9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[David Guyatt]

Allow me to propose a continuum of deep political interpretations of 9/11:

1) The govt. story: who could have known in time to stop determined haters of America who are willing to die? No one.
2) The story of malfeasance -- who wouldn't try to cover it up?
3) Disaster capitalism: being ready for a terrorist act to happen and being read to take advantage of it.
4) LIHOP: Letting a known operation to take place.
5) MIHOP: Creating a false flag operation from the ground up (both 4 and 5 are intended to create the global war on terror benefiting the MIC)
6) Strategy of Tension

Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for adopting positions from option 4. Option 5 positions are often criticized. Charlie, your answer confirms what I have long thought. Deep politics forum uses so many definitions of "deep politics." I think it would be helpful to work up a better working definition.

Lauren - in my judgement, these positions are not mutually exclusive.

Let me use an example to illustrate.

A small group of individuals who are part of the armed wing of banned group LNM, organised in a highly compartmentalised cell, plot a bombing. Their controller, Z, is an asset of intelligence agency X. He has been supplying the cell with weapons material, and encouraging them to commit action A to create fear and tension. On the night, Action A fails & the cell turn to Action B. The only person outside the cell who knows of Action B is controller Z. If Action B is thwarted, controller Z - who is the highest ranking intelligence agency asset in LNM - will be exposed. Z and his intelligence agency handler agree to allow Action B to occur. Dozens of ordinary people are kiled and maimed.

Is this LIHOP, MIHOP or Strategy of Tension?

By my reading, it an impure mixture of all three.

Disaster capitalism is the opportunistic exploitation of the aftermath of a horror, and is always likely to happen.

Btw the scenario above is based on a couple of very real incidents that my co-founders will probably recognise.

I agree Jan, too narrow a definition would, I suspect, impede rather than enlighten our joint efforts to understand and highlight deep political actions.