On Thursday, Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, gave a speech at the UN. Amongst his many topics, was the attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Reportedly, a bunch of government officials walked out during the speech including the US Representatives. So, I see that many didn't agree with him, nor did they want to hear anymore on that subject or any other. President Obama has already given a statement, condemning Ahmadinejad for his "inexcusable" statements.
Despite what people may think of me for saying this, I have to agree with him about what he said concerning 9/11. He listed three different theories of who was responsible for the attacks. In a nutshell they are: some foreign terrorists did it (our government's official version), our own government did it, and lastly that foreign terrorists did it but our government saw them coming and took advantage of the situation.
The UN Representatives for the United States walked out during the second theory. Many other country's representatives left, as well. One reporter called what Ahmadinejad said "vile conspiracy theories" and, of course, Obama was acting very offended as if Ahmadinejad was insinuating that Obama himself had orchestrated the whole thing.
But, everyone is missing the point here due to our preconceptions of the man giving the speech. I don't agree with most of what Ahmadinejad said, but the things he said concerning 9/11 were right on. He only called a spade a spade and mentioned that there are multiple accounts for what happened that day, evidence that points to people other than the officially accused, and questions that have not been answered nor had honest attempts of aptly answering them by our government. He further suggests that the UN put together a fact finding team, to answer these questions.
If you think about it, he's properly using a democratic process. The US government has had 9 years to find and provide answers to the obvious 'who', 'why', and 'how' questions. Instead, it only took them hours to point a finger. Despite the ridiculous amount of new evidence that would implicate more involvement from others, this finger has never stopped pointing at the initial suspects and has turned a deaf ear to any suggestion that the event had co-conspirators other than those already named.
This deaf ear, continues today with the walkout of our government at the mere mention of theories that have been sparked, not by Ahmadinejad, but by unanswered questions and intentional government cover-ups.
Ahmadinejad's reason for bringing up 9/11 was to point out that the United States government's leading of the UN in bringing punishment to Iran for their "lack of transparency" surrounding their nuclear program couldn't be more ironic. It might be difficult to find a better example of the pot calling the kettle black.
How can I relate the two, you might ask? The United States used 9/11 as a springboard to invade two countries, and completely overthrow the government of one of them. Several thousand people did die on 9/11, but several hundred thousand have died in the United States' mission to avenge the supposed responsible parties. The United States' military force driven by a government that needs no solid evidence to choose a target is, in and of itself, a weapon of mass destruction. However, the US government feels no need to further investigate nor answer any questions. On the contrary, they get upset and leave just by the mere mention of the subject. Which only leaves us to believe that they're avoiding discussion on the subject because there is something to hide.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Makes Good Point
4 comments:
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets up at the UN, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad starts into his 9/11 truther spiel where he wants to conduct an investigation to find out just what George Bush knew before 9/11. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rallied the United Nations to the belief that the United States government was in on the 9/11 attacks, and shockingly... When I see stuff like this it depresses me and angers me at the same time. Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."
Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, which means that if you think he knew then you have to believe he was complicit in it, that he was part of the whole deal. As it is, 22% believe that Bush knew about 9/11. So 35% of Democrats join Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the belief that George W. Bush and the US government knew about 9/11 in advance and in effect caused it, orchestrated it. Ahmadinejad's theory resonates in his part of the world. It resonates in that part of the world which produces terrorists and enemies who wish this country ill. Now, he gets two speeches to make this point. Then he also, in addition to saying that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, Ahmadinejad also made the point that 9/11 was an "inside job." I find it interesting how close, how similar the talking points were during the presidential campaign of Ahmadinejad and the Democrats about Bush and about the Republicans and about America. AHMADINEJAD: (via female translator) For years, the inefficiency of capitalism and the existing world management structures have been exposed enough for us to understand what they mean; and the majority of states and people have begun a quest for fundamental changes, to allow justice and global relations to prevail. ..." Does this not parrot not only what Obama says, but what he's doing? Obama and the Democrats also believe capitalism is a problem, as does Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as did Fidel Castro. Capitalism is the problem they believe. Capitalism is not their solution, capitalism is their problem. And we're undergoing fundamental changes. And he's happy about it. America has given more charity and handouts to nations of the world than any other, and still has produced enough to take care of itself. Just amazing how ungratelful greedy people are of another man or countrys success.
This country was built on Biblical Truths illustrated in the day of our early Pilgrims.
The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. "And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats."Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work!"
"It never has worked! "What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.
"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.
"Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of an Obamaite does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.
Now, this is where it gets really good, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering in socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians. They did sit down and they had dinner, and I think they had a turkey, but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was God, His Word, and Free Enterprise which saved the day." It wasn't greed of power or of possessions. I am proud to be a Christian and an American, and in that order. May God help us all to spread the Good News.
Wow. Thanks for your comments, Larry, or should I say 'blog' within a blog.
For the record, I wasn't blogging about socialism or capitalism, for that matter. I'm not a Ahmadinejad supporter, nor do I plan on voting him into a presidency here in the States or in Iran. I simply agreed with his assessment of a bogus investigation into the events that took place on 9/11 and the need for a real one.
I didn't agree with anything else he said. I was writing this blog in surprise that I agreed with him on anything at all.
So, with the understanding that I'm neither a democrat nor a socialist, we can put those two assumptions behind us and focus on the topic at hand: What happened on 9/11 and who was involved?
Larry was on subject for a paragraph or so when he gave us some statistics about whether or not George W. Bush knew about the attacks before they happened. I, personally, don't care too much whether he knew or not. To me, I care about what he MUST know now and is not telling us. I care about what a lot of people MUST know now and are not telling us.
There is too much evidence to deny that there was a conspiracy. Steel and concrete buildings do not fall to the ground symmetrically along the path of most resistance at free fall speed from asymmetrical damage without the help of some very smart people and lots of explosives.
Three buildings fell this way on September 11th, 2001. And, our government cleaned up and hauled away the crime scene while failing to investigate properly. They simply told us that they fell from damage caused by fire.
We were not given truthful answers then and we are not getting truthful answers now. And lots of us know it.
Post a Comment