Winnipeg Sun: War on Terror Looks Like a Fraud
Sat, 2007-04-14 20:48
#1
Winnipeg Sun: War on Terror Looks Like a Fraud
Sat, 2007-04-14 20:48
#2
After the recent death of more Canadian troops in Afghanistan, the editor of the [url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Gleeson_John/2007/04/13/40020... Sun[/url] has called the war on terror "an undeniable fraud."
quote:
Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.
quote:
With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?
Too much evidence has come out making the official version of 9/11 untenable and absurd. Yet, Canadian troops are in Afghanistan based solely on this official lie. I would demand our government call an independent criminal investigation into the attacks of that day. Washington lied to go into Iraq - an outright war-crime - and I believe them not merely capable but guilty of staging false terror attacks on 9/11 to frighten congress, the american public, and Canada, into supporting its imperial designs in the Middle East.
Those who would have our troops removed from Afghanistan must address the root cause, and demand Ottawa investigate the US claim that it was the 'terrorists' and not a self-inflicted wound.
Sat, 2007-04-14 20:53
#3
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
[b]From the Sun: Our young men are worth more than that...[/b]
Nichola Goddard isn't worth more than that?
Oh well, I shouldn't be too critical. For the Winnipeg Sun to take such a stand, the revolution must be just around the corner...
Sat, 2007-04-14 21:30
#4
This Sun article quotes Mother Jones as a source; and doesn't ridicule it.
Maybe the revolution has already started. I hear car stereos outside my window ....
Sat, 2007-04-14 22:37
#5
God it would be so tempting to say "I told ya so" (and 4 years ago as well) but I won't.
The Blind are starting to see and the Deaf are starting to hear. For this a loud "Hosanna" oh Lord!!!!
Congratulations to the Winnipeg Sun for waking up from a deep neo con sleep. Or is it mass mind control instead?
Sat, 2007-04-14 22:53
#6
wiht the advent of the internet, people can get information presto... that means lease blind obedience to the capitalist system of wars....
The media has tried and we stopped buying thier papers... so now the cracks are starting to show ....
Sun, 2007-04-15 06:52
#7
Well, there have been three images lately that have really turned the tide.
The U.N. ambassador reacting to a rocket attack in the Green Zone.
John McCain making a complete ass of himself regarding the safety of Americans in Baghdad.
And the suicide bombing in the Iraqi parliament building cafeteria.
The supporters of the war have run out of places to move the goal posts too, and one cannot advocate the war without being a complete, raving lunatic.
Sun, 2007-04-15 07:15
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b] one cannot advocate the war without being a complete, raving lunatic.[/b]
Are you suggesting that George W. is ... yeah I guess you are.
Sun, 2007-04-15 07:56
#9
Like Rex Murphy, I am not embarassed to disclose my talent for the obvious. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-05-31 06:12
#10
Barrie Zwicker (author of Towers of Deception) was in town the last two days presenting, with [url=http://ae911truth.org]Architects and Engineers for Truth [/url] speaker Richard Gage, at the University of Manitoba and Hotel Fort Garry. Last night he held a sold-out public "town hall" meeting to address media silence on 9/11 including former Free Press reporter Dallas Hansen, media reform advocate and journalist Leslie Hughes, and alternative media reporter Jim Sanders.
They used another article by Gleeson
[url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Gleeson_John/2007/04/18/40558..."Scholars debate 9/11 findings"[/url] as a talking point. Gleeson published this one in the Sun on April 17th - his last day at the paper.
[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: jas ]
Thu, 2007-05-31 06:22
#11
quote:
April 17th - his last day at the paper
Gee wonder why he left [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-05-31 06:30
#12
I guess Khimia believes the War on Terror is legit.
Gleeson had been told 3 or 4 weeks earlier that he would be leaving. It seems to be only under these conditions that journalists can get published what they actually believe.
[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: jas ]
Thu, 2007-05-31 07:07
#13
9/11 conspiracy nonsense does not merit inclusion in any legitimate media outlet. I suspect his editors gave him the rope he used to hang himself, his credibilty is now Zero.
Thu, 2007-05-31 07:16
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Khimia:
9/11 conspiracy nonsense does not merit inclusion in any legitimate media outlet.
Hence the code of silence. The defenders of the official story often ask: where is all the media outcry if the alternative theories are correct? Then in the next breath they say: those theories don't merit inclusion. Some consistency would be great. Also a real argument instead of knee-jerk second- and third-hand criticism.
quote:
I suspect his editors gave him the rope he used to hang himself, his credibilty is now Zero.
You "suspect"? But you don't actually know, do you?
Thu, 2007-05-31 08:06
#15
N.Beltov
The War "on Terror" is a fraud regardless of the true causes of the events of September 11, 2001. It seems to me to be [i]a service to the proponents of that fraudulent war[/i] to link criticism of it to a particular interpretation of the events of 9-11.
I'm getting more and more agnostic about the orthodox interpretation. But my views about the fraud remain the same as they were when General Richard Myers uttered the words, "There is no limit to our bombing campaign" in the fall of 2001 during the indiscriminate attack on Afghanistan.
Thu, 2007-05-31 08:49
#16
It's not difficult to find a number of phony motives for this war - there are many out there. The anomalies around the WTC collapses can be discussed separately of course, but the alleged attacks were the catalyst for this war, so it's only natural, if there is suggestion of complicity or inside conspiracy, that motive might also be examined. If you're suggesting that investigating the physical anomalies of the WTC collapses is still considered "wacky" and "nutbar" and thereby makes other critiques appear wacky and nutbar, I don't know what to say to that - get working?
But to ask others to "please be quiet on the physical events of 9/11 so the 'real' leftists can come to a proper conclusion about this phony war" isn't really valid or realistic either. The Bin-laden conspiracy theorists aren't exactly getting any closer to the truth. Are they?
Thu, 2007-05-31 09:01
#17
quote:
9/11 conspiracy nonsense does not merit inclusion in any legitimate media outlet
What about investigating why the US air defense, which had never before allowed a rouge aircraft to wander around the country without being intercepted within fifteen minutes, mysteriously didn't materialise, allowing these planes over an hour to reach their targets? Does that constitute the "conspiracy nonsense" that you mean? God forbid we should wonder what went wrong, especially since it points directly back to the Bush administration.
Good boy, Khimia. Asking questions is unpatriotic.
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:53
#18
If the Bush Administration was able to manufacture 9/11, why weren't they able to produce a little bit of weapons grade Uranium in Iraq? Surely dropping some guys in the desert and building a little "nuclear weapons make facility" would have been easier, in a country they controlled, then getting three planes to fly into buildings? This is my problem with 9/11 conspiracies. How good they go from being to smart about orchestrating 9/11 to being so dumb about not orchestrating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:55
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
[b]What about investigating why the US air defense, which had never before allowed a rouge aircraft to wander around the country without being intercepted within fifteen minutes, mysteriously didn't materialise, allowing these planes over an hour to reach their targets?
[/b]
This statement is not true. The simplest known case of an interception inside American airspace was Payne Stewart's aircraft. Flying straight and level on a known course the interception took 90 minutes.
Why are you telling these lies?
Thu, 2007-05-31 14:05
#20
If fighters were held on the ground where are the statements from all the people involved? There would be air traffic control people, mechanics, pilots, refuelers...etc, etc, etc.
Thu, 2007-05-31 14:47
#21
remind
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]This statement is not true. The simplest known case of an interception inside American airspace was Payne Stewart's aircraft. Flying straight and level on a known course the interception took 90 minutes.Why are you telling these lies?[/b]
This statement is not true. It took less than 25 mins for a plane to intercept Payne Stewart's plane.
Why are you telling these lies?
quote:
At [b]0933:38 EDT [/b](6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next [b]4 1/2 minutes[/b] but received no response.About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 [b]About 0954 CDT[/b], at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About [b]1000 CDT,[/b] the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA
[url=http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm]http://www.ntsb.gov/Public...
Thu, 2007-05-31 17:22
#22
Nice catch on the time zone change.
Thu, 2007-05-31 17:41
#23
You can take the position that the war on terror is a fraud without subscribing to the wacky conspiracy theories of the "9/11 truthers."
Before going any further with this thread, I will re-pose Stockholm's question:
If you're going to credit the Bush administration with the cunning and guile to keep secret a conspiracy that would necessarily involve thousands of people, why were they incapable of planting a few WMDs in Iraq?
Thu, 2007-05-31 17:59
#24
The question is irrelevant. You're picking two unrelated hypotheticals from the competing theories and asking others to link them together logically for you. It not only makes no sense but it proves absolutely nothing.
Thu, 2007-05-31 18:02
#25
Well, that's the great thing about you "no such thing as conspiracy" types. It doesn't take thousands of people to keep a conspiracy quiet, because most people are just like you. Even if they wonder why the official story doesn't add up, they have already decided, prior to any investigation, that such a conspiracy is impossible, so they never even bother to follow up on all these inconsistencies, even if they were there and saw these inconsistencies unfold before their eyes. Oh, the wonders of the assumed conclusion. You are exactly the reason that conspiracies are easy to pull off.
Okay, I was wrong about the interception time, but the fact remains that in this case there was no interception period, not after fifteen minutes, not after an hour, not at all. No planes were scrambled.
Now, I remember reading a while back that the reason this didn't happen was because they weren't allowed to unless Rummie, the SOD, okayed it. This was a new protocol that had just been initiated by the Bush administration, for reasons we can only guess at. Oddly enough, Rummie wasn't available to give the go ahead. Curious, don't you think. As the SOD, one would think he would be obliged to be available 24/7, but not on this day of all days. Funny that.
Of course, this is just what I read. Apparently it was in the 9/11 commission report. Maybe somebody could confirm or deny this as well.
As for the WMD, there are so many variables at work that anything could be the case. Maybe they tried to plant some and it didn't work. Maybe they decided the US was already so cowed it didn't matter anymore. Maybe Iraq was too chaotic and they figured it wasn't worth the risk.
In any case, they obviously didn't plant any. That didn't happen. What did happen was the total breakdown of the air defense of the country. I'm curious as to why. Funny that curiousity doesn't seem very widespread.
Thu, 2007-05-31 18:23
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
[b]...why were they incapable of planting a few WMDs in Iraq?[/b]
Because for 1, it is difficult, everything that constitutes a WMD threat, has a specific signature, it would have to come from missing stock piles, or illegally purchased from someone, thereby the USA if trumpedup would have to deal with the country in question, or it could've actually incriminate the USA it self.
Plus you can bet spy satillites were/are watching Iraq big time from China and Russia.
Plus no ability for containment of info and action unlike having it on your own shores.
There are many reasons why not plant. Moreover, they actually thought they could sell the wars and win it all. Arrogence maybe the biggest factor of all.
ETA: Good eye on the times of contact in time change.
[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Thu, 2007-05-31 18:41
#27
Posted by Jacob Two-Two:
quote:
Well, that's the great thing about you "no such thing as conspiracy" types. It doesn't take thousands of people to keep a conspiracy quiet, because most people are just like you.
Actually there's a world of difference between being actively complicit in a conspiracy and keeping silent, and non-participants such as myself who question a conspiracy because there is little credible evidence of its existence.
And I'd love to see the source for the claim that Donald Rumsfeld had to authorize NORAD intercept decisions.
Thu, 2007-05-31 20:47
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
[b]
Okay, I was wrong about the interception time, but the fact remains that in this case there was no interception period, not after fifteen minutes, not after an hour, not at all. No planes were scrambled.[/b]
Not true. See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_timeline]this timeline.[/url]
The planes were scrambled, they just didn't make an interception.
Thu, 2007-05-31 23:26
#29
I do find it interesting trying to argue with conspiracy believers because you really can't. After all, all the evidence against the conspiracy must clearly be a part of the conspiracy itself. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:29
#30
Forget 9/11. It is entirely irrelevant to the fraud that is the War on Terror.
The US has been using the rhetoric of war on terror since Clinton. The same way they had a War on Drugs, while at the same time supplying most of the crack cocaine to the inner cities. If you want to bomb a terrorist training camp, bomb Florida. Bomb the erstwhile School of the Americas.
Ignore the smokescreen of 9/11. As we can see from this thread, its utility is in its abilty to deflect and hide the real nature of the imperial project.
PS: About the interceptions. I know a woman who was intercepted while flying her small plane to Vegas. It isn't an abnormal nor extrordinary thing. And transponders only [i]identify[/i] a blip, they don't produce it. And that's all I'm gonna say about that.
Sat, 2012-02-25 14:10
#31
deleted
Sat, 2012-02-25 14:11
#32
deleted