Wednesday, March 20, 2013

9/11 Conspiracies: For The Sake Of Full Disclosure

Many people who have spoken with me in regard to the 9/11/2001 attack are well aware that I am often perturbed and disgusted by many of the more outlandish conspiracy theories associated with the events of that day. I've also commented in many forums about the subject for the purposes of debunking the wilder theories. However... my disdain for the wilder theories, and my belief that the operation itself was in fact carried out by Islamic fundamentalist commandos, is not to suggest that I don't believe in any possible complicity on behalf of any particular members of any government.

Someone recently called me into question about this in regard to an old blog post (which I had actually written [as a Myspace post] before I started this blog in 2006). Since I did add that post to my blog, and because I try to stand behind what I've submitted herein, I now feel obliged to take some time to clarify my position.

In the old blog post, entitled “9/11 Reality (Conspiracy THEORY Unnecessary),” I pointed out what I feel are some very interesting connections between parties that are in some way connected to the attacks. While the writing in that post and its title is a bit ham-fisted, and while I feel that my writing style has improved since I wrote that post, I nevertheless feel that there are some dubious political connections which were outlined therein. I still find it interesting that one of Osama bin Laden's brothers, Shafiq bin Laden, was at the White House on the morning of 9/11. I find it interesting that the head of ISI was in a meeting with the future head of the CIA on the morning of 9/11. And I also find other connections between the bin Laden's and prominent western politicians to also be to quite interesting.

And while these connections may be pure coincidence... I don't think the personal, political, and financial connections outlined in my old post should be dismissed without a second thought. The subsequent wars after 9/11 allowed members of the bin Laden family, in partnership with the western political elite, to make hundreds of billions in profits after the attacks. Trillions of dollars were subsequently spent on the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And the political control gained by the parties involved was not negligible. These are facts which I don't feel should necessarily be seen as merely coincidental and fortuitous for those parties.

At the same time... this is not an outright accusation. I can't say with certainty what all of the parties involved discussed in regard to any possible complicity with the financing and facilitation of the 9/11 attacks. But it does not seem out of the question that the aforementioned people might somehow be indirectly involved with organizing the attacks. I sincerely believe that many of those involved at the highest levels of government are essentially psychopaths and have very little regard for the people whom they have control over. That is to say, the only reasons they might not be involved with the events of 9/11 would be because they simply didn't think of it first – or because they might have feared getting caught.

Were it not for the attacks of September 11th, the biggest story of the year in the U.S. would definitely have been the collapse of the largest corporation in the world – Enron. This was a scandalous event which was preceding even greater economic scandal that was to follow in the years after 2001. It's questionable how much President George W. Bush knew about the corruption of “Kenny Boy” Lay (as Bush referred to him) which led to the collapse of Enron, but it seems likely that these government officials would have had some idea of the broader economic crisis brewing. Once again, we're talking about trillions of dollars -- in this case being redistributed from the government to the big banks and other corporations as part of the various bailouts. With this kind of money at stake (beyond the direct profits made off of the wars) the “war on terrorism,” as a story and idea, served very well to keep people distracted and rallying around the flag while a veritable economic coup took place.

And again, while this is not direct proof of anyone's particular involvement with the 9/11 attacks, the vast economic corruption would have been a much harder story to put on the back burner without the 9/11 attacks. Because of the media's focus upon the “war on terrorism” many specific individuals were given a much easier time in their corrupt efforts to accumulate wealth and to wreck the global economy. If the general U.S. population hadn't been made afraid of muslim extremists and the alleged threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... they may have spent less time rallying around the flag and more time up in arms about the various economic scandals. But not only did the “war on terrorism” serve as a frightening distraction, it also was used to justify the increased militarization of police forces in the United States – and this has had a lasting and continuing effect. So... 9/11 served to both overshadow the brewing economic crisis and to strengthen the state's hand at supressing any groups which might otherwise have been organizing protests in the street against the economic corruption.

Many people may not be aware but, before the events of 9/11, there was a growing anti-globalization movement in the United States. Major protests were being held across the country to oppose neo-liberal economic policies and market deregulation. NAFTA was a very unpopular piece of legislation and the WTO protest in Seattle '99 was the most aggressive U.S. protest in many years. But any other protests along those lines were effectively derailed by what was presented as a bigger threat to people's livelihood and well being. The 9/11 attacks seriously hampered the anti-globalization movement in the U.S. and any related protests afterward would be met by a much more militarized police force.

So... while direct hard evidence is lacking in regard to government involvement with the 9/11 attacks (beyond a strong motive and a very limited degrees of separation between those involved), I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government has benefited and made good political use of the attacks which occurred on September 11th, 2001. And I agree with the typical 9/11 conspiracy theorist in this latter regard. But this is circumstantial evidence and the other notions presented by most 9/11 conspiracy theorists do not focus upon that aspect in regard to any particular conspiracy. Instead they often choose to focus on outlandish notions which may actually serve to discredit the real underlying political aspects which they might also sometimes mention in connection. This is similar to a point often raised by RepresentativePress who points out that the stated motive of the 9/11 hijackers was to punish the United States for its support of Israel. (I don't dispute that this was the stated motive of the hijackers themselves, but I believe it's quite possible that the hijackers may have been manipulated into carrying out the attacks by people with ulterior motives.)

Many of you may be familiar with the more prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories. “The planes were remotely controlled. The buildings were lined with explosives for a controlled demolition. It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Et cetera.” Most of these ideas can be easily dismissed with a basic understanding of the obvious factors. And, frankly, it quickly gets tiresome pointing out the ridiculousness of such allegations. But the bigger problem is that they distract from the stated motives of the hijackers and the noticeable benefit these attacks had for certain members of various governments and the global aristocracy. They are consequently doing a great disservice to those who simply do not understand why the 9/11 attacks might have occurred or how the government has abused its power since the attacks. These, I feel, are the issues of utmost importance.

The 9/11 attacks upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were carried out by fundamentalist Islamic commandos. But the questions about precisely where they got their orders from, or who ultimately was financing their operation, remains a mystery as far as I'm concerned. And, honestly, I don't expect that these questions will ever be answered with precise certainty. What's more clear is that certain members of various governments profited greatly in many ways from the 9/11 attacks. It's also clear that the bin Laden family was personally connected with the Bush family. Al Qaeda was connected with the ISI. And the ISI was connected with the CIA. The subsequent implications, like them or not, are troubling.  With trillions of dollars at stake, and massive political control to be gained, I do not discount the likelihood of a plainly unethical aristocracy being behind the 9/11 attacks.  

No comments: