[lbo-talk] RE: consider the following:

paul childs npchilds at shaw.ca
Mon Jun 21 09:48:50 PDT 2004



>she told me, as several other witnesses told me, that she had
>been personally intimidated, on a weekly basis, by the FBI, into keeping her
>mouth shut, and not talking, about what she knew. And the reason for that
>becomes apparent when you see what she knew.

Okay, so these guys were aware of a plot that would; kill thousands and involve a known terrorist and relative of the Royal House of Saud, blow a major hole in civil air defence and induce the worst national trauma since Pearl Harbor and part of their response is to 'intimidate' a stripper on a weekly basis (sounds like scheduled appointments to me; 'Hey Bill, it’s 2:30 Wednesday, time to lean on that peeler again so she doesn't blow the lid off us knowing that 9/11 was going to happen!'). And this makes sense because the hijackers acted liked stereotypical working class Americans, not like the other 'Islamic fundamentalists' they have heard about. Does the former Bishop of Boston sound like any other Catholic bishop you've heard about? Okay, maybe that's a bad example........

What color is the atmosphere on the planet where the people who come up with these theories live?

I can’t tell if I me getting bored or annoyed with this but let me offer you an alternative set of assumptions;

1. The security apparatus knew something was in the works, but given the panoply of options they had no idea what or how bad it would be. 2. Not having any idea what was going to happen they had no idea who to watch or why. Bureaucratic inertia and turf protection ensure that no information is shared and some (now) painfully obvious connections are not made. 3. On September 11, 2001, when things start going from bad to horrifically worse over the space of 1 hour no one knows exactly what to do, after all this isn’t the Russkies attacking over the pole or Seoul South Korea getting nuked with artillery, things the security apparatus actually trained for. 4. The Bush administration with an ideological axe to grind and a pathological need to invade Iraq takes advantage of the chaos and fear that follows to invade Afghanistan and clean up that fundamentalist mess left behind after the Soviets pulled out, then start building the case to invade Iraq. At the same time their mallet headed Attorney General gets to pass laws that increase the police powers of the state in ways he has dreamed of for years, so he can finally deal with those people who thought rule of law and the bill of rights actually meant something. 5. March 2003, relying on fear, uncertainty, doubt, questionable/dubious and outright false intelligence and the same coercive approach to foreign policy that dominated the pre-9/11 period, they invade Iraq.

Which brings me to my last point; take a look at the Mongolian Cluster Fuck that is the current and future Iraq and ask yourself, are these people who could pull of the slaughter of 9/11 and keep it quiet? By intimidating strippers?

Occam’s razor. It’s not just an obscure product from Gillette.

N P Childs

P.S. They intimidated the stripper and the ‘several other witnesses’ (to what?) because of points 1 and 2 above. Like the FBI etc. are real proud of what happened and want it advertised.

'I'm Mister Bad Example, the stranger in the dirt, I like to have a good time and I don't care who gets hurt'.

-Mr. Bad Example, W Zevon



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list