Friday, December 2 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

by Janice Matthews

"Newly Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made 'SIGINT fit the claim' of North Vietnamese Attack" heads this timely and relevant article from The National Security Archive. "The parallels between the faulty intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq War make it all the more worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence."

It would appear obvious that, in light of the preponderance of 'new evidence' surrounding the events of 9/11/01, gathered by intrepid citizens taking the search for truth into their own hands, a re-examination of those events is also immediately warranted. This is particularly important, given the fact that the ensuing wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were predicated on the "official version" of those events, resulting in the deaths now of over 2100 US troops, perhaps over 100,000 Iraqis, and the rerouting of trillions of dollars from desperately needed domestic programs to the ever-burgeoning war machine.

 

Sunday, November 6 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

by Scott Shane of The Sydney Herald

More evidence that the "Gulf of Tonkin" event was yet another in a long, sordid history of covert operations designed to convince Americans of the necessity of war. In light of revelations of the Downing Street Minutes, "yellow cake" lies, and other "intelligence" designed to support war, is there any question 9/11 was likewise designed to support a hidden agenda?

 

Monday, August 29 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

Another official story unravels. A former Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that the CIA planted a tiny piece of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 Pan Am plane bombing and mass murder of 270 people...

 

Wednesday, March 16 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

by Robert Higgs
Independent Institute
March 12, 2005

Yet another exhibit for a class action suit against American history teachers for leaving us ignorant and defenseless against the same murderous hoaxes generation after generation. Unlike the public, the ruling neocons know their history -- and how to repeat it to boost their profits and power. Just as 9/11 reprised the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and many other victim-facilitated attacks, Mr. Higgs shows us here the Iraq follow-through was also prefigured and prescripted nearly a century back. - Ed.

The composition of a coherent historical narrative is no easy task. Fortunately, the aspiring historian of the current U.S. war in Iraq can draw upon earlier narratives to ease the burden, merely substituting a word here and there in order to make the text accord with the specific names and places that are now pertinent. As the following illustrative statements show, however, basic patterns tend to persist, so one need not suffer through a protracted new search for how a particular war has come to be fought. My textual changes to apply the model to the present war appear in brackets.

To gain popular support for so useless a policy [as attacking and occupying Iraq] Republicans were unrelenting in their efforts to arouse jingo sentiment in the country.

The Democrats, too, were eager for a foreign adventure.

. . . the American people could indeed be diverted from their domestic concerns if the right sort of foreign crusade was offered.

By inciting hatred of [Saddam], by crying up interventionist pretexts, by encouraging the rebels to prolong their struggle, by entangling America officially in [Iraq’s] affairs, the interventionists bent themselves to the task of turning passive, if promising, sympathy [for oppressed Iraqis] into active, fighting support.

 

Saturday, February 12 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.

Excellent retrospective on governmental creation and abuse of terror from the Roman despot Crassus up to the headlines today - Editor

For a crash course in official betrayal, click here"  

Friday, February 11 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

From the unknown history we're doomed to repeat, onward...  

Monday, January 10 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

From the Resonant Resurrections Dept: This wise little version of "Cover-ups for Dummies" has been floating on the Net since the late '90s at least. Given the government/media handling of 9/11, the resulting wars, and recent electoral fraud it often seems our top officials must read it everyday. If we're to bring the truth alive in 2005, it may help to occasionally remind ourselves how the pros play the game. - Editor

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

 

Wednesday, January 5 2005   -   9/11 Precedents

By Jolly Roger
New York City
January 5, 2005

..."The common perception is that someone who is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" is suffering from some type of psychological disorder, and that label is usually applied to people by our government, and our news media. The next thing to consider, is that the label is applied to anyone who questions our government's version of events in any matter. Doesn't it logically follow that the media are teaching us to assume that anyone who questions the government is insane? When that label is applied to a person, doesn't it become easy to dismiss everything they say without even hearing it? How convenient for them. "