Re: [Marxism] Pearl Harbor, etc.

["bob" <bobo926@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Duane

Well, I don't really consider the reactionary Saudi capitalists (as you call
them) to be victims of US imperialism. But that's beside the point. The
issue isn't whether or not I consider them to be capable of striking back at
the US in creative ways. If they had sent trained jet pilots to hijack US
jet planes it would certainly be a more believable scenario. That's not what
happened. We were fed a storyline that included people seeking flying
instruction on simple small single engine trainers not huge jet planes. I
don't know what your experience is with flying. Perhaps you have some
insight that would explain the discrepancy. I'm only a student pilot. Based
on my limited flying experience it is utterly inconceivable for amateur,
inexperienced student pilots to fly jet planes at high speed and low
altitude and manage to hit a target especially while operating under the
duress of a hijack situation.  But their lack of ability to fly the jets is
only one small part of the overall US government version conspiracy story of
911. The story is full of holes, as I think I outlined previously.

You wrote "The indigenous
> peoples of North America mostly threw rocks and took
> pot shots at the U.S. Army as it moved across the West
> to protect European settlers; but sometimes they
> burned down a fort or two." Putting aside for a moment the lack of moral
> or political equivalence with supposed religiously motivated suicide
> bombers, native Americans didn't fly huge, complex jet planes into targets
> flying at hundreds of miles an hour at low altitude and manage to bring
> down huge skyscrapers supposedly by fires that were so hot they managed to
> melt steel but allowed firemen to be alive enough to communicate on the
> radio within their midst and left an undamaged passport identifying
> themselves at the foot of the rubble from the collapsed building while
> dismantling the whole North American defense system for the first time in
> its 60 year history.

The motivation for the indigenous  peoples of North America was to try to
stop the genocidal advance of Europeans across the continent, we're to
believe that Saudi capitalists (as you put it), the beneficiaries of the oil
consumption of the rest of the world, are motivated to travel to another
continent, live contrary to their supposed religious convictions so as not
to be suspicious, commit suicide (as opposed to fighting), because they're
upset? The Saudis have cooperated with the west to keep oil supplies
adequate and prices reasonable because they see it as being to their
economic advantage to do so. An economic collapse in the west means that
their investments lose value.

I guess it's easier to believe that mysterious Muslims would act like this.
Can you imagine anyone believing the story if it were 19 white European
Christians who had supposedly done the act? Even if they were fanatical
Dominican monks? It appears that even on this list it's hard for some folks
to believe that Roosevelt would sacrifice American lives and a few
battleships. Yeah I know that there have been a rather limited number of
Palestinians who have resorted to suicide attacks against Israel, but their
situation looks a lot more like the indigenous  peoples of North America
facing genocide and a lot less like Saudis living peacefully in a rich
country benefiting from US consumption of their oil. A suicide attack is an
act of desperation. What is the desperate situation facing the Saudis? The
Americans are too close to their black rock? That's what the media would
have us believe.

You wrote "what about the possibility that
> "911" was in fact a major blunder that the Bush
> administration successfully turned around and used as
> propaganda to scare the public into blindly supporting
> other foriegn policy goals that his wing of the ruling
> class was interested in pursuing the day he was put
> into power?" The 'blunder' would be that for the first time in history,
> the huge, highly technological US air defense system failed to operate.
> Every other day for the last 60 years it functioned perfectly well.
> Smaller, harder to spot, off course planes were routinely intercepted. But
> co-incidentally, on the same day that 19 amateurs (who don't appear on the
> passenger lists) supposedly decided to hijack 4 air planes that they had
> no experience flying, and hit their targets before the US air force could
> recognize what was happening and respond to it?

At some point, one has to evaluate whether their story line is or is not too
fantastic to believe. When it's put together with skyscrapers falling down
(again for the first time in history) and the quite obviously phony hero
story regarding the supposed brave sacrifice of young (former football
players no doubt), I begin to laugh.

The issue to me has nothing to do with whether or not the FBI or CIA were
conflicted or obstructed in investigating anyone prior to 911. Pursuing that
direction assumes that al queda had something to do with 911. To me that's a
rather big leap of logic given the unbelievable story line we've been fed.
We must instead ask, why that has been the only 'legitimate' form of
questioning anything about 911? Could it be because the Democrats can
benefit from it? This is the type of line that Michael Moore used to make
his millions.

You wrote "Methinks all this endless speculation on whether or
> not "Bush knew" or that somebody in the American
> ruling class plotted "911" while drunk at a cocktail
> party tends to divert time and attention away from
> analyzing the underlying material conditions that
> really drive history"

Well, I think it's rather clear to anyone following this interchange that I
didn't say anything about drunks at a party plotting 911. You put that into
your remarks to divert attention from the actual points I've made. Perhaps
some think that you made me look stupid. It's not helpful.

Finally, I am not trying to "divert time and attention away from analyzing
the underlying material conditions that really drive history". My
understanding of functioning in a political way in this society includes
understanding the history that is involved. I didn't start the discussion
about 911. I don't dwell on it in my daily life. But when the proposition is
put forth that the government's story is true, I must disagree.

One of the problems in our society is the enormous ability that the ruling
class has through its ownership and control of the means of communication,
to create phony stories which then serve as the basis for political changes
that would benefit them. When one looks at the assumptions underlying the
Social Security Commission reports on the supposed crisis in the system, one
is struck by the fact that they're phony and thus there is no crisis. As
long as people believe that there is a crisis, they will feel that the only
alternatives are to choose between the Republican poison and the Democrats
poison, both of which will harm the living standards of working class
retirees who must depend on social security for their retirement income.

Similarly, as long as people accept the government's version of 911, we will
be stuck with the Republican solution vs. the Democrats solution. Given the
2004 electoral campaign, it's difficult to discern which one will be more
pugnacious. Both clearly involve attacks on other countries. Both involve
limits on civil liberties.

Criticism of conspiracy theorists who do not connect the dots to a broader
description of class, economics and politics is clearly warranted because
that perspective is a diversion. On the other hand, analyzing historical
events and identifying likely ruling class propaganda, to me at least, is
one small part of doing meaningful political work.

I don't claim to know what happened on 911. But I do know that the story
we've been fed cannot stand up to scrutiny. In addition, I've found that
discussions with working class people with that tone and point of view are
reasonable and help people to understand the points that follow in the
discussion.

It's not at all similar to the stuff we can all agree is stupid like Roswell
or the claims about the illuminati or the supposed faked moon landings (I
have to deal with kids who fall for this stuff every day). 911 is up there
with the Reichstag Fire, Gulf of Tonkin incident, the King Assassination,
'Remember the Maine' and Pearl Harbor. It's not a diversion, it's an
historical event that has had a dramatic affect on politics since it
occurred. Hundreds of thousands have already died. Hundreds of billions have
already been spent to kill them. Some civil liberties have been eliminated.
A climate has been created to justify further activities.

There's quite a big difference having a discussion with a working class
person who believes that he/she is somehow in a common situation with the
rich and the rulers because supposedly 'we're all under attack from the
Muslims' and one who doesn't share that belief. One of the advantages Kerry
had was that there are a lot of liberals who are fearful of Muslims and who
are therefore not too concerned about ending the occupation of Iraq, or
increases he proposed in the size of the military, the ever increasing
military/homeland security budgets, and maybe even the draft. At least
that's the impression I've gotten in countless discussions with them. When
we accept the government's 911 story, we give credence to the beliefs that
underlie those political positions. To me a questioning posture (without
claims that we definitively know what happened) is more in order.

bob



----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Roberts" <duaneroberts92804@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Pearl Harbor, etc.


> "bob" <bobo926@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > American workers haven't got any real
> > interest in wars against the rest of the
> > world. Prior to Pearl Harbor, the vast
> > majority of Americans wanted no
> > part of another war. From Roosevelt's
> > perspective (and the rest of the
> > section of the ruling class he
> > represented) something had to be
> > done to change the majority's opinion.
> > It was. The 'sacrifice' of 500,000
> > lives (with a fair number being members
> > of their class) didn't prevent them
> > from acting. The existence of a
> > ruling class doesn't preclude either
> > differences of opinion within that
> > class or ruthless tactics by a sector
> > of that class against any other sector
> > of that class. Competition (sometimes
> > to the death) is just part of the
> > system.
> >
> > An attack on Iraq was discussed for years
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > by both Democrats and Republicans, with
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > each accusing the other of being weak.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > But it wasn't possible to pull it
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > off until 911. They wanted to. But
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > they needed something to get the country
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > behind them and they got it.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> But because President George W. Bush and other members
> of the American ruling class strongly supported the
> idea of attacking Iraq to acquire control of it's vast
> oil reserves doesn't prove that any of them secretly
> plotted behind closed doors to orchestrate the
> destruction of the World Trade Center.
>
> Have you ever thought about the possibility that
> September 11th occurred because somebody actually
> affected by U.S. imperialism (in this case, a group of
> reactionary Saudi Arabian capitalists) had the means
> to put into motion a scheme that inflicted an enormous
> amount of damage against various targets within the
> United States?
>
> Or is it too inconceivable for you to fathom the idea
> that some "victims" of U.S. imperialism are capable of
> fighting back in such a creative way? The indigenous
> peoples of North America mostly threw rocks and took
> pot shots at the U.S. Army as it moved across the West
> to protect European settlers; but sometimes they
> burned down a fort or two.
>
> In addition to this, what about the possibility that
> "911" was in fact a major blunder that the Bush
> administration successfully turned around and used as
> propaganda to scare the public into blindly supporting
> other foriegn policy goals that his wing of the ruling
> class was interested in pursuing the day he was put
> into power?
>
> The late John O'Neill, the FBI's former top "Al Qaeda"
> investigator, was quoted by French journalists not too
> long before his death (in the "Twin Towers",
> ironically) as telling them that "the main obstacles
> to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil
> corporate interests and the role played by Saudi
> Arabia in it."
>
> What if, as some people have charged, "911" occurred
> because White House ties with big U.S. petroleum
> companies doing business with the Saudis hampered the
> ability of the CIA, FBI, and other law enforcement
> agencies to investigate "Al Qaeda" and take
> appropriate action to prevent it from going about its
> dastardly deeds?
>
> Methinks all this endless speculation on whether or
> not "Bush knew" or that somebody in the American
> ruling class plotted "911" while drunk at a cocktail
> party tends to divert time and attention away from
> analyzing the underlying material conditions that
> really drive history.
>
> > From their point of view, the loss of
> > a thousand stockbrokers and bankers
> > and a handful of generals isn't a very
> > large cost given the changes it brought
> > about. You'll notice that the
> > Washington plane didn't hit the
> > White House or the Capitol.
>
> So what? Because "the Washington plane didn't hit the
> White House or the Capitol" doesn't mean anything.
> Perhaps the hijackers who took control of that
> aircraft faced the misfortune of having to confront a
> mob of unruly passengers who weren't as willing as the
> others to allow their bodies to become a part of the
> stucco? Maybe that's why it never reached it's
> designated target.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Duane J. Roberts
> duaneroberts92804@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> [Extra text deleted]
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism