Petulant tantrums over statements of fact betray guilt
The reaction of establishment politicians and their corporate media mouthpieces to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about 9/11 is akin to that of a guilty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar and chocolate smeared all over his face.
The move to inflate the situation by creating a media circus will ultimately backfire as more people discover that, unfortunately, the Iranian President’s comments, although cloaked in an ever present anti-Israel sentiment, are accurate.
Ahmadinejad stated simply that millions of people believe there is evidence to suggest the 9/11 attacks were an inside job of some kind – a statement of fact, no matter how repugnant he who delivers it may be.
US President Barack Obama has declared he is “outraged and offended” by the comments, later giving an interview to the BBC’s Persian service, in which he told the Iranian people that the comments were “offensive and hateful”.
As ever, the truth of the matter has been distorted beyond recognition as a minority of UN delegates walking out on Ahmadinejad’s speech yesterday was transformed overnight into a full scale revolt by the corporate media.
The EU, we are told, was so disgusted with Ahmadinejad’s comments that “all representatives of the 27 nations of the EU walked out”.
However, in 2008 when the European parliament hosted a debate on the events of 9/11, the evidence that contradicts the official explanation and the reasons why an independent investigation should be carried out, there was no outcry whatsoever.
When European member of parliament Giulietto Chiesa and former German defence minister Andreas von Bulow led the debate on 9/11 inconsistencies, no one walked out and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines, because there was no opportunity to smear and discredit the issue based on the characters of those raising it.
Similarly, when prominent Japanese politician Yukihisa Fujita held debates and spoke on questions surrounding 9/11, prompting Parliamentarians of various countries to consider asking the UN to investigate, no establishment politicians denounced him and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.
When the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, stated that in his view 9/11 was a vast intelligence operation overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus, the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.
When several members of the officially appointed 9/11 Commission stated that the intelligence apparatus and the US government had actively obstructed their investigation, no establishment politicians expressed outrage and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.
When military leaders, scientists, engineers, architects, legal professionals, first responders, family members and all of the other thousands of individuals listed in this article questioned the US government’s explanation of 9/11, the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.
“that the United States was in any way responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks or that the majority of people in the US believe this to be the case, is outrageous and unacceptable.” said EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton today.
Whether you believe the official explanation of 9/11 or not, it is clear from multiple polls and surveys conducted over the past few years that a majority of Americans do question it, they do want an independent investigation and they do blame elements of their own government. These are simply facts:
The media hyped controversy rumbles on with British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to “denounce” Ahmadinejad at the UN today following the Iranian premier’s comments yesterday.
“…once again, an issue of grave global concern has been overshadowed by the bizarre, offensive and attention-grabbing pronouncements by President Ahmadinejad from this podium yesterday. His remarks were intended to distract attention from Iran’s obligations and to generate media headlines. They deserve to do neither.” Clegg’s speech reads.
If Clegg does not want headlines created why has he elected to switch his entire speech around thus creating them?
“…the Iranian president said there was evidence that the US government had at least supported the attacks, including passports in the rubble of the twin towers of men who had been involved with US officials, while no trace of the alleged suicide attackers was retrieved.” The London Guardian article states.
This paragraph is very interesting, because the Guardian journalist seems to think Ahmadinejad is implying that the evidence for elements of the US government being involved in the attacks consists of some passports found in the rubble, and that this is part of the “conspiracy theory”.
In actual fact what Ahmadinejad actually means is that the evidence that Islamic extremists carried out the attacks consisted of passports found in the rubble. That implausible claim forms part of the official version of events.
Indeed, if you actually read what Ahmadinejad said, it becomes clear that the point of his speech was to connect the 9/11 attacks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still ongoing. No matter how much you may abhor Ahmadinejad, with good cause, this is a key point that is rarely, if ever, reiterated at international summits by politicians.
Without 9/11 as justification there would have certainly been no war in Afghanistan, and little international support for the invasion of Iraq. In accounting for the fallout of these wars of aggression, 9/11 must therefore be addressed. A thorough independent investigation of what happened on 9/11, how the attacks were carried out and by whom should have been the very least we could have expected – instead, it is now accepted as the norm that it is somehow “offensive”, “bizarre” or “hateful” to ask for a plausible explanation of the events, or even to talk about it.
This mindset is one step away from erasing the event from history altogether. It only serves to create even more suspicion that in turn drives people to explore the evidence and discover the truth for themselves.
You are expected to simply accept the fact that there are hundreds of thousands, most likely millions, of innocent Afghans and Iraqis now dead ultimately because of what happened on 9/11. If you do not unquestioningly accept that as just, you are “bizarre” or “offensive”.
In a widely covered press conference today, the Iranian President repeated his comments, noting:
“I did not pass judgment but don’t you feel that the time has come to have a fact finding committee?”
He also lashed out at the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an overreaction to the attacks.
“The Americans should not occupy the entire Middle East… bomb wedding parties… annihilate an entire village just because one terrorist is hiding there.”
That a tinpot dictator with a disgusting record on human rights speaks more sense on this issue than our elected leaders is truly pitiful.
Even if you wholeheartedly accept the official explanation of 9/11, it still cannot be made to jive with the attack on Afghanistan. The official story goes that the hijackers were trained at US air bases and the 9/11 plot was conceived in Europe. Furthermore, the Taliban had agreed to co-operate with the US government and extradite Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 and then again immediately following 9/11.
Nevertheless, if you dare to ask why Afghanistan was attacked following 9/11, that is “offensive” and you are “bizarre” and “hateful”.
In reality, the most “bizarre” thing to emerge from this sorry affair is the reaction of the establishment, in its underestimation of the public desire to understand and trace the source of a decade of intense global conflict and a vast economic and moral degradation within society.
The more our so called politicians whine and posture, the more guilty they look.
It is clear that the seizure upon Ahmadinejad’s comments by the establishment and the intense media circus now surrounding the story is an attempt to do two things, garner support for continued sanctions against Iran, and to smear those who continue to ask questions about 9/11 and the subsequent wars of aggression in the middle east by associating them with a manufactured “enemy” of the free world.