The number one issue facing America and the world today, which must be faced down by the People (i.e., the citizens) of the United States of America, is the so-called "War of Terror". This includes, especially, the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a belligerent U. S. attitude toward Iran, continuing U. S. support of Israel, eavesdropping on U. S. citizens, assassination of U. S. citizens overseas, and the suspension of due process of law for U. S. citizens who are suspected of being terrorists amongst (many) other things. In short, the current U. S. government in Washington is conducting what amounts to a never-ending belligerent and war-making attitude toward those nations that it perceives to be its enemies and the establishment of a police state here at home.
Many Americans have bought into the Washington government's concept that the "War on Terror" is keeping us safer. Although Americans run virtually no risk whatsoever of ever being killed in a terrorist attack, they continue to believe that they (or someone they love) are truly in danger of being killed in such an attack.
Most Americans were not endangered by the 9/11 attacks, nor did most Americans lose someone whom they loved on that fateful day. These many Americans also, seemingly, accept the Washington government's official account of what happened that day. However, those who were endangered on 9/11 and those did lose someone whom they loved on that fateful day do not as easily accept the Washington government's account of what happened on the day of 9/11.
Question: "If you had lost someone whom you loved on 9/11, would you still as easily accept the Washington government's official account of what happened on that day?"
I bring up 9/11 for a reason: our government is still, to this day, telling us that the reason for our troops being in Afghanistan is to hunt down Osama bin Laden (and al Qaeda), whom our government says is solely responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The fact of the matter is that U. S. Special Forces had Osama bin Laden, trapped at his cave complex at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001 and they were instructed by our government in Washington to allow him to flee into Pakistan at that time. As you might imagine, once bin Laden was surrounded by U. S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, it was impossible that U. S. forces could not have apprehended him as he was fleeing to Pakistan and toward freedom.
Our government in Washington did this for one reason: So that, for the past nine years, they could say that we were "still on the hunt" for bin Laden. This, however, is beyond belief: the Special Forces know how to do their job; and they did their job two months after 9/11, which is just about how long one would expect for them to take in order to get that particular job done.
I read a book, a few years ago, about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, and in the book, the author, Robert Stinnett, proves—conclusively—that our government in Washington intentionally withheld (from the base commander of Pearl Harbor) information that could have prevented the tremendous loss of 2,390 American lives from that attack. Stinnett is a U. S. Navy veteran who served in World War II and concludes his book by saying something to the effect of, and I'm paraphrasing here, that "Although it breaks my heart to say this, our government in Washington allowed those men to be killed in order to have an excuse to enter World War II."
What most people fail to realize is that our government in Washington, especially the military and intelligence services, uses a deontological moral reasoning. For one who is aware of this type of moral reasoning, in which the rightness of an action is determined by the amount of greater good this action brings to the world, it is easy to see how our government—or any government—can cause or allow the deaths of nearly 3,000 souls (e.g., 12/07 and 9/11) in order to bring about the greater good of making the world safe for democracy.
What first tipped me off that something was wrong, and that our government in Washington wasn't telling the truth, was the attack on the Pentagon on the day of 9/11. It was said that a commercial airliner, a Boeing 757, had crashed into the side of the Pentagon, yet there was no visible wreckage of the aircraft on site. The fact that a commercial airliner could hit the side of the Pentagon, which is made of reinforced concrete, and leave virtually no trace of its existence simply strained my credulity. For example, the aircraft's tail section—the most durable section of any commercial jetliner—was missing from all photos of the crash site that I was seeing on television that day. Another fact that tipped me off that day: the section of the Pentagon that was hit was under construction and mostly unoccupied. (A side note here: I had a friend at the time, who, on 9/11, was working, in intelligence, at the Pentagon. She, like Rumsfeld, was in the side of the building opposite the impact.)
Many months after 9/11, I was surprised by the Washington government's release of (very brief) video footage of the attack on the Pentagon. What surprised me was that the fireball in the video, which was caused by the impact, is clearly the result of high explosives and not aircraft fuel. I realize that many, if not most, Americans are unfamiliar with high explosives, but a simple comparison of the photos of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Towers to the photos of the explosion at the Pentagon, show obvious dissimilarities.
My question to you is this: "If our government in Washington—for the greater good of what it perceived to be the creation of a safer world—was responsible for the deaths of nearly three thousand American citizens on September 11, 2001, would you really want to know?"
If you DO want to know, I suggest that you begin your investigation here: