The memorial for the fifty-two people murdered by Islamic extremists in London on the 7th July 2005 was covered in graffiti on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the massacre.
Even by the standards of the international campaign to persuade us that Muslim terror attacks are really the work of Western governments, this was a new low.
On the night of July 6/7, 2014, “truthers” wrote all over the Hyde Park memorial to the victims: “4 Innocent Muslims”, “Blair Lied Thousands Died” and “J7 Truth”:
This is an example of the kind of reasoning which inspired this tasteless protest:
This article, by Saman Mohammadi, argues that Philip Zelikow, the lead author of the official report on September 11th, 2001, was deliberately lying when he said that the massacre was carried out by Muslim extremists:
As far as Zelikow and the National Security Regime in America are concerned, it is better that the American people view 9/11 as an attack by a radical Muslim terrorist group than to know the truth – that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy at the highest levels of the Bush administration, the United States government, and the Israeli government.
Governments defend a combination of truth and falsehoods. But this is no less true of conspiracy pseudo-theorists. The truthers who defaced the London memorial combined the undoubted truth that “Blair Lied Thousands Died” with the falsehood that the alleged perpetrators of the 7/7 massacre were innocent.
It’s true that the official report fails to say that “the American empire is the biggest agent and sponsor of terrorism in the world”.
It’s true that “Blair Lied Thousands Died”.
These truths are not evidence that Muslim terrorist attacks are faked.
The Mohammadi article adduces Zelikow’s disagreement with Robert Stinnett’s book about Pearl Harbor as evidence that Zelikow tells lies for the government. This is a clear example of the circular reasoning on which truthers depend. In order to use his disagreement with the idea that the US government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, as evidence that he is part of a conspiracy, you have to assume that the US government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, and that Zelikow knows it.
Unlike the pseudo-theories of the truthers, Stinnett’s book about US foreknowledge of the attack really does defend a theory. (It’s easy to tell a theory from a pseudo-theory – you ask the putative theory’s defenders “what would you expect to be the case if your theory is wrong?”)
I attended a book launch addressed by Stinnett, and it was pretty good, but I wasn’t convinced.
Perhaps Zelikow wasn’t convinced either. Perhaps that’s why he wrote an article disagreeing with Stinnett – because he disagreed with Stinnett.
What is likely to be true if the truthers are right? What if they are wrong?
If Zelikow was part of the conspiracy to attack Iraq, the official report on 9/11 would have said Iraq was involved. It didn’t.
If he was in league with Israel, as Mohammadi claims, the official report would not have denied the involvement of Hezbollah. It did.
Typically for a truther, Mohammadi assumes that Zelikow’s disagreement with him must be a deliberate lie, and implicitly, that the same is true of all who reject the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
That’s one reason why the 9/11 Truth Movement is entirely negative for Palestine solidarity, the anti-war movement, and the class struggle.
Unlike these useful idiots of Islamic conservatism, I don’t assume that, because someone says something which I think is stupid, dangerous nonsense, they are deliberately lying. The sad truth is, they really believe it.