Vintage-Real Truther (Gretavo) at Truthaction in 2008

gretavo's picture

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2809

 

Author Message
Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:12 pm    Post subject: Oklahoma City and 9/11 -More Grist for Coincidence Theorists Reply with quote

Quote:
Goldenberg says people knew that John Doe Number One was McVeigh, but not the identity of John Doe Number Two. ". . . Almost immediately after the bombings, the world also saw an artist's rendering of a second possible suspect: a square-jawed, clean-shaven young man whose name was never revealed," Goldenberg stated. U.S. authorities continued to deny the existence of a John Doe Number Two.

But Goldenberg says it is no mere coincidence that a number of Israeli intelligence agents were dispatched to Oklahoma City three days prior to the bombing of the federal building. This is no coincidence either:

In May of 1998, Goldenberg received a copy of an Israeli intelligence memo, which he still has, written just hours before the Oklahoma bombing. It had been passed on to the Washington Metropolitan Field Office of the FBI by Vincent Cannistrano, former chief of counter-terrorism operations at the CIA, and warned of an Islamic terrorist plot to blow up one of three "targets" in Oklahoma City, Los Angeles, and possibly Houston.

"Cannistrano had received a phone call on April 19, 1995, from an unspecified Saudi citizen who worked as a counter-terrorism official for the Saudi Royal Family," Goldenberg writes. "That source. . . told Cannistrano he had solid information that there was a 'squad' of people in the U.S. that had been tasked with carrying out these attacks. At the time, Cannistrano could not comment on the reliability of the information, nor could he corroborate it."

http://www2.indystar.com/library/topics/opinion/patterson/columns/2001_0922.html

So, to recap, in both OKCity and 9/11 we have Israeli agents present in the US, supposedly warning American officials, and subsequently suggesting Arab/Muslim involvement. In both cases we have buildings destroyed with explosives planted inside and denials of the fact.

On the occasion of 9/11, a number of pundits went public with claims that Osama may well have "also" been responsible for OK City. Hmmmmm...

Quote:
Was Osama Involved In Oklahoma City?
But what should be even more troublesome to the American people is that our government continues to hide, even at this late date, the information about an Arab connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is still a reluctance to paint the Arabs in their all of their unmitigated evil colors. It would indeed be interesting to know which individuals and agencies are responsible for keeping these truths from the American people.

By the way, all of the following information which is known to the FBI and the CIA,as well as to Israel’s security agencies comes from an article “Did McVeigh Have A Mideast Link”? by Elliot Goldenberg which appeared in the Washington Jewish Week in October 2001.

Three days before the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building a number of Israeli agents were dispatched to Oklahoma City based on information obtained by Israel. about some kind of terrorist event. Following the bombing, Israeli experts determined that the explosives had some of the specific characteristics of those used by Arab terrorists. The Israelis took the information to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) which turned it over to the FBI.

LINK

Bonus question: 2+2= ?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

funhouse1970

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 339

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And both sites were "cleaned up" by Controlled Demolition, Inc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's Jayna Davis, who seems to have come pretty far since her days as an OK City news reporter... you have to skip to about 6:30 in the video, an excerpt from Alex Jones 9/11 Road to Tyranny to see her before the book deal....

In what looks to be a pattern for AJ, his account of OKC makes no mention of any Israeli agents, but instead emphasizes the role of the infamous New World Order gang in directing the Feds on what to do. He also goes on and on about the infamous "Middle Eastern" John Doe number two, linking him to an alleged exodus of former Iraqi Republican Guards who tried to flee the US in the aftermath of the attack--being stopped of course and having all kinds of suspicious--well, blatantly incriminating--materials in their luggage, including bomb-making materials. No mention of wills or Korans but I'm sure they had those too.

So what is it with Alex Jones? Why is he so intent on blaming everyone BUT the Israelis in both OKC and 9/11? Why does he downplay evidence of Israeli involvement in every case and instead blame the mysterious Illuminati and NWO? Why does all of his programming serve to advertise "armaggedon survival kits" and other nonsense? Is Alex Jones stupid or does he just think the American public is?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
So what is it with Alex Jones? Why is he so intent on blaming everyone BUT the Israelis in both OKC and 9/11? Why does he downplay evidence of Israeli involvement in every case and instead blame the mysterious Illuminati and NWO?

Two reasons spring to mind. 1. He does not view the Israelis as the "prime movers" behind his "NWO". And 2. He is frightened of being labeled an "anti-semite".

There's also a flipside to the question you pose: why are some people so intent on blaming the Israelis to the exclusion of everyone else? Or why a specific state and not state capitalism? I'm not accusing you of this fallacy -- I think you perform a valuable service in highlighting the (highly significant) Israeli role in world affairs -- but there's no question that Ziono-centrism (is that a word?) has caused many researchers to lose site of other equally important issues.

Quote:
Why does all of his programming serve to advertise "armaggedon survival kits" and other nonsense?

Alex Jones serves two masters: God and mammon. He is apparently willing to sacrifice his credibility for the latter. Or perhaps he thinks the "miracle cures for cancer" he peddles on his website and radio program actually work? Fundamentalist Christians aren't known for their scientific rigor. Since he thinks Armageddon is inevitable he probably views "survival kits" as a vital tool to fight Lucifer's minions.

Quote:
Is Alex Jones stupid or does he just think the American public is?

He's definitely not stupid. He's just irrational, like all fundamentalists. I do think he is very dishonest in his portrayal of American history. I used to listen to his radio program occasionally and I never heard any kind of class analysis beyond the usual Lou Dobbesian "war against the middle class" rhetoric.

Does he think the American public is stupid? Yes. Like all Constitutionalists he is terrified of real democracy and views the "public" as incapable of managing their own affairs. I would add that at this point in time he may be right. But democracy is the only way forward.

I do NOT think that Alex Jones is a shill. If he is he deserves an academy award. I think it's unfortunate that he values self-promotion over campaigns like the 11th Day of Every Month, which he originally praised after viewing my video on the subject. Jack Blood has done the right thing and continued to voice his support for truthaction, even if he doesn't agree with the views of everyone posting on the forum.

Last edited by Scott N on Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

chrisc

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:27 pm    Post subject: Blaming Israel: A Limited Hangout Reply with quote

Whatever the extent of the involvement of non-US "intelligence" agencies the point is who were they working for?

Involving private contractor and others was no doubt in part to ensure that they had plausible deniability in the event of the plot being uncovered:

Wikipedia wrote:
Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in governments and other large organizations. In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or actor to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Blaming Israel: A Limited Hangout Reply with quote

chrisc wrote:
Whatever the extent of the involvement of non-US "intelligence" agencies the point is who were they working for?

Involving private contractor and others was no doubt in part to ensure that they had plausible deniability in the event of the plot being uncovered:

Wikipedia wrote:
Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in governments and other large organizations. In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or actor to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

I agree. In my aforementioned video "The Third Stage" the section on the Israelis is entitled "Subcontractors". My educated guess is that the Israelis were petitioned to carry out most of the operation for reasons of plausible deniability. They were only too happy to oblige, and the rest is history. The idea that the Israelis carried out the attacks in defiance of Uncle Sam is not plausible.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Danse, always good to hear your critiques. The problems vexing the world are indeed a many-headed hydra. Where state capitalism falls in the hierarchy of evil heads I can't really say. What I do know, having briefly immersed myself in the world of controlled progressivist politicking (i.e. Michael Moore, Alternet, etc.) is that there are already many loud and often eloquent voices pointing out the pitfalls of rampant capitalism, corporate personhood, etc. I see much less discussion of other things which is why I try to make up the difference, knowing that many people will think ill of me as a result (I don't care what they think.)

Right now I also think that the issue of Israeli/Zionist terrorism is the single biggest threat in the world. Remember, we're talking about a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons that insists on violating every principle of international law and that has repeatedly attacked us and baited us into disastrous wars against innocent people who happen to be their enemies. On top of everything they seem to have a very effective political lobby and public relations (read propaganda) arm both firmly embedded in our countries institutional life. This is a big problem.

While I would never sink to the level of those who fan the flames of fear with regard to the so-called "Islamo-fascist threat", that does not mean that the threat presented by Zio-terrorism/organized crime is not real. In fact, 9/11 and false flag terror are just one aspect of what is in fact a much more disturbing plethora of crimes including global drugs and weapons trafficking and, of course, money laundering.

As for Alex Jones being an accomplished actor, did you think that his job would be given instead to a talented plumber? Or soccer player? Of course he's a good actor! What he isn't is a good journalist or researcher apparently. Smile

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

chrisc

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:49 pm    Post subject: The Empire is the main problem Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
the issue of Israeli/Zionist terrorism is the single biggest threat in the world... we're talking about a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons that insists on violating every principle of international law and that has repeatedly attacked us and baited us into disastrous wars against innocent people who happen to be their enemies.

The US does not engage in wars that do not serve it's Imperial interests, though they are happy for some to think that they they do... Rolling Eyes

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The idea that the Israelis carried out the attacks in defiance of Uncle Sam is not plausible.

Who is this Uncle Sam? Where is his office? My point is of course that suggesting that Israel would get approval from the US government to attack the US presupposes that there is anyone in the US government who is authorized to provide that kind of approval. There is no one, I'm afraid. If indeed someone in the US government requested or allowed any foreign agents to kill Americans then they are quite simply committing treason and by definition not acting in the interests of the US people or on behalf of the US government.

If Israelis or anyone else is craven enough and stupid enough to think that an invitation to attack America given to them by an American traitor is anything short of an act of war then they are sorely mistaken and one would hope that upon uncovering such an action on the part of their own the Israelis would immediately do their ally a favor and expose the rogue elements from both countries who plotted to carry out the deed. Yet this does not happen. So at the very least we have treasonous elements in the US government being aided and abetted by Israeli agents. Not really much better than an Israeli black op launched against the US "uninvited" if you ask me.

For that matter, how implausible is it for the 9/11 perps not to have gotten this hypothetical "OK" from someone in the USG? I suppose it depends on which aspect of the crimes we're talking about. Did anyone in the USG have to approve of the twin towers being rigged for demolition? Who exactly?

Look at who was president during OKC and during 9/11 and tell me that blackmail could not have played a roie in getting the top guy to go along with whatever was required. Look, it's not exactly war we're talking about, in the traditional sense. It is a silent, creeping coup by a criminal mafia that few if any dare to expose for fear of the consequences to them.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

chrisc

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:01 pm    Post subject: Uncle Sam AKA The Empire Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Quote:
The idea that the Israelis carried out the attacks in defiance of Uncle Sam is not plausible.

Who is this Uncle Sam?

I think Danse was using this term as shorthand for The Empire, often refered to as the US Empire or the Anglo-US Empire due to the deal that was done with the UK at the end of WW2.

This 10 part lecture on the US Empire is good (part 10 is missing), Empire as a Way of Life: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374166.html

And, although I haven't read it yet, William Blum's book Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II is highly recommended by many: http://www.killinghope.org/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, the ANglo-US empire. I don't suppose we could call it the Anglo-US-Israeli empire could we? How about we read up on the subject at, say, oilempire.us, which denies altogether that 9/11 was anything but blowback? Odd, eh? That some people who so hate "the empire" wouldn't be exposing it's most heinous crime? No, I think that the idea of an anglo-US empire is fairly well-outdated, and was misunderstood from the beginning. We must, for example, understand the role that international bankers have played in making that "empire" succeed. The "empire" itself in other words is illegitimately calling itself "British" and/or "American". The "empire" I would argue included the Soviet Union, which also existed thanks to the cooperation of global capital, i.e. international bankers.

The American government is a very large entity tasked with all kinds of roles vis avis the American people. If this government's power has been usurped by an international conspiracy it is hardly appropriate to call the empire "American" or "British". It is indeed a stateless "empire" that operates within and through many different governments and it is the job of responsible citizens to clean house of these elements, not to declare their entire government "the enemy".

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From William Blum two weeks ago:

Quote:
Finally, there’s September 11, 2001. Amongst those in the “9/11 Truth Movement” I am a sinner because I don’t champion the idea that it was an “inside job”. I think it more likely that some individuals in the Bush administration knew that something was about to happen involving airplanes — perhaps an old fashioned hijacking with political demands — and they let it happen, to make use of it politically, as they certainly have. But I do wish you guys in the 9/11 Truth Movement luck; if you succeed in proving that it was an inside job, that would do more to topple the empire than anything I have ever written. http://gaimelist.blogspot.com/2007/12/anti-empire-report-by-william-blum-nie.html

Hmmm, does that reflect any real understanding of what the 9/11 truth movement says or what some poeple would like to pretend it says? Can such an erudite scholar really be so dense? Or does the 9/11 Razor kick in and suggest that like Noam Chomsky Blum's job is to a) conceal the truth about 9/11 and b) suggest that the world's biggest problem is Dubya and the "US empire"?

I for one am tired of being constantly lied to by people like Bluma nd Chomsky and I have no interest in studying the case they make for anything except as a means of understanding how someone determined to cover-up 9/11 plans to go about it. In my experience with "progressive" groups the only thing more consistent than the villification of everything American is the denial that 9/11 was anything but blowback.

So another thing that puzzles me... if indeed as some suggest the Israelis were "subcontracted" in both OKC and 9/11, then why didn't the American powers that be go ahead and go with the Israelis' claims that Iraq was behind OKC? Doesn't it make more sense that, understanding that exposing Israel's agency in the matter was out of the question they would not play along to the full extent Israel would have liked, and decided to pin responsibility just on McVeigh? Because "admitting" Iraqi involvement would have forced Clinton's hand to go to war with Iraq, which was clearly more in the inetrest of Israel than in America's? And that since the Israelis failed to obtain the desired effect with OKC they proceeded to plan 9/11?

Honestly folks, fool me once--can't get fooled again!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

chrisc

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
war with Iraq... was clearly more in the inetrest of Israel than in America's

I don't agree, look at this map, this explains the fundamental reason for the US seizure of the oil fields in Iraq: http://lastoilshock.com/map.html

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would believe it if in fact Americans were suddenly swimming in cheap oil. I do not doubt that seizing oil was a big motivation--it was indeed a way to pay off some evry important people. I think also Israel now has a pipeline directly to Haifa from Iraq? In any case, it would be much better for America, i.e. the American people, to spend all the money involved in seizing oil fields on developing alternative energy sources instead. This is a no-brainer in my mind. Also, we would be getting middle eastern oil cheaper if we simply bought it on the world market from the people who have it, since they can only make money by selling it. While the whole concept of a "petro-dollar" makes sense, it only does so in the context of a dollar that is controlled by the federal reserve and its member banks, i.e. an international cartel, NOT America.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hi Danse, always good to hear your critiques. The problems vexing the world are indeed a many-headed hydra. Where state capitalism falls in the hierarchy of evil heads I can't really say. What I do know, having briefly immersed myself in the world of controlled progressivist politicking (i.e. Michael Moore, Alternet, etc.) is that there are already many loud and often eloquent voices pointing out the pitfalls of rampant capitalism, corporate personhood, etc. I see much less discussion of other things which is why I try to make up the difference, knowing that many people will think ill of me as a result (I don't care what they think.)

Fair enough. Like I said I’m glad for the efforts of the people at WTCdemolition (of which I’m a member, as you know). Without people like yourself the cancer of Zionism would not be getting the attention it deserves in 911 truth circles. The problem I have is that it sometimes appears as though Zionism is being used in the same manner as Alex Jones’ “NWO”: as a means of reducing all of the world’s problems to a singularity and deflecting attention from (what I perceive as) the core problems of our society. Zionism embodies many of these problems (racism, statism, imperialism etc.) but it is not the source, it is an expression.

Quote:
Right now I also think that the issue of Israeli/Zionist terrorism is the single biggest threat in the world.

I would certainly place it high in the hierarchy, as you presumably would the aforementioned issues that tend to capture the lion’s share of my attention. The CIA appears to have monkey wrenched Neocon/Zionist plans to attack Iran. It’s a (temporary) victory for the Brzezinski soft imperialists. The American establishment apparently desires to keep the “war on terror” myth alive and healthy but views an Iranian adventure with considerable alarm, as well they should.

In light of the fact that Israel is by all indications hell-bent on attacking Iran and other middle-Eastern nations the danger of an Israeli false flag is extremely high. They have gone over the heads of Washington in the past with the Lavon Affair, but that was in Egypt and that was long before a special relationship developed between Uncle Sam and Uncle Herzl.

Quote:
Who is this Uncle Sam? Where is his office?

State’s have their own peculiar logic. Stone compared the state to a wild animal in Nixon but a better analogy is that of a machine:

"THE MAJOR TURNING POINT IN KAFKA'S WORK IS THE NOVEL, Penal Colony, written shortly after Amerika. There are few texts in universal literature which present authority with such an unjust and murderous face. Authority is not bound up with the power of an individual such as the camp commandant (old and new) who plays only a secondary role in the story. Instead, authority inheres in an impersonal mechanism.

The context of the story is colonialism -- French in this instance. The officers and commandants of the colony are French while the lowly soldiers, dockers, and victims awaiting execution are the people "indigenous" to the country who "do not understand a word of French." A native soldier is sentenced to death by officers for whom juridical doctrine can be summed up in a few words which are the quintessence of the arbitrary: Guilt should never be questioned! The soldier's execution must be carried out by a torture device which slowly carves the words: "Honor thy superiors" into his flesh with needles.

The central character of the novel is not the traveler who watches the events unfold with mute hostility. Neither is it the prisoner who scarcely shows any reaction, the officer who presides over the execution, nor the commandant of the colony. The main character is the machine itself.

The entire story is centered on this sinister apparatus which, more and more in the course of a very detailed explanation given by the officer to the traveler, comes to appear an end-in-itself. The apparatus does not exist to execute the man but rather the victim exists for the sake of the apparatus. The native soldier provides a body upon which the machine can write its aesthetic masterpiece, its bloody inscription illustrated with many "flourishes and embellishments." The officer is only a servant of the machine and is finally sacrificed himself to this insatiable Moloch."

[from Kafka and Libertarian Socialism]

Quote:
My point is of course that suggesting that Israel would get approval from the US government to attack the US presupposes that there is anyone in the US government who is authorized to provide that kind of approval.

Whether authorized or not, hierarchy is the backbone of every state. Northwoods was authorized by the joint chiefs but rejected by Kennedy. The plan was terminated. With respect 911 Israel would never have endangered her relationship with the United States in such brazen fashion. Nor would she have been capable of carrying out the operation without explicit approval of high ranking military officials, many of whom surely have no allegiance whatsoever to Zionism.

Quote:
There is no one, I'm afraid. If indeed someone in the US government requested or allowed any foreign agents to kill Americans then they are quite simply committing treason and by definition not acting in the interests of the US people or on behalf of the US government.

Sure. But the US government has NEVER had any compunction about killing US citizens, whether by the National Guard, the Navy, the US Public Health Service or Israeli agents.

Quote:
If Israelis or anyone else is craven enough and stupid enough to think that an invitation to attack America given to them by an American traitor is anything short of an act of war then they are sorely mistaken and one would hope that upon uncovering such an action on the part of their own the Israelis would immediately do their ally a favor and expose the rogue elements from both countries who plotted to carry out the deed.

This assumes that false flag operations are not a mainstay of intelligence agencies, Mossad, CIA or otherwise. In fact they are as routine as assassinations. The US and Israel are indeed allies, just not in the way we’re taught at school. They’re allied against their own people and always have been.

Quote:
Did anyone in the USG have to approve of the twin towers being rigged for demolition? Who exactly?

Considering that the CIA had offices in the WTC I would answer with a definite yes.

Quote:
Look at who was president during OKC and during 9/11 and tell me that blackmail could not have played a roie in getting the top guy to go along with whatever was required.

I’m sure blackmail was and is being used both against and by numerous individuals in the US and other governments. For the most part, however, blackmail should not be required for high ranking military officials to engage in atrocities. It’s what they do.

Quote:
I don't suppose we could call it the Anglo-US-Israeli empire could we?

No problem here.

Quote:
The American government is a very large entity tasked with all kinds of roles vis avis the American people. If this government's power has been usurped by an international conspiracy it is hardly appropriate to call the empire "American" or "British". It is indeed a stateless "empire" that operates within and through many different governments and it is the job of responsible citizens to clean house of these elements,

I agree in part. But I don’t see this as much of a departure from the way it’s always been. Governments do not serve people but capital.

Quote:
not to declare their entire government "the enemy".

Here I disagree, for reasons that should be apparent from the piece on Kafka. States are violent institutions. People would do better, in fact, to view their host state as an enemy than the cogs that make up the machine. People like Bush and Cheney are behaving precisely as the state, with its peculiar logic, demands of them. Nothing more. Nothing less. I will continue to view states as enemies of mankind until they are radically transformed.

Quote:
In any case, it would be much better for America, i.e. the American people, to spend all the money involved in seizing oil fields on developing alternative energy sources instead.

This again assumes that the interests of the elite coincide with the interests of their subjects. This has never, ever been the case nor ever will be.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Author Message
nevaeH oT yawriatS

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr. W. Gene Corley is an interesting individual. Seems he was on the Waco, OKC and WTC investigation teams. It's worth pointing out that I know of two instances in which steel allegedly melted due to diffuse hydrocarbon fires. The front door of the Mt. Carmel complex, and the steel examined by contributors to the WTC FEMA report. Ironically, in both cases, Dr. Corley was involved in the investigation.

What happened at OKC is absolutely inconsistent with the OCT.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

nevaeH oT yawriatS

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
So what is it with Alex Jones? Why is he so intent on blaming everyone BUT the Israelis in both OKC and 9/11? Why does he downplay evidence of Israeli involvement in every case and instead blame the mysterious Illuminati and NWO? Why does all of his programming serve to advertise "armaggedon survival kits" and other nonsense? Is Alex Jones stupid or does he just think the American public is?

It might turn out that AJ is closer to the truth than you think. I recall reading about Israeli terrorism experts who were on the scene in OKC within a day, and who concluded the attack had a "Middle Eastern" signature. Then there's the whole Elohim City, Andreas Strassmeir, Carol Howe saga.

I'll do what I can to find the exact source for the info on the Israeli involvement in the investigation.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

nevaeH oT yawriatS

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is one place I recall seeing the claim:

Quote:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mcveigh/part07.htm
Thus, the presence of foreign intelligence operatives in the United States
is a fact of international foreign policy and for such operatives to carry
out the policies of their foreign sponsors is not unusual.

D. Israelis Present at the Bomb Site.

The defense has obtained a memorandum of an interview with a high ranking
Israeli security figure. See D.E. 2482 (Exhibit "J"). This memorandum
confirms the following:

1. The source, who aids the Prime Minister on matters of counterterrorism,
confirmed that Israel gave a general warning to the United States shortly
before the bombing.

2. The United States approached Israeli "for consultations" and advice
concerning the bombing.

3. Although Israel suggested that the bombing was not "Islamically
motivated", Israel conceded that the bombing could have been implemented
"borrowed methods" or could have been inspired by Islamic actions.

Israel in fact sent two experts, accompanied by the security officer of the
Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., to the bomb site.

5. Israeli authorities were clearly not pleased that information had leaked
of Israeli experts involvement in evaluating the bomb site.

6. The source, since the bombing, met with his American counter-part, Phil
Wilcox[l9], on a regular basis to "compare notes."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

nevaeH oT yawriatS

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Right now I also think that the issue of Israeli/Zionist terrorism is the single biggest threat in the world. Remember, we're talking about a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons that insists on violating every principle of international law and that has repeatedly attacked us and baited us into disastrous wars against innocent people who happen to be their enemies. On top of everything they seem to have a very effective political lobby and public relations (read propaganda) arm both firmly embedded in our countries institutional life. This is a big problem.

I have the sense that the international Zionist network may be more dangerous than "Israel" is.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Three days before the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building a number of Israeli agents were dispatched to Oklahoma City based on information obtained by Israel. about some kind of terrorist event.

Hi backwards stairway. I'm actually much more interested in the seeming need to gloss over the fact that Israeli agents were in Oklahoma City three days BEFORE the bombing, and like on 9/11, apparently failed to do much besides "document the event"...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

nevaeH oT yawriatS

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Hi backwards stairway. I'm actually much more interested in the seeming need to gloss over the fact that Israeli agents were in Oklahoma City three days BEFORE the bombing, and like on 9/11, apparently failed to do much besides "document the event"...

OK, I'll bite. What is your source on that? I must have missed it if it's posted above.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you must have--the fact is mentioned in two different sources that I quoted and linked to... check out the first post again...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

marco polo

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...I don't think I've ever read so much pseudo-informed, convoluted, rumor-mongering, conspiracy-harping, anti-semitic claptrap in my entire life. This entire thread is a grab bag of conspiracy theories, half truths, old repeated bigotries, and disinformation....its almost mind-bogglingly impossible to know where to start (or is that the point?)...but I'll try:

Timothy McVeigh confessed to the OK City bombing (and the bomb was in a truck parked outside the building, not IN the building; and no evidence of bombs inside the WTC was ever found).

The 'unverified source' that supposedly indicates Israeli involvement in the OK City bombing, etc...is unverified for one good reason: 'he' doesn't exist. Just more agit-prop lies. Gloss over the 'fact'? Huh? You have not proven/established this 'fact'--you have merely asserted something as true, without offering any other corroborating evidence. This is the key tactic of die-hard agitation propagandists and conspiracy theorists. It is convenient that the 'source' of this information resides within a secretive, foreign intelligence agency! that way, it can be covered by the 'plausible deniability' canard.

Why is it so hard to believe what McVeigh himself admitted--that his act was in retaliation for the Waco fiasco? The ATF offices resided in the Murraugh (sp?) Building. The ATF mishandled Waco / Koresh; McVeigh was a fundy christian sympathizer and ex-military man. The bomb was fertilizer and gasoline--something anyone with basic research skills could concoct...add in a whole lot of anger at the government (NWO), and voila!...you've got the most lethal act of terrorism on US soil prior to 911.
And Nichols was also convicted in this case. Were there only two? Who knows? I'm sure there are plenty of homegrown terrorists in this country (anthrax anyone?). Many are probably ex-military, like McVeigh.

Your insistence upon bringing the Israelis/Zionists into every terrorist act is astounding in its virulent bigotry.

Yes, all governments--including Israel--have secret police and intelligence agencies and 'special ops' (ooh, it sounds so cool to say that!)....and yes, they do things in the interest of the state that ordinary folks don't know about or even understand (hence: conspiracies)...but that doesn't mean the same entity (Mossad, whatever) is behind everything bad (as you seem to be insinuating).

My experience has revealed a great truth: when people lack complete knowledge of their government's workings (and most of us do), and yet are fearful/mistrustful of power (and who isn't?), the result is almost always a mixture of conspiracy thinking, scape-goating/bigotry, and virulent paranoia. Its a perhaps natural, though irrational, way to deal with the complexities of a modern state in a modern world.

All of us--including the 'real truther' guy--are ignorant of SO MUCH (the only truth here) that we can not possibly 'know' what we claim to know...do yourself a favor--if you dare...take just ONE conspiracy theory (inclusive of all the agencies and people wrapped up in it) and pursue this 'story' like a true investigative journalist...follow EVERY detail through to its utmost possible end or source; talk in person with the alleged key players (or verify their participation), track down EVERY allegation or assertion of government involvement; ACCOUNT for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING detailed in the theory .....do this, and I will bet my life that you will find both MORE than you previously understood, but LESS that you previously believed.

And for the record: I did not vote for Bush. I am not a Zionist. I am not a Christian. I am not a Moslem. I am not wealthy. I am not a Mason. I do not contribute to any political party.

I believe that there is probably life on other planets, but I do not think Roswell was a cover-up...just a 'good' story.
_________________
The problem is not just what we don't know,its what we do know that ain't so. --Mark Twain

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Keenan

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi marco polo,

I'm so glad you just landed in our living room and went to work immediately telling us all what the truth is. Where were you a few years ago? If you had shown up like a couple of years ago you could have saved all of us considerable amounts of time and energy in the mean time tracking down leads, exchanging information, reading reams and reams of articles and documents, all this education and research that was totally unnecessary if we could have just had someone like you who already knew all there was to know to simply tell us what the truth is like you are doing now.

Anyway, you're here now and great! Now we can all just stop wasting our time with all this nonsense and just defer to you, o-great-all-knowing-one. In fact, your education is already starting to pay off. I've decided to throw out all I've learned on my own and with other researchers in the last few years and just go back to accepting the official story on everything. 9/11 happened just like the government and media told us: It was Osama bin Laden and 19 plastic knife and boxcutter wielding fanatical muslim terrorists that did it, while suspending the laws of physics to cause 3 steel high-rise buildings to suddenly and symmetrically collapse to dust and small pieces. Yes, you are undoubtedly right about no bombs being found in the Murrah building in Oklahoma City that were reported on live TV in Oklahoma City that day. Those damn liars on the local news stations must have been fabricating the whole thing about those additional explosive devices that were attached to the the columns inside the building. Obviously if Dan Rather and Tom Brokow and Fox News didn't mention those things, than they couldn't be true! You're brilliant! Why didn't I think of that before?

Hey, I know! I'll just watch Fox News from now on and then I'll know everything you know, marco polo! Ha, see! I've outsmarted you! Maybe then I can be as smart as you! Why didn't I think of that before? Duh! I should just believe everything the government and the corporate media tell us to believe, I mean, it's not like they ever lie or anything.

Again, a big thank you, marco polo! You have brought sanity and insight and wisdom to this forum like no one else could have! Good job!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:53 am    Post subject: Re: Oklahoma City and 9/11 -More Grist for Coincidence Theor Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Quote:
Goldenberg says people knew that John Doe Number One was McVeigh, but not the identity of John Doe Number Two. ". . . Almost immediately after the bombings, the world also saw an artist's rendering of a second possible suspect: a square-jawed, clean-shaven young man whose name was never revealed," Goldenberg stated. U.S. authorities continued to deny the existence of a John Doe Number Two.

But Goldenberg says it is no mere coincidence that a number of Israeli intelligence agents were dispatched to Oklahoma City three days prior to the bombing of the federal building. This is no coincidence either:

In May of 1998, Goldenberg received a copy of an Israeli intelligence memo, which he still has, written just hours before the Oklahoma bombing. It had been passed on to the Washington Metropolitan Field Office of the FBI by Vincent Cannistrano, former chief of counter-terrorism operations at the CIA, and warned of an Islamic terrorist plot to blow up one of three "targets" in Oklahoma City, Los Angeles, and possibly Houston.

"Cannistrano had received a phone call on April 19, 1995, from an unspecified Saudi citizen who worked as a counter-terrorism official for the Saudi Royal Family," Goldenberg writes. "That source. . . told Cannistrano he had solid information that there was a 'squad' of people in the U.S. that had been tasked with carrying out these attacks. At the time, Cannistrano could not comment on the reliability of the information, nor could he corroborate it."

http://www2.indystar.com/library/topics/opinion/patterson/columns/2001_0922.html

So, to recap, in both OKCity and 9/11 we have Israeli agents present in the US, supposedly warning American officials, and subsequently suggesting Arab/Muslim involvement. In both cases we have buildings destroyed with explosives planted inside and denials of the fact.

On the occasion of 9/11, a number of pundits went public with claims that Osama may well have "also" been responsible for OK City. Hmmmmm...

Quote:
Was Osama Involved In Oklahoma City?
But what should be even more troublesome to the American people is that our government continues to hide, even at this late date, the information about an Arab connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is still a reluctance to paint the Arabs in their all of their unmitigated evil colors. It would indeed be interesting to know which individuals and agencies are responsible for keeping these truths from the American people.

By the way, all of the following information which is known to the FBI and the CIA,as well as to Israel’s security agencies comes from an article “Did McVeigh Have A Mideast Link”? by Elliot Goldenberg which appeared in the Washington Jewish Week in October 2001.

Three days before the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building a number of Israeli agents were dispatched to Oklahoma City based on information obtained by Israel. about some kind of terrorist event. Following the bombing, Israeli experts determined that the explosives had some of the specific characteristics of those used by Arab terrorists. The Israelis took the information to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) which turned it over to the FBI.

LINK

Bonus question: 2+2= ?

So... The Cold War was a fake. The Moon Landing were TV-fakery. Now you're got the Jews blamed for the OK City Bombing.

You're really trying to get the reputation of this website reduced to that of Stormfront or Art Bell, aren't you?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah there you are Adam, been looking all over for you. I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be setting you to ignore because you and your sock puppets remind me way too much of the people who used to waste everyone's time including mine by crying about everything I said.

The tactics you are displaying are nothing new to most people who have been paying attention to 9/11 for more than a month. I guess you don't have a problem with Israelis messing with us here in America. That's fine, you can believe whatever it is you want and even try to confuse people by pretending that by pointing out the repeated presence of Israeli agents in the US when bad things go down I am somehow blaming "the Jews" for something. Gosh, I''d NEVER seen that tactic used before! It's like, so original, man!

Now drop the Megaphone Software already--you're late for your shift at the mall kiosk selling dead sea mud beauty products in one of Lowy's Westfield Malls.. shalom!

edit/update: Marco Polo of the comment a few spots above this one just posted a great thread of his own in which he assures us that we are wasting our time with this "9/11 conspiracy stuff". Kid you not--I think he found truthaction via some spacetime warp linking it with dailykos ca.2005--all the great arguments are there--somebody would have squealed, bush couldn't have placed all the bombs by himself, etc... what can I say, the truth is flooding out and I'm lovin' it! Laughing

Last edited by Real Truther on Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Ah there you are Adam, been looking all over for you. I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be setting you to ignore because you and your sock puppets remind me way too much of the people who used to waste everyone's time including mine by crying about everything I said.

The tactics you are displaying are nothing new to most people who have been paying attention to 9/11 for more than a month. I guess you don't have a problem with Israelis messing with us here in America. That's fine, you can believe whatever it is you want and even try to confuse people by pretending that by pointing out the repeated presence of Israeli agents in the US when bad things go down I am somehow blaming "the Jews" for something. Gosh, I''d NEVER seen that tactic used before! It's like, so original, man!

Now drop the Megaphone Software already--you're late for your shift at the mall kiosk selling dead sea mud beauty products in one of Lowy's Westfield Malls.. shalom!

Nothing new to Jim Fetzer... that is, 'cause you're pulling the same crap Fetzer and his BFFs did.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Adam, you didn't hear me... I'm done with you! YT is about to come out with some forum rules that no doubt will mean I will have to refrain from addressing you lest I get banned for violating civility rules. You are more than welcome to keep adding your scintillating commentary to anything I post, of course, but remember what I said about not name-calling, ok buddy? shalom!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So... The Cold War was a fake. The Moon Landing were TV-fakery. Now you're got the Jews blamed for the OK City Bombing.

Ummm...I think you're getting your wires crossed buddy. I seem to recall having a debate with you about the Cold War -- specifically whether it was a fight between "good and evil" as you intimated or whether there were some shades of grey during the conflict, especially with respect Operation Gladio and Cold War propaganda. So it's probably me you're thinking of when you cite your "cold war was a fake" straw man.

As for the moon landing I haven't studied it so can't comment, but there's certainly no need for such abusive language.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Danse wrote:
Quote:
So... The Cold War was a fake. The Moon Landing were TV-fakery. Now you're got the Jews blamed for the OK City Bombing.

Ummm...I think you're getting your wires crossed buddy. I seem to recall having a debate with you about the Cold War -- specifically whether it was a fight between "good and evil" as you intimated or whether there were some shades of grey during the conflict, especially with respect Operation Gladio and Cold War propaganda. So it's probably me you're thinking of when you cite your "cold war was a fake" straw man.

As for the moon landing I haven't studied it so can't comment, but there's certainly no need for such abusive language.

I seem to recall having a discussion with you about the Cold War in which you kept trying to put words like those in my mouth when I had said nothing of the kind. I said Stalin and the Cuban Missile Crisis were real threats to the US and proved the Cold War wasn't entirely some fake psyop construction created to enslave us, as Real Spammer of the Void of Nothingness tried to claim. You were the one that was upset I pointed out Stalin was an evil butcher, and was a threat to the world. You were also upset at me as well me for mentioning we could have been all blowd up with the slightest additional miscalculation in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Krushchev made a huge screw up by thinking Kennedy was a weak willed man, and it almost got us all blowd up.

There is no difference between Fetzer's 9/11 TV fakery claims and Real Spammer of the Void of Nothingness' moon landing TV fakery claims. Not one bit of difference.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Author Message
Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
No Adam, you didn't hear me... I'm done with you! YT is about to come out with some forum rules that no doubt will mean I will have to refrain from addressing you lest I get banned for violating civility rules. You are more than welcome to keep adding your scintillating commentary to anything I post, of course, but remember what I said about not name-calling, ok buddy? shalom!

Yeah... that's why you responded to my last post 4 min after I posted it. Because you're "done" with me...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I said Stalin and the Cuban Missile Crisis were real threats to the US and proved the Cold War wasn't entirely some fake psyop construction created to enslave us


I never said the S.U. wasn’t a threat to people living in the U.S. Powerful states are always threats to other powerful states and the people living therein. See: The entire history of Europe. What I SAID was that the US government was propagandizing ignorant souls with an "inevitable invasion of Western Europe" meme similar to the "Islamo-fascist menace currently before us. In the previous case it was Gladio; now it's "Al-Qaeda".

As for Stalin, Churchill admired him, as I pointed out in the aforementioned thread.

None of this validates the “good vs. evil” silliness you were trying to pimp. I acknowledge the evil of militarized, centralized power everywhere, whether Stalin or Truman.

Quote:
Real Spammer

Just a word to the wise: insults like this will get you banned fairly quick. And I don’t feel RT deserves the type of venom you’re throwing his/her way.

Quote:
Krushchev made a huge screw up by thinking Kennedy was a weak willed man, and it almost got us all blowd up.

Read this and get back to me:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1027/noam_chomsky_on_terrorizing_cuba

And keep in mind, if possible, that I oppose centralized government, whether communist, capitalist or otherwise. Time to grow up.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Danse wrote:
Quote:
I said Stalin and the Cuban Missile Crisis were real threats to the US and proved the Cold War wasn't entirely some fake psyop construction created to enslave us


I never said the S.U. wasn’t a threat to people living in the U.S. Powerful states are always threats to other powerful states and the people living therein. See: The entire history of Europe. What I SAID was that the US government was propagandizing ignorant souls with an "inevitable invasion of Western Europe" meme similar to the "Islamo-fascist menace currently before us. In the previous case it was Gladio; now it's "Al-Qaeda".

As for Stalin, Churchill admired him, as I pointed out in the aforementioned thread.

None of this validates the “good vs. evil” silliness you were trying to pimp. I acknowledge the evil of militarized, centralized power everywhere, whether Stalin or Truman.

Quote:
Real Spammer

Just a word to the wise: insults like this will get you banned fairly quick. And I don’t feel RT deserves the type of venom you’re throwing his/her way.

Quote:
Krushchev made a huge screw up by thinking Kennedy was a weak willed man, and it almost got us all blowd up.

Read this and get back to me:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1027/noam_chomsky_on_terrorizing_cuba

And keep in mind, if possible, that I oppose centralized government, whether communist, capitalist or otherwise. Time to grow up.

No... what it's time for is to stop talking about anything but FACTS.

The Facts are NOT that all centralized governments are equally bad.

Sweden and Norway, for example, have seemed to have gotten how to do governance mostly right. They treat their citizens well. They have a high standard of living. Highly educated. Everyone living in those countries is considered to be worthy of not just rights, but also certain minimum standard of living and health care just because they are living and breathing human beings.

How did they peace-loving people of Norway and Sweden respond to the threat of the Soviet Union? Massive per capita military expenditures and a draft, that's how.

The Soviet Union was not "just another evil militarized centralized power." The Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe, blockaded Berlin, and slaughtered Hungarians en masse in 1956, and massacred Czechs in 1968.

The Soviet Union had the best tanks in the world until the late 70's. They had learned the hard way how to build tanks by having all their bad Soviet tanks demolished by the German Panzers drive on Moscow and the Caucasus in 1941. The Soviet Union had to rebuild their armored divisions from scratch. They learned what didn't work, and then they built what did work. The T-34. The Soviet Union then beat the crap out of German Panzer divisions with the T-34 the rest of WW2. All that Soviets experience in armored warfare on the Eastern Front in WW2 had the Soviets fielding better designed tanks with better trained officers than the West had for the next 3 decades. The Soviet Union did not surrender battlefield superiority with their Armored forces until NATO put computer/laser fire control in NATO tanks in the mid-late 70's.

I refuse to allow you to push this nonsense around here that the Soviet Union was just another problematic government. The leaders of the Soviet Union spilled every bit as much blood as Hitler did. The threat of falling under Soviet Occupation was real. The threat of the Soviet Union was real.

I'm the one in this discussion that cares about facts, and sees all the various shades of grey involved. I don't for a minute attempt to make excuses for bloody British and American actions in the world.

But you Danse to a one note tune. US Bad. US always bad. Because US is always bad, anything opposed to bad US is good.

Wrong. Not when it comes to the Soviet Union. And not when it comes to the guy who reveled in becoming an ally of the bloody handed Soviet Union...Castro. Castro is freakin' nuts. The recently opened KGB files show that Castro BEGGED the Soviet Union leadership to launch nukes at the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's means Castro was officially nuttier than Gen. Curtis LeMay, who was "just" begging Kennedy to let him bomb Cuba with conventional air strikes.

Castro is a murderer. Castro put and still puts his political enemies in prison for thought crimes. Probably about at the same rate that the US and UK are. Being no better or no worse than US right wingers or UK Tories doesn't make Castro a heroic figure. It makes him another reprehensible, bloody handed criminal like Nixon, Reagan, Thatcher or the Bushes.

While you're doing one of your one-note "all US Bad" or "all central government" bad danse, I'm looking for where there may be a little hope and some examples of where governance is overall pretty good... like Sweden, Norway, Canada most of the time, and maybe, just maybe Venezuela under Chavez (if he'll just shut up about Castro now that there's clear evidence Castro wanted to play a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War). Maybe, just maybe one day well get back to trying to copy what is working well in the world and countries like Norway and Sweden could be used as models for how to get governance right.

Last edited by Adam1 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:28 am; edited 1 time in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Facts are NOT that all centralized governments are equally bad.

That's not what I stated. Yet another straw-man.

Quote:
Sweden and Norway, for example, have seemed to have gotten how to do governance mostly right.

Your knowledge of history is apparently limited to the 20 th C. Here's a clue:

"Even the most superficial historic survey confirms this relationship. There could be no gentler peoples on earth today than the Portuguese, the Swedes, the Norwegians, or the Danes. Yet, when they found them- selves in possession of power, they lashed out against any and all comers with such fury that they conquered the world from horizon to horizon. This was not because, at the period of their national expansion, they were more aggressive than others. They were more powerful. At other times, the British and the French were the world's principal aggressors. When they had the critical volume of power that allowed them to get away with aggression, they too drove everything in front of them with fire and sword until a vast part of the earth's surface was theirs. The only thing that stopped them in the end was their inability, their lack of power, to go any further. At still other times, peoples such as the Dutch were peaceful in Europe where their power was sub- critical, and aggressive in remote regions where their relative power was critical. More recently, and this is their only distinction and dif- ference, Germany and Russia emerged as the champion aggressors. But the reason for their belligerence was still the same. Not their philo- sophy drove them to war but their suddenly acquired great power with which they did what every nation in similar condition had done pre- viously-they used it for aggression.

However, as powerful Germany was as aggressive as others, weak Germany was as harmless. The same people that overran the world with the formidable soldiers of Hitler's formidable Reich, formed exter- nally the most inoffensive of human societies as long as they lived
-
divided into jealous and independent small psincipalities such as Anhalt-Bemburg, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Saxe-Weimar, or Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. They had their little wars, of course, but none that would have stamped them as different from the Italians of Parrna, the French of Picardy, the English of Devonshire, or tlie Celts of Cornwall. Where they escaped the power-breeding unification of Bismarck, they remained peaceful even through the periods of the two world wars as was demonstrated by the inhabitants of Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

Quote:
The Soviet Union was not "just another evil militarized centralized power." The Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe, blockaded Berlin, and slaughtered Hungarians en masse in 1956, and massacred Czechs in 1968.

No it was a SPECIAL EVIL MILITARIZED CENTRALIZED POWER!

And the US occupying Grenada/Nicaragua/Brazil/Colombia etc. and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is COOL.

Quote:
I'm the one in this discussion that cares about facts

Clearly LOL>

You're out of your league.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Danse wrote:
Quote:
The Facts are NOT that all centralized governments are equally bad.

That's not what I stated. Yet another straw-man.

Quote:
Sweden and Norway, for example, have seemed to have gotten how to do governance mostly right.

Your knowledge of history is apparently limited to the 20 th C. Here's a clue:

"Even the most superficial historic survey confirms this relationship. There could be no gentler peoples on earth today than the Portuguese, the Swedes, the Norwegians, or the Danes. Yet, when they found them- selves in possession of power, they lashed out against any and all comers with such fury that they conquered the world from horizon to horizon. This was not because, at the period of their national expansion, they wre more aggressive than others. They were more powerful. At other times, the British and the French were the world's principal aggressors. When they had the critical volume of power that allowed them to get away with aggression, they too drove everything in front of them with fire and sword until a vast part of the earth's surface was theirs. The only thing that stopped them in the end was their inability, their lack of power, to go any further. At still other times, peoples such as the Dutch were peaceful in Europe where their power was sub- critical, and aggressive in remote regions where their relative power was critical. More recently, and this is their only distinction and dif- ference, Germany and Russia emerged as the champion aggressors. But the reason for their belligerence was still the same. Not their philo- sophy drove them to war but their suddenly acquired great power with which they did what every nation in similar condition had done pre- viously-they used it for aggression.

However, as powerful Germany was as aggressive as others, weak Germany was as harmless. The same people that overran the world with the formidable soldiers of Hitler's formidable Reich, formed exter- nally the most inoffensive of human societies as long as they lived
-
divided into jealous and independent small psincipalities such as Anhalt-Bemburg, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Saxe-Weimar, or Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. They had their little wars, of course, but none that would have stamped them as different from the Italians of Parrna, the French of Picardy, the English of Devonshire, or tlie Celts of Cornwall. Where they escaped the power-breeding unification of Bismarck, they remained peaceful even through the periods of the two world wars as was demonstrated by the inhabitants of Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

Quote:
The Soviet Union was not "just another evil militarized centralized power." The Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe, blockaded Berlin, and slaughtered Hungarians en masse in 1956, and massacred Czechs in 1968.

No it was a SPECIAL EVIL MILITARIZED CENTRALIZED POWER!

And the US occupying Grenada/Nicaragua/Brazil/Colombia etc. and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is COOL.

Quote:
I'm the one in this discussion that cares about facts

Clearly LOL>

You're out of your league.

Okay then, danse... if you're the one who that supposedly "cares about facts" show me the quote where I said anything the US did in those countries was "cool"

I didn't, did I? Nope I most certainly didn't. Not even close

That means danse not only isn't in possesion of any of the facts here, this is the second time I have seen danse start completely losing it when he was presented facts in a discussion. Both times danse started making up fictional statements were not only never said, they were not even remotely hinted at.

Danse's nonsense can't stand up the light of scrutiny, so has to start posting make believe quotes people never said. Kind of a strawman squared. Pretend the other person made up a fictional strawman, then pretend to deal with it.

And there was certainly never any so-called militaristic central governing authority in Scandinavia at any point in history. There were hundreds of different Viking raiding tribes in the Dark Ages that were no different in behavior than say... Comanches acted among Native Americans tribes in the Americas before Europeans arrived. What kind of nonsense is this? You present Dark Ages Viking raiding tribes as supposed proof the one note "all centralized power bad" danse?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Okay then, danse... if you're the one who that supposedly "cares about facts" show me the quote where I said anything the US did in those countries was "cool"

Adam, aren't you being a tad hypocritical again? First, please tell me where, as you've claimed several times, I said "the cold war was faked". I of course never said such a thing, though perhaps you took something I said and decided that of course that's what I meant. Now you accuse Danse of doing exactly what you have done--except that he didn't. Danse was clearly pointing out the way you seem to be singling out the USSR and other "communist" states as especially bad while making no mention of the US's role as aggressor during the "cold war".

Danse makes clear that he puts the US and USSR in a similar class of large, powerful aggressor regimes, and that his view is that it is the centralization of too much power that, regardless of the ideology behind a regime, makes it aggressive. I myself partially agree, I think that political regimes are only the overt and visible players in the grand scheme, that economic power trumps political power, and that the former makes use of the latter as much as or more than vice versa.

You, however, are the one who seems intent on confusing the issues by just spewing poorly reasoned objections, attacking people's character, and I should say constantly moving the discussion away from 9/11. Given your short history on the forum it is fair to wonder who you may have been in your previous incarnation here... Smile

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Quote:
Okay then, danse... if you're the one who that supposedly "cares about facts" show me the quote where I said anything the US did in those countries was "cool"

Adam, aren't you being a tad hypocritical again? First, please tell me where, as you've claimed several times, I said "the cold war was faked". I of course never said such a thing, though perhaps you took something I said and decided that of course that's what I meant. Now you accuse Danse of doing exactly what you have done--except that he didn't. Danse was clearly pointing out the way you seem to be singling out the USSR and other "communist" states as especially bad while making no mention of the US's role as aggressor during the "cold war".

Danse makes clear that he puts the US and USSR in a similar class of large, powerful aggressor regimes, and that his view is that it is the centralization of too much power that, regardless of the ideology behind a regime, makes it aggressive. I myself partially agree, I think that political regimes are only the overt and visible players in the grand scheme, that economic power trumps political power, and that the former makes use of the latter as much as or more than vice versa.

You, however, are the one who seems intent on confusing the issues by just spewing poorly reasoned objections, attacking people's character, and I should say constantly moving the discussion away from 9/11. Given your short history on the forum it is fair to wonder who you may have been in your previous incarnation here... Smile

From the first week in Dec.

Danse wrote:
....Among naive "foot soldiers" the word "most" may be accurate in terms of the number who bought into cold war mythology, but this in no way extends to those who formulated policy.

Reviewing President Eisenhower's strategic thinking, diplomatic historian Richard Immerman observes that he "took it as an article of faith that America's strength and security depended on its maintaining access to—indeed control of global markets and resources, particularly in the Third World." Like other rational planners, he assumed that the West was safe from any Soviet attack, and that such fears were "the product of paranoid imagination."

No, the "cold war" was just a cover story like the war on terror. The object (as always) was control of markets, resources and labor. An aging Gladio participant states the obvious about 911 -- that's great. He was a former head of state; we can run with the story. But let's not impute noble intent to men who went around blowing up buses full of schoolchildren. They deserve no more respect than soldiers from the Third Reich (many Gladio participants were, in fact, ex-Nazis and avowed fascists)....

Danse read a quote on Eisenhower's policies toward the Soviet Union. Were Eisenhower's policies toward the Soviet Union obviously crafted in the late 60's and early 70's. Obviously not. Stalin was still leading the Soviet Union when Eisenhower's Presidency began. Eisenhower was directing US policy toward the Soviet Union while Stalin was dictator, and for a couple of years after Stalin's death. Danse was clearly referring to Eisenhower. That means Danse is clearly claiming the threat of a STALIN-led Soviet Union was just a cover story like today's war on terror. A fraud.

And you backed up danse up when he was talking that nonsense. It was more him than you in that particular discussion, but you did defend it.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And there was certainly never any so-called militaristic central governing authority in Scandinavia at any point in history. There were hundreds of different Viking raiding tribes in the Dark Ages


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You need to brush up on your history. Here’s a start:

1700s

[edit] Great Northern War

The Great Northern War was the war fought between a coalition of Russia, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland (from 1715 also Prussia and Hanover) on one side and Sweden on the other side from 1700 to 1721. It started by a coordinated attack on Sweden by the coalition in 1700, and ended 1721 with the conclusion of the Treaty of Nystad, and the Stockholm treaties. As a result of the war, Russia supplanted Sweden as the dominant Power on the Baltic Sea and became a major player in European politics.

[edit] Colonialism

Main articles: Scandinavian colonialism; Danish colonization of the Americas; Swedish colonization of the Americas; Danish colonial empire; Swedish colonial empire

Both Sweden and Denmark-Norway maintained a number of colonies outside Scandinavia starting in the 17th century lasting until the 20th century. Greenland and Iceland in the North Atlantic were Norwegian dependencies that were incorporated into the united kingdom of Denmark-Norway. In the Caribbean Denmark started a colony on St Thomas in 1671, St John in 1718, and purchased Saint Croix from France in 1733. Denmark also maintained colonies in India, Tranquebar and Frederiksnagore. The Danish East India Company operated out of Tranquebar. Sweden also chartered a Swedish East India Company. During its heyday, the Danish and Swedish East India Companies imported more tea than the British East India Company - and smuggled 90% of it into Britain, where it could be sold at a huge profit. Both East India Companies folded over the course of the Napoleonic Wars. Sweden had the short lived colony New Sweden in Delaware in North America during the 1630s, and later acquired the islands of Saint-Barthélemy (1785-1878) and Guadeloupe in the Caribbean.

Quote:
that were no different in behavior than say... Comanches acted among Native Americans tribes in the Americas before Europeans arrived.

The two are not remotely similar. In fact there was no so thing as a “Comanche” tribe prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

“The Comanches emerged as a distinct group shortly before 1700, when they broke off from the Shoshone people living along the upper Platte River in Wyoming. This coincided with their acquisition of the horse, which allowed them greater mobility in their search for better hunting grounds.”

Quote:
Danse was clearly referring to Eisenhower. That means Danse is clearly claiming the threat of a STALIN-led Soviet Union was just a cover story like today's war on terror. A fraud.

The threat to the US and Western Europe was indeed grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, just as the “threat” of Iran is currently being grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes.

“During the Cold War, US foreign policy was carried out under the waving banner of fighting a moral crusade against what cold warriors persuaded the American people, most of the world, and usually themselves, was the existence of a malevolent International Communist Conspiracy. But it was always a fraud; there was never any such animal as the International Communist Conspiracy. There were, as there still are, people living in misery, rising up in protest against their condition, against an oppressive government, a government likely supported by the United States.“

W. Blum, Rogue State; A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Monroe, Me., Common Courage Press, 2000k, p. 14

You’ll forgive me if I don’t indulge you in further replies. You’re simply not worth the effort.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Danse wrote:
Quote:
And there was certainly never any so-called militaristic central governing authority in Scandinavia at any point in history. There were hundreds of different Viking raiding tribes in the Dark Ages


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You need to brush up on your history. Here’s a start:

1700s

[edit] Great Northern War

The Great Northern War was the war fought between a coalition of Russia, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland (from 1715 also Prussia and Hanover) on one side and Sweden on the other side from 1700 to 1721. It started by a coordinated attack on Sweden by the coalition in 1700, and ended 1721 with the conclusion of the Treaty of Nystad, and the Stockholm treaties. As a result of the war, Russia supplanted Sweden as the dominant Power on the Baltic Sea and became a major player in European politics.

[edit] Colonialism

Main articles: Scandinavian colonialism; Danish colonization of the Americas; Swedish colonization of the Americas; Danish colonial empire; Swedish colonial empire

Both Sweden and Denmark-Norway maintained a number of colonies outside Scandinavia starting in the 17th century lasting until the 20th century. Greenland and Iceland in the North Atlantic were Norwegian dependencies that were incorporated into the united kingdom of Denmark-Norway. In the Caribbean Denmark started a colony on St Thomas in 1671, St John in 1718, and purchased Saint Croix from France in 1733. Denmark also maintained colonies in India, Tranquebar and Frederiksnagore. The Danish East India Company operated out of Tranquebar. Sweden also chartered a Swedish East India Company. During its heyday, the Danish and Swedish East India Companies imported more tea than the British East India Company - and smuggled 90% of it into Britain, where it could be sold at a huge profit. Both East India Companies folded over the course of the Napoleonic Wars. Sweden had the short lived colony New Sweden in Delaware in North America during the 1630s, and later acquired the islands of Saint-Barthélemy (1785-1878) and Guadeloupe in the Caribbean.

Quote:
that were no different in behavior than say... Comanches acted among Native Americans tribes in the Americas before Europeans arrived.

The two are not remotely similar. In fact there was no so thing as a “Comanche” tribe prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

“The Comanches emerged as a distinct group shortly before 1700, when they broke off from the Shoshone people living along the upper Platte River in Wyoming. This coincided with their acquisition of the horse, which allowed them greater mobility in their search for better hunting grounds.”

Quote:
Danse was clearly referring to Eisenhower. That means Danse is clearly claiming the threat of a STALIN-led Soviet Union was just a cover story like today's war on terror. A fraud.

The threat to the US and Western Europe was indeed grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, just as the “threat” of Iran is currently being grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes.

“During the Cold War, US foreign policy was carried out under the waving banner of fighting a moral crusade against what cold warriors persuaded the American people, most of the world, and usually themselves, was the existence of a malevolent International Communist Conspiracy. But it was always a fraud; there was never any such animal as the International Communist Conspiracy. There were, as there still are, people living in misery, rising up in protest against their condition, against an oppressive government, a government likely supported by the United States.“

W. Blum, Rogue State; A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Monroe, Me., Common Courage Press, 2000k, p. 14

You’ll forgive me if I don’t indulge you in further replies. You’re simply not worth the effort.

Oh for Cripes sake...

Here's what danse said earlier about Sweden and Norway earlier.

Danse wrote:

Your knowledge of history is apparently limited to the 20 th C. Here's a clue:

"Even the most superficial historic survey confirms this relationship. There could be no gentler peoples on earth today than the Portuguese, the Swedes, the Norwegians, or the Danes. Yet, when they found them- selves in possession of power, they lashed out against any and all comers with such fury that they conquered the world from horizon to horizon.

Danse are you seriously going to attempt to defend your statement of Sweden/Norway "horizon to horizon conquest" by presenting Virgin Islands, Greenland and Iceland colonies as an example??

And now you are going to try to claim the that Stalin was no more of a threat to the world than Iran is today?

Well, of course you are...um... not going to indulge... um, no that would be RUN FROM THIS THREAD AS FAST AS YOU CAN after posting such nonsense.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And you backed up danse up when he was talking that nonsense. It was more him than you in that particular discussion, but you did defend it.

So in other words, Adam, you weren't exactly being honest when you claimed that I believe the cold war was faked (for those keeping score at home!)

It was more him than me... LOL!

Dog knows Danse and I don't agree on everything, but I think that you are "deliberately trying to misunderstand" what both he and I say in order to score points with some hypothetical lurking reader who will say to him or herself "wow that Adam guy sure knows what he's talking about!" Well, Adam, I hope you're enjoying yourself as you waste everyone's time!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Quote:
And you backed up danse up when he was talking that nonsense. It was more him than you in that particular discussion, but you did defend it.

So in other words, Adam, you weren't exactly being honest when you claimed that I believe the cold war was faked (for those keeping score at home!)

It was more him than me... LOL!

Dog knows Danse and I don't agree on everything, but I think that you are "deliberately trying to misunderstand" what both he and I say in order to score points with some hypothetical lurking reader who will say to him or herself "wow that Adam guy sure knows what he's talking about!" Well, Adam, I hope you're enjoying yourself as you waste everyone's time!

There's nothing to misunderstand. You blamed Jews for the OKC bombing, as well put up a as a whole pile of posts you gone out of your way to post to monitoring Jewish this and that. You're pulling the same TV fakery nonsense about the Apollo program as Fetzer does with 9/11.

Are you the Larouchie Al Franken chokeslamed at that Howard Dean rally in NH in 2004? Enquiring minds want to know.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny you mention Larouche. Here's my take on him:

Real Truther vs. the Larouche Youth Round 1

In fact, anyone who wants to can look up the historical record on 911blogegr and elsewhere showing that I was at the forefront of those calling out Fetzer as a shill and Tarpley as a Larouchie weirdo before it was in vogue to do so.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Adam1

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real Truther wrote:
Funny you mention Larouche. Here's my take on him:

Real Truther vs. the Larouche Youth Round 1

In fact, anyone who wants to can look up the historical record on 911blogegr and elsewhere showing that I was at the forefront of those calling out Fetzer as a shill and Tarpley as a Larouchie weirdo before it was in vogue to do so.

THIS is your take on Larouche?

It doesn't say a word about Larouche or Larouch politics. It says basically "don't do sudoku/puzzles with Larouche volunteers."

I've seen plenty of freepers scream "troll" at other trolls while they were disrupting progressive websites. They are accomplishing their stated goal. Disrupt.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

Real Truther

Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

there's no need to go into Larouche's politics. His organization is a cult (basically defined in my mind as "once you're in, they won't let you leave") and so whatever his politics are is irrelevant. He's not wrong about everything he talks about (though certainly about much) but there's no need to frame any discussion of those facts around him and his cult, so I don't. You asked me if I was a Larouchie and I answered you in the best way I could, Adam. Peace, man, and stop tasing me, bro!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

 

chrisc

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:39 am    Post subject: The Truth About OKC? Reply with quote

Laura Knight Jadczyk got the answers from Cassiopaea:

Quote:
Q: (L) J*** called today and talked to me a little bit about the
Oklahoma bombing. Now, we haven't talked about it too much... he
did bring up some interesting claims. Was the Oklahoma bombing
an "inside job," that is, was it done by agents of the government
itself?

A: No!

Q: (L) Okay, was the Oklahoma bombing done by the persons who
have been arrested for it?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Was the Oklahoma bombing accomplished by the fertilizer
bomb placed in the truck parked outside the building?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) It was not accomplished by any bomb inside the building?

A: No.

Q: (L) Was Timothy McVeigh influenced to do this by forces outside
of himself?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Were these forces human or other?

A: Other.

So there you go... Rolling Eyes

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message