Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

June 29, 2010

Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question

by David R. Griffin  source: Global Research  June 29, 2010

There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.” This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.

Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft –  hire mercenaries!

There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan? 

This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media. It has been permissible, to be sure, to ask whether the war during the past several years has been justified by those attacks so many years ago. But one has not been allowed to ask whether the original invasion was justified by the 9/11 attacks. 

Read the rest of this entry »


No Cell Phones on Planes

June 5, 2010

Nor Cal Truth   June 5, 2010

Many remember the stories of  phone calls on 9/11 allegedly made from victims on-board the planes. Many people know suspect that they could not have been made from cell phones for different reasons. Some reasons for not using cells in-flight are technologically inspired, some are more from a physical possibilities perspective.

Here’s what the folk at PC World had to say about this in their article, 21 Things ‘They’ Don’t Want You to Know:

The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration have each recommended that airlines not allow passengers to use cell phones during commercial flights. The FAA fears that the RF signal emitted by devices using the 800MHz spectrum band might interfere with the navigation systems of the plane, specifically GPS instrumentation. Yet there is no documented case of an air accident or serious malfunction caused by a cell phone’s interfering with a plane’s navigation system.

The FCC’s concern is that wireless networks on the ground might be disrupted by the cell phones flying overhead. As a plane flies over a wireless cell tower on the ground, the FCC believes, the cell site will detect all the cell phones operating inside the plane and go to work registering those devices to operate on the network. But by the time the tower registers and connects all those mobile phones passing overhead, the plane will have passed into the range of the next cell tower on its route. This uses up system resources and could hurt network performance for connected phones on the ground.

But some experts believe that this worry is outdated. “Color me highly skeptical that this is a real problem with modern systems,” says Ken Biba, CTO of Novarum, a wireless consulting and engineering group. “Modern digital phones actually use lower power, and, further, the cell towers have very directional antennas designed for covering the surface of the earth [not the air above].”

Read the rest of this entry »


David Ray Griffin to Speak at the Harvard Epworth Church on May 8

April 20, 2010

source: 9/11 Blogger   April 20, 2010

David Ray Griffin will be presenting his most recent lecture, “Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?” at the Harvard Epworth Methodist Church at 1555 Mass. Ave., Harvard Square, Cambridge at 7pm on Saturday May 8.

This will be his second visit to the Boston area in as many years. Last year, Dr. Griffin spoke to an audience of 400 people at Boston University, nearly half of which were hearing the 9/11 truth message for the first time. The church where Griffin will be speaking this year is adjacent to the Harvard Law School, home of Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, authors of the “Conspiracy Theories” paper that was recently uncovered.

Read the rest of this entry »


Understanding Deep Politics

April 6, 2010

April 6, 2010 

YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/deeppoliticsconf

Twitter: http://twitter.com/DeepPol

Our Site: http://understandingdeeppolitics.org

Tickets: http://understandingdeeppolitics.eventbrite.com/


The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement

December 12, 2009

Source: GlobalResearch

by Elizabeth Woodworth

December 12, 2009

Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin

The cover story of the September 24, 2009, issue of The New Statesman, the venerable left-leaning British magazine, was entitled “The 50 People who Matter Today.”(1) Any such list, necessarily reflecting the bias and limited awareness of the editors, would surely contain choices that readers would find surprising.

That is true of this list – which includes families as well as individuals. A good number of names are, to be sure, ones that would be contained in most such lists created by British, Canadian, or American political commentators, such as the Obamas, the Murdochs, Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, Angela Merkel, Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Pope Benedict XVI, and Gordon Brown. But about half of the names reflected choices that I, and probably most other readers, found surprising. One of these choices, however, is beyond surprising – it is astounding. Read the rest of this entry »


David Ray Griffin’s Review of John Farmer’s “The Ground Truth”

December 7, 2009

Source: Amazon.comReview

By David R. Griffin

A Deeply Flawed Book

November 27, 2009

Although John Farmer’s “The Ground Truth” has attracted a lot of favorable attention, it is a deeply flawed book, containing misleading claims and providing an extremely one-sided account of 9/11.

Much of the attention received by the book has been prompted by misleading claims made by Farmer and his publisher. The book’s dust-jacket calls it the “definitive account” of 9/11, but it actually deals almost entirely with only one question about that day: why the airliners were not intercepted.

Also, the book’s subtitle calls it “the untold story” of 9/11 and its dust-jacket says that it “breathtakingly revises” our understanding of that day. In reality, however, it simply provides new support for the story told about the planes in “The 9/11 Commission Report,” which appeared in 2004, and in two publications that appeared in 2006: Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book “Without Precedent,” and Michael Bronner’s essay in “Vanity Fair.” Read the rest of this entry »


Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence?

November 3, 2009
Source:GlobalResearch
by David Ray Griffin

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an “article of faith” points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea.

On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books – 9/11 Contradictions1 and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,2 no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it.

Colin Powell’s Withdrawn Promise Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”3

Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, “most of it is classified.”4 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a “lack of solid information.”5

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers