Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
jingofever wrote:via cannonfire via Lukery, Sibel Edmonds has "named names", but really she has "posted pictures."
Nordic wrote:http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/
bks wrote:Let's assume it is Grossman, and that Grossman is as neocon as his buddies. Someone please explain to me how it serves Israeli interests to be offering nuclear secrets to countries with large power bases committed to the destruction of Israel? I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm trying to figure it out.
My question exactly. Something about this doesn't add up, unless one posits total across-the-board amoral corruption and nihilism on all parties' parts - to the point of self-destruction, which I find a bit of a stretch. I mean, I could provisionally buy the theory (the cheering Movers and all that) that Mossad knew in advance of 9/11 and let it happen, so as to catapult the U.S. to Israel's Us vs Them perspective. BUT this is even more convoluted: why would Israeli agents in place work in support of disseminating nuclear info to Pakistan or Al Qaeda or other Islamist countries/groups? And are Turkish intell entities really that tight with the ISI? The Turkish military and nationalist rightists don't have much affection for militant Muslims, last time I checked.
But maybe the Times piece kind of misses what is going on. I suppose this could point to some "Deep Politics" linkage between different entities, if the main actors are not so much institutional as self-interested criminals. So, maybe it is wrong to try to think of this in terms of Mossad/ISI/CIA/Turkish govt (with their various national interests) and better to think of it in terms of Secret Team/Drug Lords/Arms Peddlers/Dirty Money (with you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours).
Poztron wrote:bks wrote:Let's assume it is Grossman, and that Grossman is as neocon as his buddies. Someone please explain to me how it serves Israeli interests to be offering nuclear secrets to countries with large power bases committed to the destruction of Israel? I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm trying to figure it out.
My question exactly. Something about this doesn't add up, unless one posits total across-the-board amoral corruption and nihilism on all parties' parts - to the point of self-destruction, which I find a bit of a stretch. I mean, I could provisionally buy the theory (the cheering Movers and all that) that Mossad knew in advance of 9/11 and let it happen, so as to catapult the U.S. to Israel's Us vs Them perspective. BUT this is even more convoluted: why would Israeli agents in place work in support of disseminating nuclear info to Pakistan or Al Qaeda or other Islamist countries/groups? And are Turkish intell entities really that tight with the ISI? The Turkish military and nationalist rightists don't have much affection for militant Muslims, last time I checked.
But maybe the Times piece kind of misses what is going on. I suppose this could point to some "Deep Politics" linkage between different entities, if the main actors are not so much institutional as self-interested criminals. So, maybe it is wrong to try to think of this in terms of Mossad/ISI/CIA/Turkish govt (with their various national interests) and better to think of it in terms of Secret Team/Drug Lords/Arms Peddlers/Dirty Money (with you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours).
FourthBase wrote: But there does seem to be a mafia-type rogue network within these branches of authority, completely uninterested in political ideology or national loyalty (although using it for effect when needed), maybe some of them even beholden to satanic-type principles.
Think about it, if any of the financiers of the attacks were ever arrested, other - unrelated criminal activity would come out, because there is some overlap of assets and activities (BCCI is a good example) - the kind that Sibel is gagged for. This should be your focus. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (Turkey is the cut-out) should be your focus.
If you understand this - which I hope you do - then you will see that the concept of an inside-job with regard to 9/11 does not even apply when the "freelancers" and their handlers already have moles in place. 9/11 is most certainly an "outside job" carried out by foreign elements. So stop getting distracted by what you theorize may have happened. Focus instead on the cover-up, because that is what Edmonds is gagged for.
9/11 is most certainly an "outside job" carried out by foreign elements.
FourthBase wrote:Except, not to the point of self destruction.
Never to that point. The outcome of the game is not really in doubt.
Another sports analogy:
Like I said before, you can't play ball if the other team doesn't have a bat. The jersey may say "Israel" or "U.S.A.", but the real goal of the individual players outfitting the other side is to just have a game to play, and reap its rewards. In order to get a really profitable game going, even though you could beat the other team 683-2 (hell, they didn't even have bats to begin with!), you may want to manage the score by easing up, toying with them, and letting them build some momentum so that you're only leading 10-6, shit maybe even let them (appear to) take a small lead, that way the crowd's into it and tension accrues for your inevitable big rally.
(...)
Not that I think the non-rogue elements of, say, the CIA are peachy keen and well-intentioned, they're evil pricks too. But there does seem to be a mafia-type rogue network within these branches of authority, completely uninterested in political ideology or national loyalty (although using it for effect when needed), maybe some of them even beholden to satanic-type principles.
It makes more sense to me to posit the transnational equivalent of a dozen different Mafia "families" who each have their turf staked out and who might very occasionally meet up to keep boundaries clear, but who are largely autonomous and even, in some cases, competitive.
FourthBase wrote:
So...a few powerhouse franchises that have overlapping interests which sometimes results in centralized collusion but ultimately these few franchises still compete against each other? They'd still be able to manipulate and hire a variety of players (including the refs) to serve their collective interests, and they'd still dominate the rest of the league. In effect, it's still centralized. Whatever's decentralized only exists on the highest level of ownership.
Or...am I taking this analogy too far/wide?
dqueue wrote:Larisa Alexandrovna is covering these developments, too. She includes these grafs of wisdom (the bolding is hers):Think about it, if any of the financiers of the attacks were ever arrested, other - unrelated criminal activity would come out, because there is some overlap of assets and activities (BCCI is a good example) - the kind that Sibel is gagged for. This should be your focus. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (Turkey is the cut-out) should be your focus.
If you understand this - which I hope you do - then you will see that the concept of an inside-job with regard to 9/11 does not even apply when the "freelancers" and their handlers already have moles in place. 9/11 is most certainly an "outside job" carried out by foreign elements. So stop getting distracted by what you theorize may have happened. Focus instead on the cover-up, because that is what Edmonds is gagged for.
This is fascinating to watch unravel...
FourthBase wrote:9/11 is most certainly an "outside job" carried out by foreign elements.
I hope "foreign" isn't meant to denote "non-American".
Let's not let the Bush Administration off the hook, eh?
They're full of people who're part of the transnational mafia, right?
Including the president (and his family), Cheney, Rice...
Poztron wrote:FourthBase wrote:
So...a few powerhouse franchises that have overlapping interests which sometimes results in centralized collusion but ultimately these few franchises still compete against each other? They'd still be able to manipulate and hire a variety of players (including the refs) to serve their collective interests, and they'd still dominate the rest of the league. In effect, it's still centralized. Whatever's decentralized only exists on the highest level of ownership.
Or...am I taking this analogy too far/wide?
I dunno. It kind of breaks down for me because, say, MLB is centralized, at least on an administrative-policy-scheduling level, but I don't think that extends to criminal collusion, apart from collectively looking the other way when HGH and steroids and speed were all the rage. So I'm going to sidestep the sports analogy, brilliant though it is, and get back to nuts and bolts.
I guess the question is whether overlapping interests and manipulation as well as domination = centralization. I don't think it does. When I think of centralization, I think of a policy coordination and all the working parts more or less subsumed to the same end. But in this deep politics world, we've got certain players within institutions like the CIA or the State Dept. or Pentagon who are pulling certain tricks that, in fact, run counter to the institutions' stated purposes and goals. They are like parasites who can use their hosts to their own ends, but who are not identical with their hosts or even fully dominating them. Any individual player (no matter how high up the food chain) is disposable, but I doubt very much that there is a Mr. Big or a Committee of Thirteen sitting with their schedulers mapping out the coming year and working up a budget on a world-wide scale. I think most of the machinations of power are ad hoc.
Granted, the Bilderberg conference may meet each year and a certain set of "legitimate" movers and shakers may reach broad consensus that, oh, corporations should put more attention to being "green." OK, that shows some cooperation, but it isn't tight coordination and it is no doubt all voluntary and devoted to constructing a certain narrative for the MSM and world leaders to mouth. And besides, you can't run the world via a long weekend once a year. And I seriously doubt that the Bilderbergers are sitting around at the conference deciding stuff like "OK, we'll shift the bulk of opium production from Burma to Afganistan, but first we have to get rid of the Taliban and yadda yadda." No doubt someone was thinking on that level, but I suspect that's some other group.
But I'm just rattling on here about conjectures.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests