at least he did not throw out the redneck nationalist motto of "if you don't like it you can giiiiit out!!"
i doubt there are any members of this entire forum that would rather live in iran over the united states, unless of course there are members of the pit already living in iran...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It seems to me that there are more then a few of my fellow pit members that would enjoy living in Iran more then America. There's nothing wrong with that, to each their own.
cant beat that logic.
logic? maybe i'm missing something? anyone wanna fill me in? people really think some people here would prefer to live in Iran. really?
apparently. it seems if you have an opinion counter to ahmadinejads a mad crazy bastard who never makes any sense and everything he says is just crap then surely that means youd prefer living in iran. *shrugs* :roll:
id prefer just to visit.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes I'm very familiar with that document and group, and albeit mention of such a thing is discussed in passing, it is taken out of the time frame and context. Analyzing a policy piece and manifesting it into some type of smoking gun
I didn't say it was a smoking gun, but when coupled with the hundreds of other points it raises some questions. Anyone who looks at the government-backed investigation can see that it was a whitewash.
Why won't they allow an independent investigation?
Would anyone defend a leader of a country claiming that another country was specifically involved in a terrorist attack on it's own people?
Oh wait...I guess so.
Seriously this is bat crazy shit.
So I take it you've never heard of the burning of the Reichstag?
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
In the 1931 Mukden incident, Japanese officers fabricated a pretext for annexing Manchuria by blowing up a section of railway. Six years later they falsely claimed the kidnapping of one of their soldiers in the Marco Polo Bridge Incident as an excuse to invade China proper.
In the Gleiwitz incident in August 1939, Reinhard Heydrich made use of fabricated evidence of a Polish attack against Germany to mobilize German public opinion and to fabricate a false justification for a war with Poland. This, along with other false flag operations in Operation Himmler, would be used to mobilize support from the German population for the start of World War II in Europe.
On November 26, 1939, the Soviet Union shelled the Russian village of Mainila near the Finnish border. The Soviet Union attacked Finland four days afterwards, claiming the shelling to have been a Finnish military action. Russia has agreed that the attack was initiated by the Soviets.[6] Also, the nearest Finnish artillery pieces were well out of range of Mainila.[7]
In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the formerly democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[8]
In 1954, the Military Intelligence Directorate of Israel launched a series of bombings against targets in Cairo which had British and American financial interests, in the hopes of alienating the U.S. and Britain from Egypt.[9] Codenamed Operation Suzannah, it was later dubbed the Lavon Affair, after Israeli Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon. Lavon and Israeli Military Intelligence head Binyamin Gibli had planned and carried out the operation in secret, and without telling Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in advance. Lavon and Gibli both lost their jobs as a result. Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[10]
The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking or shooting down passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.
I find it interesting that none of the news networks have published his words in their proper context. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because when read/heard in their full context it's not possible to accuse him of 'suggesting that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S government'.
The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in fact meant a global management.
One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:
First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.
All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident.
Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.
But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.
Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.
Please take note:
It was said that some three thousand people were killed on the 11 th September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.
In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.
1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.
This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.
The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.
The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.
There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands ofpeople to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.
It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.
. I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.
I find it interesting that none of the news networks have published his words in their proper context. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because when read/heard in their full context it's not possible to accuse him of 'suggesting that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S government'.
The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the
promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in
fact meant a global management.
One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:
First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for
almost a decade.
All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using
numerous footages of the incident.
Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.
But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole
world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save
the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.
Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.
Please take note:
It was said that some three thousand people were killed on the 11 th September for
which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds
of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the
conflict is still going on and expanding.
In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.
1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.
This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.
The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.
The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.
There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands ofpeople to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.
It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.
. I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.
One of these words just doesn't belong.
Iran, War agenda, fear, U.S. Government lust for power, real objective, media reporting and proper context.
hmm.
one of these things is not like the others,
one of these things just doesn't belong,
can you tell which thing is not like the others
by the time I finish my song?
did you guess which thing was not like the others?
did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
then you're absolutely...right!
If anyone can find a mainstream news network that quotes Ahmadinejad's words in their proper context can you point me to it?
Even the Guardian's video clip selectively edits out the whole of his speech apart from the words: "the US government orchestrated the attack in order to save the Zionist regime in the Middle East". And when I posted his words in their proper context on the Guardian's comments section my post was immediately deleted.
The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... f-comments - deleted my comment where I quoted Ahmadinejad's words re: 9/11 in their proper context. Then when I posted another comment that merely suggested readers should read Ahmadinejad's comments in their proper context the Guardians moderators deleted my comment. Then when I posted a comment pointing out that the moderators had deleted my previous comments they deleted that comment too.
Then I receive a message on the comments section stating that 'Your comments will now be automatically submitted for moderation'.
Looks like they really don't want anyone to read Ahmadinejad's words in their proper context. And there was I thinking the Guardian's comments section was a place of open and honest debate? So much for that!
Edit: I just read a post from someone asking why the moderators are deleting everyone's posts and when I refreshed that comment had also disappeared.
You seriously have to wonder at the desperation of the Western media to bend over backwards to quote Ahmadinejad's comments out of context in their efforts to whip up war fever. And this is one of the most left-leaning papers.
And just yesterday someone here was talking about how the Western media acts as a check on the state. What a joke!
And in terms of the whole 9-11 thing... please post facts showing specifically how, why and whom carried out the attacks. I'm not asking you for unknown things like you're alluding too which aren't direct correlations, but things that specifically and directly link the US Government participating, carrying out and the attacks. Imagine you were building a trial in court and had to build a case to specifically nail them as guilty... not hearsay or potential cause or even potential accusations, but hardline fact leading to guilt. When you or anyone else can provide that, I'll believe it, until then, I'll call it exactly what it is - conspiracy theory based on half-truthes, misinformation, unknown details and misdirected anger with a touch of taking things out of context in terms of time lines and similar.
'In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important? Do you think that the 60 million who lost their lives were all at the result of warfare alone? There were two million that were part of the military at the time, perhaps altogether, 50 million civilians with no roles in the war — Christians, Muslims. They were all killed. The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it. The more research and studies are done, the clearer the issue gets. We still leave open to further studies absolute knowledge of science or math. Historical events are always subject to revisions, and reviews and studies. We're still revising our thoughts about what happened over thousands of years ago. Why is it that researchers are jailed? Why is researching this issue prohibitited? Where as we can openly question God, the prophet, concepts such as freedom and democracy? And the third question that I raised in this regard: assuming that this happened, where did it happen? Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it? Why should the Palestinians pay for it now? Five million displaced Palestinian people is what I'm talking about. Over 60 years of living under terror. Losing the lives of thousands of dear ones. And homes that are destroyed on a daily basis over people's heads. You might argue that the Jews have the right to have a government. We're not against that. But where? At a place where their people were — several people will vote for them, and where they can govern.'
speaking of which five....didn't the fbi admit they have no actual evidence linking the attacks to anyone, even al qaeda? isn't the only 'proof' the video of a fatter bin laden with a bigger nose writing with the opposite hand the cia fact sheet says he writes with saying he did it?
odd considering right after the attacks bin laden denied involvement, i wonder why he's say it wasn't him at first then admit it later?
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/i ... r?_s=PM:US
Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that 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. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
gee, guess we'll just have to believe the government's super secret and classified evidence they have that no one is allowed to know what it actually is....at least it was a good thing they found that questionable video which was only found at that one location and no where else.....
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Interesting, as Ahmadinejad's comments, when read in their proper context, only briefly touched on whether 9/11 was an inside job. Maybe the Guardian, and every other mainstream Newspaper, are afraid of incurring the wrath of the Americans by quoting Ahmadinejad's comments in full. And there was I thinking that we had a free and indepndent press? Certainly doesn't fucking look that way:
This article isn't about " the theory that the attack on the World Trade Centre was an inside job". It's about Iran and US policy in the Middle East.
Further comments about 9/11 will be considered off topic and therefore removed.
Thanks
ComMod
Edit: They finally relented and posted one of my comments. Don't ever let anyone tell you that persistence and obstinacy are bad things.
*
Byrnzie28
Ahmadinejad's comments weren't solely about 9/11 either. There was a lot more to his speech than 9/11, and the part regarding 9/11 being a conspiracy was just a minor part of what he said. But then your readers wouldn't know that in light of the selective quoting of his speech above.
One factor of 'Iran and US policy in the Middle East' today is the perpetual use of one-sided misrepresentation of Ahmadinejad's words as a tool to whip up war fever against Iran. And if commentators are forbidden to discuss this aspect of 'Iran and US policy in the Middle East' then why bother having a comments section at all?
I have no problem at all admitting and being honest about this topic which includes lots of unknown details and information which the government has not come out and spoken upon or the commision not digging enough.... but even with all that stated... I'd venture to say that the vast majority of "truthers" and people allegedly seeking the "facts" are merely seeking reinforcement of what they already believe... that the government was either responsible or somehow involved... they do not seek truth, justice, facts or anything similar. It's all it all amounts too... people's minds are made up and they have their blinders up to filter the information that backs their views.. it's nothing more than that. You can post a million and one anomalies or half-truthes or semi-related commentaries from sources with questionable motives and reputations, but the reality is nothing will ever change your or the people who believe this.. nothing short of Bin Laden coming forward and saying such, and even then the truthers would still deny it. People like to believe that great events and occurrences and unknowns have to have an equally large answer.. .it amounts to nothing more than false reporting, conspiracy theory and delusion based on misinformation or loosely connected facts. I believe roughly 25% of Americans still believe the Apollo Moon landing was false.. .and every single allegation which was "in question" has been shot down and debunked... and still 1 in 4 believe it.. .you know why? Stupidity and stubbornness. The facts don't matter, it's secondary and only important if it backs your viewpoint and this issue is no different. Some people will always believe it, but have less and less proof or more will be debunked over time until there's nothing but someone denying everything but themselves.. you may as well start posting about the existence of god while you're at it... if people believe something, the rest is irrelevant.
I find it very ironic that all the people who call for the "truth" and similar on these matters completely throw out all the basic aspects of a fair, balanced and judicious court system applied to the issue simply in order to get their own answer, which in many respects, they already believe. Why do you think that is?? Perhaps a lack of real fact? In case you don't recall, in the actual justice system, you have to prove why someone is guilty, not actually merely provide hearsay, accusation or motive.. but actual details to show guilt and once that is proven, we say justice is done. Perhaps "truthers" just heed their own advice.
Does this not perfectly describe what the commision did? They threw out all aspects of a fair, balanced, and judicious court system in order to get answers they already believed. Unless I'm mistaken, that is what Byrnzie, myself, that demon spawn Ahmadinejad, and all other 'truthers' are looking for - an independant investigation that is not corrupted and stonewalled by the people accused by some of involvement.
Given the questions Byrnzie listed, can you actually say that you feel Al Qaeda's guilt was proven, and justice was done?....I doubt it...THAT is why people demand another investigation. Not because they didn't get the result they want, but because there was NEVER a PROPER investigation done!
The truthers should heed their own advice, because their unproven accusations result in....what? overuse of the internet? Overactive imaginations?
What did the unproven accusations against Al Qaeda result in? /quote]
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'd venture to say that the vast majority of "truthers" and people allegedly seeking the "facts" are merely seeking reinforcement of what they already believe
The same could be said about those who follow the official government-backed line, depite it being so full of holes that it resembles a piece of Swiss Cheese.
Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
According to Ma'ariv, Netanyahu said Israel is 'benefiting from attack' as it 'swung American public opinion.'
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Speaking Wednesday at a news conference on the Iran threat, Netanyahu compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and likened Tehran's nuclear program to the threat the Nazis posed to Europe in the late 1930s.
Netanyahu said Iran differed from the Nazis in one vital respect, explaining that "where that [Nazi] regime embarked on a global conflict before it developed nuclear weapons," he said. "This regime [Iran] is developing nuclear weapons before it embarks on a global conflict."
well i believe that netanyahu believes what he said. no doubt with the wests paranoia about musilms that israel has indeed benefitted from 9/11.
as for his remark about iran and its nuclear aspirations............... thats just BULLSHIT! its a throwaway line used to induce a fear that doesnt exist. and as we all know thats the best fear of all. cause it cant be absolutely substantiated and it cant be totally denied... therefore it works perfectly for the purposes of propaganda because people fear the unknown.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Also, he has openly proclaimed his desire to destroy Israel!
No he hasn't.
right.
again, to clarify, i believe THIS was actually the MISquote that uses a translated english word that doesn't even exist in arabic -- the portion "wipe off the map", if i'm not mistaken.
What he ACTUALLY said was: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
CLEARLY referring to the fact that Ahmadinejad has a fundamental political disagreement with the militaristic, right wing, hard line government of Israel ... the one that won't compromise with the "palestinians" and continues to destroy their settlements and occupy their land, even in repeated offense of UN rulings ... and his assertion that SUCH A REGIME MUST, OF NECESSITY, CEASE TO RULE.
If anyone wants to verify this MISquote, all you need to do is google "Ahmadinejad Misquote" on the internet, and you will get myriad results all stating the same.
Just sayin'.
EDIT:
PS - To clarify my reasons for continually asserting this stuff, it is NOT to DEFEND Ahmadinejad (which i view as an irrelevant argument) but to POINT OUT to those who are unaware of what is REALLY going on in this world that the LIES THEY ARE REPEATING (ie. these several misquotes) are DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED PROPAGANDA being spread through mainstream news channels (like the aforementioned "trustworthy" BBC, hah, laughable) IN ORDER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINON IN FAVOR OF THE JUDEO-ANGLOPHILE ESTABLISHMENT.
In other words, any valid argument against the Ahmadinejad government not withstanding (and surely there are more than a few VALID arguments), the misquotes being spread about him are a CHEAP and EFFECTIVE form of swaying mass political appeal towards the desired outcomes of an elite group of globalists.
That's all for now.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Also, he has openly proclaimed his desire to destroy Israel!
No he hasn't.
right.
again, to clarify, i believe THIS was actually the MISquote that uses a translated english word that doesn't even exist in arabic -- the portion "wipe off the map", if i'm not mistaken.
What he ACTUALLY said was: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
CLEARLY referring to the fact that Ahmadinejad has a fundamental political disagreement with the militaristic, right wing, hard line government of Israel ... the one that won't compromise with the "palestinians" and continues to destroy their settlements and occupy their land, even in repeated offense of UN rulings ... and his assertion that SUCH A REGIME MUST, OF NECESSITY, CEASE TO RULE.
If anyone wants to verify this MISquote, all you need to do is google "Ahmadinejad Misquote" on the internet, and you will get myriad results all stating the same.
Just sayin'.
EDIT:
PS - To clarify my reasons for continually asserting this stuff, it is NOT to DEFEND Ahmadinejad (which i view as an irrelevant argument) but to POINT OUT to those who are unaware of what is REALLY going on in this world that the LIES THEY ARE REPEATING (ie. these several misquotes) are DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED PROPAGANDA being spread through mainstream news channels (like the aforementioned "trustworthy" BBC, hah, laughable) IN ORDER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINON IN FAVOR OF THE JUDEO-ANGLOPHILE ESTABLISHMENT.
In other words, any valid argument against the Ahmadinejad government not withstanding (and surely there are more than a few VALID arguments), the misquotes being spread about him are a CHEAP and EFFECTIVE form of swaying mass political appeal towards the desired outcomes of an elite group of globalists.
That's all for now.
in this case the lies are being spread to sway public opinion in favor of war
in this case the lies are being spread to sway public opinion in favor of war
I would re-phrase that statement to say,
in this case the lies are being spread to sway public opinion in favor of THE OPTIONALITY of war.
I think there is a large chasm within the establishment as to the best course for reconciling the insular religio-nationalistic economy of Iran with the larger global-political body. Certainly there is a large faction that would like to just war it out. I'm quite sure there is another faction that views this as near suicidal. There is probably a smaller subset of the former that actually views the near suicidal nature of such a war as a POSITIVE, but I truly hope this is the small minority of "illuminsts".
The one thing that REALLY scares me about such War Drumming is probably one of the most controversial (read: unverified, alleged) items within the conspiracy realm, and that is the alleged letter from Albert Pike to Giuseppe Mazzini. That is to say, a letter from the head of the Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite Freemasons (founder of the 33rd Degree) to the "alleged" head of the European Illuminati.
This ALLEGED letter, suposedly dated August 15, 1871, purports to "predict" or lay the foundation for THREE World Wars.
This letter reads in part as follows:
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."
"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
Only two things to point out, and you can draw your own conclusions.
1. This letter is startlingly relevant to modern geo-political dilemmas. It sure is odd, and unnerving.
2. Here are two sites to review regarding the alleged Pike-Mazzini Letter:
a. http://www.threeworldwars.com - Pike-Mazzini Letter ... this site while attempting neutrality, is clearly in support of the notion that this letter is real, and as such, has some interesting things to say.
b. http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca - Pike-Mazzini Letter Hoax ... this site claims outright that the letter is a hoax, but RAISES A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION, in that it SHOWS one source of the SPREAD of this "hoax" to be William Guy Carr, who is apparently the first person to copy the above letter to the public. This letter was printed in his book, "Satan: Prince of This World", from 1959, meaning that while it POST-dates both WWI and WWII, it was still a good FIFTY years away from the present time, making it startlingly accurate in its summation of the current global-geo-political situation.
Again, take it for what its worth, but it sure is disturbing to think that such a letter is real, and that it does, in truth, represent real illuminist intentions for yet one more giant global war ... this time pitted straight up against rivaling religious groups, to the eventual destruction of both.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
... if people believe something, the rest is irrelevant.
which is my point, you demand concrete proof that the government's account didn't happen and yet you wouldn't be able to give any concrete proof to back up the government's account. i think the people against any questions being asked are projecting their own feelings sometimes, for instance my mind isn't made up on any set account or scenario, i just think the government's account doesn't add up, you and others on the other hand....your minds are completely made up based on what?? the word of an administration that had repeatedly lied, pushed forgeries, had several members involved in other crimes like iran/contra and other things?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
See here's the difference, I don't take the government's exact word for anything, but you seem to ignore the fact the past actions do not equate to future guilt. You sit here and say things like "other crimes" yet ignore that al queda has done tons of things pre-9-11 to the US targets simply to point guilt at the government. All of these unfounded allegations and insinuations don't add up to much of anything but just that... questions like "who benefits most" or "look what they've done before in situation x" leads you to assume guilt with no real proof other than hearsay and unknown questions which even if you had the answer, doesn't lead to a sense of guilt at the government. How about you do this, read all the details al queda has put out there since declaring war on the US, read bin laden's speeches and look at all the attacks they've carried out... you ignore that because your mind is made up already. I on the other have heard the questions you're stating, I've heard and read about the conspiracy theories and unknowns.. and you know what, none of it adds up to the actual legitimate and logical answer that you seem to come to. I've seen and heard both sides and only the facts will sway my opinion on the matter, that's not something most will actually say or do because their minds are already made up.
... if people believe something, the rest is irrelevant.
which is my point, you demand concrete proof that the government's account didn't happen and yet you wouldn't be able to give any concrete proof to back up the government's account. i think the people against any questions being asked are projecting their own feelings sometimes, for instance my mind isn't made up on any set account or scenario, i just think the government's account doesn't add up, you and others on the other hand....your minds are completely made up based on what?? the word of an administration that had repeatedly lied, pushed forgeries, had several members involved in other crimes like iran/contra and other things?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
This thread is awesome! Usually the conspiracy theories are just sort of hazy and abstract, kinda floating around the edge of the discussion, but now we've got some straight-up illuminati/free-mason craziness in the mix. It's like the watching the fucking History Channel!
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
On a serious note, Five, I completely agree with you. People want to believe that the US is somehow a perpetual perpetrator, that all the bad stuff out there can at the end of the day be brought back to US guilt, so they'll raise all these questions, and selectively ignore all sorts of stuff so they can get from point A to point B, just like they planned, even if they won't/can't admit that to themselves.
What's the saying though? The simplest explanation is usually correct? Well, in this case the simplest explanation is that terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings, with, at worst, an assist from US government negligence. Period.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
in this case the simplest explanation is that terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings, with, at worst, an assist from US government negligence. Period.
Possibly. Though if it was down to a simple case of negligence then those guilty of such a huge breach of responsibilty should be brought to account.
Though it still doesn't answer the hundreds of lies and omissions found in the official government approved 9/11 comission report.
It's easy to just dismiss those asking questions as crazy conspiracy theorists, but there are still serious questions that remain unanswered.
'...Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.'
Absolutely correct, accountability and responsibility are key in anything in life.. but with that said, simply filling the void of unknown answers doesn't really amount to much either. Just as many claim the government over-reacted to 9-11 with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems many citizens reacted in the same manner in the opposite direction, and both have the same foundations.. .misguided anger, resentment and misinformation. And for the record, I don't think simply dismissing people asking questions is the legitimate way to categorize such things, I think it's more to the point of those claiming the government actually did it or had their hand it in as their final answer are the one's being dismissed. Absolute answers in the face of uncertainty is not a rational, logical outcome no matter what the issue.
Possibly. Though if it was down to a simple case of negligence then those guilty of such a huge breach of responsibilty should be brought to account.
Though it still doesn't answer the hundreds of lies and omissions found in the official government approved 9/11 comission report.
It's easy to just dismiss those asking questions as crazy conspiracy theorists, but there are still serious questions that remain unanswered.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
yeah, i'm sure it was just a mistake assholes. the original headline was Iran Leader says U.S. planned 9/11 attacks.
- Corrections
Published: September 24, 2010
A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.
Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
According to Ma'ariv, Netanyahu said Israel is 'benefiting from attack' as it 'swung American public opinion.'
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Speaking Wednesday at a news conference on the Iran threat, Netanyahu compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and likened Tehran's nuclear program to the threat the Nazis posed to Europe in the late 1930s.
Netanyahu said Iran differed from the Nazis in one vital respect, explaining that "where that [Nazi] regime embarked on a global conflict before it developed nuclear weapons," he said. "This regime [Iran] is developing nuclear weapons before it embarks on a global conflict."
i'm not surprised at anything that comes out of that maniacs mouth. this is afterall the same slimebag who said "the U.S. is easily manipulated, the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.”
yeah, i'm sure it was just a mistake assholes. the original headline was Iran Leader says U.S. planned 9/11 attacks.
- Corrections
Published: September 24, 2010
A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.
I bet this wasn't a headline though, right? It was probably on page 24 in the bottom corner. So, as with the bullshit claim that Ahmadinejad called for Israel to wiped off the map, we'll be hearing this recent nonsense repeated again and again by those people who swallow everything the mainstream media tells them.
yeah, i'm sure it was just a mistake assholes. the original headline was Iran Leader says U.S. planned 9/11 attacks.
- Corrections
Published: September 24, 2010
A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.
:evil: :evil:
Infuriating.
"we made a little boo-boo. totally by accident, we changed the whole context of what was said, and ran with it as the headline".
what a fucking JOKE.
Comments
i doubt there are any members of this entire forum that would rather live in iran over the united states, unless of course there are members of the pit already living in iran...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
apparently. it seems if you have an opinion counter to ahmadinejads a mad crazy bastard who never makes any sense and everything he says is just crap then surely that means youd prefer living in iran. *shrugs* :roll:
id prefer just to visit.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I didn't say it was a smoking gun, but when coupled with the hundreds of other points it raises some questions. Anyone who looks at the government-backed investigation can see that it was a whitewash.
Why won't they allow an independent investigation?
No he hasn't.
So I take it you've never heard of the burning of the Reichstag?
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
In the 1931 Mukden incident, Japanese officers fabricated a pretext for annexing Manchuria by blowing up a section of railway. Six years later they falsely claimed the kidnapping of one of their soldiers in the Marco Polo Bridge Incident as an excuse to invade China proper.
In the Gleiwitz incident in August 1939, Reinhard Heydrich made use of fabricated evidence of a Polish attack against Germany to mobilize German public opinion and to fabricate a false justification for a war with Poland. This, along with other false flag operations in Operation Himmler, would be used to mobilize support from the German population for the start of World War II in Europe.
On November 26, 1939, the Soviet Union shelled the Russian village of Mainila near the Finnish border. The Soviet Union attacked Finland four days afterwards, claiming the shelling to have been a Finnish military action. Russia has agreed that the attack was initiated by the Soviets.[6] Also, the nearest Finnish artillery pieces were well out of range of Mainila.[7]
In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the formerly democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[8]
In 1954, the Military Intelligence Directorate of Israel launched a series of bombings against targets in Cairo which had British and American financial interests, in the hopes of alienating the U.S. and Britain from Egypt.[9] Codenamed Operation Suzannah, it was later dubbed the Lavon Affair, after Israeli Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon. Lavon and Israeli Military Intelligence head Binyamin Gibli had planned and carried out the operation in secret, and without telling Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in advance. Lavon and Gibli both lost their jobs as a result. Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[10]
The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking or shooting down passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49445
The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in fact meant a global management.
One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:
First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.
All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident.
Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.
But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.
Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.
Please take note:
It was said that some three thousand people were killed on the 11 th September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.
In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.
1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.
This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.
The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.
The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.
There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands ofpeople to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.
It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.
. I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.
One of these words just doesn't belong.
Iran, War agenda, fear, U.S. Government lust for power, real objective, media reporting and proper context.
hmm.
one of these things is not like the others,
one of these things just doesn't belong,
can you tell which thing is not like the others
by the time I finish my song?
did you guess which thing was not like the others?
did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
then you're absolutely...right!
proper context.
high five. cookies for you.
Even the Guardian's video clip selectively edits out the whole of his speech apart from the words: "the US government orchestrated the attack in order to save the Zionist regime in the Middle East". And when I posted his words in their proper context on the Guardian's comments section my post was immediately deleted.
Then I receive a message on the comments section stating that 'Your comments will now be automatically submitted for moderation'.
Looks like they really don't want anyone to read Ahmadinejad's words in their proper context. And there was I thinking the Guardian's comments section was a place of open and honest debate? So much for that!
Edit: I just read a post from someone asking why the moderators are deleting everyone's posts and when I refreshed that comment had also disappeared.
You seriously have to wonder at the desperation of the Western media to bend over backwards to quote Ahmadinejad's comments out of context in their efforts to whip up war fever. And this is one of the most left-leaning papers.
And just yesterday someone here was talking about how the Western media acts as a check on the state. What a joke!
speaking of which five....didn't the fbi admit they have no actual evidence linking the attacks to anyone, even al qaeda? isn't the only 'proof' the video of a fatter bin laden with a bigger nose writing with the opposite hand the cia fact sheet says he writes with saying he did it?
odd considering right after the attacks bin laden denied involvement, i wonder why he's say it wasn't him at first then admit it later?
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/i ... r?_s=PM:US
Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=2623
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that 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. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
gee, guess we'll just have to believe the government's super secret and classified evidence they have that no one is allowed to know what it actually is....at least it was a good thing they found that questionable video which was only found at that one location and no where else.....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... f-comments
CommunityMod
25 September 2010 3:30AM
This article isn't about " the theory that the attack on the World Trade Centre was an inside job". It's about Iran and US policy in the Middle East.
Further comments about 9/11 will be considered off topic and therefore removed.
Thanks
ComMod
Edit: They finally relented and posted one of my comments. Don't ever let anyone tell you that persistence and obstinacy are bad things.
*
Byrnzie28
Ahmadinejad's comments weren't solely about 9/11 either. There was a lot more to his speech than 9/11, and the part regarding 9/11 being a conspiracy was just a minor part of what he said. But then your readers wouldn't know that in light of the selective quoting of his speech above.
One factor of 'Iran and US policy in the Middle East' today is the perpetual use of one-sided misrepresentation of Ahmadinejad's words as a tool to whip up war fever against Iran. And if commentators are forbidden to discuss this aspect of 'Iran and US policy in the Middle East' then why bother having a comments section at all?
Does this not perfectly describe what the commision did? They threw out all aspects of a fair, balanced, and judicious court system in order to get answers they already believed. Unless I'm mistaken, that is what Byrnzie, myself, that demon spawn Ahmadinejad, and all other 'truthers' are looking for - an independant investigation that is not corrupted and stonewalled by the people accused by some of involvement.
Given the questions Byrnzie listed, can you actually say that you feel Al Qaeda's guilt was proven, and justice was done?....I doubt it...THAT is why people demand another investigation. Not because they didn't get the result they want, but because there was NEVER a PROPER investigation done!
The truthers should heed their own advice, because their unproven accusations result in....what? overuse of the internet? Overactive imaginations?
What did the unproven accusations against Al Qaeda result in? /quote]
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The same could be said about those who follow the official government-backed line, depite it being so full of holes that it resembles a piece of Swiss Cheese.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-neta ... l-1.244044
Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
According to Ma'ariv, Netanyahu said Israel is 'benefiting from attack' as it 'swung American public opinion.'
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Speaking Wednesday at a news conference on the Iran threat, Netanyahu compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and likened Tehran's nuclear program to the threat the Nazis posed to Europe in the late 1930s.
Netanyahu said Iran differed from the Nazis in one vital respect, explaining that "where that [Nazi] regime embarked on a global conflict before it developed nuclear weapons," he said. "This regime [Iran] is developing nuclear weapons before it embarks on a global conflict."
as for his remark about iran and its nuclear aspirations............... thats just BULLSHIT! its a throwaway line used to induce a fear that doesnt exist. and as we all know thats the best fear of all. cause it cant be absolutely substantiated and it cant be totally denied... therefore it works perfectly for the purposes of propaganda because people fear the unknown.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
right.
again, to clarify, i believe THIS was actually the MISquote that uses a translated english word that doesn't even exist in arabic -- the portion "wipe off the map", if i'm not mistaken.
What he ACTUALLY said was:
"the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
CLEARLY referring to the fact that Ahmadinejad has a fundamental political disagreement with the militaristic, right wing, hard line government of Israel ... the one that won't compromise with the "palestinians" and continues to destroy their settlements and occupy their land, even in repeated offense of UN rulings ... and his assertion that SUCH A REGIME MUST, OF NECESSITY, CEASE TO RULE.
If anyone wants to verify this MISquote, all you need to do is google "Ahmadinejad Misquote" on the internet, and you will get myriad results all stating the same.
Just sayin'.
EDIT:
PS - To clarify my reasons for continually asserting this stuff, it is NOT to DEFEND Ahmadinejad (which i view as an irrelevant argument) but to POINT OUT to those who are unaware of what is REALLY going on in this world that the LIES THEY ARE REPEATING (ie. these several misquotes) are DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED PROPAGANDA being spread through mainstream news channels (like the aforementioned "trustworthy" BBC, hah, laughable) IN ORDER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINON IN FAVOR OF THE JUDEO-ANGLOPHILE ESTABLISHMENT.
In other words, any valid argument against the Ahmadinejad government not withstanding (and surely there are more than a few VALID arguments), the misquotes being spread about him are a CHEAP and EFFECTIVE form of swaying mass political appeal towards the desired outcomes of an elite group of globalists.
That's all for now.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
in this case the lies are being spread to sway public opinion in favor of war
I would re-phrase that statement to say,
in this case the lies are being spread to sway public opinion in favor of THE OPTIONALITY of war.
I think there is a large chasm within the establishment as to the best course for reconciling the insular religio-nationalistic economy of Iran with the larger global-political body. Certainly there is a large faction that would like to just war it out. I'm quite sure there is another faction that views this as near suicidal. There is probably a smaller subset of the former that actually views the near suicidal nature of such a war as a POSITIVE, but I truly hope this is the small minority of "illuminsts".
The one thing that REALLY scares me about such War Drumming is probably one of the most controversial (read: unverified, alleged) items within the conspiracy realm, and that is the alleged letter from Albert Pike to Giuseppe Mazzini. That is to say, a letter from the head of the Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite Freemasons (founder of the 33rd Degree) to the "alleged" head of the European Illuminati.
This ALLEGED letter, suposedly dated August 15, 1871, purports to "predict" or lay the foundation for THREE World Wars.
This letter reads in part as follows:
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."
"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
Only two things to point out, and you can draw your own conclusions.
1. This letter is startlingly relevant to modern geo-political dilemmas. It sure is odd, and unnerving.
2. Here are two sites to review regarding the alleged Pike-Mazzini Letter:
a. http://www.threeworldwars.com - Pike-Mazzini Letter ... this site while attempting neutrality, is clearly in support of the notion that this letter is real, and as such, has some interesting things to say.
b. http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca - Pike-Mazzini Letter Hoax ... this site claims outright that the letter is a hoax, but RAISES A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION, in that it SHOWS one source of the SPREAD of this "hoax" to be William Guy Carr, who is apparently the first person to copy the above letter to the public. This letter was printed in his book, "Satan: Prince of This World", from 1959, meaning that while it POST-dates both WWI and WWII, it was still a good FIFTY years away from the present time, making it startlingly accurate in its summation of the current global-geo-political situation.
Again, take it for what its worth, but it sure is disturbing to think that such a letter is real, and that it does, in truth, represent real illuminist intentions for yet one more giant global war ... this time pitted straight up against rivaling religious groups, to the eventual destruction of both.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
which is my point, you demand concrete proof that the government's account didn't happen and yet you wouldn't be able to give any concrete proof to back up the government's account. i think the people against any questions being asked are projecting their own feelings sometimes, for instance my mind isn't made up on any set account or scenario, i just think the government's account doesn't add up, you and others on the other hand....your minds are completely made up based on what?? the word of an administration that had repeatedly lied, pushed forgeries, had several members involved in other crimes like iran/contra and other things?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
What's the saying though? The simplest explanation is usually correct? Well, in this case the simplest explanation is that terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings, with, at worst, an assist from US government negligence. Period.
Possibly. Though if it was down to a simple case of negligence then those guilty of such a huge breach of responsibilty should be brought to account.
Though it still doesn't answer the hundreds of lies and omissions found in the official government approved 9/11 comission report.
It's easy to just dismiss those asking questions as crazy conspiracy theorists, but there are still serious questions that remain unanswered.
Yes he did.
No he didn't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... omment.usa
Jonathan Steele
The Guardian, Friday 2 June 2006
'...Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.'
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
yeah, i'm sure it was just a mistake assholes. the original headline was Iran Leader says U.S. planned 9/11 attacks.
- Corrections
Published: September 24, 2010
A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/pageo ... .html?_r=3
i'm not surprised at anything that comes out of that maniacs mouth. this is afterall the same slimebag who said "the U.S. is easily manipulated, the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.”
I bet this wasn't a headline though, right? It was probably on page 24 in the bottom corner. So, as with the bullshit claim that Ahmadinejad called for Israel to wiped off the map, we'll be hearing this recent nonsense repeated again and again by those people who swallow everything the mainstream media tells them.
Infuriating.
"we made a little boo-boo. totally by accident, we changed the whole context of what was said, and ran with it as the headline".
what a fucking JOKE.