portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro | united states

9.11 investigation

A Plea to Michael Albert , et al, and Micheal Ruppert, et al.

I am pleading with Michael Albert, editor of Z-Mag and Michael Ruppert, of copvcia, to sit down and reason together about our common concerns. The arguments of both share many beliefs, like the events of 911 were a crime, not an act of war, and working together will more effectively save lives and help people.
This plea is for Michael Albert and Michael Ruppert to get together somehow and talk about and resolve your differences in order to better address the problems behind the events of 911.

I've read so many articles about 911, the war, the home situation, and I am concerned that the two groups of activist writers who are published in Z-Mag and Z-Net on the one side and those who believe, like Michael Ruppert that Bush, et al, had forknowledge of the events, were complicit in them, and their actions were based on an agenda having to do with stealing oil and selling drugs, don't want anything to do with one another. This would be a shame, if true, because they otherwise agree on so much, if they worked together I'd think more would be accomplished, and this mutual avoidance plants the seeds of an unnecessary conflict on the left.

There are a few connections. But precious few. Z-Net has links to Indymedia where Ruppert, et al, is widely discussed. Ruppert himself said, in an interview on Portland's Indymedia site, that Chomsky has been sent e-mail information. However, there are also obvious tensions. Norman Solomon and Chip Berlet have had articles posted on Z-Net arguing that Ruppert, et al, are "conspiracy theorists" and possibly "right-wing" provocateurs, and so should be avoided by the left as a waste of our time. Well, these points are debatable, but Albert has not allowed any discussion by said "conspiracy theorists" to dispute these charges.

I would think a serious and detailed discussion of these issues would help be informative. This would be reason enough, I would think, for Albert and Ruppert to write something up. I take Albert as an anarchist socialist type to generally promote the idea that the problem in these united states is institutional, where the behavior of the institutions goes to the oil being stolen from those who have it and the drugs being sold to fund the stock market, and so forth. I take Ruppert to be true to his law enforcement roots and suppose that where there has been a crime there are criminals and one way, if not the most practical way, to stop such crimes is to identify and arrest those responsible. I am not persuaded that one has to choose between one strategy or the other. It seems one should be able to see that one can expose both the corrupt institutions and those who have taken advantage of them for their own, or their master's gain.

I suspect that Solomon and Berlet believe it is just not concievable that Bush, et al, are evil themselves in any sense, or could be capable of carrying off the hijackings and surrounding cover-up. I'm afraid that these points are debatable. However, what Bush and his team are capable of doing, or what they in fact did, does not seem to be the basis of any dispute between Albert's and Ruppert's arguments. Whatever Bush has done can be ferreted out with some good detective work. This is something we can do now. In twenty years it will be too late to hunt up the documents, or question the witnesses. We can build a movement to oppose the thievery on both the effort to go after those responsible, and to oppose and change the underlying institutions.

I am not able to speak for either of these active writers. I am only asking them to see that there are important issues both can address together.

phone: phone: 503 709-6044

hat's off to Alpert 22.May.2002 13:01

none

I for one, am glad that M. Alpert has had the sanity to avoid being pushed into spewing the right-wing inspired lies and distortions of Rupert.

follow Ruperts "facts" see where they lead. Who is supporting these "ideas". Every supporter of Rupert is also aligned with those that think that the UN is taking over the US; that the Oklahoma City Fed. Bldg was blown up by Iraq with the help of G. Bush.

Wake up. Don't be led astray by the right-wing. Beware who you get into bed with.

Give Ruppert His Due 22.May.2002 14:15

m.

I have seen Ruppert stick to the facts, quite frankly. I don't hear wild speculations on his part, regardless of who supports him.

I like the idea of considering a diversity of viewpoints in the same way we have considered a diverstity of tactics in Seattle and Quebec.

reply 23.May.2002 10:16

deva

<<<I take Albert as an anarchist socialist type to generally promote the idea that the problem in these united states is institutional, where the behavior of the institutions goes to the oil being stolen from those who have it and the drugs being sold to fund the stock market, and so forth.>>>

first, i am not in anyones camp. . .i think for myself. . .if Ruppert says something i don't agree with, or i think is not well founded, i'll say it. . .that said, there is far more than enough evidence that the official story of what happened is bullshit. . .plain and simple. . .anyone who calls themselves some sort of progressive, anarchist etc, who spends their time defending the lies of the institutions they say they are critiquing is doing the work of those insititutions

of course the problems are the institutions. . .and it is time to lay bare their workings

deva

hats off to deva and m. 23.May.2002 23:21

yea, you go

we need more people thinking like deva and m. among 'progressives'

the doctrinaire aspects of (yes, MY hero too) Chomsky, ZMag, and other trend-setters of movement opinion have blindsided us to crucial issues concerning 9-11 . . .

time to REJUVENATE and INVESTIGATE . . . remember, it can only *empower* us!

open your MINDS

The question that should be asked... 24.May.2002 07:15

Blackcat

Would the US sacrifice the lives of its own citizens to push its agenda?

Below is a pic where the US Government tested the effects of radiation on its own soldiers (1951)...the US gov will always sacrifice innocent lives to push their agenda.

ABC News article: Friendly Fire
 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities."

The question that should be asked...
The question that should be asked...

Opps...forgot link 24.May.2002 07:28

Blackcat



reply 24.May.2002 11:08

deva

the doctrinaire aspects of (yes, MY hero too) Chomsky, ZMag, and other trend-setters of movement opinion have blindsided us to crucial issues concerning 9-11 . . .

time to REJUVENATE and INVESTIGATE . . . remember, it can only *empower* us!




if we have been blindsided on this issue, where else has it happened? this is bigger than 9.11 - we have to remain open and alert to see and uproot the lies and manipulations

David Corn asserting that the CIA is not bad enough to do it (whether they did this one or not) is absurd. . .

however, he may be unconsciously saying that he does not think the CIA would do it to him. . .him including himself in the priveledged class

all those soldiers exposed to radiation were expendable. . .all the members of MOVE, women and children were expendable. . .all the poor people secretly used without their permission for various CIA experiments are/were expendable. . .all the people the CIA has and will sell drugs to are expendable. . .all the poor people who had their life savings ripped off by Bush family members and other elites in huge financial scandals are obviously expendable

anyone who would say the CIA wouldn't do it to 'us', is admitting that they consider themselves part of the priveledged class which lives safely under the (unconscious?) agreement that it is the 'others' who will pay the price. Of course better not step out of line or all bets are off - see JFK assassination.

deva