There once was a small country, covering far less than 1% of the earth’s land surface, the home to a single percent of the earth’s people, which nevertheless occupied and firmly controlled the destiny of four or five of the seven continents and a myriad of islands spanning the globe. Its rousing paean hymn was this: “Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never will be slaves!” Her vast sway – because either be slave-master or slave? – held and honored until, after WW II, it suddenly occurred to people very widely across the world that ridding humankind of Nazi and Axis tyrannies, aggression, and attendant cruelties could conceivably suggest liquidating English-speaking and Allied captive empires, too.
Yet today, Britain herself, and even far more so America, are, according to controversial author Christopher Bollyn and a host of others, on prima facie evidence, controlled by an even smaller and demographically-
inconsequential slave-master, Israel. And our
foreign policies from 9/11 on and even for over a generation before, as well as
our media and elite establishments have been in Israel’s pocket and activated
always expressly for Israel’s perceived benefit.
According to Bollyn, 9/11, the capstone and keystone of America’s (and half the world’s) subsequent activities and woes, was entirely an operation planned and carried out by the Mossad, the Israeli security agency, using Israeli-American dual citizen Mossad assets infesting the entire U.S. government and management of the World Trade Center as agents, operatives, and pawns.
I heard and saw Christopher Bollyn’s whole presentation keyed to prove his contention in person for the first time a week ago at my own local chapter of 911 Truth and found his argument powerful and very persuasive, but not fulfilling my usual criteria for judging explanations of the September 11, 2001 crimes.
I have been looking for and pleading with those who have insisted that “Israel did it” to provide forensic proof such as would be routinely required in a straight-up court of law to substantiate their allegation. And I have never been provided with such – and perhaps regrettably, I still haven’t been. If the Mossad “did” it (a more than moderately believable premise, to be sure), all of the evidence supporting that to date is circumstantial, none of it operational or forensic.
Even Brandon Martinez, in his opus on Zionist intrigue and 9/11 culpability, Grand Deceptions, is constrained to honestly admit (page 55) that “There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks…” I myself would, in fact, go a little farther than he did and state that there is ample circumstantial evidence that they may have been involved in the actual operation. There were certainly plenty of them hanging around the scenes, evincing foreknowledge and enthusiasm. Is that splitting hairs? For exacting legal purposes, I don’t think it is. Israel couldn’t be convicted of “doing” it based on lead-pipe evidence that any of us know of for certain now – again, unless one or more of you are holding out!
Bollyn’s mode of “proof” – remarkable and brilliantly damning and with the ring of probability, but not proof in the jurisprudence sense – is that uncanny predictions and highly suspicious statements were made, before and aft, by various Israelis, in fact, a whole gallery of rogues, that could be construed to demonstrate intent and very likely planning as well and satisfaction afterward, together with a network of hidden instrumental Israeli ownership and control of this, that, and the other company within the United States. The matrix, if as described, was all there.
Assuming guilt, what are the implications of Bollyn’s not “inside job”, but “outside job” theory, if it’s true that Israel’s highly-secretive and duplicitous espionage agency the Mossad did it all, employing Israeli-controlled businesses and enough dual-citizen U.S. government operatives to actually hijack the U.S. agencies, civilian and military, necessarily involved – as laid out in his classic, Solving 9-11?
And, who do I think was ultimately responsible, as a plausible alternative? I think the Israeli government, like the American and today the British, is ultimately a puppet itself of an aloof higher consortium, or more precisely, an international cabal, that operates by possessing most of the world’s wealth and worships only power and both its spawn and sire, money. And I think that important and complex operations such as 9/11-- plus there are lots of additional instances by now – are assigned thereby either jointly or to whoever’s primary covert security agencies are best-suited or most convenient to execute the job. And, for post-mortem purposes, it matters little which outlaw in the global gang pulled the trigger. That designated outlaw may well have been the Mossad, but dual-citizens, observers, and bag men are not trigger-men or the “brains” – allegedly, that elusive Israeli government agency. For, plausibility is not legal proof.
But yet, every country, including the United States, remains ultimately liable for safeguarding if possible its own security. And even to stand by and refuse to stop the execution of the great crime(s) or prosecute thereafter as a whole government or a whole society by due process whatever perpetrators after a mass-murderous attack, however both of those heinous refusals are rationalized or regarded, must still be seen as the lowest conceivable form of treason. An invader, foreign or domestic, will invade; but a sane and good society will not stand down.