9-11-2001
Part Two

(Written on 11-11-01;
Updated on 4-30-04)
By S. Wolf Britain

As the quote I’ve quoted before says, “The majority is usually wrong”! (Robert A. Heinlein from his great book, Stranger in a Strange Land.) The alleged majority that supposedly is in favor of a major war against Iraq is wrong! Look at how many people from many very different “walks of life”, including many “conservatives”, are already carrying out anti-war protests clear across our allegedly “free country”, and all over the world (millions of people world-wide), against this “new” war; and how the Office of Homeland Security (DHS) has been created, like something right out of George Orwell’s also great book, 1984, and right out of a totalitarian police state! We are living in a time when the majority of “Americans” think “it can’t happen here”, and “the minority can’t be right”; but the so-called majority is wrong about what is happening, AND about what is coming!

Most people need to get a true and quick education on what true freedom is, and wake up, if it isn’t too late, before “we” destroy ourselves! I’ve long been saying that the U.S.A. is becoming more and more of an “authoritarian police state”; and I was so right! Look up the word, ‘authoritarian’, in the dictionary; as the definition reads like a prediction that has already come true! Believe me, there’s no ego involved in this on my part; I didn’t make most of the correct predictions concerning what’s now happening in our country and world; they were already made by others’, in many cases long before me!

If it were possible for “America’s” True founding-fathers to turn over in their graves, they would have done so many times already! Thomas Jefferson, and others’, said we must not let our government get too big and out of control; and the U.S. government has been much too big and out of control for a long time; and now the majority of Americans are blindly willing to give up their civil liberties in order to supposedly and completely destroy what we cannot possibly completely destroy, the extremists, terrorists and all those who are “evil” of this very crazy, insane, and bizarre world!

By supporting this “new” war, “we” are playing right into the hands of what our government “leaders” have wanted for a long time, more control over We, The People, those ONLY for True Freedom, who are supposed to be the ONLY ones who are running this country! Think about this with the deepest part(s) of your heart(s), instead of with your “follower” mind(s), wake up, stand up only for True Freedom, and stand up against ALL threats to that True Freedom!!

LOVE ONLY TRUE AMERICA, NOT MURDER FOR MURDER, TWO WRONGS SUPPOSEDLY MAKING ONE RIGHT, THE ENDS SUPPOSEDLY JUSTIFYING MOST MEANS, RETALIATION(S), AND REVENGE!! THAT IS NOT TRUE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AND/OR FREEDOM AT ALL!!

Let’s hope, and pray if we do so, that we don’t end up in WW3; because that’s where this entire situation is heading; and G.W. Bush and others should truly decide that “we” are truly NOT (going to be) at war with Islam and its nations! He hypocritically claims that “we” are not at war against Islam; but WE ARE; and, very sadly, the cooler heads are not prevailing!

EDWARD W. SAID ON THE “APOCALYPSE NOW”

by Edward W. Said
(Old Dominion Foundation Professor in
the Humanities at Columbia University,
and a former member of the Palestine
National Council)
from Acts of Aggression,
Policing “Rogue” States,
Copyright © 1999 by Edward W. Said,
Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark

“It would be a mistake, I think, to reduce what is happening between Iraq and the United States simply to an assertion of Arab will and sovereignty versus American imperialism, (the latter of) which undoubtedly plays a central role in all this. However misguided, Saddam Hussein’s cleverness is not that he is splitting America from its allies {which he has not really succeeded in doing for any practical purpose} but that he is exploiting the astonishing clumsiness and failures of U.S. foreign policy. Very few people, least of all Saddam himself, can be fooled into believing him to be the innocent victim of American bullying; most of what is happening to his unfortunate people who are undergoing the most dreadful and unacknowledged suffering is due in considerable degree to his callous cynicism… Be that as it may, U.S. vindictiveness ([re]vengefulness), whose sources I shall look at in a moment, has exacerbated the situation by imposing a regime of sanctions which, as Sandy Berger, the (then) American national security advisor (under Clinton) has proudly said, is unprecedented for its severity in the whole of world history. It is believed that (more than) 567,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the Gulf War, mostly as a result of disease, malnutrition and deplorably poor medical care. Agriculture and industry are at a total standstill. This is unconscionable of course, and for this the brazen inhumanity of American policy makers is also very much to blame. But we must not forget that Saddam is feeding that inhumanity quite deliberately in order to dramatize the opposition between the United States and the rest of the Arab world; having provoked a crisis with the United States {or the United Nations dominated by the United States} he at first dramatized the unfairness of the sanctions. But by continuing it, the issue has changed and has become his non-compliance, and the terrible effects of the sanctions have been marginalized. Still the underlying causes of an Arab/U.S. crisis remain. A careful analysis of that crisis is imperative. The United States has always opposed any sign of Arab nationalism or independence, partly for its own imperial reasons and partly because its unconditional support for Israel requires it to do so… Arab policy was never backed up with coordination, or collective pressure, or fully agreed upon goals (except for the recent ‘appearances’ of same) on Israel (that they without a doubt know the U.S. ‘secretly’ leads them to believe they can ignore with impunity). The more extreme Israeli policy becomes the more likely the United States has been to support it. And the less respect it has for the large mass of Arab peoples whose future and well-being are mortgaged to illusory hopes embodied, for instance, in the Oslo accords.

NOAM CHOMSKY ON “ROGUE STATES”

by Noam Chomsky
(activist, writer, and professor of
linguistics at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology [M.I.T.], where he has
taught since 1955)
from Acts of Aggression,
Policing “Rogue” States,
Copyright © 1999 by Edward W. Said,
Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark

“The concept of “rogue states” plays a pre-eminent role today in policy planning and analysis… But discussion (has been and continues to be) kept within rigid bounds that exclude(d) the obvious answer: the United States and Britain should act in accord with their laws and treaty obligations(!)

“The relevant legal framework is formulated in the Charter of the United Nations, a “solemn treaty” recognized as the foundation of international law and world order, and (is,) under the U.S. Constitution, “the supreme law of the land(!)”

“The Charter states that(,) “The (U.N.) Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42,” which detail the preferred “measures NOT involving the use of armed force” and permit the Security Council to take further action if IT finds such measures necessary to maintain international peace and security(!)” Apart from these exceptions, member states “shall REFRAIN in their international relations from the threat or use of force(!)”

“There are legitimate ways to react to the many threats to world peace. If Iraq’s neighbors feel threatened, they can approach the Security Council to authorize appropriate measures to respond to the threat. If the United States and Britain feel threatened, they can do the same. BUT NO STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ITS OWN DETERMINATIONS ON THESE MATTERS AND TO ACT AS IT CHOOSES; the United States and Britain would have NO such authority even if their hands were clean, (which is) hardly the case(!)

“Outlaw states do not accept these conditions: Saddam’s Iraq, for example, OR THE UNITED STATES(!)… The Security Council unanimously endorsed (U.N. Secretary-General Kofi) Annan’s agreement, rejecting U.S./U.K. demands that it authorize their use of force in the event of non-compliance. The resolution warned of the “severest consequences,” but with no further specification(s). In the crucial final paragraph, the Council “decides, in accordance with its responsibilities under the (U.N.) Charter, to remain actively seized of the matter, in order to ensure implementation of this resolution and to ensure peace and security in the (Middle-Eastern) area.” The Council, NO ONE ELSE; in accordance with the Charter(!)

“The facts were (very) clear and unambiguous(!)… “It HAS to be the Security Council who determines when to use armed force,” the Ambassador of Costa Rica declared, expressing the position of the Security Council(!)… “And the other nations of the world have NOT assigned Washington (D.C.) the right to decide when, where and how their interests should be served {Ronald Steel}(!)”

“The Constitution (of the United States) DOES happen to provide such mechanisms, namely, by declaring valid treaties “the supreme law of the land,” particularly the most fundamental of them, the U.N. Charter(!) It further authorizes (the U.S.) Congress to “define and punish… offenses against the law of nations,” UNDERGIRDED BY THE CHARTER IN THE CONTEMPORARY ERA(!). It is, furthermore, a bit of an understatement to say that other nations “have not assigned Washington the right”; THEY HAVE FORCEFULLY DENIED IT THAT RIGHT, following the {at least rhetorical} lead of Washington, which largely crafted the Charter(!)….