Please note the Related Articles at the bottom of this post. Also, as I have suggested, try to watch/listen to Barbara Honeggers monumental explanation of the FALSE FLAG attacks on the Pentagon. She corrects many of the incorrect assumptions made by previous ’911 truthers’. If you must, work your way through it, bit-by-bit.~J
This file photo shows the aftermath of 9/11 attacks.
Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:52AM GMT
By Joshua Blakeney
Ever since voluminous evidence emerged demonstrating that 9/11 was a false-flag attack there has been a burgeoning movement of public intellectuals and activists which has developed an academic field that might broadly labeled False-Flag Terrorism Studies.
Many of the leading experts on false-flag terrorism frequently appear on Press TV including Dr. Kevin Barrett, Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. Webster Tarpley. Dr. Barrett in his latest article for Veterans Today draws attention to a new mainstream poll which demonstrates that about half of Americans have doubts about the veracity of the official story of 9/11, which suggests that 9/11 and other such disputed terrorist events ought to be mainstream topics for discussion.
While countless working class activists and a significant number of professionals, including more than 2000 architects and engineers, have focused intently on false-flag studies over the past 12 years, the field has never been as mainstream as it has become in recent weeks as a result of the allegations made by Israeli-influenced Western governments that the Syrian government deployed chemical weapons against the Syrian people on August 21.
The lack of evidence to support that claim has led to a profusion of alternative, and often more believable, explanations for the alleged chemical weapons attacks. Some, including the President of Russia, have suggested that it was the al-Qaeda affiliated armed gangs who deployed the chemical weapons, while others have contended that it was Israel, the maestro of false-flag terrorism, who undertook the attacks.
Others have contended that the attacks may have involved fabricated videos made to create the impression that the Syrian Arab Army had gassed Syrian civilians. Frankly such alternative theories seem far less dubious than the theory being peddled by the US and its allies that President Assad, on the day chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Damascus, deployed sarin gas thus risking provoking military strikes from Washington.
While allegations of Israel and their al-Qaeda pasties being involved in fraudulent trigger incidents are not new, what is unique about the allegations of false-flag attacks vis-à-vis Syria is that they have been espoused by many mainstream, establishment figures.
For example, as early as May 2013 during an earlier “Assad used chemical weapons” stunt the Chief of Staff to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, stated during an interview with the Young Turks TV show that any alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria could be “an Israeli false-flag operation”.
In addition, during the great revolt in the British House of Commons on August 29 many dissenting British MPs included theories about false-flag terrorism in their submissions to Parliament. David Davis MP told the Parliament: “It could have been done by the Syrian rebels with the direct aim of dragging the West into the war.
These are the only people who actually have a clear motive that fits this crime…there are many reasons for us to worry about this concern. We do not want to be conned into a war in effect by actions designed just to do that.”
Kate Hoey MP opined: “what happens if they (the UN inspectors) actually come back and they discover that it’s been the rebels who used the chemical weapons last week?…will the Prime Minister then be saying the things he did about the use of chemical weapons?”
Diane Abbott MP said in her submission to Parliament: “I do not believe it is wise to entirely rule out the possibility that the chemical weapons could have been wielded by Assad’s opponents.
The question you always have to ask in these circumstances is cui bono? Who benefits? His opponents know that only chemical weapons would trigger a reluctant President Obama to authorize a military intervention.”
Hitherto theories about false-flag terrorism have been dismissed by Israel’s apologists in the so-called mainstream media as “conspiracy theories”. Here in Canada, for example, the National Post’s editor Jonathan Kay, who in the past co-authored a book with a retired Mossad agent, has done his best to define a category of humanity known as “conspiracy theorists” who are not to be taken seriously.
His equivalent in the UK is neocon journalist David Aaronovitch who, like Kay, has gone out of his way to delegitimize theorists of false-flag terrorism. Opportunistic journalists, academics and politicians are provided by with the following dictum: if you critically analyze forbidden subjects such as 9/11 you will no longer be a full, respectable member of society.
This has worked for a while but the “conspiracy theorist” meme is now wearing thin. Israel’s propagandists in North America and the UK are now confronted with the problem of having an increasing number of mainstream politicians and public intellectuals proffering theories about false-flag terrorism and even, as in the case of a former member of the Bush administration, Col. Wilkerson, the ultra-taboo topic of Israeli false-flag terrorism.
Hence the Jonathan Kays and David Aaronovitches of this world will have to develop a new way to discussing contested terrorist incidents. Childishly calling people “conspiracy theorists” will no longer wash. Perhaps dealing with the evidence and refraining from circular arguments would be a good place to start.