Without Oil We Wouldn't have had 911?

Posted this to my main blog by accident:

Recently wrenthekwack on Tumblr posted the below graphic:

The caption he added to it was “Because how would a plane fly without oil? :)”

Very cute. :)  Of course, without oil we wouldn’t have most of our world without oil, including planes and skyscrapers to fly them into (or the computers to create and view this graphic).

Obviously, this is a very complex issue and the doctoring seen above was done on a graphic that originally suggested religion was the key to 911.  But which is it? Oil or religion that, if removed, would scatter the terrorism equation into the wind?

Well, FriendlyAtheist, one of my favorite atheists on Tumblr, took great issue with the idea that it was oil and not religion.  In short, he made some wild stabs at wrenthekwack graphic, 1) sarcastically suggesting that perhaps the hijackers were yelling “Oil Akbar” instead of “Allah Akbar,” 2) that somehow the graphic puts forward the idea that the USG was behind 911 (like I said, wild stabs), 3) the weirdest statement of all:

Last option would be to say that somehow the need for oil by the US made it worthy of attacking by these “atheistic” terrorists (since religion has nothing to do with it per the cartoon). Sure, whatever. Like the US is the only country that uses middle east oil.

Crossing religion out of that graphic doesn’t mean religion has nothing to do with 911.  So, that’s a very odd, extreme assumption to make.  And then the claim about the US not being the only consumer of Middle East oil?? As if America wasn’t the big kid on the block??  Who else would terrorists go after?  Seriously, FA, I’m thinking you banged this reply out in 30 seconds rather than thinking it through. Seems like such behavior is going around.

FA also added that it’s not about the money, either.  He quotes a study that says “The evidence we have assembled and reviewed suggests there is little direct connection between poverty, education and participation in terrorism.”

The suggestion of poverty being a part of it reminded me of something, so I left a waaaay too long comment on his post suggesting that, in fact, it is not about money per se, but is also not really about religion.  Here’s the comment I left:

Have you seen Thomas PM Barnett’s seminar “The Pentagon’s New Map”? (It’s on Google Video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025 ) I HIGHLY recommend you watch it. In it he says a LOT about how the world functions, but he puts forward the idea that the world can be divided into two sections. One section is the core and the other is the gap. The core is what we’d recognize as the “rich” section—the First World. The gap is largely the Third World. The gap is also where most of the terrorism in the world comes from. However, Barnett suggests that it’s not money that is the determining factor here, but connectivity. As in, communications. I distill this down to a simple concept: if you have a voice, you’re less likely to turn to terror. If you’re being ignored, you need to do something to get people to pay attention to you. Timothy McVeigh said as much before he was executed. Violence, he felt, was the only language the USG would respond to.

Now, most of US foreign policy tends to be determined by oil. Our involvement in the Middle East is largely about oil. So, in a sense, oil *is* a reason extremists in the Middle East are so pissed at us. If we would only find a way to replace the oil we buy in the Middle East with something we could make here in the West, we’d remove US troops from oil-rich countries (aka Muslim countries) as well as one of their main excuses. See, that’s what religion is—an excuse. A tool. ObL didn’t give a shit about Allah or 72 virgins. He was so rich while he was alive, he could have had 72 virgins any time he wanted. No, this was about power and influence. Sure, “Allah” might have been the excuse the actual hijackers had, but the guys who put the hijackers up to it are only interested power and influence. If religion didn’t exist, they’d use some other lie to convince those poor idiots to do what they did.

I’m all for atheism and spreading the idea that truth and proof are what should determine our actions and not some fictional god, but the reality is that religion is just a tool—an excuse—to do horrible things. It is not the true corruption that greed and power are. Religion is the lubricant.

Sorry for such a long comment…

I’m truly happy to see all of the new voices speaking up and against the louder voice of religion.  However, there’s been a lot of stupid-thinking on the part of my fellow atheists.  They think contradicting Believers is enough to “win.”  What good is it to make an argument against religion if it is faulty?  Remove religion from the planet and all of the religion-based strife goes away?  I don’t think so.  It won’t be religion-based anymore, but there will be other strife in its place.  We humans loooove conflict.  We’ll use nationality, race, sexual preference, gender, hair color, TV shows-preference, or some other bullshit excuse to divide ourselves up.

I’m against religion in its most common form, but to say it’s the sole thing that motivates terrorists is to adopt a rather shallow view.  If terrorists didn’t feel under attack, if they felt as though their way of life wasn’t being threatened they wouldn’t need to look for an excuse to “kill infidels.”

Religion is an excuse for everything.  Like I said, religion is the lubricant.  But fear and hate work, too.

Without Oil We Wouldn't have had 911?

Recently wrenthekwack on Tumblr posted the below graphic:



The caption he added to it was "Because how would a plane fly without oil? :)"

Very cute. :)  Of course, without oil we wouldn't have most of our world without oil, including planes and skyscrapers to fly them into (or the computers to create and view this graphic).

Obviously, this is a very complex issue and the doctoring seen above was done on a graphic that originally suggested religion was the key to 911.  But which is it? Oil or religion that, if removed, would scatter the terrorism equation into the wind?

Well, FriendlyAtheist, one of my favorite atheists on Tumblr, took great issue with the idea that it was oil and not religion.  In short, he made some wild stabs at wrenthekwack graphic, 1) sarcastically suggesting that perhaps the hijackers were yelling "Oil Akbar" instead of "Allah Akbar," 2) that somehow the graphic puts forward the idea that the USG was behind 911 (like I said, wild stabs), 3) the weirdest statement of all:

Last option would be to say that somehow the need for oil by the US made it worthy of attacking by these “atheistic” terrorists (since religion has nothing to do with it per the cartoon). Sure, whatever. Like the US is the only country that uses middle east oil.

Crossing religion out of that graphic doesn't mean religion has nothing to do with 911.  So, that's a very odd, extreme assumption to make.  And then the claim about the US not being the only consumer of Middle East oil?? As if America wasn't the big kid on the block??  Who else would terrorists go after?  Seriously, FA, I'm thinking you banged this reply out in 30 seconds rather than thinking it through. Seems like such behavior is going around.

FA also added that it's not about the money, either.  He quotes a study that says "The evidence we have assembled and reviewed suggests there is little direct connection between poverty, education and participation in terrorism."

The suggestion of poverty being a part of it reminded me of something, so I left a waaaay too long comment on his post suggesting that, in fact, it is not about money per se, but is also not really about religion.  Here's the comment I left:

Have you seen Thomas PM Barnett's seminar "The Pentagon's New Map"? (It's on Google Video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025 ) I HIGHLY recommend you watch it. In it he says a LOT about how the world functions, but he puts forward the idea that the world can be divided into two sections. One section is the core and the other is the gap. The core is what we'd recognize as the "rich" section--the First World. The gap is largely the Third World. The gap is also where most of the terrorism in the world comes from. However, Barnett suggests that it's not money that is the determining factor here, but connectivity. As in, communications. I distill this down to a simple concept: if you have a voice, you're less likely to turn to terror. If you're being ignored, you need to do something to get people to pay attention to you. Timothy McVeigh said as much before he was executed. Violence, he felt, was the only language the USG would respond to.

Now, most of US foreign policy tends to be determined by oil. Our involvement in the Middle East is largely about oil. So, in a sense, oil *is* a reason extremists in the Middle East are so pissed at us. If we would only find a way to replace the oil we buy in the Middle East with something we could make here in the West, we'd remove US troops from oil-rich countries (aka Muslim countries) as well as one of their main excuses. See, that's what religion is--an excuse. A tool. ObL didn't give a shit about Allah or 72 virgins. He was so rich while he was alive, he could have had 72 virgins any time he wanted. No, this was about power and influence. Sure, "Allah" might have been the excuse the actual hijackers had, but the guys who put the hijackers up to it are only interested power and influence. If religion didn't exist, they'd use some other lie to convince those poor idiots to do what they did.

I'm all for atheism and spreading the idea that truth and proof are what should determine our actions and not some fictional god, but the reality is that religion is just a tool--an excuse--to do horrible things. It is not the true corruption that greed and power are. Religion is the lubricant.

Sorry for such a long comment...

I'm truly happy to see all of the new voices speaking up and against the louder voice of religion.  However, there's been a lot of stupid-thinking on the part of my fellow atheists.  They think contradicting Believers is enough to "win."  What good is it to make an argument against religion if it is faulty?  Remove religion from the planet and all of the religion-based strife goes away?  I don't think so.  It won't be religion-based anymore, but there will be other strife in its place.  We humans loooove conflict.  We'll use nationality, race, sexual preference, gender, hair color, TV shows-preference, or some other bullshit excuse to divide ourselves up.

I'm against religion in its most common form, but to say it's the sole thing that motivates terrorists is to adopt a rather shallow view.  If terrorists didn't feel under attack, if they felt as though their way of life wasn't being threatened they wouldn't need to look for an excuse to "kill infidels."

Religion is an excuse for everything.  Like I said, religion is the lubricant.  But fear and hate work, too.

Looks like things are back to normal... at least until September 2012 (or maybe not?)

Looks like my various streams are largely 911-ghoulishness free. I can start paying attention to the world again. :)

And don't worry, I remembered the victims and their loved ones, but I did it positively at a short film festival at the Japan Society called "Films for Hope".  Most of these films were warm and positive and reminded me of why we should cherish life as much as we do.  Humanity has an immense capacity for good.  It's a shame we focus so much on the negative.  I do it, too, but I hope to change that.  This is part of how I remembered 911 victims. In fact, making the world a better place through storytelling has been my life's goal since long before 911.

Making people think, question, learn, change and grow is what art can do.

When all we do is focus on fear and suspicion we kill our imagination and our potential.  I hope what I have written and what I will write will inspire people to do more than just that.

So, perhaps next year at this time we, as humans, will be able to remember the victims in more positive ways, reflect on how best to serve their memories, and not feel compelled to relive their passing.  I hope what I do in the coming year (and years), along with what others do, will help us all get to that place.

Earliest form of 911 Exploitation by the Media Came Just Days After

I won't go on about this too much, but I remember right after 911 seeing the "911" issue of People Magazine.  I know it's a rag, but I was really surprised and shocked at what I saw inside of it.  I scanned in the parts that offended me the most and set up a web page detailing everything, including a pissed off email I sent to the editor at the time.  Check out this page here: http://thepete.com/disgustingpeople/

Please forgive the crappy design and layout--it was a time long before Flickr, blogging or even Web 2.0.

 

 

It Has to Be Said: Why 9/11/11 is bugging the shit out of me

Wow... I'm having to unfollow some folks who insist on posting 911-related photos. I wasn't a NYC resident on 9/11/1 but I don't know why people need to relive this event annually and usually do so without recognizing the horrible overreaction it inspired from its victims.  I saw Newsweek's latest magazine cover which seems blissfully unaware of the positive spin it provides on death, war, torture and violence.  Then I saw, in a sad, self-congratulatory Photoshop montage of tweets,  sycophantic followers taking joy in praising said cover (man, that made me angry). I am too scared to look to the TV media because I can easily imagine the absurd depths they'll descend to in order to "properly" exploit the 10th anniversary of 911.

Even my absolute favorite podcast, Stuff You Should Know, got in on the 911-act and talked about "How the World Trade Center Memorial Works."  Usually they talk about things we should know, instead, they talked about stuff we're going to already know because everyone and their uncle is covering that memorial.  I would say that they handled it well, but not handling it at all would be the better path as, really, do you need to bother with this since so many other folks already are?

So, the day after tomorrow, we are going to remember the 3000ish people who died ten years ago on that day in New York, Pennsylvania and in Virginia at the Pentagon... but who will remember the hundreds of thousands who died in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to the way we reacted?  And what about the tortured, the disappeared and our place in history?  All of these things will be ignored while we desperately try to convince ourselves that 911 justified everything we've done.

A Japanese person I know recently told me that the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught Japan that the only way to respond to violence is with peace.  Responding with violence just means more violence.

What is so hard to grasp about this concept?

Islam and the West: (not) keeping things in perspective

From blogdrop.posterous.com:

Just to put this into perspective, Ariana Huffington transported, for free, around 10,000 New Yorkers to Washington DC for the Rally for Sanity and/or Fear on October 30, 2010.  That’s a third of the Taliban and more than Al Qaeda.

Here’s another graphic I nicked from blogdrop.posterous.com:

If you are pro-life you should be horrified by this.  Of course, if you are pro-only-your-own-life, you’ve already rationalized this away.  Sad, either way.

Crap... the morbid 911 "celebrations" have already begun.

Just saw this in my Tumblr stream (minus the blurring on the names, of course):

That top part is an animated gif of a handful of frames-worth of one of the towers falling. The bottom part is where Tumblr users react, either in sadness or in recalling “where they were when”.

I get that people are still freaked out by this event. I understand.

It’s one thing to mourn quietly at Ground Zero in NYC.  It’s one thing to quietly light a candle to remember those who died.

But animated gifs of the towers falling?

Blog-based confessions of sad-feelings?

Yeah, let’s keep things in perspective kids.  911 was nothing compared to, oh, say, what we dropped on Japan.  Not just the atom bombs (which killed tens of thousands the *instant* they were dropped), but also the firebombing of Tokyo, too. 

What we did, as a country, to Japan not recent enough for you?  Then consider the 106,000 Iraqi dead—most of which would still be alive if we hadn’t invaded their country unprovoked (which only happened because 911 happened). 

Oh, no—let’s pour over pictures and videos of the day we lost a whopping 3k people—better yet, let’s give it the same treatment we’d give a LOLcat pic or a gif from that blog that features 2 frames of a movie. 

Mourning should be done on a personal level—somber, respectful.  Doing it on Tumblr practically requires a lack of respect for the dead.  So, please, it’s been 9 years—you don’t have to be over it, but can we chill with the ghoulish replay of videos and uber-emotional remembrances of “where we were when”?

I *hope* you weren’t expecting tolerance for this sort of crap from the guy who runs Website666.com.  I may be a puppeteer, but I also draw Ballpoint Adventures.

Spoken word video from post 911, but the message resonates before and after. Take six minutes and watch/listen.publicradiointernational:peoplenevernoticeanything:We, as a nation, have the same recycled arguments decade after decade. They evolve, they find new scapegoats; but when somebody has the eloquence and strength to articulately shatter worn out rhetoric, nobody ever seems to listen. This was in response to 9/11, but the same beautiful reposte is maybe even more coherent today with almost 10 years of experience for it to sink into. Especially when you read about a certain religious center in a certain neighborhood of a certain city.“There is no poetry in this”Just listen.Wow. I don’t know when this is from, but it’s good.First thing I did was listen to it again.Best lines:“I have read too many books to believe what I have been told.”“You’re either with life or against it.”Yeah, that last one is powerful and downright challenging since so much of what we do in the First World exploits people in the Third. Sadly Hammad’s piece comes from a place of ignorance of her own effect on the world but a place of love, nonetheless. Hopefully, since she wrote that piece, she’s kept on reading books and has learned more.

911 Conspiracy Theorists: Don't believe the hype (on either side)

underpaidgenius:

Truthers,” left-wing conspiracy theorists who believe (among other things) that 9/11 was an inside job, that no plane hit the Pentagon, that Ted Olson did not receive a call from his wife, Barbara, shortly before she perished in the crash of Flight 77, that the anthrax scare was also a government hoax (although the anthrax was real and deadly), and that hurricane Katrina was the result of weather manipulation by racists or profiteers or both.

This makes for some truly chilling reading: otherwise average-seeming Americans who sincerely (?) believe that 9/11 was created by the US government to control us. Yikes.

Nah, what’s scary is how much of what they believe is reasonable.

It’s easy to point at a bunch of people and yell “FREAKS! YOU BELIEVE WEIRD STUFF!” but much harder to consider what they say and admit that some of it seems reasonable.  I’m not saying all of it or even most of it is reasonable.  There’s evidence for almost none of it and what evidence there is is not proof. 

The thing is, trusting the government story, or anyone’s story is tantamount to letting down your guard. We need to keep questioning and keep challenging.  Writing these guys off like they believe aliens are controlling our minds is wrong and it does the truth a disservice.  The government, on the other hand, lies all the time and has done so to get us into war, too.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

“Remember the Maine” (OK, so we don’t know for sure the USG lied, but then we don’t know for sure that Spain sank the Maine, either.)

Pearl Harbor was a surprise (ok so there’s still some debate about this, but really?)

Hell, George W. Bush’s granddad (who went on to be a US senator) was a banker for a guy who financially supported the Nazis.

Do I believe 911 was an inside job?  I’m an atheist in most things.  I’m not sure what I believe, but I know what’s possible.  So, no, I don’t believe 911 was an inside job, nor do I know if it was.  All I do is look at the evidence and, of all of it, my biggest problem with 911 is Payne Stewart.  Yes, the late golfer.  Google “Payne Stewart crash” and read about the circumstances surrounding his death (or just check out the NTSB’s report here).  14 minutes after air-traffic controllers lost contact with his plane  F-16s were flying along side it.  From a WaPo article reporting on the October 25, 1999 crash:

The military aircraft were not armed with air-to-air missiles, and Pentagon officials said they never considered shooting down the Learjet.

“The [Federal Aviation Administration] said this thing was headed to a sparsely populated part of the country, so let it go,” a senior defense official said.

Contrast this with fighter aircraft taking more than twice that amount of time to reach any of the planes less than two years later on September 11, 2001.

The areas of Washington DC and New York City are minutes from Air Force bases. Yet three hijacked planes were allowed to crash—two of them into populated areas.

This is what I’d like to see investigated.  So far, I’ve not heard an explanation for this inability of the military to do its job.  

I’ve got other problems with what is the official explanation for 911, but that’s the biggest.  Because if the plane that crashed into the WTC had been shot down, more than two thousand people wouldn’t have died that day and, more importantly, as a result, it would have been much harder to justify invading two countries with only a few hundred dead.

So, don’t assume everyone who questions the official story, or even the apparent facts, of 911 is a wing-nut who listens to Alex Jones.  I don’t.  I just look at what I’m told are the facts and ask questions. Which, you know, is what we should all be doing more often.

I could go on and on about “conspiracies.” In fact, I already did in the 666cast a couple weeks back.

ZEITGEIST (2007)

It's Documentary Thursday at reviews.thepete.com, when I post a pocket review of a documentary on a given topic that interests me. One thing to bear in mind is that not all documentaries deserve the name "documentary." However, not all documentaries have to include a British-accented voice-over and a big-money distributor to be worth watching.

Watch or buy it!

Positive Experience/Entertaining? Definitely a positive experience, but I think the filmmaker was a little overzealous with some of the shock treatment-style cinematic devices he uses in this film. This is another in an ever-longer line of "opiniontaries" that generally try to come across as a documentary but ultimately are just trying to put forward their own agenda. Not that this is that different from what other "more acceptable" documentaries do.


Technically any good? This film is incredibly effective. Moving at a quick pace, this film picks you up, carries you along, smacks the crap out of you (and your belief systems) and then drops you off at the side of the road like a cheap prostitute. I've heard from friends and strangers that this film changed their lives. I can't say it changed mine, but it did have an effect.

Over the years I've watched a LOT of so-called "conspiracy documentaries." They all claim to have the answers and the truth and the warnings about the coming "New World Order" blah-blah-blah. I watch them because they are hilarious and, creepily enough, sometimes accurate. Zeitgeist takes the best, most believable of these conspiracy theories and rolls them into one film.

For that reason, I think this is the most effective film to watch if you're growing dissatisfied with the way the world is run. Zeitgeist does a good job of explaining where our culture comes from and where it is likely going (though I didn't find myself agreeing with it all the time).

Sadly, it gets mired in 911-related shock tactics that made me wonder if the filmmaker realized how hypocritical he was actually being. Like most opiniontaries, this one gets a few things wrong and the film's use of what Naomi Klein calls "The Shock Doctrine" as a cinematic technique has the power to undo the rest of the good the film does.


How did it leave me feeling? Definitely educated. After growing up a news-junky and then spending the last seven years exploring the world of conspiracies (for a novel series I've written), I do have to say that I have no idea what to believe about our past, present or future. And this film doesn't help make things clearer.

It does point out a lot of evidence that suggests our civilization is largely built on lies told by power-hungry people who want to control everything through the control of money.

Gotta admit, the film has a point.


Final Rating? GSN - Go See Now - BUT WITH A WARNING: While Zeitgeist is a genuinely powerful and effective movie, it does rely on many of the same tactics it criticizes the "ruling elite" of using to control the masses. It's important to watch ANY documentary with a clear and critical mind. And most importantly, when you're done watching it, do some research. Read up on some of the things you've been told about.

If nothing else, by presenting such a radically negative view of Western Society, documentaries like this remind us to think for ourselves. Even if you don't agree, it's important to consider what other people say. Zeitgeist, I think, nails a lot of things on the head, but it's not for the faint of heart.

Click the poster image above to go to the official site where you can watch the movie and its sequel (I'll be reviewing it next week), or buy copies of both on DVD.

911 Memorial Post: Osama bin Laden in Custody (SIKE!)

It's that time of the year again. I live in New York City and, to me, it doesn't feel very different from being in LA. I don't watch TV that much, so I've missed all of the 911 specials. However, I'm pretty cynical, so I'm going to assume no one on CNN, MSNBC or Fox talked about how Osama bin Laden's FBI's Most Wanted page still fails to mention anything about 911. In case the FBI has since updated the page since I wrote this blog post, check out the screengrab of Osama bin Laden's FBI's Most Wanted page here: http://thepete.com/uploads/FBIoblwanted2007a.png

But more important than seeing 911 mentioned on Osama bin Laden's wanted page, it sure would be nice to see Osama bin Laden on the front page of the New York Times with the headline above it: "OSAMA BIN LADEN IN US CUSTODY"

It has been seven years, I think we won't ever get him at this point.

I just wish heads would roll for:

1) Failing to catch the man we all blame for 911 and failing to put him on trial.
2) Allowing the 911 attacks to happen in the first place. What do we pay those idiots for?
3) The government letting us down so dramatically in both the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

The thing is, NOBODY has talked about catching bin Laden or how they'll hold accountable those responsible for allowing 911 to happen at all.

Remember when Bush said he'd get bin Laden dead or alive? Well, here he is saying bin Laden doesn't concern him:

Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io

Nothing like a "fearless" leader totally backing down on his promise to avenge the deaths of those victims of the 911 terrorists.

GITMO TRIALS RIGGED TO END IN CONVICTION?

Here's another gem from http://DemocracyNow.org/. On yesterday's show, they reported on the former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo's military commissions who told the Nation magazine that there was no way any of those six guys accused of taking part in the 911 attacks would get a fair trial. Here's a bit from the show's transcript (get the whole thing here: http://www.democracynow.org/…guantanamo ): "The 9/11 trials for the six Guantanamo prisoners charged by the Pentagon last week with conspiracy to commit war crimes might have been rigged from the start to rule out the possibility of any acquittals, this according to the latest statements to The Nation magazine from Colonel Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo's military commissions.

Colonel Davis recounted a 2005 meeting with the Bush administration-appointed Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes, who now oversees the prosecutions and the defense for the tribunal process. Haynes said, "We can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions"

Colonel Davis resigned from the military commissions in October 2007, saying the system had become 'politicized' and he could no longer be effective. His latest statements to The Nation magazine offer the most pointed evidence of the military commission's bias and undermine the Bush administration's claims of ensuring fair trials for the accused."

Weeee! This is the biggest thorn in my side regarding all of this "Post-911 Thinking" going on. In one of our country's founding documents we make the statement that all humans are equal, right? I'm paraphrasing, but that's what is accepted, right?

Well, the exact phrasing is: "all men are created equal."

Please note: it doesn't say that all "Americans" are created equal.

Therefore, EVERY human on the planet deserves the same rights as any American citizen.

So, even if these six guys in Gitmo are guilty of what they are accused of, they STILL deserve a fair trial! I don't care if they're criminals, war criminals or "enemy combatants" (whatever the hell those are). They should still get fair trials and the same rights any other human gets.

If we don't provide what we promise how can anyone outside of the US trust what any of us say?

Now, to me, this doesn't sound like the trials are rigged. However, if the guys in charge of the trials say something like "there can be no acquittals" you have to admit, that screams "unfair bias" all over the damn place.

Just a sidenote here: there have been no convictions for the 911 attacks. There have been just a handful of convictions of terror suspects involved in other attacks not on US soil. We've invaded two countries and ended hundreds of thousands of lives in the interest of catching terrorists, yet we can't seem to convict hardly anyone in a court of law.

How much you wanna bet those six dudes in Guantanamo have exactly nada to do with 911?
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

911 Whistleblower Talking Again

Above is a screencap of part of the very first post I wrote about Sibel Edmonds way back in 2004 (http://thepete.com/…efore-911).

As a translator for the FBI, Edmonds says she saw hard evidence in the days after 911 that there were warnings that 911 was going to happen. When she tried to tell people about this, Ashcroft legally gagged her. She eventually got fired and she's been trying to get her story out sideways ever since--that was almost four years ago.

She was quiet for a long time (or maybe it was just that the media wasn't covering her), but now she's spoken to http://TimesOnline.co.uk/ and to BradBlog.com--why to only them? Because, essentially, no one else will listen.

Here are some links if you're interested:

All of my posts on Edmonds:
http://thepete.com/index.php

A CBS story from August 2004 on her:
http://www.cbsnews.com/…6954.shtml

The Times Online article about/with her from January 6, 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…137695.ece

BradBlog.com's piece on her from two days ago:
http://www.bradblog.com/

Finally, Edmonds' own website:
http://www.justacitizen.com/

Please check this stuff out--if only to learn about it for yourself. But if you are as concerned as I am, please pass on this story to other folks.

Seems there are a lot of well-known-names that are involved in allowing nuclear secrets to get out and, essentially, allowing 911 to happen.

Weee, nothing like some conspiracy crap to make your morning exciting!
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

Happy 911-Day

Come on, let's be honest! In another thirty years, 911-day will be a holiday and we'll get the Monday before 911 off and we'll spend that day at the barbecue, cookin' up some brats!!

The actual dead will be long forgotten.

The fact that 5 years after 911 the guy the USG says was behind the attacks still isn't in custody will be forgotten, too.

The fact that nearly as many Americans have died in Iraq as died on 911 is something most of us will never know (source).

In thirty years we'll have forgotten all about how a handful of men took our freedoms away and blamed extremist muslims to get away with it.

In three decades, America will have moved on and will have an impossible time remembering what it was like before George W. Bush introduced us all to pre-emptive war.

Ah, what the hell? Break out the brats now, dammit! It's not like any of us really care about human lives.

Happy 911-Day!