Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question
B. What Was the Motive for the Invasion?
This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan.[15] This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
In the mid-1990s, the US government had supported the Taliban with the hope that its military strength would enable it to unify the country and provide a stable government, which could protect the pipeline. By the late 1990s, however, the Clinton administration had given up on the Taliban.[16]
When the Bush administration came to power, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. During a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban must create a government of “national unity” by sharing power with factions friendly to the United States. The US representatives reportedly said: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”[17]
After the Taliban refused this offer, US officials told a former Pakistani foreign secretary that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”[18] And, indeed, given the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred when they did, the U.S. military was able to mobilize to begin its attack on Afghanistan by October [7].
It appears, therefore, that the United States invaded Afghanistan for reasons far different from the official rationale, according to which we were there to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
2. Has Good Evidence of Bin Laden’s Responsibility Been Provided?
I turn now to the second point: the claim that Osama bin Laden had authorized the attacks. Even if it refused to give the Taliban evidence for this claim, the Bush administration surely – most Americans probably assume – had such evidence and provided it to those who needed it. Again, however, reports from the time indicate otherwise.
A. The Bush Administration
Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”[19] But at a joint press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell withdrew this pledge, saying that “most of [the evidence] is classified.”[20] Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, said the real reason why Powell withdrew the pledge was a “lack of solid information.”[21]
B. The British Government
The following week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a document to show that “Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001.” Blair’s report, however, began by saying: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.”[22] So, the case was good enough to go to war, but not good enough to take to court. The next day, the BBC emphasized this weakness, saying: “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.”[23]
C. The FBI
What about our own FBI? Its “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted.[24] When asked why not, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity replied: “because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”[25]
D. The 9/11 Commission
What about the 9/11 Commission? Its entire report is based on the assumption that bin Laden was behind the attacks. However, the report’s evidence to support this premise has been disowned by the Commission’s own co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton.
This evidence consisted of testimony that had reportedly been elicited by the CIA from al-Qaeda operatives. The most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – generally known simply as “KSM” – who has been called the “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks. If you read the 9/11 Commission’s account of how bin Laden planned the attacks, and then check the notes, you will find that almost every note says that the information came from KSM.[26]
In 2006, Kean and Hamilton wrote a book giving “the inside story of the 9/11 Commission,” in which they called this information untrustworthy. They had no success, they reported, in “obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”[27] Besides not being allowed by the CIA to interview KSM, they were not permitted to observe his interrogation through one-way glass. They were not even allowed to talk to the interrogators.[28] Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained:
We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?[29]
They could not.
Accordingly, neither the Bush administration, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission ever provided good evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for the attacks.
E. Did Bin Laden Confess?
Some people argue, to be sure, that such evidence soon became unnecessary because bin Laden admitted his responsibility in a videotape that was discovered by the U.S. military in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in November 2001. But besides the fact that bin Laden had previously denied his involvement many times,[30] bin Laden experts have called this later video a fake,[31] and for good reasons. Many of the physical features of the man in this video are different from those of Osama bin Laden (as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos), and he said many things that bin Laden himself would not have said.[32]
The FBI, in any case, evidently does not believe that this video provides hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11, or it would have revised its “Most Wanted Terrorist” page on him after this video surfaced.
So, to review the first two points: The Taliban said it would turn over bin Laden if our government would give it good evidence of his responsibility for 9/11, but our government refused. And good evidence of this responsibility has never been given to the public.
I turn now to the third claim: that, even if there is no proof that Osama bin Laden authorized the attacks, we have abundant evidence that the attacks were carried out by Muslims belonging to his al-Qaeda organization. I will divide the discussion of this third claim into two sections: Section 3a looks at the main support for this claim: evidence that Muslim hijackers were on the airliners. Section 3b looks at the strongest evidence against this claim: the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
3a. Evidence Al-Qaeda Muslims Were on the Airliners
It is still widely thought to have been established beyond question that the attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda. The truth, however, is that the evidence entirely falls apart upon examination, and this fact suggests that 9/11 was instead a false-flag attack – an attack that people within our own government orchestrated while planting evidence to implicate Muslims.
A. Devout Muslims?
Let us begin with the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the men who (allegedly) took over the planes were devout Muslims, ready to sacrifice their lives for their cause.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made “at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.” The Chronicle then quoted the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada as saying: “True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble, don’t go to strip clubs.”[33]
The contradiction is especially strong with regard to Mohamed Atta. On the one hand, according to the 9/11 Commission, he was very religious, even “fanatically so.”[34] This characterization was supported by Professor Dittmar Machule, who was Atta’s thesis supervisor at a technical university in Hamburg in the 1990s. Professor Machule says he knew his student only as Mohamed Al-Emir – although his full name was the same as his father’s: Mohamed Al-Emir Atta. In any case, Machule says that this young man was “very religious,” prayed regularly, and never touched alcohol.[35]
According to the American press, on the other hand, Mohamed Atta drank heavily and, one night after downing five glasses of Vodka, shouted an Arabic word that, Newsweek said, “roughly translates as ‘F–k God.’”[36] Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, who wrote a book about Atta, stated that Atta regularly went to strip clubs, hired prostitutes, drank heavily, and took cocaine. Atta even lived with a stripper for several months and then, after she kicked him out, she reported, he came back and disemboweled her cat and dismembered its kittens.[37]
Could this be the same individual as Professor Machule’s student Mohamed Al-Emir, who would not even shake hands with a woman upon being introduced, and who never touched alcohol? “I would put my hand in the fire,” said the professor, “that this Mohamed El-Amir I know will never taste or touch alcohol.” Could the Atta described by Hopsicker and the American press be the young man whom this professor described as not a “bodyguard type” but “more a girl looking type”?[38] Could the man who disemboweled a cat and dismembered its kittens be the young man known to his father as a “gentle and tender boy,” who was nicknamed “nightingale”?[39]
We are clearly talking about two different men. This is confirmed by the differences in their appearance. The American Atta was often described as having a hard, cruel face, and the standard FBI photo of him bears this out. The face of the Hamburg student was quite different, as photos available on the Internet show.[40] Also, his professor described him as “very small,” being “one meter sixty-two” in height[41] – which means slightly under 5’4” – whereas the American Atta has been described as 5’8” and even 5’10” tall.[42]
One final reason to believe that these different descriptions apply to different men: The father of Mohamed al-Emir Atta reported that on September 12, before either of them had learned of the attacks, his son called him and they “spoke for two minutes about this and that.”[43]
There are also problems in relation to many of the other alleged hijackers. For example, the BBC reported that Waleed al-Shehri, who supposedly died along with Atta on American Flight 11, spoke to journalists and American authorities in Casablanca the following week.[44] Moreover, there were clearly two men going by the name Ziad Jarrah – the name of the alleged hijacker pilot of United Flight 93.[45]
Accordingly, besides the fact the men labeled “the hijackers” were not devout Muslims, they may not have even been Muslims of any type.
And if that were not bad enough for the official story, there is no good evidence that these men were even on the planes – all the evidence for this claim falls apart upon examination. I will illustrate this point with a few examples.[46]
An Empire considered to be the Sole Power of the world due to its Military Might, is equal to a “MUST” (Looking to Mate) Elephant. Anything annoying to its might is going to face the Full brunt of its Power, Justifications, Morality, Legality or anyone’s concent in this situation is out of question. Particularly when that Mad Elephant is run by an Incompetant King, “The Decider”. On the other hand the so called victim “Afghanistan” run by also equally Crazed Mad Wasp “Osama” who wanted to sting the Mad Elephant was looking to Make a mark by Self Destruction reminds me of “Perfect Storm”.
The last two world wars destroyed the Colonial era, this Iraq and Afghan war has bled the Imperialism as it replaced the former era and has left the Western World broke. Lets see what the dawn of Asia brings to the world.
To Njunaid:
The assumption of authenticity of the conflict between the Superpower and Osama bin Laden is false. If Griffin is right, and I believe he is, then 9-11 was a false flag operation. Consequently, Al-Qaeda must be a proxy organization or a myth for the masses, maintained by the CIA in order to provide ongoing justification for endless wars of conquest, to bypass international law, to spread fear resulting in public acceptance for illegal wars, to create ethnic/religious conflicts in Muslim countries, and to camouflage war crimes committed by our government and our army in our name.
Our children are dying for the profits of a few oil barons and other shadowy characters without any accountability to the people. Democracy has been hijacked. Politicians and media routinely lie and manipulate public opinion. Our traditions and aspirations have been destroyed, our laws twisted and our organizations infiltrated by a strand of people that seem to serve the Devil. It’s time to face up to it.
The real question is: “Are we for it or are we against it?” There is no room left for pretending that we do not know. The evidence is out there. In fact, this is a true test of our morality and credibility.
The history will have a name for out times and for our nation. Will it be “The Age of Hypocrisy?” Will it be: “The Nation of Arogant and Ignorant Thugs?”
In my previous comment I got somewhat carried away. While writing about our traditions, I have forgotten about the hunreds of thousand of men, women and children of the First Nations that our ancestors wiped out in a process of “discovering” this “land of ours.”
An old saying goes, “A relationship that starts in a betrayal, ends in a betrayal.” Has this “original sin” remained frozen in our national character forever? Or, have we grown up to change and truly implement our proudly declared religious and moral values?
Personally, I find 9/11 denial to be almost as distasteful as that of the Holocaust.
It certainly does little to endear any legitimate points you might have to the reader.
Interesting thesis, and I agree with most of it. But I think the argument that some of the hijacker’s activities in Las Vegas proves they were not devout Muslims is really quite weak. The phenomenon of people who are publicly devout members of their faith but who conduct themselves in private (or when they think they won’t be found out) , is certainly well known in this country among Christian evangelicals (one need only think of the long roll-call of right-wing, anti-gay politicians who have been caught up in gay sex scandals — see . We shouldn’t be surprised that something similar might play out among members of other faiths (see http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/ ).
Saying that the hijackers couldn’t have been devout Muslims because they had been observed engaging in conduct their faith prohibits is essentially a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. This article’s case would be stronger if this line of argument were omitted from it.