Log in

View Full Version : How September 11th was used by Bush



Kez
10th September 2004, 19:20
do you think the CIA would be so crude to allow attacks to occur and they simply miscalculated?

and why is not more being done by the Left to expose the fac that Al-Quaida and Iraq had nothing to do with each other previously...?

http://www.marxist.com/usa/september_11_bush.html

George W Bush launched his "war against terrorism", starting first in Afghanistan and then moving into Iraq, with the excuse that it was necessary in order to make the world a safer place. Three years on from the attacks on the Twin Towers the world is in no way a safer place to live. The latest atrocity in North Ossetia in Russia is testimony to this. Yesterday's bomb attack in Indonesia is another. We have also witnessed many more such attacks in the last three years. Iraq itself is far from becoming a stable "democracy". In fact the so-called war on terror has achieved none of its supposed aims, apart from the military occupation of Iraq, and even that is not secure, as the resistance is making more and more progress and controls whole areas of the country.

Nobody should have any doubts about the real reasons for this so-called war on terror. It was an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. We have written about this on more than one occasion. The plan to invade Iraq had been made ready long before the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2004.

Several factors determined this. The Middle East is very unstable. The Saudi regime is among the most unstable. The problem was, and is, that Saudi Arabia and Iraq together hold some of the largest reserves of crude oil in the world. Next door there is the Iranian regime, also sitting on huge reserves. The Iranian regime could fall in the coming period. The Saudi regime could be facing overthrow soon. To have Saddam Hussein still in power in such a situation would have meant US imperialism in particular facing a serious problem of control over oil resources. There is also the ongoing conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians.

For all these reasons and more, an important section of the US ruling class, gathered around Bush and his clique, decided long ago that it was necessary to establish a strong military presence in the Middle East. In this sense the September 11 attacks played a useful role in providing the ideal excuse for sending US troops into the Middle East. Prior to that the US ruling class was still trying to get over the Vietnam syndrome. After the humiliating defeat of the US army in Vietnam back in 1975, the mood in America had changed. Ordinary working Americans were not prepared to support any further such adventures. That is why Bush needed something big in order to shock American public opinion and turn the mood in favour of war and invasions of other countries.

This has led to a lot of speculation and "conspiracy theories" about who was really behind the attacks. The most exaggerated of these say that the Bush administration actually attacked the Towers itself. Pages and pages, and even books, have been written, looking into every little detail, trying to prove these theories. Most of them are quite easily answered and require no serious further thought.

However, once one removes the fantastic, almost science fiction style, stories that have been built up, there remains some information that does lead to some interesting conclusions.

Last night on British Channel Four TV we had a documentary going into some of the conspiracy theories that have developed. Last year in a similar programme on CBC-TV looked into the same theories.

After all the more incredible theories are discarded - such as the one that says that the failure of the U.S. intelligence to prevent the September 11 attacks from taking place is proof that the whole thing was a plot cooked up by the U.S. government - there remains the main point, which cannot be so easily answered or ignored. There is growing evidence that US intelligence agencies may have known more than they are ready to admit now. What may not be so far-fetched is that they knew some form of terrorist attack was going to take place. How big and how many victims there would be they could not have known, but that something was being prepared they most likely knew about.

The US intelligence services and the inquiry that later took place do in fact admit that they had a large amount of evidence and information that an attack was being prepared. As far back as 1995 (and this became even more concrete in 1998) intelligence services had found plans that included attacks such as those that were carried out in 2001. So the most credible of these conspiracy theories is the one that says the US government didn't do everything it could have done to stop the attacks. The logic of this would be that a bomb attack would be useful in rousing public opinion in favour of war. Therefore let us not stop it. No doubt, they did not expect such a big attack.

Whether such a theory is correct or not is yet to be proved. What we have to ask ourselves is why is it that so many people are prepared to give time and credence to such theories? The answer to that is easy to find.

The attack on the Twin Towers was claimed by and attributed to Osama bin-Laden's al-Qaeda. This is an organisation financed mainly from wealthy Saudi Arabian sources. But Bush went to war against Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein there were no al-Qaeda cells operating in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or the attacks on the Twin Towers.

All this would indicate that not all the conspiracy theories are fantastical imaginations. It is quite clear that Bush and his clique had prepared long ago to go to war in Iraq, not for reasons of “fighting terrorism”, but to defend the economic, strategic and military interests of US imperialism. That is why thousands of Iraqi people, and with them hundreds of US soldiers, have died. They have died not for democracy but for the profits of Bush and his ilk.

History shows that sooner or later the truth emerges. When the full picture of what has been done in the name of the “American people” emerges, the workers and youth of America will begin to understand the true nature of the system they live under and they will want to change it.

Socialsmo o Muerte
12th September 2004, 20:43
That's definately one of the more credible artciles I've read off that site, which I always am weary of reading due to the bias. The only problem I could really spot was the suggestion that the attacks took place on "September 11, 2004"! A typo, I'm sure.

Anyway, it's definately a good point you raise that the fact that the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link never existed has not been broadcast enough.

As for the point about the institutions allowing the attacks to happen - that's a bit more difficult.

I honestly believe that these attacks wouldn't have just been allowed to happen, but once they did they were definately used as a "blessing in disguise". We all know that the US government is corrupt anf filthy, but could you really believe that all these people who knew that an attack was imminent would have just stood back and allowed it to happen? The truth is, that possibility cannot be dismissed due to the sheer dirtiness of the government we speak of. But I would suggest they did not know this was coming on this grand of a scale. Besides, how do you really stop something like that happening. We could go into an argument for ages about airport security, but the men who did this didn't just walk through with weapons in their hands. They were obviously very well guarded. This was clearly a plan that had been developing for a very long time.

The rest of what the article says is very ture though. This was used as an event to rouse patriotic pride and convince a nation that war was neccessary. All that was needed then was to sell the "fact" that Iraq was involved and hey presto, you've got your war. Of course, attacking Afghanistan first was neccessary. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had proven links with the Taliban, so you attack them, then while the public is in an anti-terrorist mood and a war is going on against terrorists, you tell them that you know their linked to Iraq too. Simple propaganda, we all know how this works.

Circumstances allowed the attack on Iraq to happen; in particular, the 9/11 attacks. Without these, the public wouldn't have agreed to the war.

One last thing. The posts claims, "History shows that sooner or later the truth emerges." I would disagree. Since the 60's, important events have NOT been uncovered, the truth has been allowed to be wrapped up and hidden from the people. Look at JFK, MLK, John Lennon.. these deaths were covered up with stories to shut the people up. If the truth was out, conspiracy theories wouldn't fly around. And what about the oldest lie ever told; The Bible. 2004 years and conspiracy theories are still flying around because the truth has not been told. Maybe sometimes we think the trut is out, but is it really? I don't think the full story of this will come out. There's not enough transparency and there is too much dishonesty and greed within the power bases.

Louis Pio
13th September 2004, 15:56
which I always am weary of reading due to the bias.

Of course marxists are biased towards marxism :D Btw you can never find something really unbiased, that was the most usefull thing I learned in my 2 wasted years in University.

On the discussion

As for the point about the institutions allowing the attacks to happen - that's a bit more difficult.

I think it is the case, of course not all of the institutions but parts of it.


One last thing. The posts claims, "History shows that sooner or later the truth emerges." I would disagree. Since the 60's, important events have NOT been uncovered, the truth has been allowed to be wrapped up and hidden from the people. Look at JFK, MLK, John Lennon..

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont. Especially when someone get's the chance to digg through the archives, as has happened in Russia for example.

Socialsmo o Muerte
17th September 2004, 01:24
Unless governments change dramatically, I cannot see the truth coming out about this issue. Because if they don't change, there will always be people involved with power who will be too much at risk should certain truths be exposed.

Don't count on finding the truth out my friend. JFK truths are due to finally be released in 2035. The people who cared at the time are likely to be dead. And even so, it's likely that the date will be pressed back further untill the importance of it dies from memory into near myth. I expect the same from the whole "War on Terror" period to happen.

Funky Monk
21st September 2004, 21:32
Im not sure if such secrets will ever come out especiallay if, according to a lot of conspiracy theorists, the government is most involved.

Its all very well the American administration in 2035 saying that any government involvment with Kennedy's assassination was a thing of the past and of no concern to people now, its going to throw a bad light on the whole process.


What i am trying to say is the people who can control this information are the ones most likely to want this information controlled.

commiecrusader
21st September 2004, 21:48
Besides, how do you really stop something like that happening. We could go into an argument for ages about airport security, but the men who did this didn't just walk through with weapons in their hands. They were obviously very well guarded.
the standard procedure prior to 9/11 and since then is for fighter planes to be scrambled and to shoot down the hijacked plane if it approaches an urban/important area but to try and persuade them to be escorted to a landing strip.