So Osama Walks Into This Bar
By Greg Palast
08/15/06 "Information Clearing House" - --- So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says...
But wait a minute. I'd better shut my mouth. The sign here in the airport says, "Security is no joking matter." But if security's no joking matter, why does this guy dressed in a high-school marching band outfit tell me to dump my Frappuccino and take off my shoes? All I can say is, Thank the Lord the "shoe bomber" didn't carry Semtex in his underpants.
Today's a RED and ORANGE ALERT day. How odd. They just caught the British guys with the chemistry sets. But when these guys were about to blow up airliners, the USA was on YELLOW alert. That's a "lowered" threat notice.
According to the press office from the Department of Homeland Security, lowered-threat Yellow means that there were no special inspections of passengers or cargo. Isn't it nice of Mr. Bush to alert Osama when half our security forces are given the day off? Hmm. I asked an Israeli security expert why his nation doesn't use these pretty color codes.
He asked me if, when I woke up, I checked the day's terror color.
"I can't say I ever have. I mean, who would?"
He smiled. "The terrorists."
America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won't be monitored. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on George Bush's team.
There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.
1. God is on Osama's side.
2. George is on Osama's side.
3. Fear sells better than sex.
A gold star if you picked #3.
The Fear Factory
I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.
That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places." To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.
The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's.
Am I saying there's no danger, no threat? Sure there is: 46 million Americans don't have health insurance. IBM is legally stealing from its employees' pension plan and United Airlines has dumped its pensions altogether. Four-million three-hundred thousand Americans were injured, made sick or killed by their jobs last year. TXU Corporation is right now building four monster-sized power plants in Texas that will burn skuzzy gunk called "lignite." The filth it will pour into the sky will snuff a heck of a lot more Americans than some goofy group of fanatics with bottles of hydrogen peroxide.
But Americans don't ask for real protection from what's killing us. The War on Terror is the Weapon of Mass Distraction. Instead of demanding health insurance, we have 59 million of our fellow citizens pooping in their pants with fear of Al Qaeda, waddling to the polls, crying, "Georgie save us!"
And what does he give us? In my own small town, the federal government has paid for loading an SUV with .50 caliber machine guns to watch for an Al Qaeda attack at the dock of the ferry that takes tourists to the Indian casino in Connecticut. The casino dock is my town's officially designated "Critical Asset and Vulnerability Infrastructure Point (CAVIP)." (To find the most vulnerable points to attack in the USA, Al Qaeda can download a list from the Department of Homeland Security -- no kidding.)
But that's not all. Bush is protecting us from English hijackers with a fearsome anti-terrorist tool: the Virginia-class submarine. The V-boat was originally meant to hunt Soviet subs. But there are no more Soviet subs. So, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have "refitted" these Cold War dinosaurs with new torpedoes redesigned to carry counter-terror commandoes. That's right: when we find Osama's beach house, we can shoot our boys right up under his picnic table and take him out. These Marines-in-a-tube injector boats cost $2.5 billion each -- and our President's ordered half a dozen new ones.
Lynn Cheney, the Veep's wife, still takes in compensation from Lockheed as a former board member. I'm sure that has nothing to do with this multi-billion dollar "anti-terror" contract.
Fear sells better than sex. Fear is the sales pitch for many lucrative products: from billion-dollar sailor injectors to one very lucrative war in Mesopotamia (a third of a trillion dollars doled out, no audits, no questions asked).
Better than toothpaste that makes our teeth whiter than white, this stuff will make us safer than safe. It's political junk food, the cheap filling in the flashy tube. What we don't get is safety from the real dangers: a life-threatening health-care system, lung-murdering pollution production and a trade deficit with China that's reducing mid-America to coolie status. Protecting us from these true threats would take a slice of the profits of the Lockheeds, the Exxons and the rest of the owning class.
War on Terror is class war by other means -- to keep you from asking for real protection from true menace, the landlords of our nation give you fake protection from manufactured dangers. And they remind you to be afraid every time you fly to see Aunt Millie and have to give up your hemorrhoid ointment to the underpaid guy in the bell-hop suit with a security badge.
Oh, hey, you never got the punch line.
So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says, "Well, George, what are you serving today?" and Bush says, "Fear," and Osama shouts, "Fear for everybody!" and George pours it on for the crowd. Then the presidential bartender says, "Hey, who's buying?" and Osama points a thumb at the crowd sucking down their brew. "They are," he says. And the two of them share a quiet laugh.
Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, ""Armed Madhouse": Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War" from which this is adapted. Go to www.GregPalast.com.
***
I've just heard a rumour that Bush has asked for UN troops to seal off Syria's border -- and ports
Here we go
Back down to fuc king earth
ENDYMION wrote:
***
I've just heard a rumour that Bush has asked for UN troops to seal off Syria's border -- and ports
Here we go
Back down to fuc king earth
Peddling your own brand of fear?
Was British terror plot a load of crap?
Liquid explosives very difficult to make; Orange Alert a political move?
An article posted last Thursday in the British online outlet The Register raises a very good question I haven't seen posed anywhere else, certainly not in our sycophantic American media: was the exposed British "plot" to bring down commercial airliners by mixing harmless household chemicals in the lavatory even remotely possible from the standpoint of basic chemistry?
To address that question, it's worth quoting from The Register's article:
"We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner -- all easily concealed in drinks bottles -- and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane. ... Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate -- especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation -- to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours -- assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities -- you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible."
I'm no chemist, but if The Register's description is true, it raises another question: was the dramatic inconveniencing this month of untold hundreds of thousands of air travelers around the US, and probably millions around the world, justified as a reaction to such an unlikely threat? Or is this all about the politics of fear, yet another in a long line of overhyped terrorist "plots" that got tons of government hype and, thus, media attention, but which in reality never got much farther than the fertile yet bumbling imaginations of a few would-be jihadists?
The fact is, a number of the British plotters didn't even have passports yet (which in Britain, take months to obtain), let alone plane tickets, so not only was a "catastrophe" not likely, but it also wasn't "days away." Even if they had the technical know-how to develop the bomb as described, which seems like, um, a stretch. Certainly, the plot was not developed or imminent enough to justify the panicky overreaction of US and other Western authorities.
These plots and lurid announcements accumulate; each necessarily has to be a bit more lurid than the last, as in this year's Miami, Canadian, and now British busts, so as to properly frighten a public plagued by a short attention span. In most cases, the "plots" turn out to be far less credible than originally advertised (remember Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber?), with charges quietly either reduced or dropped entirely. Their fantasies become fodder in a still larger war, the endless war for political power.
Meanwhile, a truly well-trained team of commandos could probably commandeer an airplane with their bare hands. And if you truly want to smuggle explosives on board, all you'd really need is to blow yourself up -- literally. Line up a sympathetic jihadist surgeon and anesthesiologist, and insert the bomb in your abdominal cavity. Let it heal a bit, don't forget your cell phone detonator, and happy travels. Good luck stopping it. Or, forget a plane; T-bone a boatful of explosives into one of those floating cities called cruise ships, somewhere in international waters. That's the sort of serious, militarily-minded terrorist activity authorities should be worried about.
There have been credible reports that British authorities, unconcerned about any imminent threat, wanted to wait and let the plot unfold, so as to gather more information and evidence regarding the people involved, but that Washington pushed hard for early arrests. Gee, I wonder why? A November election that is likely to turn on Republican mismanagement of the so-called "Global War On Terror" wouldn't have anything to do with the timing of arrests and the unprecedented (and helpfully color-coded) security alert, would it?
Would it?
I'm not afraid - I'm f........ angry.
In a civilized poverty stricken world. sex is the last subject.
A very cynical take on a simple, and reasonable attempt to protect us from real danger. Sorry, but the world is a dangerous place, and that's not a conspiracy to frighten you, just an unfortunate fact.
Brandon9000 wrote:A very cynical take on a simple, and reasonable attempt to protect us from real danger. Sorry, but the world is a dangerous place, and that's not a conspiracy to frighten you, just an unfortunate fact.
Why legitimize terrorists by declaring war on them, anyone who uses terror to wage war against the masses is an outright criminal; they are nothing less than murdering thugs and they should be identified as such. The Bush regime has used the fear of terrorism to control the populace and manipulate the American judicial system; the Bush administration obviously doesn't understand that torture is terrorism and those who execute the barbaric practice are no better than the terrorists they are against. The world was a much safer place before the GW Bush presidency, I am more afraid of the Bush regime than I am of Osama Bin Laden!
anton wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:A very cynical take on a simple, and reasonable attempt to protect us from real danger. Sorry, but the world is a dangerous place, and that's not a conspiracy to frighten you, just an unfortunate fact.
Why legitimize terrorists by declaring war on them, anyone who uses terror to wage war against the masses is an outright criminal; they are nothing less than murdering thugs and they should be identified as such. The Bush regime has used the fear of terrorism to control the populace and manipulate the American judicial system; the Bush administration obviously doesn't understand that torture is terrorism and those who execute the barbaric practice are no better than the terrorists they are against. The world was a much safer place before the GW Bush presidency, I am more afraid of the Bush regime than I am of Osama Bin Laden!
Frankly, it is absurd to suggest that by declaring war on terrorists, they are legitimized.
The US actually declared war on Nazi Germany. Did that represent a legitimization of Nazi Germany?
Somehow I doubt that you would approve of alternative phrasing like "We declare we will eradicate, obliterate, render unto nothingness terrorists."
It is ironic in the extreme when Liberals urge us to consider terrorists as criminals rather than enemies because the latter legitimizes them. Since when did a Liberal not consider a criminal "legitimate?" In fact, Liberals tend to demand that we recognize that criminals are "legitimate" human beings.
If you are more afraid of Bush led America that Bin Laden led Al Queda, your are, undoubtedly, a person without serious thought.
To begin with the US did not declare war on Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler declared war on the US at the same time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, it was then that a state of war existed between the US and Germany; initially the US wanted nothing to do with the war which they referred to as "that European war" Britain and her Commonwealth stood alone against the might of the Third Reich for just over two years before America was dragged into the fray.
Quote:To begin with the US did not declare war on Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler declared war on the US at the same time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, it was then that a state of war existed between the US and Germany; initially the US wanted nothing to do with the war which they referred to as "that European war" Britain and her Commonwealth stood alone against the might of the Third Reich for just over two years before America was dragged into the fray.
You need to retract your statement.
The US DID declare war on Germany,on Dec 11, 1941.
For your education, here is a copy of that declaration...
http://207.61.100.164/cantext/wwii/1941usde.html