Why was 911 necessary?

2002-02-19

Richard Moore

Bcc: contributors

============================================================================
From: C [name withheld]
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: stipend to continue...
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002

Richard:

It's en route as of today. Hope it helps a bit.

I have followed your writings and that of others (i.e.,
Michel Chossudovsky) with great interest even before Sept
11th. I have two questions that have been bugging me. I hope
you can help me either from your own knowledge or by
directing me to other sources.

Question 1 is a tactical one: What was in the wing of the
Pentagon that was attacked on Sept 11? I ask because (a the
attacks were clearly deliberate in choice of target; (b the
plane apparently did a 360 around the site before hitting
the west side at wedge 1-2, floors 1-2. Of course, it could
have been random, but overall the events of that day seem
anything but. Hence, if not random. why there?

Question 2 is strategic: why Sept 11th at all? A case can be
made that the globalization strategy of global capitalism
was succeeding and that a slow steady approach would lull
enough people until they were in over their heads. Why this
massive assault with a 'permanent war', loss of civil
liberties, and privatization frenzy? Having served in a
military, I can see what 'they' are doing: it's called the
'manoeuvre doctrine' of warfare. But why use it when they
were winning already? Or, were the anti-globalization forces
more successful than we knew?

Peace and solidarity,
C

===================

Dear C,

First, thanks for the donation... much appreciated.

Second, I'm glad to see you're moving on to 'Why did Bush do
it?' instead of getting stuck on 'If'.

As for the Pentagon... One report I received said the wing
of the Pentagon was undergoing construction.  And I haven't
seen any news reports that anything critical was destroyed
there.  So my guess is they picked the least important
section, and moved out anything of strategic importance
before the incident (under the pretext of the construction).
Obviously, hitting the Pentagon gave the incident greater
psychological impact.  One can only wonder where the fourth
plane was headed.  Perhaps it was the White House, where
Daddy Bush was hanging out.  That would have moved Baby Bush
out from under his daddy's shadow, and further enhanced the
psychological impact.  It wouldn't be the first time a new
emperor did away with papa (or that an ex-leader who knew
too much was liquidated.)

Your second question is a more interesting one.

In the Seattle-Genoa sequence of protests, the movement was
comparable to the anti-Vietnam movement at about 1968, with
the Democratic Convention.  At that point, it was still
mostly an activist affair.  But only a few years later it
had grown to majority proportions, and Eugene McCarthy's
campaign shook the establishment in a major way.  I don't
see any reason to assume the anti-globalization movement
could not have developed similarly.  911 set it back big
time, and the new fascist legislation provides good
insurance in case the movement manages to revive itself.

The clear fact is that globalization will inevitably make
life much worse for everyone everywhere, except at the very
top of the pyramid (where the eye is on the dollar bill,
above "new world order" in Latin).  Hence, the movement
would have gained new kinds of recruits, from many segments
of society.  In this sense, 911 was a preemptive strike
against the possibility of a democratic uprising.  Yes, I'd
say the movement was more successful than we knew.

But that's only part of the story.  There's also the
geopolitics and the economics.

Economics:  Global capitalism has reached the stage where
it's like a junkie with a $100/day habit.  Corporate profits
are higher than they have ever been in history, and every
quarter they must grow still greater, lest the whole system
collapse.  Just as a junky gets more and more desperate to
keep his habit going, so does our ruling elite get more and
more desperate in trying to provide ever more room for
capital growth.  Keeping the airlines going strong, seizing
Caspian oil, looting Social Security and Enron, more
privatization - these are all means of keeping the pyramid
scheme called capitalism going a bit longer.

Geopolitics:  In order to pursue these perceived economic
necessities, the regime must gain control over all the
world's resources, and it must tighten its grip still
further over the global economy.  And these things must be
done with increasing urgency.  The need for accelerated
military aggression is quite clear.

In this war, there are big fish to fry and little fish. 
Bush's imaginary Evil Axis are the little fish.  Their
economic and military significance are minimal in the global
scheme of things, and none of them offers any significant
threat to American interests.  The main reason Bush wants to
clobber them is to prepare public opinion for the bigger
fish - Russia and China.  (The temporary alliance with
Russia has no more significance than did Hitler's similar
alliance.)

in my humble opinion,
rkm

See article: 
    "China vs. Globalization the Final War and the Dark Millennium"
    at: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/ND/jul97NWOChina.shtml

PS> You are encouraged to forward postings to other lists which 
might find them useful.  Please do so in entirety, with headers.

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com