WHO IS MICHAEL SCHEUER?
Hot on the heels of my last blogpost “Israel: The contrarian agenda” comes this. Michael Scheuer – the ex CIA man who is throwing his word around the world on media and at International book festivals as if he is some “guru” of the Intelligence world – which, being ex CIA, I guess he has the right to think so.
However, I have some issues with this rather “mild mannered”, bearded, anti Israel, ex head of Bin Laden section of the CIA.
1. Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States’ assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not “terrorism”) is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are “struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism.” Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed “the reasons for your losing the war against us”. According to bin Laden, “If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.” Perhaps because Michael Scheuer and the CIA wrote Bin Laden’s biographical and ideological details?
So the very man himself, Bin Laden, praises Scheuer’s work while Scheuer served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. Scheuer then, seems to know Bin Laden inside-out OR just COULD it be that the Bin Laden fable was written by Michael Scheuer and his CIA cronies? Remember that George H. W. Bush has been a major figure in the CIA from the 1960s to the present day and that the CIA is the intelligence arm of “Rockefeller Inc”.
[Rockefeller also reportedly has connections to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As well as knowing Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles — who was an in-law of the family since his college years, it was in Rockefeller Center that Allen Dulles had set up his WWII operational center after Pearl Harbor, liaising closely with MI6 which also had their principal U.S. operation in the Center. He also knew and associated with the former CIA director Richard Helms, as well as Archibald Roosevelt, Jr., a Chase Bank employee and former CIA agent, whose cousin was the CIA agent, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., involved in the Iran coup of 1953. Also, in 1953, he had befriended William Bundy, a pivotal CIA analyst for nine years in the 1950s, who became the Agency liaison to the National Security Council, and a subsequent lifelong friend. Moreover, in Cary Reich's biography of his brother Nelson, a former CIA agent states that David was extensively briefed on covert intelligence operations by himself and other Agency division chiefs, under the direction of David's "friend and confidant", CIA Director Allen Dulles.]
Michael Scheuer: The man who helped create "Bin Laden"
2. Michael Scheuer is a jesuit
Scheuer was born in Buffalo and graduated from Canisius College in 1974, and went on to earn an M.A. from Niagara University in 1976 and another M.A. from Carleton University in 1982. He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire-U.S.-Canada-U.K. relations from the University of Manitoba in 1986.
Canisius College is a private Roman Catholic college in Buffalo, New York, United States. The college was founded in 1870 by members of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) from Germany and is named after St. Peter Canisius. The college is one of 28 institutions in the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. It is distinct from Canisius-Kolleg, an elite Berlin high school also run by the Jesuits.
Niagara University is a Catholic university in the Vincentian tradition, located in the Town of Lewiston in Niagara County, New York. Originally founded by the Congregation of the Mission in 1856 as Our Lady of Angels Seminary, it became Niagara University in 1883. The University is still run by the Vincentian Fathers. All of Niagara’s 25 presidents, including its current president, Father Joseph L. Levesque, C.M., have been Vincentian priests.
Carleton University In 1967, the Catholic school Saint Patrick’s College was incorporated into Carleton. Founded in 1942, it had been granting its diplomas via the University of Ottawa. Both University of Ottawa and Saint Patrick’s had been inaugurated by the Catholic order Oblates of Immaculate Mary (OMI).
University of Manitoba Also linked to catholic ideology within its colleges. As of 2010, there have been 96 Rhodes Scholars from the University of Manitoba, more than from any other university in Western Canada.
Known as the “world’s oldest and most prestigious international graduate scholarship”, the Rhodes Scholarships are administered and awarded by the Rhodes Trust, which was established in 1902 under the terms and conditions of the will of Cecil John Rhodes, and funded by his estate under the administration of Nathan Rothschild. Scholarships have been awarded to applicants annually since 1902 on the basis of academic achievement and strength of character.
He also makes radio and television appearances and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. Georgetown is the “belly of the beast” jesuit university in Washington D.C.
He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation’s December 2004 conference, “Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11.”
I wonder who funds the New America Foundation? Well, would you believe it, there’s that same name at the top of list which is top of the list of so many other questionable organisations. The Rocks get everywhere don’t they?
$1,000,000+ The Ford Foundation, The New York Community Trust, The Rockefeller Foundation
Now, the CIA was born out of the OSS and the connections with jesuitism are strong while one must then consider the following:
“It can easily be seen that the identity of Jesuit political thought with the objectives of Nazi-Fascism makes it imperative to conceal it from the American public. Were it otherwise, the Catholic Church would suffer complete loss of its prestige in the United States — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.” {8} Leo H. Lehmann, 1942 Irish Ex-Priest Behind the Dictators
The Fourteenth Amendment so altered the Constitution to the point that it created “the new republican constitution” spoken of in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Jesuit Order, behind the new constitution, created the American Empire. In 1868, on the ruins of George Washington’s Calvinistic Republic, the Jesuits’ new “Holy Roman Empire of the West” was set up with its massive central government in Washington. Its national purpose would be to restore the Temporal Power of the Jesuits’ “infallible” Pope over every nation.
To do this the Empire was made the financial and military colossus of the world using J. P. Morgan, their Federal Reserve Bank and the Great Depression. In subduing the nations, credit created out of nothing would be used to build tremendous war machines for the “extirpation of heretics and liberals.” This same Jesuit credit, called “foreign aid,” would be used to establish and finance the reign of dictators loyal to Rome over every nation, including the Zionist and Talmudic government of Israel.
The economic policy of the Empire would be the destruction of small, independent, free enterprise businessmen and the consolidation of capital into the hands of Rome’s corporate monopolies (corporate fascism), while the people would be submitted to the ten pillars of The Communist Manifesto in exchange for The Ten Commandments. A central bank, from which comes all credit, along with a fiat, bogus currency, would replace state banks having distributed federally minted gold and silver coins. A heavy and progressive income tax would invade the privacy of the people while replacing the apportioned tax.
The wicked Social Security numbering system would keep track of all “taxpayers.” In fact, it would be the Vatican’s world government number by which the Society of Jesus, through its FBI and CIA, would track every citizen of the Empire. These two pillars alone would be enough to destroy the prosperous White Celtic-Anglo-Saxon Protestant Middle Class, while creating the feudal system of the Dark Ages composed only of the noble super-rich Catholic Whites and the common super-poor of all races and religions.
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion say it clearly in Protocol number twenty:
“The concentration of industry in the hands of [cartel] capitalists out of the hands of small masters has drained away all the juices of the peoples and with them also the states . . .” {9}
Dear truth-seeker, do you see how the radical mass emancipation of the Negro slaves after the War Between the States was never intended to benefit them but rather was calculated to destroy the private wealth of small White “heretic” masters in the South? Historically speaking, Blacks generally only produce wealth when trained and/or overseen by Whites. Do you see how the Fourteenth Amendment enslaved both Whites and Blacks to the new master in Washington — the Society of Jesus? Is not the Archbishop of New York the real “massa” of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Albert Gore and Jesse Jackson (who is apparently to be replaced with another mulatto Black agitator, Al Sharpton), they being nothing more than his “altar boys”?
With the economic system of Communism in place, the political system of the Empire would be an absolutist military dictatorship of the president as “Commander-in-Chief,” for the purpose of “national security.” Protocol number ten spoke of this:
“We shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need for the defense of the new republican constitution . . .” {10}
That is fascism, pure and simple. The absolute Commander-in-Chief is one with the Jesuits’ corporate monopolies run by the Knights of Malta. Remembering the words of the Jesuits as quoted by Pierre van Paassen,
“Fascism is the regime that corresponds most closely to the concepts of the Church of Rome.” {11}
It was fascism that terribly persecuted the Protestants of Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy. Additionally, it was fascism that deported Jews to Hitler’s death camps in Poland. In fact both Hitler and Stalin, the Grand Inquisitors, were Roman Catholic fascists. Nazism and Communism were simply smokescreens describing socialist economic systems. Both dictators were loyal to Rome’s Jesuits who put them in power, as they both murdered millions of Protestants, Orthodox and Jewish “heretics and liberals,” including many “liberal” Catholic priests and people.
Dear truth-seeker, this is the coming scenario for the Protestants and Jews of the American Empire. The President, since the Emergency War Powers Act of 1950, has been a fascist military dictator loyal to his Jesuit masters at Georgetown University. And with the passage of King George Bush II’s new Terrorist Act, fascism will further increase. The Jesuits will continue to advance their international “Negro/Muslim Agitation” (directed against historically White Protestant nations) and incite international anti-Semitism, or more correctly, anti-Jewish fury.
Much was ignited in the American Empire with the Israeli attack on the American spy ship “USS Liberty,” along with the conviction of the Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. The Jesuits’ International Intelligence Community including the Mossad created both incidents. Anti-Jewish fury among both Whites and Blacks must be used to drive American Jews back to Israel for the purpose of attempting to kill them all there!
The means by which the Sons of Loyola will accomplish this is their National Security Agency — the NSA. We read:
“Its nickname is the ‘Jew Room’. Inside the National Security Agency is an intelligence center from which all American Jews are banned, regardless of their proven loyalty or devotion to country, just as the U.S. Navy bannedJews from electronic surveillance ships, such as the USS Liberty . . . it is, and has been, the heart of the secret war against the Jews.” {12}
Remembering the words of Loyola in his Secret Instructions of the Jesuits, “ . . . our members will work themselves into the favor of persons in the highest part of government and consequently be admitted into their most secret councils,” {13} is it not obvious the Jesuit Order rules “The Jew Room”?
For in the words of ex-Jesuit E. Boyd Barrett:
“In the Order hatred of the Jews is traditional . . . it is forbidden to admit any one of Jewish descent into the Order [from 1593 to the repeal of the statute in 1946, thereby escaping Holocaust war guilt]. Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Negroes may be admitted into the Society of Jesus, but never, under any circumstances, a Jew [except Albert and Auguste Valenstein, who were permitted to enter the Order in the early 1900s for the purpose of working with the Jesuit General’s early Masonic Jewish Zionists including Theodor Herzl and later, Jerzy Kluger, boyhood friend of Pope John Paul II]!” {14}
For Ignatius set the example:
“He [Loyola, the heartless beast] also obtained great honour from all classes for his zeal for the conversion of the Jews. His method was not original. He obtained a decree from the Pope Paul III, then reigning, that the Jews should not be allowed the services of a physician, no matter how serious might be their danger, unless they first accepted the ministrations of a priest . . . ” {15}
The Jesuits will also continue to foster international anti-Americanism depicting the Empire as “the Great Satan” to the Arab world and the “NATO Nazi mass bombing bully” to the rest of the world. The NATO crusades in Iraq and Yugoslavia have increased the nations’ hatred for us Americans, they not knowing that the Jesuit-CFR-controlled American government is also the enemy of the American people. Meanwhile, the Jesuits have furthered their quest to reduce the world to the universal rule of their “infallible” Papal Caesar in Jerusalem.
Michael Scheuer is playing along with the globalist faction (tied to the jesuit/papal “army”) to bring about a change of American and western “goodwill” toward Israel and create the image of the dangerous “Mad dog” (which Israel do quite well themselves anyhow) in order to then justify bringing down the Israeli regime. The Bin Laden unit, in my opinion, was set up to write the entire fable of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and Michael Scheuer played exactly that role. Bin Laden, a construct of the CIA as is Al Qaeda. Scheuer and friends creating the “biography” and the higher “Papal Knights” along with their little attack dogs Israel and Mossad etc setting up the conditions for 9/11 just as PNAC and Brzezinski suggested was required to ensure the American public would acquiesce and give up their liberty and freedom at home while supporting the “American Imperialism” (Globalist Imperialism using American blood) overseas.
All clear as day.
ISRAEL IS DOOMED AND THE JESUITS ARE BEHIND IT. Michael is just playing his part to make scheuer!
As a countryman of mine pointed out at the Edinburgh book festival Michael: You’re full of shit! 9 parts truth and 1 part Jesuit agenda.
Nathan Eccleston: UNDER INVESTIGATION
And here is the problem world: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO THINK NOR SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!
At least we know that the Illuminati WERE real (and probably are still!) – there are historical bloody documents even in letters written by George Washington regarding them and Adam Weishaupt and the fact they were founded on 1st May 1776
What is there for Al Qaeda? Even the bloody BBC itself admits it doesn’t exist but in the minds and database of the CIA! So please STFU when it comes to your ignorant trash about Al Qaeda having perpetrated the horrors of 9/11 and 7/7.
Take a look into the London School of Economics and London University a little deeper and note at least two “terrorists” came out of the bowels of these institutions then look at who funded them! It ain’t fcuking rocket science!
If you people out there do not see what is happening all around you then you simply must be blind!
A FOOTBALL CLUB is investigating one of its players for making a comment he believes is true (and is once you drop the shit you are conditioned with). Yet the world will laugh at him for his belief because the world is ignorant.
Ask yourself what difference this makes to Liverpool FC or his value on the park? Absolutely ZERO! The DIFFERENCE lies in there being a brave guy with a celebrity status who speaks his mind. THAT is the danger and it is THAT which Liverpool cannot have. Why? Because MONEY comes from certain sources and when the ADL (Anti Defamation League) want someone silenced because they could have many others listening to them, they make sure he’s silenced.
Now watch as this transpires. There are two options: 1. He apologises to keep his job. 2. He doesn’t apologise and he’s sacked possibly to never get a position with a club again. Perhaps a third also: It goes quiet, he spoken to quietly and he never says another word about it.
Whatever happens, this guy WILL be silenced and the zionists will have their way again.
And YOU will help it along by being ignorant of what this is all about: 9/11, 7/7, the Banking, Israel, Cameron being a zionist and having “jewish values” oh and people like me being looted by Scottish police on orders by the Metropolitan police with £2000 of equipment being robbed from me by detectives who don’t know the first thing about what this is all about but use an excuse that there was a heated debate and words on a messageboard between me and some character who decides to describe himself as jewish and being “offended” by “anti semitic” remarks while I had been posting on this topic for months before this character ever made a response.
Meanwhile, he seems to take “offence” up as a profession. These people are everywhere and will stoop to anything to “snag” you so be careful out there in cyberland – the ADL have Cameron and the judiciary in their pocket!
Now note to my boys in blue: I’m not standing under ANY twat in a robe who is simply going to act like a coercive agent for the ADL and tell me what I can and cannot say to someone who is maliciously attempting to draw me into a position where HE thinks he can then blow the whistle and have the ignorant heavies shut me up and fine me OR lock me up because they don’t know the game OR they are acting in accordance with it. Get the picture?
Now just for a second, forget the “reptiles” and the “hollow moons” etc. The fact is that this guy has done the real research on the Rothschild Zionism issue too and he’s spot on. Just a damned pity he spoils it with the former.
The FACT is that the Zionist are a bunch of genocidal maniacs with a hell of a lot of power and the American congress, judiciary and the British PM and most of parliament/Lords and Judiciary in their pockets – bought and paid for. Now if you want to come at me for saying that then you all can kiss my ass!
Roseanne Barr speaks 9/11 truth
Roseanne Barr, on her blog, acts like a sane human and weighs up the evidence of what happened on 9/11. But, of course, because she does so, like all those who have gone before her, she gets attacked. Roseanne, you have “balls” and integrity. Nice one!
“i was warned that I will now be attacked by persons who question my integirty—this is what trying to hear fact over propaganda gets you these days–attacked. I want to understand all sides of an issue and then make up my mind—if you have something to say in counter to jon, feel free to say it here as well–let’s get to the bottom of this whole thing and see if my guess is correct—I say Bush did this, as he was instructed to do by his dad cheney and bill clinton kennedy, and everybody else whose wealth increased after 9-11. It was a red herring to empty the us coffers, to get rid of civil rights and jobs, and the working and middle classes. I know it was a big scam because after we were attacked, they sent our army away from home–instead of keeping them here to defend us. They left us here like they left the people floating away in katrina. They are using the american people as human guinea pigs for medical experiments conducted by psychiatrists. We had it too good for too long. We got lazy and stupid and obese. They are done with us now. They see us as useless eaters.”
“Who are they? They are the billionaires. They are vampires who must always get more and more–and they never get enough. They do not care that they use slaves, even if they are children. They know that the filth of the world is dumped in Haiti, and that children there are dying from dirty water, but the rich don’t care about any of that. They are addicts who need growth every quarter no matter where it comes from. Psychotics are made not born. The rich are psychotic and all on anti depressants. they hate themselves for being pig like beings, but they still act pig like. their cloven hoofs tell the tale.”
Oh but Roseanne, the epicentre is formed by people who FAR outstrip billionaires. Their $Trillions are held within “non profit Foundations” therefore they never, individually, show up on the Forbes Rich list. They are conspicuous, in fact, by their absence.
“John”:
“Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted.” -– Carl Sagan
People have been convicted and executed on far less evidence than the 9/11 investigators have against our “benevolent” leadership and its complicity in the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent coverup — a coverup which will continue regardless of who gets elected to the White House, because who gets elected is just a dog’n'pony show to make it seem like “we” have a choice and some say in what’s going on.
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon the well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller, Memoirs, p. 405
9/11 is just one of many conspiracies going on. David Rockefeller can openly confess to a One World conspiracy, to the undermining of the best interests of the American people by his family for over a century, in-your-face got-his-jollies-from-it suck-it-cause-you-can’t-do-anything-about-it gloating, because our friends and neighbors couldn’t possibly care any less. Anyone who wants to know the truth already does — it couldn’t be any more plain.
The problem isn’t getting the information out there. It’s there. The problem is summed up by that cliché that there is none so blind as him who will not see. Until people decide that they don’t want to be lied to any more, the liars will continue to win, and the willingly-lied-to are just living in a kind of self-inflicted Matrix — no robotic overlords required.
That’s what needs to be overcome. Joe American doesn’t want to know. Ignorance is (a sort of) bliss, after all.
Roseanne October 28, 2010 11:48 AM
you are completely right john–the american people do not want to know —the oligarchs hide the truth right out in the open, but mind control keeps us all in line–sometimes the 9-11 thing seems like mind control—an elite class of architects and fission scientists arguing minutae for a decade yet stopping short of naming the agents, always. Perhaps they are using terrorism to bore everyone to death?
The real americans know who knocked down the towers–sadaam hussein! (LOL).
Poppy did it so that he could get at the oil and the drugs and the no bid contracts…he built a shadow government starting with ollie north. all americans were told every bit of this but they are drugged on poppy’s shit and can’t get sober enough to face reality. I really do think that usama bin laden did it–it was too smart an operation for our cia, who always get caught, whether by downloading child porn, or torturing young men, or raping pre teen girls and therefore blowing each op.
Mr Spock’s logic – “Danger Captain!” Anonymous
Some of Mr. Spock’s logic was (and is) VERY dangerous!
Consider this: “America (350M people) NEEDS oil. The many NEED to maintain their lifestyle.”
The few, then, are the 1M Iraqis to die for it OR the few may also be the 3000 9/11 victims. THAT is “democracy” or “majority rule”.
OR, in other words: “Collectivism”. Sacrificing a few in 9/11 to ensure you have the support to do what you must do to ensure the needs of the many. You don’t think the real power would do this? Then you are naive in the extreme. They have done it before and shall again. A means to an end. Simple.
This “logic” (which points at the fundamental flaw in what is refered to as “democracy” – majority rule) can be turned around such that the corollary of the statement is “The few can be sacrificed (murdered) for the needs of the many” and may be viewed as killing with some “justifiable” moral impunity. Just as is written in the Articles of the UN Human Rights Law (see the blog “UN legalizes murder”). It is NOT “law” it is a LEGAL document. BIG DIFFERENCE – just ask Thomas Paine!
“…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” PNAC
“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” Brzezinski – “The Grand Chessboard”
How more clearly stated must this be?
Star Trek United Federation of Planets logo
UN Flag
However, there’s another. And this concerns me quite a lot because some of the particularly more recent suggested “attacks” by this group quite clearly, to me at least, point to the hand of George Soros. Soros wants marijuana legalized for example. All you dope smokers out there I’m sure will shout “hurrah” but you’re missing something (which, again, is clearly stated in my blog “The UN inadvertently confirms Freeman concept”). The Legal world is an absolute con and control mechanism and LEGALIZING marijuana is just what these criminals like Soros want so they can control and regulate, tax and profit from it! This really is not difficult to understand!
What you SHOULD be shouting for, at the minimum, is that marijuana (a naturally growing plant on God’s earth) doesn’t belong to anyone and that includes the government and Soros etc. THEREFORE, it should be removed from any legality whatsoever. Neither legalise it or decriminalize it. It just is what it is. It is nature. But as you know, like everything else on this earth, the criminals (i.e. the so called “elite”) wish to put a price on it – even the air!
You see, what I find VERY strange about this outfit called “Anonymous” is that, while it states it has no leadership. it makes statements. WHO makes the statements for it if it has no leadership? And WHO do they speak for? They ASSUME everyone agrees with them out of the so called 99%? But who ARE they? They then makes statements saying we are ALL “Anonymous” but that is hive mind think or, in Star Trek terms, “Borg like”. This is precisely the kind of thinking this New World Order wants.
Then, we have the fact that this group is getting a hell of a lot of media attention. Do you remember a time that, if there were REAL threats to the established order of such a degree, that it would not be given airtime or column inches because the last thing anyone would want was panic or exposure of the goings on of the criminal elite. They would handle it quietly and set the intelligence services on it to kill it or suppress it whatever the threat was. NOW they promote it on prime time TV news and in the pages of the press.
Now, I’d suggest you use your common sense. This is a psyop!
THE TERRORISTS
Their state founded on terrorism, the political manouevering of muslims (and various EU populations) into the UK purposefully to dilute our culture and silence the British voice of dissent, to bombing the crap out of British servicemen, attacking friendly US forces in International waters, creating terrorism in the middle east pretending it was muslims and even dressing up as Arabs to get the job done. They’ve done it all and they continue to. And as you will see they still live freely and speak about their murder and are proud of it. WHILE, I might add, they actually make money out of it.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Israel and the Zionists.
Ask yourself why George Bush silenced the CIA/FBI regarding investigation of the put options on American and United Airlines and various other entities involved in 9/11 if, after all, the ONLY people who would know it was going to happen was the terrorists themselves right? So then that would have HAD to have been Muslims right? So then why would he silence the investigation since it would have been in his favour to say “Look the dirty muslims even made money out of killing us”. But no, he shut the investigation up.
This does NOT take a PhD to understand!
Pull it Larry! Go on…you know you want to!
ABC AUSTRALIA 9/11: Ignorance, Arrogance, Incompetence or an Agenda?
A few weeks ago, the Head of one of the Trades Union branches in Australia, Mr Kevin Bracken, spoke to a certain Mr John Faine on ABC Public Radio and Mr Faine took to utter disparagement and ridicule of Mr Bracken’s views on the 9/11 fiasco. Here is the video of the discussion:
Here is the response from (and follow up to) ABC Australia…
From: Earthling
To: corporate_affairs11.abc@abc.net.au
Subject: RE: C42053-10 RE: John Faine’s remarks toward Kevin Bracken
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:28:20 +0000
Dear ABC,
While I take that as a contemptuous response, I will attempt to be far more considerate in mine than I would wish to be.
“where topical and factual content deals with a matter of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe” section 7.4.1.
Let’s consider this for a moment shall we? It refers to factual content. and debate. Mr Bracken was more than willing to present scientific facts and to debate Mr Faine on all aspects of the issue including the 9/11 Commission Report which, I can guarantee, neither you nor John Faine have read. And yes, I can guarantee that on the basis that, if you had read it you would arrive at the same conclusions as many of us have. Let me just add here, that you are communicating with someone here with two University degrees, one being in Physics!
Mr Faine refused point blank, to debate Mr Bracken while resorting to a tactic of ridicule. The last bastion of one who has no appreciation of the facts of the matter but who simply, either for personal or professional reasons, cannot or will not, take up the challenge of debate due, very probably, to their own incapacity to debate it!
Mr Bracken, you go on to say, declined to “elaborate” but you are purposefully using this to “smoke screen” the issue. It is akin to stating that, for example, if your home was set on fire and an act of arson had taken place, you were asked by the insurance company and/or authorities to describe and state precisely who carried out the arson. If you were then unable to do so, then what you are suggesting is that your claim would be unfounded! Plainly ridiculous!
I would add here that, if the insurance/authorities then asked you why you had – just a few weeks prior – taken out special insurance against an arson attack on your property, there would be the strong “smell” of you having done the job yourself for the sake of the payout.
Try arguing THAT one ABC!
Next: “as long they do not incite discrimination or disparagement”
John Faine, once more, broke that rule. He disparaged Kevin Bracken by his tone and demeanour toward him on a public radio channel. He disparaged him further when he decided to go a step too far then and call Mr Bracken’s Union to make a complaint against Mr Bracken simply for Mr Bracken’s free expression of his views! THAT, my friends, is discrimination and a bold and sickening attempt by one of your employees to have a destructive influence upon Mr Bracken’s personal integrity and career! Discrimination takes all forms and, in this case, Mr Faine was discriminating by making it clear that, if one did not hold his own personal view in this case, then one should be held to account and put on “trial by media”. It was despicable! Yet, it backfired on Mr Faine and yourselves.
Meanwhile, did Mr Bracken call ABC management to complain about the way he was treated by Mr Faine? I don’t believe he did. What does that tell you? He certainly would have had a right but I can see it would have fallen on the deaf ears of some sycophantic, management type who follows the Corporate manifesto!
Next: “Gratuitous” – Meaning: Not called for by the circumstances, unearned.
Once more, you use a word in conjunction with “coarse language”. You are working so hard to maintain your “political correctness” ABC!
Mr Faine’s ridicule was uncalled for and unearned by Mr Bracken. Mr Faine would not take up the challenge laid down to him. Mr Faine’s entire rant was based on ignorance and was, in fact, gratuitous since he could not justify his reasons to poke ridicule at Mr Bracken’s views. He relied on the belief that his listeners would support him. He was very very wrong!
YOU, ABC, do not set the agenda, the tone, the rules and neither do you, or any of your employees, speak for the public. Your job is to inform the public. Period! You are woefully lacking in your understanding of what your role in society is or should be!
Again, you repeat Mr Bracken was given two opportunities to put his case. He commenced on a couple of occasions too but to then be talked down to by your despicable excuse for a “host” who would not listen and repeated over and over again that it was not worthy of debate. So, please, less of your evasive nonsense! What you are again attempting to say, is that Mr Bracken refused to elaborate on who he believed to be the people responsible. I would suggest that if every crime investigation started out with such a question and if no-one could provide an answer, our Police and Crime investigation teams would not get very far.
Now, I shall leave you with this thought: Don’t be an ignorant, arrogant, imbecile your entire life and neither be a sycophantic slave to your paymasters. Do that and you hold no respect in the eyes of the public since they shall recognise you for what you are: Impotent and lacking all integrity.
Have a nice day! (as our cousins in America would say without much thought)
But please don’t respond with more of the same. You’re in a different league I can assure you and it doesn’t sound to me like the first division either!
Earthling
From: CORPORATE_AFFAIRS11.ABC@abc.net.au
To: Earthling
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:43:58 +1100
Subject: C42053-10 RE: John Faine’s remarks toward Kevin Bracken
Dear Earthling
Thank you for your comments concerning Jon Faine’s talkback call from Kevin Bracken.
Your correspondence has been referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC’s editorial standards. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC Radio.
Your complaint alleges that Mr Faine’s broadcast was biased and treated Kevin Bracken rudely.
Talkback segments on radio are classified as topical programming by the ABC. In relation to impartiality in topical programming the ABC’s Editorial Policies state:
“where topical and factual content deals with a matter of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe” section 7.4.1.
The essence of the view Kevin Bracken expressed, is that the officially accepted account of what happened on 9/11 is a “conspiracy”. He declined to elaborate, despite being asked, on who organised or coordinated the conspiracy or what the motives may have been. He did, however wish to engage Jon Faine in a debate on specific aspects of what occurred on that day. The principal example he raised was the theory that because aviation fuel burns at a temperature below that required to “melt” steel then the building must have been imploded.
In Jon Faine’s view, the theory that the twin towers of The World Trade Centre were imploded lacks sufficient plausibility to be considered a worthwhile subject of debate. As he mentioned on air, the subject was carefully examined by the 9/11 Commission (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf ). Its conclusion on this matter has been confirmed by many experts, most notably by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which conducted an exhaustive three year study of the collapse of the twin towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm ).
In talkback programs such as this, both Jon Faine and Kevin Bracken are entitled to express their views as strongly as they wish as long they do not incite discrimination or disparagement or involve the gratuitous use of coarse language.
Jon Faine’s language was intended to communicate the strength of his disagreement with Kevin Bracken’s views on this particular subject and not to suggest that he was actually mentally ill. Nor did Jon Faine make any judgements about John Bracken’s broader political views or character.
Although Jon Faine declined to engage directly on the issues of fact with Kevin Bracken, he allowed both Mr Bracken and many talkback callers to expound on their views. Mr Bracken was given two opportunities to put his case and calls on both sides of the debate were taken over two days.
On review of the broadcast you have mentioned and subsequent broadcasts over the following 24 hours, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcasts were in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to both ABC Radio management and the producers of the program.
Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated. For your reference, a copy of the ABC Code of Practice is available at:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.
Yours sincerely
Mark Maley
Audience & Consumer Affairs
—————————————————————————
ABC program: John Faine
Response required: true
Date of program: Unknown but recent
Contact type: Complaint
Location: QLD
Subject: John Faine’s remarks toward Kevin Bracken
Comments: It is the same story repeated throughout the world in all mainstream media. A man such as Kevin Bracken who, I may say has immense integrity from what I heard of him, makes a statement saying he questions the official story of 9/11 and he is then “ridiculed” (a very poor attempt and in very bad taste) by a man by the name of Faine who “feigns” offence and tries to lead his caller into answering a question no-one knows the answer to. that being “Whodunnit Kevin? What Conspiracy theory do you subscribe to?”
A quite pathetic attempt to demonise Mr Bracken and one used the world over. Well there is a rapidly growing number of people who cannot ever be described as a “whacky minority” who have actually come to the same conclusion as Mr Bracken and many have done so through significant study of the issue, unlike your Mr Faine who does not have the guts to debate the issue. He will use every trick in the book to defame Mr Bracken however and uses you PM and Parliament as his crutch. Your PM and Parliament are like ours (the UK) and any others. Sycophantic politicians feathering their own nests and your Mr Faine obviously feels “safer” in that company.
Good luck to him. But please pass this on to Mr Faine: He is what Americans would call “yellow bellied”. Mr Bracken referred to him as a “bully”. That he is not. He simply has the microphone and the broadcasting platform. he is a sickening excuse for a man. And you employ him!
ABC? Yes indeed. In this case, I would suggest ABC learn it’s ABC regarding this issue before opening it’s ignorant or agenda ridden mouth!
I clicked Queensland because I was not given the option of clicking outside Australia. I happened to work for a company in Queensland once also.
Regards,
Earthling
Now ABC and John Faine, have a look at a REAL inferno in a Shanghai steel framed building. It provides a new meaning to “Made in China” Faine.
Let me say this Mr Faine: You acted like a slimy asshole! Some “gratuitous” words for you! Don’t be a zionist prat all your life John!
A “debate” with the BBC on Building 7 & the Bhutto BBC edit
Al Jazeera version:
BBC Version:
From: Earthling
To: newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk
Subject: David Frost interview with Benazir Bhutto Edited.
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:56:47 +0000
Dear Sir/Madam, This hasn’t just come to my attention. I have been aware of it for quite a long time but it is only now that I have managed to find an extremely good example of what the BBC did when they edited out the reference to Osama Bin Laden being dead while Benazir Bhutto was interviewed by David Frost. HYPERLINK “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuFx6rQbE” \t “_blank” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuFx6rQbE I demand an explanation of this. Please do not think of ignoring this mail or assuming that some inane excuse can be given for such an edit.
Thank you,
Earthling
From: Earthling
Sent: 21 February 2009 16:24
To: NewsOnline Complaints
Cc: miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: FW: David Frost interview with Benazir Bhutto Edited.
Hello again BBC. I’ve given you a few days to respond to this and I see you have simply ignored. Not at all a surprise there. However, I don’t give up that easily. So, I’ll repeat my sending of this and I shall carry on with a greater and greater “audience” until you provide me with an answer. Your arrogance in ignoring the public and valid criticism is also reflected in our government. This is going to stop. Now, again. ANSWER this complaint!
Kind Regards and have a nice day
Earthling
Subject: RE: David Frost interview with Benazir Bhutto Edited.
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:25:34 +0000
From: newsonline@bbc.co.uk
To: Earthling
Dear Earthling,
Thank you for your email. The BBC has an agreement with al-Jazeera which enables both broadcasters to share certain news material including pictures and interviews. It was on this basis that we offered an extract of Sir David Frost’s interview with Benazir Bhutto to users of the BBC News website. During the interview Ms Bhutto made an allegation that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. A claim which was unchallenged and so unexpected that it seemed most likely that she had mis-spoken. Under time pressure the item producer responsible for publishing the video edited out the comment with the intention of avoiding confusion. On reflection this was clearly a mistake and should not have happened. There was no intention on our part to distort the meaning of the interview, and we have replaced the incorrectly edited version with the original unedited interview as broadcast by Al-Jazeera. Regards BBC News Website HYPERLINK “http://news.bbc.co.uk/” \t “_blank” http://news.bbc.co.uk/
From: Earthling
To: newsonline@bbc.co.uk
CC: miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: David Frost interview with Benazir Bhutto Edited.
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:40:04 +0000
Dear BBC, Many thanks for that rapid response! ”A claim which was unchallenged..” How ODD, don’t you think, that a man of David Frost’s experience in world affairs, would leave such an “allegation” unchallenged considering the enormity of the suggestion? Meanwhile, our “esteemed” BBC just happened to ignore such a profound statement by someone of Ms Bhutto’s status and decided to take the view that, because it was so “unexpected” that “..it seemed most likely that she had mispoken.” What an incredibly incompetent suggestion you have made here. Had Ms Bhutto, let’s imagine, been on “Question Time” and made such a remark, do you not think that both the entire panel and the entire audience, followed by the entire country and the entire world would have stopped her and asked if it were a mistake and that had she “mis-spoken”? Do you honestly consider it to be capable journalism to simply ignore such a statement as simply mis-spoken? If any one of our “distinguished” politicians in this country were to make the slightest error on most topics, I think you would agree that as much political “mileage” would be made of it as at all possible. But Ms Bhutto “slips up” and tells the world that Osama Bin Laden is murdered and the BBC say “oops!”
Who exactly are you trying to make a mockery of here? Ms Bhutto? Me? Yourselves? I would certainly say the latter because it is this simple: You are the professional, “impartial”, “no stone left unturned” disseminator of “news” to the British public (and the world) yet you seem to have made some pretty fundamental errors which you simply put down to “oops!”
Another example of this which comes to mind is the BBC’s coverage of 9/11 itself where, approximately 20 minutes prior to the event, you reported (Jane Standley) that WTC 7 “The Saloman Building” had collapsed.
HYPERLINK “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI” \t “_blank” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
Now, I know, I know, this has been ‘explained away’ already by the BBC hasn’t it? And anyone who questions is somehow labeled a “Conspiracy nut”.
Well let’s just review shall we? I have to say that Richard Porter’s “explanation” regarding this is, again, rather pathetic. HYPERLINK “http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html” \t “_blank” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Let’s consider his points one by one:
1. “We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening. ” So let’s assume (and I think it may be correct to assume) that the BBC were not part of a “conspiracy”. So Richard states the BBC were not told in advance the buildings were going to fall down. Yet, by stating this he entirely contradicts what is evidenced by Jane Standley’s report where it is clearly stated “Now more on the latest building collapse…” and “talking about the “Salomon brothers building collapsing and indeed it has..” Now the question simply remains from Mr Porter’s explanation here: You weren’t told in advance but you reported it in advance? 20 minutes in advance. Where DO you get your information from? Or do you just make it up and guess? What an exceptional crystal ball you have! May I have the use of it for a trip to Ladbrokes?
2. “In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.” I would say (wouldn’t you?) that the things said, on this occasion at least, proved to be 100% accurate and true just simply that the time/space continuum had been warped a little don’t you think? And doesn’t this statement of “sourced our reports” contradict the statement in 1. above that you didn’t get told anything and nobody told you what to say or do? While you checked and double checked the info you were receiving yet doesn’t that “information we were receiving” suggest that you WERE being told what to say? That is what information is after all isn’t it?
Did Richard Porter think before he wrote this response to the questions raised on this issue? And does the BBC now have any better and more logical response? I would sincerely wish to hear it. Or perhaps what you were told was this: “Salomon building has either collapsed or it is soon to collapse, we’re not sure so you can decide what you want to say”. That would suggest you weren’t TOLD what to say! But then it would suggest that you just simply do NOT check and re-check facts at all!
3. “Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.”
”..what she was being told..” and yet the BBC were being told nothing according to Richard. What a bizarre world we live in where reporters aren’t told anything but the information they receive is passed on to the viewing public while they haven’t actually been told anything?? ”..what she was seeing..” Well it certainly wasn’t the Salomon building falling and, it is quite obvious, she would not have known which building was which and therefore would have HAD to be told!
4. “We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another. ”
Ah but you did eventually find them in the “2002 file” didn’t you? There is no issue to be cleared up. You reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it happened. No-one was meant to have known about this collapse because it was not meant to have been a planned collapse. There is nothing that the BBC can possibly say nor do to “clear this up”. You simply refuse to divulge who your source of that information was. And that refusal is simply disallowing any further questioning. You recognise the lie in all of this but you do not have the journalistic integrity to consider it further and consider or probe into what exactly it means. You simply cannot be trusted for honest journalism. You have been told to drop it.
5. “If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “
What on earth is Mr Porter ranting on about here? Who is saying it was not an error on the part of the BBC? No-one. What people know is that you reported this event, by way of being given information by a third party, as having happened and you did your “checks and double checks” on this information, while Mr Porter suggests you were never told what to say. Yes it was an error but just in the timing. Unfortunate that isn’t it? No conspiracy. Just facts. The facts, plainly, are that you were told that the building had collapsed and you forwarded that information to the public. Two planes hit two skyscrapers. There was “collateral damage” to a number of buildings which Jane states correctly. However, there was absolutely no reason for it to be reported that a third building (and particularly the Salomon building) had collapsed. Mr. Silverstein said “pull it” and it was pulled. You had been provided with information by a third party erroneously that that building had ALREADY been “pulled”. What people wish to know is WHO advised you! What incenses me is that you people, through being silenced, are allowing the integrity of your journalism across many fronts to be manipulated and yet, such manipulations will impact you all as individuals or those close to you (perhaps your children) in years to come. You do not seem to search for truth but just what is politically acceptable. The time will come, perhaps sooner than you would care to imagine, that the decisions you have made and continue to make, will create a world which neither of you will enjoy.
Continue to be a slave to your Corporation and its political agenda and you will flourish within that corporation I am sure. However, while you flourish as a member of a corporate entity, your individual personal freedoms will slowly and surely be eradicated just like the rest of us.
It will be too late to regret.
So, you may wish to provide a further reply to this. I look forward to it and hope it shall be just as rapid. For, as I’m sure you will appreciate, your response really does not hold much water.
Kind Regards and have an even better Sunday (and thanks again for the rapid reply! 
)
Earthling
PS: Please pass on a copy of this email to Mark Thompson and confirm to me that you have thank you. His championing of something called “trust” is of extreme interest to me. Further as Mr. Thompson, if he can find the time from his immensely busy schedule, to contact me as I would like to discuss a number of extremely interesting issues that, if he truly promotes the value of trust within the BBC to its audience, then I suggest he would have a serious interest in speaking with me. In 2007 it emerged that the BBC had been involved in a number of editorial guideline breaches. Mark Thompson, as BBC editor-in-chief investigated these breaches, and presented his interim report to the BBC Trust on 18 July 2007. The Trust felt that the BBC’s values of accuracy and honesty had been compromised, and Thompson outlined to the Trust the actions he would take to restore confidence. Later that day he told BBC staff, via an internal televised message, that deception of the public was never acceptable. He said that he, himself, had never deceived the public – it would never have occurred to him to do so, and that he was sure that the same applied to the “overwhelming majority” of BBC staff. He also spoke on BBC News 24 and was interviewed by Gavin Esler for Newsnight. He stated that “from now on, if it [deceiving the public] happens we will show people the door. Staff were emailed on 19 July 2007 and later in the year all staff, including the Director-General undertook an Safeguarding Trust course.
From: Earthling
To: newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk
CC: miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: Investigative Journalism
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:11:50 +0000
Dear BBC,
While I await your reply to the email below, I thought I would add a further issue that concerns me regarding the apparent lack of interest that the BBC shows in getting to the root of an issue which is one of the most fundamental issues currently facing the entire globe: The threat of Osama Bin Laden and the threat of Al Qaeda globally.
It does seem very strange, the lack of basic investigation that an organisation such as the BBC has carried out in the entire aftermath of 9/11. An event that shaped the world we live in today. Meanwhile, as I have covered, when something such as the potential death of the main protagonist comes to your attention, you dismiss it out of hand as probably “mis-spoken” on the part of a stateswoman such as Ms Benazir Bhutto. Unfortunately, Ms Bhutto will never be able to answer that question of whether she mis-spoke or not.
Nevertheless, I would ask you to comment and reply on the following:
HYPERLINK “http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm” \t “_blank” http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH
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. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Not a word spoken of the 9/11 attacks. All “outside the United States”. The Federal buildings refered to being various overseas embassies of the United States.
Further, the FBI have been asked on a few occasions now, by a few different questioners, why they do not list Mr Bin Laden as responsible for 9/11. The answer from the FBI being that they do not have sufficient evidence!
Neither has the United States Dept of Justice charged Mr Bin Laden for the attacks, while they DID charge him with the 1993 attacks! A very strange anomaly don’t you agree?
Yet, we did see videos of Mr Bin Laden apparently admitting his involvement in 9/11 did we not? We further heard the Taliban state clearly that if Mr Bush could provide concrete evidence that Mr Bin Laden was involved, then they would ensure his hand over to authorities in the Netherlands for a trial to be conducted there. Mr Bush, however, simply stating he didn’t require proof of Mr Bin Laden’s involvement and issued a warning to the Taliban that if they simply did not hand over Mr Bin Laden on his say so, it meant war. And war is then exactly what he progressed in Afghanistan.
Now, I could continue ad infinitum on this subject, but my point is this with respect to the BBC: Have you considered investigating why the FBI and the Dept of Justice in the USA feel they have no sufficient evidence to indict Mr Bin Laden?
If not, then why not?
Is this not EXACTLY the issue that Mr Thompson is speaking of when he talks about NOT deceiving the British public?
There is, after all, various ways of deceiving. One is simply by accepting or being told what you will write and what you won’t. what you will cover in terms of news and what you won’t.
IF the BBC have taken their OWN decision not to investigate this fundamental point regarding this whole “War on Terror” then, what you are doing either through will or through incompetence, is deceiving a British public who, otherwise, have no idea of the fact that Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda have NEVER been charged with the murder of over 3000 people on 9/11.
We, meanwhile, are “fed” continuous news and fear of Al Qaeda which, as Mr Robin Cook stated before his unfortunate death, was simply a shortened term which meant “The Database”. That database being a list of the Mujahidin fighting against the Russians in the late 1970s/early 1980s (with US support given by the NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski under the Carter Administration plus financing by the CIA).
This fear is continuously put down to a “bogeyman” by the name of Osama Bin Laden and Muslim extremists, creating a hate of anything Islamic by the ignorant masses. This fear being promulgated by our media, of which, the BBC is prime.
So, again, please explain your lack of investigation on this (and many other) specific and far reaching points while, when using Al Jazeera footage, you “mistakenly” edit the statement that Mr Bin Laden is dead.
Now I hope you recognise that one “mistake” is understandable. Two mistakes are a concern. Three mistakes however (and more and a total lack of investigation) is really a matter of “three strikes you’re out”. It’s just the law of probabilities BBC that’s all. Again, I welcome your response with well considered comments and explanations. It’s a difficult task I realise but I would suggest it’s rather important wouldn’t you?
Regards,
Earthling
From: Earthling
Sent: 25 February 2009 14:10
To: NewsOnline Complaints
Cc: miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: FW: Investigative Journalism
Dear BBC, This is simply a resend. Awaiting a considered reply.
Regards,
Earthling
Subject: RE: Investigative Journalism
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:58:27 +0000
From: newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk
To: Earthling
Earthling, Thanks for your e-mails. We have nothing to add to our response concerning Benazir Bhutto. As we made clear, this was an interview conducted by Al-Jazeera, so we can’t be held responsible for the content of the interview. Richard Porter has outlined at length the BBC’s response to allegations concerning the events of September 11th. There is nothing further to add. Bin Laden and the FBI – we can’t really comment on things we haven’t done. Global warming – this story wasn’t the main news of the day, Professor Field is co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) working group on impacts and adaptation, and as such a leading climate scientist, and there was a mistake in the script of a video so it was removed. You should be aware that your areas of concern do not fall under the remit of any one BBC department, so should you wish to pursue them, you will need to make individual complaints and direct them appropriately: HYPERLINK “http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/” \t “_blank” http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Best wishes,
BBC News website
From: Earthling
To: newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk
CC: miltona@parliament.uk; camerond@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Investigative Journalism
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:53:30 +0000
BBC, You know what is stunning and ever so telling about your response below. If one were to assume (which I don’t for one moment) that you were not aware of the Bin Laden – FBI – Justice Dept issue, that it being brought to your attention would result in some gasp of horror that this was actually fact! But no, just like David Frost’s ZERO reaction to Bhutto’s statement which you can SUGGEST was just “mis-spoken” without following up on it; Here we have something that cannot possibly be “debunked” in that way and still exists and can be verified as absolute fact. The fact that Osama Bin Laden has never been charged for 9/11 (but has been for other crimes) and yet the BBC (whoever is at the end of these emails) don’t blink an eye. ”we can’t really comment on things we haven’t done”. How PATHETIC is that? You morons! Deceptive? You wouldn’t know truth if it poked you in the eye! Don’t ever expect a penny from me. You may make the standard retort of “How rude”. Don’t even think of it. You people set the bar regarding rudeness in terms of the disrespect you have for the intelligence of the British public. On a par with our politicians’ respect for the British public. Zero!
Earthling
ISRAEL: The “Mad Dog”
Not MY words!! 
The following quote is from remarks made in January, 2003 and published in the promient Dutch publication ‘Elsevier’ Magazine. Much has progressed for the Israeli military since 2003 and the subject of its Bioweapons capability is not even addressed directly.
(Prof Creveld) “Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.”
Here is one of the stories about the Professor’s remarks in January, 2003…
Israeli Prof Suggests Israel Can Destroy
All European Capitals
By Nadim Ladki
(IAP News) – An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.
Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Creveld said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.“
Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that “collective deportation” was Israel’s only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.
“The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.”
Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.
“I think it’s quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed.”
Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”
Creveld argued that Israel wouldn’t care much about becoming a rogue state.
“Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”
Creveld is a well respected, high profile Professor of Military History in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Your enemy is ISRAEL and their Zionist Banking masters. Let me assure you of that. They are MAD INSANE!
Remember THEY are the ones who “believe” they:
1. Are the chosen ones (while as Khazars they know damned well they’re not and it’s all total deception to cloak their true intentions. So what does THAT tell you about their willingness to deceive?).
2. As “the Chosen ones” they can do no wrong.
3. The Holocaust gives them a “get out of jail card” EVERYTIME.
4. The perfect retort to any and all criticism: “Anti semite!!!” While they are not even bloody semite! They are Khazarian originally. They have NOTHING to do with the biblical jews! The Palestinians are the ones with the original connections to the jews of Palestine!
And yet,
“Foreign sources” (Israel Intelligence Agencies) are supplying the info stating Iran has Nukes. Israel intelligence were also the source of the “Intelligence” prior to the Iraq war.
Meanwhile, the bloody Israelis have NEVER had an inspector anywhere near their nuke facilities and there has never been a count of their nuclear stockpile. They have never even formally admitted they have any! Yet we know they do.
Israelis detained (then released under orders of Bush) on/after 9/11. The truck carrying bombs was manned by Israelis. These news reports have all since been suppressed. They now simply are ignored as “Conspiracy theory”.
Benjamin Netanyahu was in London the day of 7/7. He was advised that morning not to leave his hotel by both Israeli intelligence and the British Home office.
Just in case you think the above is from some Conspiracy site, I’ve added the link to the Stratfor intelligence site which you can check out for yourself. I also requested a copy of the article from Stratfor by email and received it. You see I like to thoroughly check all my sources too to ensure I’m not getting some crap based on an agenda.
stratfor_search?use_sess=1&adv=&sort=rank
And just for good measure: The Wargames being played out on 7/7 just happened to be EXACTLY on those tube lines/stations which were bombed.
Get with the programme! You’re all looking in the wrong direction for your terrorists.
Their deception has been, is and always will be brilliant UNTIL you get wise to it!!
You really need to understand who your enemy really is and it isn’t Mr. “Bin laden with the blame”!
WANTED!! $1MILLION PRIZE!
$1MILLION PRIZE TO ANYONE WHO CAN OBTAIN A FORMAL DOCUMENTED INDICTMENT ON OSAMA BIN LADEN FOR THE 9/11 ATROCITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE…WELL BY FACTIONS OF….WELL, BY SOMEONE AT LEAST!!
YOU DON’T THINK I’D PAY UP? WELL I’D SAY YOU’VE GOT A BIGGER CHANCE OF ME PAYING UP THAN THE FBI AND AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!!
NOTE: “MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH.
SO WHERE’S CONSPIRACY AND MURDER RELATING TO THE EVENTS OF 9/11 GUYS?????????????????????????
TELL YOU WHAT? CAN I RING UP THE FBI AND ASK FOR THE INDICTMENT RELATING TO 9/11? I’LL CREATE SOME SPECIAL “EARTHLING” SDR’s OUT OF THIN AIR, GIVE THEM A VALUE OF $1MILLION, PUT THEM IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT. ONCE THE FBI PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE AND THE INDICTMENT, YOU CAN HAVE MY SDRs! IF NOT, I GET $1MILLION (but forget your crap fiat currency I’ll take it’s value in Prime Real Estate within whichever UN Wilderness Area within the United States that I choose) – DEAL??
Then once you can’t provide the evidence and the indictment for Bin Laden, perhaps you can explain what the FUCK we’re doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Or perhaps that explanation should be left to Mr. “It is easier to kill 1 million people than control 1 million people” Brzezinski?
TWATS!
AMERICA WOULD NEVER KILL THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN FAKE TERRORISM!!!!
NO????
STOP being so BLOODY NAIVE! Yes I’d never have believed so either until I read this a couple of years ago!
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”
And NO, you’re right, it DIDN’T happen! Because JFK wouldn’t do it! But SO WHAT? THEY CONSIDERED IT!! The entire Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon PROPOSED IT! It DOESN’T MATTER it didn’t happen!
Ever looked deeply into Oklahoma City? Or the FIRST 1993 WTC bombing?
It just DOESN’T STOP! And while YOU say “they never could do that” it just CARRIES ON!
leave a comment