This concept of "Roosting Chickens" that Malcolm X applied to the
assassination of JFK and Ward Churchill applied to 9-11 and SOME of the
victims that caused both of them to become so reviled when they used the
metaphor, how is it really different from the Buddhist or Hindu concepts of
"Karma" and the Christian concept of "So as ye sow, so shall ye reap..." or
even Neutonian physics "For every action..."?
Look at this interview. How is 9-11 NOT an example of someone getting a
rabid junkyard dog to watch his house and family, and maybe do a number on
a few enemies, getting all freaked out when the rabid dog turns on him and
his family and expressing shock and anger that the rabid dog shows no
"loyalty" in biting the hands that have fed it? This is not to call for
laughing AT or WITH the 9-11 victims. This is not to support the
terrorists; if anything, it shows even more contempt for the Al Qaeda
terrorists by laying the blame partly where it belongs (U.S. covert forces
that trained, nurtured, armed and turned their predecessors lose in order
to give the Soviets their own Vietnam) and condemning the U.S. Government
for ever having had any kind of association with the Mujahedeen, Osama and
the Taliban that came out of them.
But to say that for SOME of the 9-11 victims, who had blood on their own
hands from the types of decsions they made and carried out with fountain
pens and computers, never inquiring or wanting to see ther real victims and
effects of their decisions in the areas of international lending,
environment, covert operations, social systems engineering etc, like
Eichmann the one time he saw mass executions and got all ill, are indeed
LIKE "Little Eichmanns" are they not?
Further, even if it were true that Ward Churchill expressed not once ounce
or sympathy for any of the 9-11 victims, and not even one expression of
outrage at the attack, when does anyone have the right to prescribe or
proscribe for anyone else, for whom they must grieve and the extent and/or
manner in which they must grieve?
In the case of Iraq it is simple. Once it is established that a given war
is illegal, like a home invasion, then the illegal home invader has no
right of self defense while in the home and a direct threat; the home
invader does nothing legitimate while present in the invaded home. And if
it turns out thqt the home invaded was directed by a criminal mastermind in
another home, the criminal mastermind has no recourse or complaint if
victim not only seeks to remove the home invader but also neutralize the
mastermind behind him.
The U.S. Government spends a lot of money to hide the ugly realities and
effects of imperial power projection from the U.S. population, politicians,
troops and allies supporting and/or engaging in it. They know for a fact
that Americans have partly supported foreign wars at a sterile and safe
distance abroad because they have never experienced the realities and kinds
of effects at home that their bombs and dictators abroad have generated.
Why then, in an age of collapsing global time and space, is anyone
surprised, that the Jihadists and others with a grudge or perceived
complaint decide to reach out and touch someone close to home? Do we not do
the same to make a point and deter potential enemies and try to build
alliances against existing enemies?
Truth is an absolute and unconditional defense against libel, slander,
defamation and the charge of "poltical incorrectness". But the truth must
first be known then someone has to have the guts to utter/write it and then
someone else has to have the guts to defend it.
Jim C.
Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21,
1998, p. 76*
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs
["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the
Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this
period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You
therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until
now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President
Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the
pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going
to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene,
but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
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?
Brzezinski: 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 [integrisme],
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: 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?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in
regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam
in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading
religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in
common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan
militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole
exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States
is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not
included in the shorter version.
The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the
indispensible, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World
War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" Portions
of the books can be read
____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/