Reflections on Afghanistan
The government of
Afghanistan, with the memory of a brutal and extended war against the Soviet
Union, is now about to go to war against the United States. Unlike the Afghan-Soviet War, the US won't
supply arms, training, and specialist staffing to Afghanistan, and the Afghan
army will quickly be defeated. This, and
other evidence, point out clearly to the American public that Afghanistan is not
responsible for the rammings. The logic
is simple: you don't shoot a spitwad at a person who has a gun pointed in your
face.
The US military
benefits in three ways from the war in Afghanistan. First, the public perceives there is a military threat abroad,
and this helps to increase the military's budget. Second, the war itself vastly increases military
expenditure. Finally, the people in
control of our military get to use what they've been practicing for
decades. The US military probably isn't
responsible for the rammings since their Pentagon was hit. However, they are using the rammings as best
they can to further their own political goals.
Conspicuous
Omission of the Israel Motive
If an Arab group is
responsible for the rammings, they did so because of our foreign policy. Specifically, it was a retaliation for our
political and material support of Israel and war with Iraq. Whether this motive is justified or not, the
US government/media hasn't mentioned this motive at all. Instead the official line is that it was an
"attack on American freedom" motivated by our being "a beacon of
freedom in the world."
A Military of the
People
The US military
was made large during the US-Soviet Cold War.
The people in control of the military don't want to see it shrink now
that the war is over. Plenty of
Americans in plenty of other industries have been faced with the same
dilemma. They provide a service or
product that is no longer needed. How
has the typical American responded to this crisis in their lives? They fight it. They fight to keep their job, to keep their factory or business
running, to keep government funding, without any rational regard for whether
the product or service they provide is actually of value to anyone.
There are two
kinds of conspiracy. The simple kind is
where an event takes place naturally, and the conspirators manipulate
how it's perceived to further their political agenda. The second kind, is where the conspirators also produce
the event in question.
The White-House
Story
So far, most the
primary leads of the ramming investigation are due to tips given by the
public. Yet a very surprising
revelation was made by our government that the plane that hit the Pentagon was
originally going to hit the White House.
If even basic leads, like who on the flight might have been the
hijackers, were provided by civilians, it's obvious that our government
couldn't have figured out this White-House story in less than 24 hours.
The real question
to ask, is how do people respond to that claim? They feel a sense of relief.
The White House obviously would have been a more devastating target to
the US. The people feel that some
unknown action on the part of our government must have stopped the plane from
hitting the White House. This produces,
in the people, a sense of victory in that we stopped the rammings from being
worse than they were. The reality
however is quite simple. If a plane was
going to ram the White House, why would it fly past the White House and
hit another target instead? Why during
its entire flight was it not vectoring towards the White House? Obviously, the White-House Target story is a
lie, calculated to produce a false feeling of victory among us.
Fake Palestinian
Rallies
Hours after the
rammings, our media plastered our screens with images of Palestinian crowds
marching in the streets, rejoicing a victory against us. What did this make us, the American public,
feel? It made us feel Arabs were our
enemy. It made people suspect they had
planned the rammings and were now rejoicing that their plans had come
true. The reality is that the photos of
rejoicing Palestinians were shameless forgeries, supported as true by our entire
media industry. The more apt among us realized
that the photos were in mid-daylight even though it was night in Palestine when
the photos were supposedly taken.
Indeed, the photos were found to match stock footage of Palestinians
taken during the early 90s.
What can we, the
isolated US public, ascertain from this?
First, there were no actual rallies by Palestinians since our media
would have shown us pictures of those real rallies instead of forgeries. Second, our media made up the story,
effectively pointing the finger at Palestine.
Third, our media or at least the majority of it is lying to us
when it wants to. Fourth, we as the US
public have been and continue to be amazingly gullible. Fifth, the agenda of painting Palestine, and
by extention the Arab world, as the perpetrators of the rammings was forced on
our media by some group.
John LeFlohic
September 18,
2001