Translate

Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Friday, 27 May 2016

Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari argues the US itself had planned and carried out 9/11

Katib Al-Shammari says that the US planned and carried out 9/11 in order to obtain hegemony over the Middle East and placed the blame for 9/11 on an ever changing list of culprits depending on Washington’s goal at the time. First, he says, it was Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Then Saddam Hussein and Iraq. A New York Court blamed Iran. Now Saudi Arabia is given the villian role. The Americans, he says, always come up with suspicious documents and claim to have evidence that they never show.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05/27/911-disinformation-saudi-arabia-attacked-america-paul-craig-roberts/

 “Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

“The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

“So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives.”
 

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/05/26/state-sponsors-terrorism-us-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-attacks-but-blames-other-countries-them-out.html

http://www.infowars.com/saudis-fire-back-blame-us-for-911/

We all know that there are four aces in a pack. When America plays all four and uses up all its wild cards, perhaps enough people will notice.



http://aus.politics.narkive.com/QPohl9kh/boston-tea-party-and-9-11-were-both-false-flag-with-exactly-the-same-modus-operandi

at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Preparedness to believe conspiracy theories conclusive evidence of deepening detestation of our politicians and government

Are Conspiracy Theories Bad for Democracy?
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3373

David Runciman does not deal with the most important conspiracy at all until it is raised by the first person who asked a question at 1:00, David Hunter.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/24/do-americans-live-in-a-false-reality-created-by-orchestrated-events-paul-craig-roberts/

We know from Operation Gladio and Operation Northwoods that governments do engage in murderous conspiracies against their own citizens. Therefore, it is a mistake to conclude that governments do not engage in conspiracies.

One often hears the objection that if 9/11 was a false flag attack, someone would have talked.
Why would they have talked? Only those who organized the conspiracy would know. Why would they undermine their own conspiracy?

Whistleblowers pay a high price. Many of them are in prison. Obama has prosecuted and imprisoned a record number. Once they are thrown in prison, the question becomes: “Who would believe a criminal?”

As for 9/11 all sorts of people have talked. Over 100 police, firemen and first responders have
reported hearing and experiencing a large number of explosions in the Twin Towers. Maintanence personnel report experiencing massive explosions in the sub-basements prior to the building being hit by an airplane. None of this testimony has had any effect on the authorities behind the official story or on the presstitutes.

There are 2,300 architects and engineers who have written to Congress requesting a real investigation. Instead of the request being treated with the respect that 2,300 professionals deserve, the professionals are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”

An international panel of scientists have reported the presence of reacted and unreacted nanothermite in the dust of the World Trade Centers. They have offered their samples to government agencies and to scientists for confirmation. No one will touch it. The reason is clear. Today science funding is heavily dependent on the federal government and on private companies that have federal contracts. Scientists understand that speaking out about 9/11 means the termination of their career.

The government has us where it wants us—powerless and disinformed. Most Americans are too uneducated to be able to tell the difference between a building falling down from asymetrical damage and one blowing up. Mainstream journalists cannot question and investigate and keep their jobs. Scientists cannot speak out and continue to be funded.

Truth telling has been shoved off into the alternative Internet media where I would wager the government runs sites that proclaim wild conspiracies, the purpose of which is to discredit all skeptics.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 20 April 2015

Islamophobes deny Muslim terrorism is caused by Western foreign policy


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 29 March 2015

God, marriage, division of labour, specialisation and social cohesion

I am perfectly ready to accept that what are said to be God's laws are merely the accumulated wisdom of Man attributed to God because saying these laws came from an omnipotent and perfectly moral God is the only way of making the stupid, venal and unprincipled - who would only do good if rewarded and refrain from evil only if punished, in this life and the next - obey these rules generation after generation. The strictures of Communism, Nazism, Liberalism etc are only obeyed for as long as the government promoting Communism, Nazism, Liberalism etc does not fall. There are some laws that are eternal and universal, and the rules of marriage comes to mind. For as long as there are men and women on earth, they will need to make bargains with each other based on the buying and selling of sexual services as well as services men are specially good at providing eg soldiering and labouring, and of course services that women are specially good at providing eg childcare, housekeeping and sexual services.

Sex and marriage is clearly pivotal to this bargain and traditional marriage is the pivot upon which true gender balance rests.

Feminists, in their spite and eagerness to destroy the patriarchy which runs on marriage, have been demolishing this institution. All patriarchies are established on the principle of marriage and all matriarchies are established in the absence of traditional marriage. All patriarchies are advanced societies and all matriarchies are declining and primitive societies. To discover that you live in a matriarchy is the equivalent of discovering that your society has cancer. Once you have accepted this diagnosis and prognosis, you will know what the cure must logically and necessarily be: to surgically remove feminism from every major organ of the state.

Alison Saunders the Directrix of Public Prosecutions who presides over the English court system presides over a major organ of the state purporting to dispense criminal justice for victims (genuine and alleged) and perpetrators (genuine and alleged). Her campaign to increase the number of convictions against men accused of rape suggests that she does not much care whether they are in fact guilty or not. In a patriarchy every woman is potentially a slut to be shamed if she has extramarital sex. In a matriarchy every man is a potential rapist if he has sex with a slut who regrets giving him the impression that she consented to sex. A woman is most likely to regret having had sex with a beta male.

All men are lower than sluts in a matriarchy. In a patriarchy, however, beta males choose an alpha male to protect their interests. An alpha male would not hesitate to denounce a slut in the same way that the lower orders these days happily denounce each other as racists and paedophiles.  In a matriarchy all men including the putative alpha male such as the British Prime Minister and US President are afraid to offend sluts because they all have the vote.

Even if you were female, do you not finding it deeply shaming that all the men in your society are in fact lower than sluts and indeed the slaves of sluts?

Beta males are the ones whose interests are most damaged by feminism in a matriarchy. Why should we protect the beta male? Because they do all the work of labouring and soldiering, protecting and providing. What happens if they are so demoralised they withdraw their labour? Then your society will decline and fall, to be invaded and conquered by those who run their society along rational and patriarchal lines. When the enemy invades, men will be killed, captured, enslaved and sold together with the women. If you wish to avoid this, then you must support the patriarchy by supporting the principle of traditional marriage which implicitly excludes gay marriage. This would mean forbidding extramarital sex in all its heterosexual and homosexual varieties.

"Is all this really necessary?" I hear you all ask yourselves. Yes, it  is. If the problem is not addressed it will only get worse, and if it is bad enough then the sluts and socialists - the internal enemies of every society - will eventually take over, and, when they have finally exhausted all the resources of society, our external enemies will invade.

Is this really so hard to see and imagine?

Remember: WW3 was declared on 9/11. 
at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

When people say "the Jews did it", they only meant "Paul Wolfowitz and his Neoconning cronies did it"

They talk about a Jewish conspiracy that is how they think, because they are antisemitic retards who can only express themselves in terms of hatred of Jews, when, if they had heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, they could have - after reading it - just express their ethical objections to it instead of going on about the Jews again. But this is how antisemites think and feel: blame the Jew, relive their ancestral hatred and expect Jews to hate them back.

But, hey, hating Jews and saying they are responsible for what would have been an outrageously treacherous act  - bombing the Twin Towers - is a story that antisemites both Christian and Muslim particularly relish and desperately want to believe. The Christian antisemite would probably love to conduct the Inquisition all over again on the pesky Jews and Muslims while the Muslim antisemite would understandably prefer to think that it wasn't their lot who flew planes into the Twin Towers.

Priest banned from using social media sites for six months after posting 'anti-Semitic' comments claiming Israel was behind 9/11


If you want to waste over an hour of your life listening to Reverend Sizer prattling on go right ahead, but looking up the Wolfowitz Doctrine would be quicker and easier.


Superpower status
The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. 

The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies.

U.S. primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order.
The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result.

Unilateralism
The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished.

Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.

This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.

Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others.

Pre-emptive intervention
The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

This was softened slightly in the April 16 release.

While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests.

Russian threat
The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.
We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach.
The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.

Middle East and Southwest Asia
The doctrine clarified the overall objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.

The April 16 release was more circumspect and it reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel as well as its Arab allies.

In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel.



Ben Brown's The Promise is an even-handed look at the making of the state of Israel. Brown rewinds a long while before 1948, to discussions conducted behind closed doors, mainly in Whitehall, during the First World War. In so doing he teases out the personalities, rivalries and complex motivations that informed the shaping of British policy in this area; a policy that would help deliver the Zionist dream in Palestine, with consequences which, the play subtly notes, the world is still contending with today.

Perhaps Ben Brown would like to write its sequel with the following characters and themes?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaha_Riza

Wolfowitz’s girlfriend problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine


Which actor would you like to play Paul Wolfowitz?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Questions for conspiracy theorists who believe Israel was responsible for 9/11

at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Dr Alan Sabrosky; Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond





Only 5 minutes to get the main points of the conspiracy theorists!
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 9 February 2015

Another attempt to get passive-aggressive Jewish conspiracy theorists to explain themselves but I am none the wiser


Here is more incoherent shit:








at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...