Similarly, much attention was given to reports about FBI and other agencies work in putting together the "conspiracy" behind the attack. To this date, no one in the major media outlets of the United States has mentioned that there is even a possibility of involvement of U.S. elements. Instead, the reporting has focused on a combination of "spade work" on clues and leads, as well as, alleged connections to the bin Laden networks. FAIR remarked on such coverage, saying that the shots of bin Laden and his camps gave the impression that there had been more than circumstantial evidence linking them to attacks. The only proof offered was from "intelligence leaks" coming from the wartime propaganda apparatus created by the Executive Order or from assertions made by the talking heads and other "experts."
The only characteristic, universal to all the coverage, is the cover-up of any possible trail leading to a domestic source for the control of the terrorism.
Is all reporting being so "coordinated and steered?" It is clear that some of the wackos, like Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, a particularly vile character, are simply being given free rein to vent their lunacy.
On Sept. 17th, O'Reilly demanded that, if the Taliban do not turn over bin Laden, "the U.S. should bomb Afghan infrastructure to rubble - the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads ..."
"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are responsible for the government that they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against their government, they starve, period."
He went to advocate, in that broadcast and others, to "make the Iraqi population suffer another round of intense pain" and to blockade Libya from all food supplies: "Let them eat sand."
As is typical with a "grey psyops" propaganda campaign, the most extreme ravings are played off against those only slightly less lunatic, to make the latter appear sane by comparison. Thus, an O'Reilly makes a Woolsey look like a sober analyst, as he calls for a war to take out governments that support terrorism, and for "careful" and "calculated" escalating response against bin Laden.
To hold people's attention, to keep them on "message," it were necessary to keep them in a highly emotional state. To do this, there was a steady stream of "human interest" stories about the grief of affected victims, about the courage of rescue workers and those who perished, along with shots of grieving citizens. While the courage and grief are real, the constant bombardment of these images is BRAINWASHING CONDITIONING. Without them, you would have, after a few days, turned off CNN and the "news" coverage.
Do you still insist that neither you, nor your friends or neighbors, have been taken in by any of this?
"Crash? What Crash?" Lost amidst the war hysteria, or more precisely, "spun" inside of it, is the coverup of what would otherwise be the biggest story of the day: the full-scale crash and blowout of the financial markets! The markets, at last look, had plunged nearly 20% since Wall Street reopened on Sept. 17th. A fall that precipitous is normally called a "crash," engendering widespread panic, not only among traders and brokers, but among the general population. But in the weeks (and now, months!) after the crash, "not one" commentator on a major network has used the term "crash"! Moreover, we are told, it is our patriotic duty to have faith in the eventual recovery of the markets and the economy. "We can't let the terrorists defeat us and bring our economy down," said financial commentator Louis Ruckeyser on his televised show, "Wall Street Week."
As Lyndon LaRouche has stated, "the crash would have occurred anyway," given the bankrupt state of world financial systems, even without the Sept. 11th events. However, now the financial analysts who appear on the television news and in the print media are universally blaming most, if not all, of what happened on "Osama bin Laden." This was to be expected, they claim, given what happened on Sept. 11th, in what is the biggest "Big Lie" of them all!!
As one trader reported, "My God! The bottom has fallen out and nobody calls it a crash. It's like it's your patriotic duty not to mention the word. Hell, the Dow's lost more than 1,500 points - that's a CRASH! But, if I am overheard saying this, people look at me: "Where's your American flag? Remember who you are and what's going on. Do you want to help Osama bin Laden in his plot to destroy our economy?" Unbelievable!!"
But, as like many other media-brainwashed Americans, this trader was, in his words, "going with the program." It's not a crash, it's a "terrorist event."
A Clockwork Future? Several nights after the Sept. 11th attacks, CNN flashed images on the screen of National Guard personnel patroling the streets of Washington and heavily armed special police in New York City, inspecting cars at a tunnel entrance. Then, images were flashed of Israeli military personnel on the streets of Jerusalem, inspecting cars. The voiceover, by CNN news-witch Greta van Susteren, a regular featured personality of that media sewer, along with Mossad-asset Wolf Blitzer, spoke of America, in response to the "terrorist threat," becoming an increasingly "policed society," where civil liberties had to be sacrificed for the protection of its citizens. We have seen this before, she said, not just in Jerusalem, but in Belfast, Northern Ireland, as a response to "political terrorism" of the IRA and Protestant militia. After a while, people get used to it, she said. "Life goes on." Interviews were presented with Israelis who seemed to concur with the sentiment that, under conditions of "internal war with terrorists," one needs to adjust to sacrifices in civil liberties. "Americans will get used to it, just like we did," the Israeli said.
Cont ...