|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Jul 19, 03
|
||||
|
||||
|
So In Hind Sight...!
The following is an essay that I wrote before the start of the war in Iraq;
He says terrorism is the number one threat to homeland security, but what are his motives? Motive (Noun): A reason for doing something, e.g.: “I don't think she could have killed him - she has no motive,” “Does he have a motive for lying about where he was?” “What is the motive behind (=the reason for) the bombing?” “You should question their motives in offering to lend you the money,” “The profit motive is very strong,” “She denies that she has an ulterior motive for making the donation, such as gaining publicity for her new book.” As we all know on September 11, 2001 two jet liners were used as missiles to attack the World Trade Centre, killing 3000 people. A third hit the Pentagon causing some casualties, and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, killing all on board. The reactions were many: grief, anger, sadness, and the desire to bring justice to those who perpetrated these attacks. Right away, the problem was obvious – being suicide attacks all of the perpetrators were already dead. While the American public was still in a state of shock, the U.S. declared a war on terrorism – the immediate goal being to seek out those who were behind the attacks of 9/11 (anyone who wasn’t dead already), and the long-term goals vague at best. Central to all of this hysteria, was that the sense of safety and security that the U.S. had long enjoyed, was now shattered, and had to be restored. The events of 9/11 were criminal acts. But, by definition, they were not acts of war, as no specific country or alliance of countries claimed responsibility for this attack. War is a state of armed hostile conflict between states or nations. Unlike Japan's attack of Pearl Harbour, there was no distinct political culprit to declare war against on 9/11. The United Nations Charter allows member States the use of force in collective action to maintain or restore international peace and security, as a form of SELF-DEFENCE. Despite this fact, the U.S. pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban who the U.S. media said supported the terrorists. The Taliban certainly didn’t announce to the international media that they were responsible for the attacks of 9/11. The immediate problem this created was that the U.S. was now guilty, under international law, of a much worse terrorist attack than the one they had suffered. Rather than appealing to the international community, to set up a world-wide taskforce, dedicated to tracking the criminal organizations that had attacked them, the first thing they did was stoop to the level of the terrorists, by perpetrating an attack without instigation. Additionally, it is arguable that the U.S. inflicted unlawful suffering on the Afghani population, as the rules of war say that civilians and civilian objects (houses, hospitals, schools, places of worship, cultural or historic monuments, etc.) must not be attacked; that starvation of civilians must not be used as an attack; and that it is prohibited to attack objects that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (foodstuffs, farming areas, drinking water installations, etc.) (Red Cross). The mantra of the U.S. mainstream corporate media was "the report cannot be independently verified.” It is true that it is difficult to verify Taliban claims that they found thousands of civilians frozen and starved to death in their retreat from bombed cities where hospitals burned. But, it was equally difficult to prove the U.S. claim that the Taliban was sheltering terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. However, the U.S. media didn’t see it that way. In fact, they took U.S. government claims for granted, and ignored and minimalized Taliban claims. A report called “ACTION ALERT: CNN Says Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be Perverse," (2001) by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), a media watch group, cites several examples of U.S. media bias and censorship. For example, a leaked internal media memo said: “DO NOT USE wire stories which lead with civilian casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. They should be mentioned further down in the story. If the story needs rewriting to play down the civilian casualties, DO IT” (News Herald). And, even if there were civilians casualties, the media explained: "Look, war is about killing people," (National Public Radio) “Civilian casualties are not news. The fact is that they accompany wars," (Fox U.S. News & World Report) and “This is a conflict between the United States and murdering barbarians" (The New York Times). What motivated these corporate media companies to portray events in this way? In his “A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan,” Professor Marc W. Herold, of The University of New Hampshire School of Business & Economics, asks: “What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan?” (March, 2002). His conclusion is that it is “the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan.” He says, “The U.S. bombing campaign which began on the evening of October 7th, has been a war upon the people, the homes, the farms and the villages of Afghanistan, as well as upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” October 7, 2001. Should it henceforth be called 7/10? Now, the U.S. is looking to Iraq as the next major threat. They claim Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They claim Iraq supports terrorist groups. They claim Saddam is an evil man, and that he must be stopped. What is the motivation for this declaration, really? If weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are the concern, then surely North Korea must be a bigger worry as they now admit to having them. For that matter, so does the U.S., and they want to build more. If supporting terrorist groups is the concern, then surely Saudi Arabia must be the biggest threat, as that is where almost every terrorist in the 9/11 attacks came from, and where the very wealthy Bin Laden family is based. What about Pakistan, and the fact they have nuclear weapons and claim they are ready to use them in a war with India? If evil dictators are the problem, then they should be invading countries all around the world, including some allies. What I think the U.S. has failed to do is to examine why they were attacked. Imagine if you gave an unhealthy person a heart bypass surgery, and they kept eating a pound of bacon a day. Isn’t it likely that they would suffer another heart attack? The U.S. is now on a mission to rid the world of terrorists and make themselves safe, but at what cost? By going to country after country and destroying every terrorist group, they will have performed the heart bypass surgery. At that point, by their logic, they will no longer have to worry about the terrorist threat. However, by killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people in the process, they are eating their bacon, and then some. For every person killed, a loved one survives, and having lost their mother, father, or child to the U.S., they may seek revenge by joining, forming, supporting, or not hindering, terrorist groups. Consider Feriba, a young Afghan girl, refugee in Pakistan. She says: "I and all my classmates are very sad because of the situation in our homeland. When our teacher said in the class that many people have been killed in Afghanistan, I and my all classmates started weeping because everyone has relatives there. I expect America not to kill the poor Afghans. They are hungry and poor." (Marc W. Herold, 2002) Is her suffering different or lesser than the suffering of those who lost loved ones on 9/11? Whom does she have to blame for this grief? And, is her suffering justice served for the 9/11 attacks? If the U.S. declares war on Iraq, I will be curious to see what bombing strategy they will employ. In Afghanistan, they chose to bomb areas with high civilian populations. The U.S. thereby demonstrated to Afghanistan, and to the world, that they are above the law – that they can kill civilians without international outcry. So, killing civilians acted as an intimidation tactic. These bombings also served to impede the ability Afghanistan to effectively govern itself independently by causing trauma to their people and their infrastructure. Ultimately, through their actions, the U.S. managed to overthrow a government that was coincidentally inconvenient for U.S. foreign economic interests. Who will be served by a war in Iraq? With so many targets in the world to choose from, what many people have asked is why the U.S. has invaded countries that play big stakes in the world oil markets? To say this war is all about the oil may be over simplistic. But, there are other anticipated benefits that may be motivating the U.S. to take arms against someone. Not only will the U.S. get control of the oil, they will also distract attention from matters at home such as Bush Junior stealing the election. A war will also channel billions of dollars into the hands of weapons manufacturers, and we are seeing this already, as the U.S. treasury is currently being emptied at a rapid pace. In addition, by flexing their military might on the world-stage many U.S. citizens will continue to strengthen their sense of security that was shattered by 9/11. In the long run, despite this war terrorism, the U.S. will have enemies and will still be the target of terrorist attacks. But, along the way, Bush Junior will get to position himself as a hero for crushing the terrorist threat and his resultant rising popularity may overshadow the fact that he is a criminal who stole the election. The arms manufacturers will make billions and the U.S. will gain control of vast supplies of oil, to keep those SUVs rolling. Whether or not the average North American considers these things, there are people around the world who do. Now if this war on terrorism will not keep Americans safe, then what will? They could all get out and exercise more often to prevent disease! This would probably help, since approximately 440,000 Americans die of a heart attack every year. Maybe, they could ride the bus or ride their bikes to work every day, to cut down on air pollution and stymie their need for non-renewable energy resources? Perhaps, they could put more efforts towards preventing people from smoking cigarettes, as another 440,000 Americans die of smoking related illness every year. Maybe, Americans would be safer if they quit shooting each other so much? Approximately 28,000 Americans murder each other every year, with guns alone. These examples go on and on, but President Bush doesn’t care to address them. He’d rather that Americans continue to believe that the main threat to homeland security is a ruthless foreigner with a mask and a gun – a man who will stop at nothing, even use WDM, to jeopardize the American way of life, unless the American military crushes him. Then, Americans will keep on trusting security to the corporate elite, whom they call their government, while they buy their way towards extinction. Bush would spend 396 billion on the military to keep Americans safe, but… Written by Nolan Strom, with editing credits to Anna Strom. Last edited by Senior; Jul 19, 03 at 03:43 PM. 
|
|
Jul 19, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
nolan you're probably one of the most well spoken, intelligent people i've ever met
that's an awesome essay -s.
|
|
Jul 21, 03
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Jul 21, 03
|
||||
|
||||
|
Now here's the smoking gun!!!!
"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, . . . already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct," one key judgment of the estimate said. It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." This was from the National Intelligence Estimate (a CIA Document) that was sent out to the White House last October. Parts of it have now been declassified.
|
|
Jul 21, 03
|
||||
|
||||
|
See this article!!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb
|
