Kane
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 264
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
There are a series of events that beg the question - was 9/11 really a surpise attack?
The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion.
Do you agree?
(some other facts)
Historical Precedent
-"repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least) "
9/11
Progressive "left" media stand down on questioning official version of 9/11
[SIZE=+2]Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack[/SIZE]
The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion.
Do you agree?
(some other facts)
Historical Precedent
-"repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least) "
9/11
Progressive "left" media stand down on questioning official version of 9/11
[SIZE=+2]Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack[/SIZE]
left gatekeepers: the stand down of the liberal, alternative media about 9/11
denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth
The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11
Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002
Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity
Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues
Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia
Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio
Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity
Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud
Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding
Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11
Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line
Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004)
MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent
Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent
9/11 Best Evidence
denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth
The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11
Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002
Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity
Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues
Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia
Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio
Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity
Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud
Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding
Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11
Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line
Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004)
MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent
Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent
9/11 Best Evidence
Last edited: