9 11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA - Amazon Noir

Page 48
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA Again, the unease of the inmate shut
inside the prison house of the official version was palpable, but it
looked like no jail break would be attempted. Derrida said he used the
term "Bin Laden" as a synecdoche, or shorthand, but use it nevertheless
he did, and not, for example, "invisible government" or "rogue network."
From these two examples we might be tempted to conclude that, on the
great questions of human progress, European philosophy represented a
spent force - but this may be premature. These philosophers were
prisoners of their milieu, one that was oblivious to the elephant of
conspiratorial action in its midst. Probably the leading US philosopher
at the moment of 9/11 was the neo- pragmatist Richard Rorty. In the
aftermath of 9/11, Rorty moved into a position of critical support for
Bush. A year later, Rorty was perhaps less enthusiastic about Bush, but
still focused on the "defense of civilization against terrorism" and
"the chances of further attacks." According to Rorty, "The catastrophes
that rich monomaniacs like bin Laden are now able to cause are more like
earth- quakes than like attempts by nations at territorial
aggrandizement or attempts by criminals to get rich. We are as baffled
about how to forestall the next act of terrorism as about how to
forestall the next hurricane." (The Nation, October 21, 2002) Al Qaeda
is thus a force of nature, which will be buffeting us for many years.
This paralytic vacuum is much inferior even to Habermas and Derrida. For
even the beginnings of a sensible summary, we must go to Trudy Govier
out in Calgary, Alberta, in Canada. Govier lists four alternative
theories on 9/11: there is the Zion theory, which blames the Mossad ;
the theory of internal collusion, which asserts that the CIA and the FBI
let it happen (sometimes abbreviated as LIHOP, let it happen on
purpose); the chickens coming home to roost theory (or "blowback"),
which explains the attacks as a product of destructive US foreign
policies; and the Gandhian internationalist theory, which accepts the
official version of 9/11 - the Standard Theory, with which we are
already amply familiar - but rejects the aggressive US response.
Govier's argument against the internal collusion theory has no rigorous
basis in fact or logic, but reduces everything to a matter of personal
opinion (in Plato's sense of opinion as inferior knowledge). "Were the
attacks a setup?" asks Govier. "I doubt it. The idea that US
intelligence operatives would collude in such devastating attacks
against their own country, including such potent symbols as the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, strikes me as wildly unlikely." (Govier
127-128) She therefore capitulates to the Standard Theory, with a nod to
John Stuart Mill on the importance of dissent. Govier does not mention
the more radical approach which is endorsed here, namely that 9/11 was
the product of a network of moles inside the US government and
intelligence agencies, backed up by covert action teams of expert
professionals, seeking to provoke a war of civilizations as a means of
shoring up Anglo-American world domination. The acronym for this
approach is MIHOP - made it happen on purpose. Finally, it is worthwhile
to note that the entire question of 9/11 remains taboo in American
politics. This may provide the key to the demise to Howard Dean's