Archive for the ‘War on Terror’ Category

Well, it’s official: according the MSNBC, all US forces will be out of Iraq by the time 2012 rolls around.

(from the BBC)

Under the deal, US troops will withdraw from the streets of Iraqi towns next year, leaving Iraq by the end of 2011.

The decision will need to go before Iraq’s parliament for a final vote.

America’s National Security Council welcomed the cabinet’s vote, saying it was “an important and positive step” towards stability and security.

The pact is necessary to determine the role of US military forces in Iraq after their UN mandate expires on 31 December 2008.

In October, Iraq sent a new round of suggested changes to the draft Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), to which the US responded.

Washington had previously said the pact was “final” and could not be amended.

The UK government, which has 4,100 troops in Iraq, is waiting for the US-Iraqi pact to be approved so they can use it as a template for their own bi-lateral deal.

Well, we had to take out our troops sometime, and 2012 seems reasonable, though I’d prefer that we pulled them out earlier. Still, I think this gives the Iraqi government more than enough time to clean up its act and prepare its troops to actually defend against terrorism.

At the same time, I’m not so sure I like this, considering that we have been using Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against Syria, in addition to using our bases in Afghanistan to conduct strikes in Pakistan. Keeping troops in Iraq for any longer amount of time means that it’s possible that we can conduct cross-border strikes into Syria again, and possibly Iran.

There’s no question that we need our troops out, but it looks like Iraq is an eternal damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don’t situation. The truth is, we really don’t know what kind of hell we’ll unleash once all of our troops leave the country, and we won’t know for sure until January 1st, 2012.


Share It

Share this post using del.icio.us del.icio.us  Share this post using Digg Digg  Share this post using Facebook Facebook  Share this post using Google Google 
Share this post using Live Spaces Live Spaces  Share this post using MySpace MySpace  Share this post using Newsvine Newsvine  Share this post using Reddit Reddit 
Share this post using StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  Share this post using Technorati Technorati  Share this post using Twitter Twitter  Share this post using Yahoo! My Web Yahoo! My Web 

The BBC reports:

More than 20 people have been killed in two suspected US missile attacks in northwest Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan, security officials said.

About 15, including an al-Qaeda leader, were killed in an attack near the village of Mirali, North Waziristan.

In a second attack, seven people were killed in South Waziristan.

The US military has not commented. It has launched many missile strikes from Afghanistan against suspected militant targets recently.

Officials named the al-Qaeda leader in Mirali as Abu Akash, believed to be Iraqi.

Local officials told the BBC that at 2030 (1430 GMT), a drone fired two missiles and destroyed the target – a house in the Esori area about 30km from the town of Mirali.

Are you kidding me? Refer to yesterday’s post. By conducting attacks on other nations’ soil, we are doing nothing but helping al-Qaeda & Co. with their recruiting. We are, in an attempt to destroy them, becoming like them, except with full-fledged state sponsorship and a professional military. These attacks are doing nothing but helping them justify their anti-Western ideology.

When will we learn?

Share!

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Within the past two months, we have launched two attacks to capture al-Qaeda leaders in other countries’ (that is, countries that aren’t named Iraq and Afghanistan) territory. Yes, I realize that we were potentially going after high value targets, but that doesn’t justify going into a sovereign nation’s territory and killing innocent civilians in order to track down a terrorist. Our government seems to forge that this is the real world, and that there are actual international laws to be complied with. To not do so, obviously, will have implications.

That is, if other countries, including our allies, are willing to call us out on it.

Here’s what I find most unsettling about our actions in the Middle East: Russia invades Georgia because of Georgia’s human rights abuses in Georgia’s own unethical invasion of their own territory (see here), and our leaders are up in arms, saying that Russia has no business invading a sovereign nation and we are all Georgians and all that other nonsense. (Let’s also note that Barack Obama jumped on that bandwagon as well, pandering to those whose primary source of news is cable television, which accounts for 70% of the population, if I were to estimate that figure.)

But we send troops into Pakistan and Syria to pursue our own agenda, capturing al-Qaeda members, without the consent of said countries. How is this not different than Russia’s “invasion of Georgia”, except on a much smaller scale? Violating a sovereign country’s territory is crime enough, no matter the size of the invasion.

Take this hypothetical, for example: suppose we received word that Russia launched a helicopter raid in the US, trying to track down a criminal ex-KGB officer, who killed innocent civilians, and so on. In the process of the raid, they killed a few innocent Americans. What’s more, the Russians failed to release an official statement regarding the attack, or its violation of the United States’s border security.

Would we not retaliate against the Russians, citing their unlawful “invasion”, even though the raid would only consist of a number of troops in the double digits (at most!)? Wouldn’t America be up in arms that Russia killed civilians? Wouldn’t we whine to our allies in the European Union and the UN that Russia broke international law? Of course we would. Now, when the Syrian foreign minister accuses us of using “criminal and terrorist aggression”, we know exactly where he’s coming from. If we were in his shoes, we’d think the same exact thing.

Bookmark

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

I saw this interview on the net, and highly reccommend that everybody checks it out. The man is Andrew Bacevich, a retired U.S. Army Colonel who contends that we are spread too thin and America needs to wake up and see that our power is limited. Check out his interview with Bill Moyers:

Bacevich Interview

After 4 parts detailing how we got in this conflict and how we’re going to stay in it, no matter what happens, there is still some hope. Yes, we’re going to have to “combat” terrorism, but there are some steps you can take to ensure that, somewhere down the line, your voice is heard. Getting heard by the government is the best thing to do in this situation, but they don’t respond well to individuals.

What’s lost in all this shuffle is why the terrorists hate us so. Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn’t there when we invaded, so why are they there now, and why are other people blowing themselves up in an effort to kill Americans?

Because the people there are just like you and me and everybody else. When the terrorists hit the WTC, this nation wanted to avenge their lost friends and family who died that dya. The terrorists are no different. When we invaded Iraq, we invariably killed people’s loved ones who were in the Iraqi army or were just civilians. Like us, they needed to get revenge on the people who did it, and luckily for them, the Americans were occupying their country. So, for every terrorist (or civilian) we kill, his son or his uncle or his brother or his father or his friend take up the reigns and try to avenge their loved one that the “evil” Americans killed. They figure that if we hadn’t invaded, their friend or family member would be alive, just like our friends and family who were killed on 9/11 would be alive had it not been for the hijackers. And that’s very true.

The best thing you can do is spread awareness about our government’s lies about the War on Terror, meaning, of course, to spread the word about these posts using social bookmarking. Tell your friends, family, coworkers, etc. By the same token, get involved in your community and tell people about our situation; tell your local government about how the war on terror should be fought with law enforcement, not armies.

That’s the message I’m going for here: this is not a war that can be fought with our armed forces. It’s a war that should be fought with the folks in our law enforcement agencies. If you, above all, spread that message, everything should take care of itself. The more people you inform of our situation, the better chance there is of our government hearing our voices.

So, write to your congressman and tell him (or her) that our war on terror needs to be fought by the police, not the armed forces. Tell them that our war is just putting our brave men and women in harm’s way and putting the civilians in the countries we occupy in harm’s way as well. Tell them that our actions aren’t saving lives; they’re ruining them, whether they’re American lives or Iraqi lives or Afghani lives or Filipino lives. Our troops in other countries put not only their lives at risk, but those civilians who had no choice in the matter (of occupation by the U.S.) at risk too. For a nation so proud of its democracy, America doesn’t listen to the voices of the folks who live in countries that we’re fighting this “War on Terror” in. Stick up for them and be heard.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

After finally reading Orwell’s much celebrated dystopian story 1984, I put some pieces together and determined that Orwell’s version of the future was similar to ours in many aspects — which is ironic considering the Party shown in 1984 was communist and the Bush administration is anything but.

In 1984 (a take on the horrors of Stalinist Russia), the Party controls everything, especially the people who are in the party (everyone who is not a “prole”, or worker, is part of the Party). There are telescreens, or two way televisions, in every home, used to spy on the people. The leader, Big Brother, is made out to be a loving, God like figure, when really, he runs a police state. A man by the name of Goldstein is blamed for everything that goes wrong in Oceania (the country the story is set in), and is reportedly heading a conspiracy with the aim of bringing down the Party. The protagonist, Winston, a member of the party, has a job in which he edits historical documents and photgraphs so they meet the demands of the Party. The main practice to keep the Party in power is doublethink, or holding two contrary positions and accepting both as the truth. And, lastly, in 1984, there is what seems to be a never-ending war against a constantly changing opponent, in order to keep people producing goods to be used in said war. Sound familiar?

Here’s a comparison between the Party and our administration:

…the Party controls everything: The Bush administration, without doubt. When you’ve got cronies like Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzalez hiring and dismissing people just because they weren’t republicans, you know that a Party’s got a grip on internal affairs, crushing outside voices. It’s well known that almost everyone in a position of power in the Bush administration is a devout neoconservative.

There are telescreens used to spy on the people: Well, we don’t have telescreens, but CCTV use in Britain is growing wildly popular, though, admittedly, the cameras don’t catch criminals nearly as effectively as the telescreens did in 1984. CCTV use is, however, a small but important step towards telescreen-like surveillance.

Big Brother: Admittedly, we don’t have an equivalent to Big Brother, in fact it’s startlingly the opposite of that kind of love because Bush is the most hated president since Nixon.

Goldstein blamed for everything: Osama Bin Laden is the definitive scapegoat for this administration, and by linking him with 9/11, he was the administration’s excuse to invade Afghanistan and take away our rights using the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping by the NSA. Now, unlike Goldstein, Bin Laden’s ideals are somehow worse than the acts perpetuated by this administration.

Winston edits historical documents to serve the party line: How about the Bin Laden “confession tape” or the Habbush letter exposed in Ron Suskind’s book? This administration has been willing to fabricate documents or tapes (in this case) in order to start a war with the ever changing enemy. When we couldn’t find a good reason to invade Afghanistan, it was convenient that Bin Laden was there and an all too convenient coincidence that troops found the confession tape soon after we invaded. We couldn’t find WMDs in Iraq, so we fabricated a letter to say that there were weapons. We have tried to rewrite the past in an effort to control the future just like the Party in Orwell’s book.

Use of Doublethink, or holding two contradictory ideas as truth: This one is the most prevalent and scary out of the similarities. John McCain practiced doublethink when he said, “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations,” when he has repeated many times that he wants to invade Iran. Our president is guilty of doublethink as well: this week he said, “I don’t see America as having problems.” Oh really, Dubya? Let’s look at your State of the Union address from 2006…

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security — (applause) — yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

So, Mr. Bush, I assume that when you say America doesn’t have problems, you mean we’re not addicted to oil anymore and you’ve fixed social security right? There are other examples of doublethink as well: our National Security Agency violates the security of the American people, our Department of Defense attacks other nations, and the Department of Justice has had its fair share of corrupt officials (see lawyer firing scandal). This is not unlike 1984 in which the Ministry of Love tortures and kills, the Ministry of Peace fights wars, and the Ministry of Truth lies.

A never-ending war against a constantly changing opponent: This is the war on terror. In 1984, Oceania is always at war with one of two countries, Eurasia or Eastasia, and that constantly changes. Whoever Oceania is currently at war with, however, has always been the enemy according to the party, though they change who it is on a weekly basis. First, with our government, we thought the enemy was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Then we invaded Afghanistan and switched our focus to getting rid of the oppressive Taliban regime. Once that was done, we pinned Iraq as the enemy, saying Saddam Hussein was ready to use his non-existent WMD’s on us. After toppling Hussein’s government, it occurred to us that there would be an insurgency, and Al Qaeda in Iraq joined the party. Well, now that we’ve lowered the violence in Iraq, the administration has painted Iran as the enemy, saying things like Ahmadinejad said that he would, “wipe Israel off the map.” NOT TRUE. And, in light of last week’s events, Russia’s being painted by the media as “big, bad Leroy Brown” again.

But, you ask, why make all the 1984 links? Why did the Party in 1984 do it?

The thing is that nobody knows, and we’re lucky that we can vote somebody different into office that won’t be as horrid as the Administration. However, O’Brien, a government agent in 1984, says power is not a means, but an end. So, are we just ruled by a bunch of power mongers?

EDIT: Turns out we are — except we, the people, in our fear of another attack, have given up our rights to people who’d exploit them in the name of security. Thus, part of the responsibility is laid on the people who kept Bush in office — the people who supported him. This doesn’t justify the Administration’s actions, but we forget we voted him in twice at times.

Check for the conclusion of the series: Part 5 – The Future tomorrow. Remember to bookmark on delicious, stumble, and digg this post using the buttons below.
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

We started with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and continued with our leaders taking away our freedom.

Before starting his War on Terror, George Bush said that the war on terror began with Al Qaeda but did not end with them, saying that the War was “global”. Unfortunately, there are far too many countries that are plagued by terrorism, and to deploy soldiers in every country would spread our forces thinner than they already are. The “War on Terror” should be renamed “War on Terrorist groups that have the ability to attack us” or “War on Al-Qaeda. But the name “War on Terror[ism]” is much too broad. If we’re really waging a global war on terror, why aren’t we fighting the FARC or the ELN in Colombia? Why aren’t we fighting the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka? Why aren’t we fighting the dozens of extremist groups in Pakistan and India?

Because they aren’t going to attack us. That’s why this “War on Terror” name is a sham. We’re just fighting for our own sake, and in my book, that’s okay, as long as we come out and say that. But for the U.S., the most arrogant nation in the world, to play the knight in shining armor and say that they’re going to vanquish evil from the land, while only protecting their own interests in unacceptable.

In the terrorist attacks since 9/11 that were not in the Middle East, at least 12,000 people were injured or killed. The major sites: Russia, Colombia, Pakistan, India, Philippines, and Sri Lanka. Of those, U.S. troops only reside in the Philippines in extremely limited numbers as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Again I ask: why did we say that we were having a global war on terror when we’re not really doing so? I understand the focus is on the Middle East, but there is plenty of terrorism elsewhere. So, we’re in this war for a very long time (until the end of time, essentially), and that will prove very costly.

Why not just combat terrorism using law enforcement? If Rumsfeld had paid attention to the threat of Al Qaeda, we could have prevented the 9/11 attacks — we had identified the ringleader of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta more than a year before September 11. Said an article:

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.” However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

So, if law enforcement had been allowed to do its job then, we could’ve prevented the tragedy. Law enforcement prevents terrorism or any other crime, not military action.

It’s time for our government to realize that you can’t “fight” terrorism like a real war, because they aren’t sponsored by any flag and they don’t have any land you can take over. We’re fighting an ideology, and that’s why this thing won’t end. Let’s recall the words of John F. Kennedy:

A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. Ideas have endurance without death.

The idea of radical Islamic terrorism in an effort to bring down the West won’t “die”, and since they are not explicitly sponsored by any state, we can not hope to end it or any other kind of terrorism. Take Nazism for instance. The Allies were able to defeat Nazi Germany because we were fighting the country, not necessarily Nazism itself. Even though we defeated the Nazis in World War II, there are still Nazis today. Why? Because ideas never die. The idea that the West is evil and must be destroyed, as in radical Islamofascism, will continue to be held by somebody who can then spread the idea, making more terrorism, unless we can somehow brainwash every human on the planet. And we all know that won’t happen.

Check back for Part 4 – Orwell’s 1984 and the War tomorrow!

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

We left off with the invasion of Afghanistan under false pretenses.

Our government’s fear mongering continued with the passing of The USA PATRIOT Act, or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Worst. Acronym. Ever.). PATRIOT was highly controversial and fueled “Big Brother” comparisons as in George Orwell’s 1984 (more on the War on Terror : 1984 comparison in part 4). In particular, Title II of the act gives the government the authority to:

  • Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism
  • Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses
  • Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information
  • Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
  • Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants
  • Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA
  • Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap

So, what’s this FISA you keep hearing about? It’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was created in 1979 to surveil “foreign powers” and “foreign agents”, meaning people of other countries’ governments were fair game with our without a warrant (if there was no warrant, the Attorney General could authorize surveillance for one year as long as it pertained to foreign intelligence). This act was recently amended.

The Patriot Act is in conflict with the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution; that is, the article that prevents unauthorized search and seizure. With the government’s ability to surveil anyone and listen to their phone calls (though it only pertains to terrorism/national security), they are, plainly, spying on their citizens in the name of “National Security”. In addition, in 2007, an audit found that the FBI misused and, at times, illegally used the Patriot Act in order to get information on citizens. It also underreported how many times it went to businesses telling them to hand over customer data. The DOJ audit also found 26 violations in its use of national security letters. How did we come to let our government agencies spy on citizens illegally? Were our elected officials asleep on the senate floor?

Turns out they were. What’s shocking is that the bill was passed with surprisingly fast speed through the Senate, with our Senators probably believing that anything that would combat terrorism would be welcome in the wake of the September 11 attacks. In Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, he recorded a senator saying that “no Senator read the bill”. We elect these people into office, and they don’t read a bill that’s infringing on our constitutional rights? How could this have happened?

To add insult to injury, the NSA warrant-less wiretapping program (yet another program to illegally spy on people, with at least one of them being overseas) was implemented for… You guessed it, “national security”. This caused quite a stir in the media and the Justice Department (and deservedly so) because anonymous sources came forward and said the NSA tapped “domestic calls” (i.e. had nothing pertaining to terrorism or issues of national security). Another day, another American citizen’s liberties get thrown out the window. Totally routine with this administration. And here’s the best part: the buffoon we elected into office to run this whole shebang, going by the alias of “Dubya”, said this:

This authorisation is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States.

That is insane. Bush has no awareness of what’s actually in the constitution and what constitutes “civil liberties”, does he? I’ll tell you this much: Bush does not care about the civil liberties of the American people or people in other countries. He thinks you’ve got civil liberty if you’re alive, have a “God Bless America” or “Support the Troops” bumper sticker on your Hummer, and go to church every Sunday.

* * * * *

Another massive controversy is the use of CCTV in cities, and especially in the UK. They have been in the UK for quite a long time (London has 500,000 cameras), and exist in huge numbers, drawing yet more comparisons to “Big Brother surveillance”. Can anyone guess why they’re installed in the first place?

That’s right, “security”.

The problem is, they don’t do anything to deter crime, at all. There is no hard evidence to support that they’ve helped lower crime rates, and probably wouldn’t do anything in the event of a terrorist attack. The irony is that the cameras have grown in popularity since the September 11 attacks for obvious reasons: people are scared of a terrorist attack and think that the cameras would do some good. Wrong.

Here’s the kicker: a UK watchdog has said that up to 90% of the CCTV cameras in the UK (there’s 1 camera for every 14 people, astonishingly) are illegal.

Our research shows that up to 90 per cent of CCTV installations fail to comply with the Information Commissioner’s code of practice, and that many installations are operated illegally. That has profound implications for the reputation of the CCTV and camera surveillance industry and all concerned with it.

* * * * *

The worst part is that someone who supports the PATRIOT Act will inevitably say, “Well, no terrorist attacks have happened since 2001, so the acts are doing their jobs, right?”

Again, wrong. There’s no proof whatsoever that the provisions of the Patriot Act have actually let the government catch terrorists or people planning an attack. All acts like PATRIOT do are take away our freedoms, very slowly, until we realize that they’re gone. As much as I hate to sound like a right-wing radio host, our freedom is our most powerful right and tool. If they take that away, what are we?

In fear and faith, we lose our freedoms.
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

While the Iraq War is drawing to a close, due to the announcements this week of a planned withdrawal of troops, some people have gotten out their confetti and said, “THE WAR IS OVER!!!!!! WE’RE DONE FIGHTING!!!!”

They seem to forget we’ve got another, arguably bigger war going on right now: The War on Terror(ism). Well, friends, unfortunately, we’ll never be able to celebrate that war’s end, for The War on Terror(ism) is a perpetual war, that is, it won’t end. No matter who you vote for in November, we’re going to be in this one for a long time, and it has and will serve as the catalyst that will allow our leaders to strip us of our freedoms. 

Let’s go back to September 11, 2001 – the day that changed the makeup of U.S. foreign policy forever, to sound cliché. In an instant, this country suddenly turned incredibly “patriotic” and nationalistic — with their “God Bless America” bumper stickers and the like. People’s fear of another terror attack had many consequences, including the support of a war (Iraq) in a country that posed no threat to us, and the ability to swallow laws that encroached upon our freedoms.

Within a few days of the attacks on 9/11, the U.S. government and British intelligence found that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were connected to the terrorist attacks. Bin Laden, on September 16, went on the Al Jazeera network and denied that he had any involvement in the attacks, saying:

I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.

Still, the Bush administration declared Osama the “prime suspect” for the attacks on the World Trade Center, citing evidence that Bin Laden had tried to attack the WTC before. The US started to plan for a preemptive attack in Afghanistan to usurp the oppressive Taliban regime and take out Bin Laden to suppress Al Qaeda’s activity, and gave the Taliban an ultimatum: turn over Bin Laden and all other terrorists or they’ll invade. The Taliban government declined, saying that they didn’t have any evidence in their possession that would indicate that Bin Laden was connected to the attacks. On September 21, 2001, a Taliban spokesman said:

Our position is that if America has evidence and proof, they should produce it. We are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in the light of the evidence.

Of course, our government refused to provide the Taliban with the evidence, and commenced with the plans to invade Afghanistan. Where were the American people during all of this? They were blinded by nationalism and rage, which made them see Bin Laden as the criminal, just because our government said so. If we were so sure that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, why not tell the Taliban why? We would’ve avoided the whole invasion to begin with. 

On October 7, 2001, the American/British coalition started bombing Afghanistan, and within 7 days, on October 14, the Taliban made an offer: if the Americans stopped bombing Afghanistan and presented evidence for Bin Laden’s guilt, then they’d hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country. Again, our government refused, with President Bush saying, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” Again, why would they pass up an opportunity to capture public enemy number one?

The most likely scenario is that the American government wanted to use Bin Laden as a false pretense to invade Afghanistan to usurp the oppressive and barbaric Taliban government. With bin Laden admitting that he was in Afghanistan on television, it was a perfect fit: they thought the American public would support a war as long as they were going after the person thought responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It was unlikely that the public would’ve supported a war on the Taliban just because they were oppressing their people; Americans were too worried about avenging the victims of the 9/11 attacks. With Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it killed two birds with one stone.

In November 2001, US forces reportedly “recovered” a tape of Bin Laden speaking with Khaled al-Harbi about the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that he has knowledge that the attacks were going to occur, and thus, proving that he was connected with the attacks. However, the “Bin Laden” in the video looked very different than the real Bin Laden, and the translation has been disputed, with a few Arabic professors saying that the translation does not match the spoken Arabic. The tape also has subpar audio quality, which makes the plausibility of the translation doubtful. However, the drastic change of appearance from “real” Bin Laden to the Bin Laden in the tape makes it likely that the tape was doctored in an effort to prove that Osama was indeed connected with the attacks. For one, the video Bin Laden has a much larger face and darker skin than Bin Laden does, and he wears a gold ring on his right hand, which had not been seen before, and, in addition, the FBI’s file on Bin Laden says that he is left-handed. These facts make it apparent that the tape was probably a fake.

 

Two Men Enter... One is a Poser.

Two Men Enter... One is a Poser.

 

This false “linking” of Bin Laden was the first time that our government used false pretenses to invade another country in the name of national security, taking advantage of the fear of the American people. It would not be the last time they took advantage of our fear.

Check back for Part Two tomorrow — The Stripping of Freedom.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook