Eye In The Storm
[ US Crusade Home ] [ News and Views Board ] September 16, 2001
By Gladstone Holder
To make the angels weep
Tragedy struck the United States last Tuesday morning, September 11, while all the world watched in dread and compassion for them as all children of God – just like the onlookers. An unprecedented attack wreaked havoc on two of its most characteristic symbols – its money power, represented by the World Trade Center in New York, and its military power, as represented by the Pentagon in its political capital, Washington D.C.
It is ironic that its horrific losses should have been inflicted, not by military planes but by three commercial planes, owned by US companies. Two of the planes crashed into the twin towers of the Trade Centre, causing them to collapse and bringing death to thousands. A third plane slammed into the Pentagon while a fourth crashed in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. The death toll for the passengers was 266. The number of civilian deaths, not yet known, is expected to be very heavy.
This was the work of hijackers who boarded the planes, paralysed the passengers and crew by brandishing knives and then carried out their destructive mission.
When the Security Council Coalition bombed Iraq in 1991 they used nuclear-tipped shells and advanced military planes. There is an ironic discrepancy here as well.
Suspicion for the masterminding of these attacks quickly fell on Saudi millionaire, Osama bin Laden, whom the United States has branded a terrorist and has vainly called for his extradition from Afghanistan to stand trial for the bombing of the United States Embassy in Kenya in 1998. According to EIR magazine of April 4, 1997, having been expelled from Sudan for plotting terrorism, he had taken up dual residence in the United Kingdom and Afghanistan.
Some independent US journalists, dissatisfied with the FBI’s quick suspicion of bin Laden, asked for the evidence. That complex, wrecking exercise, carried out with professional precision and commitment to their deadly cause, called for expert planning and training which President Jimmy Carter would wish he could have commanded when he attempted to rescue the US hostages held in Tehran by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The mission required clear vision and able co-ordination.
Those doubting journalists were perhaps struck by the odds against bin Laden carrying out such an expedition as would tax the ingenuity of homogenous think tanks in the US. They asked questions: How did the hijackers manage to get on the flights? Were they searched? What passports did they have? What were their nationalities.
The complaint was made that there was too much emphasis on technology and not enough on human intelligence (HUMINT) on the ground. The opportunity given to the wreckers seemed too easy to be credible. It would later be disclosed that the hijacking pilots were US trained. Two polls carried out voted strongly for the precaution that the US should not retaliate until it was sure who the perpetrators were.
The US has been wrongly certain quite often. The voters no doubt remembered when President Bill Clinton, claiming he had strong evidence that Sudan was making dangerous chemicals, bombed the plants – only to discover the products were pharmaceuticals for children.
Some Americans were clearly unhappy when early in the day, President George W. Bush promised to hunt down the perpetrators even before he could have had an inkling of who they were. He also said: “Freedom itself was attacked this morning and I assure you freedom will be defended.” I can almost hear the question immediately thrown back at him: Freedom for the top 20 per cent? In the profession of journalism, where its practitioners are accustomed to official cover-ups and misinformation, scepticism is an essential trait.
There is, for instance, a glaring discrepancy that shortly after the bombing, the name of bin Laden surfaced. Yet the US Intelligence Services, with all their advanced technology, had no early warning of such a massive and far-flung undertaking.
The FBI, according to news reports on Thursday morning (September 13), said they had identified 50 people who had connections with the attacks. How would bin Laden, their prime suspect, from “a remote base” in backward Afghanistan, have been able to recruit, organise and keep in touch with a scattered army of people around the world?
It has been a week worth watching closely, putting the information under the microscope and utilising a background of knowledge to distinguish truth from speculation and propaganda, between real goals and red herrings. Some people have said that, following the deadly attack on the United States, this world will not be the same again. They don’t all mean the same thing, the same outcome.
Nevertheless, there are some tell-tale signs. In the first polls, American opinion was that the government should not strike back in reflexive anger but should first make sure who the villains were. That evidently set off an alarm bell. For less than 48 hours later, commentators started speculating that the US might bomb Afghanistan where bin Laden presently resides.
Execution and vengeance without evidence and without trial, the democratically ascertained opinion of the American people being of no account. That option might prove dangerous to the plans of the ruling class. Hence the relentless stream of brainwashing being poured out on the American people and any others who might watch or listen. It is also a calculated attempt to frighten the Taleban to hand him over to the US or expose themselves to death by an enraged and mighty US. So much for the Rule of Law.
A nervous US, however, whose eyes were opened by a dastardly act of indiscriminate violence, is no longer prepared to go it alone as in the past when President Ronald Reagan bombed Libya on mere suspicion or on less than cast iron information by his Intelligence Services. Was that “a blight on the civilised world” as Secretary of State Colin Powell said of the recent attack on the US?
It now seeks to involve its friends and allies in Europe in an understanding which asserts that an attack on any one state in the NATO group of countries is an attack on all.
It is a standard self-preservation device even if the majority of its NATO members may not be fully aware that they cannot expect equality of treatment in any given situation. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, however, as befitting the most experienced member country of the Union, has been cautious on the matter. He is reported as saying it does not mean automatic support for any US unilateral initiative. The proposal must be put on the table for discussion by the Organisation – the voice of reason and decent behaviour.
Meanwhile the American people are being shifted away from their national call not to seek revenge for the terrible injury until the truth is known. They are being goaded into seeking vengeance. The injury was inflicted on them by a gang of mercenaries but they are behaving more rationally than their leaders.
In all this blindsided hurrah about retaliation it was interesting to hear a speaker on the BBC say: Americans have no understanding of how other cultures may see their response as legitimate warfare.
Remarkably confirmed in The Nation’s superb edition of September 13 in which a presumably American terrorism expert, Chris Dobson, said: “No sane pilot would ever fly a plane into a skyscraper even with a gun at his head – because he knows he is going to die.” Let him consult the Japanese about Kamikaze.
Even more remarkably, Dobson goes on: “No one alive today is capable of such acts other than bin Laden.” The propaganda has become hysterical. Why? And how long will it take homo sapiens to learn that violence begets violence.
In this context Malaysia’s Mahathir bin Mohammad said: “Retaliation will lead to the death of many people and will be followed by more counterstrikes.” America regards him as an enemy; he will not accept from it orders detrimental to his people’s welfare.
Two more leads. Journalists like to go for the analogy. They called last Tuesday morning’s savagery a second Pearl Harbour, referring to the morning of December 7, 1941, when Japanese planes bombed the base, with heavy US losses in men and ships. That attack was just what the US government needed to rouse its people to join World War II – a war that would revive its economy.
Six decades later the slaughter in New York and Washington might provide the opportunity for it to engage in a new-war, perhaps in the Middle East, to stave off the threatened financial recession.
Tuesday’s devastation in the US is a tragedy for the whole world, some say. It ain’t necessarily so. Behind every dark cloud there is a silver lining, my mother used to say. Sometimes out of evil cometh good. It could be the start of a new Renaissance – if the US would take off its blinkers and see that its own arrogant and bloody-minded behaviour has driven the world to embrace the culture of violence.
I am an unwavering Sherlock Holmes fan and one of his favourite axioms by which I live is this: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
• Gladstone Holder is a former teacher and former Chief Information Officer.[ SEPTEMBER HOMEPAGE ]
