9-11...this is how wars are done

The 'whole world changed after September 11th', or so the official narrative would have us believe (not to mention certain 'leftist' apologists for the status quo)

The Campaign to Impeach George W. Bush
Click here for more information


I was reading a story which described the attempts of certain elements on the left to divide the anti-war movement, in particular by promoting the idea that the war is in fact inevitable, but maybe we should just wait a little longer (hardly a ringing endorsement of the 'anti-war' position, but then only someone who was actually pro-war would be attempting to divide the movement in the first place.)



Noteworthy as well is the attempt to divide people over the issue of what writers such as Corn has derided as 'conspiracy theories' regarding the events surrounding 9-11, a cause that Corn took up with a bit of indignation, supporting and defending the administration while debunking and denigrating the concerns of those who were 'indulging themselves' in 'conspiracy theories' by doubting the official narrative describing what supposedly took place on 9-11.

Corn did however fail to address a few interesting facts in his defense of the status quo and the official narrative (you can read his pieces on this subject on the ZNET site). For example, just a few months before 9-11 Bush was at the Summit in Genoa (something that should be familiar with at least some people affliated with Indymedia). As you will recall there was a no fly zone established at the time, Civilian passenger aircraft were restricted as to the airspace they could fly in (unless they wanted to be shot out of the sky) with the Italians bringing out the anti aircraft guns and ringing the summit, turning Genoa into an armed anti-aircraft camp, so great was the fear of suicide bombers bringing down buildings housing VIPs in Genoa for the summit using civilian aircraft as flying bombs. Bush, you might recall, retired for the evening by leaving Genoa, and spent the summit rooming on a navy ship, bristling with anti-aircraft guns, since apparently the Americans were worried that maybe the Italians couldn't shoot straight.

So then, we know, when high officials are the ones whose lives are at risk, every precaution is taken.

Now you can compare this to the obvious lie that was told by Condoleeza Rice who, when questioned about why the Administration did nothing to warn the American people in advance of 911, and did nothing to increase airport security or take other measures that could have prevented the disaster, said, rather foolishly I thought (not having a short term memory loss myself, after all) that before 911 no one even thought that someone might do something like commander a passenger jet and use it as a flying bomb. So they just weren't ready for it, it caught them by surprise (they had been Pearl Harbored, it was a truly vicious sneak attack). This position and the official narrative is the one Corn, for example, will justify and defend in his pieces on ZNET. Just a few months before, at Genoa, suicide bombings using civilian passenger aircraft was the prime concern, and you can be sure no one would be boarding a plane with high officials on board, without going through rigorous security. Every precaution was taken, including hauling out the SAMS and the big guns, and parking a navy ship brisling with anti-craft weapons off shore as a kind of floating hotel for VIPs.

One should also recall that during the summer Ashcroft quit using commercial aircraft after receiving the latest FBI threat assessment. This information was not shared with the public at large, who then might have demanded harsh airport security measures be taken, which would have then prevented Pearl Harbor, which would mean that we wouldn't be going to war with Iraq today, Iran and Korea tommorrow, since there never would have been a 9-11. Given that it was expected months in advance it could have been prevented, but wasn't, something Mr. Corn never adequately addresses in critical attacks on 'conspiracy theorists' (like myself) who unlike Mr. Corn and the rest of them, just stubbornly refuse to accept the official narrative describing 9-11, not to mention the official narratives which describe why we must now bomb Baghdad (and soon enough Tehran, and then North Korea, and who knows what comes next, none of which would have been remotely possible if it wasn't for the fact that 'tbhe whole world changed on 911', a dictum Mr. Corn and the rest of them also accept as being true).

911 was anticipated at the very least many months in advance. Nevertheless no security precautions were taken at airports, no beefed up inspections and security put in place on behalf of the american people, which could have thwarted 9-11, with the only high security measures taken in the preceding months, Corn should take notice, being taken on behalf of high officials. On the morning of the attacks no jets were scrambled (the better to make sure that those suicide flying bombs reached their target, opening up a new era of military adventures, or so the fevered minds of the hawks must have been thinking, as they ignored security at airports (with the exception of security for VIPs) and, it seems obvious in hindsight, waited patiently throughtout the summer, and into the fall, for 9-11 to finally happen so they could carry out their agenda of imperialist war adventures around the globe.

But then to talk in such a way is to indulge in 'Conspiracy theories' as they are called. (Is anyone aware of the fact that cable traffic was being received in Washington tracking the Japanese approach to Pearl Harbor. When this information leaked out and became known, this made neccesary a kangaroo court and the trial of certain lower officials on charges of 'gross negligence'. Can anyone tell the story of World War 2 without mentioning Pearl Harbor (everything changed after Pearl Harbor). Does anyone remember the fabrication known as 'the Gulf of Tonkin Incident' which led America into the Vietnam war. Does anyone remember how Hitler dressed up some dead Poles in uniforms and tossed their corpses along the border to 'prove' that Poles attacked Germany?

I think myself that if a few VIPs at Genoa would have agreed to take a (flying) bullet for the good of the cause and everything, instead of being so damned concerned about security precautions, well that would have made a much more convincing 'official narrative' that this other idiotic thing they now expect people to swallow. It would have been a little more consistent too...

Does anyone remember 9-11? This is how these things are done, and for someone like Corn to be taking up pen and denouncing such concerns as 'conspiracy theories' really is ridiculous, better said reactionary, when history tells us again and again that this is how these things are done, and all the weirdness and unanswered questions around 9-11 tell us that once again this is how things are being done, deliberately, step by step.

First we were at war with Afghanistan, a war already planned as it took place early in the Summer of 2001, and not at all a reaction to 9-11, as the official narrative would have us believe. Now we are at war with Iraq, and the future looks bright (if you are a hawk, that is) as 'the whole world changed on 9-11' and now the future opens up before us as an endless series of imperialist wars, wars once impossible, but now anything is possible, since 'the world changed on 9-11'.

I have never heard Corn or any of the others who debunk all this sort of talk as 'conspiracy theory' adequately explain all the lying and the strange behavior swirling around 9-11, not to mention the ever so convenient coincidences. It would be impossible to oppose this war without remembering 9-11, since, as history tells us, and as history repeats itself over and over again, we really do have to remember 9-11 since this silly little 'conspiracy theory' really does describe just how wars are done, and how the compliance of the always reluctant population is won.