20 February, 2007

USA vs Iran -- 2002 to 2007

Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation - 19/02/2007

Larisa Alexandrovna has recently written an excellent article detailing the neoconservatives' six-year long project to use American power to attack and produce regime change in Iran . Appended to the piece is a timeline including key Bush administration statements about Iran, "news" stories and neocon writings abetting efforts to vilify Iran, and the antics of such characters as former Congressman Curt Weldon, Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, and spy-for-Israel Larry Franklin who have worked to facilitate that attack. I've used it as the basis for this more elaborate (although surely incomplete and imperfect) chronology.

2002

On January 29, 2002, President Bush gave his State of the Union speech featuring the now infamous formulation "axis of evil" contrived by speechwriter and Richard Perle cohort David Frum. (Frum currently writes a regular column for the extreme rightwing National Review , arguing among other things that Iran is supporting al-Qaeda-related Iraqi Sunni groups.) Iran was of course included in that "axis" alongside Saddam's Iraq and North Korea . The conceptual sloppiness of the phrase puzzled world leaders, while its bizarre linkage of dissimilar regimes alarmed mainstream scholarship. But for mass consumption it successfully conflated disparate targets and vaguely associated Iran with the Evil represented by the 9-11 attacks.

On August 14, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (led by the armed Iranian dissident movement Mujahedin-E-Khalq or MEK) held a press conference in Washington D.C. and announced that Iran was constructing a secret nuclear facility near the city of Natanz . The MEK had long been (and still is) listed as a "terrorist" organization by the State Department, and had been under the protection of Saddam Hussein's regime since the 1980s although disarmed by U.S. forces following the Iraq invasion. But the Bush administration seized upon the report (while Cheney and the neocons pressed for a reconsideration of MEK's status). In February 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency visited the Natanz site, finding centrifuge machines. Iran declared that the facility was part of a civilian nuclear energy program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) criticized Iran for concealing this and other nuclear facilities and demanded that Iran submit to rigorous inspections of its nuclear sites. In December Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program and allowed such inspections, which have not to this day produced evidence for a nuclear weapons program. But the concealment in violation of IAEA rules (by no means unprecedented among Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories, such as close U.S. ally South Korea ) was presented by the U.S. administration as virtual proof for an illegal nuclear weapons program.

2003

In January 2003, according to a New York Times report published in 2006, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, "talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation [with Iraq], including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire." In other words, the two leaders discussed the possibility of provoking an attack that could be represented as Iranian aggression against the "international community" in order to generate public support for a planned regime change operation.

Thereafter the disinformation campaign got underway in earnest. In April Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, vice-chair of the Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committees, met with a certain "Ali" in Paris who informed him that Iranian agents had stolen enriched uranium from Iraq before the U.S. invasion. (Iran-Contra figure and Weekly Standard neocon propagandist Michael Ledeen, fresh from his work with Donald Feith's Office of Special Plans, also dispensed this "intelligence.") This "Ali" was identified by American Prospect reporters Laura Rozen and Jeet Heer in April 2005 as Fereidoun Mahdavi, former minister of commerce in the government of the Shah of Iran and business partner of Manucher Ghorbanifar. (Ghorbanifar and Ledeen were old friends and had met in Rome in December 2001 with Farsi-speaking Defense Department officials Larry Franklin, Harold Rhode and Iranian dissidents to discuss regime change in Iran .)

"Ali" also told Weldon that Iranian-supported terrorists were plotting to fly a hijacked Canadian airliner into the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station outside of Boston , and that Iran was hiding Osama bin Laden. The congressman laid it all out in his 2005 book Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America . . . and How the CIA Has Ignored It. The CIA for its part has interviewed Mahdavi and determined that he, like his buddy Ghorbanifar long fingered as a charleton by the Agency, is a liar. (Weldon's book in any case has apparently sold well and gets rave reviews on amazon.com.)

In May 2003, soon after Weldon and Ledeen channeling Ghorbanifar began to disseminate such charges, al-Qaeda operatives bombed a foreigners' compound in Riyadh , Saudi Arabia , killing 26 people including 9 Americans. Unnamed U.S. officials were quick to allege that the operatives had taken refuge in Iran , or had been directed from Iran . CBS News correspondent David Martin reported that such officials "say they have evidence the bombings in Saudi Arabia and other attacks still in the works were planned and directed by senior al Qaeda operatives who have found safe haven in Iran ." So here was another supposed Iran-al Qaeda link. It was given relatively little attention at the time but could be resurrected in the future.
(This occurred during the same month that Iran faxed a letter to the State Department, via the Swiss ambassador to Iran, offering "full transparency" on its nuclear enrichment program, cooperative measures on terrorism, cooperation in establishing a stable democratic Iraq, and acceptance of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The offer, welcomed by the State Department, was rejected out of hand by Cheney's office and only made public last year by Colin Powell's former chief of state Lawrence Wilkerson.)

On August 26, the IAEA reported it had found highly enriched uranium particles at Natanz. Iran insisted that the particles had come with imported centrifuges, an explanation the IAEA later confirmed. The existence of the particles hardly strengthened the case that Iran had a military nuclear program, but was used to encourage anxiety abut that possibility.


2004

By early 2004, the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia had emerged as a major challenge to the U.S. occupation in Baghdad and the southern part of Iraq . Right-wing journalists and neocons close to the administration increasingly alleged that al-Sadr was working closely with Tehran . In April, Rowan Scarborough citing "military sources" wrote in the Unification Church-owned Washington Times that al-Sadr "is being aided directly by Iran 's Revolutionary Guard and by Hezbollah, an Iranian-created terrorist group based in Lebanon ." The Wall Street Journal 's editors declared that the "Mahdi militia is almost certainly financed and trained by Iranians," adding, "Revolutionary Guards may be instigating some of the current unrest." The New York Times citing "Pentagon officials" reported the same thing, although Times reporter James Risen acknowledged that "some intelligence officials believe that the Pentagon has been eager to link Hezbollah to the violence in Iraq to link the Iranian regime more closely to anti-American terrorism." Critics pointed out that the Iranian mullahs were in fact closer to the leaders of the SCIRI and Dawa parties working with the occupation forces than with al-Sadr, whose Shiite religious solidarity with Iran is conditioned by Iraqi nationalism and pan-Arabism.

In June, the long-awaited 9-11 Commission Report was released. It stated that " Iran does not have long-standing ties to al-Qaeda" but made several claims about cooperation between the two. It linked Iran to Saudi Hezbollah, which carried out the1996 attack on the Khobar Towers residential complex in Dharan , Saudi Arabia , killing 19 Americans, adding that "there are also signs that al Qaeda played some role, as yet unknown."

"In late 1991 or 1992," according to the report, " discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support-even if only training-for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States . Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. . . The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations."

The report claimed without evidence that there were "strong indications that elements of both the Pakistani and Iranian governments frequently turned a blind eye" to the transit through their countries of al-Qaeda members prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks. It cited "detainees" as describing "the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran , on their way to and from Afghanistan . For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. . . In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." But the evidence for Iranian "willingness" to assist known al-Qaeda operatives seems very skimpy here; Iran almost went to war with al-Qaeda's host Afghanistan in 1999. The report does state, "We have found no evidence that Iran . . . .was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack."

The report indicated that some al-Qaeda members had found sanctuary in Iran . Iranian authorities replied that the only known al-Qaeda operatives in Iran were in prison awaiting trial. Serious intelligence scholars doubted whether the ferociously anti-Shiite al-Qaeda would receive any assistance from the Iranian government and noted Iran 's cooperation with the U.S. in toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan . But any effort to link al-Qaeda and Iran includes reference to this report.

In August 2004 CBS News revealed that the FBI was investigating a spy for Israel within the Defense Department, working under Donald Feith. The spy, later revealed to be Larry Franklin, had passed on classified information regarding Iran to senior officials of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). (In January 2006 he was convicted of passing classified information to AIPAC and sentenced to over 12 years in prison.) Franklin had in December 2001, as noted above, met to discuss regime change in Iran with Ledeen, Rhodes, and Ghorbanifar in Rome . His bust may have set back neocon efforts, coordinated with Israeli friends, to engineer an attack on Iran .

In this context President Bush, interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News September 27, 2004 declared that he would never let Iran acquire nuclear weapons and that "all options are on the table ."


2005

Following that remark, in January 2005, powerful hawks in the House of Representatives sponsored the " Iran Freedom Support Act" endorsing "a transition to democracy in Iran ." A similar version was introduced in the Senate and the joint bill was passed in September 2006. (Ironically, Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State and key aide to Colin Powell, had in February 2003 referred to Iran as a democracy, based on the fact that the country holds competitive elections. The neocons had castigated him for the remark, although the State Department officially stood by it.)

On January 20 Vice President Cheney declared that Iran is "right at the top of the list" of global "trouble spots" adding, "given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards." Here the Bush administration was directly linking Iran 's supposed military nuclear program with the survival of Israel -a significant escalation of the rhetoric.

The Iranians, Cheney argued, "are already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy." This was a remarkably dishonest statement coming from a man who had been an official in the Ford Administration which had in fact encouraged the Shah of Iran in the 1970s to develop a peaceful nuclear program. The Iranians plausibly argue that their fossil fuel reserves are finite, and more valuable as a source of foreign exchange than domestic use, while nuclear power is cleaner. But the argument that Iran can only be building reactors and enriching plutonium for military purposes is useful in its very simplicity.

On June 24 Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran . The mainstream news media immediately publicized various allegations against him, including the charge that he was deeply involved in the 1979-81 Iran Hostage Crisis. The Washington Times quoted one of the former hostages, Col. Charles Scott (then 73) as stating, "He was one of the top two or three leaders; the new president of Iran is a terrorist." The MEK produced a 1979 photograph of a young man resembling Ahmadinejad with an American hostage at the U.S. embassy, which was quickly published by news agenecies such as AP, Reuters and AFP alongside reporatge on the Iranian election.

Iranian sources identified the youth as one Taghi Mohammadi, while the Los Angeles Times quoted a "U.S. official familiar with the investigation of Ahmadinejad's role" as saying that analyists had found "serious discrepancies" between the person in the photo and images of Ahmadinejad, including differences in facial structure and height. Still, the State Department has made no official statement disputing the claim made by Scott and several other former hostages.

Another piece of likely disinformation was revealed in mid-July when senior (unnamed) U.S. intelligence officials summoned IAEA leaders to the top of a Vienna skyscraper. There they revealed materials supposedly downloaded from a stolen Iranian laptop computer revealing a protracted attempt by the Iranians to design a nuclear warhead. The IAEA was not convinced; "The information did not seem conclusive, the 'smoking gun,'" one person in attendance told Reuters in November. "No one has augmented this data since, and we are in no position to know whether the data indeed came from the Iranians." But the story was prominently covered in the U.S. press.

On August 23, the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a report describing Iran 's nuclear program as a strategic threat to the U.S. In a rare move, the IAEA denounced the report in a letter September 13 to committee chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan). The report, the IAEA declared, contained "erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated information." In particular the IAEA refuted the assertion that Iran was enriching uranium to weapons grade.

In September, following months of pressure from U.S. UN Ambassador Bolton, the IAEA issued a report on Iran , declaring it in "non-compliance" with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It stated that the "history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities" and "resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council." The statement was actually opposed by 13 of the 35 voting countries (including such key international players as Russia , China , Pakistan , Brazil , Mexico , Nigeria , Venezuela and South Africa ) but backed by NATO country representatives voting as a bloc. This was used to produce UNSC Resolution 1737, which while affirming the right of Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination," contradictorily "decides" that " Iran shall without further delay suspend . . . all [uranium] enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." The U.S. intention here was to have the Security Council adopt a resolution condemning Iran 's nuclear program and imposing sanctions. This was indeed achieved July 31, 2006.

In October, British ambassador to Iraq William Patey told reporters in London that Iran had been supplying technology used to kill British troops in Basra . There was no real evidence of Iranian government involvement, but the charge that Coalition forces are dying because of "explosively formed perpetrators" (EFP) manufactured in Iran has of course been echoed by Bush administration officials in recent weeks.

On October 26, Ahmadinejad gave a speech in which he quoted Ayatollah Khomenei (who died in 1989) as saying that "the occupation of Jerusalem " will be "erased from the page of time." Ahmadinejad used the quote in a speech noting that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan , the Soviet Union itself, and the regime of Saddam Hussein all ended in time, as he maintained the Israeli occupation of one of Islam's holiest cities would too. The statement has been incessantly misquoted in the U.S. and global press as a statement that Tehran plans to "wipe Israel off the map." One Iranian writer calls it "the rumor of the century." Certainly it's central to the whole disinformation program.

2006

In May 2006, Laura Rozen reported in the Los Angeles Times that the Office of Special Plans had been reincarnated as the "Office of Iranian Affairs" at the Pentagon, once again under Abram Shulsky and now reporting to none other than Elizabeth Cheney, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and daughter of the Vice President. In the same month Canada 's National Post published a story alleging that the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) had passed a law establishing "separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean)." It appeared next to a 1935 photo of a Jewish businessman in Germany with the yellow Star of David badge sewn onto his coat, as required by Nazi law at the time. It was authored by Iranian-American Amir Taheri, chief editor of Iran 's daily Kayhan (propaganda arm of the Shah's dictatorship) from 1972-1979, National Review contributor, and well-paid speaker for the warmongering neocon Benador Associates PR firm.

The story was picked up by UPI and reproduced in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and Jerusalem Post , and elsewhere, and represented as fact by U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "Despicable," declared McCormack, adding that Iran was just like " Germany under Hitler." "This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," echoed Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles . " Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis." But the story was exposed as a hoax by the Iranian ambassador to Canada , and the Jewish representative in the Iranian Majlis among others and retracted by the National Post the day following its publication.

(In July, following discussions with the Bush-Cheney administration, Israel once again invaded Lebanon . Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that "The White House was. . . focused on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel." A former intelligence officer told Hersh, "We told Israel , 'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later-the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.'" The invasion, followed by withdrawal the next month, did not accomplish this objective but rather strengthened Iran ally Hizbollah politically.)

On August 6, Murdoch's Sunday Times of London reported that Iran had been plotting to obtain large amounts of uranium from the Congo . But Raw Story cited a source close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who called the story "highly unlikely" and "not well researched." (The same Raw Story report noted that Abram Shulsky is still briefing Cheney regularly about Iran, suggesting a connection between the Times article and the neocon apparatus in Washington.)

As Israeli advocates of a U.S. attack on Iran became increasingly anxious at the American delay, they ratcheted up the rhetoric, accusing Iran of planning what Hitler failed to accomplish: the annihilation of Jewry. (There are in fact at least 25,000 Iranian Jews, whose roots go back 2500 years, and one Jewish representative in the Majlis.) In December, former Israeli Prime Minister and Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu summoned seventy foreign diplomats in Israel to a meeting to pressure them to join Israel in efforts to stop Iran 's nuclear program. According to a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz , the meeting was "the first event in an international public relations campaign. It will include a proposal to file a complaint in the International Court of Justice against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for war crimes, and his plans to commit genocide will be presented."

"In 1938," Netanyahu averred, "Hitler didn't say he wanted to destroy [the Jews]; Ahmadinejad is saying clearly that this is his intention, and we aren't even shouting. At least call it a crime against humanity. We must make the world see that the issue here is a program for genocide." Outgoing US UN Ambassador John Bolton called on the UN International Court of Criminal Justice to charge Ahmadinejad with "inciting genocide." "It's time to take action," Bolton told a Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations symposium. "We're being given early warning, unambiguously, on what his intentions are." This is of course the most grandiose piece of disinformation inflicted on the public to date, with a shock value topping the "mushroom cloud over New York City " image used to sell the war on Iraq .

On December 6 the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission) recommended to the president that he initiate a gradual withdrawal from Iraq and consult with Iraq 's neighbors including Iran to stabilize the country. Towards the end of the month several Iranians including two invited into the country by Iraqi Vice President Jalal Talabani were detained by U.S. forces, prompting criticism from the Iraqi puppet regime itself. The U.S. accused the detained of complicity in attacks on U.S. or "Coalition" troops. There was at year end a subtle shift of emphasis in the broad propaganda program from Iran 's nuclear activities to its involvement in American deaths.

2007

On January 10, in a much awaited response to the Commission recommendations Bush announced that he would instead escalate the war and adopt an even more confrontational posture towards Iran . He declared (without evidence) that the Islamic Republic was "providing material support for attacks on American troops" and allowing "terrorists and insurgents" to use its territory "to move in and out of Iraq ." "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," he vowed. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran . . . and we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq ."

On January 11, U.S.-led forces entered a building in the Kurdish city of Irbil , which both Iranian and Iraqi officials regard as an Iranian consulate flying the Iranian flag, and apprehended 6 Iranians. "I think it's instructive," declared Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "that in the last couple of weeks two of those raids that we conducted to go after these folks that are providing these kinds of weapons [EFP]---two of those raids had policed up Iranians. So it is clear that the Iranians are complicit in providing weapons."

It's actually not clear at all, and a planned announcement to provide details had to be delayed three weeks as the administration conceded that it faced a credibility problem. "In the old days," said an unnamed administration official, "if the U.S. government had come out and said, 'we've got this, here's our assessment,' reasonable people would have taken it at face value. That's never going to happen again." But in Baghdad on February 12 U.S. officials briefed reporters on the issue of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents. The journalists, including those from Associated Press, The New York Times , and Reuters all attended having agreed to the condition that none of the three U.S. officials taking part could be named or even closely described. All cameras and recording devices, including cellphones, were banned from the briefing room.

The anonymous officials at this spookiest of press briefings announced that the Islamic Republican Guard Corps-Quds Force, "believed to be" controlled by Iran 's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had been delivering IFP to Iraq since 2004. The Washington Post thus reported: "Iranian security forces, taking orders from the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government, are funneling sophisticated explosives to extremist groups in Iraq, and the weapons have grown increasingly deadly for U.S.-led troops over the past two years, senior defense officials said Sunday in Baghdad. Three defense officials from the U.S.-led Multi-National Force in Baghdad, laid out for reporters what they described as a 'growing body of evidence' that Iran is manufacturing and exporting into Iraq the armor piercing explosives, known as 'explosively formed penetrators,' or EFPs, that have killed more than 170 coalition troops, and wounded more than 620 others, in the past two years." The New York Times headlined the Iranian arms link story two days in a row, while editors noted that the case was weak, and the timing of the announcement suspicious.

The Iraqi (puppet) deputy foreign minister himself questioned the charges. Labeed M. Abbawi told the Washington Post , that the Iraqi government remained in the dark. "It is difficult for us here in the diplomatic circles," he declared, "just to accept whatever the American forces say is evidence. If they have anything really conclusive, then they should come out and say it openly, then we will pick it up from there and use diplomatic channels" to discuss it with Iran . Various Iraqi officials urged the U.S. not to pursue its quarrel with Iran on their turf. Meanwhile Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know if the Iranian government itself was supplying EFP material to Iraqis. "That [ Baghdad report] does not translate that the Iranian Government, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," he stated. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

But Bush himself in his February 14 news conference told reporters that "we know that" the Quds Force was supplying weapons, and that the Quds Force is part of the Iranian government. "That's a known," he declared. "Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops."

Israeli officials (who surely have Washington 's ear) continue to insist that there's no time to waste to end the genocidal threat that is Iran . Uri Lubrani, a former Israeli ambassador to the Shah's Iran and now a senior advisor to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, recently told the Jewish Agency's Board of Governors that the US "does not understand the threat and has not done enough," adding that the Americans and Europeans "must be shaken awake." Americans, that is to say, must be made to fear , must be disabused of their commonsense and moral qualms, must be compelled to share the paranoia.

The bland observation of Nazi Hermann Goering, made during the Nuremburg trials, bears frequent repeating. "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." All the above forms a case that Iran, a developing country, is attacking the United States of America, the world's sole superpower, and Israel, a country close to many Americans' hearts. All the above makes Iran the aggressor, the U.S. and Israel the victims. No matter that Iran has never in modern times attacked another nation, or that an attack on the U.S. or Israel would result in horrific consequences for the Islamic Republic.
The disinformation campaign eschews logic, gambling that fear alone will produce popular support. It anticipates the eventual discovery of its lies and charades, but calculates that the attainment of its heroic ends will make any embarrassment worth the effort. So what if following the nuking of Iran , after the rubble's cleared, we discover that Iran had no military nuclear program? Maybe there will be no evidence of anything at all left anyway. Maybe that's the radiant beauty of the plan.

Don't expect the neocons urging the Iran attack to apologize after the event, not matter how catastrophic the consequences. Consider Douglas Feith's response to the report by the Pentagon's inspector general that his Office of Special Plans peddled allegations about Iraq "not supported by the available intelligence" in order to get the U.S. into a bloody war.

"All of that was wrong, wasn't it?" Feith was recently asked by Chris Wallace in the most neocon-friendly environment imaginable, Fox News studio.
"No, not at all," Feith responded. "There was substantial intelligence. . . . There was a lot of information out there."

A lot of information indeed. Lots of stuff to believe and fear. That's how it works, again and again, in the history of U.S. imperialism. From the imaginary Spanish sinking of the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to Saddam Hussein's WMD to Iran's plans for genocide. Dis information has a long proud history of working well when deployed by amoral, unscrupulous, maybe insane men holding state power. Will it work once more?

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University , and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan ; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan ; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 . He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq , Afghanistan and Yugoslavia , Imperial Crusades .

By GARY LEUPP

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1 comments links to this post

16 February, 2007

Flight 11 did not crash into the North Tower

CHRISTIAN C. WALTHER

Der zensierte Tag. Wie man Menschen, Meinungen und Maschinen steuert. (Broschiert) by Christian C. Walther -- BUY AT AMAZON GERMANY


Key points:

The official 911 commission has in no way clarified what actually happened between 8 and 10 am that morning.


Flight 11 changing course at 8:13 is NOT PROVEN, and is actually denied 12 sep 2001 Washington Post: Boston controllers did not notice course change or unusual communication with pilots -- 2 years later Colonel Alan Scott (NORAD) said: The first time something unusual happened was at 8:20 when the transponder was switched off.

Hence AA11 did not change course before 8:20

The original radar data has never been seen. What we are told. is data that specialists in"after the fact interpretation" of the 84th Radar analysis squadron and other similar "specialists" have prepared for us.

Betty Ong called at around 8:20 (mp3)

She was not able to describe the hijackers, she did not say arabs.
Neither did the callers of Flight 93 mention arabs.

Ong tells us that 2 or 3 people have invaded the cockpit, and the crew can not communicate with the cockpit. Two of the crew have been stabbed.

The FBI claims there have been 5 hijackers, so lets assume the other 2 or 3 hijackers kept the passengers in check. How then can the crew have tried to open the cockpit door if there were two or three other hijackers keeping people away from it?
Similarly with Flight 93: passengers speak of 3 hijackers, the official version claims 4.

Transcripts of the air traffic communication of Flight 11 was published on 16. September 2001 in the New York Times. Here AA11 had not deviated from the prescribe course before 8:40, and was seen by US Airlines 583 at 29000ft.

Therefore it must be assumed that AA11 was on a normal course until 8:40.
NORAD concurs as it tells us that FAA notified a possible hijack at 8:40

Recap: Assume the controllers in the towers were neither criminals nor idiots:

At 8:14 the radio-communication fails.
At 8:20 the transponder fails.
If at that point a change of direction had be initiated, NORAD would have been notified at 8:23 at the latest.

To make it perfectly clear: If the plane had been following the official version it would have been "lost", at unknown height, for 30 minutes, criss-crossing busy flight-paths, heading towards the Indian Point nuclear power station. And air-traffic-controllers have NOT RAISED ALARM?

Immediatly following the attacks journalists wrote of surprised air-traffic-controllers who still saw AA11 on their screens while the attacks in NYC had started... as Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins (Air National Guard) told ABC-Reporter Peter Jennings .

January 2004 NY port authorty forced to publish emergency radio communications.
Mike Kelly (North Jersey Media Group) notes that at 9:03 La Guardia air traffic controller asks what happened to the North Tower. We heard a BOMB HIT it.

They "hear" it was an aeroplane and turn to the TV for more information. La Guardia
air traffic controllers who whould have tracked all aerial traffic in that sector.

At 8:52 2 fighter jets take of from Otis Air Base, and they flew to the presumed location of flight eleven, 150 miles north-west of New York. As NORAD-General Larry K. Arnold ordered the sortie of these interceptors he saw smoke coming from the World Trade Center, he tells us that he wondered if the two incidents were related, because he was talking to the center in Boston and not NY.

Interceptor pilot DUFFY told us that UNTIL the second impact (9:03) he thought he was chasing AA11. At 9:03 they were 71 miles away from New York.

german: http://www.randomhouse.de/specials/119fragen/media/pdf/10_wahrnehmung.pdf



PDF FULL TEXT, CRAPPY AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION


CHRISTIAN C. WALTHER THE CENSORED DAY (Excerpt)
Chapter 10

PERCEPTION VARYIES, Wall Street Stocks are stable

Contrary to the preceding episodes did not consolidated, but rather detailed hearing of evidence owes its existence to two extremely conservative convictions:

1. in the doubt for the accused
2. the laws of nature apply without exception

Who rejects both, can skip this part. The assumption of innocence and the laws of nature are obligatory here.


As 11 September 2001 is concerned, most viewers and commentators have said bye bye to all principles of the justice as well as physics already very early and very casually.

Therefore nobody is astonishment that the public perception of the extremely concrete event of 11 September - not only on the whole, but also in the detail - (in things airplanes, air lanes and impacts) has no points of contact with the documented, often hardly known facts.


Fact is: For the maintained course of events 11 September 2001 between 8 and 10 o'clock gives it in the morning in the meantime, despite several thousand sides comprehensive witness questioning on the part of the official 9/11- investigation commission, approximately as many proofs as for those Existence of weapon of mass destruction in the Iraq, i.e. accurately none.

We do not become in the following with in the framework the official Questionings (as well as the pertinent reporting) again and again public-effectively up and down discussed question employ, whether the US secret services knew something from the planned notice or could have known. Not that this question would be insignificant, in Opposite, it is at the end of substantial importance.

But it is not to place at the beginning, but last. Because who a high-complex Procedure like these regarded and to judge tried, cannot do that from all sides at the same time and equally thoroughly do - that Fail the viewer because of the almost abundance of the information the available would be pre-programmed. Therefore we become here on that range concentrate, which to us appears most promising to supply with exact view references those the official Representation in question do not only place, but disprove conclusively. This attempt is even with questions about the role of individual security advisors, secret services, individual Geheimdienstler or the accurate Wording approved by documents, those up to the recent day not become a little promising. The superficial view supplies, as we in the preceding chapters to show could, vague or intuitively clear assumptions the profit your as well as author 11 concerning September, but evenly not to strong proofs. Around itself in the Untiefen of this complicated case not completely in Speculative ones to lose, it is advisable to look around with the concrete indication search closely under the surface. One undertakes the bold attempt, the official myth of the 11. September 2001 to disprove, one must therefore to all only the nut/mother all premises to case bring, which basis agreement, on which all following is based, and which reads there: „Four passenger planes became of Aluminium-Qaida-terrorists kidnaps and in buildings steered. “ The incidental remark is permitted us that we us hereby in more absurd Proximity to „the burden of proof reversal “find, because under normal Circumstances would have to furnish the prosecutor a Schuldbweis, not that Defender an innocence proof - however there itself the accusation this Trouble will also further not make obviously determined and the judges , also without available proofs our client, who unverhüllte, is Truth to away-close lifelong we have probably no choice. The proof can be furnished that above core statement is wrong, all further conclusions are to be examined, differently said: Then far we free of doubts to prove can that either nineteen it did not kidnap alleged author the machines or that the kidnapped machines did not deviate from the course, or that the machines, those fell, the kidnapped machines were not, would be the remainder of the To evaluate case again. Legally seen one would speak here of one due to new proofs ordered resumption of the procedure. So we stand thus here and now before the challenge, a proof approximately to furnish the official representation, so that ours „client “, which gets history, a chance on a new, fair procedure. We it will try. And - according to situation of the things and due to the today available facts - which truth so close comes, like it presently/immediately goes. Truth, those with all Rätselhaftigkeit little or nothing also to do has, what allegedly, after our past perception, on 11 September 2001 happened. We accomplish this hearing of evidence after best knowledge - and aware that we go on proverbially thin ice. Therefore we use expressly no dubious sources or comments, separate refer us in all substantial points on of the US authorities documented facts, on statements of sworn in A witness as well as official announcements of the airlines concerned and the responsible authorities - not on hearing legends, Presumptions or comments of Konspirologen of the Mainstreams or its Internet reaction. All care during the out and evaluation of the sources to the defiance would be our proof, as we know, easily too zerschmettern: Put one us also only a real piece of rebutting evidence of pre a flight writer, a radar recording, a passenger list, a witness that Accusation - we would be possibly in explanation emergency respectively ge zwungen to revise our conclusions. The fact that all these proofs of the accusation until 2004, which can be furnished problem-free, thus three years after, completely are missing, permit to us meanwhile a certain confidence with the lining up argumentation. In order to be able to follow this argumentation impartially, requires it however a certain measure of concentration - as well as that Readiness to make itself free by everything what everyone of us after of three years prayer-mill-like repetition as secured and proved applies. That is occasionally somewhat laborious, but who itself of it not to deter leaves, the hot we hereby cordially welcomely on board our turbulent flight from the large lie to the intermediate conditions in Things „truth “on the basis very concrete statements and data: Official one Representation against facts, a piece of evidence A: Air lanes and none Deviations. AMERICAN AIRLINES 11 The official representation: The flight American Airlines 11 started over 8,01 o'clock (fourteen minutes been late) of the Logan air haven, Boston, too a flight to Los Angeles. On board were 81 passengers and 11 crew members. FBI boss Robert Mueller according to kidnapped the Hijacker, „the obviously freely available carpet measurers used “, the machine and diverted it at 8.13 o'clock of the course. One good half hour later, at 8.45 o'clock, fell flight American Airlines 11 into the north tower of the World trade center. (1) According to US air traffic control authority, the FAA (Federal aviation administration), became the North American air defense NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense COMMAND) at 8.40 o'clock of one „possible “kidnapping of the flight AA 11 informs. (2) The time of the impact became later, more seismologischer after evaluation Data, on 8.46 o'clock corrects. The facts: The kolportierte first course deviation from American Airlines 11 at 8.13 o'clock is occupied or proven until today by nothing. On the contrary: One contradicted to this first course deviation several times, for the first time on 12 September 2001. The Washington post office reported: Responsible person of the airport said Boston, they would have to to the Crash no course deviation of the machine notices, and the control towers would not have unusual communication with pilots or any crew members had. (3) At least the first part of this fresh eye-witness statement in things „no course deviation “(to the remainder we come directly) became scarce two years later of authority underlined. Colonel Alan Scott, representative of the US air defense NORAD, stated before the commission of inquiry to 11 September: The first time, to that something… unusual happened, was at 8.20 o'clock, as the electronic transponder by American Airlines 11 expired, or, if they want so, simply of the screen disappeared. (4) „The transponder “, of which Scott speaks, supplies all data over flight altitude and speed of an airplane as well as a four digit Identification number, those apart from the primary radar signal (one „Blip “) over those Screens of the pilots moves. There are thus, more simply said, two radar Reference points for soil control. One switches the transponder out, one can pursue the course of the machine further on the basis the prime era signal.

However one does not have information in this case more, as high or like fast the machine flies - and around which Machine it acts.
After Colonel Scotts statement happened before 8.20 o'clock thus nothing remarkable - a course change one would have booked surely as „unnormal “. We hold therefore: AA 11 did not change that before 8.20 o'clock Course. All maps in this connection circulating are to be regarded as outdated. (Corrected maps are beside one „to Timetable “in the appendix.)

When thus did flight 11 deviate from the course, if not at 8.13 o'clock? About between 8.20 o'clock and 8,28 o'clock, at the time officially second Course change directly toward New York? So far we assume, not least due to the following explanation of the NORAD responsible person quoted already above: At 8.46 o'clock, that is the next noted incident, we get to see the last radar data; whereby by the way many of the radar data for these primary goals [the airplanes] were not on that day to see.

They became days later by the 84sten radar analysis squadron and other one, comparable agencies evaluated, specialists in things of retrospective evaluation of radar recordings, those from the existing material in the knowledge around the actual incidents afterwards things to filter could, during the incident perhaps at all to recognize were not. (5)

Captivatingly. Or in more detail translates: The change of course was on day from nobody to to recognize, became however from experts in Knowledge around what happened afterwards, reconstructs.

That is, with respect, no proof for something, apart from it mentions Colonel Scott neither here nor in other place of its statement one Course change.

Who then?

We must probably turn to the statements of the eye-witnesses - and they exist. In the case of the flight 11 the only reliable one description of the incidents on board comes from the the hostess Betty Ong, who around 8.20 o'clock from board the American airline center called. (6)

The official commission of inquiry to 11 September publicly demonstrated recordings of the 23min telephone call between Ong and two American airline employees in January 2004. This stopped all fantasies of conspiracy theoreticians, who assumed that, possibly there were no kidnappers at all on board, or the machines were not be at all kidnapped:

Hostess Ong described very exactly the happening on board and reported, the kidnappers would have stabbed members of the crew and a passenger. We therefore see as proven on that Flight 11 shortly before 8.20 was kidnapped. At this time became also - see above - the transponder switched off. Directly following reported Ong, „two or three men “would be in the cockpit, and the pilots did not answer any longer to inquiries of the crew via intercom.

The statement of the hostess is however not only interesting, because it verifies some official statements.

Almost more interesting - for attentive listeners - is what Ong does not say. For one she could not describe the hijackers. (7)

Like all the other here relevant witnesses (beside Ong the passengers, who phoned from flight 93), Ong speaks with not even a syllable of Arabs or looking Arab kidnappers.

On these Aspect return we further down. Secondly Ong reports, „two or three men have gained entrance to the cockpit,
and the cabin crew cannot communicate with that Pilots anymore. (8) Because we know from the FBI that five identified terrorists kidnapped flight 11, we assume that, that the remaining two or three Hijacker kept the the passengers in check.

But we hear in addition again Betty Ong (their mentioned of „Numbers “refer to on board crew present Members): Our number 1 was stabbed. And who otherwise still…? And our number 5 - our roofridge Class passengers are - a flight companion and our Purser are erstochen And we do not come into the cockpit purely, the door leave ourselves do not open. Hello? (9) Probably we know hereby one of the reasons, why the FAA that Mitschnitt of the telephone call only after a public complaint menace the commission of inquiry in October 2003 out-moved. Before one had assumed that, with calls concerned it rumors, since the FAA saw itself unable, the existence of any To confirm volumes. Is crucial: Even if it so far no commentator been noticeable is, contradicts the only eye witness decided the official Representation of the act course of events. We hold therefore to the edge: Those Crew tried to open the cockpit door - without success. That sounds after banal information, but two or three Hijacker would have those Door from the outside guarded, would probably hardly have come the crew on the idea, they open to want. And there in the cockpit Boeing 767 with best will not five kidnappers as well as two (dead or alive) pilots fit in, see we as conclusive and proven free of doubts on, that not five men, but only the two specified by Ong or three men flight 11 kidnapped. Why the FBI also according to the published statement of Ong further from five kidnappers proceeds, remains meanwhile puzzling. We return to it in connection with flight 93, because also here speak all witnesses of three kidnappers, not of the officially maintained four. The third and for us here crucial Weglassung in Ongs report however is again the alleged course change. The hostess mentions it at no time, although the telephone call of 8,20 o'clock to approximately 8,44 o'clock lasts. Their interlocutors with American Airlines mention likewise no course change. Directly before that Impact of an airplane into the north tower we hear of Ong the called let us measure Gonzalez with a in particular not identified colleague about flight 11 speak, and also its unaufgeregte statement speaks rather by Weglassungen volumes. It [flight 11] switched its transponder off, therefore to have we its exact height not. We orient ourselves only to… they [the responsible persons with American Airlines] believe apparently that [the pilots] on the Primärradar have it. It it seems to believe that he [flight 11] sinks. (10) One believes, one means, it seems - only one do not have obviously taken place: a course change. After NORAD Verwantwortliche, eye witness and airline Personal us none however constituted reference to the time and both flight writers give the course deviation and Cockpit Voice recorders were obviously destroyed, turn we to Conclusion assistance-searching the published recordings of radio traffic between the pilots and pilots responsible on this day too. The transcriptions of the radio recordings in things flight 11 became on 16 September 2001 of the New York Time publishes. Those therein documented disputes occupy however only the opposite of the official representation, i.e. that flight 11 to at least 8,40 o'clock on prescribed course flew - and at this time to 29,000 foot height of the pilot of the flight US airlines 583 sighted became. (11) After 8.41 are missing to o'clock concerning further position indications Flight 11, therefore is quite conceivable, if also it does not prove that the machine zusteuerte starting from this time on New York. We hold ourselves but hold not with speculations up, but only: All course deviations from flight 11 direction, accepted so far New York before 8.40 o'clock must due to the available data and Statements as disproved apply. NORAD confirms this: After our recordings the FAA informed us over 8,40 o'clock for the first time of a possible kidnapping of American Airline flight 11. And the original reaction to ours Demand was at the time, the possible kidnapping is not confirmed. (12) We assume the pilots responsible on this day (and that were some) neither criminals nor all together idiots were. Over Radio traffic ended to 8,14 o'clock with flight 11, at 8.20 o'clock discharged itself the transponder. It would have additionally to these two events a course change given, NORAD would be at the latest at 8.23 o'clock informed by a defintiven kidnapping. Instead became NORAD at 8.40 o'clock of one „possible “kidnapping informs, which one might not even have confirmed on demand. The responsible pilots tried the broken off starting from 8.15 o'clock, To repair Funkkontakt to flight 11. They alarmed however none the other traffic machines over a their, in air Course in unknown quantities height transverseends, possibly kidnapped machine - which the pilots would undoubtedly have done, the course of flight would be 11 that completely irregular been, to which the official representation without each proof holds. This point is to be emphasized clearly: According to official representation flight 11 since 8,14 o'clock (of us corrects for 8.20) was nearly thirty (!) Minutes long in unknown quantities height (!) on Kollionskurs with various other passenger planes in the US air space at east west course, without the endangered machines of their respective Pilots at least warned would be. Besides moved Flight 11 to official representation since 8,20 o'clock in unknown quantities height directly on the nuclear power station Indian POINT on the bank of the Hudson River too, without possibly who from possibly whom to it would have referred. A crash of a machine in this area would have New York for one hundred Years uninhabitable made. For the reaction of the pilots there is further only one explanation: It o'clock cannot have given a course change before 8.40. Directly after the notices reported various journalists, those Air traffic controllers would be completely surprised been of the event in New York, since they saw flight 11 nevertheless still on their screens. There which was into that Multistoried building flown? A low-flying „twin-engine Cessna “perhaps (13), how it meant first? Whatever - it was not certainly Flight 11. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins (air national Guard) was so freely, ABC reporter Peter Jennings for this a spontaneous thought to speak in the microphone: They [flight control] said us that American Airlines flight 11 still in air would be. And now we regard, and, tja, if, if an airplane the World trade center met has, who was that? (14) Misleading messages? Overhauls, long corrected? On the contrary. In January 2004 saw itself the New Yorker port authority, landlady of the World trade center, judicially forced, the desire that New York Time after publication of entire emergency radio traffic to To give way soil. The dialogue most interesting for our case out that Mike commentated two thousand sides comprehensive Transkript Kelly for the North jersey Media Group. (15) Kelly marked, also twenty-eight months after the notices is still completely unclear, which the flight supervisory authority FAA on this day done respectively it missed because the published Transkripte to reveal that the air traffic controllers at New Yorker airport the La Guardia even still in the dark one groped, after the north tower had been met. In one Dispute, which takes place, during the north tower already in flames stands, directly before the impact of a second airplane into that South tower at 9.03 o'clock, asks a in particular not identified pilot from the control tower La Guardia: „' know you young, what happened at the World trade center?' A second, unidentifizierter pilot in the control tower answers: ‚We listen to us the straight in the messages. Know you something more details? Which is happened, since is an airplane clean-flown?' ‚We heard, a bomb would have met, says it' first Man. ‚We heard, it were an airplane', answer the second man and adds, it switch the straight television set on. ‚We try, an update to wars.' ‚However you know nothing?' the first man says. ‚We know nothing', say the second man. ‚We regard it to us now straight on Channel 5. ' “ This dialogue against 9 o'clock in the morning would have absolutely nothing irritating, we listened here two to completely normal fellow men, who try to find out via CNN, what straight in Lower Manhattan happened. But that here two air traffic controllers responsible for accurately this sector speak, thus evenly those people „right at the top in the information chain “, those allegedly already since 8,20 o'clock an airplane on their, gotten off the course In rapid descending flight southward to fly saw to radar display screens and would have extremely alarmed to be to have - that is at least concern exciting, because it would mean either that the US pilots through the bank complete incompetent it be, or that they even to no Time of the course flights on their radar display screens, gotten, saw - were just as surprised and therefore as the remainder of the world. To supplement it is that after official representation at 8.52 o'clock (thus six minutes after the first impact) of finally two interceptors from the Otis air national Guard cousin ascended, in order to intercept flight 11. The Otis air cousin is appropriate for 188 miles from New York far away, on that Peninsula Cape Cod south of Boston. NORAD general Craig Mk Kinley confirmed before the commission of inquiry, the jets would be to Time of the second impact (9,03 o'clock) still 71 miles of new one York removes been. They would be starting from 8.52 o'clock on direct way after New York flown, would result in an average speed of „only “about six hundred thirty miles per hour. This contradicts all data of the NORAD responsible persons, who state, the jets with a speed of one thousand one hundred to one thousand two hundred miles per hour on the way to flight 11 would have been. This again means: According to the official representation those flew Jet suspiciously slowly. If one follows this representation, one comes inevitably to the conclusion that the pilots left themselves intentionally to time. An absurd conception. If the official representation would correspond to the facts, would not have only two dozen of air traffic controllers, but also some NORAD responsible person as well as at least two jet pilots alone in this first kidnap case been as Mitwisser inaugurated its. There this official acceptance in a hanebüchene, each rational basis missing conspiracy theory flowed, states we that itself after more conscientiously Evaluation of the available information the following corrections of the official representation inevitably result in. Flight American Airlines 11 did not yield before 8.40 o'clock of the planned Course direction Los Angeles off and was directly before this Time still in 29,000 foot height. Which means that itself flight 11 over 8,40 o'clock, six minutes before the impact of a first flying object in World trade center, in the area of Watkins Glen at the border that Federal States New York and Pennsylvania found, therefore about hundred fifty miles from New York far away. (See maps in the appendix) The fighter planes, which ascended at 8.52 o'clock of the Otis air cousin, flew not toward New York, but toward from all Pilots and of NORAD assumed place of residence of the flight 11 zirka hundred fifty miles northwest from New York. In the instant, in the NORAD general Larry K. Arnold the start of the hunters arranged, it saw smoke from the World trade center ascending on the television and asked oneself for own statement, „like so many of us, with this Affair were concerned “, which had to mean: Does it have to do something with this special incident? Which we did not believe, because we spoke with the center Boston, and we did not think of the direct environment from new one York. (16) The pilot of the jet (pseudonym „Duffy “) gave later to minutes up to the impact the second machine at 9.03 o'clock to have believed it chase to the first machine, thus flight 11. (17) Confirm thus also behavior and statements of the jet pilots our assumption that Flight 11 at least to 8,40 o'clock on correct course was - one believes the statement of „Duffy “, even still clearly after 8.55 o'clock. The jets actually flew starting from 8.52 o'clock with thousand two hundred miles per hour the looked for machine eiligst afterwards and were therefore over 9,03 o'clock still relatively far, i.e. seventy-in miles, of New York removes. The konspirologische theory, the pilots intentionally slowly would have flown, is thereby eliminated. Result: One thinks the official representation of the events in things „Flight AA 11 “consistently to end, results compellingly that the terrorists must have had various aids - among the air traffic controllers, the FAA, with the NORAD and even in the pulpits of the responsible interceptors. Such a conspiracy is after human discretion to manage not. Besides the official conspiracy theory in things flight 11 is to occupy by nothing, but however by a set of indications and beeideter statements disproves. According to the statements of Betty Ong stands firmly that not five, but maximally three men kidnapped the machine. It is possible that one of them was Mohammed Atta. That Proof that it was at all on board the flight AA 11, is however not furnished, because the official passenger list of flight 11 was not published until today. Of Associated press again directly the notice published „incomplete “list (18) covered from FBI boss Mueller confirmed ninety-two persons on board - however this list without the name or at least that covered „Alias “one of the kidnappers mentioned ninety-two persons.



That proof which can be furnished easily that also only one of the assassins mentioned stood on the passenger list or began flight 11, stands therefore to today out. As soon as this proof is furnished, the necessity results to furnish a second proof i.e. that that Atta was that, that the machine kidnapped. And after contribution this second proof , last, the proof was missing that it controlled the machine into the north tower. If that was possible. Because after evaluation us of the available It must be considered to facts as proven that flight 11 at 8.40 o'clock cannot have been anywhere differently than in cruising altitude, thus 29,000 Foot, on intended course, therefore about hundred fifty miles of New York removes. Is crucial: There six minutes later, i.e. at 8.46 o'clock, Airplane into the north tower of the WTC hit, is according to situation that here to exclude aforementioned proof without any doubt that it can have concerned with this flying object Boeing 767, itself as Flight 11 of Boston on the way to Los Angeles found - one Boeing 767 cannot definitely within six minutes hundred one hundred Miles put, but with a maximum speed of maximally five hundred miles per hour at the most seventy-five miles back. Thus AA would be 11 at 8.46 o'clock, if it before 9.00 o'clock at all one Course deviation gave, still at least seventy-five miles of new one York removes been. In the region thus, in which the ascended jets looked at exactly this time for the machine, which again it suggests that flight changed 11 only to 9.00 o'clock the course. Due to us the available data and all official statements it is to be therefore noted that flight 11 possibly already before 8.46 o'clock was in descending flight, but likewise decided to exclude that it itself with the flying object, that at 8.46 o'clock into the north tower of the World Trade center fell, around flight 11 to have acted can. (...) Excerpt out: Christian C. Walther, the censored day. As one steers humans, opinions and machines. All rights reserve, reproduction, also in part, only with previous written permission of: Heyne publishing house, Bayerstr. 71-73, 80335 Munich.


GERMAN ORIGINAL TEXT:

CHRISTIAN C. WALTHER
DER ZENSIERTE TAG
(Auszug)
10) WAHRNEHMUNG SCHWANKEND, KURSE STABIL
Eine Vorbemerkung: Diese im Gegensatz zu den vorangegangenen Episoden
nicht verdichtete, sondern eher ausführliche Beweisaufnahme verdankt
ihre Existenz zwei äußerst konservativen Überzeugungen, die da
lauten „Im Zweifel für den Angeklagten“ und „Die Naturgesetze gelten
ohne Ausnahme“.

Wer beides entschieden zurückweist, kann diesen Teil – der notgedrungen
gelegentlich redundant wirkt – getrost überspringen. Denn wer
meint, Naturgesetze könnten von Terroristen nach Belieben außer Kraft
gesetzt werden oder die Auffassung vertritt, eine Anschuldigung allein
reiche, um jemanden auch ohne jeden Schuldbeweis zu lynchen, dem
fehlt – bei allem Respekt – das erforderliche Rüstzeug für die nachfolgenden
Betrachtungen.

Natürlich lässt sich dem entgegenhalten, auch bekennende Lynchjustizler
und dogmatische Heliozentriker könnten charmante, und unterhaltende
Leute sein, aber hier geht es eben weiterhin nicht um Charme
oder Klatsch, sondern um die kritische, gelegentlich mühevolle Betrachtung
eines der wichtigsten historischen Ereignisse und seiner insgesamt
desaströsen Folgen. Und dazu braucht es erstens Verstand und
zweitens Konsens wenigstens auf elementarster Ebene, im Sinne von: Es
gelten, unbedingt und unabdingbar, Unschuldsvermutung und Naturgesetze.

Was den 11. September 2001 betrifft, hat sich indes die überwiegende
Zahl der Betrachter und Kommentatoren von allen Grundsätzen der Gerechtigkeit
sowie der Physik schon sehr früh und sehr beiläufig verabschiedet
– ohne sich im Lauf der Jahre wieder an dies oder jenes zu erinnern.

Es wird daher niemand erstaunen, dass die öffentliche Wahrnehmung
des äußerst konkreten Ereignisses „11. September“ nicht nur im
Großen und Ganzen, sondern auch im Detail – nämlich in Sachen „Flugzeuge,
Flugrouten und Einschläge“ mit den inzwischen dokumentierten,
wenn auch kaum bekannten Fakten fast keine Berührungspunkte mehr
aufweist.

Zu den Gründen wird weiter unten mehr zu sagen sein. An dieser
Stelle wollen wir es bei dem Hinweis bewenden lassen, dass de facto
bis heute in Sachen Tathergang nichts von dem bewiesen ist, was wir im
guten Glauben für längst bewiesen hielten; es sind im Gegenteil fast alle
Indizien, die die so zu nennende „Anklage“ präsentiert hatte, offiziell
widerlegt.

Tatsache ist: Für den behaupteten Hergang des 11. September 2001
zwischen 8 und 10 Uhr morgens gibt es inzwischen, trotz einer mehrere
tausend Seiten umfassenden Zeugenbefragung seitens der offiziellen
9/11-Untersuchungskommission, annähernd so viele Beweise wie für die
Existenz von Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak, nämlich exakt keine.
Wir werden uns im Folgenden nicht mit der im Rahmen der offiziellen
Befragungen (sowie der dazugehörigen Berichterstattung) immer wieder
öffentlichkeitswirksam rauf und runter diskutierten Frage beschäftigen,
ob die US-Geheimdienste etwas von dem geplanten Anschlag wussten
oder hätten wissen können. Nicht, dass diese Frage unerheblich wäre, im
Gegenteil, sie ist am Ende von erheblicher Bedeutung. Aber sie ist nicht
am Anfang zu stellen, sondern zuletzt. Denn wer einen hochkomplexen
Vorgang wie diesen betrachtet und zu beurteilen versucht, kann das nicht
von allen Seiten gleichzeitig und gleichermaßen gründlich tun – das
Scheitern des Betrachters an der schieren Fülle der zur Verfügung stehenden
Informationen wäre vorprogrammiert. Deshalb werden wir uns
hier auf jenen Bereich konzentrieren, der uns am aussichtsreichsten erscheint,
bei genauer Betrachtung Hinweise zu liefern, die die offizielle
Darstellung nicht nur in Frage stellen, sondern schlüssig widerlegen.

Eben dieser Versuch ist bei Fragen nach der Rolle einzelner Sicherheitsberater,
Geheimdienste, einzelner Geheimdienstler oder dem exakten
Wortlaut von Dokumenten, die bis zum jüngsten Tag nicht freigegeben
werden, wenig erfolgversprechend. Die oberflächliche Betrachtung
führt zwar, wie wir in den vorangegangenen Kapiteln zeigen konnten, zu
vagen oder intuitiv klaren Vermutungen die Profiteure sowie Urheber
des 11. September betreffend, aber eben nicht zu handfesten Beweisen.
Um sich in den Untiefen dieses komplizierten Falles nicht vollends im
Spekulativen zu verlieren, ist es daher ratsam, sich bei der konkreten Indiziensuche
dicht unter der Oberfläche umzusehen.
Unternimmt man den kühnen Versuch, den offiziellen Mythos des 11.
September 2001 zu widerlegen, muss man daher zu allererst die Mutter
aller Prämissen zu Fall bringen, die Basisübereinkunft, auf der alles Folgende
beruht, und die da lautet: „Vier Passagiermaschinen wurden von
Al-Qaida-Terroristen entführt und in Gebäude gesteuert.“
Die Zwischenbemerkung sei uns gestattet, dass wir uns hiermit in absurder
Nähe zur „Beweislastumkehr“ befinden, denn unter normalen
Umständen müsste der Ankläger einen Schuldbweis erbringen, nicht der
Verteidiger einen Unschuldsbeweis – aber da sich die Anklage diese
Mühe auch weiterhin nicht machen wird und der Richter offenbar gewillt
ist, auch ohne vorliegende Beweise unsere Mandantin, die unverhüllte
Wahrheit, lebenslänglich wegzusperren, haben wir wohl keine Wahl.

Kann der Beweis erbracht werden, dass obige Kernaussage falsch ist,
sind alle weiteren Schlussfolgerungen zu überprüfen, anders gesagt: So-
fern wir zweifelsfrei nachweisen können, dass entweder die neunzehn
angeblichen Täter die Maschinen nicht entführten, oder dass die entführten
Maschinen nicht vom Kurs abwichen, oder dass die Maschinen,
die abstürzten, nicht die entführten Maschinen waren, wäre der Rest des
Falles neu zu bewerten. Juristisch gesehen spräche man hier von einer
aufgrund neuer Beweise gebotenen Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens. So
stehen wir also hier und jetzt vor der Herausforderung, einen Beweis gegen
die offizielle Darstellung zu erbringen, damit unser „Klient“, die Geschichte,
eine Chance auf ein neues, gerechtes Verfahren bekommt. Wir
werden es versuchen. Und dabei – nach Lage der Dinge und aufgrund
der heute vorliegenden Fakten – der Wahrheit so nahe kommen, wie es
augenblicklich geht.

Einer Wahrheit, die bei aller Rätselhaftigkeit wenig oder nichts mit
dem zu tun hat, was angeblich, nach unserer bisherigen Wahrnehmung,
am 11. September 2001 geschah.
Wir führen diese Beweisaufnahme nach bestem Wissen durch – und
im Bewusstsein, dass wir uns auf sprichwörtlich dünnes Eis begeben.
Daher verwenden wir ausdrücklich keine dubiosen Quellen oder Kommentare,
sondern beziehen uns in allen wesentlichen Punkten auf von
den US-Behörden dokumentierte Fakten, auf Aussagen von eingeschworenen
Zeugen sowie offizielle Verlautbarungen der betroffenen Fluggesellschaften
und der zuständigen Behörden – nicht auf Hörensagen,
Mutmaßungen oder Kommentare von Konspirologen des Mainstreams
oder seiner Internet-Gegenbewegung.

Aller Sorgfalt bei der Aus- und Bewertung der Quellen zum Trotz wäre
unsere Beweisführung, wie wir wissen, leicht zu zerschmettern: Legte
man uns auch nur ein wirkliches Gegen-Beweisstück vor – einen Flugschreiber,
eine Radaraufzeichnung, eine Passagierliste, einen Zeugen der
Anklage – wären wir möglicherweise in Erklärungsnot respektive ge-
zwungen, unsere Schlussfolgerungen zu revidieren. Die Tatsache, dass
all diese problemlos zu erbringenden Beweise der Anklage bis 2004, also
drei Jahre danach, vollständig fehlen, erlaubt uns indes eine gewisse Zuversicht
bei der anstehenden Argumentation.

Um dieser Argumentation unvoreingenommen folgen zu können, bedarf
es allerdings eines gewissen Maßes an Konzentration – sowie der
Bereitschaft, sich von allem frei zu machen, was jedem von uns nach
drei Jahren gebetsmühlenartiger Wiederholung als gesichert und bewiesen
gilt. Das ist gelegentlich etwas mühsam, aber wer sich davon nicht
abschrecken lässt, den heißen wir hiermit herzlich willkommen an Bord
unseres turbulenten Fluges von der großen Lüge zum Zwischenstand in
Sachen „Wahrheit“ anhand sehr konkreter Aussagen und Daten: Offizielle
Darstellung kontra Fakten, Beweisstück A: Flugrouten und keine
Abweichungen.

AMERICAN AIRLINES 11

Die offizielle Darstellung: Der Flug American Airlines 11 startete um
8.01 Uhr (vierzehn Minuten verspätet) vom Logan Airport, Boston, zu
einem Flug nach Los Angeles. An Bord befanden sich 81 Passagiere und
11 Besatzungsmitglieder. FBI-Chef Robert Mueller zufolge entführten
die Hijacker, die „offensichtlich frei erhältliche Teppichmesser verwendeten“,
die Maschine und brachten sie um 8.13 Uhr vom Kurs ab. Eine
gute halbe Stunde später, um 8.45 Uhr, stürzte Flug American Airlines
11 in den Nordturm des World Trade Center.(1)

Laut US-Flugsicherungsbehörde, der FAA (Federal Aviation Administration),
wurde die nordamerikanische Luftraumverteidigung NORAD
(North American Aerospace Defense Command) um 8.40 Uhr von einer
„möglichen“ Entführung des Fluges AA 11 benachrichtigt. (2) Der Zeitpunkt
des Einschlags wurde später, nach Auswertung seismologischer
Daten, auf 8.46 Uhr korrigiert.

Die Fakten: Die kolportierte erste Kursabweichung von American Airlines
11 um 8.13 Uhr ist bis heute durch nichts belegt oder gar bewiesen.
Im Gegenteil: Dieser ersten Kursabweichung wurde mehrfach widersprochen,
zum ersten Mal am 12. September 2001. Die Washington Post
berichtete:

Verantwortliche des Flughafens Boston sagten, sie hätten bis
zum Crash keine Kursabweichung der Maschine bemerkt, und
die Kontrolltürme hätten keine ungewöhnliche Kommunikation
mit Piloten oder irgendwelchen Besatzungsmitgliedern gehabt.
(3)

Wenigstens der erste Teil dieser frischen Augenzeugenaussage in Sachen
„keine Kursabweichung“ (zum Rest kommen wir gleich) wurde knapp
zwei Jahre später von offizieller Stelle unterstrichen. Colonel Alan Scott,
Vertreter der US-Luftraumverteidigung NORAD, sagte vor der Untersuchungskommission
zum 11. September aus:

Der erste Zeitpunkt, zu dem irgend etwas ... Ungewöhnliches
passierte, war um 8.20 Uhr, als der elektronische Transponder
von American Airlines 11 erlosch, oder, wenn sie so wollen,
einfach vom Schirm verschwand. (4)

Der „Transponder“, von dem Scott spricht, liefert alle Daten über Flughöhe
und Geschwindigkeit eines Flugzeugs sowie eine vierstellige
Kennnummer, die neben dem Primärradarsignal (einem „Blip“) über die
Schirme der Lotsen wandert. Es gibt also, einfacher gesagt, zwei Radar-
Anhaltspunkte für die Bodenkontrolle. Schaltet man den Transponder
aus, kann man den Kurs der Maschine weiterhin anhand des Primäradarsignals
verfolgen. Allerdings hat man in diesem Fall keine Informationen
mehr, wie hoch oder wie schnell die Maschine fliegt – und um welche
Maschine es sich handelt.

Nach Colonel Scotts Aussage geschah vor 8.20 Uhr also nichts Auffälliges
– einen Kurswechsel hätte man sicherlich als „unnormal“ verbucht.
Wir halten daher fest: AA 11 wechselte vor 8.20 Uhr nicht den
Kurs. Alle diesbezüglich kursierenden Karten sind als überholt anzusehen.
(Korrigierte Karten finden sich neben einem „Timetable“ im Anhang.)

Wann also wich Flug 11 vom Kurs ab, wenn nicht um 8.13 Uhr? Etwa
zwischen 8.20 Uhr und 8.28 Uhr, zum Zeitpunkt des offiziell zweiten
Kurswechsels direkt in Richtung New York? Davon gehen wir bislang
aus, nicht zuletzt aufgrund folgender Erklärung des bereits oben zitierten
NORAD-Verantwortlichen:

Um 8.46 Uhr, das ist der nächste aufgezeichnete Vorfall, kriegen
wir die letzten Radardaten; wobei übrigens viele der Radardaten
für diese Primärziele [die Flugzeuge] waren an jenem Tag nicht
zu sehen. Sie wurden Tage später vom 84sten Radarauswertungsgeschwader
und anderen, vergleichbaren Dienststellen
ausgewertet, Fachleuten in Sachen retrospektiver Auswertung
von Radaraufzeichnungen, die aus dem vorhandenen Material
im Wissen um die tatsächlichen Vorfälle im Nachhinein Dinge
herausfiltern konnten, die während des Vorfalls selbst vielleicht
gar nicht zu erkennen waren. (5)

Bestechend. Oder ausführlicher übersetzt: Die Kursänderung war zwar
am Tag selbst von niemandem zu erkennen, wurde aber von Experten im
Wissen um das, was anschließend geschah, rekonstruiert. Das ist, bei
allem Respekt, kein Beweis für irgendetwas, davon abgesehen erwähnt
Colonel Scott weder hier noch an anderer Stelle seiner Aussage einen
Kurswechsel.

Wer dann?

Wir müssen uns wohl den Aussagen der Augenzeugen zuwenden –
und die gibt es. Im Fall des Fluges 11 stammt die einzige zuverlässige
Beschreibung der Vorfälle an Bord von der Stewardess Betty Ong, die
gegen 8.20 Uhr von Bord aus die American-Airlines-Zentrale anrief. (6)

Der vor der offiziellen Untersuchungskommission zum 11. September
öffentlich vorgeführte Mitschnitt des dreiundzwanzigminütigen Telefonats
zwischen Ong und zwei American-Airlines-Angestellten entzog im
Januar 2004 sämtlichen Phantasien von Verschwörungstheoretikern den
Boden, die davon ausgingen, es hätten sich möglicherweise überhaupt
keine Entführer an Bord befunden oder die Maschinen wären gar nicht
entführt worden:

Stewardess Ong schilderte sehr genau das Geschehen
an Bord und berichtete, die Entführer hätten Mitglieder der Crew und einen
Passagier niedergestochen.

Wir sehen daher als bewiesen an, dass
Flug 11 kurz vor 8.20 Uhr entführt wurde. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt wurde
auch – siehe oben – der Transponder ausgeschaltet.

Unmittelbar darauf
berichtete Ong, „zwei oder drei Männer“ wären im Cockpit, und die Piloten
antworteten nicht mehr auf Anfragen der Crew via Bordtelefon.

Die Aussage der Stewardess ist aber nicht nur deshalb interessant,
weil sie etliche offizielle Aussagen verifiziert. Fast noch interessanter ist
– wenn auch nur für aufmerksame Zuhörer - was Ong nicht sagt. Zum
einen konnte sie die Täter nicht beschreiben. (7)

Wie alle anderen hier
zugelassenen Zeugen (also neben Ong die Passagiere, die sich von Bord
des Fluges 93 telefonisch meldeten), spricht die Stewardess mit keiner
Silbe von Arabern oder arabisch aussehenden Entführern. Auf diesen
Aspekt kommen wir weiter unten zurück.

Zweitens berichtet Ong, „zwei oder drei Männer hätten sich Zugang
zum Cockpit verschafft, und die Kabinencrew könne nicht mehr mit dem
Piloten kommunizieren.“ (8) Da wir vom FBI wissen, dass fünf namentlich
identifizierte Terroristen Flug 11 entführten, gehen wir davon aus,
dass die verbleibenden zwei oder drei Hijacker die Passagiere in Schach
hielten.



Aber hören wir dazu noch einmal Betty Ong (die von ihr genannten
„Nummern“ beziehen sich auf die an Bord befindlichen Crew-
Mitglieder):

Unsere Nummer 1 ist niedergestochen worden. Und wer sonst
noch ...? Und unsere Nummer 5 – unsere First-Class-Passagiere
sind – eine Flugbegleiterin und unser Purser sind erstochen worden

Und wir kommen nicht ins Cockpit rein, die Tür lässt sich
nicht öffnen. Hallo? (9)

Vermutlich kennen wir hiermit einen der Gründe, weshalb die FAA den
Mitschnitt des Telefonats erst nach einer öffentlichen Klage-Androhung
der Untersuchungskommission im Oktober 2003 herausrückte. Vorher
war man davon ausgegangen, bei den Anrufen handelte es sich um Gerüchte,
da die FAA sich außerstande sah, die Existenz irgendwelcher
Bänder zu bestätigen.

Entscheidend ist: Selbst wenn es bislang keinem Kommentator aufgefallen
ist, widerspricht die einzige Augenzeugin entschieden der offiziellen
Darstellung des Tathergangs. Wir halten daher am Rande fest: Die
Crew versuchte, die Cockpit-Tür zu öffnen – ohne Erfolg. Das klingt
nach einer banalen Information, aber hätten zwei oder drei Hijacker die
Tür von außen bewacht, wäre die Crew wohl kaum auf die Idee gekommen,
sie öffnen zu wollen. Und da ins Cockpit einer Boeing 767 beim
besten Willen nicht fünf Entführer sowie zwei (tote oder lebendige) Piloten
hineinpassen, sehen wir als schlüssig und zweifelsfrei bewiesen an,
dass nicht fünf Männer, sondern lediglich die von Ong genannten zwei
oder drei Männer Flug 11 entführten.
Weshalb das FBI auch nach der veröffentlichten Aussage von Ong
weiterhin von fünf Entführern ausgeht, bleibt einstweilen rätselhaft. Wir
kommen darauf im Zusammenhang mit Flug 93 zurück, denn auch hier
sprechen alle Zeugen von drei Entführern, nicht von den offiziell behaupteten
vier.
Die dritte und für uns an dieser Stelle entscheidende Weglassung in
Ongs Bericht aber ist wiederum der angebliche Kurswechsel. Die Stewardess
erwähnt ihn zu keinem Zeitpunkt, obwohl das Telefonat von
8.20 Uhr bis etwa 8.44 Uhr dauert. Ihre Gesprächspartner bei American
Airlines erwähnen ebenfalls keinen Kurswechsel. Unmittelbar vor dem
Einschlag eines Flugzeuges in den Nordturm hören wir die von Ong angerufene
Miss Gonzalez mit einem namentlich nicht identifizierten Kollegen
über Flug 11 sprechen, und auch dessen unaufgeregte Aussage
spricht eher durch Weglassungen Bände.
Er [Flug 11] hat seinen Transponder ausgeschaltet, deshalb haben
wir seine genaue Höhe nicht. Wir orientieren uns bloß am ...
sie [die Verantwortlichen bei American Airlines] glauben
scheinbar, dass [die Lotsen] ihn auf dem Primärradar haben. Sie
scheinen zu glauben, dass er [Flug 11] sinkt. (10)
Man glaubt, man meint, es scheint – nur eins hat offensichtlich nicht
stattgefunden: ein Kurswechsel.
Nachdem NORAD-Verwantwortliche, Augenzeugin und Airline-
Personal uns keinen wie auch immer gearteten Hinweis auf den Zeitpunkt
der Kursabweichung geben und sowohl Flugschreiber als auch
Cockpit-Voice-Recorder offenbar zerstört wurden, wenden wir uns zum
Schluss hilfesuchend den veröffentlichten Aufzeichnungen des Funkverkehrs
zwischen den an diesem Tag zuständigen Lotsen und Piloten zu.
Die Umschriften der Funkaufzeichnungen in Sachen Flug 11 wurden
am 16. September 2001 von der New York Times veröffentlicht. Die
darin dokumentierten Wortwechsel belegen allerdings lediglich das Gegenteil
der offiziellen Darstellung, nämlich dass Flug 11 bis wenigstens
8.40 Uhr auf vorgeschriebenem Kurs flog – und zu diesem Zeitpunkt in
29 000 Fuß Höhe vom Piloten des Fluges US Airlines 583 gesichtet
wurde. (11) Nach 8.41 Uhr fehlen weitere Positionsangaben betreffend
Flug 11, also ist durchaus denkbar, wenn auch nicht belegt, dass die Maschine
ab diesem Zeitpunkt auf New York zusteuerte. Wir halten uns
aber nicht mit Spekulationen auf, sondern halten lediglich fest: Sämtliche
bislang angenommenen Kursabweichungen von Flug 11 Richtung
New York vor 8.40 Uhr müssen aufgrund der vorliegenden Daten und
Aussagen als widerlegt gelten. NORAD bestätigt dies:
Nach unseren Aufzeichnungen benachrichtigte uns die FAA um
8.40 Uhr erstmalig von einer möglichen Entführung von American-
Airlines-Flug 11. Und die ursprüngliche Reaktion auf unsere
Nachfrage war zu dem Zeitpunkt, die mögliche Entführung
sei nicht bestätigt. (12)
Gehen wir davon aus, dass die an diesem Tag zuständigen Lotsen (und
das waren etliche) weder Verbrecher noch allesamt Idioten waren. Um
8.14 Uhr endete der Funkverkehr mit Flug 11, um 8.20 Uhr verabschiedete
sich der Transponder. Hätte es zusätzlich zu diesen beiden Ereignissen
einen Kurswechsel gegeben, wäre NORAD spätestens um 8.23 Uhr
von einer defintiven Entführung informiert worden. Stattdessen wurde
NORAD um 8.40 Uhr von einer „möglichen“ Entführung benachrichtigt,
die man auf Nachfrage nicht einmal bestätigen mochte.
Die zuständigen Lotsen versuchten ab 8.15 Uhr, den abgebrochenen
Funkkontakt zu Flug 11 wieder herzustellen. Sie alarmierten jedoch keine
der anderen in der Luft befindlichen Verkehrsmaschinen über eine ihren
Kurs in unbekannter Höhe querende, möglicherweise entführte Maschine
– was die Lotsen fraglos getan hätten, wäre der Kurs von Flug 11
jener komplett irreguläre gewesen, an dem die offizielle Darstellung ohne
jeden Nachweis festhält.


Dieser Punkt ist deutlich hervorzuheben: Laut offizieller Darstellung
befand sich Flug 11 seit 8.14 Uhr (von uns korrigiert auf 8.20) fast dreißig
(!) Minuten lang in unbekannter Höhe (!) auf Kollionskurs mit diversen
anderen im US-Luftraum auf Ost-West-Kurs befindlichen Passagiermaschinen,
ohne dass die gefährdeten Maschinen von ihren jeweiligen
Lotsen wenigstens gewarnt worden wären. Überdies bewegte sich
Flug 11 nach offizieller Darstellung seit 8.20 Uhr in unbekannter Höhe
direkt auf das Kernkraftwerk Indian Point am Ufer des Hudson River zu,
ohne dass irgendwer von irgendwem darauf hingewiesen worden wäre.
Ein Absturz einer Maschine in dieser Gegend hätte New York für hundert
Jahre unbewohnbar gemacht.
Für die Reaktion der Lotsen gibt es weiterhin nur eine Erklärung: Es
kann vor 8.40 Uhr keinen Kurswechsel gegeben haben.

Direkt nach den Anschlägen berichteten diverse Journalisten, die
Fluglotsen wären völlig überrascht gewesen vom Ereignis in New York,
da sie doch Flug 11 noch auf ihren Schirmen sahen. Was war da in das
Hochhaus geflogen? Eine tieffliegende „zweimotorige Cessna“ vielleicht
(13), wie es zunächst hieß? Was auch immer – es war bestimmt nicht
Flug 11. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins (Air National Guard) war
so frei, ABC-Reporter Peter Jennings hierzu einen spontanen Gedanken
ins Mikrofon zu sprechen:
Sie [die Flugkontrolle] sagten uns, dass American Airlines Flug
11 noch immer in der Luft wäre. Und jetzt sehen wir uns das an,
und, tja, wenn, wenn ein Flugzeug das World Trade Center getroffen
hat, wer war das? (14)
Irreführende Meldungen? Überholt, längst korrigiert? Im Gegenteil. Im
Januar 2004 sah sich die New Yorker Hafenbehörde, Vermieterin des
World Trade Center, richterlich genötigt, dem Wunsch der New York
Times nach Veröffentlichung des gesamten Notfall-Funkverkehrs am
Boden nachzugeben. Den für unseren Fall interessantesten Dialog aus
dem zweitausend Seiten umfassenden Transkript kommentierte Mike
Kelly für die North Jersey Media Group. (15) Kelly merkte an, auch
achtundzwanzig Monate nach den Anschlägen sei immer noch völlig unklar,
was die Flugaufsichtsbehörde FAA an diesem Tag getan respektive
versäumt habe, denn die veröffentlichten Transkripte enthüllen, dass die
Fluglotsen am New Yorker Flughafen La Guardia sogar noch im Dunklen
tappten, nachdem der Nordturm getroffen worden war. In einem
Wortwechsel, der stattfindet, während der Nordturm bereits in Flammen
steht, unmittelbar vor dem Einschlag eines zweiten Flugzeugs in den
Südturm um 9.03 Uhr, fragt ein namentlich nicht identifizierter Lotse aus
dem Kontroll-Turm La Guardia:
„’Wisst ihr Jungs, was am World Trade Center passiert ist?’
Ein zweiter, unidentifizierter Lotse im Kontrollturm antwortet: ‚Wir
hören uns das gerade in den Nachrichten an. Wisst ihr irgendwas Genaueres?
Was ist passiert, da ist ein Flugzeug reingeflogen?’
‚Wir haben gehört, eine Bombe hätte es getroffen’, sagt der erste
Mann.
‚Wir haben gehört, es war ein Flugzeug’, antwortet der zweite Mann
und fügt hinzu, er schalte gerade den Fernsehapparat ein. ‚Wir versuchen,
ein Update zu kriegen.’
‚Aber ihr wisst nichts?’ sagt der erste Mann.
‚Wir wissen nichts’, sagt der zweite Mann. ‚Wir sehen es uns jetzt gerade
auf Channel 5 an.’“
Dieser Dialog gegen 9 Uhr morgens hätte absolut nichts Irritierendes,
hörten wir hier zwei ganz normalen Mitmenschen zu, die via CNN herauszufinden
versuchen, was gerade in Lower Manhattan passiert. Aber
dass hier zwei für exakt diesen Sektor zuständige Fluglotsen sprechen,
also eben jene Leute „ganz oben in der Informationskette“, die angeblich
schon seit 8.20 Uhr ein vom Kurs abgekommenes Flugzeug auf ihren
Radarschirmen im raschen Sinkflug südwärts fliegen sahen und in höchstem
Maße alarmiert hätten sein müssen – das ist zumindest Besorgnis
erregend, denn es würde entweder bedeuten, dass die US-Lotsen durch
die Bank vollständig inkompetent sind, oder dass sie eben zu keinem
Zeitpunkt vom Kurs abgekommene Flüge auf ihren Radarschirmen sahen
– und deshalb ebenso überrascht waren wie der Rest der Welt.
Zu ergänzen ist, dass nach offizieller Darstellung um 8.52 Uhr (also
sechs Minuten nach dem ersten Einschlag) endlich zwei Abfangjäger
von der Otis Air National Guard Base aufstiegen, um Flug 11 abzufangen.
Die Otis Air Base liegt 188 Meilen von New York entfernt, auf der
Halbinsel Cape Cod südlich von Boston. NORAD-General Craig Mk-
Kinley bestätigte vor der Untersuchungskommission, die Jets wären zum
Zeitpunkt des zweiten Einschlags (9.03 Uhr) noch 71 Meilen von New
York entfernt gewesen. Wären sie ab 8.52 Uhr auf direktem Weg nach
New York geflogen, ergäbe das eine Durchschnittsgeschwindigkeit von
„nur“ etwa sechshundertdreißig Meilen pro Stunde. Dies widerspricht
allen Angaben der NORAD-Verantwortlichen, die behaupten, die Jets
wären mit einer Geschwindigkeit von eintausendeinhundert bis eintausendzweihundert
Meilen pro Stunde auf dem Weg zu Flug 11 gewesen.
Dies wiederum bedeutet: Der offiziellen Darstellung zufolge flogen die
Jets verdächtig langsam. Folgt man dieser Darstellung, kommt man
zwangsläufig zu dem Schluss, dass die Piloten sich absichtlich Zeit ließen.
Eine absurde Vorstellung.
Entspräche die offizielle Darstellung den Tatsachen, müssten nicht nur
zwei Dutzend Fluglotsen, sondern auch etliche NORAD-Verantwortliche
sowie wenigstens zwei Jetpiloten allein in diesem ersten Entführungsfall
als Mitwisser eingeweiht gewesen sein. Da diese offizielle Annahme in
eine hanebüchene, jeder rationalen Grundlage entbehrende Verschwörungstheorie
mündete, konstatieren wir, dass sich nach gewissenhafter
Bewertung der vorliegenden Informationen folgende Korrekturen der offiziellen
Darstellung zwangsläufig ergeben.
Flug American Airlines 11 wich vor 8.40 Uhr nicht vom geplanten
Kurs Richtung Los Angeles ab und befand sich unmittelbar vor diesem
Zeitpunkt noch in 29 000 Fuß Höhe. Was bedeutet, dass sich Flug 11 um
8.40 Uhr, sechs Minuten vor dem Einschlag eines ersten Flugobjekts ins
World Trade Center, in der Gegend von Watkins Glen an der Grenze der
Bundesstaaten New York und Pennsylvania befand, mithin etwa hundertfünfzig
Meilen von New York entfernt. (Vergl. Karten im Anhang)
Die Kampfjets, die um 8.52 Uhr von der Otis Air Base aufstiegen,
flogen nicht in Richtung New York, sondern in Richtung des von allen
Lotsen und von NORAD vermuteten Aufenthaltsorts des Fluges 11 zirka
hundertfünfzig Meilen nordwestlich von New York. In dem Augenblick,
in dem NORAD-General Larry K. Arnold den Start der Jäger anordnete,
sah er im Fernsehen Rauch aus dem World Trade Center aufsteigen und
fragte sich nach eigener Aussage, „wie so viele von uns, die mit dieser
Angelegenheit befasst waren“, was das zu bedeuten habe:
Hat es etwas mit diesem besonderen Vorfall zu tun? Was wir
nicht glaubten, denn wir sprachen mit dem Center Boston, und
wir dachten nicht an die unmittelbare Umgebung von New
York. (16)
Der Pilot des einen Jets (Aliasname „Duffy“) gab später zu Protokoll, bis
zum Einschlag der zweiten Maschine um 9.03 Uhr geglaubt zu haben, er
jage der ersten Maschine hinterher, also Flug 11. (17) Damit bestätigen
auch Verhalten und Aussagen der Jet-Piloten unsere Vermutung, dass
Flug 11 wenigstens bis 8.40 Uhr auf korrektem Kurs war – glaubt man
der Aussage von „Duffy“, sogar noch deutlich nach 8.55 Uhr. Die Jets
flogen ab 8.52 Uhr tatsächlich mit tausendzweihundert Meilen pro Stunde
der gesuchten Maschine eiligst hinterher und befanden sich daher um
9.03 Uhr noch immer relativ weit, nämlich einundsiebzig Meilen, von
New York entfernt. Die konspirologische Theorie, die Piloten wären absichtlich
langsam geflogen, ist damit ausgeräumt.
Fazit: Denkt man die offizielle Darstellung der Geschehnisse in Sachen
„Flug AA 11“ konsequent zu Ende, ergibt sich zwingend, dass die Terroristen
diverse Helfer gehabt haben müssen – unter den Fluglotsen, bei
der FAA, beim NORAD und sogar in den Kanzeln der zuständigen Abfangjäger.
Eine solche Verschwörung ist nach menschlichem Ermessen
nicht zu bewerkstelligen.
Die offizielle Verschwörungstheorie in Sachen Flug 11 ist überdies
durch nichts zu belegen, dafür aber durch eine Reihe von Indizien und
beeideter Aussagen widerlegt. Nach den Aussagen von Betty Ong steht
fest, dass nicht fünf, sondern maximal drei Männer die Maschine entführten.
Es ist möglich, dass einer von ihnen Mohammed Atta war. Der
Beweis, dass er überhaupt an Bord des Fluges AA 11 war, ist allerdings
nicht erbracht, denn die offizielle Passagierliste von Flug 11 ist bis heute
nicht veröffentlicht worden. Die von Associated Press unmittelbar nach
dem Anschlag veröffentlichte „unvollständige“ Liste (18) umfasste die
von FBI-Chef Mueller bestätigten zweiundneunzig Personen an Bord –
allerdings umfasste diese Liste ohne den Namen oder wenigstens das
„Alias“ eines der genannten Entführer zweiundneunzig Personen.

Der
leicht zu erbringende Beweis, dass auch nur einer der genannten Attentäter
auf der Passagierliste stand oder Flug 11 antrat, steht daher bis
heute aus.
Sobald dieser Beweis erbracht ist, ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit, einen
zweiten Beweis zu erbringen, nämlich den, dass Atta derjenige war,
der die Maschine entführte. Und nach Erbringung dieses zweiten Beweis
fehlte, zuletzt, der Beweis, dass er die Maschine in den Nordturm steuerte.
Sofern das möglich war. Denn nach Auswertung der uns vorliegenden
Fakten muss als bewiesen gelten, dass Flug 11 sich um 8.40 Uhr nirgendwo
anders befunden haben kann als in Reiseflughöhe, also 29 000
Fuß, auf vorgesehenem Kurs, folglich etwa hundertfünfzig Meilen von
New York entfernt.
Entscheidend ist: Da sechs Minuten später, nämlich um 8.46 Uhr, ein
Flugzeug in den Nordturm des WTC einschlug, ist nach Lage der hier
angeführten Beweise ohne jeden Zweifel auszuschließen, dass es sich bei
diesem Flugobjekt um die Boeing 767 gehandelt haben kann, die sich als
Flug 11 von Boston auf dem Weg nach Los Angeles befand – denn eine
Boeing 767 kann definitiv nicht binnen sechs Minuten hundertfünfzig
Meilen zurücklegen, sondern bei einer Höchstgeschwindigkeit von maximal
fünfhundert Meilen pro Stunde höchstens fünfundsiebzig Meilen.
Somit wäre AA 11 um 8.46 Uhr, sofern es vor 9.00 Uhr überhaupt eine
Kursabweichung gab, noch wenigstens fünfundsiebzig Meilen von New
York entfernt gewesen. In der Region also, in der die aufgestiegenen Jets
zu genau diesem Zeitpunkt nach der Maschine suchten, was wiederum
dafür spricht, dass Flug 11 erst nach 9.00 Uhr den Kurs wechselte.
Aufgrund der uns vorliegenden Daten und aller offiziellen Aussagen
ist daher festzuhalten, dass Flug 11 sich möglicherweise bereits vor 8.46
Uhr im Sinkflug befand, aber ebenso entschieden auszuschließen, dass es
sich bei dem Flugobjekt, das um 8.46 Uhr in den Nordturm des World
Trade Center stürzte, um Flug 11 gehandelt haben kann.
(...)
Auszug aus: Christian C. Walther, Der zensierte Tag. Wie man Menschen, Meinungen
und Maschinen steuert. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, Nachdruck, auch auszugsweise,
nur mit vorheriger schriftlicher Genehmigung von: Heyne Verlag, Bayerstr. 71-73,
80335 München.



Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Friday, February 16, 2007 1 comments links to this post

14 February, 2007

Chomsky and Iran

Ammunition against the Empire
by Barry Weisleder

Need a crash course on the present state of the world? Want to untangle the terminology, separate the victims from the victimizers, understand the dynamics of unilateralism, and deduce what can be done about it all? I'd like to introduce you to a small literary arsenal.

A good place to begin is the book Hugo Chavez recommended to the world from the podium of the United Nations last September.

Hegemony or Survival
HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky
BUY THIS BOOK

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, by Noam Chomsky (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003, 278 pages), lives up to its title. The prolific MIT professor of linguistics and philosophy explains how the American ruling class has long been in the business of imposing its will over an ever expanding domain of lands and peoples. Its behemoth state was built on the decimation and displacement of aboriginal tribes, the seizure of vast Mexican lands, and the conquest of Spanish possessions in the Caribbean and South-East Asia. Power was consolidated by the concentration of wealth, the suppression of organized working-class opposition, and the penetration of foreign markets. US elite interest in world affairs often masqueraded as "spreading democracy" but was actually about maximizing the conditions for private profit extraction.

Chomsky provides a telling example: "The rise of fascism in the inter war period elicited concern, but was generally regarded rather favorably by the US and British governments, the business world, and a good deal of elite opinion. The reason was that the fascist version of extreme nationalism permitted extensive Western economic penetration and also destroyed the much-feared labour movements and the left, and the excessive democracy in which they could function."

Chomsky's sarcasm, as in the "excessive democracy" phrase, sometimes confounds his meaning or devolves towards cynicism. But his trenchant critique resurrects: "Like Saddam Hussein half a century later, (Nazi Germany) retained substantial Anglo-American support until Hitler launched direct aggression that infringed too seriously on US and UK interests."

(Lest we forget, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was also a Hitler admirer through the 1930s and later turned away a shipload of Jewish refugees.)

The American ruling rich employed nationalist protectionism to promote home industries and resorted to gunboat diplomacy to subdue resistors to its hemispheric hegemony. Protected from the ravages of European and Asian conflagration by two oceans, the US voraciously conscripted public funds to amass and deploy an enormous war machine and graduated to post-WW2 super-power status. Its prime objective then became the elimination of the other super-power, whose post-capitalist basis posed a permanent obstacle, if not an active challenge, to the world capitalist system.

"Concern over Soviet economic development and its demonstration effect persisted into the 1960s, when the Soviet economy began to stagnate, in large measure because of the escalating arms race that Soviet Premier Khrushchev had sought desperately to prevent."

Chomsky describes the 1962 Cuban missile crisis in this context, along with a series of bloody US (direct and indirect) interventions to thwart movements for social change from Iran to Nicaragua, from Palestine to Grenada, from Indonesia to Chile. The official excuse offered was "containment of the USSR" and the derivative "war against state-sponsored terrorism." The heavy irony inherent in the extensive global conduct of US state terrorism (as in the 1989 bombardment of civilian neighborhoods and the killing of thousands of Panamanians just to flush out a single man, the former US client-dictator Manuel Noriega) was not lost on many Latin Americans.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the stated rationale for US aggressive exertions shifted to a more frank, if not novel, expression.

Washington now speaks of "preventive" as opposed to "pre-emptive" war. It thus asserts the right to intervene with force against any nation whose leadership the US claims is considering the development of weapons of mass destruction. Naturally, this criterion does not apply to itself or to its client states. Nor is the approval of the United Nations or adherence to international law required.

And with that, Chomsky walks us through two invasions of Iraq, the exorbitant US subsidy and geo-political integration of the colonial-settler state known as Israel, the erosion of civil liberties in the west, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the establishment of key US military bases in proximity to rich Central Asian oil reserves, and most worrisome, the placement of weapons of mass destruction in outer space -- a zone the US intends to "own," not just control.

What hope is there for our endangered species? The answer seems to come up a bit lame: "the slow evolution of a human rights culture" will act as the "restraining influence on state violence." This will be supplemented by "popular activism" and "global justice movements."

But isn't the problem "the system"? And aren't there signs of a revolutionary challenge to it?

Imperial Ambitions
IMPERIAL AMBITIONS: Conversations on the Post 9/11 World by Noam Chomsky
BUY THIS BOOK

Chomsky's companion piece, part of the publisher's American Empire Project series, is Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World, Interviews with David Barsamian (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005, 226 pages). This fast-flowing dialog retraces some ground but delves more into strategic questions, though not always rewardingly.

Chomsky returns to the theme of "state security," Washington's long-standing excuse for foreign intervention. He relates how this is often a hard line for other states to swallow. When Mexico refused to go along with President J. F. Kennedy's terrorist attacks on Cuba, "the Mexican ambassador said, 'If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing.'"

Elite distrust of democracy and the will of the masses goes back to the foundation of the American republic, so the political establishment has a lot of experience stealing elections and distorting the truth. Chomsky is the expert on how the "consent" of the powerless majority is "manufactured," including by a kept corporate media.

From there it is but a short journey to an "embedded press" in zones of foreign military occupation and to gag laws that curtail domestic dissent and incarcerate swarthy immigrants and selfless lawyers like Lynne Stewart.

Long before anti-communism was invented, the US rulers employed their own aggressive nationalism against the aspirations of defenseless, oppressed nations. Now it's the "war on terrorism," which was well underway but benefited by a big boost after September 11, 2001. "Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 effectively created Al Qaeda," says Chomsky.

The price tag for this manufactured war is manifold, including the reality that "Forty-five million Americans have no (health care) coverage whatsoever." Add to that "thirty years of either stagnation or decline in real wages, with people working longer hours with fewer benefits." While "Household debt is out of sight . . . corporate debt is very low. In fact, corporations are making huge profits" and "barely pay taxes." Money for militarism is diverted from already disintegrating public schools, hospitals, roads, and water services.

Next on the chopping block is Social Security, which Americans are being falsely told they cannot afford because they are living too long. The author asks, "Who paid for (the baby boomers) when they were newborns until they were twenty?" In "the 1960s, when this generation was coming of age, in fact there was a huge increase in funding for schools and other programs for children, at a time when the government had less income than it has today."

So what's behind the drive to destroy Social Security and all the rest? The book argues it's a drive to reverse the past gains won by labor and other social movements, to the benefit of Wall Street and the capitalist fraternity, who use "national security" propaganda to dull the senses.

You might ask, is the "war on terrorism" turning the US into "a failed state"? And who will come to the rescue, if not the awakened ranks of the other global super-power, the vast legions of anti-war, progressive humanity, including its potentially explosive US section?

Such an awakening, the stirrings of which were evident in the massive immigrants' rights protests across America on May 1, 2006, need to be nurtured by teachings that promote political independence from the institutions of capitalist rule. Herein lies a fundamental weakness of the work at hand.

Chomsky's indignation at the Empire's crimes dissolves disappointingly into the poisonous brine of lesser-evil politics. Hardly pausing for breath, after exposing the "liberal" Bill Clinton edition of anti-democratic subversion and military aggression, Chomsky the self-conscious libertarian lobbies for votes . . . for the Democratic Party -- which for well over a century has been the main war party of US imperialism. After devoting thousands of pages, and a myriad of examples of the fundamental similarity and common class loyalties of the Democrats and Republicans, Chomsky feebly submits: "These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anybody who says, 'I don't care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and working people in the country, 'I don't care if your lives are destroyed."

But who destroyed the lives of over 50,000 US soldiers (not to mention millions of Vietnamese), and who cut welfare, health care, and education in favor of more cops and jails in America if not the Democrats? And who joined the nearly unanimous vote in Congress to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and who are amongst the front rank of loyal supporters of Zionist apartheid, anti-Cuba terrorism, militarism, and subversion of democracy from Indonesia to Somalia to Venezuela?

Chomsky reveals that his "views grew out of the anarcho-syndicalist tradition." He affirms his "belief in the value of classical liberal doctrines. . . . Enlightenment ideals -- rationality, critical analysis, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry." In this way he exposes the extreme limitation of his outlook and "ideals," insofar as he fails to challenge the political monopoly exercised by the capitalist minority, insofar as he capitulates to at least one of the lying, cheating, murderous political gangs of the plutocracy, and insofar as Chomsky declines even to speculate on the prospect of working-class self-emancipation, an essential step towards which would be the formation of an independent party based on working-class organizations and a set of policies that would advance the basic class interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

That is the tragedy that dulls the brilliance of Chomsky's body of work, these two books being no exception.

Pirates of the Caribbean
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN by Tariq Ali
BUY THIS BOOK

Though the prose is somewhat less accessible, the narrative is compelling in Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, by Tariq Ali (London and New York: Verso, 244 pages). Here is a description of the current challenge to the Empire which is mostly absent from the Chomsky books.

Tariq Ali, radical pundit, novelist, film maker, political agitator and a former leader of the Trotskyist movement in Britain, shows how the abject failure of the neo-liberal agenda in Latin America has radicalized a new generation and given rise to a series of radical regime challengers to the capitalist status quo.

His focus on Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, for obvious reasons, could not be more timely.

Though some cynics try to liken Hugo Chavez to yesteryear's Argentinian populist dictator Juan Peron, Washington seems to know better. It has again and again attempted, through its local henchmen, to remove the repeatedly re-elected Venezuelan President and to derail the Bolivarian revolutionary process.

Venezuela's considerable oil wealth is not new, but the determination of the movement led by Chavez to conquer poverty, illiteracy, and disease and to build an integrated Latin American counter-weight to the US in the form of a continental fair trade and cooperation pact (ALBA) is. It is rightly seen as a serous threat to imperial interests. Combine that with a vision of "twenty-first century socialism" and plans taking shape to replace the bourgeois state with "communal councils," then add the construction of a unitary grassroots revolutionary socialist party to lead the transition to socialism in Venezuela, firmly allied to revolutionary Cuba, and you have the makings of an epic confrontation with Washington.

Tariq Ali presents his own global balance sheet. "On the credit side (for the US rulers), . . . China . . . remains as mute as Russia, India and Eastern Europe. . . . the EU is firmly back on side." "On the debit side, American control of the Middle East is slipping." And in Latin America, "new social movements had thrown up new political leaders. They were insisting that, despite the fall of the Soviet Union, the world as still confronted with old choices. Either a revamped global capitalism with new wars and new impoverishment, chaos, anarchy or a rethought and revived socialism, democratic in character and capable of serving the needs of the poor."

Ali's ambiguity on whether the social democratic wealth-redistributing policies of Venezuela, joined last year by Bolivia's President Evo Morales, and now by Ecuador and Nicaragua, will be sufficient to empower the masses and break the imperial stranglehold is a weakness to be sure.

But his failure to articulate what is to be done (apart from organizing international solidarity) does not negate the value of his vivid portrayal of the cowardly, short-sighted, narcissistic, decadent Venezuelan business elite. Ali's treatment of one Teodor Petkoff, a socialist turned neo-liberal who edits the venomous anti-Chavez daily Tal Cual (As It Is), is a highlight of his tragic-comic tale.

Valuable too is Ali's sketch of Simon Bolivar, the nineteenth-century liberator of Spain's American domain, his enduring relationship with his revolutionary atheist tutor Simon Rodriguez and to Manuela Saenz, Bolivar's lover and political soul-mate. The story touches down in Haiti where the first revolution that overthrew slavery and French colonial rule enabled Bolivar to take respite there. He resumed his long military campaign against Spain in 1817 after being supplied with food, money, and arms by Haitian revolutionary leader Alexandre Petion. May Venezuela soon return the favor!

Bolivia became Che Guevara's grave yard in 1967 when he was betrayed by the Stalinist Communist Party and suffered isolation from the indigenous people in the rural interior. In contrast, the mass mobilization of urban and rural laborers of Aymara descent, along with some reduced ranks of the industrial proletariat, rich in radical tradition, combined to bring down the neo-liberal Sanchez de Lozada regime in 2003. These forces then catapulted Evo Morales into the presidency in December 2005, the first fully indigenous person to hold such an office in Bolivia or the continent. Triumphal visits to Havana and Caracas signaled the beginning of a wave of change in terms of literacy and health care services, the nationalization of gas and oil resources, the start of land reform, and a re-write of the constitution to integrate and empower the indigenous but historically excluded majority.

Pirates of the Caribbean persuasively depicts a situation pregnant with revolution, and thus with hope, despite the book's failure to outline a strategy for their realization.

Those interested in more readings from a radical perspective on geopolitical strategy should look for the following articles in Monthly Review magazine (at www.monthlyreview.org):

"The New Geopolitics of Empire" by John Bellamy Foster, MR, January 2006.

"A Warning to Africa: The New U.S. Imperial Grand Strategy" by John Bellamy Foster, MR, June 2006.

"A Permanent State of Emergency" by Jean-Claude Paye, introduced by Michael E. Tigar, MR, November 2006.

Now I propose to add to this trio of books on politics a text on philosophy. Why? Because it addresses an aspect of today's anti-establishment ferment.

Although humanity is more secular in outlook than ever, religious fundamentalism remains an ideological bulwark of the imperial agenda, and sadly, also a refuge for the oppressed. Christian opponents of abortion and stem cell research in the US are in the front ranks of enthusiasts for the Iraq war, capital punishment, and George W. Bush. In Canada, proponents of public funding for religious schools, of anti-abortion laws, of more money for cops and prisons, including benighted Tory government ministers like Stockwell Day (who stated his belief that the universe was created 5,000 years ago), unite in their hatred of gay marriage, feminist autonomy, quality public child care, and environmental protection.

Arcane religious ideologies, so out of step with modernity and strivings for human freedom, are frequent intruders into the public decision-making process. But why should we be surprised? Such an acute expression of the ideological crisis and social polarization of society is part and parcel of life under the decaying world order known as late capitalism. Recognition of the malaise, however, does not imply that we should passively accept it.

The God Delusion
THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins
BUY THIS BOOK

A good antidote to the irrational essence of religious excreta is The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 406 pages).

Dawkins, a science professor at Oxford University, caused a stir in Canada last Fall when he appeared on a CBC-TV Newsworld debate show and instantly became a lightening rod for the thunderbolts of evangelists, rabbis, mullahs, and other soothsayers who tried to label him an arrogant dictator and an intellectual terrorist. His crimes, evidently, were to demand an end to religion's privilege of place in the media, cultural institutions, and government, and to request equal time for the argument that religion is unhealthy for humanity and the world. The fact that his book went to number one on the best seller charts really rankled the defenders of blind faith.

Dawkins, trying not to take himself too seriously, makes the case that it is impossible to know absolutely whether God exists, only that the existence of God is extremely improbable.

He defines an atheist as "somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles -- except in the sense of natural phenomenon that we don't yet understand."

Early on he quotes Albert Einstein, who theists often wrongly claim as one of theirs: "Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

Some philosophers who wish to cling to a thread of mysticism argue for the "lazy God" theory, akin to the notions of the eighteenth-century deists: God created the universe, then stood back and let everything take its own course. Of course, this doesn't make much of a case for worship or prayer, since the deity is decidedly inactive, unoccupied, and superfluous.

But like all other God theories it still begs the really big question: Who or what created God?

All matter, including all forms of life, is traceable back to atoms in space, a big bang, the super density of a black hole, the crystallization of stars and planets, and so on. All development proceeds from the simple to the more complex. Dawkins puts it this way: "A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right."

The theist argues there is no need to explain. God was always, and is forever. It is a matter outside of, and beyond the realm of, science. But since the onus is on believers to prove what they believe, this argument is a not very artful dodge.

Theists, bereft of scientific proof for their beliefs, often find it more convenient to go on the offensive. "Intelligent design" proponents (who seek to re-write school science text books) aim to put a sophisticated face on hokey creationism. Some argue thusly: How could complex life, including complex organisms like the human eye, occur? If not by design, did they occur just by chance?

Dawkins' retort is poignant: "Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical probability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution . . . a solution of stunning elegance and power . . . natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so."

"The creationist completely misses the point, because he . . . insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn't understand the power of accumulation." To illustrate his point, Dawkins goes on to discuss the primitive eye of the flatworm, and the somewhat more complicated eye of the nautilus, as steps on a continuum.

The God Delusion would be glaringly incomplete without paying a lot of attention to the various ideologies of delusion. He examines the huge scriptural contradictions within Christianity and suggests that this is also the case for the multitude of other religions. He excoriates the vicious cruelty sanctioned by faith -- the intense bigotry, oppressive discrimination, and blatant female and child abuse perpetuated in its various names.

For the purposes of generating a civilized society, Dawkins maintains, humanity has no need of the irrational crutch of ages, that we are quite capable of respecting individual and collective rights on a secular basis -- in fact humanity is much more capable of doing so free of religious baggage.

The book is brimming with delightful quotes that promote critical thinking. "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."

Dawkins cites "Woody Allen's perceptive whine: 'If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an under-achiever."

Alas, Dawkins is not a historical materialist, which is evident when he strays into the realm of politics and sociology. He tends to reduce national oppression to a matter of pure religious bigotry . Whether it concerns Irish nationalists in the British-occupied Orange state-let, or Palestinians under Zionist occupation, or Arabs and Muslims suffering harassment in North America, Dawkins fails to see, or at least declines to explain, that in capitalist class society the ruling elite fosters bigotry to seemingly justify social inequality, to lower their costs, to maximize their profits, and to divide so as to rule.

He does not attempt to explain the origins of Christianity, Islam, or any religion as an expression of distinct class interests at their genesis. One must look elsewhere for that, such as in Karl Kautsky's seminal "Foundations of Christianity" (1908).

The God Delusion is an informed, articulate, humanist response to irrational, reactionary ideologies. It does not purport to be a guide to the new world that free-thinking humanity yearns to create. Nor should it be regarded as an impediment to collaboration with Liberation Theologists, anti-imperialist Muslims, or anti-Zionist Jews.

But it is an important component of what activists need today -- ammunition against the Empire.


Barry Weisleder is a Canadian socialist activist

Bush Iran War Agenda: Trigger an "Accidental Conflict," as a pretext to justify "Limited Strikes"


Global Research, February 13, 2007



Hillary Mann, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2004, has issued a sober warning to the public today concerning the Bush Administration's intentions with Iran.

In an interview this morning on CNN(1), she accused the Bush Administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" on crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to a large ground war as is the case with Iraq.

When asked why the Bush Administration was seeking to do this, she responded that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.

Of course, one only has to look back to history to see the Bush Administration's real agenda behind confronting Iran. Iran is only one piece of the puzzle in a broader, century long struggle by the US, Britain, and it's Western allies to secure the Middle East’s oil reserves.

1951: Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh succeeds in leading an Iranian movement to nationalize the countries' oil industry, becoming Iran's first democratically elected leader when he becomes Prime Minister as a result from this central issue. This ends the immensely profitable monopoly that Britain controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company since 1909, eventually becoming British Petroleum Company in 1954, or more commonly known as BP.

1953: The CIA conducts a series of covert actions under the name "Operation Ajax" (TP-AJAX), aimed at overthrowing Mossadegh to replace him with a friendlier US dictator. The tactics employed by the CIA include controlling the countries national newspapers to mislead the public with false propaganda, bribing government and military officials to gain allies against Mossadegh, funding opposition parties with money and weapons, controlling and organizing mobs and protests, and also distributing fake flyers made by the CIA that people thought were made by Mossadegh's government which said things like "UP WITH COMMUNISM" and "DOWN WITH ISLAM". After an initial failed coup attempt, a mob organized by the CIA is successful in ousting Mossadegh.

1953 to 1979: After their successful coup, the CIA re-installs Iran's exiled Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who is very friendly to the West and it's allies, once again ensuring a monopoly over Iran's oil fields for the West. Under the Shah's bloody reign, thousands of political opponents and innocent people suspected of being dissidents were rounded up by the Shah's CIA trained secret police, SAVAK, and put into their secret prison to be extensively tortures. SAVAK also assassinated countless political opponents and government officials to ensure the Shah's and the West's control over Iran.

1979 to Present: The CIA and their puppet government in Iran is thrown off by the Islamic Revolution that envelopes Iran, leading to the overthrow of the Shah and his government. This allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran after years of exile, who would lead the Islamic Revolution of Iran that resulted in him becoming Supreme Leader of Iran. This once again ends the West's control over Iranian oil fields, and also their access to Iran's oil since they now refuse to do business or cooperate with the West.

Hillary Mann joins the ranks of a growing consensus of both former and current officials in various government, military, and intelligence agencies, who all agree that the US is actively involved in attempting to lure Iran into launching an attack on US forces, or worse.

Jim Webb, the freshman from Virginia who’s election day victory tipped the Senate in the Democrats favor, appeared on “Hardball with Chris Matthews”(2) five days ago echoing the same warning given by Hillary Mann.

“If you look at the framers of the constitution, they wanted to give the president as commander in chief the authority to repel sudden attacks. That is totally different than conducting a preemptive war.

“And you know one thing, if you look at where we are in the Persian Gulf right now, when I was secretary of the Navy and until very recently, we never operated aircraft carriers inside the Persian Gulf because, number one, the turning radius is pretty close, and number two, the chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation was pretty high.

“We now have been doing that, and with the tensions as high as they are, I‘m very worried that we might accidentally set something off in there and we need, as a Congress, to get ahead of the ball game here.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1981, came out on February 1st to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee(3), blasting the Bush Administration’s handling of the war.

He called the War on Terror a “mythical historical narrative” used to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war,” and accused them of trying to spread the conflict in Iraq to other parts of the Middle East by “deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

“A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran…”

“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,”

He also made note of the Bush Administrations ludicrous cronyism, saying, “I am perplexed by the fact that major strategic decisions seem to be made within a very narrow circle of individuals—just a few, probably a handful, perhaps not more than the fingers on my hand. And these are the individuals, all of whom but one, who made the original decision to go to war, and used the original justifications to go to war.”

Texas House Republican Ron Paul also had harsh words for the Bush Administration and Congress, giving an alarming speech before the House of Representatives(4) on January 11. He accused them both of using “the talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq” to “distract Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran.”

“Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

“Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.-- possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep ‘everything on the table’ when dealing with Iran.

“We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

“Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.

“Mr. Speaker, let’s hope I’m wrong about this one."

The “contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident” that Congressman Paul mentioned is his speech is one of many modern historical examples of false flag terrorism used by governments around the world to justify an illegitimate war to a terrified public, willing to accept whatever in the name of security.

Here’s a list of a few historically accepted examples of false flag terrorism, showing that the Bush Administration’s plans to provoke an attack from Iran is nothing new, but a common occurrence with a lot of precedent(5).

1846: Mexican-American War: President James K. Polk sends General Zachary Taylor and 1,500 American troops to the Mexican border along the Nueces River, where he is ordered by the President to cross over into disputed territory to bait Mexico into attacking. They quickly fell for the bait and were easily repelled by US forces. Polk took advantage of this single, miniscule conflict to get Congress to declare war on Mexico and to mobilize public support for the war.

1898 - Spanish-American War: The US sinks it's own battleship, the USS Maine, in a harbor in Havana and blames it on Cuba. Newspapers, under the guise of the US government, help sensationalize the story to bolster public support for war against Cuba.

1915 - Sinking of the Lusitania: German submarines are blamed for sinking the RMS Lusitania, a British ocean liner. What the public wasn't told is that all the passengers on board the Lusitania were merely human shields to protect a shipment of US ammunition headed towards Great Britain during WWI, which is why the German's sank the ship. Many historians believe that Britain meant for the Lusitania to be attacked to get the US on their side in WWI by baiting Germans into sinking it, or that they might of sunk the ship themselves, seeing US involvement in WWI detrimental for not losing.

1931 - Mukden incident: Japanese officers fabricate a pretext for annexing Manchuria, which was under Chinese control at the time, by blowing up a section of their own railway and blaming it on the Chinese.

1939 - Gleiwitz incident: The Nazi's fabricate evidence of a Polish attack to mobilize German public opinion, and to fabricate a false justification for a war with Poland.

1939 - Shelling of Mainila: The Soviet Union shells it's own village of Mainila on the Finnish border, faking casualties, and blames the attack on Finland to justify a war.

1941 - Pearl Harbor: The US military decodes a message they intercepted from the Japanese outlining the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before the attacks. The message was a response to an insulting ultimatum that the US sent Japan that got the US the response they wanted, and attack on Pearl Harbor. "The question was: how we should maneuver [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot.” - Secretary of War Henry Stimson

1962 - Operation Northwoods: A plot authored by the Joints Chief of Staff, the top brass of the Pentagon, that involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane and other staged terror attacks and campaigns that would be used to blame Cuba to mobilize public support for a war. It was never carried out since Kennedy refused to authorize the operation, and was later declassified under the Freedom of Information Act.

1964 - Gulf of Tonkin: President Johnson accuses North Vietnamese PT boats of attacking strike carries in the gulf, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. Documents and tapes released due to the Freedom of Information Act shows that President Johnson knew that there were no PT boats and no attacks, but still went ahead with lying to the American public on national TV to garner support for escalating the war in Vietnam.

1970's - Operation Gladio: Italian secret service agencies, under the training and direction of CIA and NATO forces, launch countless staged terror attacks that kills thousands and are used to blame leftist opposition groups and scare the public into supporting the right wing government.


Sources:

  1. “Defense Department Offers Evidence High-Level Iranian Leader Is Supplying Arms to Shiite Insurgents in Iraq.” American Morning. CNN. Feb 12, 2007
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/ltm.03.html
  1. Hardball with Chris Matthews. MSNBC. Feb 7, 2007
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17049478/
  1. United States. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “SFRC Testimony - Zbigniew Brzezinski” Washington. 1 Feb, 2007
    http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf
  1. United States. House of Representatives. “Escalation is Hardly the Answer” Washington: Ron Paul, 11 Jan 2007
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr011107.htm
  2. Sanders, Richard. “Going to War: Unraveling the Tangled Web of American Pretext Stratagems (1846-1989).” Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade. May 2002

Global Research Articles by Deniz Yeter
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2 comments links to this post

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites