Predictions of a second 9/11

A.B. Shahid
29-07-08

President Bush's term is coming to an end; it is only appropriate that it does so with a bang as big as the one that followed his entry into the White House - the first 9/11. A second 9/11 could revive America's weakening flair for continuing its 'war on terror' launched by the neocons under the able leadership of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, hence predictions about a second 9/11 are being made by the US media.

US diplomats and defence analysts have launched this campaign and, as before, they are trying to convince the public that this time too the bombers will come from Pakistan's northern border belt that, again according to them, houses Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Irrespective of the strong doubts expressed in the US about the identity of the perpetrators of the first 9/11, the campaign goes on.

According to a daily newspaper (July 28), an unnamed high ranking US counter-terrorism analyst said that "another attack on the [US] homeland" could revive US resolve for unilateral action to 'take out' Al Qaeda bases inside Pakistan. The country's democratic dispensation (of sorts) is seen as a stumbling block in going ahead with 'unilateral' action - the US recipe that failed almost always since WW-II.

The analyst regrets that the 2006 plot wherein liquid explosives were to detonate on trans-Atlantic flights leaving British airports could not succeed because it was unearthed. Had it materialized, it could justify unilateral action by the US inside Pakistan. It is such revelations that make one think that, perhaps, Al Qaeda - an American creation - provides the US a continuing basis for invading Muslim states.

Taliban, also and American creation, are destroying everything within their reach: schools, colleges, hospitals, factories, shops, restaurants, etc. If the grand design is to dismember Pakistan by 2015, the Taliban seem to be working overtime to complete it. Not surprisingly, Taliban leaders survive precision US attacks but the innocent die, enraging locality after locality against Pakistan's government.

Survival of these leaders provides the justification for more attacks in side Pakistan, for instance, Osama, who is being targeted, albeit unsuccessfully, for the past seven years. The strike (reportedly, rockets that were fired from a predator drone) on July 28, was to 'take out' Abu Khabab Al Misri who, it was claimed earlier, had been 'taken out' in an aerial strike way back in January 2006; he may have survived yet again.

These 'strikes' do deliver the desired objective: gradually destabilizing Pakistan to meet the 2015 target for its dismemberment. In the meantime, it is becoming a state wherein no white nation wants to play even cricket, let alone invest in its economy. This is helpful in another crucial way: Pakistan's rapidly becoming a debt and poverty-stricken state would induce its rulers (incompetent in any case) to do what they are told to do by the powers that be.

While the real intent behind the craving for unilateral action in Pakistan will come to light once the neocons' grip begins to loosen, Americans must ask president Bush two simple questions: even after eight years of its launch why hasn't the 'war on terror' been won to eliminate the need for a second 9/11, and has America lost its military superiority and that too over out-fits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

How serious is the Al Qaeda threat and should the US attack Pakistan - third Muslim country after Afghanistan and Iraq - in pursuit of Al Qaeda? Views differ about Al Qaed's current capacity to cause major damage. According to well-placed American observers, it no longer exists as a unified movement because in the famous attack on Tora Bora mountains Osama bin Laden may actually have died.

If he didn't die in that attack, his kidney problem was severe enough to kill him in a matter of months thereafter. With him out of the picture, the leftover is a bunch of splinter groups headed by terrorists who have their own aims, not necessarily bashing the US. In spite of all the talks Ayman Al Zwahiri allegedly records for Al Qaeda, he has no clout over the operatives because Al Qaeda exists no more.

Perhaps, it is better that way. It is easier for interested parties to buy out splinter groups for carrying out a variety of disruptive activities in target Muslim countries that have a potential for developing an economic clout if allowed to progress in peace. A look at all such countries and the way they have been plagued by violence since the late 1970s would leave the observer in no doubt that this conclusion isn't wild.

It is also true that this grand scheme has nothing to do with Europeans, or the ordinary Americans, or even the ordinary Jews. But it certainly seems to be inspired by the group that dreams of 'world government' - the learned elders of the Zion who gave their followers the infamous protocols that even Satan would find damn hard to write.

But where the US government went wrong was to let the Zionists gradually take charge of every institution in America, beginning with the US universities and the media, as early as 1930s. Over time this group acquired the clout to corrupt the thinking of the American youth and to author every US policy, and turn the massive US intellectual and armed might into its proxy.

Zionists total control is reflected by the fact that on his recent visit to Israel even the youngest of the presidential hopefuls (and, logically, the least influenced by past US policies) Barack Obama was obliged to call Israel a 'miracle.' What he didn't clarify, though, was who actually performed or delivered that miracle - God or the hastily retreating British that left their Middle Eastern colonies in a complete mess.

Most countries abandoned by their white imperial rulers portray this state. Those that the US tried to 'mend' or 'fix' are worse off. After a second 9/11 Pakistan, already ruined by the British, will become a casualty of American neo-colonialism as well.