Dead Men tell no tales!……. Or do they?
This one most certainly is. His “tale” is unfolding before our very eyes. He may be “dead” but, in the words of the Prophet, Charlie Sheen, he’s “WINNING”!
AND AMERICANS (the majority of them) STILL CAN’T FIGURE IT OUT!
A passage from Lord Desai (yes the LSE Economist and Rothschild Indian boy!) from his book: “Re-thinking Islamism: the ideology of the New Terror”.
It is in the course of answering the first question that Bin Laden starts with the issue of Israel/Palestine. After asserting that ‘The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased’, he makes the following astounding assertion:
It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be uponTHE IDEOLOGY OF GLOBAL ISLAMISM
him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islam, the religion of all the Prophets. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic umma that believes in all the Prophets of God — and we make no distinction between them.
Such a proposition will be regarded as far-fetched if not outrageous. But in one sense Bin Laden shrewdly exploits Wis faux naivete about Islam being the only religion that envelops the two previous mono- theisms of the Middle East. Thus he seriously wants Americans to convert to Islam. In the answer to the second question above, he says: ‘The first thing we are calling you to is Islam’.
Bin Laden calls Islam ‘the seal of all the previous religions’, by which he means Judaism and Christianity. He does not admit the existence of any other religion — Buddhism, Hinduism or Zoro- astrianism. He invites the Americans to accept ‘complete submis- sion to His Laws; and the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories, and religions which contradict the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad’. But he is not that naive and does not pursue this matter further; the bulk of his answer is de- voted to a critique of the American way of life in all its aspects. The very first injunction gives a flavour of what is to follow:
We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honor, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.
In short, give up Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, many Americans might say. He does not approve of the fact that America is ruled by the Constitution and its own made laws rather than the Sharia. He hates usury, which is permitted in America. He denounces gambling, sexual exposure and the exploitation of sex, sale of drugs and alcohol. He accuses America of having exported HIV/AIDS to the world (quite falsely of course), of not signing up to the Kyoto Agreement (quite rightly), of preventing the spread of democracy abroad, of aiding Israel to flout UN resolutions, of seek- ing immunity from the International Criminal Court for Americans while pursuing foreign war criminals, of monitoring the human rights performance of other countries while allowing Guantanamo Bay to exist for the incarceration of prisoners without conviction. The political set of demands however are starkly presented at the end of this statement. Among them are
• Stop supporting Israel, the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and the Manila Government against the Muslim guerrillas.
• Get out of our lands, do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.
• End your support for our corrupt leaders or else expect us in New York and Washington.
• Deal with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of subjugation, theft and occupation.
The entire message ends with a warning that if his demands are not heeded, Americans will lose the crusade Bush has launched.
If you Americans do not respond, then your fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.
WHAT A GUY! GUY IN CAVE WITH SANDALS AND BEARD DESTROYS A NATION ACTING LIKE A NEW BABYLON. SOUNDS A LITTLE LIKE JESUS NOW DOESN'T IT?
I’m sure he had a “Last Supper” with his disciples (Kissinger, Brzezinski, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc) and rose again: OBAMA!
AMERICA: STILL BEING FCUKED BY A DEAD MAN! HOWZAT?
Because he was neither dead nor alive in terms of all of the above. “He” was an ideology of people MUCH closer to you America!
My favourite segment in this:
“We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honor, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.
In short, give up Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, many Americans might say.”
“He” sounds like a decent sort of fellow doesn’t he? While if Americans just see all of that as “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and that is ALL they see it as, then now wonder they’re fcuked! 
If nothing else, “Bin Laden” was a prophet!
Bin Laden also co-wrote the following books/texts:
“The Grand Chessboard” 1997
“Rebuilding America’s Defences” 2000
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.
Obama finally “kills” Osama!
I watched and listened to every well chosen, emotive word dripping from the tongue of an extremely polished salesman and consummate liar of staggering proportions and was quite literally stunned and aghast at the sheer audacity of the man. The “audacity of hope” indeed!
The American polls for years now, have consistently shown, not only a vast majority of Americans against the wars, but also a growing majority of the American people who recognise 9/11 for what it was – a FALSE FLAG OPERATION.
We have not heard from Osama Bin Laden since 9/11 (with the exception of the CIA created versions of him – now well known) and even Benazir Bhutto reported on his death in an interview with David Frost (conveniently edited out by the BBC) and there is good reason for this: He has been dead for a very long time.
“President” Barack Obama has now proven himself – without a shadow of a doubt – to those in America (and there are many) who appreciate the reality of the above, that his office (not only his but those before him) is a cheap “front” for people far more sinister in intent who comprise the REAL power in this world.
“President” Obama is also not doing well at the polls halfway through his first term. In this speech, you can readily feel the need for him to re-ignite the support he had 2 years ago from those who believed he presented “change”. His rhetoric is all about recapturing the spirit of how the US felt and came together as a nation after 9/11. It benefitted George W. Bush and he wants that same “spirit” now. “I am the man who killed Osama Bin Laden”.
The problem is, he was already dead and you are playing a very dangerous game Barack because all those who appreciate he was will see your “fairy story” for what it is: A sick (yes “sick” preying on the ignorance of many Americans and also preying upon the losses of those who had friends and family killed in the attacks of 9/11 not to mention the lives of soldiers lost since – ALL based on the most monstrous of lies) attempt to make political capital from a beautifully scripted, yet disgustingly deceptive, “Hollywood script”.
My god man – you have no SOUL!
That said, you have simply GOT to be joking right?
I mean you really don’t seriously expect an intelligent individual to fall for this do you? Are the powers that be seriously this incompetent or are they now, simply, taking the proverbial out of the world’s population assuming they have done an adequate job in dumbing the world down?
No more needs said.
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
Christmas Bomber update – Total lie
Amid media blackout
Congressional hearing reveals US intelligence agencies shielded Flight 253 bomber
By Alex Lantier
3 February 2010
A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane.
The hearing was reported in a brief article posted January 27 on the web site of the Detroit News, headlined, “Terror Suspect Kept Visa to Avoid Tipping Off Larger Investigation.”
The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it.
This is despite—or perhaps more accurately, because of—the fact that this information exposes the official government story of the near-disaster to be a lie. President Obama, who has joined with top US intelligence, FBI and Homeland Security officials to insist that Abdulmutallab was inadvertently allowed to board the plane carrying explosives because of a failure to “connect the dots,” has from the start been deceiving the American people.
The official line strained credulity from the outset, given reports of multiple advance warnings that the Nigerian student was linked to terrorists in Yemen who were planning attacks on the US.
As was widely reported within hours of the failed bombing attempt, Abdulmutallab’s father—a former Nigerian government minister and prominent banker—went to the US embassy in Abuja in November to warn that his son was involved with radical Islamists in Yemen and had broken off contact with his family. The family said they had given US officials extensive information about their son in the expectation that they would “find and return him home.”
In his prepared statement to the House Committee on Homeland Security on January 27, State Department Under-Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy said: “In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on the day following his father’s November 19 visit to the Embassy, we sent a cable to the Washington intelligence and law enforcement community through proper channels (the Visas Viper system) that ‘Information at post suggests [Farouk] may be involved in Yemeni-based extremists.’”
Kennedy confirmed that all US intelligence agencies received warnings that Abdulmutallab was training with terrorists in Yemen. He noted that the initial diplomatic cable from Abuja misspelled Abdulmutallab’s name. However, Kennedy continued, “At the same time, the Consular Section entered Abdulmutallab into the Consular Lookout and Support System database known as CLASS… The CLASS entry resulted in a lookout using the correct spelling that was shared automatically with the primary lookout system used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and accessible to other agencies.”
Under questioning by the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Kennedy explained why the State Department might not revoke the US visa of a suspected terrorist: “We will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, ‘Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?’”
He added: “And one of the members [of the intelligence community]—and we’d be glad to give you that out of [open session]—in private—said, ‘Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.’”
Under questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren, Kennedy confirmed that Abdulmutallab’s case was one in which US intelligence officials had interceded to block a visa revocation.
In prepared remarks at the same hearing, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter stated: “Within the intelligence community we had strategic intelligence that Al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP—the terrorist group in Yemen with which Abdulmutallab was in contact] had the intention of taking action against the United States prior to the failed attack on December 25th, but we did not direct more resources against AQAP, nor insist that watch-listing criteria be adjusted prior to the event.” He added that US intelligence analysts “did not push [Abdulmutallab] onto the terrorist watch-list.”
This inaction came despite the fact that US intelligence agencies were well aware of the threat posed by AQAP. According to Leiter: “The Intelligence Community highlighted the growing threat to US and Western interests in the region posed by AQAP, whose precursor elements attacked our embassy in [the Yemeni capital] Sana’a [in September 2008]. Our analysis focused on AQAP’s plans to strike US targets in Yemen, but it also noted—increasingly in the fall of 2009—the possibility of targeting the United States.”
Amazingly, the US government did not declare AQAP a terrorist group until January 19, 2010, even though it was referred to by that name in 2009. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley stated that declaring AQAP a terrorist group would “prohibit provision of material support and arms to AQAP and also include immigration-related restrictions that will help stem the flow of finances to AQAP.” Thus, for nearly a month after the attempted bombing, US officials were not required to implement a range of measures against AQAP, including “an asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo,” according to Crowley.
At the January 27 hearing, Leiter said that there had been “multiple” points of failure in the US government’s response to warnings of the impending attack. However, all three government officials testifying—Kennedy, Leiter and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Secretary Jane Lute—said no disciplinary action would be taken.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was invited to the hearing and was in Washington at the time, refused to attend. She did not notify committee members beforehand. Napolitano was widely criticized for claiming on December 27 that the “system worked” prior to, during and after the attempted bombing.
Official testimony now records that US intelligence agencies deliberately let Abdulmutallab board Flight 253, putting the lives of hundreds of passengers at risk, in the course of an as yet undisclosed intelligence operation. Whether US agencies were unaware of Abdulmutallab’s plans, or consciously decided to allow an attack to proceed, remains unclear.
In this context, it should be noted that the reason for US inaction given at the hearing—that US intelligence did not want to alert Al Qaeda that it was watching Abdulmutallab—does not hold water. As congressmen noted during the hearing, US Customs and Border Protection had prepared to interrogate Abdulmutallab upon arrival in Detroit, as he was on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database. This would be counterproductive if US agencies were mounting a concerted effort to hide their interest in Abdulmutallab.
There are a number of possible explanations for the decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board Northwest Flight 253. One possibility is that it was bound up with efforts by elements within the US intelligence apparatus to politically destabilize the Obama administration.
To seriously investigate the possible motivations behind the government’s actions, the question must be asked: What would have been the consequences of a successful attack? Hysterical media coverage would have provided fodder for the most right-wing factions in the ruling class to demand war against Yemen or other Muslim countries. At home, there would have been calls for a mass dragnet like that after the September 11 attacks, and immense political pressure for a new battery of police-state laws.
Even having failed, the attack was used as a pretext for expanding US military operations in Yemen, adding further security restrictions at airports, and expanding the “no-fly” passenger list and other databases by agencies unaccountable to the American people.
The testimony at the January 27 hearing also blows apart the line promulgated by the establishment media, which universally echoed the administration’s hackneyed phrase to explain the Flight 253 incident—a “failure to connect the dots” on the part of US intelligence agencies. This, of course, is the same phrase used in the official cover-up of the 9/11 attacks.
Thus, in a January 2 editorial entitled “Why Didn’t They See It?” the New York Times wrote: “No doubt sorting through heaps of information and determining what is urgent or even worthy of follow-up is daunting. Still, it is incredible, and frightening, that the government cannot do at least as good a job at swiftly updating and correlating information as Google.”
The Times itself, in a subsequent article published January 18, reported the results of its own investigation, based on interviews with senior White House and intelligence officials. The newspaper revealed more “missed clues,” including the fact that intelligence authorities learned in early November from a communications intercept of Al Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named “Umar Farouk” had volunteered for a coming operation. Despite such evidence of an official cover-up, the Times maintained the line that the near-disaster was the result of mistakes, omissions and an inability to “connect the dots.”
It is now possible to answer the New York Times editorial of January 2: They did “see it,” and the Times’ incredulous and cynical attempt to explain the Flight 253 attack as the result of mere incompetence was part of a campaign of disinformation. This is a campaign in which, by its silence on the January 27 hearing, the Times continues to participate.
The Congressional hearing vindicates the analysis of the World Socialist Web Site, which exposed the highly dubious character of the official story, pointed to the possibility of US government involvement, and demanded that officials involved in handling Abdulmutallab’s case be named and investigated.
In a December 31 column (“The Northwest Flight 253 intelligence failure: Negligence or conspiracy?”) the World Socialist Web Site wrote: “The general outlines of the Northwest bombing attempt and the 9/11 attacks are startlingly similar. One might even say that what is involved is a modus operandi. In both cases, those alleged to have carried out the actions had been the subject of US intelligence investigations and surveillance and had been allowed to enter the country and board flights under conditions that would normally have set off multiple security alarms.
“Both then and now, the government and the media expect the public to accept that all that was involved was mistakes. But why should anyone assume that the failure to act on the extensive intelligence leading to Abdulmutallab involved merely ‘innocent’ mistakes—and not something far more sinister?”
In the January 18 New York Times article cited above, the newspaper also noted that Obama personally met on December 22 with CIA, FBI, and DHS officials because Obama was “worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday.” In another meeting the same day, the Timesreported, Obama’s homeland security advisor John Brennan held talks on Yemen, “where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target on Christmas day.”
Nevertheless, Obama gave a December 28 internet and radio address in which he falsely described Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist.”
He also declared: “A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable… We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”
Over a month after Obama made these claims, it is clear that US intelligence agencies were deeply involved and the White House is overseeing a massive cover-up.
MI5 and Islam4UK
Wooton Basset? Islam4UK? LOL No. OUR governments! Get it in your head!
So, I repeat: You care for our troops do you? Then get this in their heads! No, it’s NOT just this one little video that proves what is happening. It is a MASS of information that, when one studies it (and I have, EXTENSIVELY) PROVES our lads (and lassies) are getting killed for a sickening agenda against US!
Now WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS! Your REAL enemy are the corrupt gangsters (YES they ARE gangsters) in our government! And not just the Labour government of today but the higher echelons of ALL our political parties who are in the pocket of the Bankers and their friends.
1992 CATO INSTITUTE paper discussing the fact “America” needs a new “enemy” to replace the Soviet/Communist threat. It just doesn’t come any clearer than this:
“Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America’s foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. Possible new villains include “instability” in Europe –ranging from German resurgence to new Russian imperialism– the “vanishing” ozone layer, nuclear proliferation, and narcoterrorism. Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). That peril is symbolized by the Middle Eastern Moslem fundamentalist–the “Fundie,” to use a term coined by The Economist–a Khomeini-like creature, armed with a radical ideology, equipped with nuclear weapons, and intent on launching a violent jihad against Western civilization.”
“There are dangerous signs that the process of creating a monolithic threat out of isolated events and trends in the Moslem world is already beginning. The Green Peril thesis is now being used to explain diverse and unrelated events in that region, with Tehran replacing Moscow as the center of ideological subversion and military expansionism and Islam substituting for the spiritual energy of communism.
Islam does seem to fit the bill as the ideal post-Cold War villain. “It’s big; it’s scary; it’s anti-Western; it feeds on poverty and discontent,” wrote David Ignatius, adding that Islam “spreads across vast swaths of the globe that can be colored green on the television maps in the same way that communist countries used to be colored red.”
“The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious “sources” and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media’s spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.”
“The Israeli government and its supporters in Washington are also trying to play the Islamic card. The specter of Central Asian republics and Iran equipped with nuclear weapons helps Israel to reduce any potential international pressure on it to place its own nuclear capabilities and strategy on the negotiating table. More important, perhaps, the Green Peril could revive, in the long run, Israel’s role as America’s strategic asset, which was eroded as a result of the end of the Cold War and was seriously questioned during the Gulf War.”
Full CATO INSTITUTE paper here:
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!
THEY LIVE!!!!!!!!!!! Ooooohhhhh so scary!!!
The Boys are back in town! An Al Qaeda passport’s just been found!! (like the one of Muhammad Atta that flew out of his shirt pocket or his hand luggage, out of a plane through a ball of kerosene fire, through a burning building which ended up being pulverized into dust but Muhammad Atta’s passport remained intact and was found a few blocks away by FBI. You mean THAT kind of passport?) …… Bloody hilarious what you’ll do to keep the bogeymen alive.
Pakistani forces find passport of 9/11 suspect – report
Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:57pm IST
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Pakistani forces found a passport of an Islamist militant linked to two hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks during an offensive against Taliban strongholds near the Afghan border, a TV station said on Thursday.
A PASSPORT is found almost a decade later of someone not involved in the attacks in any way, shape or form – BUT it just keeps the story which has lost ALL credibility, ticking over. Dear GOD they’re desperate aren’t they?
The passport of Said Bahaji, a German of Moroccan origin, was among documents, weapons and jihadi literature seized by the government forces during their operation in South Waziristan and was shown to a group of journalists during an official trip.
Would they like to try and take a look around Saudi Arabia? They JUST might find a few passports of people who have jihadi literature and a weapon or two too yet our BAe Systems sells weapons to these people!?!?! Give me a break here will you? You so called “Elite” have lost the plot, lost the argument – your fairy story about 9/11 is dead in the water – just accept it. The rest of us have and that’s why you keep coming up with this trash to try and sell the story again. Sorry – ain’t happening mate!
“The passport shows he reached Karachi just days before 9/11,” DawnNews said, showing a passport purportedly belonging to Bahaji.
“He” (remember passport “purportedly” belonging to this nobody) reached Karachi just days before 9/11 did he? Well, it just so happens I reached the UK after years away just days before 9/11 too. I bet lots of people “reached Karachi” just days before 9/11. Even on the DAY of 9/11. Christ! You’ll throw any trash at us won’t you?
Military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas, who accompanied the reporters on the trip to South Waziristan had no comments to offer.
Yes perhaps he knows better than saying something and making a complete ass out of himself.
“I haven’t seen the passport. These reporters may have seen it.” Sensible comment! Unlike the reporters who report this crap.
Bahaji’s name appeared in the 9/11 Commission Report. Oooohhhh does it? Are you sure it wasn’t just a reference to the hijackers all enjoying Onion BHAJIS before committing the fabled hari kari.
The report said Bahaji spent eight months with hijackers Mohamed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh between Nov. 1998 and July 1999. Did he? Must make him a mass murderer then eh? So how many people have spent time with Tony Blair in the past few years? Are they into genocide too are they?
“Described as an insecure follower with no personality and with limited knowledge of Islam, Bahaji nonetheless professed his readiness to engage in violence,” it said. Trying to make up a “profile” of a nobody are you? Learn that from Tavistock did you? You’re hilarious!
Atta and Binalshibh used Bahaji’s computer for internet research as evidenced by documents and diskettes seized by German authorities after the 9/11 attacks, the Commission said. Binalshibh was arrested in Pakistan with the help of FBI and CIA in 2002. What research is this? Are we actually going to see PROOF of anything you guys EVER report? No, I didn’t think so.
Go read your fairy stories and scare the hell out of your children and leave us adults to discuss some REAL issues rather than having to put up with your CRAP!
leave a comment