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.

War with Iran? Another racket for war profiteers

Everybody “knows” that Iran is thinking of developing nuclear weapons, but no one seems to have solid information to back it up. Okay, they’ve been enriching uranium to 20%. That’s pure enough for use in hospitals and medical research, both of which Iran has in abundance. After all, Iran is a modern nation with modern hospitals. (I’ll bet that some of you didn’t know that.)
The most oft-given “reason” for believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons runs something like, “With all that oil Iran has, they have no need of nuclear power plants; therefore, they must be planning to build nuclear weapons.” There are three problems with that argument.
1. It’s based on a lack of knowledge rather than fact. The speaker says, in effect, “I don’t know what else it could be; therefore, it must be what I suspect it is.” The fact is, there are uses for radiation other than bombs and power plants.
2. It presupposes that the more oil a country has, the less need it has for nuclear power plants. The fact is, the United States is awash with oil, yet the United States claims need of nuclear power plants.
3. Finally, the argument is based on the idea that anything that seems to be true must be true. Experience has often shown otherwise.
But aren’t our government leaders telling us that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb? Yes, they are. They also told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Afghanistan wasn’t willing to cooperate with the United States in dealing with Al Qaeda; and they knew at the time that these claims were lies.
What about the United Nations inspectors? In paragraphs 2-13 of the UN’s IAEA Report on Iran, the UN said that there was no evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb.
Why would our government lie to us about something as serious as this? I could suggest possible answers to that question, but I could be wrong. We do know, though, that they have lied before and that they’re lying now.
Iran hasn’t started a war in 360 years. How many wars have the United States, England, and Israel started in the last 65 years?
The words of Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, spoken in 1935, speak to our time. A career marine officer from 1898-1931, Butler was one of only 19 people who received the Medal of Honor twice. Early in his career, he was brevetted because, at the time, marine officers weren’t allowed to receive the Medal of Honor. So, he was only one of two men who earned the Medal of Honor three times. He became an outspoken opponent of America’s meddling in other countries’ affairs, and this often got him into trouble with American political leaders. At an American Legion meeting, he made a memorable speech called “War is a Racket.”On YouTube, an actor performs his speech. General Butler later expanded his speech and had it published as a book.
Here’s the late George Carlin’s take on it (Be prepared for rough language if you view this clip.)
I’m a Vietnam combat veteran—a four-time volunteer who fought as part of Task Force 117, Mobile Riverine Force, Mekong Delta. I also served in Danang and the Parrot’s Beak. Having invested that much of myself in a war, it’s hard to accept that war is a racket—but war is a racket.
I don’t want to visit that kind of evil on this generation of young people. The best way we can support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is to bring them home. We can support the troops or we can support the war; we can’t do both. And we certainly don’t need another war based on lies.
War is a racket. Under Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, only Congress can declare war. They can also refuse to declare war. "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Click here to write your congressman.