9-11 - the lesser of two evils?
I guess it depends on who you ask...
Smedley Butler, a Gangster for Wall StreetWar is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses...The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers...I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism...I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Major General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corps
The lesser of two evilsNow we know the 9-11 hijackers were targeting both Wall Street, the offices of which were in the World Trade Center, and they were also targeting the Capone Gang in the Pentagon, which supplies the muscle for the big crime bosses, the Godfathers of Wall Street. They did not target 'average Americans' nor did they target a random building. However they did 'kill innocent civilians', and in doing so they were morally equivalent to the White House, which also killed innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. IN these cases, we are told, the slaughter of innocents was done because it was 'the lesser of two evils.'
Immediately we notice that there is moral equivalence between Washington and the 9-11 hijackers, in that both kill innocent civilians in pursuit of 'evil doers' and justify their actions as being 'for the higher good' and consider the loss of civilian life to be 'the lesser of two evils.' So we can, at the very least, make note of the fact that Washington and the 9-11 hijackers are at the very least morally equivalent, which isn't saying much for those hijackers. However, on the other hand, those hijackers at least tried to take out some of those oppressors and robbers of Wall Street, and they at least tried to take out Al Capone and his gang in the Pentagon, and that is more than Washington has ever done, and so we can begin to see how in the balance the 9-11 hijackers actually begin to be seen as more moral, with more just cause, than is the case with Washington.
Now both Washington and the 9-11 hijackers kill innocent civilians, and so when you are told that you either have to be for or against one of those two and pick a side in that feud between Rome and the Rebel Forces, neither option seems particularly palatable. Furthermore, the Rebel Forces did not seem particularly revolutionary, in that they shut down Wall Street for a few days, and then it was right back to business as usual. But I suppose it was their intention to make some kind of statement, or perhaps they were trying to inspire a global uprising against Wall Street and the thugs of the Capone gang.
Well the tactics of the rebel forces might debatable, and that disturbing habit they have of killing civilians makes them just like Washington, and that really reduces their appeal, as far as I am concerned. However, we can give the 9-11 hijackers extra credit for having better morals than Washington, when we consider that Washington kills innocent civilians for seedy, smarmy reasons, and cynically lies about it later. At least the 9-11 hijackers were not liars, and their purposes were clear rather than hidden. For example, we know that the Afghanistan War was already planned for October by June 2001, three months before 9-11. According to the story which appeared in the Asian press the Afghan war was actually a war over an oil and gas pipeline the Americans wanted to build through Afghanistan. After 9-11 this pipeline war was cynically peddled as a law and order operation, and to this day many Americans believe that the Afghan oil war was actually the '9-11 revenge war', so cynical was the propaganda used by those Wall Street Godfathers and the Capone gang, so brazen their exploitation of 9-11. The 9-11 hijackers never did anything like this, and Washington killed many more innocent civilians than died on 9-11, doing it all for the bankers and the oil men, and so while the 9-11 hijackers killed civilians in their attack on the robber barons of Wall Street and the thugs of the Pentagon, they were not entirely morally equivalent to Washington, for Washington did is much worse.
Left : Afghan kids get shot to death, so Wall Street can build an oil pipeline...War cynically peddled as 9-11 revenge war, using the mantra that blowing away those kids was 'the lesser of two evils'
Iraqis shot up and blown to kingdom come, with that one kid having his head blown right off, in another Oil War for Wall Street, cynically peddled as another 9-11 revenge war, a WMD war, once again sold using the mantra that killing civilians was 'the lesser of two evils'...
9-11 hijackers slam plane full of civilians into World Trade Center, targeting those Wall Street bankers Smedley Butler was talking about, and later hit the HQ of the Capone Gang. Many civilians died, but then I guess, like Washington, they must have thought it was the lesser of two evils...
According to the Los Angeles times, top Pentagon officials "are studying the lessons of Iraq closely to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly. 'We're going to get better over time,' said Lawrence Di Rita. 'We've always thought of post-hostilities as a phase ... the future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum. ... We'll get better as we do it more often." That's the Pentagon, for you...always thinking ahead...maybe they should just finish off their latest Vietnam war before they get any more ambitious....
The Afghan pipeline war story, before the events of 9-11 were cynically manipulated and it became the '9-11 Revenge War' most people still seem to think it was... The following article from the end of June 2001, reports on the agreement of both India and Iran to be 'on board' for the attack on Afghanistan as the American government was already busy in the region building an anti-Afghanistan war coalition. Note that this year, at the end of May 2002, the ink is dry on the Afghan pipeline deal...Note that Iran is not in on the deal, having become a terrorist state since then...
India in anti-Taliban military plan India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.
By Our Correspondent
26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime ...
Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan. (Note that this is exactly what happened.) ...
Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Collin Powel and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh in Washington. Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected ...
Officials say that the Northern Alliance requires a "clean up" operation to reduce Taliban's war-fighting machinery to launch an attack against the Taliban advance to the Tajik-Afghan border. This "clean up" action is being planned by the US and Russia since the Taliban shows no "sign of reconciliation". (Note: once again everything went exactly as planned last summer)...
Such Central Asian countries as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas and other resources by bringing Islamic fundamentalists into power. Now all the CIS nations are seeking assistance of Russia's Federal Border Guard Service to overcome the Taliban threat ... India, Iran and Russia, for example, are working on a broad plan to supply oil and gas to south Asia and southeast Asian nations through India but instability in Afghanistan is posing a great threat to this effort ... India's official position is for a "peaceful and lasting solution" to the Afghan problem. But it strongly advocates strict economic sanctions against Taliban and is also not averse to a "limited military action" to weaken it. India plans to raise the Afghanistan issue in the forthcoming G-8 summit in Geneva in mid-July.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article