US COLLUSION IN SEPT.11 ATTACKS ?

William Hardiker 30/12/05

With the beginning of the new millennium the world has but one global superpower. A nation that is accountable to none but itself 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 course the neo-conservatives. These are the remnants and supporters of President Ronald Reagan’s administration. These individuals embrace an extreme ideology that includes the fundamental belief that it is their Gods will that America fulfil 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 a reverence for the socio/political ideology of Levi Strauss. As well as their Christian fundamentalist religious beliefs and archaic political ideologies which resemble plutocracy rather than democracy government. Given the calibre of such powerful and influential individuals within the Bush administration such as those from 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.

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 but by respected independent journalists and individuals of repute yet all 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 query the official government and media line were branded un-American or, as the case here un-Australian. In creating a war on terrorism Bush and his deputies, Blair and Howard have turned us against each other. Citizen against immigrant, right against left, Christian against Muslim.

1. The questions that are the cause of so much doubt regarding the official explanation arise principally from the fact that so many questions refuse to be answered.

2. 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?

3. How could the world’s most powerful military fail to react throughout a prolonged attack on the financial capital of the world?

4. 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.

5. Why did Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq the next morning after the attacks?

6. Why did two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews air Force base, 19 kilometres from Washington not scramble to defend the White House?

7. 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?

8. Why has there been no public investigation into the billions of dollars “earned” by insider trading of United Airlines stocks before September 11?

9. Why was the collapse of the twin towers more reminiscent of a demolition than the impact of an airliner?

Many other questions are also being asked, too many to mention here.

With the progression of time, more people are questioning the official 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), but an act of collusion between the United States and some other party? Is an administration requiring domestic and global consent to deploy the full weight of its military and economic power, in order to retain global hegemony and prepared to make a great many people extremely wealthy 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 pre-emptive action which would only ever be internationally justifiable and condoned if the United States was being threatened by a Middle Eastern State in a manner which required a military response. In other words, a massive and external threat to the American homeland was desperately required by the Neo-Conservatives. Should this scenario 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 international law and one that desires no rival.

It is my opinion that 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 a 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), they instigated a new collective though completely false ‘climate of fear’. The neo-cons had created the means to pursue their ideology of using American global hegemony to re-shape 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 became the new hypocritical clichés of the Bush, Blair and Howard coalition. False accusations against organizations and ‘rogue’ states 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 controlling considered subversive and nuisance elements within their populations. Everyone seemingly became a terrorist overnight and the application of the term in most instances was a misnomer.
The long held desire of the Neo-Conservatives in Washington to declare a "war" on terrorism and those States which harbour them, and to maintain a justification for pre-emptive attacks, invasion and occupation of sovereign States was now attainable. 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 chose. The UN was impotent.

As a consequence entire populations appear to have become victims of governmental lies, deceit and exaggeration in relation to the distorted level of terrorist threat. They have condoned new legislation that has the potential to deprive them of their democratic rights. Before agreeing to the implementation of laws which will transform societies from just democratic states, into something which will have more resemblance to totalitarian or police states, people must ask themselves if such new legislation is necessary in relation to the level of threat faced from international terrorism. If they fail to do so they are in grave danger of handing to government and security agencies unprecedented powers, such as incarceration without charge or trial for extensive periods, the right to silence or to seek legal representation and the very real possibility of being shot on suspicion, as occurred on London’s public transport recently.

Dr Carmen Lawrence, former premier of Western Australia points out in an 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”

Under both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries definitions, these actions all constitute acts of terrorism. Both definitions agree that terrorism is “the use or threatened use of violence and/or intimidation in order to achieve political outcomes”. But of course terrorism is only deemed to be such by those being terrorized. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda do not consider themselves terrorists any more than George Bush and his Administration do. Rather, Bin laden considers himself a freedom fighter, defending Muslims, their holy lands, resources and culture from an aggressive Imperialist invader. Given recent events, how can anyone dispute such a claim?

The United States is paying a heavy price for the events of September 11, its response. It will continue to do so whilst it pursues the current misconceived war on terrorism strategy. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel demonstrates that there can be no victorious party in a war against terrorists. No military force can prevent one individual from killing thousands or wreaking destruction on a massive scale. No legislation will protect civilians from risk.