Tight lipped on any evidence, Pakistani officials say the men had ties to al Qaeda…..jumping to conclusions will no doubt be exploited by America and their ”war on terror”?
“Jumping to conclusions” may prove to be the only way to link anyone to al Qaeda”
Young Muslim Americans have been arrested in Pakistan. As you can read in this AP article, the men were looking to fight for jihad. Pakistani officials are claiming they were looking to join al Qaeda, but were refused entry into peripheral groups.
This will no doubt be used by the American media to fuel support for the fight on al Qaeda:
The case is the latest in a series that will likely fan concerns among Western nations that their citizens _ specially of Pakistani origin _ are traveling to the country to connect with al-Qaida or take part in training or indoctrination sessions.
There is also question whether this event was related in any way other than by calendar to the arrest of two Chicago men, David Coleman Headley and Tahawour Hussain Rana in October, that were implicated in an attempted an attack on a Danish newspaper that had in 2005 printed cartoons of prophet Muhammad. The cartoon offended Muslims.
If the five young men ranging in age from 19 to 25 were indeed looking to defend their heritage, it likely could not have come at a worse time, when America is looking to defend the call to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan to look for the elusive, if not phantom al Qaeda network once thought to be numerous in number with “cells” all over the world. The same so called network that Donald Rumsfeld said had involvement in 50 to 60 countries worldwide. The facts to support this have either never materialized, or we have not been privy to any details.
This is the type of publicity the war does not need to see.
When the youth of today are largely questioning the integrity of government, how is the U.S. supposed to sell the fight moving forward?
Are they certain the true terrorists are in the desert sands?
A full investigation into the U.S.'s recent past should be on the table
What President Obama must understand is the impact he will have on the future of America and the world.
He must look back in order to look forward, and no event is more critical than the pivotal events of 9/11.
Will Obama look to only the individual “trees” as they are placed in importance before him, or will he be able to step back and see the entire forest?
And if you are reading this and are wondering if you should be concerned as it “doesn’t affect you“, and you really have “no control” you should think again. Power of the people has more merit than you may know.
What you are about to read is my personal ongoing effort to gain knowledge; to question what we are led to believe; and to challenge the evidence that will likely shape the world in the coming years. My hope is that you take this as a catalyst in your own desire to get involved in seeking answers for yourself.
Accounting for the world’s pivotal event
If 9/11 was indeed an “inside job”, and if you were a party to the events of 9/11, would you be wanting to face the firefighters, policemen, and those suffering from illness? Would you want that constant reminder of “what you did”?
Or, would it be easier to turn your back on the victims as we are seeing, and ignore them – not because you don’t think they need help -but because your “pain” of guilt is greater than any physical pain they might be feeling. It perhaps is too hard to bare?
Michael Moore parodied the unthinkable by making us laugh before we cried, as he showed that the government had little support of the sufferers of 9/11, when Cuba seemed to care much more (and at far less expense):
Guilt is a terrible condition
Eventually some of those responsible for 9/11 are going to “crack” and they are going to turn against their fellow guilty in government, confessing their role in the events of 9/11. It will happen, as the guilt will be literally eating them alive. The more they see the families of the 9/11 victims come forward to appeal to government to revisit the investigation, the more it will eat at them, and make their guilt impossible to live with.
There is a greater hell than having died an innocent person.
The hell on earth that is being felt by those responsible peripherally for this tragedy is far worse. The masterminds behind it will likely not feel the pain, because they have lost the ability for remorse.
President Obama has an opportunity to launch a full investigation and clean house. Which side of history will Obama decide to get on?
Guilty as Sin
Jones predicted a major government imposed act of terror in July 2001:
Al-Qaeda was made up and a necessary “invention” of the U.S.
Motives for the attacks of 9/11
Who really stood to gain the most, or at all from the events of 9/11? It certainly wasn’t Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
The asbestos that Silverstein needed to clean out just 'blew out' all over the area affecting the health of thousands of rescue workers and people in New York
It is interesting to learn that Larry Silverstein, the man that was facing a $1 billion bill to remove illegal asbestos from the twin towers not only got away without having to pay that fee, but had taken a $7 billion insurance policy out on the towers that included acts of terrorism, and he wanted more too. Opportunity for a government to work with a willing participant. Would Silverstein have then been okay with the work being done on the building to ensure the explosives were installed correctly? This would be a scenario where a willing “victim” could be found. Lose $1 billion, or gain $7 billion. Which should he choose?
The government had it’s man!
See the explanation of this and more in the following:
When Silverstein was interviewed later, he used the term “pull” to describe the decision to bring the building (WTC 7) down. Pull is the industry term for imploding a building on it’s own footprint. Installing explosive devices to do a job of this magnitude would take weeks if not months. How could these explosives have been installed as the tragedy was unfolding?
Would it make more sense to avoid the remaining evidence to take down a building that might have been intended to be hit as well? If the fires were allowed to be fought, the firefighters would have discovered the explosive devices, adding incriminating evidence to an already suspect situation. No, it would make sense to blow up and otherwise destroy all the evidence of foul play.
World Trade Center building 7 was a point of contention that could bring the entire chain of events of the day under extreme scrutiny. The use of explosions although admitted by Silverstein was incredibly countered in the “official story”. Would an eye witness account of explosions occuring be a problem?
Richard Clarke – criticism is okay if it means trading “inside job” accusations for “ignorance of threat”
Clarke served several administrations. But, he was only brought in by Bush in 2004, and was not given cabinet level access. 2004? Why three years after 9/11? Could it have been a way to alleviate concern about 9/11 as an inside job, to then bring in the man who was government’s so called counter terrorism expert?
Would it also explain keeping him at bay, as the Bush family’s friendship with the Bin Laden family was more important? Clarke would have been a thorn in the side, and a deterrent.
Wasn’t George H.W. Bush having breakfast with a member of the Bin Laden family on official Carlyle Group business on the morning of 9/11?
If the Bush family had a business relationship with the Bin Laden’s it would make sense Clarke never got in before 2004 to criticize the Bush administration. No, it would make more sense to bring in an alternative form of blame to the more serious “inside job” accusations, with a man that claims he knows all about the threat of al-Qaeda. Was Clarke responsible for releasing the intel on the elaborate bunkers too, which would appear a complete fabrication?
Clinton – the temporary, frustrated “puppet”
Why is Clinton so “touchy” in this video? Lots of interesting research points if you care to listen:
Does it look like Bill Clinton was just going on what he was told? Clinton would appear to have taken the albeit manufactured threat of Bin Laden seriously but with little support.
Proven when Bush took office, the threat of Bin Laden quickly took the “excuse” ranking it legitimately deserved. Clinton in this video is arguably and justifiably frustrated by the lack of support in an effort that was doomed to fail. Clinton in my opinion appears a victim too. I could be wrong, but his passion in this interview speaks clearly of a man that was fed false information, tried to act on it, and failed as a result.
Note Clinton’s roadblocks were the CIA and the FBI that claimed they didn’t have enough evidence to get Bin Laden. Clinton was getting close – too close! He could not be allowed to actually go through with taking out the scapegoat by design.
Just because Bill Clinton was President doesn’t mean he had ultimate control. He was fighting a far greater machine. Could we put current President Obama in the same ranking? Is he accepting intel designed to fool him too, turning a man with perhaps good intention into a puppet figurehead of the true “machine” that has been in the works for many, many years?
Let the people have their democracy, let them believe the new administrations have influence. What if the underlying powers that be have manipulated just about every administration except John Kennedy’s? And wasn’t it H.W. Bush that created the very CIA that is under suspicion?
Could the United States have had a singular power of control over several years despite the votes of Americans? Despite the guise of democracy and the apparent changing of the guards?
Clinton’s frustration goes a long way to explaining a man with good intentions but unable to break away from the true powers within the U.S. Government.
Why he was an “asset” into the biased inquiry was now obvious – he could passionately support the fight against a manufactured target – a man that knowingly tells us an important fact. There is a power within the government:
” I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. … The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States.” (25)
Crazy deception and fairy tale intelligence
As far as these elaborate bunkers, Rumsfeld made sure that we were aware that there were "many of these"!
Are we still “buying” what Rumsfeld fed us on the “elaborate bunker systems”?
How did they know these existed? Where were they, when they could not not find any? Take a look at a picture of the bunker as Rumsfeld explained was so intricate. Are we all feeling a little foolish now? Where was the intel to suggest these palaces carved out of a mountain actually existed? They existed in myth and fairy tale, and they spoon fed our fears to sell us on the need to flush out the enemy with “bunker busting” bombs. Ringing a bell? As Bush said, they would flush them out of their caves. They would have no where to hide.
If there were indeed “several” underground mansions I am sure they could have located at least one. But then again, a guest couple that shouldn’t be at a presidential ball you could argue should not be able to bipass security and shake hands with the President too, right?
Asked years later, the same President Bush said he was not concerned with Bin Laden, and hadn’t really thought about him much. The convenient scapegoat manufactured by the U.S. wasn’t required at that point I suppose. But now, with more troops poised to hit Afghanistan, the words al-Qaeda are once again perched on the lips. Once again convenient to accuse Bin Laden of America’s man made issue perhaps?
I’m surprised they didn’t show where the lounges with the widescreen T.V.’s were located too!
So, we must question a government that may be feeling the heat to justify the original excuse for war – terrorism and Al-Qaeda.
The war in Afghanistan may have taken on the new meaning of justifying that Al-Qaeda was more than just a “made up” villian of the U.S. and in fact the ones responsible for 9/11. That in itself would be a pathetic reason to lose yet more human life.
Bill Clinton’s words of “how dare you” (say that 9/11 was an inside job) was mirrored today by the exclusive CNN John Roberts interview with Hillary Clinton.
One thing is certain. Clinton felt guilty about 9/11 for not having done away Bin Laden when he had opportunity. Little did he likely know that his guilt should be laid squarely on the shoulders of people far removed from him. Passionate about the subject, Clinton could be passionately wrong.
As the “crooky” crumbles
Dick Cheney’s famous “so”response when asked his take on two-thirds af Americans distaste for the war in Iraq had another interesting choice of words from Cheney – “can’t be blown off course”.
According to Cheney: We don't do torture
What is the real “agenda” Mr. Cheney, when it isn’t to listen to the very people you are supposedly representing? The “who cares about what people think” attitude of Cheney was parodied on David Letterman (take a look).
Could it be a facade to now bring up the idea that Obama is willing to consider prosecution of those in the Bush administration for authorizing torture that is considered a war crime?
What would this do? Well for one it would make Obama look like an honest President that if he now considers the continuation of war necessary we should believe him. Two, it justifies the existence of al Qaeda and the fact that there was information of critical interest.
But, could it just be deception to further an untold cause? We need to go back to accountability for the events of 9/11 to justify anything moving forward.
Isn’t is wonderful that Cheney will take an interview about prisoners and torture allegations but to date we have not heard a detailed explanation into his responsibilities for 9/11?
By discussing the so called terrible people that have been locked up serves no other purpose but to justify a myth.
We would prefer, I am sure, to grill him, Bush, and Rumsfeld on the facts of 9/11 and get their answers to those questions.
Dick Cheney would appear to be “transparent” on issues that seem to help Dick Cheney. Any conversation that would put him in a corner is not going to happen voluntarily. As Sen. Joe Biden had put it, he was not honouring the American Constitution, nor did he give credit to the American people to decide right from wrong, and make decisions. This would support the idea that being truthful about the “course” that he is worried about being blown off from would not sit well with the people. There really is little doubt that history will not look back favourably upon a man that gave the people very little consideration, and had tunnel vision to a cause that was not to this date known.
Bush, despite having said how much of a threat Bin Laden was, later slipped and made us question the urgency.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but as the reporter has shown in the above clip, it’s hard to fool all of the people all of the time.
When Bin Laden flip flops as a threat, it truly is getting old very, very fast.
Bush claimed that people are not understanding the scope of the mission. Well, it is more likely people are questioning the inconsistencies of a lie. It’s pretty hard to stay consistent. Bush looks like he is feeling the pressure and the magnitude, and I am certain he has had several blank moments in front of the press, as panic has likely set in.
Bush’s comment that Bin Laden puts many young people to their death is an interesting choice of words from a President that has sent many to the Middle East to do the same.
Protesting War: Killing the innocent
A soldier tells his story:
Should he be mocked? Should he be villified as a protestor of freedom? Take a good look at this kid who has no motive but to speak truth. He has nothing to financially gain from speaking from his heart, and feels impelled to do so.
Here are a series of videos (which were active just days ago) of interest on the reaction of war-protestors. Unfortunately they have been removed. I have seen these videos and cannot understand why.
An opportunity to clean house
Should we excuse President Obama if he was a little sheepish when he mentioned Al-Qaeda. Seems almost embarrassing to still use that as an excuse, doesn’t it? Is he getting army intel from the same folks that advised Bush?
What about all the fake videos the government spoon fed the viewing scared public?:
Were others sitting in the same disbelief I was that the story hasn’t changed? The argument for al-Qaeda being a threat was better than something Hollywood could put together. Have we been duped, and they are hoping to still dupe us? Who are ‘they’ still fooling? Who are ‘they’ in fact?
Obama is new to the Presidency. Is being naiive the reason he is “buying” the story too?
Why is it now vitally important to the nation to send 30,000 more troops to snuff out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Are these forces really the reason to be in the middle east? That’s what Obama said in his recent speech. Are we “buying it”?
The reasoning is that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop there to carry out its dirty work. As the president puts it, Afghanistan would “again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” This argument is constantly repeated but rarely examined; given the costs and risks associated with the Obama administration’s plans for the region, it is time such statements be given the scrutiny they deserve.
But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?
One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.
Take a step back and explain yourselves
When a government is becoming quickly questionable and untrustworthy, the issue of being blown off course is not as big an issue as the one of being transparent and accountable to the voters they serve.
What is it the government’s real agenda?
Why was it that the soldiers in the audience to Obama’s speech on the vital need to send 30,000 more troops to war looked sick, tired, depressed, and most importantly untrusting?
Will the magic wand be waived to be able to start the withdrawal of troops in July 2011?
Are those concerned with deadlines or hope to an end supposed to buy the idea that this date holds either merit or true contemplation? Or is it just a means to get support and boost the spirits enough to ensure it is sold long enough to advance unknown or hidden agendas?
It would be foolish to believe the smart young people of today have not thought these thoughts.
The fact is that it is the American economy and debt largely that is being ignored by more military spending to improve freedoms elselwhere. The freedoms of Americans are being stripped by high unemployment (at 10%, but more like 17%), and by the Patriot Act that has turned the average American into a potential terrorist. A convenient excuse perhaps?
Are they still doing “checkpoints” (car and body searches) in downtown NYC? Put another way, are they still instilling the notion that a terrorist is around the corner? Good sales job?
The government needs to take steps back to prove that the steps forward (those that they say are justified) are understood and acceptable by the majority of the American people quickly becoming disenchanted.
Tiresome is the “zombie-esque” glazing over of the eyes of certain network show hosts when a chanter suggests to reinvestigate 9/11. Brings me to think that brainwashing is largely prevalent in network T.V. anchors perhaps as their own form of coping mechanism. It certainly makes me question where the real “cult” and cult victims may exist. The “hecklers” are really crying out for reasons to believe in the powers that be in government. Why not give it to them? No questions mean no interest.
The attempt to prove the existence of Al-Qaeda as the bigger enemy is watered down by the refusal of the U.S. Government’s ability to do a proper and thorough investigation of the reasons for war (9/11) in a timely manner.
In short, the U.S. has not given anyone enough evidence to put concerns to bed. The only logical reason for the shoddy investigation that took hundreds of days to start is that the government has more to lose than to gain in addressing this issue.
How on earth are soldiers and heros supposed to fight in a cause for which the reason is being questioned?
The U.S. Government needs to resell the need and sell the benefits. But the next discussion better be based in truth. The people are not believing their government, and the cost of risking their lives is outweighed by doubt and confusion. The perceived benefit is not greater than the tragedy of dying. Dying for what? And in his speech, did Obama succeed?
The war in Afghanistan is fought mainly by the young. The young that have grown up with the resources of the internet, blogs, youtube, and other abilities to research at the fingertips.
They are rising to the occasion too.
Never before in history has a young person had the ability to gather evidence for him or herself in order to formulate their own opinion, to ask questions, to challenge the status quo.
For this reason, there is enough doubt rising today that may not have been as prevalent as in the past. A doubt and questioning that may breath new life into the next generation of Americans that will shape the nation. But, the youth represent a new challenge and issue for the governments of our day. To convince a generation that is sharp and inquisitive is going to be tough. I for one am proud of the awareness of the world they seem to have taken on at young ages.
And fortunately the up and coming generation are willing to challenge what is being “sold” them.
Russo & Rockefeller in 1999 (two years before 9/11)
In our growing concern and desire to find out truth, should we even “go there “on the issues of the reason for health care reform, or the “mandatory” innoculations that the government of the U.S. is considering to impose on it’s people? Russia seems to be moving to greater democracy and freedoms than the U.S.. Perhaps Aaron Russo can still shed light on what he learned from Rockefeller.
Russo said Rockefeller told him that the terrorism was make-believe (a fairy tale), asked him to join the elite group, and predicted almost exactly what we are seeing today.
Russo claimed Rockefeller said the ultimate goal was to microchip all people. And where have we heard that before?
He required everyone – small and great, rich or poor, free and slave – to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name. – Rev. 13:16
Russo went on to say that Rockefeller looked at the people as “surfs”. Rockefeller according to Russo seemed kind of “cold”:
The litmus test of Aaron Russo’s words (full interview below) will be us weighing his words against all the U.S. policy going forward, and judging for ourselves. At the point you realize that there may be more merit than right to mockery, that may be the point you need to take action.
We were all likely sleeping when we were introduced slowly to the motives that have been in the works for years. When Cheney says that the people of the U.S. cannot blow the government off course, could it be the course that has been designed over time?
Lou Dobbs was very opinionated and refreshingly so. Did he get tired too of what he was witnessing as a CNN news anchor? As Aaron Russo had mentioned the North American Union, Dobbs reiterated the issue, and was labeled a conspiracy theorist. It is quickly becoming obvious that free thinking has a label. Dobbs supports Russo’s belief that it is the elitists that are trying to run things:
When weighing evidence, the non-conspiracy theorists if you will would like to paint those that question as nutjobs. But when looking at the evidence, it is also important to look at the people that have come to conclusions on their own, from varying backgrounds. It isn’t just the poor, it’s also the wealthy. It’s not just the average citizens, it is also those in the public eye. There seems to be a movement of support that is growing as we all decide which side of history we will choose to be on.
It is important to learn facts (all the facts), and use your ability of deductive reasoning to decide for yourself. This isn’t a request to join a cult. It is an invitation to be your own investigator and decide which “big picture” makes the most sense from past and future events.
We close now with evidence from George H.W. Bush.
And if we ever start to believe the entire government is rigged – a staged outcome, we might look at this list and realize we are closer than we think.
Was the last election rigged too, and Obama was “placed” in our path (see this humorous but perhaps closer to the truth fixed video)?:
What was the purpose of the “plan”? To get everyone “chipped”.
George H.W. Bush spoke of the “New World Order”. Rockefeller furthered that to Russo. The freedoms of the people are being stripped, first with the Patriot Act, and other liberties are slowly and “under the radar” being removed. Soon they will have us under the North American Union:
Do the “people” really control the direction of their countries, or are the “elite” as they are called really manipulating the conditions under which we live?
More questions. More suspicions. Few true answers.
