Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar

Henry James Goes to Paris

By Peter Brooks
$19.95

more items

 
Report

War Is Sin

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 1, 2009
AP photo / Khalid Mohammed

By Chris Hedges

(Page 2)

There is a difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you and taking the life of someone who does not have the power to harm you. The first is killing. The second is murder. But in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the enemy is elusive and rarely seen, murder occurs far more often than killing. Families are massacred in airstrikes. Children are gunned down in blistering suppressing fire laid down in neighborhoods after an improvised explosive device goes off near a convoy. Artillery shells obliterate homes. And no one stops to look. The dead and maimed are left behind. 

The utter failure of nearly all our religious institutions—whose texts are unequivocal about murder—to address the essence of war has rendered them useless. These institutions have little or nothing to say in wartime because the god they worship is a false god, one that promises victory to those who obey the law and believe in the manifest destiny of the nation.

We all have the capacity to commit evil. It takes little to unleash it. For those of us who have been to war this is the awful knowledge that is hardest to digest, the knowledge that the line between the victims and the victimizers is razor-thin, that human beings find a perverse delight in destruction and death, and that few can resist the pull. At best, most of us become silent accomplices.

Wars may have to be fought to ensure survival, but they are always tragic. They always bring to the surface the worst elements of any society, those who have a penchant for violence and a lust for absolute power. They turn the moral order upside down. It was the criminal class that first organized the defense of Sarajevo. When these goons were not manning roadblocks to hold off the besieging Bosnian Serb army they were looting, raping and killing the Serb residents in the city. And those politicians who speak of war as an instrument of power, those who wage war but do not know its reality, those powerful statesmen—the Henry Kissingers, Robert McNamaras, Donald Rumsfelds, the Dick Cheneys—those who treat war as part of the great game of nations, are as amoral as the religious stooges who assist them. And when the wars are over what they have to say to us in their thick memoirs about war is also hollow, vacant and useless.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
“In theological terms, war is sin,” writes Mahedy. “This has nothing to do with whether a particular war is justified or whether isolated incidents in a soldier’s war were right or wrong. The point is that war as a human enterprise is a matter of sin. It is a form of hatred for one’s fellow human beings. It produces alienation from others and nihilism, and it ultimately represents a turning away from God.”

The young soldiers and Marines do not plan or organize the war. They do not seek to justify it or explain its causes. They are taught to believe. The symbols of the nation and religion are interwoven. The will of God becomes the will of the nation. This trust is forever shattered for many in war. Soldiers in combat see the myth used to send them to war implode. They see that war is not clean or neat or noble, but venal and frightening. They see into war’s essence, which is death.

War is always about betrayal. It is about betrayal of the young by the old, of cynics by idealists, and of soldiers and Marines by politicians. Society’s institutions, including our religious institutions, which mold us into compliant citizens, are unmasked. This betrayal is so deep that many never find their way back to faith in the nation or in any god. They nurse a self-destructive anger and resentment, understandable and justified, but also crippling. Ask a combat veteran struggling to piece his or her life together about God and watch the raw vitriol and pain pour out. They have seen into the corrupt heart of America, into the emptiness of its most sacred institutions, into our staggering hypocrisy, and those of us who refuse to heed their words become complicit in the evil they denounce.

Chris Hedges, who spent nearly two decades as a war correspondent for The New York Times and other newspapers, is the author of “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” due out in July.  His Truthdig column appears every Monday.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 17, 2009 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

colin2626262:
‘A person wrote: “A believer could believe that his understanding was partial and imperfect, in which case he would probably have to agree that others might be no more wrong than himself.”

This is true in part.  I am imperfect.  I never said I was right or that I knew the truth.  God is perfect and good, and God is the truth.  I’m not any of these things, and I never claimed to be.  I just claimed to believe in God.  Now, you have a lot of people on this site who openly blaspheme God.  They don’t believe in God.  I understand these people, because I also used to live without faith.  I know therefore that a life without faith is miserable.  A life without God is useless—and most of all, evil. ...’

Those are things you don’t know.  You may have been miserable and evil without faith in the particular theology you believe, but many people appear to be reasonably happy without it, whatever it is.  In fact, I’ve never seen any evidence, anecdotal or scientific, that shows that believers in any particular theology are happier than non-believers or believers in other theologies, nor do they seem any better behaved.

If I may quote a Biblical character, take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove splinters from others’.

Report this

By colin2626262, June 17, 2009 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

A person wrote: “A believer could believe that his understanding was partial and imperfect, in which case he would probably have to agree that others might be no more wrong than himself.” 

This is true in part.  I am imperfect.  I never said I was right or that I knew the truth.  God is perfect and good, and God is the truth.  I’m not any of these things, and I never claimed to be.  I just claimed to believe in God.  Now, you have a lot of people on this site who openly blaspheme God.  They don’t believe in God.  I understand these people, because I also used to live without faith.  I know therefore that a life without faith is miserable.  A life without God is useless—and most of all, evil. 

In 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, it is written that believers should “stay away from people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is evil? Are light and darkness the same? Is Christ a friend of Satan? Can people who follow the Lord have anything in common with those who don’t? Do idols belong in the temple of God? We are the temple of the living God, as God himself says, “I will live with these people
  and walk among them.
  I will be their God,
  and they will be
  my people.”

  The Lord also says,
  “Leave them and stay away!
  Don’t touch anything
  that isn’t clean.
  Then I will welcome you
  and be your Father.
  You will be my sons
  and my daughters,
  as surely as I am God,
  the All-Powerful.”

I’ve tried to communicate with the atheists and agnostics on this site, and I’ve done that in my day to day life as well.  I hope the people who left comments about what I wrote will know that I don’t want any arguments with them.  I wish them well.  I pray for them.  Hopefully they’ll find God someday.  Until then, there’s nothing for me to say to them.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 17, 2009 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Ok. Your “Hot-Line number is: 327-8424, ext. 253.
Secret code. Translate numbers into letters using your touch-tone key pad.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 17, 2009 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

Rontruth:

Still waiting for that hot-line phone number to your god….you know, the one that told you who did what to whom and when and why.

Were you there?  Maybe that’s it.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 17, 2009 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

“Strangest thing is, often it seems that people who do not “believe,” and those who do “believe” seem to see eye-to-eye on many subjects. Weird, huh?”Rontruth

We are of the same species aren’t we? Our minds are along the same evolutionary design aren’t they? So that is the answer. Humanism can be practiced by most everyone. Even the psychopaths if they care to. It is no surprise to me. [But then I study the sciences including psychology and evolution.]

Don’t forget, the Judeans in order to take the land of the Canaanites away from them at JHVH‘s orders they were to slaughter everyone. Every babe and old woman and pregnant mother and even to the beasts of the field in order to have ‘their’ land washed clean with the massive blood sacrifice to their Storm God. One who speaks with the voice of thunder. The sacrifies to Moloch don’t sound quite as bad now in comparison do they Rontruth?

Report this

By Rontruth, June 17, 2009 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Back in feudal times, cities went to war against cities, areas within towns used to war against other areas of those same towns, etc.

It isn’t that God condones war. He does not. But, since humanity seems unwilling to trust in God, and yet things like Darfur go on while the leaders of our country, and those of other countries, lie to their own people about wars for oil control, etc. are necessary (because of WMD’s for example, denied to some countries by other countries with plenty of WMD’s in their stockpiles.

In other words, our leaders are basically hypocrits who must lie in order to mislead their own people into thinking that, let’s say the war in Iraq, that such wars are for moral reasons.

In Bible times. after going into a land where babies were being sacrificed to wooden idols (gods), the Israelite people had to make sin offerings of various kinds to God, and humble themselves, thereby cleansing themselves from the killing that they had just done, to save the lives of innocent newborns.

Part of the reason for this was that God knew that the Israelite people had not obeyed His commands to be a good, selfless example to the nations around them that would be attracted by the Israelite people’s generosity and giving, and would want to learn the ways of real peace. But, the Israelite people were selfish instead. It was a way of saying to them that their own selfishness and keeping Torah to themselves rather than sharing it as God had commanded them to do, could have caused many millions of people to come to an understanding of the moral Law.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 17, 2009 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

If o nly 28% of “Christians” have read their Bibles at least once, then it would seem that more than 70% of them have not.

Indeed, because of selfishness, we are all caught in a trap, that, as you said in the case of war, we could have avoided. But that would have demanded that we trust each other. In human life, that is a risky thing to do. But, if we were to use Yeshua’s words, and His teachings, at least we could then have the chance that, if there is life yet to come for those who live, then die here on earth, after they die, then believing and following the Bible’s teachings, including those that say that murderers should die by man’s hand, should be at least considered, whether fully put into pracice or not.

A learning curve is what I think the Book is really talking about. We will never be perfect in this life. But that is where Yeshua comes in at: He forgives, helps redo our lives through persistent communicating when we read His words, and thus we can advance in our own lives toward peace. To me, it is worth it to try. I haven’t in my 64 years of life found anything better.

Strangest thing is, often it seems that people who do not “believe,” and those who do “believe” seem to see eye-to-eye on many subjects. Wierd, huh?

Report this

By tahitifp, June 17, 2009 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Rontruth:

You write as tho you have a hot-line to your god.  Would you care to give the rest of us that number? Thanks.

Report this

By garth, June 17, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

I took the title of this piece, “War Is Sin” to mean missing the mark.  That is, a failure of governments and ultimately of humanity to come to grips with the problem of being.  I can’t begin to contemplate a God that would condone a war, especially the wars that this country has been in.
I’ve noticed that neighborhhods don’t go to war against neighborhoods, nor town against town, city against city, but national governments run by the economic elite do.
Of course there are murders and violent crimes evrywhere, but that is what the police are for.
The extent to which common citizens believe the propaganda and lies of their governments and are willing to take up arms against a people in some other part of the world merely to ‘protect our national interest” is beyond me.
Maybe we should rephrase the slogan from the NRA, “Guns don’t kill people, governments do.”

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 17, 2009 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

If we are going to survive as a species and with the knowledge thus accumulated we must work together for our mutual aid or surely the majority of us will die in terrible conditions. Wars and pogroms and climate change and food shortages and overpopulation. Ones we could have avoided. War at least we can fully stop from happening. If we really want to.

“Mutual Aid” (1903) by the Anarchist and biologist Peter Kropotkin illustrated in nature what he proposed for evolution and as a way of doing things in human society without a strict repressive gov’t nor from the lone wolf syndrome either. I am in that camp of anarchism. I am more with Goldman & Bakuhnin though Marx was one too. [Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot weren’t in any way followers or believers in what Marx and Engels proposed and supported. They were poseurs and many a demagogue in order to rule over the people spout such things.

Obviously any one who actually reads the Bible (or any other “Holy” book) will have a better idea at what motivates people. One of the things I learned from reading it is it is full of contradictions and contra-indicators. http://www.evilbible.com/ Certainly it is bad to murder but it is good to kill the murderer, also and adulterer, children who disrespect their parents plus many others. It is all there. The many Islamic countries get such practices from the original Judean Talmud and the Septagent. Did you know only 28% of Christians have actually read their Bible at least once?

War is hell on earth and it is preventable. Will we reach the point in our evolution when such strife is beyond us? Will we survive long enough to find out?

Report this

By Rontruth, June 17, 2009 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

God was the One who gave a moral Law to when He gave the Ten Commandments to Moshe (Moses) at the mountain in Horeb, Saudi Arabia, commonly called “Mt. Sinai.” One of them says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Not that mankind has paid any attention to that Law. He has not.

Some way that God told Israel to go to war with certain nations, therefore how could He have been fair. The leaders of religion in those countries at that time were sacrificing (killing) newborn babies as sacrifices to their gods. God wanted the killing of innocent, defenseless babies to end. He also wanted Israel to have a homeland.

The Israelite people were the kind who, if God had simply done away with the baby-killers Himself, would have said that He did it to show His power to them, in case they decided to willingly break His Commandments or some such thing. They were, in a word, very selfish at that time. They have become that way more recently.

More than half of Israel’s population today are “non-religious” people who do not follow the Law God gave to Moses. Even those who are “religious,” very often do not understand the need to trust God. Like in America, many of them hide behind the rubric of religion to gain respectability in their communities.

It isn’t God’s fault that human beings do not trust each other. How could they? They don’t trust God, either.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 17, 2009 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

What in the world does pacifism have to do with god?

Killing is counter-productive to the sanity and well-being of both the individual and the country..plus the world.  Not only is it an intellectual thing, but it’s a deep down moral ethical thing as well.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 17, 2009 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,
Your words might as well have come from the very mouth of Yeshua Ha-Maschiach (Jesus, the Messiah), Himself. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. Were it of this world, My followers would join armies and fight.” Some versions say just “My followers would fight.”

The problem today is that most of His “followers” do not practice what they preach to everyone else on earth. They have little faith in the protection of God, offered to those willing to trust Him. So-called “Christians” and many “Jews” and “Muslims” miss the point of their own statememts of faith. They think that if just enough people will believe like they do, that everyone would trust God, and therefore trust each other, and therefore peace would come.

They do not understand the paramount necessity that faith means believing on One whom we cannot see, but whose biggest miracle is creating happiness, even if for just a moment. Compared to all the misery in this world, one moment’s happiness, which most people have experienced many times over, are worth trusting in, and the God who protects if we trust Him to do so.

His name is Sukkot (God with us). For those who trust Him, trapped as we all are in this miasma of selfish humanity, there will come a time when He will end all of this misery, and Tabernacle (Sukkot) with us. When you think about it, what else is left without that trust? Anything?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 17, 2009 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

A question for Colin2626262 concerning the topic, is war a sin to you? Are there any good wars to be fought? If so under what conditions?

For me as an atheist it is only a purely defensive one. Where we were attacked first after doing nothing to whom ever attacks us. The USA isn’t pure in that area by a long shot. From bases to interfering with elections to raping an killing locals to taking other peoples resources for ourselves contribute to us being attacked in retaliation for what was done to others.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 17, 2009 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Contradictions would not seem as contradictions in the mind of a fanatic.  One who perceives through self righteous absolutism, would suggests all reason is absent.  If all reason is absent, why not use contradictions as anything else would work as well.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 17, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

I’m just noting an apparent contradiction in what Colin2626262 said.  Maybe he can explain it.

“Is it possible for a believer to believe without proclaiming non believers wrong?”  A believer could believe that his understanding was partial and imperfect, in which case he would probably have to agree that others might be no more wrong than himself.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 17, 2009 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

Questioned sincerity of posters happens on occasion, all in the game of life, colin(number’s) sincerity does seem in question.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 17, 2009 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

As one believes with absolute certainty in the existence of god and what god means and also with the same certainty the wrongness of what those who do not believe as the believer does, are all wrong with the same absolutism, reason is absent.  For it is a requirements of the fanatic to be right without the use of reason.

Is it possible for a believer to believe without proclaiming non believers wrong?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 17, 2009 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

colin2626262:
‘If God is love, and you don’t believe in God, then there’s no love in you, and you’re hateful, ...’

Attributing evil to others because they don’t happen to believe in the same theology you believe in doesn’t seem very loving to me.  In fact, it appears downright hateful.  That being the case, I’ll have to conclude that you don’t really believe in the same particular Great Spook you’ve been professing.  So what’s your game?

Report this

By colin2626262, June 17, 2009 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

Leefeller,

If God is love, and you don’t believe in God, then there’s no love in you, and you’re hateful, and yes, only believers can be pacifists, in the true sense of the word pacifism, meaning love for one’s enemies on the basis of God’s love for all humanity.  Calling me a fanatic only makes you look hateful, thus proving my point about atheists.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 16, 2009 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

“There are too many hateful, sarcastic atheists who wouldn’t stand for a “preacher” on this website.  Also, Robert Scheer, who runs the site, is a self-described agnostic.” 

Why would not wanting to listen to a preacher be hateful?  What of people of other religions not wanting to stand for preaching of different relgions?

Then the following was stated:

If you don’t accept God, and you don’t believe in pacifism, then naturally, Blueboy1938, you’re not going to accept what I say, and you’re going to hate me.  Just remember, I don’t hate you.  That’s the difference between us.

If one dose not accept what one says, does not mean they hate them?  Now, I did not read Blueboy1938’s comments, but presupposing another persons hate in order to make a point as the one above, seems self righteous.

Above the use of the word hate, seems most hateful on it’s own merit, especially defining how others should think or believe, actually in this case how they think or believe. 

Then the following was stated:

“I already addressed.  People who believe in pacifism are religious, or spiritual, people, who value their life with God above their life in this transitory world.” 

It seems one may only believe in pacifism if they qualify that this world is transitory and must be connected to god or else?  Otherwise, those who do not believe in the unreasoned comments of the fanatic are doomed, only believers can be pacifists?  Indoctrinated minds of such absolute certainty, have little reason in the value of using it in discussion.

Report this

By colin2626262, June 16, 2009 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

And to the comment below: “If you think you can live in this world by loving your enemy, you will one day find yourself without a head,” I already adressed.  People who believe in pacifism are religious, or spiritual, people, who value their life with God above their life in this transitory world.

Report this

By colin2626262, June 15, 2009 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment

Rev. William Alberts wrote:

Many professing Christians are oblivious to Jesus’ teaching, “Love your enemies. . . . that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.  He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” (Matthew 5: 44,45)  For these Christians, religion is about having the right belief, not doing right by loving their neighbor as themselves, as Jesus also taught.

To Blueboy1938, whoever you are, maybe, instead of critcizing my views with sarcasm and insults, you should present your own view.  Then we could compare and see which one makes more sense.  Clearly, you’re hostile to Christianity and probably also to a belief in God in general.  I read some of the other comments in opposition to what I wrote, and they weren’t worth responding to.  Maybe you have something to add.  If so, I’d like to see what it is.  All I saw from you is an insult of my character and a sarcastic remark about my quoting from the Bible.

Chris Hedges can’t write openly on this website about his faith because, apparently, he wouldn’t have a column if he did that.  There are too many hateful, sarcastic atheists who wouldn’t stand for a “preacher” on this website.  Also, Robert Scheer, who runs the site, is a self-described agnostic.  Maybe you didn’t read Chris’s bio.  He’s an ordained minister.  He also wrote a book about the Ten Commandments, which was dedicated to finding religious solutions to social problems.  However, he doesn’t write about that on Truthdig.  He’s more interested in being a left-wing commentator so he can have an audience of angry left-wing readers.

I made a mistake in saying I don’t care about the U.S. soldiers who die or come back wounded from wars such as Iraq.  I was trying to be shocking, I guess, since sometimes that’s what makes people think.  I talked to an Iraqi man recently who said very plainly that the U.S. soldiers are all right, since they’re only doing what they’re told, but, he said, “All the leaders need to be killed.”  That was an extremist view, which I don’t agree with, and yet, it’s understandable if you regard our leaders as this Iraqi man regarded them, as murderers.

If you don’t accept God, and you don’t believe in pacifism, then naturally, Blueboy1938, you’re not going to accept what I say, and you’re going to hate me.  Just remember, I don’t hate you.  That’s the difference between us.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 12, 2009 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

johannes’ comment that “if you think you can live in this world by loving your enemy, you will one day find yourself without a head” is true. This may not be as evident in the huge U.S. but it is ultimately true.

I think KDelphi’s emphasis on war profiteers is a first step in the right direction. Life in solitary, all assets confiscated. No profits, greatly reduced motives to make war.

That still leaves us with the ultra-religious and users of limited resources, so everyone will still be going at each other with spears and daggers, but it’s a lot slower and perhaps buy time to figure out a more convenient, ethical and realistic way to live. (Don’t look at me: if I had the answer I’d for sure post it.)

Report this

By Rontruth, June 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie:
Where Johnson is concered, the under-current beneath all the other issues, including foreign policy, was that Johnson was in bed, in my opinion based on the videotaped interviews with people close to him, with organized crime; the mob. It was Johnson’s road to fortune and whatever else might come along with it. But, Bobby Kennedy was his undoing. Bobby was a man who allowed his brother, John F., to let father Joseph Patrick Kennedy use his bootlegging relationships with mobsters so that what was expected to be a tight race in Illinois, to go Kennedy’s way with stuffed ballot boxes, etc.

Nixon’s ciminals were doing the same thing down-state, so one could not say Kennedy was favored only because of Joseph’s mob connections. The mob ran the 1960 election in Illinois, and likely elsewhere. But Joseph’s sons were the kind of guys who would use whomever had whatever influence and “machine” to get into office. Then, they would stab some of them in the back, as Bobby did when he, with either JFK’s support, or outside JFK’s knowledge to some degree, went after the very mobsters who had helped them get into office.

I don’t doubt that JFK’s panache as a politician and what some have dubbed, legendary lack of sexual as well as safety self control may have contributed to the antipathy, perhaps hatred of him as a man. He bedded down with the women of some very powerful CIA and mob figures. He was completely unafraid to stand up to those he felt were really just in the game of politics for their own lucrative gain. He was not a fearful man.

But, where LBJ is concerned, the weight of the testimonies of several well-placed people (in such positions that they did know what LBJ was up to), all say essentially the same things about him. He was, as my dad used to say of him, “an elephant-eared, lying servant to big oil), even if he had to use his position as VP to coopt the CIA and other agencies so he could pay Malcolm Wallace and others to commit murders for him. That provided LBJ with sufficient layers of people to blame.

I think that, whether one liked or disliked Kennedy as president, the evidence, with Gerald Ford’s admission in 1995 to a US Government-appointed Assassination Records Review Board in which he told them that he DID order the medical illustrator to change, from the back wound location found in the autopsy photographs, and put it 5 and 1/2 inches higher than where it appeared in the actual autopsy photos, is the final nail in the Government’s Oswald Did It Alone “theory.”

I remember that Friday afternoon well. Over the course of two days, TWO innocent men were shot to death. One died for reasons already mentioned, and there was no chance, given JFK’s 69% and 70% approval ratings, that he could have ever been successfully impeached for his womanizing, JFK was murdered.

The other man was murdered because he knew of and had infiltrated the actual group of assassins who plotted the shooting, and was reporting it to the Dallas FBI office. He knew too much. They had to kill him because if he had lived, their cover in the whole JFK assassination would have been completely blown.

Recall, in the Nixon Watergate tape recordings, where Nixon tells Haldeman to stop the FBI from investigating the Watergate breakin because “it is likely going to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing. This Hunt (E. Howard Hunt) knows too da—ed much. If this all gets out that this is all involved, Hunt, the CIA, these Cubans and the TEXANS, and it will make the CIA look bad and be bad for the country.”

Nixon knew that E. Howard Hunt was directly involved in the JFK assassination. Hunt was in Dallas that day. So was Nixon. Hunt’s boss, seeking to protect himself (Helms was in charge of covert operations for the CIA when JFK was killed, gave Hunt up to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975.

Just after Hunt’s death in 2007, his son, St. John Hunt let Alex Jones’ nationwide radio show play the tape so everyone could hear it.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Please forgive me, colin2626262, for assuming you to be a Christian.  No doubt I was distracted by your New Testament ramblings.

Here, then, is the entire context of your remark, and I say this time:  What kind of twisted person are you to have made such a statement?

“Young people who join the military can think for themselves.  They can’t say they were fooled by propaganda or by their patriotic upbringing.  You know what you’re getting into when you join the military.  There are no excuses.  So I don’t feel sorry for the soldiers who come back wounded and mentally scarred.  They should never have joined in the first place.  Back in World War II, there was a man named Franz Jaegerstatter, who decided he wasn’t going to report for duty in the German army.  Well, that was his choice.  He was executed for treason.”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Rontruth—during World War 2, the U.S. ruling class, recognizing that Great Britain could no longer run the world and that the Soviet Union and China might pose important challenges to the safety and prosperity of capitalism in the future, decided to take on a full imperial role, although it had been dabbling with empire since the 19th century (in Latin America and eastern Asia).  You can read about this in Dean Acheson’s book Present at the Creation.  The empire was to be more on the Athenian than the Roman model, that is, instead of direct occupation and control, a system of protectorates, alliances and satellites would be formed.  However, any state or party who got substantially out of line could be smashed.

In pursuit of that project, the U.S. government or its proxies have militarily attacked more than 30 countries since World War 2.  Other forms of force and pressure have also been used.  Vietnam was one such case.  Eisenhower was extremely dubious about direct intervention there, in spite of the enthusiasm of his Vice President and some of his advisors.  As a result, at the time he left office, the U.S. had only about 1100 military personnel in Vietnam, under a program called MAAG.  Kennedy changed that to some extent: at the time of his death, there were something like 17,000 American soldiers in Vietnam, certainly a direct intervention, and the U.S. was more or less directly at war with the Viet Cong.  However, like Eisenhower before him and Johnson after him, Kennedy was dubious about using American troops in Vietnam, since it ran counter to the general principles of American hegemony, which were to preferentially recruit and support local forces subservient to the U.S.  So it is possible to find intragovernment messages suggesting partial or full withdrawal throughout the Kennedy-Johnson era, although the numbers show us that in practical terms things went the other way.  In general, Kennedy continued the legacy handed to him by Truman and Eisenhower, and passed it along to Johnson and Nixon unchanged.  This legacy included a policy of consistently striving for world domination which continues to this day.

There does not seem to be much of a case for the theory that Kennedy was killed because he was too peaceful, since his regime was if anything more aggressive than the ones which preceded it.  If one desires a conspiracy I would suggest the Mafia connection would be a better place to look.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 12, 2009 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Anarcissi:
If you had read what I in fact printed, you would see where I said that Kennedy’s election was largely through the efforts of Chicago organized crime. But, Kennedy as an “imperialist?” I think not. In particular in his last year in office and in life, he turned from what was handed to him by Ike: a budding war in Vietnam, Castro’s Cuba, the ending of peace talks under Ike when people at the State Department, in collaboration with the CIA, sent one, Lee Harvey Oswald to Russia as a “defector,” which he never in fact was.

The mission accomplishment for Oswald was the U-2 spy plane downing, using information from Oswald, who had earlier been a radar operator at the Atsugi, Japan top secret U-2 base.

So, Kennedy had been handed some dreary, disgusting things by the outgoing Eisenhower administration.

But in his last year, Kennedy turned from Cold War to more peaceful purposes: test ban treaty, no invasion pledge to get the missiles out of Cuba, the order to withdraw from Vietnam, and attempting to stymie the growing power of US big oil companies by raising their taxes. But, they got rid of him before he could send the tax legislation to Congress.

That hardly sounds like an “imperialist” to me.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Rontruth—Kennedy was a politician and a classical American imperialist with rather intimate ties (!) to the Mafia.  I don’t think he was in the King - Jesus - Moses category.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 12, 2009 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

To put it in simple terms if we don’t end war then war will surely end us. Couched in religious terms or any other that is the outcome we can enjoy. The mass killing, where every convention of what we call civilization is turned on its head or ignored and encouraged and the worst aspects of humanity are let loose. War is the failure of us in my opinion. Dictatorships (of all kinds) are a failure for the individual over just the mass conformity pressed upon them. We can work well with our differences without impressed conformity of thought and deed. Mutual Aid is better than dictatorial collectivism.

Spending our treasure (money, labor, mind power) on such things of destruction and/or subversion and subjugation are not good for us. It bespeaks of an empire not a democratic-republic. Right now we are more demon than angel. Which will we choose? Will we even be able to choose a republic or an empire? So far others make those choices for us. Can we get a say or is it out of our hands? Or do the majority have pride in their version of America and want an empire?

“If we are going to hell then get to it!”
Winston Churchill

Report this

By Rontruth, June 12, 2009 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

History. His Story is what it really means. When it comes to “peace,” I can remember, in general terms, that there were two people in history who really lived, and died, for peace. Well, maybe a total of four:
1. The main one, in my beliefs anyway, was a Man named Yeshua. He, in my beliefs, was the progenitor of all the others. I’ll give a little hint: He was an observant Jew who followed the written Torah, the Law He gave to Moses

2. Moses, himself, after many battles with himself for self-control, led his people to what is today’s israel.

3. President John F. Kennedy. Elected by wealth, not from his own considerable wealth. But from the wealth and power of organized crime, mainly in Chicago. His brother became Attorney-General and went after those who had been of primary responsibility for his brother’s election. Kennedy had made many enemies because of his anti-empire/anti-military overextension policies, and increasing taxes on oil companies.

There were lots of people behind whom others could hide, and do what they did to Kennedy. That is why we never got the known truth from our own government that knew it all along. See http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He died because he tried to get average people to look inside themselves to see where the desire for peace must start. He was against the war in Vietnam, as were John and Bobby Kennedy. The racists who hated him joined the warmongers in the FBI and CIA, and had Montoya shoot him, and they blamed a local Memphis man, James Earl Ray for the crime.

Montoya was one of the three CIA agents who brought in name tags and IDs for all the paricipants in the JFK assassination four and a half years before King’s assassination. He had arrived in Memphis in a white stationwagon. When the Memphis police opened the door of the vehicle, a note fell out onto the ground. It had the name of Jack Ruby, his Carousel Club name and address and phone number written on it.

Ruby was the Dallas hood who had known Lee Oswald ever since Oswald was a boy in New Orleans when his mother, Marguerite Oswald dated organized crime boss, Carlos Marcellos’ chauffeur in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

One day before Ruby shot Oswald on national TV, Oswald had blurted out to reporters that he was a “patsy.” It turns out that he was. He was innocent of President Kennedy’s murder. He thought, as an FBI informant, that he was stopping the assassination by infiltrating the group of assassins, for Hoover’s FBI. But, Hoover, who hated JFK, had other ideas. Hoover turned on his own field informant, and set him up in his (Oswald’s) absence. Hoover’s friends in organized crime made sure Oswald was dead so he would not be able to explain what he meant by the word, “patsy.”

And, now, back to Yeshua. He is another “patsy.” He was innocent also.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 12, 2009 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

One can perceive all Christians, and all religions as being twisted. Now one only need define twisted.

Fear seems a useful motivator of religion and politics both. Let the people fret about everything otherwise they will see reality and the puppeteers behind the curtains. This seems to be the program and it works well for a time until new puppeteers proclaim their own deceptions of change.

If history were a good teacher it would not be so repetitive, maybe not history but instead human nature which is repetitive?

Report this

By johannes, June 12, 2009 at 4:39 am Link to this comment

The world is closing on on us, with all the media’s who are spreading all the news from every where, except it go’s past the redaction, who leth us hear wath they want, thats how the steer the minds of the people.

If you think you can live in this world by loving your enemy, you will find some day your self without a head.

Allmost all religions are bend and made ready for use
by power seekers, most religions are based on love, but they are now dripping of blood, and misused.

So wath is the tru religion, look for it in your own hart, maby you will find it their, don’t beleef all this spindocters in your country, look for an old preacher man,who just says his prayer with you, without telling wath to do.

Report this

By colin2626262, June 12, 2009 at 4:11 am Link to this comment

One person wrote:

“What kind of twisted “Christian” are you, Colin?

I never claimed to be a Christian, and whoever wrote this comment took my comment out of context.  I do feel terrible that human beings join the U.S. military to kill their brothers for no reason.  I was just pointing out that those who join the military need to be held responsible for their actions, since they’re adults who have free will.

Another person wrote:

“There are several reasons for enlistment, family tradition is one, seeking money for college or training for future careers another, an inability to find a job is a growing reason for enlistment.” 

This person seems to think I wasn’t aware of these reasons for enlistment.  My comment shows there’s a purpose to life other than a material or economic one, and that it’s possible to overcome selfish motives and be selflessly devoted to humanity.  That’s simply impossible to do by devoting yourself to the U.S. military, which seeks to control other countries by force.

I’ve listened to a few veterans who came back to speak out against the war, and their stories are poignant.  I know Chris authored a long article on this topic for the Nation, most of which I read.  The truth is that, yes, “war is sin,” but there’s got to be an alternative to war, as opposed to simply a critique.  I’m not a “starry-eyed idealist,” but the only answer is a pacifist view that takes into account the necessity of laying down one’s life, not in violence, but in love, even for one’s enemies.  Pacifism isn’t unrealistic, despite what some people may think.  It’s a way of life, though, and you have to be religious to follow the path of peace.

What does it mean to be a Christian?  It really means to be a pacifist, someone who prays for those who hate him.  That’s what Jesus preached.  That’s not what most theologians have preached, from Niebhur down to Augustine, but pacficism is the truth of Christianity and of all human life.  Love is greater than life, so much so that even death is life if you die with faith.  This is what pacifism teaches.  It’s not for cowards.  That’s what Gandhi taught.  He said nonviolence was only for the strong, only for those who are unafraid.  What was he talking about?  He meant that you have to live for your soul, not your flesh, and your flesh extends to your country, which is just another form of materialism.  Pacifists have to be spiritual people.  Pacifists can’t be shallow or weak, but most of all, they can’t be angry with anyone, or desire revenge for being attacked.

There’s talk of 9/11 on the comments to this post.  Chris, in his articles, writes about Muslims being enraged with America and the reasons for this rage.  What if we were a nation of Christians, real Christians—that is, pacifists?  Would the Muslim world have any reason to be enraged at us?  No.  We would keep our military out of their lands, and we wouldn’t kill them.  We wouldn’t give them any reason to hate us.  They wouldn’t attack us.  We would be friends.  Then the only ones who would be condemned as terrorists would be the ones who desire war because it gives them power and adds to their wealth.  And the believers, the Christians, the pacifists, and all people who share a similar understanding, would be saved from having to participate in the evil, the sin, of war.  No one would join the military, in other words, because no one would want to.  Everyone would simply want to love their brother and sister, all over the world, regardless of differences.

That may sound like idealism or a “twisted” form of Christianity.  So be it.  It’s the truth

Report this

By colin2626262, June 12, 2009 at 4:07 am Link to this comment

One person wrote:

“What kind of twisted “Christian” are you, Colin?

I never claimed to be a Christian, and whoever wrote this comment took my comment out of context.  I do feel terrible that human beings join the U.S. military to kill their brothers for no reason.  I was just pointing out that those who join the military need to be held responsible for their actions, since they’re adults who have free will.

Another person wrote:

“There are several reasons for enlistment, family tradition is one, seeking money for college or training for future careers another, an inability to find a job is a growing reason for enlistment.” 

This person seems to think I wasn’t aware of these reasons for enlistment.  My comment shows there’s a purpose to life other than a material or economic one, and that it’s possible to overcome selfish motives and be selflessly devoted to humanity.  That’s simply impossible to do by devoting yourself to the U.S. military, which seeks to control other countries by force.

I’ve listened to a few veterans who came back to speak out against the war, and their stories are poignant.  I know Chris authored a long article on this topic for the Nation, most of which I read.  The truth is that, yes, “war is sin,” but there’s got to be an alternative to war, as opposed to simply a critique.  I’m not a “starry-eyed idealist,” but the only answer is a pacifist view that takes into account the necessity of laying down one’s life, not in violence, but in love, even for one’s enemies.  Pacifism isn’t unrealistic, despite what some people may think.  It’s a way of life, though, and you have to be religious to follow the path of peace.

What does it mean to be a Christian?  It really means to be a pacifist, someone who prays for those who hate him.  That’s what Jesus preached.  That’s not what most theologians have preaced, from Augustine down to Niebhur, but pacficism is the truth of Christianity and of all human life.  Love is greater than life, so much so that even death is life if you die with faith.  This is what pacifism teaches.  It’s not for cowards.  That’s what Gandhi taught.  He said nonviolence was only for the strong, only for those who are unafraid.  What was he talking about?  He meant that you have to live for your soul, not your flesh, and your flesh extends to your country, which is just another form of materialism.  Pacifists have to be spiritual people.  Pacifists can’t be shallow or weak, but most of all, they can’t be angry with anyone, or desire revenge for being attacked.

There’s talk of 9/11 on the comments to this post.  Chris, in his articles, writes about Muslims being enraged with America and the reasons for this rage.  What if we were a nation of Christians, real Christians—that is, pacifists?  Would the Muslim world have any reason to be enraged at us?  No.  We would keep our military out of their lands, and we wouldn’t kill them.  We wouldn’t give them any reason to hate us.  They wouldn’t attack us.  We would be friends.  Then the only ones who would be condemned as terrorists would be the ones who desire war because it gives them power and adds to their wealth.  And the believers, the Christians, the pacifists, and all people who share a similar understanding, would be saved from having to participate in the evil, the sin, of war.  No one would join the military, in other words, because no one would want to.  Everyone would simply want to love their brother and sister, all over the world, regardless of differences.

That may sound like idealism or a “twisted” form of Christianity.  So be it.  It’s the truth

Report this

By colin2626262, June 12, 2009 at 4:03 am Link to this comment

One person wrote:

“What kind of twisted “Christian” are you, Colin?

I never claimed to be a Christian, and whoever wrote this comment took my comment out of context.  I do feel terrible that human beings join the U.S. military to kill their brothers for no reason.  I was just pointing out that those who join the military need to be held responsible for their actions, since they’re adults who have free will.

Another person wrote:

“There are several reasons for enlistment, family tradition is one, seeking money for college or training for future careers another, an inability to find a job is a growing reason for enlistment.” 

This person seems to think I wasn’t aware of these reasons for enlistment.  My comment shows there’s a purpose to life other than a material or economic one, and that it’s possible to overcome selfish motives and be selflessly devoted to humanity.  That’s simply impossible to do by devoting yourself to the U.S. military, which seeks to control other countries by force.

I’ve listened to a few veterans who came back to speak out against the war, and their stories are poignant.  I know Chris authored a long article on this topic for the Nation, most of which I read.

The truth is that, yes, “war is sin,” but there’s got to be an alternative to war, as opposed to simply a critique.  I’m not a “starry-eyed idealist,” but the only answer is a pacifist view that takes into account the necessity of laying down one’s life, not in violence, but in love, even for one’s enemies.  Pacifism isn’t unrealistic, despite what some people may think.  It’s a way of life, though, and you have to be religious to follow the path of peace.

What does it mean to be a Christian?  It really means to be a pacifist, someone who prays for those who hate him.  That’s what Jesus preached.  That’s not what most theologians have preaced, from Augustine down to Niebhur, but pacficism is the truth of Christianity and of all human life.  Love is greater than life, so much so that even death is life if you die with faith.  This is what pacifism teaches.  It’s not for cowards.  That’s what Gandhi taught.  He said nonviolence was only for the strong, only for those who are unafraid.  What was he talking about?  He meant that you have to live for your soul, not your flesh, and your flesh extends to your country, which is just another form of materialism.  Pacifists have to be spiritual people.  Pacifists can’t be shallow or weak, but most of all, they can’t be angry with anyone, or desire revenge for being attacked.

There’s talk of 9/11 on the comments to this post.  Chris, in his articles, writes about Muslims being enraged with America and the reasons for this rage.  What if we were a nation of Christians, real Christians—that is, pafifists?  Would the Muslim world have any reason to be enraged at us?  No.  We would keep our military out of their lands, and we wouldn’t kill them.  We wouldn’t give them any reason to hate us.  They wouldn’t attack us.  We would be friends.  Then the only ones who would be condemned as terrorists would be the ones who desire war because it gives them power and adds to their wealth.  And the believers, the Christians, the pacifists, and all people who share a similar understanding, would be saved from having to participate in the evil, the sin, of war.  No one would join the military, in other words, because no one would want to.  Everyone would simply want to love their brother and sister, all over the world, regardless of differences.

That may sound like idealism or a “twisted” form of Christianity.  So be it.  It’s the truth.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

Rontruth:
‘Oh, well, for my benediction, my curious mind wonders, since some here are saying that it is useless to pursue the truth about 9/11/01 because, after all, no one knows for absolutely sure that those explosions that were heard beneath the Towers… ‘

That’s not why it’s useless to “pursue the truth” as you call it.  It’s useless to pursue your particular theory of the truth because, obviously, if the conspiracy is powerful and competent enough to pull off something like 9/11 without a single person breaking cover or a single bit of hard evidence left behind, then they are clearly powerful enough to block any inquiry, much less a real investigation.  I know I said that before, but why not repeat it endlessly?

If you find the pursuit of this dead-end theory amusing anyway, go to it.  But I’d appreciate it if you and your fellow believers restrained your desire to proclaim the theory in places where people are attempting to discuss something else.  Or else improve it a bit—it’s getting pretty tedious.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

RonTruth:

Move on, Folks.  Nothing to see here.

That’s the slogan of most of our critters.  Obama leads the pack with his “looking forward” and not allowing prosecution of bushco.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 11, 2009 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

Sorry about the double post!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 11, 2009 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

If one prefers to worry and fret about government and what it may have done, could have done, and in some peoples minds did do. Where does one go? Of what use is it? If our government is not accountable to the majority of the people and surely not to those pointing fingers, why would one waste their time and energy?  Is it another form of fanaticism, a holy cause the need to address yet another perceived grievance?

If one believes every thing said by ones government, they would be a simpleton. On the other hand if one wishes to spend their life proving the government did not do what it said it did, well good for them and the time on their hands.

We went to war in Iraq on false stories, stories most cannot prove and of course impeachment is off the table.  Accountability to the people, is non existent in our government probably most other governments, follow the money for ear bending requires nothing of integrity for the good of the people.  As Chaney said when told the people did not feel we should have gone to war in Iraq and he replied,  flippantly “so”.

After all is said and done, not proving the unprovable must be a past time for some, not unlike religion in many respects. If most people believed Kennedy was killed by so and so and the majority of the people believe the towers were attacked by aliens, why should one expect the answer to be different, than Chaney’s classic “so”?

Report this

By Rontruth, June 11, 2009 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

Oh, well, for my benediction, my curious mind wonders, since some here are saying that it is useless to pursue the truth about 9/11/01 because, after all, no one knows for absolutely sure that those explosions that were heard beneath the Towers, and building 7, were really sub-floor-level explosions, even though within one minute, the buildings above where the explosions were heard, collapsed into their own footprints, well, we just need to go on until the next mass assassination takes place.

With the next obviously manmade catastrophe, then we’ll all just fall onto our computers, blab a lot of hot air and windsauce pudding, have our flit of cartharsis, literally and figuratively, then we will all again reach the point that some on this site have now reached, that of learned helplessness, then blame those who continue to struggle to find the truth, as mere “conspiracy theorists.”

I guess we no longer really care about documented history. We are so comfortable. And then…...?!$!.
But, while we were free with all our constitutional rights intact, but suddenly found ourselves having lost many of the freedoms we still enjoy, we can then say: My goodness, but it WAS a good life we lived back then.

Meanwhile, don’t worry about it. It will all just go away.

Report this

By ardee, June 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 11 at 8:16 pm #

Amen…..

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

If one prefers to worry and fret about government and what it may have done, could have done, and in some peoples minds did do. Where does one go? Of what use is it? If our government is not accountable to the people and surely not to those pointing fingers, why would one waste their time and energy?  Is it another form of fanaticism, a holy cause the need to have yet another grievance?

If one believes every thing said by ones government, they would be a simpleton. On the other hand if one wishes to spend their life proving the government did not do what it said, well good for them and the time on their hands.

We went to war in Iraq on false stories, stories most cannot prove and impeachment is off the table.  Accountability to the people, is non existent in our government probably most governments, except to the money slinging and ear bending elite. 

After all is said and done, not proving the unprovable must be a past time for some, not unlike religion in some respects.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

I was there.  I worked (still do work, occasionally) at a job three buildings away.  I’m not afraid of blaming politicians—I’m perfectly willing to believe that Bush and Cheney would kill thousands of people to score a political point.  I just don’t think there is any good evidence that they did in this case, and I’m tired of having the issue injected into every discussion, and I’m tired of the breathless religiosity of the true believers.  I guess I’m getting old and cranky.  Conspiracy theories used to be fun—I remember a lecture in which R. A. Wilson traced the Kennedy assassination back to the Order of St. Louis, who were either the lineal descendants of Jesus Christ, or extraterrestrials—I forget which.  He also mentioned the general theory of conspiracy, which runs like this:  There are conspiracies, and some are more powerful than others.  Clearly, the more powerful conspiracies must infiltrate and control the less powerful conspiracies.  But this means there must, somewhere, be one single most powerful conspiracy which controls all the others directly or indirectly.  Who are they?  We’ll never know, because they control all the media and are lurking in your telephone.  And those new lightbulbs….

Report this

By tahitifp, June 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

OTOH, there’s this:

***********************

Begin quote:

“Yes, this is a quote from their report, but as I have shown repeatedly in the past, they like to take single quotes from sources, ignoring everything else they said, and use that to argue for a conspiracy.

So let’s look at the full report available here, it is 90 pages long, they only give us part of one sentence.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/pnac-myth.html

Report this

By tahitifp, June 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

No, none of us was there.  But remember this?
**************
Project for the New American Century: A roadmap for global domination
Fair Use Statement

The Project for the New American Century provides a roadmap to Iraq and beyond.

  “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor…”

  “And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

  —from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” September, 2000.

http://www.terraknowledge.net/news/terrak040503a.htm

Report this

By Rontruth, June 11, 2009 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

I agree with the statement that “none of us was there.” And, since what we do have, from those who were filmed there at the time it happened, then why don’t we just listen to them. You can get films of these people on film by videotapes and now CDs, saying what they heard and saw. “JFK 11” is a good one to get because the witnesses to both events are there, on scene, at the time the two tragedies occurred. We were not. Who are we to demand “science” from scientists who were not there?

I say, listen to the overall collective of people who were interviewed on scene, then begin making some assumptions about what likely happened.

Some people here are so fearful of blaming politicians for what happened, whether Bush/Cheney for 9/11/‘01, two Republicans, or Lyndon Johnson and Governor John B. Connolly, two Democrats, for what the witnesses who knew both of them now say about their involvement in putting together the assassination of President Kennedy.

Some people remind me of a cartoon of the 1960s that showed a rocket scientist who got something wrong, and someone affected by his “knowledge” came up to him with a gun and shot him. Before he died, he whispered to the guy who shot him, “Now, you show me the scientific proof that you just shot me!” He died. The guy said, “well, you know, well actually you don’t know ‘cause your dead, but I now have scientific proof that I just shot you.”

The point here is that, as truth goes, science is does not always tell the truth. It merely shows relationships between things. One can then make their own independent (of science that is) decisions about what really happened.

Thus, back to the eyewitnesses we go.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

“But thus far there’s no evidence of either hypothesis.”

Boy, we’ve sure blown the budget on bandwidth trying to “discuss” this one. Considering that NONE OF US has much, if any, expertise in this area… that NONE OF US was there to actually observe and hear… that NONE OF US has any access to verifiable observations and data relating to the destruction of the WTCs… we’re doing pretty damn well AIRING OUR COLLECTIVE IGNORANCES.

And that is exactly what the “authorities” want us to be doing. They know we don’t know what we’re talking about and will likely NEVER find out the truth.

But boy just think of the millions to be made on the books, TV specials and movies to come.

We’re a strange lot, we humans. So wonderful and so STUPID at the same time.

That aside, MY common sense tells me that if there’s a really, really hot fire on, say floor 50, and it burns hot enough to melt the steel, then ALL THE FLOOR ABOVE 50 are likely to cave in. But this is NOT what I observed on TV. What I saw was the ENTIRE STRUCTURE COLLAPSING UNDER THE FLAMING FLOORS. What exactly would cause this? There was little or NO HEAT or DAMAGE UNDER the affected floors… so why did they collapse FIRST?

Report this

By garth, June 11, 2009 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Here’s a who;e site od reports, photographs, interviews etc.

http://stj911.org/evidence/wtc.html#white_paper

I think it’s you, you who wouldn’t know the truth even if it, well especially if it hit you in the head.

Rontruth,

In some of the back and forth on this subject on the web, they describe to a ‘T’ the roll and the method that this blockheaded-beyond-her-years person represents and uses.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

garth—I don’t want to see a video.  I want to see a written report, with the appropriate science and technology explicitly and fully included, that proves whatever.  When I see that, I will go and check it against the physical world—that is, other records and evidence.

Rontruth—I don’t have to explain anything.  You’re putting forward a theory about an extraordinary system of events which on its face is extremely improbable.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary backing.  The fact that someone thinks they heard something, for instance, or that metallic combustion products were found in the debris of the towers, does not prove anything at all.  Yes, the buildings could have been blown up.  And they could have been destroyed by the Saturnian ant men using their hypermind rays.  But thus far there’s no evidence of either hypothesis.

I have to add, again, that the whole business of concocting the theory seems totally useless to me.  If the conspirators are so powerful they can pull something like this off, without any hard evidence coming out or a single person breaking silence, what effect do you think a few people coming up with stories about someone hearing Larry Silverstein maybe saying something odd is going to have?  Obviously, if you do get near the truth, you’ll simply be eliminated.

So far, though, I think you’re pretty safe.

Report this

By garth, June 11, 2009 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Dr. Crockett Grabbe PhD, Physics Professor at the University of Iowa questions 9/11 collapse of WTC Twin Towers & Building 7, that is the government story.  He is interviewed by Lenny Charles of the INN World Report. a great independent news broadcast that was starved out by the FreeSpeechTV We’ll-say whose-progressive-and who’s-not Nazis.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2417852668688932395

Report this

By Rontruth, June 11, 2009 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Is truth physics? Or, as is the case in most cases, does truth stand on it’s own merits, as observed by the people who were at the scene of the WTC Towers when and after they collapsed. Physics, or whatever you mean by that term, if it attempts to disagree with the witnesses who saw and heard while classroom physics rested, is then only an excuse to argue unrelated minutiae.

Eyes and ears. Those of people who were where I was not, are more important than abstract arguments from any field, including physics.

How do you explain the thermate found in the powder that, if explosives had not been used in the Towers’ implosions, should not have been there?? Since steel doesn’t melt at the temperatures reached in the Towers, then how do you explain all that molten steel?

How do you explain the words of the experienced WTC engineers and maintenance workers who saw and heard the rapid-timed (to meet the speed requirements of falling buildings at those heights as they came down, floor by floor at free-fall speed?

How do you explain Silverstein’s having decided to have his building “pulled?” when it would have taken at least several days to do the implantation of explosives devices into building 7?

And the other two buildings came down in like manner as did building 7!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Rontruth—if you’re not going to give us physics, you shouldn’t offer us physics.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 11, 2009 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

If you mean statistically related tangents and coordinances that would give you the numbers in ratio, NO.

But, all one need do is read what the physicists, architectural engineers, etc. have plentifully reported to the only people who would listen to THEIR science; the scientists at the university level.

The Bush administration didn’t even try to explain how such collapses could occur, given the massive weight of the scientific evidence as given by the scientists to the research community showing that they could not have occurred the way the Bush administration said they had.

It sounds to me as though you are a person who chooses not to actually study what the real scientists have said.

As District Attorney, Jim Garrison said in open court in the Clay Shaw trial, “physics, as quoted by the Warren Commission, could potentially explain how an elephant could hang from a cliff, without falling over it, with it’s only anchor to the ground above the cliff being that it’s tail is tied to a daisy just above the cliff.”

I think some might agree that even the hard sciences ultimately must depend, to the degree that intervening, unplanned variables occur, even if the probability of such occurrences are minute, next to absolute zero, that can cause things to happen in certain ways. However, the probability of the WTC Towers having fallen as they all three did, is too tiny to make it a real subject for any scientific discussion.

When one puts the evidence at the WTC site, with all the background evidence gathered by researchers, some of whom are university-level scientists, and former military officers who are experts, there is considerable likelihood that 9/11/01 was an inside job. It just depends on whether one accepts the probability, however small, that the WTC Towers collapsed in ways no other steel-bostered structures have ever fallen.

Put it all together, just as we who have studied the Kennedy assassination have done, and one comes to the statistically inescapable conclusion that VAST WEALTH and the POWER and POSITION it can afford, can cause, and has caused individuals in such positions to want more of both, even if they had to lie about who caused what deaths in order to clear their way to such wealth and power.

If not for such wealth and power and the desire to clear the way for more of it, faster than they could “earn it,” then one would wonder why such individuals would do such heinous things. But, added to increased wealth and power, the entire dynamic is changed.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

Rontruth:
‘All structures that have height, equal distribution of weight, have equal sides in terms of length, width, and height, will fall in the direction of the side that has been weakened by any impact that can effectively weaken that particular side. ...’

There is no such principle in any physics book I’ve ever seen.  In any case, you haven’t shown that one side was more weakened than the other, whatever that means.  Are you aware of the peculiar construction of the towers?

And am I going to get any physics or not?

Report this

By Rontruth, June 11, 2009 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

All structures that have height, equal distribution of weight, have equal sides in terms of length, width, and height, will fall in the direction of the side that has been weakened by any impact that can effectively weaken that particular side. That is, unless it’s equal and opposite side has been weakened by some other impact, resulting in an equal weakness on that opposite side. When all sides have been weakened such that the structural weakness is simultaneously reduced in the ability to hold the structure in place, then and only then will the structure fall straight downward.

It is just the nature of equal structures.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

Rontruth:
‘You want physics? OK, at home you can build yourself….’

That’s not physics.  If I have to spell it out, there is no reason to believe that a crude home-built two-foot structure would have much of anything in common with the World Trade Center towers.  It certainly would not simulate or predict their behavior under the circumstances of September 11, 2001.

So let’s have the physics.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 11, 2009 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

You want physics? OK, at home you can build yourself any kind of symetrical, let’s say, a building-like set of blocks that you have set one on top of the other, just for sake of illustration, so that the stack of blocks is in the shape of a miniature high building. Make it perhaps big enough so that you can have four sides to it, all the way to the top of it, just like the WTC Towers looked.

Now, after you have completed constructing this perhaps two foot high structure, with your hand, come in on one side of the structure and gently strike just one side of the structure. You will notice that the structure then falls onto the side that was weakened by the impact of your hand, or whatever other object you bumped into one side of the structure. The side of any high, but equally balanced structure, that was struck by anything cabable of weakening one side so that it is weaker than the other side of that structure, will cause the structure to fall in the direction of the impact that caused the imbalance to occur.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

Rontruth:
’... Physics shows that buildings 1 and 2, should have fallen over onto the side where the aircraft impact occurred. ...’

Show me the physics.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

RAE:
’... The bullets that killed President Kennedy also infected the rest of us with an equally lethal dose of pernicious distrust of those we set in authority over us. ...’

I don’t know how to break this to you, but people distrusted authorities long, long before anyone heard of President Kennedy.  As they should.  And I don’t see anything lethal about it.  Why should we trust those in authority?  It seems to me that Americans have been far too trusting of authority, and it is that trust which has proven lethal.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 11, 2009 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

It’s a given that we humans are capable of some unimaginable horrors. I’ve seen a few in my day.

But I cannot get my mind to accept that there are those who, while already enjoying all the benefits and luxuries their country can provide, can STILL be possessed of such GREED, EGO and EVIL that they conspire to assassinate, murder, destroy and deceive.

The bullets that killed President Kennedy also infected the rest of us with an equally lethal dose of pernicious distrust of those we set in authority over us. Oh, it’s not the quick and likely painless death suffered by those in the spotlight, but when TRUST is poisoned the “relationship” cannot long survive.

American’s relationship with their leaders has been soured to the point where recovery is not very high on the list of consequences. The “infection” that has taken hold of many who write here will inevitably spread to the masses. Anyone care to guess what comes next?

I wish President Obama all my best. But if he succeeds in bringing about the “change” upon which his platform rested it will be the miracle of the millennium! He’s swimming in a cesspool of pirhanas that are very likely to strip him to the bone long before he gets to do much “damage” to their evil schemes.

That’s my view, anyway. Sure hope I’m dead wrong.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

“Conspiracy theories?” The idea that three buildings could come down in identical fashion, but only one of them in a way that was, and is today, possible, given that explosives were incontrovertibly known to have been used, on building 7, then it is just a theory, and a very poorly explained one, that the other two were brought down by fires when on each of those buildings there was a major impact and ripping through by aircraft on only one side. Physics shows that buildings 1 and 2, should have fallen over onto the side where the aircraft impact occurred.

Thermite, or is it thermate, has been found in the fine powder that was found all over the WTC wteckage and powder (which could only have come from explosives.)

Just like all the witnesses to the Kennedy assassination, including three CIA/mob men have all now testified in videotaped official, including FBI, the treason that was the JFK killing, and Johnson’s Warren Commission which he made sure Hoover’s FBI covered up until agents recently left the Bureau and told all they know, THE ACTUAL TRUTH IS OUT THERE NOW. See www,jfkmurdersolved.com for more hard evidence, all in one site and place, than anyone could have imagined even existed. (except those few older folks who are alive today who were directly involved in it.

If we let the past violent wrongs go unheeded and, unpunished, then those whose selfishness and malice aforethought who planned these two separate, but historically related tragedies, we can only count on more of the same if, and when big corporate money, profits, use of our tax dollars to both lie to the American people, give huge tax windalls to their benefactors, while using (or borrowing) the money to send our sons and daughters to fight in the wars they lied to start.

That is why the search for the truth of both the JFK assassination, reversing Kennedy’s peaceful policies, and the 9/11 attacks which led to illegal wars, are so very important, even to the skeptics who say this is all just a “conspiracy theory.”

Report this

By garth, June 10, 2009 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Rontruth,

Thanks for bringing up that issue.  It’s the one that I hope does not go away.
The investigation is ongoing and more and more facts are being revealed.  The last item I read was that they found small particles of thermite in the chemcial analysis of the dust.  That finding is just as Dr. Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, predicted.
The one small question that keeps coming to me is:  If Larry Silverstein decided to “pull” Tower 7 as he said on film, (Pull is jargon used in the demolition business that means to detonate the explosives that bring down a building.) then acccording to observable fact, someone had to decide to “pull” Towers 1 and 2 as well.
Larry Silverstein settled with the insurance company for a couple of $ billion.  He tried to double it by claiming that each Tower attack represented a separate terrorist attack.  I wonder how Larry felt when he pushed the buttons on Towers 1 and 2.  What say, Lah? Was it like two separate incidents?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

garth—I can read Spann’s story in some other ways.  I’m going to create the theory that he thought he was doing good and that the Afghans ought to be able to see this, and that he could manifest this to them by going among them alone and unarmed.  Of course there is a certain amount of arrogance, or at least overconfidence, in that attitude.  But I think it’s important to remember that almost all top-drawer imperialism is accompanied by a conviction that one is doing good.

And now, back to your regularly-scheduled conspiracy theories.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

RAE. It is good to see that people are beginning to do as we old timers did in talking about the actual, hard evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy who, as I mentioned earlier, stood against such violent plots, as was Operation Northwoods, with Americans attacking Americans so that the big fruit, sugar and oil interests could once again take over Cuba’s main industries. But Northwoods was a real plot from the Pentagon to Congress, whose US Rep, from Florida presented it to JFK. Kennedy, thankfully, turned it down.

He was aghast that the military, supposedly in existence to defend Americans, could even dream of such a dastardly plan so they could cause the people to demand an attack on Castro/s Cuba to take back the various industries that the US basically owned under Fulguncio Batiste. But, the Pentagon and CIA documents have been made public. No one can now deny their existence or that of the plot.

So, the idea that such things could occur, and be done by people who, as we all now know, tried for almost 50 years while always failing to kill Castro who is still alive and now retired, more or less, from political life. He outlasted the CIA and Pentagon, but Kennedy, who depended on their sworn protection, was not so lucky. He stood up to them and they won.

They killed him, while blaming a man who worked for the FBI, and faked working for the CIA, reporting on CIA secret, illegal ops, even secret to JFK, their boss. They found out, and the plan was set. Two heroes died on Nov. 22, 1963.

Thus, the lesson of the JFK assassination is that we should never, ever think that ultimate violence is not capable within our own country, even at the hands of those who may not be, as Barbara Bush said of her son, George W. during the 2000 election cyle, “the brightest.”

Report this

By KDelphi, June 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

Why is Chris Shays the co-chair of the Committee on Military Contracts, when he and other GOP made millions in govt contracts building fallen-down buildings in Iraq?

GET RID OF THESE PEOPLE!

Report this

By tahitifp, June 10, 2009 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

Rae wrote:

This stinks to me as one big coverup. My only hesitation to completely buying this theory is the difficulty I have in believing that ANYONE in the Bush administration, or even the CIA, is anywhere near smart enough to mastermind such a deception and successful coverup. These guys can’t even catch bin Laden!”
****************

IMO cheney’s corrupt enuf, and the cover-up was not very successful, was it, or you would not have posted what you did.  grin Nor do I believe for one minute that bushco or Obamaco even want to catch OBL.  He’s much more useful alive, to use as a scare tactic, like 9/11.  Plus he keeps the desire for revenge alive in too many American hearts.  His presence continues to be a rationalization for expanding wars in the ME and S. Asia.

Either that, or it’s a quid pro quo with Cheney.  Ya never know with these guys.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

When Rontruth wrote: “Now, I keep asking myself, how is it that those three WTC towers all came down in their own footprints…”

I was reminded of an interview the other night on Coast To Coast AM with Richard Gage AIA. http://www1.ae911truth.org/

It seems that several hundred respected architects agree that, in their expert opinion, it was NOT POSSIBLE for the 3 WTC towers to collapse onto themselves from the impact/fire alone. Straight down was the path of MOST resistance and the path that was the LEAST likely for the collapsing structures to take. It is their opinion the buildings were BROUGHT DOWN by the deliberate actions of those skilled in demolition techniques.

The architects assert this is where their expertise ends… they do not know or speculate about how the buildings were destroyed or by whom. But they do know that NO OTHER HIGH RISE BUILDING IN THE WORLD THAT HAS CAUGHT FIRE HAS EVER COLLAPSED, and many have had much more devastating and long lasting fires than the WTCs. Fires in buildings rarely reach temperatures greater than 1,500 degrees F. The steel in the WTC would not have softened, let alone melted, until temperatures of 3,000 degrees F were reached and sustained. So where did the pools made up of tons of molten steel come from? And where did the residue from a highly specialized explosive used in demolition found in the dust come from?

This stinks to me as one big coverup. My only hesitation to completely buying this theory is the difficulty I have in believing that ANYONE in the Bush administration, or even the CIA, is anywhere near smart enough to mastermind such a deception and successful coverup. These guys can’t even catch bin Laden!

Report this

By Doc Ellis 124, June 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

By RAE, June 10 at 7:56 am #
“I sure hope Night-Gaunt and Doc Ellis are joshing… they couldn’t actually BELIEVE in numerology could they?”

I don’t know what N-G believes.  I believe that numerology means something to somebody.  I was curious about the legitimacy of a self-described “Christian’s” salvation when he utilises 666 mixed in with 2222 in his handle.

mongol Doc Ellis 124

Report this

By Rontruth, June 10, 2009 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Garth. You hit the proverbial nail on the head when you said that one lesson Americans need to learn is, in fact, humility. The attendant lesson, as you said,  is that we are nothing special.

We, as a people I believe, do not believe in empire. Empires in the past were always built on lies. Leaders, out for power backed by their wealthy merchant classes who had influential control over the “clergy” who often preached a spiritualized, or religionized version of hate to their spiritually dependent listeners, were able to convince the masses of how close they were to God.

I recall George W. Bush, when speaking to, I believe it was, Tim Russert, when Bush said, “My hero is Jesus Christ.” Bush, as it turned out, had planned to attack Iraq loooong before 9/11/01. The Downing Street leaked memoranda point out that Bush didn’t care what he had to do, even re-paint an old U-2 spyplane to make it look like a US Air Force jet so that Saddam might attack it, giving Bush an excuse to attack.

The “Iraq Study Group,” made up of Bush, Sr’s old oil buddies, clearly stated in their “objective report” that Iraq’s oil reserves needed to be “opened up to foreign investment.” That was, in rea point of fact, the entire reason for the internationally unlawful attack on an unarmed nation.”

Now, I keep asking myself, how is it that those three WTC towers all came down in their own footprints, when two of them had been struck, on only one side (obviously should have weakened each building on one side, causing it to tumble onto it’s weakest side rather than straight down), and the other one that fell in exactly the same manner, was “pulled” according to it’s lease holder on nationwide television news.

Sounds to me like the American people have some investigating to do of those who, after the August 6, 2001 PDB and Memo that warned of coming attacks, went and stayed on vacation in Crawford, Texas.

Those who think that violent conspiracies do not exist within our own borders should do a search engine study of “Operation Northwoods.” It was a documented plot to have Americans of Cuban descent attacking Americans, killing enough of them that President Kennedy would have been forced to attack Castro’s Cuba, blaming Castro for the attack on Americans. It was a Pentagon plot.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 10, 2009 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the subtext, as usual the truth is hidden behind smoke and mirrors.

Naive adolescence comes to mind.

Integrity used here seems delusional, much like the meaningless word hero, both words used from rhetoric’s illusionist’s tool box.

Cause and support of war is very similar to any fanatics cause. One could use those same words on the other side.

Report this

By garth, June 10, 2009 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

The subtext of the story of the first US Special Forces member killed in Afghanistan was that his death sentence was actually declared on the playgrounds and the martial arts studios of Georgia.  On a grander scale, Lord Nelson’s defeat of Napolean was estabished on the playing fields of Eton. 
One cannot accurately guess the specific thoughts that pass through anyone’s mind, but judging from the outcome, it would seem to be a reckless act.
Arrogance, that’s the name of the game.  Where and when in our history have we not been arraogant?  To use arrogant remarks as a counterpoise to attempt to reveal and possibly offset the very nature of our military claim of sovereignty and exceptionalism seems to me to be within the bounds set by the Military Industrial-Congressional Complex.
———————————
“I believe in the meaning of honor and integrity. 
I am an action person who feels personally responsible for making any changes in this world that are in my power…because if I don’t, no one else will”.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Mike Spann
A passage from his CIA application


————————————————————————————————————————


Notable Comments about Mike

“Mike Spann is an American hero who worked hard to do what was right.”
- George Tenet
CIA Director

“Mike has always stood for love of country.  Even as a young man he was proud of his country and his flag.  I know he would never regret giving his life for America - the land he so loved”.
- anonymous

“Mike is a hero not because of the way he died, but because of the way he lived.”.
- Shannon Spann - wife.



“Mike Spann is an American hero who worked hard to do what was right.”
- George Tenet
CIA Director

“Mike has always stood for love of country.  Even as a young man he was proud of his country and his flag.  I know he would never regret giving his life for America - the land he so loved”.
- anonymous

“Mike is a hero not because of the way he died, but because of the way he lived.”.
- Shannon Spann - wife.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 10, 2009 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

According to the story, we don’t know what Spann was thinking.  However, the general ideology of American imperialism (as of most others) is only partially one of pride and arrogance; another important element is the deadly notion that one is doing good and acting responsibly.  Ideas like those could enable a person to commit any crime, or easily lead to being the target of one.  So I would like to impose that on the story as well.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 10, 2009 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

I sure hope Night-Gaunt and Doc Ellis are joshing… they couldn’t actually BELIEVE in numerology could they?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 10, 2009 at 1:23 am Link to this comment

Humility seems a characteristic worthy of respect, as it requires respect to implement.  In combat keeping ones head down could be considered humble, but seems more like common sense.

If Humility and respect are similar, the military may teach respect of rank, though not seen as humble for in some circles humility is seen as a weakness?

In the story told by Garth, one can read the opposite of humility, arrogance and a fatal miss diagnosis of a situation.

From the story one may also read a metaphor of arrogant attitudes displayed by the previous administration and the same senseless result in Iraq and now Afghanistan, nor was humility learned from the senselessness of Vietnam. Now, what of common sense?

Report this

By garth, June 9, 2009 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

I think of these wars, especially the war in Afghanistan in terms of the first American killed there in combat, a guy named Spann.  He was a young man from Georgia who started out in the Special Forces and later transferred to the CIA.  He was killed by captured Aghanis when he walked into captured group of them, I’d guess lording it over them.  He swaggered into the throng of unarmed, squatting afghanis and was overcome by a group and killed.
An ABC news special later highlighted this young man’s career.  He grew up in Georgia and started taking martial arts classes early in life about at the age of eight.  He then went to school and then joined the Army and followed his inculcated ideas of his life. 
My guess is that he swaggered into this group of Afghanis who grew up fighting wars and had no idea that this young American was the “toughest guy’ in Special Forces training, and they killed him.
If there is a lesson to be learned.  I think it is for us.  And the lesson is, HUMILITY. We are not exceptional, anything but.

Report this

By Doc Ellis 124, June 9, 2009 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, June 9 at 1:25 pm: 
Thank you.

mongol Doc Ellis 124

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 9, 2009 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

666 together in sequence is the “number of Man” just as 777 is the perfect number of the theio or “god” in Kabbala numerology. You will find that Nero had that Greek numerological outcome of his name in his language. Understand?

Report this

By Doc Ellis 124, June 9, 2009 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

Colin 2626262’s handle contains 666… I wonder if he really is a Christian.  Could he be an impostor?
Just wondering.

mongol Doc Ellis 124

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 9, 2009 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

“The wheat will be separated from the chaff, and whatever is useful will be kept.  The rest will be burned.”

Yes Colin2626262 and that sounds like the marching orders for a Christian crusade to save what humans that are “useful” for an empire and the rest can die. Hitler, that Christian crusader, had a similar idea leading the new Jews (Aryans) and we saw the outcome there for the world. We were lucky he was a vain fool. Just imagine competent leadership with the kinds and amount of weapons we have and the reach that is unheard of in history that could affect every human on earth. You can keep your religion, just don’t make it part of gov’t and then implement it by force to everyone else. That wall of separation is very weak now with many of holes and Obama isn’t sealing any of them. If anything he is making them wider.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

What kind of twisted “Christian” are you, colin2626262, to be able to make this statement?

“So I don’t feel sorry for the soldiers who come back wounded and mentally scarred.”

You are one sick puppy, IMO.

Report this

By ardee, June 8, 2009 at 3:33 am Link to this comment

colin2626262, June 8 at 3:33 am

Your opinion of those who join the service is exactly that, your opinion. There are actually several reasons for enlistment, family tradition is one, seeking money for college or training for future careers another, an inability to find a job is a growing reason for enlistment.

As to your comments on criticism, it wasnt the quotes per se, it was your unmitigated gall in posting multiple efforts one after the other, that is called spamming by any standards. I suggest that you realise that this is a political forum and not a church. You are entitled to your own beliefs, as am I and everyone else. You want to preach religion for reasons of your own find a street corner and a soap box.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 8, 2009 at 3:31 am Link to this comment

Calling solders profits instead of prophets, would be more accurate, profits of the usual manipulators and opportunists,

Hedges and others use of the word Prophets is obviously religious in meaning.  Expecting less from Hedges would be naive. Sin used in the title is also religiously self evident. Previous weekly sermons from Hedges are indicators of what to expect. For example look at the word sin used in Hedges title this week. His articles are peppered with religious symbolic words, words with some meaning for believers.  Religious interpreted meaning to individual various indoctrinated differences. Religious terms are thrown around Hedges articles, like bred crumbs for pigeons in a park.  Why does one find religious interpretations of different religious interpretations, amusing, dose it addresses a synopsis of mankind in general? 

Calling war a sin or calling some solders prophets has little meaning in the grand scheme of things. It is as if one should deem it important to interpret the meaning of the quote “In god we trust” on our increasingly worthless dollar bill. 

Hedges article this week is very close to my own feelings about the wrongness of war. Though, in my case it would always be preferred without the intended religious rhetoric.  Interesting finding myself agreeing with colin2626262 in his or her calling attention and discomfort to Hedges use of the word Prophet, but in the end for ever so different reasons.

Report this

By colin2626262, June 8, 2009 at 12:33 am Link to this comment

Chris wrote: “The young soldiers and Marines do not plan or organize the war. They do not seek to justify it or explain its causes. They are taught to believe. The symbols of the nation and religion are interwoven. The will of God becomes the will of the nation.”

This is true, but you have to remember that you’re talking exclusively about America.  There’s no draft in this country anymore.  The young men—and women—choose to join the military.  And they’re old enough to exercise free will.  It’s not right to call these people prophets, people who chose to kill and then regretted it later on.  If anything, they’re repentant sinners.  U.S. wars are not touted as religious wars.  They’re fought in the name of our democracy, or defense of our homeland.  It’s not like at the start of the Iran-Iraq War, where it was fought by the Iranians in the name of Islam and in defense of their country. 

Young people who join the military can think for themselves.  They can’t say they were fooled by propaganda or by their patriotic upbringing.  You know what you’re getting into when you join the military.  There are no excuses.  So I don’t feel sorry for the soldiers who come back wounded and mentally scarred.  They should never have joined in the first place.  Back in World War II, there was a man named Franz Jaegerstatter, who decided he wasn’t going to report for duty in the German army.  Well, that was his choice.  He was executed for treason.

Our actions aren’t determined beforehand.  So these young people were fooled by what they heard or what they were taught about the United States and its wars.  Are we supposed to call them prophets because they became wiser after witnessing the horror they must have known war to be?  I don’t think so.  Jaegerstatter was a prophet, a prophet of peace and nonviolence.  It just so happens that he’s not here to give any anguished speeches about his actions, or what he saw.  Where is he?  He’s with God.

And to those people who left comments about my quotes from the Bible, you might want to read what was said by a true prophet.  Since you don’t like my quotes, I’ll paraphrase it for you:  The wheat will be separated from the chaff, and whatever is useful will be kept.  The rest will be burned.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 7, 2009 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, thanks for the site, which I’ve bookmarked.

OK, since I’m new posting here, who or what is “The Contingent?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 7, 2009 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

ardee, June 7 at 7:06 pm #

colin2626262

“And the Lord sayeth, spam us not lest ye be cast forever into the eternal fires of the ignore list.”
**************************************

LOL!  Another sky-pilot shows up to preach at us.  I guess it must work a lot because they’ve been going out among the “heathen” and preachin’ to convert us for about 2000 years.

Of course, for most of that time the vast majority of people couldn’t read, and had NO source of information other than what news passers-by brought.  So it’s really easy to wow and fool the ignorant and unschooled that way.

But here at TruthDig, with cynics like me and “The Contingent” at each others’ throats, it just doesn’t wash.  When you deal with ANYONE who has a modicum of history under his/her belt (including FT, PH and EH) a preacher is gonna have to spend 95% of his time explaining and excusing the sins of the various Christian churches.

Report this

By ardee, June 7, 2009 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

colin2626262

“And the Lord sayeth, spam us not lest ye be cast forever into the eternal fires of the ignore list.”

Report this

By KDelphi, June 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

tahitifp—I saw it—Scahill is great. You know about his website, yes?

http://rebelreports.com/

We could actually pull out all “troops” and still have 200,000 “soldiers” (ie mercenaries) from the ME…gawd!

Please stop SPAMMING, colin. There are religious websites for that.

Report this

By colin2626262, June 7, 2009 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Romans 13:8-12

Report this

By colin2626262, June 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48

Report this

By colin2626262, June 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Matthew 8:5-10

Report this

By colin2626262, June 7, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Psalms 137:7-9

Report this

By colin2626262, June 7, 2009 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God:

But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

I Chronicles 22:7-8

Report this

By colin2626262, June 7, 2009 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

“And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?

And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.”

Exodus 2:11-14

Report this

By tahitifp, June 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Heads Up!  Bill Moyers tonight

JEREMY SCAHILL ON TODAY’S WAR
From a billion dollars sought for embassies in Pakistan and Afghanistan to May’s highest casualties for US forces in Iraq since September, the wars abroad are taking their toll on our nation. Bill Moyers sits down with award-winning investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill to examine the human and financial costs of America’s wars.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

Thank you Leefeller: “... in my 18 year old limited mind, I never really knew why we were in Vietnam, must say back then I avoided politics and news like Vietnam evaders avoided the draft, obviously a handicap on my part.”

And that, my friends, spotlights the grandest obscenity of all: aging, prejudiced, bigotted, biased and bought, mostly cowardly, political males CHOOSING TO SEND mostly young, eager but uneducated, unskilled, unsophisticated, ignorant boys TO THEIR DEATHS for two reasons… TO MASSAGE THEIR OWN GARGANTUAN EGOS and TO MAKE HUGE PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS IN THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. It’s sure not all that hard to “declare war” when it’s not YOU that has to put your neck in the line of fire.

Oh sure… WE are ALWAYS on “God” side… WE are ALWAYS in the right… and you know, SOMETIMES, as in the case of stopping the insane HITLER-types from mass massacre, WAR IS JUSTIFIED.

But to send young men and women, however willing, into situations NOT OF THEIR MAKING and into foreign lands where there’s a damned good chance they will be maimed for life (if they’re unlucky) or killed (if they’re more fortunate), WITHOUT THEM (and their parents) BEING FULLY INFORMED AND WARNED OF THE DANGER and THE FULL REASONS (without the BULLSHIT) WHY THEY’RE BEING ASKED TO DO SO, is an OBSCENITY greater than I have words to express. It pales in comparison to child RAPE in my view and that’s about as horrific an act as a human can commit.

May I end with one of my favorite phrases…

YOU MAKE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT THOSE SET IN AUTHORITY OVER YOU KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE DOING.

Report this

By TheBeerMaker, June 5, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

PRGP - “Obama must begin the end of the madness in the Middle East and let ALL know that they are responsible for their own - including the US - and regardless of their “god(s)”.”  well said, except that our current CINC (like all the others) will probably not find the guts to pull out from all of the areas where we are certain that our meddling will make things better.  The politics, the pressure, the feeling that we know better will get the better of him.  It’s intoxicating.

Trials?  Gallows?  be happy if we can bring ourselves to even report the truth.

check out this link for a sad history of our incursions abroad. http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 5, 2009 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

First The Beer Maker name as perceived may be my confusion compared to the “Beerdoctor”  a regular poster over time who has posted many times in the past?  Confusion may be part of the mix, so the tone may be the difference only because of the posters not being one and the same?

Hero’s are man made, they seem nothing more then publicity and rhetoric, like flag pins and waving the flag.  American Idol on Television has sort of the same mental make up, even the degree of hero worship aimed at celebrities,  shows the same degree of enthusiasm by a large section of the population. We went through the whole McCain shot down and captured hero thing back during the election.  McCain was a hero in some people eyes? 

After reflection, my discomfort may be in Beer Markers Tone with some strange sort of desire to defined my actions at the same time, as a unwitting Veteran who does not believe in heroes, and feeling that I need to defend myself as a so called warrior. Let me say I was neither, nor would I suggest are most who had the misfortune to serve unwittingly or half wittingly as Veterans.

Beer Maker, my disappointments may be the same as yours, we just have different ways of expressing them.

Report this

By PRGP, June 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

Having been a warrior (drafted 1966, commissioned after OCS 1967, Vietnam as infantry offider 67-68, basic tng. CO 68-69), I can safely say I have never met a hero.  My father served in the Marines in WWII, my son has served in Korea, Kosovo and Iraq/Kuwait.  I don’t think any of us much believe in “heroes” - a word denigrated by overuse from people who haven’t a clue as to what war is and is about.  It is about power and money.  Smedley Butler, WWI Marine Corps general and winner of two Medals of Honor (NOT congressional anything!!!), said that war is a racket - he was right.  Ask the BushCo profiteers and traitors who steal dollars and electrocute our troops or poison them with polluted water while raking in billions.  Time for trials and the gallows.  Obama must begin the end of the madness in the Middle East and let ALL know that they are responsible for their own - including the US - and regardless of their “god(s)”.

Report this

By TheBeerMaker, June 5, 2009 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

First off, I appreciate the level of discourse in these posts.  As our nation still insists on finding good reasons to spill blood, I have reflected on the methods used to influence those that will pull the triggers; the literal triggers.  One of the methods is the glorification of the job they are doing.  Show them climbing a mountain.  Show them returning home to cheering crowds.  Celebrate them as American Heroes; isn’t that what we all hope to be? (no need to answer).

I wholeheartedly agree with Anarcissie when she says that heroes are mostly fashioned out of the warrior cloth…and that heroes come and go so easily in our world.  Hero has become such a loose term that it has no meaning any longer. 

And Leefeller, when you say “..so then why do [I] perceive Beer Doctors tone discomforting while at the same time defensive?” are you asking me why I am defensive or are you feeling that way?  My tone is a mix of disappointment and anger.  I hate being swindled and I am troubled by the swindlers.  I see [the American] people as so easily influenced by rhetoric, trying to buy into something larger than themselves; something to give meaning; something to be an anchor.  Hero-worship plays to those needs.  And who better to be a hero than the cannon fodder sent off to fight….

Report this

Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.