Make your own free website on Tripod.com
The Neo-Conservative War of Terror and Our Conformist "Liberals"
 
Andres Kargar (galileo19@hotmail.com)
 
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 their brains.
 
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 questions.
 
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 legislation?*2*
 
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 Western world).
 
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 terrorism.
 
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 degree.
 
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 means).
 
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 be there.*6*
 
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 allies.
 
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 undesirable position.
 
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 pretext.
 
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 headlines:
 Fifth WorldCom executive sentenced to prison in $11 billion scandal (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8907976/)
$2.4 billion payout is so far the biggest in long-running debacle (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8801056/)
SEC charges ex-Citigroup executives with fraud (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8875235/)
 
*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).
 
*3* Mark R. Elsis, (http://www.starvation.net/)
 
*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.
 
*6* We let bin Laden slip away: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080705A.shtml
 
*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
British Secret Service.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9643.htm
 
*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)