HomeJoinMissionAbout UsLinksActivism


By: Ted Lang

Consider bank robbery. Do the police need to know or explore a motive? Isn’t the motive obvious? But suppose a citizen with a pistol walks into a bank, stands in the middle of the premises without approaching a teller, and shoots himself. What would be the first investigative instinct of police?

The first question concerning a "no-gain" act of violence would be: Why did this happen? If the crime was perpetrated for no gain, no motive of easy and immediate enrichment, why was it perpetrated? This should be the very first question that needs answering in any crime where an obvious motive and a discernible advantage are absent. Why hasn’t the 9-11 Commission addressed this basic question?

Considering the time and taxpayer money invested in the lavish bureaucratic production offered as the "9-11 Commission," and considering also the resources at their disposal, they were unable to proclaim a motive. Yet, whenever there is a scarcity of available fact or evidence as regards a notable criminal act, an inquiring public, when confronted by unreasonable violence, will always seek to know why.

Robbery is always an easy motive to prove, but what of crimes that are devoid of gain? Still more intriguing, what of crimes not only devoid of advantage, but those requiring the sacrifice of perpetrator(s)’ lives? And what acts can be more costly, both in terms of life and property, than a "senseless" act of terrorism, or a frivolously initiated war?

Our unconstitutional invasion, initiated by what was once the greatest, fairest, and most moral nation on Earth, requires crisp and direct answers from our war-initiating government. What answers did we get?

"Weapons of mass destruction" were proven false. An arsenal for terrorism is also unproven. A training ground for terrorists was also established as a falsehood. Bringing democracy to the Iraqis is beginning to shape up similarly. The upcoming Iraqi "free elections" are an obvious bureaucratic hallucination.

Inquiry, in pursuit of fact and truth, requires that primary focus be upon motive. In effect, those seeking the truth and confronted by a wall of obfuscation are forced to back into it. Truth-seekers must rely upon deductive reasoning based upon circumstantial evidence.

It is indeed both unfortunate, as well as symbolic, as regards our compromised individual liberties, that a citizenry must second-guess their government when that government is shrouded in obfuscation and secrecy. When such demeanor is symbolized by one man’s dominance of government, as exemplified by the Clinton administration, the signature of despotism and dictatorship manifest their ugliness as mere symbolic phantasm. But when an entire administration, a totally organized and well-orchestrated synchronicity of obscure motive and execution presents itself, a need for backing into the truth via deductive reasoning is created.

It is this methodology of backing into reasons that establishes the motives of President George W. Bush and his administration relative to the unprovoked attacks upon Iraq. Continuously refining the false information from the Bush administration leads to the obvious conclusion that the Iraqi war was not undertaken for any of the reasons presented to the American people, but was initiated instead for a policy completely obnoxious to our nation and its rule of law.

The relentless search for the truth as to the real motives for this anomaly relative to the "American way," the nation of the farmer, the Minuteman, and the hero cowboys on white horses wearing white wide brim hats, as well as the growing and diverse incidents requiring this reverse construction of natural inquiry, is what is beginning to defeat our government’s explanations and reasoning for virtually anything they do, or anything they are directly involved with. Think of Enron. Think of the flu vaccine shortages. Think about the current allegations of election fraud and irregularities.

Tragically, any of the initiatives of the Bush administration, as well as all general and non-partisan actions and intentions of American government, will now be considered in this light. Our government, as well as any government, simply cannot be trusted. An ulterior motive should always be suspected.

What folly it is to be smeared by organized factions who put the interests of another state over that of our own, and smear advocates of deductive reasoning as "anti-Semitic." What an absurdity to proclaim a foreign state as "Semitic" when virtually all the population is comprised of Caucasian Eastern European stock. What folly it is to renounce world opinion and morality in exchange for the governmental advantages of fascism advocated by an out-of-touch minority dedicated to apartheid and genocide.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Ted Lang is a freelance writer and political analyst. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Ted Lang can be reached at: tlang1@optonline.net