«

»

Αυγ 03

The Rogue State by William Blum. Part two, the author’s Foreword

Author’s Foreword: Concerning September 11, 2001 and the Bombing of Afghanistan
 
Shortly after the publication of this book, the momentous events of September 11, 2001 occurred. Four planes were hijacked in the United States and terrorists proceeded to carry out the most devastating attack on American
soil in the history of the country. The physical destruction and personal suffering caused by the attacks was immense. In addition to punishing the perpetrators who were still alive, the most pressing mission facing the United States was—or should have been—to not allow what happened to pass without deriving important lessons from it to prevent its recurrence.
 
Clearly, the most meaningful of these lessons was the answer to the question «Why?»
It happens that the first chapter in this book is entitled «Why Do Terrorists Keep Picking on the United States?». It argues that terrorists—whatever else they might be—might also be rational human beings, which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions.
 
Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political, or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States.
The chapter contains a lengthy list of such US actions in the Middle East, which have taken many lives, from the bombing of Lebanon and Libya to the sinking of an Iranian ship; from the shooting down of an Iranian
passenger plane and the unending bombing of the Iraqi people to the support of despotic Middle Eastern regimes and the massive military aid to Israel despite the devastation and routine torture that the country inflicts upon the Palestinian people.
 
As retribution for decades of military,economic and political oppression imposed upon the Middle East and the mainly Muslim population who live there by the American Empire, the buildings targeted by the terrorists were not chosen at random. The Pentagon and World Trade Center represented the military and economic might of the United
States, while the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania may well have been on its way to the political wing, the White House.
 
Perspective can be everything. If what the hijackers did is inexcusable, it is by no means inexplicable.
It’s not just people in the Middle East who have good reason for hating what the US government does. The United States has created huge numbers of potential terrorists all over Latin America during a half-century of American actions far worse than those perpetrated in the Middle East. If Latin Americans shared the belief of many Muslims that they will go directly to paradise for martyring themselves by killing the Great Satan,
by now we might have had decades of repeated terrorist horror coming from south of the US-Mexican border. As it is, over the years the region has produced numerous attacks on American embassies, diplomats, US Info
rmation Agency offices, and the like.
 
There are also the people of Asia and Africa. Much the same thing applies.
 
The magnitude of the September 11 attack was such that the American media—the serious or passably serious segments—were obliged to delve into areas they normally do not visit. A number of main stream newspapers, magazines and radio stations, in their quest to understand «Why?», suddenly—or so it seemed—discovered that the United States had been engaged in actions like the ones listed above and countless other interventions in foreign lands over the decades that could indeed produce a great degree of anti-American feeling.
 
This was one positive outcome of the tragedy. This «revelation», however, appeared to escape the mass of the American people, the great majority of whom get their snatches of foreign news from tabloid newspapers,        lowest-common-denominator radio programs, and laughably superficial TV newscasts.
Thus it was that instead of an outpouring of reflection upon what the United States does to the world to make it so hated, there was an outpouring of patriotism of the narrowest kind: Congress members stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang «God Bless America», stores quickly sold out their stocks of American flags, which fluttered high and low in whatever direction one looked, callers to radio shows spat out venom and bloodlust, at entertainment and sporting events it became de rigueur to begin with a military and/or patriotic ceremony, one could scarcely pick up a newspaper or turn on the radio or TV without some tribute to American courage, and everyone and his cousin were made into «heroes». This phenomenon continued, hardly abated, into the year 2002.
 
And the serious American media soon returned to normal mode; i.e., one could regularly find more significant and revealing information concerning US foreign policy in the London papers, the Guardian and the Independent, than in the New York Times and Washington Post.
 
Most Americans find it difficult in the extreme to accept the proposition that terrorist acts against the United States can be viewed as revenge for Washington’s policies abroad.
 
They believe that the US is targeted because of its freedom, its democracy, its wealth.
 
The Bush administration, like its predecessors following other terrorist acts, has pushed this as the official line ever since the attacks. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a conservative watchdog group founded by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, announced in November the formation of the Defense of Civilization Fund, declaring that «It was not only America that was attacked on September 11, but civilization. We were at tacked not for our vices, but for our virtues.»
1
But government officials know better. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: «Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States,»
2
Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his agreement with this:
Η πτώση και το ανακάτεμα όλων των Εθνών με παρέμβαση των ΗΠΑ δεν βοηθάει παρά μόνο στο να την μισούν πλην των Ευρωπαίων συμμάχων της όλοι οι υπόλοιποι λαοί της γης.

Η πτώση και το ανακάτεμα όλων των Εθνών με παρέμβαση των ΗΠΑ, δεν βοηθάει παρά μόνο στο να τις μισούν πλην των Ευρωπαίων συμμάχων της και του Ισραήλ, όλοι οι υπόλοιποι λαοί της γης.

We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers—women and children and farmers and housewives—in those villages around Beirut…As a result of that…we became kind of a Satan in tbe minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages [in Iran] and that is wbat has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks—which were totally unjustified and criminal.
3
The terrorists responsible for the original bombing of the World Trade Center back in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: «We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of
terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.»
4
Further evidence of government and media awareness of the connection between anti-US terrorism and American policies is offered in chapter one of this book.
 
The perpetrators
 
For two and a half months following September 11 the most powerful nation in history rained down a daily storm of missiles upon Afghanistan, one of the poorest and most backward countries in the world. Eventually, this question pressed itself onto the world’s stage: Who killed more innocent, defenseless people? The terrorists in the United States on September 11 with their flying bombs? Or the Americans in Afghanistan with their AGM-86D cruise missiles, their AGM-130 missiles, their 15,000-pound «daisy cutter» bombs, their depleted uranium and their cluster bombs?
By year’s end, the count of the terrorists’ victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania stood at about 3,000. The total count of civilian dead in Afghanistan as a result of American bombing was essentially ignored by US
officials and just about everyone else, but a painstaking compilation of numerous individual reports from the
American and international media and human rights orga nizations by an American professor arrived at considerably more than 3,500 Afghan dead through early December, and still counting.
5
This figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries, or those who died from cold and hunger due to their homes being destroyed by bombs, or the deaths from exposure or hunger among the hundreds of thous
ands of internal refugees fleeing the bombing. Neither does it include the thousands of «military» deaths or the hundreds of prisoners who were executed or otherwise slaughtered by Washington’s new «freedom fighter» allies in conjunction with American military and intelligence operatives. In the final analysis, the body count will also be missing the inevitable victims of cluster bombs-turned-landmines and those who perish more slowly from depleted-uranium-caused sicknesses.
 
There will be no minutes of silence for the Afghan dead, no memorial services attended by high American officials and entertainment celebrities, no messages of condolencesent by heads of state, no millions of dollars raised for the victims’ families. Yet, all in all, it was a bloodbath that more than rivals that of September 11.
And of the thousands dead in Afghanistan,how many, can it be said with any certainty, had played a conscious role in the American catastrophe?
 
According to the video of Osama bin Laden presented to the world by the US government, he himself didn’t find out the exact date of the terrorist act until five days before it took place, and most of the hijackers did not know they were part of a suicide mission until they prepared to board the planes. (The FBI reportedly came to the latter
conclusion long before the video was made public.
6
Given that, it appears eminently safe to say that exceedingly few other people in the world were knowingly in on the plot, perhaps a number that can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Consequently, if the American bombing campaign in Afghanistan was designed to kill the actual perpetrators, it was a fool’s mission; a violent fool.
 
If Timothy McVeigh, perpetrator of the terrible bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, had not been quickly caught, would the United States have bombed the state of Michigan or any of the other places he called home? No, they would have instituted a mammoth manhunt until they found him and punished him. But in
Afghanistan, the United States proceeded virtually on the assumption that everyone who supported the Taliban government, native or foreigner, was 1) a «terrorist» and 2)morally, if not legally, stained with the blood of September 11—or perhaps one or another anti-US terrorist action of the past—and was thus fair game.
 
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, even American officials can perceive which is the honorable path to walk. Speaking of Russia’s problem with Chechnya in 1999, the US State Department’s second in command, Strobe Talbott, urged Moscow to show «restraint and wisdom». Restraint, he said, «means taking action against real ter-rorists, but not using indiscriminate force that endangers innocents.»
 
7
Suggesting a moral equivalency between the United States and terrorists (or, during the cold war, with communists) never fails to inflame American anger. The terrorists purposely aimed to kill civilians, we are told, while any non-combatant victims of the American bombings were completely accidental.
Whenever the United States goes into one of its periodic bombing frenzies and its missiles take the lives of numerous civilians, this is called «collateral damage»—inflicted by the Fates of War—for the real targets,
we are invariably told, were military.
 
But if day after day, in one country after another, the same scenario takes place—dropping prodigious quantities of powerfully lethal ordnance from very high altitudes with the full knowledge that large numbers of civilians will
perish or be maimed, even without missiles going «astray»—what can one say about the intentions of the American
military? The best, the most charitable, thing that can be said is that they simply don’t care. They want to bomb and destroy for certain political ends and they don’t particularly care if the civilian population suffers grievously.
 
In Afghanistan, when, on successive days in October, US gun-ships machine-gunned and cannoned the remote farming village of Chowkar-Karez, killing as many as 93 civilians, a Pentagon official was moved to respond at one point: «the people there are dead because we wanted them dead», while US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
commented: «I cannot deal with that particular village.»
8
Often, the United States actually does want to cause the suffering, hoping that it will lead people to turn against the government. This was a recurrent feature of the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. As will be seen in the «War Criminals» chapter in the present volume, US/NATO officials—in their consummate arrogance—freely admitted this again and again.
And in Afghanistan we have the example of the chief of the British Defense Staff, Adm.
Sir Michael Boyce, declaring that the bombing will continue «until the people of the
country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership
changed.»
9
Such a policy fits very well into the FBI definition of international terrorism, which speaks of the use of force or violence against persons or property «to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political
or social objectives.»
Speak no evil, so Americans will see no evilIn reaction to a number of gruesome images
of Afghan bombing victims, and expressed European and Middle Eastern concern about
civilian casualties, the American media strove to downplay the significance of such deaths. The chairman of Cable News Network (CNN) advised the news staff that it «seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan
10
A Fox Network report on the war wondered why journalists should bother covering civilian deaths at all. «The question I have,» said the host, «is civilian casualties
are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they’ve been?» His guest from National Public Radio replied: «No. Look, war is about killing people. Civilian casualties are unavoidable.» Another guest, a columnist from the national magazine U.S. News & World Report, concurred: «Civilian casualties are not…news. The fact is that they accompany wars.»
11
But if in fact the September 11 attacks were an act of war, as the world has been told
repeatedly by George W. Bush and his minions, then the casualties of the World Trade
Center were clearly civilian war casualties. Why then have the media devoted so much time to their deaths?
Σ.γ.: Όπως λέμε στο Ελλάντα «οι Αμερικάνοι θέλουν και το καρβέλι ακέραιο και το σκυλί χορτάτο». Τι τους νοιάζει; Έτσι κι αλλιώς αυτοί έχουν και την υπεροπλία και το χρήμα να επιβάλλουν τη θέλησή τους και το δίκιο όπως αυτοί το ορίζουν, κι αν τολμάτε αμφισβητείστε τους.
Τέτοια όρνια πολύ πιο επικίνδυνα υπάρχουν πολυάριθμα στον αστικό κόσμο π.χ. ο κύριος πιο κάτω αν τον γνωρίζετε...

Τέτοια όρνια πολύ πιο επικίνδυνα υπάρχουν πολυάριθμα στον αστικό κόσμο π.χ. ο κύριος πιο κάτω αν τον γνωρίζετε…

Εκείνο που μ' ενδιαφέρει είναι ν' αρπάξω την περιουσία των Ελλήνων. γιατί να έχουν 80% ιδιοκατοίκιση και μεις στη Γερμανία 45%;

Εκείνο που μ’ ενδιαφέρει είναι ν’ αρπάξω την περιουσία των Ελλήνων.

 

Αναφέραμε όλη αυτή την εισαγωγή για να δούν οι αγγλκόφωνοι αναγνώστες μας, ότι η παράνοια και ο σχιζοφρενιογόνιος (ψυχωσικού τύπου) διπλός δεσμός έχουν προ πολλού καταλάβει την πολιτική, την οικονομία μέσω των ψυχοπαθητικού τύπου υπηρετών τους, πολιτικούς, οικονομολόγους, τραπεζίτες, χρηματιστές και κάθε λογής οικονομικούς και πολιτικούς αρχιμαφιόζους.πρόκειται για τα γνωστά όρνια (vultures) που λυμαίνονται τα έθνη και τους λαούς με τους ληστρικούς νόμους που θεσμοθετούν και τις τεράστιου μεγέθους οικονομικές απάτες και ληστρικές εφευρέσεις για να κατάσχουν και να χαίρονται τον μόχθο των λαών!

Αφήστε μια απάντηση

Η ηλ. διεύθυνση σας δεν δημοσιεύεται. Τα υποχρεωτικά πεδία σημειώνονται με *

Επιτρέπονται τα εξής στοιχεία και ιδιότητες HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>