Forum FAQ

Preferences

Watched Topics

Watched Forums

Interesting view on 9/11

Shanghai Expat Forum Index » Community Discussion Forums » News and Opinion

Author

Message

Andreas
Board Royalty

Joined: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 6410
Location: 31 N 121 E

Posted: Apr 20, 2004 - 10:48 AM
Post subject: Interesting view on 9/11

I found an intersting article in Asia Times Online today:

The 9-11 Commission hearings in Washington these last weeks, for all the sound, fury, and front-page headlines, seem to have been constructed to produce a foreordained and narrow conclusion about only one aspect of the events of September 11 - the government's lack of preparedness to detect the attack plan before it was executed.

Entirely omitted from the probe, and from the presidential elections as well, is the other big question about September 11 - what was the real reason the attacks took place?

The omission is hardly unintentional. The commission members, evenly balanced between highly powerful Democrats and Republicans, may take partisan shots at each other during the hearings, but they are entirely agreed on leaving this crucial question unasked and unanswered.

The hearings have produced some fruitful movements, such as testimony from retired anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, based on his new book, Against All Enemies that the Bush administration was monomaniacal about invading Iraq from the day it took office. This wasn't new, but it provided important inside substantiation. Another interesting disclosure was the text of a memo to President George W Bush a month before September 11 informing him that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization was planning an attack in the US with hijacked airplanes, but this actually proves nothing.

In all probability, the hearings will conclude that the reason for the September 11 hijacking attacks in Washington and New York City by 19 members of the fundamentalist fringe of Islam was "intelligence failure" by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Reforms will ensue, civil liberties will be further abridged in the name of homeland security, and hundreds of billions of dollars more will be invested in a long "war on terrorism" ostensibly against a few underground organizations that may have a total of 1,000 committed members.

Why is the question about the reasons for the attack not asked or answered? So far, the conventional political wisdom from Washington seems to be that the cause of September 11 is that, to paraphrase, "the terrorists are uncivilized and are motivated by a hatred for democracy and an envy of the American way of life". Such nonsense conveys the inescapable suggestion that the bipartisan Democratic-Republican political power structure ruling America would prefer not to probe too deeply into this question lest it be found complicit in creating a profound and not illogical antipathy to the United States on the part of most people in the Middle East and the world.

In our view, there are four reasons in combination why a small group of fanatics were willing to commit suicide to destroy the three symbols of US power in the world - the World Trade Center (financial power), the Pentagon (military power), and the White House, which evidently was spared because the final hijacked aircraft crashed before reaching its target (political power).

The primary reason for September 11 is the product of US policy and actions in the Middle East since the end of World War II - a policy based on exercising control over the world's greatest known reserves of petroleum. This has led Washington to continuously intervene in the region to support backward feudal monarchies and repressive, undemocratic regimes at the expense of social and political progress. The three secondary reasons involve the Afghan civil war (1978-1995), the first US-Iraq war (1990-2003), and one-sided US support for Israel (mainly 1967-2004).

Until the implosion of the USSR in 1990, the US was in a frenzy to prevent the Soviets from gaining influence in the region. Since 1990, Washington has sought to secure total hegemony throughout the entire Middle East, culminating in the Bush administration's plan to "re-make" the principal countries of the region into "democracies" subordinate to White House domination, by force if necessary, beginning with Iraq.

In some cases throughout these years the White House made deals with conservative religious regimes, such as with the royal family in Saudi Arabia soon after World War II. At the time Washington extended its military and political protection to the House of Saud in Riyadh in return for guaranteed access to oil and for support in keeping the USSR out of the region. The deal, which insures the suppression of democratic elements in Saudi Arabia, remains in place to this day.

In other instances, the White House ordered the CIA to overthrow democratically elected progressive governments, such as happened in Iran in 1953 when left-leaning president Muhammad Mossadegh was dispatched. The result was a quarter-century of repressive rule by the Shah of Iran, a US puppet finally overthrown by Shi'ite fundamentalists, who established another backward religious regime. The reason that only the religious faction was in a position to seize power was that Iran's sizable secular left and democratic forces had been killed, imprisoned or exiled by the Shah, with US approval.

The CIA repeatedly intervened in Iraq from 1958, when progressive General Abdul Karim Kassem overthrew the British-installed monarchy, until 1963 when he was overthrown with US help. Many thousands of leftists and communists were killed along with Kassem. This ultimately led to rule by the secular and at the time pan-Arab Ba'ath regime. In 1979, General Saddam Hussein gained control of the Ba'athist government, purged and killed any remaining leftists, and within a year launched an unjust war against Iran that was supported by the US until ending in a stalemate in 1988.

Over 50 years of constant American intervention - whether in Iran or Iraq, Egypt or Jordan, Lebanon or Syria, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, Oman or Kuwait, or across the Red Sea in Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia - have led to a plethora of ill fortune in the region. This includes the existence of weak, reactionary regimes dependent on the US; governments in thrall to religious factions; poverty amid great wealth; the violent destruction of left and progressive forces; the stultification of social progress; the rise of extreme religious fundamentalism as a means of establishing social and political power (particularly since the secular left has been repressed in so many of these countries); Arab disunity; and a deep sense of frustration and anger against the outside forces who have created most of these conditions, whether it be old style British and French colonialism or, since 1945, US imperialism.

Three more ingredients must be added to this witch's brew to concoct September 11:

1. The Afghan civil war (1978-1995): It was during this period that extremist Islamic fundamentalism became a serious military force, in large part because the US invested billions of dollars in training and equipping such a force, as well as providing bases and financing for fundamentalist religious schools in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden played an important role in the CIA's schemes for several years.

Washington was responding to a military coup in April 1978, principally led by left forces including progressive military officers determined to enact major social and political reforms to bring Afghanistan into the 20th century. The ruling People's Democratic Party began to introduce extensive reforms and to establish close relations with the neighboring Soviet Union. This was unacceptable to Washington.

Afghanistan's warlords and fundamentalist religious forces had immediately opposed the reforms for fear they would upset traditional power relations, and also because they guaranteed the equality of women. The reformers were in Kabul only a few months before president Jimmy Carter ordered the CIA to support the opposition forces, largely based in the vast countryside. When it was apparent a few months later that US-backed right-wing forces might overthrow the left government, the USSR sent thousands of troops to defend the progressive forces, withdrawing them in 1988.

The left government continued in power until it was crushed in 1992, followed by a horrendous three-year civil war between rival reactionary factions that was finally won by the Taliban in 1996, which was deeply indebted to bin Laden and the mujahideen "freedom fighters" responsive to his extreme fundamentalist leadership.

In 1998, Carter's national security adviser during the war, Zbigniew Brzezinski, finally acknowledged Washington's role and bragged that the US virtually induced the USSR to send soldiers to Afghanistan in order that it stumble into its own "Vietnam". He brushed aside any concern about the Taliban or their powerful mujahideen allies.

2. The first US-Iraq war (1990-2003): Iraq invaded the tiny, oil-rich principality in neighboring Kuwait in August 1990, presumably under the naive impression the US would not intervene, perhaps as a reward for exhausting Iran in a long war. Rejecting repeated Iraqi offers of a negotiated withdrawal, the regime of George Bush the First gradually built up a huge invasion force and massively retaliated in January 1990. Iraq's entire civilian infrastructure was destroyed - electricity, water supplies, factories, transportation, communications, bridges and so forth, along with its retreating army and many thousands of civilians. Extensive sanctions, which killed over a million people, along with frequent air attacks, continued until 2003, when George Bush the Second launched a new invasion.

In the eyes of Arabs and Muslims around the world, including those critical of Saddam, the first US war had turned into a nightmare of genocide, poverty and humiliation for the Iraqi people, further eroding Washington's credibility and enlarging on strong anti-American sentiments that had been building during previous decades of intervention in Middle Eastern affairs.

In addition, bin Laden, the leader of the mujahideen movement that emerged from Afghanistan, was outraged by the government of his native Saudi Arabia, which had allowed the "infidel" Americans to establish a military base on Arab/Muslim soil to attack another Arab/Muslim country. At around this time he dedicated himself to two goals: pushing the US out of the region and getting rid of the House of Saud.

3. One-sided US support for Israel (1967-2004): The US has been devoted to Israel as a surrogate for American military power in the region since the June 1967 war, though it has supported the Zionist state since its inception in 1948.

As far as the Arab world is concerned, these last 37 years that Israel has occupied much of the territory mandated to the Palestinians have been a period of great tragedy. Arabs view the Palestinians as refugees in their own country, oppressed by a violent colonial state supported by the US. Many Arabs have also expressed the conviction, shared by a number of progressives in the US, that the Bush administration's attack on Iraq - based on a plan emanating from the neo-conservative branch of right-wing reaction - was in part motivated by a desire to destroy Israel's principal opponents in the region, with Syria and Iran as potential targets as well.

Every time Washington vetoes a UN Security Council resolution seeking justice for the Palestinians, Arab anger mounts against the US. Every time Israeli tanks and soldiers fire at stone-throwing boys, the anger mounts further. Middle Eastern public opinion does not expect Washington to turn on Israel and embrace the Palestinian cause, but it cannot countenance America's total support for Israel at the expense of simple justice for millions of Arabs.

The latest example of Washington's indifference to the dreadful plight of the Palestinians is Bush's April 14 declaration of support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's devious scheme to dismantle some unwanted Jewish settlements in Gaza for the right to permanently keep large settlements in the West Bank. In addition, Bush agreed that Palestinian refugees did not possess a "right to return" to their homes in what is now Israel. Both issues had been important Palestinian bargaining points with Israel, now swept off the negotiating table by the long arm of the White House.

These four examples of Washington's imperial deportment in the Middle East for a period of more than half a century have created great antagonism toward America on the part of the Arab masses. In the process, White House policies have unintentionally generated a small, extreme fringe of Islamic fundamentalism dedicated to visiting violent retribution on the US, which it accomplished on September 11, 2001.

The Bush administration's subsequent "war on terrorism" is wrong on two main counts: 1. It is much more intended to extend US hegemony than to track down the relatively few people involved in September 11 and al-Qaeda. Elsewise, why attack Iraq - which was innocent of complicity in the incident and with the target organization - or threaten similarly uninvolved Cuba, Iran and Syria, among others? 2. It is focused on symptoms, not causes, and thus cannot succeed in its stated objectives regardless of how many more billions of dollars are spent on homeland security and foreign wars.

What then will make mighty America - the most powerful military state in world history - more secure from the threat of another terrorist attack from a small fringe group? Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Change the outrageous imperial policies and actions that have created this situation. Here's how, for starters:

Deal with the people of the Middle East and the basis of equality and respect. Stop interfering in the politics and economy of the region. Discontinue the practice of supporting reactionary regimes and destroying progressive and leftist movements and governments. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the "war on terrorism", invest that money in repairing the damage caused by over 50 years of intervention, oppression and exploitation in the region. Get out of Iraq now and permit these beleaguered people to resolve their own problems. Stop military interventions and close down the Pentagon's many military bases in the region. Adopt a balanced stance vis-a-vis the Palestine-Israel question, starting with the demand - backed by the threat of withdrawing Washington's annual subsidy, if necessary - that Sharon withdraw all troops and settlements from the occupied territories.

Of course, those who rule America have no intention of doing anything of the kind. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are dedicated to continuing the policies that have allowed the US to exercise economic, political and military hegemony over the region and in the world. Yes, a derivative of these policies has resulted in September 11, but despite the official hand-wringing about terrorism, it is apparently well worth the inconvenience in order to extend US domination over the Middle East and the liquid gold beneath its burning sands.

Anyway, isn't it just a matter of getting better "intelligence" from the FBI and the CIA?

Jack A Smith was the former chief editor of the now defunct US progressive newsweekly The Guardian, and presently the editor of a newsletter devoted to political activism. He resides in the Hudson Valley region of New York in the US.

lawdude

Moderator

Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Posts: 687
Location: No longer in Shanghai, PRC
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 20, 2004 - 11:33 AM

A well thought-out article. It's perplexing to me that U.S. administrations have long ignored acknowledging the root causes of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. I think some of it goes back to Cold War politics, as mentioned. The Middle East, with it's oil reserves and (for some) strategic locations, was sought after by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. As the Soviets had better relations with many Mid-East countries at the start of the Cold War, the U.S. likely saw Israel (and vice versa) as a useful island of pro-U.S. attitude in the region and Israel certainly would've welcomed the U.S. economic and military support.

It's really so simple: The U.S. can't expect to humiliate, dominate and be complicit in aggression against a group of people and expect them to feel gratitude toward the U.S. Things will improve when the U.S. starts treating other countries more as equals and "walks the walk" when it comes to human rights and democracy (that is, truly defend those ideals, not just when there is an economic or strategic benefit, and realize that the "war on terror" is not carte blanche for any country "friendly" to the U.S. to attack neighbors, their own people or the leaders of those people).

karnex420

Raver

Joined: Mar 08, 2004
Posts: 488
Location: Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 20, 2004 - 12:10 PM

S.O.P. (Standard Operational Procedures - When a commercial jet leaves it's authorized course by three degrees, a fighter jet is scrambled to it's side until it is back on course. There were commercial jets flying all over the place for two and a half hours, even hitting the national military headquarters.

The fighter jets were ordered to stand down.

Last edited by karnex420 on Mar 14, 2007 - 03:48 PM; edited 1 time in total

lawdude

Moderator

Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Posts: 687
Location: No longer in Shanghai, PRC
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 20, 2004 - 02:18 PM

There was definitely talk in D.C. about bringing down the jet that ended up crashing in Pennsylvania. I'd have to give the powers that be the benefit of a doubt on this one that they first would've hesitated in ordering the downing of a commercial airliner (understandable, especially in the pre-9/11 world). Planes do get hijacked and forced to land elsewhere--ATCs and the military probably figured, right up until the first plane hit the WTC, that this was some kind of typical hijack at worst. I've read that fighters were scrambled from, if memory serves, Otis AFB in Massachusetts to intercept the second airliner bound for the WTC, but they were dispatched too late.

On the one hand, no one would want to be wrong about forcing or shooting down a commercial aircraft loaded with civilians, but it does sound some alarms about the then state of air defenses that any plane could fly significantly off course for close to an hour while not acknowledging radio contact with anyone. My guess is that couldn't happen now.

Hmm... I'm thinking though now of the tragic death of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999. His private jet left from Florida to Texas (a 2-hour flight) and instead went north west and passed through its cleared cruising altitude. That plane was intercepted by a fighter and followed until its crash (for lack of fuel) in South Dakota. As I recall, the total time the plane was off-course was something like 3 hours, but I don't recall at what point the plane was intercepted by the military. Guess my point here is that either it takes longer than an hour for the system to respond to a deviation in flightplan for an aircraft, or that the system is quicker to respond where it's not a large commercial jet, since a mistake is likely to result in less than a dozen or so (or far less) people killed.

Well, I can speculate, but I'm sure the Dept. of Homeland Defense won't tolerate aircraft out of communication or off their flightplans without authorization. Should've been that way all along.

Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord

Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025

Posted: Apr 21, 2004 - 02:29 AM

Pretty good article. And sum many of the points stated endlessly by many posters here, not surprisingly, with the exception of Lawdude, all non-americans.
It's amazing to realize that never ever the americans QUESTIONED their own actions in the world.
It's ALWAYS other people's fault. Always.
Not even 911 scratched the surface of such teenager mentality of "the problem is with somebody else".

Now that America opened the big Pandora Box, it's time for them to live in fear, in big fat diapers. It's sad. So much could be done with so much power.

okido

Rocker

Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: 667
Location: A planet called Earth
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 21, 2004 - 04:08 AM

My brother has another theory as he always has with many things -

911 was funded by drug dealers in South America. His theory is that some of the terrorists organizations are selling drugs as one of the major sources of finance. They act out of the network which is controlled by S. American druglords and are gradually cannibalizing the market. To get rid of them once for all, S. American druglords designed and staged the attact as igniting a war between the terrorists and USA. Then, both will be too busy fighting with each other and S. American druglords get to get their market back.

My brother said why 9-11 was different from other terrorists attacks was it's scale and visibility. As terrorists know their war can never be a big one due to lack of resources, boming here and there, hijacking a plane or two are the type of games they can handle. They can not afford facing too many enemies at the same time. And, all terrorists organizations are victims of some sorts. They should know better big scale killing and high visibility won't bring them sympathy. 9-11 is more like the terrorist organization is being used by some other interest party. My brother couldn't think of any other interest party other than the S. American druglords who would be benefited by the escalated and tightened attention to Mid. East terrorists activities.

It's only my brother theory. (He is an amateur historian.) I think it's quite interesting and inspiring. Comments are welcome.

Okido

Jeff-HMB-CA-USA

Raver

Joined: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 494
Location: SF Bay Area (for now)
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 21, 2004 - 08:12 AM

"It's ALWAYS other people's fault. Always".

Sorta' like suggestion it ain't the fault of the murderous slime who planned, funded, and carried out the horrific act, but actually the fault of the victims.
By this logic, one would have to assume you blame the Iraqi's for "making" the US invade and depose Saddam's regime. But, since you obviously don't feel that way, can we assume a tiny bit of bias?

_________________
Brother by nature and choice, Jeff

jenming

FooJay

Joined: Dec 20, 2002
Posts: 1675
Location: Right where you wanna be
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 21, 2004 - 02:28 PM

Henry_Chinaski wrote:

Well, being an American, I guess I better find somebody to blame.... hmm... I think Henry will do just fine.

I think that 9/11 is Henry's fault. He knew what was right all along and didn't tell us.

And yup, I NEVER question my wonderful US government. Why? they know how to take care of things.

This thread is anyone's fault but mine.

Wink

FrancisYep

Seeker

Joined: Aug 01, 2003
Posts: 65
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline

Posted: Apr 22, 2004 - 04:29 AM

This is a very good article & a precise summary of what’s going on. Some more facts:

1) The US is the first & the only government used atomic bombs (WMD?) to destroy two Japanese cities. To all fairness, the Japanese government & military deserved this treatment for the things they did in Nanjing & other parts of China. But the Japanese people in Hiroshima & Nagasaki do not deserve this mass murderous act. Yet, Hirohito & Truman got away with it

2) The US is the only government to use Agent Orange in Vietnam (Chemical Weapon?). Innocent people, women, unborn children were harmed; many still carry those harmful effects today. Yes, US politicians got away with it too

3) There are 192 countries in the world. The US has troop presence in 135 of these. The US is the largest empire in history (Lawrence Vance, LewRockwell.com)

4) The US spent 3.3% of its GNP in military. The world average is 2.6%. The US defense budget is 22 times of the defense budget of the seven “enemy” nations combined (Iraq, Iran, Libya, N Korea, Sudan, Syria, & Cuba) (Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace)

5) The US spent several hundred billion dollars to destroy Afghanistan & Iraq. The yearly defense budget in Afghanistan is around $250 million & Iraq is around $1.4 billion (World Almanacs)

6) The majority of people in the US did not approve the wars in the Middle East, many took to the streets across the country, yet the war took place. Democracy in action! At the same token, the US president won the election with half million votes less than his opponent, not to mention many votes were not counted

7) The destructive power of all the bombs & WMD in US military possession can supply electricity for the entire world for many weeks or months (I read this a few months ago, don’t have the article anymore)

Can a US taxpayer demand that his/her taxes go to environmental, educational, or social programs and not go to national defense (oops, is it international offense?)? - This is a test of freedom!

Henry, the Americans do question the government actions. What happening now are not the actions of the American people, these are actions of the American government, or more precisely, the American politicians.

But..... like Jenming says: they know how to take care of things......

_________________
Francis

smurfette
PopStar
PopStar

Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 1287
Location: smurf village

Posted: Apr 23, 2004 - 04:46 PM

How about the local government themselves? Due to inefficient administration, the mid-east region rarely changed since 70's last century, what was going on there?

US government is blamed for invading that area, interfereing too much,

EVERYBODY WALKS AWAY!

Yes, that sounds sound, but what next?

Most mid-east countries are still in regime of corruptive and chaotic governmence, lack of education system and other infrastructure.
We international community should do something to help with the situation as well as help the whole globe.
US is not wise to take the whole task by itself.

_________________
statistically significant