Friday, September 29, 2006


One of the big things in the "War on Terror" is how different people see the terrorism threat.

For years we have been inundated with images of Palestinians blowing themselves up. The terrorist who cannot be held accountable. He killed himself already. So families are punished. Homes are bulldozed. The entire Palestinian society is punished - there are roadblocks, settlements, olive fields destroyed, people driven off from long established homes.

There is also the "terrorism" that has been documented - such as Gladio operations that are State-sponsored "terrorism". Things that are done by the State to control populations and influence opinion. (see this list of questionable collaborations ...the US with the ISI).

And then you have (or maybe it was part of that same sort of thing) where Osama Bin Laden was being used by the CIA in Afghanistan in the 80s against the Russians. And some people wonder if he is still being used.

The NIE report that was partly declassified shows that US actions fuel anger toward the US. (That's not really news).

• The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit.

G.W.Bush interprets that (and it seems that he released this part of the NIE prior to the election because of this argument...) as legitimizing his fight against terrorism. So basically - Bush made the argument for pre-emptive war based on false charges and then when our invasion and occupation causes anger among those who were invaded (and their friends) - that is NEW justification for us fighting them. Nice. (And he calls those who don't agree with him - "naive".)

Meanwhile - we are supposed to be afraid of attacks on US soil. I don't see terrorism as being the huge threat that Bush and his pals would like for us to think. But I suppose - eventually - if Bush keeps it up - keeps pushing for there to be - there might be.

Bush likes to act like there are only 2 groups - the terrorists (and their supporters) and the non-terrorists. If that is so - I would say that Bush is definitely in the terrorist group. And I am against him. There is plenty of evidence against him. He deserves to go to jail.

As far as other people - I will wait for the evidence (and secret tribunals and "evidence" gotten from torture don't count).

P.S. Kucinch's remarks about the the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There were a few good speeches, amendments proposed - but in the end - Bush was given a blank check. (Of course it's an unconstitutional blank check - but a blank check nonetheless).

Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh said that "the image of Congress rushing to strip jurisdiction from the courts in response to a politically created emergency is really quite shocking, and it's not clear that most of the members understand what they've done."

No comments: