Jeremy Corbyn is NOT a 9/11 Truther but he DOES make a point

Last Updated: December 17, 2015
19
Jeremy Corbyn 9/11
Ads

New UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn can’t seem to escape controversy, even if most of it is political mudslinging and media spin. This week’s hot button issue is the so called controversial comments he made in the past about the September 11th, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and Pentagon in Washington.

A staunch anti-war advocate, in 2003 he called out what he saw as “manipulation” of the narrative by Western leaders in order to exert influence over Afghanistan.

“After September 11, the claims that Bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made … This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”

Not satisfied with accepting his comments as a self evident fact, based on exactly what the Bush and Blair governments did – blame Bin Laden right away, invade Afghanistan where none of the alleged culprits were even found, and then begin meddling in their affairs – the majority of the mainstream media have branded what he said as something shocking and offensive.

Meanwhile the 9/11 Truthers (activists who believe elements of the US government and other actors where the real terrorists behind of the attacks) have erroneously adopted Corbyn as one of their own, even though he has never expressed that he thinks it was an “inside job.”

In a strange case of mutual goals, both the mainstream media and the online alternative media seem to want you to believe that Corbyn is a Truther. The former because they think it will paint him as crazy fringe nut job who shouldn’t be supported, and the latter because they think it bolsters their 9/11 Truth activism.

Back in reality all that can really be concluded by Corbyn’s comments is that he logically assessed the situation at the time and was rightly skeptical of the two men who are now both disgraced for their foreign policy – Bush and Blair.

If you’ve forgotten the situation in 2003, US and UK forces had been in Afghanistan for over a year traipsing around the mountains searching for Bin Laden’s high-tech bond villain cave, and had found absolutely nothing. Unable to admit they’d jumped the gun they instead decided to engage in Afghanistan’s domestic issues and fight the Taliban, who prior to the invasion had offered to hand over Bin Laden and his cohorts if Bush could provide them with his location and evidence that he was actually behind the attacks. Neither was provided, but they invaded anyway.

Likewise, beyond patriotic and frankly Orwellian statements that the media lapped up about evil Muslims, no solid evidence was presented to the public either. So Corbyn had every reason to question what the hell the troops were doing fighting the Taliban and installing puppet president Hamid Karzai. Corbyn’s comments have been absolutely vindicated, not least because US Seal Team Six thought it was ok to allegedly assassinate Bin Laden in Pakistan instead of trying him for the crimes he was accused of.

Of course this is without mentioning the the revelation that the Bush Administration seemed to have already planned to invade Afghanistan before 9/11 even happened, something Corbyn may or may not have been aware of at the time.

“President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks … The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” reported NBC News in 2002.

“Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October,” reported the BBC.

Meanwhile in 2003 Bush and Blair were also starting the war in Iraq with a very similar propaganda formula. Or in layman’s terms, lying! In fact on many occasions elements of both governments would try to link Al Qaeda to Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein because the public were already scared to death of the terrorists, so if Saddam was supporting them, then we simply had to invade.

We’re still waiting on the Chilcot report to confirm what we already know – Tony Blair lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction and should be held accountable for those actions.

It’s then absurd that Blair can still be given a public platform to speak his mind after Afghanistan and Iraq, but Corbyn is forced to the fringes for pointing out some basic truths.

Advertisment
  • Les

    Spot on.
    A very clear concise comment on what actually happened and not what the US and her ratpack want us to believe.
    The US and her ratpack have stumbled from one disaster (of their own making ) to another, and all of them based on lies.
    Chile,
    Vietnam,
    Afghanistan,
    Iraq,
    And now Syria.
    No lie to big, no decency or honesty just more and more disasters.
    American foreign policy is the biggest danger facing the world.
    PROVEN FACT !

    • zodiac12

      Absolutely. I have said for a long time now that US foreign policy is extremely dangerous. Of course, it is based upon the US wanting to dictate universally. Bush only became President by cheating, or being helped to cheat. We all knew, amazingly, that this was the case through general information available at the time. Did we do, or say, anything about it? No, Blair’s tongue was so wedged up dubya’s rear end he couldn’t speak. These are the ‘people, ha,ha’ who were ‘running, another ha,ha’ the most powerful and psychotic nations on planet earth.

    • Albury Smith

      The “US and her ratpack” finally committed ground forces against al Qaeda in October, 2001 after its THIRD deadly SUICIDE attack on the US in just over three years, and none of those suicide attacks on the US was a disaster of anyone’s making other than al Qaeda’s.
      The “biggest danger facing the world” is hardly a nation or group of nations whose only military actions since 2012 have been aimed at stopping this:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719991/Horrific-new-photographs-ISIS-atrocities-prompted-Obama-act.html
      If you’d like more “PROVEN FACT,” keep up with the news from Syria & Iraq and read the history of ISIL.

      • John StackDecker

        Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the US. A criminal organization called Al Qaeda did…those 3 times. Terrorism is and always has been a police problem handled by the FBI. Bush & Blair changed that. They abused their powers to utilize a military response. “Boots on the ground” was a war crime and crime against humanity in both military efforts.

        • Albury Smith

          So the US should just have sent in a SWAT team with a warrant to arrest bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the rest of al Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan after ~3,000 innocent people were murdered on US soil on 9/11/2001? Maybe Russia, Jordan, and France should just have sent Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Daesh a warning letter too.
          You only have 420 US representatives and 98 US senators to enlighten re: the 2001 AUMF, but maybe Rep. Barbara Lee will help you explain it all to them.

  • Albury Smith

    Osama bin Laden was being protected by Mullah Omar’s Taliban, and despite any promises they may have made, they had no intention whatsoever of turning him over to the “infidels” regardless of the overwhelming evidence linking him to al Qaeda’s 9/11/2001 Planes Operation suicide attacks on the US. After suffering its third deadly al Qaeda suicide attack in just over three years, and this time inside the US with a much larger body count, the US was not going to sit up and beg another radical Islamist to give up one of their own who’d just murdered nearly 3000 innocent people.
    MANY of the “alleged” culprits were found in Afghanistan or were chased across the border into Pakistan. The author is obviously blaming the victims here.

    • Keelan Balderson

      http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002image/netherpopup.gif

      At the point of invasion there was no overwhelming evidence, just a lot of rhetoric and silly drawings of elaborate cave fortresses to give the impression that they had a solid pretext. The so called Bin Laden confession tape wasn’t unearthed until 2004 and even then some experts rejected the US translation, claiming they heard what they wanted to hear.

      Corbyn was absolutely correct that all the public were given at the time were quick and loud assertions. Even if they had solid intelligence (we’ll have to take their word for it) they didn’t catch him did they, and then they decided to stay and force regime change while the Saudi bogeyman we were all bombarded with on the TV slipped off to a supposed allied country … to be found many years later, assassinated and chucked in the ocean, while Obama got a nice photo-op on the white house lawn. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to bring him in, interrogate him for all of the terrorist info he should have had, and then tried him for 9/11 with all that overwhelming evidence?

      I reject the claim that I’m blaming the victims, that is the victims in the towers, but the US government certainly had a careless foreign policy history in Afghanistan, backing the Mujahideen during Operation Cyclone, helping to funnel in guns, money and extremist literature, indirectly (and perhaps directly) supporting Bin Laden himself. The very consulate in Saudi Arabia that the Hijackers got their Visas to come to the US in the first place was a CIA front from that period. Then there’s the Saudi funding of the attacks, which is ignored because the US love the Saudis.

      • Albury Smith

        The evil US did not need a confession from bin Laden to link him and his al Qaeda group conclusively to the 1998 suicide attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam, the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Aden Harbor, or the massive coordinated Planes Operation suicide attacks of 9/11/2001 on the WTC, Pentagon, and most likely the Capitol Building — al Qaeda wanted the world to know they did 9/11, wanted the US military to go into Afghanistan and be defeated just as the Soviets had been, and left loads of evidence behind. At the point of invasion in October of 2001 there was not only overwhelming evidence that it was done by al Qaeda, but a nearly 100% vote in the US Congress for the 2001 AUMF in Afghanistan.
        The US “decided to stay and force regime change” IMMEDIATELY by routing the Taliban as a first priority, not in December or January when it finally dawned on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Franks and the rest of the inept administration and military leadership that they’d screwed up by trusting the Northern Alliance and other Afghan “friendlies” to get bin Laden at Tora Bora instead of using the 10th Mountain Division and other US forces.
        You ARE blaming the victims here; the principal reason bin Laden had for targeting the US was its military presence near Mecca, and that came about because the Saudis invited the “infidels” instead of his “holy warriors” who he fantasized had single-handedly defeated another great superpower in Afghanistan in the ’80s. Aside from freeing Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and stopping the genocide OF MUSLIMS later that decade in Kosovo, the evil US was engaged in no foreign military actions at all when bin Laden and his killers woke them up in 2001.

        • Keelan Balderson

          You can keep saying it, but it doesn’t make it true. The Home of the Brave (and world’s policemen) presented zero evidence at the time, refused to present any when asked, and used blatant propaganda like the fortress diagram in place of evidence. They may have assumed it was Bin Laden, they may have been right, BUT that’s not the same thing as having evidence.

          In fact under the UN Charter it can be strongly argued that the invasion was in illegal, as Afghanistan as a state did not attack the US and none of the accused were Afghans!

          Even if the Taliban harboured them the US refused to prove this at the time, and even then that’s no justification to invade the country and certainly not justification to stay and force regime change. Imagine if some Canadians who had stayed in the US for a bit, bombed France, and then France invaded the US and forced Obama out of office LOL.

          Now couple this with the fact that the US were already planning to invade, it seems they didn’t so much care about evidence, just public perception.

          And quite clearly NO Al Qaeda didn’t want the world to know they did 9/11 because Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with it publicly until the dubious confession tape years later. And even today the vast majority of people in Afghanistan (where the US invaded with no evidence), have no idea 9/11 even happened.
          http://www.rawstory.com/2010/11/think-tank-afghans-dont-know-911/

          To your final point, it is not relevant that the US did not have any – overt – foreign foreign military actions in the region, because they’d already helped create the situation in the years prior. Operation Cyclone was the most expensive covert op up to that point, they funnelled billions of dollars in to the country and didn’t so much care where it ended up. Some of it clearly went to Bin Laden himself – “the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels,” according to his own brother Salem.

          They had also been sending aid to the Taliban as late as 1996 and were greasing the wheels of a pipeline deal in 1998.
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

          Then there was their Visa program left behind in Saudi Arabia which allowed the hijackers to just waltz in to the US.

          “Only one of the 15 provided an actual address – and that was only because his first application was refused. The rest listed such not-so-specific locations as “California,” “New York,” “Hotel D.C.,” and “Hotel.” One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply “No.” But he still got a visa.”
          http://old.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

          Careless meddling policies, the kind we’re seeing right now in Iraq, Syria, Libya et al. They support the extremists when it suits them, then say we must invade to stop extremists.

          • Albury Smith

            Your specious and fallacy-laden Gish Gallop notwithstanding, the 9/11/2001 al Qaeda suicide attacks were not a whodunit even one day after the fact, and US intelligence was easily able to link the 19 Arab Muslim hijackers to bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization very conclusively long before the first boots hit the ground in Afghanistan on October 7, nearly a month after the attacks. If you had a better understanding of history, you’d know that Pakistan, UAE, and Saudi Arabia were the ONLY nations in 2001 who recognized “Afghanistan as a [TALIBAN] state”:
            http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551
            and after THREE deadly al Qaeda SUICIDE attacks
            in just over 3 years, the US very rightfully sent in troops to drain the swamp. Mullah Omar was even crazier than bin Laden, and the US realized that he very definitely would NEVER have voluntarily turned over his Muslim guest to any non-Muslim state despite his relish for grandstanding to humiliate the evil American infidels.
            Since TWO very clear al Qaeda declarations of war on the US (the 1996 & 1998 fatwas), bin Laden’s gloating over his 9/11 Planes Operation, praise for his 9/11 “martyrs” and Allah, and his threats of “more Manhattans” if the US didn’t leave all Muslim lands immediately are all ignored by you in favor of ONE convenient denial to stroke Mullah Omar while he scrambled to (relative) safety in Pakistan under intense military pressure from the US, look at what he, al Qaeda, and the relatives of al Qaeda operatives HAVEN’T said since 2001. Despite having full access to the world’s media and being related to men being hunted by the most powerful military on earth, the very wealthy and influential bin Laden, Zawahiri, Azzam, and other families have never denied their role in 9/11, nor has any al Qaeda member except for bin Laden’s ONE denial a week after the attacks.
            It took the US nearly a decade from al Qaeda’s ~1988 formation to realize the full extent of the threat they posed to Western nations, and your cherry-picked examples of the (very effective) covert US aid to the Afghan Mujahideen via Pakistan’s ISI during the Cold War, the US business meetings with the Taliban before al Qaeda’s deadly suicide bombings of two US embassies in Africa, and some of the many intelligence failures that preceded 9/11 are no big news, nor do they make any case at all for the absurd idea that the US secretly wanted ~3000 innocent people murdered on US soil in 2001.
            I think you’d vastly improve your grasp of what
            happened on 9/11/2001 and why the US responded as it did if you took the time to read “The Looming Tower,” a Pulitzer Prize winner by Lawrence Wright, “Holy War, Inc.” and “Manhunt,” both by Peter L. Bergen, who along with his CNN colleague Peter Arnett personally interviewed Osama bin Laden in 1997, and “Against All Enemies,” by Richard A. Clarke. It’s laudable not to like wars, but simplistic knee-jerk anti-war rhetoric absent a thorough understanding of all of the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks adds nothing to the dialogue.

          • Albury Smith

            Your specious and fallacy-laden Gish Gallop notwithstanding, Keelan, the 9/11/2001 al Qaeda suicide attacks were not a whodunit even one day after the fact, and US intelligence was easily able to link the 19 Arab Muslim hijackers to bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization very conclusively long before the first boots hit the ground in Afghanistan on October 7, nearly a month after the attacks. If you had a better understanding of history, you’d know that Pakistan, UAE, and Saudi
            Arabia were the ONLY nations in 2001 who recognized “Afghanistan as a [TALIBAN] state,” and after THREE deadly al Qaeda SUICIDE attacks in
            just over 3 years, the US very rightfully sent in troops to drain the swamp.
            Mullah Omar was even crazier than bin Laden, and the US realized that he very definitely would NEVER have voluntarily turned over his Muslim guest to any non-Muslim state despite his relish for grandstanding to further humiliate the evil American infidels.
            Since TWO very clear al Qaeda declarations of war on the US (the 1996 & 1998 fatwas), bin Laden’s gloating over his 9/11 Planes Operation, praise for his 9/11 “martyrs” and Allah, and his threats of “more Manhattans” if the US didn’t leave all Muslim lands immediately are all ignored by you in favor of ONE convenient denial to stroke Mullah Omar while he scrambled to (relative) safety in Pakistan under intense military pressure from the US, look at what he, al Qaeda, and the relatives of al Qaeda operatives HAVEN’T said since 2001. Despite having full access to the world’s media and being related to men being hunted by the most powerful military on earth, the very wealthy and influential bin Laden,
            Zawahiri, Azzam, and other families have never denied their role in 9/11, nor has any al Qaeda member except for bin Laden’s ONE denial a week after the attacks.
            It took the US nearly a decade from al Qaeda’s ~1988 formation to realize the full extent of the threat they posed to Western nations, and your cherry-picked examples of the (very effective) covert US aid to the Afghan Mujahideen via Pakistan’s ISI during the Cold War, the US business meetings with the Taliban before al Qaeda’s deadly suicide bombings of two US embassies in Africa, and some of the many obvious and very well-known intelligence failures that preceded 9/11 are no big news, nor do they make any case at all for the absurd idea that the US secretly wanted ~3000 innocent people murdered on US soil in 2001.
            I think you’d vastly improve your grasp of what happened on 9/11/2001 and why the US responded as it did if you took the time to read “The Looming Tower,” a Pulitzer Prize winner by Lawrence Wright, “Holy War,
            Inc.” and “Manhunt,” both by Peter L. Bergen, who along with his CNN colleague Peter Arnett personally interviewed Osama bin Laden in 1997, and “Against All Enemies,” by Richard A. Clarke. It’s laudable that you don’t like wars, but simplistic knee-jerk anti-war rhetoric absent a thorough understanding of all of the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks adds nothing to the dialogue, NOR DOES YOUR DECEITFUL REMOVAL OF MY COMMENT HERE.

          • Keelan Balderson

            I have no access to the comment moderation, so I don’t know what happened there, but I saw your post previously.

            … Your suggestion they had evidence right away is based on nothing more than hindsight and your blind faith in how they ultimately responded. Things were a lot more contrived if you look back objectively. One camp was even trying to finger Saddam.

            You are also conflating a lot of things. Whatever Al Qaeda may have done prior to 9/11 does not equate to evidence that proves they were behind 9/11 (I shouldn’t even have to type that). Secondly the discussion is about evidence presented in a public forum to justify the response at the time, not simply the Bush administration’s assertions or what they claimed their intel agencies had discovered. This I believe is what Corbyn was getting at. Just because the US says something loudly doesn’t mean they automatically get the green light and are above scrutinization. If it wasn’t a whodunit from day one, then that is the issue.

            Sure, Mullah Omar is crazy, but he’d seen his country invaded twice by meddling outsiders – first the Soviets with the US playing friends so they could Vietnam the evil communists, and then by the US itself.

            His relationship with Bin Laden seems to have been vastly overblown. Even the State Department now admits that the Taliban tried to negotiate a solution following the 1998 Embassy bombings, and restricted Bin Laden’s movements. They did not see eye to eye at all. Sadly the US doesn’t negotiate they just do what they want.

            Bin Laden actually denied the attacks multiple times in the September and then again in December.

            “the (very effective) covert US aid to the Afghan Mujahideen”

            … billions of dollars, missing stinger missiles, the training of future terrorists, visa programs that allowed the 9/11 hijackers in to the country.

          • John StackDecker

            You are correct. Your critic doesn’t know his elbow from his asshole.

      • Albury Smith

        The illustration you posted was apparently a mostly-fictional creation of the Western press that was embellished by then-SecDef Rumsfeld:
        http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
        There definitely are caves in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan that had been used for decades by the mujahideen, and bin Laden did reportedly improve on them with the heavy construction equipment he’d used extensively in both Sudan and Afghanistan, but they were hardly the high-tech marvels depicted at the time he was fleeing into Pakistan in late 2001.

  • Lucas Smith

    How does the author respond to the huge amount of insider trading that took place in days pre 911?

    -Put options (bets to fail) on American Airlines & United increased over 280x the normal level in the days leading up to 911 (No similar trading occurred on any other airlines)
    -In the trading week before 911, Raytheon (Tomahawk missile manufacturer) stock climbed by 37%.
    -On the day prior to 9/11, the purchase of call options (bets to win) for Raytheon increased by 600%. Their missiles are what lead the Iraq bombing campaign
    -Over a dozen other stocks that were directly related to 911 had similar activity in the preceding days

    “”This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence,” Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News said today on ABCNEWS’ Good Morning America.”

    • Keelan Balderson

      I’ve heard people try to explain that away, and I’d have to look at it again in more detail because I’ve forgotten their argument, but on the face of it, it does suggests some people knew what was going down.

      • Lucas Smith

        Thank you for the response. I’d also be interested in hearing a counter-argument, as the conclusion I’ve arrived at (so far) has been that the SEC knew about the suspicious trading, but did not investigate because they deemed that those responsible had “no conceivable ties to terrorism”.
        What they, and the 911 commission, failed to explain is how exactly anyone knew to begin with.

  • Robert Sparks

    Corbyn is an Islamic apologist. I believe it’s very possible that the American Neocons knew about the attack in advance and let it happen but 9-11 was still an Islamic attack. Corbyn wants nothing more than the total destruction of Britain and Europe through suicide by Islam.

  • njn

    Today is the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do believe the US government had something to do with the attack, if nothing else than to turn away from any indication such an attack was coming, much like the warnings about Pearl Harbor a generation ago. The choices before and after were criminal, yet the guilty people only have to live with their choices because they will have no sanctions against them.
    And it is interesting that the Republican’ts have conveniently forgotten most of their party’s stupidity, only to blame the other party of what they themselves did.