9/11 and American Empire Vol. II: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out - a short review

Following hot on the heels of 9/11 and American Empire Vol. I: Intellectuals Speak Out comes Vol. II: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out.

Co-edited by Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb Jr., and Sandra Lubarsky, Vol. II succeeds on several levels.

First, the quality of writing and serious contemplative nature of each essay builds on what has been an amazing year for written output about 9/11. Second, apart from Griffin's volume, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, Vol. II sets a standard for frank discussion of morality in the shadow of the US hegemon (in the wake of 9/11). Third, for someone who is devoutly or moderately religious, but has not examined the events of 9/11 in a critical light, Vol. II packs a powerful punch. Informed by Griffin's informative rundown of False Flag terrorism, and Nafeez Ahmed's thoroughly documented reinterpretation of "international terrorism", one cannot walk away from this book without being a little bit wiser about the Machiavellian nature of the War on Terror and the historical roots of state-sponsored terrorism.

With Barrett's name on the lips of Wisconsin politicians and attack dogs on FOX News, his notoriety is assured. Cobb is known and respected as a pioneer in the fusion of Process Thought and Christianity. Lubarsky seems to have come on board with the other two editors via her association with David Ray Griffin; she co-edited a volume with him called Jewish Theology and Process Thought. Griffin is also a Process Theologian, so we can say that Alfred North Whitehead is well represented here.

Other notable authors also contribute to Vol. II, not least the rabbi Michael Lerner, whose short piece reveals his willingness to contemplate the worst about 9/11, and also reveals his prior experience with infiltration of a political organization by agents of the state. Sage advice for the naive.

Vol. II makes for an interesting primer to all three religions, with discussion inspired by the notion that 9/11 was a catalyst for geopolitical maneuvering that most Americans would not support without such a catalyst. It turns out that there is a lot of common ground for people of faith to stand on, to examine their priorities and formulate a response to 9/11 that is not afraid to stand apart from the Imperial ambitions of a "New Rome".

Much of the value of the book can only be transmitted by a first-hand reading. The subjective nature of the 9/11 experience informed by each author's religious worldview is a welcome addition to the growing library of 9/11 skepticism.

More on the authors is posted at the MUJCA website:

is blog posting disabled? I've tried twice.

Books like this should be free PDFs.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Here's some free pdf's

The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Brzenzinski
Rule By Secrecy, by Jim Marrs
Tragedy and Hope, by Carrol Quigley
Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception, by Danny Schechter
Why Government Doesn't Work, by Harry Browne

i really must meet Griffin

i really must meet Griffin someday just to shake his hand and thank him.

Me Too

Ditto, I'd like to meet him. It was his first book which utterly convinced me that our government is lying and covering something up. I was suspicious before I read his book, but he really brought it all home for me. He did so in a methodical manner which is beyond the crazies which distract so much of the 911 Truth from seeing the light of day. Thank You David Ray Griffin.

Letterman's O'Reilly Smackdown

Bill O'Reilly clashed with David Letterman during his appearance on The Late Show Friday night. Letterman took O'Reilly to task for his over-simplified views and "bonehead" remarks.

At one point, O'Reilly tried to spin Letterman's frustration with the complexities of the Iraq war, saying "It isn't so black and white, Dave. It isn't, 'We're a bad country, Bush is an evil liar.'"

Letterman interrupted to correct O'Reilly, "I didn't say we were a bad country, I didn't say he was an evil liar. You're putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head."


When O Reilly asked if

When O Reilly asked if Letterman wanted the U.S. to win, Letterman should have said "that's not a black and white question, Iraq is a complex situation."

he pretty much turned it

he pretty much turned it around on him. he said something like-"oh, IM the one thats being simplistic?". Leno sucks, Letterman rules. and thats now a common tactic of the rightwing tv tools, asking-"do you want the US to win?". ive heard this question asked a lot recently by many rightwing talkers. funny how they are ALWAYS on the same page with their talking points huh?

Another possible response to those people on the right.

Define what winning means?

Or remind what their president said....

Or remind them that George W. Bush told us "The War on Terrorism could not be won".




It is so infantile, this business about "winning" - it's a kid's worldview, black and white, extended into world politics! America, right or wrong. And then what are "we" "winning"? How can anybody win when everybody else loses? That is the paradigm of the neocons. But still, there's no sense of what it means, because it's entirely simplistic.

Sometimes I think the right-wing throws out questions or statements that are so incredibly outrageous, we don't know where to begin. And not "we" as in 9/11 skeptics or progressives, but any rational, adult person.


This 'winning' question is absolutely ridiculous. Very much a kids worldview indeed. What was the price again? And whats the current score, btw?

Win What?

A war with Iraq? We invaded Iraq based on Lies, or for the biggest mistake in the history of intelligence (which I seriously doubt). We are not there to win anything. We are there by accident and because the Administration told us and everyone in congress that Saddam was ready to send Nukes to the US. That is it, no other way around it. If it is the War on Terror O'llilly is refferring to winning, then we have to tell him we've given up the Bush and his disastrous and misguided plan to deal with terrorism. Bush has spent 500 Billoion bucks killed hundred of thousands of innocents and thousand of our soldiers because he made a mistake and invaded the wrong country, and al queda is and terrorism is getting larger. Do we "...want the USA to win?" is a joke. At this point we want the USA to survive. Ask Silly Billy O'lilly if he wants the US to win.


Lynn Cheney just asked the same thing of CNN over its "Broken Government" specials.

we want Bush to lose

it's very simple, but apparently too complicated for neocon apologists:
We want Bush to lose, to lose with everything he does, we curse him, we want him and his accomplices in jail, sooner rather than later, jail for life after exposing the truth about him to every single one of earth's inhabitants that was fed the 9/11 lie, that in the words of Bush himself "we must never forget".
Then as far as the U.S. is concerned, we want it to WIN, but not in a war that Bush started and that he would only profit from, no, we want the country to win by becoming cleaner, more honest, more respected, more feared by evildoers, less feared by goodwilling people, more productive. The only way to do this in the mess right now is 9/11 truth, it's the absolute one and only way out of the situation.

And not just BUSH, IMHO

It's time the Empire loses. And that's the whole damn "system" under which and through which we must threaten and decimate the world. With our "converging catastrophes", the crash will come and we'll have to pick up the pieces and start re-imagining life as an interdependent, conscious enterprise.

Is Bill O'Reilly a

Is Bill O'Reilly a bonehead?
Yes, totally 52%
No, not at all 41%
No, he's just confused 6%
Total Votes: 55,692