Saturday, May 31, 2008

"It Would Be the End of His Business ... He Would Be Denounced as an Anti-American and Demonized as a Terrorist Sympathizer"

Now that many highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects have publicly questioned the official explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center (see this, this, this and this), government apologists are making the following argument:

"Yes, but there are many more scientists, engineers and architects who support the official theory".
Are they right?

Well, initially, there aren't that many people who have come out and publicly supported the official story. In fact, most scientists, engineers and architects have not made any public statement about 9/11 one way or the other.

Moreover, virtually all of those who have supported the official explanation are - directly or indirectly - receiving funding from the government. See this and this. They get grants, accolades and appointments for parroting the official story.

Additionally, there are many scientisits, engineers and architects who are convinced that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but are afraid of publicly speaking out for fear of losing their jobs, or being labelled unpatriotic or even a terrorist (and see this).

Former Wall Street Journal editor and prominent conservative Paul Craig Roberts addresses this issue and writes about one such person:
"Try to find an academic physicist who will express in public his doubts about the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade buildings. An academic career in physics is almost totally dependent on government research grants. By bringing federal funding to education, liberals handed government the power to control. One physicist who expressed his doubts about the collapse of the twin towers, Steven Jones, was terminated by BYU at the insistence of the federal government, which held the power of the purse over the university’s head.

The same constraint on truth exists everywhere. I once asked the proprietor of a distinguished engineering firm why he didn’t publicly express his doubts about the World Trade Center buildings. He said it would be the end of his business, that he would be denounced as an anti-American and demonized as a terrorist sympathizer. The fact that he would be an expert giving an expert opinion would carry no weight.
In fact, there are many thousands of highly-qualified scientists, engineers and architects who know that the world trade centers were intentionally demolished. One day - hopefully soon - they will find the courage to speak out.

Friday, May 30, 2008

"If 9/11 Was An Inside Job, the Hijackers Would Have been Iraqi"

One of the arguments made by government apologists has to do with the nationality of the hijackers.

Specifically, they argue that if 9/11 had been an inside job, the perpetrators would have cast Iraqis as the hijackers, to provide an excuse to invade Iraq.

This argument fails for several reasons:
  • Bin Laden, living in Afghanistan, was cast as the mastermind. So that gave the U.S. an excuse to invade Afghanistan (which, as you'll recall, was the first battle in the "war on terror")
  • The overwhelming majority of 9/11 skeptics believe that real planes were in fact hijacked, but that the U.S. government knew exactly what they were planning and when they were planning to do it, and that the U.S. air force was intentionally stood down so that the attacks could succeed*. In other words, we're not saying that the rogue elements within the U.S. government which aided and abetted the attacks necessarily chose what country the hijackers were from
  • Saudi Arabia has long been on the list of nations that the Neocons plan to attack (and see this). So - for the sake of argument - even if the rogue American military and political operatives who allowed 9/11 to happen had chosen the nationality of the hijackers (a theory which I am not promoting), it might have been to justify a subsequent war against Saudi Arabia
A similar argument made by government apologists is that - if the Neocons were such bad people - they would have just planted WMDs in Iraq. Well, according to leading investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, they may have tried to do just that.

More importantly, the mainstream media was completely in the administration's pocket, as Scott McClellan has made clear. So it was not even necessary to find any WMDs.

The media simply whipped Americans into a state of fear and frenzy, and distracted the public with fake Bin Laden videos or celebrity gossip stories any time the Neocon's lies about Iraq started to be exposed.

Alternatively, we believe that the planes might have been flown by remote control, or that the hijackers might have been intelligence assets or entrapped.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Leo Strauss and the Neocon Lust for Terror

Leo Strauss is the father of the NeoConservative movement, including many leaders of the current administration. Indeed, some of the main neocon players were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years. Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Italian fascists, Nazi Philosophers and Machiavelli.

Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:

"A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured".
(quote is by one of Strauss' main biographers).

Indeed, Stauss used the analogy of Gulliver's Travels to show what a Neocon-run society would look like:
"When Lilliput [the town] was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
Moreover, Strauss said:
"Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns."
So Strauss seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing catastrophes happen on one's own soil to one's own people -- of "pissing" on one's own people, to use his Gulliver's travel analogy. And he advocates that government's should pretend that they did not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally "not know" that Rome is burning. He advocates messing with one's own people in order to save them from some "catastrophe" (perhaps to justify military efforts to monopolize middle eastern oil to keep it away from an increasingly-powerful China?).

Fast Forward a Couple of Decades

Fast forward to the 1990's . . .

Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor seemed to hint at this approach when he wrote in 1997:
"as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
Similarly, the Project For A New American Century, a think tank lobbying group with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the other leading Neocons in its ranks, lamented that its rapacious military agenda would not be realized "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Don't believe that these quotes represent anything nefarious yet?

Fast forward to today . . .

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats." What's to be done? According to Rumsfeld, "The correction for that, I suppose, is [another] attack."

Newt Gingrich recently said:
"the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."
The head of the Arkansas Republican party said:
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]" so people appreciate Bush.
Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky openly called for "another 9/11" that "would help America" restore a "community of outrage and national resolve".

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.

It's All Hot Air, Isn't It?

But isn't this all talk? They wouldn't really allow terror to happen . . . or aid and abet such attacks. Would they?

Well, President Carter recently impliedly acknowledged the risk of staged provocation in order to start a war against Iran.

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

Former Senator Gary Hart warned Americans that the White House might create a "Gulf of Tonkin" or "remember the Maine" type incident to justify war against Iran (starting at 7:15 minutes)

Current U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated, the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:
"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."
The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?"
He goes on to say:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically

And the former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

Does that sound like the Neocons' expressions of yearning for terror are just so much talk? Or does it sound like the disciples of Leo Strauss are willing to "manufacture threats" and "fiddle while Rome burns"?

And if the it is the latter, and the same people made the expressions of yearning before 9/11, the anthrax attacks and the London bombings, what does that imply about the cause of those events?

Even Fort Detrick Scientists Themselves Think the Killer Anthrax Came from their Facility

Even experts at the U.S. bioweapons facility at Fort Detrick think that the anthrax which was used in the 2001 attacks came from their facility:
"In an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"
Indeed, 3 of the 4 suspects the FBI is investigating are employees of Fort Detrick, which is run by the Army.

This new information verifies that
the anthrax came from the Fort Detrick military base (confirmed here).

Some people are pretending that someone unconnected with the army bioweapons facility at Fort Detrick stole the anthrax. However, as the above-quoted article states:
"Fort Detrick is run by the United States Army. It's the most secure biological warfare research center in the United States," a bioterrorism expert told FOX News."
It is not very likely that someone could steal anthrax from the most secure facility in the U.S., run by the Army.

Indeed, the FBI apparently knew in 2002 who mailed the anthrax letters. See this, this, and this.

And yet government investigators and prosecutors have covered up and refused to disclose who did it for 6 years. Initially, the FBI tried to frame an innocent man for the attacks.

More importantly,
"The FBI has completely shut Congress out of its now five-year investigation into anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill and around the nation". In other words, Congress -- which legally has every right to know what really happened, and which was the main victim of the attack -- is being kept in the dark. If the FBI really didn't know who did it, and was really conducting an honest investigation, why would it stonewall Congress?

There is strong evidence that the anthrax attacks were a false flag attack. Indeed, the bioweapons expert who actually drafted the current bioweapons law (the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989) while working for President George H.W. Bush has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the later Military Commissions Act. See also this.

At the very least, the FBI and the White House are actively covering up for the person who really did it.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The False Logic of Hopelessness (Why the Elephant Should Stand Up to the Mouse)

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that our country is going in the wrong direction. That the Iraq war was a mistake. And polls show that the majority of Americans questions the government's version of 9/11 and other basic tenets of the "war on terror".

So why aren't people doing anything to fix things?

It is largely because people are hopeless . . . they don't think there is anything they can do to turn things around and improve our situation. Also, many people believe that they should just "lay low" until things get better, and that the only thing that standing up will accomplish is getting whacked in the head.

Apparently, it is not only ordinary Americans who believe they are powerless. Members of Congress also apparently believe they are powerless. See this and this.

Is Laying Low the Safest Path?

You find a black widow spider in your garage. You are afraid of it, so you decide to stay out of the garage and park your car out front. You hope that if you ignore it, it will go back outside and leave you alone.

Smart decision?

Not if it raises a family, and not if they move into the main part of your house. By ignoring the small threat (one spider), you might soon have a much bigger threat: a whole bunch of black widow spiders infesting your house.

This is where the expression "kill the monster while its small" comes from. Its a lot easier to face something scary in the early stages than when it has really gotten out of hand. (And this is why Neville Chamberlain is detested for trying to appease Hitler).

Similarly, the wanna-be fascists are consolidating their power and their ability to impose overt martial law and imprison dissenters. Indeed, they are apparently working on new ways to instill the sense of helplessness in people. They may also very well use bigger and more deadly forms of fake terror in order to justify their agenda.

In the meantime, they are destroying the economy, America's reputation in the world, and our way of life.

So "laying low" and pulling a Neville Chamberlain instead of killing the monster while its small will backfire . . . it will make things much worse than taking action now.

And if you think that bad things will only happen to "someone else", you're wrong. Remember that "lawyers and professors, publishers and journalists, gun owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a great many other harmless, average people" may be imprisoned if the Neocons institute martial law.

The only safety is in standing up and stopping the madmen before they escalate their unConstitutional actions. The only safety is in massive action.

Why Doesn't the Elephant Stomp the Mouse?

See if you can find the humor in this situation:

  • The majority of Americans -- hundreds of millions of people -- don't think they can do anything to stop a handful of anti-American neocons who are so far out of the mainstream of what anyone (conservative, liberal, green, libertarian, independent, etc.) wants that their long-standing nickname is "the crazies"
  • Congress -- which is a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution -- is intimidated by a White House whose policies are less popular than salmonella
That's like an elephant being afraid of a mouse. The elephant is many times bigger and stronger than the mouse, but it acts like the mouse is a mortal danger.

Believing that we -- the elephant -- are threatened by the mouse, and that there is nothing we can do about it, is false logic. The mouse -- the handful of Neocons who have taken over our country -- has somehow hypnotized and convinced the giant American public that it is bigger than we are.

In reality, the American people outnumber the anti-American Neocons by many millions to one. If we want, we can simply throw the bums out, and throw them in jail for their crimes. If Congress wants, it can impeach them, hold them in contempt, and throw them in jail. They serve at our pleasure, and if they are acting in a manner treasonous to our country and the people's interest, we should evict them.

True, they may have their finger on the button of a whole lot of weapons. But they can't use them on millions of American citizens. For example, with all of the big toys in the world, they couldn't do anything if we stand up for our rights.

We need only to wake up from the dream that we are powerless. See this, this, this and this.

Note: Please do not mistake my "kill the monster" or spider analogies as advocating violence. I do not advocate violence. Moreover, I am not advocating the overthrow of the government. I am calling for a RETURN to the American, Constitutional form of government and the rule of law, and removal of individuals who are traitors to the Constitution and the best interests of the nation, no matter how high and mighty they may be.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"

Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"
David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

See this website and this website for further additions.

There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.

See also this.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Iran, the Lion, and the Rancher

A mountain lion wanders up to a rancher's property, looks in the direction of his sheep, and licks its lips.

The lion charges towards the sheep, but the rancher hollers loudly and scares it off.

Later that day, the rancher runs into his neighbors in town and tells them about the mountain lion. They say "Oh, we don't think he really wanted to eat your sheep. He was probably just being sociable and wanted to play".

The next day, the same lion came back. After circling the ranch twice, it charges towards the sheep, extends its claws, and with a fierce roar, attempts to lunge at the nearest sheep.

The rancher fires his shotgun up in the air, scaring the lion off.

That night, the rancher runs into his neighbors again at a party. After telling them what happened, they say "Oh, we don't think he really wanted to eat your sheep. He was probably just trying to go for a jog and get some exercise".

The third day, the same thing happens, but the mountain lion actually gets its mouth around one of the sheep and a claw on the sheep's back. The rancher's shotgun blast in the air does nothing, and he has to aim some buckshot right close to the lion's head before the lion will back down and let the sheep go.

Later, the rancher tells his friends what happened, and they respond:
"The lion was just wrestling with the sheep. We're sick and tired of you telling us that the lion is trying to eat your sheep! If he was that kind of lion, he would have already eaten a couple of your sheep by now!"
What's the lesson behind this story?

Well, top military commanders, Congress people, Senators, weapons inspectors and foreign governments have all said that the Bush administration is planning to attack Iran. In response, defenders of the status quo respond "we're sick and tired of you telling us that they're trying to attack Iran! If they were like that, they would have attacked already!"

Well, the mountain lion would have already eaten a couple sheep, but the rancher stopped him.

Similarly, the Neocons would have already attacked Iran, but those patriots fighting to save America from the fascists and warmongers have successfully warded off the attack so far by:
  • Exposing the illegal acts of terrorism and covert military options which the U.S. is already using against Iran
  • Pointing out that attacking Iran will be harmful to the national security of the U.S.
  • Showing that attacking Iran will bankrupt our country
  • Debunking the claim that Iran threatened to annihilate Israel
  • Debunking the claim that Iran is a danger to America or the rest of the world
  • Debunking the claim that Iran is supplying most of the weaponry to Iraqi insurgents
The Neocons have gotten busted in so many lies (Iraq, torture, etc.) and illegal acts, that they have had to push back their timetable somewhat for an attack against Iran.

But trying to argue that they are not still hell-bent on bombing Iran is like the rancher's neighbors saying that the mountain lion has only pacifist intentions towards the sheep. Unless we remain as vigilant as the rancher, the lion will attack.

Update: An insider has revealed that Cheney proposed bombing Iran last summer, but that the Pentagon fought the plan.

This is not to say that Iran is run by a bunch of nice guys. The fundamentalist Ayatollahs are radical nuts. But most Iranians are very moderate, and the government harbors no military ambitions to invade foreign countries.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Congratulations, America ... Children are Being Tortured in Your Name

The U.S. has imprisoned 2,500 children since 9/11 as "enemy combatants", in violation of the Geneva Convention against classifying children as POWs.

Still not disgusted?

Okay . . . Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. Government has videotapes of boys being raped at Abu Ghraib prison (and see this; see also this - General Taguba discusses the sexual humiliation of a father with his son - this and this).

This doesn't come as a complete surprise, given that assistant deputy Attorney General John Yoo has publicly argued that the president can order the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Congratulations, America. This is being done in your name.

If you're not sick to your stomach by learning that your government has been killing and torturing people - including children - then you are a psychopath or a pervert.

Don't try to tell me that torture is a necessary evil. It is well-known by professional interrogators that torture doesn't work. Experts on interrogation say that torture actually interferes with the ability to gather useful information.

Update: An investigation by the Salt Lake Tribune shows that torture in Iraq's locally-run juvenile prisons is also terrible.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Newest Slur: "Those Who Question 9/11 Are Creationists"

The newest attack strategy against those who question 9/11 is to say that we are creationists. If you regularly read social networking sites, newsgroups, or bulletin boards, you will see this slur being used regularly.

Is it true?

Well, initially, everyone who believes in creationism started with a religious belief, and then tried to make arguments which fit that belief.

On the other hand, every single person I know who questions 9/11 initially believed the government's version of events.* However, once we looked at the evidence of what happened - the documentary, audiovisual, physical, chemical, and historical record - we began to realize that the government's story has more holes than swiss cheese.

There are numerous accounts of people who set out to defend the official version but, after meticulous study, were shocked to learn that that version is impossible.

In other words, they followed the scientific method, which is the opposite of creationism. Indeed, many scientists followed this exact route in reaching their conclusion that high-level people within the U.S. government aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks.

Similarly, legal scholars are trained to weigh conflicting evidence, and determine which side's story is believable. Many legal scholars followed this route before concluding that elements within the U.S. government are guilty for 9/11.

Moreover, I don't know a single person who questions 9/11 who is a creationist (and I know a lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement).

Many 9/11 skeptics are atheists. For example, Michael Rivero regularly rails against religious dogma. These folks certainly don't believe in creationism.

Many 9/11 skeptics would label themselves "spiritual, but not religious". These folks aren't fundamentalists in any sense of the word, let alone creationists.

Quite a few 9/11 skeptics are people of traditional faiths, either Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Mulsim. But I don't think a single one of these people is a creationist.

The "creationist" label is just another in a long line of false attacks on those who question 9/11. It is another example of government apologists' never-ending attempt to move the goalposts.

*I have heard of perhaps 5 people who doubted the government's version from the start. However, their skepticism did not come from some pre-existing, rigid or dogmatic worldview. Rather, they had been given tips by intelligence officials or others about the impending attacks, and knew they should have been prevented, or they were physics professors who knew that the destruction of the Twin Towers defied the law of physics which would apply to normal "collapses".

Monday, May 19, 2008

New Rules: Don't Talk About 9/11 Until You Learn Some BASIC History

Matt Taibbi and his buddies are making complete fools of themselves by trying to mock those who question 9/11:
The same people who had managed in the 2000 election to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush as an ordinary down-to-earth ranch hand apparently so completely lacked confidence in their own propaganda skills that they resorted to ordering a mass murder on American soil as a way of cajoling America to go to war against a second-rate tyrant like Saddam Hussein. As if getting America to support going to war even against innocent countries had ever been hard before!

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Um . . . haven't you guys ever cracked a history book?

Don't you know that virtually every war is preceded by either a false flag attack or fake intelligence, so as to trump up an imminent threat from the folks that are to be on the receiving end of the bayonets and bombs?

Haven't you heard of the Maine, fellas? How about the Gulf of Tonkin? The Iraqi incubator story?

Didn't you learn about Operation Himmler? The Reichstag fire? The Lavon Affair? Operation Gladio? Northwoods? Ajax?

And - as well as an excuse for war - don't you know that false flag attacks have been used throughout history as a justification for the consolidation of power in the "strong man"?

Haven't you guys ever heard these quotes by famous historical figures:
  • "This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato
  • "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison
  • "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler
  • "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
  • "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin
Indeed, even our current crop of leaders have said some interesting things:
So here are the new rules: Don't mock those who question 9/11 before learning some basic history.

And while you're at it, please take a look at what real historians and other highly-credible people say about 9/11.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Separating the Warlord From His Allies

It is standard military doctrine to try to separate a warlord from his allies. This is especially true if the warlord is too strong to take on directly. If you can peel away his allies, then that leaves him vulnerable.

Cutting of his supply lines is also vital. If he can't get troops and equipment, he becomes weak quickly.

The Unholy Alliance

As everyone now knows, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other top boys and girls in the Executive Branch have committed war crimes.

Initially, they launched an illegal war. As the former chief prosecutor of Nuremburg Trials said:
"a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
(a lot of constitutional scholars agree with him).

They've also implemented an illegal torture program.

But they couldn't have gotten away with committing those crimes - and continuing to commit them - unless Congress supported and enabled them.

Congress not only authorized the use of force, but voted to fund the illegal war again and again to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Congressional leaders also knew about the torture, and yet covered it (and the truth about 9/11) up from the American people.

In other words, Congress has acted as a loyal ally to the warlord in his illegal acts.

Congress is in a Heap of Trouble

Well, guess what? Congress might be liable for war crimes as well as the Bush, Cheney and the boys.

Here's a quick refresher course . . .

Anyone who violates the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment is guilty of a crime under U.S. law. The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention. The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who order it , know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty. Indeed, anyone who is a policy-maker who helps create, promote, or justify policies that violate the Geneva Convention is guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2441. See this, this, this, and this. And the war crimes act has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes prosecution can be brought at any time.

Get it? Congress has violated its own war crimes act, making all of the congress peope and Senators -- other than the handful who have taken steps to stop the illegal acts -- war criminals.

So What Should We Do?

We the American people can inform Congress that each and every congress member and Senator who aided and abetted the illegal invasion of Iraq or the illegal torture program is a war criminal.

Then I would suggest offering them amnesty from prosecution for their past illegal actions if they:

(1) Stop the torture; and

(2) Bring the troops home.

Let's give every Congress member and Senator a choice -- to (1) be prosecuted for war crimes or (2) to stop all further commission of war crimes by stopping the illegal war in Iraq, the fake "war on terror", and the barbarian torture program.

Without the support of Congress and its continuing supply of money, troops and equipment, the warlord will not be able to continue to expand his imperial war campaign or his reign of torture and terror.

Of course, the corporate media has also been complicit in the war crimes by parroting the White House's lies, covering up the truth, and drumming up support for both the illegal invasion and the nature and extent of the torture program.

I think the owners and top executives of the mainstream media corporations should also be given the same choice: Face war crime prosecution or start reporting the truth.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Is the U.S. the World's Largest State Sponsor of Terrorism?

Preface: As someone who was born in America and has lived here my whole life, and who loves the ideals and Constitution our country was founded on, it has been a rude and painful awakening to learn about my government's terrorist acts.

I believe that, if the American public knew what crimes the government was carrying out, they would not stand for it.

Four headlines this week make it clear that America may be the world's largest sponsor of terrorism:
This is on top of previous stories showing that Cheney is directly funding terrorist groups out of his office, and that the U.S. is funding terrorists all over the world to promote its agenda. See also this, this and this.

And Americans dressed as Arabs have apparently been setting off car bombs in Iraq (when it was discovered that some of the cars used in Iraqi bombings recently came from the U.S., the cover story seemed to become that American cars were involved in car bombings only because they had recently been stolen from the U.S. and then shipped to Iraq -- but does it make sense that Iraqi insurgents would steal cars in the U.S. and ship them all the way to Iraq?)

Unfortunately, this involvement in terrorism is not unique to the Bush administration:
No wonder the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"(the audio is here).

So next time the warmongers accuse a foreign country of sponsoring terrorism, remind them that - even if that is true - the U.S. is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.

In addition to being the leading sponsor of terrorism, the U.S. is also the largest purveyor of disinformation and propaganda in the world. Gangsters like Al Capone would be astonished at how successfully the American public has been fooled as to the nature of their government's actions.

As one of the leading American media critics says:
"Little has been done to address the astonishing ignorance of Americans regarding the US role in the world, [including] the extensive use of terrorism by the United States . . . ."

Thursday, May 15, 2008

I Agree with Bush . . . Stop Appeasing the Terrorists!

A lot of people, including Senator Biden, are criticizing Bush's statement to the Israeli parliament that Democrats are like those who tried to appease the Nazis. Bush - apparently incensed that people are trying to frustrate the Neocon plan to bomb Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon in order to "protect" Israel and seize a little oil in the process - accused the Democrats of trying to negotiate with terrorists.

But who is really appeasing who?

It is Congress that is trying to appease the terrorists in the White House. After the 9/11 false flag attack, and the attack on Congress with U.S. military anthrax, and the attack on liberty and privacy, and the attack on the U.S. economy, Congress has done nothing but role over and play dead.

Instead of doing something to stop the terrorists in the White House, to stop their terrorist plans, to de-fund terrorist operations, to impeach the terrorists and try them for war crimes, Congress members and senators just make long speeches, hold endless "investigations", and write letters begging for the terrorists to consider talking to them.

The real terrorists are the anti-Americans who pulled a Reichstag-fire on 9/11 and the anthrax attacks soon after, who lied us into Iraq and are trying to lie us into Iran, who instituted torture policies which fly in the face of human rights and the safety of our military personnel, who authorized spying on all Americans and have stomped on our freedoms and privacies, and who have used the old trick of whipping the populace into a state of fear by exaggerating the danger from our supposed enemies (isn't that the very definition of terrorism?)

Indeed, the "appeasing Hitler" image is not just an analogy with the Bush family. His grandfather literally helped Hitler rise to power (he also plotted a coup against the sitting American president, FDR). And Cheney and the boys are now directly funding terrorist groups (see confirming articles here, here and here).

I agree with Bush . . . stop appeasing the terrorists!

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Programs Which the Government Claims Are Aimed At Foreign Enemies are being Used Against American Citizens within the United States

The U.S. government has repeatedly claimed that it was launching aggressive programs solely at foreign enemies, and then launched them at American citizens. For example:
Can anyone see a pattern here?

Given the above, should we believe that the following programs will just be limited to foreigners?
  • The Air Force is seeking to dominate all computers and the Internet, to be able to take over control of every computer, and to turn computers into "zombies" that can be forced to execute Air Force commands. This is supposed to be aimed at enemy states and "rogue individuals". See this summary.
  • The Pentagon is running an artificial intelligence program to see how people will react to propaganda and to government-inflicted terror. The program is called Sentient World Simulation:
"U.S defense, intel and homeland security officials are constructing a parallel world, on a computer, which the agencies will use to test propaganda messages and military strategies.

Called the Sentient World Simulation, the program uses AI routines based upon the psychological theories of Marty Seligman, among others. (Seligman introduced the theory of 'learned helplessness' in the 1960s, after shocking beagles until they cowered, urinating, on the bottom of their cages.)

Yank a country's water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next.

The sim will feature an AR avatar for each person in the real world, based upon data collected about us from government records and the internet."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees."
But many people have pointed out that the laws governing the program are so vague that they could lead to the imprisonment of American citizens for simply speaking out against the government (see also this).
Actions which the government claims were launched against non-U.S. citizens have in the past been used against Americans within the United States. Why should we believe any differently about its new, even more tyrannical programs?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Who Are the Gitmo Defendants?

Today, the U.S. dropped charges against the so-called '20th hijacker'.

That got me wondering, who are the remaining Guantanamo defendants?

It turns out that they are not "Al Qaeda terrorists", but a bunch of kids, a car pool driver, and others who may have been involved in a civil war within their own country, but not a war against the United States.

For example, an article written by former Wall Street Journal editor and influential conservative Paul Craig Roberts includes the following bombshell:

The six that the United States are bringing to "trial" include two child soldiers for the Taliban and a car pool driver who allegedly drove Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban did not attack the United States. The child soldiers were fighting in an Afghan civil war. The United States attacked the Taliban. How does that make Taliban soldiers terrorists who should be locked up and abused in Gitmo and brought before a kangaroo military tribunal? If a terrorist hires a driver or a taxi, does that make the driver a terrorist? What about the pilots of the airliners who brought the alleged 9-11 terrorists to the United States? Are they guilty, too?

Given that the military may not have any real terrorists in custody, it becomes a little clearer why the trials have been rigged to prevent the possibility of acquittal. As Mr. Roberts puts it:

The Gitmo trials are show trials. Their only purpose is to create the precedent that the executive branch can ignore the U.S. court system and try people in the same manner that innocent people were tried in Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany. If the Bush regime had any real evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it would have no need for its kangaroo military tribunal.

If any more proof is needed that Bush has no case against any of the Gitmo detainees, the following AP News report of Feb. 14, 2008, should suffice: "The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to limit judges' authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

The reason Bush doesn't want judges to see the evidence is that there is no evidence except a few confessions obtained by torture. In the American system of justice, confession obtained by torture is self-incrimination and is impermissible evidence under the U.S. Constitution.


the "dangerous terrorists" claim of the Bush administration is just another hoax perpetrated on the inattentive American public.

One of the Gitmo defendants is allegedly Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is supposed to be a mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. However, given that Mohammed was killed years ago, it is not clear who the U.S. military is really holding.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Ridiculing Tyrants is One of the Most Effective Ways to Strip Away Their Power

Ridiculing tyrants is one of the most effective way to strip away their power. People won't put up with tyrants if they can see that they are tyrants, and ridicule is one of the best ways for people to be able to take in the fact that the Neocons are tyrants.

Why is ridicule so effective? Because ridicule can slip past people's defense mechanism and persuade all the different parts of their brains at once.

Once you realize that they have failed even on their own terms, you can start to see how easy it might be to ridicule Bush, Cheney and the other anti-American Neocons.

Please note:
Do it in a good-natured way . . . it is more effective than mean-spirited ridicule. In other words, balance negativity with humor.

If you need help coming up with ways to ridicule these guys, start here, or watch any episode of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show".

Thursday, May 8, 2008

"Continuity of Government Planning has ... Already Superseded the Constitution as a Higher Authority"

UC Berkeley Professor
Emeritus Peter Dale Scott has warned:

"If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority."

What's he talking about?

Well, in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

Professor Scott's point that COG planning may have already superseded the Constitution can be summarized by making an analogy. Let's assume that the police are not supposed to seize and sell a suspect's house unless a court has held a full trial and found that person guilty of a certain offense. And let's say that the police seize and sell somebody's house, but that the suspect's relatives cannot find any record that there has been a trial, let alone a finding of guilt by the court.

Let's say they go to the City Council (
which is the local counterpart of the U.S. Congress -- that is, part of the legislative branch), and the City Council asks the police if the suspect was found guilty by the court. If the police refuse to even answer the City Council's question, that shows that the rule of law has broken down. In other words, whether or not there was a trial and a guilty verdict, the failure of the police to answer the question shows that the police (part of the executive branch) are acting outside of the law by failing to respect the separation of powers between the police and the City Council.

As Steven Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, notes:
"Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress."
Similarly, Senator Russ Feingold, a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees, wrote yesterday in the Los Angeles Times:
"The memos on torture policy that have been released or leaked hint at a much bigger body of law about which we know virtually nothing. The Yoo memo was filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to see the light of day, on subjects including the government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization and the government's ability to bypass the 4th Amendment in domestic military operations.

Another body of secret law involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 1978, Congress created the special FISA court to review the government's requests for wiretaps in intelligence investigations, which is -- and should be -- done behind closed doors. But with changes in technology and with this administration's efforts to expand its surveillance powers, the court today is doing more than just reviewing warrant applications. It is issuing important interpretations of FISA that have effectively made new law.

These interpretations deeply affect Americans' privacy rights, and yet Americans don't know about them because they are not allowed to see them. Very few members of Congress have been allowed to see them either. When the Senate recently approved some broad and controversial changes to FISA, almost none of the senators voting on the bill could know what the law currently is.

The code of secrecy also extends to yet another body of law: changes to executive orders. The administration takes the position that a president can "waive" or "modify" a published executive order without any public notice -- simply by not following it. It's every president's prerogative to change an executive order, but doing so without public notice works a secret change in the law. And, because the published order stays on the books, Congress and the public have no idea that it's no longer in effect. We don't know how many of these covert changes have been made by this administration or, for that matter, by past administrations.

Keeping the law secret doesn't enhance national security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without oversight or accountability. Even the congressional intelligence committees, which are supposed to oversee the intelligence community, have been denied access to some of these legal opinions.

Congress should pass legislation to require the administration to alert Congress when the law created by Justice Department opinions ignores or even violates the laws passed by Congress, and to require public notice when it is waiving or modifying a published executive order. Congress and the public shouldn't have to wonder whether the executive branch is following the laws that are on the books or some other, secret law."
Like all important political issues of the day, the government will not agree to to the right thing unless the public demands it. The White House will not agree to follow the Constitution and the rule of law, or even to disclose whether or not the COG plans which were implemented on 9/11 are still in effect, unless the public demands it. Professor Scott stresses the importance of citizen activism in this regard:

"Will Congress insist on its right of review COG? The answer to this question will depend on discussion in the blogosphere, the degree of pressure exerted by the electorate on their representatives, and the questions asked the men and women who would be president."

I join Professor Scott's call for public input, and urge We Are Change - style citizen activism regarding COG. Specifically, I urge people to bring videocameras and to ask Congress people, White House officials and spokespeople, judges, and every other high-level official whether COG plans are currently in effect, to film their responses, and to post the video on the Web.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

WANTED: Dead or Alive . . . REWARD!

WANTED: Confirmation of whether or not the Constitution is DEAD or ALIVE.

Your REWARD: Become a hero and save the nation.

Details: This website provides evidence that Continuity of Government plans were actually instituted on 9/11, and may still be in effect. If true, America will not be able to end its nightmare until this fact is revealed to the public and until the COG plans are rescinded.

The entire Homeland Security Committee of Congress asked the White House to see documents related to Continuity of Government Plans, and the White House refused to share them, even though that committee has full security clearance to view such plans. Here is a brief video of DeFazio's testimony to Congress on the topic (or here is the transcript).

In addition, Professor Peter Dale Scott asked Congressman DeFazio whether or not Continuity of Government plans were currently in effect, and that DeFazio responded that he did not know.

How to Claim Reward: Find out the answer to the simple question: are Continuity of Government plans currently in effect? No executive branch waffling or double-speak. Just a yes or no answer.

Ask your Congressman. Ask your Senator. Ask someone who would know.

Then let us know.

No Brain Cell Left Behind

A friend of mine is the principal of a public school. He confirms what should be obvious to everyone: public schools throughout the country are severely under-budget, and its getting worse all the time.

But, he explains, the "No Child Left Behind" program adds insult to injury. NCLB mandates that kids be given a series of tests, so that all of a teacher's time is spent teaching kids what they need to know in order to pass the test.

What's wrong with that?

Well, the single most important thing that kids can be taught is how to think for themselves. This is not a liberal statement. Do you want your kids to be able to think for themselves when their peers offer them drugs -- so they can say no?

Of course you do.

And on the other side of the aisle, do you want your kids to say "how high?" when a tyrranical leader says "jump" ?

Of course not.

Indeed, the top performers in most professions have to be able to think for themselves, rather than just spewing back memorized facts and concepts. You obviously want your kids to do well, right?

But the non-stop hamster-treadmill that is teaching for the test, administering the test, and filling out paperwork after the "no child left behind" test is given means that teachers don't have the time or resources to teach kids how to think for themselves. They're too darn busy. If you don't believe me, go talk to a teacher.

Because NCLB precludes teaching that shows students how to think for themselves, it would be more accurate to call it "No Brain Cell Left Behind" . . . because the kids subjected to this sham aren't going to graduate with very much in the way of real intelligence left in their heads.

Given that one of the main goals of public education is to indoctrinate kids into supporting their government, I'm not entirely convinced that this is accidental.

Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.

As reported in a new article in Asia Times:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states...


General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].


When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."


The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Where does Israel come in?

Well, the Asia Times article continues:
Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".
And if "terrorist strikes" were a "small price to pay for being a superpower"- and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to disrupt the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks - doesn't that add weight to the claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was intentionally allowed to occur as the "New Pearl Harbor" which would allow America to act like "a superpower" and re-make the Middle East in its own (and Israel's) image?

This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the "war on terror" were part of the Project for a New American Century and its plea for a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify expansion of American militarism and regime change in the Middle East.

And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the "war on terror" had previously created the "Clean Break" strategy for Israel, which called for a policy of war and regime change against Israel's enemies.

The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As even Newsweek and a top U.S. military advisor have now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.