if 9/11 NOT HAPPEN..........

IF 9/11 NOT HAPPEN........ must read


So well the adage goes that “necessity is the mother of invention”. We find that 9/11 was essentially an urgent need of the United States. If 9/11 had not happened, it would have been necessary to invent it. This is what a deep probe into the episode of 9/11 shows and this is what a series of the events of the last 150 years and American WMDD (weapons of mass deception + destruction) expose. The media, quoting government sources, identified Bin Laden as the most likely culprit within hours of the attacks on the Twin Towers. It took more time for the story to evolve to the point where the Taliban became equivalent to evil along with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but soon enough, the whole affair was openly presented as a Manichean conflict between good and evil, even including the claim that the United States was attacked because evil folk hate good folk. The war was directed “toward much broader purposes than a simple effort to punish the actual culprits of September 11”. Kinsley writes: ‘But how did the “war on terrorism’ change focus so quickly from rooting out and punishing the perpetrators of 9-11 - a task that is still incomplete - to something (what?) about nuclear proliferation?’ In Matthews’s view, the limited punitive war has been ‘hijacked’ by people with other, broader aims - including, as he specifies, the proposed effort to prevent members of the ‘axis of evil’ from developing weapons of mass destruction.
The US history is replete with convenient conventions that justified a number of invasions, occupations, subversions and the overthrow of sovereign states by the US administration in order to pursue its economic/political objectives. Beginning with the Native Americans, followed by the Africans and South Americans, right through to the Japanese, who have suffered ineffable horror by being the only race to know the true meaning of weapons of mass destruction. It is now an open secret that the US knew about 9/11 in advance and manipulated to comply with it. It is neither too far fetched nor out of keeping with imperialist stratagem. If one thinks of history as a ‘conspiracy of the powerful’, then 9/11 was definitely more than a conspiracy. The US has operated ruthlessly in the pursuit of achieving global hegemony. Driven by forces that it barely comprehends, yet possessed of the means of manipulation, it hurtles toward the future, essentially out of control. The US power elite, drunk on its success of ‘winning’ the Cold War is brazen in its credence that the 21st century is the "American Century."

Since the end of the Cold War, a series of events have unfolded absolute power to shape the ‘new world order’ in its favor. The opening shot was the Gulf War of 1990 but the groundwork for it was laid down decades earlier. In 1953, the British and American governments initiated a joint Anglo-American plan for the covert overthrow of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, the Prime Minister of Iran. With a plan called Operation AJAX with Kermit Roosevelt, announced John Foster Dulles to a group of top Washington policy makers in June 1953, "So this is how we will get rid of the madman Mossadeq in Iran". Predictably, the overthrow of Mossadeq was about oil and Iran’s strategic position on the southeastern border of the Soviet Union. With the Shah, an anti-Soviet ally and friend of Anglo-US oil corporations, the issue of defeating the Soviet Union’s expanding influence, oil and the preservation of Israel remained the central planks of US foreign policy in the Middle East. The series of coups and counter-coups in Iraq that followed the overthrow of pro-western King Faisal in 1958 were part of the larger fight against the Arab independence movements that followed WWII. A central feature of US strategy has been the tactic of playing both ends against the middle, as it did during the Iran-Iraq war in order to let both sides exhaust each other in what the US hoped would be a never-ending war of attrition. There were so many U.S. corporations, subsidiaries of foreign corporations, and a number of U.S. government agencies that provided parts, material, training and other assistance to Iraq's chemical, biological, missile, and nuclear weapons programs throughout the 1970s and 80s, some continuing till the end of 1990. A major front-page article in the Washington Post (December 30, 2002) detailed the active involvement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then a special envoy of President Reagan to Iraq, in reestablishing full diplomatic relations and improving trade and other economic ties that bolstered Washington's military support of Iraq. But all the support shifted to denunciation as soon as their friend Saddam committed his first authentic crime, which was disobeying or perhaps misunderstanding orders, by invading Kuwait. Saddam Hussein did use chemical and biological weapons against Iranians and Kurdish Iraqis, and that those weapons came from western countries - especially U.S. and France - and that Saddam Hussein was a close ally of the U.S. right up to the moment that he invaded Kuwait to take over their oil fields, and that precipitated a complete sea change. Many analysts think that Glaspie apparently unwittingly gave Saddam indications that the U.S. wouldn't be too concerned if Saddam happened to take over those oil fields. But once that happened, of course, everything changed, and then Saddam had to be turned into the great evil - a Satanic or Hitler-like character. People like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld and others, within hours of the 9/11 attacks, were seizing on the attacks as a green light to attack Iraq.

This is how the "imperial grand strategy" presents the US as "a revisionist state seeking to parlay its momentary advantages into a world order in which it runs the show", a unipolar world in which no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader, protector, and enforcer.

Osama bin Laden had been an amiable ally and intelligence asset of the only existing Super Power during the Cold War; The relationship is said to "go way back" for these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. But how can they be viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events? How can the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organizations during the Cold war and its aftermath be ignored or downplayed by the Western media? A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called "blowback" thesis: "intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors"; "what we've created blows back in our face. In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims. The US media concedes: "the Taliban's coming to power (in 1995) is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union". But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a “deceitful Osama”. He is like "a son going against his father".

The United States energetically worked a plan to start the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan arming and funding the Afghan Mujahideen in 1979, and in the process tore to pieces the nation of Afghanistan as they did absolutely nothing to aid ravaged Afghanistan once the Soviets withdrew. Brzezinski proudly described the Afghan Trap in an interview he gave to a French publication, “Le Nouvel Observateur” in 1998. Here is a part of the interview

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

So it was the Afghan Trap that gave birth to a man named Osama bin Laden, who became a demigod to the Taliban and the Afghan people for his service in the war against the Soviets. William Rivers Pitt puts the question: “Were the Americans too dull-witted to comprehend the complex Cold War motivations that gave birth to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban?” He thinks they are afraid to speak of such things, because it suggests that they erroneously bought the trouble that came upon them two years ago on 9/11.

But there is another pertinent question: “Was Osama really responsible for the episode of 9/11?” How can a stick-in-the-mud living without electricity, without PC, without the adequate and proper machinery and technology, in the very deep caves of Afghanistan steal the show and become all of a sudden more notorious than Hitler? Was it not a prologue of the story of pipeline? The main obstacle to the completion of the pipeline was the fact that it had to pass through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The project would receive no international support unless the Afghan government somehow became legitimized. In bargaining for the pipeline, the Bush administration demanded the Taliban to reinstate deposed King Mohammad Zahir Shah as ruler of Afghanistan, and hand over Osama bin Laden to America. According to W. R. Pitt, in return, the Taliban were told they would reap unimagined billions in profit from the pipeline. A central part of the Bush administration's bargaining tactics involved threats of war if these conditions for the legitimization of Afghanistan were not met.

The BBC of London reported on September 18th, 2001 of the existence of war plans on Bush's desk aimed at Afghanistan. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, stated that the war plans were slated for October of 2001. Conditions set by the Bush administration to avoid war involved the Taliban's handing over of bin Laden and the acceptance of King Zahir Shah. Naik went so far as to doubt that America would hold off on war even if these conditions were met. The stark and bitter truth is that the plan of pipeline had to be implemented by hook or by crook. The episode of 9/11 accelerated the idea that American administration had in mind much earlier.

The result, asserts W. R. Pitt, was total disaster. The Bush administration fundamentally misunderstood the Taliban regime, much the way Brezinski did in 1998. To bring back the King would have been a suicide for the Taliban. The arrival of Shah would shove them out of power, and handing bin Laden over to the West would have been seen as a high crime to the Islamic world. Instead of acquiescing to the hard-sell tactics of the Bush administration, the Taliban unleashed Osama bin Laden upon America. They were going to lose everything, and chose to attack first in the hope that all-out war would break out in Central Asia and rally other Muslim nations to their cause.

Pitt says: “Albert Einstein, arguably the most brilliant human being ever to draw breath on planet Earth, defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.’ America instigated a horrible war in Afghanistan 24 years ago to make the world safer. We have attacked and destroyed another Muslim nation purportedly for the same purpose. One of these days we are going to realize that such actions never serve the cause of peace, but only serve to perpetuate and augment the horrors of this terrifying world. We will learn, for all time, that actions have consequences.

Pitt further adds: “In the meantime, we have silence about September. We have evildoers who hate our freedom, and we have war after war after war, instigated by an administration that has so very much to answer for. I tell the people at my talks about all this, and they leave the room quivering with rage. They have the answers, as do I, and God help the administration because of it. Secrets love to whisper.”

After the catastrophe of 9/11, the way the Western media had been obsessive with Osama bin Laden was so daft and funny as if he was a ghost or phantom, fear or fantasy. He had been like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Osama seemed to be everywhere: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, even Indonesia, yet he is still at large and found nowhere. The US and her front-line allies have been desperately hunting for him ever since he reportedly escaped from the exotic-sounding Tora Bora caves of Afghanistan more than 18 months ago but to no avail. He was said to be severely injured and slightly incapacitated by a shrapnel, but surprisingly still alive, leading his scattered troops, dreadful, giving his alarming messages and picking to pieces the U.S. policies through his tapes. His hand is felt, but not seen anywhere from Bali to Mombasa and from Riyadh to Casablanca. He has been hunted relentlessly, but not found. He seems to be in no man’s land. Even offers of rewards of millions of dollars have not helped so far. The tribals are so poor and illiterate that they don't know what a million dollar reward is. If one offered them instead a plot of land or a few dozen goats they could have joined the hunt with gusto. So it was said. And so it was done but still without results. Neither dollars nor plots nor goats would interest the tribals. Why? The answer is simple, my dear Americans, wrote Mr. Afrasiab Khattak, a well-known Pashtun leader of NWFP, in the Dawn of May 10, 2003. Osama is nowhere in the tribal belt. He wrote: "The myth of no-man's land and the wild north-west comes quite handy as a spin and as a diversion when the Government fails to muster the required political will for taking the bull of terrorism right by the horns." The US hunt for Osama bin Laden has become a butt of ridicule amongst the tribals: "Watch out if you are over six feet tall. The CIA's Predator aircraft have been programmed to kill all those above six feet, hoping one of them would turn out to be bin Laden."


And since November last several tapes, one tape after another, of Osama and his No.2 Ayman al-Zawahiri are being disseminated purportedly., reaching Al Jazeera and other Arab channels like rabbits out of a magician's hat. Till February, the voice in these tapes, whether of Osama or his No.2, directed its anger only at Israel, the US and other Western countries. A tape of February attacked Pakistan for the first time, but not Musharraf, though a printed version of it denounced Musharraf too as Pakistan's Hamid Karzai. Two more in September have not only lambasted him personally, but also called for his overthrow. It is intriguing that the personal attacks on Musharraf started appearing only after an increasing number of opinion-makers in the US began expressing their misgivings about Musharraf's sincerity as an ally in the war against the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The war that was launched two years ago against bin Laden was severely criticized by some observers. “If this is a war, then it is a war that Osama bin Laden is winning”, observes Andrew Rawnsley, “Osama bin Laden's first victory in this conflict is a victory for his self-conceit. His face beams out of every television bulletin. He is the poster boy and chanted hero of Islamic extremists across Asia. Disturbingly, he threatens to become a legend among many Muslims who would regard themselves as moderate. In America and Britain, we have made bin Laden synonymous with Satan, the embodiment of all terrorist evil. In some parts of the Muslim world - not all parts, but enough to be chilling - he is being accorded the status of a saint, the personification of resistance to the arrogant imperialists. And he will regard both appellations as a compliment to his deed and a testimony to his power.” Bush and Blair personalized the war against terrorism around one man. In this way they have given him “a global recognition which outstrips Madonna or Beckham.” Talk of war dignifies bin Laden and paints him as a hero who depicts himself in his video response to the beginning of the air strikes. It assists his pose as the avenging general of Islamic forces engaged in a titanic clash of civilizations. By personalizing the conflict around one man, the allies - which basically mean America and Britain - have set themselves a highly specific objective which may not be easy to realize. For Tony Blair it will be a disaster and a catastrophe for Bush if he is not caught in the eyes of their home audiences and a humiliation for the Anglo-Americans in the eyes of the Islamic world. And it will be a commensurate triumph for the West's Most Wanted.

In one of his tapes bin Laden supposedly aspires to die as a martyr "in the eagle's belly." Perhaps he wants to die in the White Palace. Never mind that he was the guy Bush and Crew wanted all along. The Bushite tactic moved on to a bigger and better arena to fight the evil. He looked towards Afghanistan where he was hunting for pipeline and then toward Baghdad for capturing oil wells. That's where the good for the US and evil for the world reside. Where there is paradise for the US, there is hell for the people of the world. Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government "aided the terrorist attacks" on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, have since the end of the Cold War continued to "harbor such organizations". Patriotism cannot be based on falsehoods, particularly when it constitutes a pretext for waging war and killing innocent civilians.

The official story permeating the major media runs something like this: the U.S. war on Afghanistan was simply an ad hoc response to the horrific events of September 11, which struck as a bolt from the blue, totally unexpected by American security agencies. The Afghanistan war emerged overnight as a simple effort to punish, and thus bring to justice, the perpetrators of the abominable deeds - namely, the al-Qaeda terrorist network masterminded by the infamous Osama Bin Laden, ensconced in his cave in Afghanistan (accompanied, no doubt, by his dialysis machine). Presumably, the punishment of the perpetrators would make America safer from terrorism. Because the Taliban government of Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden - the official line goes - it was necessary and just for the United States to overthrow that regime, which according to the U.S. Department of Justice was not actually a government at all but simply a vipers’ nest of terrorists, as evil as Bin Ladin and al Qaeda. Tracking down Osama Bin Laden and his filthy gang to the ends of the Earth, the Americans were up to the task. But when Osama could not be ransacked, the evil shifted from Osama to Saddam, from Afghanistan to Baghdad and now from Baghdad to Iran.

All is fair for the United States. What is to be protected is US power and the interests it represents, not the world, which vigorously opposed the concept. Washington told the United Nations that the US had the "sovereign right to take military action". And Colin Powell told the World Economic Forum: "When we feel strongly about something we will lead, even if no one is following us". President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair underscored their contempt for international law and institutions and issued an ultimatum to the Security Council: capitulate, or we will invade without your meaningless seal of approval. And we will do so whether or not Saddam Hussein and his family leave the country. In any case US must effectively rule Iraq with formal democracy, essentially of a submissive kind accepted in the US 's backyard.

The grand strategy authorizes the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, as critically observes Noam Chomsky, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg. Bush's grand strategy was "alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president, Franklin D Roosevelt said it would, lives in infamy". It was no surprise, added Schlesinger, that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism" and the belief that Bush was "a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein".

There is no credible evidence was for the alleged link between 9/11 and Osama bin Laden and then between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden but never mind the war against the so-called terrorism must continue merely to justify the American tactics and control the population at home. They regularly push the panic button to avoid public opposition to the policies that scatter terrorism to and fro.

When the occupying coalition army failed to discover WMD, the Senior officials then suggested a refinement in the concept of preventive war, to entitle the US to attack a country that has "deadly weapons in mass quantities". The revision "suggests that the administration will act against a hostile regime that has nothing more than the intent and ability to develop WMD".