The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks

25 views
Skip to first unread message

James Redford

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 9:49:56 AM6/16/04
to
Those who control the U.S. government didn't just know in advance and
intentionally let the 9/11 attacks happen as a Hegelian dialectical
PsyOp in order to obtain more power and control--they funded,
shepherded, trained and protected the terrorists every step of the
way. They didn't just intentionally let it happen: they made it
happen.

The below article by Dr. Tim Howells is a very good, short
introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media
articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one
side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following
anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S.
government as a pretext in order to obtain more power and control. I
append my own additional end-notes at the conclusion of Dr. Howells'
article, in order to add further mainstream documentation.

So with that introduction, below the rumors end and the documentation
begins:

#############################################


http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b5fe6585.0301010713.920d822%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?

by Tim Howells, Ph.D. (November 10, 2003)

INTRODUCTION

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest and most responsible
military officers, proposed to commit acts of terrorism aimed against
U.S. citizens, designed to look as though they had been the work of
operatives of Fidel Castro. The object was to provide a pretext for an
invasion of Cuba. Among many imaginative proposals, the Chiefs
suggested:

*
We could develop a communist cuban terror campaign in the Miami area,
in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
*

And further ...

*
We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba ...
casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
national indignation.

("Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," the U.S. Joint
Chiefs of Staff, March 13, 1962
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf .)
*

Although these plans were never carried out (they were rejected by
President Kennedy), similar proposals WERE actually implemented during
the 1970's and 1980's in Europe by the CIA, resulting in the deaths of
hundreds of innocent civilians. In one bombing of a busy train station
in Bologna Italy in 1980, 86 people were killed and over 200 wounded.
The bombings were designed to look like the work of communist
extremists although they were in fact committed by right wing
extremists working under the direction of the CIA. The aim of these
operations was to whip up anti-communist sentiment among our european
allies. ("Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian Democracy,"
Arthur E. Rowse, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 49, Summer 1994
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html .)[1]

Was September 11 a similar operation, mounted by elements of our own
government in order to whip up public support for an all-out war
against the Arab states in the Middle East? The evidence strongly
suggests that this is the case.

My aim here is to provide a brief introduction to some of this
evidence with pointers for further reading.


OUTLINE:

1. The hijackers were not fanatical Islamic fundamentalists (far from
it).
A) They smoked and drank and partied hard.
B) Several of the hijackers had training at secure military facilities
in the United States.
C) The hijackers operated quite openly, as if they had powerful
protectors in the U.S.

2. The hijackers were not capable of the feats of piloting that are
attributed to them.

3. The hijackers lead back to Pakistan's ISI, and through the ISI,
back to the CIA and the Bush administration.
A) Funding for the hijackers came from ISI Director General Ahmad.
B) On September 11 Ahmad was in Washington meeting with key
administration officials.
C) On September 12 the administration announced Ahmad's agreement to
collaborate in their "War on Terrorism."
D) The ISI is not a tool of bin Laden--it's very much the other way
around.

4. FBI investigations that could have prevented September 11 were
deliberately sabotaged by FBI Headquarters.
A) At least two FBI investigations were deliberately stopped that
could have prevented September 11.
B) The hijackers must have KNOWN that the FBI would not
investigate--they operated quite openly, and even seemed to
deliberately draw attention to themselves as potential terrorists.

5. The anthrax attacks:
A) No potential terrorists had access to the advanced, "weaponized"
form of anthrax used.
B) All suspects lead back to U.S. or Israeli intelligence.
C) The crude misspellings and appeals to Allah and Islam in the
letters appear to be a hoax to blame this on Arab terrorists.

6. The ultra-rightwing agenda already in place for a war against the
Arab states.

7. Conclusion: It appears that the September 11 attacks were covertly
instigated and supported by elements of our own government to support
an ultra-rightwing political and military agenda.

8. Epilog--How could this happen? Some historical context.


1. THE HIJACKERS WERE NOT FANATICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS (FAR FROM
IT)

The keystone of the "official story" on the events of September 11 is
that the hijackers were fanatical Islamic fundamentalists, opposed to
all products of Western culture. They are presented to us as pure
warriors of Allah, prepared not only to kill, but to die for their
religion. Their supposed austere and ascetic approach to life and
death is presented to us in the will and testament of their leader,
Mohammed Atta. We find here a long list of severe admonitions
including:

*
... 9. The person who will wash my body near my genitals must wear
gloves on his hands so he won't touch my genitals. 10. I want the
clothes I wear to consist of three white pieces of cloth, not to be
made of silk or expensive material. 11. I don't want any women to go
to my grave at all during my funeral or on any occasion thereafter.
... [etc., etc., etc.]

("Atta's Will Found--Suspected Hijacker Left Strict Instructions,"
ABCNEWS, October 4, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_atta_will.html .)
*

It could hardly be otherwise; who other than a totally dedicated
religious fanatic would be capable of deliberately incinerating
himself in such a horrific manner together with several of his closest
comrades and thousands of innocent victims?

It was soon discovered that this image was completely false. In fact,
most of the hijackers were thoroughly Americanized and enjoyed quite
wild, hedonistic lifestyles. Several of the them, including the leader
and "suicide pilot" Mohammed Atta, were frequently seen out bar
hopping, smoking and getting drunk. They sometimes engaged lap-dancers
and prostitutes:

"Feds investigating possible terrorist-attack links in Florida," Ken
Thomas, Associated Press, September 12, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20030224152521/http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010912/10103.html

"Terrorists partied with hooker at Hub-area hotel," Dave Wedge, Boston
Herald, October 10, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20021112121212/http://www2.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/ausprob10102001.htm

In Boston the night before the hijackings the WTC hijackers tried to
engage some prostitutes, but then backed out because they decided it
was too expensive:

"Sept. 10--Hijackers said to seek prostitutes," Shelley Murphy and
Douglas Belkin, Boston Globe Online, October 10, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011011012426/http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/283/metro/Hijackers_said_to_seek_prostitutes-.shtml

These are not the actions of Islamic fanatics on their way to die for
Allah! It certainly appears that the hijackers did not know that this
was a suicide mission, and were not genuine Islamic fundamentalists.

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families. In
fact, most of the hijackers are typical of the wealthy, high-rolling,
hedonistic Saudis who turn up over and over again in covert operations
sponsored by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.
and Jr. These scandals include Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan
Scandal (by far the most massive financial rip-off in history), the
massive money-laundering that led to the collapse of BCCI, a Pakistani
bank with strong ties to the CIA, and, more recently, the Enron
scandal. The connection to U.S. intelligence is more than speculative;
several of the hijackers had training at secure military installations
in the U.S.[2] The locations where the hijackers received training
include:

- The Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida
- Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas
- Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
- Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
- The Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California

"Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases--The Pentagon has
turned over military records on five men to the FBI," George
Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry, NEWSWEEK, September 15,
2001 http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp
http://prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html

"Did Bush Know?--Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,"
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, May 18, 2002
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html (This is a long file. A
string search on "military sources" will take you to the right
paragraph.)

There is further compelling evidence that the hijackers were in fact
recruits of the CIA based on the manner in which they obtained their
visas to live in the United States. The National Review has published
a careful study of this question that concludes that the awarding of
visas to these applicants is "inexplicable." This is the strong
consensus opinion of several government officials with extensive
hands-on experience with the process of issuing visas in this part of
the world:

*
All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for human error, no
more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to
slip through the cracks. Making the visa lapses even more
inexplicable, the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15
were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel, one of the
former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State's
issuance of the visas "amounts to criminal negligence."

("Visas that Should Have Been Denied--A look at 9/11 terrorists' visa
applications," Joel Mowbray, National Review Online, October 9, 2002
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp .)
*

The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were issued at
the U.S. consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman,
formerly the head U.S. consular officer in Jeddah has shed light on
how and why these visas were issued. According to Springman:

*
"In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State
Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These
were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to
their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned
to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General
Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the
Inspector General's office. I was met with silence ...

"What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits,
rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the
CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the
then-Soviets."

("Has someone been sitting on the FBI?," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight,
November 6, 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm .)
*

So it certainly appears that at least 15 of the 19 hijackers were CIA
recruits, trained at secure military facilities in the United States,
and operating here under the protection and sponsorship of the U.S.
government.

The hijackers' drinking and partying is certainly more typical of
youthful Westernized military recruits than devout fundamentalist
Moslems. It is sometimes claimed that they were just pretending to be
Westernized in order to "blend in" and escape detection. This makes no
sense at all. Even if they had been seen to be devout Muslims, that
would hardly make them terrorists. And they made no attempt at all to
hide their really suspicious activities, for example shopping around
for crop dusting equipment!

In one incident Mohammed Atta applied for a loan from the Department
of Agriculture to purchase a crop duster:

"Face to Face With a Terrorist--Government Worker Recalls Mohamed Atta
Seeking Funds Before Sept. 11," Brian Ross, ABCNEWS, June 6, 2002
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html

In the first place, it's odd that Atta bothered with a loan at all,
since it's clear that the amount of the loan was pocket change to the
people funding him. Atta used his real name, and made sure the
interviewer spelled it correctly. During the interview, Atta praised
bin Laden as "the world's greatest leader," discussed the possibility
of blowing up U.S. landmarks, including the World Trade Center, and
generally behaved like a raving lunatic. Nice blending in!

In another incident Atta spoke with James Lester of South Florida Crop
Care in Belle Glade, Florida regarding the purchase of crop dusting
equipment. Again, Atta made sure that he would be remembered: "I
recognized him [after September 11] because he stayed on my feet all
the time. I just about had to push him away from me." ("Virginia man
charged with helping hijackers get IDs," Associated Press, September
25, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0925_hijackers_fakeids_ap.html
.)

Far from trying to blend in, Atta operated quite openly and even seems
to have deliberately tried to draw attention to himself as a potential
terrorist. He acted as though he wanted to build a "legend" as a
terrorist, and as though he had guaranteed protection from high inside
the U.S. government. Evidence that this was in fact the case will be
discussed later.

2. THE HIJACKERS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF THE FEATS OF PILOTING THAT ARE
ATTRIBUTED TO THEM

According to a group of highly qualified professional pilots who got
together to study this matter, the flying feats attributed to the
hijackers are not believable. The pilots concluded that "Those birds
either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being
maneuvered by remote control."

"September 11 - US Government accused," The News, August 3, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20020822131511/http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September+11+-+US+Government+accused&edition=all

Regarding the possibility of flying commercial aircraft by remote
control, the expert pilots have this to say:

*
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US
Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that
crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions
flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across
the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South
Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight
path under the control of a pilot in an outside station. Hill also
quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given
to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that
it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the
ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the
inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by
electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command
and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
*

The credentials of the pilots involved in this study are impressive.
In addition to Captain Hill there is an Air Force Colonel, and a third
Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war.
The group also includes professional civilian aircraft pilots. The
reporter verified their conclusions with an independent expert:

*
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity
of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has
more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek
his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay
Pacific, agreed with the independent commission's findings. However,
he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground,
the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming
process, and needs extensive planning.
*

On the other hand, there has been a published report of an interview
with a professional pilot who argues that it would NOT have been too
difficult for hijackers to fly the airliners:

"How 'shy foreigners' learned to pilot flying-bomb Boeings--All it
took was a $4,000 flying course in Florida course in Florida flying
school," Julian Borger and Stuart Millar, The Guardian, September 14,
2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551778,00.html

It should be possible to resolve these questions conclusively in the
context of a complete investigation of exactly what happened on
September 11 and how such a thing could occur. Unfortunately, the U.S.
government is strongly resisting conducting any such investigation. In
any event, the question remains that even if the hijackers COULD have
flown those aircraft (an idea that most professional pilots who have
expressed themselves on this issue reject), why WOULD they have done
it? Given that the hijackers were certainly not fanatical Islamic
fundamentalists, why would they accept a suicide mission, especially
such a horrific one? The remote control theory, which no one disputes
is a possiblity, provides an alternative explanation, that does not
require that the hijackers were religious fanatics who knowingly
volunteered for a suicide mission.

3. THE HIJACKERS LEAD BACK TO PAKISTAN'S ISI, AND THROUGH THE ISI,
BACK TO THE CIA AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

There is no doubt about who the immediate sponsor of the 9/11
hijackers was. In at least one case they received their funding
directly from the top man in the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency.
The ISI has long been a heavily funded CIA client and one of our
staunchest allies, first in the prolonged guerilla war against the
Soviets in Afghanistan, and now in the so called "War on Terrorism."
And yet we know now that in the summer of 2000 ISI Director General
Mahmud Ahmad ordered his aide Saeed Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to the
leader of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, and that this was done via two
banks in Florida.

"India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links," Manoj Joshi, Times News
Network, October 9, 2001
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160

"Gen Mahmud's exit due to links with Umar Sheikh," DAWN, October 9,
2001 http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/09/top13.htm

"Our Friends the Pakistanis," James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
Editorial Page, October 10, 2001
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298

On the day of September 11, Director General Ahmad, Mohammed Atta's
paymaster, was in Washington meeting with the chairmen of the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees:

"Rifts Plentiful as 9/11 Inquiry Begins," James Risen, The New York
Times, June 4, 2002, Late Edition--Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 5
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/politics/04INQU.html

Conveniently this allowed him to confer directly with Deputy Secretary
of State Richard Armitage the following day, and soon Secretary of
State Colin Powell was announcing Pakistan's cooperation in our
campaign to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice:

"Powell Says It Clearly: No Middle Ground On Terrorism," Jane Perlez,
The New York Times, September 13, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20021024054801/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2001/nyt091301.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/nyt091301.html

The fact that one of our foremost allies in the "War on Terrorism" was
in fact the sponsor of the 9/11 terrorists was uncovered by Indian
intelligence and confirmed by the FBI in early October, just a few
weeks after the attacks:

"India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links," Manoj Joshi, Times News
Network, October 9, 2001
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160

At this point Ahmad quietly retired, and disappeared from the
limelight. WHY HAS THE SPONSOR OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS BEEN ALLOWED TO
SLIP AWAY LIKE THIS? Where is the swift and terrible retribution
promised us on so many occasions by our President? Why was Ahmad not
immediately taken into custody and brought to the United States for
intensive questioning to uncover further links in the chain? The
answer is obvious and unavoidable to anyone reading this with an open
mind. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT _WANT_ TO UNCOVER WHERE THIS
MOST SIGNIFICANT LINK IN THE COMMAND CHAIN BEHIND THE EVENTS OF
SEPTEMBER 11 LEADS.

Since the administrations of Reagan and George Bush Sr., the ISI has
been a major CIA client and has acted on our behalf first to organize
and command the Afghan resistance forces in the war with the Soviets,
and later to set up the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden
was recruited by the ISI, because they wanted someone who represented
the Saudi elite as part of their Afghan effort for public relations
purposes. The ISI initially tried to find a member of the Saudi royal
family, but they were happy to settle for a member of the bin Laden
family, one of the richest in Saudi Arabia:

"A man of wealth transformed into warrior," John Dorschner, Miami
Herald, September 24, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011109163238/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/106271.htm

The total control that the ISI and the CIA exercised over bin Laden
and their other surrogates in the Afghan conflict is witnessed, among
many other things by the planning of the attack on Jalalabad, the most
significant offensive for the guerillas in the entire war:

*
Typical of the war's overall conduct, the attack [on Jalalabad in
March 1989] was planned at a meeting in Islamabad [Pakistan] attended
by U.S. Ambassador Robert Oakley, senior Pakistani officials, and not
a single Afghan.

(The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade,
Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, 1991, pg. 452.)
*

The pattern then is clear and has been well established for decades.
The U.S., acting through the CIA, sets the agenda and provides the
money. The ISI acts as our agent in this part of the world, selecting
local proxies and orchestrating the activities of the guerilla
warlords. The guerilla leaders themselves, including Osama bin Laden,
are merely pawns in the game. George Bush Sr. as Vice President
personally traveled to Pakistan in 1984 to cement these relations (The
Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI, Jonathan Beaty
and Sam Gwynne, Random House, New York, 1993, pg. 317).

Bin Laden's dependence on the ISI is just as strong now as it ever
was. According to Jane's Intelligence Digest in an article written
shortly after the September 11 attacks, "both the Taliban and
Al-Qa'eda would have found it difficult to have continued
functioning--including the latter group's terrorist
activities--without substantial aid and support from Islamabad."

"Overt assistance from Pakistan may bring dire consequences," Jane's
Intelligence Digest, September 20, 2001
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid010920_1_n.shtml

Equally, the ISI's alliance with the CIA is as strong as ever. Milton
Bearden, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan who has worked closely
with ISI recently defended the alliance, describing Pakistan as "the
only country in South Asia that always did what we asked."

"The Getaway--Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift," Seymour
M. Hersh, The New Yorker, January 25, 2002
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.28G.NYer.Escape.htm

Therefore it is highly implausible that ISI Inspector General Ahmad
was acting as an operative for bin Laden when he funded the September
11 hijackers; the chain of command works in the opposite direction. It
is also highly implausible that Ahmad would have chosen on his own
initiative to attack the United States, his own best ally and his
primary source of funding and technology.

Anyone who seriously wants to see the perpetrators of September 11
tracked down and brought to justice should urgently petition their
elected representatives to see that former ISI Director General Ahmad
is arrested and brought to the United States for questioning by an
independent investigative body. Clearly the Bush administration does
not want to see this happen, because this, the most significant lead
we have, does not seem to point to bin Laden, but rather to the Bush
Administration itself.[3]

4. FBI INVESTIGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 WERE
DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED BY FBI HEADQUARTERS

I pointed out earlier that Atta and the other hijackers operated quite
openly in the United States, as if they enjoyed guaranteed protection.
It appears that this was in fact the case. We now have several
detailed reports of crucial investigations of the September 11
hijackers, both before and after the fact, being sabotaged by high
ranking government officials.[4] Possibly the most vivid example of
this is the way in which the investigation of the "twentieth
hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, was sabotaged by FBI Headquarters.

In August 2001 Moussaoui enrolled in Pan American's International
Flight School in Minneapolis. He aroused suspicions on his very first
day. He paid a deposit for the course in cash in the amount of $6,800
(the full price of the course is $19,000). He had a heavy Middle
Eastern accent, and waved off concerns about his lack of preparation
for such a course, saying that he was not interested in professional
certification. However, he showed great interest in learning how to
work the airplane's doors and control panel.

"E-Mail Sent to Flight School Gave Terror Suspect's 'Goal'," Jim
Yardly, The New York Times, February 8, 2002, Late Edition--Final,
Section A, Page 1, Column 5
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/08/national/08HIJA.html

"Early Warnings on Moussaoui Are Detailed," Philip Shenon, The New
York Times, October 18, 2002, Late Edition--Final, Section A, Page 13,
Column 1 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/politics/18SUSP.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030201073719/http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2002/nyt101802.html

It soon became clear the Moussaoui had lied about his personal
background, and that he had no qualifications at all as a pilot. The
potentially frightening implications of training this particular
student were not lost on Pan Am's flying instructors, according to
John Rosengren, director of operations at the school. In a faculty
meeting the next day,

*
"There was discussion about how much fuel was on board a 747-400 and
how much damage that could cause if it hit anything."

("E-Mail Sent to Flight School Gave Terror Suspect's 'Goal'," Jim
Yardly, The New York Times, February 8, 2002, Late Edition--Final,
Section A, Page 1, Column 5
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/08/national/08HIJA.html .)
*

Soon one of the flight instructors was on the phone to the FBI:

*
"Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor asked an FBI
agent. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel
could be used as a weapon!"

("Eagan flight trainer wouldn't let unease about Moussaoui rest," Greg
Gordon, Star Tribune, December 21, 2001
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/913687.html .)
*

The local FBI agents concurred. They checked out Moussaoui, and found
out that he had overstayed his visa. They persuaded the INS to take
him into custody and keep him there. If not for this good luck and
prompt action Moussaoui would surely have participated in the attacks
of September 11, because from that point on the investigation met
determined opposition from high level FBI officials who did their best
to completely shut it down.

The sickening story is spelled out in a long, agonized letter written
after the events of September 11 by Coleen Rowley, one of the Field
Agents in Minneapolis on the case. The letter was promptly declared to
be classified by the Bureau, but portions have been leaked to the
press:

"Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller--An edited
version of the agent's 13-page letter," TIME, May 21, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html

Immediately after Moussaoui's arrest, the Field Agents in Minneapolis
wanted to apply for a warrant to search his apartment and the hard
drive of his computer. FBI Headquarters, however, denied that they had
probable cause for such a search. Then within just a few days the
Field Agents received information from the French Intelligence Service
that "confirmed [Moussaoui's] affiliations with radical fundamentalist
Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden." At this
point the Field Agents "became desperate," but incredibly Headquarters
continued to stonewall and deny the existence of probable cause for a
search. Rowley, who has been an FBI division legal advisor for 12
years, and an FBI agent for 21 years, was at the time and remains
today completely baffled by Headquarters' determination to stop the
investigation. She flatly states that probable cause "was certainly
established."

At that point Rowley tried another route. The FBI can apply for
so-called FISA warrants if their aim is to gather intelligence rather
than evidence for a criminal proceeding. The granting of a FISA
warrant is practically guaranteed; the FBI only has to ask for them.
To her amazement, FBI Headquarters "continued to, almost inexplicably,
throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate
efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant."

By this time the Field Agents were "in a frenzy ... absolutely
convinced [Moussouai] was planning to do something with a plane." One
agent speculated in a memo that that Moussouai had been planning with
unidentified confederates to "fly something into the World Trade
Center."

"Unheeded Warnings," Michael Isikoff, NEWSWEEK, May 20, 2002 Issue
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-16/2-16-readerNEWSWEEK.html

Then came September 11.

Coleen Rowley agonizes in her letter, searching for an explanation for
the betrayal by FBI Headquarters. Were they simply too busy? Was it
normal bureaucratic inertia? Ultimately, she is unable to accept these
convenient but implausible explanations: "The issues are fundamentally
ones of INTEGRITY." (Her emphasis.)

An almost identical story is coming out of the Phoenix FBI office
which was similarly thwarted by FBI Headquarters in their attempt to
investigate Hani Hanjour, who is believed to have crashed an airliner
into the Pentagon on September 11:

"The Man Behind the Hot Memo," James Poniewozik, TIME, May 19, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238574,00.html

"FBI Was Warned of Sept. 11 Hijacker--Informant Says He Provided Facts
About Phoenix Hijacker," John McWethy, ABCNEWS, May 23, 2002
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/FBI_informant020523.html

Some of the Field Agents involved in these and still other similar
cases have applied for whistleblower status, and are taking legal
action to try to force the Bureau to declassify the relevant documents
and come clean about their role in September 11. These agents are
being represented by David Schippers, former Chief Investigative
Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and head prosecutor
responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President
Bill Clinton.

"Did Bush Know?--Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,"
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, May 18, 2002
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html (This is a long file. A
string search on "Schippers" will get you to the right paragraph.)

In the meantime Coleen Rowley notes in her letter that in the
aftermath of September 11 the official most responsible for blocking
her investigation of Moussaoui has received a promotion. That's not
all. The FBI Department responsible for repeatedly blocking Rowley's
desperate attempts to obtain authorization to search Moussouai's
apartment and computer is the National Security Law Unit (NSLU). In
the month of December 2002, the head of the NSLU, Marion Bowman,
received the most prestigious and generous award the Bureau could
confer on him:

*
At a quiet little ceremony earlier this month, Marion (Spike) Bowman
was one of nine people in the bureau to receive an award for
"exceptional performance." The reward carries with it a cash bonus of
20 to 35 percent of the recipient's salary and a framed certificate
signed by the president.

("FBI performs a nasty little sequel to whistle-blower saga," Doug
Grow, Star Tribune, December 22, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20021223164710/http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3547688.html
.)
*

The President of the United States is showering praise and bonuses and
promotions on those responsible for thwarting the investigations that
could have prevented the horrific events of September 11.

And keep in mind Atta's bizarre behaviour when he applied for a
Department of Agriculture loan to purchase crop-dusting equipment in
May of 2000. Atta used his real name, and he made sure the interviewer
(Johnelle Bryant) spelled it correctly. He told her that he wanted to
buy a crop-duster and to "build a chemical tank that would fit inside
the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft
except for where the pilot would be sitting." Atta then fixated on an
aerial photo of Washington, D.C. hanging on the office wall, and
wanted to purchase it:

*
"He pulled out a wad of cash," she said, "and started throwing money
on my desk. He wanted that picture really bad." Bryant indicated that
the picture was not for sale, and he threw more money down.

"His look on his face became very bitter at that point," Bryant
remembers. "I believe he said, 'How would America like it if another
country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it,' like the
cities in his country had been destroyed?" ...

Atta also talked about life in his country. "He mentioned al Qaeda, he
mentioned Osama bin Laden," ... He boasted about the role that they
would one day play. "He said this man would someday be known as the
world's greatest leader," she said.

("Face to Face With a Terrorist--Government Worker Recalls Mohamed
Atta Seeking Funds Before Sept. 11," Brian Ross, ABCNEWS, June 6, 2002
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html .)
*

Bryant, perhaps to provide us with some much needed comic relief,
finishes her story by asking, "How could I have known [that this man
was a terrorist]?"

The point is that Atta was operating completely openly, and even seems
to be DELIBERATELY drawing attention to himself as a terrorist
suspect. This makes sense if, as I believe, Atta was laying a false
trail of evidence which he WANTED to be discovered after the attacks
(more on this later). The attacks of September 11 were planned and
carried out with impressive military discipline and efficiency. Atta
is not exposing himself out of stupidity or carelessness. He must have
expected that Bryant would immediately notify the FBI (although she
did not). We now know that this would not have mattered--that any
attempt to investigate would have been killed by FBI Headquarters.
Clearly, at the time, Atta must have known this as well. The question
of exactly why Atta would have wanted to incriminate himself in this
way will be addressed in section 8.

5. THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS

So ... whoever perpetrated September 11 obviously has tons of money
and a tight military organization. You would expect that this would
not be an isolated event, but the start of a coordinated campaign. If
this was the work of Islamic fundamentalists, then where is the Jihad?
Where are the Holy Warriors who should have been positioned and ready
to follow up on the opening shot of the war?

There was a second wave of attacks--the dissemination of anthrax
letters to both random and carefully selected targets. However,
everyone now acknowledges that this was an inside job--that the
weapons grade anthrax used would only be available to a very limited
number of scientists and military/intelligence officers working in the
United States on highly classified projects.

In fact, according to the leading expert on the anthrax attacks,
Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, the FBI has long known exactly who
was behind these attacks--attacks that have so far have killed at
least five American citizens--but the Bureau has decided to let the
perpetrator off the hook, just as the sponsor of the September 11
hijackings has been let off the hook. Professor Rosenberg is a
microbiologist and an expert on biological warfare who has served as a
Presidential Advisor and testified before congress on this subject.
She was selected by the Federation of American Scientists to
investigate the anthrax attacks. Over one year ago, in January 2002,
Professor Rosenberg stated:

*
The FBI has surely known for several months that the anthrax attack
was an inside job. A government estimate for the number of scientists
involved in the US anthrax program over the last five years is 200
people. According to a former defense scientist the number of defense
scientists with hands-on anthrax experience and the necessary access
is smaller, under 50. The FBI has received short lists of specific
suspects with credible motives from a number of knowledgeable inside
sources, and has found or been given clues ... that could lead to
incriminating evidence. By now the FBI must have a good idea of who
the perpetrator is.

("Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20030402125704/http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
.)
*

Another leading expert on biological warfare, Professor Francis Boyle
of Indiana University, concurs with Rosenberg's opinion. Professor
Boyle is a renowned expert on international law who has testified
before Congress on legal issues concerning biological warfare. He was
instrumental in drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of
1989. His analysis of the anthrax attacks has led him to the same
conclusion reached by Professor Rosenberg, which he states even more
bluntly:

*
I believe that the FBI knows exactly who was behind these attacks and
that they have concluded that the perpetrator was someone who was or
is involved in illegal and criminal biological warfare research
conducted by the US government (the Pentagon or the CIA) or by one of
the government's civilian contractors. For that reason, the FBI is not
going to apprehend and indict the perpetrator.

("Bio-Warfare and Terrorism," Francis Boyle, Professor of
International Law, University of Illinois School of Law,
Synthesis/Regeneration 30, Winter 2003
http://web.greens.org/s-r/30/30-12.html .)
*

As with the investigation of the funding channel for the September 11
hijackers, the anthrax investigation started off fast and made great
progress only to come to a screeching halt with the perpetrator in
easy reach.

The most obvious pieces of evidence were the notes that accompanied
the anthrax mailings. These contained crude misspellings and praised
Allah while calling for the downfall of the United States. These notes
were quickly recognized as a transparent hoax. As Professor Rosenberg
has stated:

*
Expert analysts for the FBI believe that the letters were written by a
Westerner, not a Middle Easterner or Muslim, although the text was
clearly intended to imply the latter.

("Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20030402125704/http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
.)
*

The anthrax strain used was consistent in all letters. A detailed
genetic analysis narrowed the search to a single laboratory: the U.S.
Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
at Fort Detrick, Maryland:

"Riddle of the spores--Why has the FBI investigation into the anthrax
attacks stalled? The evidence points one way," George Monbiot, The
Guardian, May 21, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/anthrax/story/0,1520,719367,00.html

Further, the sophisticated weaponization process used to treat the
spores, and the highly specialized expertise needed to store and
handle the spores, narrows the search even much further. This leaves
us with just a handful of suspects involved in the Fort Detrick
program:

"Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20030402125704/http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm

With the field narrowed down so drastically, Professor Rosenberg
points us to what I believe is the key piece of evidence in
identifying the perpetrator:

*
On Sept. 21, three days after the first anthrax mailing and before any
letters or anthrax cases were in the news, an anonymous typed letter
was mailed to Quantico accusing an Egyptian-American scientist,
formerly of USAMRIID, of plotting biological terrorism. The accused
scientist was quickly exonerated by the FBI. The letter's writer
displayed familiarity with work at USAMRIID and claimed to have
formerly worked with the accused scientist.

("The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows," Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Ph.D., June 13, 2002 http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/fas-01.html
.)
*

Obviously the anonymous accuser himself fits the profile of the actual
perpetrator. Furthermore he was able to correctly anticipate that
there would be an anthrax attack and that the strain of anthrax used
would lead to Fort Detrick. The conclusion seems inescapable that the
anonymous author of this false accusation was the author of the attack
itself.

The falsely accused was an Egyptian born scientist, Dr. Ayaad Assaad
who worked at USAMRIID during the 1990's. During his employment there
he was the target of racist attacks from a Jewish coworker, Lt. Col.
Philip Zack. In one incident Zack mailed Assaad a rubber camel with a
huge model sexual appendage attached, together with an eight page poem
that described Dr. Assaad among many other things as a "life form
lower than yeast."

"Arab scientists recount hostility and harassment at military anthrax
lab," Lynne Tuohy and Jack Dolan, The Hartford Courant, December 19,
2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20020613151817/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134380111_detrick19.html
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=detrick19&date=20011219

As a result of this and a string of similar racist attacks by Lt. Col.
Zack, Assaad filed a harrassment suit and Zack was forced to resign
his position at USAMRIID. However, Zack continued to have access to
the lab illegally with the help of a personal friend there:

"Anthrax Easy To Get Out Of Lab--Security Was Based On Trust In
Scientists," Jack Dolan, Dave Altimari and Lynne Tuohy, The Hartford
Courant, December 20, 2001
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hcourant.html

Certainly Lt. Col. Zack must be considered to be the prime candidate
as the author of the letter falsely accusing Dr. Assad. In my view
this also makes him the prime suspect in the attacks
themselves--especially when you take into account the fact that his
illegal comings and goings at Fort Detrick occurred at the time when
anthrax spores matching the genetic profile of those used in the
attacks went missing there.

"Deadly specimens disappeared from Army research lab in '90s," Jack
Dolan and Dave Altimari, The Hartford Courant, January 21, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002134839/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134393798_anthrax21.html

In any event, the suspects in this crucial investigation are certainly
NOT fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. Everyone close to the
investigation agrees that the perpetrator is a highly qualified
bio-warfare expert who has worked on highly classified projects for
the United States government. He has very specific and rare skills
that in themselves narrow the field to a mere handful people, without
even taking into account the evidence surrounding the mailings
themselves. The postmarks provide a series of time stamps associated
with specific locations. An investigation like this can stall when
there are thousands of possible suspects; it cannot stall when there
are a handful of suspects and abundant clues to resolve the
perpetrator's identity. Professors Rosenberg and Boyle are quite
correct: the FBI is deliberately shielding the perpetrator of these
terrible crimes, which have taken the lives of five innocent American
citizens and which attack the foundations of our free and open
society.

But not everyone is going unprotected. With exceptional foresight so
notably absent elsewhere in this case, Vice President Dick Cheney was
able to anticipate that anthrax would become a problem in the Capitol.
He and his staff started taking an anti-anthrax medication (Cipro) on
the night of September 11, before the letters containing anthrax
started to arrive:

"White House mail sorters anthrax-free," Sandra Sobieraj, Associated
Press, October 24, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20021021135126/http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/1024beth.htm

"Judicial Watch Sues Bush Administration For Anthrax Documents--Group
Says Government Had Braced In Advance For Anthrax Attacks," Associated
Press, June 9, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20021130151705/http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2002/ap060902.html

Obtaining and preparing the anthrax will have been a difficult and
lengthy process. The attacks, beginning just seven days after
September 11, must have been prepared well in advance by a highly
sophisticated government insider. Like the hijackers themselves and
their sponsors in the ISI, the perpetrator clearly has powerful
protectors high inside the U.S. government. The two attacks seem to
have been perfectly coordinated to work towards the same objective.
The ever-incisive Professor Rosenberg observes:

*
The perpetrator was probably ready before Sept. 11 and simply took
advantage of the likelihood that Sept. 11 would throw suspicion on
Muslim terrorists. Was the perpetrator trying to push the US toward
some retaliatory military action?

("Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20030402125704/http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
.)
*

6. THE ULTRA-RIGHTWING AGENDA ALREADY IN PLACE FOR A WAR AGAINST THE
ARAB STATES

But why would our government WANT to whip up public support for an
all-out war against the Arab states? The answer is readily found in a
series of position papers from the "Project for a New American
Century" (PNAC) that are available on the web. PNAC is an
ultra-righwing and militaristic think-tank that developed around the
most extreme hawks in Dick Cheney's Defense Department at the end of
George Bush Sr.'s administration. To understand why an inner circle of
Presidential Advisors including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle,
are pushing for a comprehensive attack on the Arab States, you should
check out their website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

In particular, click on the link for "Defense and National Security,"
and then download "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ["Rebuilding
America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century:
A Report of The Project for the New American Century," September
2000]. (This is the first item listed. You'll need Acrobat Reader.)[5]

This paper lays out the plan to dominate the entire globe, starting
with the Middle East and Central Asia. The authors figure that to
support this we will need to beef up the military to the point where
we will be able to support multiple simultaneous major wars together
with occupations and police actions. All of this was in place years
before September 11. This paper was published in September 2000. It's
perfectly clear then that September 11 is simply being used as a
pretext to implement an ultra-rightwing agenda that was put in place
years before.

I want to emphasize that this has absolutely nothing to do with
suppressing terrorism. In fact, this agenda will surely have exactly
the opposite effect. In the lengthy and detailed document I have
referenced you can search for the word "terrorism" and you will not
find it at all. However if you search for the word "preeminence," as
in "American preeminence," "geopolitical preeminence," "military
preeminence," etc., you will find that word many times.

The plan to use our differences with Saddam Hussein as a pretext for
initiating the campaign for an American global empire is explicitly
stated:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ... Iran
may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq
has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining
forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element
in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in
the region."

The fanatical Zionism of some advisors, e.g., Paul Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle, is clearly a factor driving this policy. Israel's Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon has echoed elements of this planning paper, for
example calling for an invasion of Iran "one day after" we subjugate
Iraq (interview with The Times, U.K., November 5, 2002). Other
important players pushing this agenda, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney,
appear to be motivated by a dangerously radical view towards the uses
of U.S. military power now that the U.S. is the single, unchallenged
superpower. In any case, it is safe to say that September 11 is simply
being used as a pretext for an agenda that has been in place for years
now.

The proposed military moves in the Middle East will not suppress
terrorism. On the contrary, many thousands will flock to the cause of
Islamic Jihad if we continue this way. And in the meantime,
outrageously, the real leads we have on the perpetrators of September
11 are being allowed to dangle uninvestigated. I'm referring again to
former ISI Director General Ahmad, the paymaster of the hijackers, who
has been allowed to slip off into retirement, and the unpursued
anthrax leads which can only point to a single cutting-edge
bio-warfare laboratory right here in the U.S.A.

Why, Why, WHY???

7. CONCLUSION

The horrific events of September 11 bear all the earmarks of a covert
"pretext" operation designed to support a military agenda that could
never have otherwise been set in motion. Investigations of both the
hijackings and the subsequent anthrax attacks lead not to Islamic
fundamentalists, but point to our own military and intelligence
organizations, and, in the case of the hijackings, to their client and
close ally, the ISI. Consequently our government has simply terminated
these investigations. Similarly, crucial FBI investigations that could
have prevented the attacks were "inexplicably" sabotaged by FBI
Headquarters over the desperate objections of Field Agents who were
fully aware of the terrifying implications of what they had uncovered.
These Field Agents have now been forced to apply for "whistleblower"
status for their own protection, while the officials who sabotaged the
investigations are being richly rewarded with promotions, bonuses and
Presidential awards.

It appears that the purpose of this deliberate mass murder of
thousands of innocent American citizens was to whip up public support
for a comprehensive attack on the Arab states in the Middle East. The
plans for these military moves have been in place for several years,
but they could never have won public approval without this boost.

8. EPILOG--HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?

In the introduction I discussed the Gladio operations carried out in
Europe in the 1970's and 1980's. Among other things this involved a
series of bombings in Italy in which hundreds of innocent civilians
were killed. The bombings were designed to appear to be the work of
communist subversives, but in fact were carried out by extreme
right-wing groups under the direction of the CIA:

"Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian Democracy," Arthur E.
Rowse, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 49, Summer 1994
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html

The philosophy behind this kind of operation is spelled out in the top
secret Supplement B to U.S. Army Field Manual FM 30-31, signed by
General William Westmoreland in March 1970:

*
There may be times when HC [Host Country] governments show passivity
or indecision in face of Communist or Communist-inspired subversion,
and react with inadequate vigor to intelligence estimates transmitted
by U.S. agencies ... In such cases, U.S. Army intelligence must have
the means of launching special operations which will convince HC
governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger
and of the necessity of counteraction. To this end, U.S. Army
intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of
agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action
groups among the more radical elements of the insurgency. When the
kind of situation envisaged above arises, these groups, acting under
U.S. Army intelligence control, should be used to launch violent or
non-violent actions according to the nature of the case.

("Hardcopy from US Army Intelligence and Security Command in partial
response to FOI," May 30, 2001 http://cryptome.org/inscom-foia02.htm
.)
*

The aim of these operations then was to polarize the public and
convince them that they were faced with violence and death from
political extremists, AND WHEN NECESSARY, MANUFACTURING THE VIOLENCE
AND DEATH THAT WAS NEEDED TO PUSH PUBLIC OPINION IN THE DESIRED
DIRECTION.

Now I agree that it's a step up from killing hundreds of innocent
civilians in order to further your political agenda to, in the case of
the attacks on September 11, killing thousands of innocents. But how
big a step is this really? ... Especially when you consider how much
greater the stakes are now (from the warped perspective of the extreme
militarists). During the Cold War we were constantly fighting on the
edges--trying to force geopolitical boundaries a little bit one way or
the other. Now as the world's single great superpower we have a unique
"opportunity" to dominate the entire globe and gain control of key
resources--especially oil of course.

The evidence presented here (and much more that has been omitted in
the interest of keeping this short) strongly suggests that September
11 was just such an operation, mounted by a radical group within the
Bush administration--an alliance of extreme militarists and fanatical
Zionists who are gaining increasing influence in our military and
intelligence command structures.

The scenario prescribed by Westmoreland is a perfect fit for what we
have observed. It would be very easy for the CIA to infiltrate "agents
provocateur" among genuine Islamic fundamentalists using their loyal
client, Pakistan's ISI, as the intermediary. With ISI support the
provocateurs could quickly gain leadership status. Then all you need
is the political clout to shut down any investigation by the CIA or
FBI that might threaten the operation. Mohammed Atta is an obvious
provocateur, operating very openly and deliberately leaving a trail of
damning evidence. His strange double life as a zealous Islamic
fundamentalist on the one hand and wild, fully Westernized party
animal on the other becomes completely coherent in this context.

Not only are there precedents for this general kind of "false flag"
provocation, there are even precedents specifically for the framing of
Arabs for terrorist attacks against the United States that in fact
were perpetrated by Zionist extremists with the aim of poisoning U.S.
relations with the Arab states. The Lavon Affair involved a series of
bombings of American and British institutions in Egypt in 1954. These
terrorist attacks were ordered by the head of Israeli intelligence
with the aim of making it appear that they were perpetrated by
Egyptian nationalists. The idea was to damage relations between Egypt
and the U.S. and Britain. (See for example, Israel's Sacred Terrorism,
Livia Rokach, Third Edition: 1986, Chapter 7
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html .)

Of course, in the case of September 11, the Zionists could only have
hoped to pull this off with very highly placed and determined
assistance from within our own military and intelligence
organizations. I believe that this was provided by the alliance of
extreme militarists and fanatical Zionists surrounding Vice President
Dick Cheney, as discussed above.

In considering this evidence it's important to recognize just how
corrupt our intelligence establishment has become. One huge scandal
that has never been addressed is narcotics trafficking and money
laundering by the CIA. Agency involvement in large scale heroin
trafficking started in Laos during the Vietnam war. This has been
known for decades; a good reference is Professor William Chambliss'
Presidential address to the American Society of Criminology in 1988:

"State-Organized Crime," American Society of Criminology, 1988
Presidential Address, Prof. William J. Chambliss, from Criminology,
27:183-208 (1989)
http://www.memresearch.org/econ/state-organized_crime.htm

During the campaign in Afghanistan, CIA heroin trafficking
accelerated, and the United States was flooded with Afghan heroin.
Alfred McCoy, Professor of Southeast Asian History at the University
of Wisconsin, Madison, has discussed this problem, and the central
role this played in the administration of George Bush Sr.:

*
First of all, I think the Laos parallel is very strong in the
Iran-Contra operation ... All the personnel that are involved in that
operation are Laos veterans. Ted Shackley, Thomas Clines, Oliver
North, Richard Secord--they all served in Laos during thirteen-year
war. They are all part of that policy of integrating narcotics and
being complicitous in the narcotics trade in the furtherance of covert
action.

("An Interview with Alfred McCoy" by David Barsamian, Conducted at
University of Wisconsin-Madison, February 17, 1990, Part Three
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/ciah3.html .)
*

(See also, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug
Trade, Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, 1991.)

The CIA also became very active in smuggling cocaine from Latin
America during this period, and the proceeds were used, among other
things, to fund the Contra guerillas in Nicauragua. (Whiteout: The
CIA, Drugs and the Press, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair,
Verso, London, 1998.)

Notoriously, George Bush Jr. has surrounded himself with officials
associated with the worst scandals involving covert operations of his
father's administration, including the Iran-Contra scandal. These
officials include men like Richard Armitage, Elliott Abrams (convicted
of two misdemeanors), John Poindexter (convicted on five felony
charges), and Richard Secord (convicted on six felony charges).
(Unfortunately most of these convictions were later overturned on the
technicality that they were contaminated by immunized testimony before
Congressional Committees.) These men were active in formulating policy
at the very time our government started to pump money into the ISI and
to cultivate this agency as a client. Now they are choosing to simply
ignore the fact that it is their own client and ally who funded the
September 11 attacks. Noted historian Theodore Draper has written of
Iran-Contra and the related pattern of criminal activity in the White
House:

*
If ever the constitutional democracy of the United States States is
overthrown, we now have a better idea of how this is likely to be
done. During the course of the Iran-Contra affairs, from 1984 to 1986,
something in the nature of a junta was at work inside the U.S.
government. We usually think of a junta as plotting to overthrow a
president; this junta came into being to overthrow an established
constitutional rule of law with the help of a president. The main
lesson from this experience is that the chief danger to our political
system is from within, not from without.

(Theodore Draper, Foreword to The Iran-Contra Scandal: The
Declassified History, Peter Kornbluh and Malcolm Byrne [Editors], The
New Press, 1993, New York, pg. xiii.)
*

George Bush Sr. himself, a few months before he granted Presidential
pardons to his friends, put it even more graphically:

*
"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be
chased down the streets and lynched."

(George H.W. Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon
Newsletter.)
*

The former President and father of the current President has put his
finger on their own worst nightmare: the time tested ability of the
American people to raise holy hell when their government abuses their
trust.

Tim Howells, Ph.D.

(Note: Throughout this post I'm deeply indebted to the timeline
compiled by the Cooperative Research Group. See "The Complete 9/11
Timeline" by Paul Thompson
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project .)

#############################################
(End of the above article, "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another
Northwoods?," by Dr. Tim Howells. Below is contained my end-notes in
order to add even further documentation to this article, and to
further strengthen an already iron-clad case--although even with all
this added documentation, this just barely even begins to scratch the
surface on all the hardcore mainstream documentation proving up one
side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks were a U.S.
government-staged Hegelian dialectic/PsyOps from start to finish:)


1. Gladio was also known as Operation Stay Behind. Gladio ties in with
the Propaganda Due (P2) Masonic Lodge scandal in Italy. See also the
below more recent major-media articles, which although don't go into a
detailed investigation like Arthur E. Rowse's article:

"American Mischief in Italy?," William Pfaff, International Herald
Tribune, March 14, 1998 http://www.iht.com/IHT/WP/98/wp031498.html

"America's 'strategy of tension' in Italy," William Pfaff, Jewish
World Review, March 16, 1998
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pfaff031698.html (This article
is essentially the same as the one previously cited.)

"Bomb trial may call Bush Sr," Philip Willan, The Guardian, February
16, 2000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3963717,00.html

"Terrorists 'helped by CIA' to stop rise of left in Italy," Philip
Willan, The Guardian, March 26, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,462976,00.html

Related to the above, the below recent major-media news articles
concern the P2 Masonic Lodge:

"Who killed Calvi?--Reopening the inquiry into the 'suicide' of 'God's
banker' has exposed links with the mafia, masons and Vatican fraud,
writes Nick Mathiason," Nick Mathiason, The Observer, December 7, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1101354,00.html

"Calvi bank's $70m traced," Nick Mathiason, The Observer, December 14,
2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1106486,00.html

"Family finds vindication in campaign to clear name--Crusade waged
from Montreal leads to new clues in 20-year-old mystery death of
'God's banker'," Ingrid Peritz, The Globe and Mail, November 4, 2002,
Page A3 http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/calvi_family.html
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20021104/UCALVN

2. See also:

"Pensacola NAS link faces more scrutiny--Senator seeks answers on
hijackers ties to Navy base," Larry Wheeler, Scott Streater and Ginny
Graybiel, The Pensacola News Journal, September 17, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20010923193829/http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/091701/Local/ST001.shtml

"Pentagon Lied: Terrorists Trained at U.S. Bases," Daniel Hopsicker,
October 14, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011124110050/http://www.madcowprod.com/index6.html

In addition to all the above, the FBI knew for _years_ that
_terrorists_ with direct ties to Osama bin Laden were training at U.S.
flight schools:

"FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools," Steve Fainaru and
James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post, September 23, 2001; Page A24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=article&articleid=A10840-2001Sep22

3. Such financial ties with the U.S. government by no means begin or
end there. Many of the bin Laden family are big-time businessmen in
the U.S. and have very close ties to top-level U.S. politicians. For
example, the Bushes and the bin Ladens are long-time family-friends
and business partners. The bin Laden family runs the largest
construction company in the Middle East (i.e., the Saudi Binladen
Group, http://www.sbg.com.sa ), of which company the U.S. government
uses to construct all of its Middle East military bases, even to
rebuild the ones that Osama is said to have blown up (such as after
the June 25, 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia).

Regarding the new barracks complex that was built after the Khobar
Towers bombing, Air Force Magazine wrote in their February 1999 issue:

"In a supreme irony, the complex was built by the giant contractor,
Saudi bin Laden Group--owned by the same family that produced
international terrorist Osama bin Laden, now an outcast in his
homeland." ("Desert Stronghold," William H. McMichael, Air Force
Magazine--Journal of the Air Force Association, February 1999, Vol.
82, No. 2 http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb1999/0299desert.asp )

Here's another way the bin Laden family benefits financially from
Osama's supposed attacks:

"Do bin Ladens benefit financially from attack?--Iridium phones
suddenly in high demand for rescue efforts," Joseph Farah,
WorldNetDaily.com, September 17, 2001
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24519

Moreover, Osama bin Laden is a known CIA asset:

"Bin Laden comes home to roost--His CIA ties are only the beginning of
a woeful story," Michael Moran, MSNBC, August 24, 1998
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

Under contract with the CIA, Osama bin Laden and his family company
built the multi-billion dollar "caves" in which he was supposedly
hiding during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan:

"[Osama bin Laden] brought in engineers from his father's company and
heavy construction equipment to build roads and warehouses for the
Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build a CIA-financed tunnel complex, to
serve as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical
center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the
Pakistan border." ("How a Holy War against the Soviets turned on US,"
Ahmed Rashid, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 23, 2001, Sunday, Two
Star Edition, pg. A-12
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/pittsburghpostgazette092301.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20021118034524/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2001/pittsburghpostgazette092301.html
.)

As well, Bush, Jr. is former business partners with Osama bin Laden's
older brother Salem:

"Bin Laden's family link to Bush," Peter Allen, Daily Mail (U.K.),
September 24, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011127003108/http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/news/article.html?in_article_id=74355

"Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business
partner?," James Hatfield, Online Journal, July 3, 2001
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html

And Bush, Sr. is business partners with the bin Laden family in the
Carlyle Group, one of the world's largest military-weapons contractors
(hence both families benefit again from Osama's supposed attacks with
the increase in U.S. government weapons spending):

"Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to
Ties to U.S. Bank," Daniel Golden, James Bandler and Marcus Walker,
Wall Street Journal Online, September 27, 2001
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1001546348608890000.djm
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/wsjarticle.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL110A.html

"Wall Street Journal: Bush Sr. in Business with bin Laden Family
Conglomerate through Carlyle Group," Judicial Watch, September 28,
2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011009024633/http://www.judicialwatch.org/press_release.asp?pr_id=1624

Also, Bush, Jr. has given the Taliban over 125 million dollars in the
year of 2001, before the 9/11 attacks:

"Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban," Robert Scheer, Los Angeles
Times, May 22, 2001
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

"Afghanistan," The Washington Post, September 15, 2001; Page A26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34423-2001Sep14

"U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan,"
Congressman Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, November 5, 2001
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm

See also the below documentation resource:

http://www.bushnews.com/attack.htm

Indeed, the Taliban was created by the CIA:

"CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban," Indo-Asian News
Service (IANS), March 7, 2001
http://www.timesofindia.com/today/07euro1.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20010310083514/http://www.timesofindia.com/070301/07euro1.htm

4. This U.S. government protection didn't just stop with with these
particular terrorists who were being flight-trained in the U.S. Before
the 9/11 attacks, as disclosed in the official FBI document numbered
199I-WF-213589 and which came from the FBI's Washington field
office--of which was originally an order by former President Clinton
and subsequently re-ordered by President George Bush, Jr.--the FBI was
ordered to back-off of their investigations into the bin Laden family,
the royal House of Saud, and suspected terrorist organizations with
links to Osama bin Laden:

"Has someone been sitting on the FBI?," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight,
November 6, 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

"FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated--Officials told to 'back
off' on Saudis before September 11," Greg Palast and David Pallister,
The Guardian, November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,589173,00.html

"Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail," Rashmee Z. Ahmed, Times
News Network, November 07, 2001
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1030259305
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1030259305

"US agents told: Back off bin Ladens," Sydney Morning Herald, November
7, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011109180353/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html

"Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens," Agence France-Presse
(AFP), November 7, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011108002028/http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/071101/dlame43.asp

"US agents told to back off bin Ladens," Ananova, November 7, 2001
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_443114.html

"US agents were told to 'back off Bin Ladens'," Independent Online,
November 7, 2001
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1005113520874B221

This protection of the bin Laden family and the Royal House of Saud
continued even after the 9/11 attacks. Within minutes of the attacks
on 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration sent out a special
notification ordering every airborne plane in the United States to
land at the nearest airport as soon as possible, and prohibiting
planes on the ground from taking off. Yet scores of members and
associates of two families with close business and social ties to the
Bush family--the bin Ladens, and the royal family of Saudi
Arabia--were allowed the only flights out of the country on those
days. This included members of the bin Laden family who were suspected
by the FBI of being involved with terrorism, such as Khalil, Abdullah
and Omar bin Laden. See:

"Saving the Saudis," Craig Unger, Vanity Fair, the October 2003 issue
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

"Administration Approves Evacuation of bin Ladens After 9-11 Despite
Open Investigation," Public Education Center, updated September 11,
2003 http://www.publicedcenter.org/stories/saudi-evacuation

"Phantom Flight From Florida," Kathy Steele, Brenna Kelly and
Elizabeth Lee Brown, The Tampa Tribune, October 5, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011108145853/http://www.tampatrib.com/MGA3F78EFSC.html
http://www.rense.com/general29/resuc.htm

This same U.S. government protection extended all the way up to Osama
bin Laden himself. In 1996, the Sudan government offered to arrest
Osama bin Laden and place him in U.S. custody but then-President
Clinton refused the offer, despite the fact that in 1995 Osama bin
Laden had already been named by the U.S. government as a wanted
co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

"U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or
Have Him Killed--Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After
Saudis Said No," Barton Gellman, Washington Post, October 3, 2001;
Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=article&articleid=A61251-2001Oct2

"Plan to arrest bin Laden in 1996 fell apart: report," Agence
France-Presse (AFP), October 3, 2001
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/afpsudan.html

"Thanks, But No Thanks--How the U.S. Missed a Chance to Get Bin
Laden," Jennifer Gould, The Village Voice, October 31, 2001-November
6, 2001 http://villagevoice.com/issues/0144/gould.php

From the above article (quoting a U.S. intelligence source): "We
kidnap minor drug czars and bring them back in burlap bags. Somebody
didn't want this to happen."

"Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With
Sudan, Analyst Says," Stephen Mbogo, CNSNews.com, September 04, 2003
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html

For more on all this, see the below documentation resource:

"Gaping Holes in the 'CIA vs. bin Laden' Story," Jared Israel,
Emperors-Clothes.com, November 8, 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

The Clinton Administration also prevented the FBI from attempting to
arrest Osama bin Laden:

"Reno nixed plan to nab bin Laden--Former attorney general concluded
'98 mission to arrest Osama in Afghanistan 'too dangerous',"
WorldNetDaily.com, May 21, 2003
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32698

Additionally, security chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic repeatedly
turned down the chance to acquire a vast intelligence database on
Osama bin Laden and more than 200 leading members of his al-Qaeda
terrorist network in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks:

"Resentful west spurned Sudan's key terror files," David Rose, The
Observer, September 30, 2001
http://www.observer.co.uk/Distribution/Redirect_Artifact/0,4678,0-560624,00.html

But moreover, on October 30 and 31, 2001, two French news agencies
broke stunning news. French daily Le Figaro (France's equivalent to
the New York Times--a _highly_ respected French newspaper) and Radio
France International (another vanguard of French news-gathering)
reported that from July 4 to 14, 2001, while receiving treatment for a
chronic kidney infection in an American hospital in Dubai (of the
United Arab Emirates), Osama bin Laden met with CIA station chief
Larry Mitchell. This occured two months before the 9/11 attacks, and
at a time when there was a $5 million reward for information leading
to the arrest of Osama (who was eligible for execution under U.S. law
for two U.S. embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole--and who
had been officially sought for arrest by the U.S. government ever
since he had been named as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing). Witnesses say the al-Qaeda leader was also visited
before leaving the hospital by members of his family and various Saudi
and Emirate VIPs, including then Chief of Saudi Intelligence, Prince
Turki al Faisal bin. The reports were later officially denied by the
CIA and the American Hospital of Dubai. (Interestingly, in the CIA's
denial, they also denied that the U.S. government ever had any
relationship with Osama bin Laden, which is a provably glaring
falsehood.) However, Le Figaro and Radio France International stand by
the story, adding that the information was originally gathered by
French intelligence, and confirmed by staff at the Dubai Hospital
(including at least one member of the hospital administration), as
well as by various Arab and Emirate diplomatic sources. Dr. Terry
Callaway, the American specialist in charge of the famous urology
department at the American Hospital of Dubai (who is believed to have
treated Osama on this and two previous occasions in Dubai) refused on
repeated occations to answer any questions about Osama bin Laden.

"La CIA aurait rencontré Ben Laden en juillet," Alexandra Richard, Le
Figaro, October 30, 2001
http://www.lefigaro.fr/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FutureTense/Apps/Xcelerate/View&c=figArticle&cid=FIGJMSRVETC&live=true&print=true&gCurChannel=ZZZJTGN6J7C
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/lefigaro_fr.htm

"Ben Laden a reçu un agent de la CIA à Dubaï," Richard Labeviere,
Radio France Internationale (RFI), October 31, 2001
http://www.radiofranceinternationale.fr/special.asp?m1=1&m2=1&SurTitre='Attentats++l+enquête+et+les+suites'&Titre='Ben+Laden+a+reçu+un+agent+de+la+CIA+à+Dubaï
http://www.ulg.ac.be/capri/AttentatsUSA/CAPRI_RFI_31_10_01_BenLadenRencontreCIA.asp

"Ben Laden et la CIA: les détails de la rencontre," Richard Labeviere,
Radio France Internationale (RFI), November 1, 2001
http://www.radiofranceinternationale.fr/encadre.asp?Identifiant=10044&id_Enc=11125&SurTitre=Attentats%20%20%20l%20enquête%20et%20les%20suites&Titre=Inquiétude%20sur%20les%20libertés%20publiques&TitreEnc=Ben%20Laden%20et%20la%20CIA%20%20les%20détails%20de%20la%20rencontre
http://www.ulg.ac.be/capri/AttentatsUSA/CAPRI_RFI_01_11_01_BebLadenCIAdetails.htm

"Ben Laden a été soigné en juillet à l'hôpital américain de Dubaï
(presse)," Agence France-Presse (AFP), October 31, 2001
http://www.afp.com/ext/francais/compuserve/der/011031025142.8ryyfvvb.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamainhospital.html

"CIA agent 'met Bin Laden in July'," Toby Rose, The Evening Standard,
October 31, 2001
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=470280&in_review_text_id=424130
http://propagandamatrix.com/cia_agent_met_bin_laden_in_july.html

The below three news-sites all have the same October 31, 2001 Agence
France-Presse (AFP) article but with different titles:

"Bin Laden treated for kidney problem in Dubai, claims report"
http://web.archive.org/web/20011217224938/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/31/world/world105.html
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0110/31/world/world105.html

"Bin Laden underwent treatment in July at Dubai American Hospital:
reports" http://sg.news.yahoo.com/011031/1/1ml07.html

"Bin Laden underwent treatment in Dubai"
http://web.archive.org/web/20011107011149/http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/10/31/FFXTISZYFTC.html

"Bin Laden 'met CIA agent before terror attacks'," Ananova, October
31, 2001 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_437828.html

"Osama bin Laden Contacted CIA Shortly Before Terrorist Attacks,"
Alexei Bogomolov, Pravda, October 31, 2001
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/31/19716.html
http://pravda.ru/main/2001/10/31/33259.html

"Report: bin Laden treated at US hospital," Elizabeth Bryant, United
Press International (UPI), October 31, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011101001905/http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/default-20011031112818.htm
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Report%20bin%20Laden%20treated%20at%20US%20hospital%20--%20The%20Washington%20Times.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/31/114942.shtml

"Ailing bin Laden 'Treated Secretly for Kidney Disease'," Adam Sage,
The Times (U.K.), November 1, 2001
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,63-132860,00.html

"CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July--French report claims
terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital," Anthony Sampson, The
Guardian, November 1, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

"Ben Laden a été soigné en juillet à Dubaï," Actu Internationale,
November 1, 2001
http://www.nouvelles-caledoniennes.nc/webpress4/Articles/20011101/A20175.asp

The below CBS News article and the article folling it are about a
different event where Osama bin Laden was given kidney dialysis
treatment in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on September
10, 2001:

"Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama--Accused Terrorist Said To Have Had
Dialysis On Sept. 10," CBS News, January 28, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

"Bin Laden had kidney dialysis in Pakistan: report," Agence
France-Presse (AFP), January 29, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20021020025949/http://www.inq7.net/brk/2002/jan/29/brkafp_7-1.htm

Below is the transcript of the January 28, 2002 CBS Evening News
broadcast done on the above January 28, 2002 CBS News article about
Osama bin Laden having been given kidney dialysis treatment in a
military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on September 10, 2001:

"Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9/11," Dan Rather and Barry Petersen,
CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, January 28, 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030621005921/http://www.complete911timeline.org/2002/cbs012802.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/cbs012802.html

For more on Osama bin Laden's hospital stays with U.S. government
knowledge and approval, see the below article:

"Where was Osama bin Laden on 9/11?--Bush Administration knew the
Whereabouts of Osama," Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at
the University of Ottawa, Centre for Research on Globalisation,
November 16, 2003 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

In continuation of this U.S. government policy of protecting their
supposed "enemies" ("enemies" which nevertheless provide an extremely
convenient pretext--à la Pearl Harbor and Operation Northwoods,
etc.--for the U.S. government usurping ever more power and control),
only dirt-poor Afghanistan goat-herders were taken to Camp X-Ray in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be publicly tortured in order to desensitize
Americans to the torture that the globalists have planned for them.
But the cream of the crop of the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership in
Afghanistan were given the royal treatment by the U.S. government for
a job well-done:

"Transcript: Jane Wallace Interviews Seymour Hersh," PBS NOW, February
21, 2003 http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

"The Getaway--Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift," Seymour
M. Hersh, The New Yorker, issue of January 28, 2002, posted January
21, 2002 http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020128fa_FACT

"US helped Taliban to safety, magazine claims," Oliver Burkeman, The
Guardian, January 21, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,636708,00.html

"US 'let Taleban men escape'," The Times (U.K.), January 21, 2002
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/uslettalebanmenescapethetimes.html

"Did US Allow Pakistan To Quietly Evacuate Soldiers?," A. Chalomumbai,
Mid-Day Multimedia Ltd, November 25, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011130105330/http://in.news.yahoo.com/011124/57/19g2e.html
http://www.rense.com/general17/quiet.htm

"U.S. allowed Pakistan to evacuate fighters?," The Hindu, November 23,
2001
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/11/25/stories/03250000.htm

"The 'airlift of evil'," Michael Moran, MSNBC, November 29, 2001
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp

5. The U.S. government had already been telling other governments
(well prior to 9/11) that it was planning to invade Afghanistan in
October, 2001. It's extremely convenient that the 9/11 attacks
happened to coincide perfectly with the U.S. government's preplanned
schedule to invade Afghanistan while at the same time providing the
necessary pretext for such an invasion. See:

"US 'planned attack on Taleban'," BBC, September 18, 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition":

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

The above Jane's Intellegence Review article is actually dated March
15, 2001.

Public Affairs Magazine (Newsinsight.net) on June 26, 2001 reported
that the U.S. government told other governments about its plan to
invade Afghanistan:

"India in anti-Taliban military plan":

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10

In addition, we have Bush, Jr.'s Presidential administration's own
official statements regarding their intent to invade Iraq made almost
exactly one year before the 9/11 attacks, saying in their official
policy report that they would still invade Iraq even if Saddam and his
regime no longer existed. So this invasion (i.e., Gulf War II) had not
the slightest thing in the world to do with Saddam or whatever
political system was in operation in that country--the U.S. was going
to invade Iraq no matter what.

Below are particularly relevant excerpts from the document "Rebuilding
America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century:
A Report of The Project for the New American Century," September 2000
( http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ):

Page 14 (or 26 in the PDF browser):

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Page 17 (or 29 in the PDF browser):

"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure
even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Also:

Page 51 (or 63 in the PDF browser):

"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 they got their "new Pearl Harbor" twelve months later. How very
fortunate for them and their globe-dominating "Project."

Below are the June 3, 1997 signers of the Project for the New American
Century's Statement of Principles (
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ):

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz


See also:

"U.S. Harbored Terrorists to Bolster Its Case," Matt Bivens, Moscow
Times, March 15, 2004, Page 8
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/03/15/007.html

"Secret Bechtel Documents Reveal: Yes, It Is About Oil," David
Lindorff, CounterPunch, April 9, 2003
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04092003.html

"Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus On
Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein," Jim Vallette, Steve Kretzmann
and Daphne Wysham, Sustainable Energy and Economy Network/Institute
for Policy Studies, 2nd edition: August 13, 2002
http://www.ips-dc.org/crudevision
http://www.seen.org/pages/reports/crude.shtml

#############################################
(End of my additional notes to the above article, "September
11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?," by Dr. Tim Howells.)


The above article by Dr. Tim Howells, along with my extra end-notes to
it, only barely scratches the surface on all the massive amounts of
hardcore mainstream evidence which proves that the U.S. government
intentionally staged the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for more power and
control. Below are some of the best websites available for researching
the mainstream major media articles and U.S. government primary
documentation which demonstrates up one side and down the other that
the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. government Hegelian dialectic/PsyOps from
start to finish:

9/11 Prior Knowledge/Government Involvement Archive:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

Government Prior Knowledge and Involvement in the 9-11 Attacks
Archive:

http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm

http://www.infowars.com/resources.html

9/11 Review:

http://911review.org

See the video documentary "911: The Road to Tyranny" by documentary
film-maker and political talk-radio host Alex Jones, of which can be
viewed at the below websites for free:

http://911.mazesoftware.com

http://www.c0balt.com/resources/911/download.shtml

http://infowars.com/video_clips.html

See also:

"Debunking Conspiracy Theorists: Paranoid Fantasies About 911 Detract
From Real Issues" by Gerard Holmgren:

http://rense.com/general34/fant.htm

And also see my website (which hasn't been updated in awhile, so some
links have gone dead):

The Truth About the 9/11 Attacks:

http://geocities.com/vonchloride

See also:

http://www.sigacanada.com/frontpage/politicalart/deceptiondollar/911dollarfront.jpg
(To see the front image of the $9-11 bills.)

http://www.questionsquestions.net
http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html
http://www.unansweredquestions.org
http://911-strike.com
http://gnn.tv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.americanfreepress.net
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.copvcia.com
http://www.truth-now.com
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/home.htm

http://www.sigacanada.com/frontpage/politicalart/deceptiondollar/911backwithred.jpg
(To see the back image of the $9-11 bills.)

http://www.thewaronfreedom.com
http://www.legitgov.org
http://www.911pi.com
http://www.tenc.net
http://www.onlinejournal.com
http://www.sigacanada.com
http://www.falloutshelternews.com/911Inquiry.htm
http://www.deceptiondollar.com

for $9-11 bills:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/support/supportus.htm
http://www.delcanton.com/otherprod/deceptiondollars.asp

And see also the below mainstream major media articles concerning U.S.
government complicity in the 9/11 attacks:

"This war on terrorism is bogus--The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal
pretext to use force to secure its global domination," Michael
Meacher, The Guardian, September 6, 2003:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

http://911review.org/Wiki/BogusWarOnTerrorism.shtml

"Conspiracy crusader doubts official 9/11 version," Michele Landsberg,
Toronto Star, May 11, 2003:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0511-04.htm

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/doubt911vers.html

"Barbs aside, 9/11 questions aren't going away," Michele Landsberg,
Toronto Star, May 18, 2003:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0518-05.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN305A.html


Another very good mainstream major media article which deals with the
U.S. government's intentional complicity in the 9/11 attacks is "The
Enemy Within" by Gore Vidal, which was first published in the print
edition of The Observer of London on Sunday, October 27, 2002:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html (This version has
hyper-linked references.)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/enemywithin.html

http://9-11congress.netfirms.com/Vidal.html

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr_gore_vidal.html (A copy of this
article at Congressman Jim McDermott's website.)

And also see The Observer article below on Gore Vidal's above article,
"The Enemy Within," published by this same news agency:

"Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11--America's most
controversial novelist calls for an investigation into whether the
Bush administration deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks to
happen," Sunder Katwala, October 27, 2002:

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,819931,00.html


See the article "9/11 'Conspiracies' and the Defactualisation of
Analysis: How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to
Support Baseless Supposition," Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, June 20, 2002:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00123.htm

http://www.globalresearch.org/view_article.php?aid=342536303

And see the article entitled "The Missing Wings," by Prof. Alexander
K. Dewdney, mathematician and scientist, and Gerald W. Longspaugh,
aerospace engineer, wherein they demonstrate conclusively that no
Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

See also:

http://www.feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney

Read the extensively-documented book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing
Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by Prof. David Ray
Griffin, foreword by Prof. Richard Falk (Olive Branch Press [an
imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc.]; March, 2004), ISBN:
1-56656-552-9; 1566565529. You can read it online at:

http://windsor.indymedia.org/usermedia/text/7/501_1.htm

Or, to find it elsewhere online, see the below Google link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22followed+by+electrifying+revelations%22&num=100&filter=0

----

Below can be found the complete text from the Freedom of Information
Act-released U.S. government document detailing the Pentagon plan to
murder innocent civilians and murder U.S. Navy members as part of a
"terror campaign" to be blamed on the Cuban government as a pretext to
invade Cuba, code-named Operation Northwoods. This plan had the
written approval of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman
Louis Lemnitzer, and every other member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff--of which plan President John F. Kennedy refused to implement.
This FOIA-released document is archived at The National Security
Archive at George Washington University (Washington, D.C.).

"Operation Northwoods: 9/11-Style US Government PsyOps Plan":

http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronomega

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fa65a1b8.0302220317.36784429%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Below is the National Security Archive on the FOIA-released Operation
Northwoods documents:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

----

As just another among many, many examples of the U.S. government's use
of staged Hegelian dialectical PsyOps attacks, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt knew in advance and intentionally allowed (and provoked) the
Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. See, for example:

"The McCollum Memo: The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor":

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum

And that's just one among many, many smoking guns proving that the
Pearl Harbor attack was an intentionally staged Hegelian dialectic by
the U.S. government. For many more such smoking-gun, Freedom of
Information Act-released U.S. government documents proving that the
U.S. government knew exactly when Japan was going to attack Pearl
Harbor, as well as their efforts to provoke exactly this response, see
the book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert
B. Stinnett. For more on just some of that, see:

"Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of
Pearl Harbor?--An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett" by Douglas
Cirignano, The Independent Institute, March 11, 2002:

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html

And for a list of dozens of hardcore smoking guns proving the Pearl
Harbor attack was an intentionally staged Hegelian dialectic by the
U.S. government, see:

"Pearl Harbor: Mother of All Conspiracies" by Mark Emerson Willey:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

#############################################


The above examples of the U.S. government intentionally staging
attacks upon its own citizens as a pretext to obtain more power and
control are by no means unique to the U.S. government. Indeed, this is
an ancient technique commonly used by governments throughout history
to whip up their masses--such as Nero burning Rome and blaming it on
the Christians, or Hitler ordering his brown-shirts to burn down the
Reichstag and blaming it on his political enemies.

As yet another recent example of this, take the September 1999 Russian
apartment-building terror-bombing campain using Hexogen (i.e.,
Cyclonite; RDX) as the explosive and which was blamed on Chechen
terrorists despite there being not the slightest shred of evidence
that Chechens were behind it, and where it later turned out that the
bombings were done by the Russian government itself (i.e., under
former KGB spy and FSB head, and then Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin)
in order to get the Russian people behind another war against Chechnya
(oh, how familiar it all sounds!)--indeed, the Russian government
(i.e., the FSB, the present-day KGB) was actually caught red-handed by
local police and citizens in the city of Ryazan planting live
explosives (i.e., Hexogen) with live detonators in an apartment
building!

The below article by David Satter, published by The Hudson Institute,
is probably the best over-all article concerning much of the evidence
that the 9/99 Russian terrorist bombings were done by the Russian
government. The National Review article is simply based upon The
Hudson Institute article, but without the very important and
informative end-notes (and so I recomend that you read The Hudson
Institute article).

"The Shadow of Ryazan: Who Was Behind the Strange Russian Apartment
Bombings in September 1999?" by David Satter, The Hudson Institute,
April 19, 2002:

http://www.sais-jhu.edu/programs/res/papers/Satter%20edited%20final.pdf

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=m13invc66fgmeehorn7n229t63iii89145%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

"The Shadow of Ryazan--Is Putin's government legitimate?" by David
Satter, National Review, April 30, 2002:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-satter043002.asp

The below website, Terror-99, deals with the Russian government's
involvement in the 9/99 Russian terrorist bombings, and has a huge
amount of mainstream major-media news-articles demonstrating that the
Russian government was behind the bombings:

http://eng.terror99.ru

For an additional amount of vital evidence not covered in the David
Satter article, see the below two articles:

"Bali Halloween" by Israel Shamir:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021201085508/http://www.israelshamir.net/english/bali.shtml

"Fear of Doing the Boss a Disservice," Moscow Times, April 11, 2002,
pg. 8:

http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/041.htm


David Satter has also written more on this matter in the below book by
him:

Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State (Yale
University Press; May 2003) ISBN: 0-300-09892-8, or 0300098928:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/viewbook.asp?isbn=0300098928

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300098928

(Herewith concludes this document; revised and updated on June 16,
2004.)

Gray Shockley

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 3:29:54 PM6/16/04
to

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:49:56 -0500, James Redford wrote:

> Those who control the U.S. government didn't just know in advance and
> intentionally let the 9/11 attacks happen as a Hegelian dialectical
> PsyOp in order to obtain more power and control--they funded,
> shepherded, trained and protected the terrorists every step of the
> way. They didn't just intentionally let it happen: they made it
> happen.
>
> The below article by Dr. Tim Howells is a very good, short
> introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media
> articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one
> side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following

> anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical . . .

[rest deleted because I'm not interested in reading the magnus
whatssis until my question is answered]

"a Hegelian dialectical", eh?


Please explain /exactly/ what a "Hegelian dialectic" is.

And from /precisely/ where in which of Hegel's works.


Gray Shockley
----------------------
Thank you.


James Redford

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 2:56:59 AM6/17/04
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:29:54 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray...@cybercoffee.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:49:56 -0500, James Redford wrote:
>
>> Those who control the U.S. government didn't just know in advance and
>> intentionally let the 9/11 attacks happen as a Hegelian dialectical
>> PsyOp in order to obtain more power and control--they funded,
>> shepherded, trained and protected the terrorists every step of the
>> way. They didn't just intentionally let it happen: they made it
>> happen.
>>
>> The below article by Dr. Tim Howells is a very good, short
>> introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media
>> articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one
>> side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following
>> anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical . . .
>
>[rest deleted because I'm not interested in reading the magnus
>whatssis until my question is answered]
>
>"a Hegelian dialectical", eh?
>
>Please explain /exactly/ what a "Hegelian dialectic" is.

A dialectical scheme developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel (b. Aug. 27, 1770, Stuttgart, Württemberg--d. Nov. 14,
1831, Berlin) that emphasized the progress of history and of ideas
from thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis.

For Hegel, there is a unifying metaphysical process underlying the
apparent diversity of the world, which he called the dialektische.
This process is essentially the necessary emergence of higher and more
adequate entities out of a conflict between their less developed and
less adequate anticipations. This process can be seen to be operating
both at the most abstract levels of thought as well as at the level of
simple phenomena. So, e.g., at the most abstract level of thought,
pure "being" (the thesis in this particular dialectical progression),
because it is pure indeterminacy, can be seen to imply its opposite,
"nothingness" (the antithesis). However, the truth about these
concepts must contain both being and nothingness. This truth is the
interaction or movement between being and nothingness which is
"becoming" (the synthesis).

>And from /precisely/ where in which of Hegel's works.

Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (1817).

Gray Shockley

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 8:25:25 PM6/17/04
to

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:49:56 -0500, James Redford wrote:

>>> Those who control the U.S. government didn't just know in advance and
>>> intentionally let the 9/11 attacks happen as a Hegelian dialectical
>>> PsyOp in order to obtain more power and control--they funded,
>>> shepherded, trained and protected the terrorists every step of the
>>> way. They didn't just intentionally let it happen: they made it
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> The below article by Dr. Tim Howells is a very good, short
>>> introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media
>>> articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one
>>> side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following
>>> anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical . . .

--------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:29:54 -0500, Gray Shockley:

>> [rest deleted because I'm not interested in reading the magnus
>> whatssis until my question is answered]
>>
>> "a Hegelian dialectical", eh?
>>
>> Please explain /exactly/ what a "Hegelian dialectic" is.

--------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:56:59 -0500, James Redford wrote:

> A dialectical scheme developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
> Friedrich Hegel (b. Aug. 27, 1770, Stuttgart, Württemberg--d. Nov. 14,
> 1831, Berlin) that emphasized the progress of history and of ideas
> from thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis.
>

That is not how you are using the phrase. Hegel - as you illustrate (directly
above) - explains his dialectic as "the progress of history and of ideas from

thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis."

The _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ states that one simple example is "common
sense".

It is a "descriptive" term and you appear to be using Hegel's Dialectic as
some sort of causal entity. There is a mighty difference between gown and
town.


1. "... let the 9/11 attacks happen as a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp
in order to obtain more power and control ...".

Okay, here we start observing the propagandistic
repetition of the phrase, "Hegelian dialectical PsyOp".

And here we find "Hegelian dialectical" used (over
and over) as an adjectival phrase modifying "PsyOp".


2. And: "... that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks

were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government

["Hegelian dialectical PsyOp"]

Your, [likely Dana'd] "... the progress of history and of ideas from thesis
to antithesis and thence to a synthesis..." does not translate to:

--------------------------------------------------------


" and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical . . .

because... the progress of history and of ideas from thesis to antithesis and
thence to a synthesis..." was descriptive and historically valid.
--------------------------------------------------------

"Your" own definition states that Hegel's dialectic is "the progress of

history and of ideas from thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis".

So - as far as I can tell - your use of "Hegelian Dialectic"
has no relationship whatsoever to "your" definition itself.


2. "The below article by Dr. Tim Howells is a very good, short introduction

to just some of the more damning mainstream major media articles and U.S.
government primary documentation which proves up one side and down the other
that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian

dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government as a pretext in order to
obtain more power and control."

"... were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp ..." ?????

3. " ... --although even with all this added documentation, this just barely

even begins to scratch the surface on all the hardcore mainstream

documentation proving up one side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks

were a U.S. government-staged Hegelian dialectic/PsyOps from start to

finish:)" [Gray: punctuation in original]

"... Hegelian dialectic/PsyOps from start to finish ..."????

4.

> For Hegel, there is a unifying metaphysical process underlying the
> apparent diversity of the world, which he called the dialektische.
> This process is essentially the necessary emergence of higher and more
> adequate entities out of a conflict between their less developed and
> less adequate anticipations. This process can be seen to be operating
> both at the most abstract levels of thought as well as at the level of
> simple phenomena. So, e.g., at the most abstract level of thought,
> pure "being" (the thesis in this particular dialectical progression),
> because it is pure indeterminacy, can be seen to imply its opposite,
> "nothingness" (the antithesis). However, the truth about these
> concepts must contain both being and nothingness.

[Gray's Note: From this one can see against what John Paul
Sartre and many other existentialists were re-acting - being
the antithesis "so to speak.]

> This truth is the
> interaction or movement between being and nothingness which is
> "becoming" (the synthesis).
>
>> And from /precisely/ where in which of Hegel's works.
>
> Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (1817).

Actually it was introduced in the _Science of Logic_ a little earlier and
modified in a smallest manner in the _Encyclopedia" but that doesn't answer
my question.

Here, let me rephrase the question:

And from /precisely/ where in the _Encyclopedia_ does Hegel use or explain
the dialectic in a manner consistent with your use of it as a phrase used as
an adjective phrase to "PsyOps"?


thesis: I get my paycheck of $100.00.

antithesis: I get a bill for $40.00.

synthesis: I, now, have $60.00.


thesis: I have $60.00.

antithesis: My wife hands me fifty dollars and a honeydo list.

synthesis: I now have $110.00


thesis: I have $110.00.

antithesis: The honeydo stuff costs $70.00.

synthesis: I now have $40.00.


Over and over and over ("until the last syllable of recorded" - oops, wrong
newsfroup), there is a thesis and then an anthesis and a synthesis which, in
turn, becomes the new thesis to which there is an antithesis and, now,
there's a synthesis and . . .


So, how in the bloody heck does Hegel's Philosophy have anything to do with
PsyOps?


[For those who haven't played Army: "Psychological Operations" ("PsyOps") is
that branch of - mainly - the US Army - which uses methods other than
coventional fire power to create an "accept us and we're also going to
confuse you".

The second part of that is the easiest in its most overt form: jam an enemy
radio station and "spoof" (imitate it) right off the jammer frequency (I used
ta work on jammers and rdf ("Radio Direction-Finding") so that's what I know
best).

Imitation broadcast stations and programs (either spoofing the bad guys or
exclaiming that "we" are the good guys - ala France in 1944/45).

Remember the loud, blaring rock'n'roll that was used in trying to force
Noriega out of the Vatican Embassey in Panama? That was a type of "PsyOps".
Leaflets dropped from aircraft are usually "PsyOps" material.


And, of course, all advertisements are 100% Psychological Operations. You can
call them "ads" or PsyOps or "propaganda" - it doesn't matter. In most ways,
they're interchangeable.

Take a look at all 3 definitions of "prpaganda" from my trusty _American
Heritage Dictionary_. On definition 3, the word is capatilized:

--------------------------------------------------------

prop-a-gan-da n. [noun]
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information
reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine
or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the
selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda. Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has
authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church
in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in
territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
--------------------------------------------------------

Notice that "propaganda" is not always good, bad, evil, nice, kind, lying or
any really "judgmental" thing.

Def 2 does allow that, "in wartime, it is or can be "selected", "exaggerated"
and lies but, ordinarily, it is "just" "information".

Heck, I turn the volume up on the OfficeMax "Rubberband Man" ad and GEICO ads
because they're enjoyable. I turn the sound off when that little freak whines
to his mother, "What's the matter with Buddy" (the dog). I always want to put
down the kid. And I don't know what the product is because I kill the ad
before the product name is given (prolly a flea collar or sumthin').

So, there's Gray's bells and OfficeMax (on that one ad) and GEICO - on /all/
their ads - ring those bells. The itchy dog whining doesn't even know in what
state my bells are located.


Hm,m,m - this reply has turned into a "magnus reallus stupidus" booklet but I
wrote it so I'm gonna post it, so there!

Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gray...@cybercoffee.org
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US

--------------------------------------------------------
James Redford's Writings (source)
--------------------------------------------------------


A dialectical scheme developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel (b. Aug. 27, 1770, Stuttgart, Württemberg--d. Nov. 14, 1831,
Berlin) that emphasized the progress of history and of ideas from thesis to
antithesis and thence to a synthesis.

For Hegel, there is a unifying metaphysical process underlying the apparent
diversity of the world, which he called the dialektische. This process is
essentially the necessary emergence of higher and more adequate entities out
of a conflict between their less developed and less adequate anticipations.
This process can be seen to be operating both at the most abstract levels of
thought as well as at the level of simple phenomena. So, e.g., at the most
abstract level of thought,
pure "being" (the thesis in this particular dialectical progression), because
it is pure indeterminacy, can be seen to imply its opposite, "nothingness"
(the antithesis). However, the truth about these concepts must contain both
being and nothingness. This truth is the interaction or movement between
being and nothingness which is "becoming" (the synthesis).

--------------------------------------------------------

Stan de SD

unread,
Jun 20, 2004, 2:40:05 PM6/20/04
to

"Gray Shockley" <gray@87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BCF7A0A5...@news.giganews.com...

Redford is illustrating a classic example of the old military expression:
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". :O|


James Redford

unread,
Jun 20, 2004, 3:43:17 PM6/20/04
to

In a loose manner of speaking I suppose one could say that that's what
the Hegelian dialectic means when used in this sense, in a round-about
way--if by brilliance it's taken to mean that people would desire to
further give up their liberty to the government without the necessity
of the government staging attacks, because such people are already
convinced of their rulers' superior minds.

But more accurately, when the Hegelian dialectic is used in this sense
it means the government orchestrating a dialectical process to obtain
a desired end-result (i.e., more power and control), going from
thesis, to antithesis, which are then combined in the end to form the
desired synthesis. Thus, in the case of the 9/11 attacks in
particular, the thesis being the government staging attacks to which
the public in effect says "We're under attack! Save us, government!,"
not realizing that their very "own" government orchestrated the
attacks in the first place. Then the antithesis being the government
in effect saying to the public "Yes, we'll work hard to save you, but
in order for us to save you we're going to have to take away some of
your liberties and have our budget increased," which itself is a false
dichotomy, since the countries with the least liberty are the most
dangerous countries to live in, due to the preditory nature of
government upon its own citizens.* And from the combination of the
thesis and the antithesis is derived the synthesis which the
government disired in the first place, which is more power and
control.

Note:

* More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been
systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own
governments within the past century than were killed in that same
time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed
from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks,
Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered
over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany
committed genocide against some 16 million people--6 million of them
Jews. (The preceding figures are from Prof. R.J. Rummel's website:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills .) Over 800,000 Christian Tutsis in
Rwanda were hacked to death with machetes between April and July of
1994 by the Hutu-led military force after the Tutsis had been disarmed
by governmental decree in the early 1990s, of which disarmament decree
the United Nations helped to enforce. On several occasions, United
Nations soldiers stationed in Rwanda actually handed over helpless
Tutsi Christians under their protection to members of the Hutu
military. They then stood by as their screaming charges were
unceremoniously hacked to pieces. This massacre happened one year
after the United Nations helped to put in a national ID card in
Rwanda, and it was that very national ID card system which the Hutus
used to track-down and identify the Christian Tutsis. Needless to say,
all of the subject populations of the above mass murders had been
disarmed beforehand.

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is
largely responsible for promoting and causing (due to its
victim-disarmament laws and drug laws, etc.) or even the wars
committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come
anywhere close to the crimes governments are directly responsible for
committing against their own citizens--certainly not in amount of
numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist
throughout history has always been the people's very own government.

For more on this, see:

"Government Causes the Crime" by James Redford (first published at
Anti-State.com on November 2, 2001):

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/govcause.html

Ssee also my below Anti-State.com essay, which is the only essay on
Anti-State.com to have a permanent link to it on the front-page of
Anti-State.com:

"Jesus Is an Anarchist (A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that
is--otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)" by James
Redford:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchistjesus.html

Stan de SD

unread,
Jun 20, 2004, 3:49:11 PM6/20/04
to

"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34qbd0d0f4khmlp8r...@4ax.com...

Stan de SD

unread,
Jun 20, 2004, 3:50:03 PM6/20/04
to

"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34qbd0d0f4khmlp8r...@4ax.com...

As I said: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
bullshit". Thanks for making my point, bozo.


James Redford

unread,
Jun 20, 2004, 3:57:29 PM6/20/04
to
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:

In a loose manner of speaking I suppose one could say that that's what


the Hegelian dialectic means when used in this sense, in a round-about
way--if by brilliance it's taken to mean that people would desire to
further give up their liberty to the government without the necessity
of the government staging attacks, because such people are already
convinced of their rulers' superior minds.

But more accurately, when the Hegelian dialectic is used in this sense

Note:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/govcause.html

See also my below Anti-State.com essay, which is the only essay on

James Redford

unread,
Jun 20, 2004, 11:13:36 PM6/20/04
to
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:50:03 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34qbd0d0f4khmlp8r...@4ax.com...

>As I said: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
>bullshit". Thanks for making my point, bozo.

There certainly is no doubt that you are indeed baffled by the methods
of state power; I'm glad that I could assist you in making this point
of yours. But hopefully you'll choose to undertake educating yourself
out of your ignorance concerning the methods which governments use to
usurp ever more control. Although, the greatest obstacle for you in
making this choice is denial and fear of the unsettling truth, which
is a powerful psychological factor of control that governments have
used throughout history in covering up their treachery by shutting
down rational thought and discussion (e.g., getting people to respond
with ad hominem name-calling rather than rational discussion).

To that end, if you choose to follow the path of the hardcore and
unsettling truth concerning the U.S. government orchestrating the 9/11
attacks, see the article "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another
Northwoods?" by Tim Howells, Ph.D. (November 10, 2003) and my
additional end-notes to it, available in my below post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ttj0d09ofjefrfgapi44ifpgu6lf2vi1h7%404ax.com

See also my below two essays cited in my previous post in this thread:

>> But more accurately, when the Hegelian dialectic is used in this sense
>> it means the government orchestrating a dialectical process to obtain
>> a desired end-result (i.e., more power and control), going from
>> thesis, to antithesis, which are then combined in the end to form the
>> desired synthesis. Thus, in the case of the 9/11 attacks in
>> particular, the thesis being the government staging attacks to which
>> the public in effect says "We're under attack! Save us, government!,"
>> not realizing that their very "own" government orchestrated the
>> attacks in the first place. Then the antithesis being the government
>> in effect saying to the public "Yes, we'll work hard to save you, but
>> in order for us to save you we're going to have to take away some of
>> your liberties and have our budget increased," which itself is a false
>> dichotomy, since the countries with the least liberty are the most
>> dangerous countries to live in, due to the preditory nature of
>> government upon its own citizens.* And from the combination of the
>> thesis and the antithesis is derived the synthesis which the

>> government desired in the first place, which is more power and

Gray Shockley

unread,
Jun 21, 2004, 2:26:40 AM6/21/04
to
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:43:17 -0500, James Redford wrote
(in article <34qbd0d0f4khmlp8r...@4ax.com>):

> In a loose manner of speaking I suppose one could say that that's what
> the Hegelian dialectic means when used in this sense, in a round-about
> way--if by brilliance it's taken to mean that people would desire to
> further give up their liberty to the government without the necessity
> of the government staging attacks, because such people are already
> convinced of their rulers' superior minds.
>

Please find me someplace in Hegel's works where this is even
remotely valid.


> But more accurately, when the Hegelian dialectic is used in this sense

Does " used in this sense" mean "when used in a sense which has
nothing to do with Hegel's philosophies"?

> it means the government orchestrating a dialectical process

Oh, garbage and malarky.

If you are promoting a "conspiracy", then why not call it a
[surprise!] "conspiracy"?


> to obtain
> a desired end-result (i.e., more power and control), going from
> thesis, to antithesis, which are then combined in the end to form the
> desired synthesis.

Oh, come off it. There's a situation and somebody does something
and "excrement occurs" as a result.


> Thus, in the case of the 9/11 attacks in
> particular, the thesis being the government staging attacks to which
> the public in effect says "We're under attack! Save us, government!,"
> not realizing that their very "own" government orchestrated the
> attacks in the first place.

This, then, would be a "conspiracy".

It is not an example of any "Hegelian dialectic" or anything
remotely resembling any "Hegelian dialectic".

--------------------------------------------------------
Remember this?:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:56:59 -0500, James Redford wrote:

> A dialectical scheme developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
> Friedrich Hegel (b. Aug. 27, 1770, Stuttgart, Württemberg--d. Nov. 14,
> 1831, Berlin) that emphasized the progress of history and of ideas
> from thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis.

--------------------------------------------------------

An example of an "Hegelian dialectic" is a history, an
explanation - it's not a causality or some sort of weird
hocus-pocus event or poofing the piffle.

> Then the antithesis being the government
> in effect saying to the public "Yes, we'll work hard to save you, but
> in order for us to save you we're going to have to take away some of
> your liberties and have our budget increased,"

No, it's not. That's an action taken by conspirators and not
anything related to a philosophical explanation of Hegel or, for
that matter, anyone else of what has happened (/never/ what is
going to happen) - that is just silly.

> which itself is a false dichotomy,

What in the name of Jesus and his black brother Harry is a "false
dichotomy"?

Ignoring definitions 2 (astronomy) and 3 (botany), we are left,
in our all-purpose, super-nifty, 1994, AmHeritage Dict,
definition #1 (and I quote): "1. Division into two usually
contradictory parts or opinions".

Jamming "false" with the above definition we can come up with
several guesses as to what a "false dichotomy" could possibly be.

1. A false division into two usually contradictory parts or
opinions.

2. A division not into two contradictory parts or opinions.

3. A division into two non-contradictory parts or opinions.


> since the countries with the least liberty are the most
> dangerous countries to live in, due to the preditory nature of
> government upon its own citizens.*

Not substantiated at all. Why are these countries dangerous and
what do you mean by "dangerous", anyway?

Please either define or furnish examples of what you mean by
"pred[a]tory nature of government upon its own citizens".


> And from the combination of the
> thesis and the antithesis is derived the synthesis which the
> government disired in the first place, which is more power and
> control.

That is not "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". It's a "plot by
those in a conspiracy who are carrying it out".

So, let's finish up with your "combo phrase" that you used a
numbre (5?) of times:

"Hegelian dialectical PsyOp".

The amusing thing about that combo is that your use of it is a
"psychological operation", a "PsyOp".


"PsyOp" - in normal usage - is only connected to the U.S.
Military so, by the very use of "PsyOp", there seems to be an
attempt to use "PsyOp" in a pejorative sense, that is,
"Psychological operations are devious and they are being used
against us".

[The most obvious non-military use of "Psychological Operations"
is, of course, television commercials.]

So - when ya get right down toit, "Hegelian dialectical PsyOp" is
just a "buzz phrase"; it doesn't illuminate, it casts a shadow.

It do sound as purdy as a $18 hoar on satday nite but it ends up
being jist like when ya only have $17.

Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
If ya git my drift, dontchaknow.


Stan de SD

unread,
Jun 21, 2004, 3:43:00 AM6/21/04
to

"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8gkcd09o13upp9907...@4ax.com...

You make no point. You're merely a babbling fool.


James Redford

unread,
Jun 21, 2004, 5:09:08 AM6/21/04
to
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:26:40 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray...@cybercoffee.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:43:17 -0500, James Redford wrote
>(in article <34qbd0d0f4khmlp8r...@4ax.com>):
>
>> In a loose manner of speaking I suppose one could say that that's what
>> the Hegelian dialectic means when used in this sense, in a round-about
>> way--if by brilliance it's taken to mean that people would desire to
>> further give up their liberty to the government without the necessity
>> of the government staging attacks, because such people are already
>> convinced of their rulers' superior minds.
>>
>
>Please find me someplace in Hegel's works where this is even
>remotely valid.

The above was in response to Stan de SD, of which you cut-out the
context (in other words I was saying that I thought Stan de SD's
connection was rather strained):

#######################################

>Redford is illustrating a classic example of the old military expression:
>"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". :O|

In a loose manner of speaking I suppose one could say that that's what


the Hegelian dialectic means when used in this sense, in a round-about
way--if by brilliance it's taken to mean that people would desire to
further give up their liberty to the government without the necessity
of the government staging attacks, because such people are already
convinced of their rulers' superior minds.

But more accurately, when the Hegelian dialectic is used in this sense
it means the government orchestrating a dialectical process to obtain


a desired end-result (i.e., more power and control), going from
thesis, to antithesis, which are then combined in the end to form the

desired synthesis. Thus, in the case of the 9/11 attacks in


particular, the thesis being the government staging attacks to which
the public in effect says "We're under attack! Save us, government!,"
not realizing that their very "own" government orchestrated the

attacks in the first place. Then the antithesis being the government


in effect saying to the public "Yes, we'll work hard to save you, but
in order for us to save you we're going to have to take away some of

your liberties and have our budget increased," which itself is a false
dichotomy, since the countries with the least liberty are the most


dangerous countries to live in, due to the preditory nature of

government upon its own citizens.* And from the combination of the


thesis and the antithesis is derived the synthesis which the

government desired in the first place, which is more power and
control.

#######################################

>> But more accurately, when the Hegelian dialectic is used in this sense
>
>Does " used in this sense" mean "when used in a sense which has
>nothing to do with Hegel's philosophies"?

No. It has to do with the dialectic named after him, which he
developed, and of which he developed as a part of his philosophy.

>> it means the government orchestrating a dialectical process
>
>Oh, garbage and malarky.
>
>If you are promoting a "conspiracy", then why not call it a
>[surprise!] "conspiracy"?

Everyone that I am aware of who has any stated position on this
maintains that a conspiracy was involved in what is often called the
"9/11 attacks." This seems rather obvious, unless one desires to
maintain that all of those flights being hijacked simultaniously was
simply a coincidence (and one would have to further maintain that only
one hijacker was involved with each flight--or that it was simply all
an accident).

So it must be borne in mind that everyone is a conspiracy promoter
when it comes to the 9/11 attacks. The difference is that I and others
who care about the truth promote the documented conspiracy factualism
concerning the U.S. government staging the 9/11 attacks, as opposed to
the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual,
and provably false official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

For more on this, see:

"Debunking Conspiracy Theorists: Paranoid Fantasies About 911 Detract


From Real Issues" by Gerard Holmgren:

http://rense.com/general34/fant.htm

>> to obtain


>> a desired end-result (i.e., more power and control), going from
>> thesis, to antithesis, which are then combined in the end to form the
>> desired synthesis.
>
>Oh, come off it. There's a situation and somebody does something
>and "excrement occurs" as a result.

And of which results in the government obtaining more power and
funding.

>> Thus, in the case of the 9/11 attacks in
>> particular, the thesis being the government staging attacks to which
>> the public in effect says "We're under attack! Save us, government!,"
>> not realizing that their very "own" government orchestrated the
>> attacks in the first place.
>
>This, then, would be a "conspiracy".

It is indeed a conspiracy, although in this case conspiracy
factualism, as opposed to the U.S. government's lying, self-serving,
a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official 9/11 conspiracy
theory.

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate and act upon
a plan which is intended to be kept hidden from another (or others)
and which involves doing something untoward to the person (or people)
from which it is intended to be kept hidden.

>It is not an example of any "Hegelian dialectic" or anything
>remotely resembling any "Hegelian dialectic".

It's a Helegian dialectical PsyOp. As I already explained above, it
uses an intentional process going from thesis, to antithesis, which
are then combined to form the desired synthesis--hence the dialectical
process of the Hegelian dialectic.

>--------------------------------------------------------
>Remember this?:
>
>On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:56:59 -0500, James Redford wrote:
>
>> A dialectical scheme developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
>> Friedrich Hegel (b. Aug. 27, 1770, Stuttgart, Württemberg--d. Nov. 14,
>> 1831, Berlin) that emphasized the progress of history and of ideas
>> from thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>An example of an "Hegelian dialectic" is a history, an
>explanation - it's not a causality or some sort of weird
>hocus-pocus event or poofing the piffle.

It's a mental construct for understanding various processes.

>> Then the antithesis being the government
>> in effect saying to the public "Yes, we'll work hard to save you, but
>> in order for us to save you we're going to have to take away some of
>> your liberties and have our budget increased,"
>
>No, it's not. That's an action taken by conspirators and not
>anything related to a philosophical explanation of Hegel or, for
>that matter, anyone else of what has happened (/never/ what is
>going to happen) - that is just silly.

Rarther, being that the Hegelian dialectic is simply a mental
construct, it can be understood by the conspirators in formulating
certain of their conspiracies which progress along the lines of thesis
to antithesis and arriving at the combined synthesis--and so also this
process can be understood by those who study the conspirators' actions
which follow this pattern.

>> which itself is a false dichotomy,
>
>What in the name of Jesus and his black brother Harry is a "false
>dichotomy"?

In this case, simply meaning that the choice offered by the government
isn't one which will bring security; hence, the choice offered is not
the opposite of insecurity. Therefore the reason for the phrase "false
dichotomy"--amazing how that works, isn't it?

I see that following simple conversations is quite difficult for you.

>Ignoring definitions 2 (astronomy) and 3 (botany), we are left,
>in our all-purpose, super-nifty, 1994, AmHeritage Dict,
>definition #1 (and I quote): "1. Division into two usually
>contradictory parts or opinions".
>
>Jamming "false" with the above definition we can come up with
>several guesses as to what a "false dichotomy" could possibly be.
>
>1. A false division into two usually contradictory parts or
>opinions.
>
>2. A division not into two contradictory parts or opinions.
>
>3. A division into two non-contradictory parts or opinions.

Your numbers 2 and 3 would fit this case.

>> since the countries with the least liberty are the most
>> dangerous countries to live in, due to the preditory nature of
>> government upon its own citizens.*
>
>Not substantiated at all. Why are these countries dangerous and
>what do you mean by "dangerous", anyway?

In this case, "most likely to be murdered," since the context after
all was terrorism and safty from it.

>Please either define or furnish examples of what you mean by
>"pred[a]tory nature of government upon its own citizens".

I already did. You cut it out. Here it is again for you:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/govcause.html