So 'wag the dog' ? Ex post hoc, ergo propter hoc ?

Certainly the Yanks used the attack on New York for their own ends, but that doesn't even suggest that they engineered the whole kaboodle.

After all, if anybody is suggesting, say, that the plane that flew into the Pentagon was not a plane but a rocket, question A arises: fired from where ? Question B asks, if Colin Powell was head of the State department and therefore (?) the CIA, and the CIA did it, did he order a rocket to be fired into the Pentagon ? Question C: what would Rumsfeld have thought of that ?

Of course, the elephant in the room is the simple fact that nobody involved - and to carry out such a complex and monstrous conspiracy would have required a hell of a lot of people to be in the know - has ever spilled the beans.

And what do you reckon the relations of all those killed (or is that a myth, too ?) would do to Bush, even now, if they found out ?

No, folks, fortuitous as it may have been for some weird US agenda, al Qaida did it, bragged about it, and have carried out some 1800 terrorist attacks since then - all with THEIR OWN agenda in mind: the overthrow of Western enlightenment values, of the rule of law as man-made, dequality of the sexes, democracy, etc.

And incidentally, the obliteration of any Left, anywhere, the Dhimmis, the apologists, hoping they will be the last fruit on the tree.

So it was one tragedy that one reactionary bunch fortuitously played into the hands of another reactionary bunch.

It is another tragedy that many people on the Left, otherwise intelligent, are prepared to overlook the vile actions of one bunch of reactionaries in an attack on another, but less guilty, bunch.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, two books you might like to look at for the answers to your questions are both by David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited and 9/11: Ten Years Later.

To rely on the information (and misinformation) that flowed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and ignore the enormous body of serious research that has gone on since is equivalent to believing the Warren Commission Report and ignoring the evidence that has emerged in the 50 years since. There are parallels as Peter Dale Scott has pointed out. He coined the phrase "deep events", of which JFK; the Gulf of Tonkin; and 9/11 are but illustrations.

The issue of 9/11 is a complex one, and fairy tales about 19 Muslim hijackers is simply the cartoon version. Given the consequences the article writer, Geoff of Perth, Halduell and others have noted (and they only touch on the issues), it is far too important a matter to be left unexamined.

"But even more insidious is the mistrust in which we now hold our elected representatives. For those of us who can remember, maybe it's not so bad. At least we can remember when it wasn't so and can hope it will not always remain as it has become. But for the teenagers and early twenty-something's who have never known it otherwise, what irreparable damage have we done to our body politic?
We distrust, we fear and that's no way to live, no way to build a family, a future. The dogs of war have been loosed upon us, and it ain't real pretty at all."

I cannot imagine returning to the pre- 9/11 world, where trust was implied among people, and treaties were signed in good faith, then honoured. All that is now gone, and as you say, we are left with what? A bunch of useless career politicians, with zero experience of anything outside the body politic.

I ask again... what have we done to ourselves, in the name of group safety?

Hi MSS,

Yes, that's the point, even the purpose, of terrorism - to make us distrust everything about us, 'our' system, the effectiveness of democracy and democratic forms of operation, however imperfect. And it certainly didn't help to have such dumb-@rse politicians as Bush in charge of the response to terrorism.

And yes, I do believe that there is such a reactionary, backward, totalitarian ideology as that which groups like al Qaida adhere to, and are ready to die for.

Those are the lousy choices before us - imperfect and often corrupted forms of democracy, or one of the most backward forms of totalitarianism.

I come from a Left-wing background. So yes, I do believe it is possible, even likely, that someone other than, as well as, Oswald shot Kennedy. I suspect that people like Louis Farrakhan and even Muhammad Ali were involved in the murder of Malcolm X. I suspect that ex-President Arbenz of Guatemala may have been murdered, drowned, in 1966. But no, I don't believe the Moon Landing was staged in some giant movie set in Arizona.

Or that the CIA murdered 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon.

Move on.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, amongst other things you stated "......But no, I don't believe the Moon Landing was staged in some giant movie set in Arizona.

Or that the CIA murdered 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon."

That is fine, I think what some of us here are alluding to is the scientific evidence that has been assessed by some of the world's leading scientists in their fields of expertise have clearly shown that WTC7 could not have collapsed as it did, there was the use of nano-thermite, which is very much restricted to the development and use by advanced country military forces. Coincidence, me thinks not.

Additionally, George W Bush's brother Jeb was in charge of security at the WTC, coincidence, maybe, maybe not.

Sew enough disinformation and everyone gets confused, especially early on in the piece.

Fact: In 1967 Israel intentionally attacked and tried to sink a US NSA surveillance ship the USS Liberty. The USS Saratoga attempted to provide air support but was directed to recall their aircraft, this call was made by President Johnson so that the Israeli's would not be embarrassed. When asked in the mid 1980's about the USS Liberty incident, Robert S McNamara stated "I did remember all about it then, but I know nothing about it now" seem odd to you?

No one is suggesting the CIA were responsible, the evidence however does support that some inside US Government element (rogue or not) had a very large hand in the events of 9/11. Will we ever know the truth, probably not.

Another odd thing that struck me was the complete lack of aircraft debris (no wheels, engines etc) that remained from the aircraft that crashed in the forest on 9/11, wouldn't you say that this is rather odd, most aircrashes, no matter how catastrophic, usually leave large pieces of debris?

Perhaps you should do some research and see some of the scientific evidence recently released about 9/11 by the 'Architects for 9/11 truth' you can google them if you wish.

Geoff,

Christ, more fruit-cakes than a local CWA table.

Twin towers: I do recall when they were being built, that there were concerns that the new form of external structure would not be strong enough to hold up the buildings. They did, of course, until the planes flew into them... and sure enough, the building that was hit lower down, but later, collapsed first. As one would expect.

We don't have to posit that the temperature didn't reach melting point - but did it reach the zone in which the structural strength of rhe building materials was compromised ? Probably.

So move on. Don't waste your lives over this.

Joe