|
Page modified February 8,
2006, and
links checked on Feb 8, 2006
This page contains links relating to questions about the global
initiative to end terrorism. When I first created the page,
it was focused more specifically on Afghanistan and the 9/11 attacks.
Over time it has evolved to embrace a broader range of information,
and I have moved considerable amounts of content off-site to a
private server.
New introduction for Sept 26, 2006
Keith
Olberman's editorial remarks on the facts behind Bill
Clinton's angry remarks and the facts behind the Bush
administration's handling of terrorism before 9/11. You
might not like the angry tone that Clinton and Olberman
demonstrated so clearly, and the media have pointed at noisily in
an effort to dodge these facts, but there is no avoiding
these facts, and facts they are. The
Republican legislators of the late 1990's were working very hard
to prevent Clinton from fighting terrorism, and there is plenty of
public record documentation of that fact. The
docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is the work of a propaganda machine,
and the facts do not back up any of it--not to mention the
fact that the Lewinsky problem was manufactured and perpetuated by
Republicans whose actions clearly suggest that they were more
interested in adultery than terrorism. (Frontline:
Clinton Timeline Proquest:
Timeline of 1990's politics). Of even more importance
and relevance is the recent scandal relating to the
Bush administration's disinterest in and reluctance to engage a
meaningful strategy against Bin Laden even after severe
warnings from George Tenet. At the very least, Clinton is
right about one point: at least he tried to get Osama, and
Bush did not. To blame Clinton is to elevate
the words "hypocrisy" and "cowardice" to entirely new levels of
sinister and repugnant irony.
For a more
penetrating and honest look at the strange events leading up to
9/11 and the subsequent "War on Terror", I suggest watching the
documentary "Press
for Truth", which is available for free viewing via the
internet, and does a much better job of exposing the disturbing
facts than even Michael Moore's film. Perhaps the plain
and simple truth is best illustrated in this simple factoid
presented in "Press for Truth": approximately 100 million US tax
dollars was spent on investigating and distracting Bill Clinton's
presidency with trivialities of lying about sex. Only 13
million dollars was very begrudgingly dedicated to investigating
9/11--and the reluctant GOP only allocated 3 million to start
with, and only after fierce complaints was it raised to 13
million. Readers should recall that the Bush administration
tried to prevent this investigation from happening at all.
Given that the end result of this $100 million dollar inquisition
was proof that Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky,
I think it safe to say that we have ample evidence that if Clinton
was distracted, it was by a very conscious effort on their part.
Interestingly enough, the public record shows that in spite of
numerous distractions, Clinton developed a robust
anti-terrorism policy that was totally ignored by the Bush
administration for its first eight months. No amount of
propaganda will hide that fact.
Keith Olberman's editorial above makes abundantly clear what Bush
hoped we would never find out, though he seems to ignore the
existence of a public record documenting the GOP resistance to
Clinton's war on terror at every step of the way.
Further, we have the
testimony of
retired Major General John Batiste stating that Rumsfeld's and
Bush's war on Iraq have created and worsened terrorist
threats to America. The facts are starting to
leak out in spite of our vile media.
Since there is a lot of pro-war propaganda and sentiment percolating
in America and in the American media, I think it is important
that we look at the critiques of the government position. It
is especially important in light of recent
conservative attempts to restrict such criticism by college faculty.
Lynn Cheney, wife of the vice president, and Joseph Lieberman
are deeply involved in a movement that many are comparing to McCarthyism--black
listing those who do not support the government policy.
View their
various reports at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
The most controversial of their reports ("Defending
Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What
Can Be Done About It")
has been removed from direct access on their site. You need to
request a copy. (a conservative
watchdog group that attempts to direct philanthropy to universities) Another
voice in these attacks on faculty who speak out in support of
Palestinians is Daniel Pipes
and his Campus Watch.
While I heartily support Pipes' efforts to reveal anti-semitic
bias, I do not trust such a forum to objectively make determinations
as to who is actually criticizing Israel's actions and who is
criticizing the Jewish people. He is certainly not interested
in pointing out that many of Israel's harshest critics now are
Jews in America and in Israel. He has made numerous mistakes
already, and made
it clear that he is intolerant of opposing views.
Perhaps it shouldn't be so surprising that
conservatives would
behave in such a defensive manner in spite of controlling every branch of
government, the military, police and law enforcement, the
intelligence sector and even diplomatic offices. They
even control the media, where they have even created the bizarre
illusion that the media has a liberal bias. Whether it's
true or not, they also have created the illusion that the majority
of devout Christian and Jewish believers also support them.
[Feb 2006--Evangelical
leaders split over an open letter that decries Republican
environmental policies] In the face of this very complete and even totalitarian domination
of every meaningful institution in the country, they still aren't
happy. They are whining about the fact that educated people
who work in the education industry are predominantly liberal and
and anti-Bush. That's not to say that teachers are pro-Al
Qaeda or even pro-Communist. No, it just means that we are
not supporting their absolutist agenda. It's just plain
weird that they would be crying foul about the few of us left in
academia, who have little if any impact on public policy, and,
judging from the growing number of conservative young people, even
less impact on their students. In the face of this blatantly
fascist takeover of the country, I can only describe these
criticisms as the newest form of PC discourse, which is merely a
euphemism for intellectual fascism.
On the other side of the debate, it is also clear that "the
left" is guilty of demanding civil rights in some cases that
are undeserved, but this is an understandable reaction to the
draconian measures taken by the Justice Dept under the Patriot
Act. Certain groups traditionally active in protesting American
policies often hijack the protests with unpopular agendas completely
unrelated to the protest at hand. A.N.S.W.E.R.
is a good example. Such extreme and dubious activity
tends to help the right wing support its criticism of the anti-war
movement, and it can also alienate people who might be anti-war,
but don't share their other opinions. I do not want
to create the illusion that all people who oppose the war are
good or superior to those who do not. I do not
support all anti-war activists. Personally, I think
that some few of them are simply delusional.
What I find particularly offensive about the current situation
in America is that many of the most vocal "patriots"
of this current war were only a few months before September 11th
some of the most savagely anti-government demagogues. Among
them are notable conservative politicians in the US congress,
and conservative ideologues in the media. It would be most
interesting to compare some of the hateful, intolerant, anti-government,
and in my opinion, anti-American rhetoric of people such as Jesse
Helms, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Ann
Coulter, etc. to the anti-war remarks from liberals collected
by American Council of Trustees and Alumni. These conservatives
were all engaged in exactly the kinds of "treasonous"
criticism of the government that they now criticize in others
since their favored political party is now in control. It
is a classic example of "pulling the ladder up behind you." All
of this is especially ironic in light of the blatant fact that
these conservatives have been criticizing the creation of government
programs and the expansion of government. Even more damning
is the simple fact that during the 1990's, the Republicans stone
walled Clinton's efforts to initiate military action against Bin
Laden and Al Qaida. They claimed it was a political deception
to draw attention away from Monica Lewinski. Yet, since
September 11th, the Bush administration has created more programs
and expanded government power in one year than the Clinton administration
created in eight, AND they have turned a budget surplus into a
massive, growing deficit. They have lambasted critics of
Bush's dangerous war plans. They have squelched all attempts
to decry his policies as attempts to cover up the financial corruption
scandals of Enron, Harkin and Halliburton. Every single,
small attempt to question any of this is decried loudly as evidence
of a "liberal media conspiracy." As of February
2006 this has become extremely difficult for them, as many critics
of Bush's policies are strong conservatives and even military
"brass" whose pro-war credentials can't be questioned.
For the record, my own position on the war is that
America is relying on a dubious vision of the outcomes of this
war. [Written in 2002, this remark has proven itself to be
prophetic, as we now stagger into the 3rd year and head toward
3,000 dead soldiers] Also, Americans in general, and especially the policy
makers continue to ignore their own role in the situation.
They rely on a disingenuous interpretation of the situation in
terms of a hatred of American freedom, rather than seeing how US
intelligence operatives used Islamic fundamentalists to undermine
Iran and the former Soviet Union. Also, the United States
played Iraq and Iran against each other, supporting both sides to
assure that neither would conquer the other. Reagan and
George Bush Sr. are directly responsible for creating Saddam and
supplying him with weapons of mass destruction. Americans
may not know these things, but Muslims in the Middle East know
very well what we have done against them.
Even if this alleged hatred of our freedom were
real, it is quite bizarre and surreal that the administration's
response has been to take away the very freedoms that our enemies
allegedly hate, and to slowly impose religious conservatism by
blurring the old boundaries between church and state. Day by
day America becomes more and more like Saudi Arabia and Stalinist
Russia. [February 2006--the illegal spying scandal is
demonstrating the cavalier, totalitarian behavior of the Bush
administration.]
Furthermore, it is clear that underlying all of this violence
is an economic motivation: the people involved in terrorist
activities are fighting over water, jobs, land and other resources
(such as oil). If these issues could be worked out, the
fighting would end, I believe. It is because of these
blatant injustices that extremists on both ends of the political
spectrum are able to incite a more moderate majority to line up
behind them. Corporate interests, wealthy individuals
and "favored races" have taken control of so much of
the wealth and resources that the rest of the people have nothing.
In response to this neo-colonial and racist oppression, it is
not surprising that people who have no voice, no lobbyists, no
money and no military would choose the methods that we have seen
to express themselves--especially when their own governments are
controlled by our government for the sake of our petroleum needs.
While I personally condemn violence of all kinds (including war
and capital punishment), I understand that sometimes war is necessary
for defensive purposes, though we now know for a fact that there
was no justification for the Iraq war. I also understand how an oppressed
people would turn to terrorist violence to protect themselves.
This does not mean that I support or condone such violence.
Terrorism is no more or less evil than neocolonial war.
In fact, I would argue that the brutality of the Iraq war far
exceeds that of the 9-11 attacks, given the far greater number of
innocent victims in the former, and the complete lack of causal
connection between the two events. Although some might
violently disagree with me, it's
rather difficult to argue
against the facts. [approximately 30,000 Iraqi civilians
dead as of February 2006, which doubles the tally from December 2004]
"Terrorism" is a global response of desperate people
to economic and cultural oppression. Even the WTO has admitted
this and is making attempts to improve the situation. The
ultra conservative, libertarian think tank the Cato
Institute is condemning the war on Iraq. Bush is even
facing a
rebellion of those who self-identify as the Goldwater Republicans,
who see Bush as a big spending, big government Nazi--the very
antithesis of conservatism. The Bush administration,
with active assistance from our media is still trying to hide
all of this. Resistance to a brutal and selfish crony-capitalistic
and racist system appears impossible. The terrorists' actions
are ethically unjustifiable, even in the light of Islamic doctrine.
However, their choice of violence is not very surprising.
What is surprising is the short-sighted and self-defeating policy
of the various power interests who choose to respond to this type
of violence with more violence. It is surprising and incomprehensible,
unless their intention is to create a state of permanent war and
insecurity to justify a fascist state. This unproven
assumption of mine constitutes the core of my opposition to the
war: the Iraq War is a means to the end of destroying democracy by
imposing fictional democracy at gunpoint.
As Confucius wisely stated, evil people like Osama Bin Laden
should inspire us to look carefully at ourselves. This
does not mean that I oppose using military force to defend ourselves
against violent aggressors, though I strongly oppose using military
and intelligence forces to create terrorists--whatever
that might mean to you. Terrorism must be stopped, but a
one-sided approach will only assure that it is never eliminated.
I do not believe that the Bush administration is interested in
eliminating terrorism. Rather, they are laying the foundation of an Orwellian state of
permanent war against a vague and undefined enemy. It seems
to me that we are much too concerned about presenting a tough
image, and not concerned enough about what might be done to remove
the inspiration for these people to become terrorists, and especially
to remove the inspiration for more moderate people to support
and identify with these extremist militants.
Ivan Eland
of the conservative Cato Institute states:
Occupation of an Islamic country by the United
States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists.
We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals
to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would
play right into al Qaeda's hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive,
intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit
more supporters.
Current policy will, I believe, perpetuate a new and unending
war against terrorism and justify the restriction of American
freedom. This suggests to me that we ought to be at least
wary of such policies. However, none of this implies that
I am unpatriotic or un-American. Terrorism is indeed a deadly
poison that threatens the world. Saddam Hussein was certainly
a dangerous and probably psychotic dictator--even during the
1980's when Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand and encouraged him to
keep up the good work, and gave him more money and weapons to do
that. There
is ample evidence being suppressed by the media
and various government interests that suggests that America has
long been a supporter of terrorism (and Saddam), and/or a catalyst
for the development of terrorism through our economic and political
policies around the world. The most unpatriotic
of actions I could take at this time would be to accept unquestioningly
the half-truths of the American media and those whose own conflicts
of interest necessitate the restriction of dissent and freedom
of speech.
Click
here to examine Pro-War arguments and their Rebuttals.
Economics of War
Government Documents
CIA
FACTBOOKS--Public Geographical, Economic and Political Information
about countries around the world. I am providing you links
to important countries connected to terrorism and oil production.
There is a lot of good information here. (Note: Sometimes the link
will fail on the first try. Refresh or reload, and it will
usually come up)
Afghanistan,
Colombia,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel,
Libya,
Pakistan,
Saudi
Arabia, Sudan,
Syria,
United
Arab Emirates, Venezuela
Yemen
For the sake of comparison: United
States of America and Cuba
Here are some links to actual government reports on
the threats that were largely ignored by the current and recent
administrations.
Historical Background Information
Palestine & Israel
This sequence of United Nations
Maps from 1947 to 1996 clearly shows the expansion of Israel into
surrounding territory.
1991 map of Israeli settlements
on Arab land established AFTER 1967:
1996 map of Israeli illegal
immigration into the West bank
The
Turkish/Ottoman Empire
Before England, France and America divided up the Middle East,
they were under the Turkish rule of the Ottoman Empire. The
politics of the fall of the Ottoman Empire (see also the story of
Lawrence of Arabia) are integral for understanding the distrust
and nationalist subterfuge used by external powers to topple the
Islamic government of Turkey. One might say that the Ottoman
Empire was to Europe the "Soviet Union" of the Renaissance
to World War I.
|
