Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Lebanon: Reivisiting 9-11 -- Some Staging Is More Staged Than Others

Remember those images of the 9-11 buildings? Some said they were staged.

The key is to notice the contrast, as we did with the DoJ Staff Attorney rendering.

Update: Contrast the uproar over the Adnan Hajj photoshopped images, with the silence over the 9-11 dubious explanations.

* * *

Some staging is off limits; other staging grounds for outrage.

Some suggest Hezbolla staged photos of another building. Let me get this straight:

  • 9-11: We are not going to look at evidence of a staged collapse. Ref

  • Lebanon: We are going to look at evidence that Hezbollah staged the events.

    * * *

    Those who claim that Hezbollah is "up to something" with this so called staging, cannot adequately explain why they're not just as outraged at the more compelling evidence the WTC tower collapse was staged, and not brought down by aircraft.

    The point isn't whether the Hezbollah pictures are or are not staged, but that those who are quick to point to Hezbollah’s staged-photos are likely silent on evidence related to WTC staged collapse.

    * * *


    1. Agendas

    Evidence of the WTC staged collapse did not getting the same level concern by the RNC as has the Hezbollah staging because the 9-11 staged collapse is inconvenient, and doesn't fit into the RNC agenda: Find an excuse to mobilize for war.

    2. Power of Images

    The RNC knew during 9-11 the power of staging a collapse on film. The RNC is outraged at the Hezbollah "staging" because the RNC knows full well what's involved, and what the implications of a staged building collapse are: The population can be manipulated to believe false things.

    3. RNC has two standards on challenging falsity

    Some false things, even if irrelevant, are good for the RNC discuss; other false things, if known to be false, are to be denied using other false things.

    The RNC members are not permitted to comment on the inconsistency in whether staged events are or are not important. If the staged event like 9-11, when believed, supports your agenda, the RNC remains silent; however, if the staged event, when revealed, supports your contention and agenda, then you comment on the staged event, as they did with the Hezbollah staging.

    * * *

    It's important to notice how the same people react and respond to the same set of ethical and legal challenges. Consider what we learned about the DoJ Rendition: When personally confronted with a potential risk of lawful rendering to the Hague, the DoJ Staff is quick to invoke legal protections. However, upon closer examination, these protections were denied others.

    When confronting someone with a legal or ethical challenge, we don't necessarily learn the truth or the law, but how they twist the facts to suit their personal agendas, as Addington did with the Iran-Contra Report; and how the DoJ Staff have argued over the ticking time bomb: It depends on whether you want to achieve an outcome, or lawfully achieve a solution.

    Sometimes it’s useful to ignore what people are saying, and directly shine the light on those who are making the accusations:

  • Is their evidence reliable

  • What is their motivation

  • Have they invoked evidence that is unpersuasive

  • Have they explored the contradictions in relying on that evidence

  • If we dig deeper into the source of the accusations, can we really trust what is being asserted

  • Upon closer examination of the spinner, does it appear as though information is being hyped, and that far larger, more compelling problems are being ignored

  • To what extent is someone willing to compromise their personal integrity to create an impression of a capability or concern, yet upon closer examination we discover that their proposed solution asks for a perfect result, and the real goal they have is to promote themselves regardless the agenda.

    These ideas relate to integrity. Be mindful of the solution: It may be demanding something that is perfect, all the while the solution or conclusion is something that, even if true, is overshadowed by a far larger problem.

    In this case, arguably part of the reason that Israel is in Lebanon is because of the fiction perpetuated on 9-11. This fits into the advancing crusade approach to interpreting the 9-11 events. However, the fatal flaw to 9-11, Israel, the US, and the other events in Lebanon is the reality: The illegal abuse of power (premised on events of 9-11 and Lebanon) was already occurring before it was fashionable after Sept 2001.

    Just as we saw with Iraq that the plans for an illegal war had been entrenched long before Sept 2001, the US has used the (irrelevant) excuse of terrorist to justify war crimes and Geneva violations. Yet, the illegal activity and abuse was already planned, and fully part of the Iraqi post-war approach. Ref.

    The simple lesson is that the implications of inconsistencies are important: We can delude ourselves to embrace one myth over another. In practice, we are not required to choose either, but can take a step back and explore the larger issue: What is really going on and how are we being manipulated to accept something that, on the basis of argument alone, would never be supported?

    This is how Hitler and propagandists work: To force you to get excited about something, when you real attention should be squarely on the fundamental legal issues: The war crimes, and Congressional failure to investigate the initial violations. Nuremburg and Ludwigsburg remind us that inaction and stupidity is not a defense when it requires great skill to choose inaction despite the overwhelming evidence of war crimes.