Archief - This War on Terrorism is Bogus

Bacon · 7 mrt 2008

Deus ex Machina zei:
trouwens, in bv de 9/11 thread werden constant links gegeven van betrouwbare bronnen waaruit duidelijk werd dat 9/11 gewoon het werk was van wacko moslims, en niet van de regering, maar telkens weer weigerde de CT club het niet te aanvaarden. het is makkelijker om te kakken terwijl je op je hoofd balanceert dan zulke mensen trachten te overtuigen, en eerlijk gezegd, ik ben er zeker van dat die gewoon niet te overtuigen zijn.

Er is helemaal geen bewijs voor het officiële verhaal. Dat is net het probleem.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “We're going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

The Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

En stel dat we Bin Laden niet meereken en alleen naar de 19 kapers kijken dan schiet er evenveel bewijs over. Geen enkel bewijs buiten beweringen waar je wel vrij naïef voor moet zijn om ze te geloven, een paspoort dat de crash overleeft, net zoals een stel bandanas.. Videobeelden die dan van de verkeerde plek en misschien zelfs datum zijn.

What emerged from our massive investigation was a sobering portrait of 19 hijackers who carried out their attacks with meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy, and extensive knowledge of how America works.

The plans were hatched and financed overseas, beginning as long as five years ago. Each of the hijackers came from abroad: fifteen from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt. All 19 entered our country legally, and only three had overstayed the legal limits of their visas on the day of the attacks.

While here, the hijackers did all they could to stay below our radar. They contacted no known terrorist sympathizers. They committed no egregious crimes. They dressed and acted like Americans, shopping and eating at places like Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut, blending into the woodwork all the while. When four got speeding tickets in the days leading up to September 11th, they remained calm and aroused no suspicion. Since none were known terrorists, law enforcement had no reason to question or detain them.

The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

In short, the terrorists had managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and to not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

Dit is met veel bla bla zeggen dat je helemaal geen bewijzen hebt en tegelijkertijd een precedent scheppen om de "loopholes" (lees vrijheden) in het systeem "op te lossen".

Een rapport met bewijzen werd ons enkele jaren terug beloofd, ik dacht al in 2003. We wachten ondertussen nog steeds.

Deus ex Machina zei:
Mssn worden CT's wel op voorhand afgeschoten, maar ze hebben nog nooit met deftig bewijs afgekomen voor, wel, iets...

Zolang je dat woordje "CT" blijft gebruiken maak je duidelijk dat uw veronderstellingen boven alles staan. Spreek over het onderwerp dat ter discussie staat ipv alles op een hoopje te gooien. Dat is niet alleen zwak maar het helpt bovendien uw argument niet. Veralgemeningen zijn waardeloos.

En ik vraag mij af onder welke steen jij hebt geleefd als je zegt dat er nog "nooit" voor "iets" bewijs is gegeven aangaande "CT's".

Bedoel je dan ivm 9/11? Nooit nooit?

Explosive testimony:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

Wist je dat de times ons kon vertellen dat staal was verdampt en "looked like it was attacked by a eutectic mixture"? Wel vreemd hé, dat we dan zowel de reactie van thermate/ite op video hebben alsook de restanten. En staal verdrampt niet in zo'n brand, ik denk dat je dat wel beseft. Zelfs niet met kerosine in de buurt.

Dit zijn 2 simpele voorbeelden van bewijs. Harde bewijzen en getuigenissen van over het algemeen goede bronnen zoals brandweermannen. Je kan de bewijzen ontkennen, of je kan mss uw woorden terugnemen en zeggen dat er idd bewijs is, wat zal het worden?

k995 · 7 mrt 2008

LOL heb je nog steeds die waanbeelden dat de VS regering zelf enkele vliegtuigen zou kapen en in die torens zou knallen?

Je hebt geen bewijs dat dit het geval is, en al het bewijs dat er is voor het tegendeel negeer je .

virox · 7 mrt 2008

Dat mensen nog moeite doen om mensen als bacon te overtuigen. 't is bijna alsof ge Allah wilt laten bekeren naar het Christendom.

Terrorist_Hell · 7 mrt 2008

k995 zei:
LOL heb je nog steeds die waanbeelden dat de VS regering zelf enkele vliegtuigen zou kapen en in die torens zou knallen?

Je hebt geen bewijs dat dit het geval is, en al het bewijs dat er is voor het tegendeel negeer je .

... commentaar van iemand die 'n citaat van Göring in zijn signature zet en dat Bacon gelijk geeft. Zolang mensen hun geweten willen en kunnen sussen, zelfs met doublethink, gaan CT's altijd een negatieve status bezitten.

k995 · 7 mrt 2008

Waarom zou dat bacon gelijk geven? Er is nog steeds 0,0 bewijs.

Erger nog het is zelfs niet logisch, wat is het motief? Waarom zou bush zoiets riskeren? Er is gewoonweg geen logische uitleg mogelijk.

Terrorist_Hell · 7 mrt 2008

Jij zet 'n citaat in je sig die méér doorslaggevend is dan wat jij zoal hebt verteld. Ik neem aan dat je Göring z'n citaat steunt? Wel, dan heeft Bacon meer gelijk, aangezien die quote meer overeenstemt met zijn argumenten.

Drie zaken zijn momenteel al lang aan de gang:
- "We are under attack" (9/11, WMD's, Iran, Noord-Korea, etc.)
- "Lack of patriotism" (CT's, pacifisten, allemaal boemannen)
- "Exposing country to great danger" (grotere bewapening, PNAC, etc.)

En dan zeg jij dat er 0.0 bewijs is voor wat er omtrent de alternatieve kant van 9/11 zou kunnen gaande zijn. Dan moet je dringend uw citaat verwijderen, zoniet is dat een serieuze doublethink, of wil je gewoon wat interessant doen.

De rest van uw vragen zijn al tientallen keren beantwoord in relevante topics, sorry als dat niet in uw stramien past. Dan moet je niet verder discussiëren als je daarop al je antwoord hebt gevonden en Bacon z'n argumenten waardeloos vindt.

k995 · 7 mrt 2008

Terrorist_Hell zei:
Jij zet 'n citaat in je sig die méér doorslaggevend is dan wat jij zoal hebt verteld. Ik neem aan dat je Göring z'n citaat steunt? Wel, dan heeft Bacon meer gelijk, aangezien die quote meer overeenstemt met zijn argumenten.

Nogmaals dat zegt niks over het motief, WAAROM, in al die samenzweringstheorien heb ik daar nog nooit iets deftig over gehoord.

Zeg me eens waarom een rijkeluis zoontje als bush, levenslang (tot de dood) riskeer om fucking iraq te kunnen aanvallen (en dat doende door afghaanse terroristen te gebruiken) er is geen motief, en de redenering om afghanen te gebruiken trekt op niks.

En dan zeg jij dat er 0.0 bewijs is voor wat er omtrent de alternatieve kant van 9/11 zou kunnen gaande zijn. Dan moet je dringend uw citaat verwijderen, zoniet is dat een serieuze doublethink, of wil je gewoon wat interessant doen.

Helemaal niet de oorlog tegen iraq en terrorisme is om die oorlog gevoerd, maar dat is nog iets heeeeeel anders dan zeggen dat bush en de VS regering verantwoordelijk is voor de aanslag zelf.

Het is niet omdat iemand de portefeuille van iemand steelt die een ongeluk had dat die ook dat ongeluk veroorzaakt he? Je moet dan een verband kunnen aantonen en in dit geval is dat er niet.

De rest van uw vragen zijn al tientallen keren beantwoord in relevante topics, sorry als dat niet in uw stramien past. Dan moet je niet verder discussiëren als je daarop al je antwoord hebt gevonden en Bacon z'n argumenten waardeloos vindt.

Ik heb die discussie al gevoerd en heb die vragen gesteld en NOOIT antwoord gekregen, ik stel ze dus nogmaals.

Gromme · 7 mrt 2008

Ik kan er niets aan doen maar heb zo het gevoel dat hier mensen posten onder meerdere accounts.

Bacon · 7 mrt 2008

k995 zei:
Zeg me eens waarom een rijkeluis zoontje als bush, levenslang (tot de dood) riskeer om fucking iraq te kunnen aanvallen (en dat doende door afghaanse terroristen te gebruiken) er is geen motief, en de redenering om afghanen te gebruiken trekt op niks.

Geen motief? Gelukkig hebben ze PNAC opgesteld en moet ik voor de rest niet verder op uw vraag ingaan. Het document vraagt zelfs om "a new Pearl Harbor". En wat schrijft Bush in z'n dagboek op 9/11? "This was our Pearl Harbor".

En afghanen gebruiken? Je weet toch dat het merendeel (van de patsies) Saudis waren? Er was zelfs geen enkele Afghaan bij. Zo zie je maar wat enkele jaren TV kan doen met je zicht op bepaalde feiten hé. Wordt het niet eens tijd dat je je inlicht alvorens onzin rond te spuien?

k995 zei:
Het is niet omdat iemand de portefeuille van iemand steelt die een ongeluk had dat die ook dat ongeluk veroorzaakt he? Je moet dan een verband kunnen aantonen en in dit geval is dat er niet.

Het gaat er niet om dat wij bewijzen dat Bush er achter zit, die weet waarschijnlijk nog niet dn helft van wat er gaande is.
Wat veel belangrijker is is dat het officiële verhaal zonder enige twijfel naar de prullemand mag verwezen worden. Dat dat in het openbaar komt, en dat daar een onderzoek op volgt waaruit duidelijk wordt wie er schuldig is.

k995 · 7 mrt 2008

Bacon zei:
Geen motief? Gelukkig hebben ze PNAC opgesteld en moet ik voor de rest niet verder op uw vraag ingaan.

PNAC toont niks aan, je moet bewijzen dat ze er iets mee te maken hebben niet woordjes mompelen en zeggen dat dit zich uitlegt.

Het document vraagt zelfs om "a new Pearl Harbor". En wat schrijft Bush in z'n dagboek op 9/11? "This was our Pearl Harbor".

Zegt niks, zou trouwens wel heel achterlijk zijn om te zeggen dat iets goed zou zijn, het dan te plannen en het dan publiekelijk in je dagboek zetten.

Zoveelste onzinnige "bewijs".

En afghanen gebruiken? Je weet toch dat het merendeel (van de patsies) Saudis waren? Er was zelfs geen enkele Afghaan bij. Zo zie je maar wat enkele jaren TV kan doen met je zicht op bepaalde feiten hé. Wordt het niet eens tijd dat je je inlicht alvorens onzin rond te spuien?

Saudies, libanezen en UAE of afghanen whatever, het blijft, waarom deze als je iraq wil binnenvallen. Dat is gewoon debiel .

Het gaat er niet om dat wij bewijzen dat Bush er achter zit, die weet waarschijnlijk nog niet dn helft van wat er gaande is.
Wat veel belangrijker is is dat het officiële verhaal zonder enige twijfel naar de prullemand mag verwezen worden. Dat dat in het openbaar komt, en dat daar een onderzoek op volgt waaruit duidelijk wordt wie er schuldig is.

Zonder enige twijfel? Helemaal niet je hebt bewijzen nodig, jij egt dat er iemand anders achterzit, ok wie? Waarom? en hoe. Allemaal vragen die onbetanwoord zijn. Het enige wat je wel hebt zijn losse aan elkaar hangende stukjes, soms uit context gerukt soms verdraaid en veelal nisk ter zake doende, zoals dat deel uit bush zijn dagboek.

Terrorist_Hell · 7 mrt 2008

k995 zei:
P
Zegt niks, zou trouwens wel heel achterlijk zijn om te zeggen dat iets goed zou zijn, het dan te plannen en het dan publiekelijk in je dagboek zetten.

't Merendeel van de Amerikanen weet nog niet eens wie hun vice-president is, laat staan dat ze iets over PNAC zouden weten. Volgende quotes komen allemaal uit de newsletter van David Icke, "Dont read this, just sign at the bottom..."

Korte inleiding:

For example, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act passed on October 27th, 2001 in the wake of 9/11. Yet, this Act vastly increased the power of the Executive and removed a stream of basic freedoms from the people.

No matter. The voting fodder on Capitol Hill still agreed to support it without even knowing what it said. These are your representatives, ladies and gentlemen. Brains and backbones do not a politician make.

The Maastricht Treaty that handed over massive powers from Britain to Brussels and the European Union in 1992 was another major bill not read by most of the people who voted it into law. A government minister at the time, Kenneth Clarke, even admitted in a BBC interview that he hadn't read the bill while going around supporting it.

This is happening in a period of human history when it is vital to study every word and nuance of proposed legislation because what we are seeing is no less than the covert introduction of the fascist state in country after country. Indeed, to anyone who does bother to track such matters, it is often not even covert now much of the time.

Regulatory Reform Bill

All this came to mind this week when I read the background to a bill currently going through the UK Parliament called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Behind its boring title lies the power for the British government to make basically whatever laws it likes without any vote in Parliament.

Cambridge Law Professor, John Spencer, has called it as the 'abolition of parliament' Bill. Its powers can be used to detain people for years, impose house arrest, and give the police expanded powers of arrest and interrogation. The Bill would allow the government to set up new courts and change the law on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges without any debate in Parliament.

You can read the bill by clicking here -
http://www.publications.Parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x--.htm

and here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html

Even for those who do bother to read this covert dynamite will find themselves in a maze of civil servant-speak calculated to confuse and mislead. This is one of the ways they hide what it all really means. For instance, this is an example of the technique taken from this 'reform' bill:

'Subsections (4) and (5) are transitional provisions. They deal with consultation which has taken place before the date on which these clauses come into force. If any consultation is undertaken before subsection (4) comes into force, and that consultation would to any extent satisfy any of the requirements of clause 11 (if the consultation had taken place after it comes into force), those requirements are, to that extent, taken to have been satisfied. It is not necessary therefore to repeat the consultation. Subsection (5) applies specifically where the power in the 2001 Act has been repealed at the time an order is to be made. In those circumstances, where proposals for an order under clause 1 of this Bill are the same as proposals for an order under section 1 of the 2001 Act and those proposals have been consulted upon under that Act, then consultation will be taken to have been satisfied for the purposes of this clause (even where the proposals have been varied following consultation under the 2001 Act and it was appropriate that no further consultation be undertaken). This means that such proposals do not need to be consulted on again where an order was going to be made under the 2001 Act but is now going to be made under clause 1 of this Bill.'

The trick is to hide major legislative changes within mind-numbing gobbledegook like this and it's a method of manipulation used all over the world.

When the laws are subsequently used in ways that supporters of a bill did not understand, they say: 'I didn't vote for that'.

'Ah, yes, you did, sir', comes the reply, 'it's all here in clause 8, section 4, subsection 3, paragraph two':

'Under the powers of the bill, like those in the 2001 act, what happens in such circumstances, depends on what government can do in the given circumstances in relation to this bill. Likes and dislikes can be taken into account. The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained.'

So what does that mean?, we ask.

'Well, sir, read it again where I have highlighted the most relevant wording':

'Under the powers of the bill, like those in the 2001 act, what happens in such circumstances, depends on what government can do in the given circumstances in relation to this bill. Whatever the circumstances allowed in clause 8, subsection 3, this clause can override it and every other law. Likes and dislikes can be taken into account. The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained.'

'So you see, sir, the bill you voted into law contains the words "The government can do whatever it likes" and although these words do not, on the face of it, appear together, this is superseded by the phrase: "The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained". So you must agree, sir, that this dictatorship is perfectly legal and so are the troops I have called to take you away.'

End of Congress

A report in the London Times by Daniel Finkelstein, headed 'How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty', captures the true meaning of this fascist bill:

'Now I know what I am about to tell you is difficult to believe (Why isn't this on the front pages? Where's the big political row?), but I promise you that it is true. The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is "of first-class constitutional significance" and fears that it could "markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process".'

Put simply, it is the end of Parliament, just as, in the United States, we have effectively had the end of Congress since 9/11. And when there is no elected body that represents the peoples' freedoms and interests, you are left with a dictatorship. And we have been - with more to come unless we cease to sit by and allow it.

The few who are currently questioning this bill (the few who have read any of it) are told there are 'safeguards'. One, is that the Prime Monster (no spelling error) and his ministers can only impose a burden "proportionate to the benefit expected to be gained". But hold on. Who decides that? Er, the Prime Monster and his ministers.

What they are saying is 'trust us' with ultimate power because we will never use it against the wrong people. This is the same government that passed laws to 'stop terrorists' while ensuring in the wording that it could apply to anyone they choose to target, including little old ladies with a banner protesting at mass slaughter. Of course, what has happened was as predictable as Blair's next lie. 'Anti-terrorism' laws have been used in the most outrageous manner to stop peaceful protest and arrest those protesting.

Secundary Legislation

Another key route for these impositions is what is known in Britain as 'secondary legislation'. Again, it's a tedious title with a fuse fitted and a timing device going tick, tick, tick. Beware the boring and banal, it's often a nuclear weapon disguised as a carrot cake.

As I have been saying for years, most people don't have opinions based on detailed knowledge or understanding, they have an 'image' of what the situation is. This image comes from hearing, mostly half-hearing, mantras chanted incessantly by politicians, 'journalists' and academics. So they get the impression that for something to become law it has to be subject to debate by elected people in national parliaments or local councils.

Not so.

Thousands of new laws are passed every year without any such debate. This is the so-called secondary legislation, also known as subordinate or delegated legislation and, in the case of government ministers, Statutory Instruments. This is a definition from www.answers.com:

Statutory Instruments (SIs) are parts of United Kingdom law separate from Acts of Parliament which do not require full Parliamentary approval before becoming law. These are usually brought to Parliament by a Government minister, exercising legislative powers delegated to them by an Act of Parliament.

Yes, exactly. And the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is designed to bring virtually all law making and law changing under the heading of secondary or delegated legislation - delegated to Prime Monster Blair and his ministers, and whoever follows them. It will be the no-debate dictatorship.

You won't be surprised to know that the powers to make laws through secondary legislation without open and democratic debate have soared since Blair came to power. They are imposed, often even without public knowledge, through what are called ministerial regulations, orders in council, and codes of practice, as well as Statutory Instruments. Several thousand of these laws are passed each year, compared to only a few dozen Acts of Parliament.

And the more 'secondary legislation' powers you have in a country the closer you are to dictatorship. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will take us far, far closer, indeed take us across the line in all but name. As Daniel Finkelstein wrote in the Times: 'The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill isn't just a dangerous proposal. It is a flashing red light'.

In the United States the system known as 'rulemaking' is similar in many ways. Laws passed, at least in theory, on Capitol Hill are given further added detail by the rulemaking agencies often packed with, or advised by, unelected and often unknown scientific, economic and corporate 'experts'. It is another way of introducing legislative changes without political debate.

Presidential Executive Orders

Then, of course, there are the Presidential Executive Orders that bypass Congress and have been used to build a mountain of laws and laws-in-waiting that are nothing less than a fascist state sitting in the shadows until they are activated by a 'state of emergency'. As former Clinton advisor, Paul Begala, said in the New York Times in 1998: 'Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.'

Executive Orders are legally binding orders issued by the President without public debate. They don't require Congressional approval yet have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. There is nothing in the United States Constitution or statute that permits this, except for the vague 'executive power' given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' in Article II, Section 3.

If Congress pass a bill to challenge laws made by Executive Order the president has the power of veto and to override this veto takes a two thirds majority - highly unlikely to say the least. The way the United States form of government was set up gives fantastic power to one man ... and, more to the point, to those who control him.

It was through Executive Order 9066 that President Franklin Roosevelt gave power to the military to remove people to a military zone. This was used to imprison Japanese and German-Americans in 'internment camps'. This takes on particular relevance when you think that such camps are being located across America today with the involvement of Cheney's infamous Halliburton.

Bush has used Executive Orders to restrict civil liberties, intellectual freedom, and freedom of information. One of his first acts was to introduce Executive order 13233 to restrict access to the official records of presidents - thus protecting his father from public exposure for his horrific behaviour during his presidency and that of Ronald Reagan.

A document made public by the American Civil Liberties Union claims that Boy Bush issued an Executive Order authorising the inhumane interrogation of detainees in Iraq. A two-page FBI e-mail references an Executive Order in which the President directly authorised interrogation techniques like 'sleep deprivation, stress positions, use of military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc'

Terrorist_Hell · 7 mrt 2008

Omtrent PNAC, dat volgens jou onzin zou kunnen zijn, volgende quotes uit David Icke newsletter, "Invading Iran or hisotry repeating...":

Korte inleiding

There is apparently a new psychological illness going around called Deja Flu that is now affecting billions of people all over the world. It is also being dubbed 'Word Flu' because the victims get the feeling that they have heard something all before. The clinical name, apparently, is 'Groundhog Syndrome'.

The symptoms are most virulent it seems whenever people hear anyone from the American government or its British arm, Tony Blair, mention the word 'Iran'. This triggers powerful memories, known as 'flashbacks', and the patient suffers from a form of confusion and bewilderment that has been given the name 'Annum Uncertainty Disorder'. They can't distinguish between 2007 and 2003.

All the above apply as we observe the truly pathetic sight of the Bush cabal desperately seeking an excuse to tick off the next country in their campaign of global tyranny - Iran. In September 2000, months before the Bush administration came to power in a rigged election, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) published its plan for global conquest called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century. This organisation was controlled by the very people who came to power with Bush, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who would run the Pentagon, and soon-to-be Vice President Dick Cheney, or 'Brutal' to those who know him. This PNAC crowd have become known as neo-conservatives or neo-cons. Neo-Nazis more like.

As you would expect, all but a few in the mainstream media ignored the document at the time and even with hindsight when it became clear that this was the blueprint the Bush administration was working to. The PNAC document called for the targeting of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea among others and, hey presto, those are the countries, along with Afghanistan, that they have indeed set their sights upon since coming to power. It was the neo-con speechwriter David Frum who coined the phrase 'Axis of Evil' for 'Iraq, Iran and North Korea in Bush's State of the Union address in 2002.

Invasie Iran

However, it is not only the planet that is undergoing climate change, so is the collective human mind. After Iraq it is far harder to justify an invasion of Iran and the desperation betrayed in the daily excuse-making has me squirming in the chair. They are so bereft of ideas, and a genuine reason, that the Iraq file, now utterly discredited, has been retrieved from the bin. We are told that Ahmadinejad could be 'another Hitler', which is what they said about Saddam Hussein, and they have simply dusted off the old song sheet. They said that Iraq was dangerous because of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the West. They say that Iran's nuclear program is designed to produce nuclear weapons that could be used against the West. They said that Iraq had (non-existent) connections with 'al-Qaeda'. They say that Iran is supplying weapons to terrorist 'insurgents' in Iraq. This is making no impact whatsoever on anyone who can still claim ownership to their neuron activity and I suspect they are planning events to 'up the ante', the definition of which is to 'increase the importance or value of something, especially where there's an element of risk as the term comes from gambling, where it means to increase the stake'.

Gambling is the word because there is a timescale for their global conquest and Iran is in danger of stopping the clock if they don't make a move pretty soon. The fact that they intend to is confirmed by the military build up going on within shooting distance of the Iranian border - precisely what happened with Iraq as the preparations became ever more detailed while Bush and Blair were saying that 'no decision to invade had been taken'. Round ones. Of course it had been made and many years before. The same is now true with Iran.

Rice en haar strategie in het Midden-Oosten

Secretary of State Condo-sleezza Rice said in January that there was 'a new strategic alignment in the Middle East', separating 'reformers' and 'extremists' (classic Orwellian Newspeak). She said the Sunni states were the 'centres of moderation' (they do as they're told), while Shiite-controlled Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon were 'on the other side of that divide'. Iran and Syria, she said, 'have made their choice and their choice is to destabilise'. And who were two of the target states in the Project for the New American Century document in September 2000? Iran and Syria. This is why the speeches that Bush is told to read contain the same ever-present mantra:

'These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq ... Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.'

The plan all along has been to play Sunni against Shiite to divide and rule the Middle East and now we are seeing the stage where they seek to take advantage of that by isolating their targets, Iran and Syria, from the rest of the Arab world led by Saudi Arabia, or Saudi America as it should rightly be called. The policy 'shift', we are told, has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a 'new strategic embrace', largely because 'both countries see Iran as an existential threat'. Oh, I think they've been having a covert cuddle for a long time, you know, given that they are both controlled by the same force. Once Iran and Syria fall, the plan is to pick off all the rest who will by then come more quietly.

The preparations for this are nearing completion. U.S. Central Command or 'CentCom' has advanced plans in place for a 'Shock and Awe' attack on Iran's military infrastructure and nuclear facilities and aircraft carriers are being deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of this unfolding strategy. One group led by the USS Eisenhower is already there and another led by the USS John Stennis is on the way. This represents the biggest concentration of naval capability since the Iraq invasion kicked off four years ago. More aircraft and Air Force personnel are being moved to forward bases in Bulgaria and Rumania and it is not a case of if the invasion happens, but when.

Seymour Hersh

The U.S. military has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Iranians in Iraq, according to the sources of Seymour Hersh. 'The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can', a former senior intelligence official told him.

'They had five hundred locked up at one time. We're working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they've been doing it all along-that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.'

Hersh said the Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months, including many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who 'get scooped up and released in a short time', after they have been interrogated. This is what happened in Afghanistan and to others in Iraq who ended up in Guantanamo Bay and prisons like Abu Ghraib or simply disappeared. It's now obvious that the 'Iran is killing our troops in Iraq' strategy is the mendacity of choice and, as writer Paul Krugman pointed out in The New York Times, it overcomes the need to win approval on Capitol Hill:

'... if you can claim that Iran is doing evil there, you can assert that you don't need authorization to attack - that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing - well, the war would be in full swing.'

Bacon · 7 mrt 2008

k995 zei:
PNAC toont niks aan, je moet bewijzen dat ze er iets mee te maken hebben niet woordjes mompelen en zeggen dat dit zich uitlegt.

Jij vroeg om een motief.

k995 zei:
Saudies, libanezen en UAE of afghanen whatever, het blijft, waarom deze als je iraq wil binnenvallen. Dat is gewoon debiel.

Waarom ga je altijd over op van die "waarom" vragen die alleen te beantwoorden zijn door de personen zelf, en dan nog eens verschillen van persoon tot persoon? Denk je dat iedereen achter deze aanslag ze met dezelfde redenen pleegde? Waarom blijf je met theorieën bezig en ontwijk je de feiten?

k995 zei:
Zonder enige twijfel? Helemaal niet je hebt bewijzen nodig

Er is bewijs genoeg dat het grootste deel van de bewijzen niet in het rapport mochten. Ik heb u uitgelegd dat het witte huis alles moest goedkeuren. U begrijpt zelf ook wel dat zoiets ondenkelijk is in een onderzoek waar in geen geval de overheid buiten verdenking zou mogen staan. Al was het maar om vergissingen en onvolmaaktheden in het vervolg te vermijden.
Dat zij er alles aan deden om bewijzen te weren die tegen het officiële verhaal ingingen, zegt genoeg. Dit is weeral bewijs dat er mensen binnen de overheid een hand hadden in 9/11.
Bovendien hebben zelfs enkele commissieleden toegegeven dat het een farce was.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/pol/597571084.html

k995 zei:
, jij egt dat er iemand anders achterzit, ok wie? Waarom? en hoe.

"Who stands to gain?"

Waarom heb jij interesse in mijn theorieën? Die zijn toch niet belangrijk? Wie heeft er dankzij 9/11 oorlogen gestart? In welke landen heeft de media ervoor gezorgd dat er geen enkele harde vraag gesteld werd ivm 9/11? Wie zorgde ervoor dat de aanslagen konden uitgevoerd worden door vliegtuigen de verkeerde richting uit te sturen of niet te laten opstijgen?
Waarom was de patriot act klaar voor 9/11? Waarom waren de voorbereidingen voor de inval van Afghanistan afgerond? Waarom was het doel een pijpleiding?
Wie heeft er gebruik gemaakt van de aanslagen? Wat is er dankzij de aanslagen gebeurt? Dat is het antwoord op uw "waarom".

Uw "wie, waarom en hoe vragen" verklaren zichzelf als je simpelweg de bewijzen volgt.

Geloof jij ook dat "de terroristen" het deden omdat ze onze vrijheid haten?

k995 zei:
Allemaal vragen die onbetanwoord zijn. Het enige wat je wel hebt zijn losse aan elkaar hangende stukjes, soms uit context gerukt soms verdraaid en veelal nisk ter zake doende, zoals dat deel uit bush zijn dagboek.

Dat was het motief waar jij achter vroeg.
Al de bewijzen die ik tot hiertoe opnoemde, nog geen fractie van wat er echt aan bewijzen is, heb je links laten liggen. Je ontwijkt de bewijzen en blijkt alleen maar geïnteresseerd in nietszeggende vragen die vanzelf opgelost geraken wanneer je eens naar de bewijzen kijkt waar je zelf zo achter vraagt.

Heb je al gekeken naar m'n bewijzen van het "eutectic mixture"?
Of naar de bewijzen die gordon ross in z'n presentatie laat zien? De insider trading? De voorkennis? De onderzoeken die men blokkeerde?

Bacon · 8 mrt 2008

Dit is ook wel opmerkelijk:

Blair said police believe "that we know who the four people carrying the bombs
were ... and we believe they are all dead."

"We are as certain as we can be that four people were killed and they were the four people carrying bombs," Blair added.

Commenting on the possible role of Al Qaeda, Blair said, "Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundred’s of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Governments story of Al-qaeda a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAUDcmaJNWQ

Gromme · 8 mrt 2008

Kom, nu gaan we al beginnen zeggen dat Al Qaeda niet bestaat?

Bacon · 8 mrt 2008

Het gaat ver hé Gromme.

Grayfox · 8 mrt 2008

Komaan, al die bullshit rond 9/11, in sommige landen staat men daar gewoon niet meer bij stil en is het gewoon een feit dat de amerikaanse regering dat zelf geflikt heeft. Iedereen die de situatie met een beetje logica bekijkt zal toch tot dezelfde conclusie komen.

Die terroristen hebben gewoon een volledig nieuwe manier ontwikkelt om gebouwen perfect te laten instorten, waar er vroeger weken planning, 100den staven dynamiet en een demolitieteam voor nodig was, volstaat nu gewoon een boeing.

Het bewijs dat het terroristen waren was dat er een portemonee van die terrorist teruggevonden is... aléja, de mensen vinden ze nimeer terug die blijven lekker onder het puin liggen, maar de portemonee van de dader hadden ze direct te pakken ze, van echt leer gemaakt blijkbaar want dies ni in de fik geschoten enal. Waarschijnlijk ook nog es met vilstift opgeschreven "dit is de portemonnee van de dader"..

Voordeel voor de terroristen? Niets.
Voordeel voor Amerika? Eindelijk een aanleiding voor oorlog te voeren in Irak.

Vanuit welk standpunt het je ook bekijkt, zonder rekening te houden met bewijzen die altijd kunnen gefaket worden, en als je puur je gezond verstand gebruikt, het enige waar je echt kan op rekenen, dan gade toch ook wel tot de conclusie komen dat de kans dat Amerika zelf die aanslag gedaan heeft stukken groter is dan de kans dat het terroristen waren. En aangezien we alles met kansen moeten bereken, en we nooit van iets 100% zeker kunnen zijn, zullen we wel moeten aannemen dat het Amerika zelf was die zijn eigen volk vermoordt heeft.

_DM_ · 8 mrt 2008

Sinds wanneer heb je een demolitieteam nodig om een gebouw te doen instorten ?
Dat is enkel nodig als je een gebouw gecontroleerd wil doen instorten, dwz met zo weinig mogelijk last voor de omgeving.

Grayfox · 8 mrt 2008

*kuch* mierenneuker *kuch*

serieus kerel, who the fuck cares, ge snapt mn punt toch ofni soms. gade ook nog beginnen zagen over het feit dat bij x aantal graden een leren portomonnee wel degelijk in de fik schiet?

Bacon · 8 mrt 2008

_DM_ zei:
Sinds wanneer heb je een demolitieteam nodig om een gebouw te doen instorten ?

Er zijn bewijzen genoeg om te veronderstellen dat er idd explosieven waren in de gebouwen.

Het meest logische is dat een demolitieteam ze geplaatst heeft. Zonder explosies of de 'eutectische' reactie om het staal te "snijden" waren die torens blijven staan.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

_DM_ zei:
Dat is enkel nodig als je een gebouw gecontroleerd wil doen instorten, dwz met zo weinig mogelijk last voor de omgeving.

Je zou kunnen argumenteren dat dat op 9/11 het geval was, alhoewel er veel schade was aan de omliggende gebouwen. Ik gok dat ze de gulden middenweg hebben genomen tussen bewijzen verstoppen en schade voorkomen.

Archief - This War on Terrorism is Bogus

Bacon

Legacy Member

k995

Legacy Member

virox

Legacy Member

Terrorist_Hell

Legacy Member

k995

Legacy Member

Terrorist_Hell

Legacy Member

k995

Legacy Member

Gromme

Legacy Member

Bacon

Legacy Member

k995

Legacy Member

Terrorist_Hell

Legacy Member

Terrorist_Hell

Legacy Member

Bacon

Legacy Member

Bacon

Legacy Member

Gromme

Legacy Member

Bacon

Legacy Member

Grayfox

Legacy Member

_DM_

Legacy Member

Grayfox

Legacy Member

Bacon

Legacy Member