Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

merlyn (47)

merlyn
  merlyn@stonehenge.com
http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/
AOL IM: realmerlyn (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: realmerlyn (Add User, Send Message)

PAUSE-ID: MERLYN [cpan.org].
See my home page [stonehenge.com].

Journal of merlyn (47)

Sunday September 07, 2003
08:25 AM

Guardian - "This war on terrorism is bogus"

[ #14559 ]
Excerpt from an article in The Guardian:

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The rest of the article is an interesting read, with lots of detailed references, and good links at the end. Joe Bob says "check it out".

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance.

    I am sick of this. When looking into the past, things are all very easy and so obvious. However, before September 11th, we weren't yet talking about the past but about the future. It's trivial to make forecasts for events that happened two years ago.

    Specifically, why would the US
    • Their reason (or pretext as some might prefer) would have been just as strong if the attacks on the WTC could have been prevented.

      Logically, it would have been. You're assuming that the court of public opinion operates using logic. It doesn't. It operates using fear and anger. Being attacked makes you want to strike back.

      It's not so much that they didn't have a "good reason" for what they did -- it was as good as any other -- but the WTC attack aligned public opinion on the matter firmly in the pos

      --

      ------------------------------
      You are what you think.
      • The current edition [spiegel.de] of "Der Spiegel" (Germany's biggest weekly news-magazine, in particular not known to be very friendly with the US) happens to have the title story called "Conspiracy September 11th" which addresses all those myths connected to WTC.

        I haven't yet read the article, but the abstract states that due to the coverage in the media a fifth of all Germans actually think that the attack on WTC was a complot by the American government itself.

        That's a point where the publishing industry should re-
  • a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance

    Isn't that the whole point of the Department of Defense. I hope they have plans well in advance for a boat load of scenarios - from the most apparent (religous extremism, cult-of-personality fascism) to the riduculous (canadian extremism???). This is exactly what I want my tax money spent for - thinking about zillions of scenarios, prioritizing them, and then planning for them.

    I think the DoD does a good job of war planning ... now if they could

    --
    -derby
    • That certainly is true for the WWII planning that preceeded Pearl Harbour.

      Since many U.S. allies were involved in WWII for years before Pearl Harbour, it would be criminally incompetant to not start making plans for joining in. The administration knew that joining was the right thing to do, but until Pearl Harbour, it would have been political suicide to actually do it.

      That sounds much like the current situation, except that the majority in the rest of the world does not agree with Bush's beliefs of "the

    • Yes. The Taliban was a "hostile government" that aided terrorists for many years, and we knew all about it. We had plans for a long time to attack them. We also have plans for attacks on North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and pretty much every other nation that is "hostile." I shudder to think of what it might entail, but that includes China too.
    • > Isn't that the whole point of the Department of Defense.

      For ten points, discuss why DoD is not called DoA.