David Cole, the author of Republican Party Animals, recently posed this question to readers on his Facebook page. He writes:
After 9/11, the official line among the anti-neocon, anti-Zionist, anti-“statist” crowd was that we had experienced “blowback.” The “blowback” argument goes like this: “We’ve been fucking with the Muslims for too long, invading their countries, pushing them around, disrespecting them. And now, we’re reaping the organic, natural, and expected results. The Muslim people have become angry, and they’re fighting back. BLOWBACK!”
Now, however, fourteen years after 9/11, the same crowd appears to have replaced “BLOWBACK!” with “False Flag!” The False Flag argument goes like this: “There is NO Muslim terrorism. It’s just JOOS or the CIA or Baron Rothschild faking attacks in order to frame Muslims. These attacks are phonies, carried out either by agents of the JOOS/CIA/Rothschilds, or by Muslim traitors who’ve been paid off or recruited by the conspirators. But regardless, it’s not organic.
Okay, here’s my question:
“BLOWBACK!” and “False Flag!” are incompatible. They can’t both be true. “BLOWBACK!” demands that the terror events organically originate from Muslims, by their own desires, and their own motivations. Muslims are pissed, and they’re fighting back. “False Flag!” is the opposite. The Muslims are NOT fighting back. Rather, “we” (the West, the Joos) are the ones faking the attacks and framing them.
So which one is it? “BLOWBACK!” or “False Flag?”
Blakeney’s responses are as follows:
Why is the following scenario so unfathomable for you? Muslims are angry because the Zio-West has destroyed their countries etc etc. The most angry and aggressive of those Muslims are viewed as assets rather than as adversaries by the CIA/Mossad/MI5 because they can be exported to the West to serve as patsies in false-flag events which enable unpopular foreign and domestic policies. …
There is a distinction made by the scholars involved in this field between MIHOP (made-it-happen-on-purpose) and LIHOP (let-it-happen-on-purpose). If you recruit the patsy, bring the patsy to a Western nation, arm the patsy etc etc then it is not organic. It was made-to-happen-on-purpose. Some peasant in Yemen may be angry but he would never fathom actually doing such an attack without it being made possible by the false-flag planners. Furthermore, the actions of such a patsy are then typically used to implement policies against Iran, Hezbollah etc who had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, with most of these false-flags additional acts of complicity take place. More than 2000 architects and engineers have demonstrated that the smooth, symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7 was a controlled demolition. That wasn’t done by Muslims taking orders from a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. As you admitted in the interview we did together, you’ve not studied this subject adequately. You’ve not read David Griffin’s eleven scholarly books on this subject, for example.
It’s quite simple David. More information has come to light since the time when many were saying 9/11 was “blowback” which demonstrates that the blowback hypothesis is inadequate to explain the myriad of holes in the official conspiracy theory. Things like the apparent controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, the unlikelihood of ragtag, low brow al-Qaeda people who were not very apt pilots successfully executing fantastical maneuvers and outfoxing the multi-billion dollar US intelligence and defence apparatus. The convergence of evidence makes it highly improbable that 19 guys with boxcutters did 9/11 without any support from inside the US government.
9/11 was the neocons’ self-styled ‘New Pearl Habour’ and Israel’s ‘Hannukkah miracle’ which kick started more than a decade of American war-making in the Middle East. All of this was planned beforehand and was an ‘open secret’ in neocon circles. As a result of the past 15 years of US aggression in the Muslim world infinitely more Muslims are now willing to risk everything to harm the US and its allies, much to the liking of the Zionist neocons who aim to perpetuate an artificial ‘clash of civilizations.’ Now that there is an abundance of disaffected Muslims who seek revenge, all the intelligence agencies have to do is encourage them to commit a violent act by way of an undercover agent or informant, covertly provide them with the weaponry, and ‘let it happen.’ There’s a very fine line between a ‘let it happen’ and ‘made it happen’ style false flag. Either way there is complicity from the State which the media consistently hides from the public.
Also David, your premise is not logical. You’re acting as if there is an internal inconsistency in ‘truther’ thinking in that everyone who once proposed 9/11 was blowback are now saying it was a false flag. Some people, like Chomsky, Greenwald, Ron Paul, etc. still maintain the blowback hypothesis, whereas many have suggested it was a false flag from the beginning.
My book Grand Deceptions: Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries makes a strong case for Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks and other false flags.