|
Post by job on Jun 3, 2009 23:55:19 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,You said: Nor do I support either left or right. I have my own opinions and will refer to whichever sources that help me to substantiate those opinions. I am eagerly awaiting those ‘own’ opinions from you – not other peoples’ opinions by way of a multitude of right wing links and conspiracy websites. … regarding Obama and Wall Street:
Does Obama Really Work For Wall Street? www.businessinsider.com/henry-blo....s-pocket-2009-4 Fix the link – there’s nothing coming up on this third rate digital tabloid (no pun intended – it is what it is - a tabloid). Obama's Wall Street cabinet axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55357.shtml Obama is definitely not stupid to appoint anyone with no public or private sector finance & economics background and experience into his Economic Council or even as Treasury Secretary. Anyone who understands the fact that the US Federal Reserve Bank (equivalent of Central Bank) is a private bank – and not a government-owned-bank, has no problem seeing why Fed Reserve veterans are often appointed at the Treasury by US Presidents from time immemorial. What you fail to notice is a mix of non-private sector academics into most of Obama’s advisory boards, some even coming as full cabinet secretaries. Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: Jonathan Weil www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNMQDysdnKRc&refer=home Bloomberg is a Wall Street apparatus to the very core. The fact that Bllomberg’s accounting columnist can complain about Obama’s Banksters is a very good thing for Main Street if you know what that means in colloquial American lingo. That contradicts your false assertion on 'Obama the puppet'. The Israeli Who Runs the Obama White House globalfire.tv/nj/09en/jews/obos_team.htm That’s straight out of the bigotry & hate scare book of anti-Semitism. Must all Obama senior staffers be Anglo-Saxons? Rahm Emmanuel is just Obama’s Chief-of-Staff and Ortzag is Budget Director, but Obama is the chief executive! --- And in relation to Brzezinski’s quote / Obama and the Patriot Act:
Clinton Slams Obama for Voting “for” the PATRIOT Act at ABC-Facebook New Hampshire Debate www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/clinton-slams-o/ What Hillary Clinton did not tell you was that the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, by her (Hillary) and other Bush cheerleaders, long before Obama was elected into the US Senate. Obama was not even in the Senate when Hillary and others were first passing the Patriot Act. Obama only reluctantly voted for reauthorization of the modified Patriot Act in 2005. Here were his words while doing so: We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn’t just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn’t need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an “either- or” type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.
Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it’s still better than what the House originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe.
In this compromise: • We strengthened judicial review of both national security letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records. • We established hard-time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps. • We protected most libraries from being subject to national security letters. • We preserved an individual’s right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI’s wrath. • And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. The compromise is far from perfect.
I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of national security letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.
Senator Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments–that I support–to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Senator Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics.
That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act–a version that balanced security and civil liberty, partisanship and patriotism.
The Majority Leader’s tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties.
This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.
So, I will be supporting the PATRIOT Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act after it is reauthorized. My friend, Obama convinced me about his vote – even though I still expected him to have voted against the Patriot Act. Obama Administration Endorses Continued Spying on Americans Justice Department Moves to Squash NSA Spying Suits www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13155 This is one area where I don’t agree with Obama. He says the security concerns outlined by CIA currently override the civil liberty concerns and that if squashed, it would allow a plethora of lawsuits against the government by possibly many thousands of aggrieved citizens. We can’t agree on everything. But it is certainly no ticket for me to jump to the outrageous conclusion that he is therefore a puppet of a big spymaster hiding behind the throne. Anyway, as I keep saying, 9/11 was a false flag operation, and the fact that Obama is aligned with the agenda that was set by this event, proves that he is a puppet of the real power behind the throne. You only need to tell us who exactly is this ‘real power behind the throne’ and how he/she convinced voters to choose/vote-in his ‘puppet’ or ‘robot’ called Obama.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 4, 2009 3:22:48 GMT 3
Ndugu yangu, I thought I have stated my opinion very clearly on several occasions (RE: 9/11). Let’s start with the first article (which appears to have been pulled down in the course of the day – because it was up this morning when I was reading it). Fortunately I had saved it elsewhere: Does Obama Really Work For Wall Street?Henry Blodget Apr. 10, 2009, 6:46 AM So far, we've laid the Obama administration's decision to keep propping up failed banks at Tim Geithner's feet. Geithner's boss, meanwhile, has so far avoided blame. We wonder how long that will last. · First, it was the administration's ongoing insistence (via Geithner) that this is a liquidity crisis, not a credit crisis--the Wall Street view. · Then it was the failure to do anything more than express "anger" at the AIG bonuses. · Then it was Geithner's plan to, yet again, bail out banks at taxpayer expense. · Then it was the administration's decision to force GM into bankruptcy, fire its CEO, and hit its bondholders--setting up a bizarre double-standard with Wall Street. · Then it was a "stress test" for banks in which the baseline scenario has already been eclipsed by the deterioration of the economy--once again slamming the administration's credibility · Then it was the revelation that Larry Summers made $5+ million from Wall Street last year, which added to the perception that he, Geithner, Rahm Emmanuel, etc. are reluctant to bite the hands that feed them. · Now it is the leaked announcement that "all banks have passed the stress test!", combined with a refusal to share the results of that stress test on a bank-by-bank basis. Obama has never explained why he's acting so out of character here, so we have to speculate. The charitable explanation is that Tim Geithner is paralyzed by fear of triggering another post-Lehman credit meltdown and has convinced Obama that that's what will happen if the government holds banks and their bondholders accountable or just comes clean about the shape that banks are in. As we've said, we disagree with this No one is arguing for the sort of uncontrolled bankruptcy that Lehman went through. And the seizure, restructuring, and sale of a few major institutions should not be unmanageable, especially if the bondholders are required to pick up the tab. The more disturbing explanation, meanwhile, is that the Obama administration really is in Wall Street's hip pocket. Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg thinks there's a chance this is the case. And Obama certainly isn't doing anything to discourage this. By maintaining a double-standard and refusing to address the elephant in the room, Obama is risking his credibility and his reputation for telling it like it is. This behavior, both toward the banks and toward Americans, is a disturbing echo of the Bush administration. It's time for Obama to address it head on. SOURCE: www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-is-obama-in-wall-streets-pocket-2009-4-- What are your comments on this? Let us keep debating. I believe that we will eventually get to the real power behind the throne. wanyee
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 4, 2009 3:49:08 GMT 3
Ndugu, Before I forget:
Please watch the following clip:
Barack Obama Lying About His Relationship With Zbigniew Brzezinski
I do not know about this, but I would not be too surprised if he lied. Politicians lie, and at times lying is the only smart thing they can do, unless they are not serious in their pursuits. I can bet you have also lied when seeking something, and that does not mean you were anyone's puppet. But would you be surprised if it was not? And if it was not, would that not mean there is real terrorism? If you are really convinced about your "puppet" claim you should come a lot stronger than that, regarding other events that are attributed to terrorism. I was only acknowledging your clarification of the basis on which you label Obama a puppet. I did not indicate that you convinced me regarding either the puppet claim, or the cause of 911. ... and if the bulk of your postings will be links upon links of 911 as a false flag operation, not biting to any appreciable depths into questions that put the logic of your argument to test, there is not a chance of you convincing me that your claims are believed even by you. Perhaps its time to actually move to the next phase. What will it be?
|
|
|
Post by job on Jun 4, 2009 7:12:46 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,My comments on that article above is simple. The fella asked a question. Does Obama really work for Wall Street? The answer is NO. He really works for the American people - just look at his agenda on healthcare, energy, education, and physical infrastructure directed at poverty striken areas.These fellas don't seem to realize that the US economy is 40% reliant on the Financial Service Sector. If Obama was to follow advise by these 'Rethuglicans'... ati he lets Banks in Wall Street collapse (like Bush did with Lehman Brothers) without bailing them (with taxpayer funds)...I will tell you exactly what would happen. I want you Wanyee to understand that this ain't nothing about bondholders alone - it affects the ordinary American more. If Obama didn't bail them out - There would be NO bank lending to businesses (credit freeze), no credit for payrolls, no credit for inventories, no overdrafts for petty cash, no student loans, no car loans, no mortage loans, no credit cards....therefore no interest earnings by this entire sector..and ultimately the Financial Service Economy = 40% US economy would collapse.Businesses would also collapse, more jobs lost, therefore no spending, colleges would close down, students dropping out, retail would collapse, imports would shrink, and the entire US economy would be on its knees. The Rethuglicans would then be singing Kumbaya and Hosana back to the White House because Obama would have failed. That is why these silly conservatives give him such unsolicited 'advice'. Rightfully, Obama has said - Thanks but no Thanks! I agree - let's continue debating knowing that the real power behind the throne is the American voter at Main Street, not Wall Street. Obama is working for the VOTERS who elected him and FUNDRAISED the bulk of his campaign contributions. There is no imaginary puppet master in between hiding somewhere in Fictionland or behind the throne. The American voter is behind the throne. You seem to deny the existence of terrorism in the first place as your exchange with Mank suggests. I was just watching CNN today listening to Ayman Al Zawahiri, the Al Qaeda # 2 blasting Obama for the same things you accuse him for. (I'll share Al Zawahiri's radical activism which led him from his medical profession, through Cairo's prisons and into terrorist activities of Al Qaida) Ayman al-Zawahiri says President Obama has already made himself an enemy of MuslimsZawahiri warned Obama not to step in Egypt (Zawahiri's native country) while telling Muslims that Obama is a Zionist sympathiser. Ayman al-Zawahiri, said those relations cannot be mended as long as the administration maintains its alliance with Israel. In a message called "Tyrants of Egypt and America's agents welcome Obama" that was posted on Islamist Web sites, al-Zawahiri once again lashed out at the United States. Obama's message to the Muslim world, he said, has already been delivered with his support for "Zionist aggression." "The White House declared that Obama will send a message from Egypt to the Islamic world but they forget that his messages were already received when he visited the Western Wall and wore the Jewish yarmulke and when he prayed their prayers," al-Zawahiri said in the 10-minute audio message.
Al-Zawahiri said Obama had already made himself an enemy of Muslims by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan, ordering bombings in the tribal areas of Pakistan and administering a "bloody campaign against Muslims" in Pakistan's Swat Valley.
He said Obama's message came through when "his administration continued to reject the appliance of the Geneva Conventions regarding Muslim prisoners in the crusade war against Islam that they call the war on terror."And not to forget, Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida’s # 1, also pre-emptively released an audio tape ahead of President Obama’s speech in Cairo. Osama Bin LadenIn bin Laden's tape, he urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel, vowed to open "new fronts" against the U.S. and its allies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan and also criticized Arab leaders, accusing most of them of being allies of the U.S. and Israel. Osama declared that Obama was weakened from the "heavy inheritance" he got from George W. Bush _ two wars and "the collapse of the economy." and predicted the U.S. was unable to sustain a long fight against the holy warriors (Mujahedeen). But Osama’s biggest message was on urging fellow Muslims to enlist the youth into jihad brigades and donate for the ‘holy war’ which includes liberating Palestine. Can you please also answer this one question only Wanyee - Is Al Qaeda also a false flag entity? Or is it a true terrorist organization.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Jun 4, 2009 19:27:46 GMT 3
But truth be told, Wall Street has had their butt saved by Pres Obama. Yaani these guys took money borrowed from wenye nchi, went to the casino, gambled, but lost. Then they say eti they have no money to oil the economic engine and and they need a bailout. Without oil the engine will seize and sputter. A car can do with creaky axels, doughnut tires etc but NOT without oil. Thats the scenario. The Wall St bail out HAD to be done. the Financial sector affects ALL and not a sliver of the population, unlike the Car industry etcetra which though vital, is not all encompassing.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 4, 2009 20:26:34 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu, No, I would not be surprised if the Nairobi bombings were not a false flag operation. Of course, there are extremists, even in the Islamic world. However, just a quick note on Osama bin Laden / Al-Qaeda, before I delve into the issue further: FBI Says "No Hard Evidence on Bin Laden Being Involved in 9-11" - www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.htmlJuly 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Telephoned several times, the doctor declines to answer questions. During his stay, bin Laden allegedly is visited by one or two CIA officers. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more] - www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg#binladenkidney How Osama Cracked FBI's Top 10 - www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109 - Pursuant to the above, I would like us to briefly comment on “real terrorism”: Mank, you speak of “real terrorists” in a stereotypical fashion – which presumably refers to extremists (particularly of Arab descent, as the mainstream media has effectively portrayed). Terrorism is a tool that can be, and has been widely used, by others (in fact, probably to a much larger extent). Please refer to the U.N’s proposed definitions here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism It is because of the biased mainstream media, that most people find it so hard to believe that terrorism is a tool can and has been used even by governments. That is the reason why I have repeatedly referred to this link: www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag - to demonstrate the extensive history / evidence that terrorism is indeed a very common tool used by governments. Then there are also the following examples, to name a few, that I have already referred you to: The Lavon Affair (aka “Operation Susannah”) - www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lavon.html British "Undercover Soldiers" Caught driving Booby Trapped Car "They refused to say what their mission was."www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=972 Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? Suspicions Strengthened by Earlier Reportswww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=994Britain now faces its own blowback: Intelligence interests in Britain may thwart the July 7/7 bombings investigationwww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=933-- Then we also have double agents, which brings us again to the issue of Al-Qaeda: [N.B: Please note Zbigniew Brzezinski’s testimony in the excerpt after these brackets as well as the summary of his book, "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives" - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html]. Again, I have already posted this link several times (and seriously doubt that you have even considered reading): "False Flag Terrorism" (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)What about Al-Qaeda? You might think Al-Qaeda is different. It is very powerful, organized, and out to get us, right? Consider this Los Angeles Times article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled The Power of Nightmares, which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative." And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but had – at the last minute – cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report. Have you heard that the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11? Did you know that years after 9/11 the FBI first stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11? The agency apparently still does not have any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (see also this partial confirmation by the Washington Post). And did you see the statement by the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan? Have you heard that the anthrax attacks – which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists – used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong." For more on this, see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one). It is also interesting that the only Congress-members mailed anthrax letters were key Democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing PATRIOT Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of Congress into passing that act without even reading it. And though it may be a coincidence, White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred. Even General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism, yet in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation" (the audio is here). Why Does This Matter?Please read what the following highly respected people are saying: Former prominent Republican U.S. Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the current administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens. Current Republican U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law." He also said a contrived "Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." Former National Security Adviser Brzezinski told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. The former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who is called the "Father of Reaganomics" and is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, and Scripps Howard News Service, has said: "Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging 'terrorist' attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? ... If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the 'unitary executive' at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of 'national emergency' and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance." SOURCE: www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag See also: FBI Says "No Hard Evidence on Bin Laden Being Involved in 9-11" - www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.htmlHyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power - www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htmAND DON’T FORGET THE SUMMARY I ALREADY REFERRED YOU TO ABOVE:
"THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997 - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html
PLEASE READ ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI’S OWN WORDS!We are getting there…
|
|
|
Post by job on Jun 5, 2009 1:00:02 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,Let's get this clear - did you say Al-Qaeda is a real terrorist organization? What then do you say about Osama bin Laden's declaration of the 19 911 plane hijackers as Al-Qaeda Martyrs?On Brzezinski, (in the link you provide) he is just a forward thinking and sharp strategist – but there is nothing new he was inventing here regarding the significance of the Eurasian Corridor since all these were documented even earlier. Forgetting the stupid and unprovoked war in Iraq (blatant and short-lived occupation for Oil), I have always admitted that the US war in Afghanistan is not just about revenging Al-Qaeda’s attacks on 911, but also about safeguarding US geostrategic interests in the region (which Obama smartly doesn’t talk about). That everyone knows. There is more American interest to safeguard in the Afghanistan war. This is an important oil-passage corridor which the British and later the Soviets fought ferociously with locals at different periods, to control. They both failed. But I love the fact that Obama is fundamentally tackling these strategic interests through a totally different paradigm – where he is laying the foundation to take America away from dependence on foreign Oil. There will be no more need to plant troops in such places. In Afghanistan from the 70s and 80s, the non-secular Islamic rule (later morphed into the immediate former Taliban regime) was bolstered by radical Islamists from all over the world (including Al Qaeda), forming the Mujahedeen force, defending this important oil transport corridor from Russian control. During that time, the CIA didn’t mind helping Osama and Al-Qaida defeat the Russians. Right now, the US dreads leaving their current influence in Afghanistan at the mercy of Taliban and other Mujahedeen-aided regimes who could cut off oil pipelines supplying the Western & US Oil interests. The other fear is that US exit WILL naturally be replaced by the big three looming threats nearby – Russia, China and Iran. It is in this context that Brzezinski advises Obama, not in any way to wage war, but just to inform him of the stakes involved and the big players struggling to control influence over the corridor. Obama was elected to represent the American people and their interests, remember that! About your false claim that Osama was not involved in 911 attacks, despite his own confession, despite prior and after-the-fact intelligence, here is an FBI presentation putting holes in your allegation. The FBI (not CIA) has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. Watson Dale, FBI's Chief of Counter terrorism presented to US Congress ( Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ) in 2002 part of the evidence in ’The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States’ found at; www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htmOn Osama’s Kidney treatment in Dubai by a Canadian doctor, that was in July 2001, long before September 11th. Before 911, Osama, despite traveling surreptitiously, was relatively more free to move around. This is how Osama was able to disguise himself and travel with a foreign passport to that Dubai Hospital. Of course the CIA sniffed him there. CIA operatives received little cooperation from Dubai authorities in ascertaining Osama’s true identity. About Osama’s history of links to the CIA - America has always had failed dalliances with Arab Strongmen and operatives such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden which end quite bitterly. No one has denied there was no contact between Osama and CIA, folks are only correctly pointing out that like Saddam’s, Osama and the CIA broke ranks soon after the Soviet Union fell apart, Communism faded, and Russians left Afghanistan . That break-up in cooperation occurred in the 80s, way way before 911 (2001). By the time 9-11 was occurring, the CIA and Osama were mortal enemies. Therefore, on Osama’s alleged links to CIA, just get your timeline right. In the 1980s when Russia was fighting the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan (alongside Osama), the CIA which was then undermining Russia, infiltrated Osama’s militia training camps and supplied him with arms and skills training for his new recruits. They later fell out when the mission was done – bitterly - as with the cooperation between Saddam & CIA. It is these grey areas that give fodder to Conspiracy peddlers to now allege that 911 was an inside job and that Al Qaida is just an American CIA ‘creation’ with its leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri as CIA colluding straw men. Al-Qaeda is said to have become robust not because of Osama but because of Egyptian Ayman al Zawahiri joining it and having influence over Osama. Let us chronologically reflect on the life of Al Qaida’s strategic brain, Ayman al Zawahiri (publicly available at Wikipedia and other websites) and judge for ourselves if he is indeed another American propaganda-hireling, or a radical activist with strong anti-American and Islamic beliefs – and who eventually drifted into violent terrorism. WHO IS AL-QAIDA'S CHIEF PLOTTER - Dr. AYMAN MUHAMMAD al-ZAWAHIRI?Background Facts: The radicalization of a hardline terrorist.- Born 57 yrs ago in Cairo, Egypt, to a University Professor, and excelled in school. - By the age of 14, in Secondary School, al-Zawahiri had been influenced by a radical uncle to join the Muslim Brotherhood as a political/Islamic activist. - In 1974 - Al-Zawahiri graduated from Cairo University as a medical doctor. He then served three years as a doctor in the Egyptian Army after which he established a clinic in Cairo. In 1978, he also earned a master's degree in surgery, becoming a surgeon.- In 1975, the surgeon joined the Islamic Al Jihad (Egypt’s anti-government movement advocating for an Islamic State) as a recruiter and organizer. - In 1978 he married Azza Nowari, the couple had five daughters, Fatima (b. 1981), Umayma, Nabila (b. 1986), Khadiga (b. 1987) and Aisha (b. 2000), and a son Mohammed (b.1990). His wife Azza and daughter Aisha both died following 9/11, after American bombardment of a Taliban officials building at Gardez, Afghanistan in 2003.- Between 1978 and 1981, Al-Zawahiri used his links with the military to start recruiting military officers and accumulate weapons for a planned Al Jihad coup against Egyptian secular, non-Islamic leadership. The plan was unearthed and derailed in February 1981. President Anwar Sadat ordered the roundup of more than 1500 Al-Jihads. Those who who evaded jail including Al-Zawahiri, succeeded in assassinating Sadat during a military parade that October (1981). - Zawahiri and other Al-Jihads were arrested in 1981, he was jailed for 3 years and tortured in prison.See a fully radicalized Zawahiri in Prison in 1981 shouting for an Islamic State in Egypt- Zawahiri was released in 1984, left Egypt in 1985 and has ever since lived in exile, continuing with his Islamic activism focusing on ; installing Islamist State in Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world, overthrowing governments in Middle-East with close ties to the US and Israel, liberation of Palestine, expulsion of Jews from Palestinian lands, and launching Jihad against American Christian and Jewish crusaders. - In 1985 he lived in Saudi Arabia and practiced medicine at Jeddah. He detested heavy US infiltration of the Saudi royal family and leadership. - In 1986 he moved to Peshawar, Pakistan where he briefly met exiled Saudi national, Osama bin Laden, and began practicing Surgery in a Red Crescent Hospital for Refugees. Osama Bin Ladin had been in Peshawar helping Afghan Muslims fight the Russian occupation. Meanwhile he was rising up the ranks of exiled Egyptian Islamic Al Jihad (EIJ) leadership. - In 1991, Al Zawahiri became the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad while working and living in Pakistan. He began studying how the 1979 Iranian Revolution worked, so he could replicate the coup in his native Egypt via another Islamic revolution. He was double crossed by the Iranian informers/agents whom he was getting secret information. They supplied the intelligence to Egyptian and American authorities. This is where Al Zawahiri parted ways with Shiite Muslims and Iranians in particular, and also furthered his enemity with the US. He escaped to Afghanistan mountain caves.- Between 1991 and1993, Al Zawahiri traveled to several countries (including the US) using fake passports on fund raising activities but always returning to Pakistan. - In 1995, his EIJ organization had its first success at terrorism when it attacked the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. Zawahiri then fled to Sudan, where Osama bin Laden was already making forays in.- In 1996, Al Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) launched an assassination attempt on American ally and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It failed, Zawahiri was expelled from Sudan and used a fake passport to travel to Chechnya.- Al Zawahiri was reportedly arrested and jailed in a Russian cell for more than six months. It is alleged that Al Zawahiri traded his freedom for cooperation with Russian secret agents in Afghanistan. He was released into Jalalabad, Afghanistan in 1997. - In November 1997, Al Zawahiri’s EIJ, trying to sabotage the Egyptian government, launched a terrorist attack, with their men disguised in police uniforms, and succeeded in machine-gunning and hacking to death 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians. This devastated the Egyptian tourist industry for a number of years. The Egyptian reaction to the massacre was anger against Zawahiri and the EIJ. - In 1998, Zawahiri and his brother Muhammad, were sentenced to death in absentia for that massacre by an Egyptian military tribunal.- Zawahiri’s focus shifted from plotting to sabotage and overthrow Egypt to full-time Al-Qaida and the fight against Americans and Israel. He came along into Afghanistan with many Egyptian EIJ militants under protection of the Taliban regime. Al-Qaida got a sudden boost of energy. - Zawahiri issued a joint fatwa with Osama bin Laden under the title " World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders". - In 1998, Al-Qaida launched terrorist bomb attacks at the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, killing hundreds of East Africans and Americans. Zawahiri himself and Osama bin Laden in a seperate video, both claimed Al-Qaida’s responsibility.- In 2000, Al Qaida launched another terrorist attack on the US naval ship, the USS Cole. Zawahiri later bragged about it. - 2001 September 11th, the WTC buildings were attacked by Al-Qaida trained pilots and militants who successfully hijacked passenger aircraft and flew them into the buildings.- In 2003, Zawahiri’s wife and last born daughter were killed in a US bomb attack against the Taliban. ( doesn't look like a CIA collaboration going on here as Wanyee alleges) - It is suspected Zawahiri is hiding in Pakistan near the Afghan border, from where he releases the video and audio clips sent to Islamist websites, media, and eventually reaching mainstream media. Zawahiri on the 19 Martyrs of 911 Zawahiri mourning fallen Al Qaida compatriot, Zarqawi, who braved his way as an insurgent against US army in IraqZawahiri’s message to ‘Obama the House Negro’Everone can judge for themselves whether Al-Qaeda, Osama and Zawahiri are indeed radical Islamist terrorists with real ideological & personal beef with America & Israel, and Arab leadership close to them, or whether they are just American propaganda-hirelings of the neoconservatives, the Bush & Cheneys, the Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commissions, Council of Foreign Relations etc. Adios. Job "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". John. F. Kennedy.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 5, 2009 3:22:21 GMT 3
Ndugu Job, The FBI report that you are referring us to is dated February 6, 2002.The one I referred to is dated June 6, 2006.Here is the entire article:FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In a BBC News article [3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.” In a CNN article [4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you? The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI? Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse? Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93? …No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11…Think about it. SOURCE: www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 5, 2009 7:03:10 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
..... Mank, you speak of “real terrorists” in a stereotypical fashion – which presumably refers to extremists (particularly of Arab descent, as the mainstream media has effectively portrayed).No sir! Never have I thought of terrorism in any race's face. My phrase "real terrorism" derived only from the context of this debate ... in that there can be either "false flag terrorism", or "real terrorism". I sincerely regret that you got such a misplaced perception of me. That's where you and I may not disagree. May I say, there must be a reason Cheney is so relentlessly trying to tarnish Obama's policy on war against terror? Let me clarify that I am not here to argue the line of those you hear crying "terrorist" and "terrorism" everywhere. It is your proposition about the implications of Obama's policy on terrorism that I am here to strongly oppose. About Obama saving banks:- US would have been a hell on earth today if he did not. The rest of the world would have been a hell too, but perhaps not as red hot! Do you know that people were already emptying their bank accounts sometimes in October last year, leading to the permanent death of many banks that were not necessarily in loss? If the majority of banks closed down because there was no juice in them (and that was seriously in the making), where do you think America and the Americans would have been today? Don't you have any idea how close we were to an economic calamity that could have made the great depression a party? Seriously! We are a great deal more dependent on commerce today than the word was in the 1930's, so a panic that would freeze the banking system would lead us into an unimaginable depression. Obama's government has spent a great deal of money saving banks, which frankly should have felt some pain for their sloppy manners, but an honest analysis of the averted crisis would reach the conclusion that such spending was a necessary evil.
|
|
|
Post by job on Jun 5, 2009 8:31:47 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,
Take note that an official FBI Congressional Report in 2002 can not be over-ridden by a verbal statement in 2006, taken out of context, and which was later recanted by Rex Tomb himself.
Myth
Because the FBI hasn't specifically listed 9/11 on Bin Laden's wanted poster, insinuates that they don't have enough evidence to link him to 9/11, or don't think he's behind the attacks.
Facts
From an American perspective, different regimes handle serious Criminal Justice issues involving terrorism DIFFERENTLY. How the Bush admnistration interprets certain laws and handles terrorism suspects may differ from how the Clinton administration did.
The FBI maintains a list of "Most Wanted Terrorists". This list is accompanied by a note that states:
Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Thus - In order to be listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list, the suspect must have been indicted for the crime. To indict Bin Laden formally for the 9/11 attacks would require presenting evidence in a court of law; such evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 would include intelligence sources, and Al-Qaeda detainees.
Revealing this publicly might have been considered likely to interfere with ongoing counter terrorism investigations by the Bush administration - hence their likely option not to go public with details. By stating ' not yet received hard evidence' the Bush nutheads may have only been suggesting they were not willing to publicly share the evidence they had until they got or killed Bin Laden.
But his predecessor who respected law enforcement, Bill Clinton, already had Bin Laden indicted by a Grand Jury on the Nairobi /Dar bombings with evidence, hence Osama's FBI most wanted list appearance
President Clinton & Obama do things differently. But in the Bush era, that is not how the Justice Department worked.
The Bush administration did not think making such evidence sources (and methods) gathered on Osama bin Laden's role in 9-11, publicly known in a court of law, was a good idea.
Even if they arrested Bin Laden alive, they would have preferred incognito detention at Guantanamo as 'enemy combatant', a good dose of torture and water boarding to extract even more 'intelligence' and such wacko stuff preferred by Dick Cheney, even if it took a decade. Those who would have hoped for a speedy Judicial process may have been very disappointed.
If you follow current US news, this is why Dick Cheney is currently glued in front of TV cameras trying to justify such illegal methods.
In the Zacarias Moussaoui case, a big deal was made over access to detainee witnesses and about handling evidence from other intelligence sources.
In all, the 9/11 attacks were viewed as an "act of war", and the Bush administration was responding in it's own wacko way. During the Clinton administration, terrorism was handled more as a matter of law enforcement.
This change in how terrorism is handled IS THE main reason why the U.S. government under Bush, did not bother to formally indict Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks. Their language on 'evidence' is also tentatively but deliberately misleading.
Regarding the statement by Rex Tomb, FBI's Rex himself told the Washington Post:
"There's no mystery here, they could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it. "
Of course many people consider that as very very flawed logic - but that was the silly way of the Bush era.
A document released by the U.K. government, Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001 presents facts that link Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks. And by the way, indicting Bin Laden and prosecuting him for his role in the 9/11 attacks, through the usual criminal justice process in the U.S. is not the only option.
The terrorist crimes also constitute crimes against humanity in international law which could be prosecuted in any foreign jurisdiction or international tribunal.
Also, foreign officials with evidence, may consider it their own responsibility to bring to bring Osama to Justice. In 2003, Investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon of Spain issued an indictment against Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Along with bin Laden, Ramzi Binalshibh and others affiliated with Al Qaeda were also indicted. The indictment included evidence that Spain was used as a staging ground for the attacks. Spain does not allow trials for suspects in absentia. Google this up!
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 6, 2009 0:15:48 GMT 3
Ndugu Job, 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--- Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida The myth of "al Qaida" is built on an expansive foundation of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute "enemy" for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of a mythical worldwide network of Islamic terrorists from the exploits of the Afghan Mujahedeen. The CIA already had their own network of Islamic militant "freedom fighters," all that was needed were a few scattered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the "great leader." The really tricky part of creating a mythical terrorist monster out of an incomplete truth is laying-out the facts behind your mythical story without revealing the whole truth about your part in its creation. In order to explain away the billions of dollars worth of weapons and training that went into the operation, they chose a rich jihadi, a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden, who had been a faithful recruiter and business agent of the Mujahedeen. He was painted as the sole financier of the entire enormous operation that was centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bin Laden may not even have known that he was playing a part in a deceitful CIA global drama until after the fact. It is more likely that his history was chosen many years later to serve as the legacy of "al Qaida," than it is that he was a brainwashed tool of the spy agency all along. The story of bin Laden is the story of the secret CIA/ISI insurgent camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Osama was 22 years old in 1979, when he was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp near Peshawar, Pakistan. "Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities was used to finance the recruitment of Mujahedeen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden." www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7746 Researcher Kurt Nimmo writes: "The database of Islamic fighters that was collected by the program was labeled n Arabic, 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat', which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word 'Al Qaida" which is the Arabic word for 'base.'" www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3569 In 1989, the US, under George Bush Sr. moved to abandon Afghanistan, making preparations to attack Saddam Hussein long before he had ever moved against Kuwait in 1991. As far as Bush knew, the spy agency had obeyed his orders to abandon the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war, but the CIA knew better than the Commander-In-Chief. This fit in well with a deceitful Secretary of Defense, who had also believed that he knew better than his boss, (as evidenced by Cheney ordering his underling Paul Wolfowitz to draw-up an alternative foreign policy, known as the "Defense Planning Guidance"). The covert foreign policy of Reagan and Carter had became even more secret, as control of the camp network was submerged even deeper into the bowels of the secret world of the CIA. The CIA did not pull out of the jihadi program after the Soviet withdrawal, leaving it solely in the ISI's hands. There is a massive trail of evidence which proves that all the Islamist extremists who were trained under this program, to undermine Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Egypt, the US and England, were not all Pakistan's doing. This has always been a CIA program. The attempt to pretend that we were washing our hands of it, was to give "plausible deniability" to the President of the United States, that he had ordered an end to the effort. CIA appeared to comply, as they covertly ignored the position of their old boss and set their own foreign policy. The ensuing Kashmiri conflict, started in 1989 by American and Pakistani trained forces, was an act of war against India. Which part of the Executive Branch was responsible for the new plan? Who this a presidential decision, or was it a rogue agency that decided on its own to turn the Islamists against us, manipulating the Islamists into openly kill 3000 Americans on 9/11? Whose plan were the Islamists and the covert planters of explosives executing on that new day of infamy? Pakistanis seethed with anger at the US for abandoning them in the mess we had made; they were only doing what America had demanded of them. "Many in the ISI loathe the United States. They view America as an unreliable and duplicitous ally, being especially resentful of the 1990 sanctions, which came one year after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the ISI is dominated by Pashtuns, the same tribe that is the Taliban's base of support across the border in Afghanistan. Partly because of its family, clan, and business ties to the Taliban, the ISI, even more than Pakistani society in general, has become increasingly enamored of radical Islam in recent years." [Slate, 10/9/2001]... On October 12, 1999 the ISI installed the government of Pervez Musharref, in a coup d'etat, removing Nawaz Sharif out of fear that he might give-in to American pressure and stop supporting the Taliban. www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a101299pakistancoup After the withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989, the camps kept churning out highly-skilled terrorists, to foment other armed insurgencies in places like Kashmir (lasting until the war with India in 1999). The CIA/ISI camps were terrorist factories, as they kept turning out successive armies of paramilitary units and skilled terrorists. They trained many of the Bosnian fighters in 1992 and 1995, Chechens in 1994 and 1996, Taliban in 1995 and 1996, and the Kosovo Liberation Army in 1998-99. Former honor students of the camps went on to attempt to kill Benazir Bhutto in 1993 (Yousef and KSM), bomb the World Trade Center the first time (Yousef). Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was an agent of chaos, who immediately set about destabilizing the victorious Mujahedeen in Afghanistan by firing rockets at Kabul, igniting the Afghan civil war. Mullah Omar received satellite intel from the CIA, revealing to him the location of a hidden convey of Soviet trucks loaded with weaponry, giving him the upper hand in the civil war. According to India's Embassy, Pakistan's terrorism network consisted of : "38 terrorist training centres from where recruits were regularly sent on "jehad" missions to Kashmir and other parts of the world...Facts and figures about Pakistan's role in fostering terrorism in India compiled by Indian security forces are as follows: Number of terrorist camps in Pakistan 37; number of terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir 49; number of Pakistan-run terrorist camps in Afghanistan: 22; total number of hardcore terrorists operating in Jammu and Kashmir: 2300; total number of foreign mercenaries operating in Jammu and Kashmir: 900; number of Pakistan terrorists killed by Indian security forces: 291; number of Indian civilians killed by Pakistan terrorists: over 29,000...Harkat-ul-Ansar, Al-Badr, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen, all associated with terrorist financier Osama bin Laden." www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/September_1999/Pak_Terrorism_Network_Sept_15_1999.htm In the early years, the camps produced two terrorist superstars, Ramsey Yousef and Ali Mohamed. While Yousef did spread his talents and skills liberally throughout the Muslim world, it was Ali who made the terrorists more skilled and successfully instigated many large terrorist attacks. As an officer in the Egyptian military, he had served in the same unit as the assassins who killed Anwar Sadat. He later moved about freely in the world of Islamist radicals at the al-Farouq mosque and al Qaida recruitment center in Brooklyn, which had produced El-Sayeed Nosair, the killer of Rabbi Meir Kahane, brought the "blind sheikh" together with bin Laden and his Islamic "charities," as well as Osama's spiritual mentor, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. As an American Special Forces trainer, Ali acquired specialized skills and combat training programs, which he taught in the camps. Under the name "Abu Mohamed al-Amriki," he offered Zawahiri a CIA bribe of $50 million to attempt to overthrow the Egyptian government in 1998. He did the groundwork for the plot to blow-up two American embassies in Africa and at least one attempt to assassinate Qaddafi. Ali Mohamed is the linchpin in the plot to fabricate the al Qaida super-enemy. It will be the task of future historians to determine whether he was manipulating al Qaida for the CIA or playing the CIA for al Qaida –perhaps both answers are correct. The CIA/ISI camps, organized by Ali, the trainer, were a source of instruction for nearly every terrorist attack upon the West. Graduate Ramsey Yousef and "the blind Sheikh" were instrumental to the first World Trade Center bombing, while Yousef's uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the brains behind the successful second bombing. Their associate, CIA pawn Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was instrumental in turning the successful Afghan revolution into a civil war and keeping it going. He was also a key player in the Taliban resurgence against the US. The Philippine Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization trained 300 men at these camps. The London 7/7 terrorists and the "shoe bomber" all visited these camps before their attacks. Oklahoma City bombing suspect Terry Nichols allegedly came into contact with some of this group (possibly in the same area as Ramsey Yousef, at a time when both were there) on his visits to the Philippines before the OKC attack. It is rumored on the Internet that Saudi intelligence told the FBI that Saddam Hussein had commissioned Pakistanis to bring down the Murrah Building. The infamous dark-skinned "John Doe No. 2" might have been a Pakistani. He was described as a Middle Eastern type. After Clinton took over from Bush, he rediscovered the Islamist Network. Parts of the hidden program begin to resurface. According to author Yossef Bodansky (director Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare), in 1993, "Clinton began a covert operation with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, to send money and arms to Bosnia-Herzegovina...complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo...involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline elements of Al Qaida in Albania." www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/bodansky2.html "Some of these actions were under direct command of Al Qaida "number two" Ayman al-Zawahiri, who oversaw the program to smuggle weapons and mujahedeen though Croatia into Bosnia. This secret program was later duplicated with the Kosovo Liberation Army, and again in nearby Macedonia, as well as in Chechnya." www.amazon.com/Bin-Laden-Man-Declared-America/dp/0761535810 Clinton also is alleged to have used these Al Qaida offshoots against Egypt, after President Mubarak opposed Clinton's use of force against Iraq in February 1998. Some of these Islamists, again led by Zawahiri, had tried to assassinate Mubarak in 1995. The Islamist foreign policy of the United States did not end with Bill Clinton, or even with the 9/11 attacks. Bush is playing the same card throughout the Muslim world, as we see him apply the "El Salvador option" (adapted from the Islamist program) to every situation claimed to be caused by "elements associated with al Qaida." We are hiring and training gangs of Sunni mercenaries to start wars throughout the Muslim world. Either we hire them openly, like the "Awakening" group in Iraq, semi-secretly, like the PAJEK Kurds hired to hit Iran and the Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon, or back them super-secretively, like elements of the Pakistani Taliban, whom we mislabel as "al Qaida." Our own spy agency is behind the killing of thousands of American soldiers and civilians all over the world. They are also responsible for continued Afghan opium production, as it has always served as the primary funding source for CIA paramilitary operations there. The poppies funded the original Pakistani camps and their current resurgence. Much of the poppy fields and most of the camps lie within a sixty-mile radius of Peshawar. This is the zone of instability that overlaps the northernmost regions of Pakistan bordering Kashmir, the epicenter of the massive October 2005 earthquake that further devastated the people. Within this sixty-mile radius lies the infamous Tora Bora "fortress," bin Laden's redoubt, where his forces made their last stand in Afghanistan. It was built on the Kabul River, near the Swat Valley, the site of the original camps and the current Pakistani/Taliban battles, set-off by Musharref's meeting of US demands. Tora Bora is part of the Darunta Camp complex [34°28'00"N 70°22'00"E], the former location of Al-Badr I military base near Jalalabad. According to Internet sources, bin Laden allegedly took possession of this facility directly from the CIA, upon his return from Sudan in 1996. At the time of the US invasion of Afghanistan, American media sources were hyping Tora Bora as a super fortress, equipped as an underground city, even having its own hydroelectric plant. This underground facility would have had to have cost at least a billion dollars to construct. They released this artist's rendition to the public as US bombers were dropping everything they had on it. disputed the fortress story www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002image/netherpopup.gif The satellite photos below are supposed to be from the Darunta site, matching closely the level of complexity attributed to the facility during the battle, which the media quickly denied as hype, after our troops failing to get bin Laden there, preferring to show instead, a bunch of primitive caves. www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/images/ik_darunta_tunnel_overview_an_s.jpg The following map pinpoints the large helipad used to supply Darunta-- maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Darunta+afghanistan&sll=34.116797,70. 217421&sspn=0.004299,0.009334&ie=UTF8&ll=34.490499,70.372066&spn=0.01712,0.037336&t=k&z=15&iwloc=E&om=0 The ongoing offensive in the Swat zone of instability began when Pakistan agreed to US demands to assault the "Red Mosque" Islamic compound in Islamabad. The storming of the compound ignited an uprising in the Northwest Provinces by followers of Lal Masjid cleric Abdul Aziz. The Islamists had become more and more successful at their attempts to spark the building democratic-revolution, emboldening Pakistani lawyers to mount large protests, threatening to sweep Musharref and his US allies away. Musharref has escalated the confrontation with the Islamists by supporting the ISI attempt to blame one of them, Baitullah Mehsud, for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. One-hundred seventy-five miles south of the Swat Valley war zone, around the town of Wana, Mehsud has stood with al Qaida and the foreign Taliban against local Islamists, headed by Maulvi Nazir, who has been waging war to evict al Qaida foreigners (mostly Uzbeks) and Afghan Taliban from his territory. The al Qaida flocked to the area in 2001 after being driven from the Kandahar area in Afghanistan, which adjoins northwest Baluchistan. Nazir has followed the same pattern that we have seen the people adopt in Iraq, where Sunnis turn against al Qaida because of their brutal attacks to force harsh Sharia law upon them. After Nazir could stand no more, he gathered together 900 of his friends from the "local Taliban," to drive the mostly Uzbeki al Qaida from South Waziristan. The government provided aid to Nazir's fight, but when government forces tried to actively fight alongside the defending Waziri, it felt the combined retaliation of both sides. Recently, nine of Nazir's representatives to upcoming peace talks with the government were killed in rocket attacks, blamed on Uzbekis who were connected to Mehsud. The attack was probably another part of the ISI disinformation campaign to turn local Islamists against Mehsud's Taliban, designed to trigger more of the anti-Uzbeki attacks. After the attack, Nazir issued a deadline for all of the Mehsud to leave the area. The Waziri are expected to attempt to drive the Mehsud tribesmen northward of Wana, into the Kurram Agency, which has a large Shiite population. This area will have to become the focus of CIA/ISI secret plans to foment religious war against the Shia, supporters of Iran, by driving the Sunnis and Shiites together. Kurram adjoins the area of Tora Bora, on the edge of the large circular zone of instability. Baitullah Mehsud has also been linked to attacks upon Shiites in the Kohat area. Other reports from the area claim that Mehsud is marked for assassination by a government death squad. www.topnews.in/pak-agencies-devise-strategy-kill-baitullah-mehsud-210441 Wana sits squarely on the trail used by Islamic fighters traveling from the Swat region to the heated battlefield in Southeastern Afghanistan, on the northern edge of the Baluch region. This is the border area between the multinational Pashtun and Baluch tribes. The Taliban are primarily a Pashtun movement. It appears that the goal of the US is to use these inter-tribal hostilities to erase the borders of the two countries. In 2005, al-Qaeda and the Taliban took over this area, "transforming Baluchistan from a logistics center to an operational base." www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369909 The sparsely populated Baluch area is also home to Pakistan's huge reserves of natural gas, the chosen route for the India-Iran gas lines, and several nuclear research and delivery sites. www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/facility/pakistan-fac3.gif Recent attacks by Jundallah terrorists into Iran came from this region. The recent attempt to blame Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a textbook example of the Pakistani ISI duplicity in the region. Even while government spokesmen finger Mehsud for the hit, other ISI operatives and journalists (Pakistani neocons) are spreading rumors, alleging his involvement with the anti-America/Musharref resistance. "To neutralise that strategic blunder, the ISI operatives are trying to present Pakistan and Pakistan army as a target of the US aggression. Of course they are the primary targets of the US. But Musharraf definitely is not. To indirectly generate sympathies for Musharraf, the ISI analysis try to explain how Pakistan military is being strategically sabotaged, forgetting the fact that this has nothing to do with the US plans against Musharraf because Musharraf is the key facilitators of all anti-Pakistan plans by the neocons and warlords in Washington. The ISI attempt to parade Abdul Rashid Ghazi, Baitullah Mehsud, and the Maulana of Swat as ISI agents just doesn't hold water...If Al-Qaeda is in fact fighting for the US against Pakistan, what is all this fuss about the 'war on terrorism' on the part of Mush and his cronies in Islamabad?" usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/48555 The author of that commentary may have been more of a prophet than he realized, when he asked if al Qaida was fighting for the United States. Hasn't it been said, that the best place to hide something is to put it in plain sight? Rumors created by ISI liars may be more factual than that which they proffer as truth. By starting a whispering campaign to tell the truth about their intentions they know that it won't be believed, because of its source. Known liars like Bush and Musharref, speaking honestly about their intentions, cover the truth with their dishonest reputations. In the northern quadrant of this zone is the critical Swat Valley region, the focal point of the ongoing military offensive. In this jihadi stronghold, we find al Qaida Uzbeks again fomenting rebellion. "Radio Mullah," otherwise known as Maulana Fazlullah of Swat, works diligently to broadcast his fundamentalist Wahabbi/Taliban values, backed up by 500 well-armed followers, including Uzbek fighters. He is the son-in-law of Maulana Sufi Mohammad, founder of the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM - Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws). Here hardcore Taliban, al Qaida, TNSM and other organizations await the promised arrival of the American Special Forces, planning to repel them just as they have successfully done with the Pakistani Army. Also within this same circle lies a large percentage of Pakistan's nuclear development and delivery systems. The escalating drama that is planned for this region, dreamed-up by the sick mind of Dick Cheney and his pals from the dark side over at CIA, is now set to play out in the planned Frontier Corps. The insane notion of training still more paramilitary units to fight the old ones is a continuation of the same tragedy that has played-out in this cursed region for thirty years or more. The plan is to use Special Forces to train new Islamists and to stage attacks that will hopefully ignite an intra-Taliban war, or, even better, an Iraqi-type religious civil war. Either scenario will open a path to American bombers heading through the back door into Iran. Global Research Articles by Peter Chamberlin SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7787 --- Al-Qaeda is a front organization of CIA and MOSSAD: Mumbai based group of intellectuals and human rights activists Media Release Jun. 13, 2007 The Mumbai based group alleged that Al-Qaeda is a front organization of CIA and MOSSAD. "There is enough evidence that the Al-Qaeda is a front organization of the CIA and MOSSAD. The Bush junta has used the bogey of terror and of Al Qaeda to justify his unending and ever expanding Global War on Terror, which is only a means of capturing the resources of the world and of establishing the sole hegemony of Israel in West Asia," said the group of activists and intellectuals. The group is holding a press conference in Mumbai on Wednesday to "expose the links between Al-Qaeda and the CIA-MOSSAD". Holding American-Israeli operation accomplices of the 9/11 attack on the WTC, the spokesman of the group said that this has been widely written about in USA and Europe itself and more than 50% of the American people and far more Europeans, now believe and are convinced about this fact. He said that sections of the Indian ruling political and military elite are importing the same Bush-Olmert formula into India. "The increasing terror attacks only serve the cause of the Indian elite and divide the masses along communal lines. It is only the ordinary Indians who are the victims of terror either in temples, mosques, buses or trains," he said adding that practically no political leader suffers a similar fate, where the terrorists are apprehended and killed in "encounters". "Every terror attack is meant to push and drag the Indian masses further into the waiting arms of Uncle Sam and the Israeli Goliath. Every terror attack spreads further hatred for Muslims and Islam and weakens the Indian Muslim community," he said. SOURCE: www.indiadaily.com/editorial/17121.asp- AND -Al Qaeda theory: Mumbai intellectuals blame MOSSAD, CIASrinagar, June 12: Mumbai based group of intellectuals and human rights activists have criticized the media reports of an 'Al-Qaeda Hind' based in Kashmir. The group believes that the Al-Qaeda announcement was a planted story and a part of the disinformation campaign by the Indian government, so as to justify the unholy alliance between the ruling elites of India with the Zionist Apartheid Nazi Israeli state. In a statement the spokesman of the front said that this report (presence of Al-Qaeda in Kashmir ) comes only a day after newspapers boldly announced a high powered delegation of Israeli Military Generals and Intelligence Officers, who are in the country to advice the Indian government on combating "terror" in Jammu and Kashmir. The Mumbai based group alleged that Al-Qaeda is a front organization of CIA and MOSSAD. "There is enough evidence that the Al-Qaeda is a front organization of the CIA and MOSSAD. The Bush junta has used the bogey of terror and of Al Qaeda to justify his unending and ever expanding Global War on Terror, which is only a means of capturing the resources of the world and of establishing the sole hegemony of Israel in West Asia," said the group of activists and intellectuals. The group is holding a press conference in Mumbai on Wednesday to "expose the links between Al-Qaeda and the CIA-MOSSAD". Holding American-Israeli operation accomplices of the 9/11 attack on the WTC, the spokesman of the group said that this has been widely written about in USA and Europe itself and more than 50% of the American people and far more Europeans, now believe and are convinced about this fact. He said that sections of the Indian ruling political and military elite are importing the same Bush-Olmert formula into India. "The increasing terror attacks only serve the cause of the Indian elite and divide the masses along communal lines. It is only the ordinary Indians who are the victims of terror either in temples, mosques, buses or trains," he said adding that practically no political leader suffers a similar fate, where the terrorists are apprehended and killed in "encounters". "Every terror attack is meant to push and drag the Indian masses further into the waiting arms of Uncle Sam and the Israeli Goliath. Every terror attack spreads further hatred for Muslims and Islam and weakens the Indian Muslim community," he said. [Kashmir Times] Posted on 13 Jun 2007 SOURCE: www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines.php?subaction=showfull&id=1181713014&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&var0news=value0news --- See also: Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent Allies say warnings were ignoredwww.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1051304.eceThe Lavon Affair (aka “Operation Susannah”) - www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lavon.htmlBritain now faces its own blowback: Intelligence interests in Britain may thwart the July 7/7 bombings investigationwww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=933British "Undercover Soldiers" Caught driving Booby Trapped Car "They refused to say what their mission was."www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=972 Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? Suspicions Strengthened by Earlier Reportswww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=994
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 7, 2009 2:16:18 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu, No, I would not be surprised if the Nairobi bombings were not a false flag operation. Of course, there are extremists, even in the Islamic world. However, just a quick note on Osama bin Laden / Al-Qaeda, before I delve into the issue further:.......... If you would not be surprised that Nairobi bombings were not a false flag operation then you must acknowledge that there could be terrorism in the world ... therefore a US president talking of fighting terror is not necessarily being a puppet to any party. I am putting it really mildly.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 10, 2009 18:54:15 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, Since the bombings were attributed to “Osama bib Laden / Al-Qaeda”, then my position is that they were false flag operations. Please read the following article (from my last post above) Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida “The myth of ‘al Qaida’ is built on an expansive foundation of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute "enemy" for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of a mythical worldwide network of Islamic terrorists from the exploits of the Afghan Mujahedeen. The CIA already had their own network of Islamic militant "freedom fighters," all that was needed were a few scattered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the ‘great leader’…Our own spy agency is behind the killing of thousands of American soldiers and civilians all over the world…” MORE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7787- See also (in the same post): Al-Qaeda is a front organization of CIA and MOSSAD: Mumbai based group of intellectuals and human rights activistswww.indiadaily.com/editorial/17121.aspAND Al Qaeda theory: Mumbai intellectuals blame MOSSAD, CIAwww.kashmirwatch.com/showheadline....ews=value0news--- Now, the “war on terror” is based on 9/11 (which was also attributed to Al-Qaeda), and as we previously agreed, “politics is so immensely shaped by 9-11”.This is where my argument stems from.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 12, 2009 21:41:03 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,
Did you change your mind after you said you would not be surprised it was not a false flag?
The press has it that domestic hatred and terrorism are on the rise in the US, mainly being the acts of people who are motivated by arguments very similar to the ones you have linked in this thread.
Just today I heard that recently there has been a uptake in terrorism against certain groups of people, by people who believe Obama is an agent of the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 15, 2009 20:09:07 GMT 3
Ndugu Mank, No, I did not change my mind. I still believe that the East African bombings were false flag operations. When I said that I would not be surprised if they weren’t, I meant that acts of terrorism are not always false flag operations. However, since the East African bombings (like the 9/11 event) have been attributed to Al-Qaeda, then I believe that they were false flag operations ( Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7787). See also: Al-Qaeda is a front organization of CIA and MOSSAD: Mumbai based group of intellectuals and human rights activistswww.indiadaily.com/editorial/17121.aspAl Qaeda theory: Mumbai intellectuals blame MOSSAD, CIAwww.kashmirwatch.com/showheadline....ews=value0newsThe Lavon Affair (aka “Operation Susannah”) - www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lavon.htmlBritain now faces its own blowback: Intelligence interests in Britain may thwart the July 7/7 bombings investigationwww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=933British "Undercover Soldiers" Caught driving Booby Trapped Car "They refused to say what their mission was."www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=972 Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? Suspicions Strengthened by Earlier Reportswww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=994Etcetera... --- By the way, among the red-flags that indicate that 9/11 was a false flag operation, is the collapse of World Trade Center building #7, a 47 storey steel framed building that was not hit by a plane. Like the twin towers, this building also 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. However, this collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this fact? References:WTC 7 Foreknowledge - W T C 7 - www.wtc7.net/The Investigation of Building 7's Collapse - www.wtc7.net/noprobe.htmlThe Silence Surrounding Building 7 - www.wtc7.net/silence.htmlForeknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse - www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#broadcastsBBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse - www.wtc7.net/bbc.htmlCNN's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse - www.wtc7.net/cnn.htmlControlled Demolition - www.wtc7.net/demolition.htmlSee also: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers (by Jim Hoffman, April 2009) - 911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 20, 2009 23:45:15 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 24, 2009 22:44:41 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,
As you know from right at the top of this thread, I do not hold a firm opinion as to who caused 9/11. I remain open for persuasion, and I do appreciate stimulating leads. Unfortunately many arguments for your side of the debate (I do not mean yours) are muddled with cheap propaganda, such as what I mentioned to you earlier that some claim that no tower was hit by a plane. To a reader who was glued to streaming TV by the time the second plane rammed into the tower as folks watched underneath, that kind of argument really demeans the side of debate for which it was made. Anyway, that’s about 9/11.
The debate between you and I is therefore not about “who caused 9/11 (the disaster)”. It is about your view that Obama is the elect and loyal soldier of the masterminds of that disaster. Sept 11 was a political reality before Obama became president, and it was going to occupy an important position in the president’s agenda, no matter who the president would be. The campaigns said as much! According to your argument therefore there was no way you were to be convinced that America elected its 44th president. Yet there has been no claim whatsoever that anyone tampered with the electoral process.
We were witnesses of the campaigns. If anything was handed to Obama, I missed it. I saw him struggle to defeat the other candidates. I foresaw his ascendance to the presidency when he gave that democratic conventional speech 4 years earlier. You have no chance of convincing me that my vision would not have become, except with the helping hand of a twisted clandestine gang, especially when your strategy is to simply argue the causes of 9/11 and then assume that the claims about Obama become facts by default. It is one thing to debate the causes of 9/11, quite another to debate who the man in the office is responsible to. Besides, the latter seems quite obvious from the works of the said man.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Jun 25, 2009 9:28:24 GMT 3
Ummmm, I love it like McDonald!!
Wanyee, didn't I promise you that this thread was gonna be a hit!
I'm still following fellows, keep it going!!
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 25, 2009 23:54:45 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, I appreciate your objectivity on the 9-11 debate, and also agree that there is a lot of cheap propaganda out there, but we can easily get past this when we sincerely seek the truth. Indeed, “Sept 11 was a political reality before Obama became president”, but as we have already agreed, “politics is so immensely shaped by 9-11” (to put it VERY mildly). 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). To date, this pretext is being used to justify the invasion of foreign lands, people’s homes, and inflicting all manner of suffering on innocent human beings worldwide. 9-11 was a manufactured crisis “that had long been imagined as necessary by elite planners…to maintain permanent war to steal the world's last remaining hydrocarbons and temporarily stave off the Peak Oil crisis…The ‘war on terror’ is actually a war for the world’s last remaining hydrocarbon reserves” [ Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml]. “By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed…We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight” [ Ibid. See also: 9/11 and The New Pearl Harbor - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100906_new_harbor.shtml]. -- You once asked me regarding Obama: “in which decisions or actions does he seem a puppet of a conniving empire?” and that “it is only by answering this question that” I “could be substantiating the allegations…made about the Obama presidency.” I answered by stating that “by him playing along with the agenda of the conspirators (i.e ‘war on terror’), that proves that he is their puppet.” You responded to this by saying that I had “answered the question in its context”, after which you stated that you were “struggling with the thought that a ‘no puppet’ president would have tossed out the idea of taming terrorism all together, attributing all terrorism to a neoconservative conspiracy”. You went on to ask: “can we really be that confident, that there is no real terrorism? Was the 1998 bomb blast in Kenya also a neo-conservative plot?” I responded by referring you (and Job) to the following article: Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7787. We have now come full circle, back to what I have posited as being the defining issue of the Obama presidency (or litmus-test). Again, by towing the “war on terror” line, Obama is simply fulfilling the agenda of the global power elite. See also: America's Nightmare: The Obama Dystopia Manipulation, propaganda, imagery & PR wizardrywww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13716&context=vaThe Obama Enigma: Imperial Interventionism and Militarismwww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13959Obama outlines policy of endless warwww.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9616Obama team appears bullish on arms exports: Boeingnews.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090610/pl_nm/us_arms_boeing
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 27, 2009 18:58:03 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, ........... You once asked me regarding Obama: “in which decisions or actions does he seem a puppet of a conniving empire?” and that “it is only by answering this question that” I “could be substantiating the allegations…made about the Obama presidency.” I answered by stating that “by him playing along with the agenda of the conspirators (i.e ‘war on terror’), that proves that he is their puppet.” You responded to this by saying that I had “answered the question in its context” Ndugu Wanyee, I believe I already clarified that I was only acknowledging your attempt to answer the question - there earlier you were just posting links after links, not responding to questions. I was definitely not confirming a satisfactory response, as you seem eager to imply. To satisfy my question you need to be very specific about the actions and decisions that you term "playing along with the agenda of the conspirators (i.e ‘war on terror’)" or "towing the “war on terror” line", and further, you have to present a well rounded analysis of the political economy in which these actions and decisions are made. That means you have to address the parts played by all stake holders in a democracy (the ordinary citizens, other political officials, lobbyists and related such as churches, civic movements) not to make it seem like all decisions are made by one man. Besides, it is hard to make the case that there is no terrorism; you have tried, but you are pleading for too much "trust me", since terror incidents are real, and your explanations, many of which very unfortunately trace back to shameless conspiracy theorists, are only conjectural. As far as fighting terrorism goes, I do have misgivings about tactics, but it will be hard to convince me that a president worrying about terrorism is simply serving a secret master. For example, I am disappointed that certain projects of "war on terror" are still going on, e.g. exportation of suspects to foreign lands where prisoner abuse seems an accepted way of doing things. But we have to honestly seek an explanation as to why this is happening. What you have done is accept a simplistic explanation from sources known from start for their relentless mission to discredit Obama, and then you are taking argumentative short cuts to justifying that explanation. Obama came into the office not promising to stop war against terror, but making it smarter. It is therefore dishonest to argue that his continued fight against terror is towing any body's line. I seriously suggest that you try to make your arguments solidly, and use links only sparingly to illustrate those arguments. So far it appears that the wealth of your arguments is only the links, and you are not really making lots of connections between your arguments and the links. Beware, also, that the flow of much of the info you link to is suspect tabloid style, which can marginalize noble argument. By the way, even John McCain admits that Obama is a successful president, in that he has progressively delivered on what he promised in the campaigns. The only blemish McCain seems to have on Obama is that Obama has polarized the parties - how factual that is, I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jun 30, 2009 0:06:34 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jun 30, 2009 2:54:18 GMT 3
Ndugu mank,
My argument is simply based on the use of 9-11 as a pretext for furthering the agenda of the global power elite.
This is a fundamental issue that we need to settle, and unless we do so, we will continue going around in circles. We should not go in circles at all, except you are too occupied with arguing the causes of 911 that you do not get my argument that whatever it is the cause, it does not lead to the inference you have made about Obama. I have picked only a limited scope of your argument for our debate, but I have made it clear where I stand on the rest. You need to be showing how the cause of 911 correlates with Obama's loyalty since that's the aspect of your argument that I have disputed. Here is my position: Ndugu Wanyee,
.... The debate between you and I is therefore not about “who caused 9/11 (the disaster)”. It is about your view that Obama is the elect and loyal soldier of the masterminds of that disaster. .......
It is one thing to debate the causes of 9/11, quite another to debate who the man in the office is responsible to. Besides, the latter seems quite obvious from the works of the said man.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Jul 1, 2009 2:24:01 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jul 2, 2009 14:40:07 GMT 3
Wanyee,
I regret to say that your contributions have narrowed to unbearable pettiness. After I tried and tried to focus you at the baseless claims you made, you insist on peddling propaganda links that no one seems to care about any more.
Arguing your point must entail going beyond echoing the point every time it is challenged. So your Since 9-11 is an "inside-job" / "false flag operation", what does this mean for Obama or any other administration whose "politics is so immensely shaped by 9-11"? .. is no count. I even question whether you grasp how Obama's administration is shaped by 9-11.
Next time you advance a claim of gargantuan implications, such as the one you cannot argue in this thread, first evaluate your abililty to defend it. You cannot argue against something you do not know, so why make controversial claims about it?
|
|
|
Post by jarateng on Jul 3, 2009 0:52:11 GMT 3
Wanyee,
It is indeed an open secret that Obama is a project of the financial elite....the CFR,TC, the Bildebergers and all.....they control the mainstream media and decide on what the citizens know and watch......that is why an average american thinks that afrika is all about wars and famine....thats why they have to potray the osama bin laden as the terrorist while the real terrorist walk in the corridors of washington and new york skycrappers.........its called deception....and we have architects of deception......fareed zakaria doesnt have to be a wasp to tell u that he is against the wars waged in the world...newsweek is a mainstream magazine and who pays the piper...calls the tune......osama bin laden is a family friend of the bush family.....its all about interests..........osama could now be in texas sipping gin with gw bush in his ranch with young girls around.......and who is osama? to me it is just a brand name like coca-cola........it sells.......write in the news that osama was quoted saying blah, blah, blah.....the next day the new york times, the herald, daily nation and the bbc will have headlines that sell and bring in more dollar.......thats just my opinion.......
from where i am jotting this..i can hear the sound of machines getting ready to raid the next taliban hide-out.....and who are the talibans? .........and the talibans were used by the americans to help fight the soviets when it mattered......now the are the enemy........this war on terror is just about big business to companies owned by the likes of dick cheney and the brezinskis of this world.......we are just pawns in this great chess-board that they called the world........where truth is propaganda and deception is a way of life.......it is better for them to have an ignorant public so that they take control the way they want it.........
american democracy is just a myth if not a farce......the winners are known even before the game is played...but they must have the people line up to "vote" so that they can get the change they can believe in.......the rockerfellas, the fords, the bushes, the rothschilds, the list is long......those are the people who matter.......they decide if america goes to war or covert operations....they decide who becomes the president of kenya, honduras, and even afghanistan.........just a thought......
|
|