Re 911truthdotorg, comment #60764:  While I have yet to see sufficient evidence that would substantiate your assertion that “Bush was involved with 9/11,” I certainly would agree that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an open, full and complete investigation into that event—something that we have not had to date.  At the risk of providing you with data that would further convince you that your are already correct about Bush’s “involvement” I would direct you to the 9/17/04 interview of attorney Stanley Hilton, a former senior advisor to Bob Dole at http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm.

RE:    •  Comment #60723 by writerman  on  3/27  at  8:46 am — “Clearly the reaction to the terrorist threat has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and everything to do with creating and empire.”

>>> there you have it

The Global War of Terror is a long-term CIA/MI-6/Mossad project. Of course, launching such a war required some real terror, as delineated in the PNAC ‘98 white paper, calling for a “new Pearl Harbor.” The formula for this operation isn’t complex. 1) Build a convincing pseudo gang, (e.g. Al Queda). 2) Train and set them in motion with a network of handlers, (e.g. Able Danger). 3) Deploy enough moles throughout your security agencies to kill investigations, before they shut down your patsies and professionals (e.g. the handling of Ali Mohammed, the Blind Sheik, Kaliel Sheik Mohammed, et al). 4) Run your team of professionals through a private security firm with access to top technology and government security codes (e.g. Black Water). Voi-la: your 911 coup d’etat, where both Bush and Putin stood down and the strangelove operatives in service to the NWO took over, clearing the way for any deal that need be done to guarantee that oil, arms, uranium, drugs, et al be bought and sold in US Dollars only. Any despot daring to deal in Euros is the next target.

Support 911 Truth - End War Of Terror

let’s face it; when the rich, we-know-best crowd couldn’t deal with the 1000 year advance in civilization brought to us by the Beatles, they planned the 911 to shove us all back under their pre-Magna Carta thumb.
they are warring against us. seeing cheney, perle, gonzo and the bush boys performing manual labor every day while we benefit from having seized their ill gotten assets will be the human race’s victory in this war.
There’s your answer, people. Arrest them today. I need my life back.

bush was involved with 9/11…how anyone can not believe that, is so mind boggling to me at this point in time. He created his “war on terror”.

Demand a new, true 9/11 investigation.

Please watch the Google videos:
9/11 Press for Truth
9/11 Mysteries
Loose Change 2nd Edition
Freedom to Fascism
9-11 Justice (only 18 min long)

Research 9/11 Truth. Educate yourselves!

Our future depends on it.

When bu$h was standing on the heap of rubble at the World Trade Center in 2001 with that shit eating smirk on his face and the Bullhorn in his hand I knew we were in big trouble.

I wondered if he gave much thought to the fact he was standing on the grave of so many. I realized he saw it as the jumping off point for his leap into glory. “I’m a War President”.

This person, who I believe regretted his bugout of Vietnam.

What surprised me about the reactions to the article in the Washington Post was the violence, anger and fury, they expressed. I thought Brzezinki was trying to examine this whole “war on terror” situation in a calm, rational and balanced fashion. Why were so many of the comments in the Post so “unhinged”? Are we moving away from rationality towards superstition?

If Brzezinki’s moderate views can provoke such a response, a lynchmob attitude, what could I do if I tried? They’ed burn me at the stake!

I think the “war on terror” is pure bullshit. A falsity designed to fool the American people and frighten them into accepting far right policy designed to grab what’s left of the oil in the Middle East.

These terrorists are not a “threat” to the United States. Sure they can set off a few bombs, but America can take that without breaking into sweat. The terrorists are about as significant as angry fleas biting Bengal tiger! That is, they are puny and irritating but nothing more. Look at Europe where there’s been terrorism for decades. Did these tiny groups ever pose a real threat to any of these countries! Terrorism is a tactic employed by the weak to attack the strong. What terrorists hope for is that their attacks will provoke the state into over reacting. When the state over-reacts, it shows its true face and this over-reaction, lashing-out against the people, results in a counter-reaction by the people directed towards the state. This is all well-known facts about the nature of terrorism. A deadly spiral of violence is set in motion if one isn’t very careful.

In dealing with terrorists it’s important not to over-react and fall into their trap. Unfortunatley the US has done the exact opposite of what one should have done. They’ve gone hunting bear in a forest with a tank! How stupid is that? Clearly the reaction to the terrorist threat has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and everything to do with creating and empire.

9/11 was the best thing that happen for Bush.  Please do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying 9/11 was a good thing.  But as president during a national crisis and tragedy he had the opportunity to shine, to rise and show he has the making of a great leader.  He had two paths to travel; 1) he could have used the goodwill of the world to work with moderate states and traditional allies to be creative in the world’s approach to eradicating terrorism.  He could have arm twisted other countries with financial and economic aid etc…  He could have used our best academic, military and industrial minds to develop the necessary tools and plans to retaliate and possible begin to root out the causes of terrorism.  But he chose and alternative path.  He was the wrong person at the wrong time.  He surrounded himself with yes-men, ideologues, and Karl Rove where all decisions are political decisions.  He is a weak president, as evidence by Cheney and Rumsfeld having more power than he does.  His lack of intellectual depth and open-mindedness has lead us to where we today.  His policies and approach to the aftermath of 9/11 finished what Bin-Laden started.  We are 5+ years beyond 9/11 and where are we today?  Please think and get involved in selecting the best candidate for president who truly deserves to be a president.  We have an example of one who is truly undeserving of the title.

Fascism at its finest.
Benito Mussulini had his “war on famine”, war on this and war on that. It is all a theatrical farce to give a cloak of resoectability to inhuman acts.

As a practical matter, the concept of a “war on terrorism” borders on a meaningless oxymoron.  As noted by Gen. Wm. Odom (US Army-ret), “Terrorism is not an enemy.  It cannot be defeated.  It’s a tactic.  It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks….”  Yet, as a propaganda tool, it is exceedingly effective.  As noted by Norman Solomon in “War Made Easy,” “war on terror…has entered the language so fully, and framed the way people think about how the United States is reacting to the Sept. 11 attacks so completely, that the idea of declaring and waging a war on terror was not the sole, inevitable, logical consequence of the attacks just isn’t in circulation.”

Solomon notes that the contraction of the phrase to “war on terror” does more than save headline space.  “Terror…is a word fraught with numerous meanings…; among the subtexts of the shortened term are vague notions to the effect that we can somehow effectively wage war on our own fear, a nuance that…hardly suggests an auspicious strategy.”  As noted by Bill Moyers, “the paradigm of the ‘war on terror’” is employed “to elicit public acquiescence in [the administration’s] policies while offering no criterion of success or failure, no knowledge of the cost and no measure of democratic accountability.”

The Orwellian utility of the phrase is that it envisions permanent war and therefore a permanent restructuring of the American government so as to extend dictatorial power to the “Unitary Executive.”  Thus, we find a Don Rumsfeld penned op ed piece appearing a scant 16 days after 9/11 telling us not to even think about an “exit strategy.”  As Antonia Juhasz notes, this perpetual war envisions an omnipresent “phantom menace” involving “shadowy networks of individuals;” a threat that is to be met “anywhere at any time, or everywhere all the time.”  As observed by Norman Solomon, it is a phrase that is “impervious to information or analysis that might encourage critical scrutiny.”

Having first sold America on the shadowy notion that there are Muslim extremists lurking everywhere, it was but a simple slight-of-hand to misdirect its fear by asserting that we had to invade and occupy Iraq because the ubiquitous “they” attacked us on 9/11.  The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11 was evaded, since the neocons found it easy to play on the stereotypical images that paint all Arabs and Muslims with the same brush.  Thus, we find the Bush administration arguing even at this late date that we have to fight “them” over there, so that we won’t have to fight them over here.

Note to JW: Brzezinski was Carter’s Nat’l Security Advisor, and he did in fact suggest that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could be its very own Vietnam.  However, it is important to remember that it was the Reagan administration that provided almost all the material support given to the mujahideen by the U.S.  The Soviet invasion occurred on 12/24/1979, and Carter left office (taking Brzezinski with him) a little over a year later on 1/20/1981.  In the meantime, Carter et al were too busy with a hostage crisis in neighboring Iran, and with being called “soft” by the Republicans, to have much of an impact in Afghanistan.  So go ahead and criticize Brzezinski for favoring support of the mujahideen—just remember Reagan was the one who actually supported them, and remember that hindsight is 20/20.

Who’re terrors ? Just ask yourself then you’ll have an answer.

Use mighty forces to invade other countries through phantom intelligent sources. Is that a terror act ?

Only Bush/Cheney can have excellent respond to this question.

Isnt it odd how Bushco got away with everything that they wanted to do for years and now suddenly the roof is caving in on their heads?

I saved this Barrons Online article from Dec 05. I knew that from that moment Bush was through. The big money folks had seen enough and were pulling the plug. Barrons later published an article entitled ‘Impeachable Offense’and I saved it as well. Havent found it yet.

http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMyODQ0Wj.html

Terror is every wolf or coyote seeing any human.

Rhetoric is a technique, and blame is a human method of promoting self-interest for purposes of reproduction. Females desire security, wealth, power. Males pursue the 3 as technique to get to their purpose.
Humans have no escape from our evolved characteristics. Those who seek power will use technology, force, and every coalition they can form to attain it.
Those who do not seek power will be enslaved (today, as you read, Brazilians are captured daily enslaved to clear rainforest and grow soy. Don’t kid yourself that it is over) for the purposes of those who seek power.
Religion is rhetoric, and was used as such cynically by Rove and Cheney, as facets are used by McCain now to become the next prez. Which reminds me - patriotism is rhetoric. Should one really care for a group of people who will follow any orders, right or wrong, without question?
Unfortunately they gain extra government benefits to pass on more genes. They also demand and get your loyalty. Why? If you happened to be at the wrong end of their gun, whether at My Lai, or in Iraq, you and yours would be raped and killed as easily as those you have heard of.

Politics is compromise, and those who can use the most arousing rhetoric (9/11, forgetting the hundred years the US and Britain manipulated governments and borders, and even Islamic fundamentalism, to control oil, is debased, twisted rhetoric. We are back to blame here. Don’t think! Blame! Blam!), control the public, eager to gain recognition (another sexual attraction).

By the way, study the rise and promotion of Islamic fundamentalism in the latter 19th c. You will find the promoter intended to use it to develop a nationalistic sense. However, he was not himself religious. The movement was later used to prevent Arab nationalism by the US and Britain. Since I am not your teacher, I merely invite you to study the history yourself.

Without purposeful population diminution, we are locked into war.
With economic valuation as the primary human motivator, we are locked into war.

Every one of us is susceptible to vengefulness, it was an arousing trait and those who had it, prospered (My Lai style) over those who didn’t. Thus everyone is susceptible to being used.

See the rhetoric. Run.

Sport hunters - what a wonderful concept!
I remind you that those who compete for the other lives (resources! Mine!) we drag and bulldoze into slaughterhouses, are shot on sight.
Yet they lived in balance in this land millions of years before the first humans invaded for the wonderful opportunities and profits to be had. They lifted no scalps they did not eat. They were not members of a species that brags about its kills. They avoid unnecessary fights.

OPEC did not do this to us.
Because we are a deeply flawed species, response without reflection does, each day.

I agree with the main premise of Brzezinski’s article: the government is spreading fear and it is backfiring.  However, Brzezinski was the one who originally supported the mujahadeen that later became the terrorists whose power the Bush administration now largely overstates in order to spread fear and for other political purposes.  Why did he do this?  To goad the Soviets into a war and defeat; the same Soviets whose power by that time was largely overstated by American administrations (including Brzezinski himself) in order to spread fear and for other political purposes…

I couldn’t agree more!  This was always a misnomer - and I’ve been saying it since 9/11 too.

These words took a ‘real’ something and turned it into an ‘unreal’ something else.

Classic.  Destructive for ‘us’ - NOT ‘them’.

As Salman Rushdie said ‘the one lesson of 9/11 is that we are ALL connected’........  this sentence still bears thinking about, sensibly, calmly and above all ‘realistically’.

We’ve created a video series exploring the outcome of a dirty bomb exploded in a major US City.  The psychological, political and social impact it would have on our lives.  Check it out the six episodes that are up so far.  We welcome all of your comments.

About 40,000 americans die in motor vehicle accidents annually. I don’t know what the global butcher’s bill is for automotive transit, but suffice it to say it’s probably easily double that, probably even north of 100k/yr. That’s a hundred thousand lives lost in the course of conducting ‘business as usual’, sans terror scares and so forth.

Bluntly spoken, gravity sucks, and life is a limited-time opportunity. Yes, there are hooligans, vandals, and murderers in the world, hardened criminals and violent dissidents. There are also people that decide it’s OK to drive when they’re taking prescription medications, or ‘other’ medications, or have been behind the wheel for 16 hours and they just KNOW they can make it 50 more miles before they pass out in the driver’s seat. Grampa died peacefully in his sleep, unlike his passengers, who went screaming…bluntly spoken, there’s a lot of room for improvement in how we operate our nations’ highways, and likely just as much room for such improvements around the world. Speed kills, and so do incompetence and negligence.
Yes, there are people in the world that would like to see our country brought down, but they’re not nearly as much a threat in terms of day-to-day life as we are to ourselves in many ways, and that again goes far far beyond our borders, other nations have similar problems in their attitudes in practices. Lawyers tend to operate from the basic premise that people are stupid until proven otherwise, they make no assumptions as to others’ competency until they have proof. 

MY belief is, if we want to win ‘the war on terror’, we have to delve into the cause-and-effect of this entire business. One driving force, literally, behind all of this, is the fuel we use IN our cars, and how much of it we tend to waste. We burn petroleum extracts as fuel, from petroleum obtained at no small cost from the middle east, among other places. You read the news, you quickly discover that places with lots of oilfields are the ‘new money’, have all kinds of social problems, people killing each other to get that money or access to the petroleum, lots of social havoc, common denominator is that there’s one or more oil wells in play. So, note to self, word to the wise, conserve your fuel usage as much as humanly possible, tune up the car, get a better car that uses less fuel, don’t drive the car unless you really need to, that kind of thing. Thanks to the digi-world, we can cut back quite a bit on our driving if we want to. This is a Good Thing. This also stops sending quite so many billions of our dollars to parts of the world who would gladly absorb that revenue and use it against us.

I think also that more public education is a good approach to the whole sorry oil story. We’ve been on sort of a ‘rocket ride’ for the last 100 years, thanks in part to the oil industry, but it also factors into all of this, people who profit by a given activity tend to want to continue in that vein, whether it’s morally questionable or not. If that was not true, there would be no heroin dealers.

I fully support domestic alternative energy production and development, because I think it’s really really important that we have other ways to propel our conveyances than being reliant on this imported commodity that has so many negative political aspects, these days. OPEC did this to us, more or less, during the 1970’s, Brazil listened and acted, we did not, at least not very effectively.