TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Was America attacked on September 11, 2001?
Was America attacked on September 11, 2001?
Gary Hunt
September 11, 2009
All morning long, I have been hearing that we are recognizing "The Day That America Was Attacked".
Have you ever really thought about what the mainstream media has portrayed to us? Was America really attacked? Or, is there another objective that should be apparent to us?
Well, you could say America was attacked when Flight 93 hit the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, that was not the intended target. And, due to circumstances, we will probably never know what the intended target was.
We all know that two of the targets were Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. Probably most of us have some serious objection to the United Nations. We probably also have objection to the WTO (World Trade Organization). In fact, there are many who consider both the United Nations and the World Trade Organizations as enemies to the United States Constitution, and our way of life.
So, what is the World Trade Center? Is it a symbol of the United States of America, or is it something that we should perceive in a light similar to the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations?
How would we react if the target had been the United Nations Building? Would we be as outraged as we appear to be over the World Trade Center? On the other hand, would the more apparent nature of the intentions of the United Nations dissuade us from feeling as badly as we do over the World Trade Center?
Some see the World Trade Center as a symbol of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the efforts by some to move us in to a world economy, with control over the products we buy, the products we make, the products we consume, and that is accomplished by rules promulgated by an international organization.
No, They do not see that attack on the World Trade Center as an attack on America; rather they see it as an attack on an organization that they consider an enemy of our United States of America.
That leaves us with the only other attack of the day. A plane crashed into the Pentagon, with loss of life and severe damage to an icon of the United States. However, we must consider whether the Pentagon really is the United States or a symbol of American military might?
True, there were Americans in all three buildings, but they were not the target, any more than women and children are the target when we bomb buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, should we consider that an attack on America? Or, should we look further and see if, perhaps, it was an attack on a singular aspect of America, which is symbolic of other than American ideals?
In 1996, Osama bin Laden wrote that certain people and their allies were shedding "Muslims blood [which] became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies". He continues, "Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn"t respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."
Therefore, it appears that they perceive the actions of the United States and its allies as other than what the press has told us.
He goes on to explain why the war cannot be fought in the Middle East. "An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there for it. the presence of the occupier the USA forces will control the outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr."
As he makes clear in the document, the enemy is the American forces and the Secretary of Defense, who directs those forces. I think that this could best be interpreted as the United States government, especially, the United States military, as the perceived enemies of Islam. In fact, the document that I have quoted from is titled, "DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES"
What Osama did was declare war on the Americans Occupying the Lands of the Two Holy Places. He did not declare war on the American people; instead, he declared war on the government, or at least that part that was the direct source of the problems that he enumerated in the Declaration. If he had declared war on the United States, or the people of the United States, I think that he could have found far more damaging targets than World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He chose, instead, symbolic targets that represented what he saw as the source of the thousands of deaths of men, women, and children in the Middle East.
Now, is it possible that the United States government was not aware of this document, which was written on August 23, 1996, which was purported to have had copies delivered to them, and was truly surprised when "the United States" was attacked on September 11, 2001?
The entire Declaration of War can be found at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830.htm
So, perhaps we should be questioning the mainstream media as to why they paint the picture the way that they do when available facts indicate that the picture they paint is false.
Gary Hunt
September 11, 2009
All morning long, I have been hearing that we are recognizing "The Day That America Was Attacked".
Have you ever really thought about what the mainstream media has portrayed to us? Was America really attacked? Or, is there another objective that should be apparent to us?
Well, you could say America was attacked when Flight 93 hit the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, that was not the intended target. And, due to circumstances, we will probably never know what the intended target was.
We all know that two of the targets were Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. Probably most of us have some serious objection to the United Nations. We probably also have objection to the WTO (World Trade Organization). In fact, there are many who consider both the United Nations and the World Trade Organizations as enemies to the United States Constitution, and our way of life.
So, what is the World Trade Center? Is it a symbol of the United States of America, or is it something that we should perceive in a light similar to the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations?
How would we react if the target had been the United Nations Building? Would we be as outraged as we appear to be over the World Trade Center? On the other hand, would the more apparent nature of the intentions of the United Nations dissuade us from feeling as badly as we do over the World Trade Center?
Some see the World Trade Center as a symbol of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the efforts by some to move us in to a world economy, with control over the products we buy, the products we make, the products we consume, and that is accomplished by rules promulgated by an international organization.
No, They do not see that attack on the World Trade Center as an attack on America; rather they see it as an attack on an organization that they consider an enemy of our United States of America.
That leaves us with the only other attack of the day. A plane crashed into the Pentagon, with loss of life and severe damage to an icon of the United States. However, we must consider whether the Pentagon really is the United States or a symbol of American military might?
True, there were Americans in all three buildings, but they were not the target, any more than women and children are the target when we bomb buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, should we consider that an attack on America? Or, should we look further and see if, perhaps, it was an attack on a singular aspect of America, which is symbolic of other than American ideals?
In 1996, Osama bin Laden wrote that certain people and their allies were shedding "Muslims blood [which] became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies". He continues, "Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn"t respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."
Therefore, it appears that they perceive the actions of the United States and its allies as other than what the press has told us.
He goes on to explain why the war cannot be fought in the Middle East. "An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there for it. the presence of the occupier the USA forces will control the outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr."
As he makes clear in the document, the enemy is the American forces and the Secretary of Defense, who directs those forces. I think that this could best be interpreted as the United States government, especially, the United States military, as the perceived enemies of Islam. In fact, the document that I have quoted from is titled, "DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES"
What Osama did was declare war on the Americans Occupying the Lands of the Two Holy Places. He did not declare war on the American people; instead, he declared war on the government, or at least that part that was the direct source of the problems that he enumerated in the Declaration. If he had declared war on the United States, or the people of the United States, I think that he could have found far more damaging targets than World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He chose, instead, symbolic targets that represented what he saw as the source of the thousands of deaths of men, women, and children in the Middle East.
Now, is it possible that the United States government was not aware of this document, which was written on August 23, 1996, which was purported to have had copies delivered to them, and was truly surprised when "the United States" was attacked on September 11, 2001?
The entire Declaration of War can be found at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830.htm
So, perhaps we should be questioning the mainstream media as to why they paint the picture the way that they do when available facts indicate that the picture they paint is false.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony DiGiacomo on -
Your welcome, it was my honor. However Dave, the only real "scars" that left was anger towards terrorism and islam as a whole. A lot of people in this country fail to realize we've been targets of terrorism for a very long time. During my 3 years in Germany we were always prepared for attack's on our base, there was a constant threat. 4 months after I left the RAF(Red Army Faction) killed 2 people with a car bomb at the HQ bldg in Aug of 1985.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on -
Tony,
The Red Army Faction and the Red Brigade, and a few others, are in no way associated with the Muslim - Al Qaeda terrorists.
Terrorist is an interesting word. David was a terrorist because he used a sling and a stone against traditional military equipment. If you have smart bombs that precisely kill hundreds, you are not a terrorist. If you use IEDs because you have no smart bombs, you are a terrorist.
The word is simply demonization.
Here is the government definition of terrorism:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
Sec. 2331. Definitions
(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means activities that
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping;
By that definition, who are the terrorists? Is it us when we say to Afghanistan (with whom we have no extradition treaty), "turn over bin Ladin or we will bomb you back to the stone ages".
Is it us when we go to 'war' with them because we believe that they have weapons of mass destruction?
Or, is it them, who have taken the war imposed on them out of their own boundaries and brought it to us?
-
Permalink Reply by Tony DiGiacomo on
-
I never said they were Gary. I was explaining that terrorism against America has been around a long time. So, threats to kill people for radical ideals, in any fashion, don't qualify as terrorism? Hmm, well tell that to Pvt Pimenthal's parents, who was murdered in Frankfurt, 1. because he had an American tagged vehicle so they could gain entry to Rhein-Main, and 2. because he had an American I.D. He was killed in cold blood for no other reason. If that's not terrorism, then I need to shut up.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
Tony,
I didn't write the definition, I only posted it.
I cannot account for what the Red Brigade did. When I was in Germany ('64-'66), we did not have that problem.
I do believe that you can find that our foreign policy (policemen of the world) may be part of what moves people to such action.
I do grieve for every soldier killed in action, or as a result of our foreign policy. I wish that our foreign policy was more consistent with what Alexander Hamilton spoke of, in Federalist Parers #11:
"There are other points of view in which this subject might be placed, of a striking and animating kind. But they would lead us too far into the regions of futurity, and would involve topics not proper for a newspaper discussion. I shall briefly observe, that our situation invites and our interests prompt us to aim at an ascendant in the system of America affairs. The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America- that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere.* Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!"
We have, it appears, replaced Great Britain as the Mistress of the World. -
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
So, if I understand this correctly, we can attack them -- invade their (Muslim) countries -- and set up bases. But, if they attack us, we have to attack them (again).
Preemptive war should be unlawful, and I believe it is, by the Constitution. That is why the Founding Fathers refused to give the power to declare war to one man, rather, to the entire Congress.
We presume that they are going to do bad to us, so we do bad to them for thinking of doing bad to us. The,n, when they do bad to us, in retaliation for us doing bad to them, they have justified our doing bad to them in the first place.
Seems quite logical to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
No, I am not for the bastard president. Nor was I for bush, or Clinton, in fact, I haven't seen a President in decades that believed in the Constitution. Probably Reagan comes the closest.
It is interesting that such discussions always turn to parties. It will be more interesting when these discussions come to the Constitution.
You are right, we haven't been attacked, every day, by Al Qaeda. We overlook, however, that we are being attacked, nearly every day, by those in Washington -- regardless of which party they are members of.
It does come back to why we were attacked, however. If you throw stones at your neighbor, are you surprised and shocked when he throws them back?
The Constitution was written, among other things, as an attempt to control human natures. Jefferson said, "let the Constitution be the chains that bind the government". Well, that was the intent, but their desire for power, world domination, control, wealthy, and I'm sure many other factors, have moved our politicians away from the Constitution. And, we have allowed it to happen.
The two party system as achieved a stranglehold on who will be president and who will hold any office that has power over people. Unfortunately, that has become so entrenched that it is difficult to find a way out -- and, back to the Constitution.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
patriotgreg,
Let;s see, we believe the press and the government when they say what we want.. We don't believe them when they don't say what we want.
Bin Ladin wrote that in 1996. I found it about 1998, well before the World Trade Center.
It is not inconsistent with the known tapes and videos that he has put out. I am inclined to give it credibility, for I find nothing that would indicate to the contrary
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
If that were the case (easily identified targets, you would think that they would all have gone to New York, or gone for the Capitol or the White House. The Pentagon is the symbol of the military.
The World Trade Organization is the symbol of the economic control of the world's commerce.
But, then, the government says otherwise, so, so be it.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
Yes, I believe in Freedom of Speech. I don't believe in name calling (troll, fool. coward, etc.). I responded to the suggestion (nearly a demand) that I remove myself from among you.
Now, I respond to you saying "we do not have to give you a platform for you to spew your trash".
Those two dictates seem to be representative of the troll mentality. There is an issue being discussed, and you detract from the issue by such speech. That is the tactic of trolls.
And, I take full responsibility for my words.
-
Permalink Reply by Van Guard on -
Well, I guess we can pack up and go home. Never mind the continuing conflict between India and Pakistan. Never mind the insurgency in the Philippines. Never mind the Taliban.
And hey, since we have nothing to do with the government, when they come to take over, we can just sit idly by and let them occupy the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. We could just let them impose Sharia law on us, because, after all, it's not us that are the enemy.
We are not the enemy, of course, since they never use the words "Death to all Infidels." Christians are not Infidels, we are just Islamists with another name, aren't we?
When have you ever heard of any enemy trying to drive a wedge between it's opponents' different factions? Never, of course.
It's not the people of the United States that are fighting to defend our country; those aren't our soldiers, our sons, our daughters. That isn't the blood of our families being plastered all over the planet to defend the world against sociopathic despots, that think nothing of using a child as a suicide bomber.
No, we should just let them march in here and take over. After all, we are not the target.
In fact, we should form a posse, round up all our government officials and all our government employees, and their families and hand them over to Osama and Co., and then watch as they behead every last one of them.
Then we would be at peace, right?
Hey, let's not ruffle the vulture's feathers. After they take over maybe they will be kind to us, and thank us for betraying our compatriots. Maybe they will spare us, since we didn't lift a finger to defend ourselves and our families. Why maybe we could cinch a government position with them and root out any hidden, lingering elements of "the government that they targeted," and help them with that too.
We could be useful to them, and maybe they would spare us.
Do you know which direction Mecca is from where you are?
You can find it and bend over, or you can muster-up and take a stand with the rest of us.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hunt on
-
I would surmise, judging from other comments around The Conservative Underground, that we have already let the enemy into government.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony DiGiacomo on
-
Yes, it's called the Oblammy administration.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
