Thinking the Unthinkable and Speaking the Unspeakable to Prevent another 9/11

     I had not intended to write another 9/11-related article this soon after a four-part series on the 9/11 hijackers. Current events, however, have made 9/11 of current importance. This article can scarcely wait.

     I've always heard that there’s no such thing as a stupid question. One of my students taught me otherwise. The best example of a stupid question is one that was answered immediately before the question was asked. A monumentally stupid question is one that has been answered so many times that the answer should be obvious to even the densest of questioners. So it is with the following question: “How can we believe that officials of our own government would kill thousands of their countrymen for the sake of starting a war for money and power?”

     In this article, I’ll cover well-trod ground by showing that officials have done so throughout American history. Then I’ll issue a warning that, if unchecked, officials of our government will be party to doing the same thing in the Strait of Hormuz in the near future.

     First of all, some rethinking is necessary. Contrary to popular belief, there’s no moral difference between illegal wars and other illegal killings of our fellow human beings.  Putting the imprimatur of government on murder doesn't make it something less than murder.

     Put yourself in the position of someone who is criminal enough to publicly lie more than ninety times to provide a pretext for sending his countrymen into war for the sake of power and profit. You would know in advance that thousands of your countrymen would die as the result of your decision. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would die as a result of your decision.

     Using the word war to describe the situation places the government stamp of approval on your actions and somehow seems to make it okay. Instead of being called murder, it’s called unwise policy. Once the war is started and the fraud is discovered, the proffered solution is not to stop murdering people but to “stay the course” because we’ve “committed” ourselves, and "national honor" is at stake.  It's considered more honorable to continue the carnage than to stop  it. Failing to remove our fellow Americans from mortal danger is hypocritically cast as failing to “support our troops.”  What the troops desire, which is to go home, doesn't enter the equation.
     Let's get real.  Whoever desires the cause desires the results.  Whoever desires the course of action that causes thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths is desiring the very thing that he's causing.  There is no moral difference between causing deaths after starting an unjust and illegal war than there is in causing deaths in order to start an unjust and illegal war.  Any person who would do one would do the other.

     Since the War of 1812, the greatness of American Presidents has been judged by the magnitude of the wars they’ve started, the power gathered to the presidency, and the human rights the Presidents have been violated. The greater the evils committed, the more the President is admired for his presumed greatness.

     Since 1861, every major war the United States has fought has been as a result of the other side being maneuvered into firing the first shot, or as the result of a false flag. Since 1861, more than a million Americans have died in wars that America has entered on false pretences. This is murder on a vast scale.

     At this point, some readers are aghast that I should suggest that America's most admired President had started a war on false pretenses—one that claimed the lives of 600,000 American servicemen and countless thousands of innocent civilians who were starved into submission.  From the time South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860—a right that Lincoln, when he was a young congressman, had supported—South Carolina sought a peaceful means of occupying Fort Sumter, which was on South Carolina soil.  For months, local civilians provided food and other necessities to the Union garrison there, though instruments of war were not allowed to get through. Almost as soon as Lincoln was sworn in as President, he announced the Big Lie that the Union garrison was starving.  In April 1861, the South was maneuvered into firing the first shot when Union forces attempted to move additional instruments of war to Fort Sumter, under the false pretenses that they were delivering food to a "starving garrison." 

     Once the war was started, Lincoln allowed the terrorist leader William T. Sherman to use deliberate starvation as a weapon by destroying the ability of innocent civilians to grow food.  The photo above shows the remains of Columbia, South Carolina, after Sherman ordered it burned to the ground.  Giving lie to the pretext that they were "liberating" the slaves, Grant and Sherman kidnapped able-bodied male slaves and even freedmen, forcing them to do labor for the Union army.  Though they were forced to wear Union uniforms, neither Grant nor Sherman trusted them to bear arms.  Many able-bodied blacks hid in the woods until the yankees had left; then they went back to their families and back to work.

     Coming to the present date, it is now well-known except to the willfully ignorant that America and a criminal elite started or entered the present wars in Afghanistan, North Africa, and the Middle East on false pretenses. Of course, the sociopaths who started these wars knew beyond doubt that tens of thousands of American servicemen and hundreds of thousands of civilians would die as a result of their actions. This, too, is murder on a vast scale.

     Some 2,700 more deaths in Manhattan, Washington, and Pennsylvania would make little difference to such criminals as they. With trillions of dollars in profits to be made, and emergency powers to be declared, citing trumped-up enemies, a few thousand more deaths would cost them little sleep.

     Retired Major General Smedley Butler hit the nail on the head when he said, “War is a racket!” For a re-enactment of a portion of his speech, see the video below, or read his book War is a Racket.

     For a PDF free download of the book War is a Racket, click here.

     A few days ago, I read in the paper that the USS Enterprise (CVN-65, seen above) would be given another year of active service due to the seriousness of events in the Strait of Hormuz. The events in question were created almost entirely by the American government, the Israeli regime, and faded allies such as England. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is threatening a blockade against Iran, which is nowhere near any North Atlantic nations. This action, if carried out, would be an act of war against a nation with whom we’re technically at peace.  Iran hasn't attacked another nation in over 360 years; America has attacked over a half dozen nations in the past ten years, so who's the aggressor?

     Just as it was with the Lusitania (a luxury liner that also carried troops and armaments for the British) before America’s entry into World War I and with the embargo against Japan immediately prior to America’s entry into World War II, the U.S. is provoking Iran into a conflict. Informed sources believe that either the Israeli regime or the U.S. will deliberately sink the Enterprise to provide a pretext for a U.S. led invasion of Iran.

     Israel (the modern irreligious regime, not the Chosen People mentioned in the Bible) has a lengthy history of false flag events against allies in order to get those allies to fight Israel’s enemies for them. The King David Hotel Massacre, the Lavon Affair, the (very un-Jewish) Israeli attempt to sink the USS Liberty, the Berlin disco bombing (a joint CIA and Mossad black bag job), and probably the attack on the  USS Cole are only a few of the  many examples of Israeli perfidy.  

     If the USS Enterprise is sunk, we will know it was not done by Iranians but by America's so-called "best friend in the Middle East," with the cooperation of the Wall Street-dominated Obama Administration. If enough Americans are forewarned, however, the false flag attack on the Enterprise may be called off, and war with Iran may be averted. The next few months will tell.

     It's worth taking another look at the Corbett Report video When False Flags Don't Fly (above).  I've probably watched that video more times than Corbett has.

The USS Liberty Incident: A Rosetta Stone for 9/11

     Why do some ideas gain traction while others lie dead in the water? What barriers to belief cause people to reject overwhelming evidence? These and other questions must be considered by researchers of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on American soil.

     Every major claim of the “official version” of the events of 9/11 has been thoroughly disproven. Over a thousand facts point to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Nonetheless, only 12% of the American people accept this fact, while an overwhelming 67% accept the debunked official conspiracy theory.  (link)

     Why?

     Evidence alone is not sufficient to overcome disbelief, and facts alone are not sufficient for ideas to gain traction. The evidence will lead to belief, and belief will lead to action only if you can get a “yes” answer to the following questions:

1. Is the issue media friendly? That is, is it current, visual, and easy to understand?

2. Is the issue emotional?

3. Can the average person consider your position reasonable?

4. Has public understanding of the issue progressed to a degree that action may be generated?

5. Can the issue be linked to other highly emotional issues that have generated public concern?

6. Is there a clear target for public outrage?

7. Is the target isolated? That is, in the public mind, can the target of our outrage be separated from the rest of the herd?

8. Is your solution achievable and reasonable?

     This list is an adaptation from lists given in the book Managing Outside Pressure: Strategies for Preventing Corporate Disasters. My DBA dissertation was on monitoring corporate social responsibility; and I’ve spent over five years researching what causes things to go wrong and how to make them go right. I also teach a college-level course in advertising.

     For 9/11, the second weakest link is the first question: Is the issue media friendly? It's not very visual (high-level conspirators hidden in the corridors of power), it’s not current (solution: link it to current events) and it’s not as easy to understand as we’d like to believe. In this issue, each fact can be written off as an anomaly, and a thousand facts are bewildering.

     Ironically, the weakest link is the question: Is it emotional? Well, yes, it is highly emotional; but American support for Israel is also highly emotional. This belief in the Israeli regime acts as a barrier to belief in Israeli complicity in 9/11. Most Americans simply can not believe that the Lord’s “chosen people” and “America’s best friend in the Middle East” would murder a large number of Americans just to gain support for wars against people (Arabs and Muslims) who are already blamed for murdering a large number of Americans.

     That’s where the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty comes in. It’s less current than 9/11, but it can be linked to America’s present wars of aggression by way of 9/11. Here’s the line of thought:

1. We’re now fighting six simultaneous wars at a financial cost that exceeds the federal deficit, and at a human cost of more than 72,000 American servicemen and more than a million civilians.

2. Most of those wars have been started with no congressional approval and, in some cases, no congressional prior knowledge or discussion. All of them are traceable to unquestioned beliefs concerning the causes of 9/11. Officially, questioning those beliefs is labeled unpatriotic and may lead to criminal investigation of the person questioning those beliefs.

3. It’s high time we questioned those beliefs, leaving nothing off the table.

4. Since the evidence overwhelmingly points to involvement of U.S. government officials and the Israeli government, we must address the biggest sources of disbelief, by asking and answering the questions, “Would U.S. government officials be complicit in killing a large number of Americans just to get the U.S. involved in a war?” and “Would the Israeli government do this?”

5. The USS Liberty Incident undeniably proves that U.S. government officials and Israel would deliberately kill a large number of Americans in order to get America involved in wars that benefit Israel.

6. From the USS Liberty Incident, we can progress to the evidence that this incident wasn’t just a fluke of history. False flag terrorist attacks have been standard operating procedure for Israeli leaders since the 1930s—long before “modern Israel” even became a state.  The following links refer only to false flag terror attacks conclusively proving Israeli involvement: (link)  (link)  There are many terror attacks pointing to Israel without conclusively proving them.

7. We must make it clear, though, that Jews and Israeli political leaders are not one and the same, just as Catholics and the Mafia are not one and the same. It’s vital to separate American respect for Judaism from the irreligious criminals in charge of the Israeli regime. The Zionists and their cohorts, cowardly use Jews as human shields. Don’t let them get away with it.

     For those who aren’t familiar with the Liberty Incident, I’ll give a quick description and some links to follow.

     On June 8, 1967, during the Israeli Six-Day War with Egypt, Israeli war planes made several close passes of the USS Liberty over a period of several hours. Intercepted Israeli radio transmissions confirmed that they knew it was an American ship. Around 2:00 PM, a combined Israeli force of naval torpedo boats and Israeli Air Force planes began attacking the Liberty. They even machine gunned medical personnel and life boats. They wanted no survivors. They also jammed all five (some say four of the five) radio frequencies the Liberty used to call for help. In the attack. With a crew of 358 officers and enlisted men, 34 Americans were killed and 173 were wounded.  The Israelis broke off the attack only after a Soviet ship entered the area and became an inconvenient witness to the event.

     Subsequently the Israeli regime continuously changed their story as to how the “accident” could have happened. To give one example, they said that the American flag hung limp from the staff and could not be identified; that it was mistaken for the Egyptian flag. When evidence was provided that a stiff breeze made the American flag evident, they claimed that they’d thought that the Egyptians had literally used a false flag.

     Would top-level officials be complicit in a false flag event that would kill many Americans and push America into an unpopular war? That’s one of the barriers to belief in the 9/11 terror attacks; and the Liberty Incident answers it in spades.

     The President of the United States at the time of the Liberty Incident was Lyndon Johnson, a certifiable psychopath. On his path to power, almost ever obstacle to his rise was murdered; and, each time, suspicions pointed toward Johnson. The only exception was Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. Johnson was Rayburn’s protégé; Rayburn treated him like a son. When Johnson was ready to make a bid for House Speaker, he flattered then-President Roosevelt into thinking that Sam Rayburn was Roosevelt’s secret enemy. Roosevelt pulled strings to have  Rayburn replaced by Johnson.

     The Pentagon Papers proved beyond any doubt that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident—the excuse for America’s formal entry into the Vietnam War—never happened.  (Notice that I often cite Wikipedia.  They're the Reader's Digest of our time.  They're not the most authoritative source of information, but they're trusted by more people than the authoritative sources are.)

     The Liberty Incident is far more visual—a shot-up ship which Israelis admit to having tried to sink, as opposed to 9/11 conspirators cloistered in the corridors of power—and far easier to understand than the events of 9/11. With the Liberty Incident as a touchstone, it’s easy to link to 9/11 and to Israel’s lengthy, proven history of false-flag terror attacks.

     The Liberty Incident is the very incident that should remove all barriers to belief that Israel, with American help, did 9/11. That, in turn, should be sufficient to expose the whole racket and send the Israeli criminals packing.

     The Israeli regime is not Jewish if, by Jewish, you mean observant Jews; the Israeli regime is a pack of irreligious criminals who, like corrupt politicians in the U.S., use religion as a cover for their criminality. The Israel regime is not America’s friend; it’s America’s enemy.

     Most elections are won or lost within a range of three percentage points. At least 12% of the American people believe that Israel did 9/11. If, by the 2012 Election Day, we can change that believe to outright commitment, we can kick those gangsters and their henchmen out of our government.

     For further information, here are a few more important links:

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/p/israel-did-911-undeniable-evidence.html
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/02/uss-liberty-and-acts-of-congress/

http://newislander.com/ports/2010/01/unveiling_the_attack_on_the_uss_liberty/
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march192010/liberty-attack-tk.php
http://sites.google.com/site/usslibertyinquiry/essay1
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html