911 and 77 (21)
This article is a follow on from my article about what it means if it was a missile and not a plane that struck the Pentagon which is here If it was a missile and not a plane that struck the Pentagon then what does that tell us?
If you have made up your own mind and come to the same pretty obvious conclusions as I do then you don't any longer have any doubts about what it means and more specifically you understand that there were no terrorists in the sense that we have all been led to believe and I put it like that because 911 was undoubtedly a terror act to some degree but with some differences for example terrorists of the usual kind want to maximise injuries not minimise them.
But there were no terrorists in the accepted sense and the US government knew it because they must have known that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and they would have been well aware what that meant, who could have launched it for example.
Nevertheless we have had five years of relentless military strikes. Afghanistan was first and then Iraq.
Both were sold to the public using arguments which as far as the war on terror goes were known by those putting forward those arguments to be entirely false.
The additional argument for Iraq was WMDs. Weapons of mass destruction. This turned out to be false too. Iraq had none.
I ask you, if Saddam Hussein knew he had nothing to hide then why did he not make it obvious to the world when he had the chance to do so? Surely he would have backed down, wouldn't he? I think he most likely did try to because he was good at military gamesmanship but the US agenda had nothing to do with what he did or didn't have hidden and whether he did or didn't allow inspectors in.
There is evidence that he went to a lot of trouble to to allow the weapons inspectors back in and one person who has been trying to talk about this has been silenced by the US government and you can look up, for example, Susan Lindauer and learn that he most likely did try to do that.
What can we reasonably surmise?
In my view, that the US military in the guise of the US government, was intent on destroying Iraq just as it was to destroy Afghanistan. All of that must have been pre-planned prior to 911 and the rationality fed to the public is merely a plausible set of excuses for carrying out that mission.
As I write this it is obvious, at long last, to me, that Iran, no matter what it does to acquiesce is next in line.
Why this insane invasion and destruction of more or less innocent countries?
You have to grasp that this is a military mind-set that is now in charge and it is a military mind-set that, the evidence shows this, the usual rules, standards, codes, laws and even basic human regard for each other as just that, other human beings is not one that they share.
What we have done over the decades is to feed a monster which we created and kept because we were afraid of the enemy at the gate. So the monster is the military and military intelligence to begin with. It was then joined by agencies that are neither government exactly nor are they military exactly but a kind of mongrel dog that government and military produce as a result of spending too much time in bed with each other.
That monster was kept in a cage to some extent but it was also allowed to not only see everything that was going on but was in overall charge of keeping the most important information secret. 9-11 means that it has managed to get out of it's cage. That's one way to look at the missile strike.
But it is worse than that because, and all the signs show this, it has put it's own chains on those who kept it in it's cage and now the roles are reversed. This is what we call the media. Now it barks and makes noises according to what the monster kicks it into announcing to us as the public. In this way, at least, we can say that it's claws are controlling the "news" machines.
But it's not all one-sided. We can tease it and play irritating games with it because we can move faster than it can. What do I mean by this? Well, just watch as evidence pops up somewhere. You will see a short delay and then it, puff, is gone.
An example? Well the internet.
So they, erm, the monster, will try to silence the internet at some point, right? That's how I see it.
Can they actually do that? First you can be sure they want to because all that they have done and all that they are doing and all that they plan to do is not only illegal and seriously criminal but consists of the most abominable and inhuman atrocities ever committed. But if they could then they would but they haven't so does that mean they can't unplug the internet?
What is happening is a progressive set of steps towards objectives established maybe ten or twenty years ago and to minimise the public obstructing those plans it is necessary to proceed cautiously to some extent and unplugging the internet would set in motion a huge wave of global uprising before it can be dealt with so unless they have no choice then it is safe to say that they will simply knock down the more troublesome web sites and the more revealing videos and that kind of thing.
And who, using the internet daily, isn't aware that this is happening? terrorize.dk, for instance, where did that go? Umpteen informative videos, you know where to find them, why do they disappear?
The monster is loose. It is intelligent. It is controlling the "news" systems. It is knocking down internet content. It is silencing people.
I have no doubts at all that each one of us has amazing power to put a stop to it.
It is a nightmare but it is one that you can influence; each one of us can help make sanity prevail.
Paul E. Coughlin, February/March 2007
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
