 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Revisiting 9/11
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Sept. 10, 2006 For the Standard Today, September 12, issue In my article titled More Cost Effective than Pearl Harbor ( Sept. 14, 2001 ), written three days after 9/11 � and archived in www.tapatt.org - I wrote that: �Whoever plotted that diabolical attack on the World Trade Center last Tuesday, Sept. 11, must have had some engineers advising him on the technical aspects. I do not agree with the view that the terrorists were just lucky and knocked down the twin towers purely by chance. �My sense is that they set out deliberately to destroy the towers and then worked their way backwards to determine what logistics they needed to accomplish that mission. �Their structural engineer calculated how much heat energy they would need to melt or at least soften the steel skeleton of the buildings and thus cause them to collapse. �Their chemical engineer calculated the amount of burning aviation fuel they would need to raise the temperature beyond the melting point of steel and to keep it at that level for x-number of minutes. �It is no coincidence that the aircraft that they chose to hijack were all gassed up to fly non-stop from the East Coast ( Boston , Newark , Washington DC ) to the West Coast ( Los Angeles , San Francisco ). �If (those hijacked planes) were flying only from, say, Boston to Memphis , or from Newark to Atlanta , (the hijackers) would not have massed enough potential heat energy to (collapse) the towers. And the death toll would have been �only� in the hundreds, instead of in the thousands�.� How many actually died at the World Trade Center ? On Sept. 14, 2001 , I calculated the (possible) American casualties. �Based on the announced working population of WTC of 50,000 and a total of 227 floors, there was an average of 220 persons per floor. I calculated a total of 70 floors, above the impact floors, from which there was no possible escape, and multiplied that by 220, and added to that product the passengers in the two doomed airplanes, and the 350 or so missing and presumed dead firefighters and policemen, and I came up with a casualty total of more than 16,000 fatalities. �The Americans have since claimed that there were only 10,000 to 20,000 persons in the building at the time of impact � how could they have possibly known that? � but that would still mean 3,000 to 6,000 dead�.� The official death toll has since been placed at 2,973,.including the 230 or so lost at the Pentagon and in rural Pennsylvania . And at what cost to the attackers? In my Sept. 14, 2001 article: �Understandably, comparisons have been made between Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center . Both were surprise attacks of giant proportions. But the similarities begin and end there. �In 1941, the Japanese used some 350 torpedo planes and dive bombers that took off from six aircraft carriers, which in turn were protected by a screen of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines.� The Pearl Harbor attack killed a total of 2,403 Americans. �In 2001, the Muslim hijackers � all 19 of them � bought plane tickets (for seats) in four commercial airliners which they used as giant Molotov cocktails against the awesome symbols of American economic and military power, and probably paid for those tickets with credit cards which will never be debited for the amount owed. �In effect, they paid only with their lives. So in the macabre profit and loss calculation of modern warfare, this was the most cost effective (military) operation ever�..� Are the Americans safer now in 2006, after they exacted their revenge in Afghanistan and Iraq in the intervening five years? The answer has to be NO even if no other attack, large or small, has been hurled against the American homeland since. The incontrovertible fact is that Americans are now hated by more people around the world than ever before, especially in the Arab and Muslim countries, assuring an endless supply of saheed or martyrs ready to blow themselves up if they can take at least one American or perceived American surrogate with them. And more usually pro-American erstwhile US allies, not to mention tens of millions of otherwise patriotic Americans, despise the government of President George W. Bush as no US government has been despised before. And the one responsible for this state of affairs is none other than George W himself, the often tongue-tied dummy of neo-conservative ventriloquists led by Vice-President Dick Cheney (who used to be CEO of the Halliburton oil giant) and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their predominantly Jewish think- tank advisers-intellectuals. Condoleeza Rice used to be with Chevron, while George W himself was CEO of two smaller Texas oil companies. This lethal combination of greedy oil-interests and unabashedly pro-Israel strategists has given the world the endless war in Iraq � and soon, Iran ? - on the pretexts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was building nuclear bombs, and was working hand-in-glove with Osama bin Laden. All of which are now universally acknowledged to be unadulterated lies. Even those who supported the US punitive action against the Taliban in Afghanistan � including this writer � have since turned their backs on Dubya and the neo-cons when the pursuit of Bin Laden became secondary to the invasion of Iraq . The priorities are self-evident: 135,000 troops against Saddam, compared to only 19,000 against Osama. The invasion pf Iraq, it turned out, was planned several years before 9/11 by a neo-con group led by Paul Wolfowitz, according to the strategic goals of the neo-cons, first stated in September 2000 - one year before 9/11- which called for, above all else, full military control of the Middle East. �Full military control of the Middle East � refers to its vast oil resources, not to its bottomless supply of dromedary dates and camel dung. The most damning proof that oil and Israel dominate the strategic thinking of the neo-cons is that North Korea, which is known even by the neo-cons to have a more advanced nuclear weapons program than Iraq�s or Iran�s, and far longer-range ballistic missiles than Iraq�s or Iran�s, with which to deliver them, was left to simmer on the back burner, while the neo-cons went gung-ho against Iraq on a pack of manufactured lies. Iraq �s al-Samoud missiles are limited by the United Nations to a range of 150 kms, and cannot even reach Israel , much less Europe and North America . On the other hand, North Korea �s Taepodong-1 missiles have a range of 1,000 kms and can hit any target in South Korea and Japan , as well as parts of China and the Russian Far East. The neo-cons are aware that North Korea is developing the Taepodong-2 missile, which will have a range of 6,000 kms and will be able to hit Alaska , Hawaii , Midway, Guam , and Okinawa , which all have US military and naval bases, plus Taiwan and the Philippines .. And yet the neo-cons considered Iraq a bigger threat to the US than North Korea , and activated their war machine accordingly. Why so? Because Iraq is awash with oil, but there is not a drop in the Korean Peninsula . And because Pyongyang is not a threat to Israel , but Baghdad is. See my article War for Oil and Israel (Jan. 30, 2003), written three months before the invasion of Iraq . ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to "Revisiting 9/11 "
Dear Tony, You have a very keen sense of truth within you. I have received this video and your instinct dictate the truth.....please view the video. This is what they called "the cover up of 9/11 2001... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&hl=en-GB God bless and take care. Gil Mateo, [email protected], Sept. 13, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Once again you have taken a step back, perused the present situation, and now give us a bigger understanding of the real issues that have yet to be dealt with by an incredibly inept GW Bush. It amazes me how Americans seemingly remain blind to his stupidity. They masochists now? Mabuhay ka, Tony! Gerry Kaimo, [email protected], Sept. 13, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww TOCAYO...STUPENMDOUS...BRAVO...AND AMEN TO EVERYTHING YOU WROTE THEN..Bravo Tony. Let us pray for Barbara..for having produced a dummy son Georgie Porgy. Tony Joaquin, [email protected], Sept. 13, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You, Sir, have written an excellent article once again. And I thank you for bringing to print what "News gathers" in my country are afraid to print. Seems they don't want to buck the Administration and only print what they are told to. As you know, I have been against this Administration almost from the start and for the reasons you have pointed out in this article. George Bush is not a leader by any stretch. Never has been and never will be. You mentioned the two oil companies he tried to head. Note, I said "Tried". Both of those companies went into bankruptcy and folded up. This has been the result of all his endeavors. The only success he has had in any public endever he undertook was the baseball team he had a stake in, which he aquired as an investment one year and when the team was soon sold, he made a financial killing. One of the myths about the team is that George actually ran the club. Not so. He only had a small investment in it and the stake he did have, was almost given to him. It is a common understanding here in Texas that George was groomed for President since at least the late 1980's. Money can buy a lot. But people like Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld along with not only his family, but some very, very powerful people and sources within the military/corporate structure in this and other countries. Everyone knows there was connection of some sort between the Nazi's and the Bush family in the days leading up to World War II. And now we find that there was also a tie in with Dick Cheney and/or his family. All good fraternity boys, if you will. George, when giving a speech, cannot adlib two words without showing his lack of command of the English language. If it's not on the TelePrompter, he is lost. Cheney goes to great lengths to make sure George sticks to the script. And, as with everything else, Cheney rules the whole sick administration. I have noticed that when some sort of national emergency happens, the whole world knows that George is in the air aboard Air Force One. But Cheney just vanishes in to a hide-out that no one knows where, except his circle of advisors with just enough people that are trusted to keep the government running in case something happens to Bush. Why isn't Bush put in the secret hide-a-way too. I mean that plane will have to come down somewhere sometime. In case of a nuclear conflict, it's over for Bush sooner or later when he lands. I've rattled on too long. You're the writer, not I, so thanks for such a good article. Ralph White, [email protected], Houston, Texas, Sept 13, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: I must commend you for the accuracy of the facts you put down in your column, "Revisiting 9/11," and the reasonableness of the conclusions you draw from them. The invasion of Iraq was sold to the American people and the whole world on deceptive or distorted intelligence. As it turned out, Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction; he was not pursuing a nuclear program; he had nothing to do with 9/11; and he had no connection whatsoever with al-Qaeda. Therefore, he could not have posed a threat to the region, and much less to the U.S.A. You are quite right: the decision to invade Iraq preemptively was made long before 9/11. 9/11 provided the "neocons" (neo-conservatives) and the Bush Administration the rationale for invading Afghanistan and then, taking advantage of the mood of the U.S. Congress and the American people at the time, expanding the "war on terror" to include Iraq on the false premises already mentioned. What, we may now ask, have the U.S. and its "coalition" partners, accomplished in terms of extirpating the Taliban and the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and "liberating" Iraqis from the despotism of Saddam Hussein so that American-style democracy could take root and blossom there? It is true that the Afghanis have had their first taste of "democratic" elections under a new Constitution. Now they have a Parliament, and a duly elected President. But Afghanistan is quickly sliding backward: the Taliban are reported to be resurgent throughout the country, opium is once again a major industry, and the NATO forces which are in the country are proving not equal to the task of getting rid of the Taliban. The ethnic warlords are back in business in Afghanistan. Regrettably, the biggest thorn in the neck of the U.S., Usama bin-Laden, has not been caught after five years of effort and at great cost to U.S. taxpayers. He is that elusive and is reported still in a remote area lying close to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border where he is said to enjoy the protection of the inhabitants. What many people find mortifying is that bin-Laden still continues to broadcast threats to the U.S. and those countries which have joined the "coalition." Iraq likewise has had its "democratic" elections under a new Constitution duly ratified by the Iraqi people. Under that Constitution, Iraq has a new Parliament and a new government headed by a Prime Minister, Mr. Nouri al-Maliki. With U.S. help in training and logistics, Iraq now has some 300,000 members of the Iraqi Army and police. The U.S. military forces in Iraq now number around 139,000 (according to the latest reports). The U.S. is reported to have spent over $300 billion in Iraq, with expenditures running now at around $2 billion a week. With all that, one would expect Iraq to be a flourishing U.S.-style democracy. It is true that Saddam Hussein, the cruel dictator, has been toppled, and is now facing trial for genocide and other crimes before an Iraqi court. But, unfortunately, Iraq can only be described as a classic model of anarchy and chaos. Prime Minister al-Maliki's government, located within the fortress called the "Green Zone," and with its huge Army and police forces, is incapable of providing much-needed security for the Iraqi people, even with the help of U.S. military forces. That government is not capable of securing even only the capital, Baghdad. The people of Iraq complain of lack of water, electricity, and other necessities. Some now say frankly that they were better off under Saddam! What an irony! Sunnis and Shiites have for some time been engaged in a bloody sectarian conflict which almost every day takes its toll of hundreds of Iraqi lives The total of Iraqi civilians killed now runs to over 100,000. . Insurgents and "jihadists" have so far taken the lives of some 2,600 American soldiers; in addition, several thousand U.S. soldiers have been injured. Middle-class Iraqis have fled Iraq in huge numbers and sought haven in neighboring countries. Iraqis who don't have the means to go abroad are left behind to face the music. Given these harsh realities in Afghanistan and Iraq, people wonder why President George W. Bush and other Republican leaders insist that these two countries are continuing to make "progress," and that therefore the best policy for the U.S. to pursue would be to "stay the course." "Stay the course" until "hell freezes over?" (with apologies to Adlai Stevenson). Mariano Patalinjug, [email protected], New York City, Sept 13, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks Tony, That was an interesting insight. What is curious is that it looks like more than 50% of the people working at World Trade Center apparently did not go to work on that day. Could it be that information leaked out to many of those who did not go to work on that day? I guess we will never know. Abrazos, Jaime Calero, [email protected], Sydney, Australia, Sept. 13, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded) Thanks, Lester. Tony Abaya has got many of the dots there -- the engineering knowledge needed to bring the Towers down, the puppeteering of Bush by Cheney, the neo-cons as the real power behind the throne, Israel as the power behind the neo-cons, the lack of interest in Osama, the obsession with Iraq.... He just hasn't quite connected them. Also, why the mention of Pearl Harbor? Surely, because in each case the U.S. president NEEDED the attack to justify a program he desperately wanted to but in place; in the case of Pearl Harbor, participation in WW2, which the American public didn't want but which America needed if it was to control the post-war world; in the case of 9/11 control of the Middle East -- for all the reasons Abaya mentions! America is Israel's battle elephant. Despite the botched plans after it, 9/11 was necessary for American Middle East policy as dictated by Israel. N.B. The fires burned for an hour, or less. The steel was certified for six hours or more under much more stressful conditions (i.e temp.) than that imposed by the kerosene from the planes, which in the case of the South tower was spilled 80 percent outside the building (one fireman reached the lowest burning floor and declared the fires could be extinguished with two hoses.) Kerosene cannot burn hot enough to compromise steel. That's probably why no steel frame building before or after 9/11 has collapsed due to fire. Those are the only three! Paul Holme, Sept. 14, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Yes, I had this assumption before also. The war in Iraq can never be justified by Bush, no matter how many crimes Saddam has committed against his people. The only reason Bush wants Iraq is for its oil, period. There were no weapons of mass destruction found by the UN authoritie, yet George 'dubyah' still invaded them. Let's put it this way: Whoever controls oil, controls the world. Thanks for sharing your article. I suggest you read this article by an acquaintance of mine. Freda Veluz, [email protected], Sept. 13, 2006 Just War Theory By Fuyukodomo Abstract War is as ancient as civilization itself. But is there ever a justification for war? Just-war theory addresses the concept of just war and why wars are fought as well as the rationalization for war. This can be theoretical or historical. The "just war tradition" considers the rules and agreements that have been applied in several wars throughout history (Just War Theory, 2006). An example would be global agreements such as the Geneva and Hague Conventions or the UN Charter. There are two moral positions that offer a "series of principles that aim to retain a plausible moral framework for war;" Jus ad bellum, the rules that govern the justice of war, and Jus In Bello, the rules that govern just and fair conduct in war (Ferraro, 2005).They are not mutually exclusive. Initially, I believed the United States would be justified in the war against Afghanistan because the media reported that Osama bin Laden had masterminded the attack on United States . Like many Americans, my television set was on the news and I watched the events unfold. And like many Americans, I was driven by emotion rather than logic. Within a day, the media reported that Osama bin Laden was responsible and I believed that we should retaliate although I was a little concerned that the government discovered the responsible party so quickly. When President Bush decided to invade Iraq , one of the initial justifications was that they were in some way tied to Al Qaida. As more evidence came to light, it became apparent that the President just wanted to go to war with Iraq and various other Middle Eastern Nations and needed to create a justification. Jus ad Bellum, Jus In Bello The first criterion to consider in a just war is a just cause. Self-defense, retaliation against a wrong already committed, or to preempt an imminent attack are considered just causes. Another condition of just war is that it must be waged by a legitimate authority, normally in the sovereign power of the State, and for the right intention. The nation waging war "should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement" (Just War Theory, 2006). The next factor of a just war is that it must have a realistic possibility of success since, obviously, the ultimate purpose is to restore peace. The next principle is that the retaliation must be proportional to the injury that was inflicted. It is not considered just to attack indiscriminately � civilians are not acceptable targets. Unfortunately, the death of non-combatants is sometimes unavoidable. A military installation is a legitimate target although it might be located in the middle of the city. This might have the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage. Sometimes it might be difficult to determine exactly who the combatants are. Normally, combatants openly carry arms, but sometimes they dress as civilians. Finally, war should only be fought as a last resort, when all other options for peace have been exhausted. Legal Groundwork According to the United States Constitution, The President of the United States has the power to make treaties with consent of the Senate. Additionally, the Constitution states in Article 6, paragraph two that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States , shall be the supreme Law of the Land." On June 26, 1945 , the United States took part in the signing of the Charter of the United Nations and it was ratified on October 24, 1945 . At that point, the Charter became part of the supreme law of the land as stated in the Constitution. The UN Charter states that it is up to the Security Council to decide if there is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security." The Security Council may decide to not use armed force (Article 41) or to use armed force if it deems that the actions of Article 41 have proven to be insufficient or will be insufficient (Article 42); however, members do have an inherent right to self defense (Article 51). Having laid the legal groundwork, let's examine each of the justifications given by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq . Justification One justification the Bush administration used was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A threat to use nuclear weapons could justify a use of defensive force than otherwise might be considered when there is a less serious threat. However, there must be credible proof to support the threat regardless of how serious the threat is. According to Singh and Macdonald (2002), if there is such evidence, it has not been made available. They also state that "there must first be credible evidence that Iraq has carried out, or intends to carry out, an armed attack on the United States " (n.p.) before that could be used as a justification to use force against Iraq . However, even if Iraq did have stores of weapons of mass destruction, this did not fulfill the criteria in Article 51 of the Charter because Iraq clearly did not possess the capability of delivering those weapons against the United States � there was no imminent threat. Another justification the United States argued is that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN Resolutions. The first observation with this justification is the fact that it is up to the UN Security Council to determine what action is or is not appropriate to bring a member state into compliance -- not any individual member state; therefore the U.S. had no lawful authority under the UN Charter to take unilateral action to force Iraq into compliance. Additionally, the action taken must be proportional to that necessary to fulfill the objective. If the true objection was for Iraq to be brought into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, as asserted by the Bush administration, this could have been done under Saddam Hussein's regime. And therefore, based on the doctrine of applying the minimal force to bring about the goal, regime change was unjustified even if the Security Council, or certain members of it, may not like that government. "He tried to kill my daddy" was another justification tried by the Bush administration. This would be a criminal matter and under U.S Federal law, the principle of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it illegal to utilize the U.S. military to enforce civil or criminal law; therefore this cannot be used as a legal justification under U.S. law. Moreover, under the precepts of diplomatic immunity and international law, sitting heads of state generally are not subject to being served with criminal indictments. It was on this basis that the International Criminal Court refused to indict Ariel Sharon for his war crimes committed in 1986, and this would seem to be equally applicable to standard criminal crimes attributable to Saddam Hussein in 1989. Freeing millions of Iraqis was never used as a justification for the war but was an ex post facto justification introduced after the war had actually begun in an effort to legitimatize it. Even if it were introduced prior to the war, that would be an issue rightfully dealt with under the authority of the UN Security Council and not an individual nation. If that justification is considered to be legitimate, then it must be evenly applied and therefore, the Russian occupation and invasion of Chechnya , which is condemned by the U.S., would rightly fall under the same justification. The justification that is repeated by many Americans is that it is in retaliation for 9/11. Initially the American public was told that the attacks were carried out by Al Qaida, an international terrorist organization, with support and funding that is supplied from a number of countries. Al Qaida has a close association with the Taliban regime, which is what was used as the justification for military action in Afghanistan . It had been suggested that Iraq also had close ties with Al Qaida, but we now know different. All of the arguments for the justification of the war in Iraq have been discredited and all that remains is the mantra, often repeated by many Americans and politicians, that the Iraqi people are now better off because Saddam Hussein is an evil man � not a justification, but an excuse to make the war seem legitimate. In the end, as is usually the case, the truth is much simpler than that -- the United States did not need justification to invade Iraq but only attempted to in order to make it politically tenable. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |