11 October 2006
Dear Ms. Greenberg,
I read an interview with you on PBS Frontline posted Oct. 10, 2006 on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/interviews/greenberg.html.
I concur with your overall analysis of socalled terrorist prosecutions in the US, most of which are not at all terrorist prosecutions. In fact, the entire rhetoric on the threat of terrorism is so overblown that it amounts to deception. I recall that even in years where only within 10 people died in the US of what could be designated as terror acts, counter-terrorism budget was already over $6 billion. This alone demonstrates that counter-terrorism activities are not driven by the danger that terrorists represent for US citizens, but by another, undeclared, agenda.
Just a few observations I wish to make to your article. You write: "My complaint is as follows: First of all, there’s no way to say why we haven’t had an attack in the last five years. I would submit that one of the big reasons is Afghanistan and the war in Iraq — that the energies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups have been focused on the Middle East."
The above proposition is based on two assumptions that are unproved, namely that (a) Al Qaeda represents a bona fide terrorist organisation opposed to the United States and (b) that Al Qaeda masterminded and perpetrated terrorism in the United States (9/11).
First, there is evidence that US agencies were heavily involved in what is called Al Qaeda, not only during the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union but also in the last decade. Such involvement was evident in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in various other connections, for example through the person of Ali Mohamed, who was an FBI informant and was protected by the US, and simultaneously – as we are told – a person who trained most Al Qaeda leaders. If it is true that he trained most Al Qaeda leaders and directed terror operations, it is quite remarkable that he was not convicted in the US. There is much more circumstancial evidence linking Al Qaeda to the CIA. The question arises, therefore, whether Al Qaeda is not simply a trademark for a group of "Muslims" working (covertly) for the US as a fake terror organisation in order to discredit Muslim nations and provide a pretext for US interventions worldwide. The question cannot be simply dismissed in the light of the various facts on the relations between US agencies and Al Qaeda.
Second, there is no evidence attaining the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" (let along beyond a shadow of doubt) proving that Muslims committed the mass murder of 9/11. There is no evidence that any of those named by the FBI as the hijackers boarded the four aircraft of 9/11. There is no evidence proving that AA77 crashed on the Pentagon. There is no evidence that UA93 crashed in Pennsylvania. The FBI recently admitted to possess no "hard evidence" linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 and thus unable to charge him.
The above facts suggest that the terror prosecutions in the US were not pursued in good faith but as a deceptive policy. The same applies to the detention of alleged terrorist in various countries, such as in Afghanistan, and the establishment of gitmo. This would go far to explain why terror prosecutions in the US did not achieve much, if anything. For in reality the entire story that Muslim terrorists somehow hide in the US and prepare terrorist acts, may be a figment of the imagination or rather fabricated propaganda. It does not require, though, much common sense to observe that no sane person in the US, least of all Muslims, would wish to engage in self-destructive conduct, such as terrorism. Such acts would serve no purpose whatsoever and entail only risk of death for the perpetrator. Crazy people do exist, but generally they do not come in organized groups.
I would be happy to hear your reactions to my observations and wish you success in your work.