Japanese MP Questions the Causes of 9/11

I only recently submbled upon this video of a segment of the debate in the Japanese Diet in January, in which Fujita Yukihisa, a member of the official opposition, interrogated the government on the validity of American claims that Al Qaeda was the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

To put this in context, there was intense debate in the Japanese Diet in January, 2008, over the renewal of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law (ATSML), which was the authority for the Japanese Self-Defence Forces (SDF) to provide logistical and humanitarian support for ISAF operations in Afghanistan. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was opposed to a renewal of the law, in part because there was evidence that the SDF had provided support to U.S. forces involved in operations in Iraq. Ozawa Ichiro, leader of the DPJ, has also taken the position that operations in Afghanistan constitute collective self-defence operations not authorized by the U.N., and thus Japanese participation or support of such operations are a violation of Article 9 of the Constitution (Ozawa’s legal interpretation in this regard is flawed on a number of levels. My view on this can be found here).

It was in the context of those debates that Fujita mounted a focused interrogation on the legitimacy of the government’s characterization of 9/11. The English sub-titled video can be accessed below:

There are 8 episodes of this debate, and the other 7 can be found at here. While the questioning begins with some reasonable lines regarding the distinction between treating 9/11 as a criminal act or an act of war, and the sources of the government’s information regarding the Japanese fatalities in the attacks, by the third episode in the recordings here, Fujita begins presenting “evidence” from conspiracy theory sources to suggest that the damage to the Pentagon could not have been caused by a commercial airliner. It develops into a full-blown questioning of whether Al Qaeda was in fact the perpetrators of the attacks.

The DPJ had a range of very legitimate grounds upon which to object to the extension of the ATSML. It is hard to understand such recourse to conspiracy theories, which can only have undermined the credibility of their entire position on the law. The fundamental issue at stake was the constitutionality of Japan’s participation in collective self-defence and collective secuity operations in general, and the operations in Afghanistan in particular. Fringe theories about the causes of 9/11 are entirely beside the point and counter-productive.

3 thoughts on “Japanese MP Questions the Causes of 9/11

  1. I’m glad to see you posted an article about Fujita’s presentation. I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s rather unusual that his presentation received little or no coverage in the American press given who he is and what he said regarding one of the most pivotal events of American history. With the media’s claim of always being on the lookout for an interesting and different story, you would think publishers would be racing to get this on the airwaves and in print.

    I have to disagree with your statement about Fujita’s “recourse to conspiracy theories” being “entirely beside the point and counter-productive” as I’d argue that it depends on whether or not the questions he raises have any validity. If Al-Qaeda didn’t carry out the attacks, I would argue that the policy Japan decides to take as related to the so-called “War on Terror” should no doubt take that into account. That is, if the “War on Terror” is a fraud, why should Japan in any way support its proponents?

    I would urge you to investigate further with an open mind. I used to think that much of what the 9/11 Truth movement had to present was not worth exploring and diverted people from more important, pressing and obvious issues. After I saw the footage of WTC Building 7, the building that collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM on that same day, I started thinking that maybe my preconceived notions might not be correct.

    There’s no shortage of entry points into the many contradictions surrounding the official story of 9/11. We’ve got a pretty good selection of the more reputable 9/11-related websites on the same site where you found the Fujita story (www.tampa911truth.wordpress.com) as well as some well-researched articles.

    An excellent place to start is Richard Gage’s presentation “How the Towers Fell”. Richard Gage is an architect with some 20 years experience and is a founder of the blossoming organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org). Here is the link to view the video:

    http://blip.tv/file/306082/

    I’d also recommend books by David Ray Griffin (The New Pearl Harbor, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 9/11 Contradictions). You can find videos of some of his lectures on Google Video (9/11: The Myth and the Reality, 9/11 and Nationalist Faith, 9/11 and American Empire).

    Also, Kevin Barrett’s internet radio shows are great as well. See http://www.mujca.com for more info.

    Even if you don’t agree with what is being said and the conclusions drawn, I think you’ll nonetheless find this info thought-provoking and well worth your time. Take care.

  2. Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I do not disagree with your point that if it was a fact that 9/11 was not perpetrated by Al Qaeda, then that fact would be relevant to the legitimacy of the invasion of Afghanistan, and thus the justification for Japanese participation in those operations.

    The problem is with the magnitude of the “if”. Given the abundance of evidence that Al Qaeda was the organization that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, including the public statements to that effect by Osama Bin Laden and other leaders within the organization, the burden of proving otherwise is heavy. The burden is increased by the lack of plausible alternative theories.

    The efforts to meet that burden have not been very persuasive. All of the “evidence” that I have seen advanced (and I confess I have not spent any time actually researching the issue, but speak only from what I have seen generally in the media) is in the form of raising questions (mostly technical) about the stated causes of the damage (i.e. a plane could not have caused the small hole in the Pentagon, the twin towers could not have collapsed by reason of the air-strike and fuel-fires alone, etc.). This poking of holes in the accepted theory is then coupled with what is largely pure speculation about who else might have profited from the attacks.

    My point with respect to the Japanese debate, is that there are important constitutional issues raised by Japan’s continued support for operations in Afghanistan. The opposition party’s digression into arguments based on what is still considered a fairly esoteric and fringe set of hypotheses, both distracts from the more important issues (for Japan) and undermines the force the opposition’s objections.

Leave a Comment