You are here: Home » General » The Perpetrators of 9/11
If you need context, see here and for more detail here.
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
If you’re going to go that route, the top photo should be Mubarak and maybe some of the Egyptian military leaders who after the assassination of Sadat rounded up thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood, tortured them, and laid the foundation for them being worldwide Jihadis. OBL was the face and bankroll of AQ prior to 9-11, but almost all the most important figures, up to Zawahiri, were Egyptians.
Gah, saw what the links were to but didn’t realize it was specifically to the day of the coup, which I’d forgotten was also 9-11. Too bad there isn’t a way to delete a comment.
And while I know Eric can sometimes be provocative, and there are people who’ve made such linkages, I know better than assume he’s so stupid or ideologically blinkered to push that convoluted an argument about 9-11-2001.
I thought Erik was holding Pinochet, Nixon, and Kissinger responsible for Porsche.
No, for the emergency dial-up system.
I’ve never been able to figure that one out. On my telephone I have a ’9′ but not an ’11′.
I hear ya. I’ve been trying to get thru to 7-11 for like forever.
I think Michael Bloomberg’s the perpetrator here. That guy would tolerate socialism if it meant getting rid of the Big Gulp.
I thought F. A. Hayek was responsible for that one.
I assumed it was both, but I don’t have any opinion on 911′s so I left that to others.
Chief or lead perpetrators would be a more accurate title. There were a lot more than three people involved in the overthrow of Allende and the subsequent crimes of the Pinochet regime. It shouldn’t be forgotten there were lots of other lesser perpetrators whose actions were absolutely crucial to the coup. Blaming everything on Nixon, Kissinger, and Pinochet does a lot to obscure the guilt of those acting under them.
Gee thanks I had no idea that there were more than 3 people involved. I guess a blog post with pictures every single Chilean general, American copper magnate, and all members of the CIA stationed in Latin America would have satisfied you.
No, I just noted that chief or head perpetrators would have been a more accurate title. There has for instance been a huge shift in Holocaust studies from looking only at the actions of Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich. The strata of perpetrators was considerably broader and only dealing with the very top leadership gives a very incomplete view. A more nuanced view looks at the various levels of perpetrators, the victims, and the various shades of bystanders. I know you have to disagree with everything I ever write or you will be expelled from your position of privilege among the American Left, but the Great Man theory of history is a bit outdated.
“position of privilege within the American left”
Yes, my leftist friends (I have a few) pay Loomis an annual subscription fee of $1,000.
That sounds slightly less prestigious than an outhouse attendant.
Yes, it was funny, and IMHO intentionally so. Strike me pink, but I agree with J Otto completely on this one. There may have been lead agents, but blaming any three evildoers is just like the neocons crowing about killing the #2 man at Al Quaeda. Every time it happened.
By all means, take out Pinochet, Nixon and Kissinger, and throw in Bush, Cheney and any other bagmen you want. Others will take their place and evil will be done.
Humanity, baby. It’s trigger men all the way down.
Wow, for the very first time ever on the Internet somebody has agreed with me on something. I knew it had to happen eventually.
Shorter Otto: dumb geologists don’t know there’s these things call rocks.
Shorter me: fuck grammar.
Why don’t you spend your time on posting on your own blog, J. Otto, instead of trying to tweak and correct the posts at LGM to your own exacting and unwritten specifications?
Because the only person in the world who reads my blog is my mother. It is easier to send her an e-mail or phone her.
That’s about 20% of the audience here that takes anything you write here seriously.
Well you take me seriously and so does Loomis otherwise you wouldn’t be so annoyed at me. You would just completely ignore me.
I don’t take you seriously at all. I find most of your comments really dumb, such as in this thread.
My late brother Robert was an Aspie, and I’m sorry if J. Ottos’ responses here remind me of some of my own interactions with him.
I take most of what you post here seriously: Seriously dumb.
You don’t have Asperger’s Syndrome, do you, J. Otto? If you did, that would explain a lot……….
and who the fuck are you?
On behalf of Aspies everywhere, f*** off and do a little more research.
To my eyes, at this stage in the internets existence, J Otto is some sort of trailbraizing genius
I take the Ghana puns very seriously.
Has Otto been featured in the Onion recently?
More seriously, I actually enjoy some of Otto’s comments. He can be incredibly funny and he can also be informative. He can also be a little bit weird. My suggestion is enjoy the good Otto and ignore the bad.
Yep. Otto is a really bright guy, who is one of the worst writers I’ve ever come across.
This like a layup for more (totally deserved) self-promotion from SEK.
J Otto, unlike SEK, would know that Leftists like Loomis control The Library. Also, people who boink in other people’s offices? Stalinist liquidation of office-holders as a class.
There has for instance been a huge shift in Holocaust studies from looking only at the actions of Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich
Since serious study of the Holocaust is generally considered to have begun with the publication of Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews in 1961, and that Hilberg’s core argument was that the Shoah should be seen like a bureaucratic machine that once started didn’t need major contributions from the top, I’m not sure what that statement is supposed to convey.
Leaving out that University of Chicago Economics Department group photo really was a bit of an oversight. But, yeah. I haven’t heard better nominations for your top 3 war criminals from that little mid-course correction.
Certainly the Chicago School had a huge influence on how Chile was run after the coup, but would it be accurate to implicate them in what happened before the coup? Did the Pinochet crowd come in to power already committed to that approach to economics?
While members of the Chicago School didn’t themselves personally commit human rights violations, they were well aware of the brutal nature of the regime and explicitly supported those brutal actions (after the coup, obviously). Before the coup, Hayek had made statements for decades that he would support precisely such a military dictatorship if it warded off a Communist regime. That’s not specifically about Chile, but it’s clear he was thinking about South America as an exemplar of what he was talking about. He also quickly came to Pinochet’s defense within weeks of the coup.
But … but …
The glibertarian Chicago School supported a Big Gubmint dictator like Pinochet??? Unpossible!!!
something something The fish rots from the head something something.
I strenuously object to the failure of this post featuring 3 pictures to contain a nuanced accounting of every last individual who played any role in the coup that deposed Allende and the subsequent crimes of the Pincohet regime!
In addition, all subsequent mentions of Hilter and Stalin on the interwebs should also contain mentions of every single individual in the Nazi and Soviet regimes who ever did anything bad.
And in excruciating detail.
I looked up Kissinger’s age (he’s 90) and was reminded that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, people talk about Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize being ridiculous. And of course they are right. But it’s far from the worst selection the Nobel committee ever made.
Obama’s prize was silly, but Kissinger’s was actually evil.
Lets hope his, Obama’s, doesn’t become evil. Yes, I know I pushing hard but I worry. Grew up in the sixties and watched too many people go over to the dark side.
If you believe that US is one of the world’s most militaristic cultures and you believe that Obama has reined that in, then his winning the Nobel makes a good bit of sense. You can acknowledge that there were better qualified candidates (as he did) while simultaneously acknowledging that he has made a profound effort to rein in US militarism without going ‘full pacifist’… And that’s where we need to be.
Obama had been in office less than six months when they gave him the Peace Prize; there simply wasn’t enough time for him to have done anything significant in that direction.
One of the main purposes of the Nobel Prize is to promote the work of people who are at a critical juncture in their work, and whose efforts could benefit from the award.
At the time Obama was awarded the Prize, he had just reopened the nuclear disarmament talks that ultimately resulted in the NEW START accords. That is effort was ongoing, not completed, was the point.
International arms reduction negotiations are, along with “peace congresses” and “fraternity among nations,” one of the major criteria for the Prize.
Yeah. It always seemed to me that they gave him the prize for the virtue of being U.S. President while not being George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.
I wish those two weren’t so immune to shame so they could realize that someone was given the Nobel Peace Prize for not being them!
An effort, yes. Profound, not so sure. What is most disappointing is that we have not had the discussion of where we need to go and what we want to be as a country and civilization. I would have hoped that even though many things are not possible, Obama could begin to discuss the future meaningfully on a national level. If they aren’t going to let him do anything, at least talk. We can’t move forward with discussing big ideas. I recognize the nature of the reactionary powers and the difficulty. I want him to try harder.
correction; without discussing big ideas
I was never all that impressed with Hitchens’ non lit-crit writings, but I approved of his obsession with Kissinger (even if it did make him a little crazy).
The Peace prize is basically a poltical prize and sometimes has to be given to somebody that does not deserve because of politics.
You mean that wasn’t a Doonesbury fabrication??
Wait, obviously not THE 9/11 though LOL
Good people do not talk about my
here is a remembrance of Allende by Marc Cooper, who actually worked in his administration.
The Trials of Henry Kissinger had a really good segment on Chile and the overthrow of Allende. An unrepentant old CIA guy somewhat proudly talked about how he used a diplomatic pouch to slip in guns that were used to assassinate Rene Schneider, the army commander-in-chief.
When talking about September 11, 2001, in the context of blowback, it’s kind of amazing with all of the people the US government and its associate agencies have murdered over the years that the amount of blowback hasn’t been all that severe. Maybe Wikileaks and a greater appreciation of how the world is wired will change all of that.
[...] socialist president, replacing Allende with a brutal right-wing dictatorship (hat tip to LGM) •Echidne discusses how statistics showing young men are slackers living in their parents’ [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
Who are we?
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Switch to our mobile site