Saturday, February 6, 2010

It wasn't Muslims who trained their cameras on the WTC prior to the first aircraft impact

With all the 'chatter' out there, from America's so-called intelligence community, to Zionist shills on FOX and CNN, to Israeli war mongers like their CRIME MINISTER Bennie Nuttyahoo warning of another 'al CIA duh' attack, it might be time to look back at some facts.

The next terrorist attack against the USA will be courtesy of the same ruthless mob of liars, thieves, murderers and con artists that pulled off 9/11.

"Ain't that right, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Nuttyahoo?"

It wasn't Muslims who trained their cameras on the World Trade Center Towers prior to the first aircraft impact, who danced and celebrated with high fives prior to the second impact as most onlookers still believed it had been a terrible accident rather than terrorism, and who were caught with foreign passports, $4,700 in cash hidden in a sock, maps highlighting certain places in the city, and a van that tested positive for traces of explosives; it was Israelis Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari, several of whom have been confirmed as Mossad agents, as part of their job in "documenting the event".

It wasn't Muslims who were caught on 9/11/01 operating in teams with vans full of explosives, including one team who attempted to blow up the George Washington Bridge with a truck packed with tons of explosives, and another who blew up a van between 6th and 7th on King Street with a mural painted of a remote controlled airplane diving into New York and blowing up; it was Israelis, which is why the authorities did their best to ignore and bury these reports which included a suspected van bomb driven into the WTC basement and exploded to weaken the structure.

It wasn't Muslims who were caught shortly after midnight on May 7, 2002 very close to the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Oak Harbor, Wash., (where the Navy conducts explosive ordnance training for bomb disposal mobile units to the consternation of local marine life) with a rental truck that tested positive for TNT and RDX plastic explosives; it was Israelis whose cover story was of "delivering furniture" but regarded by authorities as dubious because of the early morning hour, and the authorities' subsequent claim that the dog's reaction and initial tests for explosives were wrong is so full of holes that it merely demonstrates the power of the Israeli lobby.

It wasn't Muslims who provided two hours' advance warning of an attack on the World Trade Center via an instant messaging company based in Herzliya; it was Israelis.

It wasn't a Muslim who fled the US on September 14, 2001; it was Dominick Suter of "Urban Moving Systems" who fled to Israel.

It isn't Muslim countries that have a massive spy ring in the USA capable of tapping into much of the telecoms network and using information obtained to blackmail Americans; it is Israel.

It wasn't Muslims who received advance warning on Monday September 10, 2001, against flying the next day; it was San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and a group of top Pentagon officials.

It wasn't Muslims who acquired a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, Buildings Four and Five and approximately 400,000 square feet of retail space, and insured for billions of dollars against terror attacks a mere six weeks before terror attacks did in fact occur, and then employed (to press for the insurance claim) a 'structural engineer' who misleadingly asserts that steel loses half its strength at "400 degrees"; it was - in a deal negotiated by Lewis Eisenberg of the Port Authority - Benjamin Netanyahu's (and Ariel Sharon's and Ehud Barak's) friend Larry Silverstein and his partner Australian billionaire and "Holocaust survivor" Frank Lowy who fought "in the Jewish underground", was embroiled in a high-level bank corruption scandal with Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert and found to be making payments to Lord (Michael Abraham) Levy who was arrested several times in relation to a "cash for honors" scandal, Levy being a "tennis partner" and advisor of Tony Blair.

It wasn't a Muslim who went on TV within hours of the attacks to tell everyone that "It... certainly has the fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden" and the World Trade Center had collapsed because of "the velocity of the plane" and "intense heat probably weakened the structure as well", and who reportedly on that very day advised the White House to take Cipro, an effective antibiotic against anthrax, seven days before the commencement of an anthrax letters terror campaign targeted at Democratic U.S. Senators and news media offices, who on 9/11/01 was a managing director of the crisis and consequence management group at Kroll Associates, who was an advisor to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) regarding "epidemiological surveillance" and national security advisor at the National Institute of Health (NIH), and who gave his 'friend' John O'Neill a job as Head Of Security at the World Trade Center; it was Jerome Hauer.
Note: FBI Special Agent John O'Neill had been in Yemen, investigating the USS Cole attack. When he developed leads that pointed to Israeli involvement in the Cole attack, US Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine tried to have O'Neill's security detail yanked. When that didn't work, she appealed to 'Bloody Maddy' Albright, then Sec'y of State for help.
O'Neill was pulled off the case and sent back home, finally retiring in disgust at the FBI's handling of his investigation in Yemen.
O'Neill was working on 9/11 at the WTC and was killed.. Nice way of tying up loose ends.

It wasn't Muslims who were caught and arrested inside the Mexican Congress chamber on October 10, 2001 in possession of guns, grenades, dynamite, detonators and wiring while posing as "press photographers"; it was Mossad agent Salvador Guersson Smecke and Israeli illegal immigrant Saur Ben Zvi at the very time that Zionists would obtain maximum benefit from a false-flag terror attack that would mobilize support for the war on "Muslim terrorists" in Afghanistan that had been launched only three days previously.

It wasn't Muslims who profited by speculating on airline and insurance stocks in advance of 9/11; it was Israelis.

it wasn't muslims link

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson" 

Do you suppose TJ would include youtube if he were alive and said this today?

ron pauls speech before the house. read this and tell me you don't agree with what he is saying. video link

   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. ``Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contentions, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.''

If Madison's assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the public has vantaged when it occurred and what to expect in the ways of turbulence, contention and violence, and above all else what can we and what will we do about it.

The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and Federal spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermines our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to dangers not yet seen prompt the people at the prodding of the politicians to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security.

With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation-building, foreign intervention, preemptive [Page: H233]
war and global government drive our foreign policy.

There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: ``The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.''

[Time: 14:00]


These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.

In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government's purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints.

The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people.

Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority's demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding
and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.

But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people even without bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws dealing with the serious
medical problem of addiction.

The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is
a predictable consequence.

The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century.

Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government's failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government
and protection of personal liberty.

The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people
how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired breach of action demanded by special interest, the propaganda machine goes into operation and the pollsters relay the information back to politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

  This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity.

The pretence of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients and even the victims of its necessity.

Since it was never a precipitous departure from the Republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed, but it is encouraging that more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by complacency.

The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word ``democracy'' does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.

Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call
``hard Wilsonism.''

A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.

Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The Republic is no longer recognizable.

Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has
developed precipitates angry outcries for even more fairness.

Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny. As our Republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As [Page: H234]
the equality of education plummets, the role of the Federal Government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the Federal Government in medicine is greatly increased.

Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder and concern for liberty languishes.

A tax on our homeland form a massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers seen and imagined.

The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never left the Roman
Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.

Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.

part 2 to ron paul's speech

   Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special interest group receive a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands, but coalitions develop and the various groups ban together to form a majority, to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.

Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as a

good cause, the process is doomed to failure. Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. Administrators who benefit perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special interest.

Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats, insurance companies and financial institutions while the poor end up in drug-invested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the same reason, not only do business leaders not object to this system but they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.

Big business strongly supports programs like the Export Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign subsidies and military adventurism. Tax Code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and the rich welfare recipients.

Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate
in each election.

Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government employees, the military industrial complex, the education system and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations resulting in a high-stakes system of government.

Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. Yet the response,
unfortunately, is only more of the same.

More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse; but failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

We were adequately warned about this problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control of the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate.

It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government
counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority's demands.

[Time: 14:15]


It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.

Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process. And others, out of ignorance, view central bank money creation as a convenience with little danger. That is where they are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money, believing they know how to protect against its ill effects, many of them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always develop. It is not a new era that they have created for us today, but more of the same endured throughout
history by so many other nations.

The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government's goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and micromanaging
the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in all their activities.

The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to
decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials.

As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of all political action. Restoration of liberty, the market, and personal responsibilities are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical. Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures.

Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule of majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system [Page: H235]
and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.

The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit and, at the same time, contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, are not allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with the collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward
democratic socialism is unachievable. Soviet-style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function, and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.

The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.

Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored
is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less productive citizens who can't pay taxes.

Even before 9-11 these trends were in place, and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9-11 the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social

programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty.

Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire-building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy. The dramatic shift away from the Republic that occurred in 1913, as expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of making the world safe for democracy was forcefully put forth by Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed
by a moral commitment every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.

With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed in 1919.

Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified
with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.

Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing
factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the case with Pakistan's Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have
harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction.

No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government
would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.

Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one man, one vote philosophy.

U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.

There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even
100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region.

The tragedy of 9-11 and its aftermath dramatizes so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone's life. Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous cost, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired of us, the South Koreans are tired of us, the Europeans are tired of us, the Central Americans are tired of us, the Filipinos are tired of us, and, above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us. Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying, and disgusted with having their own government
bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims. [Page: H236]


We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel's occupation expands.

There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to
pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.