enough Goff

Charles Jannuzi b_rieux at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 24 01:51:54 MDT 2003

Donna Stainsbury writes:

>>There is a related issue that, as a Canadian, I have
often wanted to raise. We Canadians are in the unique
position of being close to America, so close
that many Americans refer to us as "just the same as
we are", and in many ways that is true.  We have a
thoroughly capitalist power structure, we have
major corporations that rape the resources of third
world countries, we have a poopulation (Hey -- how's
that for a typo? <<

You also have national health insurance, and a social
system more comparable to Norway's than the US's, the
efforts of prairie poopulists and Ontario
conservatives notwithstanding (hey another typo, I'll
leave it in too).

>>  But, we are also a semi-colonized,
semi-imperialized property of the US. <<

The best example that I had been studying was the US
takeover of Canada's oil and gas. Pretty soon we'll be
saying you are like Iraqis.

>> Stan Goff first leapt to prominence on this and
other lists with his analysis of  911.  He quite soon
edited his analysis. His initial explanation, based on
his military knowledge, that the demolition of the
twin towers could not have occurred in the described
way became softened into an explanation of the
"problems" with that official explanation.
Neither his original paper, nor the softened version
has been really commented on on this list. <<

I think his analysis is off, but there wasn't a lot of
good analysis period. There just wasn't. Too many
ended up letting the conspiracy theory people run
rampant while the real conspiracies went almost
totally unanalyzed. I should hardly think jumping out
of airplanes with a beret in his pocket qualified Stan
Goff to comment anymore than anyone else. Most of what
I read from the guy got the heave-ho.

 >>It seems far easier for an American to simply
refer to it as conspiracy theory -- or dismiss it as
"Mulder" talk. <<

This begs the question that Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice
want you to beg. Any critical look from outside the
system doesn't have the information that the insiders
have. The insiders are sworn to secrecy for reasons of
'state security'--in other words, to cover up their
own responsibility for such failures as 9-11. The
conspiracy theory I've consistently put forward is
quite simple: I won't deal with the 'facts' I can't
get, but I can come to some conclusions based on what
is fairly well known and understood. CLEARLY, much of
the national security state was so wrapped up in
getting ready for war against Iraq that they got
caught by elements that they probably knew about but
did nothing about. One speculation I've repeated is:
that it might well be strong blow back. That is,
'assets' being recruited in the war against Iraq might
well have been involved in pulling off 9-11. And if
not that strong, certain people might still have used
the war preparations and covert ops that have been
going on since 1998 as cover to pull off 9-11. Of
course, the regime removal campaign that led to the
blowback involves high up Dems as well as
Repugs--Lieberman and J. Kerry of the Senate for
example, both presidential hopefuls.

>> While there were strong arguements on this list
about the validity of the US
attacking Iraq, <<

Truly as inane and as off track as the discussions
have become sometime, I don't remember too many
arguing on this list for the validity of the US
attacking Iraq. I admit that is just my impression and
I do delete enough on a first-name basis.

>>excellent exposes of invalid conclusions based on
or inaccurate intelligence -- wonderful use of that
word, intelligence --
there really have not been questions about the
"incident" that began it all.<<

9-11 was NOT NOT NOT the incident that began it all.
Both Gore and Bush ran on 'regime removal' for Iraq
and war plans were well on the way from 1999 on. The
establishment people were angry with Clinton for not
using ALL the options they were giving him, which at
the very least were supposed to involve a lot of
special forces and US-trained Iraqi and other Arab
forces along with a sustained air campaign. We got a
preview of what they planned when Bush and Rummy
blinked and decided to use everything they had ready
for Iraq on Afghanistan. It worked brilliantly for
them. Right down to special forces guy with useless
Arabic guidebook riding around on horses.

>>Probably such a discussion has been deemed to be
unproductive -- and
probably it would be.  Such discussions, however,
*have* occurred on lists
with primarily non-American members.<<

I don't think people being American has been a problem
in this case. The non-American discussion of 9-11 has
been about as stupid, if you ask me.

>>Americans now are largely concerned with the 2004
election.  Do you *really*
believe that whichever party is in power can or will
make a difference? <<

I'd like to see Kucinich try to get ALL Americans
national health insurance. I'd like to see him cut 200
billion out of completely useless military
spending--even Stan Goff's military pension. Screw
Carlyle Group and Halliburton.

you really think that George Bush is the controller?
That little man could
not possibly have made any of the decisions we
leftists -- Americans and
non-Americans alike -- deride.  The entire congress
followed his lead
because no-one would/could look seriously at what
happened on September 11.
Why, when we know they lie to us about everything
else, would any of us
believe they haven't lied to us about that too?<<

Sure they lie. They lie to cover their own asses.
George is their quarterback right now.

>>Why do we on this list spend time, effort and
band-width discussing what slogan to use?  Perhaps my
reaction is because I've been away from my
computer for 5 days -- and arrived home to read over
300 postings on Marxmail, most, it seemed, discussing
whether Stan Goff's putative choice of slogans was a
good one.<<

It wasn't even that. It was whether or not I was
attacking Stan Goff. I don't care about the slogan.
It's the lack of substance underneath in what I've
seen from this entire campaign. If I were picking
slogans, I'd stick with DMS's.

 >> Is it just because I'm not American that I'm
reacting this way?  One of these days I will put
together a real examination of the way this
America-centred attitude affects those of us close to
This is a very superficial start on such an attempt.<<

I agree. This is why I keep saying, appeals to the
special victimhood of American soldiers are empty.

>>Re-reading this, I realize I will offend.  This is
not meant as a slam.  One
should probably never write --or at least post -- so
soon after reading a
deluge of posts in one go.  Apologies in advance --
and a better explication
to follow.<<

I don't think you've been fair to a lot what has been
discussed, but I welcome your future contributions.



Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

More information about the Marxism mailing list