The Neo-Conservative War of Terror and Our Conformist "Liberals"
These days I'm beginning to believe that America's establishment liberals
are in fact suffering from a case of Mad Cow Disease that has really softened
Why else would anyone in their right mind be buying, in any shape or
form, into the neo-conservative "War on Terror" (i.e. War of Terror)
or even consider the issue of so-called terrorism on a par with other
consequential world crises, such as the disaster of the global warming
phenomenon or the Iraq war? Is the issue of terrorism, even as defined by the
neo-conservatives in the US government, anywhere as significant?
I know this raises a few eyebrows, but
the discussion becomes somewhat clearer when we consider the
following question. For the sake of the argument, we will assume, for
the moment, that the Bush administration's claims regarding Al-Qaeda's
existence and activities are true and correct.
I ask you: "Who has done more damage to the fabric of life in America? Is
it Al-Qaeda or Enron? Was it al-Zargawi or the Vietnam War that brought about
the deaths of more than 50,000 US servicemen? Would it be Osama bin-Laden
or the Savings-and-Loans thievery that brought misery and hardship
to millions of Americans?" I urge you to honestly ask yourselves these
I go even one step further. Let's put all terrorist acts committed in
the United States (not counting those committed by the US government)
together and compare with just one instance of
corporate terrorism. Which phenomenon has been more
destructive to the American people and their livelihood? Would it be all of
those acts combined, or should we have to say that Enron*1*
alone, did more to damage the lives and livelihood of the American people?
Who curtailed your liberties and livelihood more - was it Mohammad Atta
(the alleged 9/11 suicide bomber) or George W Bush and his Patriot Act
I think to most of us (other than, perhaps some with extremely
softened gray matter), the answer is quite clear.
Even if we accept the official figures at face value, far more people
are hurt or die of other causes than terrorism. For example, based on CIA's
own figures and the UN data, from 1968 to 2003, worldwide deaths from
terrorism were 1.25 per day (CIA) while starvation caused the deaths of 23,468
people (UN) each day.*3* Compared to other ravages, such as cancer, heart
attack, or AIDS, damages resulting from terrorism (as defined by
governments) are even more miniscule and insignificant (especially in the
That, unfortunately then, begs a whole slew of questions that are
generally not raised:
Why then are our corporate media talking about "terrorism" day and night
and our establishment "liberals" tagging along?*4*
Why are we pouring trillions of dollars into the pockets of Halliburtons,
Bechtels, when we should be spending money into the fight against corporate
Why aren't Kenneth Lay, Charles Keating, Neil Bush, and other corporate
terrorists spending time at Guantanamo instead? ...
I can perfectly understand the neo-conservatives trying to
inflate the issue of "terrorism" every second of the day because their very
existence is tied to it. After all, the "War on Terror" has done a
terrific job of lining up the pockets of their corporations (Halliburtons,
Bechtels, ...) and put into motion the wheels of their "Project for the New
American Century" (newamericancentury.org). America's culture of fear has
also aided the neo-conservatives maintain their base of support to some
Others, though, are paying for these policies through their nose, and this
includes corporate America. Imagine the exorbitant cost of needlessly beefing up
security inside every little public toilet, school, rickety bridge or
landmark. When you add up these costs, you will see the enormous cost of
building the neo-conservative empire.*5*
Secondly, let's look at George Bush's bogeyman, the
mythical Al-Qaeda and its worldwide web of intrigue. Those who have followed
guerrilla organizations around the world can tell
you these groups have some solid and
generally-known characteristics that follow some earthly pattern and
logic. For example, they operate within a known location. FARC
guerrillas, for instance, operate in parts of Colombia. They might
occasionally venture into Venezuela, but you should start asking questions if
someone claims they operate in Canada or even Chile.
Even the most inept intelligence agencies generally have a good estimate of
the number of guerrillas integrated into these organizations. The extent of
their activity is mostly known. Their organizational hierarchy and methods
of communication are understood.
To give you another example, it is generally known that Hezbollah
operates in Lebanon. They have bases, armories, and guerrillas; they
operate schools, mosques, and hospitals. Again, even the most inept
intelligence agencies of the region have a fairly good estimate of its
size. The extent of Hezbollah's activities are more or less predictable. No
major surprises. If someone then tells you Hezbollah owns nuclear
weapons, you don't have to be a genius to understand they are trying to
make a fool out of you.
Another example: the Irish Republican Army operated in Northern
Ireland and London. Again, if someone tried to pin an explosion in Buenos
Aires, Argentina on the IRA, one should be somewhat of a simpleton to,
at least, not ask why.
Does anyone ever ask why any Arab guerrillas should be placing bombs in
Spain (of all the places in the world), a country that has always
celebrated its past Moorish culture and architecture, whose
people have been the closest to the people of the Middle East in terms
of sentiments and sympathies?
Guerrilla organizations use earthly mechanisms for communication:
newspapers, telephone, messengers, etc. The extent of the activity of these
organizations generally does not go beyond the neighboring country or
countries. For example, Kurdish peshmarge (of the PKK) have been known
to have used border areas of the Iraqi territory to launch attacks against
the Turkish army. And these are organizations that have extensive
grassroots organization and a popular base of support (and therefore, the
I ask you:
Where are Al-Qaeda's bases? In US-occupied Afghanistan or the
military-dominated Pakistan? You've got to be kidding me.
Perhaps, only if the US forces and Pakistani military are allowing them to
What is the size of Al-Qaeda in terms of number of guerrillas?
How do they communicate with one another?
How do they raise funds for their activities? The Afghan Mujahedeen (that
the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would be remnants of) were only significant because of
the flow of CIA and Saudi funds and arms and the active assistance of the
Pakistani intelligence. Once that support was withdrawn, all that was left was a
bunch of Madrasas (religious schools) and insignificant militias, such as
today's Taliban. In some ways, it could be claimed these forces, today, are as
insignificant as America's right-wing militias (from the global point
of view), unless they are being kept alive and used by the United States and its
The US claims Al-Qaeda forces operate all the way from Southeast
Asia to Africa, Europe, and the United States. Wow, this Al-Qaeda must be truly
an amazing organization - even more potent than the CIA and the entire
US intelligence apparatus with its billions and billions of dollars of budget.
Isn't that something? It is truly stupefying because once a lie is
repeated enough times, even the liar himself begins to believe the lie. You
would be surprised how many bean-counters in the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon
would actually believe their own lies.
Then what was behind the September 11 attacks, the Madrid bombings,
the London subway attacks? The answer is simple, and it has been done by
the ruling powers throughout history: these were acts of terror, meant
to incite POGRAMS against the Middle Eastern countries and communities, to
give birth to the neo-conservative Empire.*7*
Without September 11 attacks, George W Bush would have had no chance in
hell to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The American people would never have
bought into those wars.
Following in George Bush's footsteps, Jose Maria Aznar, wrongfully
thought he could publicly justify Spain's presence in Iraq and arouse the
Spanish people's jingoistic sentiments. It turned out, to Aznar's misfortune
that Spaniards were not so gullible.
Without the London bombings, Tony Blair's future would have been dead, so
he is resorting to a pogrom of his own.*7* (beware of George Bush's next pogrom,
just as he's losing it all)
Are George Bush, Jose Aznar, Tony Blair guilty of these crimes? Any court
of law would indict, not just the people that commit a crime, the patsies
if you will, but also those that instigate the crime.*8*
When September 11 attacks occurred, some tried to warn us all
that these attacks were "Hitler's Reichstag Fire", but we didn't have
the press at our disposal, and we didn't want to believe the worst. The
corporate media maintained a wall of silence. And while a good section
of the left preferred to deal in generalities*9*, the Bush administration
managed to ride upon popular confusion and fear and convince some of
the population to allow it to complete his corporate coup and legalize the
administration's hideous Patriot Act.
Today, there are rumors that the Bush administration is making
preparations for an invasion of Iran after another 9/11 attack on the
US soil, and the complicit corporate media will be all the way behind him.
They are already laying the groundwork for that with this nuclear nonsense, and
our "liberals" are once again being suckered into yet another
Up until recently, the most crooked of our politicians gained advantage and
advanced themselves at the expense of the more vulnerable sectors of
the society (i.e. the African Americans and other minorities) by
declaring their crusades against crime. As the governor of the State of Texas,
George W. Bush was one of these politicians, having sent the largest number of
prisoners to their death.
The phony war against crime and criminals is today replaced by yet another
phony crusade: the "War on Terror". The victims continue to be
from the most oppressed communities around the world. It would be a crying
shame for anyone with a minimum of integrity to buy into this crusade under any
PS: You must stop the next 9/11 on US soil by stopping the Bush
regime and his media collaborators.
*1* Enron is just one of the multitude of corporations (Worldcom,
Global Crossing, Halliburton, Bechtel, Chevron, ...) that have been milking the
American people for decades. Just have a look at some of the most recent
*2* When US citizens can be arrested and kept in custody indefinitely
without trial (because the US government knows it has nothing to prove in a
court of law), you should know that you have lost all your liberties (the case
of Jose Padilla).
*4* Yahoo.com hosted slideshows of (official) 9/11
clips online, for close to three years after 9/11.
Democratic charlatans (Lieberman, Feinstein, Kerry...) have also been
champions of the so-called "War on Terror", sometimes more ardently
than the neo-cons themselves.
*5* After Sept. 11, the use of security systems and equipment proliferated
in corporate America as well as our government agencies. From issuing employee
badges, to the use of biometrics, badge readers, monitoring devices, the
policies of fear and paranoia cost the very same corporations (and American
taxpayers) billions of dollars. The deployment of security software to
encrypt email messages and authenticate communication required more
resources and more powerful computers. These were just a tiny fraction of the
hidden costs of George Bush's war of terror.
*7* The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the
word pogrom as
"An organized, often officially
encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one
conducted against Jews."
*8* London Bombings Mastermind a MI6 Asset?:
Terrorism "Expert" John
Loftus revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat, the
suspect wanted by British
Police for "masterminding" the July 7th London
bombings and July 21st
attempted bombings is in fact an asset of MI6, the
*9* A good portion of the left, unfortunately, prefers to deal in
general historical concepts, rather than specifics. They especially
shy away from any issues dealing with specific ruling-class schemes (quite
successfully discredited by the corporate media as "conspiracy
theories"). 9/11 was not the only so-called "conspiracy theory" the
left stayed away from. Another recent example was the serious debacle
of election fraud. Rather than harping on such an important issue, the left
groups busied themselves exposing Bush, mostly in general terms. (Yes, it's
a conspiracy, but it's all in the news: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0811-08.htm