Sunday, September 13, 2009

Moral bubbles that need to be burst

Caleb emotionally wrote:

If in deed the Govt. were to be responsible for 911, then at some point there had to be a conversation between the president, and others that included what planes where to be used to crash into the towers.

One pary, "whoever", would suggest that the oh say fedex cargo planes be used to crash into the buildings and create the coverup. They would be easier to hijack, contain more fuel and serve the purpose. There would even be less chance of identification from a private airport.

Another person would have had to have said, No, I want to see planes filled with innocent men, women, and children crashed into the towers.

You see, I can't, and will never believe that conversation existed, It would be such a change in what would ultimately become a minor detail of 911 that the only reason for it would be a muderous lust for human blood. There could be no other excuse to use planes full of people.

What part of the conversation can't you believe? Before I poke a hole in the moral bubble you seem to have placed around the Bush Administration, allow me to take a detour into Iraq.

If we take the Bush Administration's statements and arguments at face value regarding the justification for invasion of Iraq, they would have us believe that Saddam not only had chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, but was prepared to use them on us. Therefore, in pre-emptive retaliation, the Bush Administration was prepared to march tens of thousands of U.S. service personnel directly into the resulting deadly chemical cloud, whose casualties could be calculated in numbers easily far greater than the civilian loss on 9/11.

Worse, the PNAC members who in great numbers later wielded influential positions in the Bush Administration had been lobbying (Clinton) for a long time for the U.S. to invade Iraq and listed in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document Iraq's dangers, a desire for a permanent military presence in the Middle East, and the value of a New Pearl Harbor to usher in speedily the military changes they desired.

The point is, this very group had already thought about sending great numbers of U.S. personnel into the chemical jaws of harm's way before they stole an election. So clearly, what are a few more civilian casualties to tie a national emotional bow around their endeavors? This is prick one into their fabled moral bubble.

Prick two is that there is little moral difference between flying a Fed Ex plane into a building and flying a civilian plane, because the attacks were planned for a time of day with the buildings were occupied. Civilians on the ground were going to be sacrificed anyway. What's a few more sitting in passenger seats?

Prick three is for you to Google "Operation Norwood" that was a (rejected) proposal during the JFK administration, but proof that such conversations you fear do regularly take place and were happening prior to 9/11.

Prick four is that there were at least four military exercises taking place on 9/11 (under the command of Vice-President Cheney) that most coincidentally were practicing the very types of hijacking scenarios that the true events of 9/11 turned out to be. Because they were practicing it, you can't very well say that they never thought about, never discussed it, and never acted on it [which the leader of the opposing forces in the military game did.]

I will spare you the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole about no-planes (Google "September Clues") due to my own waffling on the matter. But if your argument about morals in the Bush Administration were valid and how commercial passenger planes could not be used due to its distasteful "murderous lust for human blood," it would be another straw for co-opting corporate media and faking the airplane crashes.

Caleb wrote:

There is a line drawn in the sand at some point where we recoil and say that a thing is so beyond comprehension that it could not have ever happened. And at some point we also recoil from persons who can believe these things. Persons who have a thought pattern so alien from our own that we simply can not listen to them.

Exactly. But some of the dots you are personally not connecting include the line that the very same 9/11 suspects re-drew in our moral sands regarding torture, detention without trials, and remotely flown Predator drones raining down hell-fire on Afghani, Iraqi, and Pakistani civilians.

Whereas you may have morals, don't project your same values on those particular leaders, because they regularly proved their ability to give lip-service to such standards, but their true actions contradicted that.

A final prick to your moral bubble is to assume that only those who swallow the government's coincidence theories on 9/11 and acted in bloody vengence on at least two innocent countries as a result are honoring the 3000 people who died that morning. Were their spirits talking to us through this forum, I'm sure they'd be applauding the 9/11 Truth Movement and cheering both its patriotism and [name your religion here, like] Christianity in speaking Truth to lies.

"Though error hides behind a lie and excuses guilt, error cannot forever be concealed. Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast. Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

No comments: