Terra Firm no.22: The Terrorist War Against the Poor. The Second Proxy Zionist War? What goes Round Comes Round.

7. Reactions to the September 11th Bombings.
		Americans’ Reactions. Utter Shock. Americans reacted with shock, disbelief, and fear, to the september 11th bombings. But their horror was more intense than the calamity alone because this was the first time they’d been subjected to an external terrorist attack on their own soil. Their reaction was further intensified because, throughout their lives americans had grown up in the belief that america was so powerful that no nation would dare to attack it but now they realized such an assumption was a gross error. America was no longer impregnable and unassailable, and americans suddenly realized they were no longer safe from attack. The intensity of their reaction was even greater because, living in the world’s only superpower, they had developed feelings of supremacism over the rest of the world and suddenly these feelings were proven to be meaningless. What further intensified the horror was that many americans were suddenly deprived of the comforts of their racist beliefs, promulgated by the jewish-dominated media, that arabs were too thick and cowardly to mount a devastating military attack on america. The bombing operation had been so well organized, so brilliantly concealed, and executed with such professionalism, that it was in the league of a ‘mission impossible’. If there is one positive thing to come out of this tragedy it is that americans will never again deprecate moslems/arabs for being thick, incompetent or cowardly. When jewish films feature moslems/arabs in this light americans won’t be thinking “Look at those thick arabs” they’ll be saying “God, did we really let jews get away with depicting arab people in such an appallingly racist way.” What increased the intensity of americans’ shock even more was their truly appalling ignorance of the world in which they live - putting aside their even greater ignorance about the planet they live on. This ignorance is exemplified by the fact that when george bush was an american presidential candidate he didn’t know the name of pakistan’s leader - an ally whose help he is now desperately seeking. It is a commonly joked about factoid that most americans know little about the world around them.[1] This should not be surprising considering that american television news networks abandoned overseas news coverage about twenty years ago as did american newspapers with the exception of the heavyweight publications. Americans don’t know where the world’s continents are let alone what countries exist on them - cnn reports that in america sales of books about islam and atlases have rocketed.[2] They know little about what their governments have been doing in their name over the last couple of decades. They not merely don’t know about such matters, they don’t want to know. Most americans are so ignorant of the world around them they were under the delusion that everyone around the world loves and admires them. One of the most prominent themes that emerged after the bombings is the reports of “blank incomprehension” amongst americans that there were people around the world who hated them so much they were willing to smash aircraft into buildings and celebrate the ensuing fatalities. Many americans were genuinely shocked at the realization that some parts of the world couldn’t stand their guts.[3] Even the president felt there was a need to address the issue when he spoke to a joint meeting of congress, “Americans are asking, “Why do they hate us?”[4] Anti-american protestors around the world quickly cottoned on to americans’ shock and sought to drive home the point by writing placards referring to this issue - not to make americans feel bad but to try and persuade them to face the truth about the world. To the average american consumer, the september 11th bombings were seen solely as an event which came “out of a clear blue sky” - to use tony parsons’ shocking whitewashing of the profound nature of these bombings. Consumers saw it as an abstract event which had no history, no causation, no explanation, no rationale, no antecedents. American consumers perceived the perpetrators as either evil, mad, indoctrinated, or insane and regarded america as being totally without moral blemish.[5] It is as if a passing alien space craft had warped drived into new york. It is americans’ historical and worldly myopia which accounts for so much of their shock to the september 11th bombings and to the discovery of people’s opinion about them. By ignoring their governments’ past misdeeds, by dismissing their governments’ financing, arming, and protecting, of zionist mass murderers, and by ignoring zionists’ manipulation of successive american governments, americans have been able to forge an image of themselves as a god-fearing, peace-loving, freedom-loving, guilt-free, faultless, people. To explain this phenomenon as simply as possible: anybody can transform themselves into an angel simply by denying their past misdeeds - the benefit of doing this is that the person can enjoy a guilt-free life but the disadvantage is that the person experiences a profound shock when attacked by someone the person has victimized in the past. The psychological shock of an attack is almost as bad as the pain suffered in the attack. Many german people are still deeply troubled by their country’s nazi past, fifty years after the event, but americans are not troubled by any political guilt about anything their governments have done in their name because they don’t feel any political responsibility and they know too little to feel guilty about anything.[6] The average american knows as much about the world as their livestock.[7] Having disconnected themselves from their country’s past; feeling no political responsibility for any events around the world; and perceiving themselves as decent, blameless, faultless, people the shock that americans’ experienced over the september 11th bombings must have been intense.[8] Their instant reaction was ‘Let’s bomb the terrorists’ - but few of them knew who could have committed such an act and, even if they did, many would never have been able to pinpoint afghanistan on a map. Americans might admit that around world there are many evil people - but they do not believe their governments have contributed in any way to such evil. This is not simply because american governments have domesticated them into believing they are doing good deeds but because americans have spent so much time grazing they’ve never looked past the wire fencing. Americans live in a consumerist fantasy land consisting of good wholesome images of mickey mouse, snow white, pepsi/cocoa cola, santa claus, bambi, and macdonalds. Knowing nothing about the terrors their governments have inflicted on countries around the world, knowing nothing about the way their governments have contemptuously walked away from the messes that such terrorism has caused, and perceiving themselves as an innocent people, it’s hardly surprising many americans almost went into a state of shock. It has to be suggested that americans might be ignorant about the specifics of their governments’ activities around the world and the views that people around the world held about them, but surely all they needed to understand how people felt about them was a bit of common sense? It is a commonly known factoid that half the world’s population lives on 3 dollars a week. Even on this most abstract of levels, it surely should not have been beyond the capabilities of even a-historical americans to have been able to appreciate there might be people who would find this situation totally unacceptable - and that the system which perpetuates such global poverty is grossly evil. What do americans think of the tens of millions of people around the world who have been dispossessed by american multi-national corporations and who sit by the roadside watching crops being removed from fields they once owned? What do americans think these people would think if they knew that these crops were being used to feed american Cattle for the burgers that americans love to stuff down their increasing fat gobs? This is the real obscenity in the world - this is the real terrorism facing the poor, Animals, and the Earth. There are 200 million people stuffing their vulgar, trashy, fat gobs with vast mountains of food whilst a billion people around the world live in a state of semi-permanent starvation. Americans are so monstrously greedy that the food they waste would provide enough nourishment for several of the world’s poorest countries to permanently abolish starvation. If americans stopped eating meat, everyone around the world would have more than enough grains to live a full, decent, and disease free, life where terrorism would be irrelevant. The economic system which americans believe is so marvellous is hideously evil. And yet americans can’t see it. They refuse to see it. They don’t care about global poverty because they don’t care about poverty even in their own country. Has consumerism so addled americans’ brains that they believe the gargantuan transfer of resources from the third world to america is entirely natural and that those on the point of starvation should not protest about it?[9] Americans ought to be more discerning about the feelings of peoples around the world towards them. In part it is a phenomenon not too different from that of the rich kid trying to make friends with poor kids. There is no way of knowing whether a friendship is genuine or not. The expressions of condolences pouring into america from governments around the world were partly genuine expressions of horror but there was also a considerable element of opportunism. In a world where there is only one superpower, third world governments, most of which are run by elites financed and armed by america, are bound to support america. But, the views of the people they rule are quite different. There are many people around the world who would have publically celebrated the bombings except for the fear that they would be punished by american tourists refusing to visit their countries - how appalling this is that people not only have to suffer the indignity of poverty but can’t even celebrate when their oppressors get a taste of life at the sharp end. If everyone around the world was given a secret vote about whether they supported the bombings then americans might be even more shocked than they were. The fact is that there are huge numbers of people in islamic countries who sympathize, admire, or even worship bin laden - although only a few would go so far as to fight for him. Even in the over-industrialized world, people fear american retaliation for not expressing total opposition to bin laden even though they believe america cannot just go on behaving as it has done in the past. The shock that americans felt about the bombings was so intense because it was not merely a direct response to a devastating and frightening event. Psychologically americans were not merely unprepared for what happened - they were in completely the wrong frame of mind to cope with it.[10] It is difficult to imagine they could have been more psychologically vulnerable to such a disaster. But this is entirely their own fault. If they insist on going around negating their political responsibilities, refusing to learn anything about the world, caring nothing about the world, then they deserve to be shocked when those harmed by such attitudes take their revenge. Americans spend so much of their time grazing they cannot help but be vulnerable to events which drop into their lush, state subsidized, pastureland completely without warning.

Retaliation.

Within a matter of days of the september 11th bombings, opinion polls indicated that the american public was willing to countenance american casualties in exacting retribution on the evil doers - whether they made this decision after an intensive effort to try and understand the causes of the bombings is not known.

The Politicization of Grief.

The grief of those who lost loved ones, friends, or acquaintances, work colleagues, etc in this tragedy was authentic and justifiable.[11] Also understandable was the sympathy that people felt for those they knew who had suffered a bereavement because of the bombings. Also understandable was the compassion people felt for those caught up in the event even though they had no personal link to the victims or to the bereaved. It is also understandable that the media wished to record people’s grief and even establish solidarity with the victims. But the net result of these wholly understandable and justifiable responses was the creation of collective mourning which ended up consolidating and reinforcing the differences between americans and the rest of the world that makes it easy to pursue war. In due course, this will create more grief i.e. the feelings that the bereaved kept saying they wouldn’t want anyone else to experience.

The problem here is that americans were sympathizing, and feeling compassion only for their own people. And yet around the world, anywhere between a million and five million people also died on that same day from malnutrition, disease, exhaustion, premature old age. Americans did not sympathize or feel compassion for them. Americans did not mourn for them or hold services in their honour. Americans did not even comprehend their suffering. Americans lead such an appallingly self indulgent, worldless existence they know nothing about the rest of the world’s fatalities. The american media did not interview the relatives, friends, and acquaintances, of those who had just starved to death. It never attempted to highlight their pain. It never felt compassion for the palestinian people who’s relatives have been murdered by american backed, zionist state terrorists. John pilger was, as usual, right on target, “The 6,000 people who died in America on September 11 are worthy victims: that is, they are worthy of our honour and a relentless pursuit of justice, which is right. In contrast, the 6,000 people who die every month in Iraq, the victims of a medieval siege devised and imposed by Washington and Whitehall, are, like the little sisters bombed to death in their sleep in Basra, unworthy victims - unworthy of even acknowledgement in the "civilised" west."[12]

From a global perspective, it is wrong for people to grieve for those they don’t know; wrong to sympathize for the bereaved they don’t know; and wrong to feel compassion for one group of people rather than another. On a personal level, i’m not going to feel any more compassion for those who died in the september 11th bombings than for the millions of other people around the world who also died on that same day and whose deaths were even more grisly than those in the bombings.

What is so hideous about this situation is that the vast numbers of people around the world who died on the same day as those caught up in the september 11th bombings are not only never going to be remembered, they are not even going to be thought about. They are not going to be missed because it is as if they didn’t exist. They might not even have got a proper burial. Giving so much compassion to one set of people rather than to all oomans suggests that the former are more important than everybody else. The loved ones of those who died ought to do the grieving; the friends of the bereaved ought to do the sympathizing; and those not personally affected should feel compassion for all oomanity (and all Animals) otherwise such compassion becomes just an expression of nationalistic bigotry and a prod to drive people into war.

It might be argued that people can’t feel compassion for the deaths of everyone around the Earth if the media does not feature them in the media. There are various reasons why the media doesn’t do this but this is not the place to explore this issue. It is transparent that the media’s coverage of the aftermath of the bombings was politically exploiting the nation’s grief, sympathy, and compassion, in order to feed the desire for war. The politicization of grief was transparent from the fact that the media allowed the bereaved of the september 11th bombings to express their grief but not the bereaved of the victims of american terrorism. The fact is then that no matter how sincere people’s compassion may be, if it does not extend to everyone, then it is as political as voting. National mourning makes it easy for politicians to build up public anger to overcome people’s reluctance to support war.[13] America’s constitution shone like a beacon during that day of disasters but even it cannot prevent tribalist/zionist/racist bigots pushing society into yet another dark chapter.

Oomans are never going to rise above their problems if they’re going to be bounced from one spectacular disaster to another. The dull, boring, non-newsworthy, statistical, realities of the world are far worse than any spectacular that might erupt out of such structural conditions. The only benefit of spectacular disasters is that they illuminate the world’s structural realities.

Whose Hatred of Americans?

It has been noted that americans were shocked to discover there were people who hated them enough to smash airplanes into the sides of buildings. It is a difficult generalization to make, but it is suspected that although most of the 3 billion people who earn less than 3 dollars a week may occasionally feel some anger and hatred towards americans, their main feeling is probably envy. Many wish beyond anything else to leave behind their life of destitution and non-existent political freedoms in order to live the american dream.[14] There is a surprising similarity between america’s consumers and the masses of the world’s poor - neither are interested in what their countries are doing on their behalf around the world or in domestic political events. What the staggeringly rich share with the staggeringly poor is a complete atrophy of any sense of worldliness or history. They just want jobs (the more well paid the better), a happy family, and a good community in which there are schools and hospitals. Nothing else matters.

Those involved in the september 11th bombings weren’t members of the poor, the illiterate, or the dispossessed. On the contrary, many came from rich, well educated, loving, families who were either professionals or members of national elites.[15] They too were well educated, highly intelligent, and knowledgeable about the world - bin laden being the most blatant example. In one way this may be a huge relief to the world’s rich that they do not have to worry about a revolution from the billions of the world’s poor - only from the few million educated elite who keep up to date with current events and are able to understand the flow of events in their historical context. This educated elite does not pose much of a physical threat to the rich but they do pose a fundamental intellectual challenge. Any fair-minded person who has a wide ranging understanding of recent political history cannot help being utterly sickened by the terrorism of successive american governments and american capitalism - that america enjoys such an astounding political constitution only serves to make the activities of american governments around the world even more reprehensible. It seems that the more educated the person, the more they understand the evils being perpetrated by american governments and american capitalists. These evils have generated a monster - highly educated people who are being driven to madness by so much evil they lose their ability to differentiate between those who want to make the world a better place to live in and those who are making it worse.[16]

There are capitalist hacks and apologists who can’t understand how anyone could commit such evil acts. On the contrary, it is all too easy to understand them. What is incomprehensible is that so few people are bothered by the evil being perpetrated around the world. It is also incomprehensible that so many consumers believe that ignorance gives them a right to protest their innocence about contributing to this evil. What is shocking is not that people driven to madness by evil, end up smashing airplanes into buildings but that the world’s three billion poor do so little to rebel against the evil of the system that impoverishes them, that a billion rich consumers pretend the evil system that enriches them is not in the slightest bit evil, and that capitalist hacks are like cheerleaders writing articles that praise evil doers.

Zionists’ Reactions.

The Zionist Government in Palestine.

The zionist government in palestine reacted to the september 11th bombings with fury. They knew that many zionists and american jews were lost in the bombings and that damage had been done to jewish companies and to jewish interests. And they responded with revenge. Sharon moved tanks into palestinian areas because he knew this would provoke protests which would enable zionists to slaughter some palestinians - this is a tactic he has employed over and over again since he became prime minister. Sixteen palestinians were murdered in the five days after the american bombings. One wonders whether the loved ones of those that were murdered are now vowing revenge, deepening their hatred for an american government which finances and harbours zionist state terrorists.

The mass murderer sharon denounced the palestinians in the most extreme language firstly in the belief that world opinion would now be convinced that he was right and, secondly, in the hope of provoking palestinians into more protests so that he could slaughter even more of them. It was the first time he’d presented the basic tenets of the global jewish propaganda to the wider world. He started off by claiming that arafat was the zionists’ bin laden. Sharon has always regarded arafat as a terrorist even when arafat renounced, in 1988!!!!, the use of violence and recognized israel’s right to exist so he had no difficulty whatsoever in denouncing arafat in terms of the latest global demon, “Israel’s right wing prime minister ariel sharon was accused of fuelling the tension by calling palestinian leader yasser arafat, “Israel’s osama bin laden.”[17] Even when mcblair met arafat at downing street, the zionist government was still attempting to persuade the american government to classify arafat as a terrorist.

Sharon was far from venting his volcanic spleen. As has been noted earlier, jack straw undoubtedly picked up the idea from sharon that bin laden, and all other moslem fundamentalists, were similar to adolf hitler, “The best historical parallel, i’m afraid to say, is those at the top of the nazi regime.”[18] The implication of this argument, the second basic tenet of the global jewish propaganda, being that, “It wasn’t possible to negotiate with hitler, although some people understandably but naively thought that it was. You can’t negotiate with these people.”[19]

Before proceeding it may be as well to pause to draw out the implications of these arguments which should help to indicate the state of ariel sharon’s mind. It has been noted that sharon likened yasser arafat to bin laden. A few days later he likened bin laden to adolf hitler. In effect, he believes yasser arafat is like adolf hitler. It has to be asked how anyone with the slightest degree of common sense could liken the leader of a people which has no military assets such as an army, navy, or airforce, to adolf hitler who commanded a massive military force during the third reich? That this belief should be held by the leader of a country who commands nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, is not merely insane but obscene and frightening. Ariel sharon is not merely a mass murderer - he is criminally insane and ought to be imprisoned in a top security insane asylum before he triggers off the third world war. Another implication of the view that you can’t negotiate with hitler is that it is not possible to negotiate with arafat because he is adolf hitler.

The global jewish propaganda got a good airing when benjamin netanhayu was interviewed on the david frost show - see below. But it obtained its most widespread publicity when the next target of sharon’s volcanic lunacy turned out to be mcbush. The reason for this target was a long series of logical deductions which showed that sharon was falling ever deeper into the realms of insanity. Let’s pick it up from the beginning in order to make the lunacy more apparent. In sharon’s mind, osama bin laden was hitler, and arafat was bin laden, which meant that yasser arafat was adolf hitler. This also meant that palestine is equivalent to germany in the late 1930s whilst the zionist state in palestine, armed with nuclear, chemical, and biological, weapons is equivalent to the poor vulnerable, defenceless, czechoslavakia. And everyone knows what the german military did in czechoslavakia. Hence the fat arsed provocateur stated, "Don't repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense ... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror.”[20] Boom, boom. So, obviously, if the zionist state in palestine was czechoslavakia, this could mean only one thing ..... yes, that’s right, america was an european appeaser and george mcbush was neville chamberlain. This is all too easy to understand once you learn how to think like a lunatic. The insanity of sharon’s first analogy was rapidly turning into a reality defying worldview of catastrophically insane proportions.

Mcbush was none too chuffed at being labelled a neville chamberlain, “American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. In a blunt response, Mr Fleischer said: "The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel could have no better or stronger friend that the United States and no better friend that President Bush."”[21]

The spat between the bulldozer and mcbush was soon smoothed over and should not be taken seriously. Mcbush was too gutless to insist that sharon ought to apologize for this insult, “A chastened Ariel Sharon has moved swiftly to mend a rupture with Washington after his invocation of a Nazi comparison triggered the most heated diplomatic exchange between America and Israel in a decade. In a hurriedly arranged telephone conversation with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Sharon stopped short of a direct apology to President George W. Bush for remarks that accused Washington of selling out Israel to win favour in the Arab world for its war coalition.”[22]

So having convinced himself that the zionist state in palestine was czechoslavakia to arafat’s third reich, sharon once again sent his tanks into palestinian areas to provoke yet more protests from unarmed palestinian kids thereby enabling his troops to slaughter even more of these “terrorists” who can’t be negotiated with, “Ariel Sharon has compared the west's treatment of Israel to that of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Derek Brown argues that he should turn the analogy on its head. Israel is on the brink of declaring war on the Palestinians of the occupied territories. Its troops are moving into areas supposedly controlled by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and army commanders have been given carte-blanche orders to do whatever is necessary to crush opposition and halt guerrilla attacks.”[23]; “Ariel Sharon further signalled his contempt yesterday for the US diplomatic strategy of mending fences with the Arab world, by launching the heaviest Israeli military offensive since the start of the Palestinian uprising last year. In a pre-dawn assault, Israeli tanks and armoured bulldozers, helicopters, paratroopers, and ground forces seized the strategic rise of Abu Sneineh in Hebron, West Bank. The city was awarded to Palestinian control under US-sponsored peace accords in 1997. Five Palestinians were killed in the offensive - including two blown to pieces by tank shells - and dozens injured.”[24]; “Hours after sharon spoke, five palestinians lay dead and up to 100 people were injured on the streets of hebron early yesterday.”[25]

Quite how sharon could believe that anyone around the world could possibly keep a straight face when listening to his insane rant is a little difficult to understand but it didn’t stop him from believing in what he’s said. He’ll just have to pretend to be normal until given the opportunity for another rant, “For Sharon, the comments on a Palestinian state are undeniable proof that Israel has failed to persuade Washington that Arafat is the regional equivalent of Osama bin Laden - a terrorist beyond rehabilitation, and certainly undeserving of a state. Immediately after the 11 September attack, Israel was certain the US would come around to its view that Arafat was part of a global complex of Islamist terror. Instead, Sharon has had to tone down the rhetoric against Arafat - and abandon the comparison with the Saudi fugitive - after US officials communicated their annoyance.”[26] The problem for zionist agents around the world spewing out sharon’s global jewish propaganda is that they now know that if they start talking in terms of ‘osama bin laden is hitler’, then critics are going to push them along the chain of logical deductions until they too end up comparing mcbush to neville chamberlain.

In the aftermath of september 11th sharon had been aghast at america’s efforts to develop a coalition with the arabs; with straw’s visit to iran; with mcblair’s labour party conference speech insisting on peace in the middle east; with mcbush’s statement supporting a palestinian state; with colin powell’s plans for new negotiations between the zionists and palestinians; and with the prospect that the allies might force him to negotiate with someone he believes is the reincarnation of adolf hitler, “The row is highly reminiscent of the early Nineties when Bush's father was in the White House, and Israel was persuaded not to retaliate after an Iraqi Scud missile struck Tel Aviv for fear of upsetting an Arab coalition. When the war ended, a right-wing Israeli Prime Minister - Yitzhak Shamir - was dragged to the Madrid peace conference. Sharon's outburst reflects his growing fear of a repeat scenario as Washington seeks support from the Arab world for this war. Sharon swept to power last February by promising Israelis he would never conduct negotiations with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat under fire. Although he retains the support of more than 70 per cent of Israeli voters, Sharon's standing is threatened even by efforts to consolidate a cease-fire, which commits Israel to a freeze on new settlements. This is anathema for Sharon who, for three decades, has been the patron of the Jewish enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza, which are considered illegal under international law.”[27]

Ariel sharon’s main tactic during his accession to power, and during his time in government, has been deliberately provoking palestinians into protests either by threatening to take over mosques or by building yet more illegal settlements or by executing palestinian protestors. This has enabled him to make political capital out of the deaths of his own people by building more jewish settlements. He clearly believes the deaths of a few jews is well worth the price for being able to construct new settlements. Sharon is an appalling menace to the entire civilized world and he ought to be tried for crimes against humanity not only for the sabra and chatilla refugee camps but for his deliberate provocations which have led to the deaths of 660 palestinians but dozens of zionists too. He doesn’t want to negotiate with palestinians - he wants to provoke them to such an extent that he can wipe them out or deport them en masse to mecca. He clearly admires hitler’s policies of mass deportation.

Benjamin Netanhayu.

Netanhayu is a former extreme right wing zionist prime minister who, like menchem begin before him and sharon after him, did everything he could to stall the peace process and continue to increase the number of illegal zionist settlements. He had been a star performer in the brutish media during the gulf war when the bbc and itv believed it was perfectly feasible to allow this racist to air his racist views on national television. Once again, this time round, david frost gave him an opportunity to voice his racist opinions on his sunday morning television show. It has to be asked, doesn’t anyone else find it strange that the brutish media believes that zionist racists have the right to air their vile racist views.[28]

Netanhayu denounced arafat as if he’d orchestrated the september 11th attack. He referred to the september 11th bombers as ideological lunatics whose rationale for their actions was absurd because it derived from events that took place fifteen hundred years ago - as if his policies didn’t have their roots in the old testament - just like those of all the other disgusting racists in the zionist governments of the last fifty years. Isn’t the reason that zionists have been stealing land from palestinians over the last fifty years, that the old testament states that palestine is the jewish homeland? He demanded that action be taken against all terrorists not only iran and iraq but arafat as well (but not his own terrorist prime minister). He denounced arafat for wanting an islamic state in the place of israel. He stated that the core problem of global terrorism was islamic fundamentalism. When listening to grade one bigots like this, islamic fundamentalism seems all too rational. When listening to garbage like netanhayu it becomes all too clear why people drive aeroplanes into buildings.

James Rubin

Rubin is a jew and a former american secretary of state in the clinton government. He’s made frequent appearances in the brutish media since he left political office. Whenever the brutish media produces a serious programme on international relations he is often invited to give his opinions. Political commentators always treat him as an american and never mention his jewishness - as if this is his own personal business which has no bearing on any of his opinions. He reciprocates by giving the impression that he is an ordinary american and that, as such, he is even handed over middle east issues - whereas it is blatantly obvious that, as a jew, he favours the zionist dictatorship in palestine. The fact that the media never mentions that he is a jew and pro-zionist, only a former american administrator, is an extremely useful asset for the global jewish propagandists. What it means is that in serious political debates in the brutish media he can be used to represent the zionists’ point of view without the media having to continually invite representatives of the zionist government to give their opinion - after all most zionists are usually much too busy oppressing palestinians to be able to take time off for television debates. What this also means is that the media doesn’t then have to invite a representative of the palestinian people to provide a balance with an zionist government spokesperson. Rubin can thus give the zionists’ point of view, as if it is the opinion of the american government/people, without it being challenged by one of those pesky palestinians demanding their land back.

Rubin has also been spreading the global jewish propaganda, on behalf of the zionist state in palestine and zionist-american governments, that zionist terrorism against palestinians has never contributed in any way to the september bombings. He believes that moslem extremists hate america on principle and would have carried out such attacks no matter what the state of zionist-palestinian relationships. The crucial issue here is that the longer that zionist terrorists are allowed to perpetuate their apartheid regime, which is worse than that in south africa, the greater the number of moslems being pushed into extremist beliefs. Even worse, is that zionist state terrorism has been deliberately driving more and more moslems into extremism in order to justify the further bulldozing of palestinian homes and the illegal construction of jewish settlements. It is only when there is justice in the middle east that people will start turning their backs on extremism.

Palestinians’ Reactions.

Yasser arafat immediately and unreservedly condemned the september 11th bombings and, in the days that followed, donated blood to the victims. He must have been petrified when the fascist ariel sharon called him zionists’ bin laden. Some palestinian people celebrated in the streets - quite justifiably so given the appalling conditions in which these poor, stateless, refugees are forced to live. If everyone around the world knew the conditions under which palestinians were living and dying then they would have understood this island of joy in an ocean of misery. But of course, the vast majority of people around the world know nothing about palestine or the palestinian people. In their utter ignorance they would have found it unacceptable for people to dance around in celebration. So, arafat’s police stopped the palestinians from enjoying this event because of the bad impression it would create amongst the vast ranks of livestock roaming the planet.[29]

Saddam Hussein.

Saddam believed that america brought this attack on itself although, contrary to the following quote, it is not known whether he gloated over it, “Leader saddam hussein gloated over the us suffering on iraqi tv, saying that the “american cowboy” deserved the attack as the fruits “of its crimes against humanity”.”[30] It has to be suspected that the mere thought that he might be privately gloating over this disaster was enough to send some brutish commentators into fits of the most diabolical rage which led them to make the most outrageous accusations against him without the slightest evidence.[31] Such is the vile hatred of saddam amongst politically conventional, christian fundamentalist, commentators that the mere fact that an iraqi security agent met one of the alleged bombers a year before the bombing took place was enough for them to conclude that saddam was the key planner not merely behind the september 11th bombings but the anthrax scares. Such accusers really ought to admit themselves to their nearest psychiatric hospital. It’s easy to see how the livestock are panicked when tabloids publish such foul minded, nasty, evil accusations. Saddam refused to offer condolences to the bereaved after the september 11th bombings - which is all too understandable given the 500,000-1,000,000 iraqi children who have perished since the end of the gulf war. If he had orchestrated the bombings it would be entirely justified revenge for the deaths of so many iraqi children.

8. Preparations for War.

Forging a Global Coalition.

America could quite easily have pushed the world into a third world war by taking immediate and unrestrained revenge for the september 11th bombings. The brutish government made strenuous efforts to avert such a conflagration by persuading america to forge a global alliance with moslem countries before taking military action. But the structural reality of this war is that the more countries the allies attack, the less likely any global coalition will hold, and the greater the chance of the conflict escalating. Perhaps the allies believe they can pick off the so-called terrorist states one by one. First afghanistan, then iraq, Libya, iran.

What’s the Justification for War?

In the aftermath of the september 11th bombings, the allies were desperately trying to determine their military response and formulate a justification for this response. A number of characterizations were tried out.

The first characterization was a fight between good and evil. Mcbush originally told the american public that america was going to eradicate evil - a task which, so far, even god has failed to achieve. This characterization carried considerable religious overtones which immediately made many moslems suspect his real intention was a good old fashioned christian crusade against islam. This alienated moderate islamic people whose support he was seeking.

The next characterization was a war between the civilized world and the uncivilized world, “The deputy secretary of state, Paul wolfowitz, said that .. "the whole civilised world has been shocked ... and even portions of the uncivilised world have started to wonder whether they're on the wrong side."”[32] Ahdaf soueif asks, “How's that for the official American view of the planet?” This was quickly changed. According to mcblair .. “we are at war with terrorism. It is a war between the civilized world and fanaticism.”[33]

The phrase ‘the war against afghanistan or the afghanistani government’ was never used because firstly, it implied the allies were going to war against the afghani people. The americans insisted they weren’t - they were only going to drop a few thousand tonnes of high explosives on them. And, secondly, because this would have fixed the war to one country which was the last thing the christian/zionist fundamentalists in the american government wanted.

Eventually the characterization began to coagulate around the phrase of ‘a war against terrorism’. Not all terrorism of course. Only carefully selected terrorists. Only those terrorists who were against the american government rather than for those who were for it like luis posada carrriles,[34] the contras, zionist governments in palestine, and the terrorists being harboured by the pakistani military dictatorship. This characterization only served to inflame moslem opinion because they all knew the code that was being used.

Occasionally american war mongers would mention that america was on a crusade. All this achieved was to generate even more fear amongst moderate moslems who recalled the last christian crusade in which christian aristocrats exercised their Fox hunting skills on moslem peoples.

Allied politicians talked about the september 11th bombings as an attack not merely on america but on all freedom loving people around the world. Mcblair stated, “We the democracies of the world must come together to defeat and eradicate it (terrorism). This is not a battle between america and terrorism, but between the free and democratic world and terrorism.”[35] But then as far as he was concerned the apartheid regime in palestine was a freedom loving country.

The allies’ ability to maintain the fiction that they were attacking all forms of terrorism around the world and were not intent on attacking only moslem terrorism was dented by the fact that the name given to the war against terrorism was offensive to moslems, “The war on terrorism has been renamed “Enduring Freedom”, as defence secretary donald rumsfeld announced in a swift white house u-turn yesterday. He admitted the original “Operation infinite justice” slogan was dropped to placate muslims, who see allah as the infinite judge.”[36] The white house then published a list of the world’s most wanted terrorists and all of them were moslems - ariel sharon was nowhere to be seen.

Freedom Loving Countries against Terrorists - or is it Freedom Loving Terrorists against Freedom for the Poor?

The assumption of the declaration that the war is a battle between “the free and democratic world and terrorism.”[37] is that the zionist state in palestine is a freedom loving country. The implication of this is that palestinians are terrorists for trying to reclaim their property stolen by the zionists. It also implies that the palestinians are not a freedom loving people - how could they be when they have extremists committing acts of terrorism? Nor was the islamic party which won the last algerian general election only to end up being slaughtered by the algerian army under the instigation of the freedom-loving american government. Robert fisk writes, “Arabs, it might be added, would rather like some of that democracy and liberty and freedom that Mr Bush has been telling them about. Instead, they get a president who wins 98 per cent in the elections (Washington's friend, Mr Mubarak) or a Palestinian police force, trained by the CIA, that tortures and sometimes kills its people in prison. The Syrians would also like a little of that democracy. So would the Saudis. But their effete princes are all friends of America in many cases, educated at US universities.”[38]

In turkey, moslem parties have been banned from taking office even if they win general elections, “As the banned welfare party in turkey counts down its last days, the prime minister, mesut yilmaz, has made it clear that the country’s secular establishment will never again allow a party created in welfare’s islamist image to form a government. Mr yilmaz warns that unless islamist politicians temper their rhetoric and form a more moderate movement, they will be hounded again, “Getting enough votes will not be enough to come to power.””[39]

How Many Countries are going to be Attacked?

One of the problems underlying the allies’ initial propaganda confusion was that until the military targets were known it was not possible to characterize the war. And it wasn’t possible to characterize the war with a decisive slogan because this would pinpoint the targets to be attacked. A month after the september 11th bombings, it is still not known how many countries are going to be bombed, or bombed into submission, or invaded. Five countries were originally named - iraq, libya, sudan, syria, and afghanistan. Iraq has always been a highly popular target, “U.s. deputy defence secretary paul wolfowitz told nato ministers in brussels of the link between states harbouring terrorists and those developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. His words appear to point directly to iraq. Mr wolfowitz has been saying the war on terrorism should be extended to saddam hussein’s regime, it has been reported.”[40] Iran was mentioned frequently as a target because of its links with hezbollah in the lebanon and palestine but this became more difficult when it started making overtures to the allies and jack straw responded with a visit. Richard perle, former american secretary of state, criticized straw’s visit to iran for dealing with a state which harbours terrorists.[41] He’s still battling to put iran on the american military’s tour of the middle east sometime in 2001. Sudan was mentioned because of its links with bin laden but on september 28th the united nations’ security council agreed to lift sanctions against the country so this makes it less likely to be a target. Sometimes lebanon is mentioned. Pakistan is never mentioned because it is an ally even though, as the indian government continually points out, it has lots of terrorist training camps in the northern part of the country helping kashmiri separatists in indian occupied kashmir. Syria is still on america’s list of terrorist countries and yet on october 9th it was voted onto the united nations’ security council as a non voting member. Libya was a frequently mentioned target but in mid-october it seems to have done a deal with the satanists, “A libyan spymaster believed to have plotted the lockerbie bombing is helping america hunt terrorist suspect osama bin laden.”[42] There was also a surprise mention of algeria on cnn october 12th but it is likely the cia won’t want too much press attention focused on that country given its role in littering the country with corpses.[43] Azerbaijan might have been recommended but most american congresspeople had no idea where it was. Anyway on october 17th colin powell recommended that sanctions against the country should be lifted because of its co-operation with the americans.

All of the countries mentioned as targets are islamic - which poses a dilemma for the allies. How are they going to take action against terrorism without making it seem as if they’re embarking on a war against islamic terrorists - especially when they’re propping up a zionist mass murderer like ariel sharon who, sooner or later, is going to have to be indicted for the war crimes he committed against palestinians in the chatila refugee camps in the lebanon?

Military Strategy.

Even in the middle of october the allies’ military strategy is still not clear. On the one hand the americans argue they are going to fight terrorism which requires a light touch, and a great deal of patience, to flush out shadowy individuals. On the other hand, following the colin powell tactic of using overwhelming military force, america has despatched a vast military force to the middle east. The cost of this operation necessitates that it is used quickly and comprehensively followed by a rapid withdrawal. The americans could be letting themselves in for a nightmare. All that al-qaeda has to do is to move to pakistan, or any of the neighbouring central asian moslem states, allow the americans to occupy afghanistan, and then return surreptitiously to start blowing up the occupiers.

Iraq and Afghanistan are Small in Comparison to Pakistan.

In the 1960s the americans invaded vietnam and waged war in a country of some 10 million people. In the 1990s they waged war against iraq which had a population of around 18 million. They now seem likely to wage war on afghanistan which has a population in the region of 25 million people, give or take 6-7 million destitute people on the verge of starvation and 1-2 million refugees fleeing to the borders, “Currently out of a population of 25 million, around 6 million people have had to leave their homes in search of food. Without the red cross and other relief organizations many of these people would starve.”[44] If the americans launched a full scale invasion of afghanistan it could destabilize pakistan - a country of 140 million people. If this country was destabilized it could have far more profound consequences than any of america’s earlier adventures, “Most of pakistan’s 140 million people are devout but relatively moderate muslims, but there are several strong militant islamic groups. Most are well armed and could pose a threat to the president, general pervez musharraf.”[45] Pakistan’s military is more powerful than anything the americans have yet had to face since the second world war.

India is one of the Biggest Moslem Countries in the World.

A war in afghanistan might destabilize not only pakistan but india. India has a population of over a billion people most of whom are hindus, but there are reported to be roughly 120 million moslems in the country. One of the most respected moslem leaders in india has denounced the allies’ threats towards the taliban and insisted that if the country is invaded then it would be moslems’ duty to fight against the invaders. The indian police and army have closed down some of the more extreme moslem schools in india and arrested their leaders for inciting violence.

During the war against iraq many moslems around the world supported saddam hussein but because iraq is on the northern edge of the moslem world, the conflict was just a bit too far distant for them to play any significant role in shifting public opinion against their own, western-loving, governments. Afghanistan, however, is virtually in the centre of the moslem world. With iran to the west, the former russian republics to the north, the gulf states to the south, and pakistan and india to the west, any allied invasion of afghanistan is going to have to be launched over one or more of these moslem countries and it could generate a huge amount of turmoil amongst moslems in these countries.

Planning for the War.

The structural realities entailed by this war were firstly, the more countries attacked, the narrower the international support. Secondly, america (and brutland) insisted that if the taliban did not hand over bin laden then they would be removed from power, “In the clearest signal yet that the us and britain are prepared to topple afghanistan’s hardline regime, (mcbush) said, “They have chosen to help the terrorist, and in choosing to help the friends of terror they are choosing to be enemies of ours.””[46] But pakistan didn’t want the taliban to be removed because this would considerably diminish its interests in the country. If the taliban were removed then afghanistan would be courted, once again, by the competing interests of iran, russia, and pakistan. The northern alliance was composed of three factions and each country would use one of these groups to promote its interests in the country. Thirdly, after the september 11th bombings, the early indications about the military response was that it would follow the pattern of the gulf war - wholesale bombing to soften up the country before a massive ground invasion. However, as time went by it was increasingly argued that, “America will not launch a massive d-day invasion to win the war on terrorism, the us defence secretary said last night.”[47]

America Refusing to go through the United Nations to Legitimize its war against the Poor.

During the gulf war the allies created a coalition through the united nations. Resolutions were formulated and then the allies insisted on a strict adherence to those resolutions even whilst resolutions in palestine were being ignored. However, in the war against terrorism the united states refused to follow the same path. This was probably because it didn’t want to make the same mistakes as it did before. In 1991 the use of united nations’ resolutions generated a huge amount of bad publicity around the world, because everyone could see the coalition was acting only on un resolutions applicable to iraq whilst ignoring all those applicable to palestine. On a more practical note, the american government might not have been allowed to work through the un because, after ten years of trying to undermine it, it had not paid its subscriptions so it wasn’t legally entitled to use any of its facilities. It was only at the beginning of october, because of the need to do some diplomatic work through the u.n. that mcbush agreed to pay $580 million of unpaid subscriptions.

The second difference between the gulf war and the war against terrorism was that america led a united nations’ coalition whereas on this occasion it was leading the war independently of any other country, “The US must keep the capacity to act unilaterally, hence the announcement last week that while it might ask individual Nato states for assistance, the US would, in effect, retain its unilateral capacity to act within what is evidently only nominally a multilateral pact.”[48] It was even independent of nato. The coalition consisted purely of cheerleaders. America insisted on its right to take unilateral action and its allies could support it to whatever extent they saw fit.[49]

There is no Chance the Allies will put Bin Laden on Trial because of what he’d reveal about American Terrorism around the World.

There is no way that america or its allies would arrest osama bin laden and then put him on trial at an international court. To do so would enable him to try and justify his actions by highlighting a long and very detailed history of american terrorism over the last half century. This would drive half of the american population into a mental breakdown because of their governments’ appalling atrocities whilst the other half, consisting of the country’s nasty, loony, extreme right wing, free market, fundamentalists would probably organize a coup d’état to prevent americans from hearing the truth.

9. The Early Stages of the War.

The Disintegration of Afghanistan.

The Refugee Crisis.

From the mid 1970s onwards, afghanistan’s ruling communist party started terrorizing islamic leaders and supporters. In 1979 the russians invaded the country and the mujahedeen fought for ten years to drive them out. Before the russians left they installed a secular afghani government and it took the mujahedeen three years to topple them. Once in power the various factions of the mujahedeen engaged in a vicious factional warfare for three years until they’d enfeebled themselves so much they were defeated by untrained taliban students - some of the defeated mujahedeen forces then retreated to the north to form the northern alliance. The country had virtually disintegrated before the taliban took over. For the last four years the country has suffered from a drought which has affected large parts of central asia. One aid worker stated that, “People were already dying there when i left, just before the horrific events of september 11th. But at least then food was getting through.”[50] After september 11th the country was pushed further into mass starvation and was being depopulated as people fled the country.

As soon as the american government started blaming bin laden for the september 11th bombings and demanded that the taliban hand him over or face an attack, afghanistani people feared a massive bombing campaign. The more news about america’s huge build up of military forces in the middle east; the more belligerent the allies were towards the taliban; the greater the flood of refugees fleeing towards the country’s borders.

The allies pressurized the united nations’ relief agency, the world food programme, to stop sending relief supplies to afghanistan for fear of sustaining the taliban, “The initial American reaction was to demand that Pakistan stop supplying food to the starving who, of course, fail to qualify as worthy victims."[51] American politicians could frequently be heard talking about the tactic of starving the taliban into submission - which would have meant mass starvation for 20 million afghanis. This was basically the tactic the americans and the brutish were using against iraq so they saw no reason not to apply it to afghanistan. When emergency relief agencies were pulled out of the country this too added to the fear of an imminent start to the war and increased the numbers of people moving to the borders.

Once relief supplies stopped being sent into the country, more and more afghani people, too poor to escape the country, faced the prospect of starvation. The longer that time went by, the greater the number of people who descended into malnutrition, “Now Bush and Blair have created what the UN calls "the world's worst humanitarian crisis", with up to 7m people facing starvation."[52] The huge numbers of people fleeing to the borders were no better off since the surrounding countries closed their borders with afghanistan. These people also found themselves trapped without food or shelter, “Millions of refugees fleeing afghanistan were creating a humanitarian crisis last night. The united nations has made an appeal for £180 million to help 7.5 million afghans to escape the country threatened by us military reprisals.”[53]

First Recognition of Humanitarian Crisis.

On september 27th mcblair admitted there was a humanitarian crisis in afghanistan and that it needed to be averted, “But for the first time yesterday, the prime minister recognized that bombs are not enough. There has to be international effort to rescue the afghan people from their oppressors, the taliban government in kabul. The perpetrators of the attack on america cannot go unpunished. But the innocent people of afghanistan need food parcels, not bombs.”[54] A few days later, he argued, “Just as we have built a political and military coalition following the events in america, now we have also to build a humanitarian coalition to deal with the humanitarian crisis in that region.”[55] The allies started sending supplies to pakistan again on september 29th, “The first airlift of relief supplies for afghan refugees is due to reach pakistan today.”[56] A few days later brutland sent a single plane loaded with tents, “The first humanitarian aid flight to afghanistan left last night carrying 1,300 insulated tents .. More flights will leave for turkmenistan and uzbekistan this week.”[57] On october 4th mcbush pledged further help, “George bush last night pledged £220 million to help “poor souls” in afghanistan who are fleeing the taliban. The money will help feed and clothe millions of refugees as winter descends.”[58]

The Fraudulent Concern for the Humanitarian Crisis.

The american warmongers weren’t completely outmanoeuvred by mcblair’s sudden plea for a humanitarian effort. They argued that before relief supplies were sent into afghanistan there should be a bombing campaign to make sure the taliban wouldn’t shoot down aircraft carrying relief supplies.

Despite the brutish government’s promise to focus as much on the humanitarian effort as the military effort very little has been done to stop afghanis from starving to death. The americans have been far more concerned about bombing than they have been with preventing starvation. The bombing started on october 7th and during the first few two days the americans dropped 37,000 rations onto the country with close to 7 million nearing starvation, “Every night since the bombing began, two giant cargo transports fly from an air base in germany to scatter 35,000 meals from high altitude to avoid enemy fire. Every night they fly 6,000 miles to afghanistan and back.”[59] Relief agencies described this as a public relations exercise, “Thousands of food parcels dropped for starving afghans are “virtually useless” aid agencies said yesterday. Oxfam said the allies are more concerned with image than the real problem of starvation.”[60] Demands were made for a pause in the bombing to enable supplies to be trucked into the country to build up stocks before the winter set in. The onset of winter would make it virtually impossible to distribute food across the country. One aid worker complained about the time that had been lost for sending in supplies, “We lost two precious weeks after the attacks on america, during which time the united nations’ world food programme suspended convoys .. For two weeks we heard wfp excuses ..”[61] On october 17th six relief agencies requested a pause in the bombing campaign to ensure the delivery of the aid necessary for afghanis to survive the winter period.

Bombing to Terrorize the Afghani People.

Afghanistan had virtually no military hardware. What there was could have been destroyed in the first few hours of bombing. The americans made great play about bombing afghanistan’s aircraft and airports - but since the taliban didn’t have any aircraft to use what did this matter militarily? “The airport at Kabul is no more than a collection of shacks, whose telephones couldn't even make outgoing calls. And the statement, delivered by our defence secretary with all the gravitas of Captain Mainwaring, that we had achieved "air-superiority" over Afghanistan - over a Flintstones-style air force which couldn't even leave the ground - will live forever as one of those stories you really couldn't make up.”[62] American bombing after the first evening has been almost entirely concerned with terrorizing the afghanistani people into rebelling against the taliban and encouraging splits within the taliban.

It is a sickness beyond belief that the world’s richest countries continually bombed the world’s poorest country in the hope of killing one man whilst ignoring millions of people getting closer and closer to mass starvation. No matter how bad the provocation that america has suffered, the full scale bombing of afghanistan clearly revealed where the real evil lay in the world. For two weeks after the september 11th bombings when the allies were talking about bombing afghanistan they hardly mentioned the fact that this was the world’s poorest nation and that it was suffering from a humanitarian disaster because of successive droughts. This says a lot about the denialist fantasies whirling around the heads of the vile, evil, right wing, lunatics in the american government.

Allies’ Losing the Propaganda War.

The Emergence of al Jazeera.

There was a huge wave of sympathy for the victims of the september 11th bombings from the world’s governments and in their media. Slowly, however, more and more people started voicing their support for bin laden not so much for what he did but for the causes he espoused. One of the major differences between the gulf war and the afghanistani war has been the al jazeera news broadcasting network which was created in qatar in 1996. This provided news coverage for countries around the middle and far east and has helped to popularize demonstrations for bin laden’s causes.

Al jazeera found itself catapulted from an insignificant broadcaster to one of the world’s most popular tv channels after it broadcasted bin laden’s tapes, “The new video (by bin laden) was handed to qatar’s al jazeera tv station.”[63] It also broadcasted the taliban government’s views. It interviewed refugees fleeing the bombing in afghanistan so whilst clare short maintained .. “there have been no civilian casualties” al jazeera was able to provide first hand evidence of such fatalities. During the gulf war the only news that emerged from iraq was that sanctioned by saddam hussein so it was always suspect but in the afghanistani war news has come first hand from refugees so their distressing stories were much more credible. Al jazeera was also the only broadcasting agency allowed in taliban controlled afghanistan and was able to show the full horror of the terrorism the united states rained down on the afghani people. As a result of al jazeera’s broadcasts, arabs and moslems probably had a much clearer idea of what was going on in afghanistan than people in the so-called freedom loving democracies where governments imposed severe restrictions on what broadcast organizations could say about the war thereby ensuring they acted solely as cheerleaders for the allied war effort.

As a consequence of al jazeera’s broadcasts about the war, in the weeks leading up to the start of the bombing campaign, more and more opposition built up to america’s military build up and there has been much more opposition to this war than there was to the gulf war. There were demonstrations not merely in pakistan but in iran, india, palestine, indonesia. The strength of public opinion around the world in favour of bin laden and against the allies, caused bewilderment and consternation in both america and brutland.

The Palestinian Zionist Issue.

After the september 11th bombings, the american and brutish governments attempted to build a global coalition for the war against terrorism. However, in marked contrast to the coalition formed during the gulf war they quickly encountered opposition from arab countries. Before the war against iraq, the allies had promised arab governments that after the war there would be a resolution to the palestinian issue. They failed to live up to their promise and arab governments were not going to support the coalition again merely on the basis of another lot of unfullfilable promises about palestine, “There is enormous potential embarrassment to the regimes here. They know it, and that is why, during the build-up to the assault, they had expressed such reservations about it. The most telling have been Saudi Arabia's. It may have broken off diplomatic relations with the Taliban - but that hardly counts for much against its indignant rejection of the idea that the US should have availed itself of the Prince Sultan airbase as a launching pad for attacks on a fellow Muslim country.”[64] What made it more difficult for these governments to capitulate to american and brutish demands was that more and more moslems were expressing their support for bin laden’s causes, “Throughout the Muslim world there is widespread bitterness against America, even among pragmatic and well-educated businessmen and professionals, who may sincerely deplore the recent atrocity, condemn it as evil, and feel sympathy with the victims, but who still resent the way the western powers have behaved in their countries.”[65] As a consequence, if the american and brutish governments wanted arab governments and moslem people to support their war against terrorism, or at the very least not militarily oppose it, they had no choice but to start changing their policies over palestine.

On october 2nd mcblair emphasized the need for peace in the middle east in his speech to the labour party conference, “The palestinians must have justice and the chance to prosper in their own land as equal partners with israel in that future.”[66] However, he did not mention a palestinian state - he didn’t even use the word palestine. Much more remarkable was that a few hours after this speech, mcbush announced the american government had always supported the creation of a palestinian state. This was a significant change - but both mcbush and mcblair continued to believe the zionist state in palestine was a legitimate liberal democracy which protected political freedoms. A few days later, colin powell submitted a document about the basis of negotiations for a middle east peace settlement. For the first time, the american government did not consult the zionists about the document before it was published, “Mr Powell’s ideas call for a “viable Palestinian homeland.” “However the proposals also call for preserving the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. That means the US will not support a wholesale return of more than 3 million registered Palestinian refugees to Israel, instead favouring compensation packages or resettlement within the boundaries of the future Palestinian state.”[67]

Mcblair’s support for peace in the middle east, mcbush’s support for a palestinian state, and powell’s ideas for a new peace process, were not enough to persuade either arab governments to join the war against terrorism let alone win over moslem public opinion. The bombing of afghanistan started october 7th and a few days later the america government announced its intention of keeping open the option of attacking other countries. The u.s. ambassador john negroponte said in a letter to the un security council, “We may find our self defence requires further actions with respect to other organizations and states.”[68] This caused arab/moslem countries and moslem people to be even more sceptical about proposed changes in the middle east.

Moslem public opinion was moving against the allies so powerfully the allies realized they were going to have to make much more strenuous efforts if they were to win over arab dictators and the moslem public opinion. So, on october 10th mcblair started a tour of middle east. He intended to use the campaign for peace in the middle east as a means of reducing moslem support for bin laden, “And mr blair aims to kickstart the middle east peace process to show the muslim world the west cares about the suffering of the palestinians.”[69] The broadcast of bin laden’s videos on al jazeera had been so influential that mcblair insisted on a right to reply. He was given a grilling by an al jazeera journalist.[70] Unfortunately he made the situation worse for himself by talking about a .. “partnership between palestine and zionists” but refused to mention a palestinian state. No matter that this was for entirely technical reasons it appeared suspicious in the context of the brutish government’s failure to deliver its 1991 promise.[71] He also tried to sound compromising over saddam hussein, “We are putting forward proposals in the un security council which will allow (saddam) access to more money provided he allows us to inspect and makes sure he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.”[72] However, mcblair’s counter offensive still ran into opposition. The saudi rulers were so appalled by his pro-zionist bigotry they feared he’d sparked off a revolution in their country so they refused to allow him to visit. As could be expected, the zionist fundamentalists stated they had no intention of ending their racist oppression of palestinians, “Jerusalem must remain united, and under the sovereignty of Israel, and the experiences of the last couple of months enforces that view among israelis.”[73]

On october 12th mcblair admitted the allies were losing the propaganda war. He seemed to appreciate that arabs/moslems felt let down by the allies’ failure to fulfil the promises made in 1991. Quite typically for this media spin merchant, he believed the problem was not the fact that moslems around the world had come to the impartial conclusion that he was a hypocrite and a racist but that he wasn’t getting his message over clearly enough to the arab and moslem worlds, “One thing becoming increasingly clear to me is the need to upgrade our media and public opinion operations in the arab and moslem world. There is a need for us to communicate effectively.”[74] He could not understand that moslems around the world could not take him seriously because he was defending the mass murderer ariel sharon, the racist zionist state, and the terrorist bombing of starving people. Little did he realize that the more clearly he put over his message, the more he appeared like a liar, hypocrite, racist, and terrorist. Everytime george mcbush justified the bombing of afghanistan by reference to high principles, people in the moslem world increasingly saw how meaningless such principles were.

Other western politicians also tried to counter bin laden’s influence by requesting that al jazeera should interview them in order to ensure the allies’ messages reached moslems around the world. However, the consequence has been that they too have had to face far harsher questions than they have ever done from western livestock hacks. These politicians had to avoid reeling off their usual bigoted answers because their assumptions would not be shared by their moslem audience.

America and its allies have been acting unjustly by going after one terrorist, bin laden, whilst supporting another terrorist, ariel sharon. They were acting unjustly because they attacked one terrorist state whilst providing another with even more weapons. It was the allies’ support for the zionist state in palestine and ariel sharon which was causing their propaganda disasters. At the end of the day there was nothing the allies could do to persuade moslems and the rest of the world that they were fighting a just war because moslems could see the allies defending ariel sharon. Without action taken against ariel sharon then the allies war would always be seen as unjust.

Commentators have pointed out that arab/moslem countries were perfectly willing to condemn the september 11th bombings but they would not confront the fact that these bombings had been carried out by moslems. They denied bin laden’s involvement. These commentators suggested that moslems and arabs simply would not face up to the truth. But this was just the mirror image of what was happening in allied countries where politicians refused to acknowledge that ariel sharon is a mass murder, that the zionist state in palestine is a racist state, and that by financing and arming the zionist government in palestine, america was propping up a terrorist organization which is far worse than al qaeda.

Various commentators agreed with mcblair that the allies were losing the propaganda war. Jonathan freedland stated, “For this war’s defining characteristic is the centrality of propaganda. What are clashing here are not two armies, but two arguments.” (Many moslems support bin laden). “Indeed they regard the current bombing offensive as utter confirmation of his key message: That america and its allies will always seek to crush poor, muslim people wherever they may be. In contrast with the 1991 conflict, the night war on kabul has been conducted without the military help of a single muslim country. For what emerges is a picture of a muslim world where either vocal and growing minorities idolise bin laden, or governments fear standing against him. This prompts a bleak practical conclusion: this war is truly a no-win situation. I worry that we may have played directly into bin laden’s hands .. inadvertently proving that america and islam are locked in an epic clash of civilizations after all.”[75] Tony parsons stated, “The war against terrorism isn’t working .. If we can’t win a propaganda battle against these murderous creeps, god help us. Yet incredibly, they have seized the moral high ground.”[76]

As the american bombings of innocent civilians was intensified and arab/moslem opinion became more hostile, the allies realized more efforts were needed to convince arabs/moslems that they were serious about peace in the middle east. So, on october 15th, mcblair invited yasser arafat to visited brutland where, for the first time, he expressed support for a palestinian state, "A viable Palestinian state, as part of a negotiated and agreed settlement, which guarantees peace and security for Israel is the objective."[77] He also stated, in line with the views expressed by the mcbush administration, that the zionist state would have to abide by un resolutions, “The Bush administration, radically departing from decades of US policy, is said to have affirmed not only the right to statehood, but support for UN resolutions 242 and 338, calling on Israel to withdraw from all the lands it has occupied illegally since the Six Day war of 1967.[78]

The zionist state terrorists in palestine marked yasser arafat’s visit to brutland by assassinating two palestinian freedom fighters, “Palestinians accused israel of once again trying to stall the peace process by breaking the ceasefire after troops shot dead wanted terrorist abdul rahman hamad. He was killed outside his home in the west bank town of qalqilya.”[79] This followed the assassination of another palestinian two days earlier. It was as if the zionists wanted to remind mcblair that he was dealing with a terrorist - although murdering palestinians seem a hypocritical way of making such a point. After arafat’s meeting with mcblair there were a few hours in which there was some hope that there might be negotiations, “Foreign minister shimon peres said israel favoured an independent state and would stop the targeted killing of palestinian militants but president arafat had to rein in people who aimed their guns at israel.”[80]

The Assassination of a Zionist Nazi.

On october 17th the popular front for the liberation of palestine, which is funded and aided by syria, assassinated rehavam zeevi, the zionist government’s minister for tourism. The pflp is one of the smallest groups which make up the palestine liberation front and its most well known member is lella khaled, one of the world’s first aircraft hijackers. The assassination was carried out in response to the assassination in august of the head of the pflp by zionist state death squads, “The attack on zeevi was to directly avenge the killing of pflp’s leader abu ali mustafa in an israeli rocket attack last august. But the hamas deaths in the past few days were clearly the trigger for his murder.”[81]

Zeevi was the first cabinet minister to be assassinated in the history of the zionist state. Technically, he wasn’t a cabinet member because he’d resigned from it six days earlier in protest about sharon’s withdrawal of zionist tanks from hebron. In other words, and this shows the degree of the fundamentalist religious extremism in this so-called european state, he regarded sharon as being soft on terrorists. Zeevi was no ordinary zionist state terrorist. He was one of the many zionist nazis in the sharon cabinet, “As an advocate of the expulsion of arabs living under israeli rule, he referred to palestinians working and living illegally in israel as “lice” and a “cancer” that must be stopped from spreading. (He) .. once kept a lion in a cage as a mascot at his headquarters.”[82] Deportation and the deprecation of enemies as “lice” were two prominent features of nazism.

The zionists then implemented a number of repressive measures to crack down on palestinian freedom fighters. According to olga guerin, a bbc reporter, arafat was banned from using gaza international airport “which effectively means that he is grounded.”[83] Ironically, it was sharon who instituted the ‘shoot to kill’ policy. Thank goodness there’s one less crypto-nazi on Earth.

Ariel sharon reacted to the assassination by sending in the zionist army to take over palestinian areas. It looked as if war was imminent. The united states tried to calm down sharon’s belligerence but despite not having condemned the zionists’ assassination policy, it condemned the assassination of the zionist crypto-nazi, “The United States was firm in its response to the assassination, insisting that it was not enough for the Palestinian authority merely to condemn the murder. "It is time for the Palestinian Authority to take vigorous action against terrorists," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. "Words are not enough." The President, George Bush, also condemned the assassination "in the strongest terms" and called it a "despicable act," Fleischer said.”[84]

The Zionists’ New Propaganda Tactic.

After the failure of their first response to the september 11th bombings, the zionist government changed its propaganda in the hope of winning greater world acceptance. The basis of this new tactic was for zionists to present themselves as being like other freedom loving, liberal, secular, democratic, western states plagued by stroppy unreasonable terrorists. In other words, the zionists were trying to take their place in the centre of the allied coalition against terrorism and this meant adopting the same terminology and attitudes to terrorism as the allies. The more parallels that zionists could draw between mcbush and sharon, the more world opinion would swing towards the zionists. Thus sharon insisted the assassination of the zionist terrorist was the equivalent to the september 11th bombings, “This is a new era. Things can never be the same. From today everything has changed just as president bush said after september 11th. We will carry out a war to the bitter end against the terrorists, those who help them and those who dispatch them.”[85] The zionist government started insisting that the palestinian ‘state’ should stop “harbouring” and “financing” the “network” of “terrorist” organizations in palestinian controlled areas or else the army would be sent in to capture or kill them - just as mcbush was sending troops into afghanistan to catch bin laden.

The allies were not going to be too pleased about the zionists’ positioning themselves inside the coalition against terrorism because this would make it even more blatantly obvious that the allies were concerned only with moslem terrorism. It would alienate moslem opinion. It would also make many people in the west wonder what they were doing supporting a coalition in which there was a government similar to the white dominated south african apartheid regime.

The new tactic should force the issue of whether america and brutland would stand by the zionist state because it is a secular, freedom loving, liberal democracy or be truthful and start calling it what it is - a racist state. But somehow it seems unlikely that mcbush is going to make any dramatic changes in allegiance, “It wouldn't be very difficult for an American president, exasperated beyond endurance, to portray an Israeli leader with such a violent and brutal past as a terrorist on a par with the Yasser Arafats and the Hassan Nasrallahs, whom Sharon calls "our own Bin Ladens" - and, because of the patriotic fervour of the times, carry the American public with him.”[86]

Allies’ Changing their Propaganda War.

After the allies admitted they were losing the propaganda war, they began tightening up the news about the war in the hope of winning the second phase of the propaganda war. From saturday 13th october brutish and american television stopped talking about the demonstrations going on around the world in support of osama bin laden. They stopped reporting on bin laden’s or the taliban’s points of view. There was minimal use of al jazeera’s videos of the devastation being wreaked upon afghanistan by american bombing. Everytime the media reported allegations about civilian casualties they were always prefaced by warnings the information could not be verified - as if they were all under orders from their government to cast as much doubt as possible about any bad news. At the same time they broadcast the most outrageous speculation about iraq’s role in the september 11th bombings and in the anthrax scares. There was also an effort to start focusing again on domestic issues rather than the war in order to get people back to their normal lives - but the anthrax scare made this difficult. Politicians were leading the brutish media by the nose - determining which stories ought to be talked about and the priority that ought to be given to them. The idea of blocking news about pro bin laden demonstrations around the world was to stop people in brutland from being encouraged to register their opposition to the war.

On thursday october 18th mcblair announced a new phase in the gulf war - special operations troops were going into afghanistan. But, virtually ever since september 11th, the media has been full of stories of special forces being in the country. The reason for the announcement may have been that mcblair felt the public was becoming increasingly agitated about continually terrorizing innocent afghanistani people without any sense of an objective.

The Progress of the War.

Anthrax.

America has never be in a war which has impinged on america and american people. The korean war, the vietnam war, the gulf war, the afghanistani war, etc, have all involved the american military going off to do battle on far distant shores whilst life goes on almost as normal in america. The country has existed in a peaceful cocoon throughout its existence. Not even saddam was able to take the ‘mother of all war’ to the home of the great satan. Bin laden was the first to wage war on americans in their own country - which, in itself, is another amazing military triumph. For the first time in their history america people were living in fear and suffering a degree of anxiety about being affected by the future course of the war.

The september 11th bombings were followed by a series of anthrax scares. The first announcement of an anthrax letter attack was made on october 8th.[87] Initially only 12 letters containing anthrax were sent out to media companies in america but then copy cat terrorists got into the act which increased rapidly the number of suspected anthrax attacks. This produced a wave of fear amongst americans who were worried they might receive an anthrax letter or that the letters might be just a precursor to a massive anthrax bomb. The anthrax fears spread not merely across america but around the world where there were hundreds of cases of people contacting the emergency services after discovering white powder in letters. In america, christian fundamentalists adopted bin laden’s tactics and sent out letters containing white powder to 80 abortion clinics around the country. The actual threat posed to americans by an anthrax attack was minimal but the fear was significant. The anthrax scares revealed americans’ nervousness but it also revealed there were many people who wanted to be anthrax hoaxers.

The fear of an anthrax attack reached its peak when a congressman received a letter containing anthrax. This put the congress in a state of panic and many congresspeople deserted the legislature. One newspaper headline accused them of being wimps. A number of people were tested positive for anthrax spores but only six people contracted the disease. What exacerbated the panic was that a congressman suffered what must have been a severe brainstorm when he alleged that terrorists had planted anthrax in congress’s air conditioning system. This wild, unsubstantiated, scaremongering was later disproven but it led to the closure of the house of representatives and a dramatic increase in americans’ fear of an anthrax attack, “The american government was shut down last night after 33 people tested positive in the anthrax scare in washington.”[88] Right wing loonies in congress used the scare to promote their own political agenda. They alleged, without any evidence, that the anthrax spores were weapons grade material having been dried and milled to become more infectious. They implied this could have been done only by states because it required a great deal of technical expertise and high tech machinery. It was not difficult for them to conclude that saddam was behind the attack. It was later shown that the anthrax was not weapons grade, had not been genetically engineered, nor was it particularly toxic because it was treatable with a wide range of different drugs.

America Bombing to the Taliban’s Strength.

Whilst the americans were terrorizing the afghanistani people in the hope that they would turn against the taliban or that the taliban would split under the pressure, it could be argued the americans’ destruction of the taliban’s military hardware was bombing to the taliban’s strengths. If this equipment had still been around when the allies launched a ground war, the taliban would have tried to use it and been comprehensively beaten. But now that the americans have deprived them of such equipment they are going to have to revert to guerrilla warfare in which they have some expertise.

For the first two weeks of the bombing campaign many commentators had been pinning their hopes on the northern alliance winning the ground war so the allies wouldn’t have to use groundforces but gradually more and more commentators began to realize they were worse than the taliban, “But the real headache for the west is that our new found allies in the alliance are almost as bad as the taliban and are incapable of ever bringing peace to this benighted land. The fall of the tottering taliban regime may be only days away. The taliban may be hated but none of kabul’s inhabitants are relishing the return of the anarchic mob of competing guerrilla armies who raped and pillaged the afghan capital for six years. Their treatment of women was abysmal. It was under the northern alliance government - not the taliban - that the burqa, the all encompassing veil, was first deemed compulsory for women on the streets.”[89]

Mcblair’s efforts to get the american government to accept the idea of nation building in afghanistan after the collapse of the taliban bore fruit when mcbush complimented him, “I appreciate tony blair’s vision about afghanistan after we are successful.”[90]

There have been quite a number of expectations that the taliban would crumble under the pressure of the bombing and the total devastation of their country but this has not yet happened. There was no chance of al qaeda giving up, but the hope was that the taliban might turn against them. Gary jones believes they are still solid, “Anyone who thinks the taliban will simply roll over and submit is clearly mistaken. In reality, their forces have dramatically grown in size from when the us dropped its first missile at the weekend.”[91]

America is Losing Constraints on Bombing the Innocent.

America embarked on a war against terrorists because terrorists had killed innocent people. The americans made so much of a protest about the killing of innocent people that it seemed as if they wouldn’t do anything to endanger afghanistan civilians. The killing of civilians seemed to be a major constraint on their actions. But their bombing campaign on afghanistan has been designed precisely to terrorize civilians. Hundreds of civilians have been killed. The reason for this change in attitude was not mere deception but a rationalization. The focus of american concerns was switched from the innocent victims of september 11th to the vast numbers of victims that bin laden would kill if he wasn’t stopped. It was no longer a question of taking action that was proportionate to the 5,000 victims in the september 11th bombings but proportionate to the possible slaughter of millions of innocent people, “Every lost life is one too many (in afghanistan). But if terrorism is not defeated, the number of lost lives will be counted not in tens but in millions.”[92] The need to protect such a vast number of potential victims meant that americans were virtually free to do anything they wanted in afghanistan. So what if 5,000 innocent afghanistani civilians died during the war, or 50,000, or 500,000 - the americans had to be ruthless to prevent millions of americans being killed. The americans have ditched their moral constraints in this war because of the open ended number of american victims that need to be saved. However, it has to be suggested that the deaths of innocent people in afghanistan is causing the sympathy that was once felt for the victims of the september 11th bombings to dissipate. Increasingly it is beginning to look retrospectively as if the justification for bin laden’s actions is americans’ retaliation.

Previous Page - - Top of Page - - Next Page - - Terra Firm 22 Contents - - Terra Firm Intro

TERRA FIRM - Issue 1 - - Issue 2 - - Issue 3 - - Issue 4 - - Issue 5 - - Issue 6 - - Issue 7 - - Issue 8 - - Issue 9 - - Issue 10

Issue 11 - - Issue 12 - - Issue 13 - - Issue 14 - - Issue 15 - - Issue 16 - - Issue 17 - - Issue 18 - - Issue 19 - - Issue 20

Issue 21 - - Issue 22 - - Issue 23 - - Issue 24 - - Issue 25 - - Issue 26 - - Issue 27 - - Issue 28 - - Issue 29 - - Issue 30

MUNDI CLUB HOME AND INTRO PAGES - Mundi Home - - Mundi Intro

JOURNALS - Terra / Terra Firm / Mappa Mundi / Mundimentalist / Doom Doom Doom & Doom / Special Pubs / Carbonomics

TOPICS - Zionism / Earth / Who's Who / FAQs / Planetary News / Bse Epidemic

ABOUT THE MUNDI CLUB - Phil & Pol / List of Pubs / Index of Website / Terminology / Contact Us

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

7. Reactions to the September 11th Bombings.

8. Preparations for War.

9. The Early Stages of the War.