Who could have been expected to benefit from the devastation of 9/11?

In attempting to answer this question, we must not be tempted to lay blame on someone -simply because they may appear to benefit in some way.

Some benefits may be coincidental, some intentional, and some a mixture of both.

Whether someone actively participates in a crime, or merely takes advantage of the situation, by covering over, (or ignoring) what may be unpleasant for the public to hear, it is the nature of the question that we attempt to make the distinctions clear.

Now,

Nor could it have been otherwise.

It’s one thing to blow up an American Embassy in Kenya, or the USS Cole in the Middle-East -thousands of miles away from the direct experience of the vast American public. It’s quite another to bring death and destruction down on thousands of civilians in the heart of America -in broad daylight- where it could not help but be aired on nationwide TV.

The strengthening of public resolve behind American foreign policy -against those resisting it; this would have been entirely predictable.

No doubt, there may be a percentage of people in the world who are so angry at America, as to be irrational about it; that is, to think that killing thousands of American civilians in broad daylight will somehow "even the score," (for a multitude of grievances); or, that it might bring about a change in American foreign policy.

Clearly, such people are not operating with a full deck.

That such irrationality might be mixed in with a complex, covert operation of "stunning precision" -requiring a careful build-up over many years, and the execution of cold-blooded operatives- may make us wonder to what extent dupes, (of varying degrees) may have had the help of "skilled professionals" -to gain access to U.S. soil, airplanes, and training, etc.

As such, we may then wonder why such skilled professionals would use fanatics to such an end; for clearly, (from the point of view of those opposing American foreign policy) it was a predictably stupid thing to do.

On the other hand, in spite of the trauma and suffering that Sept 11 has brought to the American people, (and much of the "western" world) there is clearly no doubt that the Sept. 11^th attacks have greatly benefited the prestige and power of the Bush Administration, and of the American military machine in general.

Again, this would have been entirely predictable.

The rush of patriotic fervor behind the President has put aside nagging complaints with economy. The slide into recession, (which was already happening anyway) are now largely blamed on the attacks.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Bush has been allowed to push through legislation and initiatives which he would not have been able to do otherwise -such as his tax giveaway to huge multinational corporations, camouflaged as a "Stimulus Package"

Presently enforced on immigrants and foreign nationals, one could confidently predict it would only be a matter of time before such powers would be used to suppress dissent amongst American citizens, under the guise of "patriotism."

NATO, the American-led international military force, has found a new, expanded purpose on the global stage. It now leads a multi-national coalition whose expressed purpose is an ongoing "war against terrorism", which finds legitimate expression in the invasion of any country it deems guilty of "harboring the terrorists", (without regard to international law, the U.N. or any other body).

In this regard, two additional comments from the Confirmation Hearing of General Myers may be relevant,

So before 9/11, hyperextended military power; after 9/11, huge increase in military spending.

Senator Cleland adds,

All this can only be good for defense contractors, of course, and for the protection of "western" corporations -milking the sweat off impoverished workers in the developing world.

For those familiar with the behaviour of modern nation-states and superpowers, one could have seen this coming -even as the planes were seen striking the towers.

Beneath the screams of the September innocents, one could faintly hear the echo of the screams to come, (which would not be heard) -in the prison cells, the solitary confinements, beneath the veil of loyalty oaths imposed, of neighbours no longer talking.

In the words of General Wesley Clark, (Supreme NATO Commander, speaking at the time of the the Serbian invasion of Kosovo) all this would have been "entirely predictable."

Again, none of this "proves" that members of the Bush Administration, the military, etc. intentionally allowed the Sept 11^th attacks to occur. We are simply asking the question:

The people of Afghanistan have certainly not benefited from the attacks, (though we wouldn't know much about that -by the way the media has steadfastly ignored the reports of civilian casualties; which, by late December, had exceeded the number of deaths in the Sept. 11th attacks. see Webactive.com Democracy Now, archives, Dec. 10).

If we look more-closely, we can see that it is actually certain American, British, and other "western" interests that have much to gain from the ensuing conquest of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is located next to a number of Russia’s faltering former republics, Uzebekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan -which represent a critical point of entry (for "the west") into the undeveloped resources of Central/East Asia.

The Caspain sea area is said to be one of the world’s richest untapped sources of oil and natural gas.

To some observers, the massive Afghan opium trade also holds strategic importance.

There’s even plenty of information to suggest that, not only does the administration have a motive for finding Bin Laden and co. at fault, (in order to justify an intervention) but that they were already planning for an intervention into Afghanistan well before Sept 11^th.

Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, says that senior American officials in mid-July [told him] that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. (BBC, Sept 18).

"India Reacts," (June 26) reports that India, Iran, and Russia were talking with American officials, (Powell) about "plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime."

As of October, 2001, the U.S. administration began admitting that they’re not after Bin Laden, so much as they want to get rid of the Taliban; then they’re suddenly willing to include Taliban "moderates", (who were previously only worthy of "no negotiations") in a new, [U.S. controlled] Afghani coalition, (Washington Times, October 9, 2001)

For those of us aware of U.S. foreign intervention over the last one hundred years, the pattern rings familiar.... as the motivating force, driving behavior.

More disturbing still, is how the demonizing of Bin Laden and the Taliban, (by the Bush Adminstration, Congress, the military, and the media) may be partly driven by the desire to cover-up the close ties between "the enemy," the CIA, and the American establishment.

By Washington’s own admission, the U.S. invested some $6 billion in covert weapons support, (through Pakistan) to the Afghani rebels fighting the Soviet Union, (1979-89). This was the largest covert operation in history.

In this context, the American government encouraged the most extreme Islamic, (Saudi Arabian) factions.

Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries would come to fight with the Afghani Mujahadeen.

Contrary to mainstream presumption, U.S. support for Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban didn’t end with the Soviet withdrawal, or the Gulf War of 1991.

It was American, (and through them) Pakistani funds which created the massive expansion of the Taliban schools in the first place; this support ensured the victory of the Taliban over the other Afgani tribes, in the vicious civil war which followed the pull-out of the Soviets.

I can still remember a remarkable film shown on TV soon after the Sept 11 attacks: an old follower of beloved Afghani leader Ahmed Massoud, (assassinated two days before Sept 11 by Pakistani hit-men) bitterly rages at the Pakistani army for its support of the "foreign invaders" (Taliban)... re-igniting the fighting after a ten-year battle.

They were on ‘our’ team.

According to "The Washington Times," "The Canberra Times," (Australia) "The Charleston Gazette," and numerous other publications, Osama Bin Laden and co. were directly involved in pro-American "terrorist" organizations in Bosnia, Kosovo, (KLA) and Macedonia -right up until the summer of 2001.

"But, one may protest, "this doesn't make sense. Why would the U.S. military support anti-American movements?"

The critical geo-political component to recognize here is this: de-stabilization.

If you have any doubts about these conclusions, test the links for yourself.

Do your own research.

Make your own conclusions.

These extreme irregularities were soon transformed into questions of how "the terrorists" (Bin Laden, Al Quieda) may have profited from the attacks; the possibility of any other "interests" profiting from them quietly faded into the background of the "internal" investigation.

Now that we have included in our analysis of the Sept. 11th attacks, an exploration of a key area, foreign policy, (which the U.S. government and mainstream media have completely left out of the discussion framework) we can clearly see that

This must cause us to pause and consider with what speed and efficiency the American military found its ground after being so "confused" on Sept. 11th; and further, how the Pentagon could claim to be so caught off-guard during an actual military emergency, then be able to so quickly and effectively create a cover-story with all the precision and scope of a military campaign.

Minions in high places were dispatched to repeat the sacred mantras of "too few planes," "no authorization to shoot down," "we simply weren't aware," and transponderitis.

"Official spokesmen" speaking on condition of anonymity, the Secretary of Defense and staff working diligently away in Pentagon isolation tanks, planes "desperately" flying "like a scalded ape," indestructible passports and porn-loving Moslems: each of these explanations we have examined and found to be little more than flimsy spin.

And yet, with all the apparent deficiency of these arguments, we may marvel at their effectiveness in satisfying public opinion; and we may be moved to ask: are we, "the people" just stupid?; or does the apparent aquiesence of the public cause us to doubt the worth of our conclusions?

We must first remark that it is the mainstream pollsters who are telling us that the American people are solidly accepting the government's version of events.

The unified consensus which appears to prevail amongst the mainstream press, the military, government, and the public occurs within the context of an increasing concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands.

This is occurring in banking, (de-regulation) business, (privitization, mergers) media, and government, (executive orders, "national-security directives").

The control of the television set, (the primary means of national communication) allows a relative few to project an image of agreement amongst all which -if the majority is unable to project an alternative image- becomes "reality"; yet this should in no way persuade us to believe it to be of lasting substance.

History is rich with examples of ruling elites which become so successful at controlling public debate, that they delude themselves, feeling impervious, unstoppable -only to suddenly be de-throned within a short period of time.

We are entering a period of history where the mass of the population is so completely shut out of the "info-tainment" machine as to be like a silent, sleeping giant -audible only to those who are able, (themselves) to turn that machine off.

Secondly: so long as the general public is utterly absorbed with the struggle to survive, and the psychological stress that comes from living in the midst of social, moral, and spiritual crises, relatively few of us are in a position to stop the treadmill of info/consumption which feeds us the illusions -bearing short-term comfort.

Thus, it doesn't really matter that the explanations for the air-defense failure of Sept 11th are flimsy: they're simply designed to satisfy people for a short period of time, long enough to keep our attention span moving away from the questions which have the capacity to generate a critical mass of independent thought.

On a practical, surface level, (the level that power brokers undertsand best) there is only a short period of time at which the attention of the public is ripe for seeking real answers. After that, the public adjusts to the new reality, and they/we don't really care about the flimsiness of the arguments anymore, (should a critical voice happen to break through).

Thus, he who has the last spin is he who has the organizational power to pull others along, until they/we move by our own consensual motion.

Such power brokers and spin-doctors, however, are quite incapable of understanding the inner, human condition; whereby, after a long period of development, millions of people "suddenly" begin to arrive at fundamental conclusions at a similar point in time.

For the moment we are, realistically speaking, largely at the mercy of the governments we elect, and the media monoploies which claim to inform us.

Powerful interests within government, military, media, money, clearly benefit from this.

In fact, while making obscene profits at the expense of others remains, (for some) a time-honoured tradition, it could be said that an equally powerful, underlying motivation for regressive government policy, inane television shows, and the like, is that:

Thus we are taught from an early age in school to be robotic sponges; and every effort is made, (at the highest levels) to keep young people from getting the tools and attention they/we need to become independent-thinkers, self-aware, esteemed, empowered.

When an opportunity comes along to amplify the fear factor tenfold, just look at how the various dominant interests tighten up the notch of hatred, vengeance, and a blind allegiance to the state apparatus -falling over themselves, in the attempt to compel others to agree more strongly with whatever punishment is to be meted out, (on whomever it is decided is the next incarnation of Hitler).

While this mass indoctrination looks imposing, rest assured: the curve has an apex -after which the sales of urinal cakes with Bin laden's face on them begin to drop off dramatically; and while history has not yet proven to be an indicator of decreasing atrocities, such a day will soon come.

It has been heart-breaking to see and feel the window of inquiry surrounding the events of Sept 11th closing down into a tighter and tighter circle, (all the while struggling to get these facts in front of you, as quickly as possible); yet more-comforting still, has it been to feel the critical mass finally taking hold.

Strands of independent thought which could once be so delicately broken have now formed formidable roots in fertile minds.

You who have seen through the web of diversions -spun across the TV screens and newsprint in all their graphic splendour- are now as free to see the cage as few could have imagined, a generation ago.

May you use your gift wisely.