My Journey to 9/11 Truth and the Real Reasons for the Invasion of Iraq

My own journey from swallowing the official story of 9/11, when we were all traumatised by the events of that terrible day and psychologically suggestible to whatever the authorities told us, to my current position, which is that elements of the Bush administration were almost definitely somehow involved, and that aircraft fuel cannot explain the Twin Towers’ collapse, I mean, disintegration, is very similar to betmo’s.

My reaction was one of great hatred directed towards the man who was said to have masterminded the attacks, Osama bin Laden, and a desire to see him caught, tried, and punished.

Despite the fact that most of the Muslim adults I know (and I know many), are fine, upstanding, God-fearing, law-abiding folk, it also coloured my attitude towards this people and their religion in a very negative way. Whenever I saw a Muslim woman wearing the chador or a Muslim man in Muslim dress, I felt a strong urge to say out loud, “Bang! bang!” As if all Muslims secretly support suicide bombers and the perpetrators of 9/11, which I now realise is certainly not the case.

When we went into Iraq, I also initially accepted the official reasons. But as the months wore on, and there was no sign of the famed Weapons of Mass Destruction, I became more and more puzzled by the invasion. Was it all just a hugely embarrassing mistake on the part of the Bush and Blair administrations?

It wasn’t until the September of 2006, when I read an article in a British newspaper about 9/11 scholars for truth, that I began to investigate what really happened. My initial reaction, when I realised that 9/11 was an inside job, was burning anger and a desire to see those involved brought to justice, an anger that burnt all the more fiercely for having been misled by the real perpetrators as to who really did it.

And as for the Bush and Blair administrations being misled about WMDs, I no longer buy it. They knew all along that there were none, and the invasion of Iraq, far from being one huge mistake, was, in reality, nothing more than a blatant and nakedly obvious oil grab, as the awarding of non-tender oil contracts to big western oil companies shows. Likewise, the invasion of Afghanistan, which has less to do with the war on terror, than with safeguarding a pipeline from the Central Asian oilfields to US-friendly Pakistan.

By rights, both Blair and Bush should be brought before the International Court of Justice to be tried for war crimes. But will it ever happen? Will it, heck? Though an evil man, former Serb leader Haralan Karadzic was right when he stated that the Court, which is to try him for war crimes committed against the Bosnians, was nothing more than a NATO court.

There’s no justice! At least, not in this world. I can take consolation only in the fact that, one day, both Bush and Blair will have to meet their maker, in whom they claim so ardently to believe but whom, by their actions, they so tragically betray.

Who is Wrecking America?

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | Counterpunch | Saturday, Sept 6, 2008

Does the liberal-left have a clue? I sometimes think not.

In his book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?,” Thomas Frank made the excellent point that the Karl Rove Republicans take advantage of ordinary’s people’s frustrations and resentments to lead them into voting against their best interest.

Frank’s new book, “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule,” lacks the insight that distinguished his previous book. Why does Frank think that conservatives or liberals rule?

Neither rule. America is ruled by organized interest groups with money to elect candidates who serve their interests. Frank’s book does not even mention the Israel Lobby, which bleeds Americans for the sake of Israeli territorial expansion. Check the index. Israel is not there.

There Is an Alternative to Corporate Rule

Video: Mark Engler on Global Economics

By Mark Engler, Nation Books. Posted September 1, 2008.

All over the world, alternative approaches to capitalist greed are bubbling up from the grassroots.

Editor’s Note: This article is adapted from Mark Engler’s new book How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008).

One of the remarkable features of modern political life is how consistently global elites deny that viable alternatives to the current global order exist, even as the terrain of international politics rapidly shifts. The “imperial globalists” that rose to power in the Bush years contend that without U.S. military strength decisively projected abroad, the forces of evil will sweep the globe. Meanwhile, “corporate globalists” of Wall Street persist in their belief that, in the post-Cold War world, we have no choice but to embrace the continual advance of the “free” market.

Neither idea is credible. The disastrous war in Iraq has firmly contradicted the neocons’ argument that preemptive war can create security. Meanwhile, mainstream pundits continue to proclaim neoliberalism — the radical free market doctrine that has defined the “Washington Consensus” in international economics in recent decades — to be inevitable and irreplaceable. Yet as that ideology falls into disrepute across the globe, their contention is revealed as ever more deeply disingenuous. Today, there exist scores of books and hundreds of reports that offer new directions for the global order — plus innumerable initiatives at local, national, and international levels to create political and economic systems that uphold human rights and defend the environment.

In truth, a lack of viable ideas is hardly the problem for those who reject both corporate and imperial models of globalization. Whether they are part of boisterous national uprisings or quiet, persistent community efforts to fuel a truly democratic globalization — a globalization from below — members of grassroots networks are now engaged in a debate about the proper balance of vision, program, political strategy, and tactics needed to move forward.

Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state of war

John Byrne | Raw Story | Sunday, Aug 31, 2008

As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain’s choice of running mate, President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention — and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and “associated organizations.”

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times’ page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans’ civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

Who Started Cold War II?

Patrick J. Buchanan | Taki’s Magazine | August 18, 2008

The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.

Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow’s superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.

If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.

Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?

Robert Scheer | Truthdig | Aug 12, 2008

October comes early? Sen. John McCain and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer/Irakli Gedeniedze, Pool)

Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It’s America’s fault – US citizen in the conflict zone

Russia Today | August 10, 2008

An American man living in South Ossetia says U.S. and Georgian leaders are responsible for the violence that has killed 2,000 people in the region. Joe Mestas, who witnessed days of shelling, told RT that Washington will have to answer for the violence.

See the ugly face of war

The conflict in South Ossetia has already claimed the lives of at least 2,000 people. More than 30,000 have been displaced. Many of those have no idea where their families and friends are. Or even if they’re alive. They have no idea what will happen next.

U.S. Aircraft Carriers Head For The Gulf; Kuwait Prepares “Emergency War Plan”

August 8, 2008 6:09 a.m. EST | Dave Kaiser – AHN

Kuwait City, Kuwait (AHN) — Two additional U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are on their way to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to Kuwait Times. Kuwait began finalizing its “emergency war plan” on being told the vessels were bound for the region.

The U.S. Navy will neither confirm nor deny that carriers are currently en route. U.S. Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment because of what a spokesman termed “force-protection policy.”

While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believes are heading for the Middle East, The Media Line’s (TML) defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.

Within the last month, the Roosevelt completed an exercise along the U.S. east coast focusing on communication among navies of different countries. Since then, it has since been declared ready for operational duties.

The Reagan, currently with the Seventh Fleet, has just set sail from Japan.

The Seventh Fleet area of operation stretches from the East Coast of Africa to the International Date Line.

Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran

I have been in contact with Timothy Alexander, the author of this article, and he gives as his sources for the article the following: ”an Israeli newspaper article, and research into US government public source sites, and my past research into Operation Brimstone”.

europebusines.blogspot.com | August 7, 2008

Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the “enemy force”.

The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.

They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.

Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.

Zachary Karabell on the Middle East

By Zachary Karabell | Posted on Aug 8, 2008

If you grew up in the 1970s, it was impossible not to be acutely aware of the Middle East as a flashpoint in the Cold War, a region fraught with danger, beset by conflict between Israel and the surrounding Arab states, home to radical groups that hijacked airplanes and in 1972 disrupted the Olympics. Long and difficult negotiations finally led to peace between Egypt and Israel in 1977, before darkness returned after the Shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by a revolutionary group led by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

The kaleidoscope of war, peace, terrorism and revolution was a vivid and unsettling aspect of the 1970s, but what is both startling and depressing about the Middle East is that the same statement with different details could be made about the region for every single decade of the 20th century, and for the first decade of the 21st. It is not true that the Middle East has seen more war or instability than any other region in the world over the past century; far from it. Southeast Asia, Korea, China, Europe through 1945 saw far more devastation and death from war, as have large swaths of sub-Saharan Africa in the past decades. But the Middle East does have a singular ability to draw attention, create global shock waves and upset international politics. While the discovery of oil in the region early in the 20th century was certainly a factor, oil has not been the sole source of conflict or the primary reason for many of the crises. There is no one reason for the peculiar capacity of the Middle East to generate shock waves. Take history, a dollop of religion and ideology, mix in a bit of geography, add oil and serve over political sclerosis and corruption with some bad luck on the side, and you get a tumultuous corner of the world where “after a century of Western assertiveness, peace remains elusive and sectarian passions are virulent.”