Scoop: Canada's 'War-on-Terror' Immigration Policy
Scott Page
3. Faking the 'War on Terror'
"The 'War on Terror' is spurious because there is strong evidence that the events to which it is purportedly a response-the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001-were orchestrated not by Osama bin Laden (whose partisans or minions served, however, as useful patsies), but rather by high-placed elements within the United States government. There are several converging lines of evidence: taken separately, they cry out for investigation; taken together, they appear seriously incriminating.7
There have been substantial developments during the past year in the assessment of material, photographic and testimonial evidence relating to the collapses of the three towers of the World Trade Center (the 47-storey WTC 7 as well as the 110-storey Twin Towers). These include scientifically informed analyses which demonstrate the physical impossibility of the official account of the Twin Towers' collapse,8 analyses of statements by fire department personnel and by survivors that there were numerous secondary explosions in the buildings in the interval between the airplane crashes and the collapses,9 video and photographic evidence that structural steel in the South Tower was being cut and melted by thermate charges during the final minutes before the tower's collapse,10 videos and photographs of the collapses of the towers in which "squibs" (explosive horizontal ejections of dust and debris) are visible well below the lines of collapse,11 and laboratory analyses of structural steel from the towers which point to its having been cut by thermate charges.12
Controlled demolition of course implies foreknowledge of the attacks as well as a complex pattern of organization-some aspects of which were made visible by Michael Ruppert, whose book Crossing the Rubicon revealed that the U.S. air defence system was effectively disabled on 9/11 by a network of air-defence and anti-terrorism exercises which transferred most of the available interceptor aircraft out of the northeastern U.S. to Alaska and Alberta, and for a crucial period that morning left the military air traffic controllers responsible for deploying the remaining jet fighters unable to determine which of the many apparently hijacked aircraft appearing on their radar screens were real, and which blips were merely part of a response-to-multiple-hijackings exercise.13 The likelihood that al Qaeda operatives could have organized the demolitions in the World Trade Center complex (whose security was contracted to Securacom, a company with close Bush family connections),14 as well as somehow coordinating airliner hijackings with what amounted to a planned disabling of the air defence system, is close to nil.
Add to this the destruction of material evidence at the WTC site, the extreme reluctance of the Bush administration to permit any inquiry into the events of 9/11, and the well-established fact-mendaciously denied by senior members of that administration-that foreign intelligence services, having evidently penetrated different parts of the 9/11 planning, gave them detailed advance warnings, and a pattern emerges that cries out for criminal investigation. Searching analyses of these issues, as well as of many features of the attacks, the ensuing cover-up, and the underlying geopolitics, have been published by Michel Chossudovsky and by other researchers,15 and the theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin has produced magisterial summations of the evidence pointing to the Bush administration's implication in the events of 9/11.16
The 'War on Terror' is fraudulent, then, because its purported and actual goals are systematically at variance. Only in the most nakedly Orwellian sense can one claim that a project which began with apparent false-flag terrorist attacks that killed some three thousand people on American soil, and has since involved wars of aggression that have killed and maimed well over 25,000 American soldiers-not to mention killing scores of thousands of Afghans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and exposing millions of their fellow citizens to the murderous and ineradicable toxicity of depleted uranium-is in any sense concerned with enhancing the security of Americans, or of anyone else. The pretexts used to legitimize the invasion of Iraq have without exception been exposed as lies and disinformation17-an embarrassing fact that has not prevented the Bush administration, with the supine or active collaboration of the corporate media, and, to their shame, the diplomatic support of western countries including Britain, France, Germany and Canada, from constructing a parallel set of lies and deceptions to legitimize an apparently imminent attack upon Iran.18
It is less widely appreciated that the invasion of Afghanistan was likewise carried out under false pretexts. Planned and threatened months before 9/11, this act of aggression was carried out for geopolitical reasons enunciated more than a year earlier by the Project for the New American Century, a pressure group whose key members have all held high office in the Bush administration.19 It should be of some interest to Canadians to know that in September 2001 the United States rejected offers of the Afghani Taliban regime to deliver Osama bin Laden to Pakistan for trial there;20 to know that opium production, which the Taliban had nearly eliminated in the provinces it controlled, bounced back to a new high once the U.S.-backed warlords of the Northern Alliance came to power;21 and to learn that the appalling oppression of Afghan women by reactionary theocrats that the Bush regime adopted as an ex post facto reason for its invasion appears not to have significantly diminished under the Karzai regime.22 Canadians might also be intrigued to discover that in June 2006 a journalist who wondered about the absence of any mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted listing was informed by Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, that the reason for this absence "is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."23 This looks rather like an acknowledgment that the so-called "Bin Laden confession video" released by the U.S. in December 2001, and widely represented as justifying the attack on Afghanistan, is in fact not authentic.24
The 'War on Terror' is also fraudulent because while purporting, as Bush himself has declared, to confer upon others what Americans "wish for ourselves-safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life,"25 his administration has in fact sought through false-flag terrorism and shameless propaganda and disinformation to frighten Americans into supporting a resource-war geopolitics of unconstrained aggression. Concomitants of this endless warfare include the devolution of what is now called the "homeland" in the direction of a one-party state,26 a deliberate voiding of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a parallel extinction of international human rights law whose visible embodiment is an archipelago of prisons and torture houses extending from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Graib and Bagram.27:
David Lombard
I have an idea for a low cost way to pressure the media into covering the issues and facts.
When I read the article in “The Nation” I simply took out the subscription card, wrote “I will not re-subscribe due to poor coverage on 9/11”.
If every magazine started to get these cards by the thousands it will threaten their subscriber base and they pay the postage.
This is quick and dirty media pressure that you hardly need to leave the house for.
If you like this idea pass it on!
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.24/592 - Release Date: 12/18/2006 1:45 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.25/593 - Release Date: 12/19/2006 1:17 PM
Camille
just happened to meet someone in Aquatic Park who was
not part of our action, and he said he just
unsubscribed to The Nation for the same reason. He
said the article by Christopher Hayes so disgusted him
that he wanted to send a message by unsubscribing. I
wonder how many people have unsubscribed because of
their biased coverage?
-- Camille
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Marc Cianciola
week not to renew due to their attacks on the 9/11 truth movement.
Marc
Kai Middleton
Magazine, Utne Reader, Mother Jones, etc. etc. Nothing from them on
9/11. I haven't watched them in recent years, but I doubt it--even then
it would rather Johhny-come-lately. Maybe that's part of why they don't
go there. I should sit down and read Zwicker's book sometime.
http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Deception-Media-Cover-up-11/dp/0865715734/sr=8-1/qid=1166653353/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5749601-3584721?ie=UTF8&s=books
--Kai M.
.
.
.
Peace Pilgrim:
http://www.peacepilgrim.org/
"This is the way of peace:
Overcome evil with good,
and falsehood with truth,
and hatred with love."
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
Ed Rippy
> I simply took out the subscription card, wrote "I will not re-subscribe due to poor coverage on 9/11".
-- Two thumbs up!! The two most painful places to hit them are in the credibility &
the circulation. I'm not sure about "The Nation," but commercial periodicals cover
about 3/4 of their costs with advertising, and what they can charge is based on the
number of "eyeballs" they can deliver. Threaten that, and you can create what
mainstream economists call "market discipline." They will squirm.
A few other ideas: 1) pick a few well-documented glaring ommissions in the
conventional story and outline them, adding: "Anyone who ignores these things is
insulting my intelligence, and I won't pay for that; I'd rather pay four times as much
for a periodical that treats me as an intelligent human being."
2) *Handwrite* your note. This takes more effort than email, & it's more personal
than printed letters. They know that, & will take it more seriously. They will make a
big show of ignoring it, though, because the last thing they want is for you to know
how scared they are of losing readership.
A big part of the reason I have written up the short papers I have is to provide
ammo for such infowar. Please feel free to use the info therein.
Ed
Paul Rea
Ed and Dave make good specific suggestions on how we can break the conspiracy of media silence. What we can infer from these suggestions, I think, is that "the media" shouldn't be conceived as a monolith--that for reasons we need to understand, KPIX did cover our Tea Party, while the rest of the Bay Area outlets did not. That the Boston Globe covered the Tea Party in Boston, while the New York Times, which owns the Globe, did not. And that our strategies for working on The Nation may be different from those we deploy for, say, The Progressive or Z, which are less tied in with New York Democratic liberalism.
Similarly, our tabling strategies at the Media Reform Conference in Memphis will probably need to tailored to the defined objectives of our presence there. That is, we'll probably want to feature DVDs, books, articles, and so forth that address the problem of news media lockdowns, blackouts, distortions, hit pieces and all the rest. It might be smart to display piles of "9/11: Search for Truth," the recent article in Extra! on the New York media mishanding of the WTC health and environmental calamities, and/or other items that would be most apt to grab those attending this particular conference. My guess would be that it will include a lot of academics and journalists.
So if we play it smart, we won't just beam too many images of crowds being overwhelmed by nightmare clouds or even blare out generic protests on censorship. Rather, we'll finesse our approaches, images, materials and approaches, targeting them to our audience. Last night in Oakland Ed suggested show empathy for reporters working with repressive editors, and Brian talked about trimming his hair and beard. Both offer savvy strategies, I'd say.
At last night's meeting, too, we agreed to create a Media Task Force, on which Ed, John, Ken, Brian and I have already volunteered to work. Mickey Huff, a media critic and activist (also the lively fellow who MC'd our Lifting the Fog Conference) will join us (and the group) after his wife has her baby in January. Though Mickey often presents at media conferences on 9/11 issues, new fatherhood won't allow him to do so in Memphis. He and Ken have already been talking about how to make the best use of our group's precious talents, time, energy, and resources.
So rather than ramble, let me invite any fellow "truthers" to contact one of us or Carol with any suggestions not only on how to best define our mission in Memphis, but on how to break into the news here in the Bay Area.
Salaam/Shalom to all --
Paul Rea
xxx
netw...@aol.com
I hope that you and yours are well.
This is from the Memphis Media Reform Conference web site:
Ad hoc Sessions at the Conference
I think we should plan on doing an ad hoc session (or even two) about media coverage and non-coverage of the real 9/11 stories and the 9/11 Truth movement. We could do one session that would be a survey/critique of the coverage to date and another that would present a variety of story ideas and resources for stories relating to 9/11 and 9/11 Truth. Or we could combine the two. Perhaps, we could even screen 9/11: Press for Truth and 9/11: The Myth and the Reality. Do we have good, succinct reviews of these two films or could someone write them?
We definitely need to craft our booth to the conference as best we can and present the most media useful materials at the conference. I'd like to get posters for at least the two above films and David Ray Griffin's books. We also need to create a resource/contact list of individuals for interviews and stories to have available for anyone interested in doing 9/11 related stories. We should have this list anyway for our own Media Task Force and our upcoming local media campaign.
There is also a Track section called Propaganda and the Press, I think we should be well prepared for this section in particular.
Please let's start throwing ideas around as the conference is only three weeks away and we want to make the most of it.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Warm regards,
John
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Brian Good
Is it media professionals or wannabees?
Bloggers building empires?
I've been reading "Into the Buzzsaw" and was disappointed
to find that only one (Robert McChesney) of about 20
essayists featured in the book is on the speakers list.]
Can anybody suggest other helpful reading material?
Who exactly are we trying to reach there?
Brian
> ________________________________________________________________________
>Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
>tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
>free AOL Mail and more.
>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
micke...@mac.com
show, actually. The book has his documentary, The Great Conspiracy, in
it, too...all for $25. Not a bad overview but his tone is annoying
sometimes...
micke...@mac.com
micke...@mac.com
part (and some of the best known gatekeepers). However, many of these
people do great work on other issues, so it is important to remember
that while trying to convince them why 911t matters. One of the best
possible allies there will be Peter Phillips of Project Censored and
I'm talking with him by tomorrow to see what he thinks about 911t folks
coming to Memphis and to see if he has any inside news or good advice.
He's an ally. For more on the event... See
http://www.freepress.net/conference/=Speakers07 and
http://www.freepress.net/conference/ for more info. McChesney's
www.freepress.net is one of the biggest reform mvt. for media issues in
the U.S. Lots of material to read as well, though most of these folks
are not keen on 911 Truth stuff to be honest. That's why it's
important to target sessions and ONLY present the most solid views in
my opinion. Barrie's book "Towers of Deception" with his Great
Conspiracy dvd in it, Griffin's stuff, 911PFT and the like. I think
selecting the best, most professionally done, cited work is the best
plan. A little is a lot. The shotgun effect, in my view, will not be
a success here. There's too much going on and the Memphis show is not
wannabees and bloggers, they have a broad media reform based scene that
really doesn't address much of the actual events of 911 directly. So,
that's a very brief response, for what it's worth...I have tons of
stuff on media and propagnda studies if you want more as I teach
courses on the stuff (as well as how it relates to 911).
Paul Rea
I'd underscore the desirability, via coordination and cooperation among the 9/11 people who are going to the Media Reform Conference, to consider two stragegies:
--First finding out what Peter Phillips' positions are going to be, and planning to work off his appearances yet without coming on so strong as to put him in a awkward positions re other consitituencies that he has to consider. Peter is a unique and precious allay, and his concerns need to be understood.
--Looking for points of agreement and entry, such as (most recently) the thorough, very well documented article in the current Extra! on the dismal failure of the NYT and other media to cover and expose the lies about public health and environmental hazards. (Mickey and I both have clean, photo-ready copies from the mag.)
It might be up to us "truthers" to deepen this analysis, relating the increased hazards to the rushed clean-up of the site, destruction of evidence, etc.--and to show that most of the journalistic evasions documented in this excellent piece also apply more broadly. It might also be a place to bring in the research of Steven Jones, who, thanks to Jeannette, has done analysis of the dust suggesting much more than just health and environmental hazards.
--Other points of entry, or springboards from "their" issues into "our" issues might include the press' fragmentation of 9/11 coverage into small bits here and there, with no attempt to connect the dots and articulate patterns among particulars. Those attending at the Conference could make this argument, and then just happen to document it with 9/11 particulars.
Our challenges would seem to lie with looking for clever yet ethical ways to breach the defenses by finding chinks in the stonework rather than by mounting frontal assaults on the fortified gates.
Or so it seems to me --
Paul Rea