- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Now you've gone and done it.. ;)
I look forward to monitoring this thread.
I do accept and believe the "official" version, if there is such a thing. I fall in the category of people who may put some spin on the subject: 9/11 was an expression of failed foreign policy, perpetrated by both Democratic and Republican leaders, and that it was a conspiracy -- one perpetrated by al-Qaeda, funded by rich Arab patrons (including Saudis and Egyptians).
I accept such things because of the lenses through which I view the world: as an ex-hacker, as an ex-security professional, as someone with a criminal bent and a conniving mind.
I know that a determined group, underpowered, and using low-technology methods, can penetrate the most sophisticated systems. It is hubris which leaves holes in security, hubris and denial.
I was awake that morning early, and I watched most of it on TV. The first thought that entered my head was this: "brilliant, elegant."
Crude, murderous and savage are appropriate terms for the attack. But there was a beauty to the simplicity of it.
Perhaps I see what I want to see -- a well executed tactical ploy perpetrated by an opponent who was at a disadvantage.
But I do not see a false flag operation, or a nefarious government scheme, or any of the things "truthers" see in the attacks.
To me, those theories are implausible and absurd. Ours is not a government with the skill and ability to pull such a thing off.
If you ask yourself the question: "who benefits?", and you ask it honestly, then the answer must be Islamic extremists. While a negative answer to this question is not exculpatory, the fact that as events unfolded al-Qaeda reaped the benefits of our policy blunders following 9/11 bolsters my argument.
