Re: [Marxism] Pearl Harbor, etc.

[Duane Roberts <duaneroberts92804@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob wrote:

> 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.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Neither do I. But I couldn't think of a better word at
the time I posted that message to describe what I
believe is in essence an unequal relationship between
the U.S. imperialists who dominate the economic,
political, and military framework by which Saudi
Arabia operates under; and the social classes native
to that country that are either subordinate to it
(such as the House of Saud, the ruling monarchy) or
aren't yet strong enough to break free of it's
powerful influence.

> 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.

I think you grossly overestimate the kind of skills
that one really needs to pilot a commercial aircraft
especially if it's already up in the air. My bet is
that a 16 year old with some experience playing video
games could fly a Boeing 767 around in the sky without
much difficulty providing somebody punched the
"autopilot" button.

Although I have no experience whatsoever in flying any
kind of aircraft, I do know that advances in science
and technology over the years (spurred by the desire
of capitalists to reduce the cost of labor and
maximize profits) are making it easier for ordinary
people with little training to operate extremely
complex pieces of machinery.

> 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.

I would have been more skeptical about the story
surrounding "911" if somebody had claimed that the
World Trade Center had been brought down by a couple
of paper airplanes. But commercial airliners are a
whole different can of worms.

> 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 point I was originally trying to make by invoking
the experience that indigenous peoples faced here in
North America was that persons who find themselves
under the iron heel of U.S. imperialism -- whether
they be small bands of hunters and gatherers or
members of a nationalist bourgeoisie -- will sometimes
succeed in finding out a way of kicking the oppressor
in a location where it really, really hurts.

I don't think the experiences of the Saudi Arabian
bourgeoisie are comparable to that of indigenous
peoples. I certainly don't have much feeling or
sympathy for Osama bin Laden or the reactionary views
he espouses. He certainly is just as much a class
enemy of the proletariat as any capitalist. But that
doesn't change the fact I think "911" was a reaction
to U.S. imperialism.

> 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.

You speak as if the Saudi Arabian ruling classes are
unified on this issue. They are not. There exists a
faction within the bourgeoisie that dislikes the fact
the House of Saud deliberately keeps the price of oil
low for the benefit of U.S. imperialism (i.e., "the
infidels"). In fact, I recall Osama bin Laden, one of
the primary spokepersons for this faction, writing in
a fatwa somewhere saying that he believed the ruling
monarchy had basically mismanaged the Kingdom's riches
in pursuit of this policy.

> 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?

Absolutely. Does the evidence support this, though?

> 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.

To be quite frank with you, it's much easier for me to
believe the possibility that President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl
Harbor but did nothing to stop it because he was aware
the lives to be sacrificed would mostly be young
sailors of working class origin.

But to argue that "911" was orchestrated by some group
within the American ruling class is a bit more
problematic since targeting the World Trade Center,
the White House, the Capitol Building, and the
Pentagon risked killing off many people they rely on
to maintain their power and privilege.

> 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.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a myth. Saudi Arabia has been experiencing a
tremendous amount of internal turmoil during the past
decade due in part to high unemployment and a falling
per capita income.

> A suicide attack is an act of
> desperation. What is the desperate
> situation facing the Saudis? The

So I guess the persons who piloted the commercial
airliners that flew into the World Trade Center were
composed of a handful of desperate Harvard Business
School graduates who became despondent after finding
out they couldn't get any mid-level management jobs at
General Motors, right? Perhaps they learned about this
opportunity to launch a sneak attack on the United
States through a classified ad published in the back
pages of the Wall Street Journal, yes?

> 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.

The "blunder" I originally was making reference too
was how "crony capitalism" as practiced by the Bush
White House hampered the ability of the CIA, FBI, and
other law enforcement agencies to properly investigate
persons and groups within Saudi Arabia that were
linked to "Al Qaeda" who also did business with U.S.
oil companies.

And thanks to the assistance of the capitalist press,
President Bush basically turned "911" -- one of the
biggest blunders of his administration -- into a
propaganda campaign to scare millions of Americans
into rallying behind him and support his invasion of
Iraq as a means of "fighting the war on terror".

> 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?

What evidence do you have in your possession to
suggest that "the huge, highly technological US air
defense system" has always operated perfectly "every
other day for the last 60 years?" I recall reading
articles many years before "911" where "experts"
criticized the "US air defense system" as being highly
flawed and incapable of doing it's job.

You fail to understand that the "US air defense
system" has always pretty much operated the way it
acted on "911". The real world doesn't work the way it
does in a technical manual. People ignore the rules,
cut corners, and are lazy. If something big suddenly
happens, they then try to cover up for their
incompetence, ineptitude, and corruption.

> 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.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why not?

So are you saying if Halliburton, Chevron-Texaco, and
other big U.S. petroleum companies lobby their friends
in the Bush White House to pressure the CIA, FBI, and
other law enforcement agencies to not investigate any
of their business dealings in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't
increase the likelihood that any plots to attack the
United States originating within that country might
remain undetected until they actually occur?

> 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
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What's unbelievable to me is the argument that "911"
is the American equivalent to the "Reichstag fire"
especially in light of the fact the Bush White House
was resisting efforts by the Democrats in the U.S.
Senate to establish a Department of Homeland Security
*before* the the World Trade Center was destroyed.

Geesh. Did you forget already that the Democrats were
the ones pushing for a much bigger, better police
state prior to "911" occuring? If Bush wanted to
consolidate power then, he could have gotten it with
all the help he needed from the Democratic Party.
Instead, he vetoed all of their proposals.

I bring this up because many people who argue that
"911" was our "Reichstag fire" are wholly ignorant of
the fact the idea to establish a Department of
Homeland Security was never Bush's baby to begin with.
The idea for it came from Democrats in Congress like
Senator Joseph Lieberman.

> 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.

I don't ever recall writing anything suggesting that
it us the "only 'legitimate' form of questioning
anything about 911". And because the Democrats might
use for their own sordid purposes doesn't mean that
there may not be some truth to it.

The Democratic Party articulates the position of that
wing of the American ruling class which views the form
of "crony capitalism" practiced by the Bush White
House to be somewhat of a threat to the interests of
everyone in the business community.

That the CIA, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies
might have been prevented by the Bush administration
from investigating the dealings of U.S. oil companies
that do business in Saudi Arabia is obviously a cause
for concern to some members of the ruling class.

They don't want turn on the TV one morning to see
their investments going up in flames because someone
in the White House told law enforcement agencies not
to investigate a "terrorist" because of their business
dealings with big U.S. oil companies.

[Extra text deleted]

>
> But when the proposition is put forth that the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> government's story is true, I must disagree.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Although I don't agree with everything the government
says about "911", I'm skeptical about claims
suggesting that a faction within the American ruling
class orchestrated "911" for some fiendish purpose. I
think this sort of thinking really reflects denial
among Americans who just can't accept the fact that
the World Trade Center was brought down by handful of
people who lived on the periphery of the U.S. empire.
I guess its much easier to blame some unknown persons
in the government for destroying the Twin Towers than
to talk about the naked realities of U.S. imperialism
and it's affects on people abroad.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@xxxxxxxxx

[Extra text deleted]


                
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

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