EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
9/11 and the Imperial Mentality
Looking Back on 9/11 a Decade Later
We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the horrendous atrocities of September 11, 2001, which, it is commonly held, changed the world. On May 1st, the presumed mastermind of the crime, Osama bin Laden, was assassinated in Pakistan by a team of elite US commandos, Navy SEALs, after he was captured, unarmed and undefended, in Operation Geronimo.
A number of analysts have observed that although bin Laden was finally killed, he won some major successes in his war against the U.S. "He repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them," Eric Margolis writes. "'Bleeding the U.S.,' in his words." The United States, first under George W. Bush and then Barack Obama, rushed right into bin Laden’s trap... Grotesquely overblown military outlays and debt addiction... may be the most pernicious legacy of the man who thought he could defeat the United States” -- particularly when the debt is being cynically exploited by the far right, with the collusion of the Democrat establishment, to undermine what remains of social programs, public education, unions, and, in general, remaining barriers to corporate tyranny.
That Washington was bent on fulfilling bin Laden’s fervent wishes was evident at once. As discussed in my book 9-11, written shortly after those attacks occurred, anyone with knowledge of the region could recognize “that a massive assault on a Muslim population would be the answer to the prayers of bin Laden and his associates, and would lead the U.S. and its allies into a ‘diabolical trap,’ as the French foreign minister put it.”
The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, wrote shortly after that “bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. [He] is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world,” and largely succeeded: “U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden’s only indispensable ally.” And arguably remains so, even after his death.
The First 9/11
Was there an alternative? There is every likelihood that the Jihadi movement, much of it highly critical of bin Laden, could have been split and undermined after 9/11. The “crime against humanity,” as it was rightly called, could have been approached as a crime, with an international operation to apprehend the likely suspects. That was recognized at the time, but no such idea was even considered.
In 9-11, I quoted Robert Fisk’s conclusion that the “horrendous crime” of 9/11 was committed with “wickedness and awesome cruelty,” an accurate judgment. It is useful to bear in mind that the crimes could have been even worse. Suppose, for example, that the attack had gone as far as bombing the White House, killing the president, imposing a brutal military dictatorship that killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands while establishing an international terror center that helped impose similar torture-and-terror states elsewhere and carried out an international assassination campaign; and as an extra fillip, brought in a team of economists -- call them “the Kandahar boys” -- who quickly drove the economy into one of the worst depressions in its history. That, plainly, would have been a lot worse than 9/11.
Unfortunately, it is not a thought experiment. It happened. The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the U.S. succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office. The goal, in the words of the Nixon administration, was to kill the “virus” that might encourage all those “foreigners [who] are out to screw us” to take over their own resources and in other ways to pursue an intolerable policy of independent development. In the background was the conclusion of the National Security Council that, if the US could not control Latin America, it could not expect “to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world.”
The first 9/11, unlike the second, did not change the world. It was “nothing of very great consequence,” as Henry Kissinger assured his boss a few days later.
These events of little consequence were not limited to the military coup that destroyed Chilean democracy and set in motion the horror story that followed. The first 9/11 was just one act in a drama which began in 1962, when John F. Kennedy shifted the mission of the Latin American military from “hemispheric defense” -- an anachronistic holdover from World War II -- to “internal security,” a concept with a chilling interpretation in U.S.-dominated Latin American circles.
In the recently published Cambridge University History of the Cold War, Latin American scholar John Coatsworth writes that from that time to “the Soviet collapse in 1990, the numbers of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of non-violent political dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded those in the Soviet Union and its East European satellites,” including many religious martyrs and mass slaughter as well, always supported or initiated in Washington. The last major violent act was the brutal murder of six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, a few days after the Berlin Wall fell. The perpetrators were an elite Salvadorean battalion, which had already left a shocking trail of blood, fresh from renewed training at the JFK School of Special Warfare, acting on direct orders of the high command of the U.S. client state.
The consequences of this hemispheric plague still, of course, reverberate.
From Kidnapping and Torture to Assassination
All of this, and much more like it, is dismissed as of little consequence, and forgotten. Those whose mission is to rule the world enjoy a more comforting picture, articulated well enough in the current issue of the prestigious (and valuable) journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The lead article discusses “the visionary international order” of the “second half of the twentieth century” marked by “the universalization of an American vision of commercial prosperity.” There is something to that account, but it does not quite convey the perception of those at the wrong end of the guns.
The same is true of the assassination of Osama bin Laden, which brings to an end at least a phase in the “war on terror” re-declared by President George W. Bush on the second 9/11. Let us turn to a few thoughts on that event and its significance.
On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in his virtually unprotected compound by a raiding mission of 79 Navy SEALs, who entered Pakistan by helicopter. After many lurid stories were provided by the government and withdrawn, official reports made it increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself.
There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 79 commandos facing no opposition -- except, they report, from his wife, also unarmed, whom they shot in self-defense when she “lunged” at them, according to the White House.
A plausible reconstruction of the events is provided by veteran Middle East correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues in the Atlantic. Dreazen, formerly the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is senior correspondent for the National Journal Group covering military affairs and national security. According to their investigation, White House planning appears not to have considered the option of capturing bin Laden alive: “The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.”
The authors add: “For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance.” Furthermore, “capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges.” Better, then, to assassinate him, dumping his body into the sea without the autopsy considered essential after a killing -- an act that predictably provoked both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.
As the Atlantic inquiry observes, “The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.” That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama. The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who “told German TV that the U.S. raid was ‘quite clearly a violation of international law’ and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial,” contrasting Schmidt with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who “defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn't pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel... that the assault had been ‘lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.’"
The disposal of the body without autopsy was also criticized by allies. The highly regarded British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who supported the intervention and opposed the execution largely on pragmatic grounds, nevertheless described Obama’s claim that “justice was done” as an “absurdity” that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law. Pakistan law “requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the ‘right to life’ mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an inquiry that will satisfy the world as to the true circumstances of this killing.”
Robertson usefully reminds us that “[i]t was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden -- the Nazi leadership -- the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution ‘would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride... the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear.’”
Eric Margolis comments that “Washington has never made public the evidence of its claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks,” presumably one reason why “polls show that fully a third of American respondents believe that the U.S. government and/or Israel were behind 9/11,” while in the Muslim world skepticism is much higher. “An open trial in the U.S. or at the Hague would have exposed these claims to the light of day,” he continues, a practical reason why Washington should have followed the law.
In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In June 2002, FBI head Robert Mueller, in what the Washington Post described as “among his most detailed public comments on the origins of the attacks,” could say only that “investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan.”
What the FBI believed and thought in June 2002 they didn’t know eight months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know) to permit a trial of bin Laden if they were presented with evidence. Thus, it is not true, as President Obama claimed in his White House statement after bin Laden’s death, that “[w]e quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda.”
There has never been any reason to doubt what the FBI believed in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt required in civilized societies -- and whatever the evidence might be, it does not warrant murdering a suspect who could, it seems, have been easily apprehended and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evidence provided since. Thus, the 9/11 Commission provided extensive circumstantial evidence of bin Laden’s role in 9/11, based primarily on what it had been told about confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo. It is doubtful that much of that would hold up in an independent court, considering the ways confessions were elicited. But in any event, the conclusions of a congressionally authorized investigation, however convincing one finds them, plainly fall short of a sentence by a credible court, which is what shifts the category of the accused from suspect to convicted.
There is much talk of bin Laden's “confession,” but that was a boast, not a confession, with as much credibility as my “confession” that I won the Boston marathon. The boast tells us a lot about his character, but nothing about his responsibility for what he regarded as a great achievement, for which he wanted to take credit.
Again, all of this is, transparently, quite independent of one’s judgments about his responsibility, which seemed clear immediately, even before the FBI inquiry, and still does.
Crimes of Aggression
It is worth adding that bin Laden’s responsibility was recognized in much of the Muslim world, and condemned. One significant example is the distinguished Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, greatly respected by Hizbollah and Shia groups generally, outside Lebanon as well. He had some experience with assassinations. He had been targeted for assassination: by a truck bomb outside a mosque, in a CIA-organized operation in 1985. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls as they left the mosque -- one of those innumerable crimes that do not enter the annals of terror because of the fallacy of “wrong agency.” Sheikh Fadlallah sharply condemned the 9/11 attacks.
One of the leading specialists on the Jihadi movement, Fawaz Gerges, suggests that the movement might have been split at that time had the U.S. exploited the opportunity instead of mobilizing the movement, particularly by the attack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp increase in terror, as intelligence agencies had anticipated. At the Chilcot hearings investigating the background to the invasion of Iraq, for example, the former head of Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5 testified that both British and U.S. intelligence were aware that Saddam posed no serious threat, that the invasion was likely to increase terror, and that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had radicalized parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an “attack on Islam.” As is often the case, security was not a high priority for state action.
It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos had landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he was not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to invade Iraq -- that is, to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and its national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.
To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.
Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the “supreme international crime” -- the crime of aggression. That crime was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “[i]nvasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State ….” No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.
We might also do well to recall Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”
It is also clear that announced intentions are irrelevant, even if they are truly believed. Internal records reveal that Japanese fascists apparently did believe that, by ravaging China, they were laboring to turn it into an “earthly paradise.” And although it may be difficult to imagine, it is conceivable that Bush and company believed they were protecting the world from destruction by Saddam’s nuclear weapons. All irrelevant, though ardent loyalists on all sides may try to convince themselves otherwise.
We are left with two choices: either Bush and associates are guilty of the “supreme international crime” including all the evils that follow, or else we declare that the Nuremberg proceedings were a farce and the allies were guilty of judicial murder.
The Imperial Mentality and 9/11
A few days before the bin Laden assassination, Orlando Bosch died peacefully in Florida, where he resided along with his accomplice Luis Posada Carriles and many other associates in international terrorism. After he was accused of dozens of terrorist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was granted a presidential pardon by Bush I over the objections of the Justice Department, which found the conclusion “inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch.” The coincidence of these deaths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine -- “already… a de facto rule of international relations,” according to the noted Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison -- which revokes “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists.”
Allison refers to the pronouncement of Bush II, directed at the Taliban, that “those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.” Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit targets for bombing and terror -- for example, the state that harbored Bosch and his associate. When Bush issued this new “de facto rule of international relations,” no one seemed to notice that he was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and the murder of its criminal presidents.
None of this is problematic, of course, if we reject Justice Jackson’s principle of universality, and adopt instead the principle that the U.S. is self-immunized against international law and conventions -- as, in fact, the government has frequently made very clear.
It is also worth thinking about the name given to the bin Laden operation: Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound that few seem able to perceive that the White House is glorifying bin Laden by calling him “Geronimo” -- the Apache Indian chief who led the courageous resistance to the invaders of Apache lands.
The casual choice of the name is reminiscent of the ease with which we name our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Blackhawk… We might react differently if the Luftwaffe had called its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
The examples mentioned would fall under the category of “American exceptionalism,” were it not for the fact that easy suppression of one’s own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states, at least those that are not defeated and forced to acknowledge reality.
Perhaps the assassination was perceived by the administration as an “act of vengeance,” as Robertson concludes. And perhaps the rejection of the legal option of a trial reflects a difference between the moral culture of 1945 and today, as he suggests. Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the “supreme international crime” in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination is another illustration of the important fact that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
232 Comments so far
Show AllNicely said! I agree with your line of questions and suspicions. Chomsky appears to be sort of 'water boy' when it comes to his sycophantic repetition of the official dogma about 9/11 and OBL--neither of which he has ever bothered to explore; rather, he merely claims it is so because it must be so. All other views are heresy and he, more than anyone else (because of his fatuous authority), ensures our questions remain heresy.
The terrible day of 9/11 has shown the limitations of a number of left-wing critics: for example, Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi. See the article "Left-leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement..." at Global Research dot ca.
This, of course, is no small matter, but there is no need to get bent out of a shape over it: simply be aware of it and point it out. There is no need to discuss anything with them: when it comes to 9/11, they are as dense and irrational as can be.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no sense in arguing with the defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, according to which nineteen Muslim militants, acting conspiratorially, carried out the whole operation, got past the entire military defenses and installations of the country, the intelligence agencies and the police, as well as the defenses around the Pentagon, and brought down the three WTC buildings all of their own.
The Greatest and Most Powerful Country in the World just got taken by nineteen dudes who could barely speak English, hardly knew how to pilot airplanes, left a huge paper trail of their activities and shenanigans, and of their trips out of, and throughout the country, had telephone numbers in their own names, computers, cars, driver's licenses, bank accounts, et cetera; and most of whom were known by either the FBI, at least one intelligence agency, or both.
The 9/11 Commission blamed it all on a lack of imagination, a failure of policy, capabilities, and management (p. 339 of the Report). It's that simple, really.
When it comes to 9/11, we live in a nation that is not ashamed of upholding and wallowing in its own incompetence, even though not one of our great incompetents has yet had to pay the price for said ineptitude.
I have tremendous respect for Noam Chomsky and his willingness to step forward and speak about the criminal behavior of the United Sates in the world at large, but I am truly befuddled by his refusal to consider, after the straightforward descriptions he gives of incident after incident after incident of US lawlessness ongoing for decades, the possibility that 9/11 may have had nothing to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with Dick Cheney and his evil-minded associates, including President George W. Bush. In this article Chomsky mentions twice the possibility that the perpetrators might have penetrated farther than NYC, might actually have successfully hit the White House, killed the President... but to what point since the President wasn’t in the White House? Concrete evidence is lacking that the Pentagon was actually destroyed in part by one of these human missile-guided planes. Chomsky has openly stated that the executive branch of the US government would never have undertaken such a dastardly deed because the possibility of being discovered and the consequences of such would be too horrific to contemplate. How so? Hardly any more horrific than any of the other horrifically obscene activities the US engages in across the globe on a daily basis. Moreover, successive administrations have long since figured out that the US population is easily duped, that multiple palliatives are always at hand to quiet the nattering crowds. Just “go shopping” was/is one of them. (Only now we have become so poor no one other than the obscenely rich can afford to do so.) And this issue about OBL and the unlawful way in which he was disposed of... It almost seems pedestrian and trite to discuss what happened to OBL (and why, or why it should have been handled otherwise) when you consider the monumental injustices that befall citizens of the world everywhere, everyday, at the hand of American exceptionalism. That we represent any kind of justice anywhere is a fool’s notion. But just in case there may be a few too many fools out there, why would we want to give OBL the opportunity to say things that might upset the crowds? The Bush administration figured out well in advance how to stifle any discussion of 9/11. Taboo is a very powerful form of suppression; it works well even in the absence of coercion. As a matter of fact the works of Noam Chomsky have been generally dispatched via this method in recent years during which time the so-called “Patriots” have come to dominate the national discourse and determine what are acceptable topics of discussion.
WHATEVER: I hear you.
No one else mentioned this: when there wasn't much protest to U.S. military personnel JUST shooting Saddam in the rabbit hole, a precedent was set.
These extra-judicial killings, the super-power deciding who is an enemy, "worthy" of killing without any trial, etc. are becoming a sort of extra-curricular war norm.
The whole bombast and bluster of the Bush Administration projected this ethos of "Who's gonna stop us?" Fake attorneys bending "law" to suit the logistics required by the powerful, utilizing such items as word changes (torture = interrogation, etc.) was an exercise in pushing the envelope. Even the premise of the Unitary Executative, worked to produce a modern king, by wiping away the patient construction of necessary counter-balancing government branches.
The RULE of law is gone.
I would imagine that other nations stand back (observing the shock and awe) for two reasons:
1. The U.S. military is a serious threat
2. The U.S. bankers & stock market probably have a good portion of the world by the fiscal balls. The Derivatives & Swaps scam, which Warrent Buffet termed a FINANCIAL weapon of mass destruction, has gone global. Greedy bankers and insiders in other lands went for the bait, and now their economies are on the rocks, too.
It's all insidious. I still place my bet on Mother Nature to act as the Great Equalizer, lest this Beast (MIC) fall on its own sword... which is utterly possible.
Germany 1933--Reichstag-excuse to invade---Wars---- Discrimination against Jews----WW2......
USA 2001--9/11--Excuse to invade----Discrimination against Muslims-----Wars
Makings for WW3
Elite...Funds the;
American Liberty League -tries to overthrow US Government---1934
Elite Funds the;
Tea Party trying to overthrow the US Governmant.....2011-12
History Repeats only if --We the People allow it to happen..
For the most credible, short, video of the 9/11 ruse, this is the one to share.
After sending this out, we have had several of our right wing friends who wanted to know more.
http://youtu.be/hZEvA8BCoBw
To Greg R, Sep 6 2011 - 2:34pm:
As I said above, I don't waste my time arguing with people who defend the Official Conspiracy Theory, i.e. the one disseminated by the State Dept and the 9/11 Commission. Although I don't really understand your posting, owing to its poor syntax, I suspect, in view of the venom (a sign of great feebleness, incidentally) that is oozing from your posting, that you are one of those die-hard defenders of said theory.
For your edification, I suggest you read Arthur Naiman's little book "9/11 The Simple Facts" (Soft Skull Press, 2011).
Aside from that, I would recommend a course in remedial English grammar. Take care, old chap, and do take your tranquilizer: it'll do you worlds of good.
To Photius, Sep 6 2011 - 9:10pm:
Descartes held no such belief. He was a dualist when it comes to human beings. Only animals were machines, according to him, not human beings.
Try to stay away from philosophy, if you can help it: stick to what you know, which, I am sorry to have to break to you, is precious little. Stick to your tiny angry, petty thoughts.
Oikos,
Thank you for your ad hominem filled reply. I stand corrected. You are correct. Rene Descartes "proposed that animals, lacking mind, act and interact through passions only. They are, in short, organic automata (machines)."
Oikos,
Thank you for your ad hominem filled reply. I stand corrected. You are correct. Rene Descartes "proposed that animals, lacking mind, act and interact through passions only. They are, in short, organic automata (machines)."
So Chomsky is now a government shill? Part of the NWO?
Perhaps a simplier explanation is that he doesn't believe the "truthers" evidence stands up to logic!
No of course not. He must be part of the conspiracy too.
I wonder what all that energy would be used for if it wasn't being sucked into black holes.
America is dead, long live America!
Photius, If you have answers to all the anomalies in the govt.'s fairy tale of 911, then by all means let us hear them. Instead of attacking SR come forth with the explanations for explosions,stand downs, no plane remains etc ad nauseum.It would take hours to list. Watch the david ray griffin video on you tube and get back to us with your reasons for doubt. We know dissemblers invade this site as even the CIA has admitted planting stories and owning reporters. Have a nice day.
Phantom my fellings about this are similar to yours. Chomsky is right to remind us of our long history of crimes against humanity to achieve "Pax Americana." I have been convinced of collusion or at least informed awareness and inaction by the administration concerning the 9/11 attack. Looking for the smoking gun is pointless, that was the true purpose of the assassination. OBL could expose them.
In the current issue of Skeptical Inquirer a commentary appeared by a regular skeptical author and scientist lamenting the violence and destruction "caused" by religious fanaticism, and concluding this was the motivation of the 9/11 attackers and other suicidal terrorists. Such a naive and academically uninformed analysis was very disappointing in a magazine devoted to rational inquiry. Preparing a rebuttal I reviewed the overthrow of Mossadegh on Wikipedia as anyone can at "1953 Iranian Coup d'etat."
I also re-read the 2001 iteration of the PNAC document "Rebuiding America's Defenses." That document was an extra-governmental defense review prepared by a cabal of empire mongers not willing to wait for an authorized review and redirection on the event of Bush's "election." They wanted a plan in place immediately upon his win and the document was adopted as the real Bush platform in Crawford at the moment that Chaney selected himself as the VP. Meanwhile GW was portrayed as a compassionate conservative and the one you'd feel comfortable sharing a beer. Yes, the fact is mentioned in the document - in passing - that the transformation of our "defense posture" would likely only happen slowly without another event like Pearl Harbor.
The document also regarded the fiscal helath of the US govt. resulting from Clinton era taxes and military cuts as a coffer to be raided and the "peace dividend" of the Soviet collapse as a narrowing window of opportuinty to solidify US hegemony. The empire mongers fully intended to pursue empire militarily with control of the presidency. This inescapable conclusion adds premeditation to the war crimes of the Bush presidency and Dick Chaney is the chief architect.
As Chomsky points out, the pattern of bold and unrepenting violence to achieve the ends of empire remains unbroken in humanity with the ascendency of the United States. So 1/3 of all Ameicans believe US involvement, that's where I'm at. I don't waste my time digging around in the dirt to prove they were involved, I know they were. Everything that they did "as a result" followed the PNAC script quite well. Continued failed pursuit of hard evidence discredits many of us and diverts us from facing the ongoing onslaught implementing total fascism.
The bankrupting of the government was no accident and the extreme right-wing political attacks are not a new development, but actually represent the endgame of all of their efforts. The predictable change in party at the WH was every reason to leave our economy in shambles in 2008: very few leaders could succeed and especially not if the opposition party atrophied obstructionist. And of course pursuit of empire has proceeded non-stop regardless of party leadership, either through cowardice or wont.
The message that will evolve from the right is that the great and the powerful - the wealthy - must necessarily lead and decide because their wealth has proven their correctness and wisdom. An informed free society is a burden an an irritant that must not be allowed to interfere with the operation of wealth. The "middle class" must die and all of us must be made ignorant and desperate.
Much of the rest of the world is saying "we won't play anymore." Here in the belly of the beast the controllers and shapers of our conciousness are doubling down on empire of wealth and privilege and our lives, our lands, and our future, are in the balance.
So the writing of several million fradulent mortgages and their bundling into MBS bonds and the subsequent shortng of the only index capable of providing the mark-to-market valuation for those bonds that supposedly shrank global credit/money reserves was all a part of the Far-Right's plan to create what appeared to be a fiscal crisis just prior to the 2008 election? Did the Far-Right also plan the incredibly bad mis-management of the initial period of Iraq's occupation? If the Far-Right is so omniscient and powewrful, they why did its plan to privitize Social Security fail?
"Chomsky is ahead of you truthers, not against you."
An interesting concept were it not so pathetic. So, what, this is what we tell the families of the victims of 9-11; "sorry, folks, we know who really killed your loved ones (and some of you may be surprised to learn who it was) but these fellows are "too big to fail" and so we won't be prosecuting them -- ever. However, we will continue to fill our for-profit prisons with young black men who use drugs, and send dissenters to specials prisons, so it all sort of evens out."
"He doesn't get into the merit of inside job theories, ... because he knows they'll lead nowhere."
You refer to those of us who take our citizenship seriously enough to extensively research 9-11 so as to know the 'truth' as "truthers", implying, if you will, that we are somehow the left-wing co-equivalent of the "birthers". Let's get one thing straight. The evidence in this case overwhelmingly indicates 'inside job'. Without even bringing pressure to bear on the perpetrators by the threat of prosecution, after which the dominoes would fall, the case is strong enough for indictments. If the perpetrators were disenfranchised black men, they would, in fact, have already been tried, convicted, strapped down, and given the lethal injection. Yes, there is a smoking gun. It's called molten steel, and its presence was reported by tens of policemen, firemen, responders, newspeople, bystanders, etc. You could literally have filled the Towers with jet fuel, set it on fire, and you would be unable to melt steel. This is an inconvenient law of physics that Chomsky does not want to 'waste time' getting into? And why, because the gov't is 'too big to fail'?
I have always respected and appreciated Chomsky's voice, but he has lost me here. In my worldview, he's just another Jewish man (like all the TV executives) in an unholy marriage (voluntarily or unconsciously) with Nazis. Ironic, and very sad.
Without the rule of law, we literally have no basis for society. 9-11 must be the line in the sand. If you don't know what happened, research it. If you've looked cursorily, look until you're certain about what happened. And then demand the appointment of an independent prosecutor (like a Gerry Spence). Were this the consciousness of the country, it would not matter that we might not succeed in getting to "the masterminds". At least then the "middlemen" would understand that there is a limit to what the masses will absorb before taking the matter of retribution into their own hands. And make no mistake about it, the perpetrators are sociopaths, and the ONLY thing sociopaths pay attention to is retribution.
Let me complete that last paragraph for you, Phantom.
"That the US gov't was behind 9-11 isn't important. ......... It's in fact capable of much, much worse. So we should ignore this heinous crime (since we're powerless to do anything) and go along with the program until the head sociopaths decide it's time to ... (insert your worst nightmare here) ... herd our children into the depopulation chambers because of scarcity of resources?
Good luck with that strategy.
Excellent comment, the mayor. I agree wholeheartedly.
Chomsky has stated most of what we, some of the progressive community knew on September 12, 2001. Of course, we did not know all the details or the intricacies as he has laid them out. However, I made it my responsibility then to follow my progressive news sources….I was then and as I am now an informed citizen.
Then …..it started. On September 12, 2001, at work, in civilized America, I was mugged by my boss. More than once I found damage done to my car for the crime of sporting a “peace” sticker on the bumper. I feared for my life and my job. The job being the only thing at that time, financially holding my desperate, insignificant little life together.
We are not the people we think we are. We were and are complicit in allowing others to be murdered on our behalf. At that time, it was by allowing an idiot redneck to be made our unelected President to take us into an illegal war. We have not come very far. We are held back by people who make it their goal to learn nothing, and so, we demand nothing.
And you learned that America is far from civilized, that it is indeed very Barbaric.
For decades, Chomsky's fundamental message is that the USA is a Barbarous State, and that the only way to make it Civilized is for We The People to become both informed and Civilized. He has also pointed out that it's the Media and Academia--what I call the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems--that are charged with keeping the US citizenry unCilvilized, and they've been very successful at their job.
True enough what Dr Chomsky says in political theory but what legally, if anything, can be done about imperialism given that the emperor is stronger and the US Supreme Court is in its political corner? Please Internet search for W’Lawpsh, “The futility of political reform without judicial reform,” RSN, 6 Sept. 2011. Thanks for the chance Mahican and Mi"kmaq Tribes v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.
Photius dude, get a life and get an education. Relax.
By 'education' I don't mean 'go to college' or 'some other institution of higher learning': I mean 'grow vegetables and raise animals and read the great books'.
To Phantom and others...
When I came to the realization that probably our government was the terrorist agency responsible for 9/11, the first thing I did was check out what N. Chomsky and H. Zinn had to say on the matter. Chomsky expressed doubt, given the consequences if the truth were ever uncovered, whereas Zinn simply acknowledged the probability but added that it would be impossible to verify, and therefore, largely a waste of time to dwell there..
Those of us who did come to the realization of being conned about 9/11, doubtless came there in various ways. And just as there are those who will continue to believe in US innocence no matter what, there are those who never needed any convincing. For clues, I can only look to my own history of enlightenment on this matter. For the longest time, actually up until less than a year ago (I’m ashamed to say), I never questioned, and figured the “Truthers” were just what they were said to be: An assorted bunch of wackos and nut cases. But then I had a job and when I came home I didn’t have the energy to inform myself. I suspect this failure of oversight applies to many, many Americans. In other words the taboo worked for me, and continues, in all probability, to work for many others.
I have now come to understand the spirit of what Howard Zinn had to say about this, and believe that in that stance is also reflected whatever reservations Noam Chomsky may have on the subject. What 9/11 and the discomfiting uncertainties that surround it say to us is that we have truly gone off the deep end. We have to re-group and maybe we have to organize for forceful action to get rid, in whatever ways we can manage it, the malevolent forces that are destroying this country while simultaneously destroying the world. We have to spend energy and time on solutions now -- not on rehashing the past and trying to figure out if Cheney really did it. (For those of us who believe: WE KNOW HE DID!) We have to wipe the slate clean and if necessary, start over. The following web link is to an article on Billionaires Saving the World. Don’t let that stop you: There are some, maybe many, among the very wealthy, who are good-hearted and really care. Why wouldn’t they? When the country goes, they go with it, and they have a lot more to lose than the rest of us. From my perspective what is most important in this link is the reference to Americans Elect. Check this out. This is the budding online initiative to try to change how our representatives, including the President, are elected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-billionaires-chance-to-save-the-country/2011/08/31/gIQAUhXtrJ_story.html?wpisrc
It won’t work unless large numbers of us lend a hand. Much more time needs to be spent now on matters such as this, on engagement with revitalization, on implementing the means to clear the fields so we can begin planting anew.
I am glad to see that you're in the know on this issue. Thank you for the post.
An introductory response to the "myth huggers" who swallow the official govt conspiracy theory without any doubts or questions:
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48-911-commentary/20647-why-you-can-not-believe-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html
links from there go into more detail.
The way to read the "official story" is to debunk it, not to prove one's own theory as no access to proper materials is available to "truthers" and without Actual Evidence that is bad science.
The NIST report is junk science.The investigators had access to all of the "corpse" of the WTC and yet collected less than 1% and BEFORE the study even began the remaining 99% was shipped off to China. Real scientists when they have ACTUAL EVIDENCE available would not toss it and do simulations and computer models to prove preconceived theories. They read the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and see where it takes them.
In the NIST report the theory is the main supports heated up to around 600 C and lost structural integrity. The support columns were coated with a "paint" ( in reality more like a laquer). When temperatures exceed 200C the laquer cracks on the steel columns. Of all the columns collected only one showed cracking of the laquer. So the ACTUAL EVIDENCE does not support the theory. In simulations and computer modelling however they were able to heat the steel to fit the theory, so rather than have ACTUAL EVIDENCE lead the charge they reverse engineered. That is all clearly stated in the NIST report. It debunks itself.
The cross supports were never tested for heat because, as it says in the NIST Report that would have been expensive and time consuming. Ouch. Why waste money .... Better to spend a few trillion on wars. Now there is profit in that. No profit in finding out the scientific truths.
The problem with the demo theory of "truthers" is I can't undertand why they would bother. I have heard the theories but I think that is too much overkill. The passive Let It Happen On Purpose - leave the barn door open, I think would have sufficed. And that is a theory I belive Chomsky has in passing said is possible.
The NIST report is an obvious fabrication - destruction of Actual Evidence - and use of Simulated Evidence in its place when that was uneccessary debunks the official story. There are many other apsects of the Commission and the other flights that can be disproved as well but we have all heard them.
So what really happened? BUSHCO lied about a whole bunch of things and like true psychopaths proceeded to murder for profit and power. That we know. Did they simply in the wake of a tragedy think what advantage they could take or did they plan and execute 9/11. Or something in between like Let It Happen on Purpose.
whichever, they should all be jailed for life , not for me or anyone's revenge. That is pointless. No but rather so all the neo-con supporters could watch the trials unfold and see that the beliefs and values they hold dear are illegal. Politicians are scum , but what Bush II the Great Divider has shown us is that many of our fellow citizens are also psychopaths.
What happened on 9/11? Don't Know. But what I do know is the Official Theory is bullshit. Full stop. Truthers would be far better off simply proving the obvious that the official report is crap. Trying to construct a theory of your own in the absence of access to official records gives the deceivers and their believers an easy target. And Chomsky knows that.
What I do not comprehend, is how anyone with such a keen insight, can say that "The problem with the demo theory of "truthers" is I can't undertand why they would bother."
My mistake I mean why the US administration would bother. Wouldn't the crash have been sufficient to allow them to start a war on terrorism. Collapsing the buildings ... was that needed?
I understand why truthers have theories, but by having theories without access to Actual Records etc, then they come off like the scientists working for NIST.
Some truther theories are interesting but nevertheless theories. But what is the object here? To draw attention to the US admins lies and to discredit them. By offering alternate theories that draws attention away from the lies. In this case less is more. If the Administration were to say "so our theory is wrong ... so what really happened".. The proper response would be ... "Give us access to all the evidence, a budget, etc and we will endeavour to help out". Now the Admin would crawl under a rock with that answer and further damage their position.
If the truth movement simply focused on the lies rather than saying "it is a lie and here is what really happened..." the public would have only the lies to focus on. But if a truther counter theory is proffered then the sceptical mainstream American will focus on the alternate truther theory and the arguments advanced to debunk truthers rather than the detailing of why the official theory doesn't hold up..
Simply pointing out that the Offiicial Theory is a crock... full stop... gives the opposition nothing (or very little) to shoot at.
Don't you think it would be a whole lot easier to put Dick Cheney in jail for orchestrating the destruction of the WTC
No cheney could be put in jail, for torture, and fabricating evidence in order to attack Iraq. Outing a CIA agent. He broke many laws on the books and still on the books. The problem is the District Attorney's office won't do their job. They are politically motivated.
The question is what authority does the District Attorney's office have to ignore crimes.
The bottom line was so immensly profitable for the MIC, not to mention the promotion of fascism.
That if Osama didn't do it, someone else would have had to do it.
"Funny" how with all the torture, the torturers didn't seem very interested in hearing from Osama.
Don't worry, though, it's all been mostly lies.
"Sorry, your credibility just dropped a view floors -- by your underlying structure being removed."
A WTC analogy...
You completely misunderstand me.
Truthers, conspiracy theorist, theorists.... semantics... for X's sakes the government are truthers, conspiracy theorists, and most Americans are the ones wearing tin foil hats. They all bought WMD's ....now that was a conspiracy that was outed and by every definition was a conspiracy. For that conspiracy there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE! The conspiracy was to fabricate a lie in order to justify an act of aggression. All illegal, all true.
My point is if the science of those with access to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, access to research and resources, is crap, how can any other theory be anything but speculation. Motive, and knowing the sorts of men involved, knowing they are lying, yes good theory, but you need something more than good speculation. It sure fits. I get it. But one needs hard evidence. Could truthers .... oops sorry.. alternate theorists .... with access to all the resources of the CIA, FBI , NIST ie: the state has to bear on a REAL criminal investigation paint a different picture. I think so, But that is speculation.
Lord Kelvin
( Sir William Thomson )
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."
That sums up the Nist report but it works both ways.
The object here is to draw attention to the "Official Conspiracy Theory" told by the government and discredit it. Real evidence that conspiracies exist should be done by pointing to WMDs. The "Official Conspiracy Theory" should be discredited on its own weight as was WMD's.
If you speculate as to how (why is easy, money & power) it was done , then how are you going to prove it when the very powers that be are the ones who should be investigated and control the agencies that would investigate such a crime, a crime some (CIA) of them may be involved in.
I don't have to say controlled demolition. I say why is the NIST report so wrong. It is inconceivable that those scientists proceeded in the manner they did without political interference. Read Kelvin's quote. They had all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, they had the numbers if they wanted them. But no they tossed it and simulated and computer modelled instead. Why the cover up. If you stop there, then the onus is on the government to explain. Offer alternate theories on HOW it happened then the focus is on you.
I don't think that achieves anything. Preaching to the converted is a waste of time. It's the tea baggers you have to convince. They have to believe they came to that conclusion on their own, and didn't hear it from some left leaning, limp wristed ... fill in the blanks.,
But heck, its a free country.... for now at least... just my opinion.
"But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing."
-Thomas Paine
Re- anyone who is ignorant enough to use the word "truthers" with a straight face...
Um, that would make you "untruthers"....or perhaps liars?
It's OK.
William Shakespeare knew the score: "The truth will out."
No need to bother yourself with such silly preoccupations as truth. It's clear that at this point in time "you can't handle the truth!".... And that's a fact..
Noam Chomsky is a national treasure. However, I must agree this article is disappointing. I learned to distrust and question our government at the tender age of 14 when JFK was murdered. Read everything I could on the subject for years. Clearly the motive was the Viet Nam War. Then came MLK, RFK, even John Lennon, all killed by 'lone nuts' . Really?
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that peace is the enemy of our Republic-or should I say Corporatocracy.
Liberty requires vigilance and I learned early not to take anything at face value. When I first read Chomsky, I agreed with his philosophy of getting information directly from the source to avoid spin. Which is why his apparent avoidance of the truth about 9/11 is so perplexing. Glad others noticed as well. Chomsky 's tacit acceptance of the official version strenghthens the lie, making it harder for the truth to be accepted.
In a college poli-sci class we had to read NYTimes cover to cover every day. I was struck by the phrases "leftist guerillas" and "rebels"and how they were used to depict bad guys. It occured to me that I was a 'leftist'. I began to understand that anyone defending their country or natural resources is the enemy.
Regarding OBL-given his family wealth and power-he could have been a playboy, sipping cocktails on the Riviera, instead of living in a cave. He wanted to end American interference with Saudi Arabia's oil and people, and he may have deeply believed in his cause. Whereas Bush and Cheney were profiteers at the expense of American lives and treasure-Halliburton and Carlysle Group. Every Amercan should learn the maxim "follow the money". The Bush's in particular, were involved since the 50s(read House of Bush, House of Saud). Killing OBL and Saddam, was a great way to keep the truth from surfacing. I recommend the online video "9/11 we know" for anyone who hasn't seen it- a ton of credibile evidence
Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison
Shame on you !
yeah yeah overly sensitive one. Proving my theory where the ... fill in whatever word you would like for persons concerned with how 9/11 really happened... fail to focus on the government is lying. That is easy to prove. Stick to your best argument. Rule 101 of any political or legal battle.
The object, correct me if I am wrong, is to have enough of the public and more importantly their elected representatives to push for a review. Politicians have expressed concerns about the investigations lack of scope and resistance to full public srutiny. Members of the 911 commission have expressed the same concerns. The Official Story should be the governments Achilles heel.
If I share the thermite issue with a non-believer they roll their eyes but if I show how the Official Theory is crap they agree.
Where I say
__" the science of those with access to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, access to research and resources, is crap "__
In the above sentence "those" would be the government.
I've read all of the stuff. I read the entire NIST report. The "Official Story" is filled with holes. But demolition fails to have a logical motive. If the planes crashed into the WTC and they did not fall, there would still have been an invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq. We would still have a war on terror. PNAC shows us where this Bush cabal was headed.
The LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) served the interests of the Bush cabal. Full stop. Motive (money & power). Dropping the buildings (and I do not buy the Official story on how they fell) needs a proper motive with actual evidence. I have read a dozen different theories as to why they fell. That is not helpful... it distracts from the fact the government is lying. Now there is a certifiable fact and with WMD's you have proof of a conspiracy.
I am not discounting any other non government theory but the purpose of getting a critical mass of the public on side with your position is to force a criminal investigation. Throwing in every conceivable motive only serves to confuse and turn off the non converts. Lead with the best argument. the one with no holes. The government has deliberately misled the American people as to what happened on 911. Any fool can read between the lines why they would do such a thing. Any official pursuit of a review should lead with that argument.
Buck up. Stop fighting the pepper in the fly shit. Bigger fish to fry than semantics over terms. And if you conclude that a usage of a term is EVIDENCE that.... then I suggest you develop a more rigorous discipline.
Affecting change is not about preaching to the converted but trying to engage those with whom you violently disagree. Chasing them off ... now what good is that.
By the by I have been called a "truther". Well what is the opposite of a truther? A liar. I can take a compliment.
Chomsky's stance that I have heard seen express in question ans answer sessions on youtube, is that it is more rational to try to prosecute for war crimes we KNOW happened and that would bring the death penalty suffered by the Nazis rather than speculate and I agree. Go for the easy gold rather than getting distracted by whoever did 911. IMO it doesn't matter who did 911 as it's a lesser crime than American war crimes.
Some psychological research showed that the people who believe in conspiracies have a special gene, which makes them prone the fantasy of US government causing the fall of the towers and Pentagon. They believe and harbor the feeling that somebody else than true culprits (Alcaida and Jihadists' ideology) are responsible for 9/11.
It is about time to stop this nonsense, constantly blaming US government for EVERYTHING that is wrong in the world. If you want to blame somebody, blame yourself for driving internal combustion engines and hearing your homes with fossil fuels, because that provides money for terrorists in the Muslims world (see Iran and Saudi Arabia). The large corporations are just doing what makes profits: selling fossil fuels and enjoying record profits while we the people (sheaple) contune purchasing their energy and their STUFF.
Vote and get those in US Government out of business if you are not satisfied with their performance ans stop promoting anti-American propaganda of Alcaida, while ignoring the TRUE danger of Jihadists who ARE out to get US ;-)!
While Chomsky may be right regarding US corporations' greed and desire for more power, US government is doing what it can to promote democracy...Blame the Supreme court for giving corporations more voice in decision making and buying the Congress, not poor Obama who is doing as much as he can to turn our US tanker onto a different direction. It is an extremely difficult task, since abrupt changes may capsize this large tanker and cause even more damage!
"Just a little update on reality: Al Qaeda is now on the US government payroll leading the bogus rebellion in Libya the US started to get its hands on the petroleum.
The US government is the single biggest terrorist organization in history--and YOU are shilling for it.
That makes you a terrorist.
And patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (quoted sources: Samuel Johnson and Bob Dylan)."
Clap, clap, clap! Gea will be the last one to know...
Is your wide eyed true believer gene any better Gea? Obama is an ass whore to the corporations just like Bush was, can you really not see that?
".......................Blame the Supreme court for giving corporations more voice in decision making and buying the Congress, not poor Obama who is doing as much as he can to turn our US tanker onto a different direction."
Obama is the current tool of the pro-Israel Lobby which precipitated the 9/11 attacks.......................
Walking*
Walking in silent, screaming terror, with a hundred floors below you as those above screech and moan under the weight of their own failing, eminent collapse,
Walking through the choking, black and gray smoke, thick and dark with the heavy, sickening fear that life and love are slowly ebbing away,
Walking with each step toward the hope of light and family, as the sound and smell of deaths footprint strides quickly and effortlessly nearer,
Walking surrounded by the courage and faith of those cloaked in yellow or blue, their confidant steps resounding through the horror which engulfs you, each soft beat of soul to carpet echo’s the drum of a selfless leader destine to rise far above these acts of human folly,
Walking lower and lower, descending toward the safety of an uncertain future,
Walking this path together hand in hand, arm in arm, supporting one and the other, as those three thousand souls did and now continue to do, while embracing the challenge of facing fear is the single most important and giving memorial we the living can offer the memory their collective sacrifice demands as it calls from beneath the crushing, grinding rubble and history of competition and war,
Walking as one unto the blossoming....
Age of Compassion.
"The March Toward a Totalitarian Future":
Theme of Lesson Plan Below.
(Remedial help available for slower students):
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--HERMANN GOERING at the Nuremberg Trials
Month One: Curriculum Content (primary)
What we have, however, is a feat of airplane driving that far exceeds the skills
reportedly possessed by any of the alleged hijackers. In fact, the flying skills
required for such a maneuver surpass even those of commercial airline pilots. A
2002 story that originated in Portugal confirms this.
The Portugal News is a weekly English-language newspaper read largely by
expatriate and touring Americans. On March 8, 2002, in a story headlined
“September 11 — US Government Accused” it reported:
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of
Colonel Don de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has
concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved
in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.
In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called
terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried
out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military
skill in command, communications, and control. It was flawless in
timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles
and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected
targets.”
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers,
supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a
target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into
doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight
rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact.
Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have
taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act
requiring military precision of the highest order.
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew
over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference:
“Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in
the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.”
From Crossing the Rubicon:
Month One: Curriculum Content (secondary) -
Text: Crossing the Rubicon
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the
US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane
that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions
flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737,
across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South
Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre-programmed flight
path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an
interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001.
Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in
flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by
expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be
controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation
from command and control platforms based either in the air or
at ground level.
All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held
to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their
reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby
safeguarding the lives of those on the ground….
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four
airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft
simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He
said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their
crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers.
They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or
nose-dive procedures — which led him to believe that they had no
control over their aircraft.
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential
veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who
has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to
seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay
Pacific, agreed with the independent commission’s findings. However,
he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground,
the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process,
and needs extensive planning.
Lets say all that is true, it STILL IMO makes more sense to prosecute for the larger war crimes against the whole world FIRST IMO. We can speculate forever, or pull out the Geneva conventions regarding crimes against humanity in war and have an airtight case for the FAR larger crime of killing a million civilians in Iraq.
P.S. 911 truthers focus FAR more on 3000 American vitims than 1,000,000,000 + victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan shows IMO that it is a right wing America centric theory that has been picked up buy the same element of the left interested in the played out Kennedy assassination debate.
If I was conspiracy minded I would say 911 "truth" is a psy-ops to distract us from the massive war crimes in plain sight.
odd that in both cases, JFK's murder and 911, George Bushes played key roles...
why was George Bush, Sr., in Dallas the day JFK was shot? to pull a trigger?
conspiracy or not, what a coincidence...
CIA father just happens to be on the scene when JFK gets shot, goes on to become VP, then Prez...
Son becomes Gov of Texas, then just happens to be president when 911 occurs...
among other things, JFK murder evidence was destroyed on 911...
what is your motivation? obviously, if this country is being run by murderers, that would negate your 'numbers' crticism, as dealing with the corruption at home would put a stop to the foreign killing you correctly decry...
the frightening aspect you are not addressing is this: why would you not envision yourself as one of the 1,000,000,000+ you suggest be considered?
the same bastards killing them also have you and I in their sights...it is their radioactive effluence I am inhaling today, and their drones that will be tracking me, tomorrow...
It's funny that Chomsky never mentions US support of Israel as a reason for the attack, or the pro-Israel lobby which orchestrated the attack on Iraq, and would love to see a US attack on Iran............
Truthers, believers, analysts, brainwashed, know-it-alls, conspiratists.....
YOU ALL will be completely stunned when you read below. You will get a picture, which will be extremely hard to swallow, and very painful to digest: “Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
B-b-b-baby, you ain't seen nothing yet.............
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE...
...THE MORE THINGS STAY THE SAME.
BASED ON A FALSE PRESUPPOSITION THAT HUMAN "NATURE" FOLLOWS A "NATURAL ORDER" THAT IS FOUNDED UPON CONFLICT, EVEN KANT CONFUSED HIS COROLLARIES IN HIS (LOCKE ORIENTED) "PERPETUAL PEACE"...NEVER ANTICIPATING THAT THE "CONSTRUCT" HE CREATED AS CIVILIZED POSTULATE/REALISM WOULD BE TRANSPOSED FROM HIS PRESUMPTIVE AND DEBASED INITIAL FOUNDATION. IN OTHER WORDS, BAD PEOPLE FLOURISHED MORE ON HIS BIAS (CONFLICT/CONTRACT DICHOTOMY OF CULTURE IS A FALLACY OF DISTINCTION THAT FOLLOWS FROM THE SAME ERROR WHEN NATURE (and natural law) is BEING INTERPRETED AS CONFLICT / HARMONY (counterbalanced); which follows from classical chaos/harmonic proto-mythic interpretations concerning the universe and existence itself.
Ultimately we interpret open and closed systems today technically, but the history of ideas has a traditional lineage of thought hat pibots upon the inverse changes and interpretations of these presuppositional premises cognitively and linguistically. Given that introduction, consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
For Noam Chomsky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/KantOnPeace.htm
Immanuel Kant
"Perpetual Peace: A PHILOSOPHICAL SKETCH " (edited)
(1795)
SECTION II
CONTAINING THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES
Selected excerpt:
"In this way distant parts of the world can come into peaceable relations with each other, and these are finally publicly established by law. Thus the human race can gradually be brought closer and closer to a constitution establishing world citizenship.
But to this perfection compare the inhospitable actions of the civilized and especially of the commercial states of our part of the world. The injustice which they show to lands and peoples they visit (which is equivalent to conquering them) is carried by them to terrifying lengths. America, the lands inhabited by the Negro, the Spice Islands, the Cape, etc., were at the time of their discovery considered by these civilized intruders as lands without owners, for they counted the inhabitants as nothing. In East India (Hindustan), under the pretense of establishing economic undertakings, they brought in foreign soldiers and used them to oppress the natives, excited widespread wars among the various states, spread famine, rebellion, perfidy, and the whole litany of evils which afflict mankind.
China and Japan (Nippon), who have had experience with such guests, have wisely refused them entry, the former permitting their approach to their shores but not their entry, while the latter permit this approach to only one European people, the Dutch, but treat them like prisoners, not allowing them any communication with the inhabitants. The worst of this (or, to speak with the moralist, the best) is that all these outrages profit them nothing, since all these commercial ventures stand on the verge of collapse, and the Sugar Islands, that place of the most refined and cruel slavery, produces no real revenue except indirectly, only serving a not very praiseworthy purpose of furnishing sailors for war fleets and thus for the conduct of war in Europe. This service is rendered to powers which make a great show of their piety, and, while they drink injustice like water, they regard themselves as the elect in point of orthodoxy.
Since the narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has developed so far that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world, the idea of a law of world citizenship is no high-flown or exaggerated notion. It is a supplement to the unwritten code of the civil and international law, indispensable for the maintenance of the public human rights and hence also of perpetual peace. One cannot flatter oneself into believing one can approach this peace except under the condition outlined here."
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/KantOnPeace.htm
Dear Prof Chomsky, You are a world treasure! The clarity of your arguments enlightens and the precision of your words teaches. Whether we agree or not is immaterial we have been exposed to elements of truth that compel and that worm their way into our subconcious./History teaches us that all Empires committed crimes to stay in power and that they only can revert to protection of civil rights if they do after becoming a mere country again.Spain,France,Portugal,Britain,Russia.When Nuremberg happened the USA was a rich country,but still only a country it could have an idealistic legal code that was prposed as universal. Now it is The Empire,needing realpolitic and pushed by a military-industrial complex that will not be denied. The movies Star Wars are prescient,The neutering of Congress and the rule of the Dark Side.They were written in USA,concern the USA (The whole world knows this but the USA)