A couple of years ago I was in the UK, and I asked a military man I have known for many many years what he really thought about the events that happened in the USA and that we now refer to as 9-11.

Without much hesitation he said that the attacks were carried out by a bunch of cowardly thugs, acting on some misconceived religious beliefs.

So I then asked him if he would be willing to listen to what I had to say and ask and give me some purely military answers and he replied after some though that he could and would.

What I said was something like this:

OK thanks, so now let’s take what we were told almost immediately after the attacks and that is that 14 people were responsible for the actual acts of the day. There were reportedly 4 planes involved which means three and a half people per plane which is odd but let’s not quibble about that. Two of those planes with 7 people in charge hit two buildings in New York killing approximately 3,000 people.

So looking at it purely from a military view point would you consider that 7 people taking out 3,000 with equipment belonging to Americans was a success?

After looking at me for a minute or two he eventually agreed that it was very acceptable odds indeed.

So I then went on to to say, Ok so then when you add in the complete destruction of three buildings as well, and the resulting damage to the psyche of the USA it could be argued that it was a huge military success carried out by 7 people.

He was now lo0oking at me strangely but reluctantly this time and then more enthusiastically as he agreed that it was a fantastic achievement militarily. All that damage by just 7 people!

So I then said that in my mind it was not a success because the buildings should had held up to 20, 000 people each at that time of day and if the planes had hit at the twentieth floor instead of where they did the death toll could have been between 30 – 40,ooo instead of just 3,000. It is also amazing in that not one Israeli who normally worked in those buildings showed up for work that day.

But they couldn’t have got to the twentieth floor was all he could bleat.

Ah I said why not? Because here is where we have to consider the other two planes.

One is claimed to have performed a maneuver that 95% of commercial pilots who fly those planes said they could not do (and the other 5% said was impossible) and then fly a 120 foot wingspan plane between two poles 90 feet apart which would have either broken the wings or the poles would have been smashed flat ( they are still standing whilst we talk) and then flew into the pentagon, without the resulting fire one would expect from burning aviation fuel, not to mention the plane wreckage and passengers’ bodies left behind.

Before we get to the fourth plane lets us look at this too, we saw over and over and over again the two planes flying into those two buildings in New York and the falling of those towers from multiple angles, (not I might add building “ seven” which most people in the world are unaware also collapsed that day within hours from collateral damage!) and yet at a building which has more cameras per square foot inside and out than any other building in the USA and maybe the world, we did not get even a glimpse of a real passenger plane approaching or flying into the Pentagon. So if you can believe that one of the people flying that plane could have done that then the twentieth floor of the two trade centre buildings would be child’s play.

About building Seven, the BBC reported that it had collapsed and at what time and yet over the shoulder of that poor misinformed woman reporter, for all the world to see, the building was still standing and not even smoking that much!

To the fourth plane, the one they made a movie about just to get Hollywood in on the act, was supposed to be heading for the White House but was actually shot down by the Navy so they claim, and again there was no wreckage, just a big hole in the ground without any plane wreckage or bodies for the local coroners to remove, not even a trace of the 3.5 people who supposedly hijacked it.

What about that I asked my military friend. He was looking rather sick at this point and gazed pityingly at me as I smiled at him. He just walked away and has spoken very little to me since. Too bad because I believe he is a good man at heart.

He was ex military when this discussion took place.

So the point here is that since then we have been lied to by the presidents of the USA, the UN, the prime minister of Canada and the heads of the European countries, and of course the media so often that we just seem to accept what they say.

Who was it who said “If you tell a lie often enough it becomes accepted as the truth”.

Weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq and how many millions died over what G W Bush considered a joke?

Bin Laden was supposedly killed a few weeks ago, conveniently at a time when lies were being spread about Gaddafi slaughtering thousands of his people.

There is not one shred of evidence that this has or is happening, yet it is lied about in the US Congress, the UN, in our Senate in the throne Speech a few days ago, and none of the media point this out. Al Jazeera (English) has interviews of Libyans asking “why would we want to get rid a man who has done so much for us?’ But Fox news and the Sun and yes the BBC and CBC and ITV and CTV in fact all of them fall all over themselves to further the lie. The printed media is just as bad.

A young page Brigette DePape objecting in the throne speech in the Canadian Senate to what Harper is doing and is going to do is more newsworthy than the truth about Libya. Actually she is, because it is our youth here in Canada who are beginning to say no to the future they see Harper bringing to Canada.. That young woman said we need an “arab spring” here in Canada and she is right. I will stand beside her if the occasion should arise.

I have been saying for months that the only choice we will soon have is mass civil disobedience, because our needs are not important to those who are employed by us to work for us and who think they rule the country. In fact I suppose that more than any other man in our history Harper really does think this. He controls the House of Commons, the speaker of same, the Senate, the Supreme Court, The Governor General, the money to the provinces and therefore the provinces, and he has had this desire for years to change Canada into a corporately controlled wasteland.

Supposedly he has 5 years to do it, yes I know he passed a law saying every 4 years but that’s all bs anyway he’s only broken it twice so far, and what’s to stop him extending it to 20 years or more with the power he has at his command now?

But I get ahead of myself because I keep forgetting that he wants Canada to be part of the USA.

To the 40% of the 60% who voted Harper in, I just say on behalf of my children and grandchildren, thank you for what you have done to their future, and I hope you all live long enough to see what he will do with what you gave him.

Jeremy Arney