Ann Althouse has the scoop about the University of Wisconsin – Madison teaching 9/11 denial as an Introduction to Islam class.
Here are some comments about the class from Kevin Barrett, founder of the Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance for 9/11 truth, who will be teaching it:
“The physics of those collapses clearly could not have resulted from plane crashes and jet fuel fires with office materials.” Barrett says jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and says recent tests on melted steel from the building prove his theory that it was wired to collapse, by the Government.
Barrett says the Bush Administration is fooling the American public with the Adolf Hitler ‘Big Lie Technique’… ”Tell them a little lie and they’ll wonder about it – weapons of mass destruction in iraq was a relatively little lie – and people are getting called on it.” Barrett says. ”Tell em a big lie like 9/11 and they have a huge resistance to questioning it.”
Ann links to Jessica McBride’s blog (the radio show host who, I think, broke the story) with all the detail including the class syllabus.
There are a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the left, but to give their nutty views legitimacy by allowing Barrett to espouse them in a universtiy classroom setting beyond disgusting. The university is providing Barrett cover by claiming he has academic freedom, which is another sham since, as Ann points out, the university gave him that freedom by making him an academic in the first place.
(Jay Tea adds: the persistent commenter known as “.” has repeatedly posted copyrighted materials in their entirety in the comments, despite a warning not to do so. For that reason, I have taken the extremely rare (for me) step of deleting the offending comments and banning his IP from posting any further. Disagreeing with us is not only allowed, but welcomed; opening us up for legal liability on copyright-infringement matters will not be tolerated.
In other words: BLOOD FOR ODIN!)
WHoever is willing to compare George Bush to Hitler is intellectually ignorant or dishonest. It is worse if this is an attempt to use moral equivalency to minimize the evils of jihadist terrorism against America. This is beyond contempt.
you know what thick skulled, gullible morons do when they cant handle certain information because it challenges their simplistic world views? they throw around terms like “tin foil hat” and “conspiracy kook”. when you hear that stuff, you know you’ve won.thats all they got.
some people are deathly afraid of “islamic terrorists” because the government and media beats it into their heads that they need to be.they depend on people like the fool above to be gullible,scared little feeble minds, so that they can continue to make big money off of ‘the war on terror”. they love you gullible fools.
be afraid lai, be very afraid like i know you will be.
Yup and you are so brave that you are not willing to post under even a posting name. If you are not afraid, move to Iran or North Korea to experience your utopia.
see. it didnt even penetrate your thick skull. you missed the point as usual. “move to North Korea” blah blah blah. how typical can you get?
LoveAmerica Immigrant is right. We shouldnt worry about America becoming a dictatorship, we should worry about angry arabs thousands of miles away that pose no threat to us.
This is ridiculous. Maybe you will all see when the U.S. attacks itself again to go to Iran… which could be any day now.
It is completey reasonable to compare Bush to Hitler for a number of reasons. 1. Prescott Bush had stocks in IG Farben illegally while it was running Aushcwitz 2. reichstag-homeland security act = 9/11 – patriot act. never mind, i dont feel like typing anymore. if you are interested in Bush/Nazi connections, just check out John Buchanan’s work. He did all the research… a lot of which has been in the mainstream media. [email protected]
see. it didnt even penetrate your thick skull. you missed the point as usual.
————————————————
Are you talking about yourself here? THis point is so simple that I have to repeat it over and over again and you still don’t get it?
Why can’t you use a posting name? What are you afraid of?
Nick,
YOur post itself repudiates your very own point and you don’t even know it. You can still post slanders against Bush and America and you haven’t been sent to a concentration camp yet. Would Hitler allow you to do that?
19 Arabs flew planes into the WTC just in 2001. So you say we shouldn’t worry about that. Or are you busing denying reality to continue with your fantasy.
It is a joke and you believe it. Yet at the same time you denied 9/11!
Love America Immigrant,
Dot isn’t worth the trouble – he thinks he’s
‘won’ when he convinces people he’s a moonbat.
OK – Dot – you win – you are a moonbat. Here’s your prize – we skip over your posts in future.
Now to WTF – If you read the entire thread – you’d see I corrected the statement about Newton’s laws. As to it being the second rather than the third, how does that in any way dispute the argument about the force equaling mass times acceleration? It doesn’t, but go on and nitpick on the insignificant. (Just for you here ‘s a link)
Jeez – it’s only been thirty years since I had physics.
And when I said the heat turned the steel beams into rubber bands – I was referring to the strength of the material not the chemistry – now I know you are being deliberately dense.
The principle was illustrated in the Nova links.
Several engineers have posted that the structure of the steel was weakened by the intense heat.
But hey – you conspiracists have your ‘cold fusion’ professor. LOL.
And Dot – Love America Immigrant knows first hand of that he speaks – and he has repeatedly shown you to be a fool. But by all means, keep it up – watching him hand you your head is entertaining in a car wreck sort of way.
Nick, you have to understand, LoveAmerciaImmigrant is very gullible, he falls for everything the media and government tells him. hes naturally afraid of “islamofascists” because he is constantly told to be. if it wasnt for gullible fools like him, big business and big oil would not be making the killing they are right now in the “war on terror”.he fell for the big lie of 9/11 hook line and sinker, do you really expect him to question anything this government and media tells him about the “war on terror”? its safer and easier for him to just take everything at face value,and do no independent research,. those that fall for the phony left/right paradigm have no interest in looking at all the facts, they only want to hear their opinions reinforced.
hand me my head? by asking me what my name is and spouting off typical, tired rightwing talking points? your more delusional than he is.
19 Arabs flew planes into the WTC just in 2001. So you say we shouldn’t worry about that. Or are you busing denying reality to continue with your fantasy.
It is a joke and you believe it. Yet at the same time you denied 9/11!
Posted by: LoveAmerica Immigrant at July 6, 2006 11:20 AM
dont you ever wonder how a plane was able to hit the Pentagon,in the most heavily defended airspace on the planet, well after it was clear that planes were being used as weapons? oh wait, i forgot, you gullible Foxites dont ask questions, you take everything at face value. be afraid!!!! they depend on it!!!!!
Dot is afraid that he cannot even use a posting name. Dot takes the conspirary at face value even when it has zero evidence to back it up.
Kathy,
That ‘s why these kooky conspiracy theories are still around.
Thank you Dot, but that’s not enough of an excuse for me. I love my country too much to not at least try and show these people that it is being run by the worst kind of people on earth. PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION is how they do it. 19 arabs have nothing to do with the actual events of 9/11, they have to do with the problem reaction solution of 9/11. And by the way, LoveAmerica, the reason I have not been taken to the concentration camps yet is the same reason im trying to tell everyone about the 9/11 being an inside job, because we can still save this country. It’s not over yet, the globalists won’t win. Evil always gets defeated in the end right? So much stuff is going to come out in the public in the next few years they are going to have to hit the gas on their takeover.
got no argument? do disturbing facts hurt your feeble mind? use “kooky conspiracy” typical type slurs. so predictable.face value? now your even using my terms? try and be original buddy.
I’ve researched what Nick is talking about, he’s right. Wake up America!
Nick,
Please join the fight against the leftist media like NYT, LAT, and USA Today who are willing to disclose classified information and even distort/lie to slander American troops and provide propaganda service for the terrorists.
How about this conspiracy theory
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
Steve,
I researched what David Horowitz said and he is right. Wake up America.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
Nick
You’re only 17. Seek help now. The so-called facts about Prescott Bush are both wrong and EVEN if they were “right” have not a friggin’ thing to do with his grandson.
Are YOU responsible for anything YOUR grandfather ever did? It’s like the slams against Gov. Arnold because his dad was a Nazi…. even though Arnold as a teen repudiated his father and was part of a group that publically challenged neo-nazis.
You sound like the antisemites that claim America is being secretly run by The Jews.
Hey Harsh
If you are an American, tell me ONE RIGHT you had five years ago you don’t have today.
meshugga schmuck
The leftist media??? I see it as a very conservative media, but that’s beside the point because both parties are controlled by the same people.
Oh, by the way, Steven E. Jones proved there was thermate in the Twin Towers.
Nick,
Kathy has shown you about Steven Jones already. Since you are interested in protecting America. If you think NYT, LAT, and USA Today are conservative papers and want to fight them, go ahead. I don’t mind as long as these propaganda organs get checked.
Also Please check this out
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
the media is corporate. republicans are more friendly with big business,big oil etc. than the democrats are. by default, the media is indeed more conservative than ever. these people have no understanding of the media. they hear their heros like Rush, Coulter and Malkin spew about how “liberal” the media is, so of course they buy whtever those goons sell. if they say the media is liberal, it is, facts be damned.
First off I’m not 17, I’m 15. And you would be right about the grandfather thing, IF his grandson wasnt the member of an evil german death cult, and under Bush we have 9/11, which is obviously his reichstag.
First off I’m not 17, I’m 15. And you would be right about the grandfather thing, IF his grandson wasnt the member of an evil german death cult, and under Bush we have 9/11, which is obviously his reichstag.
Jay Tea
Looks like “.” has slipped out its straitjacket and is piddling on the floor again.
First off I’m not 17, I’m 15. And you would be right about the grandfather thing, IF his grandson wasnt the member of an evil german death cult, and under Bush we have 9/11, which is obviously his reichstag. thats a few reasons, but there are hundreds. but dont discredit yourself, because there is no longer any debate about prescott funding nazis. and he stole the skull of geronimo by the way
Dot and Nick,
Please check out this alliance. This is where your fight can be useful to the security of America. WE all know the left has stood on the wrong side of history. They sided with the communists and now with the terrorists simply to defeat Bush. IF you think the left is corrupt, please feel free to join the right side of history.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
sorry didnt mean to post that more than once…
the left and the right are two sides of the same coin you ignorant sheep
Nick
German death cult, reischtag?
You sound like a NLR or AB gangbanger with his grasp on reality.
Your parents need to yank out your internet access, boy.
Nick,
WHy do you have to resort to name calling? You mentioned that you want to study and find out facts. Here is an opportunity to you, why are you so upset and have to resort to name calling?
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
This discussion has nothing to do with left versus right, but everything to do with truth versus fiction.
Come on, wake up guys! You’re being lied to over and over. The whole “war on terror” is a farce! You have to step up and start questioning what is being spoonfed to you. If you don’t I’m sorry to say that they’ll take every goddamed thing away from you.
T. Jefferson,
Good point. We need truth and not fiction. Since you don’t want to be spoon-fed, it is time to check this out. I think this one has far more evidence to support compared to this 9/11 denial.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
The whole “war on terror” is a farce
Yeah. Tell that to Debra Burlingame.
This is probably Cindy Sheehan ‘s motto:
the left and the right are two sides of the same coin. America is corrupt. I would rather live under Chavez (a communist dictator)
Fascism: An American reality
By Larry Pinkney
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 6, 2006, 01:07
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word fascism as “a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.” Moreover, and most importantly, it also defines fascism clearly and succinctly as “oppressive or dictatorial control.” There are those who will sarcastically say that the political/social situation in and with America is not “that bad,” when in fact things are far, far worse.
Whether or not one chooses to define this increasingly all-encompassing suppression of people in America as authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist is a ridiculously moot point for the overwhelming majority of people who have lost or are losing their already limited freedoms, their livelihoods and their very lives to the organized repression of this hypocritical, cynically racist and genocidal American state apparatus. The organized and sustained political, economic, social and cultural repression being waged by the American state against its own citizens and persons globally is nothing short of fascism.
At this precarious period in history, with repression intensifying on all levels, quibbling about whether or not America is technically fascist amounts to intellectual masturbation. The fact is that the internal and external repressive policies of the United States of America have already destroyed — and continue to decimate — millions of people inside America and throughout the world. Especially is this true with respect to the vast majority of people of color in the ghettos, reservations and barrios of the U.S., as well as in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, the Caribbean and elsewhere.
Contrary to the well perpetuated myth, fascism is not limited to storm troopers blatantly goose-stepping down streets and alleyways, engaging in bloody search and destroy missions. Germany’s fascism under Adolf Hitler differed from Italy’s fascism under Benito Mussolini, but they were both fascist nation states. Fascism has different forms, all of which are equally deadly, all of which must be identified, seriously resisted and stopped.
Complacently insisting that the organized state repressive apparatus of, in and by the United States must not be defined as fascism is incredibly dangerous, especially at this point in history. It’s a bit like quibbling with a person who is in the death throes of drowning that he is not actually drowning but merely suffocating! No matter how it is defined, the person is dying, and immediate action is needed to save his or her life!
Whether it is defined as blatant fascism, benign fascism or so-called creeping fascism, it is still fascism; and if left unchecked, the end result is precisely the same: total and utter disenfranchisement under an authoritarian, repressive state apparatus. The urgency of this reality in America cannot be overstated.
The enormous internal and external destruction of peoples and cultures around the world caused by the fascistic policies of the United States — cloaked in a mythical democracy — have wreaked more havoc, misery and destruction upon peoples nationally and around the world than the blatantly fascist regimes of World War II Germany and Italy combined. Notwithstanding the over 100 million Black people who had previously been murdered as victims of Europe and America’s African “legalized” slave trafficking, it should be remembered that many years subsequent, Adolf Hitler, in his published book “Mein Kampf,” made it quite clear that the idea for waging the horrible genocide against Jews and other so-called “undesirables” had been borrowed from none other than the earlier genocide waged by the United States against the indigenous — so called “Indian” — peoples of America.
Ironically, many pundits of that 1930s era confidently and incorrectly argued that due to Germany’s achievements in culture, politics, the arts and technology of that period, the unthinkable could never happen there. Obviously, they were wrong. Nevertheless, the enormous horrors inflicted by fascist Germany and Italy upon the world pale by comparison to those carried out by the much larger, deadlier and far more sophisticated United States of America, whose internal and external “news” and information propaganda machine would make the former fascist German and Italian propaganda machines green with envy.
Thus, to compare the contemporary United States, or any of its leaders, to the former fascist leaders Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini is utterly missing the point, as the U.S. is much, much worse, and its global power is far more encompassing and devastating.
It is important not to be fooled by the feigned surprise on the part of some at the limited, tip-of-the-iceberg revelations about U.S. torture, internal spying by the U.S. government and corporations, the militarization of the judicial process, massive national voter disenfranchisement and the demonstrated de facto contempt by the U.S. government and corporations for the Black victims of Hurricane Katrina, etc. Substantively, virtually none of these systemic practices are new but now are integrally part and parcel of an increasingly blatant form of American fascism.
No matter what individual may be the nominal “leader” of the United States, or what political party — Republican or Democratic — is in power, fascism has undeniably become an American reality. No matter what name or under what guise America cloaks its fascist policies, the undeniable fact is: America’s own style of fascism is a reality here and now.
It is no wonder that Austrian born Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated no compunction or inhibition whatsoever in repeatedly and openly expressing his “admiration” for German fascist leader Adolf Hitler before going on later to become the Republican Party’s governor of the state of California (see “Events Related to Schwarzenegger.”)
Moreover, there is no sustained and overwhelming outrage and incensed repudiation of Schwarzenegger from the leadership of either the Democratic or Republican parties regarding his arrogant and chilling admiration for a fascist leader who was directly responsible for the dehumanization and murder of millions of people. A distinctly American version of fascism has taken root in this nation, and has created a political climate wherein politicians can openly embrace with admiration past fascist leaders without seriously jeopardizing their own political careers.
Furthermore, other than as an increasingly obvious propaganda tool to further its global hegemonic objectives, America’s cynical racism and hypocrisy has made a meaningless mockery of words and phrases such as democracy, legality, freedom, fair judicial process and justice. This is a reality which most of the peoples of the world outside of the United States have already acknowledged.
Attempting to minimize the precariousness of the political situation in this nation by denying the reality of fascism in America does not change or stop it. Maintaining, like ostriches, the denial of fascism’s active, significant existence and role in the American body politic, actually strengthens its stranglehold on the people of this nation and world. Only by removing our heads from the sand, facing up to, organizing against, resisting and struggling for systemic change here and now is there the real hope, for ourselves and for people around the world, of stopping and dismantling this fascist onslaught. Indeed, we can ill afford to do otherwise.
Larry Pinkney is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Email him at [email protected].
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Larry Pinkney is a veteran of the Black Panther Party,
———————————————–
Les, thanks for posting this blatant propaganda a black panter party veteran. This post seems to support the thesis here
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America
The present article focuses on the so-called “peace left” – so called because most of the individuals participating in it are not pacifists and are not really interested in peace as such, but in radical agendas that are served by opposing America’s war on terror. (Thus there were no “peace” demonstrations at the Iraqi embassy calling on the government of Saddam Hussein to comply with seventeen U.N. resolutions which the war was undertaken to enforce.)
The peace left’s core consists of the ideological descendents of the communist/progressive left that wanted the West to lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union. This no mere motley crew of inconsequential fringe extremists, but is in fact the well-organized, militant, and immensely influential driving force behind the contemporary peace movement and the enormous anti-war rallies it has recently staged. Upon the foundation of its hatred for the United States, the peace left has forged its alliance with radical Islam, whose wellspring of anti-American hatred runs just as deep.
In word and deed, both of these allies make it plain that they consider everything about the United States to be evil and unworthy of preservation; that they wish to see American society and its way of life crushed by any means necessary, including violent revolution. Their position was well summarized by the now-infamous professor Ward Churchill, who asserted that terrorist violence directed against the United States is a morally justifiable response to what he characterizes as the U.S. government’s “rape” and “murder” of other peoples. “If we want an end to violence,” says Churchill, “especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world.” Churchill does not, however, harbor any hopes that America might mend its alleged flaws; rather, he advocates the country’s destruction: “I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.” Toward this end, Churchill candidly endorses further acts of anti-American terror. “One of the things I’ve suggested,” he says, “is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary.” Lamenting that the terrorism of 9/11 had proved “insufficient to accomplish its purpose” of eviscerating the United States, Churchill wrote, “What the hell? It was worth a try.”
ahhhhh, the racism of the right finally rears its ugly head.you assbackwards hicks.
From the second article
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15321
Horowitz: The consequences will parallel those in Indo-china but for us will be much worse. In Indo-china when Kennedy, Kerry, Dean and the other antiwar activists (myself included) were able to prevail in the political argument, and America cut and ran, the result was a bloodbath in Southeast Asia in which the Communists slaughtered two and a half million people. If we were to lose in Iraq and be forced to withdraw, there would be a bloodbath of all those who fought with us, and who resisted the terrorists, and then all those in the terrorists’ path. It would not probably reach the proportions of the Vietnam and Cambodian catastrophes immediately, but it would spread to other Muslim states whose governments the radicals are seeking to overthrow and eventually come home to the United States, something that did not happen in the Cold War with Communism.
It may or may not happen immediately. But if the tide of radical Islam is not stopped in Iraq it will spread to other states, which are much larger and even nuclear — Pakistan comes immediately to mind — and then we will reap the whirlwind. Iraq as someone has said is not Vietnam, it is Guadalcanal. We are in a war with radical Islam which is seeking first of all to control the lives and resources of one and a half billion Muslims, and then to take on the “Crusader” west. The threat to us can decrease only if we stay on the offensive and keep winning and thus keep them losing and off balance and on the defensive. This is why the efforts of Kennedy and Al Gore and Jimmy Carter to repeat the disaster of Vietnam are infinitely more dangerous than what John Kerry and Ted Kennedy did in Vietnam. Communism, as we didn’t fully realize at the time of Vietnam, was already a dying system and an unraveling creed. Radical Islam is not. Radical Islam is a far more fanatical religion than Communism (I never thought I would be saying this!) and – in the short run — does not depend on the success of an actually existing utopian Mecca to sustain it as Communism did.
The whole “war on terror” is a farce
Yeah. Tell that to Debra Burlingame.
Posted by: Darleen at July 6, 2006 12:07 PM
the 9/11 widow that doesnt ask any questions and blindly buys the company line?
you got your 9/11 family members, i got mine:
Donna Marsh O’Connor at the U.N
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=90&vid=31&epi=0&typ=0
Bob McIlvaine Interview on 9/11 Coverup
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=100&vid=29&epi=0&typ=0
be afraid sheep-like neocons!!! they depend on it!!!!!!!!!
Good question here
FP: You ask why people who think of themselves as “progressives” and champions of human rights would risk their lives to defend despotism – the “human shields” for Saddam, the Taliban etc. Mr. Horowitz, haven’t we seen this all before – i.e. the Western progressives who went to help build socialism in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution, only to be slaughtered by the Stalinist terror etc?
Les
By posting that whole article you are more than likely in violation of copywrite… you are not engaging in fairuse.
and closed-minded?
when it pointing out someone was a member of a violent domestic gang “racist?”
This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
Massive attention has now been given – and rightly so – to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
Article continues
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. It refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership”. It describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN”. It says “even should Saddam pass from the scene”, US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently… as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has”. It spotlights China for “regime change”, saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia”.
The document also calls for the creation of “US space forces” to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons “that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.
Finally – written a year before 9/11 – it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command and control system”. This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House”.
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing – on the war on terrorism perspective – that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.”
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that “casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured”. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden” (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11” (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to… the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East”. Submitted to Vice-President Cheney’s energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, “military intervention” was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” is likely to be a long one in the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the “go” button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world’s oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing “severe” gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America’s national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron’s beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India’s west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that “the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts” with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
isnt is strange how nobody even mildy funny comes from the right? who do you guys got? that “get er done” jackass? man thats weak.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/060706perspective.htm
Yeah. Tell that to Debra Burlingame.
Posted by: Darleen at July 6, 2006 12:07 PM
the 9/11 widow that doesnt ask any questions and blindly buys the company line?
Geez, “.”, how many sock puppets you got going here? Are you “nick” and “mark” too?
Burlingame is not a 9/11 widow. Nice to see how much you really know.
If TJ is NOT you, then I shouldn’t have to point out, yet again, that the Islamists themselves have spoken and written their threats to defeat us for years. Why you and other cultists can’t even take them at their own words would be laughable if you weren’t, in fact, acting in the terrorists interests.
Stay out of the way of your moral betters.
Another example to support the thesis again
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18633
Within about two weeks of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the most heinous attack on this country in its history, unprecedented, unprovoked, there were 250-odd demonstrations on American campuses against the United States responding militarily to these attacks. This movement, which some call a “peace” movement, grew much larger in anticipation of a war with Iraq – which was a war to overthrow one of the monsters of the 20th century, who had filled mass graves with 300,000 bodies and used poison gas on Iraq’s Kurdish minority. And this movement not only grew to a huge size before we went in, even though the president had gotten authorization from both parties, majorities in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, gone to the UN, gotten a unanimous Security Council resolution that Saddam had to disarm and provide a report showing that he had disarmed, and do it within 30 days or else, which he didn’t do. Yet, there were – in this country, there were probably a million people out in the streets to oppose America’s effort to make good on the ultimatum. These demonstrations and opposition continued and the attacks on the commander-in-chief grew greater and greater as the United States attempted to consolidate its victory and establish a democracy in Iraq.
This is very counterintuitive to what most people think about the Left. They think of the Left as standing up for human rights, and being against the fascist dictators.
Michael Medved: So very quickly, David, what does it reveal?
David Horowitz: Well, it reveals that just as in the Cold War we had a very large Left that supported the Communist enemy, we now have an even larger Left – since that old Communist, “progressive” Left has combined with Muslim radicals to create a much larger fifth column in this country – which wants us to lose this war and the War on Terror generally.
Darleen(and other gullible people like her) is being played. the fear you must live with from “islamofascists” must be horrible.if only you knew how to read, do basic research and not buy everything big corporate entities say at face value, you might have a chance.