For those of us in the West, the idea of poisoning those who know the truth is .. creepy. As y'all know, this Russian dude was poisoned by a "nuclear pill" for digging up facts around the death of a famous Russian journalist.
Here's the truth; Putin was just in office when a series of bombs went off in Moscow. Using these "terrorist attacks" as a pretext for going to war against an oil rich province, former Soviet satellite of Chechnya, the Russians went back into Grozny with tanks and troops, and have been battling the poor Chechens for six years. Only problem is; evidence points to the Russians planting those very bombs in the Moscow capital, and planting evidence that the Chechens had done it. It was widely reported at the time that one of the cars seen at the scene of the crime was traced back to people within the Russian administration - call it an official police vehicle. This famous Russian journalist was working on the story when she was executed. This Russian guy in London was working on the story of who killed her. Now he's dead, and he blames Putin (or members in his administration) for his murder.
Sound familiar?
I'll explain; the 9/11 conspiracy camp believes that the Bush administration either looked the other way or actively participated in the 9/11 attacks so that we could go to war with Iraq. The terrorist attack on NY became a pretext for our sojourn into the middle east and that oil rich region. Never mind that we went after the Taliban.. and walked away from the battle there. (Which is where "Cut and run" originated.) And now there is this huge body of paranoid people out there showing clips, writing books, and making speeches about the conspiracy.
The conundrums are all there; why let the Bin Laden's out of the country if they didn't know something about it? What about all the 'puts' made on the stocks of American Airlines, and the insurance companies hit in the WTC? Who made those trades? Why is it that the majority of those trades were made through a former CIA official's trading firm? (reported by the UK Guardian in 2001).
Here's my take on it; claiming that the CIA or the Shadow Govt of the US was behind the attack is an attempt to rectify how 'men with box cutters' could bring down two huge buildings. That's trying to diminish the ability of those who did it. I'm not going to refer to them as terrorists, because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Needless to say, the Freedom Fighters of Afganistan have all turned into the terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.) So let's leave that on the table for now - if you spend anytime reading or doing research about Al Qaeda, you'll find a group of very smart, very formidable opponents. Yes, they'd worked out all the details of how to bring down a plane. Yes, they put men with box cutters on the plane, and they did their jobs well. Whether those working on the planes for Al Qaeda knew they were going to die or not is moot - they pulled off the crime of the century. With box cutters. It's arrogance for people to assume their enemies have no ability. It's equally dangerous to assume that your enemy can't pull off an attack of this magnitude without the help of the US secret services. The US Secret Services have shown gross incompetence in the war in Iraq, why would they suddenly become the cleverist of all services? You can't claim incompetence on behalf of the Bush administration, and then claim they pulled off the crime of the century.
That being said - why was Mohammed Atta allowed to traipse across the US scouting locations, sending email, dressing up like an American airlines pilot and arrested in Miami for not paying a bar tab? - Atta was no super criminal.. he comes off like a cartoon most of his trip here. And yet, he was there on the plane and able to direct a pretty amazing airstrike on America. There's some truth in there - something to do with trying to figure out what karma is about, or why the fates of the planet, or our guardian angels allowed this guy to pull off such a heinous crime. But does he deserve credit for it? Credit where credit is due.
Why haven't "they" struck again? Why should they? We've dumped all our troops, money and resources into Iraq. They know that our failure there will be their victory. However, there needs to be another key element for their plan for world domination - and that's for the Iraqi people, for the arab world, for the muslim world, to roll over and play dead for them. People in the Arab world enjoy their advances in luxury - in living - despite hating the West for its lack of religion, or its lack of spirituality. And they aren't going to roll over for Al Qaeda either, when the US wakes up and gets out of Iraq. It's another arrogant point of view to assume that the Arab world will fall apart the moment we leave it. Does anyone remember the "domino theory?"
I lived through the Vietnam era. It's incredible to me that Kissinger has the ear of the President, and that the US Generals in Iraq are pursuing a "Vietnam" strategy to get out of the country. Did no one see "Fog of War?" It's pretty clear what MacNamara says - "If I had understood that the war in Vietnam wasn't the cold war, but was a civil war, we would have been on the side of North Vietnam." That's pretty simple isn't it? In retrospect we didn't understand Vietnam. We still don't. We fought on the wrong side of the war in Vietnam. If that's not saying "60,000 American troops died needlessly" I don't know what is.
So what will happen when we leave Iraq? A civil war? Perhaps. "Al Qaeda will suddenly get nuclear weapons.." from who? Iran? Doubt it. Pakistan? Doubt it. And then what? Wouldn't it make more sense to know where Al Qaeda's power base is so that we can demolish it at a later date? If everyone that's in Al Qaeda races to Iraq to participate in the new "caliphate" - wouldn't that be a good thing? After all, it's easier to do battle with a state of bad guys, then it is to do battle with a movement of bad guys. And that's presupposing that the Iraqi people, who've enjoyed a certain amount of liberty in their non-sectarian country for the past 50 years (until we came in and destroyed it in the name of hunting down our old friend, our hero of the Iran-Iraq war Sadaam) - so now we've saved the Iraqi people from Sadaam, at the cost of 60,000 humans. And the toll is climbing every day. Eventually it will top a million. And the US will go down in history, alongside Germany, Cambodia, Darfur, Bosnia, where millions died in conflict in the pursuit of our wrong headed policies. What history proves is that we have learned absolutely nothing about anything.
But does that mean there's no hope? On the contrary, it's a breath of fresh air in Washington, Pelosi's vindictive behavior aside, but the other side of the coin is that despite mankind's relentless pursuit of power at the point of a gun, eventually even that comes to pass, and a period of peace and reconciliation comes about. Even the Maoist "terrorist insurgents" in Nepal can come to the table with the King, and form a new government by the people. And one day, peace will return to Iraq, and I can guarantee that we won't be the people bringing it to them.
Which brings us back to the "nuclear pill." I can see the minds of those in Washington turning - why were we spending so much money on building nuclear weapons when a "nuclear pill" could have done the same work? A dose for Sadaam would have saved 60,000 lives, but wouldn't have put all the money into the American military machine that needs that money to feed it. It wouldn't have jacked the prices up at the gas pump, and put record billions of dollars of profits into the pockets of the cronies, and war profiteers that are still busy emptying our nation's future into their pockets. I can think of a few people who are candidates for the "nuclear pill," but I won't post them here - after all, I don't believe in capital punishment, and hopefully I won't be given a sushi snack with a side of ginger that has a dose designed for those in this country who disagree with the politics as usual.
The Martini shot for Nov 25, 2006