While I haven’t read Robert Parry’s article, the suggestion that the Tucson shooter was influenced by 9/11 truth is an interesting development. Previously those who upheld the government’s version of 9/11 had either ignored Truthers or refuted their arguments.
But, to the best of my knowledge, 9/11 Truthers have never before been represented as a violent fringe themselves.
If this new wrinkle does emerge, does it say that the defenders of the government version are amping up their attack on 9/11 Truth?
And does that in turn say that their fear of the truth emerging has increased? Or are they trying to associate the attack on Giffords with an “attack on America” such as they would like the public to think 9/11 was?
In my view, what is more likely is that the same type of people responsible for 9/11 may have had a hand in Giffords’ shooting.
I’ve posted here only Jim Feltzer’s comments on the shooting itself and not his defense of 9/11 theories out of deference to the amount of time readers may have available. For the rest of the article, go to Globalresearch.ca. I may be posting excerpts more in the future as the volume of news increases. Thanks to Penny.
9/11 Truth Is No “Parlor Game”
By Prof Jim Fetzer, Global Research, January 23, 2011, www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22923
A disturbing article on ConsortiumNews.com, “The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game” (15 January, updated 16 January 2011), by Robert Parry, advances the indefensible theory that the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was affected by the shooter’s interest in 9/11 truth.
While there are good reasons to suspect that the political climate nurtured by the right wing may have influenced him (by targeting a series of representatives using the cross-hairs of a telescopic site, for example), there is no reason to believe than anyone associated with the 9/11 truth movement has targeted any members of Congress—other than attempting to expose them to the evidence that research has unearthed, which has shown that virtually every claim the government has made about 9/11 is provably false.
Parry claims that the Tucson gunman was affected by 9/11 truth and became enraged at images of Bush and Cheney, who, as we all know, lied to us about the reasons for attacking Iraq and later Afghanistan. There were no weapons of mass destruction; Saddam was not seeking yellowcake from Niger; and Iraq was not in cahoots with al Qaeda. Indeed, Bush himself would eventually admit that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, just as our own FBI had acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama to the 9/11 attacks.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John P. Costella and is, most recently, the editor of The Place of Probability in Science, his 29th book.