🚀 go-pugleaf

If you would like more information on the War on Terrorism
Conspiracy and evidence goto:

http://plaza.powersurfr.com/freedomfiles/


"DetaxCanada" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:fF1X7.13440$XC5.12659@www.newsranger.com...
> GW Bush on  9/11 Conspiracy Theories
>
> "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never
> tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks
> of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the
> blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
> GW Bush speaking before the UN GeGeneral Assembly 11/10/2001
>
> When President Bush spoke of "outrageous conspiracy
> theories" he was for the first time acknowledging something of
> great significance. There are informed viewpoints completely
> missing from the propaganda war being relentlessly waged on
> Americans about 9/11 and its aftermath, viewpoints which are
> as opposite from the official story as it is possible to get.
>
> The Bush administrations' official story has three
> basic premises.
> To briefly summarize, the first is that Islamic terrorists based
> in Afghanistan who hate American freedom plotted and executed an
> attack on America - an attack which the U.S. government had no
> prior knowledge of nor any connection to.
>
> The second premise is that in order to wage and win a war on
> terrorism we must invade Afghanistan and every other nation
> harboring, funding or otherwise supporting terrorists and that
> a simultaneous suspension of domestic civil liberties is necessary
> for internal security.
> The third basic premise is that our government is all good while
> theirs is the very personification of evil, the "evil-doers" as
> President Bush likes to call them.
>
> The "conspiracy theories" Bush is referring to similarly
> have three basic premises and many divergent subsets. The first is
> that the attack was known about (and possibly, planned) by various
> elements of the U.S. government before 9/11 and was allowed to take
> place in order to bring about certain conditions, including the
> suspension of our guaranteed civil liberties. The second premise is
> that even if bin Laden and the al Queda network based in Afghanistan
> were immediately responsible for the attack that those supporting,
> funding and protecting them are not for the most part based in
> Afghanistan but are in fact closely connected to the Bush
> administration and to the allies President Bush has taken such
> efforts to rally to our side. The third premise is that a U.S.
> built oil pipeline through Afghanistan which has been in the
> planning stages for more than a decade is the real goal of the
> war and that a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was in the works
> long before September 11th.
>
> For earlier Essay associated with this topic.].
> http://baltech.org/lederman/9-11-unpopular.html
>
> What makes these alternative viewpoints, "conspiracy
> theories"? It certainly isn't a lack of evidence.
>
> In the American criminal justice system there are three
> basic kinds of evidence; direct, circumstantial and exculpatory.
>
> Direct evidence of a crime might include a confession,
> fingerprints, DNA samples, credible witnesses or a surveillance
> tape proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Circumstantial
> evidence is anything that lends credence to a defendant being
> guilty but in itself is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a
> reasonable doubt. Exculpatory evidence on the other hand disproves
> a defendants' guilt or contradicts other evidence proving their
> guilt. In a recent NYC case involving exculpatory evidence, a
> homeless man charged with a vicious sidewalk assault on a tourist
> was found to be on a store surveillance tape recorded at the same
> time the assault took place. In the American system of criminal
> law prosecutors are required to share all exculpatory evidence
> with the defense.
>
> The official story as told by the Bush administration
> and the U.S. corporate media is constructed of "evidence" the
> government frankly admits would not be admissible in any court
> of law. If anything, the Bush administrations' version of events
> is itself a very weakly constructed "conspiracy theory" challenged
> at every turn by an enormous amount of exculpatory evidence, much
> of it from the Bush administration itself. No wonder Bush insists
> on trials by military tribunals for suspected terrorists, trials
> in which virtually none of the evidence will be revealed to the
> defendants or their Bush-appointed defense attorneys.
>
> It's absurd to claim that such trials will have any
> similarity to those at Nuremburg after WWII. The accused Nazis
> were given every opportunity to mount a full defense and were
> directly confronted by hundreds of witnesses for the prosecution
> who they were able to fully cross-examine.
>
> There is one very striking similarity to Nuremberg
> however. Like today's accused terrorists, the Nazis were funded and
> supplied by some of Americas' wealthiest businessmen including
> GW Bush's grandfathers who operated Wall Street banks, shipping
> companies and other businesses as fronts for the Nazis [1].
>
> Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the largest sources of
> financing for terrorism are also intimately connected to the Bush
> family and to Wall Street, to some of Americas' leading corporations
> and to members of both Bush administrations.
>
> The need for complete control of all information and media
> coverage along with a 24 hour a day propaganda effort to depict support
> for the Bush administration as a patriotic duty becomes obvious once
> one has even briefly considered the exculpatory evidence. Not only
> might it be difficult to convict the so-called terrorists in a
> legitimate court of law but support for either the war or the Bush
> administration would be virtually impossible once the full facts
> were known.
>
> Nevertheless, being a loyal American I must support the
> Presidents' position in the war on terrorism with one additional
> point. The American people should hold President Bush to his own
> professed standard as explained in the following quote.
>
> In his remarks, the president again laid out what the
> White House called the Bush Doctrine.
>
> "If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you
> train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a
> terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will
> be held accountable by the United States and our friends."
>
> NY TIMES 11/22/2001 Bush Says War May Go Beyond
> Afghan Border
>
> In other words, the President, the CIA, his father and
> many of their business partners, cabinet appointees and so-called
> allies are - based on the President's own words - terrorists.
>
> Only by bringing them to justice can we ever hope to win
> the war on terrorism.
>
> Posted by
> Eldon Warman (Because Canada and Canadians are also getting sucked
> into this miry swamp.)
>
>
>