ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FOR THE EVENTS OF SEP. 11, 2001?
Hardiker 8/01/06
The world of the new millennium has but one global superpower and one which maintains absolute global hegemony. This nation, or perhaps more appropriately – empire, is the United States of America. At its helm is an administration with an extremely radical and dangerous agenda. The policy advisors behind the Presidency of George W Bush are of the neo-conservatives. These are the remnants and supporters of President Ronald Reagan’s Republican administration.
These individuals are fundamentalists who embrace an extreme ideology that includes an inherent belief that it is their Gods will that America pursue a divine crusade to spread throughout the world Americanized concepts of capitalism, freedom, democracy, family values and lifestyle choices. They possess dubious if not dangerous moral and ethical principals and hold in reverence the socio/political ideology of philosopher Levi Strauss. As well as their Christian fundamentalist religious beliefs they adhere to archaic political ideologies which resemble plurocratic rather than democratic government. Given the calibre of such powerful and influential individuals within the Bush administration, including others from such think tanks as PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and the American Enterprise Institute, such as Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz to name but a few, it is not difficult to question that which would ordinarily be considered unthinkable. Could the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 have been an act of collusion involving the United States administration?
That which transpired on September 11, 2001 has left in its wake a great many unanswered questions; questions that have been asked, not by the mainstream media which of course is sanctioned by the national interest, but by respected independent journalists and individuals of repute. All such attempts have been met with blatant, insolent and unwarranted refusal.
Without doubt military and intelligence agencies require secrecy. But there is no national or global security interest in keeping the world in the dark regarding the events of September 11. The first few weeks after the event were marked by a feverish patriotism both within the US and abroad which quickly resolved into a war on terrorism characterised by assaults on personal liberties, a reversion to old style McCarthyism whereby any who question official government and media information were branded un-American or as the case here, un-Australian. In creating a war on terrorism Bush and his coalition deputies Prime Ministers Blair and Howard, have turned us against each other. Citizen against immigrant, right against left, Christian against Muslim. The questions that are the cause of so much scepticism in relation to the official explanation for the events of that infamous day in 2001 arise principally from the fact that so many questions refuse to be answered both by government and security agencies.
Crucially important questions such as;
1. Why did the United States Air Force fail to scramble interceptor jets – in defiance of all long-standing regulations and practices – for almost two hours after it was known that an unprecedented four planes had been high jacked?
2. How could the world’s most powerful military fail to react throughout a prolonged attack on the financial capital of the world?
3. How did the FBI know the exact identities of the highjackers within 24 hours of the attacks? If they were known, why weren’t they apprehended earlier? FBI agents had raised the alarm regarding well known Al- Qaeda members attending US flight schools and had been ignored.
4. Why did Donald Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq the next morning after the attacks?
5. Why did two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews’s air Force base, 19 kilometres from Washington not scramble to defend the White House?
6. Why did Bush sit for half an hour in a Florida classroom after his chief of staff informed him about the second plane? Why did he pretend that he that he first learned of the attacks in that classroom, when he had actually been briefed that morning?
7. Why has there been no public investigation into the billions of dollars “earned” by insider trading of United Airlines stocks before September 11?
8. Why was the collapse of the twin towers more reminiscent of a demolition than the impact of an airliner?
9. Where are the pictures of aircraft hitting the Pentagon? Where is the large debris? Almost invariably the engine blocks of commercial aircraft remain largely intact after impact.
These are but a few of the many questions waiting to be answered.
With the progression of time, more people are questioning the official though unproven explanation. Is it conceivable that the attacks on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington were not random act of terrorism by Al Qaeda as accused? Has Osama Bin laden ever claimed responsibility for the attacks? He has praised them, and celebrated in the unexpected and unforseen dramatic outcomes, i.e. the total collapse of the twin towers, but to my knowledge has never publicly admitted to perpetrating them. Collusion between the United States and some other party such as Saudi Arabia in order to split the enormous oil wealth of Iraq between American and British corporations is no small incentive. http://www.carbonweb.org/index.htm
Could an Administration requiring domestic and global consent to deploy the full weight of its military and economic might, in order to retain global hegemony be prepared to make a great many people extremely wealthy whilst opening a gateway into the Middle East for reasons relating to the securing of it’s vast oils reserves, be culpable? In a world of dwindling oil reserves and the rapid rise of powerful new Asian economies, the urgency to secure essential oil and natural gas deposits within the Middle East and Eurasia’s, (the untapped oil reserves of the Caspian sea basin) required urgent geo-strategic action. Pre-emptive military strikes would of course only ever be internationally justifiable and condoned if the United States were being threatened for example by a Middle Eastern State in a manner which necessitated a military response. In the words of writer and political commentator Gore Vidal, “a massive and external threat to the American homeland was desperately required by the Neo-Conservatives to implement their agenda.” Should this scenario in fact be the case, then the world has not been changed by a new global threat from terrorism, but a new global threat from a superpower with the means to defy all international laws and treaties as well as the United Nations Security council.
For at least a decade prior to the "appointment” of George Bush as President of the United States the Neo-Conservatives, adhering to an adopted ideology and social philosophy of Levi Strauss, conspired to create Vidal’s “massive and external threat” to the American homeland. This they successfully achieved on September 11, 2001. Initiating ‘The war on terrorism’ by colluding in the destruction of the world trade centre twin towers in New York and damaging the Pentagon in Washington and subsequently accusing Osama Bin Laden (even allowing a deceived public to conclude that Saddam Hussein was involved in order to pre-emptively strike Iraq), the administration instigated a new collective though completely false ‘climate of fear’. A tool used to great effect by politicians since the days of the Grecian and Roman empires.
The neo-cons had created the means to pursue their ideology and agenda for ‘The new American century’ Through the use of American global hegemony they have set about re-shaping the world according to their values. Regime change quickly replaced the imminent threat from Middle Eastern weapons of mass destruction when predictably none were discovered, despite endless intelligence “proving” otherwise. Humanitarianism, freedom and democracy have become the new hypocritical clichés of the Bush, Blair and Howard coalition.
False accusations against organizations and so called ‘rogue’ states (again the use of fearful language which is part and parcel of the new strategy) were made and innocent parties persecuted. Thus the spectre of International terrorism was borne and adopted with enthusiasm by governments worldwide as a means of using the allusion of fear to control public opinion and justify action against considered subversive and nuisance elements within their countries. Everyone who disagreed with state policy seemingly became a terrorist overnight and the application of the term in most instances was a complete misnomer. As the illegal, immoral and unjustifiable case for war against Iraq was put to the United Nations, the world became aware that America could do whatever it liked against whomever it liked. Overnight the United States became a pariah state and the world turned against it in fear of its destructive leadership. It is now deemed by the majority of the world’s people to be the principal threat to global peace and security. The UN was proven impotent.
The tragedy today is that the politics of fear have apparently won over fundamentally prejudiced and naive populations. They have been led to water by ruthless leaders and willingly had their full, condoning the passing of new legislation such as the patriot act in America and anti-terrorist legislation in Australia. All of this has the potential to deprive citizens of rights which are integral to Democratic societies. The world is turning its back on democracy and permitting the implementation of that which will have more in common with totalitarian or police states.
Dr. Carmen Lawrence, a former Premier of Western Australia points out in her article of May 2003, that Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating summed up the result of the war on terrorism and the politics of fear on the national psyche when he stated that, “we have moved from being on the brink of creating a tolerant, creative society in which xenophobia was on the wane to one in which tolerance looks frailer and xenophobia more robust. This government (the Australian Howard Government) has consistently looked inward and backward and its predominant theme is captured by its actions in closing borders and keeping people out. The emphasis is on exclusion rather than inclusion, on fear, rather than hope”.
