In Struggle with the American Mind - William Blum

Since The Great Flood hit Pakistan in July ...

• many millions have been displaced, evacuated, stranded or lost their homes; numerous roads, schools and health clinics destroyed
• hundreds of villages washed away
• millions of livestock have perished; for the rural poor something akin to a Western stock market crash that wipes out years of savings
• countless farms decimated, including critical crops like corn; officials say the damage is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and it does not appear that Pakistan will recover within the next few years
• infectious diseases are rising sharply
• airplanes of the United States of America have flown over Pakistan and dropped bombs on dozens of occasions ¹

October 01, 2010 - I direct these remarks to readers who have to deal with Americans who turn into a stone wall upon hearing the United States accused of acting immorally; America, they are convinced, means well; our motives are noble. And if we do do something that looks bad, and the badness can't easily be covered up or explained away ... well, great powers have always done things like that, we're no worse than the other great powers of history, and a lot better than most. God bless America.

A certain percentage of such people do change eventually and stop rationalizing; this happens usually after being confronted X-number of times with evidence of the less-than-beautiful behavior of their government around the world. The value of X of course varies with the individual; so don't give up trying to educate the hardened Americans you come in contact with. You never know when your enlightening them about a particular wickedness of their favorite country will be the straw that breaks their imperialist-loving back. (But remember the warning from Friedrich Schiller of Germany: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. — "With stupidity even the gods struggle in vain.")

Here's a recent revelation of wickedness that might serve to move certain of the unenlightened: New evidence has recently come to light that reinforces the view of a CIA role in the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of The Congo following its independence from Belgium in 1960. The United States didn't pull the trigger, but it did just about everything else, including giving the green light to the Congolese officials who had kidnaped Lumumba. CIA Station Chief Larry Devlin, we now know, was consulted by these officials about the transfer of Lumumba to his sworn enemies. Devlin signaled them that he had no objection to it. Lumumba's fate was sealed. ²

It was a classic Cold War example of anti-communism carried to absurd and cruel lengths. Years later, Under Secretary of State C. Douglas Dillon told a Senate investigating committee that the National Security Council and President Eisenhower had believed in 1960 that Lumumba was a "very difficult if not impossible person to deal with, and was dangerous to the peace and safety of the world." ³ This statement moved author Jonathan Kwitny to observe:

How far beyond the dreams of a barefoot jungle postal clerk in 1956, that in a few short years he would be dangerous to the peace and safety of the world! The perception seems insane, particularly coming from the National Security Council, which really does have the power to end all human life within hours. ⁴

President Eisenhower personally gave the order to kill the progressive African leader. ⁵

We can't know for sure what life for the Congolese people would have been like had Lumumba been allowed to remain in office. But we do know what followed his assassination — one vicious dictator after another presiding over 50 years of mass murder, rape, and destruction as competing national forces and neighboring states fought endlessly over the vast mineral wealth in the country. The Congo would not hold another democratic election for 46 years.

Overthrowing a country's last great hope, with disastrous consequences, is an historical pattern found throughout the long chronicle of American imperialist interventions, from Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s to Haiti and Afghanistan in the 1990s, with many examples in between. Washington has been working on Hugo Chávez in Venezuela for a decade.

Just like the commercials that warn you "Don't try this at home", I urge you not to waste your time trying to educate the likes of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who not long ago referred to "the men and women of the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps" as "the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century." ⁶ What can you say to such a man? And this is the leading foreign policy columnist for America's "newspaper of record". God help us. The man could use some adult supervision.

A man named Barack Obama

For many years I have not paid a great deal of attention to party politics in the United States. I usually have only a passing knowledge of who's who in Congress. It's policies that interest me much more than politicians. But during the 2008 presidential campaign I kept hearing the name Barack Obama when I turned on the radio, and repeatedly saw his name in headlines in various newspapers. I knew no more than that he was a senator from Illinois and ... Was he black?

Then one day I turned on my kitchen radio and was informed that Obama was about to begin a talk. I decided to listen, and did so for about 15 or 20 minutes while I washed the dishes. I listened, and listened, and then it hit me ... This man is not saying anything! It's all platitude and cliché, very little of what I would call substance. His talk could have been written by a computer, touching all the appropriate bases and saying just what could be expected to give some hope to the pessimistic and to artfully challenge the skepticism of the cynical; feel-good language for every occasion; conventional wisdom for every issue. His supporters, I would later learn, insisted that he had to talk this way to be elected, but once elected — Aha! The real genuine-progressive, anti-war Barack Obama would appear. "Change you can believe in!" Hallelujah! ... They're still saying things like that.

Last week Obama gave the traditional annual speech at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. ⁷ To give you an idea of whether the man now sincerely expresses himself "outside the box" at all, here's what he had to say about Pakistan: "Since the rains came and the floodwaters rose in Pakistan, we have pledged our assistance, and we should all support the Pakistani people as they recover and rebuild." Does he think no one in the world knows about the American bombs? Did he think he was speaking before sophisticated international diplomats or making a campaign speech before Iowa farmers?

Plus endless verbiage about the endless Israeli-Palestine issue, which could have been lifted out of almost any speech by any American president of the past 30 years. But no mention at all of Gaza. Oh, excuse me — there was one line: "the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams". Gosh, choke. One would never know that the United States possesses huge leverage over the state of Israel — billions/trillions of dollars of military and economic aid and gifts. An American president with a minimum of courage could force Israel to make concessions, and in a struggle between a thousand-pound gorilla (Israel) and an infant (Hamas) it's the gorilla that has to give some ground.

And this: "We also know from experience that those who defend these [universal] values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries."

Such a lie. It would be difficult to name a single brutal dictatorship of the Western world in the second half of the 20th Century that was not supported by the United States; not only supported, but often put into power and kept in power against the wishes of the population. And in recent years as well, Washington has supported very repressive governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Kosovo, Colombia, and Israel. As to terrorist groups being adversaries of the United States — another item for the future Barack Obama Presidential Liebrary; as I've discussed in this report on several occasions, including last month, the United States has supported terrorist groups for decades. As they've supported US foreign policy.

"Yes, of course it's nice to have a president who speaks in complete sentences. But that they're coherent doesn't make them honest." — John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine. ⁸

The secret to understanding US foreign policy

In one of his regular "Reflections" essays, Fidel Castro recently discussed United States hostility towards Venezuela. "What they really want is Venezuela's oil," wrote the Cuban leader. ⁹ This is a commonly-held viewpoint within the international left. The point is put forth, for example, in Oliver Stone's recent film "South of the Border". I must, however, take exception.

In the post-World War Two period, in Latin America alone, the US has had a similar hostile policy toward progressive governments and movements in Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, and Bolivia. What these governments and movements all had in common was that they were/are leftist; nothing to do with oil. For more than half a century Washington has been trying to block the rise of any government in Latin America that threatens to offer a viable alternative to the capitalist model. Venezuela of course fits perfectly into that scenario; oil or no oil.

This ideology was the essence of the Cold War all over the world.

The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that there is no secret. Principally, one must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington's policies fades away. To express this striving for dominance numerically, one can consider that since the end of World War Two the United States has:

• Endeavored to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
• Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
• Waged war/military action, either directly or in conjunction with a proxy army, in some 30 countries.
• Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
• Dropped bombs on the people of some 30 countries.
• Suppressed dozens of populist/nationalist movements in every corner of the world. ¹⁰

The United States institutional war machine has long been, and remains, on automatic pilot.

The 9/11 Truth Movement

The Truthers have long been pressing me to express my support for their cause. Here's how I stand on the issue. I'm very aware of the serious contradictions and apparent lies in the Official Government Version (OGV) of what happened on that fateful day. (Before the Truthers can be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", it should be noted that the OGV is literally a "conspiracy theory" about the fantastic things that a certain 19 men conspired to do.) It does appear that the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble. So, for this and many other questions raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement, the OGV can clearly not be taken entirely at face value but has to be seriously examined point by point. But no matter what the discrepancies in the OGV, does it necessarily follow that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job"? Is it an either/or matter? Either a group of terrorists were fully responsible or the government planned it all down to the last detail?

What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its "War on Terror"? The Truthers admit that they can't fully explain what actually took place, but they argue that they are not obliged to do so; that they have exposed the government lies and that the fact of these lies proves that it was an inside job. The Truthers have done great work, but I say that for me, and I'm sure for many others, to accept the idea of an inside job I have to indeed know what actually took place, or at least a lot more than I know now. It is, after all, an incredible story, and I need to know how the government pulled it off. I need to have certain questions answered, amongst which are the following:

1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn't their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?

If the Truthers can't answer any or most of the above questions, are they prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a "let-it-happen" government operation?

Do words have to mean something?

"Holocaust denier barred from leading tour at Auschwitz". That was the headline over a short news item in the Washington Post on September 22. The story, in full, read: "British historian and Holocaust-denier David Irving will not be permitted to give tours at Poland's Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, museum officials said Tuesday after the controversial historian arrived in Poland to lead a tour of Nazi sites. Irving told the British Daily Mail on Friday that Treblinka was a genuine death camp but that Auschwitz was a 'Disney-style tourist attraction'."

So how can Irving be called a "Holocaust-denier" if he says that the Nazi concentration camp at Treblinka "was a genuine death camp"? I don't know. Do you? Why don't you ask the Post? They never reply to my letters. And while you're at it, ask them why they and their columnists routinely refer to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "Holocaust-denier". You might even point out to them that Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Columbia University (September 24, 2007), in reply to a question about the Holocaust, "I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not the judgment that I'm passing here."

Indeed, I don't know if any of the so-called "Holocaust-deniers" actually, ever, umm, y'know, umm ... deny the Holocaust. They question certain aspects of the Holocaust history that's been handed down to us, but they don't explicitly say that what we know as the Holocaust never took place. Yes, I'm sure you can find at least one nut-case somewhere.

Speaking of nut-cases, two days after Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R.-CA) introduced legislation "To prohibit Federal grants to or contracts with Columbia University" (HR 3675, 110th Congress). I'm surprised he didn't call for a Predator to fly over the campus and drop a few bombs. Don't ya just love our Congressmembers? Soon to be joined it seems by a few Teaparty types who think that Barack Obama is a socialist. (If Obama is a socialist, what, I wonder, do they call Hugo Chávez? Or Karl Marx?) The new Madame Speaker of the House may be Alice in Wonderland.

Notes

1. Wikipedia, Drone attacks in Pakistan ^↩
2. AllAfrica.com, New Evidence Shows U.S. Role in Congo's Decision to Send Patrice Lumumba to His Death, August 1st 2010^↩
3. The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (US Senate: The Church Committee), Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, November 20, 1975, p.58^↩
4. Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World (1984), p.57^↩
5. New York Times, February 22, 1976, p.55 ^↩
6. New York Times, October 11, 2009^↩
7. White House Press Office, Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly, September 23, 2010^↩
8. The Providence Journal, "Obama a very smooth liar", June 17, 2009 ^↩
9. Reflections by Comrade Fidel, "What they want is Venezuela's oil", September 27, 2010 ^↩
10. A link to any of the first five lists can be obtained by writing to William Blum at bblum6@aol.com. The sixth list has not yet been uploaded to the Internet. ^↩

The Politicization of the 9-11 Anniversary: Reflections Marred by the Misinformed Mainstream

Today marks the ninth anniversary of the infamous day notoriously referred to now simply as 9/11.  This year's occurrence has been marked by the interesting coincident phenomena of the end of Ramadan and the Eid Holiday of Muslims occurring the day before.  This, alongside the simultaneous controversy and commentary associated with the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero and a small town pastor wanting to burn the Quran, highlights the increasing animosities of the War on Terror. The press, in typical fashion, will focus on the patriotism this day and help to memorialize and commemorate in its typical simplistic fashion as social networking sites, youtubers, and other digital mediums so too will help to ritualize what once was just another day in September.  Many will participate without even noticing that the majority of media coverage fails to acknowledge an all too important voice in the discussion; the voice of the "terrorists" themselves. 

While mainstream media across the world mourns the deaths of the more than 3,000 people that died that day, little will be said about the hundreds of thousands, in actuality millions, that have died as a result of the United States' and its allies retaliatory aggression since. They will also comment little with regard to the reality of the very different world we live in today as a result of that event and its follow-up.  But as individuals take time to reflect on the anniversary of 9/11, an anniversary that has come to mark the contemporary era, they base their reflections on their particular circumstance, experience, and worldview. As this year's anniversary rolls around, it is more important to emphasize the necessity that we look outside information and interpretations we are used to and rather to opposing views whenever we want ot fully grasp a particular phenomenon. It is only when we turn to try to understand opposing viewpoints that the same divisions and conflicts that have been perpetual both before and since 9/11 may finally be mediated. 

One of the first things a supporter of the Global War on Terror led by the United States would recognize if he or she took the time to analyze the opposite spectrum in the clash of civilizations would be that the objectives of the "terrorists" have largely been recognized.

The eve of the 9-11 attacks witnessed the United States of America as a unipolar force in the world. The fall of the USSR in the early 1990's birthed an entire decade dominated by U.S. decision making.  The idea of a neo-liberal new world order espoused by George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, conservative and democrat alike throughout the 1990's marked what many considered to be the beginning of the end to conflict in ideology and consolidation of the entire globe to the model of free markets and democracy. The world was covered in nation states, the major rival communist power had declined, and the phenomenon of globalization was ready to merge the world into the same dominant creed. The problem was that this new world order, its professed free markets and democracy, in actuality promoted nothing of the sort. Instead its model promoted the success of big business, multinational corporations, and global finance, while propping up dictators and despots from Mexico to Indonesia.  Many of the authoritarian regimes supported by this model were over Muslim nations and what most don't realize is that 9-11 was as much a reaction, not to the espoused ideals of this international order, but to the actual effects the implementation of this order had in the real world.

Nine years after 9-11, the international arena is dominated by discussions about the War on Terror, as states have utilized the terror scare in much the same way the Iron Curtain rhetoric was utilized after World War II to pave the way for the Cold War. People across the globe today have less freedom and liberty as a result, and democracies are malfunctioning from East to West, including some of the most developed nations. For example, riots in Greece and similar conditions in many developed countries seem to foreshadow a reality of the civil unrest the United States could face itself someday. Already discussions about austerity are occurring in America alongside a nation divided politically. This as corporate and financial consolidation occurs across the globe and we speak not of democracy for all but of a new, authoritarian state capitalism competing with the neo-liberal model once considered the end of history.   Domestic conflict and internal strife is one of the necessary existent variables the "terrorists" need for victory.

America is still embroiled in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  In Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and other countries like them, proxy wars fought today with mechanical drones and foreign armies, prepare citizens of today for perpetual, longterm war tomorrow. As billions are spent each month in the process and no one talks of cutting back military expenditure, as the fields, scope and expense of the war exasperate, it seems America and her allies may be stuck in a unsustainable quagmire that leads ultimately to failure. 

The George W. Bush III era marked a complete alteration of global perceptions with regard to America and its effect on the world.  Barack Obama has so far done very little to curb those perceptions, and bank bailouts and corporate subsidies alongside the foreign wars serve as proof to people everywhere that governments have become but tools of an elite corporatist  military security complex that cares little about the everyday man on the street.  Thus, the idea of an End of History has been put in the dustbin and people subsist on what has become normalcy in their lives simply because there is no alternative and certainly not because they are content with the circumstances of the present.  

Despite the recent rhetoric of withdrawal from Iraq, progress in Afghanistan, economic recovery and other lies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to perpetuate American dominance alongside the fabrication that the United States is the vanguard of freedom and democracy in the world.  Commemorations and celebratory speeches marking 9/11 may boost the morale of small segments of the people, but the speeches that most need heard and listened to are those that are blotted out from the mainstream.  They are not the words of domestic dissidents benefiting as well from the comforts of empire. Nine years after the Global War on Terror's initiation it is time for people to finally listen to the words of the "terrorists" themselves. 

Shortly after 9/11, major media outlets agreed not to publish any of the statements of the "terrorists" for fear that the messages may include encrypted messages with directives for more attacks. CBS said it was committed to "responsible journalism that informs the public without jeopardizing American lives".  This allowed the elite to promote the lie that America was attacked by religious extremists who hated her freedoms and democracy while nothing could be further from the truth.  Instead, they would show clips of the press releases and statements that came in as a justification in the aftermath of 9/11, 2001.   CNN, for example, continuously showed footage of Osama bin Laden saying: “If inciting people to do that is terrorism and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.” However, a review of bin Laden quotes from 9/11/2001 unto today shows that most of the stated causes of the attack on September 11, 2001 had nothing to do with  western liberties and that the intended consequences of the attack have largely been realized. Today the causes cited by the "terrorists" preside due to the continuous press blackout, and the approach taken in the War on Terror continues to provide the fodder for which entire generations may find themselves in war. 

Shortly after 9/11, bin Laden was interviewed by Tayseer Alouni of Al-Jazeerah (later put in Guantanomo for the coverage).  In the interview he stated emphatically, 

"But I mention that there are also other events that took place, bigger, greater and more dangerous than the collapse of the towers. It is that this Western civilization, which is backed by America, has lots its values and appeal [qiyamuhaa]. The immense materialistic towers were destroyed, which preach Freedom, and Human Rights, and Equality. It became a total mockery and that clearly appeared when the US government interfered and banned the media outlets from airing our words which don't exceed a few minutes, because they felt that the truth started to appear to the American people, and that we truly aren't terrorists by the definition they want, but because we are being violated in Palestine, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Kashmir, in the Philippines and in every place, and that this is a reaction from the young men of this nation [ummah] against the violations by the British Government. Therefore, they declared what they declared, and they ordered what they ordered, and they forgot everything they mentioned about Free Speech, and Unbiased Opinion and all those matters. So I say that Freedom and Rights in America, and Human Rights, have been sent forward to the guillotine with no return unless they are quickly reinstated. The government will take the American people and the West in general will enter into a choking life, into an unsupportable hell, because of the fact that those governments have very strong ties, and are under the payroll, of the Zionist lobby, which serves the needs of Israel who kills our sons and our children without right so that they can keep on ruling with total control"

 Obviously, it is U.S. foreign policy and the hypocrisy of its espoused rhetoric vis a vis true action that led to the attacks. Additonally, it seems that bin Laden predicted a decline in domestic condition akin to what we see these days.  

In 2002 bin Laden issued another declaration, this time specifically giving a justification for the attacks of 9/11. In it he stated the reason America was attacked as, "very simple: Because you attacked us and continue to attack us." He went on to describe US foreign policy in the Muslim world, its invasions, its support for Israel, its propping up of dictators and other atrocities that killed thousands before 9/11, none of which had anything to do with American freedom, democracy or human rights.

In 2006, just 5 years into the war, bin Laden declared, "The mujahedeen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan -- with Allah's permission,'' thus highlighting that it is a plan of luring America into economic strangulation and a war of attrition that was the true purpose behind the attacks on September 11. With discussions of debt after trillions spent at war, with little military and economic gain attributable to the  events since, it 

 There are many more quotes and declarations. The point is that millions still live completely unaware of why America was attacked that day, oblivious to the cause, ignorant of the objectives. The "terrorists" have set up a very effective propaganda campaign using the internet as a result of being boycotted by the mainstream press, but today, few mainstream Americans know any of what the "terrorists" say, while millions of Muslim youth across the globe are all too familiar with the message at hand.  As a result, reading the names of those killed on 9-11 as commemoration, while ignoring the names of the millions dead in the Muslim world will have worse consequences than burning the Quran in the longterm.  

Nine years in, the War on Terror rages onward and most of the objectives of the "terrorists" have been realized. Effective insurgencies continue to exist not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in many countries across the world.  Mujahideen or "terrorists" are unified in their struggle as each and every day the arrogance of the United States is all too clear to the rest of the world. The economic condition of the Western countries continues to fall, political processes fail and majorities now oppose the direction of their governments with large majorities disapproving of American influence abroad.  Still, there is little mention in the public discussion about the political and economic causes cited by the perpetrators of 9/11.   

In June of this year, CIA Director Leon Panetta told ABC News that Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is now “relatively small…I think at most we’re looking at maybe 50 to 100.” This was to defend the claims of the Obama Adminstration that they were winning the war, and needed to send tens of thousands of additonal troops to the region in order to protect America from attacks plotted on foreign soil.  What failed to be mentioned was that U.S. intelligence never numbered members of Al-Qaeda as anything more than a few hundred individuals. According to the FBI, there were only 200 sworn members at the time of 9/11.  Al Qaeda was founded, not on the belief that they could mobilize a military big enough to take on America in combat, but on the belief that they had to attack America in order to prevent it from further intervening and influencing the authoritarian situations of the Muslim world.  It was always about ideology and incitement and never about raw force and power.  The only chance they had to succeed in such an asymmetrical situation was in the event that America continued to subject the world to such rhetorical propaganda, ignored the real causes of 9-11, acted unilaterally with the all its military might and subsequently radicalized a sufficient portion of the Muslim world. The amazing thing is that through it all, the United States has not altered its practices whatsoever. The rhetoric has changed but few are listening and it looks like a small fringe group of around 200 terrorists have taken on the global hegemon and are on the verge of achieving their goals.

Human beings are ritualistic, and societies have forever used holidays and commemorations to ensure a continued allegiance to the creed of its elite.  9-11 is no different; as the ceremonies at the Pentagon and at Ground Zero will document a message that justifies perpetual war, ignores reality and helps to justify a world system that enslaves and dehumanizes. Certainly the ritual rhetoric of "freedom and democracy" will reign supreme, continuously exerting a stronghold on the minds of its loyal adherents.  No mention of the causes as proclaimed by the "terrorists" will be inserted into that discourse and for good measure. Were people able to understand and think rationally, peace and prosperity could be ushered in tomorrow.  Bin Laden has offered peace for years. In 2006, for example he proclaimed,

 We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war."  The mainstream press made sure not to cover that segment of the speech.

This year, after global citizens tune off the press coverage of the names being read of the dead from Ground Zero, or the President's rhetorical speech it would do them much justice if they took a few minutes to listen to the other side. 

Each year, around 9/11, the "terrorists" release a video highlighting their interpretation of present circumstances.  Below is the version from 2009:

download in entirety (PART 1) and (PART 2)

The wars will only be ended and security will only be returned once people take the time to address the grievances of the perpetrators of 9-11, to at least analyze the influence the United States continues to exert in the Muslim world. As long as people shun their message as propagandistic, rejecting it altogether because of the means they choose to utilize in reaction to their perceived oppression, so long as people neglect to recognize that most of the acronyms and adjectives used by Western leaders to describe the "terrorists" are as applicable to itself, then the clash of civilizations will forever go forth and all of humanity loses.  

As the anniversary of 9-11 is commemorated this year, a pastor who wanted to burn the Quran is insulted and proclaimed insane by a mainstream press that worries about its contribution to the animosities of Muslims across the world.  What no one is ready to recognize is that this man is a product of his environment, of a world that prevents any discourse creeping into the mainstream that fails to coincide with the view of an elite.  The Quran burning pastor has little interaction with the complexities of a world that is not black and white and has no awareness of the variables that produced 9-11. In that sense he is little different than the majority and represents a very typical stance. Decrying the "terrorists" without any reflection, investigation and rational analysis of the claims of the attackers is typical of a dominant majority so too brainwashed by media propaganda. It is as true whether you prefer Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.  In so far as this ignorance continues, the only loser in War on Terror can be freedom, liberty, and human rights themselves.  Perhaps that is what the "real terrorists" desire. Here is to the opening of minds to other views.