What does it mean to ordinary peoples around the world-after ten years of 9/11

[논둑길맨발로]

After ten years of 9/11, what does it mean to ordinary peoples around the world?

Post Categories: Opinion > Kiyul Chung

Share:

Kiyul Chung | 19:25 BeiJing Time,Sunday, September 11, 2011

68 views

Comments(3) 

console.log("101");

console.log("0");

What would that US-made conventional 9/11 religion of both plutocrats and kleptocrats[i] mean to those unjustly inflicted, illegally invaded, indiscriminately bombed, mercilessly massacred thereby devastatingly ruined nations and their innocent ordinary peoples?

What would that new 9/11 religion of deception, death and destruction mean to those who've been constantly looted, robbed and subjugated nations, in other words, the colonized by imperialists which are now called the internationally-networked crime organization like the US-led NATO thieves as in the case of Libya?

The 10 years of 9/11 has conveniently replaced the worn-out Cold War religion with the new fanatical and fundamentalistic thereby extremist neocon religion of War on Terror. This new religious ideology has repeatedly and conventionally justified the “permanent war” theory.

During 10 years of 9/11 global business, what had the neocon extremists of 9/11 religion done to a number of either politically independent, anti-imperialist and self-determined or mostly resourcefully-rich and strategically-important, however, paradoxically poor, weak, mostly defenseless (except countries like now a nuclear-powered DPRK, the North Korea) and (almost all of them!) non-white nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen whom US/West has often accused with their religious mantra of hypocrisy, death and destruction, i.e., “human rights, democracy and freedom”?

After 10 years, then, what’d happened also to those nearly a billion populations of both US and EU (27) nations with that newly-employed conventional religion of 9/11, together with notions of CONSTANT FEAR and destruction, which has repeatedly justified the ENDLESS WAR at the expense of their own populations, too?

After all what does that terribly refuted and discredited 9/11 event stand for whose astronomical profits, while at whose expenses and sacrifices?

The following would be partial answers to the above-raised questions:

More hatred,

more anger,

more rage,

more distrusts,

more suspicions,

more confusions,

more uncertainties,

more depressions,

more mental illnesses,

more schizophrenias,

more insanities,

more fundamentalists,

more extremists,

more fanatics,

more cover-ups,

more aggravated lies,

more willful fabrications,

more devilish deceptions,

more sophisticated manipulations,

more disinformation,

more misinformation,

more violations of national sovereignties,

more interventions,

more invasions,

more US-led NATO aggressivenesses;

more illegal wars of the US/West,

more diabolic acts,

more number of “banned ‘depleted uranium’ (DU) munitions” dropped on the part of the invaded.

Therefore,

more “crimes against humanity,”

more “war crimes,”

more “white racism,”

more further devastated moral bankruptcies,

more economic disasters,

more miseries,

more hungry stomachs,

more poverty,

more homelessness,

more refugees,

more orphans,

more deaths,

more massacres,

more destructions,

more holocausts.

And, of course, the eventual death of Mother Nature!

Aren’t these above-characterized “more” (sociopolitical, military, cultural, economic, religious, environmental/natural, psychological, national, regional and geopolitical) phenomena familiar?

It seems it does apparently so!

Why? On what grounds?

One of the surest answers to this question could (in fact, must!) be the fact that “the Truth of 9/11” or “the whole truth of ‘the extremely suspicious, still unanswered (to many scientifically, circumstantially and rationally raised questions) therefore still very much questionable, refuted and discredited” so-called ‘terror’ event in September 11, 2001 has not been both fully and honestly told yet.

The other unarguably and undisputedly surest answer must be the forcibly-imposed global reality of the so-called “anti-terror war” which has resulted probably the ugliest, the most destructive and the worst world situation in the entire human history from which who’ve been most benefitting and profiting, while who’ve been most suffering and the worst victims.

As a number of 9/11-related articles posted on the 4^th Media powerfully argue and challenge, vast numbers and volumes of information, circumstantial evidences, pictorial proofs, scientific studies and researches, sporadically-scattered related-news reports around the globe, an uncounted number of US government, military and intelligence (both classified and declassified) documents, public witnesses by former US and Western government officials who testified in public against US government’s official findings on what’d happened in 9/11, and so on, all of them logically, circumstantially and scientifically show and powerfully argue the 9/11 as a “false flag” event (See the Appendix III provided below: Prof. Griffin's "9/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith").

They all seem infallibly point their finger at the US government, undisputedly as the main culprit.[ii]

Since 2001, Prof. David Ray Griffin and many others alike around the globe have persuasively argued, challenged and accused the 9/11 as another US “false flag” event in which Griffin specifically identifies it with the other false flag event in 1941, the “Pearl Harbor” event.[iii]

Last 10 years, this false flag theory which characterizes or identifies the 9/11 with a “self-made ploy” (自作剧) has been vigorously and vehemently argued, and globally debated, too. However, this type of controversial but scientifically, circumstantially and rationally arguable debate has been mostly discouraged, dismissed or disregarded by most US and Western governments and their faithful mainstream media as a “conspiracy theory.” Accordingly those debates have mostly not been carried or reported in those mainstream media outlets.

People like Griffin, however, who argue the 9/11 from the perspective of false flag lash out the 1941 “Pearl Harbor” undoubtedly laid the then most-needed sociopolitical, military, cultural, religious, psychological and most importantly budgetary justifications for US to go to war, i.e., the World War II (See the Appendix IV also provided below: "The Pearl Harbor Deception")

The following excerpt is from Wikipedia on the issue of "Pearl Harbor Attack": “The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the American entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters. The following day (December 8th, 1941) the United States declared war on Japan” (The italicized are made by the author of this article).

What’s happened to America and the world after 9/11 in 2001 is essentially identical with what’d happened to America and the world after the Pearl Harbor in 1941. The same italicized hysterical warmongering reactions, justifications for war and other military actions by American society and the government after the Pearl Harbor in 1941 have been almost identically repeated after the 9/11 in 2001.

After probably the most treacherous, the most diabolic and the darkest 10 years of continued cover-ups after 9/11, much more aggravated deceptions and lies had been made one after the other. Recently and most disgustingly, those deceptions, fabrications and despicable lies have been shamelessly reaffirmed and reinforced by absolutely (not probably!) the most diabolical (former US) vice president Dick Cheney in his most recent TV interview on the occasion of his book publication.

The 10 years after 9/11, most devastatingly, the US-led NATO’s “PERPETUAL WAR” has become a daily reality particularly in the North Africa and Middle East region. Of course, the history of forceful partition, destruction of, and “regime change” in the former Yugoslavia, as one of the first casualties of the fanatically fundamentalist neocon attacks, i.e., the US-led NATO military gangsterism or imperialism, was no exception!

Very tragically their conventionally-renewed religion of greed, death and destruction, with the arrival of 9/11 and accompanied by a much more sickened religion of Christian fundamentalist ideology both in US and Europe, as the world has recently witnessed in the case of dreadfully coldblooded massacre act by a fanatically fundamentalist Christian in Norway, seems to have further penetrated into the daily psyche of a not small number of American and Western populations.

When a right time comes, the truth, we believe, will speak out for its behalf.[iv] It seems that right time is right here at this very moment. It seems it's at least very near, very close! The fate of that 2001 false flag event seems nearing to a globally-embarrassed END. In fact it’s been already a quite embarrassingly well-known secret in many parts of the world. 

Dr. Kiyul Chung who is a Visiting Professor to the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University in Beijing is the Editor in chief at the 4th Media.

Notes:

---

 

[i] The 9/11 has become like a conventional religion as a convenient ideological tool by/of both plutocracy and kleptocracy and/or of neo-con, Zionist, ultra rightwing (Jewish, Islamic and Christian) fundamentalist, hence, socio-politically and religiously psychotic or insane extremist force.

[ii] The excerpts from the Wikipedia's 9/11 conspiracy theories:

"The collapse of the two World Trade Center towers and the nearby WTC7 (in this photo, the brown building to the left of the towers) is a major focus of 9/11 conspiracy theories.Various 9/11 conspiracy theories question the official account of the events of September 11, 2001, and arose because of what proponents of these theories believe to be inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.

Forty-two percent of Americans in a 2006 Zogby poll were critical of the official version of 9/11 events, believing the federal government and the 9/11 commission had “concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks,” and that “there has been a cover-up.” A Zogby poll in 2007 found that:

31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.

In a 2008 poll in 17 countries, 15% of those surveyed believed the US government was responsible for the attacks, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible. The poll found that respondents in the Middle East were more likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda.

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center [was] the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire. Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military. Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies."

[iii] A couple of excerpts from 9/11-related Wikipedia information:

"... presenting 9/11 in terms of "blowback" for aggressive United States foreign policies of the 20th century: … I knew the US government had 'fabricated' evidence to go to war several times before.

… he became convinced that there was a prima facie case for the contention that there must have been complicity from individuals within the United States, and joined the 9/11 Truth Movement in calling for an extensive investigation from the United States media, Congress and the 9/11 Commission. At this time, he set about writing his first book on the subject, which he called The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004)."

[iv] A couple of 9/11-related excerpts from Wikipedia:

"But now we have abundant evidence of the Bush-Cheney's administration's willingness to break the law and to tell lies that would lead to millions of deaths.

And the 9/11 truth movement is now led intellectually by scientists and other professionals, as shown by the emergence of various organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (which includes scientists), Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientific Panel to Investigate 9/11. The movement also includes several former intelligence officers.

Thanks to these professionals, the evidence that the official story is false is now overwhelming. The only problem is to get people to look at the evidence. Once they are willing to do this, they quickly see that the official story simply cannot be true."

__________________________

[Editor’s note]

For the sake of readers, though long, I provided several 9/11-related articles with a couple of news announcements-tpye of information. I wish the provided copies may become a helpful reference for the readers to wholly understand the whole truth of 9/11.

_________________

[Appendix I]

OPEN LETTER FROM DAVID RAY GRIFFIN:

The title of my April lecture tour is "9/11: Time for a Second Look." I will be pointing out that many people---including politicians and journalists---formed their ideas about 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement early on, when there seemed little reason to doubt the Bush administration's honesty and when the 9/11 truth movement could be caricatured, without too much exaggeration, as a bunch of kids on the Internet.

But now we have abundant evidence of the Bush-Cheney's administration's willingness to break the law and to tell lies that would lead to millions of deaths.

And the 9/11 truth movement is now led intellectually by scientists and other professionals, as shown by the emergence of various organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (which includes scientists), Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientific Panel to Investigate 9/11. The movement also includes several former intelligence officers.

Thanks to these professionals, the evidence that the official story is false is now overwhelming. The only problem is to get people to look at the evidence. Once they are willing to do this, they quickly see that the official story simply cannot be true.

Finally, the replacement of the Bush administration with the Obama administration is important in three respects. First, potential whistleblowers may become less afraid to come forward. Second, the media may become more willing to expose the dozens of contradictions and other problems in the official myth. And third, there is at least the chance for a real investigation. The petition for both Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth and Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, for example, ends by asking President Obama to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation.

Sincerely,

David Ray Griffin

Claremont, California

April 2009

[Appendix II]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

9/11: Time for a Second Look

“9/11 guru” David Ray Griffin to speak at Boston University,

April 11, 2009

…

In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 911, the Cover -Up, and the Expose, Dr. Griffin once again invokes the tragic events of December 7, 1941, laying out further evidence for why he believes the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an “inside job”  —  a false flag attack — that can be traced to the highest levels of the US government. In defense of his thesis, Griffin:†

–points out the continued failure of the mainstream press to investigate any of the serious questions and anomalies that contradict the official account of 9/11, and claims the media dishonestly uses the term "conspiracy theory" to preempt any criticism of the government’s own conspiracy theory involving 19 “radical” Muslims. ††

–deconstructs, using expert testimony, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) five “crucial claims” about the World Trade Center collapses, showing that NIST, in fact, provides no supporting evidence for any of its claims. He further points out that NIST and the 911 Commission ignored vast amounts of relevant evidence pointing to controlled demolition as the cause of all three WTC towers' (1, 2 & 7) collapses, among which were the sudden-onset, symmetrical collapses at near-freefall speeds, molten pools observed beneath all three debris piles even six weeks after 9-11, indicating temperatures considerably higher than jet fuel and/or office fires could possibly have generated, and residue of explosives found in Ground Zero's dust.†

–presents plausible motives that high-level government officials clearly had for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission actively suppressed any mention of these motives, as well as the fact that key members of the Bush Administration were signatories to a radical plan drawn up in 2000 by a neo-conservative think tank named Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which called for dramatically increased militarization and global dominance. The PNAC document suggested the necessity for a “New Pearl Harbor” event to trick the American public into backing its agenda, hence, the title of Griffin’s first and latest exposé, The New Pearl Harbor (Revisited).

[Appendix III]

9/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith

March 25, 2006

David Ray Griffin

[Note: Originally delivered as a lecture at Trinity Episcopal Church of Santa Barbara, March 25, 2006, this essay was previously published at 911Truth.org, April 28, 2006 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060501003040487).]

In this essay, I offer a Christian critique of the American empire in light of 9/11, and of 9/11 in light of the American empire. Such a critique, of course, presupposes a discussion of 9/11 itself, especially the question of who was responsible for the attacks. The official theory is that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by Arab Muslims. The main alternative theory is that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation, orchestrated by forces within the US government who made it appear to be the work of Arab Muslims.

Originally, a false flag attack was one in which the attackers, perhaps in ships, literally showed the flag of an enemy country, so that it would be blamed. But the expression‎ has come to be used for any attack made to appear to be the work of some country, party, or group other than that to which the attackers themselves belong.

I will argue that the attacks of 9/11 were false flag attacks, orchestrated to marshal support for a so-called war on terror against Muslim and Arab states as the next stage in creating a global Pax Americana, an all-inclusive empire. I will conclude this essay with its main question: How should Christians in America respond to the realization that we are living in an empire similar to the Roman empire at the time of Jesus, which put him to death for resistance against it.

1. False Flag Operations

The evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation is very strong. Many Americans, however, reject this idea on a priori grounds, thereby refusing even to look at the evidence. The main a priori assumption is that America’s political and military leaders simply would not commit such a heinous act. This assumption is undermined, however, once we know something about the history of false flag operations.

False Flag Operations by Other Countries

Far from being rare in the history of warfare, false flag operations are very common. They have been especially popular with imperial powers wanting to expand their empires.

In 1931, Japan, which had been exploiting Manchuria for resources, decided to take over the whole province. To have a pretext, the Japanese army blew up the tracks of its own railway near the Chinese military base in Mukden, then blamed the sabotage on Chinese solders. This “Mukden incident” occurred almost exactly 70 years prior to 9/11, on September 18, 1931. It is, in fact, referred to by the Chinese as “9/18.”1

A year and a half later, the Nazis, less than a month after taking power, started a fire in the German Reichstag, then blamed it on Communists. Their proof that Communists were responsible was the “discovery” on the site of a feeble-minded left-wing radical, who had been brought there by the Nazis themselves.2 They then used the Reichstag fire as a pretext to arrest thousands of Communists and Social Democrats, shut down unfriendly newspapers, and annul civil rights.3

That was 1933. Six years later, Hitler wanted a pretext to attack Poland. The solution, known as “Operation Himmler,” was to have Germans dressed as Poles stage 21 raids on the Polish-German border. In some cases, as in the raid on the Gleiwitz radio station, a dead German convict dressed as a Pole was left at the scene. The next day, Hitler, referring to these 21 “border incidents,” presented the attack on Poland as a defensive necessity.4

More germane to the question of 9/11, of course, is whether American leaders would do such things.

U.S. Wars Based on False Charges of Enemy Aggression

In 1846, President James Polk, anxious to expand the American empire, had the U.S. army build a fort on the Rio Grande, some 150 miles south of the commonly accepted border between Texas and Mexico. After 16 US soldiers died in a skirmish, Polk told Congress that Mexico had “shed American blood upon the American soil.” This claim was called “the sheerest deception” by a congressman named Abraham Lincoln.5 Nevertheless, the Mexican-American war was on and in 1848, Mexico, being out-gunned, signed a peace treaty ceding away half of its country, including California, for a paltry sum.6

In 1898, the United States falsely accused Spain of blowing up a battleship, the USS Maine, which President McKinley had sent, uninvited, to Havana Harbor. This accusation, which led to the chant “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain,” was used as a pretext to start the Spanish-American war, through which America took control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. In the latter case, the United States, after helping the Filipinos defeat the Spanish, went to war against the Filipinos, claiming that they had fired on American soldiers. A quarter of a million Filipinos died in the resulting slaughter, which provoked the usually ironic William James to say: “God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles.”7 Many years later, General Arthur MacArthur admitted that American troops had fired first to start a pre-arranged battle.8

In 1964, a false account of an incident in the Tonkin Gulf was used to start the full-scale war in Vietnam, which brought about the deaths of over 58,000 Americans and some two million Vietnamese.9

Of course, we might be tempted to reply, although Americans have done such things to enemy nations (“All’s fair in love and war”), they would never deliberately kill citizens of friendly countries for political reasons. That assumption, however, is undermined in a recent book, NATO’s Secret Armies, by Swiss historian Daniele Ganser. This book demonstrates that during the Cold War, the United States sponsored false flag operations in many countries of Western Europe in order to discredit Communists and other leftists to prevent them from coming to power through elections.10

Italy suffered a wave of deadly terrorist attacks in the 1970s, including a massive explosion at the Bologna railway station that killed 85 people.11 Between 1983 and ’85, Belgium suffered a series of attacks, known as the “Brabant massacres,” in which hooded men opened fire on people in shopping centers, “reduc[ing] Belgium to a state of panic.” At the time, all these attacks in Italy, Belgium, and other countries were blamed on Communists and other leftists, often by virtue of planted evidence.12

In the 1990s, however, it was discovered that the attacks were really carried out by right-wing organizations that were coordinated by a secret unit within NATO, which was guided by the CIA and the Pentagon.13 A former member of the organization that carried out the massacres in Belgium, which was funded by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, explained that the plan was to “make the population believe that these terrorist attacks were done by the Left.”14 The former head of Italian counter-intelligence, in explaining the motivation behind the attacks in Italy, said: “The CIA wanted to create an Italian nationalism capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left.” To achieve this goal, he added, it seemed that “the Americans would do anything.”15

Operation Northwoods

If Americans would do anything to achieve their political goals in Europe, would they do similar things within America itself? Early in 1962, which was shortly after Fidel Castro had overthrown the pro-American dictator Batista, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented President Kennedy with a plan, called Operation Northwoods. This plan described “pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba,” partly “by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.” Possible actions to create this image included a “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area . . . and . . . Washington” and a “Remember the Maine” incident, in which: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blame Cuba.” Although President Kennedy did not approve this plan, it had been endorsed by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon.16

2. The Probable Motive for 9/11

US political and military leaders, as these examples show, have been fully capable of orchestrating false flag operations that would kill innocent people, including American citizens, to achieve political goals. The political goal during the Cold War was to prevent and overthrow left-leaning governments. But what motive could US leaders have had for orchestrating the attacks of 9/11, a decade after the Cold War had ended? Actually, it was precisely the end of the Cold War that provided the likely motive: the desire to create a global Pax Americana.

Whereas the world during the Cold War was bipolar, the demise of the Soviet Union created in some minds—the minds of that group known as neoconservatives, or neocons—the prospect of a unipolar world. In 1989, Charles Krauthammer published a piece entitled “Universal Dominion,” in which he argued that America should work for “a qualitatively new outcome—a unipolar world.”17 A year later, he said the United States, as the “unchallenged superpower,” should act unilaterally, “unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them.”18

The most important neocon has been Dick Cheney. In 1992, the last year of his tenure as secretary of defense, he had two of his assistants, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, write a draft of the Pentagon’s “Defense Planning Guidance,” which said America’s “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.”19 Andrew Bacevich, who is a conservative but not a neoconservative, has called this draft “a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony.”20 An article in Harper’s calls it an early version of Cheney’s “Plan . . . to rule the world.”21

During the rest of the 1990s, while the Republicans were out of White House, the unipolar dream kept growing. In 1996, Robert Kagan said the United States should use its military strength “to maintain a world order which both supports and rests upon American hegemony.”22

In the following year, William Kristol, the son of neocon godfather Irving Kristol, founded a unipolarist think tank called the Project for the New American Century, often called PNAC. Its members included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and many other neocons who would become central members of the Bush administration in 2001. In September of 2000, PNAC published a document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Reaffirming “the basic tenets” of the Cheney-Wolfowitz draft of 1992, this document said that “America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend [its present] advantageous position” and thereby “to preserve and enhance [the] ‘American peace.’”23

What would it take, according to these neocons, to preserve and enhance the Pax Americana? Basically five things. First, control of the world’s oil. As Robert Dreyfuss, a critic of the neocons, says, “who[ever] controls oil controls the world.”24 For the neocons, this meant bringing about regime change in several oil-rich countries, especially Iraq. Some neocons, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, had wanted the first President Bush to take out Saddam in 1990.25 They continued to advocate this policy throughout the 1990s, with PNAC even writing a letter to President Clinton in 1998, urging him to use military force to “remov[e] Saddam’s regime from power.”26 After the Bush-Cheney administration took office, attacking Iraq was the main item on its agenda. The only real question, reports former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, was “finding a way to do it.”27

A second necessary condition for the envisaged Pax Americana was a transformation of the military in the light of the “revolution in military affairs”—RMA for short—made possible by information technology. At the center of this RMA transformation is the military use of space.28 Although the term “missile defense” implies that this use of space is to be purely defensive, one neocon, Lawrence Kaplan, has candidly stated otherwise, saying: “Missile defense isn’t really meant to protect America. It’s a tool for global domination.”29

In any case, implementing this transformation will be very expensive, which brings us to a third requirement: an increase in military spending. The end of the Cold War made this requirement challenging, because most Americans assumed that, since we no longer had to defend the world against global Communism, we could drastically reduce military spending, thereby having a “peace dividend” to spend on health, education, and the environment.

A fourth neocon requirement for a Pax Americana was a modification of the doctrine of preemptive attack. Traditionally, a country has had the right to launch a preemptive attack against another country if an attack from that country was imminent—too imminent to take the matter to the UN Security Council. But neocons wanted the United States to act to preclude threats that might arise in the more or less distant future.30

These four developments would require a fifth thing: an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies. This point had been made in The Grand Chessboard, a 1997 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. Brzezinski is not a neocon but he shares their concern with American primacy (as indicated by the subtitle of his book: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives). Portraying Central Asia, with its vast oil reserves, as the key to world power, Brzezinski argued that America must get control of this region. However, Brzezinski counseled, Americans, with their democratic instincts, are reluctant to authorize the military spending and human sacrifices necessary for “imperial mobilization,” and this reluctance “limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation.”31 But this impediment could be overcome, he added, if there were “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”32 The American people were, for example, willing to enter World War II after “the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”33

This same idea was suggested in PNAC’s document of 2000, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Referring to the goal of transforming the military, it said that this “process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”34

3. Opportunities Created by the New Pearl Harbor

When the attacks of 9/11 occurred, they were treated like a new Pearl Harbor. President Bush reportedly wrote in his diary on that night: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.”35 Many commentators, from Robert Kagan to Henry Kissinger to a writer for Time magazine, said that America should respond to the attacks of 9/11 in the same way it had responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor.36 Rumsfeld said that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” President Bush and Condoleezza Rice also spoke of 9/11 as creating opportunities.37

And it did, in fact, create opportunities to fulfill what the neocons had considered the other necessary conditions for bringing about a Pax Americana. With regard to oil, the Bush administration had, during the summer of 2001, developed a plan to attack Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with a puppet regime, thereby allowing UNOCAL to build its proposed pipeline from the Caspian Sea and the US military to build bases in the region.

The official story of 9/11, according to which it was carried out by members of al-Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, provided the needed pretext for this operation. In 2004, Rumsfeld told the 9/11 Commission that prior to 9/11, the president could not have convinced Congress that the United States needed to “invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban.” 38

9/11 also provided a necessary condition for the attack on Iraq. It did not provide a sufficient condition. The administration still had to wage a propaganda offensive to convince the public that Saddam was involved in 9/11, was connected to al-Qaeda, and illegally possessed weapons of mass destruction. But 9/11 was a necessary condition. As neocon Kenneth Adelman has said: “At the beginning of the administration people were talking about Iraq but it wasn’t doable. . . . That changed with September 11.”39 Historian Stephen Sniegoski, explaining why 9/11 made the attack on Iraq possible, says:

“The 9/11 attacks made the American people angry and fearful. Ordinary Americans wanted to strike back at the terrorist enemy, even though they weren’t exactly sure who that enemy was. . . . Moreover, they were fearful of more attacks and were susceptible to the administration’s propaganda that the United States had to strike Iraq before Iraq somehow struck the United States.”40

Sniegoski’s view is supported by Nicholas Lemann of the New Yorker. Lemann says that he was told by a senior official of the Bush administration that, in Lemann’s paraphrase,

“the reason September 11th appears to have been ‘a transformative moment’ is not so much that it revealed the existence of a threat of which officials had previously been unaware as that it drastically reduced the American public’s usual resistance to American military involvement overseas.”41

The new Pearl Harbor also opened the way for the revolution in military affairs. Prior to 9/11, Bacevich reports, “military transformation appeared to be dead in the water.” But the “war on terror” after 9/11 “created an opening for RMA advocates to make their case.”42

9/11 also allowed for great increases in military spending, including spending for space weapons. On the evening of 9/11 itself, Rumsfeld held a news briefing at the Pentagon. Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked:

“Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending?”43

Congress immediately appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later.

The new Pearl Harbor also paved the way for the new doctrine of preemptive warfare. “The events of 9/11,” observes Bacevich, “provided the tailor-made opportunity to break free of the fetters restricting the exercise of American power.”44 Bush alluded to this new doctrine at West Point the following June.45 It was then fully articulated in the administration’s 2002 version of the National Security Strategy. The president’s covering letter said that America will “act against . . . emerging threats before they are fully formed.”46 The document itself said:

“Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our enemies strike first. . . . [T]he United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”47

4. 9/11 as a False Flag Operation

If 9/11 provided the “tailor-made opportunity” for enunciating this new doctrine, as Bacevich has observed, it equally provided the opportunity to realize all the other things that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other neocons had been dreaming about during the previous decade. Should not this fact lead us to suspect that 9/11 was not simply a godsend? In any criminal investigation, the first question is always cui bono—-who benefits? Why should we not apply this principle to 9/11? Let us now look at some evidence, to see if it supports the view that 9/11 was a false flag operation, orchestrated to produce precisely the effects that it did in fact produce.

The Alleged Hijackers

The official account of 9/11, by blaming the attacks on Arab Muslims, provided a basis for the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq wars—not a legal basis, but an emotional basis sufficient to marshal support from a the American people and Congress. But there are many problems with this official story.

For one thing, the alleged hijackers are portrayed as devout Muslims, ready to meet their maker. Mohamed Atta, called the ringleader, is said by the 9/11 Commission to have become very religious, even “fanatically so.”48 But some journalists found that he loved cocaine, alcohol, gambling, pork, and lap dances. Several of the other alleged hijackers reportedly had similar tastes.49

Also, the flight manifests that have been released for the four flights have no Arab names on them.50

It appears, moreover, that evidence was planted. Authorities allegedly found two of Atta’s bags at the Boston airport. These bags contained Atta’s passport and his will along with various types of incriminating evidence. But why would Atta have planned to take his will on a plane that he planned to fly into the World Trade Center?51

The Legend of Osama bin Laden

There are also many problems in the official story about Osama bin Laden. In June of 2001, when he was already America’s “most wanted” criminal, bin Laden reportedly spent two weeks in the American Hospital in Dubai, where he was visited by the local CIA agent.52

Also, after 9/11, when America was supposedly trying to get bin Laden “dead or alive,” the U.S. military evidently allowed him to escape on at least four occasions, the last one being the “battle of Tora Bora,” which the London Telegraph labeled “a grand charade.”53

Moreover, although the Bush administration promised that Secretary of State Colin Powell would provide a white paper with proof that the attacks had been planned by bin Laden, this paper was never produced. And although the Taliban said that it would hand bin Laden over if the United States presented evidence of his involvement in 9/11, the Bush administration refused.54

Finally, although this administration claims that bin Laden admitted responsibility for the attacks in a video allegedly found in Afghanistan, the man in this video has darker skin, fuller cheeks, and a broader nose than the Osama bin Laden of all the other videos. We again seem to have planted evidence. Indeed, within the 9/11 truth movement, this video is known as “the fake bin Laden video.”55

Reasons to believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation are also provided by various features of the attacks that could not have been accomplished by the alleged hijackers. One of these is the destruction of the World Trade Center.

5. The Destruction of the World Trade Center

According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed primarily from their fires—plus, in the case of the Twin Towers, the impact of the airplanes. But this explanation faces several formidable problems.

First, many people have been led to believe that the steel in these steel-frame buildings was melted by the fires. But steel does not begin to melt until 2800 degrees F, whereas open fires burning hydrocarbons such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can in the most ideal circumstances rise only as high as 1700 degrees.

Second, the fires in these three buildings were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not collapse. A fire in Philadelphia in 1991 burned 18 hours; a fire in Caracas in 2004 burned 17 hours. But neither of these fires resulted in even a partial collapse.56 By contrast, the north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, had fires on only a few floors, according to all the photographic evidence57 and several witnesses.58

The collapse of Building 7 has been recognized as especially difficult to explain. The FEMA report said that the most likely scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.”59 The collapse of building 7 was not even mention in the 571 pages of The 9/11 Commission Report, even though this collapse was, according to the official account, a historic event: the first time a steel-frame high-rise had ever collapsed from fire alone. The latest official report, put out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has claimed that the Twin Towers collapsed because the airplanes knocked the fire-proofing off the steel,60 but it has yet to explain why Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed.

A third problem with the official account is that total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never, either before or after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with externally produced structural damage. All such collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.”

A fourth problem is that the collapses of these three buildings all manifested many standard features of controlled demolition. I will mention six:

1. The collapses began suddenly. Steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag. But if you look at videos available on the Web, you will see that the buildings are perfectly motionless up to the moment they begin to collapse.61

2. These huge buildings collapsed straight down, instead of toppling over, which would have caused enormous death and destruction. This straight-down collapse is the whole point of the type of controlled demolition known as implosion, which only a few companies in the world are qualified to perform.62

3. All three buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, which means that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, were offering no resistance to the upper floors.

4. The collapses were total collapses, resulting in piles of rubble no more than a few stories high. This means that the enormous steel columns in the core of each building had to be broken into rather short segments—which is what explosives do.

5. Fifth, great quantities of molten steel were produced, which means that the steel had been heated up to several thousand degrees. Witnesses during the clean-up reported, moreover, that sometimes when a piece of steel was lifted out of the rubble, molten metal would be dripping from the end.63

6. Dozens of people, including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters, reported that explosions went off prior to and during the collapses of the north and south towers. For example, Fire Captain Dennis Tardio said: “I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom.”64 Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: “It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”65

One more feature of the collapses of the Twin Towers was that virtually everything except the steel—all the desks, computers, and concrete—was pulverized into tiny dust particles.66

The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all, of these seven features—at least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics.67 But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains all of them.

This evidence for controlled demolition contradicts the idea that al-Qaeda terrorists were responsible. They could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours needed to plant the explosives. Agents of the Bush-Cheney administration, by contrast, could have gotten such access, given the fact that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III—the president’s brother and cousin, respectively—were principals of the company in charge of security for the WTC.68 Al-Qaeda terrorists would also probably not have had the courtesy to ensure that these huge buildings came straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings. They also would not have had the necessary expertise.

Another relevant fact is that evidence was destroyed. An examination of the buildings’ steel columns could have shown whether explosives had been used to slice them. But virtually all of the steel was quickly sold to scrap dealers, trucked away, and sent to Asia to be melted down. It is usually a federal offense to remove anything from a crime scene. But this removal of thousands of tons of steel, the biggest destruction of evidence in history, was allowed by federal officials.

Evidence was also apparently planted. The passport of one of the hijackers on Flight 11 was allegedly found in the rubble, having survived not only the fire but also whatever caused everything in the north tower except its steel to be pulverized into dust.69

6. The Strike on the Pentagon

The official account of the strike on the Pentagon is equally problematic. According to this account, the Pentagon was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. But this claim is challenged by many facts.

First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes. And yet the US military, which by then would have known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons, has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”70

Second, the aircraft, in order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 270-degree downward spiral, which some pilots have said, would have been difficult if not impossible for a Boeing 757 even with an expert pilot. Hani Hanjour, moreover, was known as a terrible pilot, who could not safely fly even a small plane.71

Third, terrorists brilliant enough to get through the U.S. military’s defense system would not have struck the Pentagon’s west wing, for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been. The west wing was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; a strike anywhere else would have killed thousands of people, rather than 125. And the secretary of defense and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing. Why would an al-Qaeda pilot have executed a very difficult maneuver to hit the west wing when he could have simply crashed into the roof of the east wing?

Fourth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757, which is what Flight 77 was. For one thing, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not create a detectable seismic signal.72 Also, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 were not produced by the strike on the Pentagon, according to both photographs73 and eyewitnesses.

Former pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence, writes:

“There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. . . . There was no particular physical evidence of the expected ‘wreckage.’ There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 ‘crash.’”74

CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre, reporting live from the Pentagon on 9/11, said: “From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”75 Karen Kwiatkowski, who at the time was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel working at the Pentagon, has written:

“I would think that if a 100-plus-ton aircraft . . . going several hundred miles an hour were to hit the Pentagon, it would cause a great deal of possibly superficial but visible damage to the . . . entire area of impact. But I did not see this kind of damage.”76

Fifth, evidence was again destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris and carried it off.77 Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up.78 Finally, the videos from security cameras on the nearby gas station and nearby hotels, which would show what really hit the Pentagon, were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI, and the Department of Justice has subsequently refused to released them.79

Evidence again appears to have been fabricated. For example, proof that Flight 77 was hijacked and heading back towards Washington was allegedly provided in a phone call from passenger Barbara Olson to her husband, attorney Ted Olson. But no evidence from telephone records has been provided to confirm‎ that this call occurred. The only evidence that has been submitted is the claim of Ted Olson, who works for the Bush-Cheney administration.

These are only a few of the many reasons, which I have discussed in my books, for concluding that 9/11 was simply one of the latest examples of false flag terrorism.

[Appendix IV]

THE PEARL HARBOR DECEPTION

Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor

12/08/08:Douglas Dietrich talks about the

Dec. 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor

http://www.apfn.net/CC29/A001I081207-819a.MP3

The Bombing of Pearl Harbor

On 7 December 1941 the greatest disaster in United States history occurred. Truly this was and is, “’A date which will live in infamy.’”(Costello 1), but not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather for the deception and the misguidance used by the Government and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a purely artificial chess game Roosevelt sacrificed over 2400 American Seamen’s lives, thanks to his power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the United States. Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism.

Franklin D. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which United States countrymen would take arms and fight in Europe’s War was to be an overt action against the United States by a member of the Axis Power. Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the United States unless he knew they were beatable. There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were planning on it, and instigating that attack. On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo.

This memo outlined eight different steps the United States could do that he predicted would lead to an attack by Japan on the United States. The day after this memo was giving to Franklin D. Roosevelt, he began to implement these steps. By the time that Japan finally attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, all eight steps had occurred (Willy 1). The eight steps consisted of two main subject areas; the first being a sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack, the second being a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. The main subject area of the eight-action memo was the sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack. McCollum called for the United States to make arrangements with both Britain (Action A) and Holland (Action B), for the use of military facilities and acquisition of supplies in both Singapore and Indonesia.

He also suggested for the deployment of a division of long-range heavy cruisers (Action D) and two divisions of submarines (Action E) to the Orient. The last key factor McCollum called for was to keep the United States Fleet in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands (Action F). Roosevelt personally took charge of Action’s D and E; these actions were called “pop up” cruises. Roosevelt had this to say about the cruises, “’I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing (Stinnett 9).’” With the fleet located around Hawaii and particularly in Pearl Harbor a double-sided sword was created; it allowed for quicker deployment times into South Pacific Water, but more importantly it lacked many fundamental military needs, and was vulnerable due to its geographic location. To understand the true vulnerability of Pearl Harbor one must look at Oahu, the Hawaiian Island that the military base is located. The North part of the island is all mountains, these mountains hinder the vision of military look out points, making an attack from the North virtually a surprise until the sound of fighter planes are over head.

There were many key military needs that were missing from Pearl Harbor, and they were; a lack of training facilities, lack of large-scale ammunition and fuel supplies, lack of support craft such as tugs and repair ships, and a lack of overhaul facilities such as dry-docking and machine shops. Commander in Chief, United States Fleet - Admiral James O. Richardson, was outraged when he was told by President Roosevelt of his plans on keeping the fleet in Hawaiian Waters. Richardson knew of the problems and vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, the safety of his men and warships was paramount. In a luncheon with Roosevelt, Richardson confronted the President, and by doing so ended his military career. Four months later Richardson was removed as commander-in-chief, and replaced by Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel (Stinnett 11).

Kimmel by many top Naval personal was looked down upon on, for taking orders from Roosevelt and not considering the immediate dangers he was putting the fleet in. The second part of McCollum’s eight-action memo was a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. He insisted that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for oil (Action G), and a complete embargo of all trade with Japan (Action H), by the United States. This embargo closely represented a similar embargo that was being imposed by the British Empire. McCollum also knew that if Japan controlled the Pacific, it would put a strain on America’s resources for copper, rubber, tin, and other valuable goods. These imports from the Pacific were all essential to America’s Economy, and to protect these trading routes McCollum insisted for all possible aid to be given to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek (Action C).

Japan had some control over China due to a military operation, which took over part of the country. Thanks to the control, Japan took and used many raw goods from China that were not in abundance in their own homeland. The government of Chiang Kai-shek was completely against Japan, and with economic support from the United States, they were able to deny certain possessions from Japan. The United States Government and United States Navy by withholding important information about the bombing of Pearl Harbor have done everything they can do to protect the integrity of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the government. True nationalist believe this information is withheld from the general public in order to protect national security, and not to hide a conspiracy that was created by the United States Government some fifty years ago.

This school of thought asks people and wants them to think, “How in the world could the President of the United States sacrifice over 2400 American seamen’s life’s, horrific amounts of damages to the Fleet, and tremendous amounts of destruction to Army fighter planes?” This group also asks, “In the past fifty years why has there not be one single piece of hard evidence which links Roosevelt to Pearl Harbor, or why has there not been one person who had top security clearance to come out and say something about Roosevelt and his involvement with the bombing?”

On 5 December 1941 at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” “Yes, I know, …Well, you tell them what it is Frank,” said Roosevelt (Toland 294). Knox became extremely excited with the ok from Roosevelt, and he went to tell the group of where the Japanese were and where they were headed. Just as Knox was about to speak Roosevelt interrupted saying, “ We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to their apparent destination (Toland 294).” All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water, and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew this information, but one must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted to hide something? On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means War (Toland 318).”

 Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor (Toland 320). Not until the morning of 7 December 1941 at 7:55 Hawaii Time did Japan deliberately and forcefully attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, finally ending disillusioned isolationist ideas of an only European War. United States countrymen immediately ran to recruiting offices after the news of the attack, to join the armed forces and fight against the Japanese and Hitler.

 Beyond a doubt Pearl Harbor was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s back door into the European War. Roosevelt’s decisions and actions were very much so, deliberate and calculated, in order to lead a victorious Allied Powers in World War II.

By provoking the Japanese and the foreknowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt along with his top advisors and the Federal Government are truly to blame for the lost of American life’s and American property. 7 December 1941 shall be a day in American history, which will be remembered as “a day of deceit.”

Works Cited

Costello, John. Days of Infamy. New York: Pocket Books, 1994. Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit. New York: The Free Press, 2000.

Toland, John. Infamy. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1982.

Willey, Mark. “Pearl Harbor Mother of all Conspiracies.” 13 Mar. 2001. www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html.

Works Consulted Larrabee, Eric. Commander in Chief. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.

Prange, Gordon W. December 7, 1941 The Day the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.

The Roosevelt Years to United States Enters World War II. Videocassette. By Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Flimic Achieves, 1995.

75 mins. Thompson, Robert S. A Time For War. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991.

http://tinyurl.com/5whg3e

Why did Roosevelt want to enter into World War II? Was it to defeat the tyranny of Hitler? Stalin, who was our partner during the war, was even more vicious and tyrannical than Hitler. Was it to stop the aggression of the Japanese? Before the war, this country did everything it could to give Japan no choice and goad them into waging war.

Roosevelt was a 33rd degree mason. That is the highest level one can attain in the satanic Masonic order. One of objectives of the lucifer worshipping Masonic order is to establish a one world government.

After World War I these people tried, and failed, to start a one world government organization, The League of Nations. Realizing they would need another world war to finally create such an organization, they manipulated world events, started and won World War II, and created the United Nations, the tool for the final phase of one world government.

More at: PEARL HARBOR ATTACK: THE GREAT DECEPTION

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html

Did President Franklin Roosevelt Have complete Knowledge of the Attack on Pearl Harbor?

http://tinyurl.com/6kqjd3 

Pearl Harbor: Did FDR know in advance? Was there a cover up when the truth was revealed? truth was revealed? http://home.flash.net/~manniac/pharbor.htm

http://www.mikebuckstudios.com/quest.htm