URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/wrong.htm
Subscribe to our newsletter at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Click here to email the link to this article to a friend.
To Emperor's Clothes:
Letter from Attorney J.B. (name withheld)
Contrary to the article, 'The Creation called Osama", the news media has not hidden the true story of bin Laden. Must you guys find United States conspiracies and lies in everything? Is there a country that does not lie? You make it sound like the US is this evil country that gets what it deserves. While it is true that our own actions can be traced as a cause of the terrorist attacks, they are not THE cause, or the proximate cause as we say at law. You guys have the "boy who cried wolf" mentality, who find a conspiracy in everything, who read only what you feel is "between the lines" and not the lines themselves... This shows a tremendous bias in your reporting.
Nonetheless, thank you for your columns and I will keep reading them.
- Signed, Attorney J.B. (full name withheld)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Attorney J.B.:
Thank you for the compliment of continuing to read Emperor's Clothes despite disagreements.
You say, "You make it sound like the US is this evil country that gets what it deserves."
We don't believe that, period. Ordinary people in this country - the people who were killed and terrorized September 11 - are innocent. They did not "get what they deserve." They deserve to be alive, with their loved ones. New York did not deserve to be trashed.
The 200 murdered firemen did not bomb Yugoslavia. The porters and janitors and cleaning ladies and rest of the army of workers at the Towers did not starve the children of Iraq.
The small number of people responsible for crimes that have been committed in America's name did not suffer on 9-11. And now these powerful forces are using the tragic deaths for their own gain, to create a cloud of anger to justify strategic military moves under the guise of a phony "infinite war against terror."
By the way, we often use 'U.S.' to mean the government, as is commonly done in news analysis. (For example, a journalist might write, 'Today France declared,' when obviously France is not capable of declaring anything.)
Regarding the article, "The Creation Called Osama," you say "The news media has not hidden the true story of bin Laden."
Please keep in mind, the article was reprinted from "The Hindu" so we couldn't edit it. It contains useful points. It's also partly wrong, as you noted. Here is what I observed about media coverage of bin Laden.
Immediately after the WTC attacks almost nothing appeared in the mainstream media about bin Laden's connection to the CIA. But information began to circulate on the Internet. Only after that did the mainstream media cover his CIA connection; and this coverage was consistently inaccurate. Worse than nothing.
Bin Laden's public image was created in 1998, after the U.S. government bombed a pill factory in Sudan and "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan. I wrote an article analyzing news coverage of those bombing raids. I could find only one report (1) mentioning the fact that the CIA had built the 'training camps' the U.S. bombed. (My article, called 'Credible Deception,' is at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html (1a))
Starting back in 1998, the government and media gave people the impression bin Laden was an all-powerful evil genius, controlling terror all over the world. This view, reminiscent of comic book villains, has stuck.
Starting around Sept. 13th, the CIA connection began being discussed widely in the media, but with crucial distortions.
Distortion #1: The CIA only supported Afghan Islamist terrorists against Russia. That is, Washington simply chose some bad allies.
Reality: Does a parent ally with his child? Washington instigated the war in Afghanistan (2) and Washington deliberately created the violent Islamist movement, utilizing for this purpose the harsh Wahhibi version of Islam pushed by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Some say this was 'just a bad mistake,' but it involved debate in the highest circles and careful planning and vast sums of money and the intimate participation of the covert forces of the U.S. and junior partners. As late as this May, President Bush promised to send the Taliban another 43 million dollars. (2a)
Distortion # 2: "Bin Laden's network" is the source of all terror.
Reality: Nonsense. Bin laden couldn't exist without the Taliban which took control of Afghanistan (and much of the drug trade) and the Taliban could only do these things because they were supported by the U.S.-controlled Pakistani secret police, the ISI. (3) Before you conclude that "U.S.-controlled" is too strong, consider how fast the ISI buckled concerning the Taliban once the U.S applied pressure.
The Taliban fulfilled, or were supposed to fulfill, a key US strategy: to threaten the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia. The message was: cooperate with the US (especially, let the U.S. military take over your defense apparatus with U.S. advisers, arms, etc.) or the Taliban will get you. It is because the Taliban has proved inadequate for this task that the U.S. government is now moving to take Afghanistan into receivership.
Distortion # 3: We are told bin Laden broke with the U.S. during the Gulf War.
Reality: Who knows the truth? We're dealing with covert forces here. If he did break, why have he and, more important, a whole army of Islamist terrorists been involved on the side of U.S.-backed (or U.S. created!) terrorists in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia? [See: http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm ]
By pushing the comic book notion of the Evil Genius bin Laden, the Clinton and Bush administrations have hidden the amazing fact that the US Establishment has created a giant terrorist apparatus throughout the Balkans and Central Asia. It has even involved the UN in creating a front group for the terrorists in Kosovo - the Kosovo protection Corps. (3a) Terrorists attacking Macedonia are paid members of this UN group, this "Protection Corp". True, some of these people are Islamists who - paradoxically - hate the U.S.
This apparatus has been used to smash groups inclined to resist the U.S. drive to conquer the former Soviet Union. That is why the terrorists are especially active in the geo-strategic Balkans and Central Asia. If they aren't planning to attack Russia, why have the U.S. elite got Russia surrounded?
The third region strategic for attacking Russia is the Baltic area. The U.S. has pushed for the active active involvement of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in NATO. Lithuania was the staging ground for recent maneuvers by 14 countries including Germany and the U.S.
This is clearly meant as a military threat to Belarus, a former Soviet state between Lithuania and Russia, whose government has disdained Washington control. The U.S. is sponsoring some 300 organizations in Belarus. One for every 30,000 inhabitants. If you want to know the purpose of these organizations, the U.S. Ambassador to Belarus recently made it perfectly clear.
Ambassador Michael Kozak announced that his government has a 'Nicaraguan"-type policy towards Belarus. The Ambassador was referring to Washington's creation and sponsorship of the Contra drug-gangsters (remember Iran/Contra?) whom Washington organized to terrorize Nicaragua during the 1980s. The goal was to destroy the left-nationalist Sandanista government. Kozak was himself a U.S. operative in that terror campaign, so his outrageous threat should be taken seriously. (3b)
Thus, again, terror as a political weapon.
The U.S. attack on Belarus clearly violates international law - for instance, the Helsinki Final Act, which the U.S., by the way, signed. Perhaps Mr. Bush is unaware that the Helsinki Final Act exists. Perhaps his understanding of international law is: 'We do what we want and you do what we want or we kill you.' [An excerpt from the Helsinki Final Act is posted near the end of this discussion.]
Why is there no uproar in the U.S. Congress about the violent, illegal attack on Belarus which risks nuclear war? Belarus is allied with Russia and is nuclear-armed. Why is the U.S. government doing these things if it wants peace and is uninterested in seizing control of the former Soviet Union?
The Washington-created terrorist apparatus has been used to crush secular and multiethnic regimes. The victims - especially Serbia and Macedonia - are then slandered in the Western media. "Human Rights Groups" (4) controlled by the U.S. foreign policy establishment are dispatched to victim countries and 'discover' that these places (e.g., Serbia and Macedonia) are cruel and abusive in fighting the terrorists that the same U.S. foreign policy elite has sent to attack them. It's a nightmare.
The American people do not support Imperial aggression. But if they feel they are being attacked, they support extreme actions. The powers-that-be can use Islamist terrorists to stage seeming 'outside attacks' to whip up a war fever. Given the complex web the CIA has woven in creating and nurturing terrorism, it is perfectly possible for the CIA to motivate a group of these people to do something to attack ordinary American people (whom they loathe) without the terrorists knowing the real origin of the orders or even the full plan of the attack.
- Jared Israel
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
While I can see the apparent plausibility of many of your arguments, I do not see how you make the leap to the following statement:
"It is perfectly possible for the CIA to motivate a > group of these people to > do something to attack ordinary American people > without the terrorists knowing > the real origin of the orders or even the full plan > of the attack"
I grant that this is POSSIBLE, but you seem to be suggesting that it may have happened. Yes, we helped to create the monster attack dog, and we can see that the dog bit us hard; but are you suggesting that the CIA directed these guys to conduct the 9-11-01 attacks? If so, what would the reason be for such an outrage? You may consider this a naive view, but I cannot consider as remotely possible the suggestion that our own government was directly involved in actively launching these attacks.
- Peace, JB
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I don't think you're na´ve. I think you're smart and sane. Therefore you make the mistake of thinking those on top are like you. You have trouble believing they are mad with lust for power. Their God is money. They view ordinary Americans the way an agribusiness views chickens.
The U.S. Establishment has been staging fake incidents to justify wars for a hundred years. US operatives blew up the Maine, a second class battleship in Havana Harbor in 1898, killing 266 U.S. sailors. Why? To justify the War with Spain which netted the U.S. elite the control of Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. In the process, a million Filipinos were slaughtered. The tactics used in the Philippines were just like those employed later in Vietnam, as described by Colin Powell:
If this man could commit such war crimes as a soldier, imagine what he is capable of as an exalted leader.
The bombing of North Vietnm was "legalized" by the Congressional passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This was pushed through based on the lie that North Vietnamese boats fired on US destroyers. (See former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee's comments, at the end, after 'Further Reading.')
Another example - former El Salvador death Squad organizer William Walker staged the phony Racak incident to justify the bombing of Serbia.(5)
More - there could not have been massive and consistent media lies about Yugoslavia - for a decade - without top level "conspiracy." Just check out our article "KLA Attacks Everyone, Media Attacks...Miloshevich" which proves the American people have been sold a mound of cow pie concerning that Yugoslav leader. (5A)
Are we wrong? Here's a thought: We'll soon be posting a list of 50 key articles on Emperor's Clothes. Arranged by subject. Take the Emperor's Clothes challenge. Read any or all and show us where we're wrong. We'll post the most convincing criticisms, with replies.
- Jared Israel
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
One further thought. Regarding your point about who gained, I don't see how the USA has gained by 9-11-01: our economy has been at least temporarily hammered; and our people have suffered and live with a new level of fear. We will perhaps use bases in some former Soviet republics; but I don't see how this benefits us--after all, that is an exceedingly poor part of the world, and I do not think that we will establish major long-term presences there because of recent events. I think peaceful coexistence with Russia is much more in our national interests than pissing them off by de facto surrounding them. Putin would not put up with that. You state that money is the God of our most powerful elements. Maybe so, but this whole venture costs a lot more than it repays, as far as I can see.
-- Attorney J.B.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The US as a whole did not gain. Part of the US - a very small part - gained. Most people lost. The difference between you and me is you see one America; I see two. One part, very small, unbelievably rich, very powerful, along with their untouchable flunkies in the covert and semi-covert apparatus that dominates U.S. foreign adventures - that part is using 9-11 to carry forward their very dangerous plans.
You say "I think peaceful coexistence with Russia is much more in our national interests than pissing them off by de facto surrounding them."
For you, and for millions of other decent Americans, yes. But not for the rulers of this land.
If you say we are wrong about this then you must explain: why HAS the US government pushed NATO - a military machine - right to Russia's borders? For fun?
Why is U.S. Ambassador to Belarus saying the U.S. is using terror to break that independent country? (6)
Why the devastation of Yugoslavia? Why the assault on Macedonia? Why the declaration, just a few days ago, by the U.S. Ambassador to England, that the Balkans will be a "prominent theater of operations and training" for NATO. Operations against whom? Why all this aggressive action when there is no enemy? Unless the goal is the penetration and conquest of Russia. (7)
You say the former Soviet Union is poor. This is half-true. It has been impoverished by the aggressive policies of the International Monetary fund which, if applied in the US, would wipe out the economy. Nevertheless it is one of the richest storehouses of natural wealth in the world. In addition, it has the capacity, if reunited, to resist U.S. expansion.
If this explanation is wrong, what does explain the actions summarized above? How can the U.S. engage in coordinated and aggressive international action by accident?
1a) 'Credible Deception' Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html
2) 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan,' at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm#8
2a) On involvement of CIA: 'Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy'. This includes an article from the "Washington Post' with an introductory note from 'Emperor's Clothes'. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm
On $43 million aid: "The Bush administration has not been deterred [by talk of Taliban atrocities]. Last week it pledged another $ 43 million in assistance to Afghanistan, raising total aid this year to $ 124 million and making the United States the largest humanitarian donor to the country." ('The Washington Post,' 25 May 2001)
7) On Macedonia see: "SORRY, VIRGINIA, BUT THEY ARE NATO TROOPS, NOT 'REBELS'" at http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
Regarding the U.S. making the Balkans a "Prominent theater of operations" see 'NATO Buildup in the Balkans: Part of a Deadly Game ' at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/farish.htm
"Now let me ask you to jump ahead some eight months to August 1964, still more than 20 years ago, to an issue of Time magazine.
"That's the kind of vivid detail that the news magazines have made famous. I don't mean to single out Time. On the same date Life said almost the same thing and that week's issue of Newsweek had torpedoes whipping by, US ships blazing out salvo after salvo of shells. It had a PT boat bursting into flames.
"There was only one trouble. There was no battle. There was not a single intruder, never mind six of them. Never mind Russian designed Swatow gunboats armed with 37mm and 28mm guns. They never opened fire. They never sank. They never fired torpedoes. They never were.
"It has really taken 20 years for this truth to emerge. My authority is Admiral Jim Stockdale, who has written a fascinating book. In Love and War. Jim Stockdale was shot down over Vietnam a few days later and was a prisoner of the Vietnamese or more than seven years.
"But on the night in question he was in a Sabre jet fighter flying cover over the Maddox and the Turner Joy, and he scoured the seas or more than two hours; and he is as sure as man can be that they were fighting phantom blips on a radar screen.
"In case the Vietnam years have blurred in your minds, or even disappeared from your screens, may I remind you that this so-called Battle of Tonkin Gulf was the sole basis of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which was the entire justification for the United States' war against Vietnam. This non-event happened on August 4, 1964. President Johnson went on television that very night to ask the country to support a Congressional resolution. The resolution went to Congress the next day. Two days later it was approved unanimously by the House and 88-2 by the Senate.
"The 'facts' behind this critically important resolution were quite simply wrong. Misinformation? Disinformation? Deceit? Whatever! Lies.
[THE ABOVE is an excerpt from a talk given by Ben Bradlee, former Executive Editor, 'Washington Post.' It was delivered as the first James Cameron Memorial Lecture and is quoted in full in 'The Guardian' (London) April 29, 1987. If anyone would like to read the full text of this talk, please let us know and we will post it on tenc.net.]
The following is from the Helsinki Final Act, considered a centerpiece of modern International Law, and which the U.S. signed:
Note from tenc.net: All citizens of the U.S. can benefit from reading the Final Act for it gives a perspective from which to view the U.S. government's actions. It can be read in full at http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html - JI
Subscribe to our newsletter at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
[Note to readers: If we publish a letter you send to Emperor's Clothes we will not include your name or identifying information without getting your approval. If we cannot reach you, we will assume you wish your name withheld. - Jared Israel, editor.]
On 18 September about 100,000 readers transferred more than 1.7 gigabytes of data from Emperor's Clothes. That's the equivalent of around 1.5 million pages in printed books.
As you may know, the Website was "down" for about four hours that day. Because of the current crisis, we are strained beyond capacity.
We recently hired a full time computer person. He has partly finished remodeling the Website so it loads more quickly and is easier to use. We hope you find these changes useful. Now we need to complete the makeover and improve our technical facilities to meet the huge increase in demand for bandwidth.
Emperor's Clothes does not charge money for articles. We rely on donations.
Many of our readers have contributed in the past. This has allowed us to function. Now we need contributions from everyone who finds Emperor's Clothes useful so we can pay our (overworked, underpaid) computer helper and make technical improvements so that all our articles are available all the time.
send whatever contributions you can! $20, $50, $100,
$500 or more. Whatever the amount, it will be used
to get articles to more people.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us know by email at firstname.lastname@example.org to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.