Is Israeli Aggression on Gaza Coming?

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Will Netanyahu order Israel’s fourth preemptive war on Gaza pre-or-post September 17 Knesset elections — for the fourth time since December 2008?

His political future at stake, are his war-mongering threats empty campaign rhetoric to win votes or is war imminent?

Along with vowing to (illegally) annex the Jordan Valley (30% of the West Bank) if reelected next week, he threatened war on Gaza Thursday, saying:

“There will be an operation, but I will not embark on it a moment before we are ready…(T)here apparently will be no choice but to topple Hamas,” turning truth on its head, adding:

“There is a terrorist element that wants to destroy us (sic).” The most dangerous regional real one is headquartered in Tel Aviv.

Israel has been perpetually at war on Gaza since 2007 without formally declaring it, terror-bombing the Strip at its discretion, along with cross-border incursions, and using live fire and other hostile actions against peaceful demonstrators.

On the 73rd Great March of Return Friday since March 30 2018, Israeli forces used live fire and other excessive force against nonviolent Gazans, protesting for their legitimate rights denied by a ruthless occupier.

Two children threatening no one were killed, scores more injured, including a journalist and two paramedics, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

Throughout Israeli history, the world community never held its political and military officials accountable for their Nuremberg-level high crimes. 

Nor have world leaders denounced Netanyahu’s threat to attack Gaza aggressively. Is it coming?

Late Thursday, he said it “could happen at any moment” — after returning from Sochi, Russia, holding talks with Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Shogui, the visit a pre-election campaign stunt.

Was threatening war on Gaza the same thing to gain an edge over his main rival? Polls show his Likud party and Gantz/Lapid’s Blue and White party are in a dead heat days before Tuesday elections.

Final pre-election polls released Friday showed a potential Likud-led coalition could win 59 seats, 61 needed for a Knesset majority, why Netanyahu is using every dirty trick in the book for an 11th hour edge.

Haaretz editors slammed his “weakness” and “cowardice.” They accused him of “nourishing” clashes with Gazan protesters.

They called for “ending the blockade, building industrial infrastructure that will create jobs and allowing freedom of movement for both goods and people,” adding:

“Electing him to another term of office will merely ensure more of the same weakness that has already given rise to pointless rounds of fighting.” 

He hopes that reelection as prime minister may help him avoid indictment on bribery, fraud, and breach of trust charges, following an October hearing, damning evidence against him.

He reportedly said if able to form a new ruling coalition post-election, he’ll seek Knesset immunity from indictment and prosecution, along with legislation to prevent Israel’s Supreme Court from removing it.

His political future and personal freedom are at stake. Is judgment day coming at last — after avoiding accountability for years?

Advertisements

Assange to Remain in UK Prison Beyond Release Date

By Stephen Lendman

Source

On orders from Washington, Julian Assange is being slowly killed — by UK and US dark forces in cahoots with each other.

Facing 18 bogus charges under the long ago outdated 1917 Espionage Act, a WW I relic, he’s been judged guilty by accusation for the “high crime” of truth-telling journalism — what Western media long ago abandoned, serving instead as press agents for powerful interests.

Earlier, Assange justifiably explained that WikiLeaks “publish(es) newsworthy content,” its legal right, adding: 

“Consistent with the US Constitution, we publish material (from reliable sources) that we can confirm to be true…”

In the US, UK, and elsewhere in the West, censorship is the new normal — speech, independent media, and academic freedoms gravely threatened, especially online, the last frontier of free and open expression dark forces want eliminated.

Social media, Google, and other tech giants are complicit in a campaign to suppress content conflicting with the official narrative.

What’s happening in plain sight is the hallmark of totalitarian rule – controlling the message, eliminating alternative news, information and analysis, notably on major geopolitical issues.

When truth-telling and dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist – the slippery slope where the US and other Western societies are heading.

Will Assange be extradited to the US or will he expire behind bars in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison, Britain’s Gitmo? 

The latter is most likely. Denied rights afforded murders and other hardened criminals, his mental and physical health deteriorated markedly from months of mind-numbing solitary confinement.

Perhaps he won’t live long enough to face extradition hearing proceedings, scheduled for late February 2020 — or if still alive, maybe to be zombie-like at the time from his cruel and inhumane mistreatment.

Last April, UK authorities arrested and detained him solely for extradition to the US.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Nicole Oxman acknowledged it, saying “I can confirm that Julian Assange was arrested in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States of America.”

His arrest, imprisonment, and mistreatment are all about wanting truth-telling on major issues silenced — US charges against him fabricated.

According to UK media, he’ll remain in prison beyond his scheduled September 22 release date (half way through his 50-week sentence), the Trump and Boris Johnson regimes colluding to keep him behind bars.

On Friday, Westminster Magistrates Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser ordered him to remain imprisoned at least through his February 2020 extradition hearing, saying the following:

“You have been produced today (by video link from Belmarsh prison) because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end,” adding:

“When that happens, your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

“Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.”

“In my view, I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.”

No absconding occurred. In August 2012, Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador in its London embassy — his legal right under international law, fearing extradition to Sweden over fabricated rape charges, a ruse to extradite him to the US.

An extradition administrative hearing will be held on October 11, followed by a case management hearing on October 21 — ahead of a final extradition hearing in late February.

After Friday’s ruling, WikiLeaks said the following:

“This morning’s hearing was not a bail hearing, it was a technical hearing. Despite this, the magistrate preemptively refused bail before the defense requested it,” adding:

“Magistrate says Assange to remain in prison indefinitely. He has been in increasing forms of deprivation of liberty since his arrest 9 years ago, one week after he started publishing Cablegate” — referring to US crimes of war, against humanity, and other international law breaches revealed from US diplomatic cables.

A Final Comment

Last April, establishment media cheered Assange’s unjustifiable arrest.

The NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other US major media called him no free-press hero.

WaPo said his arrest was “long overdue.” The Wall Street Journal  falsely accused him of targeting “democratic institutions or governments.”

The NYT said “(h)e deserves his fate,” calling him “an odious person,” falsely accusing him of “act(ing) as a conduit for Russian intelligence services…and help(ing) (to) spread the conspiracy theory (sic) that the leaked (Dem) email’s” weren’t hacked. 

Following Friday’s London hearing, the Times was at it again, falsely claiming WikiLeaks “release(d) thousands of (Dem) party emails stolen by Russian hackers (sic).”

Material was leaked, nothing hacked by Russia or anyone else.

Publishing it is what investigative journalism the way it should be is all about — what the Times and other establishment media long ago abandoned.

Iran to Blame for Attacks on Saudi Oil Fields?

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Ansarullah Houthi rebels are a formidable fighting force, proved time and again after years of war in Yemen.

Able to penetrate Saudi air defenses effectively, they inflicted significant damage on kingdom targets in response to its aggression — notably its oil and gas facilities, knocking out half their operations, for how long uncertain.

Leading Trump regime war hawk Pompeo falsely blamed Iran for Houthi strikes on Saudi oil fields Saturday, retaliating against kingdom terror-bombing of Yemeni targets, massacring civilians, and enforcing blockade, along with the US. 

Headlines matter, what most resonate with readers. In its latest edition, the NYT headlined: “Two Major Saudi Oil Installations Hit by Drone Strike, and US Blames Iran” — suggesting the Times (falsely) holds Iran accountable.

Not a shred of evidence suggests Iranian responsibility for retaliatory Houthis strikes on Saturday or earlier against Saudi targets.

An accurate headline would have stressed it, admitting Houthi attacks in the article, saying the following:

“The attacks immediately escalated tensions in the Persian Gulf amid a standoff between the United States and Iran, even as key questions remained unanswered — where the drones were launched from, and how the Houthis managed to hit facilities deep in Saudi territory, some 500 miles from Yemeni soil.”

Saturday Houthi strikes on key Saudi oil and gas operation surely came from Yemeni territory or kingdom border area(s) between both countries, captured by Houthi fighters.

The Times quoted Pompeo’s Big Lie, claiming “no evidence the attacks came from Yemen” — ignoring “no evidence” indicating otherwise.

In January, a report commissioned by the UN said advanced Houthi drones have a range of up to 930 miles — able to target key Saudi oil fields and other strategic targets in the kingdom.

US-orchestrated war on Yemen rages endlessly, Houthis responding defensively to Saudi aggression, their legal right.

If Iran or another source helped the Houthis advance their drones and other defensive capabilities, there’s nothing illegal or improper about it.

The right of self-defense is affirmed by the UN Charter and other international law.

The US, Britain, France, and other Western nations supply Riyadh with heavy weapons and munitions to wage aggressive war.

Yemen is victimized by endless US-orchestrated war, Houthis responding in self-defense, other nations legally entitled to aid their liberating struggle.

What’s important to explain, the Times ignored, supporting US wars of aggression instead of denouncing them responsibly.

The Times reinvented Yemeni history, falsely claiming war launched in 2001 (by Bush/Cheney) began in 2014.

Houthi fighters challenged the illegitimate, US-installed Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi puppet regime, forcing him to take refuge in Saudi Arabia. The Times pretended he’s Yemen’s legitimate leader.

The Wall Street Journal headlined: “US Blames Iran for Attack on Saudi Oil Facilities,” falsely claiming “Iran-backed militias in Iraq have previously been responsible for targeting Saudi Arabia’s oil industry.”

No evidence supports either accusation, the Journal adding:

“Saudi and American officials are investigating the possibility that attacks on Saudi oil facilities Saturday involved cruise missiles launched from Iraq or Iran” — despite no evidence suggesting it, the Journal failed to explain.

It also maintained the myth of war responsible for “kill(ing) (about) 10,000 people over the last five years.”

Since launched in October 2001, hundreds of thousands of Yemenis perished from war, untreated diseases, malnutrition, starvation, and related deprivation, most deaths since early 2015.

Yemen is Washington’s war — key NATO countries, Israel, and the Saudis its junior partners. The UAE was involved until announcing its pullout in July.

Given Houthi ability to strike strategic targets deep into its territory, will the Saudis cease aggression in Yemen against a superior adversary?

Instead of reporting accurately on endless war in Yemen, establishment media falsely blame Houthi fighters and Iran for US/Saudi et al aggression in the country.

Kashmir under lockdown: All the latest updates

Source: Al-Jazeera

Government source tells AFP an average of 20 protests a day took place in the disputed region in the last six weeks.

The Indian government revoked the special status accorded to Indian-administered Kashmir in its constitution, the most far-reaching political move on the disputed region in nearly 70 years.

A presidential decree issued on August 5 revoked Article 370 of India’s constitution that guaranteed special rights to the Muslim-majority state, including the right to its own constitution and autonomy to make laws on all matters except defence, communications and foreign affairs.

In the lead-up to the move, India sent thousands of additional troops to the disputed region, imposed a crippling curfew, shut down telecommunications and internet, and arrested political leaders.

The move has worsened the already-heightened tensions with neighbouring Pakistan, which downgraded its diplomatic relations with India.

India and Pakistan claim Kashmir in full but rule it in part. The nuclear-armed neighbours have fought two of their three wars over the disputed territory. A rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir has been ongoing for 30 years.

Here are the latest updates:

 

Imran Khan on ‘genocide’ in Kashmir and possible war with India

Pakistan’s prime minister discusses his government’s controversies as well as foreign and domestic policies.

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2019/09/imran-khan-genocide-kashmir-war-india-190913134545416.html

It has been a year since the former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan became Pakistan’s prime minister.

Khan’s campaign slogan was “Naya Pakistan” or “New Pakistan“, a reflection of his promises to turn the country’s economy around and end corruption.

But the first year of his premiership has not gone as smoothly as he may have hoped or even expected, especially in terms of the economy. The Pakistani rupee has lost 35 percent of its value during his time in office.

Khan’s critics call him the prime minister of u-turns, as he has been forced to go back on many of his campaign pledges in an attempt to rescue the situation.

“I’m glad they say I’m a prime minister of u-turns. Only an idiot doesn’t do any u-turns,” Khan tells Al Jazeera. “Only a moron, when he’s on a course and he comes across a brick wall, only that stupid idiot keeps banging his head against a brick wall. An intelligent person immediately revises his strategy and goes around it.”

But have any of these “u-turns” had a positive impact on the country?

In terms of foreign affairs, Pakistan is closer than ever to its neighbour, China. But relations with its other neighbour, India, are at a new low.

Asked whether these two nuclear countries are at risk of another major conflict, or even war, Khan tells Al Jazeera he “absolutely” believes war with India could be a possibility.

“Eight million Muslims in Kashmir are under siege for almost now six weeks. And why this can become a flashpoint between India and Pakistan is because what we already know India is trying to do is divert attention from their illegal annexation and their impending genocide on Kashmir,” he says. “They are taking the attention away by blaming Pakistan for terrorism.”

“Pakistan would never start a war, and I am clear: I am a pacifist, I am anti-war, I believe that wars do not solve any problems,” he says.

But, he adds: “When two nuclear-armed countries fight, if they fight a conventional war, there is every possibility that it is going to end up into nuclear war. The unthinkable.”

“If say Pakistan, God forbid, we are fighting a conventional war, we are losing, and if a country is stuck between the choice: either you surrender or you fight ’til death for your freedom, I know Pakistanis will fight to death for their freedom. So when a nuclear-armed country fights to the end, to the death, it has consequences.”

“So that’s why we have approached the United Nations, we are approaching every international forum, that they must act right now because this is a potential disaster that would go way beyond the Indian subcontinent.”

Until recently, Pakistan had made attempts to open dialogue with India “to live as civilised neighbours, to resolve our difference [over Kashmir] …  through a political settlement”, but according to Khan, this is no longer the case.

“We discovered that while we were trying to have dialogue, they were trying to push us in the blacklist in FATF [Financial Action Task Force] … If Pakistan is pushed into the blacklist of FATF that means there will be sanctions on Pakistan. So they were trying to bankrupt us economically, so that’s when we pulled back. And that’s when we realised that this government is on an agenda … to push Pakistan to disaster,” says Khan.

“There is no question of talking to the Indian government right now after they revoked this article 370 of their own constitution and they annexed Kashmir illegally against the UN Security Council resolution which had guaranteed the people that they would be able to hold a referendum, a plebiscite, to decide their destiny.”

Khan has not only faced criticism about the country’s ailing economy and his u-turns. Civil rights acitivists and journalists are saying that the space for dissent and freedom of expression has shrunk and that there was a crackdown against the media since he took office.

“This is utter and utter nonsense,” Khan says. “Pakistan is one of the freest places in the world in media …. the freedom that journalists have in this country is unprecedented.”

Asked about his government’s achievements after its first year in office, Khan says: “We are already in a new Pakistan … This government has done things which no government has done before. But, as they say, Rome was not built in a day. When you start making these massive changes, reforms, it takes time. The time to judge a government is five years … The first year was the most difficult period, but from now onwards people will start seeing the difference … the direction of the country is now right.”

Source: Al-Jazeera

Turkey’s Inside Job: Like The Truth of The 9/11 Conspiracy, US and Allies “Support” for The Terrorist Armies Is “Thought-Crime”

By David Macilwain

Source

Turkish Support For ISIS 498ba

There’s a lot of talk of conspiracy theories at the moment, and of course, it’s the time of year to be reminded of the mother of all conspiracies – in the pyrolytic demolition of the Twin Towers eighteen years ago. Contributing to these discussions recently was Dr. Quassim Cassam of Warwick University, who has just published a book of his philosophical reflections in “Conspiracy”.

While falling foul of the same “intellectual character vices” he has written and spoken on previously – of “closed-mindedness, gullibility, prejudice and dogmatism” – he had an interesting observation on the “inside job” conspiracy theory of 9/11. He posited that the Official story was itself a conspiracy theory, in its claim the attack on the towers was an “outside job”. This provides a novel departure point for argument, but a dangerous one; the claim that a man living in a cave in Afghanistan had devised the whole fiendish plan, and arranged for the training of Saudi pilots two years in advance in the US to carry it out, without raising any suspicions amongst the 17 US intelligence agencies, seems almost as wild a theory as claims the moon landing was “faked”.

And of course that’s not all of it; Osama Bin Laden and his Wahhabi brothers had to somehow set the demolition charges and monitor them to make sure it all went according to plan – but we might overlook this flaw in the official conspiracy theory given we don’t actually know who did organize the operation or how they carried it out, yet.

What was strikingly lacking from the discussion above, with loyal establishment servant and senior ABC presenter Geraldine Doogue, was any mention of the most politically significant conspiracies of recent times. Theories on the death of Diana, or the assassination of JFK – whatever the truth – are beginning to look a little passé in the face of the Skripal hoax, MH17 or Chemical Weapons use in Syria.

But there is one overarching “conspiracy” that encompasses all the others of the last decade, which we can call the bastard child of that mother of all conspiracies that led to George W Bush’s War on Terror. What began as Al Qaeda and was rebadged as ISIS, developed and manipulated as a covert weapon to facilitate US hegemonic goals, must be seen now as the true object of that fiendishly evil deception. What makes this conspiracy different from those mentioned above also makes it harder to expose as a hoax; revealing the truth must be a matter of judgment and intelligence rather than of straightforward science.

Exposing a hoax, of course, is only half the battle, with no better illustration than the apparent poisoning and disappearance of the Skripals. Despite an almost complete absence of evidence supporting the British government’s claim that Russia tried and failed to poison a former double agent and his daughter using a super-toxic nerve agent smeared on a door-handle, and abundant evidence showing it couldn’t actually have happened, the Official conspiracy theory remains unchallenged and accepted. And even though many people may be skeptical of parts of the story, the alternative is to believe the conspiracy theory of “Kremlin trolls and Putin apologists”.

Despite continuing efforts to expose those lethal hoaxes and breakdown the framework of malicious disinformation that supports the Western establishment’s war on Russia and the “Resistance”, that brick wall still stands – and the Twin Towers do not! Science simply doesn’t cut it, either in the emotion-driven minds of the victims of Western mainstream propaganda, or in the convoluted official judgments of UN bodies like the UNHRC and the OPCW.

Recognizing the inability of scientific reasoning to change the emotionally hijacked minds of victims of NATO propaganda on issues like chemical weapons in Syria, or nuclear science in Iran, one wonders whether the latest exposé on Turkey’s support for ISIS could prove more persuasive. As reported by Robert Inlakesh, a Syrian Kurdish NGO has just issued a report detailing evidence for Turkish direct support for IS fighters as well as close business involvement with the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The NGO obtained documents and testimonies from IS prisoners held by the SDF and concluded that:

“Turkish authorities allowed foreign fighters and their families to travel back and forth across the border with Syria, and also turned a blind eye to IS activities in Turkey…”. It also claims that Turkey “provided military and security support to IS indirectly, and made security, financial and business agreement with ISIS.”

Such claims have been around for years, with Turkish support for Al Nusra indisputable; the formation of the “Army of Conquest” as a joint project by Turkey and Saudi Arabia in March 2015 brought thousands of new fighters and weaponry into Idlib over the Turkish border. It was a shamelessly extremist combination of Ahrar al-Sham with Jabhat al Nusra, and its ruthless advance towards Damascus cost many Syrian lives.

Turkish support and collaboration with IS was less evident however until Russia entered the fray and bombed the IS Oil tanker convoys. Erdogan’s irritation at the disruption to his nice little earner – acting as a conduit for that stolen Syrian oil – soon led to a deterioration in relations with Russia that has only recently been rectified, to a degree. As Inlakesh observes, the cooperation between Turkey and Islamic State has become well known and accepted by the Syrian and Russian camp, and presumably also by the Kurds, so it’s clear that the Rojava Centre is seeking to further its interests by publishing its report at this time.

We might overlook the fact that these claims are actually a conspiracy theory, and considered such not just by Turkey but generally in the West. In fact, they are an accusation that Erdogan and his partners have engaged in covert criminal activity in pursuit of political and economic benefits, while lying repeatedly to the public and to other governments about their intentions and allegiances. But in the current atmosphere of extreme suspicion and confused allegiances between Turkey and the US, Russia, Syria and Brussels, the Kurdish viewpoint could be influential, and particularly on those in the West who need to wake up to the truth.

Those people – currently suffering under the impression that foreign forces are in Syria to fight the Islamic State – include Western media reporters. On several occasions recently, the ABC’s Beirut correspondent has visited Qamishli in NE Syria and reported on interviews with IS fighters held prisoner by the self-proclaimed “Kurdish Authorities”. His interest is only in Australians who went to join the Caliphate, who now mostly claim to have done nothing bad and want to return home. The Australian government has just passed a “law” to prevent them from doing so for two years, without consulting the Syrian government of course – or even the Kurdish “regional government”. “Preventing deportation” would seem a fairer starting point, and might lead to more interesting discussions.

But no doubt we will wait in vain for the IS fighter in a Kurdish prison who admits to collaboration with US special-forces. Like the truth of the 9/11 conspiracy, US “support” for the terrorist armies it cultivated and now controls is “thought-crime”, even for the US’ closest allies or for the fighters themselves. In identifying Turkey as the facilitator of their activities, the IS prisoners are saying what their Kurdish captors want to hear, as they try to maintain the support of their rogue ally.

What the Kurds don’t want to hear, and mightn’t even believe, is that their heroic fighters, lionized in the West for beating the Islamic State, have been fighting a mirage; neither their lives nor those of their supposed enemies in ISIS are of the slightest consequence to their US patrons, whose primary interest seems to be in maintaining their occupation and exploitation of Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq by whatever means works.

And the latest development in the conflict of allegiances in Northern Syria illustrates this perfectly. In a move condemned by the Syrian government, Turkey and the US have begun joint military patrols in Syria along the Turkish border. This looks like a bargain, drawing the US away from the Kurds and Turkey away from Russia. But it also confirms the ongoing partnership of the US and Turkey in keeping their Syrian caliphate alive.

9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation

By David Brooks

Source

911 Unmasked cbc29

David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. Olive Branch Press (Northhampton, MA; 2018) 308 pages

If any book would serve as a tombstone for the government-sponsored account of 9/11, this is it. Here lies the Authorized Conspiracy Theory; rest in pieces. A good fifty of them are laid out in this text for painstaking forensic examination. Like no other book before it, 9/11 Unmasked puts a wooden stake through the monstrous lie of 9/11. It represents the triumph of investigative research and critical thinking over tendentious conspiracy theorizing. Anyone who looks at this body of evidence will never believe the official story again – never, never, never.

Some may wonder why Prof. David Ray Griffin, who has already written voluminously on this subject, should feel compelled to give it another go. But this work functions as a capstone for all that has gone before. 9/11 Unmasked serves as the definitive user’s guide for deconstructing the official version of 9/11. It presents a resounding rebuttal to years of mendacious media reportage and fraudulent government reports. The text is concise and yet precise—300 reader-friendly pages backed up by nearly 900 endnotes. Sectioned into bite-sized chapters, it manages to be both a formidable work of scholarship and one which will appeal to the general public.

As if their own credentials were not enough, Griffin and co-author Elizabeth Woodworth convened a review panel of 23 experts in their respective disciplines to sift through the detritus of that day and arrive at a “best evidence” assessment regarding key components of the 9/11 narrative. Among the 51 subjects covered are the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, the attack on the Pentagon, claims about military and political leaders, phone calls from the 9/11 flights, and the question of insider trading. On any given point, they juxtapose the official version of events with empirical and testimonial evidence.

Here is a one sample chapter of their analysis:

The Official Account

Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 5)

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist attacks for which Osama bin Laden was wanted. When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had “no hard evidence” connecting bin Laden to 9/11. There were also other statements indicating that evidence of bin Laden’s guilt had not been provided.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to provide evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, neither of them did.

Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report discussed the responsibility of bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks as if it had evidence for it. But the “evidence” consisted of statements by captured followers of bin Laden, especially KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), yet the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission—Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton—reported that they had been unable to question KSM or the other detainees. They were not even allowed to observe the interrogations of these men. And so, said Kean and Hamilton: “We …had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was …telling us the truth?”

In this passage alone there are seven endnotes substantiating each and every claim made herein. Had Griffin wanted to write at greater length, he could have expounded on how “detainee information” was allegedly obtained through “enhanced interrogation”—torture. But Griffin is intent on documentation. No theorizing; just cold, hard facts obtained from primary sources.

Such meticulous methodology can get tedious quickly, however. God is in the details, but how easy it is to get bogged down in details. Who really cares what time Vice President Dick Cheney arrived at the White House Command bunker or how much insider trading went on? But some in-depth sleuthing pays off. What a shock to learn that the only evidence for hijackers wielding box-cutters is one undocumented phone call supposedly made by the wife of Bush’s Solicitor-General. That’s all! There’s no other evidence box-cutters were used—or even that planes were hijacked. Keep that in mind the next time you’re patted down by airport security agents.

The 9/11 Commission Report works well enough as the outline for an action movie, but in the hands of David Ray Griffin and fellow 9/11 researchers, it does not survive critical scrutiny. How chilling to realize that maybe it was never intended to do so.

Hovering over Griffin’s magisterial analysis are these haunting words by a senior advisor to President Bush (Karl Rove), speaking to a New York Times journalist back in 2004:

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Rove seemed to have anticipated the new academic discipline known as 9/11 Studies—which has indeed gone largely ignored, not only by official government agencies, but by every university political science department in the land. Intellectual analysis doesn’t get more judicious than this, but sure enough, “history’s actors” are still at it, forever plotting war.

But you have to wonder how long these so-called actors can keep up their act. While it’s true that 9/11 Truth has yet to set us free, neither is it going away. With every 9/11 anniversary that passes, more people smell something rotten in the Deep State of America.

Indeed the more judiciously one studies 9/11, the less it seems to fall under the rubrics of political science but that of sheer criminology. A monumental crime was committed – the pre-meditated mass murder of thousands of people! – but as Griffin relates, there was less forensic work done afterwards than what you see on a TV crime show

In this respect 9/11 Unmasked does not live up to its title. By the end of the book we are no more enlightened than at the beginning as to the identity of the perpetrators. The masks stay on. While Griffin produces abundant evidence that various branches of the US government were complicit in a cover-up, the question remains: Who actually committed the crime?

After going to such lengths to prove that explosives were put in World Trade Center, isn’t it time to ask who put them there? But in all the pages expended on the demolition of the WTC, there is not one mention of “Lucky” Larry Silverstein – the man who obtained the office complex only weeks before 9/11 and collected billions on the insurance. Nor is there mention of his good friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called his pal every weekend without fail. Surely these individuals rate as “persons of interest,” as the police like to say.

But the cause of judicious analysis can only go so far. Having debunked the hallowed narrative of September 11th 51 ways to Sunday, Griffin ends his opus with this less-than-resounding note: “The most fateful example of fake news in the twenty-first century thus far has been the official account of 9/11. It is long past time to set the record straight.”

Is that all we can hope for? “To set the record straight”?! How about catching these criminals before they burn the rest of the planet down?!

But let’s see him do it. Let’s see David Ray Griffin set the record straight. Is there anyone more qualified for the job than the universally acknowledged Dean of 9/11 Studies? Let him reconvene the 9/11 Review Panel Investigation and determine what really happened, who did it, and why. What greater task can they have?

If there’s such a thing as an honest law enforcement agency in America, maybe someone will act on the findings of such a task-force. It’s never too late until it is.

%d bloggers like this: