Paris Responds: Pt 3

TX: Does Paris really believe that our own country killed 3,000 plus people? Again, where's the proof? Or are we just talkin' about a conspiracy theory?

Paris: Let me see now, the label "conspiracy theory" is a tactic that the media often invokes to immediately discredit voices of dissent and people who seek truth. Are you playing Devil's Advocate or are you being sincere? Assuming the latter, let me say that the tactic of creating manufactured enemies for personal gain has been around for as long as there have been conflicts. Of course there's no concrete proof of a conspiracy - the media would never allow that - but rather an abundance of evidence that points to a conspiracy on behalf of US interests. Know that there's no concrete proof of the involvement of any other country either. The first thing that you must do is ask yourself, over and over again, the following question:
"Who benefits?"

Does Bin Laden benefit from the response that an act of war was surely to generate? Does his home country of Afghanistan? How did we know it was him immediately after the event? It's now more important then ever that we question everything and recognize propaganda when we see it.

Many of the media outlets now do little more than fan the flames of bigotry, exacerbate irrational fears or attempt to appeal to our sense of compassion - oftentimes in collaboration with some type of "Save/Heal/Help America" sales campaign. Have we really experienced an act of war by another country?

While we all agree that a crime was committed with the WTC bombings, was this crime an act of war by another country? Assuming that this actually was a non-USA sponsored event, and assuming that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban are indeed the culprits, does the act allegedly committed by him and his organization amount to an act of war by Afghanistan? If I go into another country and commit a crime am I declaring war on that country in the name of the USA? Do I have the ability politically to declare war on anyone in the name of the USA? Absolutely not. Think about it.

But let's get back to my point about manufactured enemies. Crassus did it with the slave revolt led by Sparticus against Rome. Cicero did it with Caesar by hiring thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible in Rome, all the while campaigning on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers. Hitler did it with Reichstagg the same way. FDR did it to mask the symptoms of a sick economy struggling back from the Great Depression by entering us into WW2. Johnson did it in Vietnam to stimulate defense spending. Bush Sr. did it for oil money - when OPEC failed to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region. Bush Sr. wanted a war to stop that flow of oil and to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like Roosevelt with Japan, he needed the "other side" to make the first move. Clinton did it to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, first bombing Sudan and then Afghanistan for supposed chemical weapons violations. Later examination proved the Sudanese site to be an aspirin factory and the site in Afghanistan to be a mosque.

So you see, what I'm proposing is nothing new. Ask yourself what this current administration had to gain? Well let's see, the unification of the country after a suspected fraudulent election, oil profiteering to the tune of 6 trillion dollars and rapid and unchecked expansion of federal authority, for starters.

Now for the facts:

* It was widely reported that none of the names of the so-called Arab terrorists were on any of the passenger lists of any of the four planes involved in 9-11. Yet within 48 hours, the FBI and CIA somehow managed to produce the pictures and names of 19 Arabs who were supposedly the "terrorists" on the planes, even though none of their names were on any of the passenger lists. How did they know? Were they determined to be "terrorists" just because the had Arab names?

* There has been no real official FBI or CIA follow-up to the millions of dollars in stock options profits generated by the attacks. Why not? Surely additional inquiries into the money trail (not Bin Laden's) will yield surprising results.

* It was reported that the black boxes from the planes, which record conversations between the pilot and ground control, were all either destroyed or the conversations on recovered blackboxes could not be released. Why not? Black boxes are built to survive the worst plane crashes imaginable. By not releasing the black box communications and data, we can never know what really happened in the cockpit, on the aircraft and who really flew the planes. Additionally, there had to be some communication between the pilots and Air traffic Control. Yet no air traffic controller was interviewed to talk about their conversations with the pilots during the course of the "hijackings." In a news story this big, why not?

* "Global Hawk" pilotless plane technology has existed since 1998 but is rarely discussed and could have been used in the 9-11 events (http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Feb1997/970220-D-0000G-001.html). It is rumored that up to four planes can be flown at once utilizing this technology. How many planes were involved in 9-11? Four. And according to almost all professional commercial airline pilots, the supposed Arab "hijackers" could not have flown those planes at all, or as well as they were flown, if they only attended the flight schools that were reported in the news.

* Remember the story of the rental car found so conveniently at Boston airport, where two planes were hijacked, which contained, of all things, a copy of the Koran and an instructional video for how to fly commercial jets? An instructional video? I thought they went to school. Yet they can hit buildings with pinpoint accuracy? We're supposed to believe that?

* What about the "Bin Laden confession video" that was "found" an a living room VCR in Afghanistan? Shit, do we look that stupid? I guess so.

* No US military planes were sent up to intercept any of the hijacked planes even though there were at least 30 minutes to an hour from the time it was known that the planes were hijacked. Much has been written about this by the alternative free press on the internet. It is standard procedure for military planes to be sent up if a plane is off course and has not communicated with ground control. This is normal safety protocol because an off-course plane could potentially result in a mid-air collision. The relevant question why US military jets weren't deployed under these emergency and highly-dangerous conditions? If you think Bin Laden could have done all of this sitting in some cave in Afghanistan - think again. The only people who could have pulled this one off are high-ranking government officials within our own government.

Those are just a few of the most disturbing oddities.

So let's recap. None of the supposed Arab "terrorist" names were on any of the passenger flight lists and the U.S. Government, within 48 hours, showed us pictures of 19 Arab "terrorists" - even though the FBI and CIA said they had no prior information that the 911 event could happen. Live pilots in the cockpit, we find, aren't even needed to fly any of the four planes at all, as Global Hawk technology could conceivably allow for them all to be flown by a single pilot from the ground.

Hence, the 19 Arab "hijackers" weren't necessary at all. But by the U.S. Government refusing to release any of the pilot-to-ground control communications from the (allegedly destroyed) blackboxes in the aircraft, it effectively blacks out any conversation from the "hijacked" airline pilots possibly telling the control tower that the flight controls of their planes had been taken over.

Other important major benefactors of the "War on Terror" are the war industrialists. George Bush, Jr.'s father happens to be one of the main players in the fifth largest war corporation in the World: the Carlyle Corporation (http://www.bushwatch.net/bushcarlyle.htm). This is an example of nepotism at it's finest, as Bush Sr. plans to make a LOT of dough from his involvement with the Carlyle Corporation and the awarding of defense contracts. The Bin Ladens and the Bushes have been doing business together for many years. How interesting.

And finally, probably one of the biggest giveaways that Bin Laden is not the main "Mastermind" behind 9-11 is the fact that since 9-11, there have been NO additional "terrorist" acts perpetrated against, or in, the US or Europe. Not one bullet has been fired on U.S. soil. Not one bomb exploded.

So here we have the purported "master terrorist", Osama Bin Laden, who supposedly committed the biggest terrorist act ever on U.S. soil and yet he has not been able to commit even a small terrorist act against his "enemy" - the U.S. - since 9-11. Afghanistan is being bombed viciously and thousands of innocent, defenseless Afghani men, women and children have been killed by American forces, as have Bin Laden's Al Queda forces, but the "enemy terrorist" is not fighting back? Huh?

We are told constantly by the U.S. Government that Bin Laden has thousands of "sleeper operatives" just waiting in the wings to commit terrorist acts in the U.S. and Europe. Where are they? Now he disappears, all the while costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Pentagon officials have said several times they may never be able to find Bin Laden. Hmm... I guess any country supposedly harboring him now is ripe for U.S. state-sponsored terrorism. If the capture of Bin Laden really was the true objective, wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have offered a one billion dollar reward for him and his cronies and not send any military force to Afghanistan? Was the loss of life of thousands of innocent Afghani civilians, along with Taliban and American military personnel really necessary?

It has been reported the U.S. had plans to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban months before 9-11. Can you say Oil?