|
Post by mank on Apr 20, 2009 23:43:57 GMT 3
job, Meanwhile, the message and philosophy of Rasta is primarily about truth, social justice, chanting down Babylon etc. I find it much more disturbing to see it misused.Hi Wanyee, I have been rather removed from blogsphere recently, hence my scarcity on this thread. I have taken a few minutes to look through, and thought that at last there is probably some lead from you, which I wish to catch on. But only then, I caught the above quoted paragraph that I would like you to clarify for me. Who is misusing the message and philosophy of Rasta and where? Does the quoted thought relate with this Obama Deception?
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 21, 2009 3:55:32 GMT 3
.......... mank, You are still talking about “conspiracy theories”, while avoiding the simple question that I previously asked you: do you think that 9/11 was an inside-job or not? Please answer the question. There is a definitely direction here my friend. Meanwhile, the message and philosophy of Rasta is primarily about truth, social justice, chanting down Babylon etc. I find it much more disturbing to see it misused. Wanyee, My honest answer to your pointed question is that I am not sure ... I can speculate like this: if a person or party of persons would gain from a certain occurrence, it would like to see that event occur ... when it has the ability to cause the event, it very well might go ahead and cause it. However, people have multiple and often conflicting objectives. If some of those objectives could be jeopardized by the occurrence of the event (introduced above), then the person or group may abstain from causing the event even though they could gain in one way. The first time I heard the theory that Sept 11 event was caused by a government I thought it was ridiculous. After I realized that certain system gained a lot from the event, I decided it was not that absurd after all - because if the potential beneficiaries could foresee their gains in the event, they could have the incentive enough to cause it. Yet, its not in me to believe that a group of people in government could simply sign on the kind of plan that would become the 9/11 tragedy. Its not a trivial question for me, and if you make it a binomial choice question I disagree with the idea that it was an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 21, 2009 23:56:21 GMT 3
Wanyee,When you argue weighty topics, be prepared to give more detailed and convincing input and rebuttals to your claim/point in your own words – not just throwing links and videos. These are just civil/good rules or requirements for debate. Let’s start by saying one can actually postulate a hypothesis that ‘ there are no terrorist activities in this world’, and that ‘ all purported acts of terrorism are conspiracies by Zionists to portray Islamic faithful and Arabs as dangerous folks who should only be dealt with using ballistics’. One can then easily explain away each single act labeled as a - terrorist activity- using the same conspiracy hypothesis/argument. There would therefore be no real acts of terrorism - only inside jobs. Plane hijackings, Embassy bombings, Targeted premise (eg restaurant) bombings, Naval vessel bombings, Twin Tower bombings etc all can then be argued to have been inside jobs if we opt for an easy conspiracist approach. That’s very simple to argue, and actually persuasive to any imaginative mind. But then take it from me that there are also equally strong compelling arguments of existence of vengeful and radical fanatics who don’t take defeat/aggression/disrespect lightly. The truth is that there are good arguments showing that terrorists do exist and terrorist acts are real. Folks have confessed, and some have been caught in the act with bombs waiting to detonate. In short, there’s two sides to this 911 coin, one more mainstream and another still not.You definitely know there are compelling arguments that either support or disapprove the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Neither side can be established to be absolutely beyond any reasonable doubt. But of course one side is generally more accepted and that is – 911 was a terrorist act by Al Qaeda which in fact claimed responsibility. Just go to Wikipedia or google up 911 conspiracy theories and hundreds of links either in support of or disapproving will pop up and each side gives versions of ‘proven facts’. Therefore your sweeping claim (that 911 was an inside job) is; no established fact, remains unproven, and is just a claim, period!!! Kwa hivyo there’s no need to get excited over these non-mainstream theories. I’m neither suggesting that mainstream media is not selective, it is in fact selective and biased, but I can assure you there’s mainstream media on extreme sides that cover factual stories in the headlines – both to the left and to the right in all countries of the world. This one conspiracy has not passed the test for mainstream media in the U.S. and many OTHER countries. Even the reviews in Europe where ‘the’ conspiracies got some coverage dispelled most of the allegations with equally strong rebuttals. In short, the mainstream account of 911 satisfactorily still stands - it was Al-Qaeda operating/plotting/coordinating from Afghanistan!!! That mainstream account which I stand with, collides head on with your argument. You may have a point when specifically discussing false pretext for the Iraq war (not Afghanistan). However, the context is quite different since the Bush administration in its wisdom or lack thereof, failed to convince even children that there was a tie between 911 and the war in Iraq yet their glaring motivation to invade Iraq was evidently visible. The war in Iraq was about a few things by the Bush-Cheney neocon administration WITH NO JUSTIFIABLE WAR TRIGGER; (a) forcefully changing Iraq’s old Saddam Hussein regime (he was not yielding anymore to the neocons), (b) ransacking for any presence of WMDs (Israel’s security agenda), (c) accessing Iraq oil by U.S. big oil represented by Bush-Cheney, and (d) opening up Iraqi market to American goods and services; period! Absolutely no connection to 911. So whereas the U.S military-industrial complex was a motivating factor in Iraq's invasion, no tie to 911 was demonstrable. In this modern world, the Bush-Cheney-neocon aggression was easily perceived for what it was - primitive display of the proverbial big bully forcefully grabbing a smaller kid's candy.(Just the way Museveni is trying to forcefully grab Migingo Island from Kenya in broad daylight). In a nutshell Iraq was a stupid war whose deceitful justification could be discerned even by a toddler.On the other hand, Afghanistan war was a different ball of wax. There was an easy deceitful cover and justification for it - in a populist hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorists hidden in the rugged Afghan/Pakistan border.
That was an easier sell because most Americans were, and still are convinced that 911 was a genuine terrorist act. There's a poll which actually depicted this (i may look for it later if neccessary)But of course, I’ll not deny there was also ADDITIONAL covert agenda in going to Afghanistan; (a) changing the Taliban regime, (b) accessing the strategic Eurasian corridor, and (c) opening their market to America. We can debate this another time, on whether the need to hunt Al-Qaeda terrorists (who claimed responsibility for 911 attacks) was compelling enough to send big military response to Afghanistan. Of course I can predict your argument will be simple; that 911 was an inside job, there was therefore no 911 ties to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan thus no need for a military hunt. The question is – suppose in a millionth chance that Al Qaeda was responsible for 911? Would there be justification for that war? I won't hold my breath waiting for your rebuttal on this, because I predict it may be another link to a conspiracy website or video. Now coming to movies and documentaries such as the one you posted here via youtube clips, anyone can make these my friend. A simple documentary is no license to claim of authority on any given subject. As a matter of fact many documentary films are actually propaganda ‘block-busters’. There’s need to carefully sift through what one watches before anyone starts believing and spreading propaganda unwittingly. The one you post here ‘THE OBAMA DECEPTION’ is a third rated propaganda film that can hardly attract any mainstream attention worthy of even mention or serious review.If I’ll be honest with you - it is such a washed-up, faded, right wing propaganda filled with so many factual errors and lies that it actually defeats the purpose or credibility of your argument. I will make very little effort to pop the bubble of lies in it. In the 10th clip, at the 8th minute onwards, the movie brings us to familiar territory - Kenya. It is discussing none other than the so called ‘Obama cousin’ Raila Odinga. You asked for factual errors? It authoritatively (of course wrongly) alleges that Odinga’s son is called Raul, when we know that was probably an unresearched error intended for Fidel. It also factually errs in insinuating that Raila named his daughter Winnie Madikizela Mandela (the video calls her a political assassin) after the latter’s court case for conspiracy in lynching of supporters of political opponents. Raila was simply naming his daughter after a woman whose struggles he adored and identified with many years before those alleged activities or charges even came up. Isn’t your movie beginning to look more obvious as a mind-influencing propaganda block-buster? The video then charges on that ‘Odinga is a CIA destabilizing operation in Kenya’. I welcome debate with you to debunk this charge and my position will be obvious – it was in fact the CIA that connived with the incumbent government and Kenyan security to deny Raila a chance to be sworn in as President of Kenya after a clear electoral victory in 2007.The video propaganda continues with an outrageous claim that Raila has an ‘Odinga Islamic Alliance’ to ‘crush Christians in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Congo, Tanzania and other countries in the region’. Is that believable to you? Is this surely the quality of material making up this ‘Obama Deception’ movie? Isn’t Raila not a Christian – if I may add, recently born again? That anti-Islamist propaganda which was peddled by PNU in Kenya’s last election is something you know VERY WELL was not even an authentic PNU language. This was a foreign acquisition from you-know-who. It was choreographed language clearly baked in the oven of ‘security cooperation’ in the so called counter-terrorism bull.shit between Kibaki’s makachero CID/Police/AP/GSU/NSIS and the Muslim-rendition-busy Ranneberger fellows who rendered Kenyan Islamic faith citizens into foreign jelas for torture. That’s the paradox of the earlier claim that Raila is a CIA operative. Who buys that? The Ranneberger fellas were in fact mad at ( & fighting) Raila for simply standing up for the rights of his fellow countrymen and women of Islamic faith who were being sent to foreign jelas for torture in the name of ‘security operations’. Remember the NAMLEF MOU with Muslim human rights activists? eh? I don’t need to continue exposing the un-researched, factually inaccurate, erroneous and easily discernible propaganda from this flick of yours which paradoxically has all fingerprints of the same surreptitious Ranneberger agents. Enough of that third rated flick.Generally - I’ll not attempt to label your position regarding Obama but frankly, it is important to discuss certain trends so far I’ve observed. I‘ve noted that there are actually some pragmatic critics of Obama who for one reason or another accuse him of wavering on his promised campaign agenda which was fairly progressive (relative to previous U.S. Presidents). For instance folks who genuinely call him out for pardoning Bush administration and CIA officials who tortured terrorism suspects against U.S. and international law. If Obama stood for what he campaigned for, he should have prosecuted these violators of law. You see my friend, that’s genuine criticism.Then we have folks coming with heavy doses of cynicism.You know that cynicism is the attitude of scornful negativity, especially a general distrust of the ‘professed’ motives of others. Some Obama critics are frankly just cynical faultfinders who will quickly apportion IMAGINARY flaws on him. They contemptuously display mockery of his motives as president (for instance, ati he wants to save the world) and even mock his success at winning the Presidency in the first place. Many ‘rednecks’ fall in this category and they only expect the worst from Obama, nothing positive. They contemptuously dismiss any rational support for Obama as nothing but mania from simpletons and the gullible. Then another group of Obama critics consists of the idealists. Unfortunately, Idealism tends toward dogmatism - fixed ideas without regard to how things actually are. That's how idealism can be a bad thing because it makes folks start believing that this world must absolutely be about truisms, justice, peace, happiness and nothing about materialism, militarism, capitalism and such. Some folks can’t stop imagining a fantasy post-Obama Utopian society where things are nicer, safer, cleaner, or friendlier. Where there’s perpetual peace, no disease, no poverty, no homelessness, no hate, and where there’s virtual enjoyment and freedom for everybody. But then, as Adongo already stated previously, Obama was not elected on a campaign platform to rid this world of materials, wealth, armies, and capitalism. He would never have had a hell of a chance to win if that’s what he said he stood for. Obama never pretended to run on an idealist platform. He was cautious enough to stand for pragmatism and realism. He even dismissed ideologues of any variety (whether in the extreme right or extreme left). He never promised to abolish the military or grant absolute peace to the world or try anything he wouldn’t do. Just why some idealists and dogmatists believe that was the mission for Obama’s presidential run is only known to them.Of course, then comes the elderly granny or grampa in Alego, Kogelo who also has her/his own prescribed idea of what an Obama Presidency SHOULD mean to her/him and Kogelo village. Do I need to say what kind of fantastic imaginations they have in mind? As you can see, there’s a mixed gunia containing a varied cocktail of expectations from Obama, very many of which you very well know to be impractical and unrealistic. I mean folks from all continents trying to set Obama's agenda and trying to hold him to never-been-heard-of standards. There’s a healthy dose of blind faith in rational self interest being respectively exhibited by all manners of individuals - even among Obama critics. Having said that, let’s stick to reality, pragmatism, and practical objectivity. Apparently swayed by the deliberately misleading (propagandist) title of your filo - "The Obama Deception", you went along to also title this thread, the Obama deception.
Now in your own words (forget the flick, links, conspiracy websites et al.,), just in your own plain language, can you lay out your own factual argument and proof of Obama's deception? I welcome that debate and will respect your views, but of course I'll dismiss any propagandist links and videos.
Deception basically means a lie. From my vantage as a taxpayer in the U.S. who’s experienced first-hand effects of the global financial meltdown created by the flawed philosophy of deregulation (perpetuated by the previous Bush administration), Obama is no lie. He is actually a performing peoples President. Stabilizing the U.S. housing market, freeing credit so people could get loans (business, car, home, kids college tuition, etc) and creating more jobs. These are not mere academic and theoretical issues for debate but in fact mundane real life issues that constitute no lie or deception. I’m convinced and started feeling that Obama’s taking the right steps to fix the economy, healthcare system, education system, and even wean the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil (the real reason for foreign meddling and wars). These are multiple tasks that all contribute to my overall assessment of his performance – not a single issue like stopping a single war in Afghanistan. I already know he is stopping one war – the damn one, in Iraq.Obama will of course NOT solve all of America’s and World problems. Nobody should ever think he could. I will also not stop people (U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike) from creating ‘real’ or ‘fantasy’ agendas that Obama should supposedly prioritize, as I alluded above. Everyone is free to push their own interests forth, on which Obama should prioritize, even if they are bizarre or not (stopping all global wars, resettling indigenous communities, ridding the world of Titanium mining, curbing global warming, agreeing that 9-11 was an inside job, or whichever one thinks is a priority). The reality is that Obama works for certain interests first, which happen to be American. And that can of course create other conflicts with non-American interests. This should be pretty much obvious unless we are mixed up in our own imagined worlds. Within the American context - from his humble start as a total outsider and grassroots community organizer, Obama fought a real political battle with well known puppets of the big oil and Wall Street elite, like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Those contests were actually real, if you happened to have participated in the process you can actually attest to this reality. But no one can be stopped from BELIEVING that Obama is a hidden puppet of Godzilla or even just one big lie. There’s a book: Just How Stupid are We? by Rick Shenkman. In it is a famous quote by John F Kennedy; "The enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinions without the discomfort of thought". Some people believe in lies, others believe in myths and fantastic conspiracies. I don’t know which ones tend to be juicier but Kennedy thought myths are the biggest enemies of the truth because they are precisely PERSISTENT, PERSUASIVE & UNREALISTIC. What a wise man this Kennedy was, (ironically his death is still thought by many to still be a myth - refusing to yield in the truth). Lies can be debunked, conspiracies and theories can be contested, but all I can say is that Obama will still be President and change will come (whether good or bad). Obama himself says he will make mistakes and will fail in certain actions. Who is oblivious to that?Some can be accused of having blind faith in Obama bringing absolute change(s). Others can equally be accused of having blind faith in myths such as ‘Obama is a puppet planted to finish the world’. What’s the difference? These are all extreme believers. One is free to choose whether to judge Obama either for his ACTUAL, or MYTHOLOGIC deeds. That’s everybody’s right to opinion and free speech.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 22, 2009 6:07:02 GMT 3
Its really strange that Wanyee is buying into this Obama deception thing - but perhaps if he presented his logic it would sound less strange.
The folks pleading to the world that Obama is a puppet of an evil empire first pleaded that he be denied the right to vie for presidency. They used the same literature they now put in this deception theory (similar rubbish disguised as news at Fox TV). I wonder whether they expect to address a totally new audience, or why they would not at least develop new deception aids now that they have changed strategy.
They claimed then that Obama could not legally vie for presidency in the US because he was born in Kenya ... .that indeed Obama's grandmother had admitted having been in the delivery room in Kisumu.. . parts in these links, like the Obama/Raila/Islam connection, have been extracted in whole as they were used in the first mission. Its so ridiculous. ... they did not say then that Obama was being recruited by the evil empire that dominates the world.
Now Wanyee, if these folks have any point they better take out the stupid from their presentation. For example, do you really believe that global warming is a fraud, meticulously planned by the evil bankers and put into the hands of Al Gore to deliver to the world? I happen to have noticed the ongoing disappearance of glacier from the top of Mt. Kenya long before I heard of the global warming concept.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Apr 23, 2009 2:54:51 GMT 3
So?! So, what's up here? Where is Wanyee?? Wanyee's gotta come now!!
Ndugu, you still there???
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Apr 23, 2009 3:05:45 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 23, 2009 4:37:14 GMT 3
Wanyee,
Kindly note that non-scientific polls are quite subjective and unreliable.
Then also take into consideration geographic / cultural/ political/ ideological variations in opinion regarding this subject.
Courtesy of basic Wikipedia search
ALL SCIENTIFIC POLLS:
Zogby poll – May 2006 “ Was there U.S. government cover-up regarding 9-11 attacks” • Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
New York Times / CBS News polls
"When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
• May 2002 responses: 21% said "telling the truth", 65% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 8% said they are "mostly lying", 6% not sure.
• 3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", 58% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 14% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
• 4/8/04 CBS 21% said "telling the truth", 66% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 10% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
• 4/23-27/04 24% said "telling the truth", 56% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 16% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
• Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 28% said they are "mostly lying", 3% not sure.
Scripps Howard polls
A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent. It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true.
"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them". • 59% "not likely" • 20% "somewhat likely" • 16% "very likely"
"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings". • 77% "unlikely" • 10% "somewhat likely" • 6% "very likely"[13]
"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists". • 80% "not likely" • 6% "somewhat likely" • 6% "very likely"[14]
Canada
In September 2006 an Ipsos-Reid poll found that ONLY 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."
A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39% of respondents either disagree or are unsure that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the United States Government allowed the attacks to happen and 16% believe the U. S. government made the attacks happen.
Mexico
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 33% of respondents in Mexico believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 30% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 18% named another country. 19% said they did not know.
United Kingdom
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 57% of respondents in the United Kingdom believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 5% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 12% named another country. 26% said they did not know.
Germany
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 64% of respondents in Germany believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 23% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 2% named another country. 9% said they did not know.
A September 11, 2008 poll in Germany by the Heise media house found that 58% of respondents believe that the U.S. government was behind the attacks. Only 12% believe that Al Qaeda were responsible.
France
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 63% of respondents in France believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 8% said the U.S. government were responsible and 7% named another country. 23% said they did not know.
Italy
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 56% of respondents in Italy believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 15% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 7% named another country. 21% said they did not know.
Turkey
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 39% of respondents in Turkey believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 36% said the U.S. government were responsible, 3% said Israel and 1% named another country. 21% said they did not know.
Russia
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 57% of respondents in Russia believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 15% said the U.S. government were responsible, 2% said Israel and 6% named another country. 19% said they did not know.
A poll placed on the website of Russia on September 11, 2008 found that 88% of respondents felt that the 9/11 Commission deliberately hid the truth from their report. Only 12% felt that they "did a great job collecting evidence".
Ukraine
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 42% of respondents in the Ukraine believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 15% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 5% named another country. 39% said they did not know.
Finland
A September 11, 2008 poll in Finland found that 37% of respondents believe that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, with 44% believing that Al Qaeda were responsible. 5% said they thought Israel was responsible, while 13% said they didn't know.
China
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 32% of respondents in China believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 9% said the U.S. government were responsible and 3% named another country. 56% said they did not know.
Taiwan
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 53% of respondents in Taiwan believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 4% said the U.S. government were responsible and 10% named another country. 34% said they did not know.
South Korea
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 51% of respondents in South Korea believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 17% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 9% named another country. 22% said they did not know.
Indonesia
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 23% of respondents in Indonesia believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 14% said the U.S. government were responsible, 5% said Israel and 1% named another country. 57% said they did not know.
India
A poll conducted by CNN-IBN in August 2007 found that only 2 out of 5 of those polled in India believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Pakistan
A poll conducted by CNN-IBN in August 2007 found that only 1 in 20 of those polled in Pakistan believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Palestinian Territories
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 42% of respondents in the Palestinian Territories believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 27% said the U.S. government were responsible, 19% said Israel and 9% named another country. 3% said they did not know.
Egypt
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 16% of respondents in Egypt believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 12% said the U.S. government were responsible, 43% said Israel and 11% named another country. 18% said they did not know.
Jordan
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 11% of respondents in Jordan believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 17% said the U.S. government were responsible, 31% said Israel and 4% named another country. 36% said they did not know.
Kenya
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 77% of respondents in Kenya believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 4% said the U.S. government were responsible, 3% said Israel and 3% named another country. 12% said they did not know.
Nigeria
The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 71% of respondents in Nigeria believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 7% said the U.S. government were responsible, 2% said Israel and 6% named another country. 14% said they did not know.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Apr 24, 2009 2:54:30 GMT 3
Job, Thank you for your responses so far. The following information is from the Zogby poll that you are referring to: --- World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes? I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse = 43% I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it = 38% I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse = 14% Neither/Not sure = 5% Source: www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006 --- I have already posted the following list of 9/11 facts, and the collapse of building 7 is also included among them (i.e #3). How can we explain this? Why was this building not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? What about fact #2, where Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum is defied? --- 1. William Rodriguez, the hero of 9/11 and last man out of the North Tower on September the 11th, witnessed massive explosions in the basement of the tower right before the first plane hit. 2. WTC #1 & #2 fell at near free fall speed and everything was pulverized into dust. The explanation known as the "pancake theory" fails to answer why undamaged floors offered no resistance as the collapse unfolded, violating the Law of Conservation of Momentum. 3. WTC building #7, a 47 storey steel framed building that was not hit by a plane, collapsed vertically in 6.5 seconds, much like a controlled demolition. Many important files relating to the Enron and MCI WorldCom investigations were lost in the collapse. Why was this building not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? 4. Why was it never explained what caused so much steel to turn into molten metal below WTC buildings #1, #2, and #7? 5. Wargames were held on the morning of September 11th, which included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? 6. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand by the US Military "Able Danger" program. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence. 7. Unidentified insiders made millions the week leading up to 9/11 when an extremely high number of "PUT options" were placed specifically on American and United Airlines indicating someone knew these stocks would soon decrease in value. 8. Pakistani ISI Agent, Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "Al-Qaeda"), wired $100,000 on Sept. 10th to Mohammed Atta at the instruction of Mohmoud Ahmad, the head of the ISI. This again was ignored by the 9/11 investigation. 9. Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration created plans in the late 1900s as members of the "Project for a New American Century", stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change". In their documentation, they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda and that the transition would be slow one "absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbour!" 10. In order to "reopen Wall street" the Bush administration censored crucial EPA and NTC Health Department warnings that the air after 9/11 was highly poisonous. Out of the 20,000 workers tested, 70% reported to have respiratory problems. While the dogs that worked at ground zero continue to die from mysterious cancers that are said to be unrelated. 11. "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) owns everyone of any significance in the major media." – William Colbey, former director of the CIA. (Source: truthaction.org/)--- Meanwhile, the following is a “Zogby” (scientific) poll that I came across: - Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion How will the Bush Cabal react? / Prisonplanet.com | October 14 2006 A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation. It has only take five years for MORE Americans to wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job on behalf of the Neoconservative crime syndicate within the US. Reference to past polls show that in the last five years there has been an explosion in numbers of those who do not buy the official line. In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers believed there was a cover up. In May of this year another Zogby poll indicated that around half of ALL Americans did not buy the official story. The latest poll also shows a massive awakening has occurred recently given that previous estimates indicated that around 34% still believed the official story and around 30% were oblivious altogether. Alex Jones declared that the Truth movement has cause to celebrate this evening as it is now beyond any doubt that the vast majority of Americans know that the official story of 19 Saudis with box cutters is ludicrous. The diligence of those who have worked to educate the world on 9/11 truth from day one cannot be underestimated. We are now seeing the fruits of this hard and at times extremely trying labor hit home. We would add that although this is a major victory for the truth movement it does not mean that the hard work can stop. The next step is to use the majority opinion as leverage towards officially changing the record of what happened on 9/11, forcing the mainstream media into addressing the issue, not as a quirky news item, but as a serious re-defining of the state of the nation and the world today. We have not taken the country back yet and the cabal that has taken control of the government continues to systematically use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse to destroy the Constitutional foundations of law and order in America. As it becomes clearer that more and more Americans KNOW that their government is lying to them on the most fundamental issue of their lifetimes, we must consider what kind of reaction the government will undertake. Remember that the majority of American voters now believe the Sept. 11 terrorist attack was a more significant historical event than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In July 2001 Alex jones issued an emergency warning that there was going to be a massive false flag terrorist attack in New York to be blamed on Osama Bin Laden. At that time there was not enough activism among the population to prevent it going ahead. In August of 2006 Alex Jones issued a second emergency warning that all the factors pointed towards an imminent attack. The activism that occurred in the wake of this warning and that of others was exponential and may indeed have helped stave off another attack. Our next warning is this, desperate times call for desperate measures. The criminal elements of the government now know that they have been totally exposed and are reviled by the majority of free thinking Americans. Will their response be to vamp up the crack down on that free thinking itself? In essence Americans have outright REJECTED giving up their liberty for security in the wake of 9/11. The only security IS liberty itself, and the only way to stay secure is to constantly defend liberty. Global Research Articles by Steve Watson Global Research Articles by Alex Jones www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3553--- Please note that people are gradually learning about 9/11, and the numbers will therefore change. That is all for now. Thank you for your invaluable contributions on this issue – regardless. (Pardon the pun) Regards, wanyee
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 24, 2009 5:55:12 GMT 3
Wanyee,
Thanks for the polls and links - are you now ready to put some meat into your 'Obama Deception' argument? I'll be waiting.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Apr 24, 2009 7:14:28 GMT 3
Wanyee, Thanks for the polls and links - are you now ready to put some meat into your 'Obama Deception' argument? I'll be waiting. Dont hold your Oh-2 intake
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Apr 29, 2009 23:52:17 GMT 3
Job, politicalmaniac et al, Let me start by reminding you that there are hundreds of families who lost their loved ones (http://www.911independentcommission.org/index.html). And as you continue compromising your own selves, for whatever reasons, please try to show some respect and consideration for them. You are not accomplishing anything by throwing water on my postings. In the same vein, always remember that I am not here to live up to your expectations, but for the sake of those who truly benefit from the information (incl. “links”) that I post. Jukwaa has several hundred members, and I am certain that there are those who benefit from this information (incl. “links”). I know they are out there, reading, and learning... Meanwhile, I can / will post whatever I think is necessary to put the point across, even if they are simply “links”. That does / will not invalidate my argument. Like I said before, “Wanjiku does not have to provide original comments to have a valid argument. Waving a piece of incriminating evidence may suffice.” Therefore, I will repeat myself (and repost the same information), if necessary. Again, throwing water on my posts does / will not invalidate my arguments, nor get you anywhere. In fact, it only betrays your lack of objectivity. I can live with that, even for the sake of a single sincere member of this forum. For instance, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC Complex? Previously posted above (i.e the “meat” you refuse to even taste): --- World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes? I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse = 43% I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it = 38% I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse = 14% Neither/Not sure = 5% Source: www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006 --- Once again, I have already posted the following list of 9/11 facts, and the collapse of building 7 is also included among them (i.e #3). How can we explain this? Why was this building not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? What about fact #2, where Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum is defied? --- 1. William Rodriguez, the hero of 9/11 and last man out of the North Tower on September the 11th, witnessed massive explosions in the basement of the tower right before the first plane hit. 2. WTC #1 & #2 fell at near free fall speed and everything was pulverized into dust. The explanation known as the "pancake theory" fails to answer why undamaged floors offered no resistance as the collapse unfolded, violating the Law of Conservation of Momentum. 3. WTC building #7, a 47 storey steel framed building that was not hit by a plane, collapsed vertically in 6.5 seconds, much like a controlled demolition. Many important files relating to the Enron and MCI WorldCom investigations were lost in the collapse. Why was this building not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? 4. Why was it never explained what caused so much steel to turn into molten metal below WTC buildings #1, #2, and #7? 5. Wargames were held on the morning of September 11th, which included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? 6. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand by the US Military "Able Danger" program. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence. 7. Unidentified insiders made millions the week leading up to 9/11 when an extremely high number of "PUT options" were placed specifically on American and United Airlines indicating someone knew these stocks would soon decrease in value. 8. Pakistani ISI Agent, Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "Al-Qaeda"), wired $100,000 on Sept. 10th to Mohammed Atta at the instruction of Mohmoud Ahmad, the head of the ISI. This again was ignored by the 9/11 investigation. 9. Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration created plans in the late 1900s as members of the "Project for a New American Century", stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change". In their documentation, they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda and that the transition would be slow one "absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbour!" 10. In order to "reopen Wall street" the Bush administration censored crucial EPA and NTC Health Department warnings that the air after 9/11 was highly poisonous. Out of the 20,000 workers tested, 70% reported to have respiratory problems. While the dogs that worked at ground zero continue to die from mysterious cancers that are said to be unrelated. 11. "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) owns everyone of any significance in the major media." – William Colbey, former director of the CIA. (Source: truthaction.org/)--- And regarding Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility: The "Smoking Gun" Osama bin Laden video was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. These two images from the video show a man who we are supposed to believe is bin Laden... 911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html --- wanyee
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 30, 2009 3:17:43 GMT 3
Wanyee,
These speculations about Nine 11 have been going rounds for quite a while. They have even been in the courts. They are quite interesting, when not ridiculous (e.g. when they are not claiming that no planes hit the WTC towers).
Yet, any Obama connection in the saga seems too creative. Perhaps we are going to hear an intelligent connection of the dots from you. So far you seem only keen on the 911 stuff even though your title on the thread is something to do with Obama. So while I wish to read your point at some point, I am giving up on it.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Apr 30, 2009 17:50:11 GMT 3
Wanyee,
I still hold you in high esteem and I'm sure you can do better than your attempts thus far. In a debate, you DO NOT get pissed off by people who happen not to share your worldview. Instead, you go back to the drawing boards and come back with another (more convincing rebuttal)!
Like Man K said, your presentation so far does not tie Obama to 911! That is the juicy steak missing from your argument!
I think Job did a better job by giving his personal views. You are yet to do that.
Please, take Job's presentation paragraph for paragraph and give your rebuttal accordingly!
In case you get pissed off by someone's line of argument, please remember to breath in and out, breath in and out or just take a short walk around the block. Believe you me, you will feel better thereafter!
Ndugu, I'm sure the best of you is yet to come out! Keep it coming!!
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on May 6, 2009 2:37:35 GMT 3
Einstein et al, Einstein: I really do not know what gave you the impression that I am “pissed off” (no expletives, exclamation marks etc). Anyway… As I have repeatedly stated, 9/11 was “the foundational event and the pretext for the current geopolitical structure” (including the invasions of Iraq / Afghanistan, the introduction of the Patriot Act etc)." I have also referred to the 9/11 issue as the 'litmus test', for the simple reason that 'it draws a very fine line in the sand – to separate truth from falsehood in the context of the debate', and this is a good place to start (as some say, “9/11 is the key"). Again, “when I first challenged the Obamamania here on Jukwaa, it was with this same simple question", and I believe that the reason why some will keep arguing in the face of the supporting arguments / facts / logic, is simply because there is only one conclusion that can be drawn (as Obama or any sitting American President cannot be so blind / unaware / oblivious). Otherwise, this would imply serious incompetence. Pursuant to this, concurring with my conclusion, particularly for those of you who have emotionally invested into this sham, is akin to shooting yourselves in the foot (or should I say both feet?). I have also stated that ‘The Obama Deception’ was only released on 15th March 2009, so I do not even have to rely on it, to put my point across. I repeat, “when I first challenged the Obamamania here on Jukwaa, it was with this same simple question". In essence, what I am saying is that we can keep it simple for Wanjiku, and the “9/11 issue” will therefore suffice. My analysis was always based on this single issue, and that is why I called it a "litmus test". --- Having said that, please take a few minutes to read the following articles: Crossing the Rubicon Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney (by Michael Kane, FTW Energy Affairs Editor) www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml --- 9/11 and The New Pearl Harbor A Response to Bill Weinberg (by Michael Kane, FTW Energy Affairs Editor) www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100906_new_harbor.shtml
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 7, 2009 2:16:03 GMT 3
Hi Wanyee,
I was very energized at the top of your latest post. I thought we were getting somewhere at last.
Suppose we all agree right now that Cheney caused nine 11, per the documents you have cited. How do we move from there, to buying the "Obama Deception" argument?
I think you should make straight connections between the Cheneys/Bushes, 911s etc, and this deception theory, per your conviction, rather than expect us to infer them by reference to this literature about the Cheneys. As I said earlier, the connection seems too forced, but that could be its because I do not know what is going on in your mind.
If you bring up Cheney connections with 9-11, I might be very interested if the expectation is that we could see him thrown in jail one day ... otherwise the Cheney and Bush subject is a tired and retired one, and you are not making headways towards the alluded Obama complicity by going only so far as the Cheneys or 911s without extending to Obama role. One thing you might be getting me bought into, is watching this movie you reference. I have very low expectations, and I believe that's good way to approach the movie. Yes, I have prejudged, but that is because I am already familiar with the character of the theorists behind it.
I unreservedly denounce this characterization of yours for people like me who do not readily buy the "Obama Deception" theory. It has nothing to (do with) my investment into Obama's legacy, but everything to do with the backgrounds of what is being tauted as supporting evidence, and the people compiling it.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on May 7, 2009 5:30:22 GMT 3
Einstein et al, In essence, what I am saying is that we can keep it simple for Wanjiku, and the “9/11 issue” will therefore suffice. My analysis was always based on this single issue, and that is why I called it a "litmus test". Ndugu Wanyee,In reference to the above quote, I kindly request you to frame the topic of this thread differently. As it is, the topic is simply misleading and you yourself has agreed that you ain't got no legs to stand on with the topic as currently framed!! I think, for you to reduce the whole discussion to "Obamamania" is akin to chopping off your very own legs! And as already said above, you ain't got no feet to stand on. So where do we go from here?
|
|
|
Post by okhunyanye on May 7, 2009 20:35:56 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,In reference to the above quote, I kindly request you to frame the topic of this thread differently. Actually Wanyee has no control over how the topic is framed, as all he did was post a documentary widely available on the internet under the same topic HEREHaving watched all the twelve clips, including one not posted by Wanyee, I have come to the conclusion that this is a propaganda piece. Like all propaganda, the authors use a few known half-truths e.g. the few campaign promises that Obama has thus far failed to honor, to generalize for what the majority of the public doesn't know, all in an attempt to play on the public's psyche. This is with the full knowledge that the public, with knowledge of the half-truths, will be swayed into believing that the rest of the information being passed on in the documentary is also equally true. In light of all the unknowns being passed on in the one and a half hour documentary, one is bound to go with what one knows, and here is what I know that proves that this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory: Contrary to what is asserted by these 'experts' on slide 11/12, Odinga doesn't just have two children. To the best of my knowledge they are more than two. None of Odinga's children is called Raul. I cannot reconcile Odinga being a CIA destabilizing operation in Kenya, as alleged by the 'expert,' with Odinga having an Islamic alliance aimed at crushing christians in the east, central and horn of Africa regions (all with the full knowledge of the USA.) On a more serious note, what expertise does rapper KRS-1 have to be an authority on anything not rhyms?
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 8, 2009 2:11:03 GMT 3
okhunyanye,
What you say about this, as propaganda, is exactly what I told Wanyee at the beginning but he could not take it. The reason we continue to challenge him is that he seems to have swallowed the hook and line of the propaganda; so we want to know what is in that gets him hooked. At least that's my motivation, and I believe Einstein's would not be too far apart.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on May 17, 2009 5:00:39 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
Thank you four responses.
As guilty as Cheney might be, he is merely one of the “fall-guys”. You should know that there are MUCH bigger fish to be fried, which is the whole point behind this thread.
This brings me to Einstein’s request that I “frame the topic of this thread differently”.
I chose to use the title of Alex Jones documentary primarily because it is fitting, and I posted his documentary simply because he attempts to connect some very big dots, that are crucial to understanding the agenda of the global elite.
So Einstein, I do have legs to stand on. The same ones I have been standing since I first challenged the Obamamania, which was long before the release of “The Obama Deception”, on March 15th, 2009.
The main issue here is that they exist, and are the power behind the “throne”.
Now, I have never posited that Obama colluded with the masterminds of 9/11. What I have repeatedly said, when asked to state my hypothesis, is that he is puppet of the global elite, and that 9/11 proves it. Please do not attribute your illogical deductions to me.
How?
Well, 9/11 was an inside job, whether you accept it or not, and he is simply towing the line (RE: “War on Terror”).
As stated in ‘Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney’, “The ‘war on terror’ is actually a war for the world’s last remaining hydrocarbon reserves” (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).
That is all for now.
wanyee
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 17, 2009 19:58:07 GMT 3
Wanyee,
If we are connecting the dots, then I am interested. You already know that I am curious, and listeninig when you say 911 was an inside job. Lets dig deeper into the topic.
Who were the inside minds? How was Mohamad Atta et al pursuaded to play along? At what point was Obama pulled into the plot (per your premise)?
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on May 21, 2009 2:47:48 GMT 3
Ndugu yangu, I truly appreciate your interest on this important issue. As I wrote in my last post above, “I have never posited that Obama colluded with the masterminds of 9/11. What I have repeatedly said, when asked to state my hypothesis, is that he is puppet of the global elite, and that 9/11 proves it.” Again, it has NEVER been my premise that Obama was “pulled into the plot”. He is simply a pawn in the game. Regarding the masterminds: I also wrote in the same post above that, “as guilty as Cheney might be, he is merely one of the ‘fall-guys’…there are MUCH bigger fish to be fried, which is the whole point behind this thread.” Regarding Mohammed Atta et al (also small fish), we can start with the following article: Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks Summary Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad "was in the US when the attacks occurred." He arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. He had meetings at the State Department "after" the attacks on the WTC. But he also had "a regular visit of consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11.
What was the nature of these routine "pre-September 11 consultations"? Were they in any way related to the subsequent "post-September 11 consultations" pertaining to Pakistan's decision to cooperate with Washington. Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials?
On the 9th of September while General Ahmad was in the US, the leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush Administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination.
The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in "the post September 11 consultations" with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Masood, which coincidentally occurred two days before the terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, senior Pentagon and State Department officials had been rushed to Islamabad to put the finishing touches on America's war plans. And on the Sunday prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan (October 7th), Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was sacked from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling."
In the days following General Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. The Times of India article was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been transmitted through official channels to Washington. Quoting an Indian government source Agence France Press (AFP) confirms in this regard that: "The evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism."
The revelation of the Times of India article has several implications. The Indian intelligence report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad and terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta, it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.
The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohamed Atta in the US "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a so-called "regular visit of consultations" with US officials.
In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be understood that Lt. General Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch-pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans
The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of Lt. General Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a "go-between".
The Bush Administration's links with Pakistan's ISI --including its "consultations" with General Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-- raise the issue of "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, ISI officials were allegedly also in contact with the September 11 terrorists.
In other words, according to the Indian government intelligence report, the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring-leader" Mohamed Atta and failed to act.
Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established. The least one can expect at this stage is an inquiry. What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism". It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity. And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government. Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established.
And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government. Ultimately the truth must prevail. The falsehoods behind America's war against the people of Afghanistan must be unveiled…www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_02_01_michele.html-- Happy fishing. That is all for now, wanyee
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 22, 2009 0:37:25 GMT 3
I appreciate your response, but I am lost. How does 911 prove that Obama is a puppet of anybody? What is he doing (or failing to do) that he would not have done (or, respectivly, that he would have done) if he were not a puppet?
Please focus on Obama this time. The message you think you are making with 911 is totally lost to me.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on May 23, 2009 0:28:16 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, RE: “War on Terror”Please consider the following statements: “A crisis of this magnitude required a crisis plan, something the Neo-Liberals didn't have. The Neo-Conservatives, including Dick Cheney, had such a plan: manufacture a crisis - one that had long been imagined as necessary by elite planners inside the national security state - and use it to maintain permanent war to steal the world's last remaining hydrocarbons and temporarily stave off the Peak Oil crisis” [ Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml]“The ‘war on terror’ is actually a war for the world’s last remaining hydrocarbon reserves” [ Ibid]. And finally, as I have repeatedly stated: 9/11 was “the foundational event and the pretext for the current geopolitical structure” (including the invasions of Iraq / Afghanistan, the introduction of the Patriot Act etc). Do you now see my point? Wanyee
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 23, 2009 8:58:01 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,
I regret there are two subjects going on here, and you are not digging into the one highlighted by your heading for the thread. You make persuasive arguments about a manufactured crisis, but you are not getting this "Obama Deception" concept off the ground. Would it be possible for the crisis conspiracy to have occurred, and yet for Obama not to be a puppet of the conspirators?
Beside the fact that Obama has become president when politics is so immensely shaped by 9-11 (which you now impressively argue was an inside job), in which decisions or actions does he seem a puppet of a conniving empire? It is only by answering this question that you could be substantiating the allegations you have made about the Obama presidency. I asked the same in my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on May 23, 2009 19:02:49 GMT 3
Technical error
|
|