| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Red Vein Kratom |
| |||||||
 Ishmael enthusiast  Registered: 10/28/99 Posts: 224 |
| ||||||
|
Motivations
Ish.10.27.01 For the past month and a half, people have been speculating as to the reasons behind the war we now find ourselves neck-deep in. I?ve listened to as many theories as people and have come to the conclusion that for all of the media coverage, for all the Presidential addresses to the Nation, and for all of the yelling, kicking and screaming, a vast majority of people really have no idea why this war is occurring. They may want to in theory, they want to know why their brothers and sisters are off dying, but when the reality is separated from the fiction, the truth becomes clear. The reasons that we?re at war have been looming on the American horizon for years, if not decades. Some of us, more than others, grew up with the expectation that this would occur. Some of us have been (unpleasantly) less surprised by events than others. So I think, being one of these people who were not shocked on September 11th and continue not to be shocked by the political backlash it has precipitated, that I will venture my freedom in order to attempt to educate those who have no idea what?s going on. First we need definitions. A patriot once meant a person who was willing to fight and die for the ideals of the nation to which he or she belonged. Today, in America, a patriot is someone who is willing to support capitalism by fulfilling the role of consumer. The definition of Democracy once was a government whose authority over the governed was through the consent of the governed themselves. Today Democracy, in America, means a government in which authority over the governed is assumed and left unchecked by the governed themselves. In the old definition of Democracy, if the governed ceased to participate in their role, the government would have no basis themselves to continue. Under the new definition, there is no need for the governed to have any participation at all. In fact, the less participation the better. If we were to go upon old definitions, upon old meanings, I would be a democratic patriot. But if we accept the new meanings that the words have taken on in the context of the real world set before us when we open our eyes in the morning, then I can unfortunately be considered neither. We have to bring ourselves onto the same page. Throwing these words around when the meanings have been lost to time is not constructive, in fact, it leads to internal wars. Words and their convolution, their loss of identifiable meaning, are the leading cause of war. This is why it took us weeks to formalize our apology to China when our plane crashed into their territory: mis-wordings lead to misunderstandings which in turn tend to lead to open conflict. In times like these, it is important that the American people know where they are so they can stand together. If we don?t stand together, then we stand at odds and we?ll tear ourselves apart. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to stand together in ignorance any longer. Thomas Jefferson advocated public education because an informed citizen (a non-ignorant citizen) is a citizen who can actively participate in the Democratic process. And again, unfortunately, ignorance is the bliss we?ve been calmly sedated within for the past three decades. Ignorance has become the face of the American Dream, where it once was the lofty ideals of freedom, independence and liberty. The New Bill of Rights would have the Right to sit hypnotized in front of the television as number one on the short list. The right to immerse ourselves into fantasy for as long as possible. How many friends do you have that fall asleep in front of the TV or not at all? Have you never wondered about it? Have you never wondered why it is that people appear to be in a trance state while watching TV? Television is relaxing even when the news is dire. The information seems less ominous, more flippant when it comes out of the mouths of TV anchors. It only becomes serious or ominous when we /stop/ watching the Television. But of course, TV is only an example of an endorsed activity which propagates ignorance. Any activity can become an outlet for denying the reality of a situation, sex, your job, sports, writing on your computer. The separation is between an activity being grounded in reality -in making us conscious of it- and it alleviating it ? in making us unconscious of it. Why must we avoid reality so? What is it about reality that has made it so intolerable to us that we would instead choose artificial representations over the actual? I think most anyone can answer these questions themselves. They?re not hard. In fact they?re quite easy. The answers are right in front of your face and have been for your entire life. Just look. Now with that out of the way, I want to explain my take on the motivations of this attack. The best way I?ve thought to do this is probably by eliminating some of the misconceptions that are floating around. First, we were not attacked on September 11th because of our freedoms. The Muslim Extremists that likely hijacked those planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers were not upset that our women were not wearing veils and that our men weren?t wearing foot-long beards. There are many other countries and peoples around the world that fail to meet these criteria that have not been targeted. It is not because we are a predominantly Christian nation, this is not retribution for the Crusades. There are other nations who are more predominantly Christian than us, and a much larger symbol for a holy war against Christianity/Catholicism would be Rome, not the United States. I am not saying that these cannot be considered factors, but that we cannot consider them central factors. We have to establish what is it about the United States that sets it apart from other nations, what makes it more of a target than say Canada. Canada shares a standard of ?freedom? and standard ?religion? that are comparable to that of the United States. Traveling between the two countries, which I have had the opportunity to do on occasion, it is hard to discern any difference in the standard of living or in the predominant attitudes of the people. Certainly there are some differences, on drug prohibition for instance (which by itself constitutes a very high level compromise of liberty in the United States), but as a whole the differences between Canada and the US are so marginal that it becomes almost impossible to ?spot? a Canadian citizen chatting in an American Caf? from amongst the Americans. Yet, for its self-similar freedom, lack of veils and beards, Canada has yet to be attacked. Canada has not reported a case of Anthrax infection. What this means is that everything that makes the United States similar to Canada can be ruled out as a reason for the attacks. What Canada is right now is a very good mirror of the differences that exist and that cause the United States to be a target. Now all we have to do to see the motivations behind these attacks is look North and understand the differences. It will not give us a perfect answer, but it will give us a very good one. The Major differences between the United States and Canada is that one is expansionist and one is not. Again, here we get bogged down in antiquated definitions of terms. In social studies class, an Expansionist country is one trying increase its power through expansion of physical borders and colonization beyond them. But again, the world has moved beyond that simple definition. Today we have to consider Economic Expansionism and Economic Colonialism. Two new outgrowths of the old Imperial definition that the United States and its policies have fostered and cultivated. First, Economic Expansionism and Colonialism are based upon the concept that it is more profitable to reduce our invasion of countries to processes that are purely economic rather than territorial. There are plenty of reasons for this, but the most pressing is that when an Empire of old went out on conquest and annexed a territory into its own, the territory was there for whatever purpose the Empire itself wanted. When the British annexed India during their heyday of Imperial might, they completely destroyed the already established (and quite remarkable) textile infrastructure in order to rebuild the country in a purely British manner ? one that would conform to British ideals and British protocols. What this did was turn the Indian Colony into one of poor slaves. This may sound familiar because it is exactly what the British attempted to do with the American colonies ? enslave and exploit them on the basis of their being a colony. That is long what the word ?colony? has meant: The territory of an Empire that does not maintain a standard of living on par with the associated Empire itself but funds it through goods, resources and services. In the classical definition, it was merely expected for a colony to have a lower standard of living than the main body of the Empire ? they have not yet ?earned? their right to the franchise after all. But now, moving into the realms Economic Colonialization and Expansionism, we find that if a county such as the United State were to simply annex a new territory (a poor neighbor, like Mexico for instance) it would immediately have to spend billions upon billions of dollars to increase the standard of living of the annexed country and bring it up to par with that of the United States as a whole. After all, the former Mexicans (now Americans in the state(s) of the Mexican region) are now citizens, potential voters, and thusly, if their needs are not taken care of, the Government will be held (theoretically) accountable. The key here is that if the United States were to annex Mexico, we would loose more money than we would gain in natural and physical labor resources. It would not be profitable. Especially when there are alternatives. This is where Economic Colonization and Expansionism comes in. Instead of going to Mexico and saying to the people, ?We would like to allow you, the People of Mexico, the opportunity to join the United States? and spending billions of dollars to bring the people of that nation out of poverty ? out of the 3rd world and into the 1st ? we instead enact a treaty like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) which allows United States companies to setup shop, recruit cheap labor (they aren?t United States citizens after all, they do not fall under out Minimum Wage laws) and exploit all the resources we could want. The promise is that because we?re bringing in our Economic might into your country (Mexico) your country will prosper like the United States. This, of course, is a lie. Since the ratification of NAFTA, the economic situation in Mexico has not gotten any better. In fact, in many places it has gotten worse. We have economically colonized Mexico and turned them into our labor and resource slaves, our new peasant class. But like any good colony, Mexico realizes that it simply hasn?t ?earned? its right to the United States franchise yet. But Mexico isn?t the only example of this, there have been dozens of far less pleasant examples of US economic colonization. Always it?s the same situation, a poor 3rd world country with unexploited resources and a largely agrarian population of less than sophisticated individuals. The usual formula is to undermine the current government (usually via a military coup) and then help create a new Governing body (one that is more ?democratic?) who is ready and willing to become the new affluent class while the rest of the people are placed into a state of quasi-slavehood. Then our corporate powers are welcomed with open arms setting up factories and strip mines and oil pumps. What we hear back home in the United States is of course that this only benefits the poor farmers, bringing them closer to inclusion within the reality of the 21st century. We don?t hear of the government corruption, the wages that leave many starving below every standard of poverty with no possibility of ?going back? to their agrarian lifestyle. They are of course just ?earning? their lifestyle. Of course, not every country beyond the United States is 3rd world. There are of course our ?allies?, the other 1st world nations who have comparable standards of living. They want a piece of the action too, they want to be able to export their corporations into Economically colonized countries in order to reap the profits. That is where organizations such at The World Bank (WB) and The World Trade Organization (WTO) come into play. These are basically organizations that help coordinate the efforts of the 1st world to capitalize on the 3rd world more effectively. Which brings us back to the events that occurred on the 11th and how they relate to all of this. Most of you by now have realized that the Middle East has long been an area ripe for economic colonization due to its immense reserves of crude oil. And there is no single product which the United States loves more than petroleum, we use more annually than the rest of the world combined. Yet the American consumer demands that gasoline prices stay low, even when we cannot produce the oil ourselves domestically. That is why we have such a keen interest in the Middle East, it supplies us with what we want. But the rulers of the Middle East are also much more ?sophisticated? than most 3rd world nations. While the United States has been able to simply walk all over most of South America in its resource rampage, our ability to sway the Middle East has met with varied results. We have allies in OLPEC, some more solid than others, and we have enemies. And that puts our supply of oil in jeopardy. Is it a coincidence that Osama Bin Laden, who?s family is immensely wealthy through the selling of petroleum, is the ring-leader of the terrorists arrayed against us? What would spur a rich man to war? If we threaten his fortune. If the United States were to successfully economically colonize (more than it has) the middle eastern states related to OLPEC, these men would loose millions in /future/ oil exploitation. And with the United States guzzling more oil every year and showing no interest in altering our consuming habits, it becomes a certainty that the United States will have to act to reserve those Oil Resources for itself. And it is that certainty that likely weighs within the minds of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, he calls others to his banner by saying that this is a holy war, but that is because the laymen of his country have no idea about US foreign policy, economic colonization and the likes. The laymen do know about Jihad though, they grew up with stories of Babers turning back the Christian hordes. And that is certainly what it must seem to them now: That in essence, they are being invaded by the Christian infidels. The call to Jihad is the translation of purpose into the language of the layman. What we must understand though is not the simplified version of this ?Jihad?, but the very complicated, very disturbing reality behind it. The reality where we may not be as ?innocent? as we would like to believe. Lastly I would like to say that I do not condone what occurred on the 11th, I think that killing is a deplorable act whatever its context. I offer up this opinion piece as a perspective that has not been taken by the media and thusly as an opinion that many may not be aware of. I dare you to think about it. See if it makes sense to you. Ishmael
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
While there are a lot of your assertions that I disagree with, (and some that I agree with) let me ignore them for the moment and focus on your main point.
You are saying, in essence, that bin Laden organized this attack in order to prevent the US from gaining a firmer stranglehold on mideast oil? Because he felt that his fortune was threatened? That all his oft-repeated motives (the insult to Islam that US presence in the Holy Land signifies, the intolerable evil of supporting the Jews against the Palestinians) are just part of a clever cover story? That he backed the mujahadin in their struggle against the Soviets solely so that the Soviets would be denied oil? Well, that certainly is .... ummmm... a unique perspective, I guess. How did you arrive at this somewhat startling conclusion? How does bin Laden think that this act will result in the US withdrawal from the mideast oil fields? pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Lenore enthusiast Registered: 01/30/00 Posts: 366 |
| ||||||
|
Ishmael,
I agree with much of what you have said, Thusfar I have yet to hear a more accurate summation of the events taking place in our world. Modernity is the story of Capitalism and Colonialism. To add to your comments about Economic Colonialism, in truth the WTO, World Bank, IMF, and other such institutions do pursue a purely economic form of colonialism. However, when Smith (the favorite theorist of modern economists) wrote about the Invisible hand of the market, he forgot to finish his Metaphore. For along with the invisible hand presides the Invisible fist, The Military. The Military might of the West has since the beginning of Capitalism exercised its might and superior technology in the third world to make way for Government organization that will be more suitable to the 1st worlds Economic Interests. When our Presidents, Ambassadors, Chiefs, and Prime Ministers talk about the noble battles of our soldiers to secure democracy abroad in far off jungles and deserts they are also speaking about the preservation of the right for OUR NATIONS to do business thier. The modern History of Iran and Iraq are something everyone should become familiar with. Why do our leaders claim Hussein is a Hitler? and why is Iran the most Hostile state, a direct threat to our national security? Perhaps because we made them so. The US helped overthrow the Iranian govt. in the past, why wouldn't they hate us now? Where were we to denounce Saddam when he was killing thousands of people in Kurdistan? We supported him, until he threatened our flow of Oil. Reasons are grey, buried deep beneath a black viscous liquid, obscured by the sheer mass of history, but if you look long enough a pattern emerges.
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
"If we were to go upon old definitions, upon old meanings, I would be a democratic patriot. But if we accept the new meanings that the words have taken on in the context of the real world set before us when we open our eyes in the morning, then I can unfortunately be considered neither. "
Yeah, under the new definations of the words, you would be a communist coward. A communist, because you believe in true democracy, a coward, cause you want to know why it happened rather then what way you think we should torture Bin Laden to death.
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 17 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I think that bin ladens followers bombed the building on the notion that bringing the small waves of executions of 400 people or more 7 months ago in afghanistan to the general american public through television. Such news circulated widely in the japanese press, maybe in newspapers or so on but not on general television. I really never thought there was a war before this coverage began, is it really is a larger scale war now though with serious funding, billions...
| |||||||
|
Ishmael enthusiast Registered: 10/28/99 Posts: 224 |
| ||||||
|
It's the concept of autotonomy. As I said in the post, there are certainly more reasons than what I focus on...but what I wish to emphasize is that the main reason why the United States is in particular a target of Osama Bin Laden is because it is attempting to undercut the 'traditional' soverignty and power structure that hangs on so teniously in the Middle East (with the intention of reaping financial gain). All 'revolutionaries' seek to re-order the world so that their values do not die under the broad hand of assimilation. What I was saying is that Osama Bin Laden is a symptom of a much larger disease, not the disease itself.
When the dissatisfied loose hope, their rancor burns brighter and they rise up en masse like the black smoke of bodies. And when the coup reaches the gates of the palace, it is more often on the wings of tyranny than whim or shere presence of boredom. Ish
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Red Vein Kratom |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Oil Wells Liberated for Democracy |  rhizo |
543 | 2 | 04/09/03 09:56 AM by Xlea321 |
|
 |
American imperialism - for RailGun | headphone |
1,514 | 4 | 09/06/01 01:08 AM by MrKurtz |
|
|
When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history |  trendal |
1,218 | 15 | 03/19/04 03:59 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
Faking It - A Brief Textbook Of American Democracy |  Evolving |
864 | 1 | 01/20/04 11:43 AM by Annapurna1 |
|
 |
Democracy Vs. Dictatorship |  Shroomalicious |
1,395 | 11 | 11/03/02 08:56 AM by Xlea321 |
|
|
US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible" (  1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Edame |
6,607 | 79 | 08/19/03 08:29 AM by GernBlanston |
|
|
An American seeking refugee status in Canada... |  carbonhoots |
761 | 13 | 04/09/03 02:54 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer? ( 1 2 all ) |
EchoVortex |
3,601 | 30 | 02/01/03 11:58 AM by silversoul7 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 1,048 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
