Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Let's look at this demand that the Taliban give assurances that Afghanistan won't be used as a staging ground by terrorist groups. Why is it so important? I mean: there hasn't been a foreign terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. And even if it were possible to guarantee that Afghanistan won't be occupied by terrorist groups- and it is not possible because it is a large country that is very mountainous, as Donald Trump told Tucker Carlson, "it has a lot of hiding places"-  how much good would it do? I mean: even if it was iron-clad certain that Afghanistan could not be used by terrorists, look at how many other places in the world they could operate from.  How much does it really matter to the safety of Americans at home what is going on in Afghanistan? 

And here we are demanding that the Taliban give us guarantees about stopping terrorists in that country, but we can't stop the terrorists here, and I mean the homegrown ones. Look at all the mass shooting, school shootings, and mall shootings that have occurred here in recent years, and they were not hatched in Afghanistan. They were hatched right here.  So, if we can't control terrorism here, how are they supposed to control it over there?

And what exactly do we think the Taliban's role was in 9/11? Do we think that they knowingly let Osama bin laden plan the attacks from Afghanistan? If so, then why are we trying so hard to put them back in power? Or, is it that they just let him operate from Afghanistan without knowing exactly what he was doing but should have know that he was up to no good? But wait! Osama bin laden was in Afghanistan for a long time.  He went there to fight the Soviets, and in those days, he was considered a good guy. Even we were supporting him. He became one of the heroes of the victory over the Soviets. So, is it that surprising that the Taliban let him live there?

And remember that at the outbreak of the Afghan war, the Taliban offered to arrest bin laden and turn him over to a third country for prosecution and trial. Would they have done that if they knew they were his accomplices? It's apparent that they didn't think a trial of bin laden- anywhere in the world- was going to implicate them. Yet, we wouldn't go along with it. 

Last  night, I had the privilege of being on Truth Jihad radio with Dr. Kevin Barrett. We were talking about the War on Terror, in relation to my movie, and I pointed out how monstrous it was for George Bush to start that war considering what the Taliban offered. 

But, Dr. Barrett pointed out that Bush had to know that a trial of bin laden would only have exposed the lie that he did 9/11. So, of course, Bush didn't accept the offer. 

And I would add that the U.S. was no more going to allow a trial of Osama bin laden then they were going to allow a trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, and that killing Oswald was an imperative because his trial would only have exposed the criminality of the government. And no, they weren't lucky that  Jack Ruby came along and did it for them, and neither did they put Ruby up to doing it. Ruby didn't do it. Ruby wasn't in the garage during the televised spectacle. Ruby was already tucked away on the 5th floor only to be seamlessly inserted into the story later. It's not Ruby in the Jackson photo or the Beers photo or any of the films. That was FBI Agent James Bookhout masquerading as Jack Ruby. Maybe Dr. Barrett will have me back on his show to discuss the innocence of Jack Ruby- the most wrongfully accused Jewish man since Judas. I hope so.