Is It Becoming a Crime to Think?

Before I begin here, I think perhaps I should make my own beliefs very clear to any potential readers. First of all, the crime of “sedition” has always been defined as advocating the overthrow of a legal government by force or violence.

Sedition is a crime. It should be a crime, and I make a very careful effort not to commit it, whatever my level of personal rage. Furthermore, I do believe that the crime of sedition should be punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. In the course of a legally declared and prosecuted war, one can even stretch the crime of sedition to treason, and that is no accident.

The crime of “terrorism” is defined as using violence, or the threat of violence, against innocent persons to create a climate of fear.

Terrorism is a crime. It should be a crime. It is a crime I find personally abhorrent and morally repugnant. Furthermore, I believe that genuine terrorists – persons who have actually committed such a crime – should be punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. Read this carefully. I said the “fullest possible extent of the law.” The law does not embrace “disappearing” people, or torturing them, or holding them indefinitely without charge and without trial. It does provide for a speedy trial, and if a conviction by a jury of the accused’s peers is the result of that trial, it does provide for lengthy prison sentences – and in cases where deaths result, even for the legal application of the death penalty.

Despite the silly rhetoric of some politicians over the last few decades, you really can’t declare a war against a crime. Crimes call for careful investigation, followed by the apprehension and trial of the most likely suspects. Crimes do not call for the invasion of sovereign nations, nor for a war on individual liberties here at home.

Terrorism is a crime. It is not a war. One smart and competent police detective is worth a thousand armies when it comes to solving and prosecuting any crime, large or small.

The dangers of declaring a war when you have no clearly defined sovereign nation as an enemy should be readily apparent to an idiot. How can you sue for peace when there is no one with the authority to hear your plea? How can you sign a treaty with a non-existent nation? Make no mistake, the “war on terror” is not intended to end in your lifetime, or you children’s lifetimes, or your grandchildren’s lifetimes. It will never end if the planners have their way. It is far, far too lucrative.

On the other hand, if war is your actual objective, a terrorist crime can be very helpful in swaying public opinion, particularly the sort of heinous and extremely visible crimes of September 11, 2001. Civilization has a long and distinguished history of this sort of thing. Just to name a few examples:

1. The Reichstag fire in 1933 Germany.

2. The sinking of the Lusitania, which was carrying munitions in violation of international law.

3. The sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor.

4. Pearl Harbor, which was provoked and allowed to go forward to force our entry into WWII.

5. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which simply never happened.

6. The babies and incubator testimony which launched Gulf War I.

It has recently been suggested that one symptom of “radicalization” and “home-grown terrorism” is questioning the government myth surrounding what occurred on September 11, 2001. This comes as no particular surprise to me. MSNBC – which is owned by General Electric (a major defense contractor and beneficiary of our “war on terror” wars) and can hardly be accused of being “fringe media” – conducted a poll in September of last year which resulted in 67% of Americans believing that the government is lying about the events of 9/11. Throw in the 5.3% who are not sure, and that makes a whopping 72.3% of America that isn’t comfortable with the official story.

No surprise there. The official story of 9/11 just doesn’t pass the “smell” test even for a hayfever sufferer in the height of ragweed season.

Just in case you were wondering, you can’t get that many Americans to agree on liking a particular cuisine, let alone something as important to us all as this particular issue. You don’t believe me? Write Zogby and ask him. Any professional in the polling business knows this.

These kinds of polls are scaring the $#%$# out of our fearless leaders, and they should be. There are 300,000,000+ resident Americans today. More than two thirds believe the government is lying about the most heinous crime ever committed on U.S. soil. A substantial percentage of those same Americans no longer believe that our elections are free and honest. I’d be scared, too. All thoughts of sedition aside, those 300 million Americans will not put up with this forever. How or when they will resolve it is yet to be determined, but it will happen. You can take that to the bank.

The Internet has been specifically named in recent legislation as a means for “radicalization” of ordinary Americans. Yep. True without a doubt. The Internet is the only remaining source of free and unbiased news in the world, and the real news would piss Mother Theresa off on a daily basis. The Internet has a lot of crap, too, but most Americans can tell the difference.

How our government has reacted to this perceived threat is perhaps the most interesting and revealing point of all.

They are using the threat of violence (rendition, or kidnapping in proper legal terms) to create a climate of fear in the United States that they hope and pray will make folks with the faintest glimmering of a brain – and therefore suspicions concerning the origins and masterminds of 9/11 – shut up and go away, instead of demanding impeachment and a reform of our election systems.

Let me see now, “terrorism” is the use of violence or the threat of violence against innocent persons to create a climate of fear.

Who are the real terrorists here? The mythical nineteen Arab fanatics with boxcutters who somehow defeated all of NORAD on 9/11? Or our own government?

You tell me.


  1. LeeGreg

    Hey Ted, in your research on the other websites and sources, how did reading about WTC Building 7’s neat collapse into it’s own footprint leave you feeling on the subject?

  2. Ted Remington


    Assuming that you are correct that big businesses are capable of organizing such a complex plot, why would they do such a thing? How could they benefit so much that they deemed the risk to be worthwhile?

    Also, how could they be sure they would not be caught? Let’s say that GM decided to do such a thing and got caught. Can you imagine what would be left after the American people rose up in righteous wrath and stomped their sorry asses into the pavement?

    No, Bill’s Bet, also known as Ockham’s Razor, is of paramount importance. Bet on the simple solution.

    I have looked at the websites you and others have cited, and what I see is that someone somewhere came up with a bunch of wild theories and all of these internet sites feed on one another, constantly citing one another to “prove” their points.

    I will ask again: If the charges were all planted in advance, why bother with the planes? Just wait until the buildings are really full, say half an hour before lunch, and then blow all of them up at the same time. The planes would have just been an unacceptably risky venture, when a much bigger impact could have been had just by pushing a button.

    If this theory is correct, there would have been charges placed at the Pentagon to “finish the job” after the plane crashed into it. There were no such explosives.

    Likewise there were no explosives found at the probable targets of the fourth plane, the White House and the Capitol.

    I keep wondering if the reason behind all these strange theories is because people do not want to believe that a bunch of Muslim fanatics could have pulled it off. Note that Moussaoui was in custody; the other 19 conspirators must have been sweating blood that he would talk; also, the attack was only 3/4 successful in that the fourth plane was apparently brought down by the actions of passenger-victims. That plane was apparently the only one on which there was a level of knowledge of what had already happened that day, so the people had an incentive to act.

    And then there’s this crazy theory that the vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not a plane but a cruise missile. Bullpuckies. It happened in broad daylight and dozens of eyewitnesses saw the damned plane. End of story.


  3. Trip C

    No offense, but I tend to ignore people that say stuff like

    Big business however, OWNS government

    I’m not even sure exactly how “business” would go about genuinely having ownership of “government”, or who exactly composes either of those groups. I don’t think anyone else does either, even the people that believe it.

  4. CheckerboardStrangler

    Ted, I submit to you that you are correct in your assertion that a crime of this magnitude could never be engineered or pulled off in such secrecy solely by government.

    But let’s lose the controls currently impinging upon the question for a moment shall we?

    WHO EVER SAID that it WAS “solely those in government” anyway?

    It might be impossible to hatch a false flag of this magnitude and conduct it purely within government but in the world of corporate espionage, a 9-11 WTC attack amounts to little more than a flubbed real estate deal and a crappy demo job with a poor choice in demolition contractors.

    Corporate secrecy could handle a plan fifty thousand times the size of 9-11 in both outright size, scope, budget and calculation on a three martini lunch hour.

    And the lines, I submit to you sir, between GUBMINT and
    BIG BIDNISS are so blurred that they could be used as
    a filter behind the lens to make Lucille Ball look 21 again*.

    *(obscure reference to Karl Freund, ASC cinematographer)

    Even now.

    No…9-11 wasn’t an “inside job” cooked up by black robed grinning hooded figures sitting in some secret Bush administration underground star chamber.

    9-11 wasn’t a (GASP!) “kin-spee-ri-see!”.

    9-11 wasn’t even personal.

    It was just a plain old business decision.
    And “a few good men” in gubmint just happened to “let it happen on purpose”.

    Gubmint is large in some ways but small in many others.
    Gubmint is weak and ineffectual.
    Gubmint is inefficient and as leaky as an old sieve.

    Big business however, OWNS government and big business is
    lean, mean, powerful and utterly without mercy.
    It always has been, and it always has been in control around these here parts, at least for the last century or so.

    The key to controlling the 9-11 debate rests with the conventional wisdom and classical definitions of government.

    I am simply saying that that wisdom and those definitions never existed, not in over a hundred years, except in some fairy tales our civics teachers told us.

    The truth behind the 9-11 attacks lie partly in the hints being dropped by our very own leaders from time to time…
    They continually tell us that “the war on terra is war like no other”.

    Well…the extraordinary attacks we have witnessed over the last century and change have been attacks like no other either. And the sources behind them are sources such as has never been imagined because we are routinely compelled to think in classical terms about them.

    There is always an element of truth behind these earth shattering events. Hitler was a true evil dictator, Saddam, also a really really bad guy, the Communists were indeed intent on world domination and might conceivably be in favor of a game of DOMINOS!

    But as Arthur Jensen says to Howard Beale in “Network”,

    “What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions, just like we do.”

    War is good good business and every war needs a “promulgating event”, in the paraphrased words of Henry Kissinger, and to date we have witnessed a century long “train of abuses invariably pursuing the same object”.

    JeffH in “Occupied” Texas

  5. Michela

    Yes, Ted, those buildings were way too big to come down when a plane hit them. That is exactly the point! They were built to withstand the biggest plane. So why did they fall? And what about building 7? Go to or watch their new DVD, Loose Change Final Cut. Food for thought. And it isn’t a crime to think–yet.