Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
I know that other 9/11 analyses have been posted to this list, but
I came across a one-hour documentary that concludes that "it is
more likely than not that the government was actually behind the
attacks" ...
Yes, that is worth checking.
As I say below ` ... the simplest hypothesis is that a Moslem group
did the job ...'
The reason it is worth checking was stated by a friend of mine:
The isolation of the cells that undertook the hijacking and
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon meant that the
people in those groups could have been directed by someone who is
not Moslem. The hijackers could have been fooled as to who their
sponsors were.
(The friend is a former paratrooper who tried to enter the burning
Trade Center buildings because he had training in helping burn
victims. He was prevented by a cop -- which saved his life.)
Before Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, back on 23 September 2001,
less than two weeks after the attacks, as a result of my friend's
comments, I wrote to myself
To find out who sponsored the attacks, one can use Lenin's method and
ask `who benefits?' from these attacks.
* Clearly, the fundamentalist, anti-US Moslems do. This fits
with the usual theory, that Bin Laden, or someone else of that
ilk, is behind the attacks.
* US `patriot' groups -- `militias'.
These groups are against the US military, for being on the
side of the UN, against financiers, especially Jewish
financiers working in the World Trade Center, and Arabs.
This attack was against all of them.
Against this possibility is the argument that the effort
required too much money and sophistication for the US groups
to handle; and it will likely lead to fewer US civil
liberties.
* US military or intelligence
The attacks will lead to a sharp increase in funding and power
for the CIA or other such groups.
However, are there any organizations in the US government who
have successfully infiltrated those group who could have done
the job? And would it have been possible for a large enough
number of people in a conspiracy inside the US government to
have carried off the attack without someone telling others of
the plan?
I doubt it.
* Israel
It is widely believed that the Mossad has the capability
necessary to sponsor the attack. It is thought that they have
infiltrated various terrorist groups.
The purpose of the attack would be to change US opinion so
that the Israeli government would gain more support against
Palistinians and would continue to receive support if the
Israeli military were to undertake a major operation to occupy
all of `Greater Israel', perhaps even driving Palistinians out
of those territories.
The makings of the plan could have been set in motion years
ago.
The argument against this possibility is that the success of
the operation may be to encourage more attacks against the US,
and that the US might retreat into isolation. Or if the US
does not retreat, the US might reduce support for Israel and
transfer its support to Arab countries helping the US; as a
reward for helping the US, the Arab countries might ask the US
to push Israel towards more of an accomodation with the
Palistinians.
* Russia
Many think the bombs in Moscow that killed many people and
enabled the Russian government to rekindle its attacks against
Chechnya were `black' operations. This would be similar. The
purpose would be to gain use help in the war against Chechnya
and against Islamic insurgents in the central Asian countries.
The argument against this possibility is that the US might not
only overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan but start building
roads and pipelines to carry oil and gas out of central Asia
to ports in Pakistan. The project would provide jobs to
Afghanis and Pakistanis so they are less likely to go to
Taliban schools. Also, it would provide easier access for
ground troops not only to Afghanistan but to the central Asian
countries.
Also, the US will increase its military spending and power,
which diminishes that of Russia.
Now, none of these items discuss the Bush Administration directly.
But to succeed, the Bush Administration would have had to conspire. I
continue to doubt they would have been able to carry `off the attack
without someone telling others of the plan'.
On 30 October 2001, I added China and Iran to the equation, and
introduced a different argument for Russia:
Another thought: if China, Iran, and Russia can prevent the US
from building a pipeline through Afghanistan, the Russians might
figure that they might benefit from having the US as an ally
against both the Islamic insurgents and, ultimately, China; plus
receive loan, credits, and the rest.
* China
China is fighting a war against Islamic insurgents in the
northwest and against Tibetans in Tibet. The benefit to China
is that the attacks and response the US to ally itself with
China, distracts the US from Taiwan, and drains the US of
treasure.
The first argument against this possibility is the same as for
Russia: that in the process of responding, the US might
increase its influence in central Asia by providing a route
for fuel that does not go through China, Russia, or Iran, and
by providing a pathway for US armies into central Asia.
The second argument against this possibility is that the US
may force its definition of `terrorist' on China. The US
definition would, presumably, include the insurgents in the
Chinese northwest; but not the Tibetans.
The third argument is also the same as for Russia: that the
US will increase its military spending and power, which
reduces that of China.
All told, the simplest hypothesis is that a Moslem group did the
job, although it is not clear whether Bin Laden's organization was
responsible ...
This reasoning still makes sense. Nowadays, I would add that the Bush
Administration seized the opportunity to go for their goals.
As John Horn said
... I have looked a several websites that ... all seem to hinge
on the same thing: comments made under stress at the time of the
attacks. ...
As he and Julia pointed out such comments provide weak evidence.
Richard Baker asked
Don't you think that if Bush and co had been behind it, their
reaction would have been less slow, confused and downright
incompetent?
It is worth remembering that Bush and his supporters were competent in
getting elected. Their `Plan B' succeeded -- they gained power in a
manner that involves a perceived dependency on judges, voting machine
owners, and election officials, by some people. (Clearly, they would
have preferred a presumed `Plan A', which was to win without being
perceived by anyone as depending on judges, voting machine owners, and
election officials.)
Indeed, not only did Bush become president in 2000, he regained power
in 2004.
Competence in one area does not necessarily shift over to another. Or
perhaps competence does shift but those currently in power in the US
have different goals?
Suppose the Bush and his supporters do have their own goals? After
all, what I infer to be the various `Plans B' of Bush and his
supporters have succeeded:
* Afghanistan has become a country with US bases and poppies whose
opium is converted to heroin that is sold to administration
enemies.
* As a result of US actions in Iraq, Bush Administration supporters
have seen an increase in the value of their assets, such as tar
sands, oil shales, and coal in North America and oil in Saudi
Arabia.
* In the US itself, the debate over the long-term future of Social
Security served as a distraction from debate over larger and
immediate government deficits.
In Afghanistan, I think that `Plan A' consisted of hope for a
pipeline. But as far as I can see, no political grouping can expect
all its preferences to succeed. A fall back is needed. In the US, it
seems to me particularly difficult for a feudalist group to gain and
keep power.
Thus, I do not think Bush and his supporters could have kept secret a
conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center and targets in Washington,
DC. (The prime target may have been the Capitol or the White House.
I have heard that the Pentagon was secondary. The man flying the
airplane might have found he could not see a prime target against the
sun well enough to be sure that he, an inexperienced and nervous
pilot, could hit one or the other. Indeed, even when flying from the
south towards the Pentagon, the pilot clipped a tree. He flew a very
shallow attack.)
While I do not think Bush and his supporters could have kept secret a
big conspiracy, I do think they did operate a competent, but mostly
non-secret campaign to gain power. (I also think they kept a few
actions secret, at least for a time. For example, if I remember
rightly, the head of the Republican campaign in New Hampshire was
recently convicted a results-changing telephone call operation.)
But large secret operations were not the main action. After all, Rove
and others have said what they did. To think that big secrets were
the main action is to be distracted.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
