More deep breaths, an eye blink or two, and then... repeat

"Make no mistake, the 9/11 truth movement holds the future of the United States."

Right, but only if it involves a significant increase in the use of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety prescriptions.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:47:38 PM
 

Question for Tom

I agree that the particular sentence ("Make no mistake...") you picked out of Joel's article is hyperbolic. // But let's assume for a moment that 9/11 happened just as the official version claims it did. The position of the Bush administration -- essentially unchallenged by either the Democratic Party or the MSM -- is that 9/11 requires placing the US in a state of permanent war. This war has already lasted 6 years, has no end in sight, involves gargantuan budget expenditures, and has made the US an open practitioner of torture & arbitrary detentions & spying on its own citizens. In many ways (both in expense & in the abrogation of Constitutional protections), this war has led to measures which are more extreme than those taken during the Cold War -- where the enemy at least was a recognizable country, with a formidable military.

In other words, due to the actions of 19 guys on one particular September morning, the entire history of the United States (and, some might say, the "personality" of the US) has undergone a drastic shift, which in some important ways is even more extreme than the US response to the supposed threat of Soviet Communism.

When one compares the proportionality of threat & response, in both of those cases, it's hard to avoid the feeling that the "War on Terror" is a grotesque over-response. In view of that, which position do you think relies more heavily on "anti-anxiety prescriptions" (in other words, on blatant and absurd fear-mongering):  Joel's claim that the future of the US will be determined by the 9/11 Truth Movement, or the Bush administration using 9/11 to launch American society into a state of permanent war, with the attendant mass casualties, military occupations, expenditures, & damage to democratic institutions?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 932 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 5:47:48 PM
 

Ironically 9-11 Truthers are neutralizing neocon mischief

Regardless of whether the 9-11 Truther/conspiracy theorist is correct or not they are doing an excellent job of making it extremely difficult for neocons to run black flag operations where further disasters or stagged events are blamed on political enemies. 

I haven't spent the time to check out the supposedly scientific and engineering arguments made by 9-11 Truthers because largely, politically, they don't actually matter in the largest frame.

The real serious crime in human terms was the invasion of Iraq (against the UN Charter) and the only satisfactory remedy for such a conspicuous injustice against not just Iraq but the rest of the world that want a rule of law and the possibility of international peace and security is impeachment. 

If I ever come across a particularly eloquent 9-11 Truther with a sufficiently short and compelling case then I will take the time to hear him or her out. Perhaps if he or she could show that WT7 was brought down by a controlled charge I might be inclined to treat the notion that 9-11 was an inside job more seriously and to reconsider my view that the Bush administration isn't competent enough to pull off such an inside job.  But really it doesn't ultimately matter so long as the 9-11ers make it impossible politically for the neocons to black flag then the actual way forward (whether 9-11 was an inside job or not) is for the rule of law to be demonstrated and that can't be done credibly with anything less than impeachment.  It isn't necessary to impeach Bush for 9-11 even if he did have a hand in it which I doubt so long as he is impeached for what he did have Presidential responsibility for - giving the order to invade Iraq and/or torture against both domestic and international law. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 7:50:58 PM
 

I had a dream but it turned to dust...

"When one compares the proportionality of threat & response, in both of those cases, it's hard to avoid the feeling that the "War on Terror" is a grotesque over-response."

When I review the tenacity of the enemy and his waging a holy war for almost 25 years (i.e., the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut), I think six years is a cake walk. Unless you've accepted an increased risk that condones the future killing of Americans a la 9/11 style, your argument of threat and response becomes moot.

Of course, some woud argue that you have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. But will you choose which eggs to break or which Americans should die as a result of terrorist action against U.S. interests? I didn't think so...

Whether you choose to accept it as a threat or not, they declared war on us – twice even. In light of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath and if someone declares war on you, believe him. To not act appropriately in the common defense of the People is irresponsible and an abdication of the Constitution's principles.

President Bush will have left office by the end of January 2008. Can you say the same about Osama...? Again, I didn't think so

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:31:37 PM
 

Who declared war on who? Long before anyone attacked the US,

US actions in the Middle East had harmed the lives of large numbers of Muslims. We overthrew the democratically-elected Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, & imposed the Shah's brutal dictatorship on the Iranian people for the next 26 years. We propped up the Saudi Royal Family since the FDR days. We helped Israel suppress Palestinian aspirations since 1967. Before 9-11, we probably killed a million or so Iraqis via sanctions & the '91 war. We have huge military bases in the Gulf sheikdoms. Together with the Brits, we screwed Iran & Iraq out of immense sums of oil profits for many decades. And this is hardly a complete list.

Based on such things, is it fair to portray as "unprovoked terrorist outrages" such blows against our Empire as the incidents you cite? Our hands have plenty of blood on them -- far more blood than Osama has. And we struck first -- long before he did.

You write that "To not act appropriately in the common defense of the People is irresponsible and an abdication of the Constitution's principles." Two problems with this.

-First, where does it say in the Constitution that we're supposed to maintain a world-wide empire with military bases in 130 or so countries, overthrowing governments left & right simply because they wouldn't take orders from us? Several of our Founding Fathers specifically warned us against "foreign entanglements."

-Second, in what sense is the War on Terror a "defense of the People"? By further enraging the world, & trying to dominate the Middle East by military force, isn't it inevitable that we will produce yet more enemies, much faster than we can kill them? By arrogantly thumbing our noses at international law, we are destabilizing the global order. If Iran is attacked, for example, there is a risk of Russia, China or Pakistan (all armed with nukes) being drawn in, with possibly terrible consequences for civilians in Iran, in the US, Israel, or elsewhere. // With such "defense of the People", as the saying goes, one hardly needs enemies.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 932 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:20:07 AM
 

They?

Who is this country of "They"? Al Qaeda? But who are they, these nameless, faceless Jihadists that the CIA helped to organize in the 80's, that our "ally" Pakistan may be supporting clandestinely to this day? Are they the 1,000,000,000 plus Moslems on the planet who must be secretly on the verge of invading us anyday, to hear Right-Wing hate-mongers preach and who want nothing more than a Holy War to annihilate a mythical enemy, or the actual several thousand scattered militants across the globe with meager resources and no army, no navy, no air force?

Which bin Laden declared war on us? The one who said in several missives to the public in 2001, and who might be dead, that he had nothing to do with 9/11, or the one in the great "Confession Tape" that is riddled with inconsistencies, or the Grecian Formula version in the most recent tape who looks so little like the original bin Laden that the media has to make excuses for his strangely youthful appearance?

America's "enemy" is more a projection from the heads of those who live in duality and hostility. They crave violence, pray for violence and find temporary solace in violence. They aren't defending America. They are slaughtering the innocent by the thousands for racism, religious intolerance, vanity, hurbris and other base instincts. With this mindset, America will never run out of enemies, and will never stop slaughtering, that is until the consequences of all this mass murder take root.

by Mac McKinney (37 articles, 43 quicklinks, 116 diaries, 798 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 7:09:20 AM
 

They

They, as defined by them:

"Praise be to Allah, saying: {You are the best of the nations raised up for -the benefit of - men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah} (Aal-Imraan; 3:110). Allah's blessing and salutations on His slave and messenger who said: (The people are close to an all encompassing punishment from Allah if they see the oppressor and fail to restrain him.)

"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

"The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world."

"Us" as defined by them:

"We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu." - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html 

I'm certain that Osama and others like him are really swell people - people of quality and substance that are interested in prose and fashion like Hot Couture.  But Lordy, I wouldn't want one living next to me!  The frequent use of chanted shouts, incessant video tapping, and random rifle fire are much to uncouth for my liking.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 10:18:59 AM
 

has everyone noticed

how Tom doesn't address the crimes against other nations committed by Republocrat administrations? He claims to be upset over the attacks on US soil- and implicitly denies that Peoples of other nations are justified feeling the same way, when the US military-industrial complex and their Republocrat toadies do worse things- does he think the "family jewels" documents released by the CIA are lies, and these things didn't happen?

We have not been told the whole story about 9/11, as even Kean and Hamilton have acknowledged- the extent of bin Laden's involvement, and who he really is- bin Laden may be just a patsy- or he may be consciously in the employ of the CIA- perhaps he thinks he has moles in the CIA that opened the doors for the attacks to succeed. That he pointed to the intelligence agencies in his 2nd message after 9/11 (which the AP didn't include in their recent list of bin Laden messages since 9/11) makes me think he was unaware he'd been co-opted, but we don't have all the facts or all the answers- a full criminal investigation or Truth and Reconciliation Commission is needed. What is clear is that the attacks couldn't have succeeded w/o inside help- supervisors at the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, DoD, DoJ, NORAD frustrated standard procedures and obstructed investigations, controlled demolition of 1, 2 and 7, insider trading- and the Commission didn't name the "institutional investor" with "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda", but we do know the trades were made thru CIA Director Buzzy Krongard's Deutsch Bank 

cooperativeresearch.org 

by Better World Order (3 articles, 101 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 406 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 11:52:46 AM
 

Yes, I noticed. This is typical of those who defend the

belief system underlying US attempts to rule the planet (aka "conservatives").

Tom is very clever & energetic, as others have commented. He's got some real flair as a writer. But when asked to examine the historical evidence of US wrongdoing in the world, he'll evade the issue every time (often opting instead for a cute quip).

This is a basic principle of our state religion of "Americanism" -- all actions committed against the US are automatically defined as "unprovoked terrorist outrages." All actions taken by the US government -- no matter how harmful to other peoples -- are automatically defined as "seeking to do good," or merely "protecting our own interests." When you see the world this way, it's never possible, even in principle, to see a violent action against us as actually being provoked by our own violence against others. The belief system just won't permit that thought to be considered. It's "heresy."

One of the most revealing stupidities of Bush was the famous "They hate us for our freedoms" remark, a few days after 9-11. This was the ultimate expression of our state religion -- an absolute refusal to acknowledge that, even in principle, others might hate us not because we're so wonderful -- but because we did terrible things to them.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 932 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:49:43 PM
 

Circular Reasoning

They defined by them and us defined by them still doesn't answer who "them" is, other than they hang out (or hung out) with bin Laden. If al Qaeda is meant, then they are still largely nameless, faceless, scattered throughout the globe, not unlike, perhaps, the Red Brigades and their clones in Europe decades ago, who were effectively shut down by international police and intelligence cooperation.

Without 9/11, al Qaeda could never have been morphed into an existential threat to all of humanity with magical-like powers. At that point an archetype replaced reality in our thinking, bin Laden became the Grand Vizier from Alladin and Moslems became evil minions of the Dark One, at least in Fundamentalist Christian Circles, whom it seems, have never gotten over the failure of the Crusades (although they weren't actually in on it, the Catholics and Byzantines were).

by Mac McKinney (37 articles, 43 quicklinks, 116 diaries, 798 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:00:12 PM
 

This I believe...

"...Tom doesn't address the crimes against other nations committed by Republocrat administrations... He claims to be upset over the attacks on US soil- and implicitly denies that Peoples of other nations are justified feeling the same way, when the US military-industrial complex and their Republocrat toadies do worse things..."

I will readily admit that I believe each nation should conduct its own foreign policy and not turn this policy over to an international organization. As well-intentioned as the U.N. may (or may not) be, I don't think for a moment they know what's best for someone from Peoria, Illinois. As a result, each nation must act accordingly in order to secure its national security.

For it's in securing America's national security that we ensure the preservation of our domestic policy. This is the same domestic policy that espouses our belief that all men are bestowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is both a collective and individual term that implies an inherent progression meant to culminate in contentment.

I describe contentment as not a static goal but a dynamic one because of its need for progression – the action or process of moving forward toward a particular goal. But with this progression, we can never achieve perfection (because of our humanity) but should act in a manner to "maximize the good" associated with our actions. This results in a policy that support the idea of "self-improvement", as the means to better position the common good of America before the common good of other societies – each nation must act to secure their own national security (i.e., it's naïve to think that someone else will act on your behalf at cost to them to secure your future without such an action preserving their survival).

Others have called this a "dog eat dog world".

Regardless of what it's called, the important point is that it's reality, harsh though it may be. Although the U.N. exists, it very rarely (if ever) acts in a truly multilateral manner. Each nation is jockeying to better its position and standing amongst the others. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, though, because it's reflective of basic human nature. Now it's just pooled into the collective "society".

Therefore and with this mindset, American foreign policy at its core should not seek to be benevolent toward other nations because it has its own self-preservation as its focus. This self-preservation realizes itself in the continued perfection of its own political systems of government that's designed to ensure American's contentment. However, the moderation inherent in such a focus makes American foreign policy appear as being benevolent. This is decidedly true when juxtaposed against the type of imperialism that is exploitive of others, which unnecessarily extends its focus onto those societies.

This benevolence is even more apparent in the alliances America makes with other nations. In entering into an alliance, America should act to ensure its continued survival. But each nation enters into the alliance for the benefit of ensuring (solely) its own preservation. It's through such alliances, though, that the enemies of America's allies become America's enemies and result in American actions – covert and overt – being conducted outside its own borders.

Consequently, it becomes obvious that it's in America's best interest to stop nations that sponsor and/or aid murderous acts against America, its citizens and interests abroad, and its allies. I this appears to be overly selfish, remember that other nations are acting in a similar manner.

In summary, I AM upset over the attacks on U.S. soil, as should be all Americans. A body of nation-less people determined that it wasn't in their political self-interest but instead their religious self-interests to attack America. This represents an entirely new threat to the survival of America; one which we have not faced previously.

And for record, the alleged crimes you profess were not committed by Republocrat administrations; those actions are conducted by Americans – you and I included – as a means of ensuring our survival that will continue to perfect the happiness or contentment of all Americans.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1183 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 2:50:16 PM
 

You're kidding yourself, Tom. How could the US overthrow

(or attempted overthrow) of more than 50 governments since WWII have been conducted by "(all) Americans," rather than by Republicrat administrations? Many of the actions were covert, or were scarcely even mentioned by the US media. Thus, most Americans never even knew these actions were being undertaken by our government. And even if they did have some hazy knowledge of what was being done, the official story was invariably filtered, & presented as though "we" were the good guys -- regardless of whether we were, or not.

Specifically, how did the CIA coups in Iran ('53) and Chile ('73) and Guatemala ('54) etc etc "ensure our survival" or contribute to the "happiness or contentment of all Americans"? How about our murdering several million Vietnamese, most of whom were innocent peasants? What threat did those peasants pose to the well-being of the American people?

If we happened to make anyone angry, while murdering those millions of people, overthrowing democratically-elected governments & subjecting them to brutal dictatorships -- and finally some of those people struck back at us, is their striking back really "unprovoked terrorism"? It makes people angry when you kill their families, support death squads, & install dictatorships in their countries. You do understand that, don't you?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 932 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 4:03:11 PM
 

That's How it was Supposed to Work

The architects of 9/11, whether or not al Qaeda were their patsies or not, anticipated and got the very reaction you had, multiplied by millions of Americans. Totally pissed off, already inclined to think the worst about Moslems and Islam after years of sterotypes, you were ready to strike out against enemies, real and perceived. The horrific nature of 9/11 heightened the fear and paranoia. And then the great guilt by assocation game began. Saddam=al Qaeda, Saddam=WMD. The real agenda surfaces. Suddenly we are invading a country a world away from Afghanistan, slaughtering thousands, tearing a whole country apart, thinking up excuses all the way.

The Vikings used to call this a Beserker Rage, mindlessly rampaging through  humans with a big broadsword. So after 9/11, America, feeling impotent and humiliated, goes on a Beserker Rage, which is about as irrational a response to a terrorist act as you can get. Six years later all of our problems are compounded greatly. Everything, just about, has been counterproductive with untold human suffering left in the wake. We are bankrupting the country, decimating the military, with many more enemies than before we started, with a Cold War between us and Russia on the verge of renewal. Not very smart.

You cannot vanquish hatred with hatred. You only fuel more hatred. Hatred has shaped and underscored our entire foreign policy since 9/11.

by Mac McKinney (37 articles, 43 quicklinks, 116 diaries, 798 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 4:13:19 PM
 

This is a regressive freedom diminishing belief

"I will readily admit that I believe each nation should conduct its own foreign policy and not turn this policy over to an international organization."

Such a belief, widely held, would make international peace and security impossible. It would make international cooperation on international problems such as climate or environmental problems impossible.  

No free person and no free nation is obliged to make contracts with other nations and persons but when such contracts are willingly entered into by free parties rationally choosing to cooperate rather than to conflict or to compete then the net freedoms enjoyed by all, even by the strongest are greater.  No person or nation is obliged to give its word of honor to any new proposition but once a person or nation has given their word then breaking that promise, quite naturally, has consequences for that person or nations reputation and standing with others.

What I suspect that you don't really get Tom is that only the strong can make peace and can make contracts that increase freedom.  The weak don't have an option to make a proposal to the strong. What I suspect  you don't get is that the same principles, respect for the rule of law, upholding oaths and promises made, are important at all levels of human society larger than a village. You can't have a nation without a Constitution as a contract to hold it together. And you can't hold together even such a national construct as the United States when those entrusted by the other contracting parties to that national contract (the citizen voters) stop trusting the word of their representatives.  With too much distrust arising from the observation of to many defaults the social contracts break and then you discover that human rights don't come from a supernatural source (and are not underwritten by a supernatural source) rather human rights arise only and always from the assumption of human responsibility which underwrites those rights. 

If you as a person, or as a nation Tom, claim amidst either other persons or other nations, a supernaturally derived right to be reckless and irresponsible in an environment shared with other humans, then other humans familiar with such claims from long historical experience, will dispassionately or passionately show you that your claimed rights don't exist.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 611 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 5:16:08 PM
 

Ground Control to Major Tom

you've gotten a reputation among OpEdNews visitors with your 331 comments in 11 weeks, sarcasm and ad hominem attacks- and your sometimes insightful deconstruction of poster's arguments- but we're still awaiting your diary explaining how the 9/11 attacks were accomplished exclusively by Al Qaeda- you post in a comments section awhile back didn't cover a lot of important points, which would be listed in comments following a diary you post.

Unless you know better and are lying about your intentions, you seem to believe there's "plausible deniability" of the evidence that people in our govt knew the attacks were coming and let them happen or helped them succeed, and that that's enough to dismiss people's questions out of hand.

Your diary should address the evidence presented here:

War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed

Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert-  

by Better World Order (3 articles, 101 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 406 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 6:18:59 PM
 

I Don't Know How You Do It?!

Tom, you amaze me!  Where do you find the time to answer and refute (with eloquence and sustained energy) the tremendous barrage of "questions" that come to the minds of the U.S. citizenry?  Are you a paid, professional "debunker"?  I mean, you actually took your valuable time to refute my simplistic "tree" illustration just below on the right hand side column of OpEdNews -- George Washington: They Don't Believe It: Why Do You? (10 comments as of 9:45pm EST 12/19/07) -- totally inundating me with a mass of information I'll have to go research in my spare time (I don't have much of that!). 

This afternoon, while at work, I thought about "how would a very tall metal radio antenna (excluding it's guy wires) collapse downward into a small heap, without toppling to the side, as one would expect?  I'm glad I didn't ask that question, because it would take more of your time, and then I'd have to spend hours researching your explanations of the physics applying to that issue, too.  Aren't there any "common-sense" answers to these questions, that don't require a doctorate like Mr. Hirschorn has?

Why can't we just accept -- we're "spreading freedom and democracy" as a valid explanation of this nation's benevolence, and ignore the ugly inconvenient stuff?

Why can't we just accept -- New Orleans drowned.  Brownie did a "Heck of a job!", and, well...we'll just move on here.  Nothing to see.

The citizenry doesn't need wizardry regarding explanations, investigations, shennanigans, does it?  Applied science and empirical evaluation certainly answers or disproves many theories, I agree.  But...Don't people "know" when they are getting close to something rotting -- because they can smell it?  Doesn't experience teach us that if someone lies or steals from us, they might just as well do it again?  Can't people trust their instincts?  Can't people infer a "pattern" after we have witnessed the same behaviour time and time again?  Doesn't history teach us anything?  Isn't it supposed to repeat?

I've gotta go get some sleep now.  You should too.

by boomerang (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 179 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:20:40 PM