WHY BUSH AND BLAIR ARE FIGHTING THE WRONG WAR
Dr Vernon Coleman is a provocative international best-selling author of over 90 medical and fiction books, broadcaster and leading campaigning journalist. Try and get hold of his book "Toxic Stress and the Twentieth Century Blues" a great guide to western civilisation/society.
Introduction
Compulsory Identity Cards
All About Freedom (Really?)
Rumours
Did The Americans Know About The Bombings Beforehand?
The ‘Land Of The Free’?
Crooked Governments
Scaremongering With A Purpose
Unasked Questions
Thoughtful and Valuable Contributions
Background
Peanut Butter And Jam
Demonising The Opposition (As Usual)
‘I Don’t Want To Die For America’s Vanity’
Bush and Blair claim that they are fighting a war for freedom. That’s a barefaced lie. It’s a war to prevent us noticing that we don’t have any freedom and that our rights are disappearing faster than snow in sunshine.
American and British politicians don’t give a fig for you or your family, for your safety or for your freedom. Don’t let these world class hypocrites, liars, cheats and frauds distract you with the phoney war they are fighting in Afghanistan. Bush and Blair have decided that we will all be at war until terrorism and evil have been eradicated. Do these unreal and impractical aims remind you of anything? They should. The discredited, pointless and unsuccessful Drugs War.
The world is now at war because politicians in the USA and the UK see the deaths of 6,000 people in America as a major opportunity to introduce new controls on their populations.
Our politicians are putting all their attention, all our money and all our resources into a war on terrorism.
We are supposed to be brave, to accept the risks and the hardships and the bombing and the new laws and the restrictions that are being brought in. Blair and Bush and their families and advisors, will, of course, be safe and well protected. At the first signs of gunsmoke they will be whisked away to a nuclear bunker. (Remember how Bush ran away and hid on September 11th.)
The truth is that this war – and we are assured that it will continue for a long, long time – is being used to distract us from the big issues.
Every day of every week of every month of every year more than 21,000 people die unnecessarily. They die in terror and in pain.
Every day – every single day – three times as many people are callously killed by the world’s large corporations as were killed by whichever band of terrorists attacked America on September 11th. Today, tomorrow and every day.
Look at the big issues – and what our so-called leaders are doing to deal with them and I think you may agree with me that Bush and Blair are fighting the wrong war. There is a bigger war they should be fighting. And that’s a war against the greed of global capitalism (led by corporate America). That’s the war which would truly save millions of lives, make the world a better place and enable more people to enjoy physical, mental and spiritual good health.
1 Every year several million people in America and Europe die from cancer. Unless they are hideously ignorant Bush and Blair both know what causes eight out of ten cancers; they know that the vast majority of cancers are preventable. Simply persuading people to stop eating meat would save millions of lives. There is no little irony in the fact that if anti-American feeling results in the closure of McDonalds fast food outlets worldwide (the word ‘restaurant’ seems inappropriate) tens of thousands of lives will be saved. If Bush’n’Blair are properly briefed they also know that current methods of cancer treatment are destructive and ineffective – and that the cancer industry has consistently suppressed new therapies which might (and possibly do) work.
What are Bush and Blair doing about this? Nothing. Actually, less than nothing. The EU and the American government still subsidise the growing of tobacco. There seems little point in spending small amounts trying to stop people smoking if you are spending large amounts encouraging them to do so by making it cheaper than it would otherwise be. Only 5% of the $246 billion tobacco settlement handed over by tobacco companies in the USA has been used on campaigns to stop people smoking. American States are just as hooked on tobacco as are their citizens (and as politicians in Europe). If people smoke less, taxes will fall and there will be more people living long enough to claim their pensions. It’s easy to understand why politicians don’t want tobacco smoking stopped. It’s difficult to understand how or why they get away with it.
Who benefits? Tobacco and chemical companies whose products cause those cancers and drug companies (often subsidiaries of the chemical companies) who make the drugs which are sold to treat the cancers (but which do not work). Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
2 Heart disease is a major killer. Every day more people die from heart disease than died as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11th. Most cases of heart disease could be prevented. Most people with heart disease can be cured with a simple regime which costs almost nothing to follow and which is more effective than drugs and surgery.
Bush and Blair know this but what are they doing about it? Nothing. Who benefits? Food and tobacco companies. And drug companies. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
3 Bush and Blair know that the so-called drinking water you get out of your tap is full of chemicals. What are they doing about this? Nothing. Who benefits? Big water companies. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
4 Bush and Blair know that microwave ovens are a health hazard. What are they doing about this? Nothing. Who benefits? Electrical giants. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
5 Electricity has been proved to be a major cause of illness. What are Bush and Blair doing about this? Nothing. Who benefits? Electricity companies. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
6 Genetic engineering is being allowed to go ahead, virtually unhindered, despite the massive risks. What are Bush and Blair doing? Helping huge, multinational seed companies. Who loses? You, your friends and your family.
7 Vaccines are a major cause of serious illness in children. What are Bush and Blair doing about this? Supporting drug companies. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
8 Infectious diseases are coming back in a big way. Antibiotics are no longer effective. One reason is that farmers are allowed to put them into animal feed to boost farm products. What are Bush and Blair doing about this? Defending farmers and drug companies. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
9 The food available in our shops is so bereft of essential ingredients that in order to stay healthy we all need to swallow vitamin and mineral supplements. What are Bush and Blair doing about this? Protecting the status quo. Who benefits? Farmers and food companies. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
10 Bush and Blair know that there is a high risk that mobile phones cause brain cancer to regular users. The risk is particularly high among children. What are Bush and Blair doing to stop children using mobile phones? Nothing. Who benefits? The telecom industry – desperate to make back the money they have paid to governments for new licences. Who loses? You, your family and your friends.
Of course terrorism is bad. Of course it is hideously wrong to kill and injure people by crashing planes into buildings.
But deliberately allowing people to die unnecessarily of cancer, heart disease and infectious diseases is also wrong. Just as wrong.
Of course it is terrible to die in an aeroplane crashing into a building. Or course it is terrible to die in a building which collapses. But is it any worse than to die, slowly, in pain, of cancer?
All unnecessary deaths are awful – both for those who die and for those who are left behind. We should be doing everything we can to prevent them.
Our governments have chosen to put all their current (and, probably, future) effort into one target – terrorism – which suits them and which will not lose them corporate friends. They have chosen this target because it will give them more power and because it will distract us from the real issues.
We aren’t fighting this war to preserve our freedom. We are fighting this war to distract us from the real wars we should be fighting.
Deaths from cancer and heart disease are not usually dramatic. People who die from these diseases don’t die on television. They don’t become heroes.
But cancer and heart disease are a much bigger threat to most families than terrorism will ever be.
Bush, Blair and other leaders have for years deliberately turned a blind eye to these problems. They have forsaken the sick, the dying and the bereaved so as not to distress their corporate masters. (The Americans, who seem to believe that their empire is invincible, don’t understand that hubris and conceit (and a failure to understand basic human rights) destroyed the Roman, Greek and British empires. They don’t understand that neither their wealth nor their power will protect them from the same destiny.)
Now they want us to cheer them on in a war very few people understand, that will probably never end and that isn’t even just. They want us to cheer when our armies drop bombs on innocent citizens in revenge for an attack on the USA. But they will do nothing to protect us from the very real threats which hang over our lives.
The British Government claims that there can be no extra spending on health or education because of the costs of fighting the war against terrorism. It is even talking of increasing taxes. Why? What extra costs? Surely soldiers have to be paid whether they are fighting or sitting around? And don’t ‘exercises’ cost money? Bullets are fired whether it’s for practice or for real. Presumably, bullets fired in anger don’t cost any more than bullets fired during training exercises.
This sounds to me rather like an excuse – just as companies are using the ‘war’ as an excuse for profit warnings.
Shortly after the second plane crashed into the World Trade Centre on September 11th a typically cynical government advisor wrote a memo advising Britain’s political leaders that they could use the situation to their advantage: they could bury some bad news. And that is exactly what has happened. (The Government employee who wrote this memo has not resigned and has not been fired – something which tells us as much about the Government as it tells us about the advisor.)
Was it a coincidence that Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was let off an assault charge shortly after the attack? Much other potentially explosive news was buried in the rubble of the twin towers: the approval of plans to build a new plant at Sellafield nuclear processing plant; the appointment of a Labour supporter as chairman of the BBC Governors (when the Director General is already a Labour supporter); cancelling a new athletics stadium (and losing a prestigious international games meeting); the Government’s U turn on student loans; the Government’s response to the BSE crisis; – the list is endless. Within hours of the World Trade Centre collapsing the British Government’s spin doctors were in action – pushing out news of activities and actions they knew would be embarrassing and which would have normally attracted great publicity, but which they knew would not receive any coverage in the nation’s press in the aftermath of the tragedy in America.
The government has even used the war to provide some cover for an utterly dishonest decision to break its word, renege on a financial agreement with Railtrack and effectively steal the company back from its shareholders. (Since many large pension funds had shares in this ultra-safe company just about any Briton who has pension savings will have lost yet more money as a result of this State sponsored mugging.)
‘It’s the end of the line for investors’ faith in Government’ was one financial page headline the next morning.
The British Government won’t care. Blair and Co. have their free cars,
servants and luxury lifestyles and they clearly don’t give a fig about
ordinary citizens.
The Government has also used the war to push the issue of hunting back under the
carpet. I have no doubt that they will use the chaos they have helped create to
push the UK into the euro. They’ll argue that it would be unpatriotic to
oppose the government at a time like this. This is the Government which expects
– and demands – our full trust in time of ‘war’. Has there ever been a
more thoroughly corrupt, cynical, immoral and dishonest Government? The
Government lies about everything. Vaccines, mad cow disease, food safety – you
name, they lie about it. Blair’s cronies make the Borgias look positively
loveable.
All this is made easier for the Government since there is at the moment no discernible political opposition in the UK. Duncan-Smith, the extraordinarily feeble new Tory leader is to Blair what Blair is to Bush. Never before have I heard a so-called opposition leader offering such complete and undiluted support for the Government. Blair has more trouble with his own backbenchers than he has with the woefully insipid Duncan-Smith. And the media just go along with the party line. The BBC, long a disgrace, now makes the Pravda of the Cold War look like a brave, campaigning, free thinking newspaper. British taxpayers have to buy a special licence to watch television. The money is all given to the BBC. In view of the links between the BBC and the Labour Party I shall make out my next licence fee cheque to Tony Blair.
It was always obvious that the British Government would use America’s war of revenge as an excuse to introduce new constraints on our rapidly diminishing freedom. Recent weeks have been full of hysterical hyperbole. Fascism, racism and warmongering are in fashion.
Unbelievably, Blair has told us that we’re going to eradicate terrorism completely. An improbable Bush has promised to ‘rid the world of evil’. Newspapers and TV have been crammed with jingoistic echoes.
The price is that we are going to lose more and more of our freedom and our privacy.
Britain already has more CCTV cameras than any other nation on earth. Nothing
is confidential. The Government and local authorities in the UK have spent £1
billion of taxpayers’ money on CCTV cameras over the last decade. There are
now far more CCTV cameras in the UK than in any other country on the planet.
Lots more are planned. A whole industry has developed around these cameras and
countless thousands of people are employed to watch the 24 hour coverage they
provide.
The End to Privacy: ID Cards: The Real Threat To Freedom
Most Britons seem unconcerned about this gross invasion of their privacy even though there is absolutely no evidence that these cameras reduce crime, reduce anxiety about crime or help solve crimes. Do I need to remind you that despite having more CCTV cameras than any other country in the world Britain now has the worst crime rate in the world?
What next? Street microphones? Don’t laugh. They’ve already got microphones on the streets in Redwood City, California USA and in Los Angeles USA. Other American cities are planning to follow suit. The courts now accept that when in public places individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy. ‘They’ can, and will, peep inside your bag and your pockets without you being aware of it. Actually you don’t have much privacy in your home either. In parts of the USA they are now using thermal imaging to see into people’s homes. ‘They’ can see exactly what you’re doing – and who you are with.
Under Labour the loss of privacy has intensified. And, with the war on terrorism as an excuse, things are about to get much, much worse. Governments everywhere will be monitoring the movements of terrorists, eavesdropping on their telephone calls and opening their e-mails. To do this they will, of course, have to invade our privacy. Actually they’re already doing it. It’s just that now that they have a good excuse the worries about civil liberty are being ignored.
The Echelon system, governed by five English speaking nations (the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) and run by America’s National Security Agency uses satellites to eavesdrop on any electronic communication. The authorities claim that the Echelon is a good thing because it helped them catch Carlos the Jackal in 1994. If that’s the best excuse they can find for this invasion of human privacy I am not impressed. Just about everyone knew where Carlos the Jackal was by then. And he was ‘captured’ by the authorities because Syria, where he had been living, decided that he had to leave. There wasn’t a country left on earth that wanted him. That’s how the French intelligence services ended up with the short straw – with Carlos in a Paris prison.
Echelon works by recognising key words from its dictionary of trigger words and phrases. Use the wrong word – and it’s very easy to do so in an entirely innocent conversation – and you’re likely to have armed policemen banging on your door at 4.00 am.
Of course, none of this is really much good in the war against terrorists since terrorists are pretty careful about how they communicate with one another. But the system is good for keeping an eye on law-abiding citizens.
And on companies. In 1997 the European Parliament ordered an investigation into Echelon after the USA was accused of using its intelligence capabilities to steal international trade secrets. From its European allies, naturally.
It is, of course, possible to encrypt your e-mails. It is possible to purchase programmes so good that it would take 4,000 years for every computer in the USA, working together, to crack the codes they create. But there’s a snag. Encrypt your e-mails and the authorities will assume you’ve got something to hide. They might not be able to read your e-mail messages but you will have attracted their attention; they will watch you closely and, if they decide that they want to read your e-mails they’ll force you to hand over the key. To teach you a lesson, and use you as a warning to others who might be tempted to try encryption, you could well find yourself getting one of those 4 am visits from armed policemen. Use e-mail and they’ll find you – just as surely and as quickly as if you use a mobile phone. The bottom line: e-mail encryption is pretty much a waste of time. Don’t bother.
Now the British Government is talking of introducing compulsory identity cards. Identical to the ones the Nazis used – but more sophisticated. These are not just the harmless bits of cardboard with a photograph and a name which most people seem to think they are. These will include fingerprints and iris scans. The excuse is that these are essential to our nation’s security. ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide what does it matter?’ they say.
It matters because privacy is an essential part of human dignity. And without dignity there is no freedom.
If we allow the Government to impose ID cards on us we are taking a big step towards a police state and losing our freedom: freedom we treasured so much that we fought two World Wars to retain it.
In addition to fingerprinting us all the government plans to stuff these cards with confidential information. The aim is that these cards will eventually carry every bit of information which concerns you: your employment record, whether you are claiming or entitled to social security benefits, your tax records, your medical records, your pension details. If you have a driving licence the details will be on the card. The card will be your credit card, your organ donor card, your cashpoint card and your passport.
These ID cards will also include health details. (On pages 18-19 under the heading ‘Medical Records’ I show that the Government has been secretly planning to do this for three years.) National Health Service hospitals in the UK already make decisions about whether or not to save patients according to their age, family status and wealth. (Believe it, it’s true.) It will be easier for bureaucrats to decide whether or not to let you die if your ID card shows that you are alone in the world, pretty much broke and of no great value to anyone.
ID cards – smart cards – can track where you are, where you’ve been and what you’ve been doing. They can allow you access to some places and deny you access to others. Iris scans can detect recent drug use. They can confirm your identity and tell what you’ve been drinking or smoking from some distance.
Who will have control over the information on these ID cards? Who will be able to ‘read’ them?
How easy will they be to forge? (Very, I suspect.)
Does anyone seriously think that ID cards will stop terrorists and suicide bombers? (I don’t.)
Will the authorities be able to cancel or change the contents of your card
without your knowledge? (Cards of this type can be ‘opened’ or ‘closed’
from afar.)
How easy will it be for an unknown bureaucrat to reach out and change your
details without your knowledge?
How easy for a crook to help himself to all your money?
And what if you lose your ID card?
If you lose a credit card it’s no great loss: you can easily get another number.
But if you lose an ID card you can’t get another fingerprint or eye print?
What then?
How long before the authorities decide that it will be much more convenient and
safer for us all if they put all this information on a microchip embedded in our
hands or forearms? (As I revealed several years ago in VCHL the technology is
already available.)
Will ID cards or microchips contain satellite positioning and tracking technology? (You bet they will). What’s the moral difference between having a microchip embedded under your skin and having a tattoo on your arm?
There is much irony in all this.
Bush and Blair, the terrible twins, tell us that this war is all about
freedom. (Incidentally, British readers may be embarrassed to know that Tony
Blair has been described by The Economist magazine as ‘America’s ambassador
to the world.)
But how can we be fighting for freedom if they plan to take our freedom away
from us anyway?
I published a warning about ID cards to readers of my column in The Sunday People on 30th September 2001, advising my readers to write to Blair and tell him that they wouldn’t carry ID cards. Most of the rest of the press seemed to regard them as either necessary or a necessary evil.
The next day, October 1st, the British government responded by announcing that it was no longer going to introduce ID cards. They were, they said, never going to introduce ID cards. It was all a misunderstanding. They hadn’t ever thought of it. They wouldn’t dream of it.
And then, when the phoney war had started and everything else had been pushed out of the newspapers and off the TV they quietly announced that they were introducing identity cards after all.
It has been widely rumoured (though, naturally, not reported in the mainstream press) that the CIA and/or the FBI knew about the proposed attacks on America but did nothing to stop the attacks.
The attacks were, so the rumour goes, perceived as too convenient to the establishment to stop.
One rumour circulating within hours on September 11th was that the bombing would be used to excuse a global war to replace the failing drugs war, to bring an end to anti-American campaigns in the West, to stop anti-globalisation campaigners protesting at G7 meetings and to enable the American and British governments to introduce tougher new security, new banking laws and new ID rules.
The drugs war was used to bring in a whole raft of invasive laws. By using the drugs war as an excuse politicians and police have got rid of many of our freedoms. But, as an excuse the drugs war is beginning to pall. Most people recognise that we would all be better off if drugs were decriminalised. So how convenient that the world now has a long battle against terrorism to occupy itself – and to provide an excuse for many new losses of freedom.
This new war has made it more difficult for people to object peacefully to some of the environmental, economic and military activities of the USA. We had already been witnessing a growing intolerance toward non-violent protestors in western countries. This will now worsen.
It is tempting to dismiss conspiracy theories as the ravings of unhinged minds and the label ‘paranoia’ is easy to bestow.
Claiming that the American Government knew about September 11th is as absurd as, well, claiming that the British Government had something to do with the foot and mouth epidemic which has so far led to the killing of over three million healthy sheep, and rising fast.
That would be crazy wouldn’t it?
Or would it?
Let me give you some facts about the foot and mouth epidemic.
Fact One: The first case of foot and mouth disease was diagnosed in the UK on
Monday 19th February 2001.
Fact Two: Weeks before that date the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
(MAFF) had been contacting timber merchants to check on the availability of
railway sleepers with which to make funeral pyres.
Fact Three: MAFF ordered ‘Infected Area’ road signs from an Irish
manufacturer six weeks before the date of the first case of foot and mouth in
the UK.
Fact Four: Two months before foot and mouth was confirmed in the UK British
tourists in New Zealand were disinfected because the police there were worried
about foot and mouth in the UK.
Fact Five: A month before the ‘outbreak’ started the EU Commission voted to
spend £270,000 on testing emergency vaccine stocks.
Fact Six: Before the ‘outbreak’ started Irish farmers were warned to improve
their ‘biosecurity’.
The British Government has not denied any of this.
Could all those be coincidences?
Why on earth would the British Government want to spread foot and mouth disease in the UK?
How about a (bungled) excuse to get rid of all British sheep and thereby eradicate the ‘mad cow disease in sheep’ problem. (VCHL readers have for years known that this is a very real problem).
I have no evidence to support that theory.
But it is odd, is it not, that sheep were and are the only animals being killed in such obscenely large numbers. Why? Foot and mouth is not exclusive to sheep. It affects and is spread by many other animals as well. Cows, pigs, goats, horses, dogs and so on.
Would the Labour Government lie to the nation? Would Tony Blair deceive the voters? Does morning follow night?
Did The Americans Know About The Bombings Beforehand?
Did the Americans know about the September 11th bombings before they took place?
It is now pretty much accepted that the CIA were somehow involved with the plane crash at Lockerbie. There is no doubt whatsoever that the CIA were working with President Noriega for years.
As always one has to ask: ‘Who benefits most?’
The massively powerful arms industry benefits, of course.
And governments who want to stamp out dissidents and protestors in their own country benefit too. Governments are going to be able to clamp down on anti-globalisation protestors pretty easily in the future. Government forces have already resorted to shooting peaceful protestors. It’s probably fair to say that this attack has put an end to the anti-globalisation campaign. G7, the World Bank and the IMF will have a free run.
Within days of September 11th the British Home Office had announced that it was re-evaluating concessions made to business and civil liberties lobbyists and was planning to give security agencies authority to intercept all private e-mails – including encrypted and internet files and forcing all companies that give decryption keys to a central government run repository.
Store your files on the internet or have a computer connected to the internet and the government will soon be able to read whatever you write and check up on your contacts, your investments, your bank deposits and your hobbies without you being any the wiser. This proposal, which had previously attracted great opposition, was pretty much overlooked by the media.
What little was left of bank secrecy is to be a thing of the past: secrecy
and privacy are rapidly being made illegal in the name of hunting down
terrorists. The truth is that laws opposing bank secrecy make no difference
whatsoever to terrorists. But they make it easier for governments to control and
tax their citizens.
The world has changed. But who changed it? And why?
America describes itself as the ‘Land of the Free’ but that really is something of a joke. America is one of the most repressed nations on the planet. The police and various government agencies have an enormous amount of power. To say that America is a fascist state is as much of an understatement as it is a joke to say that it is the land of the free.
One prominent American announced (quite seriously) that the answer to the world’s current problem is for America to go out into the world and convert everyone to Christianity. That’s not what most people mean by ‘freedom’.
Is America the land of the free if you happen to have been born on an Indian reservation? Is it the land of the free for blacks?
American authorities have absurd amounts of power over their citizens. (Just ask those Americans who have been wrongly assaulted or arrested by gun-waving police or drug enforcement officials what they think of freedom). America insists on visitors to their country bringing visas but they merrily move into other countries and kidnap citizens (or political leaders) if it suits them. America has more muggings than any other country on earth. Thanks to absurdly lenient gun laws visitors are more likely to be shot and killed in America than in any other so-called civilised country. America is home to evangelical Christian fundamentalists and has made corruption among politicians acceptable.
America has more high-tech hospitals than anywhere else on earth. But one of the lowest life expectation rates in the developed world.
Astonishingly, there is more social stratification in the USA (much of it racial) than there is in Britain.
Did the CIA know about the attacks on New York and Washington? Did Bush? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t rule it out. Too ruthless? It is American and British governments which encourage companies within their borders to manufacture landmines which are specifically designed to be triggered by young children – not to kill them but just to blow off a leg or a foot. (The rationale being that this puts pressure on the local health services and that the sight of lots of limbless children hobbling around demoralises the affected population.)
It was America which used napalm with such enthusiasm when interfering in Vietnam.
These are governments which insist on vaccinating children – even though they know that vaccines are neither safe nor effective.
These are governments which subsidise the growing of tobacco, which protect tobacco company advertising and which make vast profits out of the sale of tobacco products.
These are governments which defend companies which force genetically engineered products on an unwilling population, which do nothing to preserve the environment (even though they know that their policies are directly responsible for such dramatic changes in the weather that flooding has become a serious problem in large areas of the world).
America has ruthlessly pursued policies which have resulted in vast numbers of deaths. Are American leaders and policy makers ruthless enough to regard the death of 6,000 civilians a fair exchange for an end to anti-globalisation protests and an opportunity to introduce new legislation controlling the privacy and freedom of ordinary citizens?
Even much-loved British bulldog Winston Churchill sacrificed Coventry during the Second World War so that the Germans wouldn’t know that the British could decode their communications.
The ruthlessness of current American politicians is illustrated by the fact that when the US Secretary of Defence discovered that Pentagon chiefs had vetoed a direct strike on a building where the Taliban leader was known to be because there was too much risk of killing civilians, he was so enraged that he reportedly kicked a door and broke a glass panel. The US Government promptly overruled the military decision to safeguard civilians but the Taliban leader had moved on.
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I remember working out that the Government’s bizarrely irresponsible AIDS campaign had been responsible for more deaths than AIDS itself because numerous people, consumed by anxiety, had killed themselves.
Now governments and newspapers seem to have played right into the hands of the terrorists by spreading alarm and fear over a variety of threats such as anthrax, smallpox, plague and the ebola virus. Ordinary people can do absolutely nothing to defend themselves against these threats.
The only sensible conclusion is that all this scare-mongering is being done for a reason. Could that reason be that the governments want to bring in new, even more restrictive laws on the back of all this fear?
Politicians lie about everything. They do it instinctively. Sometimes they even seem to do it when it isn’t necessary. From past experience we know that they take great advantage of the ‘national security’ excuse and lie even more ferociously when the country is at war.
Politicians learn to bullshit so that they can gain the prize and the power. When they are young perhaps they really want to do the right thing. But by the time they get into power they have forgotten why they wanted to get there in the first place. Too many lies. Too much chicanery. The passion has been replaced by expediency, cynicism and greed.
The fast moving events which followed September 11th leave us with many questions. Most aspects of the media have not even recognised these questions, let alone sought to provide any answers.
News programmes and newspapers are constantly full of misinformation. We can’t trust the mass media – they print what they are told, and are clearly too scared to question anything serious or to provide truly questioning, independent criticism on any matter of current affairs.
But who stands to gain if the West wages a war on Muslims?
What is the role of the Bilderbergers in all this?
Why not try Osama bin Laden in his absence. Then, if he is found guilty, he can be sought and arrested in the normal manner. Isn’t that the proper way to go about things?
Thoughtful and Valuable Contributions
Many VCHL subscribers sent long, thoughtful and valuable contributions after my last piece on this subject.
‘For a long time now I have been saying much to everyone’s surprise that we have more to fear from America than any other country so it was a relief to see you feel the same,’ wrote one subscriber.
‘Your comments on America were absolutely true,’ wrote another. ‘If the country didn’t have such a ‘Thank God I’m an American’ mentality (I believe that patriotism, like religion, only results in bad feeling) they might not be mourning the events of September 11th right now. But do you really think it will change their decidedly uncivilised and undemocratic mentality? Fat chance.’
‘You have just put into words what I have been feeling for a long time,’
wrote a third. ‘At last someone has had the courage to express these views in
print.’
‘Maybe the events of the last month or so will lead to the end of American
supremacy,’ wrote a fourth. ‘As they become poorer, more isolated maybe they
will become less enthusiastic about interfering where their meddling isn’t
welcome.’
Several readers mentioned the fact that an American company, Stephens Inc.,
based in Little Rock, Arkansas, USA, has bailed out British animal testing firm
Huntingdon Life Sciences. Responding, in a thoroughly democratic and proper way,
to protests about the firm’s activities, numerous British financial
institutions had severed ties with the firm – refusing even to handle nominee
accounts for the business. Without American support it is likely that Huntingdon
Life Sciences would have disappeared. ‘I’ve read that the company which
rescued Huntingdon Life Sciences did so because it saw the rescue as a
‘financial opportunity’,’ wrote one disgusted reader. ‘It seems to me
that Americans will do anything for money.
Britons don’t want this company to survive. Why are Americans
interfering?’
Some readers pointed out that the Americans would face practical problems for
which they are ill prepared. ‘There is not one soldier in America’s armed
forces who speaks the principal language of the Taliban. Since the USA claims
that bin Laden has been recognised as a major threat for years it seems rather
remiss of them not to send one or two soldiers away on a suitable language
course. The CIA isn’t much better. They haven’t had any agents on the ground
in Afghanistan for years. They don’t even know for certain whether or not bin
Laden is still in the country they are attacking. For all they knew he could be
renting a house in Philadelphia.’
A huge number of readers were incensed by Bush’s rejection of what were widely regarded as the entirely reasonable suggestions from the Taliban. ‘Bush claims that bin Laden is guilty because he says he’s guilty,’ protested one reader. ‘What sort of justice is that? The Taliban are being entirely reasonable in suggesting that bin Laden be sent to a neutral country – and it is quite proper of them to ask for evidence of criminal behaviour before handing over a guest. Is Bush saying that America would hand over a visitor because another head of state demanded his head on a plate?’
‘Bush was responsible for a host of deaths when he was Governor of Texas,’ another reader remembered. ‘There were suggestions that some of those who were killed by the State weren’t guilty but were sacrificed because Bush knew that killing a few poor people would help him win the election. Now he’s President he’s at it again. This time he is risking all our lives.’
Several readers were curious about the fact that Britons are being encouraged to send money to the USA.
‘Why are people raising money to send to America, the richest nation on earth?’ was one common query. ‘Have Americans ever raised money to send to Britons who have suffered at the hands of the IRA? Americans, whose insurance policies provide terrorist cover, can claim for their losses (which will, in part, be paid for by British policyholders) but Britons can claim nothing.’
This is a good point. American insurance policies provide cover against
terrorist attacks (unlike policies just about everywhere else in the world) and
many of the billions which will be paid to the Americans will be raised outside
the USA. For example, British householders will be paying raised premiums to
help pay the bill. Besides, the Americans aren’t likely to need outside
financial support. Within days of the September 11th lawyers were drawing up
lists of people to sue. There is talk of suing the designers of the stairwells
down the World Trade Centre on the grounds that they weren’t wide enough.
There are rumours of lawsuits against the management of the World Trade Centre
(for allegedly encouraging tenants to return to the tower after the first
crash). It is possible that there will be lawsuits against those who designed
the aeroplane cockpits and didn’t fit them with heavy security doors. I have
heard that there may be lawsuits against those who did not build the WTC in such
a way that it would withstand attack from aeroplanes flown into it.
If you are naive enough to think that all this sounds unlikely remember that
after the Oklahoma City bombing families of victims sued the company that made
the fertiliser which was used to make the bomb. They did so claiming that the
company did not adequately safeguard its products from use by terrorists.
‘It would be more appropriate to send money to help provide food for starving
Afghans who are stuck in the middle of a sort of war through no fault of their
own,’ suggested one reader. ‘But that wouldn’t be very politically
correct, would it?’
Others made the point that if the Americans are short of money they should stop
giving it to the IRA.
It is worth noting that according to Business Week magazine (29.10.01) ‘Top charities are recognising that they’ve received more money than they can spend on direct aid to victims.’
‘I totally agree with everything you said,’ wrote another reader. ‘Indeed, many other people that I know shared your comments. By killing innocent people in a war we will achieve nothing. The statement of George W. Bush that ‘either you are with America or you are with the terrorists’ is disgraceful and nothing short of a nasty threat, as many people are neither with America or the terrorists.’
‘America interferes in too many countries. I believe that the US Government is mainly responsible for creating Islamic terrorism. Nothing will ever be gained from the evil legalised destruction of lives which war hungry Bush and Blair want. I thank you for having the courage to put your views. Long may you continue the good work.’
‘Three cheers for your piece about America,’ wrote another subscriber. ‘The Americans are rich not because they work harder than everyone else but because they pollute the world and don’t clean up after themselves, they steal other people’s property (such as seeds), they bully other countries into accepting technology which isn’t wanted and isn’t safe (such as genetic engineering and the use of growth hormones in cattle) and they take advantage of poorer countries (for example by turning vast quantities of South American rainforest into grassland so that cattle can be raised to provide the Americans with hamburgers.)’
I received a mass of letters asking where America was during the Second World War – and pointing out that they only joined in after Pearl Harbour.
Inevitably, I also received one or two letters from American readers arguing, apparently seriously, that we should be grateful to America because they rescued us and won World War II for us.
‘I’m happy you could write your article ‘Sympathy for Americans but not for America’ in English,’ wrote one. ‘Just think, it probably would have been in German ... We pulled your chestnuts out of the fire at least twice.’
Ignoring the question of just how crucial the American help really was (that’s a subject that has become increasingly confused as Americans have in recent years claimed responsibility for just about every World War II victory) it is important to remember that the Americans dithered for years before entering World War II, rejected British pleas for support, and only entered the fray when Germany declared war on them immediately after the Pearl Harbour attack. To claim that without the Americans the British would be speaking German is puerile nonsense. The fact is that if it wasn’t for the British the Americans would now be speaking French. Or Spanish.
It is now widely accepted that if we’re doling out medals Britain owes far more to Russia, whose army destroyed far more of the German army than the Americans did. It is important not to confuse American-made war movies with reality, though that is a mistake lots of Americans now seem to make.
After the Second World War the Americans were said by British politicians to have shown ‘no bloody mercy’ to Britain. The terms for a post-war loan were so tough that Britain was still paying off the loan a quarter of a century later. American has never done Britain any favours.
Many subscribers agreed with the point that although Americans have never before experienced terrorism Americans have constantly funded the IRA.
‘When the events of September 11th began to unfold I watched with disbelief,’ wrote one reader. ‘I desperately wanted to reach to the victims and their families and hug them close. I am still in shock, as I suspect that most of the world is. Then I read your article about America and it did not make me angry at all. I am going to explain why.’
‘It was one Friday night, in London at 10 pm, when our house was rocked on its foundations, and the windows were almost blown out. We were very lucky. The bomb had been primed wrongly. The IRA had intended it to go off at 10 am on a Saturday morning, when the local market would have been packed with families and teenagers.’
‘The second bomb went off a few months later on the local train pulling into the station. The first few carriages of the train were shattered and people were killed. I heard about American support for the IRA for the first time and said, ‘Don’t be so ridiculous. America is our friend. They wouldn’t support terrorism.’ Again it was only in the next street from where we lived. Some local Americans wrote to our paper and claimed it was our fault for being in Ireland.’
‘The third bomb, again locally, was planted on the step of our police
station.’
‘In spite of American support for the IRA I do not hate the Americans. I hope
that now the Americans will begin to understand, terrorism is terrorism,
whatever the country.’
On September 11th, the very day that New York and Washington were attacked, the American government announced that it was still not going to stop the IRA raising money in the USA. Difficult to believe, but it’s true. On the very same day that it declared war on countries supporting terrorists the American Government announced that it would continue to support the IRA, whose bombing campaigns have terrorised and killed thousands in the UK. Most British newspapers were so full of reports of the wicked attacks in the USA that they did not report this cruel and extreme example of political hypocrisy.
At the beginning of his ‘war’ Bush announced, rather pompously, that anyone who wasn’t with America was against it. And for terrorism. He did not explain how we should reconcile that with the undeniable fact that anyone who supports America also supports Irish terrorism.
‘It would have been nice if T. Blair Esq. had had a referendum before deciding to declare war,’ wrote one irate reader. ‘Why are the government rushing in to support the Americans without good reason? Blair and Bush have painted themselves into a corner. How many more people will now die? Probably thousands of Britons and Americans and hundreds of thousands (even millions) of Afghans. Anyone who objects to war is regarded as a traitor. But what is treacherous about wanting to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? As far as I am aware no one in either government has even bothered to try and find out why the terrorists did what they did in America. It was an awful, evil thing to do and I am not suggesting that we should just turn the other cheek. But what Bush and Blair are planning is neither legal nor moral.’
The background to this war is revealing. American special services began to help the Afghan Mujahidin in rebellion against the communist regime a full six months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The CIA had, throughout this clandestine operation, knowingly increased the probability that Russia would invade Afghanistan. The Americans deliberately drew the Russians into a trap. Between 1980 and 1989 the Afghan resistance received from the Americans nearly 15 billion dollars worth of military assistance. One of the rebel leaders who was supported by the Americans was a known drug trafficker. Washington covered up the drug trafficking (as they always do). The Americans even opened a recruitment centre for Islamic combatants in the middle of New York. (The modern CIA makes Macchiavelli look positively straightforward.)
America encouraged Muslim nations to send troops (either of the orthodox or
guerrilla variety) into Afghanistan even though this was not their fight and it
was nothing to do with them . It was the mistake which led to their present
problem.
There were plenty of native Afghans prepared to fight, but the Americans, modern
imperialists, never seem able to avoid interfering. One of the men encouraged to
fight in Afghanistan (and trained by the CIA and given weapons paid for by the
American taxpayers) was Osama bin Laden.
After the Soviets withdrew to lick their wounds groups were set up and run by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India. The Afghans warned the Americans that this would backfire but the Americans assumed that all Muslims are, by virtue of their religion, going to fight together against godless communism. Only the very ignorant and arrogant can be so absurdly naive.
Americans turned Afghanistan into a military free-for-all; a battlefield strewn with corpses and rubble.
The Americans did this all by themselves. Their choice. Their responsibility. Their mistake.
Now the Americans (with British support) are bombing the entire country on the basis that they’re pretty certain that someone whom they think is a terrorist and could be responsible for the attack on their country might be living there. (Next time you hear a celebrity moaning about press harassment just remember how effectively Osama bin Laden has managed to hide his whereabouts.)
We should not be surprised at this display of belligerence. George Bush, who scurried off to safety when his country was attacked, is a long term supporter of capital punishment.
The Americans haven’t given the world any proof that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and they don’t seem to know if he’s in Afghanistan, but they’re bombing the hell out of the country anyway in what must surely be one of the most despicable attacks in history.
It’s an aggressive ‘my warheads are bigger than your warheads’ piece of thuggery which is leaving innocent Afghans digging themselves out of the rubble of their homes in a sick mirror image of the way that American office workers were left scrabbling through the debris of the World Trade Centre.
The difference is that the Afghans don’t have high buildings and they have to dig with their bare hands.
As they always do when they organise bombing raids the Americans quickly ended up dropping bombs in the wrong places. On the very first night of the pseudo-war the Americans managed to kill four United Nations funded mine clearance workers who were asleep in their beds at the time.
In an attempt to sanitise these sustained acts of state terrorism the Americans (and, of course, Tony Blair) boasted that they were dropping food parcels from 30,000 feet onto the Afghanistan countryside. What do the Americans consider to be essential food supplies for starving Afghans? Peanut butter and strawberry jam. I kid you not. Their first relief planes were dropping peanut butter and strawberry jam onto stretches of heavily mined desert. If it was in tins I hope the Americans remembered to include tin openers in the parcels. And napkins.
If it wasn’t so cynical, so thoughtless and so cruel it would sound like something out of a Marx Brothers film. Only the Americans could do this. Only Americans (and New Labour politicians in the UK) could attempt so ruthlessly to exploit public opinion with such a feeble attempt at propaganda.
When the Americans have finished, and swagger back to Texas, there will probably be a civil war in Pakistan. How many hundreds of thousands will die? What sort of deal have the Americans done with the Government in Pakistan?
The Americans have an extraordinary ability to screw up everything they touch and to leave chaos, bewilderment, frustration and bitterness behind them. Americans talk of ‘winning the hearts and minds of Muslims’. Have they forgotten that the phrase originated during the Vietnam war?
Demonising The Opposition (As Usual)
The Americans have demonised the Taliban (as they did with Colonel Gaddafi and
Saddam Hussein and as they always do with opponents) but when a disguised
British journalist was arrested the Taliban treated her with (in her own words)
‘respect and courtesy’ and returned her unharmed, after the bombing had
started.
Would the British police have returned a citizen from Afghanistan who had
entered the UK under similar circumstances? Without even a trial? The British
police don’t even treat British citizens with ‘respect and courtesy’. I am
ashamed to say that I rather suspect that the British police would have beaten
her up and then, when the bruises had faded, the Foreign Secretary would have
handed her over to the Americans. Who would have promptly executed her.
Find a war and you’ll find that both sides are fighting with weapons supplied (at a price to someone) by the American and British arms industries. When American or British troops are killed they are usually killed with British or American bullets fired from British or American guns.
Is more violence really the only answer? Where will all the violence end? When does state approved revenge become state sponsored terrorism?
Instead of seeking revenge America should lead by example. Instead of retaliating in hatred they should ask for peace; tell Afghanistan they refuse to kill innocent people and show the world they are capable of compassion by not killing thousands of innocent Muslims.
Terrorism is based on anger and intolerance. It cannot be defeated by yet more intolerance. When we all see life as the precious gift it is – we hopefully won’t be so quick to destroy it.
A list of the countries where Americans have interfered (and pretty much made a mess of things) would take up more room than is available in VCHL. The activities of the Americans in the Middle East are so Byzantine – and, on the face of it, so crass – that they almost defy comprehension.
There is evidence that the CIA deliberately incited Iraq to invade Kuwait so that the USA would have an excuse to intervene in the area. The preservation of the embargo against Iraq has resulted in hardship and starvation for millions and yet there are Americans in power who are now talking about the September 11th tragedy as an excuse for invading Iraq again.
The ease with which the Americans manage to persuade the Europeans (particularly the UK) to support their bizarre machinations is as terrifying as the way the Americans seem to change their minds and swing from one allegiance and one alliance to another is confusing.
American activities in Iraq and elsewhere have reinforced the conflict between Europe and the Muslim world and have helped establish strong fundamentalist Islamic politicians in power. The American activities in this region are invariably self serving: the aim is to satisfy the arms industry, the oil industry and the Zionists. The cost is stability and peace.
Americans haven’t worried about instability and war because the wars have been profitable.
American activities in Bosnia are just as reprehensible. Under the guise of ousting Milosevitch and ‘protecting’ people under threat the Americans have been busy establishing for themselves a strong foothold in a part of the world which they regard as having strategic importance. The Americans hope that by supporting extreme Islamic fundamentalists (and, for example, creating a fundamentalist Muslim state in the Balkans) they will improve their relationship with oil producing states, be forgiven for their extremist Zionist policies and their involvements on Saudi territory, and justify the enlargement of NATO and the permanent presence of an American army in Europe.
It is nauseating and pitiful to see the Americans interfering time and time again in other countries. They invariably do this under the pretence that their activities are designed to protect the oppressed. Sadly, their activities are not guided by humanitarian principles but by self interest; by their desire for control and by their economic aims. The Americans who direct these policies either don’t care about the consequences or they are deliberately inciting trouble because in their own twisted and warped way they believe that America (and, in particular, corporate America) can benefit.
Everywhere they go the Americans create havoc and confusion. Their ill-timed, ill-directed military attacks (bombing civilians seems to be a speciality) inevitably result in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred. After a particularly bad night during which many civilians (including, inevitably, a number of women and children) had been bombed to oblivion by cheering American airmen an American spokesman claimed that his country did not deliberately target civilians, as though there was some difference between civilians killed through incompetence and bad marksmanship and civilians killed through spite. The spokesman did not seem to understand that terrorism conducted by a large state is just as unforgivable as terrorism sponsored by a small state.
Americans and Britons are unlikely to read about any of this in their daily
newspapers or see a discussion of these issues on their TV sets. Magazines and
radio stations also avoid these issues. Why? Simple. Most English-speaking mass
media outlets are now either owned by or subservient to huge corporate
alliances.
Neither the Americans nor the British seem to realise how widespread the
anti-American feeling is. And now that the initial sympathy for the horrors of
September 11th is beginning to fade the anti-American feeling is coming to the
fore again. ‘Pourquoi nous sommes tous anti-americains’ was the headline in
a major French magazine in late October. Scores of other leading magazines and
newspapers outside the USA and UK have carried similar stories. All around the
world other countries are proclaiming their dislike of American arrogance,
loudness, tactlessness, selfishness and cheap, plastic culture. In their
arrogance the Americans think they are disliked because the rest of the world is
jealous of their wealth. I wish, for their sake and the world’s sake, that the
problem was that simple.
‘I Don’t Want To Die For America’s Vanity’
What happened on September 11th was terrible, awful, hideous and unspeakably evil. It would be wonderful if some good could come out of all that evil; if the Americans could learn from this that their policies abroad are creating chaos and unbalancing the world as surely as their environmental abuses are unbalancing nature.
The world would be a safer, happier and healthier place if September 11th encouraged the Americans to stay at home and to stop interfering with other nations.
Many readers argued that the basic problem is a very simple one.
‘For years the world has watched while the Americans have risked world peace by doing everything to help Israel,’ wrote one reader. ‘And yet Israel won’t even recognise the word ‘Palestine’. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to grovel to Israel’s Prime Minister (a man whom responsible European jurists want arrested and tried as a war criminal) when Foreign Secretary Jack Straw mentioned the word. Israel should be told, in no uncertain terms, to stop killing Palestinians and to show a little more concern for the rest of the world. And the Israelis should hand over those members of their government who ought to be tried for war crimes.’
‘American politicians (and indeed the American people in general) seem unable to recognise that the Palestinians have legitimate complaints. The Israelis are building houses on land that was never meant to be part of Israel. How do you think the Americans would react if Canada suddenly annexed part of the USA? This war could be avoided if the Americans would tell the Israelis to start to behave decently.’
Astonishingly, some Americans simply still don’t understand how their interference in the Middle East has caused such anger. The International Herald Tribune recently reported that anti-American sentiment is ‘growing from the perception that the United States (of America) supports Israel against the Palestinians.’ The use of the word ‘perception’ suggests a real head in the sand attitude. Everyone in the world – apart from the Americans – knows that the current crisis is caused by America’s Zionist policies in the Middle East. Unbelievably, the Mayor of New York rejected a $10 million donation because the donor suggested the USA should adopt a more balanced role in the Middle East.
Some readers were very forthright.
‘The quickest way to stop world terrorism is for America to tell Israel to leave the Palestinians alone and to stop making false claims over Palestinian land,’ wrote one. ‘Bin Laden is just an excuse for the Americans to invade and occupy yet another country. The Americans are naturally aggressive but this time I think they have gone too far. I am ashamed to be British. We should not be supporting them.’
‘I don’t want to die for America’s vanity,’ was another response. ‘I don’t want a war,’ was another, ‘and yet in the UK those of us who object to war are disenfranchised (yet again). No one seems to be asking the fundamental questions. Has anyone asked bin Laden what he wants? Has anyone thought of negotiation? Diplomacy? Peace process?’
Tough on Crime And Tough On the Causes Of Crime
One reader wrote to me saying: ‘When Tony Blair cared enough about the electorate to at least make soothing sound bites I remember that one of his slogans was: ‘Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. He should dig that slogan out and take a long, hard look at it. There is little point in simply battering terrorism without dealing with the inequalities and injustices which lead to it.’
But politicians, despite the rhetoric, aren’t much interested in inequalities in injustices. Where’s the money to be made?
If politicians were interested in injustices, and if they cared for their
citizens, they would be tackling the really big issues I listed at the start of
this article.
The wars against the chemical industry, the food industry, the tobacco industry
and the drug industry controlled medical establishment are far bigger and far
more crucial wars than the one against terrorism.
Some people seriously seem to believe that killing Osama bin Laden will eradicate the world’s problem. That is self-deluding nonsense. Millions of angry, frustrated people are ready to die for their beliefs. This is a war American (and Britain) cannot win through force and should not be fighting with guns.
The only real answer to the threat of terrorism is for our governments to pay attention to the causes – the prejudices, the conceit, the deceit and the widespread hunger and poverty caused by the selfish globalisation policies practised by the Americans.
Violence will not succeed. Christians and Muslims have to share this planet.
Bush ‘n’ Blair are fighting the wrong war. If they cared about people –
you and I – they would be fighting global injustice, frustration, poverty,
pain and illness. They would be fighting the global corporations which are
knowingly killing millions of Christians and Muslims through their ruthlessly
wicked profit-making policies.
But Bush ‘n’ Blair won’t fight that war. For them, the price (in perks and
campaign contributions) would be far too high.
The ultimate irony is surely the fact that if this world really needs a war then multi-national corporations should be on one side – led by Bush ‘n’ Blair.
And the rest of us – including Muslims and Christians – should be fighting shoulder to shoulder against them.
Copyright © Vernon Coleman 2001