http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/blindfold.html
"One cannot wage war under present
conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded
by the press and other forms of propaganda."
--General Douglas MacArthur
"News is
what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising".
--Former NBC news prez Rubin Frank
|
The time has
come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving our guns and our
gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts which have emerged from
the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to recognize the very real
possibility, indeed probability, that We The People are the victims of a
gigantic and deadly hoax.
In a normal
terrorist event, the terrorists cannot wait to take credit, in order to link
the violence to the socio-political intent of the terrorist organization. Yet
the prime suspect in the
Huge problems
are emerging in the official view of events. It's known that the
The 19 names of
suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't point to
In a recent
development, the BBC is reporting that the transcript of a phone call made by
Stewardess Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls shows that the
stewardess gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, seat numbers which
were not the seats of the men the FBI claimed were responsible for the
hijacking![2]
FBI Chief
Robert Mueller admitted on September 20 and on September 27 that at this time
the FBI has no legal proof to prove the true identities of the suicidal
hijackers. Yet in the haste to move forward on the already planned war in
Afghanistan, our government and the FBI (which does not have the best record
for honesty in investigations to begin with, having been caught rigging lab
tests, manufacturing testimony in the Vincent Foster affair, and illegally
withholding/destroying evidence in the Oklahoma Bombing case) are not taking
too close a look at evidence that points away from the designated suspect,
ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden.
In particular,
the FBI, too busy harassing political dissenters to find spies in its midst,
the long rumored mole inside the White House, or plug leaks in high-tech
flowing to foreign nations, has willfully and criminally ignored the
implications of some vital pieces of information the FBI is itself waving
around at the public.
We are being
told that this crack team of terrorists, able to breeze past airport security
as if it wasn't there, wound up leaving so much evidence in its wake that the
bumbling Inspector Clouseau (or the FBI) could not fail to stumble over it. The
locations where the terrorists supposedly stayed are so overloaded with damning
materials that they resemble less a crimes scene, and more a "B"
detective movie set, with vital clues always on prominent display for the
cameras.
Yet another
problem lies with the described actions of the hijackers themselves. We are
being told on the one hand that these men were such fanatical devotees of their
faith that they willingly crashed the jets they were flying into buildings. Yet
on the other hand, we are being told that these same men spent the night before
their planned visit to Allah drinking in strip bars, committing not just one,
but two mortal sins which would keep them out of Paradise no matter what else
they did. Truly devout Muslims would spend the day before a suicide attack
fasting and praying. Not only does the drinking in strip bars not fit the
profile of a fanatically religious Muslim willing to die for his cause, but the
witness reports of the men in the bars are of men going out of their way to be
noticed and remembered, while waving around phony identifications.
Because of the
facts of the phony identifications, we don't really know who was on those
planes. What we do know is that the men on those planes went to a great deal of
trouble to steal the identities of Muslims, and to make sure those identities
were seen and remembered, then to leave a plethora of planted clues around,
such as crop dusting manuals, and letters in checked baggage (why does a
terrorist about to die need to check baggage?) that "somehow" didn't
get on the final, fatal, flight.
Fake terror is
nothing new.[3] According to recently released files,
our government planned Operation Northwoods to stage phony terror attacks
against American citizens in the wake of the
It is also
quite possible, indeed likely, that the
It is worth
remembering the motto of the Mossad is, "By way of deception, thou shalt
do war."
Whether they
were involved in the attacks or not, it cannot be doubted that
And we know
that the
Are we being
hoaxed again, by
Because of the
vested interests at work here, American citizens must, more than at any other
time in recent history, rely on themselves to decide what is happening in our
nation. Too many of those who purport to report the "truth" to us are
eager to grab more tax money and more children to pour into a war of invasion,
poised at a region which has swallowed up every army that has tried to conquer
it since the time of Alexander The Great.
And consider
this. Grab a map of Europe and Asia, and plot out all the places the United
States now has troops. Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, through the middle east and
now into Afghanistan. A rather obvious militarized line is being formed across
the continents. Why?
A Moment Of Reflection (Repost)
The
following article apparently struck a resonance around the world. I have been
informed that it has been copied off and reposted at websites in places like
Norway, Germany, Australia, etc. and so I have reposted it here.
On September
11th, four teams of hijackers walked past the security at three major
metropolitan airports and hijacked four aircraft. Two were crashed into the
World Trade Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one was apparently and
thankfully shot down before it could reach its target.
The media call
these perpetrators terrorists. Given that we don't really know exactly who they
were and what belief systems they were slaves to, we cannot know whether they
called themselves holy warriors, freedom fighters, or something else. I doubt
they call themselves terrorists for using unconventional tactics, no more than
the American colonists who used unconventional tactics that the British found
morally repugnant called themselves terrorists.
But what we do
know about these people is that they were educated. They were pilots. They were
equipped to survive in modern American culture. Minus their hate, they could
have been prosperous and successful here. With their hate, because of their
hate, they were willing to throw their education, their prosperity, their
futures, and their lives away in a blinding flash as aluminum ploughed into
concrete with hundreds of innocent lives following just a few feet behind.
How could
anyone hate America enough to throw their own lives away in their attacks on
the symbols of our nation's economic and military power? I mean it's not like
someone just wakes up one morning and decides to hijack a jet passenger liner
and use it to knock down a skyscraper and is willing to die in the process
because there's nothing good to watch on TV. Nobody wakes up and says,
"Gee the baseball game got rained out, let's go blow up a building."
Anyone willing to commit such a crime as we have seen this week is seriously pissed
off about something, and in order to stop more attacks we need to face up to
what that something is.
We're not
talking "lone nuts", but entire teams of people willing to die in
their attacks on our buildings and against our citizens. What makes these
people so hate us that they would sacrifice their lives in their eagerness to
strike at us?
Maybe it's
because America, despite lovely speeches about bringing freedom and democracy
to the world, has a record of backing some of the worst dictators to be found.
The US Government, for reasons of commercial interest, backed men like Batista
and the Shah of Iran, despots who drove their people into poverty to enrich
American corporations until their people rebelled. Then we befuddled Americans
scratch our heads and wonder why those people don't seem to like us very much.
Maybe people
hate us because what we call Peacekeepers still looks and feels like an
invading army to those who stop the bullets, step on the landmines, and catch
the bombs.
Maybe it's because
the US Government has executed its foreign policy by tricking nations into
fighting each other. Saddam was our buddy once, when he was useful to our
policy towards Iran. We The People paid for the Supergun. Our government sold
Saddam the first of his biological weapons.
Then our
government decided they didn't need him any more, told him it would be okay if
he invaded Kuwait and declared war on him, blowing up the Supergun and the
biological weapons (we hope). Think maybe Saddam carries a grudge? I sure would
if I was double crossed like that.
We played the
same double cross with Osama Bin Laden, our ally and a CIA contract agent in
Afghanistan, funded with $6 billion of your tax dollars, now branded a
super-villain worthy of a comic book. Remember the last time our government
decided to "take care of Osama?" We blew up an aspirin factory in
Sudan. Big joke, that was. You, the taxpayers, not only got to pay for the million-a-shot
cruise missiles, you also got to pay to rebuild the aspirin factory when the
owners sued the USA, with Vernon Jordan as their attorney! Think the people who
worked in that factory (the ones who survived at any rate) like us? I doubt it.
Maybe the
reason people in the middle east are willing to conduct holy wars against us is
because so many holy wars were conducted against them in the past, going back
to the so-called "Holy" Crusades.
Jerusalem was
conquered on 7/15/1099 and 60,000 non-Christians were killed. Bodies were slit
open to search for gold coins they might have swallowed. Jews who had taken
refuge in the city's synagogue were burned alive, thousands of muslims were
chopped to death in Al-Aqsa mosque. According to the Archbishop of Tyre, who
was an eye-witness, "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of
the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the
very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the
spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that
roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to
gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an
ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that
within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished."
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following
summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of
decomposition".
After rude
behavior like that, nobody would be welcome again.
Maybe people
are willing to use terror attacks against us because we use terror attacks
against them. In 1985, authorized by William Casey, the CIA planted a car bomb
near a mosque in Beirut to kill Sheik Mohammed Hossein Fadlallah, a muslim
cleric. The bomb missed the Sheik but killed 80 people, including children. Is
it really okay for us to use tactics we condemn in others? No, it isn't. If
they are morally wrong to use car bombs that kill innocent people, then so are
we.
Or maybe the
reason so many people hate us enough to die attacking us is something as simple
as growing up watching your playmates blown to bloody bits before your eyes,
and picking up a piece of shrapnel stamped, "Made in the USA". It is
silly to think that anyone could endure a childhood like that and remain
entirely positive about the USA. Because for all its public talk of peace, the
United States remains the largest exporter of mechanized death in the world.
And if it is acceptable for the victims of guns to blame the gun makers for
their injuries, it must be equally acceptable for the victims of bombs,
missiles, and mines, to blame the weapons makers as well.
It is far less
than clear just who is behind the attacks in New York and Washington DC.
Fingers have been pointed at Saddam Hussein, Arafat, and ex CIA agent Osama Bin
Laden. It may be any one of them. It may be all three.
It may be none
of them. It could be the work of a third party, unknown and unseen, with the
goal of triggering yet another war where the blood of innocents will be
bartered for greater wealth and influence. We do know that those who hijacked
the planes went to a great deal of effort to steal identities of Middle Eastern
Arabs and use them on their forged identifications.
What also know
is that wars are often started with deceptions. Sun Tzu states in The Art Of
War that all warfare is based on deception, and that rulers must cultivate
the appearance of moral rightness in order to persuade their nations to fight.
When Hitler
needed the support of the German people to invade Poland, he got it by staging
a phony attack complete with dead bodies in Polish uniforms on the German side
of the border. Recently declassified documents prove that Pearl Harbor wasn't
quite the total surprise it was claimed to be. And the story about stolen
incubators that angered America into support of Desert Storm turned out to be a
complete fiction created by Hill & Kowlton, a public relations firm that
has grown rich lying to people on behalf of governments, ANY governments, and
whose executives have bragged, "We would represent Satan, if he paid
us."
Forget for a
moment who was hurt in these attacks, and study who benefited.
A few weeks ago
the USA was factionalized, her people justly critical of the policies of the
government, questioning even if that government's taxes were legal, questioning
the support of Israel, questioning the handling of the Condit case, questioning
Waco, questioning a self-critical nation demanding answers to some tough
questions; answers the government did not have. Now, the United States has been
transformed. All criticism is gone, Criticism itself is now deemed to be,
instead of the right of the people, an act of treason.
In the blink of
an eye our nation has gone from being 266 million thinking citizens wanting to
know if the government is right to 266 million conscripts willing to follow the
government into war even if it is wrong. In the blink of an eye the people have
stopped blaming the government for the worsening economy and shifted that blame
to the "terrorists".
The government
of the United States has reasserted its power over the people. It is stronger,
much stronger, because if this attack. And any educated student of history
would know ahead of time that this strengthening of the US government's power
would be the result of horrendous attacks such as we have seen..
Israel,
criticized by the world for its treatment of displaced Palestinians, now finds
that criticism silenced. For the foreseeable future, Israel can do what it will
with the Palestinians, immune from the censure of the world's press, burying
the Palestininan cause under the rubble of the World Trade Towers.
Unless he is
still working for the CIA, Osama Bin Laden would not have wanted to cause any
of the changes which have resulted from the horrific attacks on New York and
Washington DC. The attacks made the US government stronger. Who benefits from
that? That stronger US Government is now ready to wage war against the Arabs.
Who benefits from that?
Who really
gained from the attacks in New York and Washington DC? Whose political agendas
were advanced by the attacks? That is where to look for the planners of the
World Trade Towers attacks.
That we have
been attacked is certain. But before we send out the cruise missiles to prove
how big our national machismo is, we had better make sure we are aimed at the
right party, and not just being suckered into bombing someone that the real
planners and perpetrators of the World Trade Center attack want to trick us
into bombing. Because if, in the heat of the moment and the lust for vengeance
we surrender our basic American principles such as demand for proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, then we ourselves will have damaged America and what it
stands for far more than those who attacked the World Trade Center could ever
do themselves. What the hijackers could not knock down, we will have thrown
down ourselves. If we do that, then those who planned and carried out the
attacks against the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon will have won, even if
we hunt them down and kill them.
Don't be a
slave to your beliefs about what a government could or could not do. History is
full of governments that perpetrated monumental frauds upon their own people to
trigger a war. Governments HAVE to commit fraud to start a war because most
people, especially Americans, refuse to initiate a war of conquest. They have
to have the illusion they have been attacked first.
5,000 lives are
a lot. But to a government, ours or anyone else's, it's a tiny fraction of a
percent to sacrifice to bring 100% of the nation under control, isn't it? And
if we go into a protracted war in Afghanistan, a region that has resisted
invasion for the last 2000 years, we will soon long for the days when our dead
could be counted in mere thousands.
The World Trade
Towers cost a billion dollars. That's 1/10th of a percent of what the
Department Of Defense misplaced last year, and a drop in the barrel compared to
the worth of the oil sitting under the lands we are about to attack.
Are you really
so sure you have been told the truth about what is going on?
EVIDENCE
AGAINST OSAMA NOT TO BE PRESENTED
WASHINGTON (AP)
- President Bush on Monday backed off the administration's pledge to quickly
release evidence against Osama bin Laden. He said doing so could "make the
war more difficult to win."[7]
The entire case
against Osama Bin Laden rested on the claim that the identities of the
hijackers were known. That claim fell apart when even the US admitted that the
hijackers had used phony identifications with the stolen identities of
mideastern arabs on them.[8] Moreover, the hijackers had made a
conspicuous display of themselves in various locales to make sure that the
stolen identities would be remembered.
The forged IDs
wreck any chain of evidence that leads from the hijackers to those who
controlled them.
So, where are
we? Well, it looks like we're about to invade Afghanistan. We don't know for
sure that Osama actually had anything to do with the attacks on the World Trade
Towers but we are still going to invade Afghanistan. We don't even know that
Osama is still inside Afghanistan but we are still going to invade Afghanistan.
It is rapidly
becoming clear that Osama was just the excuse; the real goal all along was to
invade Afghanistan, which is, of course, what the US was telling other
countries it intended to do last summer.
So, without
proof of any Afghani's guilt, without proof that the prime suspect is even
there, we will invade Afghanistan.
COALITION? WE DON' NEED NO STINKIN' COALITION!
Fridays newspapers
carried the story that the United States and Britain were prepared to "go
it alone" in the war against Afghanistan. In an article in London's Financial
Times, spokesmen for Britain and the US suggested that all those other
nations would just complicate things anyway and that perhaps the US and Britain
should just do it themselves.
Such bravado
scarcely conceals the truth behind this stance; that the coalition of multiple
nations eager to engage in this "crusade" has evaporated, indeed,
probably never existed in the first place. Germany and Italy never did sign on.
Iran forbade overflights, and Friday Russia pulled back from allowing the use
of Tajikistan while Saudi Arabia expressed doubt on allowing the US to use its
bases.
There are many
reasons why the coalition has refused to come together.
1. The US has been telling other nations
since last summer that it was going to attack Afghanistan. Most nations, like
most people, are sharp enough to realize that the timing of the World Trade
Center attack fits right into that time table.
2. Other nations realize that Afghanistan is
correct in demanding proof of anyone's guilt before handing them over, and that
includes Osama Bin Laden, who is officially a suspect, nothing more. And the US
doesn't have any proof about who attacked the World Trade Towers. Four of the
supposedly dead Arab hijackers have turned up alive, one more has been dead for
two years, and with the admission by the US government that the hijackers used
stolen identities for the hijacking and the wild attention-getting parties
leading up to them, it's clear that we do not know who the hijackers were, only
who they wished us to think they were.
3. Given that the goal of terrorism is (we
are told) to force us to abandon our way of life and our values, a great many
people watched to see how George Bush would react to Afghanistan's request. The
moment Bush dismissed the Afghanistan government's request for evidence, Bush
was seen to have discarded the rule of law as well as the basic American principles
of needing evidence to prosecute (or extradite) someone. Indeed Bush, with his
"Give us what we want or else" rhetoric, sounded more like a
terrorist than a President.
4. Most nations are sharp enough to realize
that Osama Bin Laden could very well still be woring for the CIA, continuing a
long pattern of American foreign policy-by-proxy, maintaining control of the
region and its oil by stirring up constant trouble.
5. Declaring a war on terrorism and those
who support it is a very fuzzy goal. Nobody knows where the bombs will fall
once they get going, and most people still remember the wonderful target
selection jobs that blew up a Sudanese aspirin factory. Nobody wants to join in
a "crusade" that might make their own pharmacies a target for a cruise
missile.
6. Bush has declared that a major portion of
the "crusade" will be covert teams sneaking into other countries to
blow things up and assassinate people. No matter what name we may call it, it
will still look and feel like terrorism to everyone else and can only escalate
the conflicts. And most other nations know the CIA has been playing these games
all along. In 1985, authorized by William Casey, the CIA planted a car bomb
near a mosque in Beirut to kill Sheik Mohammed Hossein Fadlallah, a muslim
cleric. The bomb missed the Sheik but killed 80 people, including children.
Incidents like these underscore the United States' "It's okay when we do
it, but bad when you do it" as the rankest of hypocrisy.
For these and
many more reasons, the ardor to get into George Bush's crusade has cooled. The
US and Britain are trying to put the best face on it they can, but the fact is
that the facade of this being a multi-lateral fight against injustice is gone.
This is good news. While there will be bloodshed and violence, it will not be
the major threat to world peace it may have been since one cannot have a world
war if the rest of the world refuses to show up.
Having painted
himself into a corner with his war-rhetoric, and needing to distract the
American people from an economy that was poised for a melt-down long before the
attacks on the World Trade Towers, Bush will have to move forward, to find some
way to pour enough young gladiators into the Afghani arena to satiate the mob's
list for prime-time live-and-in-color blood. In the end, it is hoped, the war
if Afghan will be much like Desert Storm. We'll blow up a lot of desert, kill 5
times as many goats as people, declare victory and go home leaving everything
pretty much as it was to begin with. We'll waste a lot of money, but I prefer
that than wasting the lives of our children.
So, the
coalition faw down go boom. What will Bush do now to bolster up his
"crusade"?
One thing to
consider; if those who attacked the World Trade Towers to ignite a war fail to
get the war they desire, be prepared for more staged terror incidents in the
days to come.
Okay, so just
who was on those aircraft? In the rush to sell an invasion of
Afghanistan, our government and media have been waving a bunch of middle
eastern faces at us on the TV; photos of the dangerous hijackers who ploughed
their stolen aircraft into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Flight 93
was supposedly flown by Captain Saeed al-Ghamdi and a second hijacker named
Bukhari, while Abdulrahman al-Omari was supposed to be at the controls of
flight 11. Going from these suspects, links are being created to point the
finger of blame at various targets, including but not limited to Afghanistan,
Egypt, Iraq, etc. Ah, but the best laid plans gang aft aglay and there's a
problem! Mr. al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines published a great article
detailing the strange financial linkages between the Bush family and the Bin
Ladens. Then, as now, the media remains the propaganda arm of the government.
Proven media lies, often in support of a war.
References
1.
"India joins anti-Taliban coalition", Jane's Intelligence Review, 15
March 2001 http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
"India in anti-Taliban military plan India
and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against
the Taliban," indiareacts.com, 26 June 2001
http://www.indiareacts.com/Story33.htm
"US 'planned attack on Taleban'," BBC
News, 18 September 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
2.
"The last moments of Flight 11," BBC
News, 21 Sept 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
3.
"Fake Terror - The Road to Dictatorship", Michael Rivero
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html
4.
"Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962," The
National Security Archive, 30 April 2001
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Excerpts from Body Of Secrets, James
Bamford, Doubleday 2001,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
"Friendly Fire Book: U.S. Military Drafted
Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," David Ruppe, ABC
News, 1 May 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
5.
Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies, Mark Emerson Willey,
Random House
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
6.
"Book Review: The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent
Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, Apr/May 1995
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0495/9504058.htm
"The Israeli Deception That Led to the
Bombing of Pan American Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland," Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, Oct/Nov 1999 http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1099/9910022.html
"What if they are innocent?," The
Guardian Unlimited, 17 April 1999 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/guardian17499.html
7.
"Bush Keeps Evidence Under Wraps,"" Yahoo!News,
24 Sept 2001
From http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010924/us/attacks_bush_2.html
8.
"Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs," CNN.COM,
21 Sept 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/