As is always the case, a misrepresentation of history serves the dominant power structure in justifying atrocious policies. These are policies drafted beyond our consent and beyond our control, and effectively beyond our recognition. This was especially the case after 9/11, which led way to the PATRIOT Act, intervention in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, continued bombing in Pakistan, unyielding support to Israel, unmanned drone bombings in Yemen and Somalia, and much more.
As another 9/11 anniversary passes, another plethora of zealous profiteers flood our media and invade our psyche to turn this into a “day of remembrance”, a grotesque twisting of history and causality that will surely misinform the next subsequent generations. 9/11 is exploited to become a day of honoring military servicemen, police officers, and firefighters, when it fact it should serve as a day of reflection and observation. The United States of America was attacked on September the 11th as a result of its foreign policy, specifically toward Muslim states. The “campaign of hatred”, as coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower, against the American government has been brewing in the Muslim world for decades, endlessly enraged by coup d’états, installation of military dictators, endless bombing campaigns, permanent military bases, and in today’s world, unmanned drone attacks on innocent villagers. History did not begin on 9/11, though it is a fact repeated endlessly by the entertainment complex known as popular media.
In order to understand the motives of the hijackers that day, it is important to follow the words of the sympathizers, not the victims. Americans have been conditioned to view 9/11 as an attack on freedom and democracy, a point feverishly pushed by President George W. Bush:
“Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” ~ George W. Bush, address to the nation, September 11, 2001
“They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” ~ George W. Bush, address to Congress, September 20, 2001
This is, of course, a series of statements which cannot be father away from the truth. It is important to remember that the hijackers hit the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempted to hit the White House. They were not aiming for Hollywood or a local sporting event. The symbolic choosing of these buildings was meant to directly attack the economic, military, and political power of the United States Federal Government, far from attacking American freedoms or opportunities.
Further explained by Noam Chomsky
Also explained by Laurence Vance:
According to a 2004 report on strategic communication prepared by the Defense Science Board Task Force, “a federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the secretary of defense”:
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.
Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack – to broad public support.
A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism rather than reduced it. “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” points out the “centrality” of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in fomenting terrorist cells and attacks and describes how the American presence in Iraq has helped spread radical Islam by providing a focal point for anti-Americanism.
According to Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999: “In the long run, we’re not safer because we’re still operating on the assumption that we’re hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we’re hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There’s our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies.”
Peter Bergen, who produced the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997, says “that in all the tens of thousands of words uttered by bin Laden, he was strangely silent about American freedoms and values. He didn’t seem to care very much about the beliefs of the ‘crusaders.’ His focus was invariably on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.”
Political scientist James Payne, in a review of twenty-four official pronouncements of Osama bin Laden from 1994-2004, found that 72 percent of the content amounted to “criticism of the United States and other Western countries for their aggression against Muslim lands and the need to defend against and punish this aggression.” Only 1 percent criticized American culture or the American way of life.
If we really want to know why American is hated by terrorists, insurgents, jihadists, militants, and Islamofascists, then we should just ask them. Actually, we don’t even need to ask, just listen.
Listen to Osama bin Laden, the late leader of al Qaeda. First, from his 1996 fatwa:
It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn’t respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its’ allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.
The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH’S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places – the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims – by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies.
Read more on LewRockwell.com
Rather than continuing to listen to the leaders and players who led the way for the blow-back on 9/11, this day should serve as a day of reflection. If anything can be asked of us as a nation, it should be that we are to be responsible for our own actions, and that we hold those in power under full accountability of the law.
After fall, isn’t that more the tradition that the United States wants to uphold?
If you thought crossing the border was enough of a pain already, just wait until the U.S. Congress passes these measures:
WASHINGTON — A new report for the U.S. Congress has found the Homeland Security department has “acceptable control” of less than one per cent of America’s 6,400-kilometre border with Canada — a security failure that’s prompted one U.S. senator to suggest opening discussion with Ottawa on whether Canadians should be required to carry visas to enter the United States.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found the U.S. Border Patrol can provide adequate security along just 51 kilometres of the boundary with Canada.
“The remaining miles were assessed at levels that Border Patrol reported are not acceptable end states,” the report says.
“These border miles are defined as vulnerable to exploitation due to issues related to accessibility and resource availability and, as a result, there is a high degree of reliance on law enforcement support from outside the border zone.”
Now, reading this article, I’m sure you are quite perplexed and dumbfounded at these suggestions by a sitting U.S. Senator (more on him in the next paragraph). There are over 100 million border crossings everyday between the United States and Canada, with practically every single one of them done by peaceful, lawful citizens of either country. They do not travel across the border to commit crimes or incite terror, but rather to engage in commerce and free movement, as they are constitutionally guaranteed in both countries. To honestly propose that each one of these peaceful citizens get documented permission from either country ahead of time is both preposterous and ludicrous, with no regard for common sense. Not solely focusing on the disruption to billions of dollars in trade and economic transactions, this will effectively isolate the United States from the foreign capital that its industry is so dependent upon. Who could ever be the one pushing for these ridiculous laws?
Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, said the findings confirm that security efforts are “unacceptably ineffective.” He said the report has raised enough concerns that he feels it is time for the U.S. and Canada to discuss whether it makes sense to require Canadians to have visas in order to enter the United States.
“I think it is something that we should be talking about with our Canadian neighbours,” Lieberman told reporters.
“It’s an interesting question. But the other thing at work here is that the Canadians do have more lenient asylum laws and immigration laws than we do here. And that potentially has an effect on us.”
Ah yes, Joe Lieberman, the pseudo-Democratic senior Senator from the state of Connecticut.
He was almost Vice President with Al Gore in 2000. He supported Senator John McCain in his 2008 bid for the White House. He has done his part to continue to push for the ongoing wars and intervention in the Middle East and on the American people, through his support of both the Patriot Act, FISA, the censure of Wikileaks, and the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, upon the revelation that he willl be retiring his Senate seat in 2012, the DHS came out with a public statement thanking him for practically creating the Department himself:
“The very existence of the Department of Homeland Security is due in large part to Senator Lieberman. Dating back to the first days after 9/11, he has been an instrumental architect of the very way we work to keep America safe from the evolving threats we face in the 21st century. Senator Lieberman’s tireless, nonpartisan efforts have truly made our country more secure, and he has my personal thanks. I wish him the very best in his upcoming retirement, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to secure our country over the next two years.”
This is a man who has made it his duty to openly create a surveillance state within the United States, in order to protect us ordinary folk from the “terrorists”, or so he says. Now he wants to protect us from the worst of them, those Canadian terrorists. You know, the ones who talk about hockey all day and have an odd penchant for symbols of the British monarchy? The ones who provide most of North America with its greatest amount of lumber, fresh water, hydro-electricity, and funny comedians? Those Canadians. Senator Lieberman wants to make sure that these potential “terrorists” have approval from the United States government before entering the country.
He quotes the report which shows a terrorist threat emanating from Canada “is actually higher than across our southern border” with Mexico.
“Why, because there are more Islamist extremists there than Mexico,” Lieberman said.
What Senator Lieberman is loth to mention, as always, is that news reports clearly show that 9/11 hijackers were training at U.S. military bases throughout the 1990s. The terrorists that hijacked planes and struck various landmarks (World Trade Center: Finance, Pentagon: Military, Pennsylvania: Headed for White House?) were identified and brought to the attention of intelligence officials long before 9/11, according to Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer in his book, Operation Dark Heart (recommended in the Liberty In Exile Book Club).
These terrorists did not masterfully slip into the country through the Canadian border and stay dormant until the terrible events of that day, as Lieberman seems to suggest. They were repeatedly identified and flagged while they learned to fly planes at U.S. military bases, leaving thousands of clues behind. They charted their plans while staying at these bases and waited months to commence the attacks.
The problem, therefore, has never been with the U.S./Canada border, but rather that the intelligence agencies that let these men carry on with their plans, despite the thousands of red flags and warnings that had been raised.
Does this justifies locking down an entire border which sees 100 million+ in traffic a day?
When shall those in power learn that we cannot punish 99.9% of the population for an act committed by the solitary .01%? That we cannot possibly legislate against every danger or threat?
The hubris is staggering.
(Article from the Ottawa Citizen)
United States Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer is one of the most important voices in the military today:
Being very vocal since 2002, Shaffer has repeatedly claimed and provided evidence that intelligence officers refused to look into the terrorist cells that were exposed prior to 9/11, including those with head hijacker Mohammad Atta.
Shaffer has been a constant thorn in the side of the military, to the point that the military is now purchasing his memoirs and destroying them for the sake of “national security”, as he explained in this interview with Russia Today (Russian State TV):
Shaffer’s memoir has been censored and edited by the military several times, prompting confusion when the threats to destroy copies of the book were issued by the Pentagon after the release.
I make the case that Shaffer is one of the most important military voices today because he counters the conventional wisdom of US intelligence before 9/11 and continues to offer a skeptical view of how foreign policy is dealt with today. He is a voice of dissent in an organization that is known for keeping a closely-knit, closely-toed line for all soldiers to follow.
From massive demand of media interviews to countless mentions in articles as free publicity, it is no doubt that Shaffer’s words and warnings about the Able Danger program and the knowledge of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist groups shall resonate with those that continue to craft murderous state policy in the realm of “defense” (doublespeak for war and killing), as well as educate the citizens as to what is being doing abroad in their name using their public funds.
Even WikiLeaks got in on the action:
Due to the threats by the Pentagon and the incriminating evidence presented by this book, it is hereby added to the Liberty In Exile Book Club, where it shall be recommended to seekers of the truth unfiltered by the corporate media.