the way, 911 is used and instrumentalized. He's rather reserved about details of the attacks and the different therories. He doesn't say that the Bush-Administration has engineered the attacks.
A question for native english speakers: doesn't "hoax" just mean "trick"?
Sometimes it starts getting funny: they say it, loud and clear. If you repeat what they're saying, you must be one of those "conspiracy"-paranoids.
Whatelse should we think, reading a statement like this from General Tommy Franks:
>>General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event
somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.<< (quote from the article)
Hello from Germany,
Dirk