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]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 >>
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< HomeArchives May 2007 / February 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / March 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 /