errorExcellent article that asks the hard questions in the aftermath of September 11 and makes some nefarious, albeit warranted conclusions.
Pleasevisit my nonprofit website exposing the cancer indu$try
Please Click Here
Thank you and continue having a great New Year. Gavin Phillips.
On Courage and Patriotism
Part I
David McGowan
Click Here Please
December 27, 2001
Americans of late like to think of themselves as a particularly brave and patriotic breed. But is
that really an accurate assessment of the qualities that we, as citizens of this nation, have exhibited
since September 11?
By "we," I am referring here to the purported 90% of Americans who think that George
Bush is doing a dandy job of waging his 'War on Terrorism.' That, of course, assumes that the
results of public opinion polls reported by the U.S. media are any more credible than the rest of
the swill that the press tries to pass off as 'news.'
Although the actual percentage is likely considerably lower than 90%, there are without
question a sizable number of Americans who have wholeheartedly lined up behind our
intellectually challenged commander-in-chief in response to the 'terrorist' attacks. And that, as far
as I can see, makes us not a nation of heroes, but a nation of cowards.
We are cowards because we have chosen to follow the path of least resistance – blindly
accepting the blatant lies that Washington and the media have disseminated since the September 11 attacks. Following that course requires no independent thought and, more importantly, causes none of what psychologists like to call 'cognitive dissonance.'
Cognitive dissonance occurs when we are unable to integrate a new bit of information into
our existing belief structure because the new information challenges or directly contradicts one of
our most cherished beliefs. It can be the source of extreme psychological discomfort, for it can
force us into the uncomfortable position of having to reevaluate some of our core beliefs about
how the world operates and what roles are played by the various actors on the global stage.
It is, of course, far easier to simply discredit the source of the offending information,
thereby making it a rather simple task to just toss out the new, incongruous facts and blithely
proceed along in a Prozac-aided state of virtual consciousness.
For an American raised on a steady diet of propaganda painting the United States as a
benevolent giant - a model to the world of those cherished principles of freedom, equality and
justice - confronting evidence that tends to indicate that our esteemed leaders were directly
complicit in the slaughter of some 3,000 native sons and daughters as a staged provocation to
justify a long-planned war and mount a long-planned frontal assault on civil liberties ... now that's
something that would likely evoke a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance.
How then to resolve the mental conflict? A simple task really ... just deny, deny, deny. Deny
that the source of the information has any validity whatsoever. Denounce the bearer of the news as
a propagandist for the 'enemy.' Better yet, deny yourself the opportunity to even be exposed to
the offending facts, pretending as though they weren't readily available to anyone with an Internet
connection and the desire to seek out the truth.
And whatever else you do, don't ask any questions which might yield answers that you don't
want to hear. Choose instead to look away, to shield your eyes from the true evil that surrounds
you, lest you be forced to reevaluate your basic conception of what America really stands for.
Don't ask, for example, how it is that our intelligence community - far and away the largest
and most insidious the world has ever seen - was so thoroughly caught with its pants down. And
don't stop to ponder that there were in fact numerous warnings that were received and seemingly
deliberately ignored – as has been reported in various avenues of the press, most recently by the
San Francisco Chronicle (Philip Shenon "FBI Ignored Attack Warning: Flight Instructor Told
Agency of Terror Suspect's Plan," San Francisco Chronicle, December 22, 2001).
It is probably best that you also not ask why the nation with the world's most advanced air
defense system, with fighter jets on constant alert capable of being scrambled to any sensitive
location within the U.S. in minutes, failed to respond in any way throughout the entire time that
the attacks were in progress – giving the impression that an order to 'stand down' had been issued
at a very high level.
It would likewise be best to disregard and/or deny the validity of the numerous media
reports documenting the extensive connections between the Bush family and the bin Laden family.
Don't ask about Osama's brother helping to finance George, Jr.'s Arbusto Energy enterprise in
Texas (and soon after dying in a private plane crash there), or about George, Sr.'s visits to the bin
Laden complex in Saudi Arabia, or his close ties to the family through the Carlyle Group.
And pay no attention to those reports stating that Osama has long served as an asset of our
CIA, doing America's bidding against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and later assisting
in the recruiting, arming, funding and training of the KLA – whom our State Department can't
seem to decide whether to classify as 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters.' And definitely don't ask
why it was that a CIA official visited with bin Laden in a Dubai hospital room in July of 2001,
just weeks before the attacks and long after Osama was allegedly considered one of the world's
most wanted fugitives.
Also avoid any questions concerning how the liars in Washington can claim that bin Laden
has long been estranged from his family and yet simultaneously boast that our illustrious
intelligence community has tapes of his private telephone calls to his mother. And, it should go
without saying, don't spend any wasted time wondering how it is that while our spooks have the
capability to covertly intercept his communications, they nevertheless failed to glean any hint of
the alleged planning that bin Laden was doing in preparation for the attacks.
Don't ask how it is that - when imploding a building is such a highly technical process,
requiring both extensive planning and knowledge gained through decades of experience to insure
that the building is successfully reduced to rubble that all falls precisely into the structure's
'footprint,' that there are only a handful of companies qualified to perform this type of demolition
work - a band of 'terrorists' was able to replicate this rather amazing feat not just once, but twice
– and simply by having a commercial jet strike the two towers at essentially random points.
[Gavin. Animation of] A building being professionally imploded
It would also be a good idea to hold off on any inquiries into why our alleged
commander-in-chief chose to read to schoolchildren rather than address what had already
developed into a full-scale national emergency. And don't ask why our illustrious vice-president,
the elusive Dick Cheney, needs to operate in total secrecy, even while his wife works hand-in-hand
with her husband's purported rival, Senator Joseph Lieberman, to crack down on political dissent
on college and university campuses.
It is also best, so as not to disturb one's mental slumber, if you don't ask why it is that -
when almost all of the alleged hijacking suspects were Saudi nationals trained in Germany and the
United States - it is the largely defenseless population of Afghanistan that is under siege. Or how it
is that a pilot supposedly trained in a third-rate puddle-jumping school was able to, according to
eyewitnesses, masterfully perform a complex aeronautic maneuver just before crashing into the
Pentagon.
And speaking of the Pentagon, other questions best left unasked include how it is that a plane
known to have been hijacked can penetrate the world's most tightly controlled airspace without
drawing any hint of anti-aircraft fire, and how it is that a surprise explosion and fire can take out
a large portion of the military's nerve center without killing or injuring any military leaders of
any consequence.
If confronted with evidence of massive insider trading in the days immediately preceding the
attacks on America - trading that clearly indicated advance knowledge of the precise nature of the
impending attacks - denounce the publication of such information as indicative of the 'liberal' bias
of the media – even if the purveyor of the information was the unabashedly fascistic Wall Street
Journal.
And, finally, don't ask why it is that even as our fearless leaders scramble about desperately
attempting to fabricate evidence to justify the assault on the Afghan people after the fact - such as
placing an obvious CIA plant, who appears to be the only foreign Taliban POW to miraculously
survive the bloodbath at Jala-i-Qanghi prison, among the Taliban prisoners; or presenting a
grainy, out-of-focus, and almost completely inaudible videotape of unknown origin as supposedly
unimpeachable 'proof' of bin Laden's complicity - there still has not been to this day a single
shred of verifiable evidence released to the American people that existed before the bombings
began.
We shouldn't ask those sorts of questions because we very likely won't like the answers that
we get (assuming that we could actually get any straight answers to such questions). And
confronting the truth about America's role in the world, and about the true nature of the most
fundamentally corrupt government on the face of the earth, requires something that is sadly
lacking in this country – real courage.
So instead we choose to live in a state of deep denial, choosing not to rock our little boats -
even as they are already rapidly taking on water - and choosing not to face up to the inescapable
fact that the problems facing this country are too profound, and too deeply ingrained, to be fixed
at the ballot box or through signing petitions or through endless letters written to our elected (and
unelected) representatives.
The very real and very urgent problems that we collectively face, as a nation and as a
people, did not arrive with the illegitimate Bush administration and won't leave with him when his
term expires (assuming, that is, that he plans to leave at some point in the near future). America
has been steadily devolving into an overt police state for quite some time now. We have
maintained a permanent wartime economy for decades, engaging in illegal and grotesquely
immoral acts of war against anyone who stands in the way of U.S. global hegemony.
The assault on civil liberties and human rights may well have been stepped-up a notch or
two, but that is, as anyone who has been paying attention is surely aware, simply a natural
progression of the policies of Bush's predecessors in the White House – as is the no-longer
concealed attack on the rights of immigrants. The institution of an Orwellian surveillance state is
also nothing new, but rather has been steadily progressing through several administrations.
The purported loosening of the restraints on the CIA and the FBI are really just a matter of
openly acknowledging and codifying what has been U.S. policy since the inception of these
abhorrent organizations. The CIA always has, and always will engage in assassinations, the
recruitment of criminal elements, and domestic spying operations (not to mention drug
trafficking, the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments, and various other
nefarious pursuits).
It makes absolutely no difference whether the White House is occupied by an administration
identifying itself as Republican or Democrat, or whether the majority party in Congress chooses
to place either of those labels on itself – as was evidenced most recently when Senator Jeffords'
much-ballyhooed 'defection' resulted in exactly no change in the agenda being pursued. Despite
what the Washington propaganda mill would have you believe, it is not simply due to the fact that
"everything changed" on September 11 that there has been an overwhelmingly 'bipartisan'
consensus to enact the flurry of reactionary legislative measures that we have seen in the last few
months.
The truth is that neither 'party' has any legitimacy, and neither of them speak for the people
of this country, or even put much effort into pretending to. Our political leaders are merely
actors (and not very good ones, in many cases) playing their assigned roles while doing the
bidding of the wealthy and powerful. Your opinion means absolutely nothing. You are only
allowed to go through the motions of trotting off to your assigned polling place every couple of
years to cast your vote for either of the two designated candidates who have already met with the
approval of the people whose opinion does matter.
Whether you opt to punch your ballot in the box marked "R" or the box marked "D" makes
no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. The policies pursued will be the same,
though the propaganda used to sell them may differ slightly.
But we don't want to face up to any of that. Instead, we cowardly avert our eyes, striving
not to recognize, or to pretend not to recognize, that the greatest impediment to true freedom,
democracy and justice in this world is the United States government. By doing so, we condemn
ourselves, our children, and all the people of the world, to the fascist tyranny of a global
superpower run amok. To do otherwise, to seek a fundamental change in the American ship of
state, is what requires true courage.
But what, you may ask, of our men and women in uniform? Surely they display bravery and
courage, do they not? If so, it is certainly not by performing the duties that they have been trained
to perform.
America has fought all of its recent wars almost exclusively from the air. Waging war, from
'our' side, means flying high-tech aircraft well beyond the reach of our overwhelmed enemies'
defenses and opening the bomb-bay doors. Despite the frequent claims that our men and women
have been put "in harm's way," it was claimed after Operation Desert Slaughter that soldiers
serving in the Gulf had less chance of being injured or killed than their counterparts stationed
elsewhere.
Far more U.S. servicemen are in fact killed every year in training exercises than in armed
conflict (though it seems likely that many of those listed as killed in so-called training accidents
are actually killed engaging in covert military operations in areas of the world where the
American people are not even aware that our troops are engaged).
It wasn't too long ago that waging war from the air was considered a cowardly and morally
reprehensible tactic – condemned around the globe, most notably by our own leaders when the
bombardment was being directed by the generals of Nazi Germany and Japan. Yet we are to
believe that all of that has changed now, purportedly because we now have 'smart bombs,' so
aerial warfare no longer means indiscriminately dumping explosive and incendiary devices on vast
numbers of innocent civilians.
Nonsense. The only thing that has changed about aerial bombardment is the propaganda that
accompanies it. Now we fly "sorties" to launch "surgical strikes" with "laser-guided" munitions
that cause little or no "collateral damage." Just as we caused only limited collateral damage in
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - where collectively as many human lives were exterminated as in
the Nazi concentration camps.
And just as we strove to minimize civilian casualties in Iraq – by deliberately creating
conditions that can only be described as genocidal. The truth is that what we now like to call an
"air campaign" is the same thing that it has always been – an effort to inflict death and suffering
on a massive scale and break the will of a besieged population. It is a textbook example of the
term "terrorist attack." And it is a cowardly way to wage war.
Bill Maher, the marginally talented comedian who fancies himself to be a political analyst,
said as much on his television show. It was perhaps the first sign of intelligent life that Maher has
exhibited, which is precisely why it almost cost him his job – until he cowardly tucked his tail
between his legs and displayed the proper amount of contrition.
Such is the power of propaganda though that when an L.A. street gang performs a drive-by
shooting - an inherently cowardly and inefficient means of retribution that invariably results in
'collateral damage' - the American people are appalled, yet when the U.S. military performs a
fly-by shooting - an inherently cowardly and inefficient means of retribution that invariably
results in 'collateral damage' - the American people applaud.