You are hereBlogs / missy Beattie's blog / The Terrorists Have Won
The Terrorists Have Won
On August 22, I was in Manhattan for the counter-protest to support the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. My friend Elaine Brower gave an impassioned speech, talking about the “gentlemen’s" club by the site, and a huge Century 21 clothing store (shop, shop, shop), emphasizing the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and reminding the gathering that 15 of the hijackers who used planes as missiles on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, that the US continues to conduct business with that country, that we buy oil from Saudi Arabia, and that bikers, who roared in, joining the bigots to protest the Islamic center, most probably, filled their tanks with gas from Saudi Arabia.
Brower, whose son served three tours of military duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, exposes the hypocrisy of nationalists who make statements like the one I heard when I wandered to get a look-see at those who believe they are the REAL guardians of liberty: “Arabs are killing Americans every single day.” This agitator also held a sign, bearing the words: NO MOSQUES IN AMERICA.
I returned to Baltimore, Sunday afternoon, and wondered about our path—actually, the destination we’ve already reached. The concept of abandoning the machine is alluring. Just brake to the curb, step out, remove the plates, and get away from this mind numbing mutation of reason.
I’m thinking of the many references to “hallowed ground.” I’m thinking about a man who said he defends religious freedom but believes that a mosque should not be allowed so close to hallowed ground.
How close is too close? How far away is it appropriate to be Muslim? These are mere ancillaries.
The central issues are racism, fear, and perception of THE OTHER. They lead to hatred. They take us to war. They marginalize. They dehumanize.
I’ve made it clear that I disagree with the president. I’m antiwar, anti-imperialism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Military Industrial Complex. I abhor that Obama marketed himself as the personification of hope and change, the leader who could be relied on to right the egregious wrongs of the Bush regime, when he never intended to fulfill his promises and, in fact, knew that he would continue the policies so devastating at home and abroad. This said, I would never judge him because Hussein is positioned between his first name and surname. Nor would I question his religion. Frankly, I don’t care if Obama is Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, an atheist, agnostic, or a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
On Monday, the day after the counter-protest, when I received an email from Elaine Brower that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews would interview someone from each side of the Islamic center controversy, I powered on the telly and entered Hardball (?) to catch Matthews criticizing Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell for his Sunday Meet the Press remarks. McConnell had twice stated that when the president says he’s a Christian, he takes him at his word. Obviously, McConnell intentionally crafted a string of words to discredit Obama’s Christianity—to communicate doubt about the president’s beliefs.
Despite Matthews’ diatribe against McConnell’s deliberate undermining of Obama, Matthews failed to nail an essential. He never mentioned that religious affiliation does not matter, that religious choice is protected by the Constitution, that any president of this country could be a Muslim, could be a PASTAfarian, could worship bellybutton lint if he or she chooses.
By the time the guests appeared, the two I tuned in to watch, I was ready to tune out. Because the fourth estate is so third-rate. And because I’m freaking fed up with the assault on truth we’ve witnessed since the 9/11 attacks, the investigation that really wasn’t, the rabid rhetoric for blood, the Islamophobia, the shock and awe, the killing of men, women, and children, and the destruction of a land’s civilization.
Our “leaders” and mainstream “journalists” stress American exceptionalism, hallowed ground, and sacred sites. And bigots spew speech that may result in violence. The New York Police Department confirmed that on Monday, the 23rd, a Manhattan cab driver allegedly was stabbed by a passenger who asked if the driver was Muslim. This attack is disturbing given the climate of Islamophobia generated by those who oppose the Islamic center near Ground Zero.
Our own civilization is lost. The terrorists should hoist a Mission Accomplished banner.
- missy Beattie's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
I like the point about the bikers filling "their tanks with gas from Saudi Arabia", albeit I don't know how we can tell, unless the station where they filled their tanks is Exxon/Mobil and that company sells only oil from Saudi Arabia, f.e. From what I've read over the past few months, the U.S. gets a lot of its oil from Canada, but if that's oil only from the "tar sands" in Alberta, then I don't know if this oil can be used to produce fuel for motor vehicles. Articles have given me the impression that there is a considerable difference of some sort, between oil from "tar sands" and oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, et cetera; but maybe it can be used to make fuel for vehicles.
That aside, if it's possible to know where fuel sold at any gas station originates from, then many of the people opposing the establishment of this Islamic center in Manhattan surely do identifiably buy fuel that originates from Saudi Arabia. Either they'd need to start buying their fuel from companies that don't use oil from Saudia Arabia, or they'd be blatant hypocrites.
Given their sickness, they probably wouldn't care about be hypocrites though.
Some, if not all, of the alleged 9/11 hijackers got into the U.S. with the CIA, FBI, State Dept, DoJ, and also the Congress facilitating this, and they did this to "help" individuals the State Dept apparently, or certainly, had listed as terrorists. I believe it's certain that some were definitely listed as terrorists, but am not sure if all of them were.
See videos for Lt Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former member of the US Army's very special intelligence team that was mandated to track Al Qaeda worldwide and which was called "Able Danger", when he testified in a hearing before either a House or a Senate. Able Danger was established during the Clinton administration for the sole purpose of tracking Al Qaeda activities and communications worldwide, operated for three years, and had accumulated a lot of intell., when it was forced to shut down during the Bush Jr-Cheney administration and prior to 9/11. And Lt Col. Shaffer has said that the team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, with all of the intell. the team had on the alleged hijackers' activities and locations in the U.S. It's that intell. that contains information, real proof of the CIA and/or FBI, and State Dept, facilitating these alleged hijackers; some of them anyway.
Also see videos with Michael Springmann. He worked at a U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudia Arabia, directly related to providing visas to or for Saudis wanting to travel to the U.S. He evidently performed his job responsibly, but when he correctly refused an applicant, the CIA and U.S. State Dept basically forced him to issue the travel visas anyway.
I've been saying to search for these videos, but will provide some links, this time.
I believe that what Lt Col Shaffer says regarding Able Danger and what the team learned is true and important, but I don't agree with him about whether 9/11 was an "inside job", or not. The last that I read about his view on that subject, he seems to believe all or most of the "official story" on 9/11 and it's truly [proven] to be very bogus. It's not wholly bogus, for, f.e., the 9/11 attacks did happen, but it is very much bs and this certainly is or was not by accident or unintentional. The many bogus parts are clearly fabrication.
He strikes me as being a little naive, not even realizing that the war on Afghanistan has always be unjustifiable and is criminal; that the "official story" on 9/11 is highly bogus; and treating U.S. military special and secret ops around the world as if these are acceptable when they are not and are very unConstitutional, because the U.S. has no Constitutional bases for acting as policeman of the world, et cetera. But what we learn about Able Danger is nevertheless important.
"9 11 Prior Knowledge Able Danger Hearing for Lt Col Anthony Shaffer in Congress C SPAN" (8:23)
CoreOfCorruption, Sep. 24, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJvABLaMUT8
The video of him speaking at that hearing is, I believe, the one I've found to be the most important; although, I think to recall that the interview, below, that he provided on the Alex Jones Show was also good.
"LT. Col Anthony Shaffer on Alex Jones Tv 1/3: Able Danger and DIA Prior Knowledge of 9/11" (10:50)
TheAlexJonesChannel, Jan. 8, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V01Ol2Nk-Tk
That text provides a link to the following page.
"Who Is Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer?"
by Jon Gold, Sep. 18, 2007
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11481
I'll blockquote only the subheadings, and the website mentioned on the first line has changed. It's been www.historycommons.org for well over a year or two, now.
Another post will be used for Michael Springman videos.
UPDATE: A slight change of mind
Actually, it might not be a good idea at all for these anti-Islam Americans to listen to what Lt Col Anthony Shaffer says. While what he says regarding the CIA and/or FBI facilitating entry and activities in the U.S. for some of the alleged hijackers is what these Americans need to and all other Americans should carefully think about, he nevertheless is a special ops U.S. military guy who thinks it was and possibly still thinks it is the right thing to do to be warring on Afghanistan. If he still thinks that way, then he hasn't sufficiently awoken yet and would only be a bad influence for these anti-Islam Americans, who'd be encouraged from his pro-war on Afghanistan statements.
They should and very safely can listen to Mike Springman, however. He doesn't believe the bogus "official story" on 9/11. He knows it's extremely "screwed up". Only very sane and moral people can safely listen to Lt. Col. Shaffer without being mislead by his pro-war words.
This is the continuation of my second post.
"Mike Springman on 911" (8:25)
troglodyt33, Sep. 18, 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYFo79q1Ek
"Michael Springman at the New York 9/11 Citizens' Commission" (13:34)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6749363109712226595#
Quote: "Michael Springman talks about VISAS for terrorists".
It's worse than I thought. I haven't viewed it yet, but if the title for the following interview video is right, then it's not several alleged 9/11 hijackers whose entry and activities in the U.S. were facilitated by the CIA, et cetera; it's 15 of the 19.
Hold on to your hats, because this is an interview on the Alex Jones Show and the verbal tone and sounds sometimes, if not often, are sensationalist or -like.
"Michael Springman on Alex Jones Tv:
CIA Ordered Visas For 15 of The 19 9/11 Hijackers in Jeddah", Part 1 of 4 (10:38)
TheAlexJonesChannel, Feb. 8, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmjAg_-Vi9Y
I would not call this mere "criminal negligence". It's much worse than that. I believe it's Lt. Col. Shaffer who said that some of these facilitated 9/11 hijackers were on the State Dept's terrorist list, and since it lists some Saudis, this list should be verified for every Saudi applying for a visa to travel to the U.S. Of course that would surely require a list with photographs of the alleged or proven terrorists.
NOTE: The text blockquoted, above, actually contains a link to a HijackersPatsies page at 911review.org and I snipped it because it's not a good website. It might have some good content, but it also has plenty of bogus content; and the following page at Jim Hoffman's website, 911review.com, provides a very good critique of that 911review.org page. I'll excerpt only the criticisms or corrections Jim Hoffman provides.
http://911review.com/911review/markup/HijackersPatsies.shtml
People with an [open] mind for learning about or joining in real 9/11 analysis will certainly appreciate Jim Hoffman's website and websites linked in his recommended websites page. His website may require some updates, here and there, or a little more added to what he wrote, but it's definitely and very recommendable and he accepts e-mails from people with questions or with suggestions for information to be added or clarified.
Re. www.oilempire.us:
To get the website's index, simply click on either the "political map" or "connect the dots" links at the top of the home page and this will provide pages that have the needed index, which is in the form of circles with subindex names located at the top of these and all other pages. Just mouse over the circles to see that they're actually index links, instead of static graphics.
Closing:
The people who oppose the Muslim center in Manhattan should carefully learn from what these two people, Anthony Shaffer and Mike Springman, have exposed, and should take time to carefully read through 911review.com and what it lists as recommended websites.
If they don't do that, then they will probably remain very, very lost. They'll never understand what's really happened and will continue to blame the wrong people for 9/11. The alleged 9/11 hijackers were or were not on the allegedly hijacked planes; I don't think we have any real, proven certainty that they were on the planes, and we have proof that several were found to be alive and well years later, btw (see 911review.com, f.e.). And if those not found to be alive years later were indeed on the allegedly hijacked planes of 9/11, then this definitely does not prove that they actually were capable of hijacking the planes, much less being proof that they were capable of accurately flying the planes into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon. (Again, see 911review.com and links recommended there.)
A serious problem with people full of hein and ignorance like those opposing to the Muslim center in Manhattan, among other or similar people, is that they clearly cannot think in critically objective and [open]-minded ways. They're sociopaths and require psychological or psychiatric treatment.
So GOOD LUCK with the conversion work! It might be easier to convert stone to water, or to get water out of a stone.
Some of the reasons are the following.
*) See the above videos with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Mike Springman about the U.S. govt having deliberately facilitated the entry into the U.S. and activities in the U.S. of alleged 9/11 hijackers.
*) The 9/11 attacks were not committed only by alleged hijackers and that's if there were any real hijackers on the planes used for the attacks. We do not have certain, definite, concrete proof that there were any on those planes. See the quotes from HijackersPatsies at 911review.com in my above post for videos with Mike Springman and the following.
"Alleged Hijackers"
http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html
Jim Hoffman provides some other links in the above article, which is fully worth reading, carefully [thinking] while reading.
Re. Loose Change, the documentary film
Jim Hoffman surely was not referring to the latest version. He was referring probably to edition 1 or 2, and while 2 was better than 1, they both nevertheless contained invalid analysis or "theories". (The article is several years old.)
*) The alleged hijackers, if they were on the planes, really were far more likely to be patsies, than real hijackers. And I just came across the following information about what the Russian General and Egyptian President Mubarak said as [expert] pilots with a lot of experience.
"September 12, 2001: Russian Air Force Commander Says It Is Generally Impossible to Carry Out Attack like 9/11"
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201generalkornukov#a0...
"September 14-October 25, 2001: Egyptian President Mubarak Reveals Doubts about 9/11 Perpetrators"
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091401mubarakdoubts#a091...
USAF Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, Ret., who is an expert pilot and flew 100 or 101 missions during the Vietnam War, has clearly stated that even very expert pilots would have a lot of difficulty in trying to commit the attacks of 9/11, which is credible and also a good reason to suspect that remote control was used. Or perhaps he said this only with respect to the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, which he said is heavily armed with air defence. That's something Ray McGovern has also stated in a video-record interview, perhaps with The Real News. (I saw these at Youtube.)
*) "Doomsday plane", war games, potential remote control
An E-4B, aka "Doomsday", military plane, a "command center in the sky", aka "Pentagon in the sky", plane that can replace the Pentagon if ever it was put out of commission, say, and which is designed for use in nuclear war areas, was flying very close to the WTC Towers when they were struck, as well as over DC when the Pentagon was truck. This plane is highly equipped with technology, including for remotely taking over and controlling other planes.
Do a Web search for "mystery plane" and "doomsday plane", while adding "9/11" for search terms and check out the videos. Find out about the fact that there were plenty of witnesses to the presence of the E-4B near the WTC Towers and Pentagon, including news reporters. Enough people caught the plane on video, as well.
There were war game excercises simultaneously going on, simulating actions for the very kind of attacks that occurred on 9/11. The U.S. apparently has four E-4Bs, normally parked in, I believe, Nevada. Three were involved in the war games, the fourth was spotted near the WTC Towers, over the Pentagon, as well as very, very close to AA flight 77, which hit the Pentagon.
The way that Lt. Col. Bowman described it, it's not likely that an expert pilot could have performed these attacks by piloting the planes. He said that very expert pilots might require as many as twenty attempts to be able to hit the Pentagon the way it was hit, and it'd be very difficult to hit the WTC Towers, since the plane would be need to be close to them in order for them to appear large enough to accurately target them. The planes that hit the Towers did not fly a zig-zag path; they flew very straight in, from what I recall seeing in videos.
Remote control is very plausible and certainly possible. It's definitely something to be kept in mind.
*) Two critical European government officials
"Michael Meacher and Andreas Von Bülow express their serious doubts about 9/11" (16:22), 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825
The INITIAL IMAGE in the above video says that the video recording "was first shown on Sept 9, 2005 on Dutch TV on 'TweeVandaag' (Channel 2 Today), a daily current affairs show broadcast on Nederland 2. Copyrights: TROS en AVRO".
Michael Meacher is or formerly was a British Labor MP during the Tony Blair government or premiership.
Andreas von Bülow, however, is far from being only a member of German politics.
That's quoted from the text for a copy of the same video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxLBB-R7GG4
I just listened to the interview and it's very good and important. While I don't agree with absolutely everything said, much or most of what Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow said in this now old interview is important and very good analysis. I've listened to an interview with Andreas von Bülow on the Alex Jones Show and this provides much more analysis from Andreas von Bülow.
"Alex Jones Show/Andreas Von Bülow: Bipartisan 9/11 Cover Up", Part 1 of 4 (10:55)
TheAlexJonesChannel, April 15, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmFsNZqPutM
*) Critical U.S. government officials, professors, and more
Actually, www.patriotsquestion911.com lists the names and provides summaries of the views of "Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials" who "Question the 9/11 Commission Report", and similarly lists many architects and engineers, professors, "U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans", and other people.
Also check the articles nearing the bottom of the page and for which there's a link named "ARTICLES" next to the selection list near the top of the page. All of these, except for one (MS Word file), have PDFs, and most provide an alternative link for an OpEdNews.com article. The rest, I believe, is online at the above website.
Many or most readers here will recognize names of (maybe many) people in the lists at this above patriots website.
Closing:
NOTE: The above articles are a small sampling of what's available for real 9/11 research and understanding and I have many more links, but won't add more. The post is already long.
"The Terrorists Have Won"
So far, yes. But who are the real terrorists of 9/11; foreign, or domestic?
If there were hijackers on the planes, then it's evidently none of the alleged hijackers, and certainly none of those who "mysteriously" didn't die and returned home after surviving from the attacks, who could have possibly taken over the planes and flown them with great expertise when they could hardly or barely fly any plane at all.
The "official story" on 9/11 definitely is not "kosher"; it's mostly bs. And that's not unintentional or accidental bs. One or two errors might be explainable as simply being careless mistakes; but the "official story" is [very] bogus. It's polluted with bs.
Like Mike Prysner, an Iraq War veteran and founder of the conscientious objector website "March Forward", as well as former member of IVAW, has rationally said, the greatest enemy of the U.S. is definitely not foreign. The greatest enemy is domestic and controls the government.
That, however, might be like 9/11, which many Americans don't want to carefully consider and do as Michael Meacher said, which is to face the truth, that it's necessary to do so even if it is shocking, terrifying and painful. Similarly, many Americans perhaps also prefer to keep their heads in the sand, instead of facing the fact that the greatest enemy of the U.S. are the people criminally corrupting and controlling the government of the U.S.
"The Terrorists Have Won". NOT if Americans finally perform the overhaul that's long been needed on or with Congress in the elections in November. If that happens, then the only people who stood to gain anything from these wars may finally get their day in court, where they'll be prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to very, very long prison sentences; never to see daylight ever again.
That depends. For Americans who've spent their lives [dreaming] that the U.S. is or was civilized to a noteworthy degree, their civilization is lost; but, heh, it never really existed anyway. In my 53 years of life, and I am white, I've never known an "America" that was worthy of being thought of as civilized; not enough to bother calling it civilized anyway.
For WHITE Americans and rich or well-to-do Americans, "America" might've seemed civilized, but ignorance doesn't provide us with an acceptable understanding of society or reality.
Some individual Americans have been and are civilized, but they don't represent the country and the country doesn't represent them. This country and government has never represented me, but there have been and are other American [individuals] who have similar values and outlooks as my own.
The U.S. had a society and still does, but hasn't really had a civilization, if that word is to mean a civilized society, which is the only way that I care to think of the term or word. "Society" is different, for it can be either civilized or uncivilized, imo.
It's not for us to be loyal to the government. It's the government's responsibility to be loyal to the population and, therefore, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and all laws, conventions and treaties the government is co-signatory to or of. This also means national treaties, like between Euro-colonialist U.S. government and American Indians, who most Americans seem to hardly ever have on their minds.
Where's the activism for their rights, I wonder. Pretty much no where to be seen.
Indeed, the USA is not and rather never has been [civilized].