9/11 and American Empire Vol. I - a review by reprehensor.

[reprehensor]

9/11 and American Empire Vol. I: Intellectuals Speak Out
Olive Branch Press (2006)
http://www.interlinkbooks.com

And so the Great War of Democracy ended--not with the catastrophic bang that so many had feared but with the imperceptible hum of a technological revolution. "We tried to give the Muslim world a political upgrade," said U.S. President Jimmy McCain, son of the former Senator and a veteran of the Iraq war, on the 30th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "I guess we failed. So instead we gave ourselves an economic upgrade. I guess we succeeded." – Niall Ferguson (1)

This epoch of Neoconservative belligerence ushered in on 9/11/2001 will not be looked upon favorably by future historians, no matter how warmly Niall Ferguson reassures us. While Ferguson dabbles in speculative fantasy, the uncomfortable task of dissecting the horror-show of 9/11 falls to those with the intestinal fortitude and perceptive knack to get the job done.

Who better to deconstruct the mythology of 9/11 than an international group of intellectuals, some currently attached to academic institutions, some not. Of the 11 contributors to Intellectuals Speak Out, 4 are Full Members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (a group founded by Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University, and Professor James Fetzer (retired) of the University of Minnesota, Duluth), and one is an Associate Member. (I will designate them as FM-ST911 or AM-ST911 in this review.)

The editors of Intellectuals Speak Out are David Ray Griffin, (Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University - FM-ST911), and Peter Dale Scott (English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley - retired).

The work of American theologian Griffin is well-known to those who have bothered to examine 9/11, (and the 9/11 Commission Report), in a critical light. His first book on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, (2004) gathered prior research from various sources and condensed the research into an alternative account of 9/11 that has won great praise from independent 9/11 researchers, but scarcely a mention in the mainstream press. His second book on 9/11, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, (late 2004) is to date the definitive critique of the 9/11 Commission Report. Again, almost completely ignored by the mainstream press. His most recent book, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action, applies his specialty as a theologian directly to the experience of 9/11, and has been given more coverage in mainstream media than his other books.

Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat who has put into words some of the most devastating observations about the hidden machinery that enables covert American foreign policy that you can find. He coined the phrase Deep Politics as a reference point for those who want to get beyond the metanarratives manufactured for the consumer of the 6 o'clock news. Starting with the groundbreaking (and mightily censored) The War Conspiracy (1972), he continued with a string of investigative books; The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976), Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977), The Iran-Contra Connection (in collaboration, 1987), Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998), Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996), Deep Politics Two (from JFKLancer, 1995), and Drugs Oil and War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, March 2003).

Scott and Griffin form an international base from which they branch out to include Swiss historian, Daniele Ganser, Norwegian research professor, Ola Tunander, and the second Canadian contributor, professor of philosophy and member of the Royal Society of Canada, John McMurtry (FM-ST911). The balance of the contributors to Intellectuals Speak Out are American.

In less than 250 pages, including 47 pages of endnotes and index, the reader is presented with a surprisingly panoramic view of the milieu known as 9/11 Truth, 9/11 skepticism, or, in more derogatory and dismissive terms, "9/11 conspiracy theories".

Beginning with Griffin's essay, 9/11, the American Empire, and Common Moral Norms, the stage is set for an examination of the broader context in which the event(s) of 9/11 took place. Griffin argues that the quest for American empire cannot be a moral project. The key to realizing this is realizing that the "War on Terror" is a façade for a much different agenda, global American hegemony. With an eruditeness that is not hampered by Griffin's a priori belief in government complicity, he lays out his case one more time presenting evidence that suggests governmental foreknowledge and military facilitation on 9/11/2001. Griffin's measured prose and carefully referenced publicly available data is a calm and unrushed approach to a frankly alarming hypothesis; that 9/11 was a manufactured event to initialize a violently agressive agenda, milestones away from the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America and the Framers of the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States is akin to a victim of spousal abuse while under the "protection" of the current administration. Karen Kwiatkowski has been chronicling this abusive relationship with frank, merciless articles posted at Lew Rockwell.com for 3 years. Kwiatkowski first became known as an opponent of the Neoconservative agenda to a wider audience in the Robert Greenwald documentary, Uncovered: the War on Iraq. Later, she was interviewed in more detail in the Eugene Jareki film, Why We Fight, a damning indictment of the Military Industrial Complex. In her essay, Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, Kwiatkowski reveals her extreme skepticism of the "official" narrative of 9/11, and also reveals more about her eyewitness account of the scene of the Pentagon crash;

I would think that if a 100-plus-ton aircraft constructed of relatively lightweight materials and designed for lift, loaded with passenger seating, luggage, odds and ends and passengers, going several hundred miles an hour were to hit the Pentagon, it would cause a great deal of possibly superficial but visible damage to the wide swath of the side of the building and the entire area of impact. But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this façade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large airliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. I was not thinking at the time that it was a missile. My mindset was completely oriented toward the idea that a hijacked airliner had crashed into our building. I do remember thinking at the time how fortunate it was that the impact was diametrically opposite the offices of the secretary of defense and the service secretaries.

Kwiatkowski is not a casual observer. A 20-year USAF employee, she retired in 2003 and quickly began to oppose the White House's Neocon agenda, and their "evangelical politico" allies. She holds an M.A. in government (Harvard), an M.S. in science management (University of Alaska), and a doctorate in world politics from the Catholic University of America. Kwiatkowski exposes the inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission both in terms of quality of personnel and quality of product, and assesses the "official" story from various points of view, all of which lead to her conclusion that the 9/11 Commission is insufficient as an investigation on far too many levels to be considered in any way definitive, and a new investigation must be founded.

Following Kwiatkowski is the print publication of Professor Steven E. Jones' (FM-ST911) controversial article, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? At first, Jones' online paper was largely ignored, but after the founding of ST911 in early 2006, it began to draw more attention and scrutiny, as tenured and un-tenured academics began to speak out publicly in greater numbers about their issues with the "official" story, and the inadequacies of the investigations into many aspects of 9/11.

Following a public lecture in February, 2006, Jones became very much in demand for lectures and media appearances regarding his controlled demolition hypothesis (here I note that the notion of controlled demolition at the WTC preceded Jones by years, but because of his stature as a practicing physicist, media attention followed... Jones did not 'invent' the notion of controlled demo at the WTC). With media attention has comes scrutiny from a wide variety of sources, including, ironically, Morgan Reynolds (ex-FM-9ST911), who is also included in Intellectuals Speak Out as a contributor. The irony is doubled, as Reynolds' chapter is on academic stifling of controversial topics like 9/11, and Jones is currently (9/24/2006) on paid leave because of his engagement with 9/11 skepticism.

Intellectuals Speak Out is not a scientific journal, but that doesn't make Jones' argument any less scientific. The paper has been revised several times, but Jones' central argument remains the same;

I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidence for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual buildings, before or since 9/11, have been observed to suffer total collapse due to fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account not only for the large pools of molten metal under buildings but also the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled-demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as “junk science,” because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated.

When considering the veracity of Jones' observations, it doesn't hurt to consult a variety of sources. One story to carefully consider is that of Underwriters Laboratories chief whistleblower, Kevin Ryan (AM-ST911). Ryan was an employee of UL and was privy to informal communications at UL that indicated that UL had certified the steel used in the construction of the WTC, and that the steel met and exceeded expectations at the time of the construction of the WTC. Later, UL would deny this claim, and state further that there was no evidence that any firm had certified the steel.

UL definitely did, however, conduct fire tests of floor assemblies of the type used in the WTC and found that the assemblies did not collapse after being subjected to fire, exposing the 'pancake theory' as a failed hypothesis. This troubled Ryan greatly, and he eventually sent an email directly to Dr. Frank Gayle at NIST, in an effort to understand what NIST was doing with the contradictory data in regards to the collapse scenario. When the email was posted far and wide on the internet, Ryan was fired. Ryan tells his story in a brief chapter that also exposes the front-men for the "official", untenable collapse theory, and bolsters the call for a new investigation that does not rely on scientific analysis that is forced to conform to the preconceived "official" collapse theory, but instead considers all the evidence and formulates the truest collapse scenario.

Leaving speculation about controlled demolition behind, Intellectuals Speak Out then launches into a series of essays that tie American geopolitical ambitions to 9/11. Scott starts off with the essay-form of the testimony he provided to Rep. Cynthia McKinney's 2005 congressional briefing about the 9/11 Commission Report. (2) Entitled The Background of 9/11: Drugs, Oil and US Covert Operations, Scott's essay is a mini-history of the hidden relationships between the United States and Al-Qaeda linked Arab-Afghan fighters in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, via covert operations. A sick symbiotic relationship that carried on after the end of the Cold War.

This is followed by an analysis of the broader historical placement of 9/11 in the progression of America as a unipolar entity, intent on fostering 'globalization' to benefit American enterprise rather than fostering 'democracy'. Richard Falk authors Global Ambitions and Geopolitical Wars: The Domestic Challenge which posits that although the Neoconservatives are blatant and ham-handed in their approach to fostering globalization, Clinton's pattern of governance also tacked toward globalization, albeit in a more circuitous manner. Falk regards it as very unlikely that 9/11 happened by chance at a time when the Neocon agenda required a kick-start in the form of a new Pearl Harbor;

It should also be noticed that several of the most influential figures in the neoconservative “revolution” considered themselves disciples of the political theorist Leo Strauss, who encouraged the belief that a responsible political leadership needed to deceive the citizenry to the extent necessary to produce benevolent policies. That is, deception is actually required to achieve virtuous leadership in a liberal democracy, because the public cannot be trusted with the truth.

When deception is part of the indoctrination of Neoconservatism, it makes it very difficult to believe anything that these 'revolutionaries' say. Falk is followed by John McMurtry (FM-ST911) who condemns the Neoconservative campaign for global hegemony in no uncertain terms in his essay, 9/11 and the 9/11 Wars: Understanding the Supreme Crimes. McMurtry defines America's foreign policy post-9/11 as frankly genocidal, and exceedingly dangerous;

That the genocide of a socialist society was going on was unspeakable in acceptable public discourse. Yet as UN Coordinator of Humanitarian Aid Denis Halliday observed, the destruction of civilian infrastructures and the bombing of villages was “in keeping with the definition of genocide in the UN convention.”15 Instead, the ground rules of discourse were that “Saddam” was “a brutal dictator who had to be replaced” and that his “invasion of Kuwait” and the “Islamic terrorists’ attack on America” were “the background causes of Iraq’s difficulties.” That Saddam himself was paid, armed, and directed by the US from obscurity into war against Iran until his 1991 invasion of Kuwait (which the US did not oppose until after it had started) were facts that did not register.16Worse, nor did the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqis since 1991 by US-led bombings, depleted uranium contamination, and sanctions against repairs of free public water and electricity systems paid for by still publicly owned oil.

By refusing to engage in critical analysis of the very event of 9/11, McMurtry depicts Left media outlets like Z-Net as tacit facilitators of the most egregious aspects of Empire, something that Z-Net and other outlets would theoretically normally oppose;

Why have such facts, with such clear through-line of purpose and effect, been ignored in public and media discussion? The consensus has, in fact, crossed the poles of left–right division. Even Z-Net has been gatekeeping against the connected meaning. The taboo was encoded into identity structure across ideological oppositions. Any fact exposing the official story was a “conspiracy theory” or, to Z-Net, a “distraction.” Given the known pre-9/11 search by US geostrategic planning for a publicly saleable reason to invade central Asia and Iraq, 9/11’s occurrence was disconnected from what it provided the ideal pretext for—as explained before 9/11 by the Project for the New American Century as well as Brzezinski. No one denied that legitimation for a militarily imposed new control over the world’s main supplies of oil was on the minds of US war planners. The fact was just “disappeared.” Each war for oil was wholly disconnected from the known plans to control the region’s oil sources by 9/11 deniers across the US political spectrum.

Far from being "conspiracy nuts", inquisitive minds are asking why the establishment Left has abandoned the entirely logical conclusions that result from weighing the pronouncements of spokesmen for the American elite like Brzezinksi and the Neocon 'Project for a New American Century'. Pronouncements that prescribed a catastrophic event to rally the masses, to convince them to beat their ploughshares into swords and join in the slaughter, or rather, do the slaughter for those who would benefit the most. By dismissing all inquisition of the 9/11 myth as "conspiracy theory", the Left fails, and condemns us all to further atrocities in the name of a 'sacred holocaust';

...a defining opposition within America has emerged—between those who worship armed force, national supremacy, and money rewards, and those who know better. For the fanatic armies of the imperial God, 9/11 is their sacred holocaust to justify anything—continuous war crimes against third-world peoples, militarization of public wealth, life-blind despoliation of the world’s environment, obscene inequality and unprecedented corruption in high places, and cumulative suppression of democratic dissent at home and abroad.

Beyond the considerations of geopolitical realities of 9/11, the facilitation of terror as an ideological and practical tool is covered in depth by Daniele Ganser and Ola Tunander in their respective essays, The Strategy of Tension in the Cold War Period and The War on Terror and the Pax Americana. Ganser presents evidence that Western democracies have engaged in acts of terror defined as a 'Strategy of Tension' to psychologically manipulate domestic populations into following a direction desired by Superpower elites. Specifically, Ganser cites the case of Gladio in Italy, a secret army beyond normal democratic control, that is linked to right-wing extremists who committed acts of terror, and blamed the terrorist acts on Anarchists and Leftists. Gladio, and many other secret armies were allegedly set up to perform covert warfare in the case of a Soviet invasion. However, it seems that the secret armies were also used to create 'swings to the right' in public opinion to disenfranchise Leftist political parties and organizations. Although this policy is strenuously denied by the Western democracies involved, Ganser makes a compelling case that it did indeed happen as he speculates, and by applying that logic to the event of 9/11, it can be seen how 'Strategy of Tension' could be applied as a template to the events of 9/11 for a 'swing to retaliation', a psychological response to facilitate Empire.

Tunander explores historical ideological precedents that justify the use of terror tactics as legitimate tools. Tunander examines examples of states seizing opportunity in the wake of terrorist attacks to mobilize military actions that would otherwise be considered too 'extreme' for the citizenry. He notes the relations between some terrorists and intelligence-agencies, and briefly examines the history of Osama bin Laden, Carlos the Jackal and Omar Saeed Sheikh, all three of which benefited from covert and open associations with intelligence shops. Tunander cites the writings of the neglected Carl Schmitt, (Schmitt is not neglected by the Neocons, just a large quantity of other researchers), sometimes referred to as the 'Crown Jurist of the 3rd Reich';

The activities of the US in Italy during the Cold War resemble what the Turkish military elite might describe as the correction of the course of democracy by the “deep state,” or what some call the “fine tuning” of democracy. This “deep state”—what Carl Schmitt called the “sovereign”—may raise the “security temperature” through the use of “indiscriminate terrorism:” bombings in public squares to make people trade freedom for security. Indeed, fear of bomb attacks has an enormous psychological impact on people, persuading them to turn to the state for protection and channeling their anger and fear against a perceived enemy. In the event of such attacks, the mass media often respond hysterically, blaming whomever the authorities claim to have been responsible. Such an instrument is thus ideal for calibrating government policy—that is, “fine tuning” democratic politics and “securitizing” issues that were formerly open to public debate, bringing the democratic political sphere more in line with the political vision of the “sovereign.” Most important is the exercise of control over domestic politics in a way that could not be achieved through legal means.

Schmitt and Strauss are the primary wellsprings that inform Neoconservative ideology. Deceptive, and deeply Machiavellian, this brutal mindset is what anyone who would oppose it, is actually up against. Frank and open discussion on this thought process is urgently needed. "Going along to get along" doesn't mean much when you could be cashiered at any point along the way for expediency.

This gagging of discussion is the primary focus of Morgan Reynolds' chapter. Reynolds' faced the derision of the President of Texas A&M University, Robert Gates, after suggesting, quite openly, that 9/11 was an inside job, a False Flag operation facilitated by the current administration. Reynolds is professor emeritus at A&M.

This condemnation of Reynolds' freedom of inquiry into 9/11 stands in stark contrast to the principles of Texas A&M, and Reynolds reveals much about the history of Gates as a former head of the CIA in an effort to understand why it is that Gates would stand so adamantly against freewheeling inquiry into the exact nature of the events of 9/11. Reynolds exposes Gates as a gatekeeper of the Right;

With the present essay I hope to encourage more academics across the land to come forward and not be intimidated by colleagues, boards of trustees, or presidents, who, like Robert Gates, appear less interested in the truth than in protecting the powers that be.

The closing chapter by Peter Phillips (FM-ST911) with Bridget Thornton and Celeste Volger, Parameters of Power in the Global Dominance Group: 9/11 & Election Irregularities in Context, answers the question, cui bono?

The short answer is, the American ruling class. The long answer is: a connected system of "corporate, military and government elites 'in a centralized power structure motivated by class interests and working in unison through “higher circles” of contact and agreement."

Phillips delineates this further with the acronym HCPE, (higher-circle policy elite), people that arguably decide matters of the greatest import in the United States. Phillips explains the bipartisan nature of the HCPE;

The HCPE within both major political parties tend to seek to maintain US world military power. Both political parties cooperate by encouraging Congress to protect US business interests abroad and corporate profits at home. To better maintain defense contractors’ profits, Clinton’s Defense Science Board called for a globalized defense industry, obtained through mergers of defense contractors with transnational companies, which would became partners in the maintenance of US military readiness.

Further, the HCPE has a GDG (Global Dominance Group), which as its name suggests, seeks Global Hegemony, economic and military;

We believe that by identifying the most important policy advocates and those corporate heads who have the most to gain from a global dominance policy, we can begin to establish the parameters of the individuals involved in the Global Dominance Group (GDG) among the HCPE. Knowing the general parameters of the GDG will provide an understanding of who had the means, opportunity, and motive to have initiated a post-9/11 acceleration of neoconservative military expansion toward the goal of assuming full spectrum military dominance of the world. Understanding the parameters of the GDG will also allow researchers to explore the possibilities of insider preknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and the possibility that mercenaries working in conjunction with small elements of the GDG may have helped facilitate the events on September 11, 2001. These are classic sociological questions of who wins and who loses within class structures, policy processes, and state decision-making. In this study, we are not seeking to identify people involved in specific acts before or after 9/11. Rather we seek to understand the sociological phenomena of who, as collective actors the GDG within the HCPE, had the motive, means, and opportunity to gain from and perhaps facilitate such events.

Phillips and his co-writers further delineate the companies which have undoubtedly benefited in major ways from GDG policies, putting a face on those who have capitalized on the after effects of 9/11; Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Halliburton and The Carlyle Group for starters.

This type of analysis is desperately needed and welcome.

Overall, Intellectuals Speak Out is yet another triumph for the independent researcher of 9/11. Following quickly on the landmark "Hidden History of 9-11-2001" and Barrie Zwicker's brilliant "Towers of Deception", Griffin and Scott continue with a superb collection of tangible data, penetrating analysis, and historical context that carries the level of scholarship regarding 9/11 skepticism forward.

Notes

1. Ferguson, Niall. "The Nation That Fell to Earth", _TIME,_ September 3, 2006 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531303,00.html

2. Transcript: "The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later - A Citizens' Response: Did the Commission Get it Right?" (Briefing, July 22, 2005) http://www.house.gov/mckinney/20050722transcript.pdf

[reprehensor]

1. Another brief review.

http://www.realchangenews.org/2006/2006_11_01/BookReview.html

By JOE MARTIN
Contributing Writer

The eleven essays which comprise this urgent work are penned by reputable scholars and scientists. It would perhaps be comforting if these erudite individuals could be written off as crackpots and alarmists, but given their impressive academic credentials, that would be impossible. With meticulous care, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, and the nine other learned contributors collectively build an unsettling yet cogent argument: that elements of our own government were complicit in the horrific atrocity of 9/11.

Itching to implement their designs for the military and economic domination of the planet — as well as of outer space — bellicose neocons of the Bush administration yearned for a “new Pearl Harbor” that would stun the American citizenry and open the door for an audacious and unprecedented global power grab. The conflagration of 9/11 proved to be an effective catalyst for the realization of rapacious neocon desires. And it may very well have been an elaborate “false flag” operation.

Simply put, a false flag operation is a surreptitious tactic which employs an act of murderous terror perpetrated secretly by one state and blamed subsequently on another state or countervailing political entity. This is done in order to discredit a perceived enemy, instill fear in a given population, and garner public support for enhancing a state’s security apparatus. In some instances, the provocative act provides the rationale for war. Swiss historian Daniele Ganser’s essay provides a shocking synopsis of this “strategy of tension” as it was employed in western Europe after World War II. He describes how various bombings that took place in Italy attributed originally to the Red Brigades were later revealed to have been carried out by individuals and organizations of the neo-fascist Right, sometimes in collusion with the CIA. In any act of this sort, states Ganser, it is crucial that “the secret agents who carried out the crime blame it on a political opponent by removing and planting evidence.”

Continued...
http://www.realchangenews.org/2006/2006_11_01/BookReview.html

[wildbilln864]

17. 911 And American Empire:

Intellectuals Speak Out is a most important book! It is a must read IMO!
:hi:

[quicknthedead]

2. Thanks, reprehensor--great review!

Good enough to be used for describing in a college curriculum...should we ever get to that point!

[sagesnow]

3. Thanks for the great review

I just ordered the book.

[reprehensor]

4. Video featuring authors from the Book Launch - 9/24/2006

A video to accompany the book; a series of speeches by four of the authors at the book's launch on September 24, 2006:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4441

[Altean Wanderer]

5. Short review...

It's great. Read it.

[pberq]

6. Thanks reprehensor.

Interesting that Robert Gates is mentioned in the book and is now nominated for Sec. of Defense.

[reprehensor]

7. "Daddy's Cronies"

The George Walker Bush Legacy.

[wildbilln864]

8. waiting for my copy to arive...

There's a waiting list! I look forward to reading the book.

[reprehensor]

9. Vol.II is good too.

Here is my short review of Vol.II; http://www.911blogger.com/node/4123

Here are some excerpts from the book;

The Evil that Results from Erroneous Beliefs, John B. Cobb, Jr.

Quote:
Most Americans find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that responsible members of the administration could have been involved in 9/11. The act of attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has been portrayed as so heinous, that people suppose that only extraordinarily vicious persons could have engaged in it. Americans can imagine that there are Arabs who are sufficiently vicious to do so, but they do not want to believe that any Americans are that evil. Above all, they do not believe that anyone who participates in the national administration could do this.

These beliefs provide a shield against inquiring into what really did take place on that day and how it could have been so successful. Most Americans are prepared to accept the official explanation, whatever it may be, as long as all the blame is placed on foreigners, especially Muslims. They like to be assured that Americans played only virtuous roles. This requires belief that many Americans behaved extremely incompetently, even absurdly, and that none of those who did so have lost their jobs or even been demoted as a result. But this can be overlooked, since one trusts the authorities to take care of such matters.

Perhaps my being a Christian theologian has something to do with adopting a quite different perspective on these matters. From my perspective, there is no reason to suppose that those who planned and executed this attack were vicious. From their own point of view and that of their supporters, they were heroes. It is all too easy to forget that those who are called terrorists generally understand themselves as freedom-fighters. A recent case is that of those who won Israel’s freedom from Great Britain. These freedom fighters believe the cause for which they are fighting is worth both dying and killing for. Many agree with them.

That there are diverse views of which cause is worth killing and dying for is easy to see if we adopt the perspective of Osama bin Laden. He has told us why he attacked us. We support Zionism, which, while viewed by many Jews as salvific and part of God’s providential plan, is experienced by many Arabs as an unmitigated evil. Without any consultation with them, the West gave Jews the right to seize Arab land, drive out most of the population, and then make second-class citizens of the remainder. Jews have taken over more and more land and reduced the political situation of Arabs on the West Bank to that of the colonized and their economic condition to near destitution. Those Arabs who resist are called terrorists and are imprisoned and sometimes tortured. Arab homes are demolished and Arab orchards are uprooted. The United States supports all this, which, apart from that support, could never have taken place...

False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the New Rome: A Christian Perspective, David Ray Griffin

Quote:
From the section, Christians in the New Rome

...The Attitude of Early Christians: The opposition of Jesus and his early followers to the Roman empire has been obscured by the fact that the authors of the gospels, seeking to present the message of Jesus to serve the needs of the Christian movement 40 or more years later, made it appear to have been directed against “the Jews” rather than the Roman empire and those who collaborated with it. This strategy was carried out most fully and effectively by the author of Luke-Acts, which was written to convince Roman authorities that Christians were faithful subjects and to convince Christians that the continued existence of the empire would facilitate, not hinder, the coming of the Kingdom of God. For example, although Paul in reality, according to tradition, suffered the same fate at the hands of the Romans as did Jesus, the Book of Acts ends with Paul peacefully “proclaiming the kingdom of God . . . with complete freedom and without hindrance from anyone.”

A more accurate picture of the attitude of early Christians to the empire is provided in the final book of the New Testament, which portrays Rome as a dragon, symbolizing Satan. Horsley and Niel Silberman, partly on the basis of this book, say:

(For the early Christians,) Rome was the Beast, the Harlot, the Dragon, Babylon, the Great Satan. They knew that Rome’s empire was made possible not by divine order but by the acquisition of vast territories through the deadly violence of the Roman legions and the self-serving acquiescence of their own local aristocracies.

This failure of later Christians to understand the beginnings of their religion contributed to a fateful reversal: The most explicitly anti-imperial religious movement in history came to provide the religious foundation for the growth of empires even more extensive than Rome’s.

Shattering Illusion, Carter Heyward

Quote:
And how do we live honest, truthful lives in a social order constructed on lies and distortions of truth? Is it possible to live beyond illusion in this world? How do we get beyond the illusions designed to shield us from the truths of our own lives, faith traditions, and national agendas?

September 11, 2001 – or “9/11” – is one of the most challenging and emblematic moments in US history because it so dramatically rivets our attention to illusions of our life together and also of our efforts to move beyond these illusions in order to speak and hear the truth together as a people.

“9/11” pretty much shattered whatever small pieces were left of my “Christo-American” illusions of a deity in charge of history and a nation working with that deity. The issues surrounding 9/11 -- some we know, or think we do; others, more mysterious, (even perhaps devious) invite us to think anew and freshly about our world and our lives. Theologically, 9/11 compels us to think differently than before about God and the world, including our own most personal lives in the world.

It is not that the events of September 11 were all that earth-shaking from a global perspective. Far greater tragedies are almost the daily fare of countless people and creatures on earth. But what came down with the twin towers -- and what is shaking us up and will for many years (perhaps generations) to come – was, I believe, the double illusion that God can be both loving and powerful and that God somehow chooses the people of any nation, or religious culture, to be in a special, favored relation to God.

These spiritual illusions crumbled with the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because these buildings and the planes that destroyed them represented the economic aspirations and military power of an omnipotent, Know It All, God. Whether Christian, Jewish, or Islam, a Know It All deity is one who destroys His enemies. To His friends, he is king and ruler. To His enemies, he is terrorist. But He is one and the same omnipotent, if imaginary, Being, who does not abide dissent or tolerate opposition and in whose realm there is no room for heretics or infidels. Be clear that the God of Islamic terrorists and of Christian fundamentalists here in the United States is one and the same God. Bush and Bin Laden are much closer in their spiritualities and economic aspirations than we suppose they are in their politics.

Elemental Love: Toward a Counter-Apocalyptic Coalition, Catherine Keller

Quote:
...apocalypse is not gospel. It cannot therefore form the basis for a legitimately evangelical Christianity. Apocalypse should be ordered to the ends of the gospel—not vice versa. When apocalypse is mistaken for gospel, “love” gets deprived of the priority which Jesus assigned it. And then, with alarming ease, love gets subordinated to such non-gospel yet supposedly “evangelical” priorities as opposition to abortion and same-sex unions, not to mention war and patriotism. Is this just because nationalism easily trumps religion, especially in times of war—and almost always has? Sure, but such an answer begs the question. Why does such a clear gospel priority lack traction for a critical mass of committed Christians? Is it perhaps that “Christian love” lacks the elemental force of Christian violence?

Liberal Christianity, like liberal politics, has largely failed to grasp the connection between violence and the passion for change: the elemental, or contact with chaotic excitation. The right, obsessed with imposing order, has learned to manipulate that margin of chaos. And the apocalyptic imaginary channels the excitement through its vision of an “Evil” which can only be countered by all-out holy violence. In Revelation, the whore’s imperialism of war is ultimately countered precisely not by love but by messianic terror—the holy war directed against the superpower of its day. In an excruciating historical irony, the messianic warrior, arguably the most clearly anti-imperial figure of the ancient world, became the great defender of various Christian empires—Holy Roman, Spanish, British, and now, truly apocalyptic in its weaponry, American. So the current religio-political right channels the excitation of apocalypse-- minus the gospel of love. And the nice Jesus of the mainline is helpless in the face of it.

If Christian love has been drained of its progressive political potential, it may be because, for all our rage, we have lost the primal positive force with which to resist the culture of war, and with which to create a realistic, not only virtuous-utopian-eschatological, alternative. If love lacks political currency it is not just because it undermines the politics of friend versus foe; it is not just that it might inhibit personal or national self-defense. It is also because love has not been learned in ways that vitalize—bring life—to human relations in the first place. It seems to dampen down the spirit of adventure and “fun”; its agape seems to repress eros; indeed it has vast power to demean those already degraded even further, to encourage in the vulnerable a cringing acquiescence in abuse, and in the powerful, a condescending disengagement (the two faces of what Friedrich Nietzsche called ressentiment).

American Empire and the War against Evil, Rosemary Radford Ruether

Quote:
Juan Stam, a Puerto Rican pastor and theologian, has analyzed George Bush's religious rhetoric and found that it weaves together two types of language. One of these is the language of apocalyptic warfare, the war of good against evil, which absolutizes the US as good against our enemies as the epitome of evil. The second language is messianism. America in general and George Bush in particular are depicted as messianic agents of God in combating evil and establishing good throughout the world.

This language was exemplified at its extreme in speeches made by General William Boykin, a conservative Christian charged with the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In speeches to his religious constituency Boykin declared that America is an object of hate by other nations because we are uniquely a "Christian nation." He went on to claim that our "spiritual enemy can only be conquered when we confront them in the name of God." Muslims, by contrast, he believes worship an "idol" and not the true God. Boykin then opined that God had put George Bush in the White House at this time. "We are an army of God raised up for such a time as this." In effect George Bush is God's elect Messiah put in power to lead the apocalyptic warfare of God's angels against the demonic power in the last days. Although the Pentagon distanced itself from Boykin's rhetoric, it did nothing to actually counteract it.

This language creeps continually into White House declarations of their identity and role. Neo-conservatives Richard Perle and David Frum, in their 2003 book, subtitled "How to win the War against Terrorism," title it The End of Evil. In her recently released 'New Pentagon Papers," former military intelligence officer Karen Kwiatkowski reveals the atmosphere of extreme fanaticism that took over Pentagon policy-intelligence, suppressing accurate information on the Middle East. She writes, "I saw a dead philosophy - Cold War anti-communism and neo-imperialism - walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing of counter-terrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil. The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals. But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans."

After September 11th: The Struggle to Redefine Jewish Identity, Marc Ellis

Quote:
Yet September 11th may also signal a sea-change in the perception of Jews by non-Jews and a reevaluation of Jewish identity by those Jews who cannot argue their Jewishness simply from a position of dominance. In the first days after September 11th, the question of Israel and its place in American foreign policy was broached in the mainstream media. For a long time, Israel was seen as an alliance that promised only benefits to the American people, both ideologically as a democracy in the Middle East and as an ally in an oil-rich and often unstable part of the world. The link between American support for Israel and hostility toward America in the international arena was unknown to most Americans before September 11th; that terror on American soil could result from a such a connection came home forcibly in the days following the attack. Whatever the merits of the argument linking America’s support for Israel as part of holy war against Islam, more than a few Americans asked the question of whether the ability to make such an argument was worth the price of American blood.

Though this issue quickly disappeared from the American media discussion, the question itself was a breakthrough of sorts. After all, America’s support for Israel has largely gone questioned and if raised at all, the question was seen as untoward, outside the mainstream and anti-semitic. For Jews to hear this discussion in public, especially those Jews who had tried, for the most part unsuccessfully, to raise a critical voice on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a national scope, was surprising. The context was hardly anticipated and, in the long run, proved to be counter-productive.

The surprise remained. Could the breakthrough to a more rational discussion of Israel/Palestine occur only in a moment of national hysteria? Because that very moment carried the seeds of other wars, first in Afghanistan and then Iraq and all under the umbrella of a global war on terror, the initial questions surrounding the American alliance with Israel was submerged in a tightening of bonds between the two - in foreign policy initiatives but also in the public perception - so that the questions disappeared as soon as they arose.

Yet like other flash points in the history of Israel - the Lebanon war and the suppression of the first Palestinian uprising in 1988 as examples - the chipping away of the narrative of Israel as innocent and redemptive continued. Too, the initial questioning, quickly ended, increased the sense that the case for a just peace between the Israeli and Palestinians would be decided by power rather than moral argument. In fact, a sense among many dissident Jews was that the case was already closed. Why then fight a victory that would not be reversed and in a world of such volatility why fight a losing battle that could become a suicidal one, where the arguments for justice became twisted with the desire for revenge?

So the Jewish progressive movement continued to atrophy and splinter. On the one hand, Jews who saw the fight as futile and dangerous and whose commitments in the first place where of reform rather than radical questioning drifted away from the issue. Other Jews, more serious in outlook and critical sensibilities, took a different path. Thus the birth of Jews of conscience. For these Jews the occupation of Palestine had become, more or less, complete. The re-invasion of Palestinian territory, the building of the Wall and the ever expanding settlement population were simply tactics within an overall strategic plan. That plan - the conquest of as much of Palestine with the least number of Palestinians - had been outlined in the years previous to the 1967 war; in fact the beginning can be traced to the creation of Israel itself with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what became the state of Israel. Step by step, no matter the outcry of Palestinians, some international bodies and Jewish dissenters, the cleansing of Palestinians proceeds.

Spiritual Community in the Post-9/11 World: A Jewish Perspective, Tamar Frankiel, Ph.D.

Quote:
Some thirty-five years ago the anthropologist Kenelm Burridge wrote a book entitled New Heaven, New Earth in which he explored what happens when a long-evolved, complex system of social power is confronted by a new “measure of man” (Burridge wrote before the increased concern over gendered language). In most of the Pacific island societies he studied, the new measures of humanity were brought by Europeans, who literally measured in terms of money. Complex measures were replaced by simple, often polarized, categories – you have access to money or you don’t; you have a lot of money or very little. Often, the shift created new religious movements, including ‘messianic’ figures who could negotiate the new situation.

I think of Burridge’s work because what seems to have happened since 9/11 – though its historical roots are far deeper than 2001 – is a new or sharper polarization. After two hundred years of industrial capitalism and an increasingly complex system of banking, finance and exchange; after a worldwide explosion of consumerism and a materialistic approach to life unprecedented in human history, after transformations of societies ranging from socialist and communist experiments to dictatorships by Western-educated heads of clans, a new proclamation emerged. Representatives of one purported ‘world’ -- radical Islam, claiming to represent all true Muslims -- dramatically attacked representatives of another, ‘the West,’ by slaughtering workers at the World Trade Center. The perpetrators of the attack were attempting to re-shape, with their dramatic act (actually the latest in a series of international terrorist attacks on innocents which began with the Munich Olympics in 1972), the measure of man. Implicitly, they denied the complexity of the world situation and proclaimed their leader, Osama bin Laden, as the bearer of truth, while the West (and Israel) were the carriers of evil. Most disturbingly, alienated from the values of sanctity of life preached by most religions, they focused on the martyr/murderer as the ideal, a person devoted to God and fearless of death. In the face of death, money and material resources are, of course, irrelevant.

The world seemed suddenly simple. For the average American, the choice was also hauntingly biblical: “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life. . . .” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Radical Islamists soon were being portrayed as promoting a culture of death, while Americans and their allies were waving the banner of life. Many Christians and Jews firmly set their faces against this Islam, called “fundamentalist” or “radical.” But, of course, the situation is not so simple as the polarities would suggest. Many people live primarily secular lives and are not willing to put themselves at service of a religious vision of any kind. Moreover, “choosing life” means something different to various communities within American society, as we can readily observe from our graphic slogans of ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life.’

Ideologies of polarization, and acts that attempt to demonstrate the power of those ideologies, are attempts to simplify a complex situation, to rally around a ‘new measure of man,’ while the enemy has an obsolete or corrupt version of what it is to be human. Since 9/11 a great deal of the American government’s communication with its people has been devoted to trying to convince us that we have such an enemy – even though, in our globalized society, there is no clearly ‘external’ enemy any more. Speeches identifying enemies have ranged from terrorism, radical Islam, and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, to Asian economies and the Asian bird flu. Eventually people do recognize that such finger-pointing often leads on a wild goose chase. But even more importantly, the social reality is that those labeled as potential ‘enemies’ are as much ‘in here’ as ‘out there.’ Your Muslim neighbor might go to a radical mosque or might not. Your Chinese client might do business in Taiwan or Beijing or both. Immigration along the Mexican border triply illustrates the problem – legal and illegal immigrants, families on both sides of the border, children of illegal immigrants who, born on this side, are American citizens. Chicken farmers with susceptible birds could be anywhere.

Even the contrast between competing ideologies is overdrawn. For example, we are often treated to a contrast between individualistic, democratic ideals and more collectively based ideals such as the clan structure of some Arab societies, where family and clan honor (or its opposite, shame) take precedence over Western values of achievement. It is true that “honor killings” of women who have been raped and murders of “collaborators” runs contrary not only to Western ethics but to most codes of justice. But we should beware of painting the two sides black or white. Honor codes still hold sway in some sub-communities, for example the military, where loyalty to group norms and an honorable death (sacrifice for others) supersedes individual self-fulfillment. Nor are Muslim societies the only ones without democratic forms of government.

[wildbilln864]

10. Now I'm confused....

I just got my copy from B&N today. It's Vol 1! Didn't know there's a Vol. 2. Inside it, it says "First published in 2007 by Olive Branch Press'
When was Vol. 2 published?

[reprehensor]

11. Should be out soon.

Amazon says you can pre-order it now.

Here is another excerpt from the book;

"At one point in my life I thought that real conspiracies were a left-wing fantasy, and that sophisticated Marxists and other social theorists would not have reason to want to acknowledge the existence of such conspiracies against the Left or against anyone else. But when I was indicted for "conspiracy and using the facilities of interstate commerce with the intent of inciting to riot" (as one of the Seattle Seven federal conspiracy trial in 1970 arising from a large demonstration against the Vietnam war and in support of Black liberation which I had organized and which turned violent when police attacked the demonstrators) I quickly learned that my organization (the Seattle Liberation Front) was totally infiltrated by police agents.

Indeed, many of those most vociferous in denouncing me and other leaders for being "too timid" were actually paid FBI informants or members of various law enforcement agencies. When one such changed his mind and began to reveal his story of having been solicited by the FBI to try to engage us in violence that would have led to some of us being killed, I really "got" that conspiracies do sometimes happen--paid for by the U.S. government." - Rabbi Michael Lerner, in 9/11 & American Empire Vol. II, Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out. (draft)

[reprehensor]

12. Please post your thoughts about the book.

Especially Karen Kwiatkowski's chapter, I thought that was really good, and surprisingly reinforces the whole no-Boeing at the Pentagon concept. Very surreal account of the Pentagon scenario, from a first-hand witness. I didn't know she was there that day.

[wildbilln864]

13. thanks rep....

I'll start reading it tonight.
And looking forward to it. I was on the waiting list at B&N booksellers. Not sure how long the list was but I hope it was very long. The more the public learns the better the chance to get a real investigation. But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[mirandapriestly]

15. oooh, now you got me

I've got a gift certificate at Amazon, I'll use it and get the book.

[wildbilln864]

16. It's a very good book...

Miranda, IMO!

[wildbilln864]

14. Read...

it!
:hi:

[Emillereid]

18. My husband ordered a case of this book (24) and gave them out as

Christmas presents to everyone he works with.

[reprehensor]

19. Your husband is a Golden God.

Should make for some interesting (heated?) discussions around the water cooler.

Good on him!

[SaiGirl]

20. 9/11 "truth" returns to Los Alamos ... where it all got started

http://losalamos911truth.blogspot.com/


http://911truthlosalamos.blogspot.com/

[mirandapriestly]

24. Great site....what happened to SaiGirl?...eom

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Good for him

I hope the people he gives them to are open to such ideas?

[wildbilln864]

22. That's fantastic E!

I wish I could afford to get a case and just give them away around here. This is the most important book of our time IMO!

[Grateful for Hope]

23. kick

[wildbilln864]

25. double kick!

:hi: