The 9/11 attack was mass murder, not terrorism

[yardwork]

Osama bin Laden committed mass murder by proxy on 9/11/2001. The psychological control he had over his followers, and the actions he convinced them to take, were similar to those of Charles Manson on a much grander scale.

No country declared war on America on 9/11. A madman convinced a group of followers to commit mass murder. Like most mass murderers, the killers wanted to make a point. It was a confused and irrational point in their crazy mixed-up brains, just as it often is with mass murderers. The perpetrators killed themselves during the attack, a very common feature of mass murders.

The rational response to mass murder is law enforcement, not military engagement. The LA police department arrested Charles Manson and his followers. The U.S. Army was not sent to bomb Los Angeles, or the state of California, into oblivion in order to "get Manson."

When a sniper started shooting people from a tower at the University of Texas, the federal government did not bomb Austin "back to the stone age." Instead, local law enforcement took care of the problem.

When a man crazed with hate opened fire on children at a McDonalds, the United States did not respond by sending all middle-aged white men to Guantanamo Bay.

When two teenage boys opened fire on their classmates and teachers in Colorado, the state and nation did not conclude that "white teen-age boys have declared war on America."

George Bush's response to the attacks on 9/11 was completely wrong.

Bombing, invading, and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq has been about as effective in neutralizing the threat as if California had responded to the Manson murders by invading Canada and Greenland, while allowing Manson and his followers to scarper into Nevada.

Miserable failure.

Not safer.

[Streetdoc270]

1. Great letter to the Editor

That would be a great editorial article, I would add

"When a white christian male blew up a building in Oklahoma the US did not start arresting white men for taking pictures of buildings"

[theorist]

2. You may be surprised at what Clinton/Gore's response would have been.

Go back and look at Madeleine Albright's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. The Clinton administration warned the Taliban that any terrorist act perpetrated by bin Laden would be blamed primarily on the Taliban.

I'm almost positive that a Democratic administration would have invaded Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, but would have dealt with the resulting turmoil in a much better way.

[yardwork]

3. I'm not sure that the 9/11 attacks would have taken place

if Gore had been in office as he was elected to be by the American people. Gore would not have ignored Richard Clarke, the CIA, and the entire counter-terrorism staff who were jumping up and down trying to get somebody's attention for months leading up to September, 2001.

[theorist]

7. Touche.

I've actually argued with many bushies over that very point. I was just assuming that the plot went through with my previous post. I do agree with the message of the main post. I was just playing Devil's advocate here.

It would help to "preempt" any criticisms (if you were to send the main post to a newspapers) of the type "well...gore wouldn't have done any better!" with a sentence explaining that 9/11 would have been just any other Tuesday under Gore's leadership.

[Streetdoc270]

4. Not really surprised

I would bet real money that the Gore admin response would have been to Invade Afghanistan, but they probably would have kept the war there and actually sent in the needed troops to capture OBL, not gone off half/assed and invade whoever you want to try and win Daddy's approval.

[Disturbed]

8. Almost correct.

"Like most mass murderers, the killers wanted to make a point. It was a confused and irrational point in their crazy mixed-up brains, just as it often is with mass murderers."

In my view it was an act of terrorism and the point was not confused nor irrational. It was a msg. to the world and specif to America that the policies of the US Govt. in the ME would not be tolerated.

The reaction of the US Govt. was wrong and the only reason that the Taliban were targeted had to do with a pipleline and natural gas.

Going after al Q. was half hearted and still is.

[mhollis]

5. Terror is a tactic, not a nationality.

Terrorism is used to make a statement and to put fear into the minds and hearts of those it is used against. Frankly, the US stands pretty guiilty of terrorism, too. And that is what Kerry was getting at when he was speaking about the wrongs done to the Vietnamese people by the miitary in the 1970s after he came back.

In this case, it's like what Moyers was talking about on September 11th at the Society of Professional Journalists' national convention this year when he says, "The delusional is no longer marginal." He wonderfully connects Al Qaida, the Chechen extremists and some 15% of the American electorate as delusional extremists, bent on holy war. It should be required reading by all. It's available on the web as well as a .PDF file. His commentary about the delusional is on Page 6 of the PDF.

If you ever wanted to know why we support Israeli terror against Palestinians, Moyers explains. Little do the Israelis know what role they're supposed to play in this delusion.

[yardwork]

6. Thank you for that link - and welcome to DU!

[radwriter0555]

17. I always ask what was the MOTIVE for 9/11. All crimes have a MOTIVE.

NO MOTIVE of any credibility was ever established for 911.

And when you follow the money, it leads to the white house... not to afghanistan or iraq or iran or syria or somalia or north korea.

[radwriter0555]

18. For the record, the school massacre in Russia stinks of 911/Reichstag.

Stage an atrocity in order to justify an attack and for fear mongering.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. I'm going to slap another fly into the ointment and state that...

...we still don't know if Osama was really responsible for the attacks on 911. All we really have is the word of a bunch of rightwing fanatics eager to push us into war in the Middle East by any means possible. Osama originally denied taking a roll in the attacks when he was first asked about them. Why would a terrorist, one who thrives on ensuring that his acts are seen by the widest possible audiaence, DENY his involvement?? Some folks like to point to a video that they claim shows Osama bragging about the 911 attacks, but the guy doing the talking bears NO resemblance to Osama whatsoever! Even the FBI admits that there is no paper trail between the hijackers and Osama.

Read the following link and tell me what you think when you finish it:

Pentagon Proposed Pretext for Invasion of Cuba in 1962
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/>

Excerpt:

In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

[theorist]

10. I do have to admit that I'm not convinced it was UBL.

The US Govt. hasn't made the case to me that bin Laden was behind the attacks.

[mhollis]

11. Well, I have seen

Usama bin Ladin accepted wholly his responsibility for the plan and execution of the attacks as well as his hand-picking the operatives. I have seen the tape and have received an accurate translation of that tape. The media did fairly report that one.

It was shown on Al Jazeera television over a year ago. The tape was dropped off to their offices and does not appear to have been enhanced or changed in any way.

Unless you speak Saudi Arabic, you may not understand what he says though.

[demodewd]

12. not OBL

911 was a US government inside job. If OBL confessed to the hijackings as you say he did he must have been put up to it by the CIA.

[mhollis]

13. You have a right to believe in what you wish.

I shall disagree. There is no logic or reason in your argument -- it's about as specious as the claim that Israel planned the event and used Mossad to pull it off.

When you have someone bragging about "committing the perfect crime" generally that person becomes Suspect Number One.

Where the US went wrong is in using UBL's attacks on the US as justification to go to war with Iraq.

[Wind Dancer]

14. Unfortunately,

due to the government's refusal to investigate what really happened on 9/11 and blocked certain facts and documents from being released, we don't know what the hell happened. The mass murder was never investigated, are we suppose to believe everything this administration says without question?

Terror is a state of mind so it is impossible to have a war based on terror.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. Osama originally denied involvement until he realized that 911...

...and the American response was going to do wonders for Al Qaeda recruitment.

I doubt seriously that you've done ANY independent research on this subject, so therefore I doubt that you have ANY knowledge of this speech given by FBI Director Mueller:

<http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm>

Excerpt:

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection."

No documentation equals no proof where I come from. Just curious, but does the law work the same way where you live?

How about the sinking of the USS Maine? How about the sinking of the Lusitania? How about Pearl Harbor and the fact that we had broken the Japanese codes long before they launched their attack? Speaking of Pearl Harbor, what do you know about the McCollum 8-point memo? Additionally, what do you know about the book written by former Admiral Stockdale who was one of the pilots involved in the Tonkin Gulf incident?

Take a good hard look at the wars in which the U. S. has been involved, and try not to get involved in all of the flag-waving propaganda. You'll find a much different picture than the one they gave you in school.

In summary, you can believe whatever you want, but when you do it from an inverted position with your head in the sand you do yourself an extreme disservice.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. The person in that film in no way resembles pics or vids of OBL....

...BEFORE or AFTER 911. Here's a couple of links that indicate VERY clearly that the person in the video is NOT Osama Bin Laden:

<http://www.911uncovered.com/osama.html>

<http://www.mbpolitics.com/obl/>

<http://www.robert-fisk.com/faked_video.htm>

<http://www.geocities.com/muslimtruthAQSA/Video_Fake.html>