9/11/73 (THERE’S MORE THEN ONE SEPTEMBER THE 11TH)

[ziggy_encaoua]

On September the 11th 1973 a CIA backed coup ousted the democratically elected government of Chile & installed a military junta.

The military junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet then went on to kill thousands of people & torture tens of thousands more.

Okay no Chilean was involved in the perpetration of the terrorist attacks of September the 11th 2001, but what occurred in Chile on September the 11th 1973 is symptomatic as to why the terrorist attacks happened on September the 11th 2001.

Basically in relation to its foreign policy whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans in control, the US government has not learnt the old saying about hornets & poking.

Never a truer thing is said then if you poke a hornets nest then expect to get stung & September the 11th 2001 the US got seriously stung. Let me say here & now none of those who died in the collapse of the twin towers deserved to die as a result of US government policy, though I hoped at the time that if anything good could come of 9/11 it would wake up the citizens of the US to ways the US government had been conducting foreign policy.

But sadly the majority citizens of the US & here in Britain went along with the attacks of 9/11 being used as an excuse for more wars abroad as well as loss of liberty at home & all over more tyranny. Oh & of course is it any coincidence that because the British government went along with the US government & sticking its nose where it don’t belong that it got a bloody nose, as with the terrorist attacks of the 7th of July 2005 where over 50 people were killed. Do you know why specifically the attacks of July the 7th were due to the British government’s participation in the invasion of Iraq? Because that was the reason given by suicide bombers perpetrated the attacks. Oh but most who read this will just accuse me of being some kind of fucking nut because Bush, Blair, then Obama, Brown, have spun that the terrorists don’t like that we drink Pepsi & watch cable TV.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to realise that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Afghanistan & then Iraq & then of course as a result of that there are more terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks in retaliation & then people are told that the reason this is all happening because there’s some people don’t like us being obedient consumers.

Hmm who benefits from perpetual war & obedient consumerism?

It wouldn’t be the corporatist interest particularly the military industrial complex.

I don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job but Michael Moore & others have highlighted evidence that the Bush administration were told by the CIA that there was likely to of been a terrorist attack in the autumn of 2001. It’s also been unearthed (ironically by the BBC) that the security services knew of the terrorist cell that perpetrated the attacks of 7/7.

The military industrial complex needs perpetual war for it to do business & therefore needs the cold war & now the war on terrorism. Bush now Obama are merely a puppets of the corporatist interest, they’re the salesmen who sell you the bullshit reasons why there needs to be military conflict. I’d say until a majority of the people wake up & realise this then more 9/11s will happen & our descent into a fascist state will be ever greater.

[outer-H]

I don't really see it as being the case that the military industrial complex lobbies for war. I know they of course lobby for more weapons purchases. And there are groups out there that do lobby for war quite openly - e.g. Iraqi expat groups who wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein. But it isn't very common. I'm aware that the Bush cabal had a lot of people tied into it who would make a lot of money from the Iraq War, but that isn't the same thing as a "military industrial complex". A "Military Industrial Complex" implies that the capitalist system favours war because some companies make money from it.

An obvious reason why it wouldn't be the case is the principle of diversification. It is true that weapons companies will make a lot of money out of a small to medium sized war that requires the purchase of lots of new weapons. However the shareholders of the weapons company will probably still make a loss. As a rule of thumb, a private shareholder seeks to spread out their shareownership to around 30 different companies in as wide a range of industries as they can find, whilst institutional investors, insurance and pensions companies etc, have thousands of different investments. This means that when the economy does well in one area and badly in another area, over all the yield on their shares is roughly constant.

So although a war may be good for weapons companies, it is still not in the interests of their shareholders because it worsens economic growth as a whole as it represents wasted resources - and so although your shareholder is benefiting from a rise in the value of one of their share holdings, the other 29 will go down in value. Therefore if a weapons manufacturer seeks to lobby the government for war, this is bad corporate governance, the shareholders would always be against this, it is the equivalent of the board of directors committing fraud against the shareholders.