DECEMBER 6, 1999
The 'Battle in Seattle': Plus, EgyptAir 900 developments buried
© 1999

Thomas Jefferson once observed, "If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be," adding that "if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed." These days that is not an easy task. However, between the symbiotic relationship of the "New Media" of cyberspace, and talk radio, "the truth is out there."

I only get one day a week to contribute to WorldNetDaily. A constant frustration is trying to decide which atrocity du jour, or which assault on freedom, which abrogation of liberty, or which cancer growing in the nexus of the republic's troika of truth, justice and the American way should be my focus.

This week is especially challenging, and frankly beyond my capacity to synthesize in a thousand words. We look back on target-rich terrain:

In the shadows created by the World Trade Organization finesse in Seattle, citizens of a city were banned from owning gas masks. Events were massaged, manipulated, and edited to create a fiction significantly different from the reality, which is being ignored. Every other week some initialed bureaucrat warns of chemical or biological threats from terrorism. However, it has become illegal to own a gas mask? Hell, government doesn't want to acknowledge your inalienable right to defend yourself, although they reluctantly admit it is not government's job to protect you. It will probably next become illegal to own bulletproof glass or to hold your breath.

The Battle in Seattle surrounding the World Trade Organization was a contrived, manipulative, orchestrated finesse to divert our attention from reality to the media-managed perception. In his "Disarming the New World Order" Michel Chossudovsky says that "the government put a lot of effort into making sure the protesters in Seattle were a 'loyal opposition' who wanted to reform the WTO, not get rid of it." But the people in Seattle (and it was an eclectic, diversified, strange collection of political bedfellows) were not for reforming the WTO. They were for getting rid of it. The paid protesters accomplished the task they were hired to achieve (although few of them may have even been aware of the role they played). Media heeled like a puppy zapped with a shock collar and massaged the story to produce an end product that was "just right" (and flat-out wrong).

One observer on the scene noted, "So the government instigated a 'riot' to discredit the government against the WTO because they couldn't dilute it."

The first two days there wasn't ANY violence. Zero, ziltch. Nada. >From Sunday to around 4 p.m. on Tuesday physical damage to the city totaled one broken window at a McDonalds.

The tone and action took a turn for the worst Tuesday when police went through both an attitude and tactics adjustment. Whether the bad judgment was a product of brain flatulence or intentional malice, the results were predictable.

Long ago and far away I used to teach riot control tactics. It was always standard operating procedure to create an avenue of egress for protesters to escape through. That apparently was not the SOP for Seattle. When they caught protesters between buildings and walls of police they could easily have arrested and detained this small number of people and ended it. However, instead, in Seattle they would gas them and let them go. A process they repeated several times for over six hours.

Several unrelated, eyewitness, contemporaneous reports suggested this was a stage managed, manipulated photo opportunity intended to manufacture a fiction designed to overshadow reality. And the media appeared to be an enthusiastic co-conspirator.

Consider this: A school shooting involving a couple of kids results in live, on the scene, unedited contemporaneous coverage. However, a major metropolitan city is a scene of civil unrest over an international trade dispute/resolution bureaucracy, and all coverage is edited, packaged, and filtered to support a disinformation campaign.

One of the ignored on the scene observers stated, "This whole thing, this police attack, this was U.S. foreign policy, not some action decided by some bureaucrat in Seattle. This was the State Department. They wanted to discredit the people." Madeline Not-so-bright strikes again?

Meanwhile, a Maine business that touts itself as the world's leading retailer of gas masks is planning to file suit against the city for banning the devices during the violent protests over the World Trade Organization meeting. Mark Miclette, founder and president of Gas Masks Inc., said he will challenge the ban on constitutional grounds and because it violates federal law. "It's a direct violation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which allows Americans to carry gas masks, and it's unconstitutional," said Miclette. "The city doesn't have the right to suspend the law just because of an incident in the town." Mayor Paul Schell declared the ban on gas masks as part of the civil emergency plan issued Wednesday when protests against the World Trade Organization escalated to citywide rioting.

OK, so all this attention has been focused on street riots of dubious origin for a variety of alleged reasons to protest a bad organization, which is only one small component of an ever-worse General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Probably 90 percent of folks hearing about the Seattle Battle don't know jack about foreign trade, GATT, NAFTA, or secret incontestable dispute resolutions.

Guess what epiphany was buried in the assorted sound and fury? Almost a month after the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, government officials are now officially (in a kind of stage whisper) stating that the tail section of Flight 990 was severely damaged by an EXPLOSION! Gosh, oh, gee golly! They just figured that out? Why would they hold that significant piece of information from the public until after Thanksgiving? Why wait for people to be distracted with the holiday frenzy? Why create and manipulate a Seattle dog-and-pony show? Does anyone really believe the federal government did not know about Flight 990's tail section being "severely damaged" by an explosion earlier?

The Egyptians sure haven't given any credence to the official U.S. fiction. Egyptian President Mubarak and the Egyptian government don't accept the U.S. spin. They reportedly feel that the plane was intentionally destroyed by an explosion within the territorial waters of the U.S. They reject any sinister involvement in any way on the part of any EgyptAir crewmembers. They want an explanation like breath.

There are days (and this is one of them) I get the feeling the would-be controllers presume to treat us like mushrooms. You know: Keep us in a dark, cool place and feed us BS.