Written Sept. 19, 2001, Minor changes Oct 12, 2001

We are all sad about what happened at Sept 11, 2001. I had no words when I saw the pictures. What the terrorists did is unexcusably evil.

But what is currently going on in the USA scares me. US President Bush, who should be the rational one in such a situation, was quick to declare 'war against unknown' and to state that those (states) who give terrorists hostage will be treated as the terrorists themselves. Within hours, Osama Bin Laden was suspicted. The whole policy force of America is now hunting for evidences and proofs that Bin Laden is reponsible and doesn't seem to consider or investigate alternatives.

Given America's previous behaviour, it took me a few minutes after the attacks to predict all that (the suspiction of Bin Laden, the government speaking about war, the "hunting", the military stikes); actually, it is even worse than the worst scenario I predicted. It is worse, because I didn't think that the US would


What really surprises me is how loud the people are crying for revenge and how many of them do so. On IRC, I spoke to some American software engineer yesterday, who told me - straight in the face - that
and he seemed convinced that he is right, 'because this is a case of national self-defense', as if that were an excuse for everything. (As a non-American, I did not take this personally, although I certainly could have, but I reserve the right to call him a nationalist.) If it were really Arabs who did this terrorist attack, then I would guess that they used exactly the same reasoning (just the other way around) to justify their actions. In other words, this attitude that so many Americans show now is the reason for wars breaking out.

And no, they are not in war yet. It's only war, if both sides constantly kill each other. They are not there yet luckily . But the attitude cited above will lead them there. Ask people, who were in war, what war is. If you really know, then you also know how bad war is. You would try to avoid war whenever possible. And in this case, it is possible to call this just a very big and bad terrorist attack. It were people on US territory killing other people on US territory. Legally, it's not much different from a bank robbery (just with much more lifes lost).

Will we really, ourselves, see convincing proof - so convincing that an unbiased jury in US courts would state "guilty" - that Bin Laden was actually the man behind the attacks? Will innocent people be killed because of the US military "campaign"? We have to see what will happen.

If the latter happens, the US is not much better than the terrorists who attacked the US. The US would show that it is willing to violate human rights itself, if that is in US interest. Ironically pretending to protect freedom, democracy and civilization, it would be violating the most basic foundation of it (as the political world was able to define it). (Please check out the preamble and the first articles of the Human Rights. Note the words "inherent", "unalienable" and "equal".)

Despite what the governments and the media try to tell you, it was not an attack against freedom, democracy and civilization. If Bin Laden is guilty, it was an attack specifically against America and its foreign policy.

Let's come back to the suspected Bin Laden again. We can learn from criminal investigation here: If a murder is well-planned, the murderer often tries to make somebody else look suspicious. In other words, the first suspect is often not guilty (even if it might look to make sense at first). Here, the first suspect is of course Bin Laden. You don't have to be a genius to get to that conclusion.

But does it really make sense for him to commit that crime? Terrorists are usually open about their deeds - that's the way terrorism works. Terrorists want to send a message to the world and certain parties. This doesn't work, if nobody knows who the attackers were and they have no chance to tell the world their story. So far, there was no statement from Bin Laden that his organization carried out the attack.

Did the Arabs really gain from this attack? What they provoked was a bold military action and lots of violence from the US against the Arabs. Did you notice that Isreal sent armed cars to Palestina, without being provoked? You didn't? You don't care? Too bad for Palestina. Did Bin Laden have a chance to send out his messages to the world how bad the US treats the arabs? No. In fact, the world is on America's side now much more than before. So, in fact, the Arab terrorists lose here, and it was to be expected.

And remember that this attack was very well thought out. The attackers knew the US and its security systems well. The actions of the USA were so predictable (see above) that you have to assume that everything what happens now is what the attackers wanted. This reasoning makes Bin Laden much less suspicious.

"But there are indications that point to Bin Laden.", you might say. What are those indications really? An arab with a flight license who happened to be on board of the plane? Somebody said, the voice recorder had an arab voice? As for the latter, I never heard that voice. The former could be a coincidence. Both of it could be arranged by a smart attacker to make arabs look guilty.

Most murderers make at least one error. It might be a small one. That's why you have to look out for things that do *not* fit in your theory, not concentrate on the indications that support your view and ignore the rest. What made me wonder is the telephony of the one hostage in the Pennsylvania plane with his wife. The terrorists allowed him to phone home and say goodbye! What's confusing is that the terrorist obviously stood next to the hostage and paid attention that the man doesn't tell, who the attackers are. The hostage said (from my memory): Hostage: "The attackers are... " - His wife: "Yes?" - Hostage: ".. I don't know who the attackers are. I don't know.". It seems like the attacker prevented in the last moment that the hostage told his wife (and so the world) who actually did the attack. Why would terrorists be keen to hide that they did the attack?

Let's look who really profited from this attack (I'm not saying that any of them is guilty, just that it is thinkable):
All of them have a reason and the ability to have performed the WTC attack. The only thing, that makes you think it weren't them, is assumed morals of them. But assumed morals turned out to be wrong more than once in the past (again: compare murderers). It is entirely possible that I have seen the movie JFK once too often - but can you be sure?

You see how complex that topic is? Claiming self-defense and killing the first best suspect and his neighbors is not exacty the right reaction. In fact, matters are so complex that I think that the normal judical system (criminal investigation collecting proves, a court trial under normal law etc.) would serve much better here. (If the suspects are foreigners, the US can still use its special forces to drag them to the US - no need to kill them and innocents by military.) But the US already (inoffically) declared war, which changes matters. Too bad for the truth, which we might never find now.

(You see the parallels to the Kennedy assasination now?)

Update

Feb 8, 2002

I can't believe what happened after that.

The odd thing is that hardly anybody spoke up against all that. In contrast, the vast majority of US people "stood united behind their president" (the surveys say, at least). Don't bother that he doesn't even have a democratic legitimation.

I find that very irritating. If a few thousand people get killed, the president probably did not do his job well, right? Why should he suddenly get the support of his people, then? Personally, I'd expect exactly the opposite. I guess, that whole concept of patriotism escapes me.

If I ever get to be the president of the USA, I must remember this: If you have a popularity problem, just kill a few thousand of your own people and claim it were the terrorists, start a war and kill even many more foreigners "accidently" in the revenge, remove essential rights of your citizens, ignore human rights - and (almost) the whole nation will love you.

It's not like these were new ideas. Am I the only one watching Hollywood movies like The Long Kiss Goodnight (Tödliche Weihnachten) or The Siege (Ausnahmezustand)? Not that I'd believe it right away, but why does nobody even consider the possibility that any of that might happen in real life? At least, those rumors about the CIA influencing foreign politics using terrorists are obviously true.

Links

Other statements I agree with

Some Perspective on "The Disaster" - David Lorge Parnas Unsere Stärke wird uns nicht helfen - Susan Sontag