I can't imagine being in the FBI - AIM shootout in the '70s ['70?] (on the AIM side, and with subsequent on-and-off brouhaha) and not sounding malignant in just about any context that includes mention of the United States.
hendryk, as an aside of sorts, do you think people with better-than-average access to mass communication have an obligation to explain all details leading up to their latest release, or that the consumers of their material have a greater obligation to make their own background checks? or something else entirely? i can certainly understand if you don't 'believe' in obligation, or rather that it by nature or of necessity carries any notable weight...
that more-or-less-aside, the only thing i see as being 'gibberish' (and opening up a whole other Con of worms) is how he refers to who was populating the twin towers.... Greg Palast is more precise in describing some of the offices and their holders lost to the attack, which frankly increases the notional credulty of far-right/high-echelon knowledge/complicity with 9/11. when 'the best democracy money can buy' is returned to me i'll quote a touch to that effect, although some of it might already be on palast's website which i haven't time to check today...
our government certainly doesn't feel the need to be as subtle with treaty violations as they are with infringements on life/lib/pursuit&al. that rather more directly affect us whiteyz. [churchill's essay on the utter toothlessness of nonviolent protest is the only intelligent argument i've come across in favor of any level of the 'right to bear arms', btw] cybersquirt's 'stand and be counted' remark resonates again - what's worse, the right doing their homework and being subtle with their propaganda [to the point, say, of skirting outright lies], or an AIM director getting a rise out of people? either one is ammo or armor for the right's righteousness (the former because accusations of underhandedness are maddeningly difficult, if not impossible, to level, let alone vindicate; the latter because moderates/wishy-washers who decide against that oh-so-gauche angry attitude slip farther towards the right's more 'reasonable' clutches...) i'm sure you'd have a hard time claiming churchill hasn't done his homework, outside of his presumptions about the generalized focus/purpose of WTC 'inhabitants'...
while i am usually impressed by prof.Churchill's scholarship ('A Little Matter of Genocide' is 'fun' [read: infuriating, no matter who you choose to believe] history if you can find a copy), Vine Deloria, Jr. is a better writer in general ('God Is Red' and 'Custer Died For Your Sins' in particular), with, imo, more variety of compelling themes (and takes the time to point out Immanuel Velikovsky's "absurd" theories and suggestions - which five decades later [actually, more like three decades at the writing of G.I.R.] have become more plausible than most-if-not-all of the arguments against them (scientific explanations of biblical events and the importance of interdisciplinary study being standouts). and for the realm of the more exact, deloria co-wrote 'Tribes, Treaties and Constitutional Tribulations' for the more-detail-but-relatively-short-read-minded...
perhaps this post was all over the place, but . . .