Sibel Edmonds in the Times

[Nordic]

WOW, I did not know about the photos. Thanks for providing that link.

Do I dance for joy now? Or wait a while ....?

I think I'll wait a while ... until I hear those cell doors in the prison go CLANK, locking those fuckers away.

[judasdisney]

via cannonfire via Lukery, Sibel Edmonds has "named names", but really she has "posted pictures."

That Kos story is indeed good, but only because it's Luke Ryland (a.k.a., lukery). But it's proof that you can use the machinery of COINTELPRO to counter-program in ways that are difficult for them to redact if they're still maintaining lip-service to open debate.

He has a number of Sibel-related videos up at YouTube.

I'd be interested in seeing a list that identifies those photos. I recognize a few of them, but not all. Nobody on the Kos diary is attempting a list. Perhaps we could get one going here:

The Sibel Drop-a-dime Photo Gallery Guessing Game:

(1) Richard Perle
(2) Douglas Feith
(3)
(4) Marc Grossman
(5) damn, I'm going to kick myself but I can't remember his name
(6) Larry Franklin
(7) Dennis Hastert
(8 )
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18 )
(19)
(20)
(21)

I also wonder if there's any significance to the groupings: 6, 7, 8 with placement of the "question mark" photos.

[Nordic]

They're all identified here:

http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/

Which is Lukery's blog.

This is awesome ...!

[judasdisney]

http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/

Thanks. A lot of very interesting, very specific info.

[Poztron]

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]

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.

Bolded for the win.

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.

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).

That is the angle I'm coming around to. 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.

[8bitagent]

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).

It's clear to me this ISI-CIA-neocon-Saudi-Israeli-Turkish-etc web.

Its not country interests nor borders...but a transnational globalist beast able to tap into all these things, be it state institutions or proxy jihadist networks/black market dealers to carry out their new world order agenda.

Thats why I laugh at the "US did 9/11" or "an independent Muslim terror group did 9/11" stuff.

People think this is about "state interests". "US did 9/11 for US interests" "Israel did 9/11 for Israeli interests" "Saudi Arabia did 9/11 for Saudi interests". Its more like if I placed chip controls in the brains of select officials in soft drink companies, and was able to tap into all the major cola companies to serve my transnational agenda.

This is why noone is able to grasp the reality of 9/11, Islamic terrorism, backroom nuclear secret sales, etc. They think in terms of "state sponsor/state qui bono"

[8bitagent]

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.

You got it. Its not that "the neocons", or "CIA" or "ISI" or "Mossad" are innocent...or solely behind these things. Its that they themselves are mere puppets.

I tell people "even if the official story of 9/11 were true, its still a setup...for the same transnational forces that control the US government also control Islamic terrorism...like playing both sides of a chess board"

Clearly brave FBI and CIA agents were haulted from stopping 9/11 and the al Qaeda network by this transnational shadow network. And then in retrospect people say "well, thats beurocratic wrangling and red tape for you".

When Ron Paul on Glenn Beck said the 9/11 theorists are out to lunch(even tho he uses them as his main base) but that the US "ineptitude" was proven when FBI Agent Harry Samit was denied 70 times from going after Moussaoui...he doesnt "get it"

John Oneil, Robert Wright, Ken Williams, Harry Samit, Cowleen Rowley,
etc werent stopped from stopping al Qaeda because of "beuracratic missteps" or the "Reno Wall"...they were stopped because 9/11 needed to go through no matter what. People who think in Loose Change US centro MIHOP or this "maybe they let it happen" garbage, or worse "incompetence and blowback"...dont have a clue to whats going on.

[dqueue]

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]

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]

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.

I like that sports analogy. World politics as Professional Wrestling. And I think that analysis fits for all sorts of (as the Brits say) "phony wars", i.e. the U.S. presidential elections. The money guys win no matter whether a Repug or Demole gets the throne.

Yet, I think the analogy breaks down beyond a certain level. With a two-sided game, you just have two sets of owners/managers to coordinate the match. Doable. But I resist the notion (just color me stubborn) that there is some Rogue Central able to coordinate players from several dozen (at least) countries, agencies, rebel groups, drug cartels, etc., etc. 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.

There are, I assume, a large number of people who know how things "work": you can use this Swiss bank and this Cayman Islands front and if you need a favor in Beirut you can call this guy and Diplo pal Joe can carry this for you in his pouch and so on. And the really big players likely know how to profit from any disaster or war, no matter who is "winning" or "losing".

But it still strikes me as fairly decentralized with numerous nodes of power.

[FourthBase]

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.

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?

[Poztron]

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.

[8bitagent]

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...

I agree with this.

Its like the Sinister Six in Spiderman. Electro or Vulture may attack Spiderman, but its still the Sinister Six. Hence its still the NWO, be it Pakistan, US, Saudi Arabia, etc.

9/11=an nwo job

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...

Tell that to the Truthers(TM) who get angrily mad when one looks at al Qaeda in relation to 9/11.

Perhaps the neocons and Osama are mere puppets of the same transnational beast

[FourthBase]

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.

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion

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.

I don't think "centralized" necessarily means the extreme cabal scenario you offered. Is the structure of the U.S. federal government centralized? Yes, it is -- even though it's comprised of various branches, competing agencies, checks and balances. I think you're defining centralization in simplistic if not caricaturistic terms.

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.

There are only a certain number of those groups, though, and they all talk to each other, and many of their memberships overlap. Think tanks, councils, committees, lodges. Centralization doesn't mean plans are 100% mapped out verbatim in one setting at one time, centralization can exist in a competing network style and respond to situations collectively ad hoc. Even so, the coordination IS tight, haven't you noticed? And just because it's not 100% involuntary, that doesn't mean it's 100% voluntary.

But I'm just rattling on here about conjectures.

Same here.