War, terror and intelligence

The 'War on Terror', aka the 'Struggle Against Violent Extremism', are terms used to "sell" or rationalize the West's military engagement in many parts of the developing world, especially the oil rich regions of Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East.

The conventional wisdom, propounded by government officials and foreign policy experts, postulates a world in which the developed nations are threatened by radical religious fanatics and violent extremists who are determined to attack us.

Accordingly, our only recourse against such an irrational, implacable and demonic threat is a massive military engagement of indefinite duration and unspecified cost. Without such effort we are sure to be overrun by terrorists of evermore cunning and sophistication.

The ultimate, undeniable proof of this grave danger, is the ever-present specter of 9/11. Lest anyone doubt the gravity of our predicament, or the necessity of our war, simply recite the official refrain, "they attacked us on 9/11", and who dares argue with that?

Needless to say, conventional wisdom is not always right. Indeed, it can even be an obstacle to introducing new theories, or explanations.

"This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia that opposes the introduction of contrary belief, sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional wisdom) view. This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn't so blatantly conflict with reality." Wikipedia

With the mainstream media shackled to a trivia driven, non-stop entertainment frenzy, and an academia steeped in technical minutia and controlled by corporate interests, it is not surprising to find a dearth of critical literature, or informed commentary, extolling the virtues of our campaign and recounting its successes, since there are none.

Instead, we have the same old rhetoric, the tired, hackneyed monologue, the political doctrine of the Bush/Cheney regime ...
the unassailable official dogma.

But why would anyone want to question the official narrative?

Why would anyone doubt the honesty of government officials, or the veracity of their pronouncements? Is there any justification for such a lack of trust in government and officialdom?

Of course not! Government officials are honorable, respectable, upright characters, they wouldn't stoop to crime or misconduct. Of course, they're only human, so sometimes they make mistakes, but they'd never intentionally do anything naughty.

You believe me, don't you?

Okay, so you think they might be influenced by large sums of money, tempting promises or perhaps even career advancement ... let me assure you, that sort of thing does happen, but not on any sort of organized scale, just a few bad apples, you know.

No look, government officials are trying to protect us, they want to do a good job keeping the terrorists at bay so we can all be safe... that's all there is to it. These guys are simply doing a difficult job as best they can, and we shouldn't be trying to second guess their methods, cos they're the experts, right?

In fact, snooping around trying to find out what they're really up to is only making their job harder, exposing methods and sources, informing the public, all this does is make it easier for the terrorists, don't you see?

I mean, really, who needs to know that our intelligence agencies infiltrate terror groups, recruit terrorist operatives or even fund, arm and train private militia run by war lords and drug barons. If people hear about all this, next thing they'll want to know just how much influence we have with these terrorist organizations, and why are we helping them, if we're supposed to be at war with them.

And you can't expect the public to comprehend the subtleties, the nuances of international relations and the geostrategic balance of power... they're too stupid to understand the real situation, that's why they must be kept distracted and deluded.

Let's face it, if too many people wake up to what's really going on, things could get messy!

The Fifth Estate

Most of us rely upon the mainstream media for information about the world each day. But the view we get that way is fragmented and confused, it's a kaleidoscope of images and sound bites without context or meaning.

We're fed bits of news and views on a wide range of subjects by experts and professionals, a constant stream of discrete entries, a flood of florid reports, a swamp of tripe and trivia. We sink or swim in this soup, swayed by the currents of opinion that swirl randomly within it, subsumed by its persuasive and pervasive conurbation, seduced by the assurance it offers, the comfort of certainty, the bliss of ignorance.

If we are to make sense of the world around us and of the painful perturbations that periodically rock humanity, we will first require a mechanism, a process that captures, corroborates and compiles information in a way that renders it comprehensive and comprehensible. In other words, a system of obtaining and organizing information so that it actually tells us something useful and truthful.

When disparate aspects of a situation are presented in isolation, their relevance is lost, but when presented within a context that incorporates and explains their relationship, it can elucidate the situation, broaden the perspective and deepen the understanding.

The mainstream media presents a bewildering array of sounds and images that serve only to madden the mind and make sick the body. The mainstream media is an opiate that has destroyed the moral and intellectual fibre of humanity. Its inevitable demise can only be a good thing, but in its place we must strive to build a fifth estate that truly serves the long-term interests of humanity.

The Fifth Estate is a public media, a free media, an independent media. The Fifth Estate already exists online, where cooperative investigation and collaborative research is conducted across continents with increasing skill and alacrity. This growth in public media, the convergence of independent sources, citizen journalists and an ever expanding information resource base, offers an opportunity for some real social advances, especially in the field of public education.

The internet offers access to enormous quantities of information. What we need are the tools, the skills required to search, sift and sort that information, and to assemble that information into narratives that explain the way the world works and how we should deal with it.

Phillip Adams and 9/11 denial

Psychological defences protect us from painful truths.

Now, as we all know, the destruction of the World Trade Center had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden, it was carried out by President Bush, working closely with the FBI and the CIA, who we know have a long history of doing this, look at the Kennedy assassination. Now I have been inundated with emails and DVDs for months and months and months on these batch of conspiracy theories, which are often overlapping and contradictory...
Phillip Adams, Late Night Live

Phillip Adams' attempt to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 typifies mainstream commentary on the matter. So we have, for example, from Psychology Today, Paranoia, 9/11, and the roots of conspiracy theories, by Joshua D. Foster and Ilan Shrira, which portrays those who question the official story of 9/11 as suffering some kind of psychological disorder characterised by "intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy".

Or this, from ScienceNews, The inner worlds of conspiracy believers, by Bruce Bower

Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious, a new study suggests. [The study] offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

[The study] identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, [including] taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

And this, from the ABC Unleashed, Conspiracy theory lunacy by Hugh Tobin,

The theories are motivated from a variety of factors sometimes relating to anti-Americanism and most commonly from a psychology of mistrust and paranoia.

Those involved establish their conclusions first, and gather their evidence later. Contradictory evidence is either ignored or discredited.

The conspiracy theorists are oppositional by nature. They will believe 11 different versions of what occurred, even if they are all contradictory, but only as long as they are not related to the official version of events.

And again, from the ABC Unleashed, The philosophy of conspiracy by David Coady,

People in the "9/11 truth movement" are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists"... The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory ...

And back to Phillip Adams, writing for the Australian, Benefits in the doubt ...

I'm found wanting because I accept as fact that bin Laden and the lads were responsible for 9/11 when anyone with half a brain knows that the CIA, FBI and Bush did it. With some help from Mossad. My central argument is that Bush proved that he and his administration were dunderheads by stuffing up everything from Afghanistan to Iraq to New Orleans - that they couldn't raffle a duck in a country pub, let alone bring off the greatest act of treason in history. But to oppose 9/11 conspiracy theorists is to prove yourself part of the conspiracy.

Such dunderheads that they couldn't steal not one but two elections, couldn't start not one, but two wars, couldn't kill not one but two million people, couldn't fleece the American taxpayer of not one but two trillion dollars. Yeah right, whatever you say, Phillip, please, do continue...

As with the 9/11 conspiracy nutters and the historical revisionists of the Holocaust ... these sceptics fall into the category of 'deniers'.

There is a common thread running through all these examples... attack the messenger, smear by association, portray those who question the official dogma as being crazy, mentally deranged, unable to think properly... these 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they're kooks, they refuse to look at the evidence, they deny the facts, their minds are made up and closed... blah blah blah... there is this attempt to belittle or denigrate the individual, the questioner, without addressing the issue, the question.
It is simply "shut up", "go away", "we don't want to hear you", "we're not interested in your questions"... which is really rather like denial, in a way... refusing to listen, refusing to think, refusing to allow others to question... it's about suppressing enquiry, it's about controlling the discourse, it's about imposing the official dogma....

This is what mainstream media is really all about.

Crap agenda propaganda!

But let's dig a little deeper, let's look at some of the psychological factors underlying the pundits' aversion to addressing the issue of 9/11 with an open mind, objectively and impartially. We can gain some insight by examining the arguments they employ to denigrate those who question the official dogma.

For example, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of believing and promoting "conspiracy theories", when in fact it is the pundits who believe in and promote a 9/11 conspiracy theory, the one about 19 Arab hijackers.

Similarly, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of refusing to consider the evidence, but those who question the official dogma do so on the basis of the evidence. They have studied the evidence and are not satisfied with the official explanation. It is the pundits who refuse to look at the evidence.

And again, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of having closed minds, but clearly, those who question the official dogma are open to alternative explanations. Rather it is the pundits who have closed their minds to new evidence, who refuse to reconsider their position in light of new information.

What we see at work here is a psychological defense mechanism whereby people attribute their own undesirable traits to others. This is known as projection.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica ...

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world.

Another psychological defense mechanism at work here is denial. The pundits deny that there is any problem with the official account, they deny the possibility of a cover up. They deny that the issue has any relevance or significance. Denial, as a defense mechanism, occurs when "a person who is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept, rejects it and insists that it is not true, despite what may be overwhelming evidence." Wikipedia

The pundits and proponents of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory accuse those who question 9/11 dogma of being in denial, but clearly, it's the pundits themselves who are in denial, and that's understandable... the study of 9/11 is emotionally and intellectually challenging, evaluating the evidence is difficult and time consuming. Some people might find the evidence leads to conclusions that are too disturbing to consider... for others, it's just all too complex for their simplistic world view to accomodate.

---

The attitude that seems to prevail at the ABC, as at other corporate media networks, towards citizens who have concerns, questions or doubts about the official explanation for 9/11, is an attitude of scorn, ridicule and derision. The questions raised by those who have doubts about the official explanation are rarely, if ever, seriously addressed by the main stream media. Instead, the questions are dismissed as "irrelevant", "illogical" or "already explained" and the concerned citizens are labeled "kooks", "loons", "deniers" and "conspiracy nutters".

What do they hope to achieve by denigrating and insulting citizens who seek only to learn the truth about 9/11, why refuse to let them have a voice and air their doubts, why dismiss their concerns without at least examining them first? Is this any way to treat the citizenry, do they think the public should just shut up and butt out? Are we supposed to just accept whatever story the authorities hand down, without question, as in a totalitarian state?

I have not yet heard the issue of 9/11 aired objectively, impartially or rationally on any mainstream media outlet. The subject is only ever raised in the context of "those crazed conspiracy kooks are at it again, they just won't shut up, perhaps we should label them terrorists and rendition them to Yemen for a bit of torture". I think this is an indication of just how compromised and incompetent the mainstream media is at investigating, understanding and informing the public about matters of paramount importance to the social and political health of our culture and system of governance.

Indeed, the appalling failure of mainstream media to address such crucial matters as the crime of 9/11 and the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention any number of scandals and atrocities that likewise never make the news, has, in my opinion, completely destroyed the credibility of mainstream media. These days, I simply cannot endure the clueless, hackneyed, monologue of conventional trivia spouted by mainstream journalists and commentators. It seems they're preaching to a very small and ever shrinking congregation.

Those who impugn the people who attempt to research, to investigate, to expose and to describe the dynamics of 9/11, function as gatekeepers for the ruling order, they are an obstacle in the path. They do nothing to illuminate what has to be done. They do everything to protect the perpetrators of this crime. We have to call it by its name. We have to tell it like it is and we have to organize and mobilize around this reality... Ralph Shoenmann

Media Spin fit for the bin

Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev
New York Times editorial
July 3, 2009

By the time President George W. Bush left office, Russian-American relations had deteriorated alarmingly. Russia bore a good part of the blame, harassing opponents, stifling a free press and bullying its neighbors.

Of course, it's the fault of those Ruskies... wouldn't have anything to do with the belligerant unilateralist approach of the Bush administration, or the arrogant hypocrisy of the US polity.

Unmasking the mysterious 7/7 conspiracy theorist
By Mike Rudin,
BBC News Magazine
June 30, 2009

In the absence of a public inquiry into the 7 July bombings, conspiracy theories have filled the vacuum.

The government has always resisted calls for an independent public inquiry, and has decided not to actively counter conspiracy theories.

But there is concern that conspiracy theories are divisive and could alienate Muslims from the authorities. The former Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Brian Paddick, says action is needed to prevent further atrocities.

"Hopefully there will be people in the police service, the security service and in government who will realise how important conspiracy theories are. And how important it is… that every attempt is made to try and counteract them."

Yeah right! Maybe they should outlaw conspiracy theories.

But wait a minute, isn't the government's account itself a conspiracy theory?

Four muslims conspired to bomb the Londay subway, right?

That's a conspiracy theory, not a proven fact.

So are we meant to believe that government conspiracy theories are infallable, unifying and conducive to trust in the authorities, but all other conspiracy theories are divisive, alienating and dangerous, the product of crazed lunatics and people with too much time on their hands?

Taliban Losses Are No Sure Gain for Pakistanis
By JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH,
The New York Times,
June 28, 2009

The Pakistani military has claimed success in the Swat Valley, but the stability may be threatened by the militants’ decision to flee, possibly to return later.

I suppose stability would have flourished if the militants' decision had been to stay and possibly be slaughtered... now that would have made an interesting story.

Death in the Afternoon
Author not cited
From the Times Online
June 27, 2009

The shooting of a music student in a Tehran side street encapsulates for the world the brutality of a regime that kills to stay in power

But of course, the shooting of an electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, in a London subway, did not encapsulate for the world the brutality of a regime that kills to stay in power.

U.S. and Russia Differ on a Treaty for Cyberspace
By JOHN MARKOFF and ANDREW E. KRAMER
The New York Times,
June 27, 2009

The unique challenge of cyberspace is that governments can carry out deceptive attacks to which they cannot be linked, said Herbert Lin, director of a study by the National Research Council, a private, nonprofit organization, on the development of cyberweapons.

Oh really, what's unique about that? Governments can carry out deceptive attacks to which they cannot be linked, in any theatre of operations. It's called false flag or black-ops, ie. covert operations. You would think both Herbert Lin and the journos know this, so what gives...

According to the Department of Defense, a covert operation is "so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor."

Test Looms as U.S. Tracks North Korean Ship
By CHOE SANG-HUN
The New York Times
June 21, 2009

A North Korean ship shadowed by an American Navy destroyer and possibly heading toward Myanmar on Sunday could pose the first test of how far the United States and its allies will go under a new United Nations resolution to stop the North’s military shipments.

So eh!... the first test of how far the United States and its allies will go ... under a new United Nations resolution ... to stop the North’s military shipments ... hmmm ...

From the Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy ...

December 9, 2002: U.S. forces intercept and search a ship carrying a shipment of North Korean Scud missiles and related cargo to Yemen.

So this new United Nations resolution must be pretty important then, must give the US even more power to board and search North Korean vessels on the high seas... hmm, pity the journo doesn't bother to tell us anything at all about this new United Nations resolution, not even its number, but the article does provide a link to another NYT article that gives the number and says this about the new UN resolution ...

The sanctions in Resolution 1874 were considered tougher than previous versions largely because China and Russia, the closest thing North Korea has to friends, agreed to a mixture of financial and trade restrictions designed to choke off military development.

Got that, financial and trade restrictions designed to choke off military development... hmmm, them sounds like teeth.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions09.htm

This isn't the first test of the United States ability to intercept and search North Korean vessels on the high seas, that happened in December 2002... at that time the US had no legal authority under international law to sieze the cargo. The only significant change in that respect was made in 2006, three years ago, when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1718... it would only take a few minutes for a journo or editor to check these facts, but apparently they'd rather look stupid than take the time to check a few facts.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm

By creating the impression that the United States was somehow testing newfound powers, the author has completely misrepresented the truth of the matter, and quite deliberately, as evidenced by the marked lack of information regarding the UN resolution referred to in the lead paragraph. Was this done simply to make a good story, or is there some other explanation? Is this a healthy journalistic practice?

The crunch is coming

9/11 was a hoax, steel frame skyscrapers don't crush themselves to dust at freefall speed, not in the real world. Al Quaeda couldn't shutdown US air defences, they couldn't manipulate the masses into believing the obviously ridiculous official conspiracy theory, they couldn't even take a crap without some Criminally Insane Agency holding their hand.

The people who pulled off 9/11 cynically exploited their attack on humanity to justify murdering millions more in their so-called War on Terror. Their objective, clearly, is to take control of the worlds rapidly dwindling oil and gas reserves. They will kill anyone who stands in their way and they're not about to change course. They own the politicians, they own the media, they use them to brainwash the masses.

The emporer is not just naked, he's stark raving mad, and as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, we're in deep shit. These people have no problem lying to us, they don't mind killing folk, if that's what the emporer orders.

Slaves to the system; patsies, minions, goons... we're surrounded by them, they inhabit every dank corner of bureaucracy and every echelon of the corporate hierarchy... craven fools and servants of the oligarchs. They can't think for themselves, they have to be told what to do and what to fear, they believe whatever the TV and newspapers spew at them.

But the tide is turning, more and more people are waking up to the lie, they're turning away from the hatred and fear that's been forced down their necks by the mindless moronic media and the corrupt polity of the establishment.

People are pooling their talents and their wisdom now in ways that trouble the ruling elite, and the control exerted through manufactured terror is losing its power. The more recognition there is of the corruption and the destruction and the violence that is engendered by this clique of filthy rich, obscenely powerful individuals, the less they will get away with.

We don't need their war, we don't need their industry, we don't need their pollution, we don't need their terror, but they need us to remain ignorent and dull and pathetic and gullible and credulous and eager to swallow whatever crap they choose to serve up on the nightly news. We don't need cars and computers and television to survive, but they do need armies and wars and mass murder to maintain their power and privilege.

We must starve the beast. Don't submit to their mind control, turn off the propaganda machine, turn your back and walk away from the abuse and the insults and the mind numbing trivia they want you to consume. Find solace and truth by living simply, consuming little and avoiding the system. Join with friends to grow your own food and learn how to live close to nature, in simple structures.

Get off fossil fuels, reduce your energy consumption, give up television and newspapers, ignore the establishment, quit working for the system and get well clear of suburbia, because the crunch is coming, and it ain't gonna be a pleasant sight.

Investigate 9/11

The justification for the war on Afghanistan, as we all know, is the attack of 9/11. The government would have you believe that terrorists attacked us that day, and we must deny the terrorists safe haven so they won't attack us again. Right?

There are, however, some important facts that have been omitted from the official narrative and ignored by the corporate media.

Here are just a few examples:

Fact: The twin towers were designed and constructed to withstand fire and structural damage resulting from the impact of a Boeing 707 jet airliner.

Fact: On 9/11, the 110 story buildings fell at near free fall acceleration, unheard of in fire ravaged buildings but typical of controlled demolition.

According to the official theory, fire weakened the impact damaged section which then failed, allowing the upper floors to fall through the remaining steel and concrete structure, crushing the building to smithereens in about the same amount of time it would take to fall through thin air... approximately 10 seconds.

But it should be obvious that gravitational force alone could not account for the sudden explosive disintegration of a building like that - some extra force was required to pulverize each 500,000 ton structure, from top to bottom, in about 10 seconds. That this is not widely recognised is testament to the efficacy of propaganda.

Fact: Heavy steel columns were ejected horizontally at high speeds, puncturing nearby buildings and landing hundreds of feet from the base of the towers.

Fact: A pyroclastic surge of pulverized concrete, gypsum and asbestos dust engulfed lower Manhattan, moving at speeds in excess of 60 kph.

Fact: The dust plume contained significant quantities of vapourised iron, which condensed into tiny iron microspheres, only visible under microscope.

Fact: Pools of molten iron were found at the base of the rubble piles and remained molten for many weeks after the towers came down.

Many of these facts are contained in official documents such as the reports from FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Investigation. Most of them can also be observed in readily available video footage and photographs of the event and crime scene.

Furthermore, researchers from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, last month presented a paper in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe.

The paper details evidence of unreacted nano-thermite in the dust from "ground zero". This unusual high energy material is an advanced exothermic compound, similar to thermite and more powerful than dynamite, that can be used for cutting or melting steel, or as an explosive.

You won't hear it from the mainstream media, but skepticism about the official version of 9/11 is widespread and broadly based. There are many organisations, such as Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth and Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth, all calling for a proper investigation of the 9/11 catastrophe.

They want to know how and why the WTC towers spontaneously disintegrated into fine powder and modular lengths of steel after burning for less than two hours, given the buildings were in fact designed to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707.

They contend that much of the real world evidence and fundamental laws of physics refute the official collapse theory and support the controlled demolition theory.


Standard investigative procedures and fire protection codes actually require the sort of analyses that scientists, architects and engineers are calling for, so it's not an unreasonable or controversial demand.

So far, official investigations have failed to look for evidence of controlled demolition, presumably because "we have no reason to suspect it, so why look for evidence of it". They have also declined to investigate the actual "collapse" of the towers, instead limiting their study of evidence from time of impact up to the point at which the towers were "poised to collapse", implying that rapid and complete "collapse", once it began, was natural and inevitable.

The government and corporate media will tell you it's crazy and wrong to question the official conspiracy theory, but remember, real science cannot be fudged... challenging the official dogma is not a sign of madness, it's an act of civic responsibility.