#9
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001
From: "JOSEPH DRESEN" <DRESENJO@WWIC.SI.EDU>
Subject: response to Boris Kagarlitsky-5448
I am sure that there will be a number of responses to the idiotic article
by Mr. Kagarlitsky. It was absolutely stunning.
First of all, if a so-called "far-right" American group were to
launch a
terrorist attack in the US, as in Oklahoma, certainly the Pentagon would be
a target - such groups focus their hatred on the federal government. But
the World Trade Center would not be such a target, and certainly not the
innocent lives on board the four hijacked aircraft. But who in the past
has tried to bomb the World Trade Center? Who has hijacked aircraft? Who
employs suicide bombers?
Aside from motive, Mr. Kagarlitsky examines opportunity. The hijackers
were able to move around with impunity before the attack, he writes. No
kidding. In the United States, there are no restrictions on internal
travel. If they were to be considered "above suspicion", it is because
Americans are not suspicious of travelers. Does he have any idea of how
many millions of people travel around the United Stats by air??
Even more outrageously, he theorizes that the training necessary to
accomplish this task is not available in an "underground terrorist
group",
but comes from "people with considerable military experience." The
planes
were taken over by terrorists wielding knives - I'm sure they have a course
on using knives in terrorist camps. As for the skills to pilot the planes,
it has been documented that the hijackers obtained this training from
civilian flight schools in the United States, paying with cash. As for
getting the knives on board, it is an open secret how ridiculously lax
security was in American airports. As for the conspiracy, it was larger,
but similar, to the conspiracy in the first World Trade Center bombing and,
especially, the bombing of the embassies in Africa.
As long as Mr. Kagarlitsky is engaging in flights of fancy, perhaps he
should try to imagine which groups are better penetrated by US intelligence
- groups of Americans drawn together by a vague distrust and hatred of the
government, or a group of radical fanatics bound together by faith, tribal,
and familial ties, based in hostile countries. Go even further, Mr.
Kagarlitsky - who has the funds to carry out such an operation - paying
thousands of dollars for plane tickets and flying lessons and lodgings
(among other things) in cash? Is it a group of disaffected, low-ranking
army veterans and survivalist crackpots, or might it be radical fanatics
with access to the personal fortune of bin Laden or possibly even one or
more state coffers?
And let's take a look at his learned use of quotation marks. Correct usage
demands that you are actually repeating what somebody else said or wrote
(as I did with Mr. Kagarlitsky's words in a previous paragraph). Honest
usage demands that you do not take words out of context. Mr. Kagarlitsky
is neither honest nor correct in his article. Who are these politicians
repeating "over and over" that "Moslems are subhuman barbarians
and you
cannot conduct negotiations with them. They are not like us, and thus our
criteria of democracy and human rights do not apply to them"??? And he
goes on, quoting "some" and "others" saying equally charming
things. Would
he be so kind as to identify what American politician (the KKK doesn't
count!) referred to Moslems as subhuman and when? If he can do so, I would
be happy to abjectly apologize. Certainly, as Mr. Kagarlitsky writes,
there have been attacks on Moslems and mosques in the aftermath of the
attack in the US. There has also been a sharp negative response to these
attacks on the part of the FBI and our leaders, as well as in the media.
Those attacks are not being tolerated.
Finally, in a conclusion that is even more erratic and inaccurate than his
preceding arguments, Mr. Kagarlitsky writes that the nameless, faceless
"they" I suppose he means the right-wing American
"masterminds" (his
word) who somehow "easily" (his word) convinced 19 Muslims to lay down
their lives in the attack are trying to arrive at a "final
solution" -
ethnic cleansing and genocide of Muslims.
Let me just add here that I don't know if I should be amused or sickened
over his usage of the Reichstag and "final solution" metaphors to
describe
what is going on in the United States.
I can only hope that this article is some kind of parody sparked by
resentment on his part over theories published here and elsewhere that the
tragic apartment bombings in Moscow were not carried out by Chechen
terrorists, but by other "forces," to use his word and sentiment.
In sum, according to Mr. Kagarlitsky, it "cannot be excluded" that
the
attacks were organized by forces (later, "masterminds") within the
United
States. I am afraid that it also cannot be excluded that Mr. Kagarlitsky
doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
