Peter Tatchell and 9/11

I'm not a big fan of Peter Tatchell. Over the years, whilst acknowledging its overall validity, his 'in-your-face' style of protest about 'gay-rights' had me mildly bemused. However, it was when he started to demand that hunting be outlawed (ie that a fundamental aspect of my life be made illegal) whilst similarly demanding all manner legal safeguards, freedoms, special treatment etc for his own minority, that I was forced to conclude that he was just another hypocrite, blinded by his own particular brand of prejudice.

Having said all that, his readiness to put himself at risk for his beliefs (as when he got a beating whilst trying to 'arrest' Robert Mugabe in Brussels back in 2001 for example) remains impressive. Similarly with his latest piece on 'Comment is Free' about 9/11. He risks being branded a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy nutter - which is exactly the thrust of many of the comments on the piece.

Anyway; here's my take on the matter:

The principal issue raised in his piece has nothing whatever to do with wacky conspiracy theories and everything to do with reasonable demands for a thorough, open and properly funded inquiry - free from the partisan pressure of 'The official Narrative' - into the biggest terrorist attack in history. That is EXACTLY what the authors of the existing inquiry report say did NOT happen - and it's not much to ask. To those who say 'it's obvious what happened, move on' etc etc (usually accompanied by outraged ridiculing insults), I say it is very far from obvious. It is no exaggeration to say that 9/11 has changed the course of history. 'Cui Bono?' should therefore dictate a major strand of any such inquiry. After all, from readily available public information, it's not much of a stretch to postulate that key figures in the US Administration had, at the very least, both the motive and the means to make the success of such an attack more likely.

'Perish the thought' is the standard response, but that's exactly the problem. The thought that one's own government could be complicit in such an event is so scary and abhorrent that it is immediately discounted out-of-hand. The net result is that 'Kill the messenger' is applied to anyone who raises the issue - in spades - as is amply demonstrated in the article's comments.

Those with 'both motive and means' know that such a reaction can be relied upon absolutely.

After all we're not called 'The Sheeple' for nothing you know.