“I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.” ..Osama bin Laden, Sept 17 2001
“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.” ..bin Laden Oct 16 2001
It seems that expressing any kind of regret at the killing of bin Laden is to invite a hail of abuse from know-all pundits, journalists and various super-patriots, all riding high on the latest events.
Even if bin Laden were a revolutionary, it is a perfectly normal reaction to feel disgust at shooting a human being dead in front of his hysterical family, gleefully dumping the corpse, and then high-fiving it back to the United States. But amidst the cheering mob, this reaction will need a disguise – and an elaborate one at that, if the speeches of our stern-faced politicians are anything to go by. Their manful pride is tinged with a carefully placed daub of sorrow, like the beauty spot on a white-faced fop, and they wear the approved slogans like tottering powdered wigs, for all to admire.
Saner minds will realise that individuals such as bin Laden gravitate to the centre of events only when oppressive regimes become lost to all sense. The beheading of a few revolutionaries does not halt this resistance, but accelerates it. This is because massively superior force used against a helpless foe is always repugnant to human nature. When distaste, protest, and finally rebellion reaches a self-sustaining critical mass, the rogue state is forced to consume colossal sums to defend itself on multiple fronts, until at last, it is exhausted and overtaken by events.
One look at recent figures for funds spent on armaments by the United States shows the damage this one country, with only 6% of the world’s population, must be either inflicting or threatening to inflict, on very large numbers of people. In fact, the figures below do not include nuclear weapons research (concealed in the Department of Energy’s budget) and other elements such as widows’ pensions, medical care for veterans, homeland security, and interest on debt for defence spending. With these taken into account, the cost for 2010 is more than 1.2 trillion dollars – about $4,000 to protect every American man, woman and child from the fury of the rest of the world – and this is expected to rise significantly for 2011.
Revolutionaries are Nature’s response to a regime blocking the evolution of part of the race, a protective measure functioning on a racial scale, but rapid mental and genetic deterioration within such corrupted societies is another safeguard, causing implosion from internal stresses within the population itself – dissatisfaction, escapism, mental disorders, addictions and other chaotic conditions of the brain.
A lifestyle diametrically opposed to the evolutionary needs of man causes turmoil within the extremely sensitive neuronal structures – the seedbed of thought. With each generation more sensitive and highly strung than the one before, this results in corresponding distortions within the mind. A heavy weight hung from a young child’s neck will cause distortions of the spine as the child grows, and the highly sensitive brain suffers in the same way from an environment which has become a burden to it. Even growth rates can be suspended as a result of extreme stress, showing the extent of the resources consumed in attempts to manage the internal damage.
Increasing rates of bulimia and anorexia are an example of children raised in a family environment, and by extension, a society, which instead of providing security, becomes a threat. To attempt to render the physical or emotional violence predictable, “blame” is internalised as a personal fault, in the hopes of rendering it manageable. The child is desperately trying to make sense of a frightening world, and to control the actions of a monstrous parent by changing its own form – leading to a bizarre distortion in its perception of the world. Such individuals gravitate to abusive or distant partners later in life, compounding an already deep seated personal problem, and adding to the damage sustained by the society which sooner or later requires chemical or institutional management.
Such deformations are as obvious on the mental plane as deformations of the body are on the physical plane; the sub-normal mental capability of some disorders appears well before the child has been influenced much by society at large, which indicates a genetic factor, through mechanisms about which we are still in the dark. The molecular biologist’s habit of attributing all complex change to random chance is an incredible state of mind which is steadily losing ground, as the mechanisms – once thought to be relatively simple – have been discovered to be highly ordered and overwhelmingly complex. In spite of these alarming trends, evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins waste the opportunity provided by their global voice by declaring the world a place of satisfying intellectual progress. It is as if a doctor were to enter a plague ridden town, and nimbly stepping over the corpses piled high in every street, with the sound of vomiting issuing from every doorway, he smiles broadly and announces that all is going gloriously well.
Even in a state of freefall, the human mind at a deeper level is still aware of what is sane and healthy, and what is not. This internal resilience is the sole reason for the widespread preservation of spiritual beliefs over the centuries, regardless of the form or colour in which they have been presented.
Conversely, a luxurious lifestyle sustained only by violence and repression of others creates an internal tension revealing itself in self-destructive behaviour – greed, anxiety, stress, depression, eating disorders, drug addictions, violent crime, delusional behaviour, lust for war and a host of other intractable mental problems including the birth of sociopaths – until eventually the society becomes overwhelmed by chaos. These conditions cannot be cured by clever diversions, drugs, imprisonment or summary executions. Endless experiments in the hope of producing new drugs to cure them only wastes precious time. Despite the biological element, their true origin is the brain’s incompatibility with its environment, in which it is held hostage and helpless to escape.
The revulsion felt at violence and killing is a protective feature of the brain, provided to every normal individual at birth. This reaction does not indicate a dismissal of bin Laden’s role in global chaos, and it does not represent any judgement about America. It does not show support for terrorism. It can be expected to arise when any normal mind is exposed to violence, or even to reports of such acts – regardless of who commits them or who suffers from them. Just as the body immediately retreats from extreme heat – not caring about its source, or the reason for it, or the motivation of others who may have caused us to be burned, or what the journalists’ latest position is on whether burning skin down to the bone is a good or a bad thing for us – repugnance at violence is a safeguard provided by Nature, as important to the mind as the immune system is to the body in fighting physical infections. Like the body, the brain is initially wired to avoid situations dangerous to its organisation. As a reflex, it acts too quickly for us to reason it away with arguments. It is the absence of revulsion which is the abnormality, and a matter for serious concern. Lacking of a sense of pain – a recognised medical condition – causes a person to become injured constantly, but a person displaying insensitivity to violence forms a genuine threat to others.
The West is not against mass murder, no matter what justification is given for the killing of bin Laden. In fact, Western policy is completely indifferent to killings on a large scale, a fact which many countries know well. There are mass murderers supported by the West who are one day unceremoniously trussed up and executed not because of their decades of atrocities, but because they stepped on the oil pipeline. The fact that executions of any kind repel us indicates the brain’s resilience, if this natural reaction has not been worn away by repeated daily exposure to violence and massacres through the media.
As for the worst of charges levied against bin Laden, there are so many unanswered questions about the 9/11 disaster that it would need an entire post just to list them. Bush’s government clearly knew in advance about the attacks, and orchestrated some extra damage for reasons of their own; most thinking people accept this based just on the evidence of the Pentagon, where a 757 airliner made a hole the size of a garage door and then completely disappeared into la-la land with the pixies. As one member of staff said, who spent twenty minutes trying to leave the damaged wing, and who is presently suing Cheney through the courts for her injuries – “an airplane? Well, there were no seats, no baggage, no bodies. No metal, no fuselage. We got outside and there were no wheels, no wings and no engines. There was nothing, not even skid marks on the grass. There was a small hole, still smoking. But where was the 757? There wasn’t one.”
Bush’s reaction while sitting in a classroom, to news that the country he was in charge of was under attack, with hundreds dead and thousands more at risk – was a study in deception: rather than the immediate reaction one would expect – a look of shock, a look of horror, or fury, the hurried cancellation of all other appointments, the organising of meetings, making of decisions, rushing to protect one’s family and ensure that other targets in America were protected – there was only a kind of tension, and a kind of confusion, as if he dared not express any emotion whatever. The children’s reading continued.
A measure of abnormally high level of option trading, effectively betting on losses for American Airlines and United Airlines, and, on similar options, an amount 45 times the normal volume was traded on Citigroup insurers (who, after 9/11, expected their payments to top $500 million) in the three days prior to the attacks, effectively betting that their stock value would fall sharply. Similarly Morgan Stanley, occupying 22 floors of the WTC, also had much larger such trading volumes. Raytheon, an armaments supplier to the US military, had 232 options contracts traded the day before the attacks, a number almost six times greater – on a single day – than had ever been traded before. Raytheon must have already been given the go-ahead to tool up for another war, and some well-connected stockmarket insiders were ready to make a few extra millions – at the expense of the people who were massacred in the WTC.
Consequently, the Journal of Business (Allen Poteshman) concluded that there was ample evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.
How much bin Laden can be blamed is hard to say as he never claimed responsibility for the attacks, which is dificult to account for given his opposition to America. Either way, the SEAL team was told to bring back a corpse, not a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda. In the process, bin Laden’s son was killed, and his wife shot in the leg. Witnesses would have seen bin Laden’s head completely blown away, given the type of bullets that were used. The corpse was then dumped in the sea. As a strange corollary to this, there is no evidence proving the act itself: the compound was razed, the family expelled, the body destroyed; no film or photos were taken, no DNA evidence was supplied, and the entire SEAL team was later shot down in a helicopter over Afghanistan. Unusually, the Taleban were blamed even before they seemed aware of the incident.
Acts which look a lot like terrorism, committed by friends of America, are not treated in the same way. In 1946, Israelis disguised as Arabs blew up the King David Hotel in Egypt, killing 91 people, in an attempt to influence public opinion against Arabs. “It wasn’t a terrorist act,” the Israelis later claimed. “We gave them time to evacuate.” Typical of their attitude towards the rest of the human race, this ignores those who died (28 of whom were English). On June 8, 1967, Israeli jets attacked a clearly marked, unarmed American ship in international waters, the USS Liberty, with orders to leave not a single crew member alive. The ship was torpedoed but stubbornly refused to sink; the crew tried to extinguish the flames and eventually climbed into liferafts, at which point they were strafed from the air, resulting in 34 dead and 170 wounded. Besides tens of thousands of Palestinians killed in various purges and massacres, Ariel Sharon, in charge of the IDF, allowed the Falangist militia into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982 – supposedly uinder his protection – resulting in the bloody slaughter of hundreds of civilians, including 35 women and children. The UN passed a resolution condemning this, but both Israel and America ignored it.
More recently we have seen a Mossad execution carried out with stolen passports, and the storming of an unarmed aid ship, in which 9 civilians were shot dead, some through the top of the skull. In their defence, Israel posted pictures of the “weapons” supposedly held by those on the ship – a pathetic collection of cutlery, string, some pieces of wood, and what looked like a tea towel. Besides their bulldozing of houses and the shooting of children, they have used white phosphorous – a weapon straight from Hell – against a hospital. America has ignored all these human rights abuses, and currently supports Israel to the tune of several billions per year. This can hardly be called a war on terror – more accurately a support for terror and even a love of terror. Most disturbing of all was the sight of five Israeli youths standing on an SUV on Sept 11, 2001, filming and cheering when the WTC was brought to the ground; former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations, replied: “It’s very good.. it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).”
In bin Laden’s last known video, he claimed that widespread anger and attacks would continue while America lived in security, whereas those in Palestine lived in fear of Israel’s billions of dollars’ worth of American war machinery. Israel, so far, has ignored 142 separate UN resolutions, has a secret nuclear facility, and acts with such abandon committing so many grotesque violations of human rights that a library would be required to record them all.
The war on terror is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a war on Arabs, which has, rightly or wrongly, created figures such as bin Laden embodying resistance to it. To understand his appeal to a certain section of humanity, one has to understand his origins. America may find that the only solution to the issue is to finally acknowledge its causes and make a serious and immediate effort to turn it into peace – not to simply kill all those who disagree.