INDEX
Prophecy 'Blog' : Friday February 11th, 2005
It turns out that the full 9-11 Commission report was not released, but rather some important sections were suppressed by the Bush administration, so that the revelations would not be a problem for Bush during the election campaign. The following are a sample of some of the stories that are making the rounds.
Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
11 February 2005
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.
Critics say the new information undermines the government's claim that intelligence about al-Qa'ida's ambitions was "historical" in nature.
The report, withheld from the public for months, says the FAA was primarily focused on the likelihood of an incident overseas. However, in spring 2001, it warned US airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable".
Kristin Bretweiser, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Centre, said yesterday the newly released details undermined testimony from Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, who told the commission that information about al-Qa'ida's threats seen by the administration was "historical in nature".
She told The Independent: "There were 52 threats that were mentioned. These were present threats - they were not historical." To the consternation of members of the commission who published the original report last year, the administration has been blocking the release of the latest information.
But the details, first obtained by The New York Times, are the strongest evidence yet of the widespread warnings and officials' failure to take action. They also support claims by whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, who said she saw evidence that showed officials were aware of the al-Qa'ida threat before 9/11.
US officials ignored many warnings about attacks before 9/11:
[World News]: New York, Feb 10 : US aviation officials ignored dozens of intelligence reports that warned of al-Qaeda plots, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, just months before the September 11 strikes, a report said today.
Aviation officials received and reviewed warnings from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the report said quoting a previously undisclosed findings by a panel which probed the 9/11 attacks.
The commission report discloses that the FAA, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."
Truth held hostage
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
It's difficult to decide which is more outrageous -- federal aviation officials' failure to follow through on intelligence reports before Sept. 11, 2001, that warned of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden using airliner hijackings and suicide operations, or the Bush administration's refusal to let the American public know about it before the November election.
The administration has for five months blocked public release of the full version of the 9/11 commission report, even though former commission members insist that it provides what The New York Times calls a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system that contributed to the atrocities.
In April last year, President Bush said, "Had I any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country. ..." The 9/11 commission report apparently found that there were indeed such inklings, which should have "raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990s and into the new century."
We're left with a pretty good inkling as to why the president moved heaven and earth to keep it quiet before the election.
The following list details the behavior of an abusive personality style. What I find interesting here is just how closely this description fits the so-called 'Christian God'. Actually the description best fits the old Torah God in the Jewish Bible, and we also find signs of the same sorts of things in such books as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and scattered throughout other books of the Jewish prophets. However, since so many Christians insist that this Torah god was the 'father of Jesus' and that Jesus was 'an animal sacrifice for sin' (see Leviticus) and since even Jewish prophets were not able to completely free themselves from this ancient form of social control (idolatry) it turns out that his abusive form of religion continues to persist throughout the ages right up to the present time. For an optional interpretation of the meaning of the crucifixion see such pages as The lost political message of Easter or The search for the true meaning of Christmas.
Defining Characteristics of an abuser
Jealousy : Abusers are jealous types, and always accusing their victim of having been flirtatious with other lovers. This jealousy, the abuser insists, is a sign of love.
Controller : If you reject the instruction or advice of a controller this leads to anger. If you deviate even a little from a prescribed routine this is considered a punishable offense. A controlling abuser insists on controlling every aspect of your life, and requires that you seek permission before taking an action. The excuse given by the abuser is that this is evidence of concern for the victims safety and that the abuser wants to be sure the victim makes wise decisions, while actually fulfilling the need the abuser feels to dominate in the relationship.
Pressure and guilt : Pressure is exerted to force a committment to a relationship with the abuser, and refusal to commit is then used to inculcate guilt.
Separation : An abuser attempts to get the victim to separate from friends and family, or prevent the victim from engaging in outside activities.
Projection and Blame : The abuser always blames the victim for mistakes that are really the responsbility of the abusive partner. the abuser never takes responsbility for failures or for the consequences of actions. The abuser is never to be held accountable for their abusive behavior, and instead the victim begins to internalize the blame and even goes so far as believing that it is their own fault that the abuser has abused them.
Intolerance : An abuser takes criticism as an insult, is bad tempered and easily provoked, even by minor mistakes or problems, and any form of dissent or criticism is viewed as threat and thus subject to a counter attack.
Cruelty to those who are weaker : The abuser appears to be insensitive and uncaring when it comes to the pain inflicted upon the helpless, and it is typical for the abuser to demand that the victims perform to a very high standard.
Power : Abusers enjoy exerting power over their victims.
Verbal Abuse : It is typical of the abuser to use demeaning and insulting language, constantly saying things which are cruel and hurtful. The abuser uses degrading language and put downs, as well as constant criticisms of the faults of the abused victim. The victim is thus reduced and demeaned and the end result is that the victim developes a dependancy on the abuser.
Domination : An abuser expects to be served, and insists on being obeyed on all matters. This is justified on the grounds that the victim is inferior and flawed and thus unable to function correctly or develope wholeness as an individual without the relationship with the abuser, and this reasoning is then used as an excuse to both discipline and then dominate the victim.
Split Personality : The abuser appears to have two disparate personalities, being kind and generous at times, furious and exploding with anger at other times.
Rationalization : The abuser insists that the victim of his beatings were responsible for 'making him do it to them.'
Destructive tendencies : The abuser uses destruction of valuable possessions as a form of punishment of the victim, and also to dominate by forcing the victim into submission through inspiring terror. The abuser claims the right and privilege to use such forms of discipline upon the victim.
Violence : The abuser resorts to physical violence, usually while insisting that the victim obey the abuser. Such violence is used to control the victim and also indicates a willingness to use force in order to keep this control, and over time the violence increases in severity, and while it can start with small acts of aggression is then escalates into extreme violence.
Religion is the tool of social control.
However it would be wrong to have grossly over simplified the Jewish writings, which are very complex and not subject to such over simplification (as though somehow they represented some monolithic construct deviously created by scheming elites).
The story of the creation of the documents spans many centuries, but only goes back to about 1000 BCE. According to the book of Samuel and the Book of judges, people were living in 'anarchist' communities without the existence of states in earlier times, and religion as a form of social control began its rise with the rise of the first states.
The entire Bible is not monolithic and nor does its ideology always serve the elites or function as a tool for social control. The book of Micah has as one of its principle themes land reform and the overthrow an oligarchy that controlled all the land. According to one strand of tradition found in Jeremiah, documents such as Leviticus and Numbers were forgeries cooked up by the priests. According to the prophet Hosea both the book of Judges and the book of Kings promoted an ideology that was a religious forgery.
The Jewish Testament is complex and not the simple thing some people try to make it out to be (because they have an ax to grind), and the ideology I condemn was controversial even thousands of years ago since in a strange way (which makes the Bible 'contradictory') the protests are preserved in the text next to the documents the protestations condemn (which is one of the principle reasons why the Bible is 'contradictory').
Some discussion of this complexity can be found in a zip file bible commentary i have posted on my site ... http://www.awitness.org/bibcom.zip.
it is interesting to note Jeremiah's analysis of the political purpose of the Torah laws...there are hundreds of such regulations in the Bible and stories which concern land ownership being assigned by a God, even if it means killing everyone already there, such things being found in the Torah. According to Jeremiah, in the eighth chapter, the Torah laws were forged by what he called 'the lying pen of the scribes' which had then made the Torah 'into a lie'. It is interesting to note that he then goes on to suggest that the land would be taken away, since he says that the point of these regulations was to promote the stealing of 'ill gotten gain' and the practice of 'abominations', with the biggest crime in the Torah being the theft of land which, as in Micah, would now be taken away from those who had accumulated this land.
This same ideology of domination and accumulation, using religion as justification, also informs such documents as Judges and Kings, but blanket criticism of the Jewish prophets in this regard is not valid, since these documents also prove to complex, even contradictory at times (most notably in the case of Jeremiah) and to therefore make blanket condemnations is to have oversimplified what is actually a much more complex set of documents than such broad and sweeping condemnation would suggest is the case...
It is also to common for athiests to insist that the existence of God has been 'disproven' because the Bible contained crap. This is hardly valid either. for one thing it is playing the game of the fundamentalists, and following their line of reasoning which states that God exists because God writes books. This does leave one to explain which book God may have or have not written, and we must assume then that God writes books, and if the Bible is the book, then we must explain why it would be the case that God could not write a better book. Instead we got stuck with a troublesome book like the Bible, and thus we also got stuck with legions of apologists, only required because the Bible is the troublesome thing that it is. This does prove something about the Bible, and might also prove something about the doctrine that teaches that Gods find it necessary to write books, but it hardly proves anything about the existence or non-existence of God. This is a logical fallacy.
it is interesting to note that both the belief in God and the belief in no God are equally ridiculous, and the suggestion is often made that somehow the belief in no God makes more sense, is more rational, when actually either position is absurd, making any argument based on so called reason nonsensicial.
For example we could say that universe suddenly appeared spontaneously from nothing about ten billion years ago...
Or we could suggest that universe just always existed eternally, being uncreated, with no beginning and no end.
If we ask 'where did God come from' or 'how could God be eternal with no beginning or end' it is equally incomprehensible to ask 'how could the universe have no beginning and no end'.
It is also absurd to suggest that the universe had a beginning, which leaves us to wonder what existed in the endless eternity before this beginning, which would be nothing one must suppose, and then somehow something came from nothing, which is also absurd, just as it is incomprehensible to imagine either God or the universe being eternal with no beginning or no end.
So then it is the case that really nothing should exist, and the fact that there is existence is absurd, no matter how you look at it, and the claim that somehow it makes more sense to believe in something absurd with no God than it does to believe in the exact same absurdity with a God is nonsense, and reveals nothing more than a strong ideological (or more likely, a strong emotional) bias against the belief in God, which is also absurd in a different sort of way, since it suggests a strange hatred of justice, since the belief in God is typically tied in with a belief in justice (so for example we find that those who are being murdered by oppressors at the last moment of their existence place their last hopes in God just before they are destroyed, while those who slaughter and destroy them do so with the confidence that they are destroying life forever and ever sending their victims into the eternal blackness, where they will never be saved by any so called God)...
So then those who argue vehemently for the nonexistence of God, which is an emotional argument, and not rational, since as I pointed out above, such an argument can never be rational or make any sense whatsoever no matter how you frame it, it turns out to be the case that the vehement opposition to the existence of God is something that is shared by both oppressors and those who argue vehemently for emotional reasons in favor of the nonexistence of God, typically always claiming to have proved this beyond doubt, which is not true, since that cannot be done. But nevertheless, due to some deep seated emotional hostility such people attempt to destroy faith, while upholding the belief system of evil oppressors, destroying justice and the last hope of the oppressed in the process...why anyone would dream of a world with no God is a mystery to me...it is more emotionally sane to say 'I hope there is a God' than to long for no God, which is to long for the victory of wickedness and cruelty, with the evil being triumphant, destroying their victims completely.
The point of the above paragraph is just to point out the emotionally disturbed and rather twisted nature of the hope for no God and the attempts to destroy all faith, which always strikes me as being monstrous and must be happening for emotional, and not intellectural reasons, since there is no common sense or rational way to comprehend the imcomprehensible and the absurdity of the universe, which means that adamant arguments against the existence of God are emotionally driven for some mysterious reason (enlighten me as to what the actual emotional motives for such a dark hope might be).
So then one must assume that the only righteous atheist must by defintion be a sorrowful atheist, since to rejoice in the total destruction of the innocent is hardly righteous, but actually perverse, which would make atheism the religious position of the oppressor and the wrong doer, with all righteous atheists being filled with a deep sadness when contemplating the horrors of it all, while mourning the permanence of cruelty and injustice, which are, after all, victorious forever, given that there is no God. A happy ahteist, who delights in the fact that there is no God, instead of stopping from time to time for a moment of silence, filled with a deep and abiding sorrow and sadness, must by defintion be some kind of oppressive pervert, who buttresses and propogates the ideology of the wicked, since what does some wicked prick have to do with God? Preferably nothing at all, which would explain that warped 'hope' of theirs, this being that with any luck there is no God, so that wicked pricks can be wicked for a very short time, and then rot and disappear forever, while justice never reaches their many many victims.
INDEX
HOME