The Common Denominator: What Cyprus, Internet Tax, Gun Control, Election Fraud, Fake Birth Certificates, etc. All Have in CommonSubmitted by TommyPaine on Tue, 03/19/2013 - 23:31
A lot of crazy things are going on these days. I saw the thread on Saddam Hussein offering to debate Bush, and it triggered something I had forgotten about regarding the lead-up to the Afghanistan invasion. And that got me to thinking about a lot of other things.
Cyprus bailouts, gun confiscation, soft drink bans, CISPA, NDAA, election fraud, and so many other things I can't list them all -- all these violations of rights and insane ideas from politicians, they all have one thing in common. And it goes like this ...
Among the BIG LIES leading up to the US invasion of Afghanistan is that the Afghan government (Taliban) refused to extradite Bin Laden.
WRONG. It's a LIE.
The Afghan government actually did agree to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan, and possibly the United States. They wanted an Islamic court to try him and they wanted evidence presented so they had a valid reason to extradite, and with enough evidence they left the door open even to extraditing to the US. The Pakistan extradition was a DONE DEAL. Since the Pakistani president was under the thumb of the US, it was a move towards justice.
However, the US never had any evidence that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 in the first place, and they had no interest in justice. They wanted to invade Afghanistan as the first war in the Middle East (see: Project for a New American Century, and Downing Street Memo).
Here is an article about the extradition agreement:
Here is a timeline (have to scroll down to seen relevant articles) talking about the extradition agreement:
Same article above shows that on 9/16/2001 Bin Laden denies involvement in 9/11. Sure, he could have been lying, but the FBI confirmed they had no credible evidence he was involved:
That's the reason Bin Laden was wanted for bombing US embassies, but not for 9/11 -- the FBI had no evidence (that would have stood up in court) that Bin Laden was involved. And this is why the US gov't could not give such evidence to the Afghan gov't or the Pakistan gov't so Bin Laden COULD have been extradited.
And here is an article that the late, great libertarian Harry Browne wrote shortly after 9/11 about how this should NOT be considered a war but should be handled like any other mass crime:
Harry Browne was right all along. 9/11 should have been handled like a crime. Instead, there is a fake "war on terrorism" and that war is destroying human rights and the rule of law. The threatened theft of money in Cyprus bank accounts, bank bailouts, GM bondholders getting screwed in favor of union employees, gun control and confiscation, Bloomberg's insane view of what government should do, and even Barry Obama's election and fraud related to his lack of eligibility are ALL a direct result of the breakdown of the rule of law.
All of this is a direct result of the fact that the rule of law was ignored in handling the aftermath of 9/11. And that was probably due to the fact that the story about what really happened on 9/11 is a lie that had to be covered up. But whether the government's story is true or not, there is no excuse for abandoning the rule of law in favor of tyranny (whether tyranny of the masses or tyranny of the oligarch).
Everything we are seeing today that is a breakdown in rule of law can be directly traced back to the refusal of Bush and everyone since 9/11 refusing to investigate and otherwise treat that event as a crime rather than a bogus "war on terror."
And with that in mind, here's an oldie but a goodie from the late, great Aaron Russo: