Background and Shockwaves of 9/11: An Orwellian Nightmare

by Bi?rn Ivemark

BACKGROUND AND SHOCKWAVES OF 9-11: An Orwellian Nightmare

5 February 2002
Much seems to indicate a US complicity in the 9-11

terrorist attacks. Facts are slowly accumulating, making
it all look as a big setup. Even the most critical
"left" has been silent on these issues, while criticism
is usually adressed to "the efficiency of war as a
remedy to terrorism". Meanwhile, civil liberties are
under attack globally, and the US control of one of the
world's "most strategically significant" regions,
bordering to Russia and China, becomes more and more
real. Long but important article.
1. Freedom Is Slavery
2. Ignorance Is Strength
3. War Is Peace
4. "Collateral Damage"
5. Suspicion of US Complicity in 9-11
6. Enduring the Future
7. Notes (important content)
Freedom Is Slavery: The enemy within and the foundations of a police state
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should
some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war
when the best he can get out of it is to come back to
his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't
want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for
that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the
policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country." --Hermann Goering
It could be useful to remind ourselves of something we often tend
to forget. We live in the richest and most privileged part of the
world, and we have through history, by the most abominable means,
conquered and put under our control most of what remained of it.
This violence is still alive today, in our political, economic,
social, cultural (...) relations with the rest of the world. But
we have recently experienced a significant and mysterious historic
change. The most powerful country in the world has been attacked
with horrendous violence -- unfortunately far from being unusual
elsewhere. And as in the past, we can see apologists of our
historical barbarism resurfacing, reinforcing our cartoonish
perception of the world, claiming the necessity of being "aware of
the superiority of Western civilization" (Berlusconi) when it
enters this "war between the civilized world and fanaticism"
(Blair), where "even parts of the uncivilized world have started
to wonder whether they are on the right side" (Dep. Secr. of
Defense Wolfowitz).
The pattern is clear. Bush junior will give us the choice: "you
are with us or the terrorists". The sane urge to laugh will
quickly fade away. After the ruins, the corpses and the dubious
political future of Afghanistan, Washington now prepares to run
the second major act of its "Operation Enduring Freedom".
Meanwhile, Western citizens are still screaming for revenge under
their flag -- although some of their freedoms were severely
trampled in the rush.
Since September 11, more than a thousand immigrants have been
secretly arrested in the United States. It is hard to know where
and under which conditions they are detained, and if they have
access to lawyers. And after the adoption of the anti-terrorist
legislations, the FBI estimates a "sensible" increase in the
number of prisoners. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft,
that "sensible" increase would represent 5,000 more arrests, in
raids that history will not judge mildly. But even Sandra Day
O'Connor, justice of the US Supreme Court says "we're likely to
experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever
been the case in our country". She may be right. To date, official
policy has already violated three amendments of the US
Constitution, while the trend is also spreading through Europe.
And in the mean time, military courts are setting up, prisoners of
war lose their rights, and the FBI plans to "use drugs or means of
pressure" or to extradite suspects "to allied countries where
security services threaten family members and use torture". [1]
The fearful atmosphere that hangs over the West is also the ideal
opportunity to ram through measures that have met severe popular
opposition for a long time. Jo Moore, special adviser to the
British government, explained to her colleagues a few minutes
after the first WTC tower collapsed that it was "a very good day
to get out anything we want to bury". Her wisdom is understood in
many circles. Everybody wants a share of the cake, while
justifying it with all kinds of honorable and altruist aims.
The Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill calls the American tax policy
an "abomination" and considers eliminating all taxes for
corporations and abolishing Social security and Medicare. He will
at least find an obvious exception: "National defense is a federal
responsibility, but all other outlays need review". It seems the
"federal responsibility" was followed when the Bush administration
recently raised the military budget by 15%, although it already
was higher than the combined budget of the next 15 countries on
the list.
And the same deceptive pattern can be seen in trade policy. Robert
Zoellick, the American trade representative has propagated
speeches and writings praising the benefits of the Fast Track
bill, that would permit the president to negotiate and ratify
trade agreements without Congressional (that is, democratic)
interference. He guarantees that imposing this dictatorial
economic policy is one of the best ways to fight terrorism. The
bill passed Congress with a one vote margin in December. It would
be surprising if the strategy was innovated to justify and impose
Bush's plans for militarizing space (through his so-called
anti-missile "defense").
All this is wrapped in the flag and defended by stamping all
dissent as "un-American" and "unpatriotic". In addition, as if
this intellectual terrorism wasn't enough, dissent is silenced
with surveillance and intimidation, if not by straight out
criminalizing. Analogies are often made between the supposed
perpetrators of the terrorist attack that killed thousands and
those "vociferating anti-globalization primates" (Jean-François
Revel) -- Zoellick claims that the two groups share "intellectual
connections" -- they have the same tendency to show a "violent
behavior", according to the WTO secretary David Hartridge. [2]
The totalitarian charges of "anti-Americanism" are already
proliferating freely, but it seems as if today we somehow have
managed to enter the domain of science fiction. Those who are
cold-headed enough to criticize what they see are quickly put back
into place with methods reminiscent of the fanatic hunt for
communists during the Cold War. "We're talking about exactly the
same phenomenon", says the president of the American Civil
Liberties Union. And the media is the worst guest at the party.
The media watchdogs warn that the freedom of press is threatened,
and describe the media as a "militarized zone". Some journalists
with too daring comments or articles are fired and sometimes
defamed to a point where apologies are necessary "for the
country's good". The role of the press in this time of crisis was
clearly defined by White House spokesman Ari Fleicher when he said
that, "they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch
what they say, watch what they do". After these calls to order,
patriotic obedience and fear choke off all independent thought and
the media self-censor at governmental request or by simple "matter
of taste", and turn into pure war propaganda machines. [3]
Ignorance Is Strength: The bewildered herd and the war for `hearts
and minds'
"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest

opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it
would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for

keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am
connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries

for similar things, and any of you who would be so
foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the

streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest
opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before

twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalist is to destroy the

truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn
at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his

daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly
is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools

and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are
the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.

Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

--John Swinton (New York Times editor, from a speech
to the New York Press Club, 1953)

As we easily can observe, war makes democracy run out the back
door. But it is perhaps one of the best occasions to understand
the flexibility of its definition. The first successful American
experiment of institutional propaganda began before the First
World War, when the Commission on Public Information was created
to persuade the mostly pacifist American people to enter the war.
Its success was amazing. A member of the commission was Walter
Lippmann, the most influential and respected journalist at the
time.
Obviously inspired by his propagandistic experience, he spoke
later about a "revolution in the practice of democracy" where an
"intelligent minority" in charge of the political arena, had to
"manufacture the consent" of the people, when it was not
automatically granted to the decisions of this "specialized
class". This "shaping of a healthy public opinion" would permit
the minority to "live free of the trampling and the roar of a
bewildered herd", an allusion to the people, an "ignorant and
meddlesome outsider" whose role is to be a "spectator", not a
"participant". Edward Bernays, another member of the Commission,
concluded in 1925 that it was now possible to "regiment the public
mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies". [4]
These propagandist achievements obviously charmed the intellectual
community, and had an undeniable influence on the workings of the
ideological apparatus, like the corporate media. The political
analyst Noam Chomsky points out that "the mass media everywhere
tend to serve the important interests that dominate the state and
select and suppress facts so as to convey the impression that
national policy is well-intentioned and justified. If the dominant
interests of a free society call for a policy of foreign
aggression, the mass media will voluntarily mobilize the
population as effectively as under a fully censored system".
Therefore, "rogue states that are internally free -- and the U.S.
is at the outer limits in this respect -- must rely on the
willingness of the educated classes to produce accolades and
tolerate or deny terrible crimes". [5]
War is of course the worst environment for the media. The
journalist Salim Muwakkil accurately reminds that "the passions of
war unleash demons that must be scrupulously monitored. Had
American media been more conscientious during World War II,
thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent wouldn't have been
interned. The German press, though originally suspicious and
critical of the Nazi party, began falling in line after the 1933
Reichstag Fire convinced them that external threats were a potent
danger. And were the pretexts for our entry into the Vietnam War
more thoroughly analyzed, millions of Vietnamese and thousands of
Americans may not have died".
These propagandist ideologies were also the source of the public
relations industry (PR) -- another big institution that is
mobilized for the war. According to a recent newsletter of the
industry, "PR has a vital role to play in promoting economic
globalization and fighting terrorism". The war gives new
challenges to the industry. The letter quotes Jack Leslie,
president of Weber Shandwick Worldwide, who suggests that the
United States should apply a "Powell doctrine" of using
"overwhelming force" to its communications strategy: "No tactic
should be ruled out -- every tactical approach should be
considered that can deliver the right message to the right targets
with credibility".
Many key sectors have hired PR firms after September 11th: the
pharmaceutical industry, wishing to be positioned as the
"principal source of information to the public" on the subject of
bio-terrorism; the American private equity firm Carlyle (to which
Bush Sr. and other heads of state are affiliated) wanting to hide
the fact that it counts members of the Bin Laden family in its
major investors; as well as the Pentagon, disturbed by the
surprising lack of support in the Arab world for its holy war. As
one Pentagon official explains: "we are clearly losing the `hearts
and minds' issue". The specialists of manipulation and control of
this field therefore have to intervene. The herd's minds have to
be kept on track. [6]
The New York Times recalls that "In all conflicts, winning the
information war has been an essential element of military
strategy". But while all the ideological institutions are
mobilized, and the president speaks about a war between "good and
evil" in which his "good nation" mixes peanut butter with his
cluster bombs, it is essential to understand which reality hides
behind this opaque veil of cynical rhetoric. [7]
War Is Peace: "We are a peaceful nation" (George W. Bush)
"Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman,

or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or
`disappeared', at the hands of governments or armed

political groups. More often than not, the United States
shares the blame." / "The U.S.A. has supplied arms,

security equipment and training to governments and armed
groups that have committed torture, political killings

and other human rights abuses in countries around the
world."

--Amnesty International, 1996, 1998
First of all we have to put all this in its context and remember
that the terrorists of Afghanistan are an American creation.
Recruited for their brutality all over the Middle East, they were
regarded as the "moral equivalents of the founding fathers" (Bush
Sr.) at the time of the Soviet invasion and were heavily financed
by the CIA. Surprisingly, they have now lost those charming
traits. Benazir Bhutto, the president of Pakistan at the time, had
warned the father of Bush: "You have created a Frankenstein's
monster".
While the pressure went up on Afghanistan after the hijackings in
the US, a Taliban ambassador proposed to judge the Saudi
millionaire if they advanced "solid evidence that binds him to the
[9-11] attacks". This proposal was rejected by Bush who regarded
it as "non-negotiable". Other similar diplomatic proposals since
then have received the same greetings. Jean Paul II suggests that
"those who are guilty of these acts be held accountable once
evidence is produced, but not others" Such requirements of proof
are apparently a fanatical and incomprehensible idea in our part
of the world. [8]
Legal solutions that should ordinarily be undertaken in this kind
of conflicts exist although they never are mentioned or discussed
in the major media. A presupposition for their success would be
that the US respected international law. However this would be
quite naïve to expect as clarified in October: "A sign of
Washington's insistence that its hands not be tied was its
rejection of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's
entreaties that any American military action be subject to
Security Council approval " (New York Times 7/10).
But the refusal to explore proposed diplomatic solutions, and the
refusal to accept the jurisdiction of UN (incidentally the crimes
are the those used by the US as a guideline for pointing out
"rogue states"), does not prevent the Western intellectuals from
speaking about a "just" and "humanitarian" war.
Other voices are effectively excluded from the mainstream despite
their number. Professor of law Michael Mandel, specializing in
international criminal law, explains that "From the legal point of
view, this war is illegal. Of course, it's also immoral and it
won't prevent terrorism. The war is illegal because it's a
flagrant violation of the express words of the Charter of the
United Nations. In fact, it's not only illegal, it's criminal.
It's what the Nuremberg tribunal called `the supreme crime', the
crime against peace". Respecting international law is far from
being necessary in a world ruled by force (at least for the lucky
one on top of the pyramid). John Bolton, the new assistant of
Secretary of State Colin Powell, illustrates it plainly:
"international law doesn't exist". [9]
However, this legal option has antecedents. In the eighties, the
United States launched their first official war on terrorism, with
the aim of "cutting out the cancer" represented by the "depraved
opponents to civilisation itself" consisting essentially of
Central Americans (remember, the Afghans were "freedom fighters"
at the time). In that first war, the US attacked Nicaragua,
killing about fifty thousand people ("soft targets" in military
jargon).
Not understanding that this operation was carried out "to promote
democracy", Nicaragua went to the International Court of Justice.
The court judged in favor of Nicaragua, rejected the US claim of
"self-defense", ordered them to cease the "illegal use of force"
and to pay significant reparations. The United States answered by
refusing future jurisdiction of the court, and by intensifying the
attack. Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council, to its
General Assembly, that voted several resolutions asking all the
States to respect international law, all vetoed by the US.
The United States is now the only country in the world that has
been condemned for international terrorism by an international
court, and it has rejected the court's judgment as well as
pertinent UN resolutions. Ironic to know that the US is now
leading an international coalition against terrorism. This failure
of legal processes is merely the consequence of the natural laws
of power. If the United States accepted these legal means today,
the country would have even more world support than they already
have for their murderous crusade. [10]
International terrorism is not a new feature, as the US
establishment wants us to believe since the Communist threat lost
its credibility. The United Nations has condemned and tried to
prevent international terrorism. A 1987 resolution condemned the
plague in the strongest terms and was adopted with
quasi-unanimity. However two countries voted against -- the US,
and Israel -- pursuing their long tradition of opposition to UN
resolutions.
A paragraph of the resolution defended "the inalienable right to
self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial
and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination" and upheld
"the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of
national liberation movements". At the time, the US and Israel
actively supported the South African apartheid regime, and Israel
was in its twentieth year of military occupation, continuing
today, possibly taking its most repressive form ever. [11]
Terrorists are also trained on US territory. The "School of the
Americas" (SOA) educates death squad leaders, mainly active in
Latin America (3 concentration camps under Pinochet were directed
by SOA graduates), guilty of "the most atrocious human rights
violations" according to the UN. All this is far from being enough
in order to draw a correct picture, and it would be a mistake to
regard these mere examples as an extensive record. Why would the
US tolerate the limitation of international law? It would be in
total contradiction with the logic of power. "The United States
acts multilaterally when possible and unilaterally when necessary"
as many US government officials have explained their position to
the international community. By the same logic of power, the
devastating consequences of the earlier "crusades of virtue" can
only remain secondary, not to speak of its victims cry for
justice. And let's not forget another very dangerous teaching of
this logic: that these actions are undertaken in the name of
"freedom" and "democracy" -- quite flexible concepts, as one can
easily note by looking at the paradises that have previously
experienced the blessing of this military humanism. [12]
"Collateral Damage": "Justice should not precede revenge" (New
York Post)
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of

atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a
remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

--George Orwell
Now devastated by two superpowers, the Afghan people understand
Mister Orwell's observation clearly. The most tragic part is the
silence that meets the civilian victims of this war. The only
serious report on the subject, show that the civil victims of the
bombings already exceed 3,700 people, and hundreds of others have
been added since its publication.
The most common figure used today is 5,000. This has of course not
particularly interested our media. But the long-term consequences
will undoubtedly vanish in the memory hole, like the humanitarian
situation in Afghanistan, expected to be catastrophic. Afghanistan
is one of the poorest countries of the world, and has been
dependent on international humanitarian aid for a long time. The
drought has made it worse. Before the bombings, the US demanded
that Pakistan close its border towards Afghanistan, and "demanded
from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much
of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian
population" (New York Times 16/9).
The bombing later forced the withdrawal of the international aid
workers who were in charge of food distribution in the country and
made food deliveries very difficult. The UN estimated that 7 to 8
million Afghans risked starvation, since the assistance could only
be brought at half or quarter of normal intensity under the bombs.
Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to the U.N.
High Commissioner for Human Rights, said on October 15th "The
bombing has to stop right now. There is a humanitarian emergency.
In winter the lorries cannot go in any more. Millions of Afghans
will be unreachable in winter and winter is coming very, very
soon". Reuters and AP echoed that "the United Nations has warned
of a catastrophe unless aid can get through for up to seven
million Afghans" according to several analysts (no mention to it
was made in the US media).
The big humanitarian organizations required "a pause in the
bombings" the "immediate reopening of the borders" in order to
avoid "a humanitarian catastrophe", where "the West would be
responsible for a massive tragedy" causing "huge loss of life and
unspeakable suffering". In spite of these warnings from the UN and
the most respected humanitarian organizations our Western media
gave all its attention to the Anthrax scare. But "bio-terrorism"
can visibly take many shapes. The humanitarian situation is
currently critical. Millions of people in urgent need are almost
or already inaccessible because of insecurity and heavy snow
falls. [13]
Suspicion of US Complicity in 9-11: Another assumed candidate for
the memory hole
"If we hope to understand anything about the foreign

policy of any state, it is a good idea to begin by
investigating the domestic social structure: Who sets

foreign policy? What interests do these people
represent? What is the domestic source of their power?

It is a reasonable surmise that the policy that evolves
will reflect the special interests of those who design

it. An honest study of history will reveal that this
natural expectation is quite generally fulfilled. The

evidence is overwhelming, in my opinion, that the United
States is no exception to the general rule -- a thesis

which is often characterized as a `radical critique,' in
a curious intellectual move.

Some attention to the historical record, as well
as common sense, leads to a second reasonable

expectation: In every society, there will emerge a caste
of propagandists who labor to disguise the obvious, to

conceal the actual workings of power, and to spin a web
of mythical goals and purposes, utterly benign, that

allegedly guide national policy.
A typical thesis of the propaganda system is

that `the nation' is an agent in international affairs,
not special groups within it, and that `the nation' is

guided by certain ideals and principles, all of them
noble. A subsidiary thesis is that the nation is not an

active agent, but rather responds to threats posed to
its security, or to order and stability, by awesome evil

forces."
--Noam Chomsky

This Crusade of Infinite Justice is an Orwellian nightmare. We
have been drowned in propaganda from minute one. Even the small
critical enclosures of the left were carried in the flood. Let's
try to clear this up. First of all, the attack on Afghanistan was
not a spontaneous response to the attacks of September 11.
Afghanistan was a target chosen much earlier for very specific
reasons.
Former Foreign Minister of Pakistan Niaz Naik revealed to the
press that during a Berlin conference on Afghanistan in July, "the
US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over
swiftly America would take military action before the snows
started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the
latest" (BBC 18/09). He forwarded these threats to the
Taliban. [14] The respected journalist John Pilger reports that
Secretary of State Colin Powell was already gathering support for
a war coalition in Central Asia during this period.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, member of the Council on Foreign Relations
and former national security adviser to the Carter Administration,
clears up many things in his recent book, the purpose of which is
"The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian
geostrategy". Brzezinski writes that "America's global primacy is
directly dependent on how long and how effectively its
preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained". To control
the continent, it is necessary to control what Brzezinski calls
the Eurasian Balkans -- the area of the present conflict, that he
circles on a map. These "Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more
important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration
of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in
addition to important minerals, including gold". Oil and gas
reserves "that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the
North Sea".
The vice-president Dick Cheney nods. As former chairman of the
large oil company Halliburton, he said in front of a group of oil
executives in 1998: "I can't think of a time when we've had a
region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant
as the Caspian". Indeed, several pipeline projects in Afghanistan
-- conceived by the American oil company Unocal -- have failed
because of the civil war. But two days after the first bombs, the
projects were put back on the table "in view of recent
geopolitical developments". And don't worry, the "rebuilding of
Afghanistan" is in good hands: The president of the temporary
Afghan government Hamid Karzai was a former consultant of Unocal,
and the US special presidential envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, who will
also help "rebuild" the country, is a former assistant of the oil
company. [15]
Brzezinski says that the area, because of its crucial importance
on the geopolitical level, "threatens to become a cauldron of
ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry". The United States'
"primary interest" is therefore to "help ensure that no single
power comes to control this geopolitical space". To avoid this
scenario, he recommends to "put a premium on maneuver and
manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile
coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's
primacy". He clearly states his vision with the appropriate words:
"the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to
prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the
vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the
barbarians from coming together". He is thoughtful enough to
explain to faint-hearted readers who for some reason would be
bothered by these methods, that "America's withdrawal from the
world would prompt global anarchy". I suppose we should all feel
reassured.
Before September 11, tens of thousands of American and British
troops were already heading to the Middle East. It seems that "the
control of Eurasia" will be an easy game. In a Los Angeles Times
article of January 5th, William Arkin writes:
"Behind a veil of secret agreements, the United States

is creating a ring of new and expanded military bases
that encircle Afghanistan and enhance the Armed Forces

greater ability to strike targets throughout much of the
Muslim world. Since Sept 11, according to Pentagon

sources, military tent cities have sprung up at 13
locations in nine countries neighbouring Afghanistan,

substantially extending the network of bases in the
region. From Bulgaria and Uzbekistan to Turkey, Kuwait

and beyond, more than 60,000 US military personnel now
live and work at these forward bases".

The Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz explains that "Their
function may be more political than actually military". The new
bases "send a message to everybody, including important countries
like Uzbekistan, that we have a capacity to come back in and will
come back in". [16]
The projected plans of controlling Central Asia are a true threat,
but not quite surprising. On the other hand what is quite alarming
are the many indications that the American government had
foreknowledge of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Three
months before the attacks, the German Intelligence agency BND
warned the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were
"planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to
attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture"
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 14/09/2001). In the same period,
Russian intelligence informed the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had
been trained specifically for suicide missions. And two months
later Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered them to alert the
US government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent
attacks on airports and government buildings (MS-NBC 15/09/2001).
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak also alerted the US twelve days
before the event (AP 8/12/2001). Reports stating Israeli warnings
have been denied by the US government.
In spite of these warnings, the reactions to the attacks were
virtually non-existent. The first reports stated that no Air Force
was deployed to shoot down or intercept the planes, even though
routine procedures are regularly applied to handle this kind of
situation. Two days later, the story conveniently changed. The
General of the Air Force Richard B Myers declared that "When it
became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter
aircraft, AWACs, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to
establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA
[Federal Aviation Authority] system that were hijacked. . . . That
order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was
struck". Namely, more than one hour after learning that four
planes had been hijacked simultaneously -- for the first time in
history. [17]
There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of
$30 billion. Many intelligence experts express scepticism
concerning this scenario stating it is impossible to miss the
"intelligence signature" of such an operation. One of them is
Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic
intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, who told Agence France
Presse (AFP) that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of
planning" behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed
"years of planning" and would require the "fixed frame" of a state
intelligence organization, something that is not found in a "loose
group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta
while he studied in Hamburg. Many people would have had to have
been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach
pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the
attacks were "state organized actions". [18]
General Mahmud Ahmad was at the head of the Pakistani Military
Intelligence (ISI) since 1999, "approved" for his position by the
US government, and was in connection with his counterparts at the
CIA and the Pentagon. The day before the attacks, the Pakistani
daily The News wondered about "the agenda of his mysterious
meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council". The
General was indeed present in Washington one week before the
attacks, in what was called "a regular visit of consultations".
Mahmud stayed there several days after the attacks, participating
in other "consultations" that were concluded by the decision of US
"cooperation" with Pakistan. The country is now the key ally in
the US military operation in the region.
But in the beginning of October, Indian Intelligence revealed a
quite interesting fact. During the summer, the General had ordered
a transfer of $100.000 to Mohammed Atta, the lead terrorist in the
hijackings, according to the FBI. The FBI also confirmed this
money transfer. AFP quotes a Indian government source: "The
evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US is
of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper
linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism".
Considering the non-existent US reaction to this, and its links to
the ISI, we can begin drawing some unpleasant conclusions about
the implications. [19]
A declassified document of the US government entitled
"Justification for US military intervention in Cuba", dating back
to 1962, gives some insight in the methods that are sometimes
required in order to serve the "national interest". The document
explains that the first strategy in the "resolution of the Cuban
problem" would consist in supporting a "credible internal revolt".
Since that strategy was doomed to fail, it "will require a
decision by the United States to develop a Cuban `provocation' as
justification for positive US military action". This "provocation"
could consist in blowing up planes, sinking ships and hitting
other targets in the Guatanamo base, followed by "funerals for
mock-victims", and fictitious "casualty lists in US newspapers"
which "would cause a helpful wave of national indignation". The
creation of a "Communist Cuban terror campaign" in Florida would
also do the trick: sinking "real or simulated" boatloads of Cuban
refugees enroute to Florida, and "foster[ing] attempts on lives of
Cuban refugees in the United States", so that their pictures
become "widely publicized". And "exploding a few plastic bombs"
followed by "the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of
prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be
helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government".
In short, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan
would be to place the United States in the apparent position of
suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible
government of Cuba. World opinion, and the United Nations forum
should be favorably affected by developing the international image
of the Cuban government as an alarming and unpredictable threat to
the peace of the Western Hemisphere". [20]
Brzezinski explains in his book that "the attitude of the American
public toward the external projection of American power has been
much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in
World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor". But today, there's obviously a problem:
"as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may
find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy
issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely
perceived direct external threat ". [21]
Enduring the Future: "Our war against terror is only beginning"
(Bush 29/01/2002)
"Individuals have international duties which transcend

the national obligations of obedience. Therefore
[individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic

laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from
occurring"

--Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
Any time now, we will watch the second act of this war, which
"will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated" (Bush). A war "that may not end in
our lifetimes" according to vice-president Dick Cheney, who
recently stated that "40 or 50 countries" are concerned, where the
priority is granted to Iraq and Somalia (and more recently Iran,
taking Israeli requests into consideration). The plans are already
being set up. War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the Pentagon to
"think the unthinkable", after rejecting it's first
"post-Afghanistan options", "not enough radical" for his taste.
Visibly, we haven't seen anything yet.
But the American elites are aware of the vulnerability of these
projects if the "public" should oppose them. This is confirmed by
a document of the Bush Sr. Administration that was leaked during
the Gulf War. It revealed the American strategy towards "third
world threats" and explained that "In cases where the U.S.
confronts much weaker enemies, our challenge will be not simply to
defeat them, but to defeat them decisively and rapidly" Any other
outcome would be "embarrassing" and might "undercut political
support". [22]
During the many "blitzkriegs" that we can already see approaching,
the TV screens and the newspapers of the "civilized" world will of
course continue their obedient silence. And in this silence, where
all innocent victims will be ignored or buried in various
justifications, the war architects will continue their crusade of
world domination, while living "free from the trampling and the
roar of the bewildered herd", so far effectively misled, excluded
and manipulated, as it should be. So in this insane world the US
president can say, without a trace of indignation from the Western
media: "We're offering help and friendship to the Afghan people".
But hypocrisy doesn't alter reality. The Western leaders and their
respective herds are now in line behind an "anti-terrorist
coalition", led by the largest terrorist state of the world,
carrying out an unprecedented barbaric world conquest. This is no
time for stating truisms about the inadequacy of cluster bombs in
fighting terrorism, which is what most of the left has been up to
for the past months. Obviously this is not a "war on terrorism",
and will multiply the Bin Ladens instead of eliminating them. The
plans have been set up for quite different reasons that probably
go beyond oil interests and Asian markets. But meanwhile, we are
passively supporting policies that kill thousands of innocent
people and are seeing our constitutional rights being eliminated
one by one. Our future now depends primarily on the choices that
we, Western citizens, will make in the coming weeks.
NOTES
1. For an analysis of the general situation, see "Moving Toward
A Police State or Have We Arrived?" by attorney Michael

Ratner. (http://www.humanrightsnow.org/policestate.htm). He
explains that since his last report, "the situation has

gotten unimaginably worse; rights that we thought embedded in
the constitution and protected by international law are in

serious jeopardy or have already been eliminated. It is no
exaggeration to say we are moving toward a police state".

The lawyer Francis Boyle shows similar fears: "What we've
seen since September 11th is a coup d'état against the United

States Constitution. There's no question about it. That's
really what we're seeing now, there's no other word for it"

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOY111B.html).
Facing these developments, Mary Robinson from the UN

commission on humans rights (commission the US has been
excluded from) warns that: "In pursuing the objective of

eradicating terrorism, it is essential that States strictly
adhere to their international obligations to uphold human

rights and fundamental freedoms".
2. Bush claimed in his speech: "My budget includes the largest
increase in defense spending in two decades, because while

the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too
high: whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay

it." His proposed new military budget is $379 billion, an
increase of $48 billion since 2001. The increase alone is

larger than any other nation's military budget. In the
meantime the definition of "terrorism is expanding. The US

legislation's expanded definition of terrorism includes acts
which attempt "to cause damage . . . to critical

infrastructure with the intent to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population or to affect the conduct of government or

a unit of government". A nice democratic definition that many
fear could embrace legitimate protests.

The same is visible in the EU, which the US is pressurising
to adopt the same measures. See the diverse "observatories"

of the European organization Statewatch, (Surveillance in
Europe, post-911 and civil liberties, and EU plans to counter

protests). Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments: "The
response of the EU to the tragic events in the US needs to be

examined with great care. The European Commission proposal on
combating terrorism is either very badly drafted, or there is

a deliberate attempt to broaden the concept of terrorism to
cover protests and what it calls "urban violence". If it is

intended to slip in by the back door draconian measures to
control political dissent it will only serve to undermine the

very freedoms and democracies legislators say they are
protecting" www.statewatch.org

3. For many examples of these intimidations, see McCarthyism
Watch (http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html) and

Matthew Rotschild's "The new McCarthyism"
(http://www.progressive.org/0901/roth0102.html). The media's

war propaganda has even been noted by Strategic Forecasting,
a private intelligence company that provides businesses with

strategic analyses of international events: "In a paradox
worthy of careful study, however, the mass media have been

far more exuberant about progress in the war" and "have
generally engaged in an ongoing orgy of congratulatory

coverage". Thereby "reversing roles" with the military, by
acting as uncritical "cheerleaders". See the January 15th

report, "Media and War: Appearance and Reality"
(http://www.stratfor.com/home/0201151930a.htm, or,

alternatively,
(http://www.stratfor.com/standard/analysis_view.php?ID=201444);

see also the (generally moderate) Reporters Sans Frontières'
report "US media in torment" (www.rsf.org).

4. On the Commission on Public Information (also called the
Creel Commission), see Aaron Delwiche "Of Fraud and Force

Fast Woven: Domestic Propaganda During The First World War"
(http://www.greatwar.org/Features/propaganda.htm), and Noam

Chomsky "Force and Opinion"
(http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9107-force-opinion.html).

5. Commenting the intellectual atmosphere in these times,
Chomsky says: "It is only in folk tales, children's stories,

and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used
wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very

different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated
ignorance to fail to perceive them" On the media, see his

"What makes mainstream media mainstream"
(http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/chomoct97.htm).

For a more detailed description of the propaganda model, see
his book with Edward S. Herman Manufacturing Consent -- The

Political Economy of the Mass Media.
6. The major PR character Philip Lesly explained accurately in
1974 that "The task of public relations must be to curtail

Americans' democratic expectations". For more coverage on the
PR industry, see award-winning PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)

7. The food and drug droppings were of course criticized by
virtually all humanitarian organizations. For example the

doctor Jean-Herve Bradol of Médecins Sans Frontières on
October the 8th: "the so-called `humanitarian' action was in

fact a tool of pure propaganda, actually of small value for
the Afghan people" that "can even do more harm than good".

Parts of these reactions were even reported in the mainstream
media.

8. The "evidence" in the report released by the Blair government
(which was the official document justifying the assault on

Afghanistan) is almost embarrassing to quote: "Usama Bin
Laden remains in charge, and the mastermind, of Al Qaida. In

Al Qaida, an operation on the scale of the 11 September
attacks would have been approved by Usama Bin Laden himself".

Useless in court, and probably won't come close to convincing
the Muslim world. The purpose of this document remains a

mystery, but it reflects an interesting sense of humor.
9. See Michael Ratner "An Alternative to the U.S. Employment of
Military Force"

(http://www.humanrightsnow.org/alternative%20to%20force.htm).
For more on international law, see the American Society of

International Law (ASIL) on the web (www.asil.org), including
their Resources on Terrorism and ASIL Insights: Terrorist

Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
10. See the Judgment of the 27/06/1986 on the "Case concerning
the military and paramilitary activities in and against

Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)" on the
site of the International Court of Justice

(http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm).
The controversial American Servicemembers Protection Act

(ASPA) was adopted on December 7 in the United States. The
ASPA would empower the U.S. president to use "all means

necessary and appropriate" to free any American detained by
the International Criminal Court, which will prosecute

individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes. It also prohibits cooperation of any kind with

the court. Among the few countries that oppose the court, the
USA are joined by Iraq, Libya and Yemen. The director of the

international justice program at Human Rights Watch hopes
that "this kind of rearguard bullying" will not stop the

court. See "Waiver Needed for War Crimes Court" on Human
Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/ASPA1210.htm)

11. See UN resolution 42/159 on international terrorism
(http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm)

12. SOA recently changed its name into "Western Hemisphere
Institute for Security Cooperation" qualified by the senator

of Georgia Paul Coverdell (who supports the school) as
"basically cosmetic". See School of the Americas Watch

(www.soaw.org/).
13. The report on civilian Casualties, written by the professor
Marc W Herold, was released at the beginning of December.

Local copy here: civiDeaths.html The fall of Taliban
temporarily gave hope for the food deliveries, but the

disorder that followed, once again reduced the deliveries by
half of what is necessary. The most critical situation is in

the areas controlled by the North Alliance. The Information
Services of the Coalition "are spinning like mad", according

to a spokesman of Christian Aid, "they're desperate to create
the impression that everything is the Taliban's fault so that

when the winter does hit they can keep blaming them". OXFAM
warns that "the crisis is far from over", however the NGO's

have managed to deliver huge amounts of food since December:
"If the food pipeline had remained almost completely blocked

-- as was the case throughout September and October 2001 --
then the situation would have become extremely desperate on a

wide scale. Famine has almost certainly been averted, which
is a tremendous achievement. However, there is widespread

starvation, in the sense that many hundreds of thousands of
people will only have enough food this winter to keep

themselves alive and will undergo starvation for various
periods as a way of eking out supplies". See the two largest

distributors of food in the country: Christian Aid
(www.christian-aid.co.uk) and Oxfam (www.oxfam.co.uk).

14. See also "Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before
NY attack" in The Guardian 22/09/2001

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4262511,00.html).
According to another BBC report, the Bush Administration

ordered the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off"
investigations involving the bin Laden family in January,

including two of Osama Bin Laden's relatives (Abdullah and
Omar) who were living in Falls Church, VA -- right next to

CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back
to 1996, frustrating efforts to investigate the Bin Laden

family. Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie's book Ben
Laden: La vérité interdite (see

http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/terror/counter130.html) relates
the story of former FBI official John O'Neill, who carried

out an investigation on Bin Laden, and had predicted the
possibility of an organized attack by terrorists operating

within the country. The government hindered his
investigations to a point that he resigned in protest. He

died in the 9-11 attacks, on his first working day as head of
security for the twin towers.

15. See Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and
its Geostrategic Imperatives, Verso Books, 1997. The

Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the
major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the

area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle
East". For more information see The Energy Information Agency

report on the region
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspfull.html).

Regarding the Afghan pipeline, the vice-president of
international relations for Unocal declared in 1998: "From

the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the
pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin

until a recognized government is in place that has the
confidence of governments, lenders, and our company". See

"U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics -- Hearing
before the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific", 12 Feb 1998

(http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm).
The book Ben Laden: La vérité interdite also describes the

pipeline negotiations in detail. In an interview, Brisard
explained that "At one moment during the negotiations, the

U.S. representatives told the Taliban: `either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of

bombs'". An important link to the Western attitude is that an
oil crisis is approaching. Specialists in the field affirm

that the peak for oil extraction will be reached in the first
decade of the 21st century. One of those is the Geophysicist

Dr. M. King Hubbert. For data, analysis and recommendations,
see www.hubbertpeak.com

16. See Patrick Martin, "US bases pave the way for long-term
intervention in Central Asia", Jan 11 2002

(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/base-j11_prn.shtml)
17. The day after the attacks, the commander-in-chief of the
Russian Air Force Anatoli Kornukov (hierarchical equivalent

of Richard B Myers) confirms the suspicions: "Generally it is
impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario

which was used in the USA yesterday. We had such events too.
The notification and control system for the air transport in

Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to
immediate reaction of the anti-missile defense. As soon as

something like that happens here, I am reported about that
right away and in a minute we are all up".

Hijackings and deviations from the flight course are not
uncommon features. There are routine procedures that are

usually followed in such circumstances (if you can trust
official US governmental and military documents): "[Marine

Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its
fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are

intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated
response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to

attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the
aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the

airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it
with a missile." (Boston Globe, 15/09/2001)

See the FAA's official policy on Interception Signals in FAA
`AIM' §5-6-4

(http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4); see
also its Emergency Determinations: "Consider that an aircraft

emergency exists . . . when: . . . There is unexpected loss
of radar contact and radio communications with any . . .

aircraft." (§10-2-5) "If . . . you are in doubt that a
situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency,

handle it as though it were an emergency." (§10-1-1-c) in FAA
Order 7110.65M

(http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html). See also
the Defense Departments policy on "Aircraft piracy and

destruction of derelict airborne objects"
(http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf).

These routine procedures were entirely ignored on September
11th. The more convenient story, issued on September 14th,

said that five planes had been scrambled from Cape Cod, and
Langley -- both more than a hundred miles away from

Washington. However, Andrews Air Force Base, responsible for
air defense over Washington, is only ten miles from the city.

The DC Air National Guard is based there, whose mission is
"To provide combat units in the highest possible state of

readiness" according to their website. The 113th Wing is also
based there. According to the Andrews website: "Training for

air combat and operational airlift for national defense is
the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual

mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces
for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural

disaster or civil emergency". Both websites erased that
information in the days following September 11th.

Another indication that the attacks were known in advance was
the dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options

(essentially a speculation that the stock will fall abruptly)
that were purchased the days prior to September 11th. Many of

the United Airlines puts were purchased through
Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the

current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. Krongard. No
other airlines show any similar trading patterns to those

experienced by UAL and American. The put option purchases on
both airlines were 600% above normal. And this at a time when

Reuters (September 10) issues a business report stating,
"Airline stocks may be poised to take off".

Investigations into this issue also show that the CIA and
other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real

time for the purpose of identifying potential attacks of any
nature that might damage the U.S. economy. See Tom Flocco's

3-part investigation on insider trading and 9-11 (Part I:
"Profits of Death -- Insider Trading And 9-11", 6 Dec 2001,

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/death_profits_pt1.html,
Part II: "Profits of Death Part II: Trading with the Enemy",

11 Dec 2001, http://www.rense.com/general17/trading.htm, and
if anyone knows where a copy of Part III is, please let the

ratitor know), and Chris Blackhurst "Mystery of terror
`insider dealers'" in The Independent 14/10/2001

(http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402), as well
as "Suppresed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead

Directly Into The CIA's Highest Ranks -- CIA Executive
Director `Buzzy' Krongard Managed Firm That Handled `Put'

Options On UAL", by Michael C. Ruppert, 9 Oct 2001
(http://www.copvcia.com/stories/oct_2001/krongard.html). The

above is actually just scratching on the surface of the
aircraft issues.

18. It is interesting to see the official investigative reactions
to the most deadly criminal incident in US history. They were

non-existent. In fact, the steel skeleton of the building is
already being cut to pieces and exported, under the protests

of diverse groups, ranging from architects to firefighters
(eg, "Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning

Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse, Fire
Engineering Magazine, 4 Jan 2002

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225).
(See also: the interview conducted by the German daily

Tagesspiegel with former German Secretary of Defence Andreas
Von Buelow on 13 Jan 2002; partial translation at:

http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=16890.)
And on January the 30th, CNN reported: "President Bush

personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday
to limit the congressional investigation into the events of

September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.
The request was made at a private meeting with congressional

leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the
conversation". The Bush White House has also drafted an

executive order that would seal presidential records
beginning with his fathers and Reagans administration. This

has never been done in US presidential history, and shows how
much the administration wants to be publicly known. See

George Lardner Jr. "Bush Clamping Down On Presidential
Papers" in The Washington Post 1/11/2001

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31).
19. See Manoj Joshi "India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links"
in The Times of India 9/10/2001

(http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=-2128936835&art_id=1454238160&sType=1))
and Michel Chossudovsky "The Role of Pakistan's Military

Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks"
(http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html)

20. The report is downloadable at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

21. Dr. Johannes Koeppl, a former German defense ministry
official and NATO advisor, traveled frequently to Washington

and met Brzezinski on many occasions. He has made
presentations at the Council on Foreign Relations, the

Bilderberger group and sub-groups to the Trilateral
Commission. In the eighties, he spoke out against Brzezinski

and the CFR through several writings, warning that these
people were orchestrating a take-over of world governments.

His fall from grace was swift: "It was a criminal society
that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish

anymore in the so-called respected publications. My 30 year
career in politics ended".

As to the present conflict, Koeppl expresses his gravest
concerns: "This is more than a war against terrorism. This is

a war against the citizens of all countries. The current
elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how

to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to
implement a world dictatorship within the next five years.

There may not be another chance". He presents a German (and
rough English translation) language website at

www.antaris.com.
22. Quoted in the New York Times, 23/02/1991