I don't know what exact role the federal government played in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, I do reject the official "fairy tale" version that goes like this: radical Islamic terrorists planned and carried out the attacks because they hate freedom. I suspect that at least a near-majority of people also reject this explanation of the attacks and subscribe to some form of "conspiracy theory". A conspiracy theory here is an explanation that assigns a non-innocent role to the federal government. There are of course multiple theories, and you could think of them as forming a loose continuum based on the extent and nefariousness of the government's role. Here are a few points on that continuum:
conspiracy of explanation
This is essentially the Ron Paul position, which does not question the official account of what occurred on 9/11 but disagrees over the causes. That is, the attacks are explained as blowback from years of inappropriate U.S. intervention and foreign meddling.
conspiracy of incompetence
This theory does not question that radical Islamic terrorists carried out the attacks but instead claims that the government has covered up its own incompetence regarding the events that occurred on 9/11. That is, proponents of this theory believe the attacks could have been prevented, either through better intelligence or better response on the day of the attacks.
conspiracy of weak complicity
The two explanations above do not assign a nefarious role to the government in the attacks themselves but instead view the role of government in the attacks as instigator or incompetent enabler (or perhaps both, since the explanations are not mutually exclusive). The explanation of weak complicity is that a "criminal element" within the government assisted the Islamic terrorists or else directly executed the attacks. Within weak complicity, "weak weak complicity" would be that some people within the government knew with certainty of the attack plans and knowingly did nothing to prevent them (as opposed to just being too incompetent to properly respond). In any case, the "weak complicity" explanation does not accuse high-ranking public officials of direct involvement.
conspiracy of strong complicity
The explanation that assigns the largest government role in the attack is that it was orchestrated by Bush administration officials, perhaps even with input or approval by the vice president or president. In short, "Dick Cheney took down the towers."
While I believe the government played a non-innocent role in the attacks, I don't really have a position as to the extent of that role. Any of the explanations above seem feasible to me, and I have never researched the details of each position enough to favor one. Ultimately, it is not even important to me which exact theory is closest to the reality of the events, because it would not change my view of the government in the least. Even if the conspiracy of strong complicity is not right, the important point is that it could be right. As the primary manifestation of man's desire to use force on his neighbor to get what he wants, government is capable of the greatest evils and atrocities we know. Just look at what government does in plain sight! Millions of people who have harmed no one sit in cages. Many millions more are prevented from living a better life for fear of what the government would do to them should they break its laws. Wars are executed halfway around the globe in countries most people know almost nothing about, and for reasons few understand.
I might disagree with arguments or emphases of some 9/11 Truthers, but I would not ever dismiss or belittle the general idea that the federal government could have had a role in such a brazenly evil act. The people who would want to belittle this idea are really belittling the idea that government is capable of evil. The idea that we should dismiss a possible government role out-of-hand is more dangerous and ridiculous than the position that Dick Cheney personally oversaw the planting of explosives in the towers.
Don't let pro-government people intimate dissenters who put forth a position that government is capable of evil. We know from the daily functions that government carries out that it is. If you are met with incredulity, you can even point to historical proof that the United States government is not above planning brazen terrorist attacks on Americans in order to provoke war. Read about it on wikipedia here:
No comments:
Post a Comment