> D R A F T article for NEW DAWN magazine.
  >
  > Your feedback, additions, references, corrections, and
  > elaborations are eagerly invited.
  >
  > ______________________________________________________________
  >
  >
  >            Understanding the Events of 11 September
  >            ________________________________________
  >
  >
  >
  > Are we being told the truth about the Trade Center attacks?
  > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  > First of all, I'd like you to understand that I don't have
  > any secret information, or leaked documents, about the
  > horrific events of 11 September in New York City.  I'm
  > writing this article while on the road, without my usual
  > reference books, and I'm working from U.S. television
  > reports and from articles that people have sent me over the
  > Internet. What we're going to do in this article is to look
  > at the events in the same way we'd investigate a murder
  > mystery: what are the possible scenarios?  What are the
  > relevant clues?  Which scenario best fits the facts? 
  >
  > I'm not claiming this analysis is true, I'm only asking you
  > to consider the possibility.  As we review the historical
  > background, I'll be giving you my best understanding of
  > events - but I am not claiming that every statement is an
  > established fact. This article represents my _opinion as to
  > 'most likely scenarios'.  Due to the scope of the material,
  > much of the presentation is highly abbreviated.  A
  > recommended reading list is provided at the bottom for those
  > who wish to investigate the ideas in greater depth.
  >
  > For all I know, the scenario presented by the U.S.
  > corporate- government- media- elite Establishment might be
  > correct.  Perhaps the attacks came as a shocking surprise,
  > and the U.S. response has been hastily determined in
  > subsequent emergency meetings.  But this default scenario
  > opens many questions...
  >
  >     (1) Within hours of the attacks we were already being told
  >     that the FBI knows who the hijackers were, and that they are
  >     linked to Bin Laden.  If this is true, then why were they
  >     allowed to buy tickets in their own names and travel
  >     together on commercial flights?  One of the suspects who
  >     bought a ticket in his own name, a TV report said, was on
  >     the FBI's most-wanted list!  And only a week before, we are
  >     told, Bin Laden had threatened that a major U.S. target was
  >     going to be attacked.  Could security really be that lax?
  >    
  >     (2) In the first day of media coverage there seemed to be a
  >     huge gap in the reports we were receiving.  Why were we
  >     being told nothing about air-traffic controllers, and their
  >     attempts to contact the planes?  Wouldn't that have made for
  >     dramatic television?...  "Flight 11, please come in. Flight
  >     11, do you read me?"   Why were we told nothing about
  >     scrambling fighter planes, and of attempts to intercept the
  >     hijacked airliners?  On September 15 the New York times
  >     published an 'explanation' of the events by Matthew Wald,
  >     and reported that some fighters did scramble.  But why was
  >     this completely omitted from the early reports?  The initial
  >     coverage seemed to be designed to give us the impression
  >     that no one knew what was going on until the first plane
  >     actually struck the World Trade Center.
  >    
  >     (3) And the NY Times explanation doesn't make sense.  The
  >     following excerpts are from an analysis of that article by
  >     Jared Israel, which can be found on the web at
  >       http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm
  >    
  >         "In an analysis of the 9-11 nightmare, which we have been
  >         preparing, one of the things we asked is: how could the
  >         so-called third plane stay in the air, hijacked, for almost

  >         an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC
  >         Towers, and not be seen and intercepted by U.S. air defense
  >         forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly
  >         back to Washington, to the Pentagon, undisturbed?
  >        
  >         "Apparently it occurred to someone On High that ordinary
  >         folks might harbor such thoughts, hence the following
  >         article has been published by the 'N.Y. Times,' with the
  >         apparent intention of defusing such doubts.
  >        
  >         "But the cure is worse than the doubts. It is one thing to
  >         say the plane was not spotted. But to say, as this article
  >         does, that the plane was spotted, that it was tracked from
  >         the time it turned back from the Midwest until it struck the
  >         Pentagon, and yet nothing was done because they "didn't know
  >         what to do" - this is simply unbelievable.
  >        
  >         "If they knew the plane was coming, why didn't they force
  >         it down and failing that, shoot it down? Before you say
  >         'They wouldn't do a thing like that,' note that whoever
  >         edited the 'N.Y. Times' article left in the following
  >         damning sentences, regarding the fourth plane, the one that,
  >         we are told, crashed in Pennsylvania:
  >        
  >         "'Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said today
  >         that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could
  >         have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes
  >         after the Pentagon crash.' (From article posted below)
  >        
  >         "So if they "could have shot" down the fourth plane, why
  >         didn't they shoot down the third? Why didn't they shoot down
  >         the first three, or at least planes # two and three? Once
  >         they "knew" these were suicide hijackings what were they
  >         waiting for them to do, hit the WTC Towers and the Pentagon?
  >         Or a nuclear power plant?"
  >
  >    
  >     (4) If the attacks really came as a complete surprise, one
  >     would expect initial confusion at the highest government
  >     levels.  One would have expected days to go by while
  >     information was gathered and options were considered.
  >     Instead, we began seeing a coherent and final response
  >     within hours.  Within a day or two the perpetrators were
  >     known, $40 billion had been allocated by Congress, a
  >     protracted war was being announced, we were being told to
  >     expect major cutbacks in civil liberties, and the U.S.
  >     Senate had approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001".
  >     And within a few days after that, a multi-billion dollar
  >     airline bailout was being announced.
  >
  > There are other objections that can be raised to the
  > official scenario, but I am not trying here to prove that
  > scenario to be wrong.  I wish only to express doubt,
  > suggesting that other scenarios deserve consideration.  When
  > seeking to identify the perpetrator of a crime, as we all
  > know from countless mystery dramas, one looks for motive,
  > opportunity, and modus operandi - as well as at
  > circumstantial and physical evidence.  For the scenario I'd
  > like you to consider, let us begin with modus operandi, or
  > "standard behavior of the suspect".
  >
  >
  > U.S. history - a series of suspicious warpath 'incidents'
  > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  > As we look back at history, we find that every time the U.S.
  > has entered into a major military adventure, that has been
  > enabled by a dramatic incident which aroused public
  > sentiment overwhelmingly in favor of military action.  These
  > incidents have always been accepted at face value when they
  > occurred, but in every case we have learned later that the
  > incidents were highly suspicious.  And in every case, the
  > ensuing military action served some elite geopolitical
  > design.
  >
  > Consider for example the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which gave
  > President Lyndon Johnson an excuse to begin major escalation
  > of the Vietnam War.  Supposedly, in that incident, a North

  > Vietnamese boat launched torpedoes in an attempt to sink an
  > American warship.  It is now generally accepted by
  > historians that the attack did not in fact occur, and that
  > Johnson had been preparing to escalate all along.
  >
  > One of my correspondents on the Internet summarized the
  > situation this way:
  >
  >   "The U.S. Government lied to the American People about
  >   the following events. Each of these incidents led the
  >   United States into War....
  >  
  >   "1898..THEY LIED about the sinking of the battleship
  >         Maine. (Spanish American War)
  >   1915..THEY LIED about the sinking of the ocean liner
  >         Lusitania (World War I)
  >   1941..THEY LIED about the attack on Pearl Harbor.
  >         (World War 2)
  >   1964..THEY LIED about the Gulf of Tonkin affair.
  >         (Vietnam War)"
  >
  > In the media coverage of the recent WTC attack, the
  > comparison with Pearl Harbor has been frequently raised.
  > Thousands of American troops were killed in the attack on
  > Pearl Harbor, and thousands of American civilians were
  > killed in the attack on the WTC.  In both cases the American
  > people responded (quite understandably) with deep shock and
  > outrage.  In both cases, overwhelming public sentiment was
  > for retaliation, and for giving the President total support
  > for whatever course he chose.  In 1941, as now, any
  > suggestion that the U.S. government knew in advance of the
  > attacks, and could have prevented them, would have been met
  > by angry disbelief by almost any American.  Nonetheless,
  > the evidence now seems to favor the view that President
  > Franklin D. Roosevelt _did know about the impending attack
  > on Pearl Harbor, and that he could have mounted an effective
  > defense. 
  >
  > We now know that elite U.S. planners, during the period
  > 1939-1941, had come to the conclusion that the Japanese
  > conquest of Asia had to be stopped.  The planners determined
  > that Southeast Asia, in particular, was critical to U.S.
  > economic interests.  But U.S. public opinion was
  > overwhelmingly against entering the war.  It now seems that
  > FDR figured out a way to get the U.S. into the war, and that
  > Pearl Harbor was the key to his plan.
  >
  > When the Japanese began to threaten Southeast Asia, FDR
  > froze Japanese assets in U.S. banks, resulting in a cutoff
  > of Japanese oil supplies.  This was considered an act of war
  > by Japan, and Japanese retaliation was expected by American
  > planners.  As the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor,
  > intelligence services in Britain and the U.S. evidently knew
  > of that approach.  Prime Minister Churchill notified his
  > Pacific commanders that the Japanese were heading for Pearl
  > Harbor.  FDR, on the other hand, did not notify his
  > commanders.   Instead, he sent the most strategic ships (the
  > aircraft carriers) out to sea where they would be safe, and
  > instructed key observation outposts on the island of Kauai
  > to stand down.
  >
  > It seems that FDR intentionally set the stage for a
  > 'surprise' attack - shocking the nation and instantly
  > shifting public opinion from non-interventionism to war
  > frenzy.  I am suggesting that this same scenario must be
  > considered in the case of the recent WTC and Pentagon
  > attacks.  Unbelievable as this may seem, this is a scenario
  > that matches the modus operandi of U.S. ruling elites. These
  > elites show callous disregard for civilian lives in Iraq,
  > Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and dozens of other places around the
  > world.  Is it so surprising that they would sacrifice a few
  > thousand American civilians if they considered that
  > necessary in order to pursue their geopolitical objectives?
  >
  > Let us now consider in more detail the possible motives for
  > such a crime scenario.
  >
  >
  > Global capitalism in crisis
  > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  > Capitalism must have growth and change in order to operate.
  > The engine of capitalism is driven by wealthy investors who
  > put their money into the economy in order to increase their
  > wealth.  If the economy offers no growth opportunities, then
  > investors withdraw their money and the whole system
  > collapses.  A minor collapse is called a recession, and a

  > major collapse is called a depression.  The history of
  > capitalism is punctuated by such collapses.
  >
  > Capitalism came into existence along with the Industrial
  > Revolution in the late 1700s in Scotland and northern
  > England.  Before that time societies were not based on
  > growth. Certainly there were people before then who sought
  > to increase their wealth, but economies as a whole did not
  > require growth in order to operate. Societies were ruled by
  > aristocratic elites whose wealth was measured by the estates
  > they owned, and the peasants who worked their land.  Such
  > aristocrats were more interested in stability than change,
  > and more concerned with maintaining their estates than with
  > economic growth.
  >
  > When the Industrial Revolution came along then all this
  > began to change. With the steam engine and other new
  > technologies, it became possible for an entrepreneur to make
  > a great deal of wealth rapidly.  A new wealthy elite began
  > to emerge made up inventors, industrialists, bankers, and
  > traders.  These were the people who built the factories,
  > invested in them, and figured out ways to get the new
  > products to markets.
  >
  > The interests of this new elite clashed with those of the
  > old aristocratic elite.  The aristocrats favored stability,
  > and laws which provided stability - such as tariffs, price
  > controls, etc.  The new elite, on the other hand, wanted
  > change and growth - they wanted to develop new products,
  > build new factories, and capture new markets.  While
  > aristocratic wealth was based on land and stability,
  > industrial wealth was based on investment, development,
  > change, and growth.
  >
  > This new kind of economics, based on investment and growth,
  > is capitalism.  And the new elite, gaining its wealth
  > through change and growth, is the capitalist elite.  At
  > first capitalism existed along side aristocracy, competing
  > with it to control the laws of society.  But then in
  > Britain, and later in other nations, the capitalist elite
  > won out. Laws, economies, and societies were transformed to
  > favor capitalism and growth over stability and land-based
  > wealth. Banking, monetary systems, and taxation were
  > re-engineered so as to compel businesses to seek growth
  > whether they wanted to or not.
  >
  > No one can deny that capitalism and its growth have brought
  > many kinds of benefits to some people.  America was based on
  > capitalism from its very founding, and American wealth and
  > prosperity are legendary.  But there is a fundamental
  > problem with capitalism.  How is it possible for an economy
  > to grow endlessly?  How can growth be forever achieved in a
  > finite world?  Is capitalism, in the final analysis,
  > sustainable?
  >
  > In fact, providing for ongoing growth has been the primary
  > challenge faced by every nation that has adopted capitalism.
  > The history of the 19th and 20th centuries has been
  > primarily the story of how nations have competed for markets
  > and resources to support growth.  Our history books tell us
  > about noble causes and evil enemies, but in truth every
  > significant war since 1800 has been about competition among
  > Great Powers for economic growth.
  >
  > Before capitalism, nations built empires because kings or
  > individuals were greedy and wanted more territory and
  > wealth.  After capitalism, nations developed empires out of
  > necessity.  If they didn't expand their markets and access
  > to resources their economies would collapse.  As industrial
  > capitalism got into high gear in the late 1800s, that was
  > accompanied by an unprecedented expansion of imperialism on
  > a global scale. 
  >
  > From 1800 until 1945 the world system was a matter of
  > competition among Great Powers for empires, in order to
  > provide for capitalist growth.  In each empire there was a
  > core nation which ruled over peripheral territories.  The
  > peripheral territories were exploited in order to provide
  > growth for the core ruling nation. The populations of the
  > core nations were convinced by propaganda that they were
  > helping or aiding the periphery to develop.  This propaganda

  > was lies.  The fact was suppression, exploitation, and the
  > prevention of healthy development in the periphery - so as
  > to enable capitalism to flourish in the core Great Powers.
  >
  > In 1945 this global system was radically changed. Under
  > American leadership, with the help of both incentives and
  > coercion, a new paradigm of capitalist growth was launched.
  > Instead of competitive imperialism, a regime of cooperative
  > imperialism was instituted.  Under the protection of the
  > American military, the so-called "Free World" was opened to
  > exploitation by capitalism generally.  This led to the rise
  > of immense transnational corporations, who were no longer
  > limited in their growth to a single national empire.  This
  > new post-1945 system was invented in order to provide
  > another round of growth to capitalism.
  >
  > Under the post-1945 system, part of the scheme was to
  > provide prosperity to the Western middle classes.  In
  > Europe, the USA, and in Japan as well, populations
  > experienced unprecedented prosperity.  Cooperative
  > imperialism provided immense growth room for capitalism, and
  > the wealth was being shared with the core-nation
  > populations.
  >
  > But no matter what system might be set up, growth eventually
  > runs into the limits of that system.  The post-1945 system
  > was no exception.  By the early 1970s the growth machine was
  > beginning to slow down. Recessions began to replace
  > prosperity.  As a consequence, the global capitalist elite
  > designed yet another system, offering yet another round of
  > capitalist growth. This new system goes under the name
  > 'neoliberalism', and it was launched under the auspices of
  > Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
  >
  > The purpose of neoliberalism was to rob the wealth of the
  > prosperous capitalist nations and transfer that wealth to
  > the capitalist elite and the corporations which they own and
  > control.  That's what privatization, deregulation, and other
  > so-called 'reforms' were all about.  In addition,
  > neoliberalism was aimed at disempowering democracy itself -
  > because it was the democratic nations which were
  > implementing laws which limited the power of corporations.
  > Any limit on the power of corporation is a limit on
  > their ability to grow.  And the one thing capitalism cannot
  > tolerate is limits to its growth.  That is a matter of life
  > and death to capitalism.
  >
  > Again, as must ALWAYS happen, the neoliberal system also
  > began to run out of growth room.  In this case, the system
  > only provided growth for about ten years, the decade of the
  > 1980s.  And thus we were brought to the era of
  > GLOBALIZATION. Propaganda tells us that globalization is
  > simply the continuation of 'natural' trends in technology,
  > trade, and commerce.  This is not true.  Globalization
  > represents an _intentional and _radical policy shift on the
  > part of the global capitalist elite.
  >
  > Globalization amounts to four radical changes in the world
  > system.  These are (1) the destabilization of and removal of
  > sovereignty from Western nation states, (2) the
  > establishment of an essentially fascist world government
  > under the direct control of the capitalist elite,  (3) the
  > greatly accelerated exploitation and suppression of the
  > third-world, and (4) the gradual downgrading of Western
  > living conditions toward third-world standards.  By these
  > means, elites hope to achieve yet another round of capital
  > growth.
  >
  > During most of the decade of the 1990s globalization
  > proceeded almost unnoticed by the world's population.  The
  > WTO and IMF began to establish their tentacles of power
  > without publicity.  Government leaders worldwide, under the
  > pressure of capitalist elites, were quietly signing their
  > sovereignty over to the new global institutions.  When
  > globalization was mentioned at all in the media, it was
  > described in propaganda terms as sharing 'progress' with the
  > downtrodden of the world.  Lies as usual from the capitalist
  > elite and the media outlets which they control or own.
  >
  > And then in December 1999 the people of the world began to

  > wake up.  The demonstrations in Seattle marked the beginning
  > of a new global movement.  In fairness, one must acknowledge
  > that there were earlier signs of the movement, in Europe and
  > the third world.  But only when the movement reached the USA
  > did it become 'real' in the eyes of the world.  And ever
  > since Seattle the movement has been growing by leaps and
  > bounds on a global scale.
  >
  > The movement does not yet have well-defined goals, but it is
  > a very promising and very radical movement.  It is based on
  > a clear understanding that global capitalism is leading us
  > to ecological disaster and to tyranny.  The movement does
  > not have a clear organizational structure, but that itself
  > is promising.  The decentralized nature of the movement
  > points to the way to a new kind of genuine, grass-roots,
  > locally-based democracy - a democracy that is not subject to
  > elite manipulation as have been our Western
  > pseudo-democracies with their manufactured 'majorities'.
  >
  > Having presented this (highly abbreviated) historical
  > background, I can now describe the nature of 'the global
  > crisis of capitalism'.  On the one hand, the capitalist
  > elite must accelerate the pace of globalization in order to
  > continue providing room for capital growth. On the other
  > hand, the people of the world, notably in the West, have
  > begun to wake up and oppose the dangerous and ominous path
  > of globalization. The elite know that as the path of
  > globalization is pursued more vigorously, more and more
  > people will rise in opposition.  The crisis of
  > globalization is a crisis of population control, requiring
  > the subjugation of the people of Europe and North America.
  >
  > People in the third world have been subjected to imperialist
  > tyranny for centuries, and this has been possible because of
  > suppression by Western military force.  If the people of the
  > West arise in opposition to globalization, then the hegemony
  > of the capitalist elite is seriously threatened.  THIS IS
  > THE CRISIS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM.
  >
  >
  > "War on Terrorism" - a solution to capitalism's crisis
  > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  >   [In writing this section, I refer frequently to the
  >   Los Angeles Times of 21 September.]
  >
  > President Bush calls it a "War on Terrorism", but what is it
  > really?  Let's look at some of the specifics...
  >
  >   * Congress has authorized the President to do "whatever is
  >   necessary".
  >  
  >   * Congress has allocated 40 billion dollars to do
  >   "whatever".
  >  
  >   * The $40 billion came from Social Security funds.
  >  
  >   * $15 billion is being allocated to bail out the airline
  >   industry.
  >  
  >   * For the first time, NATO has invoked the treaty clause
  >   which says "an attack on one nation is an attack on all".
  >  
  >   * We've been told to expect significant curtailment of civil
  >   liberties.
  >  
  >   * Bush declared that "Every nation in every region now has a
  >   decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the
  >   terrorists."
  >  
  >   * Fleets, planes, and ground troops have been dispatched to
  >   the Middle East to do "whatever".
  >  
  >   * We are to expect a long, protracted war, much of which
  >   will be covert and we won't be told what happened even after
  >   it's all over.
  >  
  >   * After Bin Laden is dealt with, Secretary of State Colin
  >   Powell tells us "we will then broaden the campaign to go
  >   after other terrorist organizations and forms of terrorism
  >   around the world."
  >  
  >   * Bush tells us that "We will use every necessary weapon of
  >   war", and "Americans should not expect one battle, but a
  >   lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen."
  >  
  >   * The Pentagon specifically refuses to rule out the use of
  >   nuclear weapons.
  >
  >   * Bush tells us that "God is not neutral".
  >  
  > This is a very comprehensive list. Bush has a blank check to
  > do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, using whatever
  > means he chooses.  He has made it clear he intends to pull
  > no punches and that he will keep drawing on this blank check
  > for a long time to come.   From such an agenda, one cannot

  > easily predict where it will all lead.  In such a case, it
  > is instructive to look at the historical precedents.
  >
  > Pearl Harbor aroused the wrath of Americans against the
  > Japanese... but as soon as the blank check was signed, it
  > was Europe that received the initial focus of American
  > military attention.  After the Battleship Maine was blown up
  > (from an internal explosion we have since learned), the
  > thirst for revenge was translated into the imperialist
  > capture of the Philippines.  In other words, when one of
  > these outrage incidents occurs, the modus operandi of the
  > U.S. elite is to pursue whatever objectives are most
  > important to it - regardless of the incident that provided
  > the blank check.
  >
  > And the most important issue before the elite at this point
  > in history is the preservation of global elite rule, the
  > acceleration of globalization, and the suppression of the
  > anti-globalization movement.  They must deal with the crisis
  > of global capitalism.
  >
  > >From this perspective, the real meaning of the "War on
  > Terrorism" begins to come into focus.  Permit me to
  > speculate as to the scenario which is likely to unfold...
  >
  >     * Nearly every country in the third world has some local
  >     ethnic group which is struggling against some kind of
  >     dictatorial government, usually installed by the USA.  Every
  >     one of these ethnic groups can be labelled 'terrorist'.
  >     Thus Bush can always intervene anywhere he wants for
  >     whatever reason and call it part of the "War on Terrorism".
  >    
  >     * In the Middle East, Balkans, and Western Asia, the U.S.
  >     will continue the process of turning much of the region into
  >     an occupied imperialist realm, as we now see in Kosovo.
  >     Afghanistan occupies a very strategic geopolitical
  >     position, and military bases there will be important in the
  >     coming confrontation with China.  Vast reserves of oil
  >     remain in that region, along with other minerals, and
  >     control over these resources will be critical as global
  >     supplies become increasingly scarce.
  >    
  >     * U.S. dominance of the NATO agenda will be important in
  >     this region, as will the careful management of European
  >     public opinion.  One should not be surprised if U.S.
  >     intelligence agencies covertly arrange for terrorist attacks
  >     in Europe along the same lines as the WTC attacks.
  >    
  >     * Even without covert U.S. encouragement, one can expect
  >     terrorist responses to the indiscriminate U.S. bombing which
  >     is likely to be unleashed in Afghanistan and
  >     who-knows-where-else.  Any such terrorist attacks will
  >     galvanize Western public opinion still further, adding depth
  >     to Bush's blank check.
  >    
  >     * Already Greenpeace and many other progressive
  >     organizations are categorized as 'mildly terrorist' in the
  >     FBI lexicon.  And it is the anti-globalization movement,
  >     which includes such organizations, which is the real threat
  >     to the global capitalist elite.  Agent-provocateur tactics
  >     have already been used against the movement, from Seattle to
  >     Genoa, and in the media the movement has been falsely
  >     portrayed as being essentially a violent movement.  When
  >     Colin Powell talks about "other forms of terrorism", it
  >     seems very clear that the movement will be systematically
  >     suppressed on a global scale.  The overt fascism we saw in
  >     Genoa will be raising its ugly head in the U.S., Germany,
  >     the UK, and elsewhere.  Right-wing paranoia about
  >     FEMA-managed concentration camps in the USA will soon seem
  >     much less paranoid.
  >    
  >
  > George Bush senior announced the New World Order, and it
  > seems that George Bush junior is destined to complete its
  > implementation.  With a blank check to dominate the globe
  > militarily, and to suppress the American people in the name
  > of 'security', there seems to be little to stand in his way.
  > This does not mean that the movement should give up.  It
  > means that the movement needs to be aware that the game
  > being played is totally hardball.  And hardball does not

  > mean violence, at least not on the part of the movement.
  > Hardball means to realize that the enemy is nothing less
  > than global fascism.  The sooner that we realize that and
  > organize accordingly, the greater chance we have of changing
  > things while there are still human beings alive on the
  > Earth.
  >
  > rkm
  > Copley Square
  > Boston, USA
  > 25 Sep 2001
  >