where the writers are
Truthers and Truth

The fact that big budget hit pieces against 9/11 truth are still being rolled out proves that the establishment is upset that the population is waking up to false flag terror.

These are actor Charlie Sheen’s words.

  • He has claimed that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 terror attacks.
  • He has said that 'the official 9/11 story is a fraud' and the commission set up to investigate was a whitewash.
  • He has appealed to President Barack Obama to hold a new investigation into the attacks on the World Trade Centre towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC.
  • He claims the attacks simply served "as the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights".
  • He says the administration of former president George Bush was behind the attacks, which they were then able to use to justify an invasion of Iraq.
  • He even hints that Osama Bin Laden was working with the CIA up until 9/11.
  • He voices doubts over whether the planes really were passenger jets and questions how passports identifying the hijackers survived the infernos.

In 2006, he had said: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

The supporters of the conspiracy theories are called Truthers. I would have preferred if those theories were not seen as conspiracies, because the term conspiracy denotes something illegal and secretive. Scepticism is not conspiratorial. It is a valid way in which to further an argument and to reach the truth. Truth, as has been wisely observed, is relative. Its 'relativity' does not invalidate it if the crux to be reached is facts. Facts can, however, be tampered with. So, how true is the truth?

Is it the death of 3000 Americans that has caused such resultant havoc or is it, as Sheen observes, a political agenda? It is to the credit of independent voices that raise these queries. The fact that they feel the need to ask these questions itself is cause to sit up and think.

Many more Americans, soldiers, died fighting for a ’cause’. They are still being sent off on flimsy grounds.

And the citizens will have to replay the “where were you on that day” scenario. It does not matter that even in countries far away people have to think about it.

I have a list, too:

  1. Where were you when the Partition of India happened?
  2. Where were you during the Bangladesh War?
  3. Where were you when Indira Gandhi was assassinated?
  4. Where were you when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was executed?
  5. Where were you when the anti-Sikh pogrom took place?
  6. Where were you when Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber?
  7. Where were you when parts of Eastern Europe were being spliced?
  8. Where were you when the Gujarat earthquake happened?
  9. Where were you when the Bombay riots of 1992-93 took place? Where were you when the Bombay blasts happened soon after?
  10. Where were you when Godhra happened? Where were you when the Gujarat riots were taking place?
  11. Where were you when Iraq and Iran went to war and stayed that way for eight years?
  12. Where were you when the Gulf War happened?
  13. Where were you during Operation Desert Storm?
  14. Where were you when the US started bombing Afghan civilians to look for a man in a cave?
  15. Where were you when America attacked Iraq to look for weapons that they have not yet found?
  16. Where were you when Kargil happened?
  17. Where were you when Swat was taken over?
  18. Where were you when blasts keep occurring?
  19. Where are you when hundreds die each day because of lack of food, hygiene, shelter?

There are so many reasons to know where we were…and these queries are not posed to you. For, even I do not know where I was when most of these disasters/calamities took place. So I do not know where I was when 9/11 happened.

But we are supposed to know. The media in our subcontinent will remind us because they cannot feel left out. People who do not want to think about other societies would also find this important enough to recall.

I can understand those who live in the US having vivid memories; or those who have relatives there being worried, but I do not see why that date should become a part of our local psyche. To be concerned about the new world order, terrorism, religion and politics is of course important, but to deify a date? But then we also remember when Princess Diana met with that fateful accident.

Therefore, I wonder if expats could check with the Americans and other Westerners if they recall any of the incidents I have mentioned. Do they know where they were when these events took place?

If we wish to talk about a world where equality must reign, then knowledge of other societies is a great equaliser.

And that is more effective than any version of truth or ‘truthers’.

5 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

An intelligent and troubling series of questions...

while I'm not sure I buy the Sheen conspiracy theory about 9/11 -- given the Bush govt's bungling of most other measures, it's hard to see how they could have pulled this one off so well... Charlie is absolutely right about the effect of 9/11 on the US. It seems to me that most terrorist acts have at least two purposes -- one is to frighten the citizenry into pressuring their government to change some policy or renounce some war. The other is to inpsire that government to remove some of the democratic freedoms and rights that most terrorists despise, and that's what has happened with the Homeland Security laws, etc.

The US has become more like its enemy in order to be vigilant against its enemy. Look how the US Right has become emboldened to the point that its adherents have abandoned pretending to support freedom of speech and opinion, shouting down or threatening any opposition, even calling its own President a "liar" in public. As for all the events you mention -- it's likely most North Americans wouldn't remember, unless they have a personal connection, because they weren't magnified by the mighty Western media to the same extent.

Comment Bubble Tip

Absolutely right, John. The

Absolutely right, John. The US has become its own enemy to control an outside enemy.

However, I'd like to bifurcate your statement:

most terrorist acts have at least two purposes -- one is to frighten the citizenry into pressuring their government to change some policy or renounce some war

I think the contrary has happened. The citizenry is forced to flaunt a pop version of patriotism that lasts for a while. It is a global phenomenon and more so in the US, because it has super-power status.

The other is to inpsire that government to remove some of the democratic freedoms and rights that most terrorists despise, and that's what has happened with the Homeland Security laws, etc.

True in principle. But if the terrorists are outsiders, then it does not serve their purpose to remove democratic freedoms elsewhere. I would understand if the reference were to the Taliban within Afghanistan/NWFP. That works differently.

However, the attacks have only given the state a reason to use them to create paranoia and that does translate into undemocratic attitude towards many others.


Comment Bubble Tip

To clarify...

I didn't fully explain what I meant by removing rights and freedoms. One of the ways that terrorists are successful goes like this: they commit an atrocity on behalf of their own group. The government affected then cracks down harder on that group to prevent future outrages, which allows the terrorists (or their political wing) to say "we have shown you this government's true mandate of oppression!" and this further polarizes citizens into us vs. them groups.

Comment Bubble Tip

Thanks John, this is pretty

Thanks John, this is pretty much what I was trying to understand with my response to you earlier. Polarisation is indeed what makes the world grow apart.


Comment Bubble Tip

Osama bin Laden has sent a

Osama bin Laden has sent a message directly to the American people. This time there is no video footage; just an audio with some images. He says:

“The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby. The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine.”

Our land? I think by bringing in Israel he is deflecting the issue and really pushing the anti-Semitism idea, which is counter-productive. The funny thing is while some westerners are not willing to grant Al Qaeda the role of culprit in the attacks, this man wants to be seen as the criminal.

Where was the Al Qaeda when America attacked other nations? The Israel lobby has always existed, and Palestine has rarely had support from Arab nations in real terms. In fact, Palestine is different in many ways and has to deal with Israel on a daily basis.

The response from the White House is facile. The press secretary said:

“I don't think it's surprising that Al Qaeda would want to shift attention away from the president's historic efforts and continued efforts to reach out and have an open dialogue with the Muslim world.”

Please. These open dialogues are as good as marshmallows during Halloween. What are these historic efforts? A lot of blah-blah, just like saying racism will end if the Prez has beer with Henry Louis Gates Jr. And Al Qaeda is not in the US.

Does a small radio clip have the power to shift attention? Does the ordinary citizen care one bit whether Obama has historic or pre-historic discussions with the Muslim world, whatever the heck that means?

It is time the White House realised that there is no single Muslim world, just as there is not one kind of American. During elections, the red and blue states are clearly divided. So, wake up and smell the Starbucks, which is indeed the great leveller.