Perhaps they don't care

Lou Paulsen wwchi at
Tue Sep 11 20:05:59 MDT 2001

-----Original Message-----
From: Borba100 at <Borba100 at>
To: marxism at <marxism at>
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 7:52 PM

>The last time someone accused me of paranoia was when I wrote a leaflet
>saying the U.S. was lying about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. Didn't that
>earlier staged incident lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of US
>soldiers (not to mention vast numbers of Vietnamese)?

Jared, I don't KNOW what the right wing / CIA / Sharon / etc. knew about the
attacks or didn't know, or whether they were involved or not.  I'm just
opining.  You may be right, who knows.  I certainly don't see it as unlikely
that the right wing would stage a provocation.  But I think that the right
wing serves the ruling billionaires.  And I don't see the ruling
billionaires as bold, or imaginative, or willing to make short-term
sacrifices in the long-term interest of their class.  I see them as
short-sighted self-interested greedy people.  I have no problem in believing
they would sacrifice the lives of thousands of workers.

But I find it VERY unlikely that they would actually sacrifice THEIR OWN
PROPERTY in lower Manhattan, not to mention the value of their shares on the
stock exchange when it opens, and their profits in air transportation,
retail sales, etc., in the interest of any provocation.  And it's not in
line with their behavior historically!  You refer to the Gulf of Tonkin
hoax.  Well, that's a very good example of how they REALLY stage
provocations: cheaply, with lies, with imaginary enemy action, and without
any damage to any ships at all!  I think they have done that sort of thing
very successfully.  They have a whole science of building war hysteria
without having to damage themselves.  If they wanted to build war hysteria
for a move into central Asia, wouldn't they just hire Ruder Finn to arrange
it?  Like with Yugoslavia?

So I see the 'right wing provocation' theory as unlikely.  Contrariwise, I
don't see other theories as very unlikely.  This is a world in which some
people are so full of enraged despair against the murderous US and its
clients that they will blow themselves up in a traffic intersection in the
hope of killing some passing soldiers.  If some people will do that, what is
so amazing if other people will give their own lives in order to destroy the
World Trade Center and/or a large piece of the Pentagon?

I>If Washington didn't do this, who did?  Who else gains?

I actually don't know who 'gains' by this.  The right wing 'gains' political
advantage within the U.S. and probably within the rest of the imperialist
world - probably.  But on the other hand if some force sees itself in a
military struggle with the US, then it is a 'gain' to damage the financial
and military institutions of the US.  Who knows, if the US is plunged
further into a recession, it may actually be less able to plunder and rule
the world for a while.  (In that sense, any imperialist rival of the US may
'gain', which is also something to think about.)

Even if the net 'gain' turns out to be with the US rulers, anyone can
miscalculate, after all.  In fact there was a cautionary article in the New
York Times this week about 'unintended consequences'.  It was about
Palestine, and it suggested that the current campaign of hi-tech military
assassinations may not be having the 'gains' that the US and Israel were
hoping for; that instead of weakening the Palestinians, it might only be
infuriating them and unifying them.  Well, if the Pentagon, with all their
expertise, can miscalculate who is going to 'gain' from some military
action, then other people can too.

But of course we don't really know.

Lou Paulsen

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message

More information about the Marxism mailing list