h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I find it remarkable that nobody in power asked the question “Why?” after September 11th 2001.

It is crucial to understand the reasons behind an event, because only then will you be able to avoid recreating the conditions that gave rise to the event in future. So here are some thoughts …

In planning any event, be it a child’s party, a business conference or a terrorist attack, the four core aspects to consider are:

1. Purpose
2. Time
3. Manner
4. Place

The purpose of the attacks was to retaliate against US imperialism. Given the invincibility of the US military, any attempt at a grand-scale attack would fail. Hence the choice of a small scale attack using civilian equipment. The purpose and the manner determined, the time and the place remained. Since only a small-scale attack was possible, the targets and timing would have to be symbolic rather than strategic in the usual sense. So here’s the symbolism:

World Trade Center = US economic might
Pentagon = US military might
White House = US political might

September 11th = Crimes of US Imperialism – the symbolism being that the US helped to instal one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships – explained below:

September 11th 1973 – The day democracy died in Chile

“ Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for the Washington power elite, who could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power – an elected Marxist in power, one who honoured the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones upon which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that “communists” can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorising and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende’s electoral endeavour in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left on stone unturned in their attempt to destabilise the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to undermining the economy and building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military, under General Pinochet, overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
Thus it was that they closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sound of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centres opened for business, dogs trained to sexually molest female prisoners were set loose; the subversive books were thrown to the bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that “In Chile women wear dresses!”; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their chequebooks. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more had disappeared, tens of thousands tortured.
The FBI accommodated the new government by trying to track down Chilean leftists in the United States, while Secretary of State Henry Kissinger assured Pinochet that “In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here … We wish your government well.” ”

William Blum, Rogue State, Zed Books, 2002

For further details of the coup see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A716591

For a history of Chile under Salvador Allende and the Popular Unity see:

http://www.geocities.com/educhile_1970s/

For declassified CIA documents relating to its role in the 11 September coup see:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

[The National Security Archive http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, DC The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.]

For books by William Blum on US military and CIA interventions etc, including sample chapters and essays, see:

[Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]

The website for William Blum's book from which the quote is taken for the earlier posting is

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, at:

http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

and if you're wondering, the "&#8221" and so on represent punctuation marks gone wrong - serves me right for copying from Word!

Why was the link removed?

Is the link given in the 3rd posting the one which was removed from the first? If it is, then I have to question why it was removed in the first place considering it is a link to AOL.

Hi,

I'm new to this so not necessarily FAMILIAR with the house rules - I hadn't intended anything offensive.

However the title of the original website COULD be deemed offensive - in a subsequent conversation with the author he gave me the one which has been allowed.

The purpose of each link was to give readers information on books by William Blum on US foreign policy. The books themselves are not offensive, and you do not lose out by using the alternative link.

Whilst writing, here's a quote from Mavis Cheek, Observer Books of the Year when reviewing "Rogue State":

"William Blum, once of the US State Department, gives a chilling reminder that while there may be no justification for 11 September, there may be reasons"

PS: Just in case the question occurs to you, no I am not William Blum!
I just happen to think that if you only read one non-religious/spiritual book in your life it should be Rogue State (the 2002 edition - the original edition came out just before September 11th 2001 and the revised edition takes account of those events)

Hmm, I like the reason for the date, but if the attack really was by Muslim extremists, I doubt it.

The reason for the date, I think, was more likely the US's standard emergency number -- 911.

I don't really think that Chile's political history mattered much to Al-Qaeda.

Like I said, it doesn't really fit *if* the attacks were by Muslim extremists.

Are you implying they were not? I'd like to know your reasoning, if so.

OK I'm talking semantics, but in Islam the only legitimate reason for a Jihad (holy war) is to secure freedom from religious persecution. It seems difficult to argue that this can have been an aim of the September 11th attacks; in which case you can easily argue that those involved in the attacks were not true Muslims - for a Muslim extremist would follow the teachings properly. It may be worth pointing out that Islam is a peaceful religion; even the name means "Submission" (to the will of God)

I was chatting with a collegue last night who believes that the attack was orchestrated by the oil and military money men who put Bush - the Chad President - into power.

While I do believe that the US military inadvertently created their own worst nightmare by initially financing Bin Laden, I don't believe that anyone in the US was directly behind 9/11.

But the line of thought is a tempting one because it pins the blame on westerners who I do believe, through money and power and a need to maintain the status quo, end up doing things as equally twisted as Bin Laden. This line of thinking leads us to searching for people in our own societies that we could quite legitmately be bringing to book for the many crimes against humanity that have been committed in the name of 'doing business'.

I think the root causes of Sept 11th, causes that we can properly tackle if we had the heart for it, reside within our own borders - and that is including Europe as well as the US.

The symbolism of 911 being the US emergency number is relevant only to the US, not the terrorists. Further, most of the world uses the date notation 11/9 not 9/11. To understand the attack you have to think about what is important to the terrorists.

The statue of liberty is also important to the Americans, but there's no evidence that this was targeted.

The terrorists don't wish to attack for the sake of causing an emergency, nor to attack freedom. Indeed, they doubtless see themselves as freedom fighters.

What they wish to attack is the perceived oppression of the US Empire - its military oppression, its environmental oppression, its economic oppression.

As for the events in Chile being unimportant to Al-Quaida (spelling?!), the events are of international significance not just Chilean, representing the most notorious abuse of power in US Foreign Policy history. It is perfectly reasonable therefore to see them as being of relevance to an international terrorist orgaisation. Don't forget that the effects of the Chile incident continued up to the present day. Spain got involved in wishing to prosecute Pinochet for crimes against humanity, UK got involved since Pinochet was in the UK and Spain demanded he be extradited, Chile continued to be involved as their judiciary decided that Pinochet couldn't claim immunity from prosecution. Only this year do events seem to be ending, with the courts determining that Pinochet is certainly unfirt to stand trial (but making it clear that this does not detract from the gravity of his crimes). The establishment of the International Criminal Court this July will hopefully mean that there can never be another Pinochet - but it's worth noting that the US has refused to ratify the treaty establishing that court.

People in the west seem to be obsessed with the date. According to the Moslem calendar, 11 September 2001 was (and I write under correction) the 23rd day of the Month 'Jumada 2'. In 2002, an Islamic year further on, the same day was 31 August 2002 according to the western calendar. 'If' these attacks were caried out by Islamic extremists, as we are led to believe, does anyone really think they would give a fig for the western version of the date?

Then how about the suggestion in the "Days, not months, to plan" thread?

I'm sorry, but the Chilean issue is irrelevant in the discussion. bin Laden wouldn't give two figs for any Chilean oppression because the Chilean people aren't 1) muslim and 2) Arab. If there's one thing you should know about Al-Qaeda (the spelling is sort of flexible), it is that it believes very strongly in a muslim-arab state. See Afghani's writings on the subject to get a clearer idea on the subject.

Think about this, as well. The US writes the date as 9/11. Our emergency number is 911. Don't you think that bin Laden would find that too funny. And don't you think he would have asked his operatives in the US planning this thing what would be a good date to do this?

the only implication I was making was that I have seen no evidence that it was muslim extremists, and most terrorist attacks on the US have been from internal organisations.
I also disagree about the date, as Al-Quaeda doesnt stand for democracy or freedom, just for arab rights and for reveenge against the US (as far as i understand it)

CMaster, I would point you in the direction of Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel, which has been given tapes by Al-Qaeda that show bin Laden and others discussing what the plans were. There is plenty of evidence to show that muslim extremists were behind the attacks.

Earlier postings - I'd say killing yourself is a pretty serious matter. You really think they will choose a date because it's funny?

I take the point about Chile, however I think to say it's irrelevant because the terrorists were "Muslim extremists" concerned only with the Arab world doesn't negate the fact that it was the most notorious example of inappropriate US intervention - and if it's US intervention that the terrorists were fighting against (which seems a reasonable conclusion) then the Chile incident sets a legitimate date.

I also take the point about the Muslim calendar. Which COULD negate the Chile incident argument - but I'd be interested to know how many Muslims across the world use our calendar rather than the traditional Muslim calendar in their day-to-day lives. Anybody know?

Last posting - doesn't Al-Q stand for freedom for Arabs, which is denied through the oppression of Palestine by Israel supported by the US?

Good point that we have seen no evidence that the attacks were from Muslim extremists. Tony Blair make available to Parliament "evidence" provided by the US that Bin Laden et al were behind the attacks. The "evidence" was so weak that it couldn't have stood up in any court - yet it was on the basis of that "evidence" that Afghanistan was bombed.

Um, folks? I hate to point out that the "weak evidence" you so lightly dismiss came to Al Jazeera directly from bin Laden, who delivered it himself. There is no reason to believe anyone other that his group was involved.

Would it be easier on the world if we just thought that extremists attacked the Twin towers a year ago today and that the date has no special significance, but just happened to be the day everyone was ready ?

Hasslefree - yes, but then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of this conversation!

Montana Redhead - in posting #17 I was clumsy with my tenses - sorry! The point I was making was that AT THE TIME the attacks against Afghanistan were being planned, according to the BBC, "There [was] no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
At best the evidence [was] circumstantial." ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1581063.stm )

I also have concerns about the videos - wasn't there a question as to their authenticity? I wasn't aware that that had been resolved - has it? the authenticity issue is important because it creates a gap between virtual certainty and high probability; maybe there's something important we haven't considered. There is something not quite right about the videos - when Osama BL was show in a video where the question of responsibility for the attacks came up,

"In the interview, the Saudi-born dissident sidestepped questions of guilt in the 11 September attacks on the US, but said the killing of innocent Americans was justified." ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1795531.stm )

Why would he sidestep the issue but later show a video of plans for the attack? Did he change his mind? I don't find that likely - if you're going to commit an attack against the US on their home ground, surely you decide one way or the other about admitting responsibility. Especially when you're already on the Most Wanted list so will be an obvious (too obvious?) suspect.

Were the videos forged? Could they have been forged by the CIA for example, to provide a valuable illusion to the public that the perpetrators had been identified and would be dealt with?

All of the evidence points I've made are really devil's advocate points - I myself think it highly likely that OBL and buddies were behind the attacks; after all, they:

a) had the means;
b) had the motive (fight the "Great Satan");
c) didn't deny the attacks even though such denial could have saved
thousands of innocent deaths in Afghanistan.