9/11: The Bush-League Version of Pearl Harbor?

Source: freezerbox.com

12.21.2006 04:16

The trouble with means to an end is that it always seems to end mean.

When the 9/11 Truth Movement proposes that the Bush administration, or elements thereof, aided and abetted 9/11, the first reaction is often: "I just can't picture our government doing that."

Most are unaware of decorated World War II veteran Robert Stinnett's groundbreaking "Day of Deceit," which, with chilling documentation, demonstrates that Franklin Roosevelt not only allowed Pearl Harbor to occur, but instigated it. FDR wasn't the first leader to ruthlessly nudge developing events into a war. Nor was he the last.

Try citing that precedent while engaged in a dialogue about 9/11's inconsistencies. In the process of discounting 9/11 alternate history as a conspiracy, your counterpart is likely to reply: "If that's true, at least he did it for his country."

Oh, I get it. A good president is capable of using horrible means to an end he deems deserving. But a bad president like Bush (or his people) would never resort to something like that.

"I just can't picture our government doing that." or something

similar is exactly what the general public thinks when they stumble upon some 9/11 truth for the first time. The problem is that almost all of them stop right there & do no further research.

We've got to get the truth out faster! Recent "chatter" on the web is seriously indicating that nut-job Bush is going to do an insane "blitzkrieg" on Iran or Syria in the very near future!


Iran and Giuliani

Part of me thinks an invasion of Iran would be good for 9/11 Truth. Obviously, the human toll would be horrible, and it would certainly mean the end of America; however, it would also add another episode of insanity to the Bush presidency, and for those not already convinced the neocons are dangerous fanatics capable of orchestrating 9/11, the invasion of Iran might make them reconsider.

Other than an official military draft, another unwise and illegal invasion might be the only thing to push America into the civil revolt it desperately needs. The more unrest, the more people are willing to entertain the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's like Giuliani's run for president. In a way, that would be good for 9/11 Truth because it would keep 9/11 in the public eye, at least in the form of a face from that day.

It's unfortunate to have to think this way, but obviously many people don't feel compelled to do anything until they feel more directly affected by the lunacy of the elites.

Show "Stinnett's book was long ago" by Mark Roberts

Take your pick

As with so many things you write, Mark, even if you are right, there are still many examples of American false flag terrorism. That said, I am not conceding that Stinnett's book is wrong.

The point of the post, however, is that the whole mentality of "our government would never do such a thing" is dangerously naive, and history demonstrates this to be so.