Describes those asking questions regarding attacks as “lunatics”
Wednesday, Oct 8, 2008
A piece entitled The Truthers’ New Friends has appeared in this week’s edition of the Weekly Standard, which slams questions surrounding the attacks as “Anti-American” and those who entertain them as “lunatics”.
The piece focuses on the screening of Italian film maker Giulietto Chiesa’s ZERO on Russian State TV last month.
Clearly the fact that up to 30 million Russian citizens were able to switch on their TVs and watch a debate about 9/11 as a false flag event has got some at the Standard extremely riled.
“On September 12, the America-bashing reached a new low: a prime-time special on national television peddling the notion that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of September 11, 2001, were an inside job by American warmongers.” writes Cathy Young.
“…the lunatics, for the most part, were running the asylum. The discussion was heavily dominated by several pro-conspiracy panelists who dismissed the “official story” of “19 Arabs directed by Osama bin Laden in a cave” as self-evidently absurd.” the piece continues.
Young insinuates that the whole thing was a set up bent on “stoking anti-Americanism in the Russian population”. She even suggests “the purpose may have been retaliation: You won’t buy our version of the war in Georgia? Fine, we won’t buy your version of 9/11,” referring to the recent Western corporate media bias over the conflict in South Ossetia.
Read the entire hit piece here.
According to a Russia Today poll 84% of their citizens are “lunatics” by the Standard’s definition. Indeed, according to a global survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org, over half the world’s population are “lunatics”.
Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised by the Standard’s attack , given that it is edited by arch Neo-Con Bill Kristol, he of the PNAC, whom you may recall advanced the prospect of a “New American Century” based primarily on preemptive warfare and military dominance.
In 2000 the report he submitted his name to, along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld , stated that it’s goals would not be achievable in the immediate term “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor”.
This article was posted: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 11:11 am