response by Barrett on Elias Davidsson's views on 911 (pulled from end of KB Responds to Steve Alten which Gret posted)

There are good reasons to suspect that Zionism may have been a key factor in 9/11, reasons that have nothing to do with "hatred" and "prejudice." Alongside the evidence discussed by Bollyn and others, there is the big picture to consider. Here is my response to Elias Davidsson, who thinks 9/11 was a US imperial op and that those pushing for the Zionist interpretation are muddying the waters.

Elias,

The big-picture argument for Zionist primacy in 9/11 boils down to:

The US needs energy, and advantageous terms of trade, from the Muslim-majority lands of the Middle East and Central Asia.

The people of those lands will never accept a Jewish state in Palestine, hate the US for supporting Israel, and will eventually take over their own governments and/or punish the US in every possible way if the US continues to support Israel.

Therefore, the US has two choices: 1) Throw its weight behind the Palestinians (and Muslims), establish a peaceful "protection (against Russia/China/India) for energy" partnership of equals with the Muslim lands, including a liberated/decolonized Palestine; or 2) Continue to support Israel and thereby be dragged into a war against the world's Muslim population for as long as Israel exists as a Jewish state occupying Palestinian land. (Note: One of the key objectives of the Af-Pak war is the Zionist one of breaking up Pakistan and getting rid of its nuclear capability.)

Choice 1 would seem to benefit the US more than choice 2. The oil companies want choice 1. They have always supported the anti-Israel "Arabists" in the State Department; they have always tried to deal with "rogue" (anti-Zionist) governments like Qaddafi, Saddam, Iran, etc. but are undercut by the Zionists, as explained by James Petras; they want stability, not instability. Instability is bad for business.

Since it would be in the US national interest to throw Israel to the wolves, as it appears from the pro-Zionist viewpoint, an extremely powerful campaign has been mounted in the US, beginning decades ago, to ensure that Zionists control US Middle East policy. To that end politics (where roughly half of all federal campaign money comes with Zionist strings attached) and journalism (where more than half of decision makers are Jewish Zionists) have been taken over.

9/11 cemented the US in a permanent war against Muslims. It was modeled on Pearl Harbor; intensive military psychological research showed that Americans still hated the Japanese half a century later, and the point of 9/11 was to get the same kind of effect and lock in the war for many decades.

Who benefits from a decades-long US war against Muslims? Not the US -- its economy is already staggering under the load.

Israel may or may not be able to survive this US vs. Muslim 100 years war, but without that war, Israel's demise would be guaranteed. Thus Israel (and Zionist hard-liners in the US who ran Cheney's office) had the motivation to take the gigantic risk 9/11 entailed. Some corrupt military money-grubbers and goose-steppers may have gone along with it, but I can't see them as the originators and prime movers. Maurizio Blondet's analysis of 9/11 as a Zionist coup d'etat, discussed at http://www.mujca.com/luttwak.htm , still seems a reasonable hypothesis in light of the facts.