"Thinking Outside the Box: Poisoning Food Supply"
by Jeremiah Bourque
The above was the title of a section of a briefing to be
shown to President Bush by the Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, on Sept. 17th, 2001. The brief was to demonstrate
to the President that other, unconventional options were on
the table, such as genocide. The National Security Advisor,
Condi Rice, intelligently challenged Rumsfeld and had the
section stricken from the brief before being presented to
the so-called Leader of the Free World.
Keep in mind that Afghanistan was a starving nation on Sept.
11th. Keep in mind that simply withholding food would have
caused millions of casualties over the course of the winter.
Furthermore, the US food packets were colored yellow, just
like cluster bombs. We have no accounting of how many innocent
people died because of this. Furthermore, I vaguely remember
a piece of propaganda saying that the US might be poisoning
humanitarian food aid.
It seems that the government really considered it.
Is this why that the US has demanded that the "outdated"
Geneva Conventions (plural) be scrapped and completely re-written?
Is this the next step for us, poisoning civilian populations?
Thinking Outside The Box is the very essence of Rumsfeld's
military reforms. It is the desire of all politicians to have
a free hand to escalate violence to break the will of the
enemy. A perfect example is what has just transpired in Israel
at the hands of Ariel Sharon.
The Saudis presented their new peace plan to resolve the
54-year state of war with the Arab nations in general to a
world forum for the first time. What were the options to stop
F-16's had already been used. They'd gotten old.
Assassination of Hamas and Fatah and Force 17 members is
so, like, yesterday.
Making Arafat a prisoner in his own compound, and then sending
a missile into the room where he met foreign leaders, had
already been done.
The options that could not be done were assassinating Arafat,
ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories, and neutron
So what did Sharon do?
In order to derail the peace proposal effectively, he ordered
a military invasion of two Palestinian refugee camps, ostensibly
to teach the Palestinian militants that they could not hide.
Of course, neither could the Palestinians at Sabra and Chatilla,
and don't think for a moment that the Palestinians have forgotten.
So, Sharon having established a precedent that refugee camps
can be liquidated, and that the liquidation can be gotten
away with, he has backed the militants into a corner where
they either fight to death, or they have a legitimate and
well founded fear that this same individual, who was found
guilty by deliberate omission of the Phalangist massacre of
those Lebanese refugee camps (for Palestinians), that they
will be individually and collectively marched to a quiet location
and shot to death. Furthermore, they have a well founded fear
that women and children will follow.
After all, it seems only yesterday that an Israeli officer
suggested that the IDF pay attention to how the Germans operated
in the Warsaw Ghetto.
What, I ask, is a refugee camp under military siege, if not
So how is the US to escalate against enemies that it finds
displeasing? We've tried mass destruction of civilian power
plants in Iraq. In Serbia, apparently, we hit distribution
stations in order to reduce the death toll during the winter
that followed. Progress? Well, I hear that only a couple of
months ago, the Danube River was cleared of debris. The poisons
in it won't go away for longer, though, thanks to US bombing
of chemical plants. These were not accidents; they were meant
to send a message, like the bombing of a car factory that
destroyed the low paying, but at least somewhat dignified,
jobs of the employees there.
So what next, beyond economic warfare?
Obviously, then you get to things like starving the civilian
population, slowly tightening the noose to break their will,
bombarding them with propaganda to reject their leaders. Infiltrations,
bribing of local resistance leaders, rumors of war, and the
deliberate instigation of violent incidents to reinforce our
military superiority seem to be the order of the day.
We've leaked that the US will no longer restrain itself against
non-nuclear powers, only to deny it the next day. Mission
accomplished. Everyone has been through this before; we know
the drill. The US is all about credibility, Mafia style. We're
pissed off and we're not completely sane and stable, so do
what we say. Or else. But, as I said, we've been through this
before; you know, The Missiles Are On The Way.
Yeah, yeah, funny, like Mike Tyson's description of getting
into a fight with girls when he was a kid and getting not
only whacked around but bit on the ear. Everyone thought it
was cute, once upon a time.
Well it's not funny anymore.
We're asking the world to rip up the one body of international
law that the US ratified whole hog, on the grounds that it's
just too restraining, we can't handle the pressure. We need
a free hand to treat terrorists and civilians of terrorist
nations like they treat us.
As for their leaders, well, what do you think the tac nuke
bunker buster is for?
It's obvious that the only reason that Condi canned the proposal
to poison the Afghans was because the US signed and ratified
the relevant conventions banning the US from doing so. Morality
had nothing to do with it; rather, it was illegal. A few months
later, the US wants the conventions scrapped. If the conventions
are scrapped, is poisoning civilian populations legal?
If it is then legal, why shouldn't we poison them?
The real whopper is that the question needs to be asked at
Editions of The Daily Whopper