In previous articles, I pointed out how a former German cadre at least neglected his duty to possibly thwart the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The information has so far not been picked up by the mainstream media, neither in the West nor in the Middle East and Northern Africa. There are a number of reasons why this may likely be the case: inter-Muslim considerations; interests of securitization; trauma; official complicity with the cadre; and the fact that the latter believed he could cover up what happened.
Here is to detail the five aforementioned points:
1) The two Muslims who, before September 11, originally conveyed the information about a forthcoming, major terrorist attack, may have been insiders or from a rival, more moderate Islamic group of unknown affiliation. Fear of inter-Muslim retribution, considerations of Muslim public opinion, or new alliances, may stand in the way of them going public. They might be seen by some as having given up on a cause seen by most Muslims as dangerous and negative – terrorism – but which some are indifferent towards, while a vocal minority sees it as something to be tolerated or even welcome, despite the fact that it manifestly tarnishes the standing of Muslims, especially in the West. The fact that the reputation of Islam is damaged by terrorism may be the initial reason for the two Muslims to warn about the major attack before September 11 occurred.
2) September 11 was, factually, not prevented. Suffice it to say that some falcons and hawks in Germany and elsewhere may have simply bid welcome to the War Against Terrorism, without the proper sensitivity, especially for the loss of lives which ensued from September 11, but also for the destruction of the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. Others may have had public peace in mind.
3) After traumatic events, there is often the reflex to neglect the deeper causes and to accept as fate that which is hard to embrace in the beginning. I do not mean to open old wounds, by this text, nor am I in a position to undo what ensued after the September 11 attacks, not knowing if, had 9/11 not taken place, reality would be a better, more bearable one. In any case, it will be a rather inconvenient truth for many touched or directly affected by the September 11 attacks to know that two Muslims issued a warning before the event took place. It is easier to accept that the attackers were all Muslim – and secretive enough to be able to carry out their targeting symbols of Western prosperity, freedom, and strength, namely the New York Twin Towers and the Pentagon. That is a black-and-white explanation which is not easy for the survivors, families, comrades, and superiors of the victims to cope with in the first place. Additional information rendering the affair more complicated would also be difficult to convey to the wider public. Besides, there are conspiracy theories around, especially in the Islamic world. Some may feel that any information beyond that of the official 9/11 Report may exceed what is to be condoned.
4) There are those who may have had a role in deciding upon not to go public with the pre-9/11 warnings – possibly from all sides of the political spectrum. The above-mentioned cadre, to point to the man in the middle, may have conveyed partial information to other officials in order to get away with his failure to act, thereby dragging in other people from a set of political formations, but that something I can only presume. What I can and will affirm is that the former German cadre stated that after the attacks, he used and expanded his network beyond Germany, thus hiding the truth by making commitments to his contacts – and also by way of attempted blackmail, at least in my case. Ultimately, it was the decision of the above-mentioned cadre not to follow up on the information conveyed to him. September 11 was the only major Islamist terrorist attack immediately after the said warnings.
5) My assumption is that the German cadre took the risk of a major attack being carried out because, at least in communication with his contacts, he claimed that there was insufficient information to prevent the major attack that was warned against and, secondly, because in case of failure, he would have personally been held responsible. He decided to bury his head in the sand and to later do damage control in highly questionable ways. What I do know is that he, and a partner of his, emphatically warned and threatened me never to talk about what I had heard and what happened subsequently. For conscientious reasons, I have decided against that.
Thorsten Koch, MA, PgDip