If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Monday, January 31, 2011

Egypt needs democracy, not another torturer-in-chief


The Zionist-occupied USA has been pushing for the replacement of Hosni Mubarak with an even worse torturer: "Intelligence chief" (meaning torturer-in-chief) Omar Suleiman.

This is the man who has been personally directing the torture of those suspected of being ethical and moral individuals - i.e. "Islamists" - in Egypt's nightmare dungeons.


Suleiman wasn't just the go-to bureaucrat for when the Americans wanted to arrange a little torture. This "urbane and sophisticated man" apparently enjoyed a little rough stuff himself.
Shortly after 9/11, Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib was captured by Pakistani security forces and, under US pressure, torture by Pakistanis. He was then rendered (with an Australian diplomats watching) by CIA operatives to Egypt, a not uncommon practice. In Egypt, Habib merited Suleiman's personal attention. As related by Richard Neville, based on Habib's memoir:
Habib was interrogated by the country's Intelligence Director, General Omar Suleiman.... Suleiman took a personal interest in anyone suspected of links with Al Qaeda. As Habib had visited Afghanistan shortly before  9/11, he was under suspicion. Habib was repeatedly zapped with high-voltage electricity, immersed in water up to his nostrils, beaten, his fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks.
That treatment wasn't enough for Suleiman, so:
To loosen Habib's tongue, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a gruesomely shackled Turkistan prisoner in front of Habib -" and he did, with a vicious karate kick.
Why is the USA, led by Zionist-blackmailed gay president, trying to put this criminal scumbag in power? Political Science professor Virginia Tilley explains:

(Suleiman is) a core high operator in Israeli/US foreign policy,  including the ‘war on terror’ (supervising US-requested renditions, etc.),  and a good personal buddy of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak,  with whom he once male-bonded in surviving a shared assassination attempt. He’s a proven ally in the deceitful manipulation of the Palestinian Authority: e.g.,  leading the phony “unity” talks while supervising Egyptian assistance to the US in training PA armed forces to repress Hamas in the West Bank and ensuring the brutal sealing of Gaza., Best of all,  Suleiman is an intelligence chief,  welded firmly within the US-Israeli intelligence nexus that props up the Fatah-led PA,  assists with the mess in Afghanistan,  tortures or assassinates the more dangerous opponents to US and Israeli interests,  and orchestrates the subversion of Syria and Iran. Such a figure,  Washington must hope,  can recreate an effective US-Israeli-Egyptian power bloc in a Middle East now drifting away from US moorings as Turkey,  Lebanon and even Iraq progressively defect from Western-preferred policies.

In Muslim-majority countries, far more than in the post-Christian West, individual ethics and morality are very closely tied to religious piety. That is why, for the most part, the Egyptian "secularist" elite is infested with greedy functional-psychopaths devoid of any compassion for their less fortunate countrymen; while "Islamist" (i.e. pious, religiously-inspired) activists like the Muslim Brotherhood spend their lives organizing soup kitchens, working for a more just society, and enduring torture and mass murder from the likes of Hosni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman.

If Egypt is to become truly democratic, it must exile or execute those responsible for the previous state policy of torture - people like Mubarak and Suleiman - and bring the ethical, idealistic people, meaning the torture victims, into the halls of power.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Not by bread alone: US leaders as clueless as Mubarak in confronting real cause of unrest

A few hours ago, universally-loathed Egyptian President-for-Life Hosni Mubarak delivered his non-resignation speech: a masterpiece of cluelessness. Seeking to blame anyone but himself, Mubarak fired his cabinet and said he would hire another one tomorrow. This did not exactly dispel the impression that Mubarak is a pompous, egotistical dictator who is completely out of touch with the fact that his people all hate his guts a lot more than his cabinet's.

Rivaling Mubarak in the cluelessness category was Joe Biden, piping in: "Mubarak is no dictator and should not step down."

Upping the ante in the cluelessness sweepstakes was Hilary Clinton, who presciently announced that the Mubarak regime was "stable."

John Kerry, another Mubarak supporter, made his bid for world cluelessness champion by saying that the dump-Mubarak movement “isn’t about one person.”

Israel's Netanyahu - who, as Sharon suggested, is the real ruler of America - vied for king of cluelessness by urging Mubarak to "exercise force, power in the street" and predicting Mubarak would survive. (Does he really think the Egyptian people will put up with Mubarak taking orders to slaughter them from an extremist Israeli PM?!)

But of all the amazingly clueless responses to the Egyptian revolution, perhaps the most subtly clueless of all was the apparently sensible one we heard from just about all the American commentators, from Kerry to Barack Obama: It's about democracy and economic opportunity and the internet and facebook and consumer goods and mcdonalds and...and...and...

Sometimes a half-truth can be worse than an outright lie. Please bear with me while I explain.

A few days ago, I stumbled upon a copy of Neil Postman's The End of Education at my local library - one of the few Postman books I hadn't read - and on returning home, discovered Murad Hoffman's Islam: The Alternative in the mailbox. Reading them together, I decided they might as well be re-issued in a single volume.

Postman's book argues that the US educational system is falling apart because "For school to make sense, the young, their parents, and their teachers must have a god to serve, or, even better, several gods. If they have none, school is pointless. Nietzsche's famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living." (4)

Postman goes on to point out that all the old, familiar gods have failed. These include: science, technology, progress, fascism, communism, America as moral ideal, consumership, economic utility, and on and on. (He also alludes to the decline of Judaism and Christianity, which left the field open for these new gods.)

Postman then proposes some newer, shinier gods: spaceship earth, man as fallen angel, the American experiment, the law of diversity, and word weavers/world makers. Frankly, I find his post-mortem of the old, dead gods more convincing than his praise of the new ones he has invented.

This is where Murad Hoffman comes in.  The former German Ambassador to Algeria (1987-90) and Morocco (1990-94), and a convert to Islam since 1980, Hoffman wrote Islam: The Alternative in two months:

In 1991, while I was in the lush Moroccan oasis of Taroudant, just south of the High Atlas mountains, the idea suddenly struck me that Francis Fukuyama's notion of the imminent "end of history" was crying out for a strong reply - historically sound, scientifically honest, problem-conscious, and free from apologetics - a reply pointing out that there is an alternative to cultural monotony: Islam - not only as a viable option, but as the only alternative to an Occident that is increasingly troubled by social and ideological crises. Two months later, this book was ready. (vii)

Hoffman is right. We - and Egypt - don't need more false gods. We need God. And Islam is the best-preserved and straightest, simplest, and most universal approach to the one God. As Hoffman says, he wrote his book for the postmodern Western world "where in the coming century, without a doubt, Islam will become the most vital religion." (ix) In the end, the revolution in Egypt is about replacing the rule of a man - a modern Pharoah - with the rule of God as laid out in the Islamic tradition.

The revolution in Egypt may involve many lesser gods - economic justice, Palestine, anti-corruption, and the mass loathing of the neo-pharoah Hosni Mubarak. But at the end of the day, it will be an Islamic revolution - one that restores a reason for living and learning to a society wrecked by imperialism and Zionism - or no real revolution at all.

Why the Zionists Want to Silence Richard Falk on 9/11

Why did the Zionist group U.N. Watch engineer a witch-hunt targeting Special Rapporteur Richard Falk? Why would Zionists, whose prime concern is maintaining and expanding their apartheid state in Occupied Palestine, care about Falk's mild allusions to unanswered questions about 9/11? Why the fuss?

Debbie Menon suggests an answer: "The fact the Israeli supporters rush to the defense and go into hysterical denial when they have not been accused of something, is sure an indicator that something stinks in Tel Aviv!"

In short, the Zionist doth protest too much. In a recent bombshell report, Wayne Madsen explains why.

Madsen is a former National Security Agency officer turned whistleblower. His Wayne Madsen Reports, like Veterans Today, is a prime conduit for leaks from disgruntled patriots in the intelligence community.

Madsen's latest report provides a detailed description of the Mossad operation now known as "9/11."


British Intelligence Reports Mossad ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker" terrorist operation

By Wayne Madsen

British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government's 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair....  (read full report here;  subscribe to Wayne Madsen Reports here.)




.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Zionist terror group "UN Watch" targets Richard Falk; bans comments!

Listen to my latest interview with Richard Falk here.  
Richard Falk responds to the Lobby's vilification here
Elizabeth Woodworth asks "Why the Fuss?" here.
Veterans Today says Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11.


"UN Watch," like "Campus Watch," is a cowardly Zionist terror group.

Campus Watch is tasked with terrorizing the academic community, especially professors who teach anything related to Middle Eastern Studies, in order to frighten off would-be critics of Israel.

U.N. Watch is tasked with terrorizing the diplomatic community, especially UN officials, in order to frighten off would-be critics of Israel. Like Campus Watch, it may be assumed to be a spin-off of the Mossad's psychological warfare division.

This week UN Watch has gone after one of my heroes: Princeton University professor emeritus Richard Falk, Special UN Human Rights Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. They are unhappy that Richard Falk has spoken out against the official version of 9/11, and in favor of a new investigation.

Unsurprisingly, the cowards at UN Watch have banned comments supporting Dr. Falk. Below is a comment I left shortly after the anti-Falk smear attempt was published.



The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission have publicly charged that their own investigation was a cover-up that was “set up to fail.” Virtually everyone who examines the evidence agrees with them, and with Richard Falk, on this topic; and a great many privately agree with the great BBC Mideast journalist Alan Hart that the Mossad played an active role in the attacks, and was probably responsible for the demolition of the three World Trade Center towers. No wonder Zionists like Neuer are so terrified of Richard Falk, whose exemplary honesty threatens their ongoing Big Lie in Occupied Palestine.

* * *

The comment disappeared within a few hours. The same thing has happened to comments left by Professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge, 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, and many others.  Below are the kind of comments that the cowardly terror-mongers at U.N. Watch are afraid to post.

-KB 

* * *

It is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who has discredited himself with his reactionary and ill-informed response to the interventions of Dr. Falk on the state of scholarly controversies concerning the contested events of 9/11. Certainly Professor David Ray Griffin's ten books on the subject are key works crucial to describing the scholarly landscape of the ongoing research concerning 9/11.

Until Mr. Ban Ki-moon has done his homework on the contested interpretations of what did or did not happen on 9/11 he should restrain himself from criticizing UN staff like Dr. Falk. Dr. Falk is a learned academic who demonstrates his determination to respect human rights by doing the necessary homework to make informed observations and conclusions about the contested events of 9/11.

By not keeping himself up-to-date on the scholarship of 9/11, Mr. Ban Ki-moon is unfortunately part of the constituency that denigrates all Arabs and Muslims who have been smeared collectively by those who disseminate an unsupported interpretation of what happened on the fateful day.

We expect much better from the figurehead of the UN, an institution cheapened and demeaned by the intervention of the Secretary-General into an area on which he obviously has not been properly briefed. Decency requires that the UN Secretary-General favor evidence over the propaganda effects of a toxic public mythology that perpetuates the ruthlessness of the illegal 9/11 Wars.

Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Letbridge 

* * *

If Professor Falk were to claim a cover-up, that would be a serious charge indeed, requiring much evidence.  You say, however, that he claimed an "apparent cover-up."  What evidence do we have for such a charge?  As a former Site Manager for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), I can confirm that the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and UL, into the events at the WTC on 9/11/01, had all the characteristics of a cover-up.

The tests performed by NIST were designed in a deceptive manner, and the results of those tests were either downplayed or ignored in the creation of the report.  All evidence contrary to NIST's pre-determined conclusions of failure by fire (e.g. evidence for explosives) was ignored throughout the seven year investigation.  People like myself, who dared to speak out about this completely non-scientific approach, lost their jobs as they called for honesty in the investigation.

Because there is substantial evidence pointing to a cover-up, Professor Falk should be commended for saying so, not derided with emotionally-charged but meaningless criticisms.

Kevin Ryan

* * *

To: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Princeton's Dept. of Politics Chair Prof. Milner and US Senator Mark Dayton

Mr. Ki-moon, I am a student at the Univ. of Toronto and I have carefully examined your sudden reaction to Prof. Falk's comments regarding 9/11. You were very quick in saying that his statement that 9/11 is a cover-up is offensive and he should be removed from the UN. However Sir, if you actually bother to read some of the statements by US officials such as Senator Dayton (provided below), you will see that Prof. Falk is just stating facts that are far from new.

I am confident that Princeton University will not be intimidated or pressured by your misinformed statements and I hope Princeton supports their own professor. True academics are concerned with facts and truths whereas you Sir are concerned about how "offensive" it appears.

Adnan Zuberi
B. Ed Candidate, Univ. of Toronto

-----

Senator Mark Dayton said:
NORAD "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people."
 Direct video reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nRoGNqiHBY

Senator Max Cleland, Former 9/11 Commissioner, said "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."
 Reference: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Islamic Revolution Continues in Egypt




I get bombarded with Islamophobic emails on a regular basis. Most of the culprits, believe it or not, are sympathetic to the cause of truth - yet at an unconscious level they have been programmed by the 9/11 public relations stunt and other Zionist media propaganda to fear and loathe Islam. 

So let me briefly explain to these folks, and other non-Islam-friendly readers and listeners, why I think Egypt, Tunisia, and many other Muslim-majority countries desperately need Islamic revolutions.

These nations' societies have been based on Islam - which is a 24/7/365 way of life, not a one-day-a-week gig - for many centuries. In the Muslim-majority world, Islam is the glue that holds social life together. The moral order, in particular, is indelibly tied to Islam. In these societies, Islam is the source of the values that lead people to behave charitably, to put the needs of other people and the community ahead of their own desires, and generally to act out of their better selves.

Much of the traditional Islamic order  - at least among the upper classes - was destroyed when Europe conquered and colonized the Islamic world, a process that lasted roughly from the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries. By the 1960s, all Muslim countries except Palestine had regained their nominal independence. But they were still, for the most part, ruled by comprador elites in the pay of the West - and these secularist elites, lacking the Islamic ethos, rarely gave a damn about the welfare of their people.

Ben Ali, the deposed Tunisian dictator, is an extreme example of the marriage of secularism and corruption that has characterized the misrulers of the postcolonial Muslim world. Ben Ali banned the call to prayer, prohibited women from wearing headscarves in public, and generally waged war against the Muslim people of Tunisia before finally being chased out of the country last week. His genocidal destruction of Tunisian Muslim culture, like Attaturk's anti-Islam genocide in Turkey, has left a wound that will take decades to heal; and, as in Turkey, healing will come with the rediscovery of Tunisia's Islamic identity.

Egypt is luckier. Mubarak's regime is just as brutal and larcenous as Ben Ali's, but it has not seriously damaged Egypt's Islamic underpinnings. On the contrary, the Egyptian people have become more self-identified as Muslim, and more devout, over the past few decades; and organized opposition is led by the Muslim Brothers, who have survived fifty years of brutal government repression and would probably win power if Egypt ever held an honest election...or if Mubarak and his goons were ever chased out of the country. (Expect the second alternative first...perhaps any day now.)

An Islamic revolution in Egypt would have immense worldwide repercussions. If Arab dictators start falling like dominoes, we might see the beginnings of a united Ummah - the long awaited neo-caliphate that the vast majority of Muslims want - a lot sooner than anyone had predicted. Insha'allah.



New youtube video:


Tunisia,  Egypt,  and..? Islamic Revolution - Dictators Will Fall Like Dominoes!

Monday, January 24, 2011

"Legacy of Deception" by Susan Lindauer

Former CIA asset Susan Lindauer broke the story of US government foreknowledge of 9/11, and pointless genocide in Iraq, in my recent radio interview.  Below is her brand-new op-ed.  -KB

LEGACY OF DECEPTION
By Susan Lindauer,

former U.S. Asset covering the U.N. Mission of Iraq

He's got the smirking grin of a politician who knows that he got away with his crimes. He escaped responsibility for his political murders and the full brunt of moral outrage for the wasteful public sacrifice on his behalf.

I can see it in his eyes. They don't know half the truth. They don't know they're asking the wrong questions. I'm scott free.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair got a second grilling in London last week over his decision to force Britain into the Iraq War, though U.N. weapons inspectors had uncovered no caches of illegal weapons to justify the invasion. Iraq was already broken by United Nations sanctions and had no capacity for self defense at all.

In the aftermath of sectarian strife and daily bombings, Blair's delusion of nation-building has collapsed. Not so his preening moral rectitude to justify the War.

That smirk tells it all. Blair knows his legacy of public deception has prevailed.

Until now.

What the British people don't realize is that up to this point, while Blair's government fabricated nonsense stories of Pre-War Intelligence and phony moral arguments, intelligence Assets involved in Pre-War Iraq have been locked up in prison or otherwise silenced by phony indictments that functioned as a gag on political discourse. So much for the moral courage of Washington's favorite puppy dog.

I myself covered the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations in New York from August, 1996 until March, 2003. A few weeks after requesting to testify before Congress about a comprehensive peace framework that would have fulfilled all U.S. and British objectives without killing a single Iraqi child, I got indicted as an "Iraqi Agent" in "conspiracy with the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

I got hit with all the bells and whistles of the Patriot Act-- secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony. My demands for a trial were blocked to protect the government. Instead, I "disappeared" into prison on Carswell Air Force Base in Texas for 11 months, where I faced threats of indefinite detention up to 10 years without a trial. Actually that proved to be the least of my worries. In prison, I had to fight off a Justice Department demand to forcibly drug me with Haldol—a rhinoceros tranquilizer that imitates the effects of Parkinson's Disease—so that I could be "cured" of knowing the unhappy truth about the Iraqi Peace Option and Iraq's substantial contributions to the 9/11 investigation.

Making matters worse, my team had delivered advance warnings about the 9/11 attack to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's private staff and the Office of Counter Terrorism in August, 2001. I was definitely persona non grata at the White House and 10 Downing Street.

My indictment continued five years. It ended five days before the inauguration of President Obama. Those five years gave pro-war leaders in Washington and London ample time and free rein to invent a totally fictitious story about Iraq and anti-terrorism that beefed up their personas in the corporate media.

I watched it all on prison television at Carswell Air Force Base. And I watched it again when Blair testified last week. In the absence of public knowledge, Blair has manipulated silence and secrecy to his own advantage. He has abused security classifications to obfuscate his weakness and policy mistakes.  And Blair's government has continued to promote policies that have caused grave harm to global security, and perhaps most ironically, the War on Terrorism.

Unhappily for Blair's legacy of deception, today Assets are free from prison and false indictment. Now it is our day to defend the public's right to disclosure and accountability.

And so I challenge the British Government to summon Blair back to face the Inquiry. Only this time the British people should ask Blair about the comprehensive peace framework negotiated by the CIA in the two years before the War.

Oh never fear. MI-6 tracked our back channel talks exhaustively, even appearing at restaurants in New York at lunches with senior diplomats on the Security Council. British Intelligence had full knowledge of the Peace Option. Blair's top intelligence staff understood that every single objective demanded by Washington and London could be achieved through peaceful means.

That included major oil contracts for the United States, and a package of highly innovative democratic reforms proposed by Baghdad to guarantee the successful repatriation of Iraqi Exiles and international election monitoring. Iraq also offered major reconstruction contracts for U.S (and British) corporations in any post-sanctions period. Iraq promised massive engineering contracts, translating to thousands of jobs and billions in revenues for any U.S. (or British) corporation that helped rebuild Iraqi infrastructure after sanctions.

Everything the U.S and Britain wanted was free for the taking. No blood had to be spilt. And this was no last ditch appeal for peace. It was a rock solid framework, with careful attention to all potential flash points for future conflict identified by the CIA. The truth is not remotely similar to what the international community has been told.

Once the British people understand the right line of questions, let us start again— with the truth this time. For the sake of historical integrity, Tony Blair should face the people to answer questions that would have been asked if Assets like myself had not been locked in prison to protect pro-War leaders in Washington and London. If Tony Blair deceives the British people in this next round of questioning, let him face criminal prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice, like any other British citizen who lies under oath.

For that matter, I am prepared to stand before Parliament myself—as one of the very few Assets covering Iraq before the War. I am ready to look the people in the eye, and raise my hand to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Assets are primary sources of intelligence, in direct contact with people and events after all. As it stands, for all the tens of thousands of pounds financing this inquiry, the British people don't know anything. Why not ask those of us who do?

That would wipe the smirk off Tony Blair's face. Because now Assets are free from prison and phony indictments. And Tony Blair's legacy of deception is finished.

                                                   --END--

Susan Lindauer covered the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years before the invasion. She is the author of "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq."

Friday, January 21, 2011

Debating 9/11 hijackers with ex-CIA asset Susan Lindauer

Susan Lindauer will be my guest tomorrow, Saturday January 22nd, on Truth Jihad Radio.  On my Tuesday, Jan. 4th show, she broke the story about CIA foreknowledge of 9/11 and how her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, stated on 9/11/01 that the Mossad did it.

We recently had a brief email debate about whether or not there were any actual hijackers on 9/11. Et voilà:


Hi Susan,

I transcribed and posted the first half of the interview yesterday. Things get around fast these days!

You'll probably hear from some wack jobs as well as thoughtful people, if my experience is any indication. But most of the 9/11 truth community - the bulk of my audience - is well-informed and rational.

Speaking of borderline wacky  responses...

One of the big points of controversy is your belief in hijackers. (Some of the more paranoid truthers have emailed me "If she supports hijackers she must be disinfo.") So allow me to explain why I think you're wrong; perhaps you can show me if I'm missing anything.

First is the absence of the evidence we would have been shown had any of these 19 guys (or any hijackers) boarded the planes: Official passenger lists, ticket stubs, testimony from airline employees, security videos, and DNA evidence (which the relatives of the falsely-blamed patsies have been screaming for, with no response from US officialdom).  See Elias Davidsson's article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html?show=votes

Second is the fact that obviously bogus "evidence" has been manufactured in an unbelievably lame attempt to implicate these guys. Atta's supposed will (found in baggage supposedly checked on board a suicide plane, and miraculously left at the airport to be discovered) is an absurdly bad forgery, as Robert Fisk among others has pointed out; an outrageously fake video purporting to show "hijackers" boarding Flight 77 is equally ludicrous (see here and here); and let's not even get started with the "magic passport" that floated down from the Towers and the "magic Shiite bandana" found outside the debris-free fifteen-foot hole in Pennsylvania. Whichever intelligence agency did this needs to hire better Orientalists -- people who can write wills that don't mangle the Islamic formulas, who can tell Shiites from Sunnis, and so on! They could also use some lessons in planting plausible evidence.

Third is the fact that the FBI finally admitted, after years of false statements, that its original claim of about 15 cell phone calls from impossible altitudes is false, and that Ted Olson's seminal claim about the alleged call from his wife Barbara was also false. Close study of this issue suggests that covert operators used voice morphing and spoofing to create at least a few bogus calls from loved ones--and that perhaps some or most of these stories, like Olson's, were invented out of whole cloth.

Fourth is that if you accept controlled demolition, there cannot have been hijackings.  Whatever hit the Towers had to have been guided into them with 99.9% certainty of an accurate hit, in order to provide a cover story for the demolitions. No human hijackers could be trusted to even gain control of planes, much less hit difficult-to-impossible targets at absurdly high speeds.  (The South Tower was hit at almost 600 mph at sea level, probably above the speed at which a 767 would fall apart, and obviously too fast for even the world's best pilot to hit such a narrow target with any consistency). Check out the videos by Pilots for 9/11 Truth: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Fifth is the activities and deportment of the alleged hijackers, who were not even practicing Muslims much less al-Qaeda types, trained and partied at Maxwell AFB and Pensacola Naval Air Station, hung around with CIA-authorized drug importers including Jack Abramoff and enjoyed endless supplies of cocaine, pretended to take flying lessons they either didn't take, were incompetent pilots with no experience in big jets, had no interest in, or didn't need, made obviously serious and sincere plans for activities after 9/11/01, and in 10 cases turned up alive, briefly at least, after 9/11/01.

On the improbable Atta: http://www.madcowprod.com/index60bb.html

And see Kolar's article.

Given this evidence and much more, I think it's clear that the "al-Qaeda" cell blamed for 9/11 was in fact a CIA/Mossad troupe of actors, many using stolen identities, that had little or no connection to any actual Islamist militancy, and that their duties as actors did not include boarding any of the alleged attack planes, much less hijacking them. Whoever ran them did a stunningly poor job of producing a convincing "suicide hijackers" storyline.

If you think about this from the standpoint of a covert ops specialist tasked with creating (the appearance of) a spectacularly successful suicide airplane attack on the Towers and the Pentagon, you'll quickly realize that using actual hijackers, or even actual airliners with pilots and passengers aboard, would probably create unnecessary complications. See: http://www.truthjihad.com/storyboard.htm

These issues have been debated quite a bit in the 9/11 truth community, with the result that the better-informed people have mostly taken a no-hijackings position. The more excitable among them suspect that those who argue irrationally (as they must) for hijackings are supporting the "evil radical Muslims" storyline for nefarious reasons.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Kevin

* * *



Kevin,

   This is an email that requires more time than I have right now to answer. I promise to come back to you with a response worthy of the time you took to pose all of these questions.

   For now, you will see from my book that I believe it was both hijackings & a demolition. Previous terrorist attacks created mayhem, but minimal damage once the sensational smoke cleared the site. Five people died in the first WTC attack in 1993. I believe 12 people died in the U.S.S. Cole. Yes, there were hijackings (though we might have named the wrong hijackers, and gone into kill them & dumped their bodies in the desert later on).

   My belief is that knowing the hijackings and strike on the WTC would occur--- and would provoke a War in Iraq, if the damage proved suitably devastating---- an orphan team sympathetic to Israel accessed the WTC and planted the explosives in elevator shafts, where it would be concealed from visual sight until the appropriate moment.

   That all fits with the airplane wreckage found on at Ground Zero. That's not a holograph. Those are two real airplanes. As they were flying below radar, cell phone transmissions should have worked for part of the flight, especially as the planes approached Manhattan.

    It's not one or the other. It's both. The missing explanation is the motive. People believe that war in Iraq was an after-thought. In fact, it formed the whole basis for tacit U.S. consent by the top echelons of the Bush Administration. They were so gung ho for War that they threatened Iraq aggressively from April and May, 2001 onwards with War. And that provided the motivation to accept a modern day Pearl Harbor and to stand down from obvious opportunities to protect the Twin Towers, even briefly for a few weeks. Command negligence was deliberate.

   It's really that simple, Kevin. The cover up was more imaginative than the original acts.

Susan

* * *

Susan,

re:

 >"My belief is that knowing the hijackings and strike on the WTC would occur --- and would provoke a War in Iraq, if the damage proved suitably devastating---- an orphan team sympathetic to Israel accessed the WTC and planted the explosives in elevator shafts, where it would be concealed from visual sight until the appropriate moment."

Given that the odds of hijackings plus a strike on even one Tower succeeding were one in a million -- there had not been a successful hijacking in US airspace in twenty years -- there would be no reason to set up the WTC for demolitions. Additionally, the alleged hijackers were clowns. They were about as likely to succeed in taking over a plane as the Florida street people were likely to bring down the Sears Tower. And none of them, except "Atta" (the Hebrew-speaking one in Florida) when he wasn't drunk and on drugs which was seldom, could even pilot Cessnas competently. Not that it matters, because even the world's fifteen best special forces soldiers and the world's four best pilots couldn't have done what these clowns are said to have done. (Not one plane even squawked the hijack code, which takes about two seconds!)

Yes, there were planes -- either military planes capable of accurate remote-control strikes at those speeds, or (just possibly) 767s under remote control.  If the latter, the perps had to have done high speed remote control flying tests of 767s and discovered their astonishing capabilities. Most pilots think 767s would be torn to pieces long before reaching almost 600 mph at sea level.

Bottom line: If the buildings were rigged for demolition, there were no hijackers.  Human hijackers and pilots could not be trusted to hit the targets.

Please re-think this, and address my points, for your more in-depth response.

And by the way, keep up the good work! Our interview is still going viral.

Kevin

[PS Or we could discuss this in another interview...]

* * *

Kevin,





That sounds great! Let's book it@ That gives you time to read the book, and gives your listeners time to digest this. We can talk about how the Patriot Act was used in the cover up, and how the FBI/ US Attorneys office & Bureau of Prisons confirmed the 911 warnings & lied to Judge Mukasey.

you'll understand when you read my book

We can debate hijackers vs. detonations vs. both. Your information is very important for my theory, too!

Susan

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The Next Big Jewish Idea: End Zionism!

Somebody invited me through Facebook to enter the "Next Big Jewish Idea" contest.  They want me to "win $100k to mobilize the Jewish community." My response:

Here's a Jewish idea that's worth a lot more than $100k: "End Zionism."  If it flies, it wins the prize - the Nobel Peace Prize, that is.

Anybody who can mobilize world Jewry to end Zionism will go down in history with King, Gandhi and the other great peacemakers.  A successful mass Jewish movement to end Zionism would also end the last vestiges of anti-Semitism, as it would showcase the positive side of the great Jewish ethical tradition in a manner that could not be denied.

Why should Jews want to end Zionism? The short answer is that Zionism is not what most Jews think it is. The history of the Zionist invasion and ethnic cleansing of Palestine is the complete opposite of what most Jews believe. It is a terrible, shameful history - but one that offers the chance of redemption IF the world Jewish community can rise to the occasion. 

The Jewish mass movement to end Zionism could begin with members of every synagogue in the diaspora forming discussion groups focused on Alan Hart's book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews--the book that best lays out the real history of Israel-Palestine and exposes the need for a mass Jewish movement to end Zionism. (Listen to Alan Hart explain the need for this movement on my radio show here.)

Most diaspora Jews are relatively educated, liberal, and fair-minded. Those who can bring themselves to go through the wrenching experience of facing the real historical facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and watching the propaganda lies they had previously believed get blown to smithereens, will quickly join the mass Jewish movement to end Zionism.

Ironically, a Jewish-instigated peaceful end to Zionism offers the only hope for Jews to live safely in Israel-Palestine. By joining the mass movement to end Zionism, Jews will be helping safeguard the lives of the Jews presently living in Israel, and especially the lives of their descendants. They will also be safeguarding themselves and their own diaspora communities against the rise of a new wave of anti-Semitism generated by worldwide revulsion against the crimes of Zionism.

Being an anti-Zionist Jew is not only the right thing to do - it's cool! As Douglas Rushkoff has written, at the core of Judaism is iconoclasm - and Zionism is a dumb, old-school icon just waiting to be smashed. As younger Jews figure this out, turn anti-Zionist, and (at first) horrify their families, anti-Zionism will gradually go from being a Jewish counterculture to a Jewish mass movement.

I call on all members of the Jewish community, especially the younger, smarter folks who will be more receptive to this message, to build a mass movement of Jews against Zionism. As more and more young, brilliant, liberal-minded people of Jewish heritage like Jonathan Elinoff and Peymon Mottaheda begin to realize that the Zionist project itself is the problem, and join Rabbi Weiss in rejecting Zionism, we can expect to see this movement surge into something capable of taking down AIPAC and eventually turning Israel into One Country for all its people -- Jews and non-Jews alike.

See:  
www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
www.jewsnotzionists.org/  
http://www.freewebs.com/jewsagainstzionism/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-Against-Zionism/109328919094330
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-United-Against-Zionism/110598375629255
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Muslims-Not-ALL-Jews-are-Zionists/123574854356053

Monday, January 17, 2011

Ex-BBC Mideast Expert Alan Hart: Hezbollah could be right!

Alan Hart is a former BBC Mideast correspondent, unofficial high-level negotiator,   friend of Golda Meir and Yasser Arafat, and author of the magisterial Zionism trilogy. Last year I broke the story of his "coming out" for 9/11 truth. (Short version here.)


Now he's "coming out" in search of the truth about a more recent false-flag attack: the probable Israeli murder of Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a crime designed to be blamed on Hezbollah. Alan Hart will join me on the radio tomorrow, Tuesday 1/18/11, to discuss the following (brand-new) article.
 

Hezbollah’s Nasrallah could be right

By Alan Hart


It’s not impossible that Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah was right when he described the tribunal investigating the assassination of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 as “an American and Israeli tool”. Though I myself see Israel’s military and political leaders as those with most to gain - I mean thinking they have most to gain - from a successful attempt to pin  the blame on Hezbollah.
When their unopposed air force devastated large parts of Lebanon’s infrastructure (as well as Hezbollah’s headquarters area of Beirut) in 2006, Israel’s leaders thought that by doing so they would turn the Lebanese army and Christian and Sunni militias against Hezbollah. In other words, by massively punishing all of Lebanon, Israel’s leaders believed they could push the Lebanese army and Christian and Sunni militias into doing the Zionist state’s dirty work.
But once again Israeli strategy (state terrorism pure and simple) backfired. Israel’s 2006 war united the Lebanese (more or less) and Hezbollah came out of it stronger not weaker. (It’s worth remembering that Hezbollah would not have come into existence if Israel had not invaded Lebanon all the way to Beirut in 1982 and remained in occupation of the south. Just as Hamas would not have come into existence if Israel had been prepared to do the two-state business with Arafat).
Fast forward to today.
Israel’s leaders are itching to have another go at Hezbollah and hopefully destroy it. But there’s a problem. Hezbollah today is much better armed than it was in 2006. It has rockets and (some say) missiles, primarily for defense, but which could do a great deal of damage to and in Israel’s cities including Tel Aviv.
The soft underbelly of Israeli public opinion would not like that. For most Israeli Jews, wars are only great if they are relatively cost free in terms of casualties on their side. So if Hezbollah succeeded in making Israel pay a high price in terms of IDF forces and civilians killed and wounded, it’s by no means impossible that, for the first time ever, many Israeli Jews would seriously question their government’s policy of living by the sword.
From an Israeli leader’s perspective, that must not happen.
So before they go to war again, Israel’s leaders (and their unquestioning American allies) know they need to discredit Hezbollah in order to greatly improve the prospects of other Lebanese forces making effective common cause with Zionism to destroy Nasrallah and all he and his movement represent.
I must confess, and do so cheerfully, that one thing above all others has always puzzled me about the circumstances of the explosion that killed Rafik Hariri and 22 others. His wealth and contacts would have ensured the he had state of the art electronic protection when he was on the move. Taking it out or in some way neutralizing it surely had to be an inside job? (That’s a question not a statement). Who could have had the necessary access?
A Mossad agent? Very possible.
A CIA agent? Again, very possible.
A Hezbollah agent? Unlikely, or so it seems to me.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Why is The Progressive's Matt Rothschild covering up the murder of his hero?

I recently had words with Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, on the occasion of Martin Luther King Day 2011.  Matt - a notable 9/11 coverup participant - was speaking at the Spring Green (WI) Public Library.  Why won't Matt, and the rest of the pseudo-alternative media, cover the findings of a November, 1999 jury that the CIA, FBI and US Army killed Dr. King?

I Am Protesting the Cover-Up of Dr. King's Murder


Today, in commemoration of Martin Luther King day, pseudo-alternative media mogul Matt Rothschild of The Progressive will be speaking about Dr. King at the local (Spring Green, WI) elementary school. I will be there handing out this. pamphlet.
-KB
An Act of State:
The Execution of 
Martin Luther King
by William Pepper
“In 1977 the family of Martin Luther King engaged an attorney and friend, Dr. William Pepper, to investigate a suspicion they had. They no longer believed that James Earl Ray was the killer. For their peace of mind, for an accurate record of history, and out of a sense of justice they conducted a two decade long investigation. The evidence they uncovered was put before a jury in Memphis, TN, in November 1999. Seventy (70) witnesses testified under oath, 4,000 pages of transcripts described that evidence, much of it new. It took the jury 59 minutes to come back with their decision that exonerated James Earl Ray, who had already died in prison. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers, owner of Jim’s Grill, had participated in a conspiracy to kill King. The evidence showed that the conspiracy included J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, the Memphis police department, and organized crime.”

Why haven't you heard that an American jury found that James Earl Ray was innocent, and that Dr. King was assassinated by agencies of the U.S. government? Why was this jury trial completely buried by the mainstream media AND the foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media?

And why haven't you heard that another American jury found that E. Howard Hunt participated in the CIA-orchestrated assassination of John F. Kennedy? (Details in Plausible Denial by Mark Lane.)

Why haven't you heard that in 2007 E. Howard Hunt wrote and recorded a detailed deathbed confession to his role in the CIA's assassination of John F. Kennedy--a confession reported in Rolling Stone and the independent alternative media, but not in phony "alternative" publications like The Progressive?

The Progressive and other foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media outfits lie. Their job is to depict a world that never was and never will be. If you would like to understand the reality you live in, please tune in to the independent alternative media.  Selected outlets include:

Citizens for Legitimate Government: www.legitgov.org
What Really Happened: www.WhatReallyHappened.com
Veterans Today: www.VeteransToday.com
American Freedom Radio: www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com
No Lies Radio:  www.NoLiesRadio.org
EddieLeaks: www.EddieLeaks.org
Power of Truth Radio: www.PowerOfTruthRadio.com

 (signed)  Kevin Barrett

Saturday, January 15, 2011

The Second Islamic Revolution begins in Tunisia

The Zionist-dominated Western media is doing everything it can to downplay this week's Tunisian Revolution and ignore its historic implications. Mainstream Middle East expert Juan Cole calls the Tunisian revolution "potentially more consequential for the Middle East" than the Iranian Revolution of 1979" and adds: "As usual, the important news from the region is being ignored by US television news."

In fact, the US mainstream media doesn't report Middle East news. It just vomits up Zionist propaganda. Whatever you see (or don't see) on US-dominated news channels is there (or not there) to serve the interests of apartheid Greater Israel and its US colony. And the reason the Tunisian revolution is not there is simple:  The more publicity it gets, the faster it will spread to the other Zio-American neo-colonies in the region.

To the extent the Zio-American mouthpieces are talking about the fall of the ultra-secularist Tunisian regime--until yesterday the last remaining overtly anti-Islamic regime in the Muslim world now that Turkey is being reclaimed by its people--they are nervously reassuring themselves that this is not an Islamist revolution, the people just want more blue jeans and McDonalds, ad nauseum. Such commentators have their heads in the proverbial sand; though they may be seeing a few grains accurately, they miss the big picture. Of course it is too early to say what will emerge directly from the current chaos. But in the long run, Tunisia will be going the way of Turkey--away from forced secularization by a brutal military dictatorship, and toward some form of Islamic democracy. Similar revolutions, with similar outcomes, are likely to follow throughout the region.

I hope and suspect that this second Islamic revolution will be more practical and moderate and peaceful than the first one. The governments that emerge may look more like Turkey than Iran. But I also hope and expect that this second Islamic revolution will hold to its ideals and to the aspirations of people in the Muslim-majority countries for:

* An end to the Zionist settler colony and the return of Palestine to the Palestinians.

* A move away from colonially-imposed Western legal traditions, toward indigenous Islamic ones.

* A rejection of any form of imperial-colonial interference in the Muslim-majority countries, starting with the ejection of all foreign military forces and bases from Muslim lands.

*  A prohibition of usurious banker-issued currencies, and a move toward the Islamic gold dinar and silver dirham as the only lawful currencies in Muslim lands  (and the only thing acceptable in exchange for oil and other resources).

* The gradual, peaceful re-unification of the Muslim-majority countries following the model of the EU: common markets, common currency, common citizenship, and so on.

The Muslim-majority countries already have all the necessary bases of unity: A common religion, a common language (Arabic, which every educated Muslim must learn and which is in easy reach thanks to the internet and satellite TV), a common currency (the gold dinar and silver dirham, mandated by shariah), and more than a billion people who think of themselves as Muslims first and ethnic/national groups secondarily if at all. Despite all the nationalist propaganda Muslims get from their Zionist-puppet rulers, an overwhelming majority--two-thirds according to one poll--want to "unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate."

How long can the Zionists succeed in playing the divide-and-conquer card against such popular aspirations for Islamic unity? And when is the USA going to cut its losses, end its support for the globally-reviled Zionists, and throw its full support behind its fellow monotheists of the emerging Islamic Caliphate -- the perfect energy-rich bulwark against America's Chinese and Indian competitors?

Monday, January 10, 2011

Saturday, January 8, 2011

CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq

Susan Lindauer, author of Extreme Prejudice, is the first CIA asset to have spoken out, under her own name and for the record, on Israeli complicity in 9/11, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the specific, detailed foreknowledge of the time, target, and means of the 9/11 attacks held throughout the months prior to 9/11 by the CIA in general and Lindauer's CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, in particular. She has also exposed her first-hand knowledge of pre-war intelligence and negotiations showing that Iraq was willing to give the US "anything it asked" and that the war was therefore--from the perspective of US interests--not only utterly unnecessary, but wildly counterproductive. Lindauer's evidence points strongly to 9/11 being a coup d'etat by hard-line Zionists determined to steer the US into a self-destructive war on Israel's enemies.

Listen to my complete interview with Susan Lindauer here. Below is a transcript of the first half of the interview.


Barrett
I understand that you had some 9/11 foreknowledge, but were actually busted for trying to explain to the Bush Administration through your cousin Andrew Card, that invading Iraq was insane, that the Iraqis were basically going to do anything we wanted anyway--they'll agree to anything for peace--and that there would be a terrible resistance and a terrible war if there was an invasion. And for that very accurate and prescient warning, they went after you.

Lindauer
Well, you have a very good grasp of this issue, I will tell you. It is a complicated story. I was one of the very few (CIA) assets covering Iraq before the war. And I had established contact with the Iraqi embassy at the United Nations in New York back in August of 1996. And for seven years before the invasion, I was what they call a "back channel" to Iraq on the question of terrorism. That was my foremost priority. This was covert in the sense that it was covert to the West. But the Iraqis were fully informed as to who I was and what I was doing and what my purpose was. My motivation was that I hated the United Nations sanctions. I hated the genocidal consequences and suffering for the Iraqi people, most truly and genuinely--that was very sincere. And they knew it. And both sides knew my politics. In fact, the CIA had come to me knowing my politics and said "hey, why don't you try to help us." They co-opted me--they did--but I agreed to be co-opted. We all understood each other. And that's very important for what happened.

Barrett
That's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a role for people who are intermediaries between warring parties and who try to make peace. And it sounds like that's what you were doing.

Lindauer
Yes indeed. And both sides understood my politics, that I wanted to help end the sanctions. And the CIA was very adamant that Iraq had to meet certain criteria in order for that to happen. And my contribution from the very first days was on terrorism. Our team started what we called preliminary talks with Baghdad in November of 2000, two years before the United Nations got involved. Our team started back channel talks to get Iraq's agreement on the weapons inspections. And over the next fifteen months, my supervisor, Richard Fuisz (pronounced "fuse"), through talks at the Iraqi embassy, mostly with Iraq's ambassador Dr. Sayeed Hassan, and with other senior Iraqi diplomats, on what conditions Iraq would have to accept in order to resume the weapons inspections. And at that point we had begun to develop a comprehensive peace framework which extended great support to anti-terrorism. Iraq agreed to let the FBI come into Baghdad and operate a task force that would have authority--this was before 9/11 ever happened! Nine months before 9/11 happened, Iraq agreed to have the FBI come into Baghdad with the authority to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, make arrests. After 9/11, Iraq agreed to give financial records on al-Qaeda to the United States. BUT the United states didn't want to take the records.

Barrett

It makes you wonder why not.

Lindauer
Isn't that an interesting question.

Barrett
It leads me to (my next question): You apparently had some kind of foreknowledge of 9/11. Can you explain to us what that was?

Lindauer
Yes. This is a very interesting thing, and I'm glad...I hope your audience will pay attention to this. We absolutely expected 9/11 to happen. And there's a subtlety here that I hope your audience will appreciate. In April and May of 2001 I was summoned to my CIA handler's office and told that I needed to confront the Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations, through my back channel, with a demand for any fragment of intelligence regarding airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. And over the summer, that progressed to a deep belief that there was going to be an airplane hijacking attack, and some sort of aerial strike, on the World Trade Center. We talked about this in our one-on-one meetings practically every week. Just so we are clear, this was not a one-time conversation. This was a major focus of our efforts. Richard (Fuisz, Lindauer's CIA handler) was very worried about it, very agitated about it, how Iraq must give us this intelligence. Now, I don't mean to patronize you, but I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of deniability. I do not think that Richard Fuisz knew all the details of 9/11. However, he knew enough. My book Extreme Prejudice goes into the conversations that we had in great detail. And he knew the timing of the attack. By August 2001, Richard was telling me not to go into New York City because this attack was immanent. And on the day of FBI Director Robert Mueller's confirmation hearings, which I think was August 2nd--in my book it's very clear, I've checked all the dates--Richard Fuisz told me that the attack was immanent. And I said, well, I'm going up to New York to ask my Iraqi sources about this again. And he said "Don't go to New York, it's too dangerous, I don't want you going there again." And I said "I'm just going up this weekend, and I promise I will not go back to New York." And that's how close this was. They knew a great deal. And what was interesting is that after 9/11, I get arrested, and he gets thirteen million dollars in payoffs. (laughs) 

Barrett
(laughing) Oh boy. That's amazing. They arrested you, because they were probably concerned about you revealing the contents of your conversations with Richard, among other things.

Lindauer
Oh yes, absolutely. And the fact that there was a peace option on the table that had been developed over a two year period before the war, a comprehensive peace framework. It included cooperation on anti-terrorism; it included the weapons inspections, of course--you already knew that; and it included Iraq's commitment to donate economic reconstruction--donate is not the right word--to dedicate economic reconstruction contracts to United States corporations with preferential treatment, preferential contracts in telecommunications, health care, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. This was a comprehensive peace framework! We covered everything! We covered a lot. And nobody even knows about this!

Barrett
That's amazing. There have been general reports of this nature, including post-9/11, right up to the eve of the invasion, there have been reports that Saddam Hussein was willing to give the US basically everything it wanted to hold off the invasion.

Lindauer
Yes. Yes.

Barrett

That leads to the question: Why do you think, given that you recognize just how insane this invasion was, how completely unnecessary--the Iraqis were caving as far as they had to cave anyway--what was the point?

Lindauer
Yes, literally, Iraq said to me: "What is it the United States wants? Anything that the United States asks for, we will give them. Just tell us what it is!" When I was on a trip to Baghdad, they offered to buy one million American-made automobiles every year for ten years. And (an Iraqi diplomat) said to me, "Look, Susan, if ten years isn't enough, we'll make it twenty years."

Barrett
You know, Susan, you're kind of ruining Saddam Hussein's posthumous reputation as somebody who stood up to the U.S.!

Lindauer
He was more harsh on terrorists than we were.

Barrett
He didn't get along with al-Qaeda, and he didn't get along with Islamists of any kind, including the Iranians.

Lindauer

That's right.

Barrett
You would have thought that the U.S. would have just kept running him as an American puppet. He got his start as a CIA hit man, apparently.

Lindauer

Yes indeed.

Barrett
So why, why this insane insistence on going to war with Iraq--a war that has killed one and a half million innocent Iraqis and destroyed that country. What was the purpose of it?

Lindauer
It was so incredibly stupid. And 9/11...9/11 could have been used at the start...9/11 was a tragedy, a terrible, terrible tragedy, but 9/11 could have accomplished great good. Because right after 9/11 Iraq went into high mode of giving. They were offering us everything we wanted: Financial records on al-Qaeda, proof of a Middle Eastern link to what we used to call the inter-Arab group of terrorists, which was actually an amalgamation of several different terrorist factions, coalesced into al-Qaeda. They were willing to prove that there was a Middle Eastern link to the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center, and those included financial documents, bank records...we could have tracked the money that's financing terrorism around the world. Instead what we do is, we create an enemy. Because it looks better--the politicians could go grandstand. As a former (CIA) asset I can assure you, they don't actually do anything on terrorism. They give speeches. They go wave their hands in the parades. But they don't do anything to contribute to anti-terrorism efforts. But the people have been fooled by their showmanship and their grandstanding and their spectacle. It's like a circus performance now! In fact, before 9/11, there were 200 to 300 terrorists in the world who wanted to attack America. Now, after 9/11 and after the war in Iraq and after the war on Afghanistan, there are only about 2000 to 3000 individuals whose entire focus of life is revenge and coming into the United States and attacking us. That's only 3000 people. The way I look at it, this is like a high school auditorium that you could fill with the potential terrorists. That's it! This is an invention! We've made this up!

Barrett

Right. Very well put. I've often explained to people that there was no real terrorist threat pre-9/11, and that for every one person pre-9/11 who was bent on doing harm to the US, there must be a great many today, because of all the terrible things that have gone on since 9/11.

Lindauer
Yes.

Barrett
So the question then, is...is it just sheer total incompetence and stupidity and grandstanding and egotism--I'm sure all of that contributes to it, but---uh...well, frankly, Susan, my take on all of this is that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, that it was of course done through Cheney's office. There were no hijackings. The guys that they blamed for it were not terrorists at all. They weren't even on the planes. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these guys were on those planes, nor is there a shred of actual evidence that there were any hijackings. Instead, we had a military operation that was essentially a Zionist coup d'état by the Likkud faction that wanted to destroy Iraq so it would never be a threat to Israel. A prosperous Iraq, allied to the US, would actually be terrible for Israel. That's why they wouldn't take the deals that you were brokering. Care to comment?

Lindauer
I think that you are--I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said. One of the things that came out right after 9/11: I've often been asked by people what my CIA handler Richard Fuisz's source was for the 9/11 attack. And he told me briefly, he let it slip. Immediately after the attack, when we were all in a state of shock, he said to me...the first building had collapsed, but it was before the second building collapsed. This is a very important time frame. He made reference to video tape, which by the way was not released to the public until the next day, but right after 9/11 Richard Fuisz already knows about this video tape! Right after the attack--the first building has collapsed, the second one is still standing--and we're both talking in the living room, we're both shouting--I'm in my living room, he's in his living room, and we're shouting at the televisions--and he blurts out to me: "Susan, how many times do you think a camera is cued up waiting for a car accident to occur?" He said, "What do you think are the odds  that those two people were just standing on the sidewalk with a video camera waiting patiently for the plane to hit the building?" And he said, "Those are Mossad agents. They knew that the World Trade Center was about to get hit, and they were waiting there for it to happen so they could record it and put it out in the media." Now this is before it has even come out in the media. He identifies them as Mossad agents, and I believe--I'm convinced--that that was the source of our knowledge of al-Qaeda. But what you guys don't know, which I will throw out to you, which comes out in my book, is that from April and May of 2001 onwards, Richard Fuisz instructed me to threaten the Iraqis with war. Now everybody assumes that the war stuff came after 9/11. But it didn't. They had decided months before 9/11 ever happened that as soon as this attack occurred, this would be the motivation for the war. So they absolutely knew that this attack was coming. They knew that it was going to be in late August or September. And that opens up a whole new dynamic proving what you have just said: That it was a Mossad conspiracy, that there was complicity...maybe that's a better word, complicity...I'm going to go a little softer on the language than you. Mossad complicity.

Barrett

I would argue that it's a little more than complicity--that the demolitions of the three tallest buildings ever taken down in controlled demolitions required immense skill and military specialization and so on...

Lindauer

Oh yes, when I say complicity, I include that in it. Yes. I believe in the detonations. In fact...do I have time to tell you one story before break?

Barrett
Tell it, go for it.

Lindauer

While I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don't want to hurt his reputation. He's close to retirement, he's going to have a pension--they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect.  He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o' clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o' clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said "I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived." He said "we know the addresses." We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Everything You Know Is Wrong: Top Ten 9/11 Truth Re-Thinks

Some people say "9/11 truth ends war." Others, the impolite ones, say "9/11 truth ends Israel." But what 9/11 truth really ends - and what really needs to be put out of its misery - is stale, conventional thinking.

War, as Gwynn Dyer put it, is just a "lethal custom." We do it because it's customary, not because it is a particularly good idea to train young men to be mass murderers, dress them up in uniforms and turn them loose to use ever-more-lethal weapons on their fellow human beings and our shared environment. To end war, we need to get our thinking out of its customary rut and see war for what it is, stripped of its mythological adornments. Once we do that, we may discover that what the big liars call "terrorism" - ordinary people defending themselves from extreme injustice - is the only justifiable form of warfare.

America's continued propping up of Israel is another example of muddled conventional thinking. Every excuse offered for the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state in Palestine is fallacious. The Jews are threatened by anti-Semitism so they need a state for protection? Even if all of the bad blood between Jews and goys throughout history were the fault of the goys - a likely story! - rounding up most of the world's Jews and putting them on a small patch of brutally-ethnic-cleansed land where a couple of nukes could wipe them all out isn't exactly a smart way to prevent another Holocaust. Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East? Hardly - a state that has ethnic-cleansed most of its voters is hardly democratic; and the region itself is undemocratic precisely because the people of the region justifiably loathe Israel, yet their leaders are forced by the realities of brute power to cozy up to Israel and repress their people. The Jews deserve a state like everybody else? What everybody else?! There are thousands of ethnic groups on earth, fewer than two hundred states, and essentially NO ethnic states--so why should Jews get special privileges? When Helen Thomas said that immigrant Jews in Israel should go home to America and Europe (or else apply to the Palestinians for legal immigrant status) she was absolutely correct; there is no reasonable counter-argument.

My claims--that war is insane, and the existence of Israel is insane--will, as John Lennon put it, probably get me labeled as insane...at least by those locked in the prison-house of ossified language and conventional thinking. But more and more people are escaping from that prison house, thanks to the botched false-flag op of 9/11/01. Those of us who have sorted out most of the truth from the lies of 9/11 inevitably ask ourselves: What else could they be lying about? How many other pillars of our conventional view of reality could turn out to be wrong?

The facts of 9/11 force us to re-think 9/11. And re-thinking 9/11 forces us to re-think everything.

Here is a list of my top ten candidates for issues that beg for re-thinking in light of the falsity of the media and government's version of 9/11--which should make us re-think everything we thought we knew.

10) Circumcision. Most U.S. Americans think it's not a bad idea idea--even one endorsed by religious tradition and/or medical hygiene--to cut off the most sensitive part of a baby boy's genitals shortly after birth. In light of what we now know about how ultra-sensitive infants are, and how traumatic events in infancy negatively impact that person's whole life, is the genital mutilation of male babies really okay? Could the widespread practice of torturing and mutilating male babies in infancy partly account for the obscenely self-righteous destructiveness of the American and Israeli personalities? Are we in denial about this, as so many of us were about 9/11?

9) Urinating and defecating in drinking water. Humans are the only species dumb enough to poop and pee into their drinking water. As an era of water shortages looms, and the skyrocketing costs of excreting into purified water, then attempting to re-purify the water, becomes more evident, might we find that human excrement is a valuable resource that only becomes toxic waste when we mix it with water? Is it time to flush the flush toilet down the porcelain bowl of history, and start composting humanure instead? For details, read Joe Jenkins' Humanure Handbook.

8) Drug policy. This is almost too obvious to make the list. Why does the West criminalize marijuana--a relatively innocuous herb with proven medical benefits--while advertising and encouraging the use of alcohol and tobacco, which together kill nearly three-quarters of a million people every year in the US alone? Why does the West try to force its own insane drug preferences on the rest of the world--by labeling as "fanatical fundamentalists" any Muslims sensible enough to try to eliminate alcohol from their societies, while at the same time forcing puppet Muslim regimes to crack down on marijuana? And why should we let the CIA continue to be the world's biggest drug dealer?

7) Media. Obviously the entire mainstream media, and most of the foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media, is a toxic cesspool of lies. Should we jail the worst offenders? Bust up the big media conglomerates by rigorously enforcing anti-trust laws? Or simply try to ignore and/or ridicule today's professional media out of existence, while establishing honest media via the internet? Since Bush repeatedly bombed and strafed al-Jazeera for reporting the truth, might we be justified in launching military attacks on big media war criminals to punish and dissuade their genocidal big lies? Would that be "terrorism" (as they would say) - or justifiable counter-terrorism? Or would this form of war be as idiotic as other forms (see #1)?

6) ETs and psi These related topics are repressed from mainstream thought in the same way 9/11 truth is repressed: By ridicule and refusal to engage with the evidence. Why? Like 9/11, they threaten to launch Copernican revolutions. 9/11 truth forces Americans and Zionists to face the fact that it is us, not them, that is the bad guy; the ET issue suggests that humans may be simply one sentient species among many, and not a very advanced one; and psi threatens to flesh out quantum physics' claim that the physical reality we experience is actually dream-stuff that is in part the creation of our own minds.

Recently, statistical meta-analysis has apparently confirmed what the rigorously empiricist Encyclopedia of Philosophy reported almost half a century ago: the scientific evidence for telepathy/clairvoyance, and to a lesser extent precognition and psychokinesis, is very strong. Likewise, strong evidence suggests that something very odd, involving technologies far in advance of anything in the public domain, is going on in the case of at least some alleged ET events; and that Congress ought to hold hearings and allow the military officials who appear in Disclosure Project to get their wish and testify under oath about the extraordinary things they claim to have witnessed. To a person not yet deprogrammed by 9/11 truth, these claims may seem insane; while to a genuinely free mind familiar with these controversies, they are simple common sense.

5) Religion vs. atheism. Is it really the religious fanatics who are the bad guys? 9/11 set the stage for a trendy wave of vapid anti-religiosity, expressed in books by Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. Yet if it was cold, calculating neocon atheists who were evil enough to pull off 9/11 as a false-flag attack - while Muslims, especially extremely religious ones, are even more opposed to attacks on civilians than are average Americans - could it be that religion implies morality, and atheism immorality/amorality, as virtually all serious thinkers of all times and traditions (until very recently) have always insisted? Could it be that the carnage of the past two centuries, by far the bloodiest in human history, stems from the loss of religion as a guiding principle of civilization?

4) Islam vs. the West. Is Islam really a dangerous enemy, as the 9/11 big liars claim? Or could Islam actually be the friend of humanity in general and the West in particular? Could Islam help end the usury-driven global power system of the international bankers who staged 9/11? Could it help Western culture become saner and better balanced in such areas as work-leisure, work-family, sexuality-family, material-spiritual, human-nature, male-female, rich-poor, and so on? Could it help remedy some of the defects of Christian-style monotheism? Could Muslims, who sit on 80% of the world's easily-recoverable energy, become the allies of the West in its great-power relations with such potential rivals as Russia, India, and especially China? Could shallow, selfish, narcissistic, materialistic, atheistic Europe be saved by mass conversions to Islam? Might the West (excepting its last settler-colonial outpost in Occupied Palestine) actually be better off if al-Qaeda's goals (which are supported by the vast majority of Muslims) were achieved and the Islamic world re-united and re-empowered?


3) Industrial civilization and technopoly. Is it doomed, as Mike Ruppert's Collapse and James Kunstler's The Long Emergency suggest? Was it a bad idea in the first place, as argued (in very different ways) in Mumford's Machine trilogy and the Unabomber manifesto? Is there something about Western culture that encouraged the emergence of a destructive and unsustainable material civilization, as argued in Koyanisquatsi and S.H. Nasr's Man and Nature? Should we radically change our way of life before it kills us? Should we consider making war on industrial-technological civilization, as argued by Derrick Jensen? Or would that kind of war be as bad an idea as most other kinds (see #1)?

2) Israel. (Return to the beginning of this essay.)

1) War. (Return to the beginning of this essay.)