Really Important 911 Articles
Please see and read my other related articles at these links
TREASON, BETRAYAL AND DECEIT: THE ROAD TO 9/11 AND BEYOND
by Alan Sabrosky on 09/10/2009
By Alan Sabrosky*
The attacks on September 11, 2001 have been a defining moment for America. Although the losses were not great in terms of urban slaughter during WWII, the political and psychological impact on Americans of a concerted and visible attack in America were enormous — indeed, it is an interesting “coincidence” that the attacks occurred on the one day of the year whose mention reinforces a public sense here of danger and emergency: 9-1-1.
With remarkably little reflection or concern with details and evidence, Americans accepted sweeping restrictions on civil liberties, torture as an instrument of government policy, and waged wars first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, presumably punishing those who attacked America then or might do so in the future. A similar if less enthusiastic drama is unfolding today, as many of the same parties who brought us 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq are edging America into confrontation and war with Iran.
Like most Americans, I take a dim view of a fixation on conspiracies. I am also conscious of a remark by a French colleague some years ago to the effect that Europeans saw conspiracies everywhere, but Americans never saw them anywhere, and both were wrong. I am even less enthusiastic about presumed coincidences with global consequences driving policy, or superficial explanations of physical catastrophes that fly in the face of both logic and physical realities. With one war waning today, another getting hotter and a third “in the oven,” it is high time to look hard at what brought us to this place.
Prelude to 9/11
Most of the world (but not Americans) understood for decades that American Middle East policy was weighted heavily towards Israel. Eisenhower could compel Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, but the last US President who forcefully opposed Israeli regional and nuclear ambitions was John F. Kennedy. His assassination brought Lyndon Johnson into the White House, so much a friend of Israel that he disregarded the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war, in which over 200 US sailors and Marines were killed or wounded.
Shortly thereafter, pilgrimages to Israel and laudatory appearances before AIPAC (the powerful Jewish lobby in Washington) became effectively obligatory for Presidents and serious aspirants for the White House alike, with the Congress (both houses, both parties) being even more supportive – something commonly understood in Washington, but almost unknown elsewhere in the country.
A significant development in the 1990s was the formation of the neo-conservative think tank known as PNAC (Project for a New American Century), whose members prepared position papers for the Israeli government and for a future US Administration sharing their views. That happened in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush, and a contemporary writer summarized the tip of the neo-conservative iceberg in his first Administration this way:
The “outsiders” from PNAC were now powerful “insiders,” placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC’s chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
The presence of so many people from PNAC in key positions definitely sent a signal that US Middle East policy would henceforth be that of Israel, something that brought no joy to any other countries in the region, much less the long-suffering Palestinians. Mutterings about a supposed “Road Map” to some type of peace arrangement in such circumstances were utterly meaningless, and almost everyone except the American public understood this fact of life.
Far more significant in terms of subsequent events was the acknowledgement in one of PNAC’s own documents that their program for America (and Israel) would not readily be accepted by the American people. What this meant, PNAC opined in 2000, was that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”
On September 11, 2001, the PNAC people in and out of government — and by extension AIPAC and Israel — “coincidentally” got the event they needed, barely eight months after coming into office. Most people are familiar with the basic details of that day — two commercial aircrafts crashing into the two tallest buildings in New York City’s World Trade Center (WTC), a third striking the Pentagon, and a fourth ending up in a Pennsylvania field. Few people will forget the images of the burning buildings, their collapse, the casualties, and the sense of shock and tragedy that ensued. Few should forget the passage of emergency legislation (the misnamed “Patriot Act”), the rush to attack Afghanistan for harboring the source of the attackers, or the later rush to attack Iraq to forestall “mushroom clouds” from its apocryphal “weapons of mass destruction.”
The official 9/11 Commission’s work and report were at best an incomplete exercise. Many people dismiss the findings of the Commission, and that includes its co-chairs. Many others who utterly distrust the 9/11 Commission report, dismiss the US Government’s explanation of it, and point to both an official cover-up and an â€œinside job,â€ include veteran fighter pilots, EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians)(EMT interview), air defense experts, experienced commercial pilots, demolition experts, architects and civil engineers – none of them professions that inherently attract and retain the gullible and credulous.
Errors abound in the report. Among the more catastrophic is the collapse of a third WTC building (the 47-story WTC7) which was not hit by a plane, and fell in what appears to be a controlled demolition, but has essentially been sidestepped by the mainstream media (MSM). And this video interview (Interview) with a demolitions expert overseas explains clearly and succinctly what happened to WTC7, with the shock and chaos accompanying the impact of the aircraft serving to distract attention and conceal what happened overall. The overlay of the World Trade Center below shows the layout of the affected buildings:
Even more unbelievable is the “coincidental” salvage of an intact passport presumably belonging to one of the hijackers inside the plane that hit WTC2 — and this was how the official 9/11 Commission report described it:
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Several things are very clear to me from a careful assessment of both official and critical evaluations of the 9/11 attacks. First, the striking aircraft alone simply could not have brought down either of the two buildings in the manner in which they fell, much less a third building which was not hit by a plane (I expect the one intended to do that as a “cover” had ended up in that Pennsylvania field), given the available physical evidence and a wealth of expert testimony. This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.
Second, only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel’s Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the â€œwho benefitsâ€ principle: Mossad. And that incentive dovetailed perfectly with the neo-con’s agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars, using American military power to destroy Israel’s enemies. Only the unexpected strength of the Iraqi resistance kept Syria and Iran from being attacked in the second Bush Administration. Thus, the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq run from PNAC, AIPAC and their cohorts; through the mostly Jewish neo-cons in the Bush Administration; and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential reality. Terms such as treason, betrayal and deceit do not overstate the case against them.
Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath. And the reason is that on this issue, all are on the same side, and the official line is the one they all prefer – â€œallâ€ meaning the PNAC alumni who took over the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus and their counterparts in the Obama administration, AIPAC and the rest of the numerous Jewish PACs, the MSM owners and Israel. The depiction of the media management in America in 2002 is especially informative, and has not changed significantly since then:
Today we are getting the same line on Iran, from the same type of people — Obama himself tries to be more independent, but most of the key staff and national security people in his Administration do not differ greatly on Israel and the Middle East from those of his predecessor. And the Congress has shown itself to be even more of AIPAC’s lap-dog than the preceding Congress, an exercise in self-serving cowardice that admittedly has taken some doing. This is not a simple anti-Jewish canard or mindless prejudice, both of which are juvenile and self-defeating sentiments. They are a factual depiction of specific people in specific positions advocating specific policies and stonewalling specific attempts to elicit specific information about specific lies, misrepresentations and deceit.
AIPAC and company are riding a tiger in America, and if they ever slip, the resulting convulsion will be catastrophic for them and for Israel. The open unfolding of the 9/11 tragedy and its ensuing wars that is now occurring can be that slip. The human cost to America to date is some 60,000 people, military and civilian, killed or wounded on 9/11 and in Iraq and Afghanistan together, with more to come once we go to war with Iran (or get dragged into it following an Israeli attack on Iran). Much of the deliberately misdirected rage that followed 9/11 has given way to endurance and grief, captured all too well in the following picture of a military funeral here:
But grief is a close cousin to rage, and an enraged America is not pretty, as anyone familiar with our history can appreciate. Americans are often deceptive without meaning to be. To much of the world, they often come across as naive, bumbling innocents in the world of global politics. And on a day-to-day basis, there is much truth to that.
But an enraged America is a very different character. You have only to look at what happened in WWII to German and Japanese cities, towns and villages, where America slaughtered literally millions of German and Japanese civilians — most of them women and children — knew it was doing it, and cared nothing at all. The goal was to crush, and restraint was not a word used much at all.
If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.
*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition.
US Mainstream Media not picking up on the story.
700 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth — Check out more info at: http://www.AE911Truth.org
Alan Sabrosky – Zionism Unmasked: The Dark Face Of Jewish Nationalism
by Alan Sabrosky on 03/10/2010
By Dr. Alan Sabrosky* | Sabbah Report | http://www.sabbah.biz
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu once remarked to a Likud gathering that “Israel is not like other countries.” Oddly enough for him, that time he was telling the truth, and nowhere is that more evident than with Jewish nationalism, whether or not one pins the “Zionist” label on it.
Nationalism in most countries and cultures can have both positive and negative aspects, unifying a people and sometimes leading them against their neighbors. Extremism can emerge, and often has, at least in part in almost every nationalist/independence movement I can recall (e.g., the French nationalist movement had The Terror, Kenya’s had the Mau Mau, etc.).
But whereas extremism in other nationalist movements is an aberration, extremism in Jewish nationalism is the norm, pitting Zionist Jews (secular or observant) against the goyim (everyone else), who are either possible predator or certain prey, if not both sequentially. This does not mean that all Jews or all Israelis feel and act this way, by any means. But it does mean that Israel today is what it cannot avoid being, and what it would be under any electable government (a point I’ll develop in another article).
The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:
1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism, and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context — for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the PIRAs or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way — and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis;
2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements (and even ultra-nationalist movements like Nazism) did not — e.g., a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel & the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, attempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the IDF but NOT in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America — even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces;
3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list); and
4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s) — it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US — and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they DID know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/Native Americans here in a longer & more low-tech fashion.
The implications of this for Middle East peace prospects, and for other countries in thrall to their domestic Jewish lobbies or not, are chilling. The Book of Deuteronomy come to life in a state with a nuclear arsenal would be enough to give pause to anyone not bought or bribed into submission — which these days encompasses the US Government, given Israel’s affinity for throwing crap into the face of the Obama administration and Obama’s visible affinity for accepting it with a smile, Bibi Netanyahu’s own “Uncle Tom” come to Washington.
The late General Moshe Dayan, who — Zionist or not — remains an honored part of my own Pantheon of military heroes, allegedly observed that Israel’s security depended on its being viewed by others as a mad dog. He may have been correct. But he neglected to note that the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite. It is an option worth considering.
*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at email@example.com