Historian Dr. Daniele Ganser: "911 - What is the so called 'war on terror' really?" (Cologne, 06 Nov 2017)

(Laura) #1

“The UN Charta actually bans the use of force.”


“If people tell you, all these wars in the middle east are to promote democracy, the facts don’t support that theory. In fact, democracy is being destroyed, if democratically elected leaders in the middle east nationalise the oil; then there is no respect for democracy whatsoever.”


Video description taken from youtube (emphasis mine):
Dr. Daniele Ganser is a Swiss Historian who is specialized in international politics after 1945. He is the director of the Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research (SIPER) in Basel, Switzerland. In this talk which he gave to a group of business people on November 6th, 2017 in Cologne, Germany, he asks the question whether the so called „war on terror“ is in reality a fight for oil and gas.

In the beginning of the talk Daniele Ganser explains that as a human family we today consume 96 million barrels of oil every day, that’s 47 supertankers. He explains the cheap oil in the Middle East is in muslim countries while oil sand from Canada or Deepwater oil from the Gulf of Mexico have higher production costs.

Daniele Ganser shows, that the government of Mossadegh in Iran has nationalized its oil but thereafter was overthrown in 1953 by the British secret service MI6 and the US secret service CIA. With the example of the Golf of Tonkin incident which started the Vietnam War in 1964 Ganser underlines the fact that wars were often started with lies. This was also the case when US President George Bush together with British Prime Minister Tony Blair attacked Irak in 2003 and claimed falsely that Irak had weapons of mass destruction. The talk recalls also secret warfare of the French secret service DGSE, who destroyed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in 1985 with bombs.

In the part on the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 the talk of historian Daniele Ganser focuses on the collapse of WTC7, the third tower which was not hit by a plane. While the NIST report of 2008 claims the building came down due to fire, other experts have argued that WTC7 has been brought down with controlled demolition. Ganser leaves it to his audience to make up its mind whether fire or controlled demolition destroyed WTC7 on 9/11.

(Joe Fury) #2

Its a massive wast of resorces and lives, it does serve the Eliets as a control stratige, with a chance for them to make a few Bucks on the side.

(pip linney-barber) #3

I think the 9/11 conspiracy saga is a complete waste of time and energy in the pursuit of a pointless delusion. Occam’s razor dictates here, in my opinion. There was clearly stated intent and motive by al-Qaeda prior to the attack. Their relio-ideological position can be traced back to at least the late 19th century, it has pedigree, and al-Qaeda’s stocks, it may be recalled, soared in the aftermath demonstrating some very decent strategic planning.

As for the idea of stealing resources underpinning the subsequent ‘war on terror,’ it’s nonsensical. The US did not steal Iraqi oil when in occupation, instead they sacrificed tens of thousands of lives and wasted trillions of dollars on an unwinnable war. And if resources were the motivation, why bother with Afghanistan?

Sorry, i think 9/11 conspiracies are utterly discreditable. I think, at their core, is a profound underestimation of human stupidity possibly inspired by a subconscious longing for someone to actually be in control of the world, when in fact the more obvious conclusion is that no one knows what the fuck is happening and we’re all, Islamic State and the US equally, just making shit up as we go along.

Having said that, the ‘war on terror’ has been a monumental waste of money and lives, a tragedy really. As deplorably short sighted as the ‘war on drugs,’ but that doesnt mean, for me anyway, that we need to invent deep State conspiracies to justify them, we’re just all a bit stupid at times.

(Laura) #4

I think we can agree that the ‘war on terror’ has been full of illegal invasions with devastating consequences.

My motivation for linking this lecture was not to tell you who is actually responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks (Ganser never actually takes a position on this), but to highlight the outright illegality of all the wars that followed.

Good question. I would ask it differently: What are Afghanistan’s natural resources? What is the geostrategic significance of Afghanistan’s location and natural resources?

It was perfectly obvious to me already in 2001 as a 11yo that the true motivation for invading Afghanistan is not women’s or children’s rights.

(Laura) #5

PS https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html

(pip linney-barber) #6

I don’t think anyone thought the primary motivation for invading Afghanistan was to protect women from the sadistic zeal of a crazy misogynist cult, getting rid of the Taliban was merely a positive externality (though obviously the Taliban still exist though it has to be conceded that they are at least not in control of the whole country anymore). The stated goal was to attack al-Qaeda. I see no reason why a conspiracy is required here. It’s true Afghanistan has natural mineral resources but extracting them, and shipping them (yes shipping) would be close to logistically impossible. For all intents and purposes, Afghani minerals are worth zero.

Thanks for linking that cnn article. I think i remember reading it at the time, or something similar. I think perhaps we’re talking passed each other, or perhaps i didn’t articulate my position as well as i might’ve (quite likely!).

I didnt mean to imply that there weren’t powerful lobby groups all on board for a bit of biffo in the middle east. Let’s not forget the arms manufacturing industry. But you also can’t disregard George Ws determination to finish the war his Dad started combined with a nation suddenly overcome with hawkish intent due to 9/11.

It’s complicated, it always is, but i just don’t accept the conspiritorial blame for what was a series of bad policies based on poor evidence being laid at the feet of a single industry or group. It was just a monumental fuck up that has cost the US far more than it has gained in tax revenue from Iraqi oil contracts.

(Joe Fury) #7

Got that right, never underestermate, it being personal.