9/11 being al queda 'Blowback' and Inside Job are BOTH TRUE
Kurt Nimmo says in this article, Corporate Media Embraces 9/11 Blowback Theory http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=870 , that Ron Paul's dust up about 9/11 with Giuliani is in opposition to 9/11 truth. While I fully agree that blowback has been used, especially by gatekeepers like Chomsky, to go against 9/11 truth, in actually, it isn't in opposition at all.
9/11 inside job, and 'blowback' can be, and are, BOTH TRUE. There are radicalized Muslims as the result of western policy in the middle east. The number one reason that Muslims are pissed off is the Israel-Palestinian situation and the Western one-sided support of Israel. This anger was tapped into starting in the late 70s, with the recruitment of 35,000 Muslims, throughout the middle east but mainly from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to help the mujahideen fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan 1980-1988. This aided a lot of interests. The U.S. because it was against the Soviet Union. Egypt and Saudi Arabia because it allowed them a siphon to get their radicalized youth out of the country so that their anger wasn't directed at the governments themselves and their perceived 'friendliness' to Israel. Pakistan was very much a big supporter of this effort because they could utilize radicalized militants in their battle with India over the region of Kashmir, and get western Pakistani tribes to direct their anger not at the Pakistani government but at the invading Soviets in Afghanistan. That is why 'al queda' camps basically were Pakistani ISI camps. Then following the collapse of the soviet union and the first Gulf War, many of the radicalized Muslims for Salafist schools, especially from Saudi Arabia, were PISSED OFF by American troops' continued presence on their holy land (Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are). They also were very pissed at the collective punishment to Iraqi civilians following the Gulf War (which led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead).
During the 1990s, the terror networks now called al queda weren't just thinking the whole time when they professed anger at the U.S., "this is all bullshit backstory for a CIA inside job coming up in several years." As the U.S. one-sided support of Israel became more and more brazen and easily documented in the early to mid-90s, we became more the object of the anger related to the Israel issue. Many Americans became more angry, including Pat Buchanan and his run for president in 1992, and Ron Paul, who comes from the same school of foreign policy. It was a key part in the growth of the 'patriot' community. Now, western intelligence services (CIA, MI6, Mossad, and their underling associates in the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt) continued to utilize what is now known as al queda in the mid 90s through directing their networks and providing resources for conflicts such as in the newly independent former Soviet Union countries, and the Balkan conflict. When Bin Laden issued his fatwa in 1996 against the U.S., he may have been entirely sincere. He may have just been responding to the sentiments of the radicalized guys coming out of Saudi Arabia at that point. He loved being the mouthpiece for anything, including things he wasn't even involved in. Remember, the leadership of Saudi Arabia were actually, truly worried about the anger that came from having U.S. bases on their land. They told us in the mid-to-late 90s we needed to do something. Bin Laden's fatwa may have even been helpful to the Saudi Arabian princes because it focused the anger at the United States (instead of allowing all the anger to build up against the Saudi Arabian princes for allowing the U.S. there).
Having these terrorist networks now angry at the U.S. didn't mean that these networks weren't useful to western intelligence services. Now they could be the 'bad guy' for the American empire, along with Saddam Hussein. Remember, in 1990 and 91 Bush Sr. announced a new post-Cold War world order basically organized as the world behind the U.S. going up against 'rogue states'. Clinton closely followed that same foreign policy. It was sold as Pax Americana. Now they had networks of pissed off Muslims they could use to help label countries as rogue nations (i.e. Somalia, Sudan, Taliban, etc.) As many people have documented, most of the time a country was labeled rogue, it more had to do with not bowing down to U.S. imperial interests, or just having resources we wanted to control. Maybe Osama wasn't sure when he issued the fatwa in 1996 that western intelligence would still support and work with those same networks as they had in the past, but it would be apparant based on those networks' involvement in the balkans and former soviet republics and other things that they would.
The bottom line is, over the 90s the U.S. DID become enemy #1 of radicalized muslims in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, etc. because of its policies. That was the blowback. That anger was used to continue to recruit them into the terror networks by Bin Laden and others. The militant networks we set up and worked with were still useful to the United States, however, as a managed adversary, when in 1979-1989 they were a manged ally (i.e. the mujahideen propaganda film, Rambo III). Having a managed adversary actually was extremely important for the military industrial complex, which faced an industry crisis with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. It's hard to dupe the public into agreeing to spend so much money when you say your biggest problem, which used to be the Soviet Union with thousands of nukes, planes, and tanks, is now what tribe in Somalia or Sudan or Afghanistan weilds power. Most of the public will say, who really cares? We aren't the world's police, it's not worth our money and lives. But if you are able to attach the conflict of what tribe controls some backwater nation to TERRORISM that could strike people at home here in the West, you get your money, big time. Some time in the mid to late 90s, this strategy was decided upon. You started seeing Osama Bin Laden on network TV news programs being interviewed by reporters who had to go blindfolded to his secret hideouts, etc. The mainstream media was fully on board hyping up the terrorism threat. Clinton started hyping the biological terrorist threat that would supposedly kill thousands. We saw all sorts of stories on the news about how anyone could steal a nuke from the former soviet union, including 'suitcase' nukes.
The powers that be (whatever name you want to call them) felt that one big successful terrorist attack on the West would be needed to really make this world order stick. News stories on threats and embassies getting hit just wouldn't be enough. The world order following WWII was the West vs. Communists (U.S.S.R.). That order lasted 45 years. Then there was a transition period in the 90s, and then the world order in the 21st century was going to be the West vs. Terrorists. The need for this was not only important to the military industrial complex, but also for Big Energy, because the lands of terrorism happen to line up with the lands of oil. They also wanted this to last decades (guaranteed gigantic budgets, which to them means profits), which is why they tried calling it the Long War from the start. Neocons provided their take on how the U.S. should act under this upcoming world order (PNAC). Al queda was a useful asset as a managed adversary to really usher in this world order, because a significant event was needed, much in the same way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only ended WWII, but ushered in the West vs. Communists world order. And that's where the inside job comes in. The powers that be utilized complicit people within the U.S. government and complicit people among western intelligence services directed elements of the now blowback-minded al queda to engineer the transformational event of 9/11. (9/11 was fully MIHOP). And the result is the nightmare we've been living in ever since.