Actually, the Bush warriors are in desent, the media has informed, so the picture I'm showing below is not
really "up-to-date". But, the basic premis remains: America's ruling regime (Bush & Co.), has declared and
defined a "war on terrorism". The world is told matter-of-factly that America intends to do what ever
it deems necessary in order to prevent terror within its borders. Bush & Co. go to war.
To begin with, Bush & Co. found it necessary to "contain" thousands of Americans without warrant or charge in
criminal encarseration facilites for months without allowing them legal council or the right to a
phone call. Comparatively many immigrants were put under survailance and or contained in many European countries such as
England, Germany and France; America published and circulated negative propaganda to all government agencies such
as consulates, embassys and national and international travels agencies and bureaus throughtout the world warning
of travel hazards in Arab countries while suggesting that security measures be increased regarding them; Arab
travelers around the world encountered unwaranted complications aquiring visas and permits and many were deported
or denied acces to these countries; the international media even went as far as to breath the notion that
suspecting your deeply religious Arab neighbor of being a possible threat to civil peace was not wholy perposterous.
Let's say that was phase one, if you will. Next, well actually at the same time, the search for those responsible
for "9.11" got underway: The terrorists had to be caught and persecuted, which of course, was impossible
because they died in the attacks. America decided to attack the enemy at large, the potential terrorist and all those who
support them, regardless of who and what they were. It provided no other qualifications for being a terrorist other than
supporting those who conduct terrorist acts, which included harboring terrorists, and committing terrorist acts. With
this definition, it could automatically be expected that a most-wanted list would appear bearing the names of the
leaders of countries with whom America has had political differences that have lead as a minimum to at least the
consideration of the use of arms: Libya, Iran, Irak, parts of the Philipines. But, you also expected to see a few
necessary names, by Bush & Co.'s qualifications, like Russia, China, Israel, Palestina.
Now that the list was made, and at the same time, the real enemy had been identified, the execution of phase three had
begun. American and British troops, only, I should add to that, began assaulting "sites" of the so-called "Al Quaeda Network"
in Afghanistan. For weeks the mountains of that country were bombarded as thousands of soldiers poured in.
Months later the assault extended itself to the borders of Irak. Again so-called "air defense posts" there have been
under continuous bombardment. American troops are also in the Philipines building defense control centers, "advising" locals
on defense against terrorist attacks from the "Abu-Saejeff" rebels.
But it was the assault on Irak that caused the next battle front to develop. Since America had not only planned to
irradicate Irak's air defense, but also its leader, some countries opposed its intentions. China, France and Russia
vetoed America's request to launch a war against Irak, even after Bush & Co. begged, which layed way for the battle
between America and the UNO Secuirty Council. In a re-assessment of its allies, Bush & Co., asked Germany to send
troops into to battle in Irak and Germany refused. A squable developed that created a cold front at the
diplomatic level. Suddenly Germany found itself politically isolated by America in the international arena.
Now the news media has described to us a Bush & Co. in complete control of the war on terror: Bush & Co. forces/resources
identified the "suspected terrorists", who they are/were and how they operate(d); it provided a detailed description
of how it was/is constructed equiped and trained -- terror cells; they also identified Saddam Hussein's criminal intentions
and found "significant evidence" to support the suspicion that he is planning an atack and cannot be trusted. Although it has
failed to mention the progress of the air attacks in Irak and how the search for Bin Laden is progressing, and of course
to tell us anything usefull about the current political state of Afghanistan, is definitly keeping us up-to-date on
Bush & Co. As a matter of fact of you believe them you'd think that Irak is just trying to belmish the american dream!
CNN, "the only international newscaster dedicated to U.S. news", a contradiction in itself, has as yet nothing to
report about the air-strikes the combined U.S. and British forces are executing against Irak in these days!
That, of course, is not a surprise, since it was expected. According to media sources, the U.S. has reported that
this was in retaliation to attacks against America planes flying in that area. British sources have, according to
the very same media, reported in contradiction that these strikes were executed to reduce Irak's capability to
retaliate. Believe what you will. OPEC has publicly stated that attacks against Irak will reduce their ability to
meet global oil supply demands. Understandable. But, if America and Britain manage to "topple" (what a simplistic
word) Hussein, this won't matter to them anyway.
You would think its not the oil, because any and everyone should be trying to irradicate someone "like" him. Ooops!
Did I say, like him? And did I mean, someone or something that does the things that Hussein's being accused of? Do we
know are history? Have we gotten the lastest information on the current state of affairs around the world? Our history
tells us that America and other countries have done exactly the same things the leader of Irak is accused of.
If you applied the UNO mandate Bush & Co. are quoting to Israel it would show that Israel is even more dangerous
the Hussein has ever been.
But, who cares about that! "America, the world is in a crisis", they say. Well as long as that crisis doesn't show its ugly
face at my breakfast table....
Kushánd Fantí
(Date: 07.09.2002)
Top of page
Back
Reply to the author and have your e-mail address added
to the author's mailing list, so that you can be notified when Weekly's are published at this site.
