General Interest > Tacitus' Realm

The 9/11 Debate

<< < (3/5) > >>

RTP2003:

--- Quote ---On 2004-04-04 17:51:00, Anonymous wrote:




The situation in the world is too serious to politicize just so the liberals can get back into power.



Personally, what concerns me is North Korea: the world's largest prison camp and an economic basket case. What America must do to keep it from unleashing misery and destruction on a global scale is a daunting question."

--- End quote ---


The situation in the world and in this country has gotten worse since the cons came to power here.  Bush and his neo-conservative handlers have hijacked the Republican party to serve their own fiscal interests at the expense of this country's security, reputation, economy, and ehe lives of many soldiers.   The war in Iraq was a ruse started under false pretenses.  
They have no interest or intention of doing anything about North Korea unless oil reseves were found there, in which case we would be at war tomarrow.  I can't believe people fall for Bush's lies.  Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taliban are retaking territory lost in the war, and the American occupation is starting to resemble the Russian one--control of the capitol and little else.  Osama bin Laden remains free, and billions of dollars each month are spent in Iraq. Good job, George.  He has created a record deficit.  Remember when Republicans said deficits were a bad thing?  This man is a worse president than his father was, and that's saying a lot.

Anonymous:
Hmmm, here's an opinion that dates back a year or so ago --- before all the controversy surrounding Clarke's book (hey, good for sales) and testimony before the 9-11 commission (hey, best to blame anybody and everybody else rather than admit you made some serious errors, yourself).
-----------------------------------------

Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation
The outgoing cybersecurity czar will be remembered for his steadfast belief in the danger of Internet attacks, even while genuine threats developed elsewhere.

By George Smith Feb 17 2003 01:38AM PT  
 
 
The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.

Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender.

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.
Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender.
Instead of combating terrorists, Clarke would be left to wrestle with corporate America over computer security, a match he would lose by pinfall. Ridding the world of bad guys and ensuring homeland safety was a job for CIA wet affairsmen, the FBI, the heavy bomb wing out of Whiteman Air Force Base -- anyone but marshals in cyberspace.

Information "Sharing" and Cruise Missiles
The Slammer virus gave Clarke one last mild hurrah with the media. But nationally, Slammer was a minor inconvenience compared to relentless cold weather in the east and the call up of the reserves.

But with his retirement, Clarke's career accomplishments should be noted.

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

Trying his hand in cyberspace, Clarke's most lasting contribution is probably the new corporate exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. Originally designed to immunize companies against the theoretical malicious use of FOIA by competitors, journalists and other so-called miscreants interested in ferreting out cyber-vulnerabilities, it was suggested well before the war on terror as a measure that would increase corporate cooperation with Uncle Sam. Clarke labored and lobbied diligently from the NSC for this amendment to existing law, law which he frequently referred to as an "impediment" to information sharing.

While the exemption would inexplicably not pass during the Clinton administration, Clarke and other like-minded souls kept pushing for it. Finally, the national nervous breakdown that resulted from the collapse of the World Trade Center reframed the exemption as a grand idea, and it was embraced by legislators, who even expanded it to give a get-out-of-FOIA-free card to all of corporate America, not just those involved with the cyber-infrastructure. It passed into law as part of the legislation forming the Department of Homeland Security.

However, as with many allegedly bright ideas originally pushed by Richard Clarke, it came with thorns no one had anticipated.

In a January 17 confirmation hearing for Clarke's boss, Tom Ridge, Senator Carl Levin protested that the exemption's language needed to be clarified. "We are denying the public unclassified information in the current law which should not be denied to the public," he said as reported in the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News.

"That means that you could get information that, for instance, a company is leaking material into a river that you could not turn over to the EPA," Levin continued. "If that company was the source of the information, you could not even turn it over to another agency."

"It certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity," replied Ridge while adding he would work to remedy the problem.

Thanks for everything, Mr. Clarke.

Anonymous:

--- Quote ---On 2004-04-04 17:55:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Dick Clarke, now there's an idiot.  Lying bastard, too.



 :flame: "

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---On 2004-04-04 17:55:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Dick Clarke, now there's an idiot.  Lying bastard, too.



 :flame: "

--- End quote ---


Actually, I am confused, it's not Dick Clarke that's a lying bastard.  That would be the infamous "Tricky Dick".

 :silly:

Deborah:
Delivered-To: skylax@comcast.net

Know how to tell the difference between the truth and lies of 9/11? If they're talking about hijackers having done the dastardly deed, you know
they're part of the sinister coverup extravaganza, wittingly or not.

In order for the people of the world to be convinced that Islamic hijackers were responsible for terrible tragedy of 9/11, we need to see
some evidence. Not hearsay, innuendo, aspersion or promises of evidence, but real evidence.

Otherwise, the whole subject is rightly regarded as a ruse, a setup to conceal the identities of the real culprits, the ones who sit smugly in
front of the TV cameras and plot their cynical war on terror - otherwise known as the war on the peoples of the world.

As President Bush continues to insist that his word be accepted as truth on numerous questions, time after time his statements have been revealed
as blatant falsehoods. Yet he continues to repeat them, and the whorish corporate media continues to accept them.

Why hasn't either the Bush administration or some element of law enforcement in the United States issued a single solid piece of evidence
connecting the hijackers to the hijacked airplanes? Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases?

Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab
terrorists to 9/11? I mean, two and half years have passed. And the feds produced 19 names within 72 hours of the disaster. Notice a mathematical inconsistency here? All that has happened since is mere vigilante hysteria, hypothetical scenarios trumpeted ad nauseum by America's notoriously brainwashed Zionist press.

Seven or eight of the names on that original list have been found living comfortably in other countries. Why hasn't the FBI made any attempt to
correct the errors made on that original list? See for yourself.
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/sept ... -alive.htm
and http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

And why, after much hullabaloo about Colin Powell using phony information in his remarks to the United Nations about the reasons for war, hasn't the U.S. government produced a single conclusive piece of evidence to back up its claim that 9/11 was the work Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists? Not a single piece!

If you disagree, tell me what it is!

There's a simple answer to this, you know. It's because there isn't any evidence. And why is that? Because those pseudo-Muslims revealed to be
so publicly incompetent at piloting jerkwater training planes had absolutely zero chance of flying sophisticated jetliners into anything
narrower than the Grand Canyon, never mind executing tricky maneuvers with extraordinarily complicated machinery.

The unknown men who played the roles of the so-called Arab terrorist hijackers were really recruited by either American and/or Israeli
intelligence services in a scheme set up as a diversion to inflame dumb Westerners against the Islamic world. The purpose was to divert the
world's attention from the Israeli genocide and dispossession of the Palestinians by blaming the attacks on Muslims.

But that was only half the objective. The other half was to enable our despicable cabal of neocon gangbangers to fleece the American public with an endless array of no-bid contracts to enrich the conscienceless billionaires who are really driving the war machine.

You know how the Bushista American government uses anything for PR to supposedly authenticate its own evil agenda. If they had any concrete
evidence against the hijackers - if they even possessed all their correct names - we would have heard about it by now. There would be an
avalanche of TV shows about them, unlike that Jewish claptrap hate crime against Muslims that appeared on NBC the other night.

After two and half years, with the whole world knowing that eight of the 19 names on the hijacker list are fraudulent, the FBI has made no
attempt to substitute new names. And why is that? Because the identities of the hijackers were constructed with mostly stolen papers, for some of
the patsies designed to take the heat. In any case, and whoever they were, there is no evidence they ever got on the planes.

But nothing. Instead we have one minor player convicted in Germany, then the conviction was overturned, partly because Americans refused to help with the prosecution.

We have the so-called 20th hijacker and assorted other preposterous character actors languishing in jails on trumped up charges. We have security camera film at the Pentagon, which surely reveal that no jetliner hit that building, locked away in Ashcroft's vault under the phony aegis of national security. We have all the rubble of the World Trade Center, which surely would have revealed the use of nuclear explosives creating shattered beams in odd places, instantly carted away with no forensic investigation. We have transcripts - but no recordings - of these phony cellphone calls, some from people who may not have even existed.

And we have the famous standdown, in which America's air defenses suddenly evaporated - the only time in our history this has happened.

We have Marvin Bush sitting suspiciously on the board of directors of the security company that had the contract for the Twin Towers.

We have Larry Silverstein, who conveniently leased and insured the towers shortly before the big hits, telling officials to "pull" a relatively intact tower, which then fell identically to the two structures that were struck by airplanes, creating the impression that
that's the way all three came down.

We have billions of dollars of windfall profits made by savvy investors in the days before 9/11, and an FBI investigation that insists nothing was amiss with these spectacular deals. Of course, we don't get the details. Only "assurances" that the trades were not suspicious, despite patterns and results that were unprecedented in the entire history of financial trading.

We have reports from firemen of explosions at the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE they fell, and the seismographic evidence to back up these assertions.

We have leader after leader saying they didn't know such a thing could happen when the government had been studying the problem for ten years. It had held at least two major drills simulating such a possibility.

And we have a president sitting in a ghetto classroom in Florida, at possibily the most pivotal moment in American history, pretending to
read a book that he was holding upside down.

Perhaps most tellingly of all, we have the tragic tale of John O'Neill, rabidly honest FBI investigator, prevented from following his leads
about Osama bin Laden because of the danger he would have discovered the links from Afghanistan back to CIA headquarters. Just review the way he
was prevented from conducting his probe of the Cole bombing, and prevented by digging into other leads by the same guys - namely insiders Louis Freeh and Thomas Picard - who prevented significant reports from other FBI agents from seeing the light of day.

So, how does all that make you regard the supposedly impartial government panel investigating these matters? When they talk about
Presidential Daily Briefings months before the event, or chitchat with presidential flunkies who leak out these pseudorevelations about this and that tidbit of essentially trivial information. And especially when they talk about the dastardly hijackers (without being able to name them) as if there is no question of their guilt. Talk about your misleading urban legends! This one is the champ.

Well, no sense feigning surprise. We knew this commission was a set-up from the get-go. Recycled Watergate investigators, even. Part of the same bunch that has run the country and covered up everything for the past 30 years or more.

Surely you didn't expect a real investigation. Thomas Kean declared at the outset of his hearings that Osama bin Laden was guilty. End of
discussion. As soon as he made that statement, there was no way the hearings could be legitimate.

Asserting that genuine Arab hijackers did not carry out the attacks of 9/11 requires analysis of two concomitant categories: the history of
American (and Israeli) involvement (and subterfuge) with Arab terrorists, and methods of remote control of aircraft, or other means of
piloting the aircraft.

The remote control aspect continues to be a bone of contention among legitimate pilots, with some asserting only real pilots could have made such extemporaneous maneuvers and others insisting only remote control could have accomplished such a feat. An interesting new perspective on this debate can be found here:
http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wtc/radiocontrol.html

A third natural area of study in this regard would be the intimate histories of those whom officials claim to be the hijackers, including
putting the microscope on their behavior in the days and weeks before the tragedy.

Many researchers claim the name al-Qaeda was made up in middle '90s by a variety of American functionaries (one of them being none other than
Richard Clarke) as an all-purpose villain the U.S. could blame as a convenient reason for its military adventurism. And a group of Israeli
provocateurs was recently discovered trying to create their own faux version of al-Qaeda.

How many more hints do you need? The absence of any relevant arrests or discovery of any clues to the hierarchy of this supposedly worldwide terror group should tell you a lot.

Al-Qaeda doesn't exist except for when they want it to, to blame for any sort of strategic terror they have created themselves for some political
reason, like influencing the elections in Spain. Hah, that one really backfired.

Why haven't American intelligence operatives gone to these foreign countries to interview these named hijackers who turned out to be alive?
Simple. Because they knew the list was fiction in the first place, and the Arab-types who have been named as terror gurus are mostly their own
employees, or people who have been set up by them.

It is a celebrated fact that Mohammed Atta and some of his friends were seen in nightclubs in the hours before 9/11, certainly a fact that
argues against them being able to carry out their supposed missions because they were motivated by Islamic religious zeal. So their appearance in strip clubs blows the whole story that they were devout Muslims giving their lives to Allah. Devout Muslims don't drink, never mind cavort with strippers.

If we knew who the hijackers were, we'd know their names, wouldn't we? Or is it now worth bombing other nations and murdering thousands of
innocent people because we say we know who the hijackers were, even though we don't know their names? It is the great shame of the American
people that they have approved of the murders of thousands of people because of that blatant lie.

Many of the men who were fingered as 9/11 hijackers received preferential treatment from American immigration officials when it came to entering and leaving the U.S. on numerous occasions. Many of these same names reportedly trained at various U.S. military installations.

What has resulted after two and a half years of work by America's crack intelligence agencies, besides the persecution of Muslims throughout the
world?

Well, hundreds of innocent people have been unjustly imprisoned and tortured at Guantanamo. All of them innocent, hapless dupes rounded up
in a Rumsfeld-ordered dragnet in Pakistan after U.S. planes had (inadvertently or otherwise) allowed the Taliban fighters to escape with the Pakistani army from Afghanistan.

Two pathetic flunkies have been arrested and held without due process. One of them, the notoriously pathetic shoe bomber who was obviously a
deranged personality and not a member of any terror network, was ceremoniously sentenced to life in prison.

Other than that, no al-Qaeda kingpins have been even named, never mind apprehended. No clue about how the 9/11 attacks were engineered has ever
emerged. This is simply not consistent with being able to name all 19 hijackers the day after the attacks. It is a case of pretending you have all of the information instantly, and then pretending you no information for the next two years. What a smell!

This means two things: that the list of 19 names was a total fabrication, and that the worldwide terror network called al-Qaeda is also a total fabrication, the wet dream brainchild of the CIA and the Mossad to be trotted out as an excuse for a whole string of terror attacks - Madrid, Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, etc. - that were really carried out by the CIA and the Mossad themselves, cleverly involving designated patsies to give the operations a suitably foreign flavor.

Al-Qaeda does not exist except as a bogeyman invented by Western powers to justify their evil agenda. There were no hijackers flying those
planes on 9/11. And honest FBI agents have been prevented from publicizing that fact.

If you disagree, prove it! The world knows you can't, though the high-tech mass murder by the United States and Israel spreads around the
world because of this falsified version of events.

History will show - and the public will soon realize - that those who are telling these lies not only allowed 9/11 to happen, but planned it
for their own personal advantage.

The only question that remains is will the American public awaken to this murderous, treasonous scam before the perpetrators achieve their objective and bury the whole planet in the flames of their insane perfidy.

Just remember. If they're talking about the hijackers, they're part of the coverup, whether they know it or not.

Much more productive would be analyzing the tiny hole in the Pentagon, how the ejected material in the WTC photos prove there were unexplained
explosions, or how those emotional cellphone calls could not possibly have been made as government flunkies have presented them.

But you won't hear the official 9/11 commissioners talking about any of that, because they are definitely part of the coverup. You can obviously tell, because they keep talking about the hijackers.

* * *


Other than a general alert to citizens of the world about the basic lies that continue to underlie all political debate in the United States at this time, there is another, more pressing reason to discuss and contemplate all these matters at this time.

On Tuesday, April 20, and Wednesday, April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the power claimed by the President to designate
people as "enemy combatants" and have them incarcerated by the military- indefinitely, without charges, and without access to the court
system--solely on his say-so.

As my friend Alvin notes, "This is a critical moment in United States history."

"How the court rules on these cases will determine the type of country we will be living in. We urge those of you who can to be present outside the Supreme Court on these dates," said Alvin. For more information please see http://www.nlg.org/eccases/

It is one thing to realize all law enforcement and defense strategies in America in 2004 have become lies.

It is quite another to incorporate those lies into the law itself, and that is about to happen next week.

The decision expected will make a time of darkness grow even darker, and practically guarantee that freedom and justice for all is now an outmoded phrase that has been conveniently discarded by the evil robots who now control the lives of every person on earth.
******
John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays seen on hundreds of websites around the world, and also "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," a 48-page booklet written
for those who insist on believing the  government's version of events. For more information about both, go to http://www.johnkaminski.com/
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So, If there's anyone out there who doubts that the WTC events were orchestrated from the White House, I'd like to hear what that doubt is based on.

kaydeejaded:
that was excellent

although far to much for the head in sand types to even begin to bite let alone chew and made far to much sense...

hmmm boggles the mind

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page