A Flag is not a Blindfold
Are Americans The Victims Of A Hoax?
by Michael Rivero
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 New York
Towers case, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden (whose brother is one of
George W. Bush's Texas business partners), has issued only two
statements regarding the September 11th attacks, and both of those are
denials of any involvement.
Huge problems are emerging in the official view of events. It's known
that the United States was planning an invasion of Afghanistan long
before the attacks on the World Trade Towers.[1] Indeed the attacks on
the World Trade Towers perfectly fit the timetable of an invasion by
October stated by US officials just last summer.
The 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't point to
Afghanistan. They come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates;
all across the middle east without a focus in any one region. Indeed,
even as the FBI was admitting that its list of 19 names was based
solely on identifications thought to have been forged, Saudi Arabia's
Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal insisted that an investigation
in Saudi Arabia showed that the 5 Saudi men were not aboard the four
jetliners that crashed in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania on
September 11. "It was proved that five of the names included in the
FBI list had nothing to do with what happened," Al-Faisal told the
Arabic Press in Washington after meeting with U.S. President George W.
Bush at the White House. A sixth identified hijacker is also reported
to still be alive in Tunisia, while a 7th named man died two years
ago!
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 Bay Of Pigs, to
anger Americans into support for a second invasion of Cuba.[4] The
plan was spiked by JFK. If our government has ever actually carried
out such plans to stage phony terror attacks, the documents have
remained classified. But given the reality of Operation Northwoods, or
the manner in which FDR manuevered Japan into attacking Pearl
Harbor[5], one cannot rule out the possibility that, once again, the
people of the United States are being lied to by their own government,
to manufacture consent for a war of invasion already being discussed
with other nations the previous summer.
It is also quite possible, indeed likely, that the United States is
being spoofed by a third party to trigger a war. It has happened
before. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a defector from Israel's secret
service, Mossad, Israel decided to mount a false-flag operation
designed to further discredit Libya, and provoke the US to attack an
Arab nation.[6] A transmitter loaded with pre-recorded messages was
planted in Tripoli, Libya, by a Mossad team. The `Trojan Horse' beamed
out fake messages about Libyan-authorized bombings and planned attacks
that were immediately intercepted by US electronic monitoring.
Convinced by this disinformation that Libya was behind the 1986
bombing of a Berlin disco in which a US soldier died, President Ronald
Reagan ordered massive air attacks on Libya, including an obvious- and
illegal(under US law) attempt to assassinate Qadaffi himself. Some 100
Libyan civilians were killed, including Qadaffi's two year old
daughter. Libyan officials had no idea why they were attacked.
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 Israel has benefited from the attacks in New York. While world
attention is focused on what the US will do in Afghanistan, Israel has
escalated its attacks against Palestinians towns. Israel has
repeatedly tried to claim that Palestinians were involved in the New
York attacks, hoping to bury the Palestinian cause under the rubble of
the World Trade Towers. Because of the faked IDs and stolen
identities, we don't really know who planned the World Trade Towers
attacks. We only know who they wanted us to blame.
And we know that the United States has been tricked in the past into
bombing someone who did not deserve the attack, and that those who
were bombed then embarked on what from their point of view was
justified retaliation that culminated over Lockerbie. And while bombs
were falling and planes were crashing, Israel was laughing at us that
we had been so easily fooled into bombing Israel's targets for them.
Are we being hoaxed again, by Israel, or by our own government, or by
both? It's impossible to rule that out. Right now there are a lot of
people who want war. Oil companies want Afghanistan's petroleum
products. Our corporations want "friendlier" markets. The CIA wants
all that opium. And all those war-mongers, with all their greed and
agendas, will not hesitate in the least to pour your tax dollars and
your children's blood all over Afghanistan, to get those "friendlier"
markets, oil, and opium.
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
***** 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
"The last moments of Flight 11," BBC News, 21 Sept 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
"Fake Terror - The Road to Dictatorship", Michael Rivero
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html
"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
Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies, Mark Emerson Willey, Random
House
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
"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
"Bush Keeps Evidence Under Wraps,"" Yahoo!News, 24 Sept 2001
From http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010924/us/attacks_bush_2.html
"Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs," CNN.COM, 21 Sept
2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/
.
|
|
| User: "BraveNewWhirl" |
|
| Title: Re: The great American HOAX |
11 Apr 2004 06:19:32 PM |
|
|
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.
Incorrect. You suggest unethical practice. Sun Tzu does not, ever,
support unethical behaviour.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: The great American HOAX |
11 Apr 2004 04:05:00 PM |
|
|
Zak <Zak@home.com> wrote in message news:<8o8i705rklbefn5nnt67qika3drhnhmrtv@4ax.com>...
A Flag is not a Blindfold
Are Americans The Victims Of A Hoax?
by Michael Rivero
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 New York
Towers case, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden (whose brother is one of
George W. Bush's Texas business partners), has issued only two
statements regarding the September 11th attacks, and both of those are
denials of any involvement.
Huge problems are emerging in the official view of events. It's known
that the United States was planning an invasion of Afghanistan long
before the attacks on the World Trade Towers.[1] Indeed the attacks on
the World Trade Towers perfectly fit the timetable of an invasion by
October stated by US officials just last summer.
SNIP
We just love conspiracy theories, no the security services were
asleeep, besides where are you going to find some folk who fly planes
into buildings?
Or maybe it was GOD saying "Wake time for a reversal of fortune"
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: The great American HOAX |
13 Apr 2004 06:47:44 AM |
|
|
"Leigh_Bee" <leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39cd5fe.0404111305.46980223@posting.google.com...
Zak <Zak@home.com> wrote in message
news:<8o8i705rklbefn5nnt67qika3drhnhmrtv@4ax.com>...
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.
I've been working this theory around in my head since 9/12!
We just love conspiracy theories, no the security services were
asleeep, besides where are you going to find some folk who fly planes
into buildings?
Or maybe it was GOD saying "Wake time for a reversal of fortune"
Hello again, LB. You're suggesting that, err, the security services of the
"they're always out to get us" United States were actually asleep? it does
sound like a novel idea. But yes, Zak is right about one thing. A victory
such as that against the icon of the west would certainly have been
celebrated with great gusto. You may even have had *more* than one group
claiming responsibility for getting it right.
What has kept me interested in this event right from the beginning is one
about evidence. Amongst whatever luggage could possibly have remained after
a fully fuelled passenger aircraft crashed and burned at the Pentagon site,
they found a suitcase which remarkably (still) contained a Quran, and a book
on how to fly commercial aircraft. How odd.
(1.) Surely a novice aviator, who was about to undertake a holy mission
flying an aircraft to his death, would want to have his "user manual" and
his holy book *with him* while he was trying to manouvre an aircraft? Not
leave it in the luggage compartment where it would have been inaccessible.
No point in taking over the plane if you're not sure on how to fly it.
or...
(2.) If he knew how to fly an aircraft, and he knew that he was going to
die, why would he bring such objects with him to risk jeapardising the
nature of his mission. A Quran in the luggage compartment is not much help
to a troubled or otherwise soul. That mixed with a hand-book on how to fly
commercial aircraft is likewise superfluous and unnecessary, like a big
chevron saying "we're going to hijack the plane". I'm sure Osama bin Laden
is an intelligent man, and I'm sure his followers are well trained in the
"art" of killing without getting caught first.
This particular piece of coincidental evidence was enough for me to leave
the possibility open for conspiracy theory. It's not like it hasn't
happened before. But, then, who would fly the plane? Would the US
sacrifice (?) 3000+ lives in order to engage in a "holy" war of their own?
Would the war benefit them, and by how much? Is the leader clever enough to
make the war benefit them? (no) As in all wars before it, this one too
needed a catalyst. Since, allegedly, the plans were already on the table
for an invasion of Afganistan, one might assume that all that was needed
was, in fact, the catalyst to sway popular opinion. Of course, this is just
one *possible* theory. I haven't managed to get my mind around the horror
of such a theory possibly being true, however.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
