Stupidity Versus Logic in the Latest "Terror" Attack
By Anthony Wade
July 7, 2005
Wow, al Qaeda must be the stupidest terrorists, no wait, stupidest people period, on this entire planet. Their purported goal is to shake the will of the western powers that have invaded Iraq , and to drive them out, no? Then can someone please explain to me the logic of the London bombings? No seriously, it is time to apply logic to these events. Please do not hand me the nonsense about these people being "killers" who do not apply logic. You do not become the number one terrorist organization without having some logic, no? We are expected to swallow that these people were smart enough to circumvent our billion dollar intelligence and air defense systems with box cutters, but they cannot play coherent cause-effect scenarios out in their mind prior to carrying out terrorist activities? I doubt that very much.
Just this week, it was reported that England had drafted plans to pull out their troops, gone, see you later, victory for al Qaeda, right? So we are to believe then that the orchestrated response to these plans was to blow up a double decker bus, in England . Now, can you guess what the most likely response to such an event would be:
1) Pull the troops out faster
2) Galvanize public support, thus keeping the troops in Iraq
Those of you that selected number one, I will assume you work for the Bush administration. Those of you that selected number two, good job. Now that we have established the enormous stupidity in the England bombings, the next logical front to examine is here in the United States .
Let's examine the political climate here in this country just prior to this "attack". Support for the Iraq War was at an all time low. People were unmoved by the President's speech, dropping his overall approval rating to 43%. The drums of impeachment were growing louder with each passing day, with the revelations that the Downing Street Memos do indeed prove that George Bush committed felonies in lying to Congress and starting war without Congressional approval. Also on our political front was the Valerie Plame story and how it appears there is a good chance that Karl Rove committed treason in outing a covert CIA operative, who just happened to be assigned to uncovering WMD. Considering the closeness of Rove to Bush, if these allegations proved to be true, then how much of a stretch is it to assume Bush had complete foreknowledge of the revenge against Joe Wilson by outing his wife.
Now the corporate media has tried very hard to ignore these stories. We have had coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, and most recently the missing girl in Aruba for months now as Bush's world unraveled daily. No offense to the Holloway family but the story about Natalie's events should not be a lead story on any news show, with the possibility of impeachment, treason, and the Iraq War events happening daily. But there was our media, firmly in the pocket of George Bush, pimping the pain of the Holloway family as the most important news story. This aside though, the real stories were finally starting to poke through. Mainstream media received so many complaints about their ignoring potentially Bush-damaging stories, that they finally had to cover them.
Now, from al Qaeda's perspective one would logically conclude this is a good thing. We were told by the Bushies that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for al Qaeda because they were so afraid of the great warrior, Bush. Considering the plummeting poll numbers for Bush and calls from the grass roots in this country for his political head, one should conclude that al Qaeda would be happy that the news had finally turned its attention to the possibility of getting rid of Bush. Please do not hand me the nonsense about how they do not look at these events. We are led to believe that al Qaeda runs their own website so they can leak stories that help Bush and claim credit for their own terrorist activities so it is obvious they are on the cutting edge of technology and Internet news.
So I ask again, given that the events in the US are in the favor of al Qaeda, and that public opinion for the war had been steadily eroding, I must ask the obvious question. Why in the world would they now carry out another terrorist mission? Are we honestly to believe they did not think about what the ramifications were? If the war was going poorly for them and the world was united against them, then I could understand an attack to break our will, but when things are going well, why in the world would they carry out this attack? It has now been reported that:
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said a previously unknown group calling itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe had claimed to be behind the attacks in a statement posted on an Islamist website.
The group's statement said the attacks were revenge for the "massacres" Britain was committing in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the country was now "burning with fear and panic", he added." (My note: passages in the statement from the Quran were mis-quoted. LOL)
Uh-huh. So, al Qaeda carried out the attacks for the massacres committed by the British troops, which are miniscule in comparison to the US . They further carried out the attacks in complete obliviousness to the news of the imminent British troop pullout. They further carried out these attacks despite the fact that Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet and heading lower, leading to a possibility of impeachment. They further carried out these attacks even though the media had finally begun to cover the stories that could be potentially damaging to the entire war machine that they are fighting against. Wow, they are some stupid terrorists.
The level of stupidity is equal to when Osama bin Laden released his latest hit video, four days before the Presidential election. Surely he must have realized that would have only aided Bush, yet there he was providing America with a little fear before the election, a move that only could have helped Bush. Today, here is his little outfit, al Qaeda, once again coming to the aide of his alleged arch-nemesis Bush.
Cui bono is a Latin phrase which simply means, "Who benefits?" and it is the question we need to be asking ourselves. What does al Qaeda gain from this attack? The only logical answer can be, NOTHING. It will instill fear in the populace which could lead to a galvanizing of public support for the war they are fighting. It may lead to England changing their plans about pulling out their troops. It will give the US corporate media an excuse to not cover the stories that had been corroding the support for Bush. Instead of the potential impeachment, treason by Karl Rove, and the Downing Street Memos, the corporate media will be hammering the story about the terror attacks in England and how they show the need for this continuous war. I am sorry but when asking cui bono, it is clear that al Qaeda does not benefit from this attack, as it undermines everything they are working toward.
The war machine however, they benefit greatly. Their two main proponents, Bush and Blair get to play on people's fears and reinvigorate support for their war. This event is only a few hours old, but here are their initial responses:
"They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do. They "should not and they must not succeed," - Tony Blair.
Really Tony? But your government had already decided to pull the troops out of England , so why would they need to carry out this attack and risk England changing their minds? No Tony, there is clearly no logic behind this attack and they clearly are not trying to frighten a people who have already agreed to pull out their troops, and who only represent less than 5% of the troops to begin with.
Here is what our fearless leader, Bush, had to say today:
""The war on terror goes on."
Ah yes, every now and again, people who lie for a living slip up and reveal the truth. This statement reveals exactly the purpose of the attacks, and answers the question, cui bono. Faced with plummeting poll numbers and declining public support Bush tried last week to calm the storm by going to the American people with more fantasies connecting 911 to Iraq . The American people did not buy it this time though and his numbers got worse. Then the "Karl Rove is a treasonous traitor" stories started popping up and Bush was faced with the prospect of his war not continuing and his staunchest ally, England announced their plans for pulling troops out just as George was saying what a mistake it would be to make such plans. The morale in the al Qaeda camp must have been at an all time high. Their efforts in the war were finally paying off. Bush was losing his public support and his own country was beginning to speak about removing him from office. His top aide was under investigation for possible treason. England had started to make plans to pull out their troops.
So it is at this time, we are to believe that an organization smart enough to pull off 911, decided to throw away all the progress mentioned above, to frighten a people whose government only has 5% of the current troops in the war on terror, and had just decided to pull those troops out? The word stupidity would not cover this decision. It is unfathomable in its illogic.
I understand this raises things we do not want to consider. Well, consider this. In the early 1960's your government considered operations that would sacrifice innocent, civilian American lives in order to start a war with Cuba . I will not rehash Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/) here except to point out that it is horribly na´ve to assume people in power, would not seek to abuse that power for their own ends. If this was true in 1962, it is even truer in 2005.
We see the images of terror on the television and we remember our fear, just like we were supposed to. Our President will use this attack to rebuild all he has lost in support and we cannot allow that to happen. This attack does not change the fact that George Bush started his war 6 months prior to obtaining Congressional approval. It does not change the fact that he knowingly lied to Congress to go to war, fitting his intelligence around his policy. It does not change the fact that Karl Rove apparently may have committed treason against the United States . Don't let him use this tragic event to sway us from pursuing the truth. Don't let him.
Cui bono America , Cui bono.
I appreciate the words of compassion for the victims and my article was lacking that, for which i apologize. My concern is the people who will use this tragedy for their advantage, will not take a day to pay respects for the dead. Bush already said today in response, "The war on terror continues". No condolences, or eloquence. Just the continued push for his war and that needed to be responded to.
Anwar, you spoke for all of us. There is nothing we can say that will suffice. All we can do is honor the dead by not allowing their death to serve as a catalyst, for more death.
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men:
Truth exists, falsehood has to be invented.