HIGH INTENSITY TERRORISM
I have followed recent acts of U.S. aggression: Grenada, the war of terror by the Contras, Panama, and the genocidal crimes against Iraq. Although the scope of the horror inflicted is not comparable to that of the above examples, none of those actions comes closer to a perfect example of state terrorism than the attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan.
·"Terrorism" does not usually come to light or exist in a vacuum. There are important historical reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and also their terrorist orientation. This has to do with the thoroughness with which the imperialist powers eliminated all other secular progressive political options in the region. So don't blame the victims of your own strategies. I do not defend terrorism, and I do not defend these acts. The massacre of hundreds of innocent African citizens, and some relatively innocent U.S. citizens was despicable. But there are always historical reasons why people feel the need to resort to such solutions.
·Are national and international laws now to be dictated by the "revenge" motive, erasing the rule of law and of nations, to be substituted by state terrorism? This is simply acknowledging you are, at best, on the same level as the "terrorists."
·If the U.S. national security apparatus is expending all these millions on FBI and CIA agents going over there, conducting an investigation that was supposedly to last months, and accumulating evidence by which to convict (and maybe by then to "kidnap" the suspects, a la Noriega), and since they claim to have had some of the perpetrators in custody, why was this avenue not followed?
·This obviously shows in practice just how much and for what reasons the U.S. opposes the establishment of a new international tribunal in Rome. These are just a tiny fraction of the crimes against humanity on which the U.S. national security state would have to stand trial.
·Our elected officials are supposed to be accountable to us, and that involves producing the evidence that would justify (a) the choice of culprits, (b) the targets, (c) the course of action taken, at a very minimum.
·Osama bin Laden has been fingered as a suspect almost from the moment the bombs went off. The whole process gives the impression of being just a tad too pat.
·How did these Islamic fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan actually get the weapons, etc., for their activities? Through and thanks to the U.S., via Pakistan (and giving it the atom bomb as an added bonus) at the time of the Soviet presence there! But you don't hear a peep in the media about that responsibility, just as you never will about Iranian fundamentalism (as a product of U.S. support for the Shah).
·Even should bin Laden prove to be the culprit, what causes the widespread Saudi resentment? The continuous military presence/occupation in that country for reasons which are becoming obviously unrelated to Saddam Hussein (i.e. the geopolitical tri-polar game)? That is why the U.S. can't afford to let him as an "excuse" disappear.
·If you are dealing with extremely highly motivated people with a very real political grudge, how are you "defending against terrorism" by engaging in "state-terrorism" and escalating the whole confrontation enormously?
·The fact is the U.S. didn't spend as many billions as it now feels were appropriate to really militarize its diplomatic representations abroad (which at least has some plausibility of coming under the rubric "defense against terrorism"), so now they think it is "cheaper" to eliminate some more civilian lives, thanks to the "aseptic" "higher technology" that the U.S. possesses (cf. the video-game qualities of both the technologies used in the Gulf War AND their media representation: separating, mediating, and increasing the distance between the butcher and its victim).
·This is one of the many "perfect" examples of the imperialist national security state feeding off its own foreign ventures to entrench itself more firmly and generate even more massacres and misery
·The arguments we have heard in the U.S. media about "any action being justified against nations who 'harbor terrorists'" are really saying that the U.S. recognizes no formalized international law in its dealings with other countries (cf. the legislation introduced in the wake of the Oklahoma city bombing, against foreigners, even though it was an act of domestic terrorism). This is "might makes right" elevated to a whole new dimension.
·By declaring in advance to be ready for more "counterattacks," the U.S. eliminates any possibility of seeing whether the alleged strategy will actually "contain" terrorism or merely foster its spiraling increase. But where there is reason and cause, something will not just vanish into thin air (though the U.S. policy would certainly hope to vaporize the universe, if this could solve its last contradiction).
Clinton's tail, after having been found in "inappropriate" places, has now wagged the empire's terror-machine, while following in a well established dishonorable tradition of liars, cheats, hyper-hypocrites and ultra-cynics for imperialist terror. The rest of the world's sense of justice has now been jerked a little too far.