Re: "Shining a Light on the Roots of Terrorism"
http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern11162009.html

Ray,

Letting the "elephant out of the bag" on 9/11 would of course require the word "treason." You're a bright, studied guy. You know this.

Further, if your intent is to fight terrorism, as the article positions itself, then western INTELLIGENCE support for terrorism should be front and center. From Mujahadeen in 1979 to KLA in the 1990s, Jundullah and MEK today, and Alpha 66, death squads on most continents and other seedy CIA connected "terror," this is quite an omission.

Besides the Israeli question -- which is all well and good, but not the whole story by a long shot -- we have US ALLIES supporting Islamic terrorist networks.

Further, these networks could not have accomplished 9/11 or numerous other attacks without treasonous support by US leaders and their allies in the Saudi Arabian government, the Pakistani government and elsewhere. When are your readers going to see an in-depth analysis of these matters, truly the matters that bear on the issue?

The phrase "9/11 TRUTH" has been demonized in the popular media for years. It is a dead term. It has all sorts of negative associations from space beams to tin foil hats to people who shout and interrupt with incoherent messages.

It is dead.

It was never a good marketing term, and it was always open to attack that we are pushing untruth under the banner of "truth."

The term that packs a much better punch is 9/11 Cover-Up. The Cover-Up is more tangible. It can't be immediately dismissed because everyone, and I do mean everyone, accepts that there are covered up aspects that the government has hidden from us.

Cover-Up puts the focus back onto those who are covering up, rather than onto unreliable sources spouting inanities on message boards.

Cover-Up prompts the listener to consider whether to take a side regarding the Cover-Up issue.

Cover-Up suggests a mystery, and piques curiosity.

Cover-Up has an exciting movie quality, that there is more to the plot that we should want to discover.

Cover-Up leaves open the possibility of criminality, and of uncovering more suspects.

Cover-Up can be considered treason in this matter.

Response to:

Anthony DiMaggio
Conspiracy, Inc.: Wild Tales From the Reactionary Right
http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio10302009.html

You can't even provide a reasonable definition of "conspiracy" in your mindless call to ignorance. I also strongly detest your guilt by association approach, as if we are all alike, all incredible, all in the same category because you say so. The smear that people who call out government complicity and cover-up must be from the "reactionary right" is worthy of the drooling neanderthals you hoped to lampoon.

If you had a dictionary handy, you might have learned that conspiracy is any crime involving multiple parties. It's one of the most prosecuted charges in the US by the justice department (sic).

We are to take it -- from you -- a priori that the government never commits crimes. People in the white house, for example, never agree to break the law.

Large mountains of empirical evidence dispute this "theory" you posit. Your position is laughable on its face, of course, and your rant is gibberish.

Response to:

The Education of Bob Baer
Unlearning the CIA
By CHRISTOPHER KETCHAM

Ketcham keeps bolstering the Big Lie by pretending that the incompetence theory of 9/11 has merit. In numerous ways he defends the criminal actions of high level players who have a long history of helping terrorists and funding their networks. While admitting to such practices in the distant past, Ketchum ignores the period leading up to 9/11 as well as the present.

What Ketcham should have grilled Baer about is terrorism by proxy: ISI and Saudi intelligence in particular, (MI6, BND and Mossad also engage in this practice).

It is no longer even denied that ISI created and protected "Al Qaeda," and assists the Taliban to this day, nor is it reasonable to deny that the USA funds the ISI.

Much credible evidence links the Saudi government to the 9/11 hijackers, and we don't hear anything about that, despite Senator Graham's open admissions of the facts. FBI surveillance showed links between a Saudi agent and the Saudi embassy, as he assisted hijackers in San Diego.

Yes, the quest for a new and true investigation of the 9/11 attacks seems like a lost cause. Still, some brave souls go out on a limb and press the issue with politicians and media celebrities. For these brave, persistent souls, I am compiling a list of short, to the point questions to ask...

1. If the president is told, "we're under attack," and he doesn't take on his duties as commander in chief of the military -- is that technically treason ("aid and comfort" to the "enemy")?

2. How many NORAD fighter jets were assigned to protect America on January 20 2001 -- the day Bush took office -- as compared to on 9/11?

3. If the 28 redacted pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 implicate the Saudi Arabian government, as Senator Graham has said, isn't it time to expose this and to tell the American people the truth?

4. If America is fighting a "war" on terrorism, then why are they supporting terrorist groups called "MEK" and "Jundullah" right now, as reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker?

[This Muckraker Report article is apparently not online:

Taking the fat out of the fat bin Laden confession video
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

A PDF version was found here:

http://nuke.crono911.org/Portals.../ muckracker.pdf]

This is a response to Dr. Griffin's article:

Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23691.htm

Oh Dr. Griffin--

You keep making avoidable mistakes and sabotaging your own credibility.

This article has two serious mistakes, that shouldn't be repeated ignorantly. They both go back to the "confession tape."

1) Griffin should know by now that the video was converted and so the aspect ratio was changed. The PAL (European standard) to NTSC (American standard) conversion squishes the vertical by 17%. This is the reason the "actor" did not appear to be Osama bin Laden. Once the video frames are converted back to their proper ratio, they appear to be exactly Osama bin Laden. This was while he was still alive in September or October of 2001.

Study this article carefully:

http://nuke.crono911.org/Portals.../ muckracker.pdf

9/11 Untruth Petition

Revision to the 2004 Statement
(please distribute widely)

We Don't Want Real Answers About 9/11

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (50.7%) of New York City residents and 59% of those in New York state believed US leaders did not have foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks or "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 34% did not call for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

In connection with this news, and the mindless propaganda of outlets like Fox News, we hereby ridicule calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions concerning 9/11, and we demand punishment for anyone who suggest that people within the Bush administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen as pretexts for wars.

We do not in any way want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

A Few Words About the 9/11 Truth Movement
Aha!

"Paul Krassner is the editor of The Realist. His books include: Pot Stories for the Soul, One Hand Jerking and Murder at the Conspiracy Convention. He can be reached through his website: http://paulkrassner.com/"

Subject: what a completely idiotic and useless bit of propaganda

If the matters weren't so serious, it would be just another sad joke.

Again, Mr. debunker9978451236,

I'll spell it out for you.

The focus of your attack piece was not the 9/11 COVER-UP, which is clearly the elephant in the room and undeniable, even by you. No, the focus was some fringe people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who you use to malign the entire movement in a guilt by association attack.

"Supreme Court quashes 9/11 lawsuit against Saudis"

"...That was more or less the position of the Obama administration as well, which sided with the [SAUDIS] and urged the courts to dismiss the lawsuit."

"...Among the documents were a statement from an Al Qaeda operative in Bosnia who said the Saudi High Commission had funded the terrorist group in the 1990s, and evidence from the U.S. Treasury Department that a Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, had been financially supporting Al Qaeda as recently as 2006."

I'm not surprised that the little people of the world, the victims, have no say in international affairs. This is quite blatant and is essentially the status quo. The famous quote by Nazi Air Marshall Herman Goering is relevant here:

This isn't about 9/11 directly, but about the environment we operate in today.

Google is doing "evil."

Friends and acquaintances,

I may have to abandon The Crimes of the State Blog, hosted on blogger, a subsidiary of google. I can no longer get logged in without it kicking me off of TOR (The Onion Router), therefore it appears to be trying to compromise my anonymity.

Google has long been set to not search for certain types of IP ranges, such as anonymous browsers and those on TOR. The company actively denies service to those it can't track. This is a fascistic approach, and a fascistic mindset that is in direct violation of their supposed company policy to "not do evil."

This is indicative of a complete surveillance culture that affects us all, and will do so for the rest of our lives.

Jones vs. Obama

Ten trillion dollars looted in a matter of months, the imminent collapse of the US economy, mandatory compulsory "national security" paramilitary "service" openly demanded... Is it worth 2 hours of your time to investigate these matters critically?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195

Alex Jones' new documentary is out, online for free. Jones tends to be hyperbolic and acerbic.

If, however, even ten percent of what he says is true, we are fucked.

We should support Senator Leahy's proposal for a "Truth Commission" despite its toothless appearance. I will respond to Jesse Richard's (TVNewsLies) accusation that such a commission would be a "sham."

I agree with Richard that it has all the potential of being a "white wash" and ineffectual, but we must pursue this and support it anyway.

"Eric H. Holder Jr. was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States on February 3, 2009 by Vice-President Joe Biden." -US Department of Justice website

Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Attorney General Eric H. Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With each change of personnel, there is the chance -- however slight -- that the new appointee will NOT be okay with high treason perpetrated by the former regime.

It is incumbent upon us to contact and to inform the new Attorney General of the facts of the case in the simplest, most easily digestible terms. This is not a place for conspiracy theories, claims that cannot be proven, or sloppy language.

It is a place for simple, straightforward facts that indicate wrongdoing on the part of Bush et al.

[Contacts:

White House

202-456-1111, 202-456-1414

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Attorney General

202-353-1555,

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Inspector General

oig.hotline@usdoj.gov,

inspector.general@usdoj.gov

National Security Division

nsd.public@usdoj.gov

Additional contacts at end.]

COMPLAINT

Notice of High Treason perpetrated by former President George Walker Bush and
other members of his Administration relating to the Terrorist Attacks of September
11th, 2001 ("9/11").

1. Applicable law: US Code Title 18, Chapter 115, § 2382. Misprision
of treason.

MEDUSA, INDEED
Crimes of the State Blog

"Conspiracism is raising its Medusa’s head again, her lethal visage wreathed with hissing absurdities, immobilizing judgement, melting intellect to pumice." --Alexander Cockburn (ignoring all evidence that is contrary to his irrational biases)

Blather at new heights of cognitive dissonance over at CounterPunch this weekend. Cockburn uses the term "conspiracism", as if that were a real thing, to mock any and all comers, even in a piece about the minutiae of some Wall Street fraud (Bernie Madoff).

But how can he get away with this childish mocking about the JFK assassination, without having to address even one piece of evidence at all?

Here is the entirety of what Cockburn says about "conspiracism" and the JFK assassination in that piece: