Hijacking The Truth - The New Pearl Harbour

ÈöÓúãö Çááåö ÇáÑøóÍúãäö ÇáÑøóÍöíãöö
Hijacking The Truth - The New Pearl Harbour

Consider these quotations:

"The global ‘war on terrorism' has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."

"The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the U.S. Andrews air force base, just 16 kilometres from Washington, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 a.m. Why not?"

"Where was the US air force on the morning of 11 September 2001? Why were fighter planes not scrambled immediately it was suspected that a hijacking was taking place? Why, despite repeated intelligence warnings of a terrorist hijack, did the US not act before 11 September against any of the attackers?"

"It is a U.S. legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent to investigate. Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could U.S. air security operations have been deliberately stood down on Sept. 11?"

"it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

"The 9/11 attacks allowed the U.S. to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement."

"The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power".

"It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks"

"The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies."

Are these the rantings of obsessive "conspiracy" theorists? Are these the mutterings of paranoid Muslims,or other virulent anti-Americans? No, in fact they are from Michael Meacher, who until recently held the post of UK Minister of state in the Environment department. He has been, for the past 6 years, the closest to UK energy policy, and was well versed with the inner workings of UK and US foreign policy. The British distanced themselves somewhat from his comments that were made on September the 6th and the Americans described them as "monstrous" and attacked Meacher's credibility. Let us examine critically some other quotes.

"…while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein".

"…If Saddam should pass from the scene… US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently"

"…the US must discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"

"…(through) key allies such as the U.K. is the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."

"…peacekeeping missions ‘demand(ing) American political leadership rather than that of the UN."

Again one would be excused for assuming this is from parties antagonistic to the US and bent on exaggerating the US's leading world role. In fact they are all quotes taken from the leading US figures that form part of the cabal behind the Project for a new American Century (PNAC) and include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. These are hardly inconsequential figures in the US Administration. When one considers the September 2000 document produced by PNAC entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences", from which these quotations are taken, it becomes more plausible that Meacher's statements are close to the mark. What is without doubt is the way the US has milked maximum mileage of 9/11 for its various foreign policy objectives, and that it provided the perfect way to bring a reluctant domestic public opinion into line to support the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. Tony Blair too used the crisis for British foreign policy objectives. He admitted as much to the Commons Liaison committee when he said recently:

"…to be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."

Shortly after September 11, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act, and suspended the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, i.e. the right to free speech. So the lovers of freedom scrapped freedom of speech for their own citizens. Consequently it is now dangerous for an American to publish even a satirical cartoon, or to parody the President. Indeed the US government now controls the vast majority of newspapers, and Clear Channel has the monopoly on most US radio stations. The President recently spoke to the nation by this means. So the new world order that Bush Senior and Junior have championed has a much wider consequence than just the rest of the world as the domestic US audience is also suffering under increased surveillance and restriction. CNN and Fox lead the way in spewing forth government controlled propaganda which an unthinking population is ignorant of or afraid to challenge.

September 11th provided and continues to provide a very convenient pretext for US attacks throughout the world. Echoing Meacher's statement alluding to the growing oil dependency a report by the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to … the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". In its final analysis it recommended to Vice President Cheney that this was an unacceptable risk to the US and therefore military intervention was necessary. As we also saw in the precursor to the Afghanistan war the BBC reported September 18th, 2001 that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October" in that year. Several sources have reported that the US had warned Taliban representatives earlier in 2001 that they must accept their proposals for oil pipelines from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan through Afghanistan and that "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Interpress Service, Nov 15 2001).

Meacher used his analysis to question whether this was the right course of action for Britain to follow is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the United States went to war, and that throws light on British motives, too. The conventional explanation is that after the twin towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the U.S. and U.K. governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However, this theory does not fit all the facts.

When the US requirements to declassify secret information from the 1960's came to pass, several key pieces of intelligence slipped through the net into public hands. Amongst them were details of Operation Northwoods where the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned for various pretexts which would justify a US invasion of Cuba in 1962. Amongst those pretexts was the fabrication of Cuban attacks on domestic US airliners. Those in the Muslim Ummah that regularly witness the oppression wrought by the occupiers of Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere, are not surprised that their lives are given little value. It seems that domestically as well the general public can be used as mere pawns in the game of international domination. How sorely the world is missing a true ideological state (the Khilafah) that has a foreign policy built solely on implementing the justice of the Islamic way of life and carrying it to mankind.

The September 2000 PNAC blueprint stressed "the process of transforming the U.S. into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalysing event -- like a new Pearl Harbour". They have their new Pearl Harbour and are making full use of it.

Khilafah.com Journal
27 Rajab 1424 Hijri
23 September 2003

Click here to E-mail us regarding this or any other article on Khilafah.com