Was The US Government Alerted To September 11 Attack? - Part 2
by Patrick Martin Enron And The Bush Administration: Kindred Spirits In Fraud And Criminality
by David Walsh Guilty for 9-11: Section 3: Bush in the Open
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel The Fairness Doctrine
by Bill O'Reilly
CNN: Prisoner of Its Own Mirrors
by John L. Perry
Does America Have A Future?
by Phyllis Schlafly
Michael Pugliese
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message: 1 Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:52:32 -0500 From: Jay Fenello <jay at fenello.com> Subject: Re: conspiracies everywhere you look?
FYI:
At 1/18/02 12:09 PM, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>===========================================================================
=
>From: BBlum6 at aol.com
>Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:32:46 EST
>Subject: Re: 9-11
>To: richard at cyberjournal.org
>
>Richard,
>
>We don't really have an argument in theory. I've already
>said there's nothing I'd put past the USG. But I still
>reserve the right to judge each case as it comes along.
>What's the alternative? And where would that lead one?
>
>In solidarity,
>Bill
>
>PS Thanks again for the globalization-imperialism
>comparison. It's a great help, a brilliant crystallization.
> I forget, what ever happened to your book plans?
>Serialized in journals instead?
>
>==========
>
>Dear Bill,
>
>re/ book plans:
>
>I'll post another message tomorrow about book plans. I'd welcome feedback.
>
>---
>
>re/ globalization-imperialism comparison:
>
>It was honor to receive that query from you, and it's
>probably the topic that has been at the center of my work.
>I've found that the many differences - between globalization
>and the long-running regime that preceded it - serve as
>indicators to reveal the essential structures of both the
>old and new regimes.
>
>---
>
>re/ conspiracies:
>
>You said:
> > We don't really have an argument in theory. I've already
> said there's nothing I'd put past the USG. But I still
> reserve the right to judge each case as it comes along.
> What's the alternative? And where would that lead one?
>
>Yes of course, every case must be judged on its own merits.
>That's exactly what I do. But you're not the only one who
>assumes that I have a knee-jerk 'blame a conspiracy'
>reaction. But there's a reason why this particular period of
>history is conspiracy rich. The fact is that we are now in
>a rapid-move chess game - the final construction phase of a
>new world order. And since the creation of this new order
>is not something the media talks about, or that officials
>acknowledge, every one of the chess moves is bound to be
>more or less conspiratorial. You ignore the game at your
>peril; but if you pay attention to the moves, then you are
>observing lots of conspiracies.
>
>For example, it is plain to see that the Patriot
>(Anti-Terrorism) Bill is aimed at stifling dissent and
>suppressing opposition - a kind of neo-McCarthyism only
>worse. Even if the Bill is 'opportunistic' - and the WTC
>disaster was unexpected - these police state measures are
>nonetheless conspiratorial. The cover story is terrorism,
>and the real objective is tighter control over the
>population.
>
>And we've been building up to this police-state regime for
>some time, with the 'war on drugs' and the erosion of civil
>liberties which accompanied that. That too was
>conspiratorial - the cover story was fighting drugs, the
>reality was undermining the Bill of Rights. How could a
>government seriously fight drugs, when its CIA is deeply
>involved in managing the global drug trade, and when its
>leading banks are busy laundering drug money?
>
>Similarly, it is plain to see that the current wave of
>military interventionism is aimed at achieving geopolitical
>/ economic objectives. We all know about the importance of
>Caspian oil, and the need for a secure pipeline. If it were
>really terrorists they were going after, they'd be starting
>with Saudi Arabia, where the alleged hijackers mostly came
>from. But, no, the oil of Saudi Arabia is already being
>adequately managed. Thus, Bush's interventionism as a whole
>is a conspiratorial venture. Under the cover story of
>terrorism, military and economic objectives are being
>pursued.
>
>And again, we've been building up to this intensified
>interventionist climate for some time. I date the project
>back to the invasions of Grenada and Panama. Those were the
>prototypes: blitzkrieg warfare, minimal American casualties,
>managed media coverage, phony excuses, and most of the real
>objectives accomplished via so-called 'collateral damage'
>incidents. Iraq provided the testing ground for refining
>the technology, the media coverage, and the apparent
>seduction of global public opinion. All of this is
>conspiratorial activity, and it paved the way for the
>devastation of Yugoslavia and now Afghanistan.
>
>Yes, judge each case on its merits - a knee-jerk response is
>inappropriate whether it be for or against conspiracies.
>What most people seem to do is to take everything that sounds
>at all like a high-level conspiracy, and put it in a general
>'dubious' category - "could be true, could be false, no way
>to know, forget it." This is a knee-jerk reaction in the
>direction of 'know nothingness'.
>
>It is like putting on a blindfold while crossing a highway.
>You can't see what's going on, even though you can feel the
>rumble of danger all around you. I've tried to show above
>that lots of obvious conspiracies are going on all the time.
> ~Standard~ government procedure is to pursue unannounced
>objectives, and to justify each action by some kind of phony
>PR explanation. If we recognize how prevalent such
>conspiracies are - so prevalent that we take them for
>granted and don't think of them as conspiracies - then we
>can begin to take a more objective attitude in examining
>more controversial cases.
>
>Those who adopt the common 'know nothing' strategy exile
>themselves to the matrix, a land of illusion, where the real
>demons can be neither seen nor overcome.
>
>all the best,
>rkm
>
>===========================================================================
=
>From: BBlum6 at aol.com
>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:31:13 EST
>Subject: follow-up query
>To: rkmoore at iol.ie
>
>Richard,
>
>I need a clarification. Re your conspiracy theory
>concerning Sept. 11: At what point in the scenario do you
>mean to imply that the USG authorities became aware of the
>true nature of the terrorists' plan? While it was still in
>the planning stage? When they boarded the planes? After the
>first plane crashed? Or when?
>
>The degree of culpability of the USG, and the degree of
>conspiracy, are a function of the answer to this question,
>wouldn't you agree?
>
>=============
>
>Dear Bill,
>
>I must protest your use of this term 'conspiracy theory'.
>When Bush says that Al Qeada conspired to attack the WTC, we
>don't call that a 'conspiracy theory'. Instead, we say
>something like, "He has identified the most likely suspect."
>Every investigation of a crime (involving more than one
>person) is an investigation into who conspired with whom,
>and we don't usually accuse the police of engaging in
>'conspiracy theories' when they try to solve a bank robbery.
>Why do you and others pull out the dismissive term
>'conspiracy theory' when the suspects happen to hold high
>office in a Western nation? Certainly it isn't because such
>people never conspire!
>
>In solving any crime, we look at the possible scenarios,
>eliminate those that don't fit the facts, and then examine
>more closely the remaining alternatives...
>
> Scenario 1: Al Qeada managed to plan and carry out the WTC
> attack, completely surprising everyone, and air defenses
> bungled their response through incompetence or red tape of
> some kind.
>
> This scenario just doesn't match the facts. I won't
> enumerate the inconsistencies yet again, as we've published
> numerous very credible analyses, including the one about
> 'cover stories' to which you are responding. Nonetheless,
> this is the scenario that nearly everyone in the world seems
> willing to accept. Boggles the mind.
>
>
> Scenario 2: Al Qeada managed to hijack the planes,
> completely surprising everyone, and Bush (or the CIA or
> whoever) opportunistically decided to let the attack proceed
> so they could pursue their own objectives.
>
> I've never seen anyone put this scenario forward until you
> did above, and it doesn't make any sense. No one would have
> known what the targets were, and no one could be sure the
> outcome would fit their hastily concocted plans. And no one
> could respond so quickly to such an unexpected emergency and
> pull together in a few hours a consensus at the highest
> levels to follow such a risky path.
>
>
> Scenario 3: The CIA (or other intelligence agency) got wind
> of Al Qeada's plans early on and this came to the attention
> of the highest levels in Washington. A decision was made to
> covertly nurture the project so that it could be used as an
> 'outrage incident' to justify unlimited interventionism and
> the installation of a police state. While Al Qeada was
> proceeding with its plans, Washington was putting together
> its plans for the follow-up.
>
> This scenario fits all of the facts, and is consistent with
> the standard US protocol for engaging in major acts of war -
> used in ~every~ war the US has ever been involved in. It
> explains why FBI investigations of Al Qeada were squashed
> from Washington, why bin Laden was not arrested when the
> opportunity was presented (multiple times), why standard air
> defense measures were not followed, why Bush and other high
> officials sat out the whole affair, why the identity of the
> perpetrators and their organization were known within hours,
> and why the War on Terrorism was fully worked out and funded
> within days of the attack. Finally, Washington's motives
> for this scenario are all too clear.
>
>
>Why do you dismiss scenario 3 as a fanciful 'conspiracy
>theory', when it is the other scenarios that beggar belief?
> I can only explain that as 'sheep mentality', and I know
>that doesn't apply to you. Please explain!
>
>rkm
>
>===========================================================================
=
>Delivered-To: moderator for cj at cyberjournal.org
>From: BBlum6 at aol.com
>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:59:57 EST
>Subject: Re: Why not seek reform??
>To: cj at cyberjournal.org
>
>Richard,
>
>Can you please give me one or two examples of what you mean
>here?
> > You'd need to withdraw from most of the free trade
> treaties, which are designed specifically to prevent the
> kind of reforms we're talking about here.
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>
>==========
>
>Bill,
>
>Unlike the question about globalization vs. imperialism, I'm
>surprised you ask this one. Isn't it obvious? Let's start
>with the WTO. The WTO gets its authority from free-trade
>treaties, beginning with the Uruguay Round of negotiations
>(1995?). The WTO has the authority to overturn any member
>nation's laws if they are deemed to be 'restrictions on
>trade'. It has in fact exercised this authority on many
>occasions, as when it forced the US to permit dangerous
>additives in gasoline. The whole point of free-trade
>treaties is to prevent national governments from regulating
>or restricting the activity of corporations. Withdrawing
>from these treaties would be the obvious first step for any
>nation which wanted to seriously reform its economy and
>bring it back under national control. This is so obvious
>that I must have misunderstood your question.
>
>puzzled,
>rkm
>
>--
>
>===========================================================================
=
>Richard K Moore
>Wexford, Ireland
>Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
>email: cdr at cyberjournal.org
>website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org
>content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/
>
> "A Guidebook: How the world works and how we can change it"
> http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/
>
> A community will evolve only when
> the people control their means of communication.
> -- Frantz Fanon
>
> Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of capital for the
> acquisition of profit. Capitalism is a carnivore. It
> cannot be made over into a herbivore without gutting it,
> i.e., abolishing it.
> - Warren Wagar, Professor of History, State University
> of New York at Binghamton
>
>Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT
>include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
>and notices - including this one.
+++
Jay Fenello, Internet Coaching http://www.Fenello.com ... 678-585-9765 http://www.YourWebPartner.com ... Web Support http://www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World