oldschool CxC

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Erik asked me, specifically:

Q1: Do you believe that President Bush knew about and supported the 911 attacks?

Q1: I think he knew and others in the 'defense depts' (aka military) knew. (It's not just me btw, there's ImpeachBush.Org, and CrooksAndLiars Blog, among MANY other groups.)
Did Bush support the attack? I'm not sure & lack direct evidence saying he did explicitly support it. Part of me thinks that it was a high level conspiracy (of Energy Corp Influence + Military + Govt) hoping to bring about Martial Law, and Bush knew there'd be an attack of some sort which could be used to begin a reactionary war vs mid east (general 'terrorists' w/o any precise defintion) to expand US Empire, and begin an international system of torture and oppression unlike anything modern America could've imagined to prevent organized counterattacks. I don't have any way of knowing if Bush was involved in the planning. My guess is he gave the OK for 'something' and then allowed that 'something' to happen.
Don't you remember the Anthrax mail-bombings (on abortion clinics & politicians)? From the Wash Post, "The anthrax attacks took place just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." What happened to the follow up on those, btw? (read the link to find out)
Part of me thinks perhaps this conspiracy theory's too broad, and that Bush knew there might be SOME kind of attack, but deliberately delayed in responding -- unless he personally was threatened -- b/c it was all 'upside' for his organization.
Slogan --> War is terrorism with a bigger budget.

The Israeli secret service (Mossad) knew about the attack prior and tried to inform Bush multiple times. If they knew, why wouldn't the US know? Esp since Bush had the briefing in his hands days before the attack?
Slogan --> Knowledge is ignorance.


Q2: And I have a hard time believing that YOU think that otherwise normal people who work for the US government would participate in a mass murder of US citizens. I mean, you really believe that? Really?


Q2: I would hope 'NORMAL' Americans would not participate in murder of American citizens too, however history suggests otherwise. We can look at the Civil War as the first major American vs American (red vs blue, North vs South) battle. Or looking only at the US Govt, many historians believe the US was aware of the Pearl Harbor attack but took no action so it could get involved in the war. You could look at various labor strikes where lethal force was used by govt-backed strike-breakers. There are other examples of the US allowing Americans to die when it could have done otherwise, such as New Orleans recently.
Most people think New Orleans was a fluke. I don't, I believe that Bush Jr knew that his response was too delayed and would ultimately be inadequate. It's just like his response to the Tsunami in Malaysia, the genocide in Darfur, the Earthquakes in Afghanistan & India, and so on. And the Right Wing solution to the drug epidemic is a drug war, where the USA can violate international law and also incarcerate millions of non-violent Americans on drug charges. What ever happened to that Gary Webb CIA Drug Conspiracy thing, btw?
(Haliburton engineers supposedly went to New Orleans prior to the hurricane to make rebuilding plans, and I heard stories on the radio from black aid workers who went to New Orleans and heard many witnesses give accounts of hearing blasts before the levies broke. Another 'unlikely conspiracy' or another blatant screwing prior to Haliburton cashing in on BILLIONS in no-bid reconstruction contracts?)

Bush is not a humanitarian president, and his organization is clearly focussed on the following: consolidating corporate power and lessening govt oversight, growing the military, tax cuts for the wealthy, weakening 'socialist' public programs, shrinking the middle class, expanding poverty.
Slogan --> Freedom is slavery.

If you watch True Majority's Oreo Video, it shows clearly where the U.S. public $$$ are going --> into 'Defense'.
(I write 'defense' in partial quotes b/c it's a propagandistic term, loaded with spin (or DoubleThink for Orwell fans). I chose to call that topic Military or Offense. (If Football 'defense' was like our 'defense', the opposing offensive team would all be killed in a game. Our 'defense' does not consist of blocking an offense, but rather pro-actively attacking would-be attackers. If THIS philosophy counts as 'defense', if we all practiced that individually there'd be BUCKETS of blood on the streets.)
Slogan --> War is peace.

4 Comments:

Blogger Sony said...

I'd like to take a shot at these too:

Do you believe that President Bush knew about and supported the 911 attacks?

No. I do believe he was amply warned that Al Qaeda constituted a present danger and was formulated numerous plots to attack America. Had he made it his priority to defend against them, then the FBI most likely would have vaccuumed the many pieces in Arizona, Minnesota, Phillipines, etc into one group that would have busted up the conspiracy.

So, he is guilty of terrible governance, because his narrow focus on Iraq prevented him from hearing the warnings of his advisors that Al Qaeda was the the more impending threat.

I thinks that's the worst he can be charged with-- ineptitude.

Q2: And I have a hard time believing that YOU think that otherwise normal people who work for the US government would participate in a mass murder of US citizens. I mean, you really believe that? Really?

I do not believe that. I think it was Al Qaeda that committed the mass murder of Americans.

7:13 PM  
Blogger REkz said...

Actually, I'm not sure there is an Al Qaeda. Many professors have said it's not a real organization.

I do know there are a bunch of secret spy operations out there, and they are just dying to have a free hand at fucking up other 'strategically opposed' countries.

And I think they currently have a fairly free hand. This is BAD.

I think Bush can be charged with:
allowing, knowing, giving the OK, having plans to hit Iraq prior to attacks, making deals w/energy biz about his plans prior to 9/11, and moreover lying to USA and more.

Ineptitude is his COVER story. He may very well be inept, but that doesn't account for blatant lying.

5:25 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

So, to summarize Ari's position: The 911 attacks were orchestrated by elements of the US governement, with Pres. Bush complicit if not involved in the planning. And, as a special "bat shit insane" bonus, Ari posits that similar elements were responsible for blowing up the N.O. levees. Anyone else want to raise their hand and agree with this position?

Sorry if I don't waste my time rebutting this logic. Let me just say that if you truly believe these things, I don't know how you can possibly go to work each day and continue to be a "little Eichman" working for The Man. You should be protesting full time, fomenting a revolution, or at the very least renouncing your citizenship and moving to another country.

I agree with Sony: ineptitude is the order of the day. But conspiracy to murder thousands of American citizens? I actually feel sad for you that you believe this.

9:20 AM  
Blogger Erik said...

Ari says that one of Bush's goals is "expanding poverty."

This is the kind of BS I have a hard time believing. It's one thing to say that Bush is inept or that his policies are terrible or whatever, but you don't seem satisfied unless you can attibute some evil intent as well. I guess that makes the paranoia justified -- say, you aren't hooked on prescription painkillers, sports gambling, and kiddie porn by any chance, are you?

9:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home