portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

9.11 investigation

9.11 investigation: The Liberals Strike Back

responding to David Corn, Michael Albert, et al.
The 'Left' continues to be divided on the issue of investigating 9.11, even now, when the issue is breaking into the mainstream. One point of view holds that 9.11 was due to incompetence on the part of U.S. intelligence agencies (which is essentially the government's current story). Another sees clues that suggest foreknowledge or complicity by elements within the corporate/governmental power structure. A diverse array of theories and questions are being put forth by this second camp, and cynics from the first camp are broad-brushing them with the label 'conspiracy theories'.

So which is it? Well, it's not an either-or situation. First, those putting forth questions and theories are not unified in their beliefs or assertions, and cannot be lumped together into one 'school'. Indeed, as Michael Albert of Z Magazine has correctly pointed out, various theories contradict each other, and cannot all be true. Each theory must be examined separately on its own merits. Secondly, there are those people who don't subscribe to any particular theory, but who want questions to be asked, and some type of investigation to be undertaken. After all, ~3000 people died in the U.S. on 9.11, and the U.S. government has spent time and money since then killing people overseas and eviscerating the Bill of Rights at home. Are either of these actions affecting those responsible for 9.11? Third, some of the most strident critics of alternative 9.11 theories have spent little-to-no energy applying their intellectual faculties to the government's official story, which has made others call their intellectual faculties into question.

This week, two new essays came out from 9.11 investigation skeptics. In 'The September 11 X-Files' David Corn, of the Nation, takes 9.11 investigators to task, but fails to put the government under the same sort of scrutiny: 'As of now, there is not confirmable evidence to argue that the conventional take on September 11--bin Laden surprise-attacked America as part of a jihad, and a caught-off-guard United States struck back--is actually a cover story.' His article has stirred up a lively debate on the newswire: [ Read more, join the discussion ]

In 'Conspiracies Or Institutions: 9-11 and Beyond', Stephen R. Shalom & Michael Albert of Z Magazine present a thesis that is at once ponderous and snide, and try to jam the entire discussion about 9.11 into a false dichotomy of 'institutional' vs. 'conspiracy' theories. Their effort is as unconvincing as it is overly-wrought. (Which is to say, 'very'.) This post, too, has spawned an active discussion: [ Read more, join the discussion ]

Not everyone on the 'left' is digging in like Corn, Shalom and Albert, though. Peter Phillips, the well-respected editor of the venerable 'Project Censored' series, has gone on record accusing the Corporate Media of "defaulting" on 9.11. The magazine In These Times has stepped out into the field with a well-balanced article entitled, "Nightmares of Reason: Sorting fact from fiction in 9/11 conspiracy theories". Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch magazine published an article by Bernard Weiner called "The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies" that lays the subject out clearly without a jot of venom or froth.

Still others feel that this is not an issue of 'Right' or 'Left' at all, but simply of truth.

When it comes down to it, it's too early to say if the full truth of 9.11 is already out or will never come out. The official government story has little evidence to support it, and is a rather grand and spindly conspiracy theory in and of itself. Pressure for an investigation -- to at least ask some questions -- is building around the country from a variety of sources, and my advice to Corn, Shalom, Albert, and the other self-appointed defenders of the credibility of the left is this: Either join us in demanding answers, or get out of our way. Who knows -- maybe we'll find out you're right. But we need proof, and we don't have that yet. We need a full and public investigation to unearth that. Time's a wastin' while you write your long-winded egg-headed screeds. Let's get to work digging !!

Bernard Weiner is a Weinie 04.Jun.2002 03:05

Destroy the American Evil Empire

The Counterpunch article by Bernard Weiner, "Bush 9-11 Scandal for Dummies" is a classic piece of American Liberal bullshit.

The gist of the article is to try to limit the debate to what Bush knew or whether Bush was complicit in the 9-11 attacks.

Worse yet, this clown ultimately tries to spin the issue in order to get people to SUPPORT DEMOCRATS in the upcoming Novemeber election (heh).

Fuck that noise. Weiner and Counterpunch show their true colors when they make this statement.

The DEMOCRATS are part of the problem just as much as Bush or the Rebublicans, you clowns.

Most importantly, the 9-11 Reichstag Fire ain't limited to Bush, it implicates YOUR AMERICAN EMPIRE IN GENERAL.

Of course, this is what all you mainstream Americans (whether Conservative or Liberal) really fear, isn't it--finding out how twisted, how fucked up, and how evil your phony "Democracy" really is.

Deflection 04.Jun.2002 03:27

Edric

All of the liberal vs conservative conspiracy theories are perfect for deflecting attention from the obvious cause of Islamic rage against America - Israel's racist tyranny - and American support for it.

Somehow the American people have to break the stranglehold that Jewish racism has on American foreign policy.

Pennsylvania

What Are You Reading? 04.Jun.2002 06:52

Skeptical Anarchist

I'll tell you up front: I don't believe the "Bush-complicity" conspiracy theories NOR do I accept everything the Government is claiming. I also support investigations, by Congress AND by investigative journalists. There is no contradiction there. Let's look at what the investigations turn up. Those of us who want to score points against Bush will undoubtedly find grist for our mills.

I didn't read anything in the articles by Corn or Albert and Shalom that said that 9-11 should not be investigated. Where did they say this? Corn even seems to want an investigation by pointing out that lack of one has fueled wild speculation. He even complains about the lack of reports from the stock-trade investigators. So, "peace rebel boy", where did you get this notion that these guys don't want an investigation?

The above comment by "Destroy" is quite right to point out that Weiner is playing this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. As an anarchist I find this petty politicking. Sooner or later, Bush will no longer be pResident, and the whole 9-11 complicity story will hit the back burner faster than you can say "Monica Lewinsky."

This makes sense because conspiracy theory is for liberals. It says that there are a few bad apples messing up the world. All we have to do is expose them and oust them. Then the system will work like it's supposed to. Liberals never look at the system itself, challenging it, developing better replacements.

The division between the conspiracy believers and the skeptics is not one of radicals vs. liberals. Just because some people want to go out on a limb over an issue of faith does not bring them closer to analyzing and solving the root problems of society.

---------------------

And Edric, when you complain about "Jewish" racism, I fail to see the need for the adjective. Plenty of supporters of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are white, Christian, Middle-Americans. Check yourself.

Pleading no knowledge 04.Jun.2002 08:20

pdx radical youth

This is an interesting dichotomy, but I, like above, see things different from either camp. I think that we shouldn't see this as a direct action dealing with "Jewish racism" because nationalist militant Islamists specify for the most part what they are upset about in international relations (not to say that isn't certainly a legitimate concern of theirs as well). The issue is simply US imperialism. They aren't taking their woes against Israel to the WTC, and certainly not the Pentagon; the greatest economic icon of the US, and then a 'legitimate' military target. No, the concern was quite evidently rampant US exploitation and fixation, possession, of money. Which is to say that the green stuff possesses US.

my 2.

WHO BENEFITS FROM ISLAMIST TERRORISM ? 04.Jun.2002 08:39

do

October 12, 2001

The engine of history,
it is the class struggle.
Karl Marx



WHO BENEFITS FROM ISLAMIST TERRORISM ?

There's nothing such as the noise of guns to cover the whispering of rebels.

The official thesis, on the recent and massive terrorism that has just hit the USA, is that islamist kamikazes have diverted airlines in order to smash them against the World Trade Center Twin Towers, causing the death of thousands of people, with the aim of exerting pressure on the US State in order to, for example, make it stop its support of Israel against the Palestinians.

To exert pressure on the US State, this massive terrorism must harm it. Is it really the case ? These crashes of airliners, transformed into suicide-planes, against the WTC have harmed the population who lives in the USA, as it has killed thousands of people. But who is still stupid enough to mistake the population of a country with the state of this country ? In May 68, for example, the population of the Country France rebelled against the French State ! in 1992, the population of the pour districts of all big American cities rebelled against the US State. The State is nothing but the the weapon of the capitalists against the population. The State represents cops and army, the armed gangs of power, who maintain the population under slavery. Of course officially the cops are not meant to bludgeon strikers and demonstrators, kill the passing Arab or Black, but to rescue the widow and the orphan. Of course officially the army is not meant to crush a possible rebellion of the population, as in Los Angeles in 1992 but to protect the population against a military attack from another country. Of course, the capitalists have to lie to us to keep us in slavery.

Indeed a great renewal of social fight, leading from Seatle to Genova, using revolutionary violence, was threatening to release a general movement of the world population against the masters of the world. So that the capitalists had to fill the streets with still more policemen, and even soldiers, to cope with all possibilities, they had to watch closely all person liable to be dangerous to the power, that is, finally, everybody. They had to clearly increase the police and army budget and give them much more power ; they had to impose new hyper-repressive national and international laws ; they had to incite general denunciation ; in short, with the secret aim of fighting against the powerful rise of international social fight, the capitalists wanted to impose to the entire world a fascist regime of the latino-american type. Nevertheless to do this, without any apparently acceptable official excuse for everybody, would have provoked serious reactions among the population and would have quickened events. Exactly when the capitalists needed such an excuse, islamists offered it by starting a surge of massive terrorim. So, does this terrorism harm the US State, or the population not only of the United States, on which this State imposes its repression ?

QUESTION : ARE THE WESTERN STATES IN GENERAL, AND THE US STATE IN PARTICULAR, ENEMIES OF ISLAMISM ?

I first heard about islamism in 1978. A great revolution was taking place in Iran, it had already sacked the torturing dictator at the beck of the West, the Shah of Iran. It threatened to extend to the whole world. The capitalists had to stop it. To be victorious of a revolution in the West, the capitalism use the left wing parties and especially the one called "communist", and Trade Unions, especially in Europe, those which are linked to the "Communist" Party. This is put into evidence by the excellent movie by Ken Loach : Land of freedom . This is what we noticed in France in May 68 and in many further strikes ; But among moslems this repressive technic doesn't work because no "communist" hierarchy has ever settled. So what can be done ? I think France found the solution : Khomeiny was then living in France. It sent him back to Iran in order to retrieve the Iranian revolution and divert it towards islamism. This is how, thanks to France, with the complicity of the USA, unless it be the opposite, islamism could govern Iran after having broken down a powerful revolution.

Then the entire western world, and the USA in particular, thoroughly helped the islamists to "expel Russians" from Afghanistan.

In Sudan, France supports and finances an islamist power it helps against the armed rebellion of the "christian and animist" fraction of the population. Besides Sudan didn't hesitate in handing over to France this stupid fellow, Carlos (1).

When in 1988 riots started in the suburbs of Algiers, the army had to kill 500 people in a fortnight to stifle this renewal of the revolution in Algeria. But it resulted insufficient, the revolt was still roaring. This is why the technic used in Iran had to be used again : divert the revolution towards islamism. The G.I.A. is financed and controled by Sudan (that is by France) and the F.I.S. by the USA. In fact the first soldiers of the F.I.S. were Algerians who had volunteered to go and fight among the islamists in Afghanistan, and trained by Americans. And when the Americans required that the F.I.S. stop all armed fight, it obeyed without grumbling.

The Gulf War can be understood as military help brought by the western states as a whole to an islamic State, that of Koweit, to defend it from the non-religious (lay) Saddam Hussein (who was no saint).

And who, approximately six years ago, saved the "Bosniacs", that is the islamic power that reigns there ? Chirac himself urging NATO, that is the United-States, to bomb the "Serbs" massively.

At the end of June 2001, a few weeks ago, NATO, that is the USA, saved the encircled pro-Albanian UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army : KLA) at Aracinovo in Madedonia. Thanks to the intervention of the Americans, the UCK escaped with arms and ammunitions. But, according to an article called "Truth on the UCK" (  http://www.geo-islam.org/content.php3?articleId=27 read the first four lines of the presentation, then the second half of the last paragraph, that speaks of Agim Gashi, dubbed the "Rambo" of Kossovo, linked to the islamo-terrorists of Ousssama Ben Laden) written by the specialist in islamism Alexandre del Valle on the 26th of December 1999, the UCK is closely linked to islamism, especially to Ben Laden ! (and you can read this :  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAS111A.html )

ANSWER : No, the masters of the West and islamism are no enemies : they are allies. And if islamism has recently used massive terrorism in the USA, it cannot be to harm the US State, but on the opposite to help it crush down the revolts of the population of America and of the World, which is fighting more and more valiantly against the globalization of American imperialism. The masters of the world have financed islamism for a long time, it was high time islamism gave them a counterpart !

ANOTHER QUESTION : WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT, SINCE A FEW YEARS, BEN LADEN HAS BETRAYED HIS AMERICAN ALLIES ! AND THEN, AREN'T THE AMERICANS GOING TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE ISLAMISTS ?

It is not against the whole of islamism that the rulers of America have declared war, but only against Ben Laden and those who would support him. There is already many islamist countries whose States have taken sides, in spite of their populations, in favor of the USA against Ben Laden.

And furthermore I haven't said that Ben Laden was the one who sacrificed a few men to pay back what islamism owed the US ; it could be any other islamic chief of whom the media haven't even pronounced the name in connexion with recent terrorism.

Indeed, we are continuously being lied to ! May be Ben Laden and the US State have only pretended having fallen out with one another. Furthermore, on this subject, we must notice that we are often told that it was after the Gulf War, nearly ten years ago, that Ben Laden, considering that the American army rabble was lingering on the land of Saudi Arabia, became anti-american, nevertheless it was barely a few weeks ago that the USA saved the UCK linked to Ben Laden ! If this "war" between american imperialism and Ben Laden is really taking place, at least in a first time, it will strengthen both camps and especially it will strengthen Ben Laden's position among all arab and moslem populations. The masters of the USA well know it.

BLIND TERRORISM AIMS AT THE PEOPLE, IT IS THUS ORDERED BY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE : THE STATE, THE COLDEST OF THE COLD MONSTERS : IT IS THE US STATE WHICH HAS ORDERED THE RECENT ISLAMIST TERRORISM IN THE USA !



October 12, 2001,
Thank you for your interest,
Better greetings,
do
 http://mai68.org



NOTE : Carlos, because he was a great supporter of the Palestinian cause, felt secure in Sudan as it was an islamist country ; but, whatever the regime of a country, it is in the service of the one which finances it !

P.S. may 19, 2002 :

1) For more informations, you can read the excellent text of Steve Grey (please click here :
 http://www.cs3i.fr/abonnes/do/ag/383.en.htm )

2) Recently US State had to recognize its fore-knowledge of the 9-11 ! And it had to recognize that the "war against Al Qaeda", that is the war against Afghanistan, was prepared already for september 10, 2001. Just before the 9-11 ! We can see that the 9-11 came just at the good moment to JUSTIFY the already prepared war against Afghanistan. These events confirm exactly what Steve Grey has said into his text. Indeed, in particular Steve Grey has said that the war against Afghanistan was prepared BEFORE the 9-11. [Note of do : in the plan of the US State, the war against Afghanistan is not only for oil. It is above all the first stage of a global coup (coup d'Etat) on the level of the whole world ! You can click here :  http://www.cs3i.fr/abonnes/do/index1.en.htm ]

3) Furthermore :

Steve Grey has said about the fact that the US State is behind the 9-11 : The main reason that it has not become obvious to the majority of people yet is, apart from the obvious influence of the media, that everyone has been too shocked by the speed and brutality of the events to think clearly. For myself, it took about 2 weeks for the shock to begin to wear off sufficiently, for things that should have been obvious at the time, to become so.

And Steve Grey says on the 9-11 and on what the media say of the 9-11 and its aftermaths : The lies and inconsistencies in this campaign are so obvious, that I suspect that those behind it are going to need a sophisticated strategy of continuing to keep people in a state of constant shock, fear and confusion, otherwise the obvious truth will come out. The anthrax campaign springs to mind. And the continual false alarms about renewed attacks from Bin Laden (remember the golden gate bridge false alarm !), and continual, totally unsubstantiated rumour-mongering about nuclear or biological attacks. Soon there will be attacks on other countries, along with a torrent of propaganda about the terrorist threats from whatever villain is identified as the latest evil murderer, who must be hunted down at any cost.

And now the US State says to us that new terrorist attacks are coming soon !

CONCLUSION : Without even a war declaration, with his 9-11 the US State has started a war against the population of the United-States and of the whole world. So, we have to consider the 9-11 as a war declaration. And now when the US State says to us that new terrorist attacks are coming soon, the US State says to us : I am prepared to continue the war against you !

THIS DECLARATION OF THE US STATE IS
NOTHING BUT ANOTHER WAR DECLARATION AGAINST THE POPULATION !


It wasn't just Bush 04.Jun.2002 08:55

Gabriel

Nobody works alone. If Bush knew about 9-11 and was complicit in it then most certainly many other high level government figures knew about it as well. If Bush knew, then Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, Tenet and many, many more in lower levels knew about it too. This investigation is not about what made the FBI or the CIA fail to do their job but about finding out the truth. If you limit it to investigating intelligence failures then you're not investigating the matter in its entirety and it will come up with mostly empty hands. This is a dangerous assumption that will prevent the real truth from coming out for the sake of saving America's image and reputation. Should we be asking if Hitler knew about the Reichstag Fire that brought him to acuse the communits of terrorism and to curtail civil liberties and launch the most destructive war of all time? Now it seems obvious somebofy should have.

Fence-Ridin' "Radicals" 04.Jun.2002 10:57

Radical=Root

>>Just because some people want to go out on a limb over an issue of faith does not bring them closer to analyzing and solving the root problems of society<<

This is a clever but unconvincing attempt to downplay connections between corruption and greed and the root causes of our society's problems.

The so-called radical left has created this slick straw man to cover up their fear of investigating 9/11. They have figured out that all you have to do is claim or imply that getting to the bottom of worst attack perpetrated against innocent American citizens actually PREVENTS activists from tackling the root of society's problems. How the fuck do they come up with this logically-challenged argument? They hope it will inflict so much guilt upon the real radicals who are seeking the truth that they'll just shut the fuck up.

Now that the blame can't squarely be placed on "those angry Arabs", the mainstream radical left and anarchist communities have now resorted to riding on the "we'll never know what happened" fence. But one would have to wonder why so-called radicals weren't complaining when all the blame was placed on angry Arabs or the lone nut, USAma bin Laden. When this was happening in the mainstream media, the "radicals" went around saying "We know they hate us enough to kill thousands of Americans, but we should try to understand them and how our foreign policy made them do it, not attack them".

This is such a dangerous argument that has, IMO, been partly responsible for the beatings and murders of Arabs, Moslems, and South Asians in the United States. If the left had the balls to come out and demand a thorough investigation when the attack first happened, it probably could have prevented this needless cruelty toward people of middle-eastern descent living in America. But nooooooo, when the public started asking the infamous question "WHY DO THEY HATE US?" the so-called radical activist left immediately and selfishly seized upon the blame-the-Arabs bandwagon to get the general public to finally listen to them explain foreign policy for a change. I wonder how many of these groups were sick enough to go out and fund raise off the WHY DO ARABS HATE US? question?

So what's really behind the fear of investigating 9/11? It's partly ego, partly the uncomfortable feelings of vulnerability and the blind faith in institutions that middle class radicals won't admit having, partly the racism that allows one to rationalize that it's better to scapegoat people of color than white, middle class radicals, and partly because of the fact that it doesn't fit neatly into the missions of established organizations and their fund raising campaigns. In other words, it's just too inconvenient.

To Skeptical Anarchist 04.Jun.2002 11:52

August West

I'm skeptical about your "anarchism", when you call for *Congress* to investigate what happened. Just who the fuck is Congress but a stew of representatives of various groupings of *capital*? Your whole bullshit about how somehow getting to the bottom of what happened, of understanding what the ruling apparatus is up to, detracts from the work of doing away with the entire capital/state machine, is just the latest obfuscation by the likes of ChuckO and other pseudo-anarchists to defend their special niche, their jealously-guarded terrain. This would be like fighting against the Vietnam war without understanding the whole background of the Geneva '54 Treaty or the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". The truth is, you and your ilk don't really wanna see anyone upset the entire apple-cart, you think you have a secure place on it, even if it's on the edge.
And fuck this "conspiracy theory", what we're talking about are "deep politics", ie political maneuvering by the ruling apparatus which takes place away from public view. You can't fight an enemy whose moves and strategy you refuse to find out about.

re: Skeptical Anarchist 04.Jun.2002 12:32

deva

In any single article, Corn or Albert or Solomon etc, do not say there should not be an investigation

however, if you look at the pattern of all their writings, you will see a focus on debunking conspiracy theory to the almost complete exclusion of actual discussion of the evidence, or the official government story

the official story is a conspiracy theory. . .nowhere do they come out and say that this governmental conspiracy theory should also be vigorously challenged. . .

nor do they ever take the official story to task - or question its glaring flaws. . .

THE FBI HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY SOLID EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EVEN ARABS

Why do the leftist pundits steadfastly refuse all invitations to turn their examination upon the glaring contradictions in the official story?

George and Jeb Bush conspired to defraud voters in Florida. . .tens of thousands of black voters were consciously and willfully expelled from voter roles for the purpose of giving the election to Bush. . .

how many officials, supreme court justices, etc have gone along with this criminal sham?

the claim that there are not enough people willing to kill americans for gain of power is absurd. . .it didn't take that many. . .and there could have been quite a few who did not realize what they were assisting

the CIA was directly involved in importing drugs into this country. . .which killed far more people than 9.11

what i notice in all the arguments by Corn, Albert etc. . .is that they have never opened their mind to honestly and truthfully say, could they have done it. . .it is a basic denial. . .

start with these questions, as yet unanswered

why are there no Arab names on the flight lists?

why has no action been taken on the insider stock trades?

why is the FBI dragging its feet in the anthrax case and acting like there are no legitimate suspects when there clearly are?

why is the discrepancy between the quotes from the flight instructors indicating poor piloting skills, and the quotes from civil and miliatry authorities indicating that the pilots of the hijacked planes had to be skilled to do what they did never addressed?

why were the alleged hijackers waltzing around using their own names, when we are being told that it was super secret cells of terrorists who did this?

what were the false names they used? when did they switch from using their real names, to using false names? (remember they were supposed to have used fake names)

who killed the woman the day before she was supposed to testify on her connections to obtaining fake drivers licenses?

that is a start for an honest inquiry

you see. . .common sense plays a part here. . .if the government was claiming one odd coincidental occurrance, ok. . .i can accept that. . .even two is possible

when they start adding up in numbers, the honest mind rebels. .. wait a minute. . .something is fishy here. . .

given the sordid dark history of the Bushes, and the CIA/FBI. . .they do not get the benefit of the doubt at this point as far as i am concerned

if they have evidence they have not shown, then show it. . .until they do, i call them complicit. . .

add all those coincidences together, and mix that with the fact that the attack on Afghanistan was planned months before Sept 11th, and carried out right on the schedule, and now a pipeline deal is a done deal. . .and Bin Ladin is forgotten. . .

there is a clearly well thought out plan here. . .a puzzle started before Sept 11th, with the attacks fitting right into the picture. . .

deva

some responses 04.Jun.2002 13:31

peace rebel boy

To "Destroy the American Evil Empire":
I was disappointed that Weiner's essay took that We-Must-Support-The-Democrats turn. I don't agree with that either. If 9.11 becomes a partisan issue, then it will no longer be a truth issue. However, I thought that his summary and analysis up to that part was very astute, and I liked his writing style and tone. So I think it's worth reading up to that point.

To "Skeptical Anarchist":
I'm glad to hear you don't believe anybody's story yet, and want more investigation. That's pretty much my own view. I find Ruppert's theories the most believeable, but don't buy them entirely either. I don't think anyone's got the full story on 9.11 yet, and I don't think we will until there's more investigation. I believe that investigation needs to come from many different sources as well: it's doubtful if Congress can be trusted to do a good job. More likely, Democrats would turn it into a this-is-revenge-for-the-Clinton-impeachment situation, which would just be stupid.

You say: "I didn't read anything in the articles by Corn or Albert and Shalom that said that 9-11 should not be investigated. Where did they say this? Corn even seems to want an investigation by pointing out that lack of one has fueled wild speculation. He even complains about the lack of reports from the stock-trade investigators. So, "peace rebel boy", where did you get this notion that these guys don't want an investigation?"

I was pleasantly surprised that Corn gave a little ground in his essay on the stock-trade issue. That was good to read. What I did want to hear and did not, from him and from Shalom and Albert, was a heartfelt call for some serious digging. I got the notion that they don't want an investigation from that fact that Corn spends so much time attacking particular theories, and Shalom and Albert the very idea of theorizing, that they leave almost no room at all for the idea that an investigation is necessary or even respectable.

And actually, I didn't write that any of them said that "9-11 should not be investigated" -- I wrote that they should focus some of their skepticism on the government's theory, and join the call for investigation. Perhaps you could point out what I said that gave you this impression?

I agree with a lot of the other stuff you say, including the idea that this situation is not as simple as "a few bad apples messing up the world"; indeed, there are some deep systemic problems here as well. That's where I most disagree with Shalom and Albert: yes there are institutional problems that *must* be addressed, but it's not *just* an institutional problem. There are individuals who need to be brought to justice. Kissinger, for example, is a criminal of massive proportions who should be brought before the World Court and tried for his crimes in SE Asia and elsewhere. I like to think that bringing some of these high profile murderers to justice in a very public way could help to shake people's faiths in the institutions. I believe that would help inspire people to toss out the institutions and create different kinds of communities that are human-scaled and exist in harmony with the earth. Big dream, I know.... :)

And thanks for calling out "Edric" on his shit. Well done.

deflection again 04.Jun.2002 16:42

Edric

There is nothing to "investigate." Islamic fundamentalists with nothing to lose hijacked 3 planes and used them to destroy the pinnacles of global capitalism and US militarism. End of the story.

And yes - JEWISH RACISM fuels the ugliest parts of America's foreign policy - theft of natural resouces from powerless third-world peoples - war-mongering in Eastern Europe and the Middle East - ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

None of these bigoted policies benefit the American people.

Pennsylvania

You're right Edric 04.Jun.2002 21:46

Iris

Racism doesn't benefit the American people. And neither does sticking your head in the sand and repeating the mantra "the arabs did it ... the arabs did it" because it fits so well into your political agenda. Even if Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for 9-11 because of their ire over US Imperialism and its support of Israel, that does not rule out that a small number of elites, including the rogue government in the White House, knew of the impending attacks and chose not to prevent them because they served their purposes so well ... and have they ever served those purposes well...

This is really quite depressing. 05.Jun.2002 12:39

Depressed.

My God, you 9-11 conspiracy nuts have really flown off the handle!

Look, I'm not a big fan of David Corn or The Nation, but he completely schools you on this. Contrary to deva's ridiculous assertion that Corn merely resorts to ad homonym attacks, he's done far more shoe leather journalism than IMC-Portland. (Which has done none, as far as I can tell.)

He called Vreeland, spoke with Canadian court officials, called Vreeland's family, and confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a two-bit huckster and con artist.

He poked huge holes in Mike Ruppert's story. And yes, he was right to question Ruppert's sanity. Given his praise of the LaRouchies and his paranoid fantasies about his ex-girlfriend, I have a few questions myself about his mental sanity.

I'm afraid that IMC-Portland is allowing itself to become overrun by wild-eyed conspiracy nuts and agents provocateur. The constant belittling of people who refuse to buy into your one-track mindset, the tabloid-style headlines and photos in the center column, the complete lack of fact-checking (see the "American eagle stamp" feature)... these things are working to turn this IMC from a community resource to a hotbed of kookiness.

to depressed: 05.Jun.2002 16:35

indy activist

so c'mon in and fix it. nothing's stopping you. anyone can do shoe leather journalism and publish it here, or become part of the decision-making process to decide what the headlines are, etc., etc.  http://portland.indymedia.org/about.php3

hope to see you around!

re:depressed 05.Jun.2002 18:29

deva

go look at the nose of the Osama in the US released video, and tell me you think it looks like Osama. . .i have shown those images side by side to dozens of people and not a one said they even looked remotely close

the damn noses aren't even close!! but rather than be outraged over the blatant lie of a fake video put out by the Bush adminstration in order to further a criminal agenda, you would rather criticize the people who are outraged and trying to do something about it, whatever their faults, as best they can. . .who cares if there are a few outlandish theories around. . .it is human nature to speculate when lied to. . .

forget Corn, forget Ruppert. . .forget whatever theories get you upset. . .let's focus on the important issues

and address these points. . .

*first, do you believe that a passport, that just happened to belong to, of all people, the alleged hijacker ringleader, managed to fly out of his pocket or bag, and survive the explosion of the plane that allegedly raged hot enough to melt the building steel, and found its way down to the street virtually unscathed?

tell me that you believe this is at all a probable scenario?

*if not, then suppose the government is right about who did it, and the passport was faked to build the case against them and to cover incompetence. . .how did they know, at that time, what name to put on that passport and have the damn thing ready in order to 'find' right then?

explain that please. . .

then here are a few more questions. . .

*why are there no Arab names on the flight lists?

* why when numerous names on the FBI list of 19 alleged hijackers are proven false, has no subsequent list been released by the FBI?

* why has no action been taken on the insider stock trades which prove foreknowledge of an exact nature? You cannot make anonymous stock trades. . .the identities of those who placed the put options must be known.

* why is the FBI dragging its feet in the anthrax case and acting like there are no legitimate suspects when there are?

* why is the discrepancy between the quotes from the flight instructors indicating poor piloting skills, and the quotes from civil and miliatry authorities indicating that the pilots of the hijacked planes had to be skilled, never addressed? Until addressed, this one point invalidates the entire FBI scenario

* why were the alleged hijackers waltzing around using their own names(newsweek article), when we were being told that it was super secret cells of terrorists who did this?

* what were the false names they used? when did they switch from using their real names, to using false names? (remember they were supposed to have used fake names)

* who killed the woman the day before she was supposed to testify on her connections to obtaining fake drivers licenses? why was she killed?

you can criticize me, and imc all you want, but i stand on my assertions, and passionately, angrily, or however they come out, i will keep asking these questions. . .

George Bush conspired with his brother Jeb to defraud tens of thousands of black voters in Florida in order to steal the election. . .the rest of the so-called leaders of this democracy went along with it. . .the Bushs have known ties to illegal weapons deals, drug dealing and the three biggest financial scandals of all time. . .Bush's adminstration just tried to overthrow the democratic government of Venezuela. . .the FBI and CIA have such a dark and murderous history there is no need to go into it

you may want to cut these people some slack, but i refuse. . .until they prove their case, they do not get an inch from me. . .they have repeatedly lied about 911, and continue to do so. . .they have faked evidence, arranged a war beforehand that needed the attacks to happen for Congress to accept it, and there are glaring holes in the story and not even proof that Arabs did it.

deva

portland imc ... come back to us 08.Jun.2002 18:39

indymedia anarchist

What is happening to the Portland IMC? Why are you doing the Democrats work for them? What is the strategic goal of clinging to this idea that the CIA did 9-11? I can't believe I see a Portland Indymedia person holding a sign which says "complicit in attacks." You are letting James Bond movies frame your analysis of what is going on.

You are right to say that the White House version of what happened is false. You are wrong to take the most reactionary position possible and try to show that they are the ones who did the attack.

The truth is that neither you nor Mike Ruppert have proof of anything. What you have are facts which seem out of line with the official story, and you are using them to construct scenarios which require several logical leaps.

As a class war anarchist, I expect a more sophisticated analysis of what the ruling class is up to. The feigned shock and outrage is the most annoying part of the conspiracy bullshit. Also, the added bonus of paranoia and accusations whenever someone tries to dissect your simplified version of "the CIA did it."

The facts are that the ruling class is historically engaged in violence within itself and against the working class. It always propagandizes these actions to make them acceptable to the people. You can find examples around any major or minor political event, 9-11 included. Their class interests are diametrically opposed to our class interests, and this disparity is resolved through economic and physical force. By placing yourself in the most reactionary position possible to this fact of life under capitalism, you are promoting a naive and superficial analysis of what is going on in the world today.

...... 09.Sep.2002 18:40

.......

what's really interesting is, why should there even be ANY QUESTION over having an investigation???????