you can keep the country in a State of Emergency forever and justify anything you want as necessary for National Defense; the exact reasons, of course, being classified.

Way more clever than a Cold War.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:38 AM

I've been acquainted with the Project for the New American Century for over a year now and have posted links to their web site on these threads on Mudcat about umpteen times so far, so that people can go and read what I keep screaming about for themselves and verify that the neo-Conservatives actually exist and that they are indeed the ones who are running the country. It's very late at night here in Seattle and I want to go to bed, so I won't look it up and post it yet again. Just go to google, click on "Advanced Search," type "Project for a New American Century" in the "exact phrase" box, and let 'er rip!   The first listing that comes up should take you to their home page. The one just below that (if I remember right) will take you to their "Statement of Principles." Scroll down to the bottom of the page and note the people who are signatories to the statement. They are the Bush administration.

Also, in google's "exact phrase" box, type "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and you will be presented with enough material on the subject to fry your eyeballs and quite possibly make you mad enough to spit nails or incite you to bloody revolution. I recommend vigorous political action instead. There is a national election coming up in November 2004, so if we want it badly enough to get off our butts and work for it, regime change in the United States is in our hands.

G'night, now. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:42 AM

Pardon me. That's "Project for the New American Century." The former will probably get you there, but I just want to be sure. It's late and I'm getting punchy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: kendall
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:02 PM

Anyone with more than a teaspoon full of brains knows this is about controlling the middle east, and the reason is OIL!

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM

The Project for the New American Century

Scary stuff. I wish it was a forgery by some anti-American dirty tricks department. Unfortunately it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:30 PM

Looks like the big battle on the War on terrorism is shapin' up to be the 2004 Elections. The course that UIS is taking presently can only bring about another generation of terrorism....

Speakin' of terrorism. Wonder what it feels like to be 47 years old, a $1500 a month mortgage payment, one kid in college and another gettin' ready to graduate from high school and just found out that yer job has been shipped overseas and yer CEO is makin' $14.2M(*) a year?

Or how the guy who's holding down two jobs to make ends meet and the first job is now becoming *salaried*, meaning that Boss Hog can work you as long as he likes with out havin' to pay you fir the overtime?

Or the terrorism felf by folks who live in 14B states where they have "Right to Work" (fir peanuts)...

Lots of ways of lookin' at terrorism.

But rest assured, attackin' and killing folks who had nothin' to do with 9-11, ain't gonna make anyone safer...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:44 PM

Hey Kendall, it's more than just oil (though we may not ever know to what extent how much oil is part of the picture, no doubt quite a bit), which should've & could've become obsolete in the last century. Iraq is now a US colony, with Tony B as the US's international Ambassador, a promotion from his former position as the US Ambassador to Britain, Jeb Bush as the new Governor to the New State of Iraq (after this upcoming election things Fla will become a bit to hot for him) & Don Rum as the new Secretary of the Department of Muslim Affairs. Washington, Adams, Franklin & the rest of that lot were probably terrorists in todays terms by the English (funny how roles get reversed) & of course the frenchy Lafayette would have been one of those international border crossing terrorist who probably got his training in some foreign boot camp with the secret support of his own nation along with shipments of what could've been considered MWD of the times. When or if Iraq finally wins it's freedom or should we say revolution who'll be the nation that supports terrorism then? I don't think history will be as kind to us now as it was to US back then (I don't think so) or is the real prerequisite based on who won in the end or who lost & died giving up the most toys?
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 11:13 AM

Very interesting comment, Barry, on who won or who lost. By chance, I was rereading some old stuff by R. Buckminster Fuller and happend to pick up my old copy of Critical Path, © 1981. Chapter 3 is called Legally Piggily and deals with Fuller's insights into the history of world power as we see it today. It didn't really raise alarms when I read it in 1981 but in light of events since then, Fuller's insight seems remarkable.

The link will take you to the entire chapter. It's 60 pages long in Fuller's book and I think the online version contains the whole chapter so only the serious reader will take the time to learn what Fuller has to say. Highlights include:

• Who really won the American Revolutionary War? (Hint—it wasn't the British Government and it wasn't the American colonists)
• Fuller referred to the CIA as “Capitalism's Invisible Army.” (For a good time, do a Google search for "capitalism's invisible army")

Now Fuller was no wild-eyed radical, politically speaking. He was a clear, rational thinker. His point of view was that science and technology had the potential to make everyone's lives better if politicians would allow that to happen. Fuller's background, including a stint on the editorial staff of Fortune magazine, often gave him an insider's view of who was pulling the strings.

Anyway, I thought it was important enough to mention here. I hope someone takes the trouble to read through it.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: C-flat
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 11:36 AM

I read the Meacher peice in the Guardian and he seems to be saying that, while the war against terror may be legitimate, there were already plans in place to attack Afganistan and establish a strong military prescence in the gulf states well before the events of Sep11.
He also suggests that at least 11 countries had provided advance warnings of the attack and that some specific details were known. The inference of this is that Bush was inviting an attack to give him the moral high-ground while pushing through those plans.
It would be hard to imagine that anyone could accept the tragedy that occured as part of a game plan but when serious political figures start making these kind of statements in the national press it does make you wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: TIA
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 04:46 PM

The bogus War On Terror is now the centerpiece of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign. In a 15 minute speech last night - supposedly on Iraq - Bush used the word terror in one form or another 28 times. Together with three mentions of Al Qaeda, and three references to 9/11, this was a blatant attempt to brainwash us into making a Pavlovian connection between Iraq and 9/11. The bastards have convinced 70 percent of Americans that Iraq was behind 9/11. Gawd I hope people are paying attention, and not fallng for this propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:13 PM

It's clear that 70% of us are not paying attentiona and are falling for this propoganda.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:36 PM

C-flat, there's also the problem of explaining the military inaction that followed the 9/11 attacks - the more extraordinary now we know that this kind of attack had already been seen as a possibility.

I think Bill's approach is the right one. This is a long and detailed article by a man who was until a few weeks ago a minister in Blair's government and who has an informed view of issues around the fowrld's fossil-fuel resources. It needs to be read carefully in the cold light of day. To me, at a first quick reading, it seemed to be well supported by sources and documents, much of them in the public domain. There will be much easier access to such raw material in the US than here in the UK, so I will await with interest any further contributions from Bill and others.

Don, largely thanks to your counselling I've been watching the PNAC angle with interest and alarm. It's the sort of stuff that madcap think-tanks dream up while tripping out on adrenalin - the difference being that this time the people behind it are now running the show.

Thanks for posting the link, Mark. I'd seen plenty references to it, but missed the article itself. To make it easy for anyone who hasn't followed it, here's the link again. Meacher's article in the London Guardian.It should be a must-read piece for anyone interested in where the Bush administration is taking us.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:50 PM

We went to the site of the Project for the New American Century yesterday but today it seems to be down. Have the terrorists struck again? Is anyone else seeing this?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:57 PM

I'll be very interested in comments once everyone has digested the Meacher piece. The long Fuller piece I linked above really provides the background to show why the Meacher piece is not just conjecture. Fuller wrote more than 20 years prior to 9/11 and could not have imagined events as they have unfolded. He had no motivation other than to show the politics of energy and its history.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:00 PM

Here's what it says now:
Hey, it worked !
The SSL/TLS-aware Apache webserver was
successfully installed on this website.
If you can see this page, then the people who own this website have just installed the Apache Web server software and the Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) successfully. They now have to add content to this directory and replace this placeholder page, or else point the server at their real content.

ATTENTION!
If you are seeing this page instead of the site you expected, please contact the administrator of the site involved. (Try sending mail to .) Although this site is running the Apache software it almost certainly has no other connection to the Apache Group, so please do not send mail about this site or its contents to the Apache authors. If you do, your message will be ignored.

I'd imagine the people with the best reason to sabatage that site would be the people who put it up in the first place - I imagine it's getting to be a serious embarassment to them.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: GUEST,Mountain Tyme
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:11 PM

Kendall, yes, as many of us read between the lines OIL is the subject but... as I read, I see a revelation. The powers that ARE have invested in oil. They intend a return as long as possible for their investments. By keeping OIL in the forefront, they aim to keep the cheaper modern alternative energy sources off the front page otherwise we would begin to ask embarrassing questions wouldn't we?
The cheap energy of the future is not OIL. nuff sed

Say hi to bro Daryll for me.
Bob Day at Smokey Greens "The House Next Door to Mine" NJ

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:11 PM

But it seems to be back now - Project for the New American Century

Very curious.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:42 PM

Not curious Kevin, would paranoic be apt ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:14 PM

The New American Century site seems to be only intermittently available (probably too busy) but their defining document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, is available on other sites.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:34 PM

The Chief Architect of the plan referenced above is Thomas Donnelly who is a double dipper on the board of Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin, in turn, is among the most aggressive, greedy and unconscientious of the the large Defense Complex contractors; in my experience they would do anything for a buck, including fail if that suited. A good portion of people in these circles are just straight zombies looking for people to infect...

A

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 11:55 PM

Mark, thanks for the info on the chapter by Fuller. I went to the web site and discovered that, as you said, this is some serious reading. A bit intimidated at the idea of reading something that long on the computer screen, I'm going to get my wife Barbara, who works at the library, to drag home a copy of Fuller's book. I've always found Fuller to be one of those rare acute minds that can see right into the core of things and explain it lucidly. Looking forward to reading it.

Several times now I have gone to the PNAC web site to check on something, found similar messages, and wondered if they had pulled the site. Many people, appalled by Bush administration's foreign policy, have written articles and editorials, quoting extensively from the PNAC web site, even posting the URL (much as I have done several times here on Mudcat), saying, "If you don't believe me, read it in their own words!" Since it's an excellent source of information on the true foreign policy goals of the Bush administration, such as geopolitical control of the Middle East (as ghastly as it may seem, 9/11 provided them with a near perfect excuse, and with a lie here and a "spin" there, they managed to sell a "pre-emptive strike" on Iraq to a portion of the American public--and to Tony Blair), those who are opposed to these policies have use material found on the PNAC web site freely in an effort to tell people what's really going on, as opposed to the twaddle the Bush administration keeps feeding to a compliant news media. It would seem that to the extent that material from their own web site is being used to expose them, this would be ample reason for them to discontinue the site. But each time it went off-line, it was only gone for a day or two at most, and it came back, often with the addition of new articles and essays.

I think these people are beyond embarrassment. They seem to have a sort of "In your face, Buster!" quality about them, possibly assuming that since they have their flunky in the White House, a big flag to wave, a huge military machine at their beck and call, and God on their side, nothing can possibly stop them. Self-righteous arrogance, I think, is the key to these people.

Don Firth

Subject: Lyr Add: BUSH-WAR BLUES (Bob Clayton)
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 01:19 AM

Bush-War Blues

Me and my wife heard the president declare,
"We're going to war 'cause of the weapons there!"

Chorus:

I got the Bush-war blues (3X)
Gonna spread the news all around.


Me and my wife heard the president say,
"Iraqi oil means we won't have to pay."

Chorus

The president said the fighting was done,
"There's peace on the way, and the war's been done."

Chorus

The president called for sacrifice,
But the rich folks won't have to pay the price.

Chorus

Now we're fighting terrorists in Iraq,
They weren't there before, but now they're back.

Chorus

Rumsfield, Cheney, Bush and all,
Gonna lose their cushy jobs next fall.

Chorus


Copyright ©2003 Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 08:34 AM

"Even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked..."

Bob Dylan, evidently anticipating "the Project for the Nude American Century."

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 10:18 AM

The Bush-War Blues! That's WONDERFUL. I'm going to have learn and share that one.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: TIA
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 11:14 AM

Here's a rather long read (but not nearly as long as the Fuller chapter) that makes the case quite convincingly that the Bush administration's "War on _____" (you fill in the blank) is probably bogus. There is a pattern of using whatever is in the news as the rationale for pre-determined actions to further the neocon agenda. Usually, those who should know say that the actions will not have the effect asserted by Bush, but his people simply denigrate the whistle blowers as unpatriotic or "biased". The article refers to this pattern as the "War on Expertise".

Very interesting and scary stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 05:30 PM

Have been reading the Buckminster Fuller excerpt, and it is very illuminating indeed. Thanks for the link.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 06:50 PM

I've just read the Washington Monthly article (the link in TIA's last post). Not a short article, but worth the effort: a panoramic sweep of where Bush & co are taking us, and why.

After that I think I'm nearly ready for the Fuller. Nearly....

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 08:07 PM

I just finished reading the The Post-Modern President by Joshua Micah Marshall, the article TIA linked above. Marshall seems to remember events as I remember them and I think his “War on Expertise” hypothesis has a great deal of merit. The officials in the U.S. government, together with the actual but hidden powers that Fuller talks about, accept no argument that runs counter to their ideology and self-interest. They believe not only in the superiority of their power but, I think, in their imagined superiority to the rest of humanity.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: LadyJean
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM

Putting Osama bin Laden out of business doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Shame Mr. Bush can't seem to do it. That's one of several reasons why I'm working for Howard Dean.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 09:44 PM

It would require a clear eyed understanding of what we do not know and how we might come to know it. For example, what he is doing.

A

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Sep 03 - 07:11 PM

Are you in favour of the "War on Terror" then LadyJean?

The article Mark has just summed up so neatly is the one I read (follow TIA's link). I'd say that it, and the Michael Meacher article (link at top of the thread) are essential reading for anyone remotely interested in where the US is headed at present (with the UK clinging to its coat tails).

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 03 - 08:45 PM

Where the US is going is down the drain, Fionn. This is Bush's Vietnam except in this case he can't pay for it. Lyndon Johnson tried to balance his "Great Society" (guns and butter) with Vietnam and, though he lost Vietnam, was able to get some important social progrmas off the ground, Medicare being one... But Bush wants *guns and tax giveaways to the rich*? Can't possibly work for the working man, ahhh, that is if you can find any whose jobs haven't been shipped overseas by Bush's buddies....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 02:23 AM

. . . Guns and caviar. . . ?

And we are expected to pick up the check.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 03:48 AM

Two posts from above ask the following questions:

GUEST 07 Sep 03 - 12:07 AM

The bombs, threats, killings are real, why is the war on terror bogus?

Fionn 10 Sep 03 - 07:11 PM

Are you in favour of the "War on Terror" then LadyJean?


The "War on Terror" has been waged since the 1970's, the only difference since 11th September 2001, is that the waging of that war has become more co-ordinated. The bombs, threats and killings are, and always have been, very real. Therefore any attempt by society thus attacked to counter such actions can hardly be described as bogus. In answer to Fionn's question, it is not a case of being in favour, or not in favour, civilisation is under attack and has been for decades. The choice and the important question regarding that state of affairs lies in what the response to that attack is.

Meachers article is a piece written with the aid of 20 x 20 hindsight and is so full of holes it resembles a collander.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 06:38 AM

"The 'War on Terror' has been waged since the 1970's"

One of the main agents promoting "terror" during or after the 70s was in fact the CIA and its agents and allies - most obviously in such places as Chile, Argentina and Nicaragua. (As well as in the course of the war in Vietnam and Cambodia).

"Civilisation" is always under attack. From all sorts of directions.

What is "bogus" is the claim that what is happening is a war on "terror" in general, rather than a selective attack on those identified as hostile the USA, which goes a lot wider than those who have been engaged in terrorist activities against the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:04 AM

Kevin,

I believe there is a word missing in your last paragraph and that it should read, "........selective attack on those identified as hostile by the USA,....."

I think the list of terrorist organisations identified by the US Government is fairly comprehensive, and takes into account the security fears of other nations - the Real IRA, and ETA have never been engaged in terrorist activities against the USA. As I said in my mail, the difference September 11th 2001, made was that it united and co-ordinated anti-terrorist efforts in a manner previously not seen throughout the world (Example: recent sting operation that led to the arrest of a UK citizen trying to sell SAM's to what he fully believed to be a terrorist group - close co-operation by the police, customs and intelligence agencies from quite a number of countries, most unlikely bed-fellows were the US and Russians).

Note you list examples for CIA, but not for KGB. The examples you did give were all nationally focused, not international. The first international terrorist was the man who has made a name and a fortune out of providing non-leadership for the Palestinian cause - Yasser Arafat - never actually did anything himself of course, always got others to take the risks and pay the price, while he pocketed the money.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:26 AM

Teribus, I was actually wanting clarification of LadyJean's post, but I'm sure she'll appreciate you telling me what she meant. But you're wrong about that war. Pre-911, governments went out of their way not to categorise/legitimise criminal outrages as war. Can you cite any that did otherwise, thereby accepting all the implications that come with that definition?

The Bush gang deserve credit for being first to spot that the war definitioin brings benefits as well as downsides - increased scope to abuse basic freedoms; to define those who are and those who are not entitled to be treated as a human beings; to pursue selfish commercial interests, etc. And if the US admin is free to decide which organisations are terrorist on the basis of which have attacked the US, is that a rational basis for the doctrine of "those who are not with us are against us" by which the US judges other nations?

I wonder if you're any nearer revising your view that Iraq was the right target, given that Iraq was nowhere near presenting a threat to anyone, whereas Iran plainly is (and the US has got itself too overstretched to do a damn thing about it)?

As for Meacher, my collander has 64 holes, Teribus, but if you could point to, oh, a dozen holes in his article, I would consider that a reasonable start.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 07:43 PM

"The examples you did give were all nationally focused, not international."

People organising terror in foreign countries, even on the other side of the world, and for some reason that doesn't count as "international". I don't understand that logic. Does it only apply to Americans?

I wasn't the suggesting the Americans are the only onmes in the frame of course. "One of the main agents" implies as much. Quite true - the Russians went in for it as well. And other countries as well. And that is still true today.

My point wasn't that the Americans are uniquely to be blamed, but that terrorism is not limited to the people identified as the enemy. State terror, and state sponsored terror, are forms of terrorism, and historically they have been far more destructive of life than other forms, even when you take September 11th 2001 into account.

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:29 PM

Reflections on "The War on Terrorism."

It doesn't take the resources of an entire nation to plan and execute an event like the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A determined gang operating completely independently could have done it. Contrary to what's been said, a gang that wanted to carry off such an attack would not need a great deal of financial backing: enough money to pay for a few of the gang members to go to flight school to learn what they would need to know about flying an airliner (indeed, you can get flight simulator programs for your computer for anywhere from $15.00 to $60.00, and I understand that that's exactly what some of them did), and enough money for the members of the gang who were going to execute the plot to buy one-way airline tickets. Oh, yes, and drop into Home Depot and buy a handful of box-cutters. It would take considerable coordination and timing, but this wouldn't be much more complex than planning a church picnic. Actaully, train robbery back in the 1800s or the more recent Brinks armored car robbery took about the same level of planning.

The 9/11 attack has never—repeat, never—been established to be an act of a foreign government: not Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia (even if most of those involved were Saudi citizens), not Syria, not Iran, and not Iraq. And, for that matter, there is no really solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved. He said he approved of it and encouraged more of the same, but his actual involvement is an assumption that everyone seems to accept without question. In short, the CIA, the FBI, and the Bush administration have made allegations about who is responsible, but have offered no substantial proof.

The claim was that there were Islamic terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, so the United States attacked the nation of Afghanistan. Undoubtedly there were such camps, but when the attack began, the terrorists who may have been there scattered like city pigeons in the path of a semi truck. Afghanistan was left in rubble for the second time in two decades. Because of our failure to follow up and despite Hamid Karzai, the warlords are now running most of the country and the Taliban are coming back.

Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and making further allegations about Saddam's nuclear capacity and stockpile of weapons of mass destruction ready to supply future terrorist attacks, or even possibly be used in a direct attack on the United States, the United Kingdom, or Iraq's neighbors. That one, they picked out of thin air. There was no evidence whatsoever. In fact, there is an inconsistency there: if Osama bin Laden was involved, he wouldn't have gone to Saddam for help and Saddam wouldn't have helped him if he had. They hate each others' guts. And what we find ourselves involved in (foreseen by practically everybody but the Bush administration) looks a lot like Vietnam Redux.

The attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act. To go to war with the country from which the criminals come is not an appropriate response to a criminal act; if it were, we'd have gone to war with Saudi Arabia. The appropriate act would have been to work in cooperation with Interpol and the various intelligence and police agencies in other countries—not insult and alienate them instead—and track down those who were in on the plot like the criminals they are. Going to war with a country that might possibly knowingly or unknowingly harbor terrorists is like flailing about with a chain-saw when the job calls for a scalpel.

The war on Afghanistan and the war on Iraq have nothing to do with terrorism. They have to do with American geopolitical domination of the Middle East and control of the Middle East's oil and natural gas resources and reserves.

There have always been terrorists and, unfortunately, until humanity achieves a more enlightened state, there will always be terrorists—depending, of course, on how one wishes to apply the epithet. The United States itself has trained terrorists in its School of the Americas; only they, of course, were called "freedom fighters" or "counter-insurgents." To declare "war on terrorism" is to declare a war that will never—ever—end. I believe George Orwell said something about the advantages to a totalitarian government of being in a state of perpetual war. A state of war usually allows a government to assume powers that its citizens would find unacceptable in times of peace, such as those assumed by the Patriot Act and its attendant assault on civil liberties. And, I might add with a chilly feeling of déjà vu, it also gives certain national leaders an opportunity to posture about in uniforms they haven't earned the right to wear (if you think back, you might recall other world leaders in the century just past who were fond of strutting about in uniforms).

When one considers the plans for Empire America that were in the works at least as far back as 1992, plans so eloquently outlined on the Project for the New American Century web site, and which are now in the process of unfolding, one cannot help but note that the 9/11 attacks and the thoroughly understandable and predictable response it elicited in the American people was bizarrely convenient for those who wished for an excuse to launch the actions necessary to bring the plan for Empire American to fruition. Add to this the strange lack of interest in prior reports of a possible terrorist attack on or around the date and location in question, and the strange inaction on the morning of the attacks, is it any wonder that a few people here and there might feel just a bit suspicious?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:10 PM

Well stated, Don. Surely one with your insight deserves a larger audience than is found here at Mudcat.

I am surprised, however, that you have yet to be challenged after a mere half-hour. Keep a sharp eye on the right -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:14 PM

By way of a further aside, Don, another little snippet emerged in the UK today. Just before the war, Blair told the UK parliament that war was the only way to stop Iraq's WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists. It turns out that he said that despite an assessment by his own security services that war, by destabilising Iraq,would give terrorists a better chance of getting WMDs. Exactly what most of us here were saying at the time, as was everyone who had anything between their ears. (OK, OK - I know there were no WMDs anyway, but that's a detail....)

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:07 PM

Whew, Don!!!....

Like nuthin' left to be said...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: TIA
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:27 PM

You go Don!

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 12:52 AM

Well turned, Don Firth!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 01:34 AM

Yeah, Don.

There is one small point, though. We don't think Bush and Company ever actually accused Sadaam Hussein of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks, did he? Bush merely started dozens of speeches by talking about 9/11 and then switched to talking aboout Iraq. This innuendo resulted in, by the latest polls, 69% of Americans believing that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. This is probably more insidious than actually making the accusation.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:43 AM

Right, Bev and Jerry. To be fair to Bush, I don't recall hearing him ever actually saying outright that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, but by the time he and several others, such as Rumsfeld and Powell, got through with all their spins and pirouettes during their flood of speeches and press conferences leading up to the invasion of Iraq, an overwhelming percentage of the populace believed that it was Saddam, or at the very least, bin Laden with Saddam's backing who had done it. Was it Goering who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough and brazenly enough, the people will believe it?" I guess that also works when it's a lie by implication.

Don Firth