SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – What a real President would have said

[integral]

Here's an excerpt from 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley.


SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – What a real President would have said
“My fellow citizens:

Today our country and our political system have been targeted by large-scale acts of terrorism. These are monstrous crimes against humanity, and they will not go unpunished. We send our solidarity to the brave firemen, policemen, military people and office workers who have borne the brunt of this assault. We promise an equitable and equal compensation for the human losses of this day. Insistent and irresponsible voices have been raised in my own White House and in the intelligence agencies, and have inspired media reports attributing these attacks to Arab or Islamic terrorists of the al Qaeda Bin Laden organizations. But this is no time for snap decisions or a rush to judgment when we are dealing with the present and future peace of the world. It is true that we have bitter enemies around the world, but the capabilities displayed today appear to go far beyond the technical and physical means available to al Qaeda. We must also recall that, under the reckless and irresponsible policies of my predecessors, the CIA and been one of the main sponsors of Bin Laden and al Qaeda. If we think back to the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, we remember that media voices attempted in the first hours to attribute that tragedy to the Arab world. Although I am convinced that we still do not know the full story of Oklahoma City, it is clear that the Arab world was not involved.

There are too many unanswered questions at this point. How were the terrorists who seem to have been involved allowed to enter the United States and operate freely in this country? Why were there no air defenses over a period of one hour and fifteen minutes? I have ordered an immediate inquiry into this question and in the meantime I have accepted the resignations of General Myers of the Air Force, the deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and of General Bernhard of NORAD, whose agency failed the people today. There is also evident reason to believe that the CIA, the FBI, and NSA, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have not performed satisfactorily, based on the fragmentary accounts available so far. I have therefore accepted the resignations of the leaders of these agencies and of their principal deputies. I have furthermore accepted the resignations of the leaders of those agencies, and of their principal deputies. I have furthermore accepted the resignation of the Secretary of Defense and his deputy, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Transportation, and of my National Security Adviser, since it is evident to me that they could not continue to serve the nation effectively because of the immense tragedy, which has occurred on their watch. We rightly demand accountability from teachers, from railroad engineers, and from physicians. We therefore have all the more reason to demand accountability and responsibility from those who have been entrusted with the management of the executive departments, several of which have not served us well today.

Another question involves the collapse of the World Trade Center towers many minutes after they had been impacted by the airplanes. These events, as you know, represent an absolute anomaly in the history of skyscrapers. In particular, there is no explanation whatever for the collapse of the building seven at five o'clock in the afternoon. Accordingly, and consistent with our urgent measures to save any victims remaining in the rubble, I am ordering the Seventh Mountain Division of Fort Drum, New York to seize control of the site of the World Trade Center, cordoning it off as a crime scene and taking immediate measures for preserving the evidence we must have to determine what really happened. Not one scrap of metal will be removed before a full forensic survey has been carried out. Contrary to media accounts, we have not been able to identify the flying object, which apparently hit the Pentagon, although it seems likely that it was not a Boeing 757, and thus could hardly have been United Flight 77. As for the tragedy over Shanksville, we are investigating whether this aircraft was shot down by our own forces, and why. All crash sites are being secured by military units, acting under my direct orders, whose loyalty to the Constitution is beyond question.

The overriding question is whether the criminals who acted today enjoyed support or collaboration from within our own country and even within our own government. I have created a special unit of federal investigators which will report to me and to me alone. The first task of that unit will be to determine why there was no air defense, in violation of the standard operating procedures of NORAD and the FAA. Another task will be to examine the entire roster of FBI and CIA double agents presently infiltrating terrorist groups and how they are managed, with a view to identifying possible factors of collusion. Another task will be to determine why our watch list procedures and other forms of vigilance were not effective in screening the criminals out.

As far as the FBI is concerned, I urge the Congress to join me in breaking up this tragically dysfunctional agency. After Ruby Ridge, Waco, the FBI crime lab, Wen Ho Lee, the Atlanta Olympics and Richard Jewel, the withheld documents in the McVeigh case, we now have September 11, 2001. The FBI has never recovered from the corruption and mismanagement instilled during the fifty-year reign of J. Edgar Hoover, a man whom we know today to have been unfit for public office. The FBI has many dedicated public servants, but they are trapped today in a structure of incompetence, corruption and worse. Accordingly, I am placing the FBI into receivership by executive order with immediate effect; this agency will operate for the time being under the direction of my special assistant for internal security.

In determining the full scope of what happened today, I need the help of all our citizens. If you know something important about what happened today, I want to hear it. Call the White House and talk with one of my staff, who are mobilized to take your calls. If you see anyone, including especially federal agents attempting to tamper with evidence, or if a federal agent attempts to intimidate you into saying you saw or heard something you did not see, I want to know about that, too.

I am determined to find out if foreign intelligence agencies or foreign citizens were involved in today's events. I am appointing myself as temporary Director of the CIA and in that capacity I will undertake a comprehensive review of foreign operations on American soil. No foreign agency will be exempted, and I promise you a full initial progress report.

In addition to the immediate investigations I have mentioned so far, I am also empanelling a board of inquiry to study today's events and offer a second opinion about what may have gone wrong. I am asking Senator Byrd to be the chairman of this body, and Lawrence Walsh, a Republican, the former Iran-Contra prosecutor, to be the vice chairman. I have invited former Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill, former President Carter, General Zinni, and former Governor Ryan of Illinois to serve. I am also actively soliciting participation by outsiders and academics who have been critics of our government policies or recent years. I am inviting Susan Sontag, Eric Foner, Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Howrd Zinn, and Seymour Hersh to become members of the board of inquiry. Let them play the devil's advocates, if they will, so long as we obtain truth and justice. They will all receive the necessary security clearances directly from me personally, if necessary. I will personally supervise the rapid declassification of documents as recommended by the board of inquiry in order to educate the public about the board's findings. We all remember the failure of the Warren Commission; that failure will not be repeated during my presidency.

I recall the words of President Eisenhower in the wake of the Kennedy assassination 'the American people, he commented, will not be stampeded'. I ask you to support your government and its institution, and not to give way to the voices of hatred, fear, aggression and paranoia. I promise that swift justice will be rendered for those who have struck us today, no matter who they turn out to be.

These dastardly attacks will not force this great nation off course; they will not force us to become something we are not. We will remain ourselves. We will go forward in the great American tradition of the Monroe Doctrine, the Good Neighbor Policy, the Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, and the Four Freedoms of the Atlantic Charter, starting with the freedom from fear.

Further attacks cannot be ruled out in the coming days and weeks. Because of the office I hold, and because of the constitutional responsibilities I must meet, I ask for your support - no matter what may happen during the coming days and weeks.

Good night.”

[Carl G]

I am inviting Susan Sontag, Eric Foner, Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Howrd Zinn, and Seymour Hersh to become members of the board of inquiry.

I don't know about the others, but Noam Chomsky is a nitwit. His take on 9/11 is abysmal. He wouldn't have helped the situation at all.

Anyway, "If Only..."

Nice bedtime fairy tale for the alternative community; now go to sleep, children.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

It started out well, but by the end of the second paragraph I stopped reading as it had become moronic. I can't imagine a sane president recommending a government-wide series of layoffs and inquiries after a single act of terrorism. The comparisons to Stalin would come immediately (ironically, the comparison would probably come from the exact same person who wrote this article).

[Jamesh]

It started out well, but by the end of the second paragraph I stopped reading as it had become moronic.

That was my opinion as well.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl wrote:

but Noam Chomsky is a nitwit. His take on 9/11 is abysmal.

Carl, what is it about Chomsky's view 9/11 that you find abysmal? I havent followed his position on this particular topic so I'd be curious to hear your take on it.

[Carl G]

Ryan,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&NR=1

Noam says about 9/11, it seems very unlikely that the Bush administration planned it. It would have leaked.

"The evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless. Belief that it could have been done (by the Bush Admin.) has such low credibility that I don't really think it's serious."

He explains his reasoning, and from this it's obvious to me his predispositions and particular conditioning about reality prevent him from the ability to think clearly.

[Carl G]

I am inviting Susan Sontag, Eric Foner, Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Howrd Zinn, and Seymour Hersh to become members of the board of inquiry.

I don't know about the others, but Noam Chomsky is a nitwit. His take on 9/11 is abysmal. He wouldn't have helped the situation at all.

Alright, I did a cursory Wiki-check the rest of the above authors, and judging from their bios and bibliographies, I don't think any of them would have helped one whit in an investigation of 9/11 instigated by this so-called real president.

Anyway, the article does raise some of the real questions about that fateful day, but it's central premise is flawed, and is at base complete fantasy, since there is in place no real presidency in which to house any kind of real president.

That is why I find the article useless. Better to have done, as some real investigative reporters have done, simply presented the evidence and arguments that challenge the official story.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Better to have followed the cardinal rule of criticism and performed a critical analysis, not a masturbatory thesis that everyone with more power than you is doing something wrong and should be fired.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl wrote:

He explains his reasoning, and from this it's obvious to me his predispositions and particular conditioning about
reality prevent him from the ability to think clearly.

I actually thought his position was rather rational, and well thought out. In contrast to him, most of the professors that jumped on this conspiracy band wagon seemed rather neurotic, paranoid, and hyperactive to me. Chomsky has always possessed a calm consistency in his thinking in my view.

I agree with Chomsky, but I would also add that Americans are much far too patriotic and tribe-like to consciously plot the murder of fellow Americans simply for the promise of material gain.

This is especially true for republicans who possess more emotional attachment and pride towards the ideals of America, and this would cause them to strongly identify with American symbols such as the twin towers, the pentagon, and the white house. They wouldn’t even be capable of considering the idea.

It would be like the Bush Admin plotting to blow up some of the biggest Christian churches in America, simply for the promise of some money, it would never happen.

Noam Chomsky ignores these points, but they provide a strong argument that compliments his points.

[Carl G]

Bullshit.

Those within the government who carried this out are not Americans or Republicans. They are one-worlders. And it fits exactly with their agenda to carry out an operation like this. They've done it before and will do it again.

You need to go down another couple layers if you wish to see the true picture. But, seems you, like Chomsky, are predisposed, and conditioned, such to prevent this.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I can barely understand "one-worlder" literature, although it's the rage in academia nowadays. An English professor assigned this book "Empire" to her class (shortly before I dropped her class and university) by Hardt and Negri. Just started skimming through it recently and I can say is it's verbose enough to convince a lot of highly intelligent people to take it seriously. It's some collaboration between an Italian criminal/philosopher (treason, I suppose?) and humourless British academic, both of whom seem completely convinced that we already live in one world and that the failings of the UN are actually a sign of it working.

Personally, although it's mostly gibberish and rantings, it's not hard to imagine highly intelligent young people using stuff like this to justify their own brands of idiocy and rebellion.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

what exactly is a one-worlder?

you will see that If you read Chomsky's explanation of why the Bush Admin went to war in the middle east, it is one of the most intelligent documents written on the subject. Chomsky is a master historician, if there was evidence of an actual conspiracy, and not just bogus claims, he would have found them.

He has documented almost every atrocity carried out by the American military throughout the decades, so he is not predisposed to think anything, he has very little attachment or bias towards his country, so there is very little conditioning operating within him.

However, when you hapharzardly wrote the word 'bullshit' in the beginning of your response, this revealed to me that you have a little too much emotion invested in this position, and so it is very difficult to take you seriously. Moreover, Some of the imbalanced professors who believe this stuff also speak a little too passionately in my opinion.

When someone reveals alot of emotion invested in their position, this is the indication that they are conditioned, and not thinking rationally.

I

[Carl G]

Carl,

what exactly is a one-worlder?

A person whose allegiance is to the powerful international cabal which, basically, calls the shots as to what happens in the geopolitical arena.

you will see that If you read Chomsky's explanation of why the Bush Admin went to war in the middle east, it is one of the most intelligent documents written on the subject. Chomsky is a master historician, if there was evidence of an actual conspiracy, and not just bogus claims, he would have found them.

Of course there was "an actual conspiracy" so I guess Chomsky is not the "master historician" you say he is. That is why I call him a nitwit.

He has documented almost every atrocity carried out by the American military throughout the decades, so he is not predisposed to think anything, he has very little attachment or bias towards his country, so there is very little conditioning operating within him.

Nonsense. There is predisposition and conditioning of one sort or another in everyone.

However, when you hapharzardly wrote the word 'bullshit' in the beginning of your response, this revealed to me that you have a little too much emotion invested in this position,

How do you know I wrote the word haphazardly. Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction on your part, due to your particular predisposition and conditioning.

and so it is very difficult to take you seriously. Moreover, Some of the imbalanced professors who believe this stuff also speak a little too passionately in my opinion.

This is the talk of a girly-man who has not developed his thinking skills.

When someone reveals alot of emotion invested in their position, this is the indication that they are conditioned, and not thinking rationally.

Pfft.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

the literature you have read has seduced you, and thus prevents you from seeing psychological facts about the nature of humans, espeically the nature of policians.

Many republicians come from family backgrounds with strong patriotic values, and American ideals have been cultivated into them from a young age. Americans who enter politics are usually among the most religious and patriotic among the population. They are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they could never consciously plan an attack agaisnt their own people, merely for the promise of material reward. The idea contradicts human psychology on all levels.

It doesnt make any sense, epecially consideing most of the people involved in politics are mult-millionaries anyway, so they already obtained care-free financial security, so their is no reason for them to behave in such a way.

And then there is Noam Chomsky's argument, the bush admin is one of the most incompetent governments ever to have taken power, and they dont have the intelligence necessary to pull off such a scheme. Also, humans dont keep secrets, there is usually someone in a large group of criminals that will confess out of guilt, and this hasnt happened. If something of this calibre did take place, don't you think that someone who was indirectly involved, and ridden with gulit would have gone public by now? or at least confessed to the police or something? No, none of this occured because there is no conspiracy, it is the dream-work of paranoid and neurotic intellectuals that get excited off the thought that of an outrageous conspiracy.

Your failure to address these points with an intelligent counter-argument proves to me that these conspiracies are all hogwash, nothing but brain-candy for the the pseudo-intellectuals and the scientogists of our time. Don't believe the hype, especially when not one rational thinker of our time has picked up and ran with this idea, don't you think that is a little odd?

[Cory Duchesne]

For those who didnt see it, here's Chomsky on youtube doing a comentary on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy - Part 1 and Part 2

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Chomsky also points out that there is a small percentage of the left that have demonized the right, by claiming their involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and this occurred after they unwittingly bought into some of the wild claims from some of these wacky professors. It is also important to note that I checked into a few of these professors, and they are ghosts in the academic world, meaning they lack any sorts of publications that are generally respected by the scientific community.

Furthermore, this has caused a division between the democratic party, as the more rational ones have slowly moved away from the more neurotic ones who have demonized the right.

And as a result, the American government has become very unstable, as it seems to be rotting from the inside out, there are democrats who are divided from other democrats, and republicans who divided from other republicans, it is a very volatile environment for making big decisions. No one trusts anyone else.

So surely someone would have come forward and confessed by now if there was indeed a conspiracy?

Just think about the plausibility of such a complex conspiracy being carried out by a group of politicians that do not trust each other, and cannot agree on anything.

Another example, I recently read an article documenting the activities of the terrorist group Hamas, but apparently there have been considerable power struggles within their organization, and many Hamas leaders have slaughtered other leaders.

My point is that evil is a blundering and clumsy force. You seem to believe that evil humans have much more potential than they actually do.

Generally, people that believe in conspiracy theories have absolutely no understanding of psychology, and are fooled by their own excitement, which is derived off of imagining the idea.

[Carl G]

For those who didnt see it, here's Chomsky on youtube doing a comentary on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy - Part 1 and Part 2

Yes, this is the conversation to which I linked above, earlier in the thread.

[Carl G]

Ryan,

As I've said, your thinking skills need some work. The more you comment on the issue of this thread, the more you show just that.

I don't know where to begin in the way of critique and explanation, so I shan't.

[Dan Rowden]

Carl,

the literature you have read has seduced you, and thus prevents you from seeing psychological facts about the nature of humans, espeically the nature of policians.

Well, it must have seduced me too because I agree with Carl. One coincidence or anomalous event can be overlooked, two, the same, perhaps even three or four, but when there are literally dozens it cannot be explained away so easily. There are dozens and dozens of bizarre coincidences and twists and events surrounding 9/11. Far too many to be ignored.

Many republicians come from family backgrounds with strong patriotic values, and American ideals have been cultivated into them from a young age. Americans who enter politics are usually among the most religious and patriotic among the population. They are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they could never consciously plan an attack agaisnt their own people, merely for the promise of material reward. The idea contradicts human psychology on all levels.

No it doesn't. These same patriotic Americans sent their own citizens (soldiers are still citizens) to a needless war. They had and continue to have no qualms about sacrificing thousands of their own to a purpose of their own making. I think your view of Replublican patriotism is a little simplistic.

It doesnt make any sense, epecially consideing most of the people involved in politics are mult-millionaries anyway, so they already obtained care-free financial security, so their is no reason for them to behave in such a way.

Yes, it's true many of them are multi-millionaires. So, why do they go into politics at all? Because they want to "help" their nation? Get outta here!

And then there is Noam Chomsky's argument, the bush admin is one of the most incompetent governments ever to have taken power, and they dont have the intelligence necessary to pull off such a scheme.

This is a non-argument because it doesn't have to be the dumb ones in a Government who organise such things. They were smart enough to get elected, twice, weren't they?

Also, humans dont keep secrets, there is usually someone in a large group of criminals that will confess out of guilt, and this hasnt happened.

This is also a non-argument because it doesn't follow that those involved in a conspiracy know they are. It only takes a small core of people who are in the know. How many members of the Mafia do you think ever come out and openly confess? It took 30 years for the truth about the USS Liberty to come out.

If something of this calibre did take place, don't you think that someone who was indirectly involved, and ridden with gulit would have gone public by now? or at least confessed to the police or something? No, none of this occured because there is no conspiracy, it is the dream-work of paranoid and neurotic intellectuals that get excited off the thought that of an outrageous conspiracy.

There is no single conspiracy theory, Ryan. They range from easily doable LIHOP scenarios to more complex and problematic MIHOP tales.

Your failure to address these points with an intelligent counter-argument proves to me that these conspiracies are all hogwash, nothing but brain-candy for the the pseudo-intellectuals and the scientogists of our time. Don't believe the hype, especially when not one rational thinker of our time has picked up and ran with this idea, don't you think that is a little odd?

Your points aren't as strong as you think thery are.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan,

Well, it must have seduced me too because I agree with Carl. One coincidence or anomalous event can be overlooked, two, the same, perhaps even three or four, but when there are literally dozens it cannot be explained away so easily. There are dozens and dozens of bizarre coincidences and twists and events surrounding 9/11. Far too many to be ignored.

One can make a convincing argument for anything by suggesting that there are many coincidences, every event that occurs has an infinite number of causal events that are related to it, so surely it isn’t overly difficult to fabricate an entire argument based on ‘coincidences’.

These same patriotic Americans sent their own citizens (soldiers are still citizens) to a needless war.

Yes, but you need to ask their motivation, which is as follows: Bush believes that he is defending and helping America by sending troops to Iraq, he justifies his military action by speculating on the number of terrorist attacks on homeland soil that has been prevented due to the Iraqi occupation. In essence, his decisions are still entirely controlled by tribal and patriotic views. And if this is true, which I believe it is, then the conspiracy theory has absolutely no weight at all.

Yes, it's true many of them are multi-millionaires. So, why do they go into politics at all? Because they want to "help" their nation?

Its complex, they want to serve their nation, they want to do what is right, they want to achieve fame, wealth, power, and recognition – there are many interrelated desires that scope their decisions, and this is why their behavior seems so twisted and distorted because there are conflicting desires that take precedence over each other. This is the fundamental reason why there is hypocrisy in the world.

This is a non-argument because it doesn't have to be the dumb ones in a Government who organize such things. They were smart enough to get elected, twice, weren't they?

I think it is a relevant argument. Most humans are so divided that they can barely agree on which restaurant to eat at. There is a lot of distrust within the different parties of the US government, greedy humans that cooperate usually fall out with each other very quickly, and murders take place out of distrust and greed. This has happened in the mafia. If these conspiracies were true, then many politicians should have been murdered by now to cover up their tracks, I wonder why we haven’t heard anything in the news?

Also, another important point that Chomsky makes is that nobody could accurately predict the affects that such an attack on America would have, It is impossible to accurately predict the causal ramifications of such actions, so to have an elaborate plot that extends far into the future would have been thoroughly questioned by those involved, Moreover, anybody in their group with even the slightest degree of intelligence would have skeptical of such a plan because the results are so unpredictable.

Many of these rich politicians have much of their money invested into the American Stock market, so don’t you think that they would have been a little hesitant to go through with such an action because of the chance that the USA economy could suffer badly? things could have turned out much differently, and they would have been aware of the probability of this.

And also, you forget, that Osama Bin Laden bombed the world trade center in the early 1990s, and he vowed to do it again if he had another chance. So In my mind, he was just finishing the job.

[Ryan Rudolph]

One other point: It is common knowledge that if a US politician doesn’t come from a wealthy family then they can easily make their fortune through insider trading in the stock market, which happens all the time. Moreover, there is no reason for them to plot a murderous plot against the American people to achieve this end because lots of opportunities naturally arise without any intervention needed. So there are many easier ways for US politicians to make millions of dollars without the high amount of risk that a conspiracy would entail.

[Dan Rowden]

[..]Bush believes that he is defending and helping America by sending troops to Iraq, he justifies his military action by speculating on the number of terrorist attacks on homeland soil that has been prevented due to the Iraqi occupation.

Are you serious?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan wrote:

Are you serious?

Well, He needs to justify his military decisions somehow, which have been a total disaster. And he is aware that most of the world disapproves of many of these decisions so his justifications are the only way he can remain confident.

And I think he believes that the hatred towards American foreign policy in the region is a serious threat that needs to be crushed, regardless of whether or not those policies are moral or immoral.

The Islamic extremism movement is complicated in this regard because these organizations are indignant towards American foreign policy in the region, but they also have hatred for the modernizing of their societies that is happening at relatively fast rates, and the Islamic conservative hardliners are reacting in such a way that is self-protective towards their customs, traditions, and so on. I’ve watched many propaganda tapes from different parts of the Arab world, and there seems to be a recurring theme of hatred of both western culture and the Jews from many of these hardliner groups.

Basically my interpretation is that each party views the other as a dangerous threat, and each side demonizes the other in exaggerated ways to make their cause look more noble.

However, each party may in fact honestly believe in their own exaggerations, as they could be done on an unconscious level. And it is difficult to be certain, as most of these political debates are speculating on whether or not one can trust their motivations at face value or whether they are consciously lying. It is difficult to know though.

[sue hindmarsh]

Ryan: And then there is Noam Chomsky's argument, the bush admin is one of the most incompetent governments ever to have taken power, and they dont have the intelligence necessary to pull off such a scheme.

Dan: This is a non-argument because it doesn't have to be the dumb ones in a Government who organise such things. They were smart enough to get elected, twice, weren't they?

Yes, the voters don’t care how intelligent their governments are, they just care that their governments pay appropriate attention to their moods.

Public servants like John Howard (Australian Prime Minister), Tony Blair (now ex-Prime Minister of Britain), George Bush (USA President) and Silvio Berlusconi (Prime Minister of Italy 2001-06) didn’t join forces in the “War against Evil” because it was the just thing to do; they had to do it to appease the frightened and outraged masses, and thereby save their positions.

When you think about it, the situation most of the world finds itself in could be considered quite absurd if it wasn’t so precarious. On one side of this “war” you have leaders that have been democratically elected by their nations, and on the other side you have a splattering of small bands connected to no country, led by tribal chiefs, and all acting under the banner of Islam. These very different opponents are clearly playing by very different rules, and with very different aims.

The side that includes the US, Australia, Britain, Italy, etc is subject to the people who voted them into office – so they’re playing by the rules of politics, and as we all know “Politics is about surviving until Friday afternoon”*. With this as their aim, they “act” only to improve their chances of survival. We saw this after 9/11, as Western governments scrambled to assure the people of their countries that they had the situation under control. Many came out with fists raised at the ready, others stood back to gauge the ground, and a few decided it was none of their business. Of course, the major difficulty for all these politicians was that the enemy wasn’t an army from another country - instead they were ordinary citizens from different countries, most recruited from within their own communities, formed into groups able to act either in coordination with other similar groups, or independently. This fact gave rise to the Western Nations searching out and finding targets that were more traditionally considered “the enemy”: Afghanistan and Iraq fitted nicely. The pollies were greatly pleased with this as they all know that, "The public aren't interested in foreign affairs. All they want to know is who are the goodies and who are the baddies."* With the public appeased for the moment, the pollies were able to bask in the glory of a job well done – that is until the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing, the rising death toll of military personnel, the kidnapping and murder of foreign civilians – all exposing the impotence of the West to put a permanent stop to these “terrorist groups”. The public mood changed, and now the gung-ho attitude of many heads of state has been replaced with that of the erudite diplomat “looking for new long-term solutions” to a very messy, on going problem.

The other participants of this war are in a much more powerful position. They don’t need to be worried about the next election, or the changeable public mood. They can continue causing havoc for major Western nations for many generations to come by just keeping their structure at the grass-root level. That way they ensure a steady supply of fresh recruits, eager to gain status for their families and their communities by sending a few “heathen” foreigners to Hell, and themselves into the awaiting arms of Allah.

The West and its Allies can’t declare war on all of the nations that the terrorists spring forth from, because most of those governments are friends of the West. Even capturing all of the current leaders of the different groups wouldn’t stop others taking their place. No, this is going to be a situation that generations will have to deal with for many years to come.

-

But hey! Maybe one day the Islamic fundamentalists will join forces with the CIRA, the AUC, the FARC, the SL, the LTTE, the RIRA, the KACH, the CCP/NPA, and all the many other terrorist groups – and together they’ll become a single army, and meet their opponents face to face in a bloody battle to decided once and for all who the victor will be!

Hang on…isn’t that the plot of the newest Hollywood blockbuster! If it isn’t, I bet it soon will be! ; )

-
* Quotes from the BBC Yes Minister series.