Pearl Harbour, 9/11, and Craig Murray's Mental Horse

Poor old Craig Murray. It seems his mental horse still shies at the 911 hurdle. Says he, there would have been too many people involved and someone would have objected. The following is the comment I would have posted there if it wasn't for the fact that, a) it's too long and, b) I was too late to the party, and c) his comments section is now perfectly infested with sundry full-time professional shills who, as Craig himself recently said, spend more time at his blog than he does.

Hullo Craig,

How dreary this discussion is - all bogged down in its various (and alleged) building and demolition experts. "It'd take months and dozens of men. Either that or one good bang and a kerosene fire." God spare me. May I just step back and go big picture? Or 'big documentary' perhaps. Have you seen the BBC documentary Sacrifice At Pearl Harbour? You really must - it's at googlevideo.


In it, by way of testimonies from various participants (English, Dutch, Australian, American: signals corp, foreign service etc) it's made unarguably clear that there was pretty much nothing about the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour that the Americans weren't fully aware of. The closer the Japanese came, the more precise the details, until eventually Roosevelt would have been impatiently looking at his watch. The only two people not in the loop were Short and Kimmel, the respective army and navy commanders of Pearl Harbour, and upon whom the whole thing was blamed.


It's a cold hard truth that Roosevelt wanted the US in the war and Pearl Harbour was the means he used to achieve this. And sure, he sacrificed a couple thousand of his own people. No big deal - I doubt anyone in Washington would have batted an eyelid. They wanted a war, and in a war sacrificing people - in large numbers - is just part of the game. It's done all the time. Mind you, what you don't do is sacrifice expensive hardware. That's why Pearl Harbour was full of WWI vintage ships and all the shiny new vessels were out to sea.


Okay, so what's that you say about 911? ...too many people involved and someone would have objected? Can I put it to you that it doesn't make any difference? In Sacrifice At Pearl Harbour the too-many-people who were involved are interviewed one after the other. And? And nothing. Hell, do an ask-around at the office and see if anyone is aware that Pearl Harbour was bullshit. Never mind that, the conversation in your comments here is proof in itself. It's yet another tiresome to-and-fro that refuses to acknowledge that the US government has previously used a fake event involving the sacrifice of thousands of its own citizens to gin up a war. And lots of people were involved, they did tell their story, and nothing happened.


Since the media has, to a man, chosen to ignore this fact (much like they chose to ignore the most famous weapons inspector in the world, Scott Ritter, when he declared that there were no WMD's in Iraq) we end up in a nonsensical conversation with its foundation consisting of 'that could never happen and they could never do it'. But it did happen. They have done it. And not in isolation neither. Fast forward to the Lavon Affair of 1954, the Gulf of Tonkin 1964, the USS Liberty 1967, and lo-and-behold 'it could never happen' starts to look, I don't know... perverse? Jump then to the year 2000 and we have the super-heavy neocon PNAC mob banging the table demanding war in the Middle East and dreamily hoping for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". And their wish came true! "Gosh, I'm the luckiest girl in the world!" says they, with a glycerine tear in their eye.


And here we are nine years later Craig, with absolutely overwhelming evidence from thousands of sources and you still can't get your head around the thought that 911 might have been faked. Here's a question for you - What would it take? What would it take to get you there? It seems vaporised steel and molten concrete won't do it. Certainly not traces of thermate. Nor will: the whisking away of evidential rubble; the failure/disappearance of security footage; the fact that the Muslim extremist pilots ate pork, drank alcohol, and cavorted with hookers, (and they couldn't fly); the hundreds of witnesses who testified to multiple/sequential explosions "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, all the way down like a controlled demolition!"; the fact that Bush mis-remembered his 911 moment and reminisced about watching the first plane crash on live TV (three times! in public!) - none of this will get you to even consider that anyone other than a bunch of Muslims might have been interested in making 911 happen.


I'll read your mind Craig - I'll tell you what would get you there: If the whole thing was on the telly and was given the imprimatur of talking heads. I'll bet money that that would make a believer of you. Unless the media says it's so it may as well have never happened. This is in spite of the fact that the media has shown over and over again how perfectly crooked it is. Not a single soul was allowed to contradict the WMD's in Iraq story - everyone sang from the same songbook, all in perfect harmony. Impossibly, the media's first and only name in their WMD rolodex, Scott Ritter, was nowhere to be seen. I'll say it again - Ritter's global media absence in 2003 could not possibly have been an accident. He was off-message and so he was off-media: the entire media, all of it.


And travelling back now - the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Lavon Affair, Pearl Harbour, none of them ever happened in the media, not beyond their sing-from-the-same-songsheet bullshit spin. But they did happen. Ask the crew of the Liberty: threatened with death, ignored by history, and now they're furious beyond all consolation. Pinchas Lavon is dead, but the Egyptian Jews who set the bombs are still alive and were all given medals recently. What's Hebrew for hip hip hooray? Kimmel and Short went to their graves with neither of them earning a rehabilitation, but never mind, shit happens.


Except ...in the media. There, shit does not happen. There, when faced with the media's unasked question 'Who are you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?' we all slide out of our seats, kiss the screen, and declare our fealty. Yeah, well fuck that. I refuse, and I'm only one of thousands upon thousands who've done the same. We know you're capable of better things Craig: you do know better. You know that they lie. En bloc! And they do it Big-Lie-style about the biggest story there is: the Bringing of War. They've done it before and they'll do it again. And again. And again. They'll keep doing it until the balance shifts and 75,000-hits-a-month heavies like yourself stand up and call it for what it is.

The media has even more invested in 911 than they do in global warming but as with global warming they can be shifted. Their hand can be forced. But it'll never happen if guys like you sit there telling yourself (and all to the applause of your barking seal full-timers) that 'it could never happen... they would never do it...'

Pearl Harbour was a lie and 911 was no different. Our rulers lie and they lie big, as big as Hitler. If you ain't prepared to say so, then you ain't good for much Craig. Whatever it is you're on about - torture, and memos thereof - you're just snipping around the edges.