F911, Attacked from the left

[NoName]

This line of reasoning sems to be going around the far left side of the internet, in such places as

http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fa...haelmoore.html

Originally Posted by whatreallyhappened

But, Michael Moore has himself either fallen for disinformation, or simply not done his homework, and seems willing to accept without question the official story of 9-11.

Now, it may be that Michael Moore just didn't care to get into 9-11 itself that deeply. Moore seems mostly focused on the aircraft allowed to fly out of the United States in the days immediately after 9-11 while the rest of the nation's aircraft were grounded. On these flights were members of Osama bin Laden's family. The Bush's and bin Ladens go back a long way. Osama's brother was George's business partner in Abusto Energy and source of the seed money to start the company. It is reportedly because of this connection that Osama was recruited to play holy warrior for the CIA in Afghanistan against the USSR. So there is no question that those flights did occur, and that Osama's family members were among the passengers.

At issue is whether this fact of the aircraft flights points the finger of blame for 9-11 at Saudi Arabia. After first being told that Afghanistan was to blame for 9-11, then Iraq was to blame for 9-11, one should take any claims of any Arab country being identified as the perpetrator of 9-11 with a huge heaping of salt. Michael Moore, who clearly recognized the claims about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, the supposed link from Saddam to Al Qaeda and to 9-11 as lies, shows a dangerous naiveté in his willingness accept the official story of 9-11 without question.

So, let's take a look at the idea of Saudi Arabia as the perpetrator of 9-11. Why would they do it? What would they gain? Immediately after the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good……. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)". The months since 9-11 have borne that out. US support for Israel's agenda grew stronger as Israel committed more atrocities against the Palestinians. More money flowed from the US to Israel. World opinion, which had been growing against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, temporarily abated. World hostility towards Arabs in general grew. Forgotten was the fact that Israel was actually in defiance of more UN Resolutions than Saddam had ever been. And, it was assumed at the start of the war that direct access to Iraq's oil would reduce American demand for Saudi oil, and likely force prices down as Iraq's oil came to market. So, where was the motive? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would strengthen US-Israeli ties? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would undercut their own oil revenues? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would anger the world against Arabs? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that could result in their almost one trillion dollars invested in the United States to be legally frozen and confiscated? Me neither. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hurt the United States, all they would have to do is withdraw their investment cash all at once. The move would be perfectly legal, and cause greater economic damage than the 9-11 attacks.

Originally Posted by Bob Dreyfuss at tompaine.com

The stated implication is that Bush is more loyal to the Saudis than he is to America.

Huh? Here are some questions for Moore: If Bush is so “in the pocket” of Saudi Arabia, why is he Ariel Sharon’s strongest backer? Why, when he had Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah down at the Texas ranch a few years ago, did he flip off the Saudi’s peace plan? And most important, why did he invade Iraq—since Saudi Arabia was strongly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why did he launch his Iraqi adventure over Saudi objections, with many of his advisers chortling that Saudi Arabia would be “next”? Why did he stock his administration with militant neocon crusaders who see Saudi Arabia as the main enemy? Why, Michael?

I have to conclude the Michael Moore is either blind, or a coward. Blind, if he can’t see Bush’s craven ties to Israel, driven by the neocons and the Christian Zionists and Bible-thumping fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, who consider Israel Jesus’ next stop and see Saudi Arabia as Satanic. Or cowardly, because he knows it and decided not to mention it.

[2pac Shakur]

Even Moore is afraid of criticizing Israel.
That's not really allowed in America.