Terrorists in High Places

[SittingBull]

December 30, 2005

Terrorists in High Places
America's Shadow Government
by Charles Sullivan



Wars are not waged by those who have to fight them. Those who fight wars know too well their terrible costs. Wars are waged by those who profit from them with minimal or no risk to themselves. War is big business and it is immensely profitable for a select few who are insulated from the effects of war’s environmental impacts and social costs. War never serves the interest of working class people. They are the result of menacing forces of greed and power masquerading as benevolent government, insulating us from contrived acts of terror. They are in fact anything but munificent.

Never is the trait of deceit more treacherous than when it leads to the loss of precious innocent life. It was obvious from the outset that George Bush lied about the pretext for war with Iraq. His man servant, Colin Powell, sold the idea to the world in his infamous speech before the United Nations. It was widely known that Saddam Hussein had little war making capabilities; and he certainly did not pose a credible threat to the United States, Israel, or any Middle Eastern Country. U.N. weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter made this fact known long before the invasion began. Saddam Hussein was the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Boogey Man necessary to sell the American people on Bush’s illegitimate invasion and occupation of Iraq.

...

Much more:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_charles__051230_terrorists_in_high_p.htm

ed on title

[No Exit]

1. Wow, what an article!!

This guy clearly gets it.

He will have some trouble here, however, persuading people that anyone named Kennedy or Rockefeller has anything to do with the atrocity that IS neocon-ness. The author seems to think there is some group which is not quite a neocon, but is a "neoliberal". I don't know about that.

But all in all, this guy really gets it. How many more times do we, the people who actually read political articles on the internet, have to hear that the U.S. went into Afghanistan BECAUSE of the Unocal pipeline, and NOT because "Osama Bin Laden was hiding there"?

This author says one other thing that I agree with: he says it's likely Bin Laden wasn't even the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

People always say something about "tin-foil hats" when one says that. Earlier, I was perfectly willing to believe that the 9/11 attacks were originally a plot thought up and executed by Bin Laden followers. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER GIVEN ME ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THAT IS THE CASE. So how long am I supposed to accept ON FAITH that 9/11 was done by Bin Laden??

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Yes, it was a time of highly polished theatrics. May we never

forget.


On Edit: Don't you think that if Russia, Turkey, Iran, China and others felt Saddam was a threat that they would have been big an brave like gw and taken him out?? One would think.

[No Exit]

3. "War never serves the interest of working class people."

I know now what I'm going to say to the next "conservative" who laughs at me because I am against war. I am going to say, "I am against the war in (fill in the blank with whatever country we are attacking that week) because there is nothing in it for ME."

Selfish? Yes. Appealing to "conservatives"? Well, yes.

See, so-called "conservatives" always make fun of a person's being anti-war b/c they see that as a "feminine" or "weak" (in their minds, the two words are synonymous) stance. If one tries to tell them something like, "War kills innocent people", they sneer and say one is "weak", or that one is some sort of teary-eyed weak sister.

So, fuck 'em. I will instead adopt the selfish answer: "I'm against it b/c there's nothing in it for ME."

Another thing to tell them is to quote General Smedley Butler, who said, "War is a racket". These "conservative" male types (who usually only imperfectly understood such education as was given them) can relate to anything said by a GENERAL. And the idea in my mind is to try to be persuasive.

[SittingBull]

5. Re: "War never serves the interest of working class people."

I know now what I'm going to say to the next "conservative" who laughs at me because I am against war. I am going to say, "I am against the war in (fill in the blank with whatever country we are attacking that week) because there is nothing in it for ME."

Sounds good, it may work.

[No Exit]

6. Thanks. Believe it or not, I still have some friends who are

among these people.

Several of them are even from New Orleans--and some of them refuse to consider that the * administration (Brownie and Chertoff included) did ANYTHING wrong in their response to the flooding of New Orleans.

I feel like a doctor trying desperately to save a person with aggressive pancreatic cancer.

[Al-CIAda]

4. K&R'd...great article.

[SONUVABUSH]

7. Great Propaganda

I'm against the war in Iraq, but when I read things such as: "...it is unlikely that Bin Laden or any other Muslim had anything to do with the events of September 11" I want to puke.

Pity anyone gullible enough to believe such statements.

[Al-CIAda]

8. And I pity anyone gullable to believe the 'official' conspiracy story.

Jim Marrs - investigative journalist & author

9-11: an inside job

windows media player
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2004/04/103788.wmv

[SittingBull]

9. Show me one single proof,

a courtsteady proof, that OBL had anything to do with the events of 9-11.

You may wonder, why I insist on a proof.

I know for sure that there is no such evidence. The video that "proves" OBL did it was a blatant fake, in early statements OBL denied his involvement. There were probably a dozen hints for this fake. E.g. he was a left hand person, the video shows a right hand person,
it was translated in english as distributed to media networks, there were some translation errors and so on.

E.g. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Till now, over 4 years after the attack, OBL's warrant of apprehension didn't mention the 9-11 terror on the FBI website.
There's also no bill of indictment yet. Why?

And consider another fact: a study found out that most people believe the first version of a news breaking story, even if the news will later corrected. Must be some kind of cognitive dissonance.

Now consider: When did you hear first that OBL did it without beeing sceptical? Minutes or hours after the attack??


PS: There may be some kind of muslim terrorists involved:

IMO the 19 presumptive hijackers were most likely patsies, built up by rogue elements in the CIA to work out scenario 12 d ( OP Northwood embedded ) of
"The Lone Gunmen"

[hang a left]

10. Through some pity this way

And it's Ms. Gullible to you.

[SONUVABUSH]

11. I would say.......

That if you believe the statement ""...it is unlikely that Bin Laden or any other Muslim had anything to do with the events of September 11"


you probably believe that when we landed on the moon, it was a big hoax too.