I don’t do the 9/11 anniversary post. Billy Beck sums up my feelings about it pretty nicely or there’s Thoreau’s self-described “tasteless” pull-no-punches memo, in which he congratulates the winners, a list including GW Bush, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, Al-Qaeda, etc.
OK. I kindasorta did one a few years ago the crux of which was: We’re all less safe, as long as the Empire is bent on exporting its democracy, its inflation, its violence. So, let’s stop using 9/11 to rationalize all sorts of horrible policy which is really the hallmark of terrorist victory.
Now when I say the terrorists won, it’s not necessarily or exclusively the Al-Qaeda. Remember, there are plenty of terrorists at work within the US government, too. And their machinations are that much worse, because what they do, few people notice. And of those, fewer recognize as acts of terrorism.
The entire official line is a lie. I’m not talking about “There were no bodies at the crash site of flight 93” or “It was a missile that hit the Pentagon” conspiracy-theory crap. I’m talking about the “official” version of the truth, basically a series of lies by omission spanning decades, at least back as far as the end of WWI.
William Blum’s Anti-Empire Report for September 1, 2010 challenges the official line:
[E]ven if one accepts the official government version of 19 Muslims hijacking four airliners — the question remains: Why did they choose the targets they chose? If they wanted to kill lots of American infidels why not fly the planes into the stands of packed football or baseball stadiums in the midwest or the south? Certainly a lot less protected than the Pentagon or the financial center of downtown Manhattan. Why did they choose symbols of US military might and imperialism?
[9/11] was not a religious act, it was a political act. It was revenge for decades of American political and military abuse in the Middle East.
If you’re willing to ignore a century of meddling in the Arab world, pesky details like those are easy to sweep aside.