9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

Mark:

You are confusing my "spiritual" view with my "temporal" view.  Ultimately, yes, I'd like to see everyone lay down their arms, even unilaterally.  Violence begets violence no matter who starts it.  The cycle of violence is a self-fulfilling prophecy of a world system based on money, power, greed, etc.  In that regard, I personally follow Jesus, Gandhi, King and others.

And the history of the United States is not without its blame for creating the very cycles of violence we see today, whether it was the result of imperialism, colonialism, or simply meddling in the affairs of other, sovereign nations whenever we could claim "strategic interests" in or around those countries.  Don't be naive.  The U.S. and Britain – especially - are as much to blame for what is going on in the world as is radical fundamental Islam.

However, from a purely "temporal" standpoint, there is no question that a country has the right to defend itself from aggressors, whether internal or external.  It is how we go about that that determines the “rightness” of the method and response.  Even were the “official story” re 9/11 100% true, the way in which the Bush Administration “used” that event goes beyond simple “protection” of its citizens.  As I noted (and, again, assuming the “official story” is 100% true, which I don’t), had the response simply been to attempt to engage Al Qaeda and capture bin Laden for crimes against humanity, from a temporal standpoint I would have supported that.

However, that is not what occurred.  Re Afghanistan, we made only a half-hearted attempt to capture bin Laden, Bush’s tough Texas swagger and talk (“dead or alive,” “smoke him out,” etc.) notwithstanding.  We did succeed in routing the Taliban and, to some degree, weakening (or at least dispersing) Al Qaeda.  But given that we “installed” (no better word) a new president who was not only friendly to the U.S., but was a former Unocal oil official whose first action in office was to sign the deal that would allow U.S. oil and gas companies to create a much-desired pipeline from the Caspian Sea, one has to wonder which of the two (routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda or securing the pipeline) was the priority.

In addition, the Bush Administration then used dummied up evidence of WMDs and links between Hussein and Al Qaeda – including “yellow cake” uranium that never existed, mobile chemical warfare trucks that were nothing of the sort, an almost completely phony PowerPoint presentation to the U.N., and pictures of mushroom clouds – to gain public support for an aggressive, unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change and “war” in Iraq.  This action had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting U.S. citizens, since Hussein, as bad a man as he may have been, had never even threatened terrorist action against the U.S., much less engaged in it.  He may well be guilty of crimes against his own people, but he was the leader of a sovereign nation who the “coalition forces” had no right - under any law – to simply overthrow.

However, as with the pipeline in Afghanistan, the “ancillary” aspects of the regime change in Iraq – enriching the military-industrial complex and war profiteers, control of the third largest oil reserves in the world, billions of dollars in no-bid “reconstruction” contracts to Bush/Cheney friends and cronies - point to the question of what the actual priorities were in this action.  Unlike Afghanistan, however, the entire action in Iraq – even without the ancillary aspects – was insupportable, and did not serve to “protect” U.S. (or British) citizens.

Then there is the Patriot ACT, and the many actions – Internet monitoring, illegal wiretapping, random searches, etc. – that not only do not serve to help protect U.S. citizens, but actually erode the very freedoms and civil liberties we claim to be “exporting” via “democracy.”  I know you will argue that it is important to gather information via Internet, phones, etc. for possible protection against future terrorist actions.  Even if I agreed that that was so, there is also the way in which the Bush Administration carried out these things: sub rosa, illegally and without even discussing it with Congressional committees that would have had a right to know about it, even if it had to be kept “secret” from the public so that “the enemy” didn’t know about it either.

I could also talk about the way in which the Bush Administration carries out its “war on terror” – giving the president the unilateral discretion to determine who is an “enemy combatant,” and to keep those people isolated and incarcerated without access to their families or legal counsel; engaging in torture that is banned by the Geneva Convention; and basically flouting every international rule, law, regulation and policy that has been agreed to by every other civilized nation on the planet.

I, for one, do not feel “safer” when my government invades a sovereign country under false pretense in order to gain access to oil reserves, and in the process actually increases terrorist activity in that country.  I do not feel safer when my government engages a terrorist government in Afghanistan and routs them, only to install a president who makes it possible for us to create a lucrative pipeline – only to leave and then have the Taliban and other violent elements begin claiming the country again.  I do not feel safer when my government takes the unique and historical global goodwill generated by the 9/11 attacks and squanders it to the point that anti-Americanism is on the rise even in Western countries.  I do not feel safer when my government creates an interest-conflicted panel to whitewash the events of 9/11 – especially when they themselves did not want the panel, and then refused to cooperate with it.  I do not feel safer when my government begins engaging in proto-totalitarian actions under the guise of “protecting” me, when I see my freedoms and civil rights being eroded in the name of an illusory “security” against a never-ending “war on terror.”  I do not feel safer when my government does things in my name with which I do not agree, and with some of which I vehemently disagree.  I do not feel safer in a world in which my government is in bed with transnational corporations who profit from the actions that are allegedly being undertaken to “protect” me.

Mark, I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or whether you are so brainwashed by the system that you have some “angelic” notion about your country and its government, and especially the people currently in power.  I will leave you with the words of Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant minister in Germany just prior to the rise of Hitler.  They are very instructive:

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.  And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

You might also want to check out the following article:

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2006/05/27/top-10-signs-of-the-impending-us-police-state/

Peace.

Dalezilla:

Thanks!

BB:

You say, "It is a very smart idea to doubt the 'official story.' Suffice it to say that I have not heard a single theory that is as compelling and most reasonable to believe, and has the amount of physical and non-physical evidence, as the 'official story..'

If you are not one of those who is simply dismissing out of hand any alternate theory website, are you certain you have really been doing serious research in this regard? Because I have found that the more research I do - epecially on sites that include truly reputable scientific, engineering and other experts - the more it becomes clear that the science and engineering, etc. do not support the "official story" (most especially re WTC and WTC 7), and, indeed, either clearly refute it or at least raise very serious questions about its accuracy.

MtS:

You say, "I just don't think it's as sinister as you seem to think it is. It looks to me like you're trying relive the Nixonian days just in order to have something to protest because you're just plain bored. Middle aged years are fun aren't they?"

Actually, it has nothing to do with middle age: I've been highly skeptical of "official stories" since my teens!! And my attitude has only become more prevalent - and provenly and supportably so - since then!

Also, you say, "I seriously doubt Saddam is as innocent in the terrorism dept as you say," and sent me to a link that provides alleged evidence of Saddam's backing of terrorism.

Even if I were to take that site, and all of its info, at face value, that does not change the fact that no country has the right to simply go into another sovereign country and overthrow its leader. Period. After all, there are quite a few countries whose leaders support terrorism in various ways - including our friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Should we overthrow their leaders, too?

Peace.