Robert Wrubel wrote:
>
> Yoshie: please explain, then, what is a Marxist
> analysis of 9-11? Is it just an example of
> "blowback", an accident resulting from a foolish
> attempt to frustrate Soviet Russia in Afghanistan?
> But that is awkward, since it may not be true and
> because it is essentially the administration's
> explanation. In fact, Al Q'aeda may not exist, or
> have had any role in 9-11.
This implies conceiving Marxism as a TOE (Theory of Everything), and also denies the really significant element of contingency in social relations. The explanation you reject as awkward is perfectly satisfactory. Bin Laden has claimed credit. End of argument about the facts of 9/11. Further argument on those facts is a more or less deliberate effort to handicap building an anti-war movement.
Your "In fact" belongs in the same realm as arguments for creationism or aliens in Roswell. Not worth arguing about in serious company.
Carrol