We’ve learned nothing since 9/11

Israel/Palestine
on 69 Comments

Excepting a few marginalized journalists and thought leaders, most Americans have learned less than nothing about the causes of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In the wake of that dreadful day, and for years afterward, then-President Bush claimed, almost comically, that they attacked us because they hate our freedoms. President Obama has also remained silent about the truth.

Osama Bin Laden (lately known as ‘Geronimo’enunciated the true motivations:

“Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
…The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation… There is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel…. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily…The Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone…”

In noticeable parts, and as one might expect, Bin Laden’s letter is both anti-Jewish (a.k.a anti-Semitic) and fanatical. Still, don’t the American people, whose taxes pay for Israel’s war crimes, deserve to know that blowback of this support resulted in the loss of U.S. lives?

Bin Laden observes that the mainstream media has blinded Americans to the truth:

“The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?
If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!!”

Bin Laden’s letter identifies numerous other grievances against U.S. foreign policy. But its fixation on Palestine above all others shows the primacy of this issue.

As the media blathers on about the anniversary, devoid of any mention of U.S. support for Israel, I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or throw a shoe at the television. I remember Larry Derfner’s infamous column about the motivations for Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians. Although some of his word choices, as he later admitted, were quite poor (I don’t think any grievance, no matter how legitimate, gives oppressed people a right to attack civilians), his intent to send a wake up call was brave and necessary. Where are the courageous mainstream U.S. journalists who will do the same on today’s dreadful anniversary? Prediction: no New York Times or other major outlet oped writer will mention U.S. support for Israel in explaining the attacks –– nor address the fact that so long as U.S. foreign policy enables oppression of Palestinians and other peoples, the U.S. will not be safe from further attacks.

Do not these journalists, who lie, elide, and distort, have stains on their souls as ever more Palestinian, Israeli, and U.S. civilians are consumed in the gaping maw of the Zionist military colonization project?

Today, I will celebrate a very different kind of anniversary: the birth of Gandhi’s nonviolent Satyagraha, 105 years ago. I believe that remembering the lessons of Gandhi, and putting them into practice, is just about our only hope for real change. Perhaps you might want to participate in Metta Center’s webinar at 4pm PST/7pm EST.

69 Responses

  1. Bumblebye
    September 11, 2011, 8:56 am

    Don’t throw shoes, just tune to bbcR4 where your Philip Bobbit (sp?) has just said all that on the extended (anniversary) News at One.

    • MRW
      September 11, 2011, 4:29 pm

      This was not Osama bin Laden’s response to 9/11. Look at the date: Sunday 24 November 2002. And if anyone can remember that far back, this 2002 ‘letter’ was not sourced. The guy who they claimed sent it to the email list denied he had anything to do with it, but that, of course, was buried in the middle of the explanatory article to the Observer letter here:
      link to guardian.co.uk

      bin Laden responded in late September in an interview that he had nothing to do with it, and he condemned the action. He complained about Israel too. The 2002 Observer article sounds nothing like him.

      I have no idea whether his first response was publicized here in the US because I was traveling overseas at the time for weeks and reading overseas papers. But I read it. Around the same time I read that seven of the hijackers were found and identified by the BBC on either September 21, 22, or 23, 2011.

      I have to go through my files to locate it. Here. BTW, the CIA subsequently confirmed this was bin Laden’s voice with voice analysis :
      Ummat Interviews Usamah Bin-Ladin
      28 September 2001
      Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks

      Source:
      link to 911review.com
      Ummat, Urdu-language daily newspaper based in Karachi, Pakistan – Friday, 28 September 2001 – pages 1, 7.
      Source: BBC Monitoring Service.
      Source: link to khilafah.com

      • MRW
        September 11, 2011, 5:02 pm

        Just for the record, the BBC translated the original Urdu interview. That’s what Source: BBC Monitoring Service means.

      • annie
        September 11, 2011, 5:25 pm

        there it is second paragraph

        It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator.

      • MRW
        September 11, 2011, 5:48 pm

        Yup, and complaints about Israel and the US are rife. But it does not mean that he planned 9/11.

        I guess I’m one of those who listened to BBC Radio (not TV) overseas so much in the weeks following 9/11 that I have a completely different understanding of the timeline, because I waited in the three weeks after the demolition for news.

        Another thing is that what happened to theWTCs could not be planned in 11 months. Took much longer than that.

    • Matthew Taylor
      September 11, 2011, 7:51 pm

      Robert Fisk agrees with my analysis:
      “All the evidence … indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators – at every level,” Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on “the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel.”…
      The motivation for the attacks was “ducked” even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors….
      We still haven’t told the truth about the crime which – we are supposed to believe – “changed the world for ever”. Mind you, after watching Obama on his knees before Netanyahu last May, I’m really not surprised.
      When the Israeli Prime Minister gets even the US Congress to grovel to him, the American people are not going to be told the answer to the most important and “sensitive” question of 9/11: why?

      link to independent.co.uk

      • Matthew Taylor
        September 12, 2011, 2:25 am

        One other thing… in an October 2004 audio tape, Bin Laden admits to 9/11:

        “While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women…”

        link to news.bbc.co.uk

  2. eljay
    September 11, 2011, 9:29 am

    The loss of life on 9/11 and the resulting heath issues and legal battles for the survivors of that event are tragic.

    The piece of cheap political theater that 9/11 immediately became, which it has remained for the past ten years and which it will likely remain for the foreseeable future, is utterly offensive and thoroughly disgusting.

  3. Sumud
    September 11, 2011, 9:31 am

    I was somewhat disgusted at the indulgent orgy of 9/11 remembrance that headlined the news radio this morning.

    No mention of Palestine. No mention of the multi-decade campaign to destroy Iraq. No mention of the deaths of 500,000+ Iraq children caused by the US-led sanctions from 1991-1996, which Albright famously said was “worth it”:

    Madeleine Albright – 60 Minutes

    Iraq’s population at the time was about 30 million, 10% of that of the US.

    I’m curious to know how Americans would react if China or India succeeded in imposing international sanctions on America, resulting in the death of 5 million American children in 5 years. I suspect more than one American patriot would feel entirely justified in flying planes into buildings in Beijing or Mumbai.

    • Sumud
      September 11, 2011, 10:01 am

      After re-reading my 1st sentence above I think I should say that I have no objection to remembering the innocent victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I just refuse to grant them more importance than the by-now *millions* of innocent victims of the US terrorism.

      I knew hardly anything about foreign policy issues in 2001, but even then I had the strong sense that 9/11 was something that America had ultimately brought upon itself. Tragic: yes, but unexpected: no.

      Worst of all, I believe strongly the adage that ‘those who refuse to learn from the past are destined to repeat it’, and as the title of the article states “we’ve learned nothing”. Australia is a most obedient US ally, so unfortunately that “we” also includes us.

    • Walid
      September 11, 2011, 10:02 am

      Has Bin Ladin ever come out and admitted that he had something to do with 9/11? “They” said he did and he seems to have never denied it although appeared to have enjoyed the notoriety of being credited with it.

      • CigarGod
        September 11, 2011, 11:09 am

        Walid,
        For years I waited for the FBI site to put that information on his wanted poster. For years, I emailed the FBI and asked why it wasn’t there.
        I never received an answer.

        I don’t know if that mean there was a certain amount of honesty within the FBI on that subject, if it signalled the famous divisions between the various agencies we heard about…or even if it was an unexplained favor to the Saudi’s.

      • Chaos4700
        September 11, 2011, 11:12 am

        I’m pretty sure he took credit for it openly, Walid. And I’m not inclined to doubt that he was involved, the sort of organization involved to pull off the hijacking with a dozen random disaffected thugs, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who needed training, legal documents, and enough petty cash in the US to keep them entertained enough so that they did not become too demoralized to carry this through means that bin Laden is the natural fit for the architect of this plan.

        What I doubt is damn near everything else that’s been attributed to al-Qaeda and bin Laden directly. You know what’s occurred to me, post 9/11? American culture is saturated with mythology about the “one evil man” who if you can defeat, you save the world. In prototypical American discourse, it was King George of England (even though arguably, it was the British Parliament that was causing us worse problems). In the 20th century, it became Hitler.

        All through my childhood, I was inundated with cartoons that reinforced that. The Cobra Commander from GI Joe being the most prominent example. It’s a big trope of comic book culture too, the mastermind… Lex Luthor, Sinestro, Kingpin, Doctor Doom, the Joker and Magneto, just off the top of my head.

        Americans have been indoctrinated (at least those in my age range onwards, 30s to 40s) to make believe all of their problems come from one really bad man, and if you can kill that one really bad man, then you’ve saved the whole world. That’s why it’s so easy for Zionists to demonize Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Ahmenidinejad and immediately garner huge amounts of unquestioning support for American foreign policies that have absolutely nothing to do with actual American interests. There’s a Pavlovian response ingrained in American culture for us to lock on to males of authority who fit Orientalist stereotypes and treat them as master villains.

        That’s, frankly, why it matters to TALK about how much Zionist influence there is in US media, especially when it comes to children’s entertainment. We now have a generation of American children who are growing up hating Arabs because they are taught to picture each and every one of them as the next Cobra Commander or Baroness.

      • MRW
        September 11, 2011, 4:42 pm

        Chaos,

        I’m pretty sure he took credit for it openly.

        He did not. I give the source above. I’m just realizing after listening to NPR and reading all sorts of stuff online that Americans have no clue, none whatsoever, about bin Laden denying any involvement in 9/11 and the interview he gave that was published in a Pakistani paper. I read it when I was overseas at the time.

        I thought everyone knew this. But again, since no one here knows that 7-9 hijackers were located in the two weeks following 9/11. . . . jesus.

      • ToivoS
        September 11, 2011, 5:37 pm

        that 7-9 hijackers were located in the two weeks following 9/11.

        Please MRW why do you want to undermine your credibility here spouting this nonsense? Otherwise you seem to have sensible things to say.

      • Keith
        September 11, 2011, 5:45 pm

        CHAOS4700- I’m glad to see you bring this topic up. While most of us are aware of the bias in the main stream media, what is much less discussed is the bias in the entertainment media which create the myths which strongly influence how even objectively reported news is perceived. The degree to which the entertainment media actively promulgates the mythology which shapes our society’s world-view. Warfare and warriors, heroes and heroics, patriotism and the use of massive violence to “defend” our freedoms from sinister evil-doers are all recurring themes which facilitate the maintenance of our violent and militaristic society. The average person perceives reality in a massively distorted fashion due to this ideological pre-conditioning. In my opinion, the entertainment media, primarily film and TV, are at least as significant as the news media in shaping opinion and manufacturing consent.

      • MRW
        September 11, 2011, 6:25 pm

        jesus, ToivoS, you didn’t see the BBC article at the time?
        link to news.bbc.co.uk

        This report says four. Other reports later amended it to seven, and I read nine, but take that as a ‘duly’noted’. I believe seven is what was finally reported on.

        I listened to some of these guys being interviewed on BBC Radio! The BBC had their stringers in these places and they interviewed these men (with translators, of course). At the time! I heard them, ToivoS.

        Note the addition at the bottom of the BBC article. Because of the explosive nature of all this being discovered after the fact by North Americans, the BBC felt it necessary to address it in 2006. They stand by their story, but they add this:

        We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: “The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.” [The BBC put what I put quotes around in bold.]

        Of course, the 9/11 Commission did not “thoroughly” review 9/11, according to two books. One: Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean (Author), Lee H. Hamilton (Author). These two men were the co-heads of the commission. The other: The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11, John Farmer (Author). John Farmer was senior legal counsel for the commission.

        From NYT: The Lies They Told
        By JACOB HEILBRUNN (Sunday Book Review, Published: November 12, 2009)

        As senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Farmer, who was the attorney general of New Jersey and is the dean of the Rutgers School of Law, investigated the derelict conduct of the national security apparatus. He was well prepared to do so. In their valuable account of the commission’s activities, “Without Precedent,” the commission chairman, Thomas Kean, and the vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, noted that shortly after the attacks, Farmer — “one of our most important hires” — ­established a victims’ assistance center in New Jersey and helped the F.B.I. uncover important evidence in garbage at Newark International Airport. But the commission’s efforts to reconstruct the tragedy itself were, at best, resented and, at worst, impeded by the sprawling defense bureaucracy and the Bush administration, both of which had much to hide. Even two reports by the inspectors general of the Defense and Transportation Departments, released in 2006, whitewashed government failures. Now that numerous transcripts and tapes have been declassified, however, Farmer draws on them to assail the government’s official depiction of 9/11 as so much public relations flimflam. [Emphasis mine]

        BTW. From Farmer’s book description:

        Ultimately, Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security. The ground truth that Farmer captures suggests a very different scenario-one that is doomed to be repeated unless the systemic failures he reveals are confronted and remedied.

        If anyone wants to watch a dry but highly informative film of the science of what happened on 9/11 and what could not have happened under any understanding of basic physics, the architects and engineers—irishmoses, if you’re reading this, your structural engineer son would be interested in this, because these are structural engineers describing it—premiered a film last Thursday night here. Worth using your PayPal account for, because this issue is NOT going away. There is a combined 25,000 hours of training and experience talking in this film:
        link to 911expertsspeakout.org

      • POA
        September 11, 2011, 7:21 pm

        “I’m pretty sure he took credit for it openly, Walid”

        Wrong. Why would you shoot your mouth off about such an assertion when you’re “pretty sure”. Find out the truth, THEN open your yap. Do you really want to help perpetuate a myth about such an event as 9/11?

      • Chaos4700
        September 11, 2011, 10:21 pm

        Alright, you all have good points. I suppose I sort of hand-waved and assumed there was a statement where bin Laden explicit said “I made 9/11 happen” (and whether he did or not for real is another matter).

        I’ve spent most of the day finding better things to think about on 9/11, like Grandparent’s Day, my grandmother’s and nephew’s birthday celebrations. My whole post is contesting the notion it should be mythologized — it shouldn’t — but maybe I should make a bit more effort to put my money where my mouth is.

      • Keith
        September 11, 2011, 11:46 pm

        MRW- “If anyone wants to watch a dry but highly informative film of the science of what happened on 9/11 and what could not have happened under any understanding of basic physics, the architects and engineers ….”

        The implication of your statement, of course, is that the 200 professionals who evaluated the WTC collapses were incompetents and/or frauds, and apparently not too clever since their conclusions are so obviously bogus to anyone, such as yourself, who has even a minimal understanding of basic physics. Have you submitted your analysis to one of the professional journals for publication?

        I have included a link to the official study for those who feel they are competent to evaluate it. link to nist.gov

        I was originally going to link to Manuel Garcia at CounterPunch who evaluated the evaluations, and to something I wrote 5 years ago titled “911 Conspiracy Cult”, but decided against it. I am weary of all of this, lacking the religious fervor of a Truther. I have had lengthy discussions with Truthers in the past which were roughly comparable to arguing with a creationist. The proof of Godly creation is that evolution is impossible. The lack of evidence for a magical deity carries no weight whatsoever. Likewise, for a Truther, the proof of a controlled demolition is the claimed impossibility of a collapse caused by airplane strikes and subsequent fires. This “fact” is accepted by most Truthers on faith, most lacking the rudimentary knowledge to even begin to make such an assertion. And just as creationists have PhD creationists to “prove” that evolution is impossible, so too do Truthers have credentialed experts to claim that the NIST study was bogus. In the 10 years since the collapse, I have yet to see any Truthers demonstrate that a controlled demolition was even possible under the circumstances, it is simply taken as a given. I am going to put aside for the moment the question of the missile-not-an-airplane striking the Pentagon as being unworthy of serious consideration, although apparently there are Truther pilots who claim that was the case.

        I want to briefly summarize why I think that a controlled demolition was virtually impossible and totally illogical. Let us begin by noting that a controlled demolition assumes a governmental conspiracy of immense proportions, al Qaeda not capable of placing the explosives which would have rendered the airplane strikes redundant. Since the Bush administration let it be known that it would welcome a new Pearl Harbor, it seems highly likely that privately they welcomed the 911 attacks. But why collapse the buildings? When the first plane hit the first building, Bush had his new Pearl Harbor. Why complicate things by placing high explosives in three occupied buildings, something comparable to a mission impossible plot? Where would these explosives be placed? How can high explosives be exposed to high temperature fire without pre-detonating (cooking off)? Why drop the second building first? Why use airplanes to camouflage a controlled demolition if you are going to bring down building 7 without an airplane strike? Why bring down building 7 in any event? Truthers have never even asked these questions, much less given answers. And there is no point asking them. They will only point to some new “unexplained” puff of smoke detected in one of the videos they watch endlessly.

        Right after 911, I became convinced that the government had, as a minimum, been negligent in preventing the attacks and was now seeking to exploit them. I wanted to see the Bush administration held accountable. I had an opportunity to see the David Ray Griffin film on 911. I almost fell over. What crap! It became obvious to me that Griffin was the Lyndon LaRouche of 911 Truth. A well-funded sharpie intended to discredit bona fide doubts by association with crackpot theories. And he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams! What I once referred to as a cult is now close to a bona fide secular religion, with the number of faithful probably equal to religious Judaism. Incredible! And just as five years ago this cult sucked the energy out of the anti-war left, now it continues to render what little remains of the left irrelevant through guilt by association with a movement that to its members seems the very essence of gospel truth, but to the majority appear as conspiratorial wing-nuts. But, who knows? In hard times, fundamentalist religion has wide appeal, cold rationality never popular. I suspect that after this comment my Mondo-popularity, never high, is probably headed for a new low. Such is life.

      • MRW
        September 12, 2011, 10:16 am

        You make a lot of assumptions, Keith.

        I don’t maintain any of your conclusions.

        I don’t accept that jet fuel can melt 80,000 tons of structural steel, and I don’t accept that 56 minutes is sufficient for a kerosene-level fire (jet fuel has the same burning point as kerosene) to vaporize a 110-story building. (A kerosene-level fire cannot create a fire that is two or three times its burning point. Ask any fireman. This is basic physics.)

        That’s all. I want an independent scientific investigation that will determine what caused those buildings to fall down the way they did. A scientific investigation led by scientists, not political appointees.

        That’s all. Because it wasn’t done.

        The co-heads of the commission wrote that they were prevented in determining that. Ditto the senior legal counsel for the commission. The 9/11 families are still calling for it.

        First, we find out how how those buildings fell. Job One. The NIST report is not conclusive. It left out critical information that was in the earlier FEMA report. Serious scientists have questioned the data they are allowed to see, and have found it doesn’t add up. This is science. (NIST refuses to make their datasets available to structural engineers even under FOIA, which is a remarkable response given the importance it brings to bear on structural building codes everywhere.)

        You’ve extrapolated into areas that don’t concern me. You’ve got your definition of a “truther.”It does not apply to me. I want the truth. Simply. And I am entitled to it because I am now forced to live with the applied consequences that make no sense considering the stimulus.

      • Mooser
        September 12, 2011, 2:38 pm

        MRW, they all do the same thing: they mix up what happened with who did it, and how, and why.

        If I can’t get an explanation of what happened which makes sense to me, and accords with my ordinary reality, I’m not even gonna begin to worry about who did it. especially if the same people who won’t tell me what happened are the same people telling me who did, or didn’t do what.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 12, 2011, 3:21 pm

        Keith,

        The accepted theory is under debate right now, not that of the skeptics.

        Answer me one question: How did WTC7 come down at free fall speeds?

        Regards -N49.

      • Keith
        September 12, 2011, 4:01 pm

        MRW- “I don’t accept that jet fuel can melt 80,000 tons of structural steel, and I don’t accept that 56 minutes is sufficient for a kerosene-level fire (jet fuel has the same burning point as kerosene) to vaporize a 110-story building. (A kerosene-level fire cannot create a fire that is two or three times its burning point. Ask any fireman. This is basic physics.)”

        Wow, talk about a 110 story straw man. Melt 80,000 tons of structural steel? Who ever said that happened? Vaporize a 110 story building? Jeez, I thought that the buildings collapsed. Why the bullshit? This is basic physics? No, this is you trying to evade the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of a controlled demolition, the only alternative explanation for the airplane strike cause of the collapse. The only “evidence” is in trying to cast doubt upon the official investigation, which seems conclusive enough for me.

        “The NIST report is not conclusive. It left out critical information that was in the earlier FEMA report. Serious scientists have questioned the data they are allowed to see, and have found it doesn’t add up. This is science.”

        This is your conclusion based upon your reading of the report, or is this the conclusion of the scientists you trust at the Truther websites? Are you a scientist? A physics professor?

        In a previous thread you said that “…Americans are laughed at from Argentina to Beijing for believing a barbecue-strength fire can decimate 113 stories in 9 seconds….” On this thread you say that “(A kerosene-level fire cannot create a fire that is two or three times its burning point. Ask any fireman. This is basic physics.)” Seems to me that you have already reached some conclusions. Fire too cold. So, just how hot does kerosene burn? In thermodynamics of 911, Manuel Garcia, Jr states that the report indicated that the temperature of the burning jet fuel was 1100 degrees C (2000 degrees F). Does this agree with your calculations? This temperature was sufficient to weaken (not melt) the steel sufficiently that when combined with the structural damage caused the upper floors to collapse upon the lower floors and the whole building to come down. Building 2 collapsed first primarily because the impact zone was lower, hence, more weight above to support.

        “You’ve extrapolated into areas that don’t concern me. You’ve got your definition of a “truther.”It does not apply to me. I want the truth. Simply.”

        Based upon your comments, I seriously doubt that you would be satisfied with anything other than a conclusion that it was a controlled demolition that brought down the WTC buildings, even though you will not pursue the illogic of that conclusion, the virtual impossibility of high explosives not pre-detonating in the intense heat (2000 degrees F). Now, either there were explosives or not. If after 10 years, there is no evidence that it was even feasible to do this, what is the point of additional investigation? Nothing anyone can say will convince you or any of the faithful that there were no explosives.

        I have thoughtfully provided the links to Manuel Garcia Jr’s CounterPunch articles on the WTC collapse. They are a relatively easy read. His e-mail is listed if you have questions.

        link to counterpunch.org

        link to counterpunch.org

        link to counterpunch.org

      • LanceThruster
        September 12, 2011, 4:31 pm

        We’ve seen so many of the standard gambits applied to anything someone wants to advocate against. About the only thing they have going for them at times is that thoughtful people can be unsure of themselves as the most productive things about the educational process is when you get to the understanding of knowing how much you don’t know. That humility is essential as you continue to follow those things your own curiousity steers you to focus on. If its something really new to you, and you’re like a babe in the woods, for most things thanks to the net, there’ll be a wise guiding hand generous and personable enough to share their knowledge and experience with you in ways that you can put immediately to use, have real world evidence that the advice/information was accurate, and involved you enough that you’ll be able pass along this knowledge to someone else wet behind the ears like you once were. If there’s a disagreement, generally, no one will tear another one down over something like which is the best fishing knot for a certain type of hook or which bait works best for certain conditions. If you didn’t know and wanted to, you should be pretty confident you could figure it out. There’s time-tested methods, and people sharp enough to incorporate the new and novel into to the repository of knowledge and it grows.

        For the controversial, there’s a toxic stew of claims and counterclaims, and presumptions of just about every aspects of a person’s way of knowing. Were they taught a process or were they indoctrinated? Do they use the process faithfully, or selectively? Do they trust their application of the process enough to make connections, discoveries, and insights, on their own? Is there a willingness to subject beliefs to scrutiny, is it testable, do they correct for errors. What is their agenda? To learn, or to score points? Does scoring points mean only for their own team/advocacy or position?

        At Mondoweiss, I learn and share, and learn some more. All voices are informative (even when horribly wrong, misguided and hateful). Most people here think for themselves. There’s great value in directing someone to “an expert” or “a champion” as a sort of short hand for here’s how I view it, or here’s what helped me come to a better understanding of this issue. Someone tried to use the “digression” of “truther” discussion to mock MW as a nut magnet site, because to this mental giant, truther talk has nothing of value to do with 9/11 or this site. This site has made many insightful connections with 9/11 and IP, even when it wasn’t the 9/11 10th anniversary. And as one of the astute observations made here about the way the world works is gatekeeping and controlling the message, the insistence on gatekeeping makes you suspect. If your agenda requires that you gatekeep questions, I’m going to wager a very large bet that you lose. Call it the Godwin’s Law of Inquiry. Don’t go there.

        People here have shown a impressive application of their ethical framework consistently. There’s no Gordian knot of rationalizations that means they’ll tell your their rules as long as you tell them who it’s meant to be applied towards (works with the difference between children and adults and a few other examples). Some basics can be applied across the board. Scientific method had the beauty of being able to demonstrate the processes of the physical universe to a child. It allows you to make everything into a discovery. Methods are used in what’s refered to as the soft sciences to try to make hypohtesis testable and add more validity, with varying degrees of success.

        But nobody here has said, read this, here’s what this expert says, case closed (in toto). That can be done in specific instances, but it’s a unique way of keeping score. There’s the quanty of facts, the quality, who said it, who corroborates it, and all the myriad of things we use to satisfy ourselves that we’re on the right track. But we think for ourselves. It’s good to say I don’t know when you don’t, but nobody is huddled up in the corner paralyzed by fear. We want to know. Some don’t. We want to know the truth. Some don’t. We’re willing to work to discover the truth. And others seem very afraid of that work, because they’re scared we will find it. And all that entails.

        The “side” thaqt I hope you’re on, is to find the truth. Not some capital T big truth (though good luck with that too), but the truths big and little that come from the day to day examination of what your told, and by whom, and why. You’d think the “and why” was because it was the truth. Sometimes it’s just not that easy.

        The “and why” for me and 9/11 is because without being an expert myself, I’ve been led to see for myself that based on the evidence that is not in dispute, that the destruction requires additional energy than from gravity alone. Drop a car from any height you want, add as much fuel and and ignition sources as you want, and add outside mass to increase to distortion processes and apply it to specific parts of the construction of the vehicle, and I absolutely guarantee that you will never, ever, duplicate the destruction pattern of the WTC wreckage. You might be able to do it for WTC7 in my example, but again, you’ve *added” the energy of gravity. That’s not the same energy that the building is resisting at its height and construction, etc. You drop a WTC shaped van from a copter at great height it might kinda accordian into its own footprint like WTC7. But stand the van on it’s nose, and cut out parts of it, and set it on fire, and use a blowtorch on parts of it, and you will never ever make it collapse in the manner observed with WTC7. I’m making those statements/challenges without being able to do the math, because I understand what people who do know the math are saying when they say that added energy is needed. And for WTC 1 & 2, it’s not just added energy, it’s *explosive* energy.

        And it worries me that some people that should know that added energy is needed are absent. Someknow-knowing will spout off about this or that fact hat they think is their death blow to some argument, and say “Expalin that!”

        The destruction of 9/11 is a physics problem on display. It’s explainable. And people tasked to provide information are trying to control the questions as well as the answers. When you get an answer that you find unsatifying because it has just so many aspects that don’t add up, find the answers yourself. I’d love to see the Mythbusters take my challenge, but they won’t. Maybe a money prize for Joe-Blow to do it under my parameters.I know Stephen Hawkings couldn’t do it. How’s that for arrogance?

        And experts get it wrong too. I was looking for an easy way to remember how to tie a truckers knot, and came across a forum for the International Guild of Knots (or similar). I became curious as to what their knot-nerd (not a denigration btw) topics would be a chanced across a kid who said he thought he invented a new one and to help him confirm that. Some were dismissive ahead of time as unlikely, and one in particular was quite supportive in helping him (and them find out). Took the supportive guy two or three days once he had the details of what is was (how it was constructed), and it was a new knot. I was excited. When I learned about it, it was about 10 mos old. Just a baby. A new fucking knot. How cool is that? It’s called a Gleipner. Look it up (and tell me if I spelt it corectly).

      • Keith
        September 12, 2011, 4:40 pm

        NOFN- “The accepted theory is under debate right now, not that of the skeptics.”

        I wasn’t aware that any coherent alternative explanation was ever presented by the “skeptics.” And that is part of the problem. Due to people like David Ray Griffin, the failures and culpability of the Bush administration to prevent 911 have been mixed in with efforts to cast doubt upon the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings and, incredibly, that the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked aircraft but by a missile. As a consequence, Bush administration culpability has been effectively linked with fantastic claims regarding missiles, etc.

        “Answer me one question: How did WTC7 come down at free fall speeds?”

        How fast should it fall? The building was on fire for over 5 hours, any explosives (illogical to begin with) would have exploded long before the collapse, hence, it fell because of the effects of the fire. The speed of the fall is irrelevant and a red herring.

      • Chaos4700
        September 12, 2011, 9:46 pm

        How fast should it fall?

        The speed of the fall is irrelevant and a red herring.

        I.e. you’re not smart enough to answer your own question, so you’re going to remain ignorant of it.

      • Keith
        September 12, 2011, 11:44 pm

        CHAOS4700- Yes, by all means ignore the middle of my comment. Believe in magical explosives that can withstand 5 hours of fire without going BOOM? Once again I am confronted with faith based physics.

      • MRW
        September 13, 2011, 12:18 am

        Mooser September 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm,

        Could not agree more, Moose. My position exactly.

        It’s like if your house burned down. Was is structural/electrical? Or was it arson? You gotta know that.

        Because going out and buying an Uzi at the pawn shop, then mowing down your neighbors or your enemies across town because you know (you intuited) they did it, or because one of them backed his car into your garage, so you demand the homeowners association erect walls and checkpoints and raise the fees, & introduce a curfew, is the mark of a fool.

        Maybe a mouse ate the wiring (happened to me). Or it was arson: that neighborhood kid you gypped out a tip is taking revenge.

        Cui bono comes a hell of lot later.

      • MRW
        September 13, 2011, 12:24 am

        Keith,

        I can’t let these go by, not for your benefit, but for others.

        Vaporize a 110 story building? Jeez, I thought that the buildings collapsed. Why the bullshit?
        See the video? Listen to the firemen who said the largest piece of building content they found was the dialpad on a telephone? The building was reduced to dust and twisted metal, unless the contemporaneous videos and news reports are fakes.

        temperature of the burning jet fuel was 1100 degrees C (2000 degrees F)
        (1) planes couldn’t fly if that was the temp
        (2) check your facts next time: link to en.wikipedia.org

        The building was on fire for over 5 hours
        No, it wasn’t. Check the video and fire reports.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 12:29 am

        Go ahead and quote me where I explicitly said “explosives.” Meanwhile, there is molten metal in the rubble of the towers that you can’t answer for. Are you going to suggest that the people cleaning up the rubble were lying about that? Go ahead.

      • Keith
        September 13, 2011, 2:22 pm

        MRW- “The building was on fire for over 5 hours
        No, it wasn’t. Check the video and fire reports.”

        “Crack! — WTC 1 collapses.
        Hour = 10:28:22 a.m.; Time = 1 hour, 42 minutes.

        The upper block of WTC 1 drops into the burning impact zone and ejects a cascade of incandescent metal and heated stone laterally, from near the 97th story (368 m), at between 12 m/s (27 mph) to 15 m/s (34 mph) during the 1.5 seconds it takes to fall down to the original height of the 71st story (269 m). (3)

        This hot volley, within the overall pyroclastic cannonade discharged by WTC 1 during its collapse, hurtles at 86 m/s (193 mph) at a steep angle down into the face of WTC 7 from Floors 18 to zero. A solid missile — a hot section of I-beam? — punches into Floors 11 and 12, bursting through the concrete floors and touching off fires. The elevator shafts at Floors 8 and 9, about 10 to 15 m (33 to 49 ft) into the building, are ruptured and the elevator cars fall out onto the floors. The air pressure wave presses on eardrums, stairwells fill with dust and smoke, and lights go out, the building shakes for nearly 10 seconds; magnitude 2.3. (2)

        Time resumes. Some phones are still lit, but they make no connection.
        Wandering confused, Floor 7, heavy dust, one cubicle is burning at the west end — flashlights?, firemen! They lead people down through the choking haze. The lobby is layered in white dust, wires hang from the ceiling, the street is littered with wreckage, a huge cloud rolls all along Vesey Street blocking out the view south.

        Hour = noon; Time = 3 hours, 13.6 minutes.
        WTC 7 was mortally wounded. In 5 hours and 21 minutes, it would collapse.”
        link to counterpunch.org

        MRW- “temperature of the burning jet fuel was 1100 degrees C (2000 degrees F)
        (1) planes couldn’t fly if that was the temp
        (2) check your facts next time: link to en.wikipedia.org”

        “The airplanes hurtling into the buildings with speeds of at least 200 m/s (450 mph) fragmented into exploding torrents of burning fuel, aluminum and plastic. Sparks generated from the airframe by metal fracture and impact friction ignited the mixture of fuel vapor and air. This explosion blew out windows and billowed burning fuel vapor and spray throughout the floors of the impact zone, and along the stairwells and elevator shafts at the center of the building; burning liquid fuel poured down the central shafts. Burning vapor, bulk liquid and droplets ignited most of what they splattered upon. The intense infrared radiation given off by the 1100 C (2000 F) flames quickly ignited nearby combustibles, such as paper and vinyl folders. Within a fraction of a second, the high pressure of the detonation wave had passed, and a rush of fresh air was sucked in through window openings and the impact gash, sliding along the tops of the floors toward the centers of intense burning.

        Table 2, Fractional Strength of Steel at Temperature
        temperature, degrees C fractional strength, %
        200 86
        400 73
        500 66
        600 43
        700 20
        750 15
        800 10

        The fires heated the atmosphere in the impact zone (a mixture of gases and smoke) to temperatures as high as 1100 C (2000 F). However, there was a wide variation of gas temperature with location and over time because of the migration of the fires toward new sources of fuel, a complicated and irregular interior geometry, and changes of ventilation over time (e.g., more windows breaking). Early after the impact, a floor might have some areas at habitable temperatures, and other areas as hot as the burning jet fuel, 1100 C. Later on, after the structure had absorbed heat, the gas temperature would vary over a narrower range, approximately 200 C to 700 C away from centers of active burning.”
        link to counterpunch.org

        MRW- “Vaporize a 110 story building? Jeez, I thought that the buildings collapsed. Why the bullshit?
        See the video? Listen to the firemen who said the largest piece of building content they found was the dialpad on a telephone? The building was reduced to dust and twisted metal, unless the contemporaneous videos and news reports are fakes.

        The “vaporization” of the building was the result of the awesome forces released by the collapse itself. You did observe the buildings collapse, did you not? Therefore, they were not “vaporized” by anything other than the collapse itself. The airplane crash plus fires caused the structural failure resulting in the collapse. The same would have happened with a controlled demolition. The explosives would not have vaporized the buildings. Your statements concerning the fires and “vaporization” of the buildings is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Contemporaneous videos and news reports do not in any way suggest that these buildings were reduced to dust and twisted metal by any forces other than the collapse itself, which, in turn, was caused by the airplane crashes and fires. There is no physical evidence for any other cause for the collapse of the WTC buildings, notions of a controlled demolition are supported by inference alone based upon questionable calculations from highly biased sources. Nothing I have said, however, is likely to change your mind.

      • Chu
        September 13, 2011, 3:31 pm

        Deutsche Bank’s facade was structurally damaged, but none of the neighboring high rise and mid rise buildings, steel structures, of the WTC site had fallen, yet they were just as close to the footprint of both towers.

  4. tombishop
    September 11, 2011, 9:51 am

    There was a recent interview on Fox News which shows how brazenly right-wing thinking is moving in an openly fascist direction. The drain on our economy from endless war and the increasing loss of credibility of all branches of government are leading to a crisis which can only lead to the warmongers ratcheting up the war propaganda to try and get the population to support their a lust for war in order to maintain their system.

    Look at this exchange between Lou Dobbs and Michael Scheuer, former CIA agent in charge of the Bin Ladin unit until 1999, on Fox News, talking about where we are. They throw off all pretenses that have been the government camouflage about the cause 9/11 for ten years and acknowledge the motives of the attacks on 9/11.

    Look at how they then break with the logic 0f this acknowledgment, however, into a call for all out war on Islam all over the world. Note in particular how this twist of logic, which begins at 3:44, continues the demonization of Muslims even after acknowledging U.S. policies and Israeli are responsible for the increasing isolation of both Israel and the U.S. in the global community.

    Scheuer scoffs at the current military tactic of “winning hearts and minds” and says we must be about “killing the enemy”. No reason, no purpose, no goal, no military objective…just kill!

    The video is at:
    link to tinyurl.com

    Scheuer recently spent an hour on a TV call in show on C-Span. His position is seen as perfectly acceptable in ruling circles.

    • Chaos4700
      September 11, 2011, 11:14 am

      There was a recent interview on Fox News which shows how brazenly right-wing thinking is moving in an openly fascist direction.

      Did anyone on the Fox News staff issue an apology for, you know, facilitating that for over a decade?

  5. Mndwss
    September 11, 2011, 10:36 am

    The Bush song:

    George, George
    George of the Bungle,
    Wrong as he can be.
    (Arrrrgh)
    Watch out for that shoe.

    George, George,
    George of the Bungle,
    Lives a life that’s free.
    (Arrrrgh)
    Watch out for the law.

    When he gets in a scrape,
    he makes his escape
    with the help of his friend,
    a “democracy” called USA
    Then away he’ll schlep
    on his elephant Shep
    While Obama and Cheney
    Stay in step.

    Well….George, George
    George of the Bungle,
    Is no friend to you and me.

    Climb down from that tree.

  6. pabelmont
    September 11, 2011, 11:16 am

    The problem with USA’s support for Israel is not that we support Israel’s security (which is not necessary, given their army, but understandable) but that we support their lawlessness and oppressions.

    Americans get it confused.

    support is support. Allies are allies. Americans don’t have either the knowledge or much inclination to make distinctions. Americans would either eat Rhubarb leaves because rhubarb is good for you or refuse to eat rhubarb stalks because rhubarb leaves are poisonous. Americans are not well trained in making fine (or even coarse) distinctions.

    An increased income-tax on the very rich is a “tax increase” which Americans fear and detest (as such) without making distinctions.

    Phooey.

  7. DBG
    September 11, 2011, 11:49 am
    • Mndwss
      September 11, 2011, 1:12 pm

      “He added: ‘We are going to be asking were the 19 [hijackers] martyrs? Were the 3,000 [people killed] innocent?’”

      Were the thousands of dead US soldiers in Iraq heroes? Were the million+ dead Iraqis guilty?

      The killing of Americans for electing Bush is disgusting, but killing of Gazans for electing Hamas is OK?

      Disgusting…

    • Chaos4700
      September 11, 2011, 1:25 pm

      Please. We all know you’d be right there, burning a US flag if it was Israel the US invaded and not Iraq.

    • Keith
      September 11, 2011, 6:07 pm

      DBG- Perhaps Israel should change its tactics and burn Palestinian flags instead of Palestinians?

  8. LeaNder
    September 11, 2011, 12:11 pm

    Scheuer scoffs at the current military tactic of “winning hearts and minds” and says we must be about “killing the enemy”.

    It’s a pity , but your link does not work for me, so I can only listen to Scheuer, while watching the moderator’s slightly pop up and down.

    Generally: My basic impression about Scheuer is not negative at all. He clearly is a critique of a close unquestioning/uncritical alliance with Israel. Even if this topic is not discussed here. With “winning hearts and minds” he is alluding to COIN, I think.

    You can learn a lot about it on Pat Lang, if you are interested. The main point is money, it’s expensive and it kills many American soldiers and it’s very, very expensive. … You’ll find it under: The Military Art, there are a couple of articles addressing the issue.

    • Donald
      September 11, 2011, 1:01 pm

      Scheuer is a disturbing person to me. My impression is that on the one hand he is honest–he doesn’t try to pretend that Arabs don’t have good reasons to hate US foreign policy. On the other hand, though, he’s ruthless in that old tradition going back to William Tecumseh Sherman–if you’re in a war you kill people on the other side until they give up. I can’t endorse that.

      I do appreciate his honesty, but not to the point of agreeing with him on everything.

      • LeaNder
        September 11, 2011, 1:59 pm

        Donald, I do share your civilian squeamishness, about aspects of the military and the secret services, on the other hand I appreciate insiders on war and intelligence, having seen too many fast-recruited so-called terrorism experts on TV both here and in the US. …

    • tombishop
      September 11, 2011, 2:01 pm

      He is the full link to the Scheurer interview. Maybe tinyurl doesn’t work for everybody.

  9. longliveisrael
    September 11, 2011, 12:36 pm

    The sheer arrogance of this statement “most Americans have learned less than nothing about the causes of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”

    Matthew Taylor is smarter than all 307 million Americans. Of course, taking Bin Laden at his word on why he and Al Qaeda do what they do and did is a sign of how smart Matthew is. I guess that is why Bali was bombed twice, Madrid as well. That is why today in Iraq, Al Qaeda is murdering people, Muslims, every single day.

    Of course, Matthew leaves out the part where Bin Laden tells Americans to convert to Islam

    • Chaos4700
      September 11, 2011, 1:24 pm

      Goebbelling the Muslims, are you?

    • Cliff
      September 11, 2011, 1:42 pm

      longliveisrael is a perfect example of how naturally dishonest Zionists are.

      They ‘point-score’ so reflexively that there really isn’t a need for the World Union of Jewish Students to publish a ‘hasbara manual’.

      Matthew Taylor did not mean, literally, that every single 307,000,000 Americans are unintelligent and have learned nothing from 9/11.

      First of all, his article is called ‘We’ve learned nothing[...]‘ not, ‘YOU (Americans other than him) have learned nothing.’

      And obviously he means the zeitgeist does not indicate any catharsis.

      There is no arrogance in saying that. And really, coming from a racist clown who thought Caroline Glick’s ‘We Con The World’ was great journalism as well as claiming an art exhibit by Palestinian children was ‘anti-Israel’ (a STUPID term that is a play on the identity politics of the US) – your condemnation means NOTHING.

      You’re no different from Fred Phelps and the rest of the WBC.

      • Real Jew
        September 11, 2011, 2:31 pm

        Cliff, don’t bother wasting your time with these morally bankrupt zio trolls. They make these despicable comments just to get a rise out of you. Don’t fall for it.

      • MHughes976
        September 11, 2011, 3:01 pm

        I agree that a great deal of effort round here is placed in and wasted on replying to people who deserve no attention.

      • Mooser
        September 12, 2011, 2:53 pm

        “I agree that a great deal of effort round here is placed in and wasted on replying to people who deserve no attention.”

        Very few people respond to my comments, and I have reduced my commenting to a minimum.

    • Mooser
      September 12, 2011, 2:46 pm

      “Of course, Matthew leaves out the part where Bin Laden tells Americans to convert to Islam”

      Oh God, thank God I never heard him say that. I mean, I would have had to run right down to the local mosque and convert, huh. I don’t wanna get circumcised again! Once was more than enough! (For God’s sake, new parents, if you want to circumcise your son, I can’t stop you, but don’t let the mohel drink at the bris, or make sure the doctor is payed well, and doesn’t just work for tips)

      I mean, if Osama said it, how could I possibly not obey?

  10. PeaceThroughJustice
    September 11, 2011, 1:50 pm

    I agree with LeaNder about Schuer. By the way, some of his CSPAN interview is included in the latest from Representative Press. Representative Press (a Youtube blogger) has for a long time done a good job showing the media’s unwillingness to talk about the motivation behind 9-11. In his latest posting there’s a snippet from CBS in 2001 that I wasn’t aware of. Listen to Dan Rather at 3:25-.

    (PS you write, “In noticeable parts, and as one might expect,” bin Laden’s letter is “antisemitic”. I looked at the Guardian transcript and I couldn’t find any examples. Could you telll us what you’re talking about? And why do you say “as one might expect”?)

  11. annie
    September 11, 2011, 1:50 pm

    thanks matthew, important article. in fact as i recall we were just talking about exactly this on one of the threads recently, i knew i recalled bin laden very specifically citing palestine but it hardly made a footnote in the commissions report.

    thanks

    • MRW
      September 11, 2011, 4:52 pm

      Annie, read the real bin Laden response. I hijacked the top of the thread on purpose so that people wouldn’t miss it.

      As I said in my response, I read it contemporaneously while traveling abroad at the time. I thought everyone back in the US had seen it. Now, 10 years later, I’m finding out no one ever heard of it.

      • annie
        September 11, 2011, 5:08 pm

        hi MRW, i’ll check out your link. my recollection (and it’s been awhile since i dove into 9/11) is that they never had the goods on binny which was why the fbi never had an arrest warrant for him or something. however, i thought he did cite reasons for it happening and i did think it included palestine.

        i will check your other comment tho. btw, i generally don’t read from the top of the thread down except when first opening a thread, especially on busy threads, i follow the conversation from the comment feed. but thanks for tracking me down!

      • MRW
        September 11, 2011, 5:55 pm

        Annie, you’re right about them not having the skinny on binny. It was either June 2005 or June 2006 when an Internet reporter got in touch with the FBI Public SomethingOrOther and asked why OBL wasn’t on The Most Wanted List. Mr. FBI said because we have no proof he did it.

        And yes, you’re right, OBL did cite Palestine as a reason for it happening. Of course, the Israelis caught on the turnpike after being seen on top of a van filming and high-fiving the first tower going down said the same thing to the officers, according to NJ police reports.

      • Mooser
        September 12, 2011, 2:51 pm

        I can’t understand why everybody speculates on the hi-jacker’s “motivations”.
        Maybe they had pregnant girlfriends, and very few job prospects?

  12. chet
    September 11, 2011, 3:00 pm

    It appears that 0f the seemingly innumerable blatherers about 9/11 only Robert Fisk of the Independent made reference to the Bin Laden “linkage” that is taboo in the Western MSM.

    link to independent.co.uk

  13. Antidote
    September 11, 2011, 3:08 pm

    I steer clear of the insufferable spectacle of this anniversary. It all comes down to some victims of terror being more lamentable than others, based on ethnicity and nationality. Imagine a country with a similar history of aggression. Imagine them commemorating 3000 civilian casualties as the worst they or anyone else ever suffered. Completely unprovoked. A day that changed the world.

    Excerpt from Chomsky on HuffPo:

    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.

    link to huffingtonpost.com

  14. MHughes976
    September 11, 2011, 4:47 pm

    I think Bin protests a bit too much about his devotion to the Palestinian cause. He was after all happy enough to cooperate with the West in the Afghan War, when we (rather more than the godless Soviets) were supporting the oppression of the Palestinians happily enough, and he did not break with the Saudi regime, it seems, until the Gulf War.
    I think he and the forces he represented were prepared to wait for a Palestine settlement until the Cold War was won, expecting some share of the reward from that event. That was not particularly unreasonable, though it isn’t quite the story of unconditional determination that his remarks imply. They thought that we were being unreasonable when not one shred of the fruits of victory came their way.
    I don’t think that what he actually says amounts to an anti-Semitic tirade though you get the feeling that he might have released one on very slight inducement.
    His comments on religion rather repel me, but then he was never going to join the Church of England, was he?

    • Donald
      September 11, 2011, 8:34 pm

      “I think Bin protests a bit too much about his devotion to the Palestinian cause.”

      What’s interesting about bin Laden’s speeches on that subject are less what it says about his real motives and more about what it says about what the Arab world thinks is important. You could think of bin Laden as being like a Western politician–he himself is out for power and/or glory perhaps and who knows what he really thinks, but to win power he has to frame his message and his actions in ways that he thinks will appeal to his intended audience. So he might or might not care about the Palestinians or the Iraqis suffering under the sanctions, but he knows many in his audience do. So he was hoping to win support and maybe more recruits.

  15. Les
    September 11, 2011, 7:11 pm

    US foreign policy fails to get beyond the never ending quest to get revenge. We, of course, ignore what we have done to create our enemies and add more as we proceed with our imagined redress.

    Agence France-Presse headline:

    Joint Chiefs chairman praises 10 years of war as America’s ‘vengeance’

    link to rawstory.com

  16. notatall
    September 11, 2011, 8:20 pm

    “In noticeable parts, and as one might expect, Bin Laden’s letter is both anti-Jewish (a.k.a anti-Semitic) and fanatical. “–Matthew Taylor

    Fanatical, maybe, though that’s a judgment call. But what is there anti-Semitic, at least in the quoted part? The use of the word “Jews”? Who was Palestine handed over to?

  17. RoHa
    September 12, 2011, 2:37 am

    We’ve learned there is absolutely no limit to the horrors they will perpetrate or the lies they will tell about those horrors.

  18. hophmi
    September 12, 2011, 10:36 am

    I think the radical left has learned less than nothing from 9/11. Instead of questioning why an extreme sect of crazy Muslims is able to play on the fears of hundreds of millions of people over a tiny piece of land, the radical left has continued to blame the victims and play the politically correct game of refraining from criticizing what they consider to be the downtrodden. It is not about “Palestine.” It is about people with a collective inferiority complex who use petty grievances to try and draw the world into perpetual conflict.

    • Mooser
      September 12, 2011, 2:59 pm

      “I think the radical left has learned…”

      The “radical left”? Can you really be this stupid, Hophmi? I don’t mean stupid enough to believe there’s a “radical left” and it is effective in our discourse. You’ve demonstrated time and time again you are indeed that stupid and lots more. So stupid, in fact, that the greatest fault of most readers who respond to you here is an inability to credit how stupid you are, and how ingenuously dishonest.
      But you are stupid enough to try and sell this “radical left” crap here? That’s pretty dumb.

      But any Hophmi, don’t let me bother you, you just go on being slavish to the radical right, cause if there is one thing we know about the radical right, it’s how much they love Jews. Why, I bet you could supply lots of links to prove it.

  19. gamal
    September 12, 2011, 1:06 pm

    “It is about people with a collective inferiority complex who use petty grievances to try and draw the world into perpetual conflict.”

    well no one could feel inferior to the author of such a sentence, how kind to play the fool on behalf of those tormented by a feeling of inferiority, i am healed.

    • Mooser
      September 12, 2011, 3:04 pm

      “It is about people with a collective inferiority complex who use petty grievances to try and draw the world into perpetual conflict.”

      Hophmi, was this supposed to be in the thread titled:
      “US ambassador to Israel calls for ‘stronger commitment to Zionist education’ in US to overcome young Jews’ disaffection”?

      Of course, I don’t see why you want to give the game away like that, but I guess you know what you’re doing.

Leave a Reply