FROM 30 APRIL 2006--
ANYBODY SEE WHERE DIOGENES' LANTERN WENT?
The movie "UNITED 93" is out now, celebrating the
courage of hijacked airline passengers who went down
fighting against their murderers, and succeeded so far as
to prevent their plane from hitting Washington. I want
very much to believe the most heroic interpretation of
this event--the more so since lying down passively and
letting terrorists have their way has a marvellous record
of accomplishing no good at all.
Sadly, at this very time there are more and more clues
piling up to the effect that events on 11 September 2001
may have been very different than loyal Americans have
believed. It's being said that the passengers on Flight 93
should not have been able to reach anyone on the ground
by telephone at the time they were thought to have done
so; that plane wreckage found at the Pentagon did not
match the airplane type that was supposed to have hit
there; that video footage of the second plane striking
the World Trade Center suggests it was a military
transport jet posing as an airliner; and that the steel
in those towers could not have melted from jet-fuel
flames unless additionally damaged by explosives.
The hard left is getting louder and more explicit in
its accusations that George Bush did not merely fail to
prevent the 9-11 attacks, but rather that HE ORDERED
THEM HIMSELF, intentionally murdering American
citizens in order to give himself an excuse to wage wars
of aggression and conquest for his own gain. And it's
hard to deny this possibility, since it would not be the
first time a Republican administration staged a fake
enemy attack to stir Americans to war. I have in mind
the Tonkin Gulf incident, in which North Vietnamese
forces were supposed to have attacked the U.S. Navy,
leading to our active combatant involvement in the
Vietnam War. It was later found that no such attack
had even happened; it was a fabrication, carried out
under the presidency of the Republican Lyndon J--
Hey, wait a minute!
Dang, Johnson was a Democrat, wasn't he?
Well, I won't go too far pointing out things like the
way the Democratic Clinton administration allowed a
heavily slanted reporting of conflict in Yugoslavia to
make it look as if all the fault there was on the part of
the Serbs, causing us to side with Albanian Muslims
who did and still do have terrorist connections. (There
are politically-correct films being made, nonsensically,
about the threat of _Serbian_ terrorists.) None of that
erases the doubts about 9-11. I confess I _don't_ know
what the truth is about the current allegations. If all
the evidence exists which is being said to exist, this
would make it impossible to believe that the standard
story is all true. On the other hand, there could still be
many possible explanations; it would not be instantly
proven that Mr. Bush willfully murdered his own people
just to gain geopolitical advantages which his evil oil-
company friends are supposed to have gained for him
already anyway.
So let's consider some things which I _do_ know to
be true, and whose truth cannot be changed by ANY
of the plausible explanations of 9-11.
The Communists who achieved the armed conquest
of South Vietnam never had any moral qualms about
torturing and murdering defenseless noncombatants
in large numbers, for fun. They were doing it _long_
before the Tonkin Gulf incident was fabricated. As for
Muslim terrorists, they were not only doing the same
thing before any American government falsified any
incidents--they were doing it before any American
government even existed. With regard to both sets of
predatory evildoers, even if we believe the VERY worst
explanation of American actions that any evidence can
support, the predators remain predators, who would
be preying on the innocent even if they had not been
made the object of someone's cynical manipulation.
Much of the impetus for the present accusations
against Mr. Bush comes from a generalized, visceral
feeling in people's minds, that America's prosperity
_must_ somehow have been stolen rather than earned;
that ANY use of American armed force to support our
interests _must_ be an act of wicked imperialism. But
to give credit where credit is due, some of our _enemies_
have had the honesty to judge us more kindly than that.
Remember the British actor Michael Caine? Back
during the Vietnam War, he appeared on an American
TV show and said that we should regard the Viet Cong
as being like our Colonial patriots in the Revolutionary
War. There is no uncertainty about this; I myself was
watching and listening as he said it. Thus, we can be
fairly confident that he would not commit any fraud
or deception in _favor_ of American action against
Communists. Well, many years later, Michael Caine
found himself in Vietnam to film a remake of "THE
QUIET AMERICAN." Coming back from this trip,
he told reporters that Communist Vietnamese officials
had told him something interesting. The Communists
had admitted to him that THEY KNEW that America
had NOT been trying to conquer and possess Vietnam
as a colony--only supporting the opposite side in the
war. In other words, the Communists themselves had
admitted to Caine that all the hippie-era talk about
the "Amerikan empire"--talk which Hanoi had gladly
exploited to its advantage--had been false.
Goodness, could it be that FOES of America and
of its armed forces might have been dishonest??
I still don't know all the facts about 11 September
2001. I don't want painful truth to be swept under any
rug, even if its exposure will cause much I have believed
in to be proven false. But I do know that none of it can
disprove certain basic facts, like the fact that hard-
line Islamists ARE aggressive warmongers who do NOT
need to be "provoked" to be aggressive. Even if it were
proven that Mr. Bush personally planned the whole
9-11 assault, this would not change the fact that Islam
has been imposing its will by violence ever since the
lifetime of Muhammad himself.
Note that last phrase. The Spanish Inquisition, and
other events which are harped on to indict Christianity,
could not occur until enough time had passed for the
original intent of Christianity to be altered. But Islam
was producing violence from the very _start_ of its
existence--because, although of course not every
Muslim is a violent person, the doctrinal foundation
of Islam contains a built-in warrant for advancing
that religion by armed compulsion.
Whatever turns out to be true about the 9-11
attacks--and for the record, I do _not_ believe that
Mr. Bush purposely killed American citizens--it won't
change the fact that Islamic fascism is waging a war
against freedom and civilization. I dread the prospect
of Americans deciding: "Since our leaders are suspect,
that makes Al-Qaeda's leaders innocent, so we must
appease them and let them have their way worldwide."
The movie "UNITED 93" may not be as true as I
like to think it is; but I know that the other movie,
"V FOR VENDETTA" is absolutely _absurd_ in its
trumped-up concern about a _Christian_ tyranny
being the great threat to liberty. God help us if the
public follows ridiculous p.c. red herrings, while
giving up on the effort to halt the REAL menace.
I never swore any oath to keep Republican leaders
immune from investigation; but I sure did swear an
oath to defend the existence of the United States. It
remains true that Islamofascism is an actual threat
to us, not a fictional one. Not even all the EEE-vil
oil corporations combined have the power to falsify
the total historical record of Muslim imperialism
and repressiveness. That repressiveness is genuine,
and will still have to be dealt with no matter what
we find out about our domestic politics.
YOURS FOR JESUS AND AMERICA,
JOSEPH RICHARD RAVITTS
===================================
After I originally wrote and distributed the above
column, a friend informed me that "Popular Mechanics"
had published an extensive rebuttal to all claims
that the 9-11 attacks were in any way faked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment