the left gatekeepers, zinn joins the club

[ambi]

people who, by their words and actions, should not be trusted:

noam chomsky
howard zinn
alexander cockburn
amy goodman
medea benjamin
chuck munson

Howard Zinn: “I Don’t Care” If 9/11 Was An Inside Job

World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn recently told an audience that he didn’t care if 9/11 was an inside job, echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement.

Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7.

Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, “I don’t know much about the situation and the truth is, I don’t care that much about it, that’s passed….that’s a diversion from what we really have to do,” adding that debating who was behind 9/11, “gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation”.

Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn’s fawning army of left-wing sycophants.

Zinn’s comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and contempt towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite the fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last seven years.

During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth movement peddled “arcane and dubious theories” and had distracted activists from pursuing “crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC,” presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without the pretext of 9/11.

When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, stating, “The concept of “false flag operation” is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I’d suggest that you look at each of them carefully.”

Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New York’s Town Hall, 22 January 2002, “That’s an internet theory and it’s hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don’t see any point in talking about it,” in response to a question about U.S. government foreknowledge.

Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey Oswald was the long gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise.

Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years.

It’s painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them worse than disinformation agents.

“I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent,” states Salandria, “But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency.”

Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK movie, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that it didn’t matter even if it was.

“When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion,” notes one blogger.

The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11.

[Yarrow]

and munson?

[Guest]

and munson?

go to infoslop and post something like this:

"i think a reasonable evaluation of the facts and the history would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it is highly likely that 9/11 was an inside job. this is important for anarchists because it shows something that we've been saying all along - that states terrorize their own citizens in order to gain/maintain power."

you post will be removed, even if other members of the "collective" (haha) think it is ok, the chief gatekeeper will override their opinions and remove the post. even a discussion of the statement's relevance to anarchism will not be allowed. (of course, this has all happened already...)

it's important to note that by saying someone is a "gatekeeper" you are not automatically saying that they get checks from the eff bee eye. it could simply be that the person is just so deeply racist that when the tv tells them evil brown people are out to get them, they automatically believe it since it fits so well with their (true) worldview. in fact, they are willing to throw out everything else they know about the state just to enforce the state's version of the story. or, they could be so deeply zionist (a form of racism) that when they see something that benefits zionism (like 9/11) they don't want to say anything which would detract from that benefit.

of course, infoslop can have whatever policies they like; they can censor who they like. the fools who think they are part of a "collective" can go on thinking such nonsense. that doesnt change the facts, and it doesnt change occam's razor.

[|Y|]

Crap like this melts my mind. I could do without Alex Jones' type shit for awhile.

[Marja]

9/11 is of such transcendent importance that we must focus on it, and interpret all other events through it. It is the opening round of the coup by the Bilderburger-Space Lizard alliance. Once we recognize this fact, we can recognize that those producing contrary evidence are agents of the Bilderburger-Space Lizard alliance.

Alex Jones has already called Chuck Munson a government agent, hasn't he?

[ambi]

the issue of 9/11 should be examined using the facts - both the facts of history and the ex post facto facts. logic and reason would also be useful tools. i've laid out the historical case multiple times on this board.

marja, you are being unfair by painting the entire 9/11 truth movement with the brush of david icke (former head of the UK green party, current purveyor of 'lizard people' theories). that is, imho, why people like icke (and possibly jones) exist.

shall we condemn the aspirations of USblack people because louis farrakhan is whack job who thinks that UFOs will save USblack people and considers the number 19 to be holy?

not one of the people listed has defended their position using facts, logic, or reason. each of them dismisses the issue out of hand by saying utterly ridiculous shit like "it doesn't matter."

AJ and his people are most certainly wack jobs. however, what they are doing (in particular the wearechange group) is confronting people of all political stripes with factual matters of record and then recording them as they explode in arrogant denouncement (i.e. "protest too much"). this forces them to reveal their position so that we can all know where they stand.

the official story of 9/11 is a completely bizarre conspiracy theory in which the events of that day were totally unprecedented. the "unofficial" story represents a repetition of events that have occured time and time again over more than 100 years. occam's razor - a function of reason - says that the "unofficial" story is therefore far more likely to be the correct explanation.

furthermore, anarchists (of all people) should be in a position to understand how the state has operated throughout history. a complete revelation of the events of that day (and unlikely possibility, but still within the realm of possibilities) would probably do much to increase people's distrust of the state.

and anarchists (of all people) should be allowed to discuss the event openly, from an anarchist perspective, without censorship. it's not like suspecting an inside job somehow makes you a capitalist or a right winger - or a wack job.

so, no matter what the truth is, munson is acting as a gatekeeper. you can talk about jfk, the moon landing "hoax" (haha), peak oil, global warming, taboo sex, rights for rocks... but not about 9/11 truth from an anarchist perspective.

don't get me wrong, munson should be free to run his show however he likes; even to call it a "collective" even though it isn't. the members of the "collective" should be free to proclaim what a great, wonderful collectively-collective it is (i'm sure they'll be here soon to say just that). no one is forcing me or anyone else to go to infoslop and read it, just like no one is forced to read the things i post here.

[|Y|]

9/11 was so insignificant that I too don't care if it was an inside job. The common cold is far more dangerous than a couple of buildings falling down via whatever means you want to conjure.

The only thing that I might marginally care about are the firefighters and their families, but worrying about the cause is hardly worth my time, it's the solution (the end of states, authoritarianism, and militantcy) that I care about.

[Zazaban]

so, no matter what the truth is, munson is acting as a gatekeeper. you can talk about jfk, the moon landing "hoax" (haha), peak oil, global warming, taboo sex, rights for rocks... but not about 9/11 truth from an anarchist perspective.

I'd like to hilight that one, I once tried to point out that that was utterly insane, and my post disappeared.

He also gets funny around transhumanism, which has provoked some rather childish rants about how transhumanists are all deluded nerds who need to get a real job and move out of their mother's basement. I've heard near identical arguments about anarchism, if you even want to call that sort of ridiculous ad hominem attack an argument.

I do like that he calls for open-mindedness among anarchists, that is something sorely needed, but I wish he would practice what he preaches.

[|Y|]

Rights for rocks? I'd love to read that. (Though some here would defend the Palestinian movement for their rights to ground, so it might not be terribly off base. I don't know.) Shoot me a link to that discussion please, if you can remember it.

That said, yeah. I can understand Chuck0's distaste for transhumanism, he was one of them. The mid to late 90s early 2000s had a lot of transhumanists (particularly online). Many of them have become disillusioned because the promises were thought to be around the corner. As I understand it he had a falling out with certain transhumanists, which is also understandable because of the nature of those circles (generally pro-market libertarians). Transhumanism is rather a longer term goal in my mind, rather than something to dream about now. The idea of transhumanists decending from a culture of authoritarianism is mind boggling terrifying to me.

Chuck0 tries hard to practice Big Tent Anarchism, but he falls quite short, and fails to recognize this inherent inablity of his.

[Zazaban]

I'm personally a fan of transhumanism. Even if what actually happens falls short, although I'm never one to underestimate the speeds human innovation can reach, it's a good thing to work for, as even if the goal is never reached, the benefits will still be great. Of course, it could only ever work in an anarchist society.

And yes, I'll find a link for the 'oppression of minerals' topic.

[ambi]

some rather childish rants about how transhumanists are all deluded nerds who need to get a real job and move out of their mother's basement.

are you kidding? that sounds like a self-portrait.

I'm personally a fan of transhumanism. ... it's a good thing to work for, as even if the goal is never reached, the benefits will still be great. Of course, it could only ever work in an anarchist society.

it's the same old problem. there are a lot of great ideas which get turned totally upside down because the elite are the only ones that control where they go.

if you can deal with AJ's annoying voice and put it through the filter (see: link) then you should watch end game, it's free on google video: link. one of the reasons i watch/recommend such things is to expose other points of view, to find out what there is in common and what there is that's not.

regarding the gatekeepers, some clarification: the list of gatekeepers at the beginning of the OP is from me - it wasnt part of the article. afaik, AJ+co ave never said anything in particular about munson.

it's funny watching the decrepit apologists for authoritarian leftism like chomsky and zinn get angry and squirm when this issue comes up. think about it for a second: in your dealings on the internet or elsewhere debating or discussing things, under what circumstances does the other participant get upset, throw up their hands and proclaim "i dont care!!!" or "it doesnt matter!!!"

the silent prefix of "it doesnt matter" is "even if you are are right." this is precisely how ward churchill responded to me personally when i confronted him on his position on 9/11: "even if it were true, we still have a systemic problem."

and of course it's true, we do have a systemic problem. and as we fight against this problem (which anarchists identify as the state), we enumerate the reasons why the state is a problem. we include boom/bust economic cycles, war, class inequity, and many other things. however, when it comes to one of the most heinous aspects of the state - an aspect of the state that has always existed - the fact that states terrorize their own citizens while blaming others in order to gain and maintain power, includng the promotion of war - orthodox leftists deny the facts and say "no! we dont include that or the role of the banks in our analysis. it would be anti-semetic to criticize the banks (???) and we don't believe in 'conspiracy theories' (aka analysis of the actual facts.)"

so, the obvious conclusion is that "i don't care!!!!" and "it doesn't matter!!!" really means "you are probably right, and for whatever reason, i wish you would shut the fuck up." as for what that reason might be, the list is long: coercion, compensation, racism/zionism, patriotism are obvious and longstanding means to make people deny the facts, logic, and reason.

[Superdog]

I guess I don't get all the emphasis on 9/11 theories. We know the U.S. Government will murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and tens of thousands of Afghanis. They will exploit the atomsphere to push through legislation to make themselves more powerful. There is no concrete evidence to show that it was an "inside job."
If there was leaked documents or something I'd take a look at it, but there just isn't.

[ambi]

I guess I don't get all the emphasis on 9/11 theories.

i'm the only one posting 9/11 stuff here, and since not many other people post in the news section right now it might seem to be emphasized, but it's not really.

There is no concrete evidence to show that it was an "inside job."

neither is there any hard evidence of the official story. that's why the fbi does not accuse bin laden of the crime (check their website for yourself). the fbi has publicly stated that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

as i've said before there is a tendency to dismiss the suspicions out of hand. however, the application of basic logic shows that 'inside job' or LIHOP is the most likey explanation.

if an event occurs that has occurred several times before, and on each of those previous occasions the cause of the event was the same, then that same cause should be at the top of the list of possible explanations for the event when it occurs again. furthermore, if only two possible explanations are being considered, with one being the known cause for the event in each and every case, while the other explanation would be unprecedented, then occam's razor tells us that the most likely explanation is the known one, not the unprecedented one. that doesn't mean the unprecedented explanation is impossible - precedent is being set all the time - however, it does make it the less likely explanation.

so, if we look at war-causing events in the last 100+ years of US history prior to 9/11, we find that in each and every case the cause was either an inside job or a LIHOP operation - both of which are false flag operations. this includes the uss maine, the lusitania, pearl harbor, korean cross border raids, the gulf of tonkin, and iraq's invasion of kuwait. the historical facts are not 'conspiracy theory.'

therefore, without examining a single piece of ex post facto evidence, we can see that it is entirely reasonable to suspect an inside job or LIHOP operation, and less reasonable to conclude that the official story is true.

If there was leaked documents or something I'd take a look at it, but there just isn't.

there are mountains of ex post facto evidence - orthodox leftists simply dismiss it out of hand on the basis that an inside job "just couldn't be." david corn, head gatekeeper for 'the nation' magazine' even tell us that "it just couldn't be" because he went to school with people who are in power, and they just wouldn't let that kind of thing happen. USliberals in particular like to tell us that the USairforceand USintelligence was simply incompetent on that day - and of course the response from those quarters is then a demand for bigger budgets. (say whatever about bin laden, i seriously doubt he had the ability to make the USairforce stand down.)

i'm sure you would agree that positions like those are not based in reason.

another big part of the problem is the massive disinformation campaign surrounding the event. whenever someone brings up 9/11 truth, people immediately think of loose change - which is a pack of lies which is financed and distributed by bilionaire zionist deborah simon, a business partner of the man who owned the world trade center buildings, larry silverstein.

[ambi]

still waiting on a refutation of the above argument that is based on facts, logic, and reason. it's awfully easy for people to run around and scream epithets lke "conspiracy theory!" but apparently quite difficult for you to refute an argument based on reason. i suspect that in this instance, you can't really overcome occam's razor, the very rhetorical device used to attack so-called "conspiracy theorists." (and, no, insane ramblings from white nationalists, social democrats, child molesters, and voluntary mental patients are not what i am talking about when i say "a refutation of the above argument that is based on facts, logic, and reason.")

there is an essential problem you will have arguing against these kinds of "conspiracy theories." chris floyd puts it well when he says:

November 25, 2008

The idea that a democratic government would deliberately create fake "extremist groups" then send them out to foment violence and terrorism -- in order to discredit legitimate opposition to elite rule and to "justify" authoritarian powers -- has long been derided in "serious" circles as that worst of modern heresies: "conspiracy theory." Anyone advancing such a preposterous notion is instantly relegated to the ranks of the "lunatic fringe," and dismissed with varying degrees of contempt and condescension.

And the woeful fact that millions of the ruminants out there in the vast public herd swallow these wild tales and believe that their betters are up to no good is also widely deplored in the higher circles of public discourse. As any fully-accredited, perk-laden, sinecured think-tanker can tell you, democratic governments are led by men and women devoted to public service. Sure, there can be fierce disputes over policies and approaches and outcomes and ideologies and competence. Sure, some people may step over a line here and there in their pursuit of what they believe is the nation's best interests. But just as western democracies do not torture, do not launch aggressive wars, do not spy upon their own people or imprison them by the millions, they most assuredly do not create and support extremist groups and instigate acts of terror and chaos to advance authoritarian agendas.

It is indeed unfortunate that the general public is prey to these disturbing theories, which breed such a widespread distrust of the noble intentions and essential (if occasionally misguided or incompentently executed) goodness of our leading men and women. However, there is a very reasonable explanation for the credence given to these fringe beliefs:

They happen to be true.

back in the 80s, a lot of us were going around telling people that what was being presented as "terrorism" was actually a false-flag strategy of tension being used to discredit anarchists and communists. people laughed at us, called us names ("conspiracy theorists"), told us it "just couldn't" be true, that if it were true there would have to be "smoking gun" evidence. they simply refused to listen to facts, logic, and reason, preferring instead to dismiss the allegations out of hand, without using basic logic or reason to forumlate their position.

of course there was a teeny problem with their analysis ... what we were saying was true. floyd continues...

We've written often here of the Pentagon's plan to foment terrorism where needed to achieve the goals of the "National Security State." This is but one of a staggering array of examples of the use of "the strategy of tension" by the "advanced" Western democracies of the modern world. This week came yet another. As Robert Mancini reports in the Guardian, the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, let a great many cats out of the bag when he gave some sage advice to Italy's current interior minister, Robert Maroni, on how to deal with the ongoing protests by students and professors over funding cuts for higher education. As Mancini notes, Cossiga -- who had once been interior minister himself, as well as prime minister -- told the Quotidiano Nazionale:

"Maroni should do what I did when I was secretary of the interior. He should withdraw the police from the streets and the universities, infiltrate the movement with secret (provacateurs) agents, ready to do anything, and, for about 10 days, let the demonstrators devastate shops, set fire to cars and lay waste the cities. After which, strengthened by popular consent, the sound of ambulance sirens should be louder than the police cars. The security forces should massacre the demonstrators without pity, and send them all to hospital. They shouldn't arrest them, because the magistrates would release them immediately, but they should beat them up. And they should also beat up those teachers who stir them up. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly lecturers, of course, but the young women teachers."


Mancini notes that Cossiga's advice tracks closely with his own experience at the head of Italy's security organs in the 1970s:

For students of Italian political history, the interview is fascinating for the light it sheds on Cossiga's political views and in particular his activities between 1976 and 1978 when he too was interior minister, presiding over the police. In 1977, a demonstration by the Radical Party (partito radicale) was attacked by armed individuals who opened fire causing the death Giorgiana Masi, a 20 year-old girl.

Cossiga could not, or would not, explain what took place that day. More specifically, he was unable to shed light on whether the attackers came from within the police force....

Hence the interest in the recent interview, which sheds light on one of the most secretive periods of Italian history - the so-called "strategy of tension" that began with the 1969 bombing of Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura in Milan (carried out by the far-right and blamed on anarchists) through to the events at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001 where the mysterious right-wing "black-blok" group created the mayhem and destruction which brought forth the police violence against thousands of anti-globalisation protestors.


Yes, the story of terrorist creation, chaos and murder by Western governments is an old one -- especially in Italy, the epicenter of Operation Gladio, which I outlined in a Moscow Times column some years ago:


"You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force…the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West – against their own populations.
Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks – on train stations, supermarkets, cafes, offices – which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and panic the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders – and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, controlled and funded by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states like Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece, and aided Turkey's ferocious repression of the Kurds. All of this in the name of "preserving democracy" and "defending civilization."

Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which detailed the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist subversion." Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups "renounce the use of force" and embrace the democratic process. It is then that "US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger." Naturally, these peace-throttling "special operations must remain strictly secret," the document warns.

Indeed, it would not do for, say, the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the August 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by "men inside Italian state institutions and…by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence," as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.

The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio's masters called "the strategy of tension" – fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to "strong leaders" who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn't limited to Western Europe. It was applied – with gruesome effectiveness – in Central America by the Reagan-Bush administrations. During the 1980s, rightwing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces – armed, trained and supplied by the United States – murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold....

And as we have often noted here, similar operations -- the "El Salvador option," death squads, "High-Value Targeting," etc. -- have been an integral part of the Anglo-American subjegation of Iraq. Indeed, they are a pillar of the "counterinsurgency doctrine" proclaimed by the other president-in-waiting, David Petraeus, and now avidly embraced by the War Machine. As Tara McElvey reports in The American Prospect, the Pentagon is eager to apply "High-Value Targeting" and refinements of the "Phoenix Program" -- in which U.S. forces and local proxies murdered more than 20,000 people -- and the whole panoply of "psy-ops" to imperial imbroglios around the world, applying them "to Afghanistan, then Pakistan, the Philippines, Colombia, Somalia, and elsewhere."

It's true, of course, that the American people -- and Europeans, as well -- are showing signs of growing weariness and wariness of the heavy-handed security regimes their governments have imposed upon them. There also seems to be little enthusiasm for plowing ahead in the various killing fields opened up by their elites to reap the enormously profitable blood fruits of war. Public toleration for this extravagant adventurism will be even more diminished as the cratering of the global economy -- caused by the greed and deceit of those same elites -- continues to deepen.

But more war is exactly what we've been promised by our agents of change. More war, an even bigger War Machine, "tougher" security measures, national ID cards packed with personal data and tracking devices, more surveillance cameras, new "preventive detention" laws -- and more unbounded authority to use public money to bail out the elite. Yet how to make this happen in the current atmosphere of exhaustion and anxiety? How to catalyze the public into continuing to support the Security State? How to discredit the rising chorus of opposition to neocolonialism, elite cronyism, rampant militarism and growing authoritarianism?

Elite elders like Francesco Cossiga know the answer: the strategy of tension. The Gladio way. Was this the kind of thing Joe Biden was talking about, when he said the "young president" would be tested by a crisis, and forced to take unpopular measures in response?

It seems our "interesting times" are going to continue unabated in this bold new era.

[Guns]

Webster Tarpley: The 9/11 issue - How to stop World War III (an exploration of the MIHOP, or Made It Happen On Purpose view of 9/11)
http://video.google.com/ ... feed&hl=en