9-11 Criminal Negligence -- Part 2 of 2
author: ananda
|
This essay presents some of the evidence that supports the conclusion that the Bush administration is guilty of criminal negligence in their failure to protect us from the attacks of 9-11.
|
9-11 Criminal Negligence
Part 2 of 2
Part 1 is here:  http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3? article_id=36390&group=webcast
-- DRAFT --
---> Please Comment <---
1. Purpose and Scope
This essay provides a referenced introduction to some of the information available that leads to the conclusion that the government of the United States was aware of the possibility (if not likelihood) of the attacks that occurred on 9-11, and made decisions that allowed them to occur. Sections 2 and 3 provides some of the direct evidence of the prior knowledge of our government. The subsequent sections provide indirect or circumstantial evidence that shows how the actions of our leaders and our government, and how our history are consistent with the hypothesis that the attacks were preventable but allowed to happen. Section 3 examines the breathtaking failure of the Air Force to respond to defend our national airspace on 9-11. Section 4 examines the specific decisions made by our government that allowed the attacks. Section 5 examines the historical precedents for our government to employ deception to conduct warfare. Section 6 examines the evidence of possible motives for deciding not to prevent these attacks. Section 7 is presented in Q&A format and includes: "What Can We Do About This?" A short list of sources for additional information is also provided.
In my research into this subject, I have found that very few of the facts presented here are in question.
There are quite a number of other areas where substantial evidence leads to the same conclusion of prior knowledge (for example, the massive trading in the stock of just the two airlines involved in the attack, the subsequent activities of the government to cover-up these realities and to stop any investigation into them, and the strange activities of George Bush on that morning). The topics highlighted in this essay are simply those that seem the most clearly documented, provide the most compelling evidence for prior knowledge, and at the same time have given me the greatest insight into the motives behind letting it happen and the likely consequences for our governments activities in the future.
I have written this essay primarily because the facts and conclusions have not been organized and focused in the way that makes the most sense to me. I believe that the public record presented here adequately supports these conclusions are: 1) the Bush Administration clearly knew about the threat of such attacks; 2) the Bush Administration was warned urgently, explicitly and often during the summer of 2001 that such attacks were immanent by our allies; 3) not only did the Bush Administration do nothing to respond to the threat or to the warnings of immanent attack, they actually scaled back existing counter-terrorism activities; 4) because there is no way to plausibly deny either their knowledge or their negligence, the Bush administration has deceived us about what they knew and have obstructed all attempts to investigate the causes and circumstances of their failure to protect us from the attacks on 9-11.
These conclusions and the evidence that supports them provide a sufficient basis for accusing the Bush administration of criminal negligence in their failure to protect us from the attacks of 9-11. Although there may be the possibilities of additional wrong-doing or criminal intention, this criminal negligence and the deception of the American people involved in their cover-up of that negligence are already clear from the public record. While the conclusions that the administration intentionally allowed the attacks to take place and/or actually took steps to ensure that they were not stopped are also consistent with the facts, they are much more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt -- primarily because they require evidence of intention which is lacking. I prefer the conclusions identified above specifically because they do not suffer from this difficulty. They require no additional information or investigation that is not already publicly available and completed. The purpose of this essay is to provide an outline of that information and investigation.
5. Precedents for American Wars
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hitler's #2 Man, Hermann Goering
The history of the United States demonstrates that our people and leaders are no exception to these observations made by Georing. Moreover, the record shows that the people of the United States have entered no conflict without significant deception by its leaders about the threat of being attacked.
This section provides examples from three conflicts that have great significance in the history of the United States, and may be seen as precedents for the current conflict in which we are engaged.
5.1 From the beginning, the shock and surprise experienced by American citizens after the attack on 9-11 was compared to that experienced before the second world war when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In 1995, Robert Stinnett published Day of Deceit which details the evidence that President Roosevelt not only knew about the attack several weeks before it occurred, but also followed a detailed script intended to provoke the Japanese into making precisely that attack and took steps to ensure that no one prevented those attacks. He knew that it would require an Overt Act of War against the United States to mobilize the citizens of the United States for this war.
Briefly the evidence consists of the detailed script (in the form of a memo to the president by Lt. Commander Arthur McCullum) for provocation, the subsequent orders by Roosevelt to follow that script and the detailed information about our specific awareness of the attack at the time that it occurred. The reason that this decision was made was that the president thought it essential to United States interests that we enter the war against Germany, and that the American people were not in favor of the idea. In fact, Roosevelt had campaigned against entry into the war and had promised that he would never do it.
The memo to the president by Lt Commander Arthur McCullum detailing the plan to provoke the Japanese into an Overt Act of War, included the following elements:
1) Keep most of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor
(as bait to draw the attack),
2) Send a division of US Cruisers into Japanese territorial waters
(this was done regularly to threaten access to oil),
3) Deny the Japanese Oil
(the Dutch and the British also agreed to this embargo),
........
4) Send submarines into the territorial waters,
8) The last step was to seize all assets in the United States.
We were monitoring the Japanese fleet with directional radio sensors so we knew its location and movement just prior to the attack. We had broken the diplomatic and naval encryption codes and had clear warning at least a month in advance from these sources. This information was withheld from those responsible for the defense of Hawaii who were subsequently court marshaled for their failure. Roosevelt issued orders to all other commanders (including MacArthur) to stand aside and allow the overt act of war by the Japanese which would be the only way to motivate the American people to enter the war against Germany.
Based on Stinnett's research the Congress finally acceded to the family of the prime commander of Hawaii [Admiral Kimmel] to restore his rank and reputation. They passed a law to that effect (which has yet to be signed by either Presidents Clinton or Bush). This understanding of the beginning of the second World War is now so accepted by the mainstream that it is being broadcast regularly by the History channel.
It is worth noticing that even though there had been quite a number of official and intensive investigations into the causes of the failures around Pearl Harbor, the truth about those events was not revealed until early in 1995, presumably because all of those involved in the decisions had died.
[ link to www.radio4all.net]
5.2 The War on Iraq conducted by the first President Bush provides a very useful precedent because it is our last major conflict and may be our next. Before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, our ambassador at the time assured him that "the United States would view it as a local matter" (i.e. would not object or interfere). This was revealed in Congressional hearings and is understood to be a major reason that the invasion of Kuwait was undertaken by Saddam at the time. Subsequent to the invasion a Publicity Relations firm completely fabricated a video news story about babies being taken out of incubators and left on the floor to die by Iraqi soldiers. This story was timed to mobilize American support of the invasion of Iraq. Subsequently, the policies of embargo imposed by the United States and our allies on Iraq has been responsible for the death of more than 1.5 million of its citizens. The majority of these deaths were among the old and the very young, with an estimated 500,000 deaths of children attributed to the policies by the United Nations. When asked about whether these deaths were warranted, Madeline Albright responded that that the price was worth it. [?reference?]
5.3 As our intervention in Columbia morphs from a Drug War to a War on Terrorism, it provides many clear precedents for the War on Terrorism. Since its inception under the Reagan administration the Drug War has served as a reason for intervention in foreign governments to ensure the interests of major corporations and for the incarceration of American citizens. The current interventions in Columbia have more to do with suppressing dissent and ensuring corporate access to oil and labor than with the interdiction of the drug trade. Just as the Drug War replaced our War on Communism as a pretext for such intervention in the past, the War on Terrorism now replaces the Drug War.
During this time, the prison population in the United States has risen from about 300,000 to over 2,000,000; and spawned a new growth industry in privatized prisons. Most of this increased population has come from the draconian drug laws (very similar to the anti-terrorism legislation) under which possession of prohibited substances warrant sentences equal to those of felony arson. Most of this increased incarceration (up to 70-80%) comes from Afro-American and Hispanic populations.
During this time the use of drugs in the United States has, if anything, increased.
During this time the votes removed from the electoral process by felony convictions have made it increasingly difficult for Democrats to be elected at any level of government.
The number of Americans in jail or under supervision by authorities as a result of crimes grew by 2.3 percent by year-end 2001 to almost 6.6 million Americans, or one in every 32 adults, the Department of Justice reported on August 25, 2002. In 1990, almost 4.4 million adults were incarcerated or being supervised. [Reuters, August 25, 2002]
Currently, the War on Drugs costs the U.S. $18.8 billion a year, and most of it goes to prisons. [The Connection (04/08/02) http://archives.theconnection.org/archive/2002/04/0408a.shtml]
6. Possible Motives for Allowing 9-11
"To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Although it is difficult to effectively judge the motivations of others, the historical record provides some evidence of the reasons behind the policies of the United States government that seem to apply directly to this situation. Anyone who believes that the War in Afghanistan was waged primarily because terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (or that the last and next wars against Iraq were/are undertaken for the reasons given) are likely to be mistaken. The record shows that the reasons given are almost always a deception. In this section, we attempt to assess these reasons from an objective and historical point of view.
FIRST a DISCLAIMER. It seems likely that the loss of life and damage to the World Trade Center was greater than expected. (Isn't it always?) It is not the intention of this article to argue that anyone intended the loss of human life on such a scale. On the other hand, as Commander McCullum said of Pearl Harbor, the unity of the American people is worth a few thousand lives.
The real question addressed in this section is what have we been united for.
6.1 One obvious and highly reported dimension of this conflict (at least outside the United States) is oil. Monitoring the world supply of oil is a highly evolved science and experts predict that the production of oil will peak in 5-15 years, never again to be exceeded. Meanwhile, the consumption, led by the United States continues to increase worldwide. This means that in the very near future, oil will become increasingly and rapidly scarce. One of the most reportedly under-exploited reserves of oil and gas resources lie in the Caspian Sea basin to the north of Afghanistan. One of the primary reasons for the delay in exploitation has been the political instability of the region, for which the United States is largely responsible since the time that the area was under Soviet domination. For some time since the end of the Soviet Union, the United States has been seeking to develop a route to market for these resources through Afghanistan. Taking this route under American custody will mean that it will not be controlled by China or by Russia who are also interested in these resources: Russia as a world supplier and China as a consumer. It will also mean that we will be less dependent on Saudi Arabia and have more leverage with China.
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - Zbigniew Brzezinski, p.125)
Before beginning to threaten the Taliban, Bush tried to woo them into providing a passage to market for these resources. The threats began after these discussions broke down (or may have been responsible for the breakdown of the discussions). After the attack, when the United States demanded that the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts, we did so in a way that made it impossible for them to comply. For example, we did not give them a list of individuals that would have made it possible for them to comply. We would not agree to have them turned over to a third party like the United Nations International Court. We did not agree to provide them with proof, which seems a reasonable request in any extradition process. This is consistent with the threat and indicates that the threats were about the oil agreement and not about Osama Bin Laden or the al Qaeda. If the Taliban had agreed to our demands for the pipeline, it is likely that none of this would have happened.
Additional details on the coming peak of oil production at these sites:
http://hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm
http://hubbertpeak.com/ (lots of science, articles and links to other sites here)
http://www.dieoff.org/page140.htm (Scientific American article)
http://iviews.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0211-1794&p=1
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html
http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html
http://www.dieoff.com/synopsis.htm (lots of additional links here)
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature.cfm?REF=330
http://www.rea-alp.com/~dragnfly/
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=5663 (Part 3 of 4 Parts)
6.2 Zbigniew Brzezinski who led the National Security Council under President Carter makes it clear that this is just not about profits for the oil companies but about the strategic geopolitical interests of the United States. "In that [geopolitical] context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geo-politically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geo-politically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." [THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - Zbigniew Brzezinski, page 31]
"The three grand imperatives of imperial geo-strategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
Our efforts to secure bases in Uzbekistan and adjoining countries (which began before 9-11) seem to be following the script to pursue these interests that Zbigniew Brzezinski lays out in his book. Ominously, he says that the American society will not support the mobilization of strategic imperial force that is required to pursue these objectives without a direct external threat, and a shock effect such as was experienced from the attack on Pearl Harbor (pp 24-5, p.211).
The suppression of dissent from pursuing these strategic geopolitical interests, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski is going to require massive force overseas and significant coercion domestically. This is precisely what the Drug War was seeking to accomplish on a much more modest scale. We are now moving much closer to the full consequences of this vision of pursuing our geopolitical interests. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed in his new book this year, describes the current situation through eyes that are less enthralled with the ideology of neo-liberalism.
"The virtually unhindered expansion of the American Empire is simultaneously and systemically eroding the very values that America claims to stand for. Throughout the West and beyond, civil liberties, basic freedoms and human rights are being curtailed in the name of fighting terrorism, while military interventions with nuclear implications are being planned to pursue brute strategic and economic interests, at the expense of indigenous populations--- and for the benefit of corporate elites. Under U.S. leadership, it seems that the entire world is moving towards a situation of global apartheid governed by the Western-based international institutions of what is fast becoming a global police state, administered by the powerful for their own profit."
[The War on Freedom, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed]
For additional historical information on American Empire/Hegemony:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/22/1032055033082.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0111hawk_body.html
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~johnsonm/harpers/harpers_0210_criticism.pdf
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP111B.html
http://www.amconmag.com/11_4/bushs_grand_strategy.html
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=13852
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=5517
6.3 Globally these interests (as embodied in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G-8 and the World Trade Organization) had been under increasing pressure prior to 9-11. From the confrontations in Seattle in 1999 to those in Genoa in July of 2001, it was becoming increasingly clear that the pursuit of these policies of geopolitical domination were under attack. After Genoa, these meetings began to be scheduled in completely in accessible venues to preclude such confrontations because the leaders of global policy had found themselves increasingly unable to manage them. The next meeting of these groups (which was too soon to be rescheduled without severe embarrassment) was scheduled to take place in late September, 2001 in Washington DC. In preparation for that event security forces were preparing to build a multi-million dollar wall around a 20-40 square block area of the core of the DC city where the conference was sited. During the last meeting during July 2002 in Canada, costs for security ranged in the hundreds of millions of dollars even though the site chosen was extremely remote and inaccessible.
6.4 During the summer of 2001, Bush was mooned in England as an expression of extreme disrespect by hundreds of demonstrators. This was his first visit to Europe after refusing to participate in the Kyoto agreements and he got less than the usual warm welcome for a new American president. Domestically for the Bush administration, the situation was even more dire. The legitimacy of Bush's presidency was still in serious question, particularly among the African-American population. Publication of the final consensus analysis was due to be published in September (after the holidays). It would not be favorable. Bush's popularity was waning. He withdrew to Texas during August to develop a campaign to improve it. Anti-Bush protest was being suppressed by moving demonstrators blocks away from any venue where Bush spoke. Demonstrators moving closer than these approved zones were intimidated and arrested. The White House had decided not to release the Reagan presidential records, as required by law. The White House had decided not to release the records of its development of its oil policy, as required by law.
During a financial audit, the Department of Defense had been unable to account for the expenditure of more than $3 billion dollars. All priority for the defense budget had been undermined by Bush's tax cut and the defense department financial scandal.
It looked like the Bush administration was under siege.
That's the way things were. How things have changed!
6.5 Conclusion
Its certainly possible to speculate that George Bush realized after the early August briefing on terrorism, that all he had to do was nothing. Actually, the record revealed in Section 4 shows that the interference with the investigations began much earlier and continued even after early August (the date of the secret Bush briefing) as Ashcroft and Rumsfeld made it clear that counter-terrorism was not a priority in the budget for either departments. It is likely that we will never know what any of these top leaders know and when they new it. Nor is that necessary. Their public decisions reveal and the record of information identified in Sections 2 and 4 make it clear that they knew but were not taking action. At the very least they are responsible for criminal negligence.
It is also clear from at least two incidents that the administration had decided sometime during the summer that it would be at war in Afghanistan by October. These reports identify the objective of regime change to promote American "strategic interests" ahead of those relating to terrorism.
From the evidence in Sections 4 and 6 it seems clear that the priority of our government was not the protection of American lives, but of the American Way of Life. After 9-11 the event was clearly portrayed as an attack on The American Way of Life. What this means to our current government in our foreign policy seems clearly identified by Zbigniew Brzezinski in Section 6.2. In our domestic society, the Bush administration also made it clear that The American Way of Life that they were defending was The American Way of Consumption. Go out and buy and spend, they said. This was the best way to make sure that the terrorists did not win.
In the context of oil, the Taliban and Al Qaida were primarily a threat to the interests of the United States because they were interfering with the development of a pipeline. In order to pursue those interests, the Taliban needed to agree to the usual (exploitive) economic terms and conditions and to agree to convert their political structure to one more friendly to our interests. This meant making peace with the Northern Alliance and distancing themselves from Bin Laden and his organization. The threats made to the government of Afghanistan in July and early August of 2001 seem, from the record, to be primarily focused on this aspect of United States economic interests; and specifically NOT focused on the protection of American citizens.
In the context of "strategic interests" the situation in Afghanistan was a pretext for a massive introduction of military force in the region. It is also clear than many of the bases used around the Caspian Sea basin will remain permanent. This was specifically the area identified as the most important strategically by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
It also seems that subsequent to the attack nothing has changed in that regard. The government still seems to be focused on American interests (as described by Brzezinski) but not the protection of American lives. We have been able to conclude the agreement about the pipeline with the new regime in Afghanistan. We have NOT been able to apprehend any of the alleged perpetrators of the atrocity. Indeed, whatever investigation has been taking place in that regard seems similarly obstructed to the one that was taking place before. But for the moment, that cover-up is another story.
The best article that I have seen in the last year on the meaning and motives of 9-11 is here:
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com.au/articles/War_on_Terror_The_Police_State_Agenda.html
7. A Few Questions and Answers
7.1 Why are these ideas rejected by so many leaders on the left?
These are a few thoughts that cover the topic from a thread of postings at the San Francisco indymedia site. [ http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117429.php]
Certain organizations such as ZMag have the perspective that a discussion of possible U.S. government foreknowledge and/or complicity is at odds with critical theory. An analysis of institutions is what's necessary, they say, and talking about government involvement is a form of conspiracy theory, whose focus is corrupt individuals rather than the overall structure of the system, and whose promoters often espouse simplistic if not all-out right wing politics. True enough, all events happen in the context of global capitalism and its dynamics, especially the accumulation imperative. But within these constraints, corporate and state managers act to facilitate their ends. And pretending that they don't act deliberately and in secret to promote their goals flies in the face of history, such as the events of Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin pseudo-attack which led to dramatically-escalated U.S. involvement in Indochina. A determination to not deal with what the elites actually do to enforce their policies is a good way to disarm yourself and let them have
their way. [August West, http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117429.php]
............................
I [also] see striking parallels between the Left's reaction in the present situation and its reaction in 1914, as the supposedly socialist Second International turned its back on numerous pledges to never allow a war, and its constituent parties joined the various national war efforts. This amounted to sending many of their own (particularly working class) members to be slaughtered on behalf of a struggle for markets and the "national (capital) interest". [August West, http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117429.php]
..................................
Here's my concern: I worry that by emphasizing US involvement you risk two things politically that are maybe not worth risking considering eternally inconclusive evidence: 1) You risk implying that the US has not made real enemies out there who are furious and want retaliation (this plays down the brutal legacy of US presence in the Middle East.) So you obscure an understanding of the effects of US military presence. 2) Also, it is difficult enough to get people to look at scandals like Enron in a way which leads them to radical conclusions...And you want anarchists to organize on the basis of the arguments you offer? I know this sounds instrumentalist, and I hate sounding that way, but even if I were to be convinced that somehow the US was involved enough in a direct fashion to warrant the use of the term "insider job" at the same time I am very wary about how to use this kind of info politically. Most of the US is happily asleep and shopping as the stock market supposedly begins to recover and there are reported rises in the consumption of luxury goods... most of the liberal/left is caught up in their paid activist jobs...so how do you envision challenging the different sectors with this info? I am truly curious and would like your reflections; because this is where I am getting stuck. [another comment at the same link]
The question about THE LEFT and prior knowledge is covered in great detail at:
http://communitycurrency.org/LEFT.html
I personally tend to credit Dan Rather's comments during his interview with the BBC (which was also reported in the Guardian) in which he said that any public figure asking the "tough questions" would be "necklaced" with the stigma of treachery and lose credibility immediately. It is extremely telling that he was only able to say these things in the foreign media who are much more able to report on this evidence and these questions. "The Left" in other countries has no trouble discussing this matter. In fact, they find it important to do so.
This is extremely difficult material, and I would advise patience with anyone who does not understand things in this way. I would be even more grateful if the truth of this line of thinking can be disproved. However, I disagree with those who believe that walking down this path, if this is indeed where the truth seems to lie, is counter-productive. If we deny the value of inquiry because it does not support our agenda, it seems to me that we continue to contribute to this same syndrome of corruption. On the other hand, we must also each respect each other's right to contribute in the ways that they feel are the most effective. It does not mean that we must, in all cases, support them or allow them to do so.
It is more than ironic that Bush and Osama are both doing the right thing and following the truth as they see it. It is humbling. The lesson here seems to be that whenever our beliefs begin to exclude our abilities to appreciate those of others, we are entering the realms of fanaticism and violence.
7.2 Why should I treat such a conspiracy theory seriously?
[see also the answer to the previous question]
A conspiracy theory focuses on the individuals and on blame. This process is difficult to resolve. For a variety of reasons, it can turn into a labyrinth; and is easily manipulated by generating conflict and confusion around endless counter theories. This essay has only indirectly been about the actions and inactions of individuals. It is primarily evidence that we are being deceived, with some clear evidence about the nature of the situation in which we find ourselves.
This essay is not about a conspiracy because it is not about the people in the current government who have been a party to allowing this tragedy to occur. It is not these individuals who are the primary cause of this terrible tragedy, but a system of oppression and exploitation that has been taking place for at least a century. For earlier era, England was the leader of this system. Since the end of the second world war, the United States has been the primary organizing force. Most of the Western civilization has been complicit in this conspiracy. It is only now that conditions are making it possible for more of us in America to realize the nature of these conditions. The people in the third world have been aware of them from the beginning because they have been more affected by them. The people in Europe are more aware of them because their societies are less effectively propagandized than ours.
This may be the great blessing of our time. That we are becoming aware of this together.
[see also the answer to the next question.]
"We have seen the enemy, and it is us." [Pogo]
(This essay is not directed at exposing a conspiracy, but at exposing a corruption in which many of us have had some role. Certainly I have had, though I dearly endeavored otherwise. Although this essay is not about conspiracy, it was greatly aided by many whose primary interest is represented in that light; and for which I am grateful. And then, on the other hand, what is the whole story of Osama and the hijackers if not a conspiracy theory? Isn't any war essentially a conspiracy? Perhaps its just a matter of being on the "wrong" side.)
7.3 What can we do about this?
We each and all have our agenda. Using this crisis to move it forward is just what Bush did and I would not want to be one to follow in those footsteps. I would however, take common cause with anyone who is interested in taking control of our agenda as a people again, and moving forward in solidarity with all people. This goes far beyond voting Bush and his associates out of office, and stopping the War on Terrorism. It means organizing the ways we live, so that we can renew ourselves as a vital democratic society; and it means reversing the trends that have take us so far away from that for at least the last 50 years and probably longer.
Any feelings of revenge that I may harbor toward those individuals involved is tempered by my own realization that I should have known more about what was being done in my name by our government for the last 50 years; and by some understanding about how much more important it is for me to learn how to live differently than it is for me to punish "those responsible". For in many, many ways I have prospered at the expense of others for far too long myself. Perhaps even more importantly I have also passed up many opportunities to make a difference in the lives of others. I deeply regret that so much of the damage of this corruption of our society has been done during the maturing of my generation. I hold my ancestors much less responsible than myself for this, and regret providing such an unfriendly world for those more recently become adults.
I have found it necessary to give myself some time to let all of this sink in. I have gone through a lot of sinking in since the last presidential election. This is very difficult information to assimilate effectively. Its very much like the grieving process. It takes time; and cannot be rushed. Its very tempting and much easier to get into the blame game than it is to assess what is really important about this to me and what really makes sense to do about it in a constructive way. I have also found that others are often quite reluctant to look into this. I have learned to accept that we each have to make our own choices about what is important in our lives, and how we wish to contribute to the lives of others. Even though this seems to me earth shattering, for one reason or another, many others are not of the same mind. I have concluded that it is important to accept that; and that it is also important to find others of the same mind, and discover if we are interested in participating together in any way to improve the situation.
Some ideas that I have heard from others that I think may be helpful in this regard; and that I am trying to follow.
a. -- Love those who are close to me, and widen the circle of those with whom my heart is open. (We have unexpected allies in resolving this crisis, and it is likely to take a long time.)
b. -- Keep myself informed on issues that interest me.
c. -- Reach out to others to discuss, exchange information and discover issues of mutual interest.
d. -- Find and develop groups with mutual interests and take action together.
Relying on others to do this for us may be a large part of how we got here in the first place.
Some of the most important resources that I have discovered along the way are:
http://www.cyberjournal.org -- and especially
http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/WE/jun00Matrix.shtml
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com.au/articles/War_on_Terror_The_Police_State_Agenda.html (already cited above)
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions
http://www.newdimensions.org/html/audiopeace.html
If you have a player for Real Media and a good link, this is my favorite group action -- Not IN OUR NAME PLEDGE. [ link to la.indymedia.org
This is a wonderful article on some of the basic ways to take action in the time of such apparent insanity. link to sfgate.com -- I recommend it.
These are my current thoughts today and a few others on what we can do.
I would be very grateful to hear from you about yours.
8. Subsequent Thoughts and Writings since August, 2002
This is the most sane commentary on the state of the world I have heard in the last few years.
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Introduces the subject of American Imperialism in a historical context.
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
Provides several links about the immediate history of plans for the American Empire/Hegemony
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
Introduces the trend toward American Fascism that has resulted in the Department of Homeland Security (in two parts)
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Same as above with great thread
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
More detail on the topic of the coming world-wide peak in oil production
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Update on the coming world-wide oil production peak with best set of links on the topic
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
My Letters to Congress about the Plans for War with Iraq
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
Another personal statement against the War with Iraq
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Comments on Bush's popularity
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
The Real Reasons for War, an outline of the Bush agenda reflected in his warmongering.
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
In defense of UN efforts to avert war with Iraq
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Explanation of the UN approach to authorizing the use of force against Iraq
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
Additional thoughts on how Bush's approach to war with Iraq is harmful for America
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
This is a set of links to Scott Ritter's objections to American policy of War with Iraq. I think that his summary of the history of weapons inspections and related US foreign policy is excellent.
link to post.news.messages.yahoo.com
A defense of Scott Ritter (who has been maligned by the media) and a link to an archive of his talks
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Its about the cover-up by the Bush administration of its negligent counter-terrorism policies(2 Parts) This post was the most popular. It was recommended well over a hundred times.
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
More on the above and a great thread
link to news.messages.yahoo.com
Additional Information
A few of the best sites IMO for general information about the Prior Knowledge issue are:
http://www.911pi.com/ The People's Investigation of 9-11
Lots of information brought together here and lots of ways to participate and contribute to the investigation and dissemination of this information.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/September%2011.htm
well-referenced fact sheets in many categories relating to 9-11 and
prior knowledge
http://unansweredquestions.org summarizes and introduces the categories
of discrepancies very neatly and in audio format too. Has a great
list of questions to which all can add and vote on the most important
in each category.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html has an
extraordinary catalog of original sources
http://www.falloutshelternews.com/9_11_ODDITIES.html has a large list
of analysis articles and commentary (as opposed to original sources)
http://www.communitycurrency.org/MainIndexMX.html
very good in elaborating and documenting the detailed events of 9-11
http://www.cyberjournal.org/
the best description of the meaning and motives of 9-11 in the context
of its historical and economic dynamics; site also contains some excellent
thinking on what to do now.
at least for the moment. At least two of these sites report a history of cyber attacks.
A Short List of Related Books:
The War on Freedom -- Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
9-11 -- Chomsky
War and Terrorism -- Zinn
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace -- Gore Vidal
Day of Deception -- Stinnett
Body of Secrets -- Bamford
Heart of Darkness -- Conrad
Brave New World -- Huxley
1984 -- Orwell
The New Nuclear Danger -- Caldicott ( http://www.nuclearpolicy.org)
________________________________
Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.
|
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
|
theKnownUniverse@yahoo.com
503 471 1535