THE PLANECRASHING OF THE UNITED STATES
Copyright 2001, M. Mbulu All rights to everything on this web site are reserved.
Why The Attack Took Place
What the Response of the United States Should Be
Where Black People In the United States Stand
Giving Up Liberties
Targeting the President
Innocent Victims and Heroism
On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, several symbols of United States
military and commercial power were attacked, obliterated and badly
deconstructed. United States leaders and spokes persons have repeatedly
referred to how sophisticated and well-financed the attack was,
but there is very little about the attack that should be labeled
"sophisticated," and even less that suggests a lot of
money was involved. How sophisticated does one have to be to drive
an airplane, and how well financed does one have to be to purchase
airline tickets, take flying lessons or travel throughout the
country? The attack seems to have been well organized and executed,
but people of the United States are using the term sophisticated
probably because it would be too large a blow to the United States
psyche to admit that a simple operation by committed individuals
against the country that prides itself on being the only "world
power" could be carried out so effectively. What it indicates
is that the United States has fallen for its own rhetoric and
convinced itself that it is superior in all respects to every
other country and collection of human beings. The fact of the
matter, however, is that the United States' rhetoric and mythology
suggest powers that are far greater than its actual capabilities.
If the United States does not respond to this attack in a sensible
way, additional United States weaknesses will be exposed in much
the same way another so-called world power, the Soviet Union,
was exposed a few years ago. [Top]
Why The Attack Took Place
Anybody who has an understanding of the history of the United States could not be surprised by an attack on the United States. From its very beginnings, the United States has been as business centric, anti-people and arrogant as any nation in history. I made this point crystal clear in my recently completed and soon to be published book, Mba Mbulu's An Introduction to White History: The History of White America. Additionally, I have published several articles recently in my newsletter, "The Black Eye," that show how the United States continues to act as if it is the master of the world and every thing else is subordinate to it. In an article entitled "Power Is Shifting," I wrote that people all over the world despise the US and recognize its hypocrisy and failure to participate in United Nations led bans on land mines and resolutions recognizing every person's right to food, clothing and shelter. People throughout the world feel insulted when the U.S. ignores decisions of the International Court of Justice and when the U.S. fails to submit the reports on U.S. race relations that the UN requires it to submit. People also note the United States' reluctance and refusal to limit its use of the world's resources at a time when other countries are eager to tighten their belts and be more resources efficient. People all over the world know something needs to be done, but mostly they have been waiting for Black People in the United States to take a stand that will legitimize their questioning of United States affairs and policies. Conditions, apparently, have reached the point where people are tired of waiting.
I also wrote an article in "The Black Eye" entitled "The World Is Changing." I made the point that people are having so much trouble adjusting to the changes the United States and western Europe seek because the collective energy of HUMANITY is NOT bringing about these changes. A small number of individuals who see the opportunity to make huge profits by forcing everyday people to purchase new life styles and adjust to questionable financial, cultural and political values are behind these changes, and a lot of people are not willing to go along with them. When they try to make their opposition clear to the leadership of the United States and other European countries, they are ignored and belittled. The frustration caused by this is enormous, so people communicate their opposition in ways that are more likely to get everybody's attention. [Note: This is clear on a smaller level when one observes the processes surrounding the World Trade Conferences. The powers that be make it practically impossible for those who oppose the WTO to demonstrate in a meaningful way because they are so intent on carrying out their program that they DON'T CARE about anybody else's perspective. Thus, protesters have to be "radical" just to make their opposition to the proceedings known. WTO protesters are very intelligent people, and they are no longer willing to play the "good citizen" role so that a handful of business persons can make a lot of money. Intelligent people recognize that they have lost control of their leaders, and are left with the option of becoming accessories to their leaders' crimes and excesses or the enemies of their "government." Many are choosing the latter.]
So, what caused the planecrashing goes far deeper than the events in the so-called Middle East. The United States' recent intervention in the affairs of other people was probably the spark that led to the blaze, but the historical and continued intervention of the United States into other peoples' affairs is more important here. the United States' support for Israel's massacre of Palestinians and its bombing of the Iraqi, Libyan and Afghani people only add to a pile of US arrogance that also includes the unjustified invasion of and intervention in the affairs of countries like Grenada, Cuba, Colombia, Panama, Hawaii, the Filipines, Puerto Rico and so many, many more. [Top]
What the Response of the United
States Should Be
United States officials have stated that the attack was against
the United States' freedom, the United States' "interests"
and the United States way of life. They have also stated that
the attackers are cowardly perpetrators who have declared a war
against civilization and democracy. Again, the United States is
failing to represent the issues in a balanced way.
The attack was definitely against the United States' freedom and way of life, but not in the way white and dark white citizens of the United States present it. The attack was against the United States' way of life because the United States is arrogant, rude, ruthless and bloodthirsty. The United States' tendency is to disregard the rights of other peoples, the United States modus operandi is to impose its preferences on other people of the world, and the United States' interests infringe on the rights of other peoples. Leaders of the United States speak of their interests as if no other people have the right to have different interests. When we look at the issue of interests, it is the United States that is the primary criminal party, the primary guilty party. Other people have to be against the United States' interests in order to protect their own freedom and way of life.
And continuing with the issue of freedom, other people are not interested in attacking the freedom of the people of the United States, they want the United States to realize that the freedom of the United States does not include the right to abuse and force the United States' way of life onto others. Let's be honest: the United States' way of life is oppressive to people inside and outside of the United States. There is a direct relationship between the wealth of businesses and individuals in the United States and the poverty of peoples in other parts of the world. There is a direct relationship between much of the suffering of peoples in other parts of the world and the political and business policies of the United States. Some people have had enough and, unlike Black People in the United States, they are ready to do something about it.
If some individuals wanted to make an attack against "democracy," they would not attack the United States because democracy in the United States is a myth. No intelligent individual will sincerely talk about democracy and the United States in the same breath. The issue of civilization deserves more attention, however, because it suggests that people who radically oppose what the United States attempts to do are uncivilized. That is definitely not the case. If we were living in a civilized world, the planecrashing of the United States would have to be considered an uncivilized act, but the world we live in is not a civilized world. The world we live in today is mostly the product of the United States and Europe, nations that know little about civilization. If anyone should bear the burden and label of barbarism and lack of civilization, it is western Europeans and their descendants, particularly the government and leadership of the United States of America.
Cowards? If the United States does not respond to the planecrashing of the United States intelligently, it will become clear to people throughout the United States that cowards would not attack what is supposed to be the most powerful military complex in the world. Cowards do not look death in the face and stay the course, as the planecrashers did. There are some cowards, some "faceless" parties, involved in this tragedy, but when those faces take form, they are going to look a lot more like Americans than any other nation of people. [Top]
The United States has outlined several areas around which their response to the attack must revolve. In addition to beefing up lax security at airports, the United States points to money, co-ordination between United States intelligence and defense forces and the enactment of laws that give legitimacy to the government's response as keys. The United States is also trying to organize the world's governments in support of whatever response the United States deems necessary. In places like Pakistan, Iran and the surrounding area, getting the verbal support of the government (how unreliable that might turn out to be) is entirely different from getting the support of that government's people. As soon as the people in those areas put two and two together (which they likely have already done) and conclude that this is, in fact if not theory, an attack of Christians against Muslims, this event could take on a character that defies limitations. Nonetheless, the program proposed by the United States will produce some results, but more than anything else it indicates that the United States still does not understand that this confrontation is not going to be resolved on the United States' home turf according to United States or western European terms. If the United States does not respond wisely, there will be a whole lot of destruction in the United States and abroad, but that destruction will not eliminate the United States' woes, it will add to them.
The United States can not achieve its objective by killing Osama bin Laden because the hatred of the United States goes far beyond bin Laden. Young and middle aged people around the world, on every continent, hate the United States, many with good cause; and young and middle aged people around the world, on every continent, do not fear the United States. Some of them are willing to attack the United States by any means necessary, particularly if the United States continues to act as if it has the right to control everything and flourish at the expense of other people's misery and suffering. Nor can the United States achieve its objective by launching military attacks against what they call "terrorists." Israel has been throwing its military might against the Palestinians for more than 50 years, and the Palestinians, with rocks and sticks, continue to resist. Right now, Israel is in a more perilous position than ever. And think about this: the United States can not be any more destructive than the Russians were in Chechnya. When the Russian offensive against Chechnya began, I said it would not succeed. Russia practically destroyed an entire nation, but that struggle continues; so much so that Russia's President Putin is now seeking some form of compromise with Chechnya's leadership.
Oppressed people are not surrendering to intimidation anymore. They have realized that they can control their destiny or die trying, and more and more, people are demonstrating a willingness to die trying. [Top]
If the leaders of the United States are thinking about sending ground troops into Afghanistan, they're crazy. Russia is right next door to Afghanistan, and I have written previously that the collapse of the USSR was directly related to its attempted invasion of Afghanistan. The terrain, the fighters, the frame of mind of the Afghans, their amenity with privation and hard times, their fierce independence and determination-- United States soldiers have not been in a fight with soldiers like this before! The outcome is not likely to come down to who has the biggest and most powerful gun, but to who has the biggest heart and resolve. As Viet Nam demonstrated, when the issue revolves around heart and resolve, the United States comes up short damn near every time.
I can virtually assure you of one thing: the Afghanis will be appreciably more lethal than the Vietnamese. Additionally, the Afghanis will fight more based on their individual commitment and hatred of the United States than their commitment to the Afghan government. Many Afghans are opposed to the Taliban and would love to see it destroyed, but when they see the United States invading their culture, damaging their homeland and killing their people, they will throw a form of guerilla warfare against the United States that will produce a lot of body bags filled with dead United States soldiers. The people of the United States are screaming for war. What they had better do is chill and let cooler heads prevail, or they might get what they are asking for.
One of the United States' big advantages up to this point has been peoples' willingness to confront the United States on the United States' terms. This gives the United States a huge advantage. Now, people are beginning to realize that power must be opposed by a power of different foundations and dimensions. That forces the United States to do more adjusting, makes the United States more vulnerable, and requires the United States to operate on a "playing field" that is not slanted as much in the favor of the United States. Under such cases, the odds shift noticeably.
What the United States should do is use diplomatic channels to bring the individuals who carried out the planecrashing to justice and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THAT IT IS GOING TO CHANGE ITS WAYS. If the United States does not make it clear that it is going to change its ways, the legions of young men and women who despise this country are going to give it more and more hell throughout the 21st century and on into later centuries. [Top]
Where Black People In the United
In most of my books and writings, but particularly in Ten
Lessons: An Introduction to Black History and Not To Be:
Essays On Integration, I wrote about a developing new world
order. This new world order is being welcomed by non-whites and
non-European peoples throughout the world, particularly those
who want a world based on justice and equality to emerge. However,
because of the way Black People in the United States are visibly
supporting the excesses of the United States government and United
States business interests, progressive peoples throughout the
world are beginning to associate Black People in the United States
with the proponents of the badly warped old world order. White
citizens of the United States have benefitted mightily from their
crimes and shared few of those benefits with Black People. It
would be stupid of Black People to allow others to think that
We are partners and defenders of the United States. That would
place Us in line to be the recipient of part of the punishment
that white people in the United States deserve so much, and more
importantly, leave Us on the outside looking in at the new power
reality that is emerging. It would be stupid for Us to trade in
a prominent position in an emerging new world order for a Tonto-like
position in an old world order that has not only humiliated Us,
but is on the verge of being displaced.
"Within a white power context, Black People are not only powerless, they tend to play the roles and games powerless people have a tendency to play." Fortunately, the people who are spearheading the new world order respond differently, more responsibly. By playing the roles, particularly the public roles, the United States demands that We play in order to "prove" Our allegiance, We are losing Our legitimacy as a forward leaning people. More and more, Black People are being identified as the running dogs of white imperialists, and that is not good. People are less and less inclined to bow down to the United States, and this is proof of the US's decreasing power. Therefore, Black People can more assuredly identify with the forces of progress, and should do so. Unfortunately, We are failing in that regard, and it will be costly to future generations of Black males and females in the United States.
Some individuals, particularly Black People in the United States, adapt to domination as if it were the weather. Fortunately, others do not. [Top]
Giving Up Liberties
Some United States officials have raised the issue of its citizens
giving up liberties in order to better protect themselves against
"terrorist attacks." This is not only totally unnecessary,
it introduces a terrifying concept. The United States' openness
has nothing to do with people's ability to attack the United States
or any other country. The key to the United States avoiding attacks
from other people is this: THE UNITED STATES SHOULD STOP RUNNING
ROUGHSHOD OVER OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES, CULTURES, VALUES AND INTERESTS,
etc. However, we must realize that the establishment of a police
state or something close to that is one of the objectives of the
present status quo. Instead of using this event to reform and
start establishing more equitable relations with the other peoples
of the world, the United States will attempt to use it to further
limit the liberties of everyday people. The planecrashing was
not predicated on the "openness" of the United States,
nor was it facilitated because the United States is an open society.
The planecrashing was made possible because the United States
is an oppressive society. The United States can be as open as
any society can possibly be and not be concerned about being attacked
if it deals justly with its own people and other peoples of the
world. So, if the citizens of the United States start giving up
liberties in order to fight against "terrorism," they
are making a critically serious mistake. [Top]
Targeting the President
There is talk about the White House and Air Force 1 being possible
targets as if that is an abominable thought. Let's not forget
that the United States has targeted its own president (JFK, e.g.),
so why should foreigners be expected to respect the United States'
presidency more than members of the United States' white power
elite? Additionally, the United States has made a habit of targeting
the presidents of other countries. Who can forget the Ronald Reagan
directed assassination of the young, Black president of Grenada,
the bombing of the Libyan leader Qaddafi's home, the manhunts
for Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega, the numerous attempts to
assassinate Fidel Castro, the assassination of Trujillo, etc.,
etc., etc. Much of the time, such leaders had not done anything
but defend their country against United States aggression. Certainly,
when the United States leaders talk about targeting a president,
they are being hypocritical to the max. [Top]
Innocent Victims and Heroism
The probable effort of the United States citizens in the plane
that crashed in Pennsylvania could be evidence of the strength
and heroism of the United States people, and the effort of the
people who have participated in the clean-up and recovery efforts
in Washington and New York are definitely so. But one feels driven
to ask where is this heroism and strength when it is time to control
the excesses carried out by their government and businesses? If
the people of the United States had fought against the excesses
of their government in the same manner and with the same strength
and heroism that they are displaying in the aftermath of the planecrashing,
none of this tragedy would have taken place. Quite to the contrary,
they are not only NOT opposing their government's excesses, they
act as if they are accomplices to it.
That brings into question the issue of innocent victims that has been so often vocalized in the last couple of days. Are United States citizens innocent victims, or merely non-military casualties? If We look at this issue in a historical context, We see that United States citizens watched and benefitted as their government and businesses practically wiped out an entire population of Black and Red so-called Indians, that they did so over a period that spanned several centuries, and that they did nothing to force their government to stop committing that crime. When the Native Americans responded by killing United States citizens, were those citizens innocent victims or did they get what accomplices to the crime deserved? The same can be said of the enslavement of Black People. For three, four hundred years, white people here witnessed and benefitted as their country and business interests carried out a crime that they knew was heinous and wrong, yet they did nothing to force their government to stop committing that crime. When some of the slaves rebelled and slaughtered as many whites as possible, were they innocent victims or were they getting what they deserved as accomplices to that crime? Remember, United States leaders have stated that they will punish not only the perpetrators of the crime, but those who harbor the perpetrators because they share in the guilt. The citizens of the United States definitely know that their country is committing and has historically committed crimes all over the world, from Hawaii to Panama to Puerto Rico, the Filipines, Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. The citizens of the United States know that their country does not have the right to bulldoze its way around the world and force other people to run their affairs as the United States sees fit. Thus, the citizens of the United States should be forcing their government to stop acting in that manner, but instead they act as their government's accomplice. When they suffer the consequences, as in the case of the planecrashing of the United States, they are just as likely to be non-military victims as innocent victims.
One final word: When citizens of the United States die, people in the United States call them "innocent victims." However, when the United States damages and kills innocent victims in other countries, people in the United States only talk of "collateral damage." That, again, is typical of the hypocrisy of the United States, evidence of the hypocrisy of the people of the United States, and explains why people inside and outside of the United States will continue to despise that country so passionately.