I find it amazing that days after 9/11, the Bush administration is looking no where near Osama bin Laden - not that they apparently ever have. But this is still shocking so close to the attacks.Larisa leaves the obvious question hanging. Why this guy? Why target him, while allowing Osama to escape into Pakistan?
Larisa links the network involved with the Abu Omar affair to Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension -- and if those terms are not familiar to you, visit her post and follow the links.
Now, let's go back to the abduction and the revelations that the CIA had engaged Rome in 2001:The Muslim Brotherhood (formed in the 1920s by an Egyptian named Al Bana, an admirer of Hitler) and Al Qaeda have had a complex relationship over the years. Some over-simplifiers see the two groups as two heads of the same beast, but Zawahiri has strongly condemned the Brotherhood for its willingness to participate in elections. Still, the link between Gladio and the Brotherhood places the right-most factions of Western intelligence in uncomfortable proximity to the Salafist Jihadists."Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, says he was tortured under interrogation in Egypt after being grabbed off a Milan street, driven to a U.S. military base in northern Italy and flown to Egypt."
Egypt would be a good place for such a thing because the Muslim Brotherhood is yet another Gladio operation. Although it existed as a fascist structure before WWII and even worked along side Hitler, the stay-behind (the over all name under which Gladio fell) operation absorbed this terrorist organization.
(Trannies, the warning at the end of the preceding post also applies to this one. I am sick of you fuckers.)
13 comments:
Congratulations. You just convinced me to delete your site from my links.
I've never written a word of CD theory, and to this point, I've tolerated your childish rants and alternating provocations/ with playing the victim, but enough is enough.
Keep acting like a complete jackass, and maybe eventually you won't have any readers left, so you can carry out your promise to quit without worrying about finding a successor.
Doc, every day when I check my stats my heart sinks to discover that they haven't gone down. God's honest!
God's honest!
Which God?
It's just a saying.
Hey doc...you may think I'm being childish, but I cannot believe that -- even with warnings and all -- the trannies STILL keep badgering me. If that's my audience, why should I write? And why should I treat them with any respect?
sofla said....
Look, it's right here. Presuming the truth of the underlying reports in this post (and I do), the 'democratic' and 'freedom-loving' 'peaceful' West, meaning the US and Europe in the NATO alliance with the US, stands accused and evidently guilty of murdering innocent civilians with an intention to influence greater allowable government authoritarian control measures domestically and foment war abroad.
Perhaps more pertinently when it comes to assessing what they say about such incidents, they are shown to repeatedly lie about their own guilty involvement and instead blame whichever terrorist organization du jour they intend to go after, or use as the pretext for their resort to more bellicose policies.
Liars, deceivers, terrorists and cold-blooded killers are evidently rife in the upper echelons of the intelligence agencies who are supposed to stop such incidents, not author them.
If this is true, it is among the most important things to know about this world and current and past world events. It isn't limited to the past few years of this new millenium, but a tactic dating back into the mists of time.
We've been allowed to realize the tactic at work in limited historical circumstances: the Reichstag Fire, the supposed Polish slaughter of Germans in the forest that gave Hitler a propaganda excuse to invade Poland (iirc), and etc.
But surely, while a Hitler could easily enough be thought to do such a thing (or a Stalin, or any hated figure), anybody claiming such actions by the leadership of the 'democratic' West must be an insane hater of some description, or a cynical trader in disinformation on behalf of the enemies of the West, right? Sadly, no.
Given this history as prologue, it is understandable and probably correct as an exercise in prudence to take official stories and pronouncements with the output of several salt mines.
Of course, such a mindset will be paranoid and appear unbalanced to those who do not know or believe this history. Sometimes, these dark suspicions and accusations may even be mistaken in a given incident. But the mindset informing such judgments would nonetheless be correct in the main, and the cynicism and suspicion, quite justified.
Well, Covert History linked you today, and that's how I ended up finding your message. I guess if others keep linking you, those numbers will never drop... Sorry...
"...why should I treat them with any respect?"
I'm going to go out on a limb here with a claim that the most hostile, nutty, insufferable, and inflexible proponents do not represent the conduct, reasoning, and attitudes of the vast majority of those who either believe or consider a CD scenario at least possible.
You have chosen to tar a large and diverse group with a brush dipped in the putrid waste of its worst representatives. The large majority of that group does not deserve this abuse, and your actions are not reflective of the principles you usually appear to want to promote.
Unfortunately, this is not isolated with you lately. You made comments about southerners as a group not so long ago that could fairly be called bigoted, and certainly reflected a simplistic and even ignorant level of understanding of the actual diversity of the south and southerners in modern america.
You are by no means obligated to consider, believe, or even address the issue of CD. My most important view of the subject is that it is divisive, essentially unprovable, and a side-show -- like trying to figure out who pulled the triggers in Dallas.
But your decision to deride, insult, demean, and provoke a large group of people, most of whom have done nothing to you, while simultaneously making it clear that you will allow no avenue of recourse or discussion really amounts to abuse bordering on persecution, and you have done so with aggravating high-handedness that you know EVERYTHING about the argument, and ALL FACTS on both sides, and nobody can teach you anything - essentially as your pretext to shutting off discussion on the topic you brought up.
Since I have no interest in pursuing the topic for reasons that have been most eloquently explained by Michael Ruppert (in an article I've linked before on this site) my view of the topic really should be considered important, but I'm going to state it flatly, without making any attempt to explain or defend it: I think it is possible.
There have been many times I have wanted to approach you privately about your attitudes and treatment of those you disagree with - and the habit of visiting the sins of a few on everyone who fails to repudiate not the actions but the views of those who aggreve you. This is not reasoned or reasonable behavior.
I have much to add, if you are interested, but the email address you have listed does not work for me, so I have stopped trying. If you are interested in carrying this on further in a rational, civilized way, then I can be reached at DrStern at copi dot com.
Thank you for your response.
Sorry, I don't have an actual account that works, so I can't edit my posts here.
"...my view of the topic really should be considered important,"
-- should read --
"my view of the topic really should NOT be considered important,"
I apologize for the error.
I wish you had been able to get through via email, because answering you in public means others will want to hop in, which means having to go through one of those days where I spend HOURS wrestling with the trannies online when I've got things to do in the real world.
But I'll repeat a point I've made before.
Compare Creationism to Holocaust Revisionism. When I was young (the 1970s), both concepts were relegated to the fringe. Few believed them.
Today, Creationism is nearly the majority viewpoint, while Holocaust Revisionism is still believed by only a few. Why did one view prosper while the other did not? It's not because one had more scientific data to back it.
I recall that on late-night television, we would occasionally see debates between scientists and preachers on the merits of Creationism. The scientists made the better argument, of course -- but the lay audience probably could not follow all of it.
The scientists treated the preachers with respect, even deference. After all, one does not want to be seen as being offensive to a cleric. That makes a bad impression.
Result: The Creationists came away looking like intelligent, respectable men.
By contrast, Holocaust Revisionists were always treated as lower than dog crap. Jews and others who (quite properly) sneered at this idea refused to meet their opponents in any forum that would grant the appearance of equality. The moment the HR proponent received the dignity of being treated as a fit debating partner, he would prevail -- even if he lost an individual debate, he "won" in being treated as a reasonable person with a reasonable point of view.
The HR position was attacked, of course, and continues to be. The facts simply are not there to support that position. But those presenting the truth of the situation NEVER came out on stage, shook hands with a representative of the HR viewpoint, and proceeded to debate as equals debate. The HR proponents were always condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Why did Creationism succeed while HR remains a much less popular fallacy? Many factors, perhaps. But I would argue that one key factor is this: Ridicule works. Strong condemnation works. Treating someone who espouses a pseudoscientific viewpoint as a lower life form is a tactic works.
Look, I'm not a member of CSICOP and do not espouse a harsh "science ueber alles" viewpoint. I don't care if people take a non-rationalistic viewpoint on such subjects as -- oh, I dunno -- ghosts. Or the Bermuda Triangle. Or...whatever. I don't get exercised about those subjects because I place them in the category of "fun and interesting," not in the category of "extremely important."
911 IS in that latter category. So is the Holocaust. So, I believe, is evolution.
So I look at how Creationism prospered and how Revisionism made little headway. And if someone asks me about tactics...well, I know which tactic worked in the past and which failed.
As for this crap I keep hearing about a "higher tranny" movement ("Yes, those guys over THERE may be silly and freakish, but there are these other guys over HERE who are ever-so-scientific") -- I call horseshit. If there were anything to it, you would have made a convert among experts in controlled demolition. The fact is, the damn buildings collapsed AT THE POINT OF IMPACT. The fact alone means that all of your arguments are pure casuistry.
Now, David, you AND YOU ALONE may respond. And you will be the last tranny to have any sort of say. I do not promise to read your words.
"I do not promise to read your words."
Fair enough. And I must confess, I have not read most of yours above yet, but I want to offer this preliminary response.
It was never my intention to discuss, argue for, or debate the CD theory publically in these pages. I consider undue focus on this "physical evidence" issue to be harmful, no matter which side one argues - especially when the argument is between "natural allies" but more generally, because it distracts from important facts, events, and crimes which - unlike CD - are PROVABLE.
For the best argument against even discussing this topic, please see the following document:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html
While I would welcome the opportunity to show you why I believe your strident and hostile revulsion to the very idea of CD is not reasonable, I would prefer that be between us.
I would say that I have as little interest in promoting this argument as you, but in fact, until now, I have avoided discussing it or making it an issue more regularly than you have. My interest is not in convincing you to accept CD as a possiblity -- it is more in neutralizing your venomnous hatred of everything CD that leads you to repeatedly raise the issue.
Perhaps if I could convince you that the fact that many of the most vocal proponents of CD are about as believable as the guy in the Shaw trial who fingerprinted his daughter does not prove the theory is impossible to support rationally.
But in this forum, I'd rather just stick to the idea that the topic is not worthy of discussion, and is in fact toxic - and turns allies into enemies - serving the interest of the criminal-political class - no matter which side one argues.
I left my e-mail address in the prior post. Please read the above link. I'll close by saying I believe I have facts and points you either have not heard, or have not considered, that you might benefit from considering for no other reason than to soften your stand about the PEOPLE who don't consider CD to be a fairy tale... soften it enough to make you comfortable with dropping the subject completely. If you have any interest in that, e-mail me. Not only will it give me an address I know will work in order to reach you, but it will also show me that putting this message together might be worth my effort and the one thing I value even more - the time I would put into doing it.
Thank you.
Having read your post, I will now add a couple of caveats:
I think you overstate the acceptance of creationism over evolution. Howoever, I also think you badly misjudge the reason for the relative success of creationism compared to holocaust denial. Holocaust denial doesn't have a well-funded 2000-year-old organized religion behind it. Evolution didn't kill 11 million innocent people. It's apples and oranges, and your decision to even bring Holocaust revisionism into this discussion is an irrational reflection of misplaced hostility.
Secondly, I'm not a "tranny". I'm not even a CD proponent. Not dismissing the possibility out of hand is not the same as being a proponent of the argument. But assigning a derogatory sexual slander as your nickname for people who disagree with you is as offensive as some of the crap those people have done to you. Fighting irrational hate with more irrational hate isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I don't know if there is a "higher CD" group or not. Frankly, I don't care. It doesn't matter how "high-level" their discourse may be, it will never be proved, because the physical evidence was carted off and destroyed faster than you can clean out a Lincoln Continental full of bullet holes. SO any detailed discussion, argument, and/or focus on the topic is nothing more than a circle-jerk, no matter how you look at it.
Hopefully, this clarifies the matter, and crystalizes some of what I am really getting at.
ONe more point (this is my third response - please be sure to see the first one.)
Most of the CD followers out there are well-meaning people, many of whom may not be all that
well-versed in the nature of high-level malfeasance. Most of them ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AS YOU!
You act puzzled that there are so many of them reading your stuff - it is no mystery! They don't
need someone to tell them they are fucked in the head and are the moral equivalents of child
molesters, rapists, or holocaust deniers. They need reasoned and empathetic leadership that can
gently guide them toward focusing on more productive aspects of the 911 crime.
You may not succeed with many of them, but I can promise you an approach like that is going to be
a lot more successful and personally rewarding than what you have been doing. That said, if I, or
someone, can offer you a few nuggets of fresh perspective on the topic that at least plants a seed
of doubt, it might succeed in helping you make the transition from accuser to leader more
naturally and convincingly. But if you understand the precepts, it isn't really necessary.
OK, I think I'm done for now.
No evidence for Holocaust Revisionism? (I put it this way, because HR is typically termed Holocaust Denial).
Isn't it true that the Auschwitz memorial plaque has been revised downward, because of the well considered (revised) opinion of history and Holocaust historians, and to the complaint of nobody (i.e., it's very well accepted), from its initial claim of 4 million dead at that facility, to 1-1/2 million dead?
Doesn't that perforce mean millions fewer Jewish deaths than the canonical, illegal to dispute in Europe and Canada, 6 million figure for Jewish deaths in the Holocaust?
Doesn't that mean that HR is true, at least in this regard (and it is no small thing), AND that it is illegal to maintain the truth of this situation?
Post a Comment