♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 20, 2012 23:13:04 GMT
The flamboyant former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura believes that the US government has a history of creating scenarios to justify America's involvement in foreign wars! In the YouTube videos he presents his views about the 911 attack.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Feb 21, 2012 13:11:07 GMT
I don't know what the percentage of Americans is (because news that opposes what "the government takeover" - the corporate owners, the republicans- wants is blacked out now, since just 4 corporations own and script the entire media here now), but I do know more and more of us don't just believe our own government staged 9-11, we KNOW it did. Here's what wikipedia says the world thinks. As to what Americans themselves believe, that same wikipedia article indicates 36% of us think our government either staged it or stood by and knowingly allowed it to happen because they wanted an excuse to go to war in the middle east. 36%. That's high. Keep in mind 25% are mentally challenged (blindly patriotic, FOX "News" fans) and another 20% seem to always reply "I don't know", so in this case 36% seems like a majority of thinking people, as I interpret it. It's very bad for the whole world that this happened, because the republican agenda is quite clearly and visibly to bankrupt everyone so it can take control of most of the money (thus the economy as it is now), and to pass "patriot acts" allowing itself to police anytime anywhere without legal reason or allowance. The American government has taken over the world, and done it by causing death and misery, rather than by causing constructive unity as i always hoped a united world would be like. No, this is a right wing nightmare. Canada - even our peaceful northern neighbor Canada - announced recently that it "has to" have torture as part of its national defense. Jesus H _____. Well our nasty right wing crap has infected a lot of other nice places. But I assure the world, there are as many people who want constructive peace in America as there are in any nation. We just have no voice anymore. NO FREE PRESS. So you never hear about it. But yes, the truth of 9-11 is pretty clear, not just a "conspiracy theory". And i for one would like the entire Bush Administration charged with war crimes, and treated as they treated Saddam Hussein (who had nothing to do with 9-11) ____________________ OH BY THE WAY....Jesse isn't a nut. He isn't a conspiracy theorist. Americans all know the things he wrote about are the truth of how things are here. Jesse just chose to use his position as a public figure to be able to write it down and start a conversation. But yea, America over fortyyears has become an awful awful thing, and I don't even joke when I say - since the UN formed a coalition in 1990 to disarm Iraq "because we won't tolerate naked aggression (allow a Hitler to start)", then it also very much needs to band together to depower The United States, or else be tragic and irresponsible hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 21, 2012 14:43:56 GMT
it's sad that you can make some great, and truthful, points about the republicans and right wing in general, but spoil it all with idiocy about a 9-11 conspiracy, which has NO merit whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by captain on Feb 21, 2012 15:28:28 GMT
it's sad that you can make some great, and truthful, points about the republicans and right wing in general, but spoil it all with idiocy about a 9-11 conspiracy, which has NO merit whatsoeverHow do you know?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Feb 21, 2012 16:58:09 GMT
it's sad that you can make some great, and truthful, points about the republicans and right wing in general, but spoil it all with idiocy about a 9-11 conspiracy, which has NO merit whatsoeverHow do you know? I understand his opinion. Many of us simply can't believe our own government would do such a thing. Others can't believe it just out of a sense of patriotism and the idea we were brought up with that we're the good guys. So I understand that. But I still think the evidence is clear that we either "wagged the dog" or allowed an incident to occur so we could enact our "pre-emptive warring doctrine" (Paul Wolfowitz's list of the ten countries the pentagon want to "pre-emptively invade". Our military's focus has shifted from a cold war ("super-power against "superpower") to one more of "we dominate the world, let's police it". Towards that end, the Pentagon identified an area of countries it refers to as "The Core"(or "the gap") -which is essentially a circular area of countries in the middle east and northern africa, where the per capita income is below a certain level, and (or the military here says "because") we haven't forced capitalism on them yet / we don't have them under control yet. ...And yes America does think it has a god given obligation to rule the world (we called it "manifest destiny" in an earlier century, now it goes by another name, but it's the same conviction: that God put us in charge of the world. And even if 9-11 was actually a surprise attack, still, it was an amazing coincidence in timing and the perfect opportunity for us to proceed to bring the core under control. (The plan is to invade each country, post our troops there, and our factories. We got that done in Iraq, and we're working on Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea, so far. It is predicted to take time and sustained effort to accomplish. Something that frustrates the US's efforts in this is when a country develops nuclear capability. - for then they aren't a defenseless victim for the world's bully nation to order around. They could fight back. So we leave nuclear nations alone. This is why when we see one arming itself that way, we make bullshit excuses to try and stop it. ..A good example of this nonsense is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, while Pakistan has been a harbor for our identified enemies and would have been a more logical target in response to attack, BUT Pakistan has nukes. ..So we invade where we can score some oil and get away with it instead. ..Because we weren't fighting "terrorism" at all. We were expanding our empire into the last area not yet under our control. That's why we then started saying crap about Iran and North Korea too - because they are on the list. (and again, neither of those countries has anything to do with 9-11). It's hard not to see the dots and connect them. The US isn't fighting Al Qeida. The US is finishing its world conquest. By friendship, or by force, it wants the whole world under its lead. And it is close to having accomplished that too. ..And the American government convinced a lot of its populace of some key lies along the way of its "terrorist war"(that Hussein had something to do with 9-11, for example; and so that invading Iraq was about 9-11 .. but it wasn't.) That lie was believed a decade ago when everyone was in shock and of course supportive of their own country. Bush had 64% of us totally convinced that Al Qeida lived in Baghdad, just because he said so. (but there wasn't a single one of them there, and the administration knew this). The effectiveness of government lies lessens over time though. In time, much came to light, and the lie about this fell apart. Now it would be hard to find anyone who thinks Iraq did 9-11. *SOURCES. I'll list one. The Pentagon allows its staff to discuss this on C-SPAN. If you really wanted to, you could back-order some of the programming aired and vet the information yourself. Look specifically for a presentation given by their strategy advisor in 2004.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Feb 21, 2012 18:11:12 GMT
If I wrote a book, telling how to commit the prefect murder, would it than be acceptable to hold me accountable if someone acted upon it? (snip) •As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. Neither plan was carried out, but they were both discussed as serious proposals FALSE FLAG
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 21, 2012 22:24:50 GMT
I don't think anyone denies that intelligence agencies throughout the world (perhaps particularly the CIA and KGB) have carried out or at least assisted in a number of 'black' operations which have included actual terrorism and murder.
On the other hand, I still can't quite bring myself to believe that the US government would actually engage in something on the scale of 9/11 against its own citizens.
Clinton had already used terrorism and crime as excuses to launch an assault on civil liberties in the US. The disgraceful Patriot Act would probably have been pushed through even without 9/11.
I'm not quite ready to put 9/11 conspiracy theories in the same box as holocaust deniers, believers in the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion' or Flat Earthists but IMO there's ample evidence to convict Islamic terrorists of being responsible for what happened.
Mike and I watched the horror unfold on live TV with mounting disbelief and we remain convinced that the blame for what happened belongs firmly in the Al-Qaida court.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 21, 2012 23:57:22 GMT
hunny and jumbo - The good guys are the Republicans. The bad guys are the Democrats. How could you possibly get mixed up so badly? Hard to believe.
The whole 9/11 conspiracy thing is beyond ridiculous. The only way you could make that claim with a straight face is if you are a professional comedian. It is definitely laughable and good comedy but to take it seriously is really silly in the extreme.
Lin I don't know why you wouldn't put 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the same box with holocaust deniers because that's where they belong. They are nuttier than a fruitcake.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Feb 22, 2012 0:18:09 GMT
hunny and jumbo - The good guys are the Republicans. The bad guys are the Democrats. How could you possibly get mixed up so badly? Hard to believe. The whole 9/11 conspiracy thing is beyond ridiculous. The only way you could make that claim with a straight face is if you are a professional comedian. It is definitely laughable and good comedy but to take it seriously is really silly in the extreme. Lin I don't know why you wouldn't put 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the same box with holocaust deniers because that's where they belong. They are nuttier than a fruitcake.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Feb 22, 2012 0:22:01 GMT
I don't think anyone denies that intelligence agencies throughout the world (perhaps particularly the CIA and KGB) have carried out or at least assisted in a number of 'black' operations which have included actual terrorism and murder. On the other hand, I still can't quite bring myself to believe that the US government would actually engage in something on the scale of 9/11 against its own citizens. Clinton had already used terrorism and crime as excuses to launch an assault on civil liberties in the US. The disgraceful Patriot Act would probably have been pushed through even without 9/11. I'm not quite ready to put 9/11 conspiracy theories in the same box as holocaust deniers, believers in the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion' or Flat Earthists but IMO there's ample evidence to convict Islamic terrorists of being responsible for what happened. Mike and I watched the horror unfold on live TV with mounting disbelief and we remain convinced that the blame for what happened belongs firmly in the Al-Qaida court. Yeah, I limit myself from actually saying I believe our Government partook in an attack upon it's citizens. I don't want to believe it. That doesn't make it any less true or false....
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 22, 2012 21:06:57 GMT
But I still think the evidence is clear that we either "wagged the dog" or allowed an incident to occur so we could enact our "pre-emptive warring doctrine" Hi Hunny. I agree with you about the wagging of the dog. I think that happens more than we would like to think and it's certainly not limited to the USA. I think there were plans to let something happen. But not this. Not planes into the towers. They ab/used the tragedy to get their wars and other wants, the whole world was manipulated on the back of it. It just saved them having to introduce their own ideas. But it was real, alright. The conspiracy didn't perpetrate the crime, it just rode in on the back of it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 22, 2012 21:38:32 GMT
I understand his opinion. Many of us simply can't believe our own government would do such a thing. Others can't believe it just out of a sense of patriotism and the idea we were brought up with that we're the good guys. So I understand that. But I still think the evidence is clear that we either "wagged the dog" or allowed an incident to occur so we could enact our "pre-emptive warring doctrine" (Paul Wolfowitz's list of the ten countries the pentagon want to "pre-emptively invade". Our military's focus has shifted from a cold war ("super-power against "superpower") to one more of "we dominate the world, let's police it". Towards that end, the Pentagon identified an area of countries it refers to as "The Core"(or "the gap") -which is essentially a circular area of countries in the middle east and northern africa, where the per capita income is below a certain level, and (or the military here says "because") we haven't forced capitalism on them yet / we don't have them under control yet. ...And yes America does think it has a god given obligation to rule the world (we called it "manifest destiny" in an earlier century, now it goes by another name, but it's the same conviction: that God put us in charge of the world. And even if 9-11 was actually a surprise attack, still, it was an amazing coincidence in timing and the perfect opportunity for us to proceed to bring the core under control. (The plan is to invade each country, post our troops there, and our factories. We got that done in Iraq, and we're working on Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea, so far. It is predicted to take time and sustained effort to accomplish. Something that frustrates the US's efforts in this is when a country develops nuclear capability. - for then they aren't a defenseless victim for the world's bully nation to order around. They could fight back. So we leave nuclear nations alone. This is why when we see one arming itself that way, we make bullshit excuses to try and stop it. ..A good example of this nonsense is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, while Pakistan has been a harbor for our identified enemies and would have been a more logical target in response to attack, BUT Pakistan has nukes. ..So we invade where we can score some oil and get away with it instead. ..Because we weren't fighting "terrorism" at all. We were expanding our empire into the last area not yet under our control. That's why we then started saying crap about Iran and North Korea too - because they are on the list. (and again, neither of those countries has anything to do with 9-11). It's hard not to see the dots and connect them. The US isn't fighting Al Qeida. The US is finishing its world conquest. By friendship, or by force, it wants the whole world under its lead. And it is close to having accomplished that too. ..And the American government convinced a lot of its populace of some key lies along the way of its "terrorist war"(that Hussein had something to do with 9-11, for example; and so that invading Iraq was about 9-11 .. but it wasn't.) That lie was believed a decade ago when everyone was in shock and of course supportive of their own country. Bush had 64% of us totally convinced that Al Qeida lived in Baghdad, just because he said so. (but there wasn't a single one of them there, and the administration knew this). The effectiveness of government lies lessens over time though. In time, much came to light, and the lie about this fell apart. Now it would be hard to find anyone who thinks Iraq did 9-11. *SOURCES. I'll list one. The Pentagon allows its staff to discuss this on C-SPAN. If you really wanted to, you could back-order some of the programming aired and vet the information yourself. Look specifically for a presentation given by their strategy advisor in 2004. the invasion of iraq was planned in 1997 by wolfowitz, rumsfeld, kristol, cheney, et al when they hallucinated the project for a new american century. iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism whatsoever. the fact is that there were NO terrorists in iraq until we let them in. sadaam hated them more than we do. the goal is set out in plain black and white. google pnac and read it in their own words. the idea is u.s. control of the world, beginning in the middle east. 9-11 had absolutely NOTHING to do with it in any way, shape, or form
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 23, 2012 1:41:19 GMT
For my money, GW Bush was our best President since Abraham Lincoln. Unlike Bill Clinton, he had a compass and knew what to do without first taking an overnight poll. He made correct but tough decisions to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. No question that those were the right things to do. The weapons of mass destruction issue was a red herring. The real reason for going into Iraq can be found in the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine -- if you harbor or support terrorists, you are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Bush said, ""There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win.” I’m sure you know that Saddam was routinely making payments of $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers including those who blew up school busses. Saddam harbored and sponsored terrorists. He also had the worlds fourth largest military. He’s been removed as a threat thanks to GW Busn. The media got ahold of WMDs and amplified that to the maximum. The Bush Doctrine was more or less forgotten. But I believe that was why we went into Iraq, not WMDs. Saddam's Iraq was viewed as a rogue nation where terrorists could find safe harbor and financial aid. That made Iraq America's enemy according to the doctrine. The perception that America went into Iraq to get her oil is patently ridiculous. If anything, the US government is a ball and chain around the petroleum industry's ankle. Just ask BP. The companies are not permitted to do business with Iran. Government restricts their domestic oil exploration activities. The oil companies certainly don't think our government gives a damn about them or their interests. It's only the Muslims who think that. Saddam Hussein supplied financial support, training and shelter for an array of deadly terrorist organizations right up until the onset of the Iraq war, including such notorious groups as Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, the Palestinian Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Liberation Front, according to a comprehensive report released by the Hudson Institute. Titled "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror," the report details the role played by terrorists supported by Saddam's regime in an array of infamous attacks that have killed hundreds of American citizens both inside and outside the U.S. before and after the Sept. 11 attacks - including the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Palestinian Intifada. Compiled by Deroy Murdock, a Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax, Va., and columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, the report chronicles Saddam's support for: Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six New Yorkers and injured over 1,000. Yasin fled to Baghdad after the attack, where he was given sanctuary and lived for years afterward. Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad last April and was taken into custody by U.S. Marines. Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death in his state-supplied home. Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last week. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Al Zarqawi is still at large. Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. Bojinka was later adopted by Yousef's cousin Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the blueprint for the Sept. 11 attacks. Arrested in Pakistan in 1995, Yousef is currently serving a triple life sentence in Colorado's Supermax federal lockup. Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis. After Saddam announced his Intifada reward plan, 28 Palestinian homicide bombers killed 211 Israelis in attacks that also killed 12 Americans. A total of 1,209 people were injured. For more details on Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of the terrorist networks that killed hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens, go to: www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdfAbu Nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin were residents in Iraq. Saddam was harboring them. Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis. Those two items alone put Saddam at odds with the Bush Doctrine. He was clearly harboring and funding terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Feb 23, 2012 1:59:21 GMT
Uh...except there was few terrorist in iraq until american invasion. Now what a mess and soon civil war. Finally america will quit afghanistan and taliban will take it.
If iraq was not for wmd why bush lied about it so many times? In think he was not good leader he was war criminal. Every body outside america thot that he will start world war.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 23, 2012 10:49:29 GMT
Interesting post, BA. Very informative. Thanks.
To a certain point, it almost doesn't matter whether it was ''wmd'', ''oil'' or ''terrorism'' that prompted America (& the UK) (and thus the world) to engage in an unwinnable war. The dreadful part of it is that the majority of the public were utterly confused and misled about the reasons for it. That's unforgivable!
Don't blame the media. For all their sins, and there are many, the politicians of the day had the power to explain fully and understandably the reasons for a war. They didn't. They didn't because it was complicated, and because the public would not have agreed to it.
I was against the war at the time it started. I don't like it now either. Actually, I've always been in 2 minds about it, but the lies and the game playing put me on the Anti-war side of the fence. If it was honestly a necessity, they wouldn't have needed all that double-talk.
And if it wasn't an absolute necessity...well, shame on them. So many deaths.... unthinkable.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 23, 2012 11:16:21 GMT
Just as an aside, for those interested, here's an enjoyable debate between the two Hitchens brothers; Christopher [liberal, anti-theist, pro-Iraq-war] and Peter [conservative, christian, anti-Iraq-war].
It starts on the topic of Iraq, and the second half is about religion.
Apart from the obvious joy of seeing two articulate, intelligent, well-educated brothers debating, there is the added joy of their polar-opposite positions on just about everything.
Most peculiarly, Christopher's past would point to him being against the Iraq invasion, whilst everything in Peter's philosophy points to a pro-invasion stance. How did they end up so topsy-turvy?
If my brain was intelligent, articulate and erudite, this debate would be what you would hear when you listened in.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 23, 2012 14:31:28 GMT
I WAS going to marshall some arguments against these conspiracy idiots, but on reflection it would be a waste of time. You cannot debate with naive idiots, and there does seem to be a lot of them about these days.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Feb 23, 2012 15:08:17 GMT
I WAS going to marshall some arguments against these conspiracy idiots, but on reflection it would be a waste of time. You cannot debate with naive idiots, and there does seem to be a lot of them about these days. I sure those idiots are thankful you took the time to stop by. Maybe next time you could share a worthy thought that consists of more then your ability just to insult.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 23, 2012 23:07:21 GMT
Interesting post, BA. Very informative. Thanks. To a certain point, it almost doesn't matter whether it was ''wmd'', ''oil'' or ''terrorism'' that prompted America (& the UK) (and thus the world) to engage in an unwinnable war. The dreadful part of it is that the majority of the public were utterly confused and misled about the reasons for it. That's unforgivable! Don't blame the media. For all their sins, and there are many, the politicians of the day had the power to explain fully and understandably the reasons for a war. They didn't. They didn't because it was complicated, and because the public would not have agreed to it. I was against the war at the time it started. I don't like it now either. Actually, I've always been in 2 minds about it, but the lies and the game playing put me on the Anti-war side of the fence. If it was honestly a necessity, they wouldn't have needed all that double-talk. And if it wasn't an absolute necessity...well, shame on them. So many deaths.... unthinkable. To the contrary Trubble, I think George W Bush did a great job of explaining the reasons for the Iraq war. He did it up front. He made speeches about it. All you have to do is Google for 'Bush Doctrine' to get the details. The problem was, and is, that the so-called mainstream media (NY Times, BBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, PBS, etc.) are in the pocket of our Democrats or Bush's political opponents. Those media outlets pretty much ignored the Bush Doctrine and focused instead on WMD's. I always believed the WMD argument was just an after thought or added justification when it was brought up. Bush was one of our greatest Presidents but he failed to learn the first principle of political warfare which is: "Leave no shot unanswered." He tried to ignore the looney left-wing media and that wasn't the right thing to do. It cost him in the popularity polls. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was an awful President but he really did know how to work the media. He had a permanent staff of lapdogs like Lanny Davis and the reptilian James Carville who he dispatched almost nightly to the TV networks to put a positive spin and justify his many failures. He had a permanent staff of spin doctors. Bush didn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Feb 23, 2012 23:21:39 GMT
Why bush need to have staff to do it fox news did for him.
|
|