The ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement and the Machiavellianism of the Bourgeoisie

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Allan Greene
The ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement and the Machiavellianism of the Bourgeoisie
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement and the Machiavellianism of the Bourgeoisie. The discussion was initiated by Allan Greene.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Allan Greene
9-11 "Truth" Movement

October 14, 2011

 

Dear Comrades of the ICC:

 

It is offhand my impression you comrades think the 09-11-2001 attacks were an "inside job" by the U.S. government.

 

I disagree with that.  I'll explain why.

 

First, the claim that bin Laden supporters could not have done the 09-11-2001 attacks seems mistaken to me.  I don't view bin Laden's international political religious fundamentalist movement after the 1977-1989 U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Soviet involvement in Afghanistan the same way as before that involvement and invasion.  I think the U.S. in effect and in practice turned bin Laden into the rather charismatic figure he turned into among the most devoted followers of fanatical Wahabbist puritanical political religious fundamentalist Islam by its involvement in Afghanistan against the Soviet-aligned Kabul regime in 1977-1979, then by the U.S. support for the women-enslaving mujahadeen of Afghanistan during the period of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979-1989.  The mujahadeen in 1990 changed its name to Al Qaeda.  By then, bin Laden was, as bourgeois left-wing radical anti-imperialist American commentator and writer, Gore Vidal, noted in his interesting and informative and educational book of 2003, "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace:  How We Got to Be So Hated," a figure of some repute among fanatical Wahabbist Islamics around the world.  In the period from 1990 through into 1996, he became even moreso.  But the origins of the growth of his international reputation and following were, indeed, the enormous support he got in the period of 1977-1988 by the U.S.A.  And that became the reason he acquired such an enormous following among well-educated but fanatically devout Wahabbist and other Muslim political religious fundamentalists around the world.  In my view, that support gave him ample ability through innumerably diverse educated supporters to carry out many terrorist attacks, including the 09-11-2001 attacks.  Therefore, the notion it is not credible to think the 09-11-2001 attacks were carried out by supporters of bin Laden, but were some kind of "inside job" is itself not credible to me.

 

Secondly, living in the USA as I do, I am very familiar with U.S.A. bourgeois capitalist politics.  It is VERY much to the interests of BOTH major capitalist political parties in the U.S.A. to try to palm off on the OTHER major capitalist political party prime and primary responsibility for having been involved in the period of 1977-1989 for giving aid, comfort, and support to building the bin Laden-supporting movement into the Frankenstein monster it became.  The Democrats palm it off onto the Republicans.  The Republicans palm it off onto the Democrats.  But BOTH were BIPARTISANLY involved in the period of 1977-1989.  And therefore, when one reads these various notions of 09-11-2001 having allegedly been an "inside job," one often thinks if one opposes BOTH capitalist political parties from a Marxist standpoint, as I do, "Which of the two capitalist parties' political agenda is being served by the notion that 09-11 was an 'inside job'?"  I don't make the accusation that you are doing that from that kind of agenda.  I realize your politics and that you do not support capitalist politics of the bourgeois capitalist Republican or Democratic parties in the USA.  But generally speaking, the notion that 09-11 was an "inside job" serves the class and capitalist class interests of one or another factions of the capitalist imperialist class here in North America.

 

Thirdly, Marxists are materialists.  Like other kinds of materialists, Marxist dialectical and historical materialists start from the irreducible bottom line of facts as our irreducible bottom line.  I realize there's been a lot of so-called "scientific" people who have called into question the claim that 09-11-2001 was carried out by planes hitting the World Trade Center, pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, hijacked by people inspired by bin Laden.  But I have seen quite reputable science that destroys the claims of the allegedly "scientific" claimants who claim that 09-11 was some kind of "inside job," some kind of "inside placement of explosives" at the World Trade Center.  Furthermore, there's simply the simple fact of INNUMERABLE eyewitnesses of the planes hitting the World Trade Center in the New York City and New Jersey areas, INNUMERABLE eyewitnesses who were NOT "insiders" in government, NOT "insiders" in capitalist business, NOT "insider" in the capitalist political and business establishment, but were, simply speaking, ordinary working class people or ordinary poor people or ordinary lower petit-bourgeois class people.  These INNUMERABLE people took PICTURES, MOVING photos and MOVING pictures, of the planes hitting the World Trade Center.  The so-called 09-11 "Truthers" simply ignore this hard information of INNUMERABLE ORDINARY working class and poor and lower middle class eyewitnesses.  I don't see how in the hell any alleged Marxist supporter of the "09-11-was-an-inside-job" position can make that claim anymore than any OTHER so-called "09-11 Truther" can make that claim - that it was an "inside job."

 

Fourthly, it is very convenient for a lot of the conspiracy theorists claiming that 09-11 was an "inside job" to say, oh, if you think 09-11 was NOT an "inside job," you must be a lover of the U.S. capitalist imperialist government's lie machine.  But THAT, TOO, is itself dishonest.  It is, in my view, far more reputable and far more reliable and far more IN THE SPIRIT OF AUTHENTIC MARXIST MATERIALISM to see what REALLY happened that is VERY MUCH ABLE TO BE CONDEMNED on 09-11, such as, for instance, the fact the RADIOS BETWEEN RESCUE WORKERS WERE HAMPERED BY THE BUDGET CUTS THAT KEPT THEM FROM WORKING PROPERLY, or that the WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS THEMSELVES WERE ORIGINALLY SHABBILY CONSTRUCTED IN THE EARLY 1970S TO SAVE MONEY, which is a KEY REASON THEY COLLAPSED SO EASILY AFTER THE FUEL-LADEN PLANES HIT THEM ON 09-11-2001.  These are REAL CAPITALIST CRIMES which SET IN PLACE the TRAGEDY THAT HAPPENED.  Capitalism has NEVER invested sufficiently in properly working technology, and it has NEVER invested sufficiently in the safe building and construction of buildings.  In 1944, an airplane hit the Empire State Building in New York City, and THAT building was MUCH BETTER CONSTRUCTED than the World Trade Center, which was VERY SHABBILY CONSTRUCTED TO SAVE MONEY when it was originally constructed.  The Empire State Building did NOT collapse, because it was BETTER constructed.  The World Trade Center, however, was constructed PRE-FAB, to SAVE MONEY.  And THAT IS WHY it collapsed on 09-11.  It is a LIE as the so-called 09-11 "Truthers" claim  to claim it could NOT have collapsed from the burning fuel on the planes.  The pre-fab nature of the construction of the World Trade Center was such that it MOST ASSUREDLY COULD AND DID COLLAPSE PRECISELY because of its shoddy and shabby construction ORIGINALLY on a PRE-FAB BASIS in the early 1970s.

 

I as a Marxist materialist who holds to the view that material objective facts must be the bottom line on the basis of which ANY materialistic analysis must proceed also hold to the conventional scientific view that it is GENERALLY - GENERALLY - the MOST ELEGANT explanation that is the MOST LIKELY explanation for a scientist, and the MOST ELEGANT USUALLY - USUALLY - is the SIMPLEST, THE ONE WITH THE FEWEST REQUIRED ASSUMPTIONS.  I do not think that rule necessarily always applies, and I think the late evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, in his great 2002 book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory," made a darned good case for evolution of life on earth as being an area in which the assumption in the philosophy of science that the simplest explanation is usually the best one doesn't necessarily apply in the area of the evolution of life on earth.  But I am saying  that on the 09-11-2001 attacks, I DO think this scientific rule of thumb applies.  And that leads me to say that the notion that 09-11 was an "inside job" requires far too many necessary assumptions about material reality to be plausible or believable.

 

Fifthly, there is one more point.  I do not at all believe the bourgeoisie is a homogeneous class.  I think there is unevenness in it.  And Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and other Marxists, thought the same thing about the bourgeoisie.  The notion that 09-11 was an "inside job" requires one to believe the ludicrously incompetent Bush administration - incompetent EVEN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE BOURGEOISIE ITSELF AND MANY MAJOR BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST AND IMPERIALIST SPOKESPERSONS THEMSELVES - somehow carried out such a major "inside operation."  But the Bush administration EVEN FROM A BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST IMPERIALIST STANDPOINT was NOT EVEN AS COMPETENT A GANG OF CRIMINALS AS, SAY, THE CHICAGO 1920S GANGSTER, ALPHONSE CAPONE, was.  Capone was at least able to PROBABLY (and to this day they still cannot prove it) have carried out the February 14, 1929 "Valentine's Day Massacre" of some mob rivals of his while he himself was vacationing in Florida.  Capone had a history of competent criminality (I recently watched the Ken Burns 3-part PBS series, "Prohibition," and it talked at some length about Capone and the Chicago mob.) carry out many criminal acts COMPETENTLY.  But the Bush administration DIDN'T EVEN POSSESS THIS LEVEL OF COMPETENCY.  Therefore, to believe that 09-11-2001 was an "inside job" would require one to believe the improbable and implausible about the Bush gang.  I DO think they were a criminal gang.  I DO think they were an imperialist capitalist political criminal gang.  But I do NOT think they were COMPETENT enough to have carried out the 09-11-2001 attacks, and I think BELIEVING they were able to do that stretches credulity, because they were simply TOO INCOMPETENT to have done so.

 

Sixthly, finally, while often the historical analogy of the 1933 German Reichstag fire is made, and it's often suggested it was set by the Nazis so Hitler could himself have the excuse to make martial law in Germany, other reputable historians of Nazi Germany, like Ian Kershaw, has agreed with the statement of the late Marxist writer, Paul Mattick, in Mattick's own dedication of Mattick's book, "Marx and Keynes:  The Limits of the Mixed Economy," wherein Mattick himself dedicated the book to the martyred former Dutch turned German communist (non-partied and non-organizationally affiliated at the time) who is probably the guy who set the Reichstag fire.  Ian Kershaw says that in volume one of his 2-volume biography, "Hitler," and Mattick evidently thought so, too, for he dedicated his book to the guy.  The guy's name was Marinus Van Der Lubbe.  Van Der Lubbe certainly did not necessarily expect his action in setting the Reichstag fire would lead to what it led to.  But it did.  That's simply another way of saying that violent terrorist attacks on the U.S. of 09-11-2001 could have been made by perpetrators not necessarily expecting what the "blowback" would be.  Indeed, after the 09-11-2001 attacks, some years later, there seems to have later developed pretty decent evidence that even inside Al Qaeda itself, there were thought to have been those who thought the 09-11 attacks were a mistake, because by the period of 2004-2005, the U.S. imperialist war machine was in the process of one long ongoing imperialist war targeting Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda in December of 2001, also, openly publicly said they were responsible for the 09-11-2001 attacks.  They didn't hide it.  They openly said they were responsible for it and, moreover, they were proud of having inspired the attacks.  But that doesn't necessarily mean all of them thought the attacks were, from their own standpoint, a good idea, because the blowback - U.S. imperialism's devastating war machine's wholesale war on them - seems since to have done a lot to hurt them, and they don't like that.  But again, it's no "proof" that 09-11 was an "inside job" to say that the Reichstag fire was "necessarily" set by the Nazis when there's now considerable hard evidence that was not the case.  Nor is it "proof" that 09-11 was an "inside job" to claim that because the attacks DID, INDEED, HAND ON A SILVER PLATTER TO THE BUSH GANG THE EXCUSES IT WANTED to do its imperialist attacks and wholesale decimation of rights in the U.S. itself, that THEREFORE it HAD to have been an "inside job."  One does not necessarily follow from the other.

 

Anyway, it was my impression you thought 09-11 was an "inside job," and so, I wanted to in some detail take issue with that claim.

 

Comradely otherwise,

Allan Greene

 

KT
Warning: Long Post (and without paras .. uggh)


I thought the actual article published by Inter was well argued and brought many truths to the table – including and importantly a good critique of the origins (decomposition) and uses (dead-end legalism) of the growing 9/11 Truth Movement.    Nonetheless, it appears to me (I may be wrong, of course) that the author is driven a little too far from previous ICC pronouncements by the perceived necessity to distance the ICC from the Truth Movement less they both be seen to be arguing similar things on a given subject.    It’s as if, when the Governor of the Bank of England describes the current situation as “the worst financial crisis the world had ever seen”,revolutionaries should rush to disagree with him for fear of saying the same thing as an important faction of the ruling class!   The article’s author is perfectly correct to state that some definitive ‘truth’ on the subject of 9/11 is unlikely to emerge anytime soon and the pursuit of it – in the case of the Truth Movement, to the point of obsession and paranoia - is a dangerous distraction.   However, when he/she implies that the same is the case with the 1941 attack by Japanese imperialism on Pearl Harbour – an incident which has been highlighted many times by the ICC and others to demonstrate the cynical and Machiavellian nature of the US bourgeoisie, a modus operandi which gives great big pointers to the events of 9/11 – then again I feel he/she’s straying a little too far.   Unlike the still-raw and ‘active’ afterlife of 9/11, some 70 years separate us from Pearl;  the majority of the participants are dead, the line-up of inter-imperialist antagonisms has changed completely  and the incident less contentious (if still part of patriotic mythology in the US). More to the point, a mound of factual documentation; official and unofficial enquiries and ‘insider’ accounts (such as those of Eleanor Roosevelt, the then President’s wife!)  is today available (unlike 9/11).    From this material, last time I looked, serious if bourgeois academics and historians (not conspiracy theorists) were split roughly 50/50 on the issue. Or, to put it another way, half of those who have nothing to do with revolutionary politics and everything to do with examining history from a bourgeois framework, are pretty clear that the US knew about the impending attack on Pearl and deliberately allowed it to happen in a calculated (and successful) bid to mobilise the population for war. There are other examples of such behaviour, but Pearl is one of the best documented and to undermine or underplay the significance of these shenanigans is, IMO, to weaken a concrete demonstration of the bourgeois Machiavellianism that the author elsewhere argues is one of the main characteristics of this class in decadence.   Having said all that, I recognise that, as the author says, this is no class line, that there’s a debate to be had about it, and I applaud him/her for the responsible way it’s written and the ICC for airing it.   I don’t feel so charitable about Cmrd Allan’s observations (above). Here’s why:   1)      “First, the claim that bin Laden supporters could not have done the 09-11-2001 attacks seems mistaken to me.” Has the ICC claimed this anywhere? I may well be mistaken, but I think this point is irrelevant to this discussion, even if others have argued it. I agree with you, Allan, that contrary, for example, to the claims of the UK documentary maker Adam Curtis whose film series ‘Dreams and Nightmares’ argued that Al Qaida was a chimera, an invention of the west to control their own populations, that this organisation (which indeed had its origins in Western imperialist arming and funding, as well as the actual social situation) was real and represented a “clear and present danger”. It was (and is?) both a manifestation of inter-imperialist antagonisms and of the decomposition of capitalist society (a weapon largely created by the ‘west’ which escaped ‘their’ control). However, I repeat: who in the ICC argues they “couldn’t have done it”? Take your venom to the 9/11 truth movement.  

 2)      Your second point seems to me utterly byzantine and confusing (maybe my problem). Different factions of the bourgeoisie each blame the other for social/imperialist/economic problems... True. So...? To point out (correctly in my view) that the US bourgeoisie, in the short term, profited from the heinous crime of 9/11: how does this fall into the trap of bourgeois ideology?   3)      Your point three seems to be arguing against those factions of the ‘Truthers’ who claim that the planes never hit, or if they did, that it was the US bourgeoisie that actually laid the explosives which destroyed the buildings. I’ve seen these arguments. Point is: where does the ICC support them? It doesn’t and it hasn’t, as the author of the article points out.   4)      “Fourthly, it is very convenient for a lot of the conspiracy theorists claiming that 09-11 was an "inside job" to say, oh, if you think 09-11 was NOT an "inside job," you must be a lover of the U.S. capitalist imperialist government's lie machine.  But THAT, TOO, is itself dishonest.” True in its way. But again, where does the ICC say any of this? I think you are again confusing the ICC with conspiracy nutters. However your comments on the money-conscious methods of capitalist construction and cuts in services I agree with wholeheartedly. To be continued.....


KT
Continued

1)      Allan’s point 5 takes us to the heart of the matter. It begins:

"Fifthly, there is one more point.  I do not at all believe the bourgeoisie is a homogeneous class.  I think there is unevenness in it.  And Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and other Marxists, thought the same thing about the bourgeoisie."

So they did then and, I believe, so does the ICC today.  Capitalism is based on competition and, within nation states, different ruling factions can represent different and competing interests within the ruling class. As you say, this was ABC for our forbearers.  But even they – even Engels, in capitalism’s apogee - noted the tendency of capital economically and politically to homogenise. Then Lenin, in the epoch of rampant and global imperialism, saw the centralisation and cohesion of the giant trusts. With the First World War came the domination of national states over particularistic interests within it to do battle with their rivals and to confront the working class.

Here we enter the epoch of state capitalism, which does not do away with the rivalry and competition within national borders but tends irrevocably, under the pain of national defeat (ie of death)  to subsume them in the “national interest”, in order to compete more effectively on the world stage. Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany are the most oft-quoted examples of ‘state capitalism’ (or of ‘state socialism’, or ‘national socialism’ as their apologists would have it) but in truth, the dictatorship of the state in WW1 GB or in 30s America under The New Deal, were far more effective dictatorships of capital, whether facing their own populations and productive needs, or, externally, arming and warring against their rivals (WW2), their ‘democratic’ facade notwithstanding. These totalitarian tendencies (on both the political and economic levels) have not been reversed in the past 40-50 years but accelerated.

The ICC has written extensively on the consciousness and organisation of the bourgeoisie in the past and present epoch, from the current pages of Internationalism, back to its foundation. The following link contains just two texts dealing with this issue if anyone really wants to understand where this organisation ‘is coming from.’   http://en.internationalism.org/node/2952 

The basic point, however, in this epoch, is that in the context of state capitalism, the differences between the bourgeois parties are nothing compared to what they have in common.  This is in no way contradicted by the current polarisation, for example, in US politics as ably analysed by Internationalism:  this is, at root, an expression of the fact that the bourgeoisie as a whole has absolutely no answers to the accelerating economic crisis of capitalism whichever way it turns and squirms.

The remainder of Allan’s Point 5 is, forgive my bluntness, a childish and mistaken rant about the alleged “stupidity” and “incompetence” of George W Bush and his clique (1) which completely swallows the democratic myth that it’s the personality of this or that elected leader which determines the policies or effectiveness of the state machine. And in relation to the mafia, it was the US state which, in the wartime ’40s, co-opted the mafia, Al Capone’s heirs (and not the other way around) to break strikes, get unions working productively for the war effort, etc, etc.

Finally, on point 6, Allan writes: Nor is it "proof" that 09-11 was an "inside job" to claim that because the attacks DID, INDEED, HAND ON A SILVER PLATTER TO THE BUSH GANG THE EXCUSES IT WANTED to do its imperialist attacks and wholesale decimation of rights in the U.S. itself, that THEREFORE it HAD to have been an "inside job."  One does not necessarily follow from the other.”

This is perfectly correct. However, it’s always useful to ask “who profits from the crime?” to analyse a sequence of events. What, IMO, Allan is rightly repulsed by is the very possibility that our elected leaders could quite coldly and cynically sacrifice the lives of its citizens to further its own ends. But then that’s the reality of capitalism, from the millions broken daily on the wheel of exploitation to the hundreds of millions sacrificed in local and world imperialist wars in order to preserve this increasingly irrational system. That’s an ‘inconvenient truth’ that the truth movements never talk about.

(1)    If you must enter Bush is bright/stupid territory, my money’s on this bourgeois scribbler.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=77 

jk1921
I think KT makes some good

I think KT makes some good points. I think the goal of the article was to try understand the "Truther" movement as a phenomenon of captialist decomposition and then to try to open a debate about the extent to which revolutionaries should get involved in these types of debates in examining the question of the Machiavellianism of the bourgeoisie. This question seems to be bit a sore spot in the revolutionary milieu, with the ICT often criticizing the ICC for a tendency to see events through a conspiratorial lens (especially when it comes to bourgeois campaigns to manipulate the class struggle). Of course, this didn't prevent the ICT from publishing a piece which basically endorsed the idea that no planes hit the Pentagon on 9/11! See here: http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-09-11/911-ten-years-on

On Allan's point: I don't think the article endorses the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. On the contrary, the article seems to want to distance the ICC from making such sweeping statements, perhaps, as KT points out, going a little too far in that regard. Moreover, to my knowledge, the ICC has never argued that there were no planes that crashed into the Towers and the Pentagon on that day or that the U.S. bourgeoise planted explosives in the Towers before hand or whatever. It is true that Internationalism published some articles basically concluding the U.S. bourgeoisie knew the attacks were coming, but let them happen. However, that is a far cry from arguing that there were no planes or that the U.S. bourgeoise planted explosives in the towers, etc. Perhaps Allan's reaction to this piece is precisely the type of response to these kinds of issues that the author would rather have the organization avoid?

 

 

baboon
I  was a bit surprised to

I  was a bit surprised to read, on the ICC's French website, a new introduction to the article "Pearl Harbour, Twin Towers..." saying that there wasn't the least doubt that the US bourgeoisie let 9.11 happen and this with the implication of the whole  US state. I personally think that there was an element of "let it happen" particularly with the information that the CIA had (and the FBI didn't). But I think that the article above is useful for saying that we can't know for sure and we have to distinguish ourselves from the elements that claim to know, ie, the truthers.

I don't think that the issue is the incompetence or not of Bush. What is important is the role of the major state players; the political administration, the military, the secret services and these moved in a machiavellian, conspiratorial manner from 10.11 towards imperialist war and a new stage of US imperialist "order".

As jk says, the ICT have now come up with the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a passenger plane?

radicalchains
media again

baboon wrote:

As jk says, the ICT have now come up with the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a passenger plane?

 

I've heard eye witnesses - those that helped clear the wreckage in fact from the Pentagon talk about the plane wreckage and the destruction! However, what is usually only presented by the media and conspiracy 'theorists' is images and commentary after this process had taken place or the tail end of it. At the end of the day the liberal bourgeois and not so liberal have a habit of leaving out actual facts - even whole events and this encourages ignorance and outright nonsense. To take another example, when was the last time if ever you saw the bombing of Iraq - not the stock shots of that one infamous bombing run at night, Afghanistan, Libya or Pakistan? Basic facts and realities are constantly hidden by the liberal bourgeois. As documentary flim maker John Pilger might say: "they have blood on their hands" - talking about the media, not the bourgeoisie! And I fully agree, in my personal experience, and I am 'only' in my late twenties they have been completely complicit with all the horrors and barbarism that has and continues to occur all around the world. This is a major problem and issue that is not fully recognised enough in my view. Without the awareness of what is actually happening in this world in all its horror and destruction you could go so far as to not blame workers for thinking really there are no wars going on, just the odd minor scuffle here and there. The violence should be and needs to be shown in its entirety. For one thing it is very agitational! In fact the independent media coverage (literally people on the ground uploading horrific videos and pictures to You Tube etc) of the Gaza attacks a couple of years ago got me off my arse and to a demonstration - ok probably politically pointless but can you imagine 'full disclosure' of current events around the world and the effect it might have on people? It would open up a much bigger space for alternative i.e communist ideas and action.

radicalchains
Amazing

baboon wrote:

As jk says, the ICT have now come up with the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a passenger plane?

 

Forgive me, but I thought you might be slandering them with a comment like that. I am simply amazed to find out that they have indeed printed such nonsense! It's not the end of the world of course but they should be asking themselves why some of their comrades have come to such absurd conclusions. 

jk1921
Not the End of the World

radicalchains wrote:

baboon wrote:

As jk says, the ICT have now come up with the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a passenger plane?

 

Forgive me, but I thought you might be slandering them with a comment like that. I am simply amazed to find out that they have indeed printed such nonsense! It's not the end of the world of course but they should be asking themselves why some of their comrades have come to such absurd conclusions. 

 

Its not the end of the world, but it sure sounds strange coming from the ICT--who have often criticized the ICC for conspiracism. I think this may be part of the point of the above article though. To what extent should the revolutionary organization get mixed up in these issues? I don't see a whole lot else to gripe about with the ICTs article, but that sentence could really cast a shadow on the entire enterprise for some. What good does it do?

radicalchains
 Sorry to be a pain but which

 Sorry to be a pain but which "sentence could really cast a shadow on the entire enterprise for some"? Not sure if you're talking about me, baboon or a sentance written by an ICT comrade. And yes I agree it is slightly strange when they have criticized others for 'conspiracism'. But I have taken this up on their website.

 

jk1921
Sentence

radicalchains wrote:

 Sorry to be a pain but which "sentence could really cast a shadow on the entire enterprise for some"? Not sure if you're talking about me, baboon or a sentance written by an ICT comrade. And yes I agree it is slightly strange when they have criticized others for 'conspiracism'. But I have taken this up on their website.

 

 

Sorry, I meant the sentence in the ICT article where they say that it was obviously not a plane that hit the Pentagon (not a direct quote). Its just kind of stuck in there and dosn't do much for the rest of the article, much of which is quite good.