Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

9/11 Was the Consequence of Imperialism, Not Conspiracies

Image may contain: sunglasses and text

I don’t really buy into any of the views that claim 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the Bush administration, or by foreign governments like England, Israel, or Saudi Arabia.

The role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 is that it is Saudi Arabia that is responsible for fostering and promoting the Wahhabi/Salafist/Qutist ideology that motivated the hijackers. It was the Saudis that created and promoted this stuff and exported it to countries like Afghanistan.

The many various renditions of “9/11 Truth” are popular with virtually the entire spectrum of dissenting political opinion.

“The 9/11 conspiracy theories started out mostly in the political left but have broadened into what New York magazine describes as “terra incognita where left and right meet, fusing sixties countercultural distrust with the don’t-tread-on-me variety”

But the various conspiracy narratives are even more bizarre and outrageous than the conventional narrative itself:

9-11 was what intelligence specialists call “blowback,” i.e the consequences of the US (and Britain’s and Israel’s) backing of Islamist extremism as an alternative to secular Arab national and Marxist movements in the Middle East, and resentment in the Arab world of range of US foreign policy actions. Chalmers Johnson, a former intelligence specialist, described this in detail:

Dr. Michael Scheuer, who was the head of the bin Laden tracking unit at the CIA, has explained in detail why Al-Qaeda, who repeatedly claimed credit for 9-11 and blames the 9-11 truth conspiracies on Iran and the Shia, carried out the attacks and has explained in detail exactly what the motives of the terrorists were for carrying out 9/11.

6 replies »

  1. Wow, Keith. I think I can congratulate you with writing your worst article ever: a copy-paste of your standard mainstream-like subjective “psychologising” response to the objective technical theory of the 9-11 Truth Movement.

    What is important to understand about the alternative theory of the 9-11 events is that it, as I already said above, is technical and objective: this is, it is based on a rational assessment of the available empirical evidence. Such assessment, as any other objective analysis, can be true or false – OBJECTIVELY true or false – but it cannot be “outrageous”, “bizzare”, “weird”, “nutty” etc. All these labels are nothing but expressions of subjective emotional response, of an affectively-motivated refusal to evaluate the available evidence in a logical way, since the results of the evaluation are SUBJECTIVELY unpleasant.

    So, the only way to make a decision whether 9/11 Truth Movememt account of the events is valid or not is to evaluate the objective evidence and argumentation presented by it, not the supposed subjective motivations of people participating in it. It should be remembered that “psychologisation”, being subjective, is a double-edge sword and can be easily reversed and thrown at the face of the one using it. Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth did exactly that by publishing a long psychological treatrise that “pathologises” their critics as much as their critics use to “pathologise” them:

    And, as far subjectivity goes… you should understand yourself, Keith, that “conspiracy theory” itself is a subjective pejorative label, enthusiastically used by the mainstream propaganda outlets to dimiss valid observations and analyses that contradict the worldview preferred in the elite circles as false-by-definition, and to vilify the people presenting them. Hilariously, the same elite propaganda outlets are simultaneously promoting the mainstream “conspiracy theories” of their own – such as the latter one insisting, without much of the empirical evidence and rational argumentation (unlike the “fringe” 9-11 Truth) supporting it, that the global plot of evil Russians are behind virtually everything that the modern Western elites dislike about the world (much like Jews and / or Freemasons and / or Commies used to be before).

    Yet, it is people who dare to doubt the grandiose specualtive narrative of global demonic power and even more diabolical mailce of Russians who are, ironically, labelled “conspiracy theories” by the mainstream media. Such as you, Keith – do you understand that your willingness to accept the possibility of the supposed chemical attacks in Syria and poisoning of Skripals as being provocations and deceptions of the Western imperialists make you a “conspiracy theorist” in the eyes of the elite propaganda agents, whose article of faith is that mainstream, elite sources never lie?

    So, here I will finish. It is not my intention to start a long debate about the technical aspects of the controlled demolition theory. At the end, I would just ask you, Keith, one more question: did you ever looked at the actual evidence and technical arguments presented by the 9-11 Truth, or did you rejected it only by “psychological” motives?

    • I haven’t spent a lot time on 9/11 Truth theories, largely because I don’t really find them that interesting. For one thing, it doesn’t really affect my political outlook. Let’s say the US government carried the attacks out as an inside job? What would that prove? That the US government is full of assholes? Tell me something I don’t know. Let’s say the Israelis or the Saudis were behind it. It’s not like I have any love for those regimes anyway. Challenges to the standard narrative about 9/11 might be interesting. But ultimately what does it matter? Whether the imperialists actually staged 9/11 themselves or merely used it as a pretext for wars of conquest they wanted to do anyway seems like little more than an academic argument.

  2. For me, the critically important issue nowadays is exposure and refutation of the elites’ own mainstream conspiracy theories, ones that are used to propagandise people into yet another aggressive war and police state growth.

    Like a full-blown war on Syria, that seems to be a real possibility now:

    Or the intensification of the Internet censorship.

    I think here we agree, Keith!

    • Internet censorship is getting so bad that….well, even the topic of internet censorship appears to be censored. Out of over 7 billion people, only 5-10 individuals (excluding the Christian Scientists) appear to oppose blood donation, an invasive procedure with more risks than benefits for the donor. Seriously, no one seems to care about being peer-pressured into sharing their life juices with a total stranger. Yet the country is divided over consensual buttsex? Unless 7 billion people really do agree on blood donation, it seems that some topics are MUCH more heavily censored than others.

  3. Like Keith, I think it irrelevant who exactly planned or carried out the attacks. Or at least MOSTLY irrelevant. If any national government planned the attack, so what? Just more evidence against the benevolence of big government. But if we accept that the attacks were truly “blowback” from dissenters, a reaction to invasive government policies, we should really consider just what exactly the United States did to provoke such a response. Several thousand deaths may sound like a lot, but is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions who’ve died at the hand of our government. And the billions who continue to suffer.

    But I agree with Vortex: the term “conspiracy theorist” needs to go bye-bye.

  4. Keith, I recommend one very unhysterical book about 9/11: “9/11: The Simple Facts” by Arthur Naiman. It doesn’t posit any specific cast of conspirators or speculate endlessly. Just points out elements of the official story that don’t add up. It’s a quietly devastating book.

Leave a Reply