Ms. Wypijewski,

What would you have told Italian dissidents in the 70s and 80s if they’d dared to claim that Italian intelligence was supporting the neofascist terrorist bombings from 1969-1980 starting with Piazza Fontana bombing?

Is the prospect of a US government willing to kill its own citizens with bombs somehow more disempowering than a government willing to kill the species by failing to address Global Warming?

How do you account for the evidence of foreknowledge in light of the stated objectives of the PNAC?

Finally, could you explain the difference between your conviction that the US was in no way complicit in the attacks and your typical 9/11 conspiracy theorists conviction that the US made every aspect of the event happen on purpose?

Thank You

The US was complicit in 9/11 in the sense that it created the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980s, is an imperialist power with bases all over the Middle East, author via sanctions of the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children, essential supporter of Israel and of every corrupt Arab state. So, a lot of people have felt the whip-lash of the United States, directly or indirectly, and some of them decided to strike back.

Naturally the US had all kinds of intelligence. Naturally they didn't look at most of it or didn't have translators for it or didn't care or didn't think their opponents capable of anything so spectacular and deadly. I think one ought to consider the potent effect of hubris: government people really do believe the US is the strongest nation on earth, that the army is the best on earth, that no one could strike at its financial and military heart. It's racist as well, something picked up by the 9/11 people when they argue that 'people in caves' could never have been capable of such a thing. So there's no doubt there were signs and warnings that went unheeded, for a combination of reasons--and I would not discount that someone may have reasoned that a small hit could be opportune. But I don't think the US government planned 9/11 any more than it planned the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing in Lebanon back in the late 80s of the Marine barracks or the bombing of the embassies in Africa. You can't be a murderous power and not have people try to murder you back. It's pretty basic.

The 9/11 people are just preposterous, and dismiss the essential political dynamic of action-reaction in assuming this had to be 'an inside job'.

Indira Gandhi armed and encouraged Sikh separatists as a way of blunting the power of her more conventional political opponents. Eventually they killed her. Does that mean she planned her assassination? The US armed and encouraged Hezbollah in Lebanon as a way of blunting the power of the PLO there. Eventually they drove Israel out of South Lebanon and we know what happened this summer. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. Eventually they displaced the PLO. The US armed and encouraged bin Laden and unified Islamic fighters all over the world as a way of driving the Russians out of Afghanistan. Eventually we got 9/11. The pattern repeats and repeats, in country after country, with governments organizing radical elements in hopes of attaining other goals, only to have those elements--who are ideological, who are not fooling around--to strike back.

As for the global warming analogy, that's not in the same ballpark and you know it. The government didn't care that people were getting sick from lead and other pollutants in the air until people organized and screamed bloody murder. It didn't care that Detroit was putting out cars the were exploding from back-end collisions until Ralph Nader did his version of screaming bloody murder. And on and on. The government protects capitalism and capitalist exploitation which has killed millions of workers over the years through slow poisoning, slow strangulation, workplace 'accidents', gunfire from hired thugs or the national guard. For a long time it sanctioned slavery and mass murder of Indians.

So I have no illusions, but none of that supports suppositions that the government planned to ram a bunch of planes into buildings on September 11.

best,
JoAnn

JoAnn,

From your response I see that there is perhaps a dimes worth of difference between your position and the position of a committed conspiracy theorist. Both you and the archetypal "nutter" cherry pick evidence to fit your theories.

I asked you to address one example of false flag terrorism, namely the Piazza Fontana bombing, and you chose to ignore this request. I asked you to respond to the evidence of foreknowledge especially in light of the stated objectives of the PNAC. You wrote:

"Naturally the US had all kinds of intelligence. Naturally they didn't look at most of it or didn't have translators for it or didn't care or didn't think their opponents capable of anything so spectacular and deadly...I don't think the US government planned 9/11 any more than it planned the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing in Lebanon back in the late 80s of the Marine barracks or the bombing of the embassies in Africa."

The assertion that the US didn't look at or underestimated the importance of the intelligence it received before 9/11 is a false assertion. CIA director Tenet was described by Richard Clarke as so alarmed by the intelligence he received over the summer of 2001 that he "behaved as if his hair was on fire." George Bush received intelligence on August 6th of 2001 about bin Laden's plans to attack inside the US. He was reported to have responded to the news in this way.

"Okay, you've covered your ass now."

You claim that the US was unintentionally complicit, but that is only an assumption, and it is an assumption that falls to pieces if one examines the stated objectives of the Bush gang. This gang was already planning to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before the attacks, they wanted to redefine US power in the world, and their PNAC document states that they longed for a "New Pearl Harbor" that would legitimize these Imperial ambitions in the court of public opinion.

You provided me with a catalog of historical instances of blowback, which is an element that I agree played a part in 9/11. I offer you five examples of false flag terrorism. In order to save time I've simply listed the incidents by name. I would suggest Len Bracken's "Shadow Government" if you care to investigate why these historical precedents may be relevant in the context of 9/11.

1. The Italian Strategy of Tension or Gladio.
2. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
3. Operation Himmler
4. 1999 Moscow Apartment bombings
5. The Lavon Affair

You suggest that my Global Warming analogy is not a fair one because Global Warming is a case of benign neglect while a false flag terrorist attack would be an intentional act. I think the distinction is not particularly significant and would rate the crime of knowingly instigating policies that lead to extinction as a far greater crime than the intentional murder of a few thousand.

You state that you have "no illusions" but then go on to say that none of the examples of State crimes "supports suppositions that the government planned to ram planes into buildings on September 11." And while this is technically true, you did in fact manage to avoid citing evidence that would support the supposition of hard complicity, the truth of your statement does not mean that no such evidence exists. The US has indeed planned to stage the hijacking of planes in the past, the specific example would be Operation Northwoods.

Finally, even if your position is ultimately proven out to be correct, even if hubris and incompetence alone led to 9/11, even if all the contrary evidence can be explained away, I fail to understand why it is necessary for far left leaders to belittle those who demand accountability on this subject. Would it not make more sense to support the victims' families who are demanding a new investigation now that the original 9/11 commission report has been exposed as a fraud by Kean himself? What political sense does it make to call those who are beginning to see the current system as criminal "nutters"?

I do not expect a reply but would be pleasantly surprised if I received one.