Comment: I always

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Ok... (see in situ)

Jefferson's picture

I always

get a kick when someone starts out their reply with "I'm not a truther."
You use the terms "non-truther" and "anti-truther." What would those be considered? Liars? That's what it seems like when these labels are used.

Who wouldn't want the TRUTH about the most significant event of our lifetimes? (so far)

"Blowback" is an easy and safe fallback position. OF COURSE people in other countries hate our foreign policy. We're not just talking the Middle East either. How about Africa, South and Central America, Cuba, etc. Our CIA has been involved in some very bad activities around the entire world for a very long time. They still are.
I do my best to try to understand and accept RP's public position and statements. But, knowing some of his family and their private opinion, leads me to believe that all is not what it seems.
RP has already gone far enough to say that "Govt. investigations of themselves are usually cover-ups" for ineptitude or whatever.
This farce of an investigation which was basically denounced by 6 of the 10 commissioners is simply that. A FARCE.

Imagine if one of your family members was murdered, and your case was "investigated" by a group of detectives.

The first guy they appoint to LEAD the investigation has to step down because he is wanted for crimes in other countries.
(Henry Kissinger)
Another one of these detectives eventually resigns in disgust. Others called the investigation things like a "National scandal" and a "conflict of interest."
One of the lead detective/attorney writes a book and says "the parties we interviewed made a conscious decision to NOT tell the truth about the events of that day."
What would you think if they came back to you and said "well, sorry, they decided to not tell us the truth. Have a nice day."
Would you just accept that?
Or would you say HEY, what about the evidence? "Well sorry, the crime scene was not secured, and cleaned up in record time."
What about the motive?
I could go on and on...

The bottom line is this.
9/11 was the result of a policy coup in this country. It was the beginning of an elaborate game of "let's you and him fight."
When you understand who PNAC is, and read the writings of their members, and realize what OTHER countries might have benefited from having the full force of the US military at their disposal, then you might have a more clear idea of what took place.
Here is Gen. Wesley Clark ADMITTING that he was TOLD that we were going to attack 7 countries in the next 5 years, shortly after 9/11.

Do you think the countries being attacked and occupied now are just the result of some organic coincidence?

If you do, I beg to differ.

People can not simply be divided up into "pinheads and patriots" or "truthers and anti-truthers."

It's a lot more complex and important than to be just written off as "blowback."