Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - 9/11Americans are still furious about the attacks on our soil and still feel lost and hopeless for the people who died and their families. We wanted something done about it. The U.S. had to go into Afghanistan — but lost track of its original objective, because the President treats it more like a psy-ops mind game and cultural suppression than a criminal investigation of mass murder, creating as much resentment as gratitude among the common Afghani people.
There are also significant questions of conflict of interest since the inevitable outcome of the strategically useless attack was that Afghanistan would be invaded, Bush's oil friends the Saudis will eventually profit, and China will have a stable energy source for its emerging market.
The anger of the American people was then directed by the President into Iraq. But now it seems like Iraq didn't have much to do with 9/11, and Saddam would have been easily crushed at any time if he made direct threatening moves. Although the American people are capable of taking on their new responsibility in Iraq and will live up to that responsibility, many Americans feel upset that a lot more innocent people have died because of the chaos we unleashed in Iraq than Americans who died on 9/11.
It seems the President has lit a fire under our feet, and we can't find any water to put it out. The water is love, and we need to remember: Love is the reason why we were angry. Love is the only thing that will stop the violence.
Even though our civil liberties and our state of freedom do create security vulnerabilities, we are not willing to give them up, because Americans are risk-takers who believe in themselves and their values and face their fears. We will not be bullied into submission by those who want a fascist government in the United States.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Thursday, August 27, 2009
12:58 PM
The terrorists, we assume, are not in on the con, whatever that might be: the terrorists are the patsies, tricked into a well-engineered psychological program funded by selfish authoritarian state actors, who cause the terrorists personal loss and then fuel the fires of the terrorists' vengeance against the "voodoo doll" they have made of the USA. This much is obvious to anyone who reads about the region over the last fifty years: the USA had its fingers in a lot of bad pies, we played both sides of every conflict and ended up with the mess anyone would have expected of that strategy, and the intelligence services of the newly rich countries created al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and promoted that mentality behind the scenes, waging low-level violence so that its senselessness might be "stomached" by the common people as somehow necessary. The newly rich oil countries promoted terrorism because it is politically useful for controlling an uneducated society. Fortunately, information can no longer be stopped. Feudalism, and the plans to cull the world, will die. The era of self-directed humans is here, whether the kings like it or not. Get on board, or get out.
The bankers are interested in making money, no matter the cost in human suffering. They think that by promoting a low level of "tolerable" chaos, and an order that is advertised as justice but is not, that they can wash their hands of the blood by which they profit, saying that because they did not directly initiate in the politically polarizing actions of military coups, repression, and genocide, then they are not responsible, and that the opportunistic profits they seek during such times are not blood money. Unfortunately, they have an incentive to make sure that the "job" does not ever get "done," and so conflicts invariably turn into meat grinders as the inertia of moving equipment and adrenaline make conflicts "inevitable." Rubbish. Grow up, silly little boys.
The World Trade Center was a prior target of the bin Laden terrorist group, in 1993. So, the insurance underwriters of these staggeringly large pieces of concrete and steel would have seen an increased risk. They would have reasonably thought, well, the bin Laden group tried to bomb the foundation, to destroy the building. And, they are still at large and probably still want to. If the building falls, it would fall into other buildings, like dominoes. Since they knew of a direct threat, that liability would break the bank. Because their goals are exclusively monetary, they felt they were obligated to take actions to reduce the risk of the buildings falling into and destroying other buildings.
So, this theory goes, under the direction (or under the nose) of Marvin P. Bush and Securacom, the insurers of the WTC staged some maintenance cycle to install demolition charges into the building. Of course, since Securacom was run by a Kuwaiti investment group, the governments funding bin Laden would have been able to install control over the paperwork, so we may never figure it out. Was Marvin Bush involved, or just an idiot? How convenient the family has a hyped "village idiot" reputation under which they can lower their heads and sneak out the door.
If the buildings were in fact demolished, then Building 7 is exactly what it appears to be: an act of greed. The building had been fully evacuated, so no more people would die. The building was slightly damaged, which would have had some cost but was by all appearances possible. But the twin towers were done for, due to an act of terrorism, which they doubtless had mitigated by re-insurance. They would end up with more money if Building 7 were completely destroyed and they could make the claim that the terrorists were responsible.
Whether the buildings were in fact demolished or not, those incentives were still there, which tells us a lot about the sickness infecting many Americans, a love of money, but more than that, a love of gambling. Risk insurance is really just gambling, and so it is prone to scams. The bigger those scams are, the more preposterous they seem, but the potential payoffs keep getting bigger and bigger. We already know the types like Bernie Madoff are commonplace. We should, quite reasonably, ask if Madoff was just a convenient head to chop off, to distract us from the bigger scam.
conspiracy or insurance scam, if they did demolish?
Let us suppose someone did "pull" the two World Trade Center towers and WTC Building 7. Why would they do such a thing? Perspective is important. Looking at the potential motivations and perspectives of various parties on both "sides" helps us understand how this happened. Even if no one demolished the buildings at all, the "pancake" theory is correct (in which case I'm never setting foot in a tall building again), and Building 7 just fell down perfectly on itself because of a few scattered debris impacts and fires, it's still good to consider the possibility, if for nothing else than it helps us see people's motivations clearly and imagine how they would frame the scenario for the news.The terrorists, we assume, are not in on the con, whatever that might be: the terrorists are the patsies, tricked into a well-engineered psychological program funded by selfish authoritarian state actors, who cause the terrorists personal loss and then fuel the fires of the terrorists' vengeance against the "voodoo doll" they have made of the USA. This much is obvious to anyone who reads about the region over the last fifty years: the USA had its fingers in a lot of bad pies, we played both sides of every conflict and ended up with the mess anyone would have expected of that strategy, and the intelligence services of the newly rich countries created al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and promoted that mentality behind the scenes, waging low-level violence so that its senselessness might be "stomached" by the common people as somehow necessary. The newly rich oil countries promoted terrorism because it is politically useful for controlling an uneducated society. Fortunately, information can no longer be stopped. Feudalism, and the plans to cull the world, will die. The era of self-directed humans is here, whether the kings like it or not. Get on board, or get out.
The bankers are interested in making money, no matter the cost in human suffering. They think that by promoting a low level of "tolerable" chaos, and an order that is advertised as justice but is not, that they can wash their hands of the blood by which they profit, saying that because they did not directly initiate in the politically polarizing actions of military coups, repression, and genocide, then they are not responsible, and that the opportunistic profits they seek during such times are not blood money. Unfortunately, they have an incentive to make sure that the "job" does not ever get "done," and so conflicts invariably turn into meat grinders as the inertia of moving equipment and adrenaline make conflicts "inevitable." Rubbish. Grow up, silly little boys.
The World Trade Center was a prior target of the bin Laden terrorist group, in 1993. So, the insurance underwriters of these staggeringly large pieces of concrete and steel would have seen an increased risk. They would have reasonably thought, well, the bin Laden group tried to bomb the foundation, to destroy the building. And, they are still at large and probably still want to. If the building falls, it would fall into other buildings, like dominoes. Since they knew of a direct threat, that liability would break the bank. Because their goals are exclusively monetary, they felt they were obligated to take actions to reduce the risk of the buildings falling into and destroying other buildings.
So, this theory goes, under the direction (or under the nose) of Marvin P. Bush and Securacom, the insurers of the WTC staged some maintenance cycle to install demolition charges into the building. Of course, since Securacom was run by a Kuwaiti investment group, the governments funding bin Laden would have been able to install control over the paperwork, so we may never figure it out. Was Marvin Bush involved, or just an idiot? How convenient the family has a hyped "village idiot" reputation under which they can lower their heads and sneak out the door.
If the buildings were in fact demolished, then Building 7 is exactly what it appears to be: an act of greed. The building had been fully evacuated, so no more people would die. The building was slightly damaged, which would have had some cost but was by all appearances possible. But the twin towers were done for, due to an act of terrorism, which they doubtless had mitigated by re-insurance. They would end up with more money if Building 7 were completely destroyed and they could make the claim that the terrorists were responsible.
Whether the buildings were in fact demolished or not, those incentives were still there, which tells us a lot about the sickness infecting many Americans, a love of money, but more than that, a love of gambling. Risk insurance is really just gambling, and so it is prone to scams. The bigger those scams are, the more preposterous they seem, but the potential payoffs keep getting bigger and bigger. We already know the types like Bernie Madoff are commonplace. We should, quite reasonably, ask if Madoff was just a convenient head to chop off, to distract us from the bigger scam.
> detail, links and comments >>
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
1:37 PM
That second conclusion is not so "obvious" even if we assume that a missile did hit the Pentagon, and not a plane. The angle of attack is nearly if not exactly parallel to the trajectory of an anti-aircraft missile battery that is, according to one video, buried in the lawn on the hill below the road.
But if a missile was fired from the battery into the building, it does not mean Donald Rumsfeld pulled the trigger, regardless of how much one may dislike the man. Well, what do we know, but it could equally well have been a hacker attack against the targeting computer, which probably was hooked up to a network shared by other systems in the craze for I.T. efficiency in the 1990's... which was still only a way to spend money by paying attention to the wrong details.
That's a scary prospect, and one that the DoD would not want advertised, or the world's hackers would go after their anti-aircraft systems before they patched. Once a lie, why not keep it quiet. The attacker would not want to publicize either, to keep their perceived advantage of fear.
Well, as far as conspiracy theories go, it's as equal a prospect if not more likely, given the "too many cooks" approach of boardroom design in government bureaucracy which sometimes overlooks glaring problems in the elegant structures of its social construct. The mental edifice of that work environment is so structured and impressive, difficult to learn and impossible to escape from, that surely it must be invulnerable. Once a person gives into the supremacy of their environment over their mind, they cease to become a person and only act the role of a kind of playback device, only responding to stimuli like a sea creature poked with an electrode. To some degree people who submit to such a structure can never see outside of their own rules, and become dominated by them. Those who actively seek how to sidestep and skip over those rules then have a significant tactical advantage.
But what I want to know is, why so many conspiracy dupes are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and point the finger at the people in those boardrooms. Maybe they're just imperfect people trapped in an imperfect system. Well, it's possible all that power corrupts all that much, certainly, and someone in the Pentagon was very very bad. But I don't see any direct evidence of that. It's equally possible that the people in the Pentagon and the people who made the missile control system were just idiots, and they invented a hijacking story to explain what they could not explain to the American people.
But if something like that is the case, by not admitting the truth, the Department of Defense could not defend the United States, and would lose the battle of the real war: the people would divide against themselves, and the conspiracy nuts at home would do the job of those foreign interests far better than they could. The flames would only need a little fanning here and there, at this rally or that protest, and the people would turn on the government.
It's certainly a vulnerability -- I'm glad we're smart enough not to have broken apart about 9/11. But it stinks that this cadre of jerks took advantage of all of that for their own agendas. And it stinks that those well-crafted agendas, the result of decades of political manipulation of American politicos with oil money, are subsequently in the interests of foreign countries which may have had their fingers in the attacks of that day.
attack on the pentagon
There are plenty of "out there" sites out there which examine the available evidence, of which there is little that could not be forged, and see in the video that a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane. But from there, the predominant conspiracy theory point of view draws the conclusion that elements within the government staged the attack, in order to justify U.S. "imperialist" expansion in south Asia and the middle east.That second conclusion is not so "obvious" even if we assume that a missile did hit the Pentagon, and not a plane. The angle of attack is nearly if not exactly parallel to the trajectory of an anti-aircraft missile battery that is, according to one video, buried in the lawn on the hill below the road.
But if a missile was fired from the battery into the building, it does not mean Donald Rumsfeld pulled the trigger, regardless of how much one may dislike the man. Well, what do we know, but it could equally well have been a hacker attack against the targeting computer, which probably was hooked up to a network shared by other systems in the craze for I.T. efficiency in the 1990's... which was still only a way to spend money by paying attention to the wrong details.
That's a scary prospect, and one that the DoD would not want advertised, or the world's hackers would go after their anti-aircraft systems before they patched. Once a lie, why not keep it quiet. The attacker would not want to publicize either, to keep their perceived advantage of fear.
Well, as far as conspiracy theories go, it's as equal a prospect if not more likely, given the "too many cooks" approach of boardroom design in government bureaucracy which sometimes overlooks glaring problems in the elegant structures of its social construct. The mental edifice of that work environment is so structured and impressive, difficult to learn and impossible to escape from, that surely it must be invulnerable. Once a person gives into the supremacy of their environment over their mind, they cease to become a person and only act the role of a kind of playback device, only responding to stimuli like a sea creature poked with an electrode. To some degree people who submit to such a structure can never see outside of their own rules, and become dominated by them. Those who actively seek how to sidestep and skip over those rules then have a significant tactical advantage.
But what I want to know is, why so many conspiracy dupes are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and point the finger at the people in those boardrooms. Maybe they're just imperfect people trapped in an imperfect system. Well, it's possible all that power corrupts all that much, certainly, and someone in the Pentagon was very very bad. But I don't see any direct evidence of that. It's equally possible that the people in the Pentagon and the people who made the missile control system were just idiots, and they invented a hijacking story to explain what they could not explain to the American people.
But if something like that is the case, by not admitting the truth, the Department of Defense could not defend the United States, and would lose the battle of the real war: the people would divide against themselves, and the conspiracy nuts at home would do the job of those foreign interests far better than they could. The flames would only need a little fanning here and there, at this rally or that protest, and the people would turn on the government.
It's certainly a vulnerability -- I'm glad we're smart enough not to have broken apart about 9/11. But it stinks that this cadre of jerks took advantage of all of that for their own agendas. And it stinks that those well-crafted agendas, the result of decades of political manipulation of American politicos with oil money, are subsequently in the interests of foreign countries which may have had their fingers in the attacks of that day.
> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, March 30, 2009
10:41 AM
architects and engineers for 9/11 truth
http://www.ae911truth.org> detail, links and comments >>
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
12:54 AM
"Americans on both sides of the aisle are all really angry, but we don't know what we're angry about."
"Why aren't we coming together over this like we did over 9/11."
I am deeply suspicious that fascist little twits in the U.S. intelligence community know about an impending attack on the United States, possibly a nuclear attack on one or more of our cities.
It would unite public opinion and focus our simmering rage on foreign countries so we can't see the wolves in our own backyard.
It would sell more and more and more contracts for high-end defense facilities, weapons, aircraft and ships.
It would get people to vote for McCain. I fear he is the "Manchurian Candidate." His trigger-happy reaction would serve the interests of China in the middle east better than Obama's, and if he dies in office, Palin would be easy for her oil and defense industry "handlers" to push around.
I am deeply sad for the soul of America. We can only find it again if we are courageous and speak out against the traditionally held beliefs about authority. In the beginning, Americans were very good at that. What happened? Why did we chicken out?
ominous rhetoric in the news
Two catch phrases today in pundits' discussion of the financial markets crisis:"Americans on both sides of the aisle are all really angry, but we don't know what we're angry about."
"Why aren't we coming together over this like we did over 9/11."
I am deeply suspicious that fascist little twits in the U.S. intelligence community know about an impending attack on the United States, possibly a nuclear attack on one or more of our cities.
It would unite public opinion and focus our simmering rage on foreign countries so we can't see the wolves in our own backyard.
It would sell more and more and more contracts for high-end defense facilities, weapons, aircraft and ships.
It would get people to vote for McCain. I fear he is the "Manchurian Candidate." His trigger-happy reaction would serve the interests of China in the middle east better than Obama's, and if he dies in office, Palin would be easy for her oil and defense industry "handlers" to push around.
I am deeply sad for the soul of America. We can only find it again if we are courageous and speak out against the traditionally held beliefs about authority. In the beginning, Americans were very good at that. What happened? Why did we chicken out?
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
10:04 PM
After all, it was a conspiracy. This much is established fact. There were the guys on the planes, and the people who planned the attacks and financed them — that meets the definition of a conspiracy.
It scares me even more that so many people who do consider a deeper conspiracy automatically assume that George Bush and the CIA were behind the attacks, or at least let them happen, and that any theory about other global players who stand to benefit from our ensuing wars is met with the same bull-headed, fearful refusal to listen as the people who cannot hear the word "conspiracy" in the first place.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -FDR, 1933.
If we resort to fear, or allow our fear to be manipulated, the terrorists have won and our nation is doomed. If we seek fear for its thrill, in internal rebellion or external aggression, the terrorists have won and our nation is doomed.
We need to consider 9/11 in new terms. We need to "put all options on the table" in our thinking, so to speak, to consider who may have been involved and who benefits.
It may in fact be possible that a conspiracy exists within the U.S. government to aid a bizarre strategy of taking one on the chin to justify the boxing match.
Maybe Bush's business connections with the Bin Laden family should raise a lot of red flags, but maybe that only indicates that he was manipulated because he is gullible and simplistic.
I can imagine them being completely stupid, but I for one do not believe that all people in the government are against the citizenry, or that Bush or the CIA ordered the attack. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, I hope someone is trying to figure out who did it, and that they will tell us when the find out. It's a lot of secrecy to take on faith — that's why we are supposed to have a public government.
What we really need to focus on is Bin Laden's supposed "break" from his family in Saudi Arabia, and his training of muhajadeen fighters in Afghanistan by manipulating their religion in the same way we manipulated them against the Soviets.
What I believe is that Bin Laden never broke from his family at all, and that his religious piety is an act, a colossal hypocrisy. This is supported by the massive stock sales of U.S. airlines by Arab investors just prior to the attack. There was communication from Al-Qaeda through back-channels to their financial allies. This is also supported by the attendance of his stepmother, two brothers, and sister at his son's wedding in Afghanistan in 2001.
Bin Laden set in motion a series of events that had its inevitable conclusion in the invasion of Afghanistan. Why? Occam's Razor — the simplest explanation is probably right: The Taleban regime was opposed to wealth and opposed to the oil interests of the Bin Laden family and of Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein also refused to deal, trapped as he was in pseudo-prophetic egotism.
The House of Saud, sitting atop the largest oil reserve in the world, wishes to re-open the ancient route of trade with China, the largest oil consumer in the world, and build a massive pipeline to deliver oil to the east, because shipping it by boat will not meet China's projected demands in the future.
Did China collude with Saudi Arabia? Maybe so. It is certainly odd that rising China is the number one lender to the United States for the wars that are about to sink our economy. That can be seen as their "double happiness" — a traditional Chinese strategy.
You need to ask these questions. We cannot accept traditional answers and the "party line," because something does not add up.
Claims that the "Muslim mind" is so alien to us are a bunch of crap. Maybe for peasants and the working class Muslim that has some truth. But while the individual hijackers may have been motivated by Bin Laden's illusions, the motivation of the trillions of dollars that will be made with the Silk Pipeline seem a lot more attractive to most people — especially the aristocrats and business elites of Saudi Arabia and China. (China doesn't have aristocrats, you say, because they are Communist — again, a cultural myth, a load of crap.)
Meanwhile, citizens of the United States have allowed ourselves to become so factionalized, so trapped in our ways of thinking, and so angry at each other, that we don't notice that we're getting screwed over by external players.
This is why efficiency, locally produced bio-fuels, renewable energy and nuclear fusion are of the utmost strategic importance to the United States at this moment in history. We must pull the rug out from under Saudi Arabia and China, and make their ill-gotten gains and long term schemes useless to them, or we will be at their mercy.
If fusion is already possible, it should be revealed. Otherwise, we need massive investment in bio-fuels, especially carbon recycling and space-saving algae fuel.
the word "conspiracy"
It scares me that so many people refuse to consider the idea of a broader conspiracy behind 9/11 with deeper geo-political goals.After all, it was a conspiracy. This much is established fact. There were the guys on the planes, and the people who planned the attacks and financed them — that meets the definition of a conspiracy.
It scares me even more that so many people who do consider a deeper conspiracy automatically assume that George Bush and the CIA were behind the attacks, or at least let them happen, and that any theory about other global players who stand to benefit from our ensuing wars is met with the same bull-headed, fearful refusal to listen as the people who cannot hear the word "conspiracy" in the first place.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -FDR, 1933.
If we resort to fear, or allow our fear to be manipulated, the terrorists have won and our nation is doomed. If we seek fear for its thrill, in internal rebellion or external aggression, the terrorists have won and our nation is doomed.
We need to consider 9/11 in new terms. We need to "put all options on the table" in our thinking, so to speak, to consider who may have been involved and who benefits.
It may in fact be possible that a conspiracy exists within the U.S. government to aid a bizarre strategy of taking one on the chin to justify the boxing match.
Maybe Bush's business connections with the Bin Laden family should raise a lot of red flags, but maybe that only indicates that he was manipulated because he is gullible and simplistic.
I can imagine them being completely stupid, but I for one do not believe that all people in the government are against the citizenry, or that Bush or the CIA ordered the attack. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, I hope someone is trying to figure out who did it, and that they will tell us when the find out. It's a lot of secrecy to take on faith — that's why we are supposed to have a public government.
What we really need to focus on is Bin Laden's supposed "break" from his family in Saudi Arabia, and his training of muhajadeen fighters in Afghanistan by manipulating their religion in the same way we manipulated them against the Soviets.
What I believe is that Bin Laden never broke from his family at all, and that his religious piety is an act, a colossal hypocrisy. This is supported by the massive stock sales of U.S. airlines by Arab investors just prior to the attack. There was communication from Al-Qaeda through back-channels to their financial allies. This is also supported by the attendance of his stepmother, two brothers, and sister at his son's wedding in Afghanistan in 2001.
Bin Laden set in motion a series of events that had its inevitable conclusion in the invasion of Afghanistan. Why? Occam's Razor — the simplest explanation is probably right: The Taleban regime was opposed to wealth and opposed to the oil interests of the Bin Laden family and of Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein also refused to deal, trapped as he was in pseudo-prophetic egotism.
The House of Saud, sitting atop the largest oil reserve in the world, wishes to re-open the ancient route of trade with China, the largest oil consumer in the world, and build a massive pipeline to deliver oil to the east, because shipping it by boat will not meet China's projected demands in the future.
Did China collude with Saudi Arabia? Maybe so. It is certainly odd that rising China is the number one lender to the United States for the wars that are about to sink our economy. That can be seen as their "double happiness" — a traditional Chinese strategy.
You need to ask these questions. We cannot accept traditional answers and the "party line," because something does not add up.
Claims that the "Muslim mind" is so alien to us are a bunch of crap. Maybe for peasants and the working class Muslim that has some truth. But while the individual hijackers may have been motivated by Bin Laden's illusions, the motivation of the trillions of dollars that will be made with the Silk Pipeline seem a lot more attractive to most people — especially the aristocrats and business elites of Saudi Arabia and China. (China doesn't have aristocrats, you say, because they are Communist — again, a cultural myth, a load of crap.)
Meanwhile, citizens of the United States have allowed ourselves to become so factionalized, so trapped in our ways of thinking, and so angry at each other, that we don't notice that we're getting screwed over by external players.
This is why efficiency, locally produced bio-fuels, renewable energy and nuclear fusion are of the utmost strategic importance to the United States at this moment in history. We must pull the rug out from under Saudi Arabia and China, and make their ill-gotten gains and long term schemes useless to them, or we will be at their mercy.
If fusion is already possible, it should be revealed. Otherwise, we need massive investment in bio-fuels, especially carbon recycling and space-saving algae fuel.
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, September 12, 2008
12:34 AM
It's all too easy to buy the official line, that "towel heads hate us because we're free," or that Osama Bin Laden believes in divine kingship and wants to rule the world.
What would happen, if the "October Surprise" this year is that Bin Laden gets off another attack inside the United States? We haven't found him in Pakistan. Maybe he is right here under our noses.
If he does bomb Hollywood, when the national anthem starts playing on CNN and the tears start to pour out, would you fall in line and give up all your rights, and assent to the wholesale slaughter of the Muslim world as a reprisal?
Or, would you wake up and wonder about the people who seek to profit from the chaos of a global world war? They would make trillions of dollars, the draft would be reinstated, and we would be made slaves of death.
When they come to brand you with the mark of the beast, take the beheading option. I hear it's the better choice.
Descent Into Chaos sounds like a good book on how the idiotic neocon board room mentality was manipulated to serve interests other than our own.
deadly october surpise - will you be manipulated?
The world is a complex place and requires complex thinking. Thinking in simple terms is likely to get us attacked again.It's all too easy to buy the official line, that "towel heads hate us because we're free," or that Osama Bin Laden believes in divine kingship and wants to rule the world.
What would happen, if the "October Surprise" this year is that Bin Laden gets off another attack inside the United States? We haven't found him in Pakistan. Maybe he is right here under our noses.
If he does bomb Hollywood, when the national anthem starts playing on CNN and the tears start to pour out, would you fall in line and give up all your rights, and assent to the wholesale slaughter of the Muslim world as a reprisal?
Or, would you wake up and wonder about the people who seek to profit from the chaos of a global world war? They would make trillions of dollars, the draft would be reinstated, and we would be made slaves of death.
When they come to brand you with the mark of the beast, take the beheading option. I hear it's the better choice.
Descent Into Chaos sounds like a good book on how the idiotic neocon board room mentality was manipulated to serve interests other than our own.
> detail, links and comments >>
Thursday, September 11, 2008
11:20 AM
Forgiveness is a difficult thing. And, besides the direct actors who hijacked those planes and their immediate superiors, it's not entirely clear who else to forgive.
Anger and rage are easily manipulated. The only way we are going to figure out what really happened is if we stand back, stay frosty and rational, and think clearly.
An act like 9/11 required years of planning and had far-reaching consequences for world politics because of our responses. We have to keep our minds open to the possible motivations of many global actors.
7 years or 77
It's been seven years since the towers fell.Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I don’t tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven." (Matthew 18:21-22)
Forgiveness is a difficult thing. And, besides the direct actors who hijacked those planes and their immediate superiors, it's not entirely clear who else to forgive.
Anger and rage are easily manipulated. The only way we are going to figure out what really happened is if we stand back, stay frosty and rational, and think clearly.
An act like 9/11 required years of planning and had far-reaching consequences for world politics because of our responses. We have to keep our minds open to the possible motivations of many global actors.
> detail, links and comments >>
Archives May 2007 / February 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / March 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 /