Saturday, 4 June 2011

So why are we in Afghanistan?

Originally sent November 2009

Why are we in Afghanistan? This question is now being asked far and wide, and with a dramatic crescendo over the past few weeks. It is sad that it has taken a death toll of 232 on the British side, with 95 so far this year, for the war to be questioned so vehemently in the mainstream media.

That question was the dominant theme in Thursday’s BBC television programme Question Time.

The previous Thursday, Britain’s former top cop Sir Ian Blair stated: "We were wrong to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and that's because if the reason was that if this was to do with the attack on the twin towers on 9/11, Afghanistan wasn't the place it was launched from".

Even yesterday’s Daily Mirror is asking: “So what exactly is this war in Afghanistan for?”, in defence of Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who spoke out at the recent anti-war rally and was subsequently arrested.

This was reported by the BBC

So if Afghanistan wasn't the place that the attacks of 9/11 were launched from, where were they launched from?

The Guardian last month asked: “Who really blew up the twin towers?”.

Questions that should have been raised eight years ago are now at last surfacing in the mainstream media. They should really be asking who blew up the three towers, not the twin towers, as I did in 2007 ( ), but they’ll get there. The process is now unstoppable.

In a Special Report for Veterans Today, author David Ray Griffin asks: “Osama bin Laden as Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks: Is This Belief Based on Evidence?”. He states:

“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 Contradictions and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it”.

There is a similar story concerning the aircraft. On the Physics 911 website, George Nelson, a retired Colonel of the US Air Force, writes under the heading: “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity”. He gives the aircraft identification numbers and concludes:

“not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode”.

The historic debate, which I mentioned in the October newsletter didn’t take place because France 2 supposedly couldn’t find four credible people that want to debate 9/11 against Bigard, Kassovitz, Laurent and Harrit.

Nevertheless, the TV channel announced that it would air the October 28 show but with Bigard and Kassovitz only. This means that the two 9/11 specialists had been cut out, and there would be no real debate.

I mentioned Operation Gladio in my September newsletter. An interview with the director of the film Gladio, Allan Francovich in which he talks about how he got his information on the CIA.

Francovich suffered a heart attack while going through US customs at Houston airport, Texas on April 17, 1997, and died at the age of 56. There are fears in some quarters that Operation Gladio may have its present-day counterpart in the Middle East.

Writing in 2006 for Global Research, Michel Chossudovsky, analyses revelations in the Washington Post of leaked documents from the military. These indicated that the role of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi had been deliberately ‘magnified’ by the Pentagon with a view to galvanizing public support for the US-UK led ‘war on terrorism’. Chossudovsky’s article is headed: Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend", and it concludes:

“The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated. The suicide attacks in Iraq are indeed real, but who is behind them? There are indications that some of the suicide attacks could have been organized by the US-UK military and intelligence”.

Such evidence had been presented in an article by Michael Keefer headed: ‘Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? Suspicions Strengthened by Earlier Reports’.

In the light of Gladio, such reports are worrying. A similar story is emerging in India, too. A book by a very senior retired police officer, S M Mishrif, was published last month under the title ‘Who Killed Kalkare: The real face of Terrorism in India’, in which he states:

“Political violence, or terrorism, by State as well as by non-State actors has a long history in India”. The book is now in its 3rd edition.

I went to a public meeting organised by the Reinvestigate 9/11 group on October 2. The most persuasive contribution was from Danish professor of Chemistry Niels Harrit, who had jointly published a paper on nanothermite found at the scene of the crime. He presented a layman’s explanation of this, and its use in controlled demolition.

The rest of the meeting, however, seemed to focus on 9/11 controversies. The top half of the South Tower was said to have had a planned power-down for 26 hours of the previous weekend, but there was only one witness, and none of the employees or their families had spoken out

Watch the award winning documentary The Elephant in the Room.

What would be the significance of this, considering that Niels Harrit had stated that preparation for controlled demolition would have taken weeks? Then attention was directed to a theory that the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77 after all. No evidence was presented, and I can’t find any on the Internet. There was also further talk of Holocaust deniers, but no link was made explicit to the 9/11 campaign: only to 7/7, which they weren’t dealing with. Why hype it up? Had that been my first 9/11 meeting, I would have left the meeting less convinced than I had been when I arrived. Why call a public meeting for novices, and then focus on 9/11 controversies, when most of the essential issues were ignored? The essential question on the Pentagon is: whatever did hit it, what was it doing there in the first place? I know of no theory that will explain all the facts.

We’d appreciate any comments. But don’t just talk to us; there are many readers of letters in newspapers, internet blogs, etc, who would like to hear from you, as well as many politicians and journalists who perhaps wouldn’t.

No comments:

Post a Comment