#03 A Mossad False-Flag Operation?
Originally published on October 11, 2004
A MOSSAD FALSE-FLAG OPERATION?
I received a number of letters regarding my observation here on 29 September referencing Osama bin Laden as being responsible for 9/11. The most succinct reaction was from Regina Belser <email@example.com>
“You don’t seriously think that 9-11 was pulled off by Osama bin L. and a handful of Arabs, do you? If ever there were a crying need for a Revisionist “autopsy,” the events of 11 September 2001 certainly deserves (and has gotten) exhaustive examination by several investigators. Their work can be found on the Internet — don’t expect to see anything but the phoniest of alternate versions of those events in the “mainstream” media. A few days of researching what’s available online — plus a good deal of common sense — suggests that the attacks were most likely either a Mossad false-flag operation, almost certainly with the complicity of the highest levels of “our” government.” — R.
Well, I don’t know. I’m aware of the many questions surrounding the attack that remain unanswered, and in mainline media unaddressed, regarding 9/11. My inclination is to think it too romantic to suspect the action to have been a Mossad false-flag operation, or that individuals at the highest level in the U.S. Government were complicit in it. It is too “daring,” even for those folk. The bin Laden story, on the other hand, is very simple and straight-forward.
But, I don’t know. And I am not in a position to argue the matter either way. One of the 9/11 “conspiracy” stories, however, looks to me to be false on the face of it, just on human terms. The story about how the 4,000 Israelis/Jews were warned to not go to work in the Towers that day.
My take on that one is that a good number of those 4,000 Israelis and other Jews would have the same loyalties to America that most Americans have, would feel the same sense of moral outrage over what happened, and would energetically out the fact that they had been warned, because they were Israelis or Jews, to stay away from the Towers that day, in order to help nail down the culprits.
To have any other perspective towards thousands of individuals based on a simplistic view of ethnic and/or national chauvinism at a moment of high drama, mass murder, and personal tragedy (how many of those 4,000 Israelis/Jews had dear friends who perished in the attack who were not Israelis or Jews?) is–well, simplistic. I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong about this, but I am not inclined to work the story.
For a long while my work was to encourage an open debate, specifically, on the Holocaust story. After 9/11 the work evolved to encourage an open debate on the Holocaust story and on the U.S. alliance with Israel as well. I think it is rather widely understood that without that anti-Arab, anti-Muslim alliance with Israel over half a century, 9/11 would not have happened.
It is every bit as much of a taboo to question the value, to Americans, of the U.S. alliance with Israel as it is to question the Holocaust (gas-chamber) story. Of course, the two questions are two sides of the same coin. In any event, if I can help develop an open debate on the Holocaust/Israeli questions, then if would follow as a matter of course that such questions as who was responsible for the attack on New York City and Washington would become a matter for public debate.
My work will have to remain focused on the Holocaust story, the role it played in morally justifying the creation of a Jewish state on Arab land, how it morally justified the colonization of Arab land by European Jews, and morally justified the U.S. Congress in funding the Israeli military in its work to destroy Palestinian culture and hold the Palestinian people in racist subjugation. Before Israel, America had no enemies in the Arab or Muslim worlds.
KIDNAPPING TRUCK DRIVERS IN IRAQ
I follow the stories of the kidnappings of unarmed civilians in Iraq by Muslim fanatics. I follow the stories of those who are beheaded, or shot, as if I know them personally. The kidnapping of truck drivers particularly catch my attention. I have a feeling for how it is with them when they are on the road, when they are stopped, and when they are taken.
A reflection of how those stories impact on my life is suggested in my recollections of Lt. Han’s Brother’s Throat. ( Read more .)
NEW YORK TIMES OMBUDSMAN QUESTIONED ON
NON-REPORTING OF ISSUES CRITICAL OF ISRAEL,
AND CENSORSHIP OF HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM
Albert Doyle writes to New York Times Ombudsman Dan Okrent.
11 October 2004
I wrote you by Email on October 9 suggesting that the Times had not reported on the United States’ veto of the United Nations Security Council resolution critical of Israel for its incursion into Gaza and asking why this was the case.
On the same day I received a response from your associate Mr. Arthur Bovino stating that “the Times did report on this issue” but that it did not appear in our Florida edition. He referred to an article from the October 5 “Late Edition – Final” of the Times which I had not seen as it was in the New York version of the paper and he quoted a portion of the article which said that US UN Ambassador John C. Danforth said in advance of the anticipated resolution that the US intended to veto it.
I think you will agree that this is not the same as reporting on the actual veto which caused an uproar in the international community and is still a source of conflict.
I was also intrigued that the snippet quoted was apparently buried in a story headlined “Palestinian Rockets Miss Some Targets, but Hit Israeli Nerves” according to Mr. Bovino.
So I went to the entire story on the Times website as suggested by Mr. Bovino. Sure enough, the few words quoted by Mr. Bovino was the entire “Times report” on the issue of the US veto in the entire 1,040 word story.
I am very disturbed that the Office of the Times Ombudsman would resort to such a cheap cover up. It almost makes me believe that the Ombudsman’s office may be part of the problem of “defensor Israelien” at the Times. Please restore my confidence in your office at any rate.
By the way, in case you think me too tough on the Times I have plenty of other examples. One of my special experiences is this one: in recent years important officials of the Times, including Publisher Sulzberger, Board members and important Times writers participated in highly organized yearly conferences together with the Anti-Defamation League at which invited editors of college campus newspapers were “educated” to believe that it was morally and ethically acceptable to censor certain views found distasteful to some Jews, e.g. the ADL; namely those of “Holocaust” revisionists, and one in particular, Bradley Smith, a mild free-speech advocate who challenges certain facets of the “Holocaust” stories.
The Times of course never reported on these flagrant violations of what I considered journalistic ethical conduct. The cover was blown when the ADL boasted about the conferences which were quite effective. Smith was censored by many of the campus papers from simply posting small ads calling attention to his web site, the Committee for Open Discussion of the Holocaust. After all, if the New York Times said so…! Needless to say Mr. Smith was not given an opportunity to present his side at the “conferences” held in three consecutive years.
When I contacted the Times to ask about the conferences an editor, Bill Borders, at first denied them, then when presented with the evidence terminated our contacts. This may not be in your bailiwick but to me it smacks of a certain corruption in the great New York Times. So you see I’m a little sensitive. ( Read more .)
xxxxx [street address removed by editor]
Sanibel, FL 33957
Tel 239 395-0372