Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Independent Investigation Censored by NATO-NAZIs but Survives on Swiss Website
Email: jpchance (nospam) egroups.com
11 Dec 2001
Please print and distribute this investigation from http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html , as well as those at http://copvcia.com , http://tenc.net and http://skolnicksreport.com . (Then stand up, purge your guilt addiction, and fight for our Republic and the world. Okay?)
Independent Investigation Censored by NATO-UN-NAZIs but Survives on Swiss Website
Please print and distribute this investigation from http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html , as well as those at http://copvcia.com , http://tenc.net and http://skolnicksreport.com . (Then stand up, purge your guilt addiction, and fight for our Republic and the world. Okay?)
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
1) A Controlled Demolition
2) The Plot
3) The Perpetrators
4) The "War on Terrorism"
5) What is to be Done?
6) The Corruption of the Republic
7) Final Questions
8) Related Documents on this Website
A previous version of this page (to October 11th) supported the thesis that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were carried out by Arab hijackers but that the operation was actually an inside job (that is, so-called Americans planned and directed it).
There were always problems with the "Arab hijackers" theory, but since only those ready to die for their cause would deliberately kill themselves by flying planes into the Twin Towers there seemed no alternative.
New evidence, however, has emerged, and it now seems that it was entirely an inside job, with no Arabs directly involved (except those who happened to be innocent passengers on the doomed planes).
Hard to believe, perhaps (especially because of the constant repetition in the mainstream media of the term "suicide attack"). Shocking, yes. But if one looks at the evidence, and thinks about it, this is what emerges.
This page also previously asserted (until October 23rd) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires (alleged to have caused the steel structural supports to melt) but rather because explosives were placed in the towers and detonated so as to bring the towers down in a controlled demolition.
While the evidence reveals that the towers did not collapse because of the fires, but rather were deliberately demolished, the manner in which this was accomplished (whether or not by explosives) has become unclear.
The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil. In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable. Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere.
On September 11, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the CIA-directed military coup d'etat in Chile, terrorists (but not Arab terrorists) hijacked four planes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, causing fires within.
According to the official story (pre-written and rushed into print in the mainstream media immediately after the events, together with the identity of the alleged culprit) the fires then caused the steel girders to melt and the towers to collapse. But this assertion does not withstand critical examination. The official story, in fact, is full of holes. It's not just full of holes, it's a deliberate lie.
The towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires. Possibly (but not certainly) explosives were placed besides their structural supports in the upper levels of the towers, explosives which were detonated 45 to 90 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the towers down in controlled implosions, killing several thousand American citizens and others.
The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a large airplane. Had one of them collapsed, that would have been amazing. That both of them collapsed, quickly and completely into fragments, ash and dust — with no remains of their central vertical steel columns left standing — solely as a result of the plane impacts and the resulting fires, is, upon examination, unbelievable.
Due to the astuteness of some Americans, who have thought hard about the U.S. government's explanation of the events of September 11th, the official story is beginning to unravel. The big lie has begun to be revealed for what it is. And the reason for it. If you don't already know, this page will inform you as to what's really going on. As in the "War on Drugs", in the "War on Terrorism" just say 'Know'.
1. A Controlled Demolition
Millions of people around the world watched the WTC events unfold live on CNN on September 11, 2001, in near-disbelief. They saw huge clouds of thick black smoke billowing over Manhattan and saw the towers collapse ... in a curious way. They did not fall over; they imploded, in the way that most people have seen when a building is destroyed in a controlled demolition: the building does not collapse in a chaotic way, hurling debris over a wide area; rather it collapses upon itself.
This was how the WTC towers collapsed: not because they were hit by the hijacked planes, but because someone, with expert knowledge of demolition of tall buildings, brought them down. That the towers were demolished was noted immediately by some astute observers:
From: "David Rostcheck"
To: USAttacked (at) topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombing
Ok, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center? To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning. ...
If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:
- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:
- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ... The WTC towers were specifically designed to survive a direct impact from a jumbo jet - which *both do*. ...
- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.
- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.
- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. ...
- The fire in the second building goes out.
- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. ... The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.
In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition - because that's what it is.
- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.
There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage - those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. ...
— davidr (Full text of this message is here.)
Obviously the towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90 minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. First we must examine this hypothesis as to its credibility.
Firstly, much, or perhaps most, of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers.
Furthermore, it is likely that the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers would have burnt fairly quickly (jet fuel does not burn slowly like wood).
And finally there were sprinkler systems in place in the towers, and it can be surmised that these would have hindered the spread of the fire (by soaking combustible material) even if they had no effect on the burning jet fuel itself.
The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed?
If the columns had melted like toffee they would have bent (not snapped), causing the upper parts of the towers to buckle and tip to one side (probably the side where the planes hit). This did not happen. These considerations show that the claim that tens of thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not account for the collapse of the towers.
Examination of the times of the events of September 11th provides further evidence that it was not the fires that caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
The North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m. The plane hit the tower directly, in the center, and all the jet fuel which was not immediately consumed in the fireball entered the building, causing a major fire.
Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle (see graphics at left and below), and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball.
The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:50 a.m., 47 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed.
The Split-Second Error
... Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot ...
Note: This page assumes that an on-board hijacker was piloting the plane, but its argument concerning the cause of the collapse remains valid if the plane was actually being controlled remotely (see below).
A convincing case (with numerous web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael here.
... heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538°C, not 800°C as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated molten — on one plane load of jet fuel? ...
Here is a picture showing the top 25 floors of one tower (probably south) toppling over sideways (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.j).
Why are there no reports of this cube of concrete and steel (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 200 ft. high), falling from 1000 feet into the street below? ... Where is the ruin where the 200ft x 200ft x 50 story-object struck? Forty floors should have caused a ray of devastation 500 ft. into the surrounding cityscape. ...
When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them. — J. McMichael, I Tried To Be Patriotic
There is a mystery here. What brought those towers down? Explosives? In his message quoted above David Rostcheck wrote: "To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places ... Someone had to have had a lot of access to all of both towers and a lot of time to do this."
The towers collapsed, but not because of the plane impacts and the fires. It is easy to leap from the fact that the towers did not collapse because of the fires to the conclusion they collapsed because explosives were placed in them prior to the plane impacts (since what else could explain the collapse?). But disproof of one possible explanation (fire) does not constitute proof of another (explosives) — unless that other is the only possible alternative.
That explosives were used is certainly possible. The towers collapsed starting with the floors at the impact points of the planes. If explosive devices (bombs) had been placed in the towers (assuming that whoever placed them there were experts in controlled demolition and knew what effect they wanted to achieve) they would have been placed, not in the basement (as in the case of the 1993 WTC bombing), but rather at several of the upper levels (or perhaps at every third level over a wide range).
The bombs could have been encased in heat-resistant material so that the fire itself would not detonate them, but rather they could be detonated by remote control (a radio or microwave signal) at the right time. Even if the fires (despite the dampening effect of the sprinkler systems) disabled the bombs on the levels where the planes hit, they would not disable the bombs on the floors below the fires.
No wires, CPUs or timing devices are needed, just some way for each explosive device to respond to the unique signal causing it to explode, and these signals could be sent "in a smooth, timed sequence", producing the intended result.
There are, however, four problems with the explosives theory:
(i) The WTC employeed hundreds of security guards and had hundreds of surveillance cameras (supposedly) operating. With this kind of security it might be possible to plant a few bombs but planting many would seem infeasible (unless the central steel columns were not subject to security checks and surveillance).
(ii) No-one is reported as having heard explosions just prior to the collapse, although (a) there is visual evidence of an explosion in the Seven WTC building and (b) if explosions had been heard this might not have been reported in the mainstream media (intent as it is on propagating the official story about the cause of the collapse). Major explosions within the towers might have been obscured by the heavy black smoke, but one would expect them to have been heard, since there were people within a block of the towers when they collapsed. Could explosions powerful enough to destroy the steel supports have been muffled somehow? Or were there explosions sufficiently small (yet still effective) that they were not heard outside? Were there small explosions whose effects were somehow magnified by another kind of technology (perhaps "a phased frequency harmonic pulse")?
(iii) Even if the central steel columns had been blasted at approximately the level of the impacts, causing the floors above to collapse and the whole structure to pancake, the central columns below the blast level would still be left standing, or if not, would have fallen over. But those central columns were not left standing. Apparently all 1000 ft (250 m.) or so of them were reduced to fragments. (The fire theory explains this even less than the explosives theory.) If explosives were the cause then one has to suppose that the steel columns were destroyed by explosives at all (or at least most) of the levels, which would be difficult to arrange because of the WTC security (as noted above).
(iv) If explosives had been planted sufficient to weaken the structural supports, why not have planted explosives sufficient to destroy those supports even without any plane impacts and fires? Why bother to hijack the planes (remotely) and crash them into the towers when the damage caused by the explosives would produce a similar effect?
So here is a mystery. The fires did not cause the collapse of the towers, and it seems unlikely that explosives caused the collapse. But they did collapse, and in a very strange manner, as if demolished in a controlled way, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen. This is very strange. Look at all that dust (click image to enlarge). It is as if some high-energy disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust. But no country possesses such a disintegration beam — or if so, we have not been told of it.
But this mystery does clear up one point: Why jetliners were (remotely) hijacked and crashed into the Twin Towers. The reason is that the buildings were demolished using "black" technology which is certainly beyond the capabilities of any Arab terrorists. Had this technology simply been used to bring the Twin Towers down then many questions would have been asked as to how this happened.
A story that Arab terrorists detonated explosives which completely destroyed the buildings would not withstand criticism because of the four reasons given above for why explosives were not the cause of the collapse.
Therefore some other "plausible" explanation for the collapse of the towers had to be provided and this was done in the form of the plane impacts and subsequent fires. This explanation has an initial plausibility, and it was immediately broadcast by the mainstream media, and immediately accepted by a public in a state of shock. Only a careful examination of this story, such as has been done in J. McMichael's article, reveals its inadequacy, leading to the conclusion that "black" technology was used.
Who possesses such technology? For sure not Arab terrorists, whose expertise with destructive technology extends not much beyond truck bombs.
It is interesting to note that the contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene — to cart away the rubble that remains — is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition!
— The Blockbuster
But what demolition technology known to man could account for the demolition of the Twin Towers with the results obverved: the total destruction of the massive steel columns and the conversion of four hundred thousands cubic yards of concrete into ash and dust? Such a technology, it would seem, is presently beyond anything we humans possess.
Here is a reply to criticism of (mostly) this section.
2. The Plot
The demolition of the WTC was part of an ongoing plan (in effect since the Kennedy assassination if not before) to destroy the American Republic (what's left of it anyway) and replace it by a de facto dictatorship (as part of the drive toward a global dictatorship in the form of a world government).
The person who, shortly after the attacks on the WTC, was announced as "the prime suspect" (without any evidence) was Usama bin Laden, who has made no secret of his animosity toward the U.S. for its support of Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians, for what he sees as the Americans' defilement of Saudi Arabia (the location of two of the three holiest Islamic sites), the continued bombing of Iraq and the Americans' support of the (as he sees them) apostate regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The contempt with which the U.S. is regarded by certain Arab organizations, and the involvement of Arabs in in the ineffective bombing of the WTC in 1993, means that Arabs are automatically suspected in any terrorist attack against the U.S. (as they were in the Oklahoma City Bombing until the government announced that Timothy McVeigh was the culprit).
So a plot is hatched, not by Arabs but by Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus, with a few military intelligence types), perhaps with Israeli involvement, to hijack four planes and fly them into various strategic and symbolic buildings — the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol — with the blame to be placed upon "Arab terrorists".
But there's a problem: It is certainly possible to find Arabs who are willing to die for their cause (freedom of their people from ongoing American aggression) — although finding nineteen of them for a single mission could be difficult — but where do you find such Arabs who also know how to fly Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s? They must be highly trained pilots, and at least four of them are needed. (Alleged hijacker-pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwanal Al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour had received pilot training but were considered by their flying instructors to be incompetent to fly even light single-engined planes.)
Fortunately there's no need for suicide pilots, because the technology exists to override pilot control of a jetliner and to control the plane remotely.
In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. [This technology] ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. ... [This was] the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
Thus there is no need to suppose that there were nineteen on-board hijackers who (acting with military coordination and precision) overpowered the flight attendants (with nothing more than knives and shouted commands), forced their way into the cabin (were all eight official pilots absorbed in contemplation of the clouds?), overpowered the pilots (apparently none of them could offer any resistance to hijackers armed only with knives), took command of the planes (apparently knowing exactly what to do, while the official pilots sat back and watched with increasing alarm), flew them expertly to their targets (good navigators, those Arabs; and flying with the skill of a trained military pilot in the case of the jet which hit the Pentagon), hit those targets and killed themselves. Sure. And pigs can fly.
The jet which struck the Pentagon is reported by the New York Times (IHT, 2001-10-17, p.8) to have executed a 360-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory (so as to maximize the damage to the building) so low that it clipped the power lines across the street. And we're expected to believe that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)
Remote control of a large jet aircraft is not speculative. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet (with the wingspan of a Boeing 737). For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.
But although it is possible to hijack the planes remotely and to crash them into the Twin Towers under remote control, this would in itself produce only huge damage, with perhaps hundreds of lives lost, which is not enough for the plotters.
What they want is to destroy both towers completely, for maximum psychological effect upon the people of the U.S. and the world and for the provocation of a hysterical reaction from the American people directed against Arabs and the Islamic world. Thus they somehow arrange for the demolition and collapse of the Twin Towers following the plane impacts (though, as noted above, exactly how this was done is still a mystery).
On the side the plotters have (under cover of a series of go-betweens) purchased put options for companies whose stocks are sure to be adversely affected by these events, such as the parent companies of the airlines whose planes are hijacked.
Their intention is to make a killing, so to speak, by purchasing the right to sell stocks in these companies at a price which they know will be considerably higher than the price they can buy them at on the open market (after the September 11th attack has driven the prices down).
All goes according to plan (almost). The first two jets (AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175) are hijacked (remotely) and flown into the Twin Towers. (U.S. Air Force jets are scrambled from Otis airforce base on Cape Cod at 8:38 a.m. but do not have time to reach Manhattan before the impacts.) AA Flight 77, hijacked at about the time of the WTC impacts, reaches its intended target, the Pentagon. (No U.S. Air Force jets are sent to intercept it during the 30-40 minutes it takes to reach Washington.)
But there is one minor hitch and one major hitch: The minor hitch is that UA Flight 175 does not crash directly into one side of the South Tower but hits a corner. Most of the jet fuel explodes outside the building, and this leads some astute people to doubt the fires-caused-the-collapse story (see The Split-Second Error), and the "official" account of events begins to unravel (though not a word of this is printed in the mainstream media).
The major hitch is what happened with the fourth plane. UA Flight 93, which took off from Newark, was hijacked (and subsequently made a U-turn over Ohio) at about the time of the WTC impacts and was flying back toward Washington D.C. when something went badly wrong. (Perhaps the on-board pilots managed to regain manual control of the plane or the remote control technology failed.)
The plane (with its 45 passengers and crew) was then shot down by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet before it could land, so as to ensure that the pilots did not survive to tell what had happened, namely, that the controls had suddenly failed to respond to manual directions and that the plane had changed course toward Washington as if under the control of an invisible hand.
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area [this was the F-16 fighter] and burning debris falling from the sky. — Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
As for the story which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers jumping the hijackers, goodbye messages left on answering machines, and so on — this was pure fiction, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter.
The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"
Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.
But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...
She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."
But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things. — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
The target of the fourth plane was probably the U.S. Congress building on Capitol Hill. Had the hijackers succeeded in badly damaging the House and Senate (and perhaps killing a large number of congressmen and women) the operation would have been a complete success.
President George W. Bush would then have been able to announce that, since the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government was no longer able to function, he was assuming (temporarily, of course) sole and total control in this time of national emergency, though in fact he would be, as he is now, a mere puppet, told by his controllers where to go and what to do and say, barely able to read his script, and unable to hold in mind more than one idea at a time (the idea currently held being, of course, "terrorism").
On December 18, 2000, in Washington, shortly after he was anointed as President by a corrupt majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush said (apparently jokingly, but you can be sure he meant it): "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I was the dictator." On September 11, 2001, he almost got his wish.
It is perhaps not entirely a coincidence that, as noted above, September 11, 2001, was the 28th anniversary (on the same day of the week even) of the CIA-inspired and CIA-supported military coup d'etat in Chile, which produced the brutal 16-year dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.
3. The Perpetrators
Within hours of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon the mainstream media was quoting "government sources" as stating that Usama bin Laden was the likely culprit. As the WTC bombers intended, most Americans immediately believed this claim and now regard him as the perpetrator of this atrocity and the entire Arab world as their enemy (a reaction welcomed by many in Israel).
Many people in Arab countries also believe he did it because for them Usama bin Laden personifies the resentment against American exploitation of the third world which they themselves feel. But Usama bin Laden has never said that he was behind the September 11th attack, and, indeed, has explicitly denied this.
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people ... — Usama bin Laden, Interview with Pakistani newspaper Ummat (Karachi), September 28, 2001.
Full text here.
After one of the video broadcasts from the Al-Jazeera TV station in Qatar (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, may have been a Western-concocted forgery, since Usama bin Laden, or someone impersonating him, is shown wearing a U.S. Army jacket — much as if Churchill had delivered his wartime speeches wearing a swastika armband and the uniform of a Luftwaffe colonel) Condoleeza Rice declared that this was an "admission" by Usama bin Laden of responsibility for the September 11th attack. It was not, but by claiming it was she maintains the official line of blaming "Arab terrorists" and draws attention away from the true perpetrators of this atrocity.
Several thousand civilians died in the collapse of the WTC towers, and hundreds of military personnel were killed in the attack on the Pentagon — though the numbers are small compared to the hundreds of thousands of civilians incinerated in the U.S. fire bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, and in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
the millions of post-WW-II refugees from the Soviet Union who were returned to a certain death under Stalin on the orders of Roosevelt and Eisenhower in Operation Keelhaul;
the millions of civilians who died from hunger and disease as a result of U.S.-instigated mass starvation of Germans during 1945-1950 under the Morgenthau Plan;
the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans killed by white settlers in the 19th Century or allowed to starve to death by the U.S. government in the 20th;
the million or so Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians killed by the American military in the 1960s and 70s whilst defending their countries from American domination;
the tens of thousands of civilians who were tortured and murdered by CIA-installed dictatorships in Central and South America;
the 200,000 people (all civilians) killed as a result of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975 for which prior approval was given to Suharto by Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford;
the six million Brazilian Indians who have died as a result of the policies of multinational corporations;
the 10,000 to 20,000 people, mostly civilians, killed in the U.S.-supported 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel;
the 30,000 civilians killed by CIA-cocaine-funded Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s; the 6,000 (perhaps as many as 20,000) Iraqi civilians killed during the 41 days and nights of bombing by the British and the Americans in 1991 (during which time the civilian infrastructure was targeted, a war crime);
the tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts slaughtered on the "Highway of Death" by U.S. Navy pilots during their attempted retreat from Kuwait in 1991 (another war crime because the soldiers killed were not in a combat situation);
the tens of thousands of civilians in Sudan who have died due to the absence of medicines resulting from the destruction of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by American cruise missiles in 1998 and from the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan;
and the one to two million Iraqi civilians, two-thirds of them children, who have died in the last ten years as a result of the effects of the hundreds of tons of cancer-causing depleted uranium left over from the million or so exploded rounds of DU ammunition used in attacks by American warplanes in the 1991 American/British 6-week terrorist campaign against Iraq and from the subsequent U.S./British-imposed economic blockade (not to mention those killed by the bombing raids which occur every week).
America expresses outrage at the deaths of several thousand of its citizens but ignores its responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of civilians at the hands of its military and its CIA and still expects and demands the world's sympathy for its loss.
The attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon were brought to us by the same people (though "human" may not be the correct term for them) who brought us both the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Evidence suggests that the former was actually planned and directed, not by Arab terrorists (who were merely the operatives), but by the FBI.
The mastermind [of the 1993 WTC bombing] is the government of the United States. It was a phony, government-engineered conspiracy to begin with. It would never have amounted to anything had the government not planned it. — Ron Kuby, defense attorney, quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
In the Oklahoma City Bombing explosives were placed by the structural supports of the Murrah Federal Building, demolishing it and killing hundreds of people.
The psy-war propaganda experts then succeeded in convincing the more gullible among the American people that this was the work of one or two men using a truck full of ammonium nitrate. (Some of the high-explosive devices planted within the building did not explode, were seen by four witnesses after the attack, and were removed by the FBI but were never officially mentioned.)
Within a few days of the bombing the Counter-Terrorism Bill was passed by Congress, a piece of legislation which provided for secret trials and seizure of assets without due process of law.
The Enemy is Very Much Within (168 KB)
The enormity of the atrocity of the attack on the Twin Towers is made worse by its being perpetrated, not by external enemies of America, but from within — by a secret group of traitors who may be American-born but who care nothing for American national pride since for them control of the U.S. is just a means toward total control of the planet.
For at least forty years this group of traitors (most of whom are present or former occupants of the White House or are working or have worked in those U.S. government organizations whose activities are hidden behind a cloak of "national security") has controlled the U.S. government by subversion of its democratic institutions, has manipulated a gullible American population and the political leadership of other countries by the skillful use of propaganda (with the help of shamelessly compliant "news" organizations), has ruthlessly exploited the economic resources of the Earth for its own profit, and must now be laughing and congratulating itself that its lies appear to have been believed by almost everyone and that its plans for complete economic and military conquest of the entire planet are coming along so nicely — thanks to the stupidity of the American people, who appear to be mostly incapable of thinking about anything except their own amusement (or their own economic survival) and who are willing to believe whatever their lying government tells them.
But just as the attempt by the predecessors of these traitors to establish a "Thousand-Year Reich" resulted in complete and ignominious defeat, their plans also may yet come to naught, though at what cost to the American people and the rest of the world remains to be seen.
The situation may actually be much worse than this. The evil which has been perpetrated by these traitors, acting through the U.S. government, its military and its multinationals, the IMF and other institutions, over many years, is sufficiently great that one has to wonder whether the instigators have any concern at all for the welfare and dignity of the human species. Furthermore, the manner in which the Twin Towers collapsed, and the nature of the resulting debris, suggest the use of technologically highly advanced means of destruction unknown to us. The real instigators of this atrocity (and of the larger drive to enslave, or perhaps exterminate, the entire population of the planet) may actually not be human at all (see The Gods of Eden). If so, we have a real problem.
4. The "War on Terrorism"
Although they failed to destroy the Capitol the plotters achieved most of their objectives, including a strike against the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy headquarters, just to show them who was in charge (only the U.S. Air Force section of the Pentagon was undamaged in the attack).
And just as the Oklahoma City Bombing created a situation conducive to the government's rushing through "anti-terrorist" legislation this "Attack on America" has provided a further nice justification for eliminating whatever civil liberties the American people had up to now managed to hold on to.
In the name of "safety" and "security" the "authorities" will soon have a legal right (the appropriate legislation will be rushed through by a compliant and corrupt Congress under the guise of "an emergency anti-terrorist package") to do whatever they want to monitor and control the entire population.
Anyone accused of being "a threat to the safety and security of the American people" (in reality, to the state and those who control it) will find themselves imprisoned without benefit of trial (if they do not "disappear" completely as did many of the victims of Chile's DINA secret police).
Already in mid-October the FBI announced the arrest of more than 600 people, "refusing to identify most of the detainees and offering few details about why the government wanted them behind bars." (International Herald Tribune, October 15, 2001) The FBI has revealed (IHT, October 22) that it is considering using torture on those who are "uncooperative". (Let's hope no-one in your family gets arrested, by mistake, and information is demanded from them which they don't have.)
And so one of Secretary [of Defense] Rumsfeld's first tasks will be ... to develop a strategy necessary to have a force equipped for warfare of the 21st century. — George W. Bush, Washington DC, December 28, 2000
And, of course, this heinous act of "international terrorism" provides a fine excuse for a yet greater military build up (and justification for Bush's $344 billion war budget) — in particular the already-planned development of "defensive" missiles, allegedly to foil attacks by "international terrorists" (even though they neither possess nor need intercontinental nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles), but which might also prove quite useful in defending the U.S. from retaliation by any nation which it chooses to attack.
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind ... — Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations
Indeed, the U.S. government (in violation of the United Nations charter and international law) has now given itself permission — in the form of a congressional resolution — to attack whoever it wants to, to engage openly in political assassinations in the manner of Israel, and generally to wage war upon whoever it chooses to label as its enemy.
We can expect that the number of innocent civilians who will die as a result of U.S. military action in the coming months and years will be far more than the number of those who died in the WTC attack. But, of course, since they will mostly not be Americans, Europeans or Australians, this is of no concern, except insofar as it might result in international condemnation, making it difficult to maintain the "international coalition" that the U.S. seeks to provide a fig-leaf for its upcoming military aggression against those countries which decline to accede to its demands. (And, by the way, such aggression and the collateral regional wars that it will cause in various parts of Asia will, of course, be good for U.S. arms manufacturers, and other American companies with friends in the U.S. government, which profit from war.)
We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile. — George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000
Bush has announced that America is now embarked upon a "War on Terrorism" (in his speech to the joint session of Congress on September 17th he used the words "terror", "terrorist" and "terrorism" at total of 32 times, and "war" twelve times, so no-one would fail to get the message). But before the U.S. retaliated by bombing Afghanistan day and night for weeks it should first have established exactly who instigated, planned and directed the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
Despite the attempt to blame nineteen passengers on the four planes who happened to have Arabic names, this has not been done. The evidence must be such as to convince third parties such as the Europeans, and the evidence must be made public (not every last detail, but enough to establish the case).
Insiders such as the U.S. President, the British Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary-General declaring themselves "convinced" is insufficient. Such declarations will fool some people, but these officials are literally warmongers and will do anything to justify their waging of war, including lying to the public about the convincingness of the alleged evidence.
Only when convincing evidence has been made public, and the identity of the attackers established, would it be possible to declare "war" without misuse of language. Until then the "War on Terrorism" will be a propaganda campaign like the "War on Drugs" — a way of disguising the true aims and motivations of those waging this "war", which in this case is that age-old motivation: territorial and economic conquest.
But, of course, the U.S. government will never reveal who exactly planned and directed these attacks, firstly because it was an inside job, and secondly because blame must be laid upon "Arab terrorists" in order to "justify" the "War on Terrorism" and the military assaults upon Arab countries (recently and, as the U.S. and Britain plan at least, for years to come; indeed, in the words of one Pentagon official, possibly "for the rest of our lives").
Not only did Bush announce a "War on Terrorism", he even spoke stupidly of a "crusade", invoking memories of the medieval Christian crusades against Islam to recover "the Holy Land", though these days it is more accurate to speak of gaining control of the oil fields, which is another reason (actually, the primary reason) why America has given itself permission to invade whatever countries it chooses to.
And it's not just Middle Eastern oil — there are huge oil deposits in the Caspian Basin (larger than in Saudia Arabia). In 1998 Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that a pipeline across Afghanistan was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean. Bush and the American oil companies would dearly like to lay such a pipeline across Afghanistan, but, say some, they cannot do so because the Taleban have been demanding too large a per centage as their cut for allowing the pipeline project to proceed. Hence, the oil monopoly needs to overthrow the Kabul government, install their own government, and proceed with the pipeline project. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 2
America's Pipe Dream
In fact from February to August 2001 the Bush administration conducted detailed negotiations with the Taliban to lay this hoped-for pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan so as to profit from lucrative sales to oil-hungry Asian countries. In August the negotiations broke down, after a U.S. negotiator threatened military action against the Taliban, saying, accept our offer of a carpet of gold or you will get a carpet of bombs (see Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth). One month later the rationale for the carpet-bombing was provided by the destruction of the WTC.
This "War on Terrorism" has three major components:
(1) A propaganda war waged firstly against the American people and secondly against the rest of the people on this planet who have access to TV and newspapers.
(2) A large increase in the powers of surveillance and control exercised by the U.S. federal government over U.S. citizens and residents and in the ability of the government to impose censorship.
(3) The use of American military force (with help mainly from the British), to whatever extent necessary, to gain control of the oil reserves of the Caspian Basin, the mineral wealth of Central Asia and whatever other economic resources in other parts of Asia that the U.S. wishes to control.
The purpose of (1) is to disguise the true nature of (3) by presenting it as the use of military force to protect Americans against future terrorist attacks. The purpose of (2) is to stifle any protest and dissent from those Americans who are not fooled by (1) and who object to (3). Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft & Co. know from the 1960s demonstrations against the Vietnam War that domestic opposition to military aggression abroad can bring that aggression to an end, and they wish to make sure in advance that the same thing will not happen this time.
David Cole: A Matter of Rights
Declan McCullagh: Bush Submits His Laws for War
As part of the implementation of (2) Bush has as good as told the American people that they have to sacrifice their civil liberties and their rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in support of his "war", which most people seem willing, sheep-like, to do (such amazing stupidity!). Attorney General Ashcroft urged Congress to pass proposed "anti-terrorist" legislation (which is very probably unconstitutional) even before it had been committed to paper. The legislation was hastily rushed through over the objections of civil rights advocates by a corrupt and compliant Congress in the second week of October.
But a war requires an identifiable enemy. A war is a war between two or more opposing sides. A "war" in which one side is invisible is a fantasy — a pretext to restrict civil liberties, to impose censorship and to deny rights guaranteed to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
It is a tool for psychological operations directed against both domestic and foreign populations, for deceiving the American people and others and persuading them to submit willingly to violations of their human rights. (Though one might say that if they do submit then they deserve the enslavement that will come to them.) And in this case, as noted above, the purpose is to suppress any domestic opposition to U.S. military action abroad. And at home; remember that the U.S. military has been used against American citizens before — at Waco.
What is too shocking for many Americans to contemplate is that the terrorist attacks, from which the people of the U.S. are supposed to be protected by the "War on Terrorism", are themselves part of the propaganda war. In order to "justify" to the American people the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and the deaths of Afghan civilians, the planned violent overthrow of the (admittedly reprehensible) Taleban government, the deployment of U.S. ground troops to sieze territory in Afghanistan and in other countires, and the use of whatever weapons of death the Pentagon plans to use (including "low yield" nuclear weapons), the U.S. must present its actions as being morally good and noble (as in World War II), specifically, as motivated by the desire to protect decent, innocent American citizens from the evil of terrorist attacks.
Without terrorist attacks there is no justification for the military action, so terrorist attacks there must be. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were the first (unless we count the Waco Massacre and the Oklahoma City Bombing), brought to you by those people who are directing the propaganda campaign and, indeed, scripting this entire "War on Terrorism".
And (as the CIA informed members of Congress in early October) it is certain that there will be more terrorist attacks (how did they know?) — most of them far less spectacular than the destruction of the Twin Towers, but sufficient (such as the controlled release of anthrax bacteria) to induce in the American public a state of constant fear — made worse by their not knowing who is really behind these attacks.
Does the WTC attack feel like a movie? It does? Well of course it does! It has been specifically written as a movie script. ... This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon; WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners who could care less that REAL people died in the Twin Towers. — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
Wars end when one of the opposing sides is beaten into submission and can no longer fight. But if one side is invisible then the war can never end, because there is no way to know that the opposing side has been defeated. Indeed, if the American people begin to believe that perhaps the "terrorist threat" has begun to recede you can be sure that another "terrorist attack" will occur, courtesy of those scripting the "War on Terrorism", which will return them to their former state of fear and dread, which is just where the perpetrators want them to be.
The "enemy" will remain an invisible, diabolical presence, unseen except for its evil effects when "the terrorists" attack again. The American people are about to enter a long, drawn-out, nightmare, in which nothing will be what it seems. It is The Towering Inferno, Armageddon and The X-Files suddenly emerging into daily life.
The "War on Terrorism" is the psy-war successor to the "War on Drugs". It has been clear to almost everyone for quite some time that the "War on Drugs" is totally discredited, and those who are informed know that it is basically a component in a huge and long-running scam whereby the U.S. government finances its covert operations and (in part) its military by means of its profits from its international drug trafficking (see Prohibition: The So-Called War on Drugs for details).
It became clear to the U.S. government, especially in view of the tolerance and regulation of drug use adopted in recent years in many European countries, that it can no longer maintain its "War on Drugs" with any degree of credibility. Thus the people of the U.S. had to be hoodwinked into supporting a new "War", and the bogeyman of "militant Arab fundamentalists" (helped greatly by a cravenly compliant mainstream media and terrorist attacks on the WTC in 1993, probably provoked by the FBI, and on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which US Army explosives had reportedly been used) provided a useful target.
On November 8th it was announced that a Madison Avenue advertising executive was to take up the position of "Secretary of Public Diplomacy". (There was also talk of setting up an "Office of Message Development" — George Orwell would have been interested to find his 1984 becoming reality.)
Americans would not respond positively to the appointment of a "Minister of Propaganda", the title of the Nazi propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, though in fact the job is the same: to deceive the public into believing the lies of the government. Madame Secretary of Public Diplomacy might do well to study the techniques of her Nazi predecessor, which were used quite effectively against the German people in the 1930s. But the more astute among her hearers will not easily be fooled.
This "War on Terrorism", like the "War on Drugs", will involve the usual propaganda techniques such as lies, deception, misrepresentation of opposition viewpoints, disinformation and media emphasis on what is irrelevant (for example, that Mohammed Atta may have contacted an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague — of only minor interest since there were no on-board hijackers and he and the other Arabs on board were set up to take the blame).
The propaganda campaign will continue until the instigators and scripters of this "War" believe they have finally gained domination over all countries and have attained control of the entire planet and all its economic resources — or until they themselves have been defeated.
5. What is to be Done?
Immediately after the events of September 11th there were calls for greatly increased security at airports and on planes, and many millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars are now being spent on this. Troops with rifles stand around at airports, waiting for the next gang of Arab terrorists to burst into the departure lounge shouting "God is great!" in Arabic and threatening everyone with box cutters.
Airport check-in now takes hours, passengers are subjected to invasive searches before boarding planes, and if you look Middle Eastern then you may not be allowed to fly at all. All this is useless and irrelevant and is a major disruption in the lives of ordinary Americans, because, as noted above, there were no suicide pilots.
No hijackers boarded the four doomed planes carrying knives and box cutters, so installing expensive security equipment at airports and treating every passenger as a potential hijacker is not only an insult but is also a complete waste of time and money (though it is sure to make a lot of money for the manufacturers of airport security equipment).
Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not about terrorism (except insofar as staged terrorist acts are an important part of the propaganda campaign) — it's (partly) about oil. To oversimplify somewhat and to put it a tad indelicately, "It's the oil, stupid!"
Big Oil (one of Bush's principal controllers) wants a pan-Asian war, with the U.S. military as the major and dominant player, the goal being economic control and exploitation of the vast oil and mineral wealth of Central Asia. The Bush clique believes that such a war would enable it to remain in power indefinitely (elections will become a thing of the past or will be rigged), would be good for American (and British) weapons manufacturers, and would perhaps avert an economic depression in the U.S. (since, many believe, it has worked before, as in the 1930s military build-up to World War II).
A pan-Asian war will involve many countries, including the nuclear- and CBW-armed countries of India, Pakistan, Russia and China (not to mention the other nuclear- and CBW-armed countries that are likely to be drawn in: Britain, France, Israel and the U.S. itself), and it will mean that millions of civilians will die: shot, burnt, blasted, asphyxiated, crushed, incinerated, poisoned.
Nor will all these civilians be Asian; this war will also extend to the U.S. mainland and probably to Europe, despite what the Pentagon planners intend.
Violence will lead to more violence, and wars will escalate (remember "escalation"?) until eventually nuclear weapons are used — first "low-yield", later the big ones, in the megaton range, whose detonations (if there are enough of them, and we don't know how many will be used) will produce high levels of radiation in the atmosphere of (mainly) the Northern Hemisphere, leading to millions of cases of cancer among the populations of Western countries.
If Tony Blair is still Prime Minister of Britain he will be hounded from office. George W. Bush may stay in power because by then the U.S. will be a full-scale military dictatorship (with Bush as puppet President, much as he is now).
This is what should not be done, but on October 7th, 2001, the U.S., by attacking Afghanistan with bombers and cruise missiles (a military assault which was illegal under international law because military action against Afghanistan had not been specifically authorized by the United Nations), began what may eventually lead to this.
To those who believe that the attack on the Twin Towers was, at least in part, the work of foreign terrorists the answer to the question of what is to be done is: The root causes of foreign terrorism directed against the United States must be addressed.
Those in power in the U.S. have been reluctant to do this (and will continue to resist doing this), mainly because violence, the threat of violence and a demonstrated ruthless willingness to use violence (combined with the use of mass propaganda and bribery and blackmail of officials at all levels, both elected and unelected) are the primary means by which they themselves remain in power.
The initiators of the attacks decided to implement their plan after America has provoked immense hatred throughout the world. Not because of its might, but because of the way it uses its might. It is hated by the enemies of globalization, who blame it for the terrible gap between rich and poor in the world.
It is hated by millions of Arabs, because of its support for the Israeli occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people. It is hated by multitudes of Muslims, because of what looks like its support for the Jewish domination of the Islamic holy shrines in Jerusalem. And there are many more angry peoples who believe that America supports their tormentors.
Until September 11, 2001 ... Americans could entertain the illusion that all this concerns only others, in far-away places beyond the seas, that it does not touch their sheltered lives at home. No more.
— Uri Avnery: Twin Towers
In a representative democracy, such as allegedly exists in the U.S.A., can the people deny responsibility for the actions and policies of their government? How long can they allow their government, whose leaders they elect, to commit one atrocity after another and at the same time pretend that they themselves are innocent of any wrong-doing?
Like the Four Riders of the Apocalypse, the unknown kamikaze rode their giant crafts into the two visible symbols of American world domination, Wall Street and the Pentagon. ... They could be practically anybody: ... anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. ... Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force.
Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. the Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine. Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade avenged. ... Asians count their dead of Vietnam war, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. ...
The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermensch by the new Herrenvolk. ...
America could see this painful strike at her Wall Street and her Pentagon, as the last call to repent. She should change her advisers, and build her relations with the world afresh, on equal footing. Probably she should rein in the domination-obsessed Jewish supremacist elites of Wall Street and media, part company with Israeli apartheid. She could become again the universally loved, rather parochial America of Walt Whitman and Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Abe Lincoln.
— Israel Shamir: Orient Express
"Repent" is an apt term. Today the United States of America is morally bankrupt. During the coming months, or while there is still time, America (and to some extent Europe) must engage in some deep self-examination. Americans have willfully ignored the reality that exists beyond their borders (other than sporting events and vacation destinations), often preferring to "create their own" so as to avoid acknowledging what they don't wish to see. Americans have been completely self-absorbed, not knowing and not wanting to know the effects of their government's policies and actions on billions of people who live outside the U.S.
Those policies and actions have resulted in millions of deaths through widespread malnutrition and the persistence of eradicable diseases; in economic, social and educational impoverishment for the majority of the world's population; and in the denial of human rights for all those who live under tyrannical regimes supported by the U.S. That is why the U.S.A. is so hated. (And insofar as other governments — in particular, the British government — have supported, and continue to support, U.S. policies they too deserve moral condemnation.)
Sherri Muzher: Racism: When Will We Face the Facts?
The denial by Israel of the human rights of the Palestinians, and its decades-long intransigent refusal to address their legitimate grievances, is just the most visible of the many evils resulting from morally bankrupt U.S. policies. The U.S. (at the urging of American Jews and acting through the United Nations at a time when most Arab states were not yet members) created Israel in 1947 against the wishes of the people of the Middle East. (The U.S. basically stole the land from the Palestinians and give it to the Jews, and then gave the state of Israel money — currently three billion dollars per year — for all the police and military hardware it needed to hold onto that stolen territory and to steal, or "annex", even more.)
Now the U.S. has to deal with the consequences (and it is interesting to note that just prior to the WTC attack the U.S. was preparing to announce its support for a Palestinian state — mandated by the U.N. in 1947 anyway — much to the displeasure of Israel).
Arundhati Roy: Why America Must Stop the War Now
Less visible are the many ways in which U.S. multinational corporations conspire with the U.S. government (which do