IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Say You ?, The Last, True, Patriot President

aerohead
post Jul 23 2009, 09:34 PM
Post #1





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



I have been a Republican all my life,
voted that way in every election since i was
old enough to vote, because i was raised that way.

Never really understood government till i started
researching 9/11, about 4 yrs ago.

My journey has brought me to realize that our last,
true, Patriot President was assassinated, by the powers that
be, on Nov 22, 1963. The reign of the CIA could not be allowed
to end, and the secrecy within our government had to be maintained
in order to accomplish all the agenda's of the elite over the past
45 yrs...... including and especially 9/11.

I cant help but wonder what our world would be like if
he had not been murdered.

The Last True Patriot President

What say you ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 24 2009, 01:53 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Jul 24 2009, 09:33 AM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



Full transscript + discussion here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 24 2009, 12:55 PM
Post #4





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Thank you Rob and Rapp,
It seems many others have had the
same end to their journey.

The way i know that Kennedy was our last
true Patriot President, is that i havent heard
a President since, speak about returning this country
to its people and taking steps to do so. He spoke
of Liberty, not the fear mongering that is forced
upon us today that is directly aimed at taking our
Liberties away. JFK was going to pull out if Vietnam
and that didnt go well with the elite's plan of positioning
and military contract wealth. Im not saying he was a saint,
im sayin he was a true American. None of us are saints.

I intend to honor my dead King and fight for the return of
Liberty and Freedom, and strip the tyrants
of their power and their strangle hold on our future as a
soverign country.

And it all starts with a new investigation of 9/11.
This will be one of the greatest times in American history,
a time to implement new laws to protect us from the plans
of the overly wealthy and self proclaimed gods of our World.

This is what got us here.

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the
germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.



This is what will take us back.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and
Romans, and must be that of every free state.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson


This post has been edited by aerohead: Jul 24 2009, 08:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 24 2009, 01:07 PM
Post #5





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Interestingly, Kennedy was only the third president who had to deal with the National Security Act of 1947 and arguably the first who had to deal with it as entrenched in hits present form. My basis for that statement: (1) Truman enacted the NSA and there was not enough time for it to become organized by the time he left office in 1952; (2) the pieces began falling in place under Eisenhower and recognizing that by 1960 they were basically all in place, he sounded his famous warning at his Farewell Address. Kennedy came into office faced with the entire and complete machine.

EDIT TO ADD: Probably the biggest warning sign was the Steel Seizure Case when Truman seized the steel industry plants in the face of the 1950? Steelworker's Strike to force the industry and workers back to producing steel for the Korean War. Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer. The Supreme Court said Truman can't do that because its private property but the tone was set. Next time, just make your reasons bigger and scarier and see if that that's compelling enough to work.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jul 24 2009, 01:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jul 24 2009, 03:14 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jul 24 2009, 01:07 PM) *
Interestingly, Kennedy was only the third president who had to deal with the National Security Act of 1947 and arguably the first who had to deal with it as entrenched in hits present form. My basis for that statement: (1) Truman enacted the NSA and there was not enough time for it to become organized by the time he left office in 1952; (2) the pieces began falling in place under Eisenhower and recognizing that by 1960 they were basically all in place, he sounded his famous warning at his Farewell Address. Kennedy came into office faced with the entire and complete machine.

EDIT TO ADD: Probably the biggest warning sign was the Steel Seizure Case when Truman seized the steel industry plants in the face of the 1950? Steelworker's Strike to force the industry and workers back to producing steel for the Korean War. Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer. The Supreme Court said Truman can't do that because its private property but the tone was set. Next time, just make your reasons bigger and scarier and see if that that's compelling enough to work.


tnemelckram good points. As much as i've dwelt on nov 22 1963 over the years, i never really thought about that aspect. The shadow government was mature by the time of his presidency.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 24 2009, 03:31 PM
Post #7





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



If Kennedy was part of the machine, then why did
he try to splinter it and destroy it.

Why did he fire Allen Dulles and vow to shatter the CIA
into a thousand pieces ?

That day, an obstacle was removed so the machine
could restart and press on towards world domination
for the elite.

Former CIA Agent E.Howard Hunt

"Johnson and the Gang"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 24 2009, 03:44 PM
Post #8





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jul 24 2009, 12:07 PM) *
Next time, just make your reasons bigger and scarier and see if that that's compelling enough to work.



Not following you............. can you explain

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jul 24 2009, 03:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 24 2009, 03:51 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Aero!

I didn't say that Kennedy was part of the Military-Industrial Complex. I said that he arguably was the first President that had to deal with it in all its present-day glory. That said, I'm not sure that he undertook to destroy it. His record to me is spotty, and suggests to me that he realized that it was too big to destroy and that he had to figure out how to live with it and just clip its wings once in a while.

As to the next time, try something bigger and scarier: Truman didn't succeed with the scarecrow of "No steel to fight the Korean War". So the next time, try something bigger and scarier like blowing up an iconic building and killing lots of people to boot.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jul 24 2009, 03:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 24 2009, 04:16 PM
Post #10





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Hi tnemelckram

Thank you, I understand now.
Im a little slow but i get there. haha B)

I cant imagine what he was up against in his term,
but i have to give him props for trying to atleast
do what he could and what he thought was right for America,
even with the knowledge that it could (and did) cost him
his life. And to me thats what a true Patriot is all
about.....willing to personally sacrifice it all for the
preservation of Liberty, Justice and Freedom for
every inhabitant of this country.

I believe the powers that be, use "we are doing the
right thing" as an excuse, but not the real motivation, for
what they do. Secrecy and deception cloaking tyranny and
greed. A small group that believes they know whats best
for all their little children of the world, and think they have
the right to implement it and control all of us.
How disgusting.

”We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times,
Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have
attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for
almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop
our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of
publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated
and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national
sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable
to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries
.”
-David Rockefeller, Bilderberger meeting, 1991


I dont think Kennedy would have ever said this, and
i believe he would have fought it openly and honestly.
We did not elect these people to govern, and their plan must be
stopped at all costs.

Secret societies, breed arrogant selfish ambition,
and tyranny.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jul 24 2009, 08:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Jul 24 2009, 11:19 PM
Post #11





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Aerohead,
My trajectory is remarkably similar to yours. I remember my anger at the obvious whitewash of the JFK assassination and how, with time, it faded from loss of mindshare. My family and career crowded it out and the anger only returned when a news story or other developments, like the Stone movie, forced it back to the foreground.

What I only realized in retrospect after 9/11 is what it meant to the country to let the whitewash stand. We are standing at the same nexus again and the consequences could be even bigger. I can plead youth and naiveté in the case of JFK, but I have no such defense now. I have to fight it out on this line if it takes the rest of my life.

I didn't place JFK in a proper context because I had no such context in which to place him. I was still in thrall of the myth of America created in our minds in school with the sanitized and U.S. Government-approved version of events that somehow missed the titanic struggles that have centered on the steady erosion of democracy at the hands of the power elite. I only learned since 9/11 the the Federal Reserve is not federal and doesn't reserve anything at all, but is literally a private entity that owns this country and we the people don't get any say in the matter. Just another part of my real education.

9/11 is an opportunity to get the country back. It packs enough political explosive power to destroy the status quo. The only question is whether the dumbing down of Americans has gone too far and we no longer have the capacity to see the truth and act in our own interests.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 25 2009, 12:20 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Roosevelt (FDR) was the first president proffered by the CFR - there were others who were in the pocket of the Money Trust before him, notably FDR's distant cousin Teddy Roosevelt, bonesman Howard Taft (to some degree at least) and of course Woodrow Wilson who was under Col. House's spell and signed the Federal Reserve Act, but I don't think Truman was one of their guys - Truman had ties to the mob supposedly, but wasn't a CFR member to my knowledge. He assumed the presidency after FDR's death, but when he came up for election the CFR got behind one of their own members, Thomas Dewey. Three things tell me that Truman was not on the same page as the "Money Trust", who by the way put together and got passed the Defense Act of 1947 which created the NSC, DoD and CIA which Truman did sign - first, the fact that everyone assumed Dewey was going to win - the Chicago paper (I forgot which one) headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" is famous. Secondly, that following passage of the new bill, the (first) Secretary of Defense, a CFR guy who was one of the three primary Architects of the bill, James Forrestal, met with Dewey before the election, and Dewey agreed to keep Forrestal on as Sec. of Defense. After Truman won, he let Forrestal go. Third, the guy most responsible for setting up the CIA, Allen Dulles (who also was central in funnelling money from Harriman/Bush/Rockefeller to Nazi Germany and ran the OSS during the war) did NOT take the helm at the CIA until Truman was out of office.

Some websites claim that Eisenhower was a CFR member - he may have been, but I don't think he really knew what was going on. He was a military man, and not attuned to the political coup that was taking place IMO - I think he started to get wise toward the end of his term, and spoke out against the "Military Industrial Complex", but that right there tells me he didn't really understand. Anyone who thinks the M.I.C. is or ever was the root of the cancer has really only scratched the surface, that's just a mechanism for the power-wielders and their friends to skim cream from the system they were creating. As for Kennedy, I think the money-trust assumed he would be a pretty-face which they could control through his father, the wealthy Joe Kennedy ... and that they were wrong and had to "deal" with him.

And yes, Kennedy certainly was a patriot in the truest sense of the word - the proof is in that they killed him.

Anyway, that's my take on this post-war stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 25 2009, 01:04 AM
Post #13





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Maturin,
Its so good to hear your perspective.
I agree whole heartedly. My "real education"
over the past 2 years has been priceless. I have
a pretty good ear for the truth and my instincts
told me almost immediately that there was something
"not right" about that day. Just like most of the Patriots
here.

What i find very telling is the unbelieveable parallels between
JFK's assassination and the 9/11 attacks. If you replace JFK
for the 3000 people that died......its almost a mirror image.
3000 Americans (instead of 1 President) assassinated to perpetuate
Wars in the Middle east (instead of Vietnam). The no-bid, multi-billion
dollar contracts that were awarded to Cheney's company (instead
of to Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas )
Etc etc..............
The playbook was written for this in '62 in Operation Northwoods
by the Joint Chief's. Macnamara said no.......so they murdered
Kennedy in '63 and put off the Northwoods Operation for 9/11.

I mean..................
ARE WE REALLY THIS STUPID AND SCARED OF OUR GOVERNMENT
To remain silent about this is a crime of cowardice and selfishness.

"Dissention is the greatest form of Patriotism" Right ?
So why are we, as a country, so scared to confront our
Government about their treasonous actions ?

This country wasnt built by cowards, but it sure is full
of them now. Cowards who refuse to see the truth,
in fear that it may disrupt their comfort and cause them to
miss the next episode of "dancing with the transtesticles".

No one is above the law in this country, especially not those who
took an oath to serve this Constitutional Republic.
They must be brought to heal and know their place in OUR
country. I took an oath in the Air Force to defend this country
from ALL enemies, foriegn and domestic. And i will keep my
oath, even if it costs me my life.

Im so glad to have come here and met a others who have decided
that enough is enough and are speaking out. I have tried to
spread the word and enlighten people over the last 4 years,
but have met alot of resistance, sarcasm and cowardice.
Its like they are just happy living in ignorant darkness.
Together we CAN get this done.

I have no doubt that we will win, this is a War of information.
Lou Dobbs, Alex Jones and all the groups like Pilots and A&E
are doing a great job.

Kennedy may not have died in vain after all.
His dream is still possible.



PS- Is it just me, or is the swine flu a bunch of BS too.
My doc told me its no more dangerous than any other flu.
I heard today that they want everyone to stop counting
how many people die of it. Dobbs said this was bizzare, to
say the least. I agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 25 2009, 01:40 AM
Post #14





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Thanks Sanders, good stuff !

And how long has Cheney been a member
of the CFR ?

Since the mid 80's.
House of Representatives from Wyoming
Jan 3,1979 - March 20, 1989

The Dick of Secrecy


The Cowardly Dick;
When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.[

But he had no problem sending our boys over there
to die..................
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 25 2009, 01:56 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 28 2009, 11:04 PM) *
PS- Is it just me, or is the swine flu a bunch of BS too. [?]


Yup.

WhatReallyHappened has published lots of info about the Swine Flu, and the efforts underway to force vaccinations on everyone. DO NOT allow yourself to be vaccinated. (This form might come in handy-
http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f...mp;p=12035#wrap .)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 25 2009, 02:34 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 28 2009, 11:40 PM) *
... And how long has Cheney been a member
of the CFR ?


Dunnoh, but he was a director for a time.

Cheney is an interesting character, he was the 'go to guy' in the Ford Whitehouse (as Chief of Staff), was tasked with sending out Christmas cards, fixing the toilets, whatever, and was a hard working guy who shunned the limelite. After a stint in the House of Representatives, as DoD Sec. under papa Bush, he oversaw a study which concluded that the Gov. could save money by farming out jobs which had up until then been done by DoD employees to private corps like KRB, then of course he became CEO of KRB's parent, Halliburton. Brent Scowcroft, who knew Cheney from his years as National Sec. Advisor to Ford, said about him decades later, 'I don't know the guy anymore' (not a direct quote), alluding to Cheney's transformation into evil war-lord.

I find it interesting that Cheney's from Wyoming. I've come to the conclusion that the hijacking of America really started in concrete ways in the 1890's. Most people know about the push toward war with Spain led by Teddy Roosevelt and the 'Jingoes', and a few are familiar with the 'Uniform Laws' or 'Codes' which transfer power from the States to the Federal Government under the guise of unimpended interstate commerce, which Money-Trust bad-@ss Elihu Root did a fair amount of work on (just google Root - he was the first Chairman of the CFR among many other things). And most know a little about the prairie wars between cattle-ranchers and homesteaders. Few realize though that behind much of that violence was the fact that Eastern investors in the cattle industry, who were making a killing now that the country had a good railway system in place, were trying to run roughshod over the homesteaders and using local law enforcement to do it - in Wyoming these interests with eastern financiers took the form of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, which is what the movie 'Heaven's Gate' is all about. These prairie wars, the writing of Uniform laws, and the rise of the war-mongering Roosevelt camp all were happening simultaneously. (Rockefeller, Morgan and Harriman were taking over their respective industries as well.)

I don't know much about Cheney's family history, but I guess what I'm saying is that he didn't appear out of a vaccuum - Wyoming has a sorted history. Also, and forgive me for being a little esoteric, the Cheney family was there at Hastings with William the Conqueror and received lands and title for their service, and the family interlocks with many other elite families through history. Dick Cheney can actually be traced directly back to Woden the Viking (as can many others including the Queen of England for that matter), if you place faith in those genealogy sites.

http://www.houseofnames.com/fc.asp?sId=&s=cheney
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 25 2009, 04:25 AM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



HI Aero, Maturin and Sanders!

Aero - you stared a great thread. You said a short while ago:

QUOTE
This country wasn't built by cowards, but it sure is full of them now. Cowards who refuse to see the truth, in fear that it may disrupt their comfort . . . .


Brother, you are absolutely right! And as a man, and to set aside what the female perspective might be on all of this, for men it all comes down to being a man.

1. For most of our development into civilized society, men were the hunters. They depended on what their own senses told them (in particular their eyes). Today, as a general rule, men are still better at receiving sensual inputs, evaluating matters of time and space, and translating that into action. But a real man does not let another man tell him what he is perceiving, what to think about it, and what action to take. Watching the WTC's fall down and letting another man tell you what it is you are looking at violates the essence of being a man.

2. It is not manly to rely on another man to protect you and those who are dear to you. There is an incredible sacrifice of a man's autonomy when you look to the government for protection and express your willingness to have your autonomy restricted by the government in exchange.

3. Men still have a monopoly on dealing violence in our society. That's the result of what I said in 1 and 2 above. We're more suited to it. But a real man thinks before he strikes and does not let panic interfere with his judgment. For example, only pussies panic so much that they swing and miss, which is exactly what we did in Iraq. Only a pussy would jump to the conclusion that 911 was something new and changed everything and justified running to the government for the succor of a radical new approach.

In fact there was nothing new here. 911 was an act by stateless outlaws who are no different from historical stateless pirates and there was a long established body of international law and generally accepted procedures for dealing with pirates. Other countries have suffered far worse tragedies and survived. We lived for 50 years with only 20 minutes between Russian rockets and the almighty. The chances of you getting killed in a car crash are probably a million times more than your chances of getting killed by some terrorist. Any man who remained calm would realize that there's nothing new here and that 911 changed nothing in terms of his individual peril. Men are supposed to deal with things by staying as calm as possible.

My own record in this regard is spotty (just like I characterized Kennedy's record with the Military Industrial Complex).

Immediately after 911, I could sense the overreaction coming on. I told people that the best way to beat terrorists is for each one of us to not be terrorized and to react in a calculated way without throwing the baby of our liberties out with the hysterical bathwater.

However, I supported the Afghanistan incursion. It seemed in accordance with the historical response to piracy. I believed (and still do) that Bin Ladin had a role in 911, that the video where he admitted to it was authentic, and that the Taliban's failure to render him upon our demand despite that evidence justified stomping on the nation that admitted that it was continuing to provide hospitality to him.

However, my justification ended after Tora Bora. Assuming that we legitimately failed to catch him, then after that failure there was no more reason to stay in Afghanistan. Moreover, despite the presence of two 10th Mountain Division regiments specially trained for high altitude winter warfare, the Bush Administration failed to position those troops behind the Tora Bora position and in effect left him with 180 degrees of the compass worth of escape routes. That coupled with the government claims at the time that he was "surrounded" made it clear that something more was wrong than just staying after my justification had ended.

Recall that in that video Bin Ladin admitted that he sent the hijackers but that as an engineer he was surprised that the WTC's collapsed. That sounds like a true statement to me and in any case if I think the video is authentic then I have to take the whole thing as authentic. His surprise at the collapses has to be explained by something. I think that something is a controlled demolition arranged by a group of people who caught advance wind of Bin Ladin's plans and decided to capitalize on them. That group included high US government officials but they were acting off the reservation, so 911 was not an authorized US act of state.

So my current view on Afghanistan might sound kind of weird but here it is. Since, despite an additional conspiracy by others in the US Government, Bin Ladin is still partially responsible, we were still justified in going after him as we did. However, we should go after everybody else who was involved with the same bloody vigor. Hence everything that you see on this site and in the rest of the 911 Truth Movement. In other words, the involvement of others doesn't mean that we should not have gone after Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, but that we should ferret out and punish everybody else who is responsible in the same way.

I have consistently believed that at no time after 911 did what we were doing in Afghanistan justify any of the things that we did here at home such as curtailing liberty. The only place we had to act was over there. Not here. And the justification for Afghanistan ended when he either escaped or was allowed to escape from Tora Bora.

I know that the above might sound like trying to have my Afghanistan cake and eat my professed manly non panicky pie too. but sh*t, that's the way I thought and think. At least there's some reason and limits instead of blind and unlimited reaction.

Iraq, on the other hand, was always clearly to me a case of swinging and missing, and the men who supported it abandoned their essential nature. They puffed their chests to cover their panic and fear

Sorry to go on so long but you hit a nerve. As you can see' I'm not comfortable with my views on Afghanistan.

EDIT TO ADD: I ranted for so long that I forgot to address what Maturin and Sanders said.

I see a lot of people with the motive, opportunity and means to assassinate Kennedy. But I don't see absolute proof of a conspiracy, much less who did it. There are only strong suggestions of a conspiracy. This is unlike 911, where the CD of the WTC is absolute evidence of some conspiracy and is right out in the open for all to see.

Sanders is right on about Cheney in his second Post. He's a strong candidate for 911 involvement.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jul 25 2009, 04:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 25 2009, 11:13 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jul 29 2009, 02:25 AM) *
...As you can see' I'm not comfortable with my views on Afghanistan...


My whole ENTRY into the rabbit hole began with a thorough look at what had been going on with Afghanistan. It is an incredibly interesting story.

There are holes in my knowledge as with anything, but here's a quick synopsis to try on for size -

For whatever reason, the global elite, or, internation banksters, Rockefeller/Morgan/Rothschild/Carnegie/Warburg/FED member bank stockholder "fill in the blank" nexus (the names of the primary players change over the years, but certain families remain predominant) - or whatever you want to call them, decided they had learned all they needed to learn from the Soviet-Communist experiment, that they wanted their western oil corps to hold the exploration rights to the oil and gas under the Caspian Sea Basin (the true extent of those reserves being unknown at the time), had pilfered enough interest payments from loans to the US to pursue an arms race with the Soviets, were more concerned with wresting control of the Middle East from Muslims who rejected interest-based banking (usury) by religious law, and decided to engineer a collapse of the USSR.

Before going further, you have to acknowledge/realize that these power-brokers back before WWI were on the one hand financing the soon-to-happen Bolshevik Revolution against their long-time nemesis, Czarist Russia, and on the other hand, planning how to gain control of the US educational system. Norman Dodd in his interview gives out many clues to this strategy. The idea, in short, was to convince Americans that they lived in a "Democracy", which America was never supposed to be (the founders abhorred the idea, the word Democracy is found no where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution) - why??? Because they knew they could control the media, and hence people's opinions, and if Americans could be convinced the US was a Democracy and if they could get 51% of the American public on their side, they could do anything. The experiment was this - how to best rule a people? By deception, as they would try in America? - Or by fear and coercion as they would try in Russia?

Anyway, for whatever reasons, sometime in the 70's I'm guessing theyTM decided to change American enemy #1 from the USSR to fundamentalist Islam. But first they had to create the threat - and these people are smart, they kill two birds with one stone - they give the Russians their own Vietnam and build up a fundamentalist Islamic movement at the same time - with their rich Saudi and Bush-connected (through his brother & brother in law) pal, Osama bin Laden. Did Osama know he was serving the interests of the western elite? Maybe not - and it matters not.

Backing up a bit, in 1979 Zbigbew Brzezinski, long term pal of David Rockefeller, advisor to 4 presidents and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, convinced Jimmy Carter to fund Islamic troops (Mujahedeen) in Afghanistan to provoke an attack by Russia. Brzezinski admitted this in an interview for a French magazine.

10 years later the Soviet Union, worn out and financially gutted from the war, collapsed. I'm assuming the bankers pulled other strings to destabilize Russia, but I have no proof of it.

Very soon after, Brzezinski, who was giving pep-talks to the Mujahedeen on the Pakistan border just a decade prior, was writing about the new "Islamic threat", as was his protoge Samuel Huntington ("Clash of Civilizations"), and this new way of thinking took root in the back-halls of government, papa Bush used the argument to keep defense spending from dropping too much after the USSR went bust.

Then the oil companies did some surveys, and WOW there's a ton of oil and gas there below the newly independent republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan. So the big oil companies begin (bribing officials and) buying up these exploration rights, Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney were in the thick of coordinating all this investment, and then UNOCAL decides to build a pipeline to get all these reserves out - they want to go EAST, to service the energy starved markets of India, China, Japan, Korea, etc. And OMG an Argentinian company, Bridas Group, beat them to it - they saw this coming and already had a contract with the Afghanistan president, Rabbani.

So, UNOCAL, a Texas-based company, has connections. How to nullify a contract between Bridas and Rabbani??? Have the CIA and their Pakistan equivalent the ISI throw Rabbani out and replace him with the Taliban, which they did, and immediately after which Osama bin Laden moves from Sudan to Afghanistan.

But the pipeline didn't go forward, the Taliban, the ungrateful b@stards, said NO!!!

Not long after that 9/11 happened ... of COURSE an Afghan pipeline was not the reason for 9/11, but it sure was convenient that the Taliban could be targeted.

Some point to the fact that said pipeline has yet to be built as proof that there's no connection here, but something threw a monkey wrench into the works - ENRON went bankrupt. ENRON had just built the world's largest gas power plant in India at a cost of 3 billion dollars, and their inability to get gas to it helped collapse the company. It was up for sale for many years, and N.M. Rothschild was the arbiter. An unstable Afghanistan helped keep the sale price down. Currently there is another factor keeping the oil companies on ice - what happens in Iran??? Iran is actually the shortest route from the Caspian Basin to the Persian Gulf. Just because UNOCAL wanted a pipeline right away doesn't mean everyone else did - that oil and gas isn't going anywhere, and keeping it from the market keeps prices up.

Think it's an accident that General Ahmed Mahmood, head of the ISI at the time, was caught wiring money to Mohammed Atta the summer before 9/11? The Pakistan ISI was the CIA's middle man in dealings with Islamic "terrorists" in that sphere. Still are, although things are so convoluted and complicated over there that it's hard to keep track of who's on whose side.

Bin Laden is most likely dead. As for the Taliban, they were a bunch of fringe Madras students recruited by the ISI at the behest of the US. Does the US want to be rid of the Taliban now? Maybe. But only when stability under a different leadership begins to serve business interests there more than instability and chaos. - - - Not that the powers that be can control what goes on in Afghanistan - that country and its stubborn inhabitants successfully kicked the British and the Soviets in the proverbial @ss.

2 cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jul 25 2009, 11:56 AM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



Sanders, that's a great seminar on this topic. It strings the points together nicely for anyone like me who sees only parts of the picture at best.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 25 2009, 12:18 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



What happens on the political stage, is carried out by actors, who think they are politicians, just following the lines written by their advisers (script writers).
When an actor starts writing their own lines, the script writers conspire against that actor and have them removed from the political stage.

Countries go to war, individuals are dragged into them by their countries' leader. Most don't want war, so they are tricked into them by their leaders.
This appears always to have been the case, at the start of every war.

The FBI has no hard evidence against Usama Bin Ladin in the attack on 9/11.
He is only on the top ten wanted list for an attack in Kenya (of all places!) and some other African countries.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

QUOTE
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.


Perhaps, just another actor?

...I wonder what he would look like without the beard, turban and body armor. I wonder why they haven't pictured him without them, surely they must have the technology to do this. I mean, really, a shave and a haircut and who would recognize him?

"The whole world is a stage" for this transparent crappy production, designed to get everybody fighting each other.

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th February 2020 - 09:06 PM