A colleague of mine who teaches philosophy recently told me something very useful. "Critical thinking begins," he said, "with two questions: (1) What do you mean by that? And (2) Why should I believe what you say about it?"
Hampton Roads, Virginia, the megalopolis at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay surrounding Norfolk and its huge naval base, is a very "red" area in a very "red" state. Accordingly, our local papers are filled with letters from ardent Bush supporters, including many affiliated with, or retired from, some branch of the military, which is the dominant economic influence in our region. These letters are quite predictable in content; they generally consist of some combination of the following claims:
Congressional and public opposition to the war in Iraq "emboldens our enemies," and is therefore tantamount to treason. We can't afford to "lose" in Iraq; therefore we must send more troops in order to "win." We are in a "global war on terror," a "clash of civilizations," and if we do not stop the terrorists "there," we will have to fight them "here." This last claim is inevitably accompanied by a dire reference to 9/11, when "they" attacked our country.
In response to these claims, we first need to apply the first of the two questions my friend suggested: What do you mean by "enemies?" What do you mean by "win" and "lose"? And finally "Whom do you mean by "the terrorists"?
Let's start with "enemies." If we define an "enemy" to mean some entity, national or otherwise, who has the power to threaten, invade, or take over the United States, then the short answer is that we have no enemies at all. Our military budget is ten times larger than the next largest, and our nuclear arsenal dwarfs that of any other nation. So it is folly to call anyone, much less scattered groups of mutually hostile insurgents in a nation we invaded and destroyed, an "enemy" of the United States in any real sense.
But if you mean by "enemies," people who hate the United States and wish us ill, then we have billions of enemies throughout the world, and the number has swollen steadily since the Bush regime took power. In fact every time our soldiers kill another "enemy," whether combatant or noncombatant, we create many more--particularly in a Muslim culture like Iraq, where family loyalties are strong, and a pervasive code of honor mandates retribution for wrongs done. So the more "enemies" we kill, the more enemies we create throughout the Muslim world, for one strong characteristic of Islamic culture is that people tend to take very personally any wrong done to any member of the Umma, the worldwide Muslim community, by an "infidel" or non-Muslim. So continuing to kill people in Iraq and elsewhere will only cause the exponential expansion of "enemies" in the sense of people with a deep and festering resentment of the United States.
Next, we need to interrogate what we mean by "win" and "lose." A war, and particularly a nasty civil war such as we have created now in Iraq, is not a soccer game. If "winning" means, as it traditionally did, military conquest of an adversary, than we "won" in Iraq within two weeks after the soldiers invaded, after the collapse of Saddam's regime. We may recall that Bush thought so too; that was about the time he posed for the infamous photo op in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier, with a banner behind reading "Mission Accomplished." Because to the degree we had any mission at all, it was accomplished. And why shouldn't it be? Our army was far superior to the Iraqi army, and the invasion was a cakewalk, by military standards.
But what does it mean to "win" today? Bush supporters will respond, of course, that it means setting up a stable, functional, US-friendly democracy in Iraq, and suppressing or defeating all insurgents. Here also, we also "won," in that there were already (US-sponsored) "free elections" in Iraq. The problem is that the warring factions, Sunni and Shiite alike, refused to accept "democracy" on the terms dictated by the US. And since that time, the killing and turmoil in Iraq has spiraled completely out of control: Shiites hate and kill Sunnis, and vice versa, while all of them hate and kill "the infidel" who has invaded, occupied, and devastated their country. In this context, what does it mean for us to "win"? Nobody inside or outside the Bush regime has a clue. "Winning" and "Losing" is the wrong kind of language to use for this kind of bitter, internecine conflict, fueled by past repressions, resentment of the invaders, and ancient mutual hostilities. And the longer we stay, the worse it will get, no matter how many more troops we "surge" into the line of fire. An occupied, humilated people will never simply lay down their arms and cry "uncle" to an invading "infidel" power.
Finally, we are told, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, that we are in a "Global War on Terror," that "they" seek to destroy the United States, and that if we don't fight "the terrorists" on the streets of Baghdad, we will have to fight "them" on the streets of New York, as we all discovered on 9/11. These claims beg a host of questions simultaneously: What exactly is a "war on terror"? Who are "the terrorists" and how could they destroy the United States? And then of course we have the biggest unasked question of all, "What really happened on 9/11?"
Let's start with this frequently abused word "terrorist." In its normal (past) usage, there was a generally agreed-upon definition of this word: a person, usually part of a vindictive secret society, who was willing to risk or even lose his or her life in order to perpetrate acts of indiscriminate violence (most often bombing) against innocent people, in order to achieve a political objective, or simply in order to protest a perceived massive injustice against his or her people. By this definition, people like the Baeder-Meinhof Gang, the IRA, the murderers at the Munich Olympics, the perpetrators of the bomb under the Twin Towers in 1993 and against the USS Cole, Timothy McVeigh, and others obviously qualify. So would the box-cutter-wielding Al Qaeda fanatics who purportedly hijacked four planes and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, if we still believe the official story of 9/11 (even though none of their names appeared on the original passenger manifolds for the flights in question).
But since the invasion of Iraq, the term "terrorist" has expanded indiscriminately to mean any insurgent, Iraqi or otherwise, who shoots back at US soldiers in combat. This is how it comes about that "they" caused 9/11, even though no Iraqi was involved. "The terrorists" have thus become a huge amorphous bogey-man, meaning that anyone who is of Arabic descent is at risk of being labeled a "terrorist," and anyone who strongly opposes the policies of the Bush regime, becomes, de facto, a "terrorist sympathizer." Our news media, following the Bush regime as usual, now routinely divides the population of Iraq into "the Iraqis" (i.e. those who support the US) and "the Terrorists" (those who don't). Hence the undefinable "War on Terror" (how can you declare war against a tactic?) becomes an all-purpose rationalization for the use of military power, anywhere or at any time, forever (since the "terrorists" will obviously never sue for surrender terms.)
This, of course, leads to the default rationalization for all this nonthinking: "Look what THEY did to us on 9/11." Here we must kick in the second of my friend's two questions: "Why should I believe what you say?" Why, indeed, should we believe- That NORAD standard procedures, which were designed to intercept nuclear weapons, and which routinely intercepted errant aircraft within minutes, could not stop four airliners, in the course of an hour, from flying into three of the most important and well-protected buildings in the US? That two airliners crashing into steel-frame skyscrapers specifically designed to withstand such impacts would trigger, after an hour, the catastrophic, free-fall-rate collapse, without resistance, not of two, but of THREE skyscrapers, the latter of which (Building 7) was not hit at all. This sequence violates the First Law of Thermodynamics-that energy input must equal energy output. For there is no way that the combination of an airline crash, an open office fire turned mostly to smoke, and the force of gravity from the top fifth of a building, could possibly generate enough energy to pulverize these steel-frame buildings, without any resistance from the lower floors. A collateral form of energy, in the form of demolition charges, is absolutely essential to explain these collapses. That an hour later, an airliner could fly without interception into the ground floor of the Pentagon-the best defended building in the nation-squeeze through a hole far smaller than the span of its wings, penetrate three fortified layers with nothing but a hollow aluminum tube, and leave no trace of its own wreckage inside or on the lawn in front.
In short, anyone who is not entirely credulous, looking into the facts of 9/11 without bias, will quickly conclude that the official story is a fraud, and that the entire catastrophe was set up in advance as an inside job, in order to galvanize the public into supporting an aggressive, invasive policy in the Middle East.
Thus, rigorously applying these two questions, "What do you mean?" and "Why should I believe this" can be very effective tools in penetrating and discrediting the web of delusions with which the Bush regime has ensnared large portions of the US population.
Occupation: Professor of English at a community college in Norfolk, Virginia.
Religious affiliation: Buddhist.
Ideological Affiliation: Gaian Humanist.
Gaian--a citizen of the only living planet (Gaia) we will ever know, whose allegiance to the living Earth takes precedence over all other allegiances.
Humanist--the inheritor of a tradition of liberal thought extending all the way, through the European enlightenment, back to the first stirrings of humanist thought in ancient Greece; a believer in the intrinsic value of all human beings, human cultures, and human ways of knowing.
Signature Quote (from Martin Luther King, Jr):
"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
Good post, Tom. If every reporter and investigative journalist would ask these two questions when interviewing any politician, we would like in a different world.
by
Mac McKinney (48 articles, 78 quicklinks, 180 diaries, 1137 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 2:05:05 PM
The massive equity bubbles which arose from artificially low interest rates and the deliberate destruction of the dollar by reckless increases in the money supply have shifted trillions of dollars from working class Americans to the predatory aristocrats at the top of the economic food chain. The gulf between rich and poor has grown so wide that it now poses a direct threat to our increasingly fragile democracy.
"Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the US will continue to maintain a faηade of Constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it." Chalmers Johnson, "Empire V. Democracy: Why Nemesis is at our Door"
http://carolynbaker.org http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/405/2/
A 9/11 Gov't Conspiracy? 'I Wouldn't Be Surprised,' Says Tikkun Editor
Daniel Treiman | Tue. Feb 06, 2007
Rabbi Michael Lerner, the longtime activist and editor of Tikkun magazine, has published an essay saying he is open to the possibility that the American government may have been behind the September 11 terrorist attacks. http://www.911blogger.com/node/6006
FROM: Veterans for 9/11 Truth
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Alfons interviews Michael Cook: Michael Cook accused George Bush of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, he is now being incarcerated for psychology evaluation by the federal government. Michael Cook.mp3 --- Read More -
This is a brief history of my legal problems. There are potentially lucrative lawsuits in the information presented here, and much more in information not presented here, for attorneys willing to take them on. I have no criminal record and a very respectable background.
In April of 2005, I shared information on the attacks of 9/11/01 with my teaching assistant. I was working as a special educator....
....For folks who are interested, please feel free to write letters to me at Club Fed. Reading and writing letters helps pass the time, but the more letters I get the more the feds will know that folks are watching this case, thereby making it more difficult to railroad me further.
Peace through Truth and Justice,
Mike
....Mailing address at the Federal Medical Center- (FMC- Free Mike Cook!)
Michael Cook
11288-032
FMC
P.O. Box 14500
Lexington, Ky. 40512-4500
Left Gatekeepers Against 9/11 Truth
MINDS HALF OPEN, OR HALF CLOSED?
The massive gates guarding the public secret of Neocon complicity in the atrocities of 9/11 creaked open a few inches this month when THE NATION magazine was forced to actually publish a few of the torrent of letters berating them for their complicity in helping to cover up the truth about those atrocities. (See below: "Is The Nation Going Sane?")
Now ALTERNET has seen fit to let discretion be the better part of their invalorous participation in the superbly disciplined conspiracy of deadly silence. Article and discussion:
AlterNet Revisits 9-11 via Article by Sander Hicks
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5932
WHAT NEXT? Are we witnessing the beginnings of a race to the top by the remaining progressive hold-outs against 9/11 truth? Will PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE go progressive and start worrying less about watching their backs and their grants and their bank accounts, and more about printing the truth? Will Air America's Ed Schultz and The Young Turks grow up and stop covering up? Will that archeypical bully-boy Alexander Cockburn stop beating up on 9/11 truth in his CounterPunch?
Will Al Franken take finally to heart what he said (twice, on his February 2 show) is his most treasured advice from Molly Ivins: "DON'T EVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU JUST TELLING THE TRUTH IS NOT ENOUGH."
Please Help Out Vermonters For A Real 9/11 Investigation
We Need YOUR Help!
A movement is quickly growing in the small yet influential northeastern city of Burlington, Vermont. We have collected enough signatures to place an advisory question on the ballot asking our congressional delegation "to demand a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation that fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001."
We need to educate our fellow voters about the many unanswered questions surrounding September 11th.We will be talking to as many people as we can, registering new voters and pushing on this issue for discussion. But we need YOUR HELP!...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5875
You may want to go to this site and view the video clip there, to see what got this anti-9/11Truth guy so upset.
Dennis Kucinich Calls For Some 9/11 Truth
~~~~~
WOW
Man, Kucinich is ON! The only question and I'm not sure if it's necessary is....Did that comment continue on or did it end there with "9/11" and he then go on to the next part of his plan...
Either way, Kucinich has proven himself to be a real lover of freedom. How about the dream team for this 08'
Kucinich/Ron Paul
To people who want to save this country!
~~~~~
Submitted by Orangutan. on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 1:01am.
I ran into Mr. Kucinich and his wife in Memphis
and told him that if he came out for new 9/11 investigations that the Truth movement would get behind him on his call for new investigations.
If this is in fact what he is doing, then we need to start backing his call for new investigations. My hope is that he will hold a press conference and call for new investigations, this may have been a trial balloon so I think we should email him and give this balloon all the lift we can.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
~~~~~
Submitted by LeftWright on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:01am.
Kucinich for 9/11 Truth!
Fast Fwd to about 3:59 at the front half of the video. It is very quick but he does say "we have a plan and our plan is to tell the truth about nine eleven". I'm not sure what else he could mean with a comment like that.
"Tell the truth about nine eleven" implies that we have been told lies about nine eleven. He doesn't merely call for a "new investigatgion," rather he calls for an end to the lies. He implies that we already know the truth, we just need to tell the truth. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.
This is pretty big coming from a sitting member of congress and a democratic presidential contender. As far as I'm concerned, Kucinich has my support!
I wonder if Bush's more and more evident insistence on all war all the time is making some people reevaluate their position on 911.
--Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
"9/11: The Roots of Paranoia" by Christopher Hayes (Dec. 25) drew more mail than almost any Nation article in memory, except perhaps on the JFK assassination. Letters ran the gamut from the enraged (canceled subscriptions, charges of Nation stonewalling, anger at the use of the term "paranoia") to the complimentary ("My thanks to Mr. Hayes for trying to chart a middle road between credulity and paranoia"). But almost all agree that we don't know the whole story of what happened on September 11, 2001.
Chris Rose:
you hear that?
it's the sound of a huge, massive, disinfo ship changing direction. this is a good sign--we now know never to trust the Nation or any other pseudo alternative news source, but they still want to try to preserve some credibility. this is a great victory, let's keep the heat on these buggers!
One point I made in the book is that 9/11 is not necessarily the most significant event of the twenty-first century because I believe that the 2000 presidential election was. I believe that it was unambiguously a coup d'etat, and that that coup was completed with the orchestration by the U.S. government of the 9/11 attacks. Thus, the two events are inextricably connected.
You know, on the night of the 2000 elections I was teaching at the university in Juarez, Mexico, and I was watching the election returns on TV in the faculty lounge, quite appalled at what I was witnessing. Then one of my colleagues, a friend and a Mexican national, playfully but seriously said to me, "It looks like you Gringos are living what we Mexicans have been living for decades -- dirty elections that have nothing to do with how the people actually voted."
9/11 was an inside job says Shayler
EX-MI5 officer David Shayler, who will be in Liverpool to launch the Truth Movement, tells Paddy Shennan what he thinks about the New York terror attacks.
icLiverpool - News - Echo News - click here
Senators Put Impeachment Back on The Table ~~
By tortugo23(tortugo23)
However, the evidence regarding 9/11 indicates that it was largely an inside job by traitorous elements of the US and global elite facilitated by bin Laden's band of delusional punks who had just the right amount of criminality to be ... Mexico New - http://riogrande-santafe.blogspot.com/index.html
Minnesota Daily Launches Series of 9/11 Truth Columns
Adri Mehra will be doing a series of five 9/11 truth related columns for the Minnesota Daily, America's largest-circulation college newspaper. (Contact your local college paper and urge them to pick it up and publish it!) The first one was published today:
The Jenga hypothesis, or how I learned to start worrying - The Minnesota Daily
At 24 this guy is doing what the Woodwards and Hershes and Krugmans and all the other cowards masquerading as journalists apparently cannot bring themselves to do--confront the truth about the most important historical event of the century. If journalism has a future, this is it. (911blogger.com}
The Jenga hypothesis, or how I learned to start worrying
By Adri Mehra
This is the story of
one man's baptism
in the September 11
truth movement:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/01/18/70347
By KEVIN BARRETT
(Barrett is a part-time lecturer at UW- Madison.)
Wisconsin State Journal
In the former Soviet Union, the monopoly media acted as cheerleader for a brutal, repressive government. Dissident academics were silenced, fired, or institutionalized.
For two or three years after 9/11, our media served as a megaphone for Bush administration lies, and academics were intimidated into silence....
....The excuse that my position is marginal no longer holds, given that only 16 percent of the American people believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11 (New York Times poll) and 36 percent of Americans, and half of New Yorkers, believe top US officials conspired to commit mass murder and high treason on 9/11 (Scripps-Howard and Zogby polls).
It is long past time for a rational, evidence-based debate on the facts and meaning of 9/11. Any takers?
Fewer people are believing the official reports on September 11 attacks:
click here
==
ARE YOU A 16 PERCENTER?
There is help for you!
If you are among the 16% who still believe the Neonazicons' conspiracy theory about 9/11, YOU CAN BE HELPED! Simply click on the links below to read the scientific debunking of the Bush pseudoscience fairytale about the WTC 9/11 atrocity.
To be removed from or to subscribe to this free
Enewsletter list please email
someoftheabovenews@yahoo.com with
REMOVE or SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
==
And if you don't like our news go make some of your
own.
Founder 2002: Johannieson & Friends
Editor: Myra M. Jackson
by
Myra (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 11:46:04 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
