Debate on Bin Laden, 9-11 - Reader Says Emperor's Clothes Wrong

Borba100 at Borba100 at
Sun Sep 30 19:33:49 MDT 2001

URL for this article:

Join our email list at Receive about one 
Debate on Bin laden & Who Gained from 9-11 - Reader says Emperor's Clothes 

[WWW.TENC.NET has been getting huge numbers of readers. Best day was last 
Tues., over 100,000.  We are trying to post and discuss their views.]
[Posted 28 September 2001]
(This discussion refers to 'The Creation Called Osama' at )

To Emperor's Clothes: 

Letter from Attorney J.B. (name withheld) 


Contrary to the article, 'The Creation called Osama", the news media has not 
hidden the true story of bin Laden. Must you guys find United States 
conspiracies and lies in everything? Is there a country that does not lie? 
You make it sound like the US is this evil country that gets what it 
deserves. While it is true that our own actions can be traced as a cause of 
the terrorist attacks, they are not THE cause, or the proximate cause as we 
say at law. You guys have the "boy who cried wolf" mentality, who find a 
conspiracy in everything, who read only what you feel is "between the lines" 
and not the lines themselves... This shows a tremendous bias in your 

Nonetheless, thank you for your columns and I will keep reading them. 

- Signed, Attorney J.B. (full name withheld) 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Editor, Jared Israel replies: "The Creation Called Osama" Does Have an Error, 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

Dear Attorney J.B.: 

Thank you for the compliment of continuing to read Emperor's Clothes despite 

You say, "You make it sound like the US is this evil country that gets what 
it deserves." 

We don't believe that, period. Ordinary people in this country - the people 
who were killed and terrorized September 11 - are innocent. They did not "get 
what they deserve." They deserve to be alive, with their loved ones. New York 
did not deserve to be trashed. 

The 200 murdered firemen did not bomb Yugoslavia. The porters and janitors 
and cleaning ladies and rest of the army of workers at the Towers did not 
starve the children of Iraq. 

The small number of people responsible for crimes that have been committed in 
America's name did not suffer on 9-11. And now these powerful forces are 
using the tragic deaths for their own gain, to create a cloud of anger to 
justify strategic military moves under the guise of a phony "infinite war 
against terror." 

By the way, we often use 'U.S.' to mean the government, as is commonly done 
in news analysis. (For example, a journalist might write, 'Today France 
declared,' when obviously France is not capable of declaring anything.)

Regarding the article, "The Creation Called Osama," you say "The news media 
has not hidden the true story of bin Laden." 

Please keep in mind, the article was reprinted from "The Hindu" so we 
couldn't edit it. It contains useful points. It's also partly wrong, as you 
noted. Here is what I observed about media coverage of bin Laden. 

Immediately after the WTC attacks almost nothing appeared in the mainstream 
media about bin Laden's connection to the CIA. But information began to 
circulate on the Internet. Only after that did the mainstream media cover his 
CIA connection; and this coverage was consistently inaccurate. Worse than 

Bin Laden's public image was created in 1998, after the U.S. government 
bombed a pill factory in Sudan and "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan. 
I wrote an article analyzing news coverage of those bombing raids. I could 
find only one report (1) mentioning the fact that the CIA had built the 
'training camps' the U.S. bombed. (My article, called 'Credible Deception,' 
is at (1a)) 

Starting back in 1998, the government and media gave people the impression 
bin Laden was an all-powerful evil genius, controlling terror all over the 
world. This view, reminiscent of comic book villains, has stuck. 

Starting around Sept. 13th, the CIA connection began being discussed widely 
in the media, but with crucial distortions. 

Distortion #1: The CIA only supported Afghan Islamist terrorists against 
Russia. That is, Washington simply chose some bad allies.

Reality: Does a parent ally with his child? Washington instigated the war in 
Afghanistan (2) and Washington deliberately created the violent Islamist 
movement, utilizing for this purpose the harsh Wahhibi version of Islam 
pushed by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Some say this was 'just a bad mistake,' but 
it involved debate in the highest circles and careful planning and vast sums 
of money and the intimate participation of the covert forces of the U.S. and 
junior partners. As late as this May, President Bush promised to send the 
Taliban another 43 million dollars. (2a) 

Distortion # 2: "Bin Laden's network" is the source of all terror. 

Reality: Nonsense. Bin laden couldn't exist without the Taliban which took 
control of Afghanistan (and much of the drug trade) and the Taliban could 
only do these things because they were supported by the U.S.-controlled 
Pakistani secret police, the ISI. (3) Before you conclude that 
"U.S.-controlled" is too strong, consider how fast the ISI buckled concerning 
the Taliban once the U.S applied pressure. 

The Taliban fulfilled, or were supposed to fulfill, a key US strategy: to 
threaten the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia. The message was: 
cooperate with the US (especially, let the U.S. military take over your 
defense apparatus with U.S. advisers, arms, etc.) or the Taliban will get 
you. It is because the Taliban has proved inadequate for this task that the 
U.S. government is now moving to take Afghanistan into receivership. 

Distortion # 3: We are told bin Laden broke with the U.S. during the Gulf 

Reality: Who knows the truth? We're dealing with covert forces here. If he 
did break with CIA why have he and, more important, a whole army of Islamist 
terrorists been involved on the side of U.S.-backed (or U.S. created!) 
terrorist groups in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia? [See: ]

By pushing the comic book notion of the Evil Genius bin Laden, the Clinton 
and Bush administrations have hidden the amazing fact that the US 
Establishment has created a giant terrorist apparatus throughout the Balkans 
and Central Asia. It has even involved the UN in creating a front group for 
the terrorists in Kosovo - the Kosovo protection Corps. (3a) Terrorists 
attacking Macedonia are paid members of this UN group, this "Protection 
Corp". True, some of these people are Islamists who - paradoxically - hate 
the U.S. 

This apparatus has been used to smash groups inclined to resist the U.S. 
drive to conquer the former Soviet Union. That is why the terrorists are 
especially active in the geo-strategic Balkans and Central Asia. If they 
aren't planning to attack Russia, why have the U.S. elite got Russia 

The third region strategic for attacking Russia is the Baltic area. The U.S. 
has pushed for the active active involvement of the Baltic states of Estonia, 
Latvia and Lithuania in NATO. Lithuania was the staging ground for recent 
maneuvers by 14 countries including Germany and the U.S. 

This is clearly meant as a military threat to Belarus, a former Soviet state 
between Lithuania and Russia, whose government has disdained Washington 
control. The U.S. is sponsoring some 300 organizations in Belarus. One for 
every 30,000 inhabitants. If you want to know the purpose of these 
organizations, the U.S. Ambassador to Belarus recently made it perfectly 

Ambassador Michael Kozak announced that his government has a 
'Nicaraguan"-type policy towards Belarus. The Ambassador was referring to 
Washington's creation and sponsorship of the Contra drug-gangsters (remember 
Iran/Contra?) whom Washington organized to terrorize Nicaragua during the 
1980s. The goal was to destroy the left-nationalist Sandanista government. 
Kozak was himself a U.S. operative in that terror campaign, so his outrageous 
threat should be taken seriously. (3b)

Thus, again, terror as a political weapon. 

The U.S. attack on Belarus clearly violates international law - for instance, 
the Helsinki Final Act, which the U.S., by the way, signed. Perhaps Mr. Bush 
is unaware that the Helsinki Final Act exists. Perhaps his understanding of 
international law is: 'We do what we want and you do what we want or we kill 
you.' [An excerpt from the Helsinki Final Act is posted near the end of this 

Why is there no uproar in the U.S. Congress about the violent, illegal attack 
on Belarus which risks nuclear war? Belarus is allied with Russia and is 
nuclear-armed. Why is the U.S. government doing these things if it wants 
peace and is uninterested in seizing control of the former Soviet Union?

The Washington-created terrorist apparatus has been used to crush secular and 
multiethnic regimes. The victims - especially Serbia and Macedonia - are then 
slandered in the Western media. "Human Rights Groups" (4) controlled by the 
U.S. foreign policy establishment are dispatched to victim countries and 
'discover' that these places (e.g., Serbia and Macedonia) are cruel and 
abusive in fighting the terrorists that the same U.S. foreign policy elite 
has sent to attack them. It's a nightmare. 

The American people do not support Imperial aggression. But if they feel they 
are being attacked, they support extreme actions. The powers-that-be can use 
Islamist terrorists to stage seeming 'outside attacks' to whip up a war 
fever. Given the complex web the CIA has woven in creating and nurturing 
terrorism, it is perfectly possible for the CIA to motivate a group of these 
people to do something to attack ordinary American people (whom they loathe) 
without the terrorists knowing the real origin of the orders or even the full 
plan of the attack. 

- Jared Israel

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Attorney JB responds: You're Going Too Far! 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. 

While I can see the apparent plausibility of many of your arguments, I do not 
see how you make the leap to the following statement: 

"It is perfectly possible for the CIA to motivate a > group of these people 
to > do something to attack ordinary American people > without the terrorists 
knowing > the real origin of the orders or even the full plan > of the 

I grant that this is POSSIBLE, but you seem to be suggesting that it may have 
happened. Yes, we helped to create the monster attack dog, and we can see 
that the dog bit us hard; but are you suggesting that the CIA directed these 
guys to conduct the 9-11-01 attacks? If so, what would the reason be for such 
an outrage? You may consider this a naive view, but I cannot consider as 
remotely possible the suggestion that our own government was directly 
involved in actively launching these attacks. 

- Peace, JB 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Jared Israel responds: You 'Underestimate' Our Exalted Leaders 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

I don't think you're naïve. I think you're smart and sane. Therefore you make 
the mistake of thinking those on top are like you. You have trouble believing 
they are mad with lust for power. Their God is money. They view ordinary 
Americans the way an agribusiness views chickens. 

The U.S. Establishment has been staging fake incidents to justify wars for a 
hundred years. US operatives blew up the Maine, a second class battleship in 
Havana Harbor in 1898, killing 266 U.S. sailors. Why? To justify the War with 
Spain which netted the U.S. elite the control of Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and 
the Philippines. In the process, a million Filipinos were slaughtered. The 
tactics used in the Philippines were just like those employed later in 
Vietnam, as described by Colin Powell: 

"In his 1995 autobiography, My American Journey, Powell describes burning 
[Vietnamese] peasants out of their huts in 1963, 'starting the blaze with 
Ronson and Zippo lighters.' 

"'Why were we torching homes and destroying crops?' Powell asks rhetorically. 
'Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerillas 
swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable.'" 
(Quoted in "Nobody's hero," at 

If this man could commit such war crimes as a soldier, imagine what he is 
capable of as an exalted leader. 

The bombing of North Vietnm was "legalized" by the Congressional passage of 
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This was pushed through based on the lie that 
North Vietnamese boats fired on US destroyers. (See former Washington Post 
editor Ben Bradlee's comments, at the end, after 'Further Reading.')

Another example - former El Salvador death Squad organizer William Walker 
staged the phony Racak incident to justify the bombing of Serbia.(5) 

More - there could not have been massive and consistent media lies about 
Yugoslavia - for a decade - without top level "conspiracy." Just check out 
our article "KLA Attacks Everyone, Media Attacks...Miloshevich" which proves 
the American people have been sold a mound of cow pie concerning that 
Yugoslav leader. (5A)

Are we wrong? Here's a thought: We'll soon be posting a list of 50 key 
articles on Emperor's Clothes. Arranged by subject. Take the Emperor's 
Clothes challenge. Read any or all and show us where we're wrong. We'll post 
the most convincing criticisms, with replies. 

- Jared Israel 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Attorney JB Responds: How Can You Say The US Gains? 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

One further thought. Regarding your point about who gained, I don't see how 
the USA has gained by 9-11-01: our economy has been at least temporarily 
hammered; and our people have suffered and live with a new level of fear. We 
will perhaps use bases in some former Soviet republics; but I don't see how 
this benefits us--after all, that is an exceedingly poor part of the world, 
and I do not think that we will establish major long-term presences there 
because of recent events. I think peaceful coexistence with Russia is much 
more in our national interests than pissing them off by de facto surrounding 
them. Putin would not put up with that. You state that money is the God of 
our most powerful elements. Maybe so, but this whole venture costs a lot more 
than it repays, as far as I can see. 

-- Attorney J.B.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
To which editor Jared Israel responds: Not the whole U.S. Just a few. 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

The US as a whole did not gain. Part of the US - a very small part - gained. 
Most people lost. The difference between you and me is you see one America; I 
see two. One part, very small, unbelievably rich, very powerful, along with 
their untouchable flunkies in the covert and semi-covert apparatus that 
dominates U.S. foreign adventures - that part is using 9-11 to carry forward 
their very dangerous plans. 

You say "I think peaceful coexistence with Russia is much more in our 
national interests than pissing them off by de facto surrounding them." 

For you, and for millions of other decent Americans, yes. But not for the 
rulers of this land. 

If you say we are wrong about this then you must explain: why HAS the US 
government pushed NATO - a military machine - right to Russia's borders? For 

Why is U.S. Ambassador to Belarus saying the U.S. is using terror to break 
that independent country? (6) 

Why the devastation of Yugoslavia? Why the assault on Macedonia? Why the 
declaration, just a few days ago, by the U.S. Ambassador to England, that the 
Balkans will be a "prominent theater of operations and training" for NATO. 
Operations against whom? Why all this aggressive action when there is no 
enemy? Unless the goal is the penetration and conquest of Russia. (7)

You say the former Soviet Union is poor. This is half-true. It has been 
impoverished by the aggressive policies of the International Monetary fund 
which, if applied in the US, would wipe out the economy. Nevertheless it is 
one of the richest storehouses of natural wealth in the world. In addition, 
it has the capacity, if reunited, to resist U.S. expansion. 

If this explanation is wrong, what does explain the actions summarized above? 
How can the U.S. engage in coordinated and aggressive international action by 

Further Reading:

1) ''Taliban Camps U.S. bombed in Afghanistan Were Built by NATO' Can be read 

1a) 'Credible Deception' Can be read at 

2) 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan,' at 

2a) On involvement of CIA: 'Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists: 
Deliberate Policy'. This includes an article from the "Washington Post' with 
an introductory note from 'Emperor's Clothes'. Can be read at 

On $43 million aid: "The Bush administration has not been deterred [by talk 
of Taliban atrocities]. Last week it pledged another $ 43 million in 
assistance to Afghanistan, raising total aid this year to $ 124 million and 
making the United States the largest humanitarian donor to the country." 
('The Washington Post,' 25 May 2001)

3) 'Washington's Pakistani Allies: Drug Dealers, Killers' Can be read at 

3a) 'How will you plead at the trial, Mr.Annan? 'Can be read at 

3b) 'For Nicaragua, Read Belarus' Can be read at 


5) 'The Racak Incident' Can be read at 

5a) 'KLA Attacks Everyone. Media Attacks...Miloshevich?' Can be read at 

6) 'Tough Measures Needed in Belarus!' Can be read at 

'REBELS'" at 

Regarding the U.S. making the Balkans a "Prominent theater of operations" see 
'NATO Buildup in the Balkans: Part of a Deadly Game ' at 

(Former 'Washington Post' Executive Editor)====================

"Now let me ask you to jump ahead some eight months to August 1964, still 
more than 20 years ago, to an issue of Time magazine. 

'Through the darkness, from the West and South, the intruders boldly sped. 
There were at least six of them, Russian-designed Swatow gunboats armed with 
37-mm and 28-mm guns, and P-4's. At 9.52 they opened fire on the destroyers 
with automatic weapons, and this time from as close as 2,000 yards. The night 
glowed earily with the nightmarish glare of air dropped flares and boat's 
searchlights. Two of the enemy boats went down. ' 

"That's the kind of vivid detail that the news magazines have made famous. I 
don't mean to single out Time. On the same date Life said almost the same 
thing and that week's issue of Newsweek had torpedoes whipping by, US ships 
blazing out salvo after salvo of shells. It had a PT boat bursting into 

"There was only one trouble. There was no battle. There was not a single 
intruder, never mind six of them. Never mind Russian designed Swatow gunboats 
armed with 37mm and 28mm guns. They never opened fire. They never sank. They 
never fired torpedoes. They never were. 

"It has really taken 20 years for this truth to emerge. My authority is 
Admiral Jim Stockdale, who has written a fascinating book. In Love and War. 
Jim Stockdale was shot down over Vietnam a few days later and was a prisoner 
of the Vietnamese for more than seven years. 

"But on the night in question he was in a Sabre jet fighter flying cover over 
the Maddox and the Turner Joy, and he scoured the seas for more than two 
hours; and he is as sure as man can be that they were fighting phantom blips 
on a radar screen. 

"In case the Vietnam years have blurred in your minds, or even disappeared 
from your screens, may I remind you that this so-called Battle of Tonkin Gulf 
was the sole basis of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which was the entire 
justification for the United States' war against Vietnam. This non-event 
happened on August 4, 1964. President Johnson went on television that very 
night to ask the country to support a Congressional resolution. The 
resolution went to Congress the next day. Two days later it was approved 
unanimously by the House and 88-2 by the Senate. 

"The 'facts' behind this critically important resolution were quite simply 
wrong. Misinformation? Disinformation? Deceit? Whatever! Lies. 

[THE ABOVE is an excerpt from a talk given by Ben Bradlee, former Executive 
Editor, 'Washington Post.' It was delivered as the first James Cameron 
Memorial Lecture and is quoted in full in 'The Guardian' (London) April 29, 
1987. If anyone would like to read the full text of his talk let us know and 
we will post it on]

The following excerpt is from the Helsinki Final Act, considered a 
centerpiece of modern International Law, and which the U.S. signed:

"The participating States will refrain in their mutual relations, as well as 
in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force 
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or 
in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations and 
with the present Declaration. No consideration may be invoked to serve to 
warrant resort to the threat or use of force in contravention of this 

"Accordingly, the participating States will refrain from any acts 
constituting a threat of force or direct or indirect use of force against 
another participating State. Likewise they will refrain from any 
manifestation of force for the purpose of inducing another participating 
State to renounce the full exercise of its sovereign rights. Likewise they 
will also refrain in their mutual relations from any act of reprisal by 

NOTE FROM TENC.NET: All citizens of the U.S. can benefit from reading the 
Final Act for it gives a perspective from which to view the U.S. government's 
actions. It can be read in full at - 

Join our email list at Receive about one 

[Note to readers: If we publish a letter you send to Emperor's Clothes we 
will not include your name or identifying information without getting your 
approval. If we cannot reach you, we will assume you wish your name withheld. 
- Jared Israel, editor.]

Emperor's Clothes Needs Your Help!

On 18 September about 100,000 readers transferred more than 1.7 gigabytes of 
data from Emperor's Clothes. That's the equivalent of around 1.5 million 
pages in printed books.

As you may know, the Website was "down" for about four hours that day. 
Because of the current crisis, we are strained beyond capacity. 

We recently hired a full time computer person. He has partly finished 
remodeling the Website so it loads more quickly and is easier to use. We hope 
you find these changes useful. Now we need to complete the makeover and 
improve our technical facilities to meet the huge increase in demand for 

Emperor's Clothes does not charge money for articles. We rely on donations. 

Many of our readers have contributed in the past. This has allowed us to 
function. Now we need contributions from everyone who finds Emperor's Clothes 
useful so we can pay our (overworked, underpaid) computer helper and make 
technical improvements so that all our articles are available all the time.

Please send whatever contributions you can! $20, $50, $100, $500, $1000 or 
more. Whatever the amount, it will be used to get articles to more people.

You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at 

Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 
02461-0321. (USA) 

Or make a donation by phone at the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705. 

Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us know 
by email at emperors1000 at to make sure we receive it. Thanks!

Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes. or
[Emperor's Clothes]


PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message

More information about the Marxism mailing list