September 18, 2006

Be Afraid! Be Very Very Afraid!

Politicians have been using the tactic of spreading fear to further their own interests since long before World War Two, but the Nazis are perhaps the most famous example of a government using fear to promote their own agenda.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, at the Nuremburg trials.

Did you know that in the United States, you're much more likely to be killed by your appendix than by a terrorist? I believe that right now, US foreign policy is creating terrorists faster than we are imprisoning or killing them. And we have no data on how many of the imprisoned are actually terrorists, because they're not getting fair trials.

Current US foreign policy is all about buying energy security at the cost of our democratic ideals. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

Maybe the Canadian citizen who the US government shipped to Syria to be tortured can tell us something about how fair trials might be important. Like, for instance, how a presentation of the evidence against him would have completely cleared his name, preventing him from being tortured and detained in Syria for a year. Since when did torture become a legitimate tool of law enforcement anyway? I'm not a big Michael Moore fan, but, dude, where's my country?

2 Comments:

At October 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude, they've got one whopper of a lie to hide:


http://patriotsquestion911.com/

http://www.truth911.net/


=============================
http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi

Professor Steven Jones:
"Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings
Completely Collapse"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

=============================
David Ray Griffin:

http://tinyurl.com/z8k27

=============================
Professor James Fetzer:

Here is an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points
about 9/11:

(1) the impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the
buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as
Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit
were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they
continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects;

(2) the melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the
maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed
1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel
to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down;

(3) UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least
six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires
burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one
and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less
melt;

(4) if the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have
displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and
tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt,
and total demolition that was observed;

(5) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to
bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the
planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken,
which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and
the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall;

(6) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to
bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the
planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken
and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of
energy beyond any that the government has considered;

(7) heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with
more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse",
which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction
and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the
towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as
Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me;

(8) the destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11
is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have
taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an
astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful
explosives;

(9) the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground,
where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to
two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the
pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain;

(10) pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four,
and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the
plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course,
implies that it was not produced by such a cause;

(11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after
Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it",
displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions,
including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint,
where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so
embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT;

(12) the hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton
airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the
ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no
wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means
that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

(13) the Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the
building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor";
but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot
Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not,
which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

(14) the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official
trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically
impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have
created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has
no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

(15) if Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been
a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is
distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be
explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had
crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they
were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger
manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive
and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on.
The evidence is archived at www.st911.org

=============================
more links:

http://belowgroundsurface.org/


http://www.commoncapital.net/downloads/lists&links-preview-7-17-0.html


http://www.wtc7.net/

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

=============================

 
At October 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting links! Here's another...

Nixon White House Counsel John Dean
talking about the authoritarian
personality and the psychology of
fear:

http://tinyurl.com/o7jcy

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=2f1Idgh5KUw&eurl=http%3A//www.911blogger.com/&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static11.sjl.youtube.com/vi/2f1Idgh5KUw/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskK0oH34nP-1H9nVjsmXsG-o

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home