I received this email from a freind who says her grandma sends her this stuff all the time. I thought I’d share this with you as well as my exasperated response.
[Begin Email]
{Identities removed}
Rather frightening!>>>>Subject: Fw: Muslim in the White House!!!>>>>Kind of scary!>>>>>>>>>>Something to think about as various ‘Party’ posturing takes>place…....................J.>>>>Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to black Muslim>Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and>White atheist, Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas.>>>>When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father>returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim as well,>moving to Jakarta with young Obama, when he was six years old.>>>>Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language Obama>spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholicschool”>in Jakarta.>>>>Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.>Mitigating that information, by saying that for two years, he attendeda>Catholic school.>>>>Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who>migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann>Dunham-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.>>>>Obama’s spin- meisters are now attempting to make it appear thatObama’s>introduction to Islam, came from his father and that influence was only>temporary, which is true. Obama Sr. returned to Kenya immediately>following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his>son’s education. But,>>Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham’s second husband, educated his stepson Barack>Hussein Obama, as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s>Wahabbi schools.>>>> Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists,>who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world. Since it is>politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political>office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ,>to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.>>>>> PASS THIS AROUND FOLK!!!!!!!!>>I I REALLY DID LIKE THIS KID…TILL I FOUND OUT HE WENT TO MUSLIM>SCHOOL….PROBABLLY A NICE GUY ....BUT DONT THINK I WANT A MUSLIM OF>ANY KIND FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U. S. AM I PREDJUICE????????? HELL>YES…..THINK TWICE BEFORE U CONSIDER HIM…WITHOUT THAT MUSLIM>BACKGROUND HE WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT CANDIDATE…...BACKGROUND>COUNTS….DID FOR ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS AND>CANDIDATED….....................JUST PONDER IT FOR AWHILE…..
[End Email]
.
.
.
I was quite pissed after reading this and dumped this reponse:
[Begin diatribe]
This is possibly THE most offensive thing I’ve ever read. This is backedup by NO fucking evidence, Obama is a fucking christian. And I’d like tosee the evidence that this school was first of all “wahabbi” in its’ denomination, and that it therefore MUST have procured its’ funds fromSaudi Arabia. If you want to indict barack’s background maybe you should stick
with what is TRUE and what he has admitted like the fact he was addictedto crack and a former gang banger.The fact these individuals who are PROPAGANDIZING add in the “huessein” part of his father’s name is toappeal to a United Statesian prejudice heuristic, so that we associate thisname with Ba’athist Saddam. Heussein is a VERY common name and it is often claimed that individuals named heusein are descendents of Mohammed. This
propaganda also mentions the fact barack’s mom was athiest.
One of the more offensive things in this is they bring up the fact that barack’s dad was a “black muslim”. This is purposely ambiguous. First ofall it attaches negative connotations to being black. Second of all itattempts to insinuate that Barack’s dad was some sort of “nation of Islam”adherent. Third of all Muslims are all fucking colors just like the 2nd largest religion in the world Christianity. Because the prophet’s of bothreligions have stressed the universality of their religion. This “universality”being in a lot of ways a theologicla backlash against the old testament’s“chosen people”. The sheer fact this bullshit sez he was a “black muslim” is adead giveaway that this shit is written by someone like david duke.
The following bullshit is a blatant (and not well disguised) attempt to propagandize middle-upper middle class white christians, most likely geriatrics who do not have the will, time, or energy to ascertain thefacts that contradict these prejudiced lies.
[Name Removed] if your grandma is into this shit….damn i dunno. I mean mygrandma’s a catholic, but she doesn’t vote for an oil and drug empire that had tiesto the third reich(Bushes) simply because he sez hes a christian. Youshould let your grandma know that guess what: there ARE evil people in theworld. and those people WILL lie to you if it brings them more power.
LOL this isn’t even “conspracy theory” because for a conspiracy it takes2 or more people. This is a “mind reading theory” lol, its some racist backwater christian hilljack claming that he knows a secret Barack hasnever shared with anyone, SHIT MAYBE EVEN BARACK DOESN’T KNOW THAT HE IS GOINGTO BETRAY AMERICA!!! roflmao
If you fuckers realize wahabbism is bad why not ask why our currentfucking leaders are in the pocket of the saudi royal family my fucking godreading shit like this just reminds me how fucking stuipd 90% of america is.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions, the evidence are lies, andthe conclusion has glaring holes. Why the fuck would a muslim make a bad president? Why does the fact an individual worshipped differently thenyou make then a bad muslim? The background that I think makes people bad presidents is when they come from criminal familes with businessconnections to the third reich like Prescott Bush. You want real evidence you rightwing screwheads, then look it up: “Prescott Bush” and “Nazi” and “pig iron”,the court documents are right there. See that is called EVIDENCE, itssomething you’ll never see substantiate itself when in reference to Barack’ssecret wahabbi agenda roflmao. [Name Removed] whoever sent you this shit should have ZERO credibility in your book imo. cause they ahve less than zero in mine,i’d consider the purveyor of this bullshit a willling disinfo agent, who is attempting to manipulate individuals getting them to embrace his agenda through lies and deceit. god damn this shit pisses me off. Well guesswhat this BLACK christian once said: “Judge a man not by the color of hisskin, but by his character.” His name was Martin Luther King, he was killedfor trying to unite us. This shit is a dime a dozen lies to divide us, getus to think we’re not all on the same side. whatever.
[End diatribe]
.
.
Thought I’d share that with you guys , just to let you know that we do have “enemies” in the information war. And disseminating memes IS activism.
Friday, January 26, 2007
9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
A book of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
I originally got this book because I am very excited about Peter Dale Scott’s future book, which he has released a sample chapter from . Little did I expect to find the perfect 911 truth book. This book is a collection of essays from credible academics and whistleblowers. This book is an investigation with a vast breadth of information. The best part is this volume is broken in to smaller easier to consume portions, thusly it is anything but challenging. I have not finished reading all the essays, but I couldn’t help but suggest this to everyone already. I want to transcribe a few essays, but I do not want to give anyone an excuse not to get this bad ass book, so i’m going to transcribe the preface. I will not be rechecking for spelling errors and I type incredibly fast, so….deal with it.
[Begin Transcription]In the period since September 11, 2001, some researchers outside the mainstream of public discourse have increasingly been discovering and presenting evidence that contradicts the official account of what happened that day, including the official account of who was ultimately responsible for the attacks. Given the role that 9/11 has played in subsequent history-serving as the rationale both for a global “war on terror,” which has thus far targeted Afghanistan and Iraq, and for extreme reductions in the civil liberties of Americans-the discovery that the official narrative about 9/11 was a lie would be a discovery of first importance. And yet thus far the mainstream media and most members of the academy have refused to explore the evidence that has been presented for this alternative narrative.The main rationale for ignoring this evidence, insofar as a rationale is given, is that the so-called evidence need not be taken seriously because it has been presented by “conspiracy theorists.” If analyzed, however, this charge provides no basis for discounting the proffered evidence.For one thing, we are all conspiracy theorists. A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more people conspire in secret to do something illegal, such as robbing a bank, defrauding investors, or having a spouse killed. Our newspapers and television news shows are filled with stories about conspiracies. Insofar as we believe any of these stories, we are conspiracy theorists. A second problem is that the official narrative about 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, alleging that the attacks were orchestrated entirely by Arab-Muslim members of al-Qaeda under the inspiration of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.In light of these two considerations, an alternative theory about 9/11 cannot rationally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory. Instead, the question becomes: which of the two conspiracy theories is the more probable? And the only way to answer this question is to examine the relevant evidence, asking which of the competing hypotheses can better accommodate all the relevant evidence in a consistent and otherwise plausible way.Confronted with this argument, journalists, editors, and educators may reply that the above term “conspiracy theorists” in a pejorative way, they have a more particular meaning in mind. They mean people who tend to see conspiracies, especially involving the US government, everywhere; who do not construct their theories on the basis of evidence but select and construe evidence in terms of their preconceived theories; and who, insofar as they appeal to evidence, use it to make wild inferences based on leaps of logic. Conspiracy theorists in this sense of the term can certainly exist within what has been called the 9/11 Truth movement. But there are bad and every crazy theorist in every field, from quantum and relativity physics to evolutionary theory to the history of religion. Crazy theorists in these fields do not discredit the sensible ones. The same should be true in relation to 9/11 studies-assuming, of course, that this field of study has some sensible theorists.This book, by demonstrating that it does, makes clear that alternative accounts of 9/11 cannot be dismissed on the grounds that they are offered only by people who fit the label of “conspiracy theorists” in the pejorative sense. All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11. Ten of them had earned the Ph.D. Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon. The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly. This combined testimony points to a twofold conclusion: the official account of 9/11 is false and this false account ahs been used to support an agenda that has been worked out in advance-the further extension of the American empire, most immediately in to Afghanistan and Iraq.Some of the chapters in this volume focus primarily on reasons to doubt the official account of 9/11. Some of them focus primarily on the way 9/11 has been exploited to further the American empire. And others deal somewhat equally with both issues.The chapter by David Ray Griffin, which is based on a lecture that inspired this volume, presents an overview of the most important evidence suggestive of complicity by the US government in the attacks of 9/11. Then, pointing to evidence that the motive would have been to advance the American empire, he argues that this connection reinforces the contention, already apparent on other grounds, that the project to create an all-inclusive American empire must be considered, on the basis of moral norms that are common to all traditions, an immoral project. The next three chapters focus primarily on evidence against the official account of 9/11. Karen Kwiatkowski assesses this account from her perspective as a former military officer, a scientist, an academic, and a person who was present at the Pentagon on 9/11. Pointing out that the 9/11 Commission contained no people capable of assessing the evidence from a scientific perspective, she says that it did not answer or even address any of her questions about the official story. Especially valuable is her eyewitness testimony about the west wing of the Pentagon shortly after it was struck, in which she reports that she saw neither the debris nor the damage that would be expected from an attack by an airliner. The chapter by physicist Steven Jones zeroes in on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center. He points to many features of these collapses that cannot be explained by the official theory, according to which the collapses were caused by fire (and, in the case of the Twin Towers, by airplane damage). He then shows that it is more probable that the buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions, triggered by pre-set explosives. Kevin Ryan, whose whistle-blowing action while he worked for Underwriters Laboratories is mentioned by Jones, argues that the question of the true cause of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings is of utmost importance, because it was what psychologically prepared Americans for the so-called War on Terror. Agreeing with Jones on the unscientific nature of the official report on the WTC collapses, which was put out by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), Ryan describes some of the behind-the-scenes details in the failure by Underwriters Laboratories to protest NIST’s distortion of evidence that it had supplied. The next two chapters discuss background information that may be important to unraveling the truth about 9/11. Peter Dale Scott focuses on the role of drugs and oil in American covert operations, especially the operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s involving so-called “Arab Afghans.” Saying that the American people have been misled about the origins of al-Qaeda, he describes its origin in the use of drug-trafficking Muslims by the United States and American petroleum companies in their quest to control oil. He suggests that secrecy in foreign policy formation has led to short sighted and disastrous strategies and that Congress should not give still more money to the very agencies that helped create the al-Qaeda network in the first place. Swiss historian Daniele Ganser’s contribution is relevant to one of the main a priori reasons Americans have had for rejecting the idea that 9/11 could have been orchestrated by our own government: the assumption that American political and military leaders simply would not do such heinous thing. He presents evidence, widely discussed in Europe during the 1990s but hardly at all in the United States, that during the Cold War, the CIA and NATO supported various right-wing movements in a “strategy of tension” to prevent left-wing electoral victories. The methods included staging “false-flag” terrorist attacks that would be blamed on the left to discredit them and justify their suppression. The next three chapters discuss problems in the ability of the American public to engage in a rational discussion about the truth of 9/11. Morgan Reynolds, as the first former member of the Bush-Cheney administration to declare 9/11 a false-flag operation, discusses the response by the academy: silence by most of it and ridicule and intimidation by his former university, Texas A&M, whose president, Robert Gates, was previously director of the CIA. Reynolds suggests that this kind of intimidation exercised by Gates may reflect a widespread problem within the academy, which would help explain the failure of most of its members to discuss the big lie of 9/11 and its connection to the government’s global domination project. Richard Falk, from whom Reynolds derived the phrase “global domination project,” suggests that the Bush administration probably either allowed the 9/11 attacks, or conspired to cause them, in order to facilitate this project. Discussing the official management of suspicion in relation to 9/11 is itself suspicious, he suggests that the inability to discuss the truth about 9/11 reflects a fear that dark secrets will be exposed. But until the truth about 9.11 is publicly discussed, Falk suggests, its paralyzing effect will prevent us from facing the structural deficiencies in the present global order. John McMurtry observes that the official story about 9/11 is transparently false; that the wars declared after 9/11 were in fact its strategic reasons; and that the so-called “liberation of Iraq” is an instance of what international law has determined to be “the supreme crime.” To explain why most Americans cannot see these obvious truths, McMurtry proposes the concept of a ruling group-mind, which screens out everything that does not fit its preconceptions. One of the many novel elements in McMurtry’s analysis is his explanation of why orchestrating 9.11 would have been entirely rational for the bush administration adnt he class it serves, given their goals and their ability to control any subsequent investigation. The final two chapters discuss the likely forces behind 9.11 in terms of the goal of global domination. Ola Tunander observes that the major effect of 911 has been to allow policies that were developed by influential US thinkers during the 1990s to establish a “Pax Americana” to be put in to practice under the guise of a global war on terror. Given the way in which state terrorism has been used in prior years, we can probably best understand 9/11 as an example of the kind of false-flag terrorism described in ganser’s chapter, used this time, however, to apply the “Strategy of tension” to the world as a whole.The idea of a group with a global domination agenda is explored in the chapter by sociologist Peter Phillips and two of his students. The global domination group, understood as the current version of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex,” is seen as as segment of the higher circle policy elites-the segment witht he most to gain from a US policy of global domination. Phillips suggests that investigations to determine ultimate responsibility for 9/11 and its cover-up might well begin with this group, the central members of which he seeks to identify. The various chapters contain, of course, much more than can be indicated in these thumbnail sketches. Each chapter presents as multitude of facts that have seldom appeared on mainstream radio and television or in mainstream newspapers and magazines. These facts, and the connections between them, have also thus far been largely absent in college and university classrooms, even in departments most germane to discussing the various kinds o evidence, such as departments of physics, chemistry, architecture, engineering, aeronautics, history, political science, economics, sociology, philosophy, and religion. The publication of the present volume-along with the establishment of a new organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (for which one of our contributors, Steven Jones, serves as co-chair)-signals the beginning of a new phase of the 9/11 Trust movement, one in which scholars will play an increasingly larger role. (see also Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 [Amsterdam: El sevier, 2006].) We hope that this book, besides convincing members of the public and the mainstream media of the seriousness and importance of the issues raised by this movement, will aos encourage specialists in the fields not represented in this volume to examine the relevant evidence that their educations have prepared them to evaluate. We have put out this volume in the conviction that 9/11 was not only the largest and least-investigated homicide in American history but perhaps also the largest hoax, with extremely fateful consequences for human civilization as a whole. If our educational community cannot address this issue, then it risks remaining merely “academic” in the worst sense of the term.[END TRANSCRIPTION]
I originally got this book because I am very excited about Peter Dale Scott’s future book, which he has released a sample chapter from . Little did I expect to find the perfect 911 truth book. This book is a collection of essays from credible academics and whistleblowers. This book is an investigation with a vast breadth of information. The best part is this volume is broken in to smaller easier to consume portions, thusly it is anything but challenging. I have not finished reading all the essays, but I couldn’t help but suggest this to everyone already. I want to transcribe a few essays, but I do not want to give anyone an excuse not to get this bad ass book, so i’m going to transcribe the preface. I will not be rechecking for spelling errors and I type incredibly fast, so….deal with it.
[Begin Transcription]In the period since September 11, 2001, some researchers outside the mainstream of public discourse have increasingly been discovering and presenting evidence that contradicts the official account of what happened that day, including the official account of who was ultimately responsible for the attacks. Given the role that 9/11 has played in subsequent history-serving as the rationale both for a global “war on terror,” which has thus far targeted Afghanistan and Iraq, and for extreme reductions in the civil liberties of Americans-the discovery that the official narrative about 9/11 was a lie would be a discovery of first importance. And yet thus far the mainstream media and most members of the academy have refused to explore the evidence that has been presented for this alternative narrative.The main rationale for ignoring this evidence, insofar as a rationale is given, is that the so-called evidence need not be taken seriously because it has been presented by “conspiracy theorists.” If analyzed, however, this charge provides no basis for discounting the proffered evidence.For one thing, we are all conspiracy theorists. A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more people conspire in secret to do something illegal, such as robbing a bank, defrauding investors, or having a spouse killed. Our newspapers and television news shows are filled with stories about conspiracies. Insofar as we believe any of these stories, we are conspiracy theorists. A second problem is that the official narrative about 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, alleging that the attacks were orchestrated entirely by Arab-Muslim members of al-Qaeda under the inspiration of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.In light of these two considerations, an alternative theory about 9/11 cannot rationally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory. Instead, the question becomes: which of the two conspiracy theories is the more probable? And the only way to answer this question is to examine the relevant evidence, asking which of the competing hypotheses can better accommodate all the relevant evidence in a consistent and otherwise plausible way.Confronted with this argument, journalists, editors, and educators may reply that the above term “conspiracy theorists” in a pejorative way, they have a more particular meaning in mind. They mean people who tend to see conspiracies, especially involving the US government, everywhere; who do not construct their theories on the basis of evidence but select and construe evidence in terms of their preconceived theories; and who, insofar as they appeal to evidence, use it to make wild inferences based on leaps of logic. Conspiracy theorists in this sense of the term can certainly exist within what has been called the 9/11 Truth movement. But there are bad and every crazy theorist in every field, from quantum and relativity physics to evolutionary theory to the history of religion. Crazy theorists in these fields do not discredit the sensible ones. The same should be true in relation to 9/11 studies-assuming, of course, that this field of study has some sensible theorists.This book, by demonstrating that it does, makes clear that alternative accounts of 9/11 cannot be dismissed on the grounds that they are offered only by people who fit the label of “conspiracy theorists” in the pejorative sense. All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11. Ten of them had earned the Ph.D. Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon. The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly. This combined testimony points to a twofold conclusion: the official account of 9/11 is false and this false account ahs been used to support an agenda that has been worked out in advance-the further extension of the American empire, most immediately in to Afghanistan and Iraq.Some of the chapters in this volume focus primarily on reasons to doubt the official account of 9/11. Some of them focus primarily on the way 9/11 has been exploited to further the American empire. And others deal somewhat equally with both issues.The chapter by David Ray Griffin, which is based on a lecture that inspired this volume, presents an overview of the most important evidence suggestive of complicity by the US government in the attacks of 9/11. Then, pointing to evidence that the motive would have been to advance the American empire, he argues that this connection reinforces the contention, already apparent on other grounds, that the project to create an all-inclusive American empire must be considered, on the basis of moral norms that are common to all traditions, an immoral project. The next three chapters focus primarily on evidence against the official account of 9/11. Karen Kwiatkowski assesses this account from her perspective as a former military officer, a scientist, an academic, and a person who was present at the Pentagon on 9/11. Pointing out that the 9/11 Commission contained no people capable of assessing the evidence from a scientific perspective, she says that it did not answer or even address any of her questions about the official story. Especially valuable is her eyewitness testimony about the west wing of the Pentagon shortly after it was struck, in which she reports that she saw neither the debris nor the damage that would be expected from an attack by an airliner. The chapter by physicist Steven Jones zeroes in on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center. He points to many features of these collapses that cannot be explained by the official theory, according to which the collapses were caused by fire (and, in the case of the Twin Towers, by airplane damage). He then shows that it is more probable that the buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions, triggered by pre-set explosives. Kevin Ryan, whose whistle-blowing action while he worked for Underwriters Laboratories is mentioned by Jones, argues that the question of the true cause of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings is of utmost importance, because it was what psychologically prepared Americans for the so-called War on Terror. Agreeing with Jones on the unscientific nature of the official report on the WTC collapses, which was put out by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), Ryan describes some of the behind-the-scenes details in the failure by Underwriters Laboratories to protest NIST’s distortion of evidence that it had supplied. The next two chapters discuss background information that may be important to unraveling the truth about 9/11. Peter Dale Scott focuses on the role of drugs and oil in American covert operations, especially the operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s involving so-called “Arab Afghans.” Saying that the American people have been misled about the origins of al-Qaeda, he describes its origin in the use of drug-trafficking Muslims by the United States and American petroleum companies in their quest to control oil. He suggests that secrecy in foreign policy formation has led to short sighted and disastrous strategies and that Congress should not give still more money to the very agencies that helped create the al-Qaeda network in the first place. Swiss historian Daniele Ganser’s contribution is relevant to one of the main a priori reasons Americans have had for rejecting the idea that 9/11 could have been orchestrated by our own government: the assumption that American political and military leaders simply would not do such heinous thing. He presents evidence, widely discussed in Europe during the 1990s but hardly at all in the United States, that during the Cold War, the CIA and NATO supported various right-wing movements in a “strategy of tension” to prevent left-wing electoral victories. The methods included staging “false-flag” terrorist attacks that would be blamed on the left to discredit them and justify their suppression. The next three chapters discuss problems in the ability of the American public to engage in a rational discussion about the truth of 9/11. Morgan Reynolds, as the first former member of the Bush-Cheney administration to declare 9/11 a false-flag operation, discusses the response by the academy: silence by most of it and ridicule and intimidation by his former university, Texas A&M, whose president, Robert Gates, was previously director of the CIA. Reynolds suggests that this kind of intimidation exercised by Gates may reflect a widespread problem within the academy, which would help explain the failure of most of its members to discuss the big lie of 9/11 and its connection to the government’s global domination project. Richard Falk, from whom Reynolds derived the phrase “global domination project,” suggests that the Bush administration probably either allowed the 9/11 attacks, or conspired to cause them, in order to facilitate this project. Discussing the official management of suspicion in relation to 9/11 is itself suspicious, he suggests that the inability to discuss the truth about 9/11 reflects a fear that dark secrets will be exposed. But until the truth about 9.11 is publicly discussed, Falk suggests, its paralyzing effect will prevent us from facing the structural deficiencies in the present global order. John McMurtry observes that the official story about 9/11 is transparently false; that the wars declared after 9/11 were in fact its strategic reasons; and that the so-called “liberation of Iraq” is an instance of what international law has determined to be “the supreme crime.” To explain why most Americans cannot see these obvious truths, McMurtry proposes the concept of a ruling group-mind, which screens out everything that does not fit its preconceptions. One of the many novel elements in McMurtry’s analysis is his explanation of why orchestrating 9.11 would have been entirely rational for the bush administration adnt he class it serves, given their goals and their ability to control any subsequent investigation. The final two chapters discuss the likely forces behind 9.11 in terms of the goal of global domination. Ola Tunander observes that the major effect of 911 has been to allow policies that were developed by influential US thinkers during the 1990s to establish a “Pax Americana” to be put in to practice under the guise of a global war on terror. Given the way in which state terrorism has been used in prior years, we can probably best understand 9/11 as an example of the kind of false-flag terrorism described in ganser’s chapter, used this time, however, to apply the “Strategy of tension” to the world as a whole.The idea of a group with a global domination agenda is explored in the chapter by sociologist Peter Phillips and two of his students. The global domination group, understood as the current version of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex,” is seen as as segment of the higher circle policy elites-the segment witht he most to gain from a US policy of global domination. Phillips suggests that investigations to determine ultimate responsibility for 9/11 and its cover-up might well begin with this group, the central members of which he seeks to identify. The various chapters contain, of course, much more than can be indicated in these thumbnail sketches. Each chapter presents as multitude of facts that have seldom appeared on mainstream radio and television or in mainstream newspapers and magazines. These facts, and the connections between them, have also thus far been largely absent in college and university classrooms, even in departments most germane to discussing the various kinds o evidence, such as departments of physics, chemistry, architecture, engineering, aeronautics, history, political science, economics, sociology, philosophy, and religion. The publication of the present volume-along with the establishment of a new organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (for which one of our contributors, Steven Jones, serves as co-chair)-signals the beginning of a new phase of the 9/11 Trust movement, one in which scholars will play an increasingly larger role. (see also Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 [Amsterdam: El sevier, 2006].) We hope that this book, besides convincing members of the public and the mainstream media of the seriousness and importance of the issues raised by this movement, will aos encourage specialists in the fields not represented in this volume to examine the relevant evidence that their educations have prepared them to evaluate. We have put out this volume in the conviction that 9/11 was not only the largest and least-investigated homicide in American history but perhaps also the largest hoax, with extremely fateful consequences for human civilization as a whole. If our educational community cannot address this issue, then it risks remaining merely “academic” in the worst sense of the term.[END TRANSCRIPTION]
/\/\V/\/1[|-|
Saw the movie Munich for the second time and my opinion has completely changed. First of all I must say that when I saw Munich the first time it was after I had seen Syriana. Now Syriana was a fucking incredible movie Robert Baer is a fucking bad ass. Syriana didn’t lie to me, it wasn’t sentimental it was to the point: Terrorism is exacerbated and allowed to happen because it is always mishandled by the west(whether maliciously or not is a question for another time). So seeing Munich so close after and actually being a little prejudiced knowing that this was spielberg making this. Well the move starts off real real fast, with the black september group sneaking on to the olympic grounds and being helped over the fence by olympians who can imagine nothing but benevolence from other humans in this placid world that is about to be shattered. The hostage takers are beating and pushing the scantily clad jews down who are piled together and clamoring to rise to the surface, holocaust symbolism anyone? So upon my first viewing I tuned out a little for the rest, because I figured this was another “everyone hates islamo-fascists” cog d conditioning for the war weary populace.
Well upon my second viewing this movie really came alive for me. If you don’t know the plot here it is: Black september takes a bunch of Israeli olympic athletes hostage in Munich. Their intention is to somehow further the goal of the creation of Palestine, how exactly this achieves that goal is up for debate, but that IS their intention. So the siege goes on for awhile, they demand to go to an airport, so they give them transportation to the airport. And then the german police fucked up the rescue REEEEEEAAAAAALLLL bad and ALLLLLLLLLLL the hostages died. So germans and jews have no animosity towards eachother at all, and this didn't exacerbate that animosity lol.
So Golda meir herself gives her blessing for MOSSAD hit squads. This is where the movie picks up on its theme. Meir talks about how we can’t afford to be civilized when fighting against such barbarism. So the group goes on killing targets that MOssad has told them are involved. Almost killing children, wounding innocents, and even bunking with PLO. These Mossad hit squads realize that they are terrorists, and now THEY are being hunted as well.
Well the ironic thing about these hit squads is that none of the people killed had anything to do with black september. The targets are given to these individuals in order to further the goals of the mossad. To kill certain leaders in the PLO. The point is, they don’t know who they’re killing. Once in awhile someone will point this out what if they’re just doing internal mossad house cleaning? what if they’re just killing random PLO? It is through this Socratic dialogue that one member of the hit squad exclaims the assumption that they have all believed wholeheartedly in order to undertake such a task, but when said aloud only seems to illustrate the destructiveness and immorality of their actions: “The only blood that matters to me is jewish blood.”
During the portion of the movie in which they bunk with 3 PLO members(the hit squad pretends to be different revolutionary organizations red army, basque, and african national congress). While under this guise they are able to talk with the PLO members peacefully. Ali the individual who speaks with the main character(team leader avner), tells a story about his romanticized vision of the past in which his father owned land in Palestine. He says how having a homeland is everything and that it may take 100 years but as long as we keep having children the war will continue. Avner is dismissive of such a notion to kill and die for so long for a piece of dirt. When he returns home after the hits though he speaks with his mother letting her know that he is suffering from a crisis of conscience because of what he has done. Her response: “we have a homeland, thats what its all about”.
The last part I wanted to talk about was the character Salame. Who is regarded as a leader among the PLO. When Avner tries to pay his underworld contact for info to find Salame, his contact lets him know that Salame is CIA. Avner’s first question: “did the cia know about munich then?”
Munich may have been about Israel and Palestine, but it shares almost every aspect with the United states and al-qaeda. We have become worse than our enemy trying to fight our enemy, only 2 words need be uttered to prove such an assertion: Abu Ghraib.
The most important thing about war is intelligence. We must know our enemy and what the FUCK do we know now???
I”ll tell you what we know, we know that if you read something that wasn’t published by the federal government you’re a conspiracy theorist. I know that if you want your country to abide by the geneva conventions a treaty signed to prevent naziesque atrocities you are a traitor. I know that the vast majority of the United States public will continue to be manipulated by fear.
The movie though which has been criticized as either pro-israeli or pro-palestinian, was beautifully balanced. The look on the face of the Black September members as they basically had to shoot the hostages, because they had threatened they would if the police fucked with them. It is the same face the mossad hit squad wears before they pull the trigger on their first victim. Spielberg is a jew and thus can avoid the label of “anti-semite” which is oft applied with great frivolity. Thusly this movie has a very balanced message and that message is: Terrorism is the same thing as counter-terrorism. War is war is murder is terrorism is counterterrorism is war. This movie just made it so apparent. Avner signs a contract saying he doesn’t work for the mossad and then works for the mossad. The mossad sends him targets without evidence using avner as a hitman. They continue to use him chewing him up, before they finally spit him out. The leaders of the mossad and Israel using their footsoldiers and manipulating them with ideology. Sound similar to jihadi barracks in pakistan? Get a foot soldier tell them their targets are for the good of something and then use them until they are used up. Spit ‘em out and tell ‘em they’re a hero even though they don’t have shit to show for it but a soiled conscience.There has been a vast change in the United States political structure since 911 we are STILL AT WAR. Our mainstream artists have for the most part not addressed this grim reality. Syriana and Munich address this. Munich especially without fear expresses itself, because spielberg is such a powerhouse he could push the envelope. Unfortunately not many others have followed suit.
I want to see more movies that point out the fact that the US is royally fucking up in its response to terrorism. As well as the fact that there is something fishy going on, there are vast overlaps between the intelligence community and what is known as “al-qaeda”.
Well upon my second viewing this movie really came alive for me. If you don’t know the plot here it is: Black september takes a bunch of Israeli olympic athletes hostage in Munich. Their intention is to somehow further the goal of the creation of Palestine, how exactly this achieves that goal is up for debate, but that IS their intention. So the siege goes on for awhile, they demand to go to an airport, so they give them transportation to the airport. And then the german police fucked up the rescue REEEEEEAAAAAALLLL bad and ALLLLLLLLLLL the hostages died. So germans and jews have no animosity towards eachother at all, and this didn't exacerbate that animosity lol.
So Golda meir herself gives her blessing for MOSSAD hit squads. This is where the movie picks up on its theme. Meir talks about how we can’t afford to be civilized when fighting against such barbarism. So the group goes on killing targets that MOssad has told them are involved. Almost killing children, wounding innocents, and even bunking with PLO. These Mossad hit squads realize that they are terrorists, and now THEY are being hunted as well.
Well the ironic thing about these hit squads is that none of the people killed had anything to do with black september. The targets are given to these individuals in order to further the goals of the mossad. To kill certain leaders in the PLO. The point is, they don’t know who they’re killing. Once in awhile someone will point this out what if they’re just doing internal mossad house cleaning? what if they’re just killing random PLO? It is through this Socratic dialogue that one member of the hit squad exclaims the assumption that they have all believed wholeheartedly in order to undertake such a task, but when said aloud only seems to illustrate the destructiveness and immorality of their actions: “The only blood that matters to me is jewish blood.”
During the portion of the movie in which they bunk with 3 PLO members(the hit squad pretends to be different revolutionary organizations red army, basque, and african national congress). While under this guise they are able to talk with the PLO members peacefully. Ali the individual who speaks with the main character(team leader avner), tells a story about his romanticized vision of the past in which his father owned land in Palestine. He says how having a homeland is everything and that it may take 100 years but as long as we keep having children the war will continue. Avner is dismissive of such a notion to kill and die for so long for a piece of dirt. When he returns home after the hits though he speaks with his mother letting her know that he is suffering from a crisis of conscience because of what he has done. Her response: “we have a homeland, thats what its all about”.
The last part I wanted to talk about was the character Salame. Who is regarded as a leader among the PLO. When Avner tries to pay his underworld contact for info to find Salame, his contact lets him know that Salame is CIA. Avner’s first question: “did the cia know about munich then?”
Munich may have been about Israel and Palestine, but it shares almost every aspect with the United states and al-qaeda. We have become worse than our enemy trying to fight our enemy, only 2 words need be uttered to prove such an assertion: Abu Ghraib.
The most important thing about war is intelligence. We must know our enemy and what the FUCK do we know now???
I”ll tell you what we know, we know that if you read something that wasn’t published by the federal government you’re a conspiracy theorist. I know that if you want your country to abide by the geneva conventions a treaty signed to prevent naziesque atrocities you are a traitor. I know that the vast majority of the United States public will continue to be manipulated by fear.
The movie though which has been criticized as either pro-israeli or pro-palestinian, was beautifully balanced. The look on the face of the Black September members as they basically had to shoot the hostages, because they had threatened they would if the police fucked with them. It is the same face the mossad hit squad wears before they pull the trigger on their first victim. Spielberg is a jew and thus can avoid the label of “anti-semite” which is oft applied with great frivolity. Thusly this movie has a very balanced message and that message is: Terrorism is the same thing as counter-terrorism. War is war is murder is terrorism is counterterrorism is war. This movie just made it so apparent. Avner signs a contract saying he doesn’t work for the mossad and then works for the mossad. The mossad sends him targets without evidence using avner as a hitman. They continue to use him chewing him up, before they finally spit him out. The leaders of the mossad and Israel using their footsoldiers and manipulating them with ideology. Sound similar to jihadi barracks in pakistan? Get a foot soldier tell them their targets are for the good of something and then use them until they are used up. Spit ‘em out and tell ‘em they’re a hero even though they don’t have shit to show for it but a soiled conscience.There has been a vast change in the United States political structure since 911 we are STILL AT WAR. Our mainstream artists have for the most part not addressed this grim reality. Syriana and Munich address this. Munich especially without fear expresses itself, because spielberg is such a powerhouse he could push the envelope. Unfortunately not many others have followed suit.
I want to see more movies that point out the fact that the US is royally fucking up in its response to terrorism. As well as the fact that there is something fishy going on, there are vast overlaps between the intelligence community and what is known as “al-qaeda”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)