Solving 9-11 – Foreword by Glen Stanish
Truth Marches On
By Glen Stanish
September 11, 2001, much like December 7, 1941, is a day that will live in infamy. The post 9-11 period is one of the saddest times in American history. It has, however, provided the American people a slow and painful awakening of sorts.
As an airline pilot for American Airlines, the attacks of 9-11 hit very close to home. I was in the middle of a four-day trip on a layover in downtown Fort Worth on 9-11. Like many Americans that day, I woke up to the news of the devastating attacks. And, like most Americans, for a brief period after the attacks I was in a state of shock and awe.
Very shortly after the attacks we were informed by our elected leaders and the media that we had been attacked by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida because they didn’t like our freedoms. Simple enough, but lacking a plausible political motive. For those who think a bit further than what we’re told and deeper about the causes of war – greed in a word – this explanation was hard to accept. It was as if President George W. Bush had given us a square peg, and no matter how hard we tried, we could not make it fit into the proverbial round hole. I suspect that the author of this book, Christopher Bollyn, may have experienced this same thought process.
My own personal discovery of the truth of 9-11 began with Bollyn. I had been subscribing to a newspaper, American Free Press, where he had been a regular contributing reporter. I had enjoyed reading Bollyn’s articles, appreciating his thorough research and open and honest candor. It was shortly after 9-11, when I was reading one of Bollyn’s articles about the scene of the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He described how many eyewitnesses, including the mayor of Shanksville, reported never seeing any wreckage of a Boeing 757, saying things like there was no smoke or fire, no pieces of airframe, things along these lines. Other reports that quoted the coroner on the scene said there were no bodies or body parts. While reading these reports, I could not reconcile them with the usual scenes of airline accidents.
As an airline pilot, we have been required for several years by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to complete, during our initial and annual training, a course called Crew Resource Management (C.R.M.). This is the study of airline accidents and incidents and what we as flight crew members could have done differently to have prevented a particular accident. This study of airline accidents typically involves reviewing cockpit and air traffic control recordings, flight data recordings, and the well recorded and documented scenes of the accidents. So I have studied many airline accidents over the course of my career.
It was difficult for me to accept the reports from Shanksville about the lack of any wreckage of Flight 93 because after an airline accident, large pieces of the aircraft are normally found. There are the remains of the virtually indestructible engine cores, landing gear, and tail sections, to name just a few of the larger parts that would be found in the debris field. Other wreckage that one would normally expect to find from a well constructed Boeing 757 airframe would be several of the plug type entry and service doors, cargo doors, over wing exits, sections of fuselage and passenger seats, hydraulic tanks and pumps, and flight controls such as spoiler panels, flaps, slats, rudders, and elevators. Wreckage from inside the cabin that would have survived would include the emergency exit slides, the emergency inflatable rafts, life preserver jackets, and other emergency equipment, galley carts, lavatories, coffee pots, ovens, in-flight magazines, and catalogues. Luggage, freight, and mail would also be recovered from the immediate vicinity. These are the things eyewitnesses and first responders normally observe after a Boeing 757 collides with terrain. Temporary morgues are usually set up in nearby facilities where recovered bodies and body parts are taken and identified for the families of the deceased.
Therefore, soon after reading his article, and experiencing the difficulty of reconciling these reports with my experience and background, I contacted Bollyn and thus began my personal friendship with the author. Bollyn has continued to report breakthrough material and information about the inadequacies and the erroneous and deceptive nature of the official 9-11 reports. He has bravely pressed forward with determination, working with scientists and physics professors and other qualified professionals to show that the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on 9-11 were brought down by explosives in controlled demolitions. He has enlightened many to the intrigues of “false flag” operations used as pretexts for war by powerful, corrupt, and covetous politicians and bloodthirsty heads of state.
This he has done in the face of heavy resistance by those who would attempt to keep the American people in the dark, namely the mainstream press and other special interest groups. But like a small candle in a large dark room, the light shines through.
The 9-11 truth movement, as it is known, owes much to the work of Bollyn. Since his first writings about the subject, virtually thousands of scientists, professors, architects, engineers, pilots, politicians, firefighters, religious leaders, lawyers, and others with expertise and qualifications have organized to have their voices heard and refute the official explanation of the attacks of 9-11. These are our attempts to petition the government for a redress of grievances, as it were. Yet some still ask, why would the U.S. government either attack its own people or cover up for those who attacked us on 9-11?
And this is where some of Bollyn’s most important work leads. To answer difficult questions like these, observers of history and geopolitics should consider the policies that have shifted, been postponed, cancelled, changed course, or otherwise bent as a result of the attacks of 9-11. And as most observers will attest, there was and still is an ongoing and unresolved major political issue in the Middle East, one whose developments have been very much affected by 9-11 and one that apparently has our own U.S. political house divided, or at least unable to clearly define and implement its policies concerning this issue. And this unresolved political issue is the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state, to co-exist with Israel with peace and justice for all.
So what is our national policy concerning the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state? Is it fluid, undefined, and changing course over time with other changes in the political landscape? Or, is it solid, stable, and complete, just waiting for the ideal time to be implemented? Or, perhaps, like other major international political issues (Iran Contra comes to mind) — is there more than one policy? Is there one policy presented to the public, which never seems to progress towards completion, and another, planned behind closed doors, that develops in opposition to and in defiance of the stated public policy?
As former President Jimmy Carter wrote in his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid:
The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders, unless modified through negotiations, must coincide with the armistice lines prevailing from 1949 until 1967…
The unanimously adopted UN Resolution 242 specifies the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories… these include the Golan Heights, Gaza, the Sinai, and the West Bank, including Jerusalem…
U.S. policy was that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were ‘illegal and obstacles to peace’… also, as a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace which espouses exactly the same requirements…and whose ultimate aim is the creation of a democratic and independent Palestinian state.
To highlight U.S. and international efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East, a brief historical review is in order.
• The Camp David Accords led directly to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.
• The Madrid Conference was hosted by the government of Spain and co-sponsored by the USA and the USSR. It convened on October 30, 1991, and lasted for three days. It was an early attempt by the international community to start a peace process through negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians as well as Arab countries including Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.
• The Oslo Accords, agreed in Norway on August 20, 1993, and signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on September 13, 1993, was a milestone in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was the first direct, face-to-face agreement between Israel and political representatives of the Palestinians. It was intended to be a framework for the future relations between Israel and the Palestinians, when all outstanding final status issues between the two sides would be addressed and resolved in one agreement. Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, borders, and security were deliberately left to be decided at a later stage.
• The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, also known as Oslo 2, was signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on September 28, 1995. It became the basis and the reference point for subsequent negotiations and agreements such as the Hebron Protocol of 1997 and the Wye River Memorandum of 1998, and it is a basis for the latter Road Map for Peace which calls for the creation of a democratic independent Palestinian state, part of the two-state solution for Middle East peace.
• The Wye River Memorandum, signed on October 23, 1998, was an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to implement the earlier Interim Agreement of September 1995.
• The Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timeline of Outstanding Commitments of Agreements Signed and the Resumption of Permanent Status Negotiations was signed on September 4, 1999, by Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat. Its purpose was to implement the Interim Agreement (Oslo II) and to implement all other agreements between the PLO and Israel since 1993. The two sides agreed to resume the Permanent Status negotiations to achieve the goal of reaching a Permanent Status Agreement. They reaffirmed that the negotiations on the Permanent Status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. They agreed to make a determined effort to conclude a Framework Agreement and setting a timetable to achieve these goals. A timetable for final status talks to deal with Jerusalem, borders, refugees, and settlements, and a framework agreement on permanent status (FAPS) were to be achieved by February 2000 with a permanent agreement signed by September 2000.
• The Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David of July 2000 took place between U.S. President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat. It was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a “final status settlement” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• The Taba Summit were talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, held during January 21-27, 2001, at Taba in the Sinai Peninsula. They were talks aimed at reaching the “final status” negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and came closer to reaching a final settlement than any previous or subsequent peace talks. The talks were discontinued due to upcoming Israeli elections.
As can be seen by the record, U.S. and international efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement for peace in the Middle East and the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state were proceeding nicely until early 2001. One might consider that we, as a global community, were in the end game, late in the fourth quarter or in the bottom of the ninth inning, to use sports analogies – but perhaps ‘sudden death’ would be more apt.
To have come this far and not taken the ball into the end zone, to have failed to cross the finish line when we were so close, indicates that there must be a very determined and powerful force preventing it. There must be an opposing power, a well organized political entity whose objective is to prevent any final settlement of the crucial issues in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. This antagonistic element is opposed to any agreement that would allow the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state.
In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel, and according to former President Jimmy Carter, Sharon was committed to the rejection of the Oslo peace agreement.
Historically speaking, Ariel Sharon, like many other Israeli politicians, made statements and policies that indicated his intention to kill the peace process. In 1977, Menachem Begin assembled a coalition that accepted his premise that the land in Gaza and the West Bank belonged rightfully to the State of Israel and should not be exchanged in a peace agreement with the Arabs. In the early 1980s, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Israel announced the annexation of the Golan Heights (taken from Syria) and increased their efforts to build Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza. As a matter of fact, since 1980, with the Likud Party in control of the government, the confiscation of Arab land has accelerated greatly with the building of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank being one of the government’s top priorities.
Ariel Sharon stated that the East Bank of the Jordan is “ours but not in our hands, just as East Jerusalem had been until the Six-Day War.” During the Clinton years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Likud hawk, promised never to exchange land for peace. Then Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon declared the Oslo Agreement to be “national suicide” saying, “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours.”
In Jewish History, Jewish Religion, author Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew critical of Israeli policies, explained the reasons behind the actions of his country’s government. Shahak wrote:
The main danger which Israel, as a ‘Jewish state’ poses to its own people, to other Jews, and to its neighbors is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim… In 1956, I eagerly swallowed all of Prime Minister Ben Gurion’s political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of that war, that the real reason for it is ‘the restoration of the Kingdom of David and Solomon’ to its Biblical [Old Testament] borders…The Biblical borders of the land of Israel, “which rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state” include the following areas: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordon and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to Lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus… In May of 1993, Ariel Sharon formally proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel should adopt the ‘Biblical borders’ concept as its official policy.
Well, it sounds as if we may have identified the opponent to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. As we can see, up until shortly before September 2001, U.S. and international efforts to achieve a final agreement and resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were very close to their goal. Shortly before September 11, 2001, an Israeli government was elected whose stated objectives were in sharp opposition to the aims of the peace efforts of the United States and the international community.
Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, Israeli spokesman Benjamin Netanyahu stated publicly, “It is a very good thing,” because it would strengthen American support for Israel. And as if to confirm Netanyahu’s sentiments, using 9-11 as justification, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon escalated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pummeling Palestinian civilian infrastructure, homes and businesses in the West Bank and Gaza on the pretext of fighting terrorism.
Shortly thereafter, Sharon’s Chief of Staff Dov Weisglass admitted that the purpose of his government’s policy to expand settlements in the West Bank was to undermine peace plans, stymie the creation of a Palestinian state, and halt talks about the right of return for Palestinian refugees:
The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians. When you freeze the process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state… Effectively, this whole package called a Palestinian state has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. All of this was done with the United States’ blessing.
What? Wait a minute! This was done with the blessing of the government of the United States? What about our “unwavering official policies”? What about Israeli settlements in the West Bank being “illegal and obstacles to peace”? What about our official support of the creation of an independent and democratic Palestinian State as an integral part of a just and final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the peace process? Do we have more than one policy here?
On March 28, 2001, at the Arab League meeting in Beirut, twenty-two nations ended a long debate by endorsing a resolution introduced by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. It offered Israel normal relations with all Arab states if Israel complied with UN Resolutions 194 and 242. The next day, a massive Israeli military force surrounded and destroyed Yasir Arafat’s office compound in Ramallah. Later, the United States voted for a UN Security Council resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal from Ramallah, which Israel ignored.
Arab diplomats accused Ariel Sharon of deliberately sabotaging the peace overture and Crown Prince Abdullah called the prime minister’s assault on Arafat “a brutal, despicable, savage, inhumane, and cruel action.”
In April 2003, a “Roadmap” for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was announced by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on behalf of the U.S., the UN, the European Union, and Russia (i.e. the Quartet). Kofi Annan stated:
Such a settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its neighbors. The settlement will end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the Madrid Conference terms of reference and the principle of land for peace, UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the Arab initiative proposed by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and endorsed by the Arab Summit in Beirut.
The Palestinians accepted the Roadmap in its entirety. The Israeli government announced several caveats and prerequisites, some of which would preclude any final peace talks. Some of the Israeli provisos were: Israeli control over Palestine, including the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, plus its airspace and electromagnetic spectrum (radio, television, etc.). No discussion of Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza or the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem. No reference to the key provisions of UN Resolution 242, and the waiver of any right of return of refugees, among others.
The practical result of all this, according to former President Jimmy Carter, is the Roadmap for Peace has become moot, with only two results: Israel has been able to use it as a delaying tactic with an endless series of preconditions that can never be met, while proceeding with plans to implement its unilateral goals; and the U.S. has been able to give the impression of positive engagement in a “peace process.”
With Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush in office, the so-called “peace process” went nowhere.
In early 2005, Jimmy Carter again arrived in Israel. In Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, he describes the “most disturbing intrusions of the great dividing wall being built by the Israelis.”
The Israeli separation wall divides the Holy Land.
Described as a ‘security fence’, Carter wrote about the Israeli wall of separation:
“…its other purpose became clear as we observed its construction and examined maps of the barrier’s ultimate path through Palestine. Including the Israeli-occupied Jordan River Valley, the wall would take in large areas of land for Israel and encircle the Palestinians who remained in their remnant of the West Bank. This would severely restrict Palestinian access to the outside world. ‘Imprisonment Wall’ is more descriptive than ‘security fence.’
Sharon’s purpose was to implement the unilateral disengagement policy and to complete building a wall to separate Palestinians from territory to be claimed by Israel, according to President Carter.
In Carter’s book, he further describes the conditions and developments that have occurred in the Middle East and that have been allowed to occur in the wake of 9-11 have taken us further from a final resolution and the creation of an independent and democratic Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution. Carter wrote:
With increasing control of East Jerusalem, with relative security from the wall surrounding what is left of the West Bank, and with thousands of remaining settlers east of the wall protected by a strong occupying force, there is a temptation for some Israelis simply to avoid any further efforts to seek a peace agreement based on the Quartet’s Roadmap or good-faith negotiations on any other basis…
In this diplomatic vacuum, Israeli leaders have embarked on a series of unilateral decisions, bypassing both Washington and the Palestinians…Utilizing their political and military dominance, they are imposing a system of partial withdrawal, encapsulation, and apartheid on the Muslim and Christian citizens of the occupied territories. The driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is…the acquisition of land…
The future prospects for the West Bank are…dismal. Especially troublesome is the huge dividing wall in populated areas and an impassable fence in rural areas. The governments of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert have built the fence and wall mainly within Palestinian territory, intruding deeply into the West Bank to encompass Israeli settlement blocs and large areas of other Palestinian land. It is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border and already cuts directly through Palestinian villages, divides families from their gardens and farmland…
One example is that the wandering wall almost completely surrounds the Palestinian city of Qalqiliya with its 45,000 inhabitants, with most of the citizens’ land and about one-third of their water supply confiscated by the Israelis. Almost the same encirclement has occurred around 170,000 citizens of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus.
First, a wide swath must be bulldozed through communities before the wall can be built. In addition to the concrete and electrified fencing materials used in the construction, the barrier includes two meter deep trenches, roads for patrol vehicles, electronic ground and fence sensors, thermal imaging and video cameras, sniper towers, and razor wire – almost entirely on Palestinian land. The area between the closed segregation barrier and the Israeli border has been designated a closed military region for an indefinite period of time. Israeli directives state that every Palestinian over the age of twelve living in the closed area has to obtain a ‘permanent resident permit’ from the civil administration to enable them to live in their own homes…
To summarize, whatever territory Israel decides to confiscate will be on its side of the wall, but Israelis will still control the Palestinians who will be on the other side of the barrier…
Since 1945, the International Court of Justice has functioned essentially as the judicial arm of the United Nations system, and in July 2004 the court determined that the Israeli government’s construction of the segregation wall in the occupied West Bank was illegal…The court called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, to dismantle what has already been built in areas within the occupied Palestinian territory, and to compensate Palestinians who suffered losses as a result of the wall’s construction. The Israeli Supreme Court has chosen not to accept the International Court’s decision…
The wall ravages many places along its devious route that are important to Christians. In addition to enclosing Bethlehem in one of its most notable intrusions, an especially heartbreaking division is on the southern slope of the Mount of Olives, a favorite place for Jesus and his disciples, and very near Bethany, where they often visited Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus. There is a church named for one of the sisters, Santa Marta Monastery, where Israel’s thirty-foot concrete wall cuts through the property. The house of worship is now on the Jerusalem side, and its parishioners are separated from it because they cannot get permits to enter Jerusalem. Its priest, Father Claudio Ghilardi, says, ‘For nine hundred years we have lived here under Turkish, British, Jordanian, and Israeli governments, and no one has ever stopped people coming to pray. It is scandalous. This is not a barrier. It is a border. Why don’t they speak the truth?’
Father Claudio adds a comment that describes the path of the entire barrier: ‘The wall is not separating Palestinians from Jews; rather, Palestinians from Palestinians.’ Nearby are three convents that will also be cut off from people they serve. These 2,000 Palestinian Christians have lost their place of worship and their spiritual center.
In addition to cutting off about 200,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem from their relatives, property, schools, and businesses, the wall is designed to complete the enclosure of a severely truncated Palestine, a small portion of its original size, compartmentalized, divided into cantons, occupied by Israeli security forces, and isolated from the outside world. In addition, a network of exclusive highways is being built across even these fragments of the West Bank to connect the new Greater Israel in the west with the occupied Jordan River valley in the east, where 7,000 Jews are living in twenty-one heavily protected settlements among about 50,000 Palestinians who are still permitted to stay there. The area along the Jordan River, which is now planned as the eastern leg of the encirclement of the Palestinians, is one of Palestine’s most lucrative and productive agricultural regions. Most of its inhabitants were forcibly evicted in 1967, and the Israelis have not allowed these original families to return. Israeli customs officers keep lists of their names and are careful to prohibit their crossing any international checkpoint into occupied territory, where they might lay claim to their homes and farmland.
President Carter continues to describe the rather hopeless prospects for the Palestinians, the result of developments that were allowed to occur in the Middle East political arena since the attacks of 9-11: “It is obvious that the Palestinians will be left with no territory in which to establish a viable state… The Palestinians will have a future impossible for them or any portion of the international community to accept.”
So it sounds as if a two-state solution to the peace process has become null and void. Was this the real reason for 9-11? Was it carried out to create a condition of war, based on lies, deception, and fraud, that would distract and obfuscate attempts to reach a two-state settlement, which seemed within reach just before September 2001? Was it designed to allow Israel to continue its unilateral goals of further expansion, to create a Greater Israel that reaches from the Euphrates to the Nile, ethnically cleansing the land of its original inhabitants? Have we established in the Green Zone in Baghdad a base to conduct future operations to assist our Zionist ally with her future expansionist conquests? Do we have more than one policy here? As observers of history and geopolitics, it certainly makes more sense now than the ridiculous, “They attacked us because they hate our freedoms” rubbish.
Recently, on April 25, 2009, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported:
New foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Wednesday that Israel was changing its policies on the peace process and was not bound by commitments it made at a U.S. sponsored conference to pursue creation of a Palestinian state…
A source in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party confirmed Wednesday that his new government intended to distance itself from U.S. sponsored understandings on working towards a Palestinian state.
“Israel’s government said Sunday that it would not halt construction of a planned housing project in east Jerusalem,” USA TODAY reported on July 20, 2009. “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet there would be no limits on Jewish construction anywhere in ‘unified Jerusalem’” and “declared Israeli sovereignty over the entire city ‘indisputable.’”
In September 2009, “Israel approved on Monday the building of 455 settler homes in the occupied West Bank,” as reported by Reuters on September 7, 2009. “A Defense Ministry list of the first such building permits since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office in March showed the homes would be erected in areas Israel intends to keep.”
As President Jimmy Carter wrote in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid:
The overriding problem is that, for more than a quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct conflict with the official policies of the United States, the international community, and their own negotiated agreements… Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. In order to perpetuate the occupation, Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling subjects of basic human rights. No objective person could personally observe existing conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.
Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U. S. policy in the Middle East (emphasis added) to prevail.
In order to achieve its goals, Israel has decided to avoid any peace negotiations and to escape even the mild restraints of the United States by taking unilateral action, called ‘convergence’ or ‘realignment,’ to carve out for itself the choice portions of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians destitute within a small and fragmented remnant of their own land.
The only rational response to this continuing tragedy is to revitalize the peace process through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, but the United States has, in effect, abandoned this effort.
In 1796, George Washington gave his Farewell Address which contained many important parting words of advice for future generations of politicians and citizens alike, the disregard for which has helped bring us to this sad post 9-11 political world we find ourselves in. President Washington said:
Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty…
Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachment for others should be excluded; and in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest…
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It also leads to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to be retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliance of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
Excessive partiality for one nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible…
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.
As you read Christopher Bollyn’s Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, you will understand just exactly who and what foreign political interest actually attacked us on September 11, 2001. These foreign political interests with their traitors (George Washington referred to these types as tools and dupes) inside our U.S. political establishment attempted to deceive us in order to pursue their foreign-sponsored political will and expansionist policies in the Middle East.
As you read, the real perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks will become apparent, and they will be identified. The motive will become clear, and you will see this peg as a natural fit. You will understand that our country is filled with “ambitious, corrupted, and deluded citizens (in positions of political power, office holders, judges, the press, etc.) who devote themselves to the foreign nation, and have sacrificed the interests of their own country, with popularity, gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation. You may even find yourself supporting a new investigation into the attacks of 9-11.
So what else should one do when he or she finds that their government has attempted to deceive them, in order to pursue unofficial policies through the arts of lies, fraud, deception, and cover up. For Christopher Bollyn and like minded believers, the Scriptures are clear. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11, NKJV)
Glen Stanish is a professional pilot and the author of “Where is the Wreckage of UAL 93?” and Uncle Sam’s Christian Patriots, a book about the attacks of 9-11.
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.