Personal info

My photo
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
A blog of Post-Capitalist critique in general, economic, philosophical and political analyses, Post-Capitalist poetry and prose, Post-Capitalist philology, book reviews, Postcapitalist news, interviews, praxis, art and much more! For the record, Davide Ferri is a Postcapitalist, who graduated with a B.A.Economics(Honours) degree from Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University, India. He currently lives and works in Mumbai.



free counters


-ADD THIS BLOG TO FAVOURITES to stay tuned on post-Capitalist writings, poetry, polls, excerpts and videos!

Friday, 6 May 2011

THE 9/11 EVENTS, an appendix to the article 'THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN'.

THE 9/11 EVENTS, an appendix to the article 'THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN'.

I think my article 'THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN' definitely needs a brief 'appendix' on the 9/11 events.
Whether a conspiracy or not, at present we can't say with precision.
According to the relative scarcity of sources gathered so far on the matter — both liberal and marxist — I would immediately exclude that the intelligence or any US institutions were behind what happened on September 11, 2001.
In brief, the US would have merely been attacked by reactionary bigots with political intentions; namely the produce of the growing influence of Islamic 'Bonapartist' Capitalism and the US imperialistic foolish policies in the Middle East, not to mention the media clique which fomented the popular 'liberal' consent towards Imperialism after the tragic events.

On the other hand, the common conspiracy theorist support theses which tend to boast the false 'myth of the Cia'; an institution which seemingly 'knows everything', is super-prepared and can predict all. 
By now, it is almost a 'cult' in the framework of the liberal and social democratic thought.
Far from representing reality.

It is self-evident that such a 'thesis' — surely very cosy for liberal purposes — would automatically suggest that any rebellion both in the imperial centres and in the peripheries against imperialism is doomed to historically reveal itself as useless or non-productive, insofar as 'they' know 'all'.
['They'.... (who?) is a frequently used pronoun in the framework of conspiracy (apologetic) theory.]

Mainstream conspirationist theories on the 9/11 events à la Meyssan, Jones, Mazzucco & Co. e.g. are substantially 'between outrageous and ridiculous', as they neglect both the content and form of US Capitalism. 
I will not go too deep into the question as it would fairly require me a one-day presentation (we can have it in Arts' faculty of Delhi University if you wish) of all the empirical data on the matter which falsify certain funny 9/11-related beliefs:
-from the fact that pieces of airplane have indeed been found (by the burnt bodies too) in Washington in the perimeter of the Dep. of Defence, unlike what the conspirationists 'believe';
-to the fact that the street lamps on the highway near the hit area were bent as they got hit by the aircraft wings (we should point out that many conspirationists claim a 'missile' hit the Dept. of Defence against all the tens of testimonies which reject such an event.)
For the record, the gap in the Dept. of Defence was wider than 5 metres as reported by the conspirationist creed;
- to the fact that most of the conspirationists argue that journalists Walter and McIntyre allegedly suggested no plane hit directly the Pentagon, whilst the truth is that the entire interviews concerned explicitly proves the contrary
- to the fact that the 'impossibility' of that air manouvre was indeed possible (and was actually made by no means with a high precision). It is also been reproduced many times in a simulator-flight deck;
-to the lies à la Jones on the fact firemen found below the debris 'melted metal' — as some photos seemingly suggest — when it has been proved with videos and photos that the light was created not by 'melted metal below' but by the same workers who cast a light to see! [We should also remind that the melted metal would have burnt the workers.]

and so on and so forth..

The arguments of a common 'conspiracy theorist' — that who by cognitive assonance, when one of his/her thesis is intellectually dismantled, gives up refuting but at the same time shifts the debate with the typical "yes, but..." — are certainly not going to help the intellectuals on shining a light upon the tragic events and even find out a 'real' conspiration plan (if any);
though they help Jones to sell DVDs in his enjoyment of liberalism.

The 9/11 could not be 'predicted' with precision in dialectical terms by anyone, least of all the Cia which had already tried, before 9/11, to kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan; as he was involved in the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
We should also remind that the same Cia avoided an attack by a Pakistani integralist in the 90's (not to mention many of its agents who were killed during the 'war on terror'), alas losing some of its own 'mythical' character, enjoyed by conspirationism.

US 'friends' like Massoud — the 'less' radical amongst the jihadist cheerleaders in Afghanistan supported by imperialist powers — had largely warned the guys from Langley and the US administration in general about the possibility of an irrational philistine retaliation against the Americans, as they blindly supported a deeply corrupted Pakistan.
He himself was killed by the same (more philistine) jihadists on September 9, 2001.

The 'myth of the Cia' abundantly blurs an intelligent analysis on the superstructure of Capitalism.
Such a myth compels the public to see the typical Cia analyst as a "super-informed intellectual with knowledge on everything"; 
it doesn't see him/her as the last gear of a huge quasi-tayloristic institutional and economic mechanism apt to feed and develop imperialism.

It goes without saying that an immaterial worker who becomes part of the intelligence clique cannot be allowed to acquire much 'social awareness' and love for 'human rights'. 
His behaviour must be 'mellowed' with ideology, for the sake of organisational conformity.
He must certainly believe in the false promises of 'American Freedom (and export)'  and must be given certain aims with a good dose of 'cognitive assonance'. He must be embued with 'Capitalism form'.

It is quite evident that the US authorities cannot risk with a 'socialite', a social democrat or a good-hearted liberal; least of all a Marxist. The selection is made 'with political care'.
[Gary Schroen e.g. — a former Cia member who was very active within the framework of the War on Terror — indicates it in one of his interviews on the War on Terror].

Mainstream conspiracy theorists beyond hiding a huge poverty of thought in terms of 'source gathering'  and trustworthiness, naively ends up imagining a Capitalist society in which millions of individuals (civilians, paramilitary and military individuals) are 'all' in an 'agreement' to sustain, promote and develop 'conspiration' by blows of "person-to-person bribes", contracts, blackmails or they-know-what: which is very 'anti-dialectical' as a reasoning..
These 'intellectuals' don't 'see' a Capitalist society whose material conditions promoted by its economic factors dialectically produce both marxists, liberals, jihadists and conservative.

Leaving aside the alleged negligence and the lack of sufficient investigation on the matter (as there's no seeming willingness to prosecute the officials who are certainly responsible for such a tragedy), the conspirationist alludes to one 'Capitalism' which kills itself by directly hitting its own stock exchange, as if no caring 'lobbyist' (so much in connection, especially in the Us, with the political power) would have known.
The conspirationist believes the US rationally 'guided' irrational 'jihadists' (and trusted them, above all after the bad experience with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in foreign policies) to carry an attack which may have easily slipped out of control; as certain philistine figures — as it's self-evident — historically proved non-reliable.

The claims whereby the US couldn't penetrate Al Qaeda are ridiculous, of course.
It is ridiculous, also, not to reckon that the US, historically talking, has not been disposed to 'orchestrate' or merely 'shape' the dynamics of the events. I shall cite WSWS:

The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 was the foreseeable result of the Wilson administration’s decision to allow passenger liners to carry arms shipments for the British-French side in World War I. When a German submarine torpedoed the ship, with the loss of 1,200 lives, the resulting public outrage helped fuel US entry into the war. Pearl Harbor likewise was foreseen by the Roosevelt administration—if not the specific date and location, certainly the likelihood of a preemptive Japanese attack—once the US cut off all shipments of oil and scrap metal to Japan in the summer of 1941.
A cruder case of manipulation is the August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which became the occasion for the large-scale—and seemingly permanent—deployment of American troops and warplanes in the Persian Gulf and Arabian peninsula.

By Patrick Martin, 
22 January 2002)

On the other hand, there is difference between believing that the 'US Capitalist machine' — in its whole — is "perfect" and that one event simply occurs as a result of the imperialistic backfire; to be then exploited by US Capitalism so as to conclude a process of imperialisation in the Middle East.
As of now...the probably unanswerable question is:
did the US really need such an event as a casus belli?

We cannot say with precision. The negative economic impact was huge, in all sectors.
Of course, some specific sectors may have benefitted, especially those which became quite 'active' thanks to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq: the Oil Industry, the armament industry, the construction firms et cetera.

If 'orchestrated' why the skyscraper of the Stock Exchange? Of course, some speculators earnt with the oscillation of prices, but nobody could predict with precision the economic outcome of such a risky attempt.
It is not a mystere that bourgeois economics is sadly famous for never being able of predicting in its history both booms and slumps.
The airline and insurance industry e.g. incurred huge losses due to the psychological impact of the 9/11, which led to negative externalities (e.g. layoffs, rising tax burden), along with so many other sectors in the economy.

Is the mysterious "doomsday plane" flying above Washington on 9/11 — the plane which would have maintained the US Dept. of Defence active in case of a possible nuclear attack during the Cold War —  going to prove the conspirationist right? Or is it merely going to indicate a possible security action of the Dept. of Defence, insofar as America was under attack?
Again, we cannot say with precision.
It appears that the US authorities couldn't predict the exact events for the day of 9/11 or could predict something but during the long minutes of the attacks; "long minutes" for Capitalism in general, hit by its backfire.

Is it credible that America, which has been seriously hit by the jihadist organisation connected to Bin Laden in the world peripheries, would have 'paid' Bin Laden to do everything, who lived years in absconding and then die allegedly 'betrayed' by the 'paying US'?
(it is important to point out that these 'years', however, undoubtedly justified the ongoing war on Terror)
Would some 'mysterious' US officials e.g. have 'bribed' all the videotechnicians of the traffic monitoring board, the firemen and witnesses (55) who says e.g. no missile hit the Dept. of Defence on 9/11?

We critically treasure the above mentioned examples posed by Martin in WSWS.
It must be said that, the development of communication systems have deeply changed in the XXI century; secrecy is more 'unstable' and subject to intra-institutional leakage.
True, the media have also changed; they're definitely more powerful and even more servile in a subdle way, but the effect of a leakage would much more devastating with respect to how it would have been 100 years ago.

What Martin says above is clear.
However, we may also recall interventions/invasions/sponsored coup d'états which didn't 'need' any patriotic upheaval (like those of Grenada e.g., Guatemala, Chile, Congo etc.) and also terroristic attempts which didn't lead to something of the same magnitude of the Afghanistan and Iraq war; not to mention the unpredictable consequences of the western 'patriotic upheaval' in economic and political terms abroad, especially in the philistine Arabian peninsula (so precious for the Oil industry and the foreign policies of the US in the Middle East).
There are certainly many doubts on which it is difficult to shine a light.

Furthermore, we should point out that the most recent (non-convenient for Western Capitalism) political examples in the Middle East differ from those depicted by Martin. In the Middle East, investor-friendly dictators have been overthrown by liberal upheavals, like in Egypt and Tunisia (where, by the way, the Government was regarded as super-stable) while the Arabian peninsula risk to see its Bonapartists cut the same end.

Actually, we are not analysing anything new. In Libya, at present the same thing is happening.
Gaddafi — once a close friend — is no more 'reliable' as the opportunity cost of his power is too high for the western capitalist nations. Further, the dialectical accumulation of small negative changes after years of political repression and lack of popular involvement urged a consistent part of bourgeois and proletarian population to take to the streets and then rebel. It is true that the NATO helps contributed consistently to Gaddafi's fall. But how could the Gaddafi regime 'allow' all this in dialectical terms? Was there a dialectical "loop" that allowed all this?
Whatever the answer is, dialectics simply asserted itself as true and kicking. 
Western Capitalism now would probably start getting ready for a 'new adventure' in the area insofar as — like for Ben Ali in Tunisia — it couldn't predict a fig about the dynamics that led to the arab popular uprisings.
By no accident, Western Capitalism is now more than ever afraid that what's happening in the Western areas of the MENA region could extend to the arabian peninsula, where the Saudi odious regimes for years has eaten up the American debt and where Bahrein hosts the 5th fleet.

The 9/11 even could simply accelerate, thanks to a growing popular consent, the times of an invasion which was already 'planned', as the situation in Afghanistan (and also in Pakistan, Algeria, Chechnya, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc. from which jihadists regularly leave at the conquest of their paradise with lots of women) could not be controlled anymore, despite the conspirationist enjoyment of the US capitalist structural 'perfection'.

There is certainly difference between bluntly blaming the perfect Cia[*] for 'all and pointing that the US media — by exploiting the excuse of 9/11 and mixing it up with issues of security, the danger of a now-vilified 'wicked' Saddam Hussein[**] and Jihadists in Afghanistan (the freedom fighters openly supported by the US against the 1979 USSR invasion)— indirectly justified imperialism abroad, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the light of a 'necessary war' for Capitalism.

These conspiracy theorists, it goes without saying, simply fail to analyse both the base and superstructure of a Late Capitalist society, whose backfire creates political, economic and social contradictions, both at home and abroad.

Delhi, May 6,2011

[*] (which in its perfection was almost hit in the 90's by a Pakistani jihadist)
[**](who did have the 'weapons of mass destruction', but when the US was supporting him)

No comments:

Post a Comment