Sometimes it's the nagging details that won't
leave you alone. No matter how you try and reconcile them to the
facts, they somehow just don't fit. I really don't like to write
about 9-11 because of the emotional trauma attached. People either
believe the official theories or they don't believe. Some take
offense at even questioning official theories--that somehow to
question official theory is to disparage the memories of the victims.
I find that interesting because that is the exact reason Jack Ruby
gave for killing Lee Harvey Oswald was to spare Mrs. Kennedy the
emotional trauma of a trial.
Yet there have been subsequent
investigations of calamities. The wreckage of the battleship
Maine was inspected by divers and it was discovered to be far more
likely that the ship exploded due to a fire in a coal bunker than
Spanish saboteurs. The United States gained valuable overseas
colonies from that event. The Hearst newspapers fanned the flames of
war and the Captain of the Maine, who was negotiating with the
Spanish at the time, was completely ignored. These things took on a
life of their own so when Rahm Emanuel said, "You never let a
serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity
to do things you could not do before."
The Republican's
battered Emanuel for making such a statement but what Emanuel was
explaining is exactly how government actually operates. Nicola'
Machiavelli published "The Prince" in 1515, and it supports
exactly the feelings that Mr. Emanuel expressed. Even more so, it
explains in detail that when you understand how the mechanisms of a
government work it is possible to pull the levers and manipulate
these crisis to the advantage of the prince.
If you play chess
you understand that the goal is to control the center of the board.
You do this by a mixing the power of the different chess pieces. Some
pieces are obvious and right out in front. Pawns are weak and obvious
while others, such as the queen or bishop, are powerful and can
strike from a distance. Your goal is to deceive your opponent into
misunderstanding the power of your pieces. To bait your opponent into
a trap from which they think they stand to gain but actually will
lose all.
So when the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie,
tells Saddam Hussein that in the opinion of the United States how he
settles his problems with his neighbors was none of our concern, the
US was giving Saddam an open invitation to invade Kuwait. Didn't
the US back Saddam in his prior war against Iran? Looking at the
situation from the Iraqi standpoint it appears the US is giving tacit
approval. Then, immediately after the invasion, George Bush the elder
appears on national television filled with righteous indignation and
declares to the world "This will not stand."
Look at the
situation with a chess player's eye. How did the US benefit
from these events? First, Arabs states not under the US protective
umbrella saw their vulnerability displayed. Second, Arab states under
that umbrella saw how the US could manipulate world opinion to
champion their cause. Third, the US military was able to establish a
permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region. Doctored
photos were shown to the Saudi's of massed formations of Iraqi
troops along their frontiers.
So did April Glaspie misspeak?
Did she and James Baker misunderstand? Or did they understand the
situation all too well and use a crisis to their advantage? When the
dust and smoke cleared, US military power was firmly ensconced across
the Persian Gulf. The military power of Saddam Hussein was broken and
Arab nations had to choose the protection of the US umbrella or risk
the storm. No more oil embargoes, from now on the faucet is turned on
for the advantage of all and the American empire rules
supreme.
Looking at a map of the Persian Gulf the US military
has surrounded the region and only the forces in Iran hold out. Saudi
Arabia and Iran tussle for regional supremacy. In Saudi Arabia women
are not allowed out on the street alone and they have no right to
vote. The Royal house of Saud rules with carrot and stick and the
stick is an iron fist. The national treasury is the King's
checkbook, and a council of ministers can make recommendations to the
King, but his majesty is under no obligation to pay any attention to
what they might suggest. This is similar to how the new consumer
protection office set up in the basement of the Federal Reserve will
operate in this country.
Iran is an Islamic Republic with a
President and a Prime Minister. They are elected to four year terms
and they appoint the cabinet. The council of experts appoints the
Supreme (religious) leader. This is a theocratic Republic and since
it is based on Islamic law, the Supreme leader is appointed for life
just as our own Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. In
Saudi Arabia, which also functions under the same Islamic law as
Iran, the King holds all of these offices. Which country then most
closely resembles the American system of government?
The nail
which sticks up shall be hammered down. Iran, which hasn't attacked
another nation in hundreds of years, is demonized in the Western
press. While the US is trying to sell India nuclear fuel, Iran is
accused before the fact and without proof of desires to build nuclear
weapons for the purpose of destroying their adversary Saudi Arabia?
No, to destroy Israel. Why would Iran want to spend billions of
dollars just to destroy Israel? Just pure meanness? Dastardly, dark,
sinister intentions of national suicide? A plan with a guaranteed net
result of the certain destruction of the nation and its population?
So why would Iran want to build a nuclear bomb? Well, all of
her neighbors except for Afghanistan and Iraq already have nuclear
weapons, and those two aforementioned nations have American combat
troops stationed on Iran's borders and drone reconnaissance flights
flying over their territory, while bellicose politicians threaten and
attempt to bully her. So from an Iranian point of view, the most
profound reason that they might want to build a nuclear bomb is to
protect themselves from an American invasion. For the United States
it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The more they bully Iran
the more likely they are to possibly be correct. This as the US
pressures Russia not to sell Iran anti-aircraft missiles. Can
anti-aircraft missiles in any way be considered offensive
weapons?
Members of the German Nazi Party burned the Reichstag
building for the purpose of advancing draconian laws to destroy the
nation's civil rights. This same German army created phony border
incursions to justify their invasion of Poland. There were no North
Vietnamese patrol boats firing torpedoes at US navy ships in the Gulf
of Tonkin. US forces encouraged the overthrow and murder of General
Diem in Vietnam. US forces aided the overthrow of the lawfully
elected government of Iran in 1956. US forces helped to place Augusto
Pinochet in power in Chile and tried unsuccessfully to depose Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela. These are not conspiracy theories--these are
facts. This is how your government uses its power.
This is
how Machiavelli described nations using power five hundred years ago.
We know that US covert forces tried unsuccessfully on multiple
occasions to murder Fidel Castro. Would such forces--if they were to
believe or were manipulated to believe that an American leader was
soft on Communism during the Cold War--not act? "It is not that I
loved Caesar less but that I loved Rome more," would they not act
in the national interest to save Rome?
On September 11, 2001
an aircraft struck the US Pentagon, the command center of the United
States military power. The question I ask is a simple one, why? Why
the Pentagon? What was gained by the terrorists through this act? Did
they believe that such a strike would paralyze the US military? An
attempt perhaps to decapitate the leadership?
I don't want
to talk about light poles or marks on the lawn but only about the
strategic reasoning for this event. Pretend that you are the
terrorist mastermind here and you have four aircraft. Two designated
for the World Trade Center because" terrorists hate world trade? Or
perhaps it was a symbol of US power and prestige and you really,
really hate America. Had those two aircraft crashed into the Indian
Point nuclear power station they could have created a Fukushima type
nuclear event that could have caused the forced depopulation of New
York City. Maybe the terrorists weren't that smart or maybe that
was too much carnage even for blood thirsty terrorists willing to
give up their own lives.
One aircraft goes down in
Pennsylvania and another goes out of its way to strike one side of
the Pentagon. Why did it make a difficult maneuver when one side of a
five sided building is about the same as any other? Did the terrorist
have intimate knowledge of the office arrangements inside the
Pentagon? If so, they were all wrong.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
1
