Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire, have Turned Justice Mute

 

 

                                    The worst provocation ever?


By Abu Nicola al Yunani
Preliminary thoughts on the WTC tragedy
    
***

Let me start by stating what should be obvious:
Although loss of life, especially in such a scale, is of course
always saddening, I have to say that the 5 or 6 thousands of people
who lost their lives in the recent attacks, are by no means closer
to my heart than the 20 thousands of people, mostly children, who
lose their lives monthly in Iraq as a direct result of U.S. policies.
The reason I had to devote my time to analyse the recent attacks is
not that they were more gruesome than what is happeningdaily in
besieged Iraq or in occupied Palestine - the contrary is true
- but because the CONSEQUENCES of the attacks on the WTC and
Pentagon may well prove to be even more gruesome.

***

The WTC tragedy has already been compared by many sources to
the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.

The similarity seems to be deeper than might initially appear.

Although the fact has never been officially acknowledged,
it is widely known that the US government knew in advance
that the US fleet would be bombed in Pearl Harbor. Instead
of trying to protect the fleet, it choose to use this as a
golden opportunity to enter the war, which the US public
opposed up to that point.

Does the current US administration have similar responsibilities
for the ‘terrorist attacks’ that have caused as many victims
as a full-scale war?

Or is the truth even worse?

The official version doesn’t hold water.

We are asked to believe that after two planes had crashed on the
twin towers, a third one was left to approach and crash on what
is probably one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the
world: the Pentagon.

We are asked to believe that in at least four different incidents,
in at least three different airports (in the US, which prides
itself on the security of its airports), hijackers managed to
bypass security, board the planes, take control of them, and
use them as bombs, in order to cause the worst catastrophe
in US history.

We are asked to believe that these terrorists, who were at
the same time trained pilots, were able to use heavy passenger
aircraft, fly them at low altitude with the precision needed
to attack single buildings. Supposedly they were flying at slow
speed, or it would have been impossible to hit the targets with
such accuracy. One has also to suppose that, at least after
the second plane hit the second WTC tower, there would have
to be a heightened state of alert around the strategic center
of the world’s remaining superpower. Yet, the slow-flying
passenger airplane managed to bypass all defenses, and hit
the Pentagon, causing its partial collapse.

Those who watched the news from the beginning, must also have
noticed that initially there were only two planes mentioned:
the one that hit the first tower, and the one that hit the
Pentagon. Then we learned that the Pentagon plane was the THIRD
one, not the second.

We were also shown footage of the plane collapsing with the WTC
tower – only the footage was not very realistic. Although the
tower and the explosion were probably real, the plane itself
was obviously an animation. The second WTC collision supposedly
happened 15-20 minutes after the first one, and TV crews had
all the time to rush to the scene, take positions and wait
for the replay. They could not have helped noticing the
second airplane approaching, at low altitude and low speed.
Why aren’t we shown the real footage?

The day after the attack, we were shown on Greek TV footage
of eyewitnesses being interviewed about the attacks. They were
almost unanimous in asserting (a couple of them very emphatically),
that there were NO airplanes. Although this footage was not aired
again, we were able to notice on subsequent days that eyewitnesses
spoke about EXPLOSIONS, not AIRPLANES.

***

In the past, attacks against US targets (the Kenya and Tanzania
embassies) were used as pretexts for strikes against Afghanistan
and Sudan. The Sudanese government asked the US to present proof
for its accusations that the targeted pharmaceutical plant was
producing nerve gas-related substances, as well as that it had
links with Bin Laden. The US government refused to do either.
Sudan proposed the creation of a commission of inquiry, and
proposed former US president J. Carter as a head of this commission.
Again the US refused. The Oct 23 issue of the OBSERVER carried extensive
proof that then US president Clinton knew in advance that the plant
had no relation to chemical warfare.

Palestinians have in the past used the tactic of hijacking planes.
But this tactic has been abandoned for more than two decades, for
the obvious reason that heightened security measures rendered it
ineffective.

Shortly after the WTC catastrophe, a TV station from the UAE
carried the news that the Palestinian group DFLP had assumed
responsibility for the attacks. For anyone even remotely
acquainted with the politics of the region, this is a joke.
The DFLP is a moderate group, which has repeatedly been
denounced by organisations such as Hamas and the Islamic
Jihad for its efforts to approach Arafat. It is also an
organisation with limited resources which - with the
notable exception of a recent successful attack against
an Israeli military unit – has done nothing exceptional
during the last several years.

It is also obvious to anyone with an ounce of independently
thinking brain, that nobody in his right mind would provoke
the US with such a massive strike, even if he could do it.

There is only one entity in the world which has the resources
for such a massive attack, the belief that it can act with
impunity, and the contempt for human life required for this
operation. This entity is the US governing elite.

Hitler organised the Reichstag fire, blamed it on the communists,
and proceeded to assume dictatorial powers.

The current-day admirers of Hitler, who have borrowed from him
such slogans as the ‘new world order’ and used ‘desert fox’
as a code name for their operations, have surpassed their
master. They are using provocation as the main method of
governance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, which
served as the necessary bogeyman to justify their crimes,
they created the spectre of terrorism, in order to justify
the continuation of these crimes.

But the scale of the provocation must reveal the reason it
is used for.

Certainly, September 11 2001 was the last day
of US democracy as we used to know it: a democracy where,
provided one is white, he is more or less allowed to say
and do whatever he wants, as long as it is ineffective.
From now on, we ‘ll obviously see a wholesale attack
against democratic liberties, first of all against free
speech.

But this is not enough to justify the slaughter of thousands
of US citizens. The US has been placed in a war footing after
the attacks. The only plausible explanation is that IT IS
GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A WAR.

The zionist state, the strategic ally of the US in the heart
of the Arab world, has slowly but surely been losing the war
for its survival. The last of the colonial states, a state
which owes its existence to the wholesale economic and
military support of the US, a state which was conceived
and created in order to ensure the continuation of western
control over the strategically and economically important
region, has obviously outlived itself. Its economy crumbling,
its population demoralized, having recently been forced to
retreat from Southern Lebanon, it now finds itself between
a rock and a hard place. Faced with the heroic rebellion
of Palestinian youth who have nothing left to lose, with
a large section of its population openly discussing the
option of emigration for the first time in its history,
it apparently only continues to exist due to historic inertia.

But if Israel is faced with a decisive defeat – which seems
the only possible outcome - this will upset the balance of
power in the whole world. For the first time after the Iranian
revolution, the world will be forced to admit that
oppressed people CAN win.

During the last month, Thomas Friedman wrote a series of
articles in the N.Y. Times, where he admits that Israel
cannot solve its problems any more, and proposes “that
NATO or a NATO-like force be invited to assume control
over the West Bank and Gaza Strip” (N.Y. Times, Sep 4 2001).
The only problem with this ‘solution’ is that NATO, by
assuming Israel’s duties as the force occupying Palestine,
would also assume the bloodletting that comes with them. There
is no reason to believe that the Palestinians who have
rebelled against their Israeli occupiers would gladly accept
a NATO occupying force. Unlike Israel, which, although tired
from the conflict, is used to having casualties, NATO member
states are not. And unlike Israelis, who live on property
stolen from Palestinians, and therefore understand, even
if grudgingly, that they have a vested interest in the
continuation of the occupation, citizens of NATO member
states see no reason why they should risk their lives,
or those of their kin, for the continuation of the occupation.

Apparently the US government has decided to follow the Friedman
option. In order to garner support from its citizens for an
operation that will most probably lead to a repetition of the
Vietnam fiasco, it decided to show that the American people
DOES have a vested interest in a ‘solution’ to the conflict
in Palestine.

The attacks against the WTC twin towers and the Pentagon only
make sense as a prelude to an invasion by US forces in the
Arab world. Such an invasion will probably try to solve many
problems at once: The problem of ‘insubordinate’ states like
Syria and Iraq. The problem of the continuation of the
existence of Israel. And, last but not least, the problems
of the American economy. By taking Arab oil under their direct
control, they may try to lower its price, in order to
reinvigorate their ailing economy.

Of course, these plans are based on a dubious premise: They
assume that the Arab nation will succumb to the military
strength of the US, and accept to reassume the role of a
colonial subject. Everything we have seen during the last
year, shows that this will not be the case.

It remains to be seen how many more thousands of innocent
people will lose their lives before this criminal adventure
is over.

***
              Replies to critics

Dear friend,

>> Well, my problem with your approach is that you delve into a security,
>> not a political, anaylsis of the situation.

No, this IS a political analysis, or at least stems from one.
The highlights of this analysis are the following:

a) During the cold war, things were easy for western governments.
They had the "red danger", which justified any repressive
measures they needed to take. After the end of the cold war,
there was a very real problem. To solve this problem, the
strategy of terrorism/counter-terrorism began to be used.
In countries that totally lacked the objective conditions
for the development of terrorist movements (as was the
majority of western-European countries), fake 'terrorist'
organisations began to be set up. The acts of these
organisations justified heightened repression. This policy,
which was mainly but by no means exclusively, used in Italy
and Greece, slowly but steadily began to occupy an ever
increasing position in the arsenal of capitalist governments.
It gradually evolved to be the par excellence means of
governance, in a world which no more had visible enemies.
As an aside, let it be noted that other 'enemies (or dangers)
of society', besides terrorists, have been used to a lesser
extent to justify specific measures. These include from
child pornographers (who were used in an attempt to silence
the internet) to arsonists, who are used in Greece in order
to install a whole series of repressive measures.

b) 'Israel', the guarantor of western domination in the Arab
world, a domination with immense geopolitical as well as
economical importance, is apparently reaching the end of
its historical course. For the first time in its history
instead of attracting immigrants, it is now a land from
which everybody is trying to flee - venture capitalists
first. 'Israeli' citizens are demoralised, no longer believing
it will ever be possible for them to live in peace. There is
a deep rift between settlers and '48-Israelis' , with each
side blaming the other for all its problems. The general
image is that of a ship sinking.
This places American interests in a very difficult position.
One option would be to dump 'Israel' and replace it by, say,
Saudi Arabia as the local force policing the region. But
such a scenario has many holes in it. The Arab people (and by no
means only it) would justly regard the demise of 'Israel'
as a great victory, as proof that imperialism is not invincible.
The logical conclusion would of course be that THEIR own
oppressive regimes are also not invincible. This, BTW, is
why most, if not all, Arab regimes are very wary of the
Intifada: They are afraid of Israel, but they are even
more afraid of their own peoples. In short, a defeat of
Israel would be a strategic defeat for the west, comparable
to that of Vietnam.
Around a month ago, a NY times columnist proposed sending
NATO (or a "NATO-like force") to take directly control of
Palestine. The problem of course is that NATO forces are
(or were) even less able and willing to fight than 'Israeli'
ones. But uncle Sam knows the problem to this. In WWII too
the American public was unwilling to enter the war, until
Pearl Harbor.

c) Globalised big business is in a dire situation. Ten years
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was lauded as
the beginning of a golder era for capitalism, these dreams
have evaporated into thin air. The solution envisaged by mainstream
economists is doing nothing but aggravating the problem.
Faced with a rift between ever-growing productive abilities of
society taken as a whole and a market limited by the buying power of
working people, they chose the 'solution' of minimising costs -
thereby further reducing the size of the already small market. This
short-sighted solution gives the economy a temporary breathing
space, but does nothing to solve the real problems of the economy.
It seems now that this breathing space is approaching its end.
The levels of exploitation in the traditional economic centers of
the world have reached a level where it is questionable whether
it is possible to 'tighten the screws' any more without risking
explosions. The demonstrations in Seattle, Goetenborg, Genova,
are ample warning in this direction.

But there is one more resource which is not exploited by western
economies to its full potential: Oil. A series of revolutions in
past decades have taken oil from direct exploitation by western
powers and placed it in the hands of local states.
If control of oil is assumed directly by western powers, with the
US at their head, it will be possible to lower its price. this
will further lower production costs, and give a further
breathing space to big corporations.

d) Ten years after the collapse of the Soviet union, the immediate
effects of this collapse are subsiding. Russia is slowly but steadily
reasserting itself as a world power. The illusion that it would be
possible to have a future (even a bright one) under capitalism,
which was widespread in the beginning, has been transformed into
a nightmare for  billions of people. The initial impression that
the west would now triumph, exterminating all its opponents
with a flick of its hand, has also begun to lose its strength.

e) Under these circumstances, it appears that those responsible
for the fate of the planet have decided that it is 'now or never':
Seeing the end approach, they have decided to let all hell break
lose, and attempt to assert a world dictatorship before it is too
late. Of course, this is not a 'lightning in clear weather', as we
say in Greek. There have been warnings. The war in Yugoslavia,
for one thing. 'Anti-terrorist' legislation, which eliminated
basic democratic rights, has been passed in most European
countries. After Seattle in the US, after Gotenborg in Europe,
rights which were taken for granted have been trampled underfooot.


>> Furthermore, you are not
>> on strong grounds security wise, since you are not part of the
>> 'in-crowd' of the intelligence circle.

Well, the Chief of the Russian air force knows a lot more than I
do, and he also stated that the official version of events makes no sense.

>>  My problem with the 'provocation' arguement is that a
>> much lesser provocation could have been used to achieve these results.
>> If this is a provocation, it involved too much of a loss for the U.S.
>> government.  This is not a single assassination mind you, but really an
>> act of war.  That is not a provocation.

Copying my reply to a similar argument by an American friend:

>> Sorry Abu Nicola,
>>
>> I just can't buy this. I just can't believe that they
>> would totally destroy the WTC and damage the Pentagon,
>> to mobilize all out support for war.

But you know they did something similar in Pearl Harbor, don't you?

>> They have been so
>> successful mobilizing support for war of late - would
>> it be necessary to go to such great lengths?

No, they haven't. First there were reactions, and my
understanding is that these reactions were growing, as
witnessed not only by the increased exposure of the
anti-sanctions movement and the demonstrations against
the bombing of Serbia, but first and foremost by the
Seattle events.

Second, and most important, what they are preparing is
obviously a completely different kind of animal than
the Gulf War or the bombing of Serbia. I am not expecting
another high-tech bombing campaign. You are right that such
could be staged without the need for such an immense provocation.
What they are obviously preparing for, is a ground war for the
occupation of entire regions of the Middle East, a war that is
certain to engender great loss of life, and NOT only on the Arab
side. Such a war would certainly be very unpopular, even
impossible, unless there was a serious pretext.

Don't be fooled by the attacks against Afghanistan. These
are not even the first movement - they are the beginning of
the introduction.

...
...

Part of your doubts seem to be based on the loss of prestige
engendered by the losses in infrastructure. But they hope
this prestige will be restored when US armies land in the
middle East and occupy sovereign countries. They also suffered
an enormous loss of prestige at Pearl Harbor. Of course, they
had planned in advance and made sure to minimise the actual
damage. How long will it be before we learn what had been
moved away beforehand from the part of the Pentagon that
collapsed, and how many top-ranking executives just happened
to be away from the twin towers at the moment of their collapse?

You are trying to measure the attacks with the scales of the
world we knew. But the first thing that is obvious is that
these attacks DO NOT FIT in the world we knew. We have moved
into a new era.

>> But, I'm just guessing. I don't know. I never cease to
>> be amazed at George Bush's stupidity.

In the long run, you may be right. I believe that the new
adventure they are preparing, the one they launched with
these attacks, will ultimately lead to the end of the American
empire. But they were probably able to see this end approaching anyway.
On a tactical level however, and if one ignores the enormous
loss of life, as we know they do, I see this as a brilliant
move. I wouldn't of course place credit for it to Bush, who
obviously IS stupid.