IMC Mike Ruppert Interview!!! Yes, for real.

Here's a fast download version for those of you on slow connections. 16kbps.

Where was Ruppert before 9-11? This guy is like your typical Monday morning quarterback, with a talent for generating conspiracy where there is none.

Opportunism.

He thinks the Bush administration is in trouble? I wanna hear what he has to say 5 years from now when Bush is still President, Hussein is deposed, Israel is free from terror, and the world economy has rocketed.

Please note that Ruppert is an unreconstructed wacko. Completely crazy. Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration "planned" 9/11 is certifiably insane. What an embarrasment that there are people on "the left" who buy into this nonsense. No wonder nobody listens to us.

MICHAEL RUPPERT IS A NIMROD AND SO ARE ALL THOSE WHO LISTEN TO HIS MORONIC RAMBLINGS!!!

It's okay, gentle, fragile reader, don't listen to Ruppert, who only cites and connects documented evidence from established, "well-respected", mainsteam news sources like the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. Don't listen to Michael Moore, who's book Stupid White Men provides a detailed background of the profoundly opportunistic and quite often hideously criminal histories of members of the Bush administration. (even though the book went first to #1 on the Amazon.com bestseller list and then to #1 on the NEW YORK TIMES bestseller list !!!) Don't listen to members of congress like Cynthia McKinney who just Friday http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0402/12mckinneytext.html demanded to know why the Bush administration has such repressive opposition to any investigation into the most large scale terrorist attack in history. (I mean, come on, they investigate train derailments in Kansas for years afterward for God's sake!!!) And it's okay, don't make any connections between the Bush administration and Enron, don't examine old business partnerships between the administration and its "enemies" http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=8924&group=webcast and http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml don't wonder if the U.S has any interest in Central Asian oil reserves (hmm...), or consider for a moment why so many of America's "enemies" turn out to be those that America trained, funded and backed just a few years earlier. http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
Pay no attention to any of this. And by all means, continue to get your headline news only from corporate sources and believe their "popularity polls". It doesn't much matter anymore. At this point, none of the rest of us have time to pull the shades up for the dwindling number of Americans who still refuse to wake up. I'm sure a few people still refused to accept Watergate and the power of Nazi Germany right up until the last minute, too. But one favor to ask of those of you whose realities are so threatened that your only option is to bury your heads deeper into the sand- Please, PLEASE don't do yourself the almighty indignity of claiming you "had it figured out all along" once you have no other options but to admit you see it.

Thanks for your time. I'll let you get back to your denial now.

It's okay, gentle, fragile reader, don't listen to Ruppert, who only cites and connects documented evidence from established, "well-respected", mainsteam news sources like the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. Don't listen to Michael Moore, who's book Stupid White Men provides a detailed background of the profoundly opportunistic and quite often hideously criminal histories of members of the Bush administration. (even though the book went first to #1 on the Amazon.com bestseller list and then to #1 on the NEW YORK TIMES bestseller list !!!) Don't listen to members of congress like Cynthia McKinney who just Friday http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0402/12mckinneytext.html demanded to know why the Bush administration has such repressive opposition to any investigation into the most large scale terrorist attack in history. (I mean, come on, they investigate train derailments in Kansas for years afterward for God's sake!!!) And it's okay, don't make any connections between the Bush administration and Enron, don't examine old business partnerships between the administration and its "enemies" http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=8924&group=webcast and http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml don't wonder if the U.S has any interest in Central Asian oil reserves (hmm...), or consider for a moment why so many of America's "enemies" turn out to be those that America trained, funded and backed just a few years earlier. http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
Pay no attention to any of this. And by all means, continue to get your headline news only from corporate sources and believe their "popularity polls". It doesn't much matter anymore. At this point, none of the rest of us have time to pull the shades up for the dwindling number of Americans who still refuse to wake up. I'm sure a few people still refused to accept Watergate and the power of Nazi Germany right up until the last minute, too. But one favor to ask of those of you whose realities are so threatened that your only option is to bury your heads deeper into the sand- Please, PLEASE don't do yourself the almighty indignity of claiming you "had it figured out all along" once you have no other options but to admit you see it.

Thanks for your time. I'll let you get back to your denial now.

>At this point, none of the rest of us have time to pull the shades up for the dwindling number of Americans who still refuse to wake up.

Yeah, dwindling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020410b.asp

Won't be long now 'til this thing comes off the tracks, right?

At least you have a creative imagination and a knack for fiction.

so the u.s. government engaged in a secret plot to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon? in the case of the Pentagon, that literally means that the government plotted to blow itself up.

do you really believe something this complicated could be pulled off without somebody blabbing?

as an analogy: it's possible that the Pyramids COULD have been built by space aliens. Possible but not likely. You could assemble all sorts of facts to prove it could have happened, but your fundamental premise--that aliens stopped by long enough to build pyramids and then sped back to Andromeda V--is just so fundamentally absurd that there's just no point arguing with somebody committed to it.

many psychiatrists, not all of them employed by the Trilateral Commission, believe that sunlight deprivation and an excessive consumption of Star Trek novels are major contributors to conspiracy thinking. The rest of us avoid the pitfalls of such thinking by possessing what are know as "friends" or engaging in what are referred to as "hobbies" and in general having what are called "lives." Bathing more than once a month is also helpful.

Hey, Man Who blah blah blah,
Build a case instead of just name calling. You aren't proving anything, just trying to discredit. What would be helpful, would be to provide some historical context that the National Security Complex, the Bushes, the Oil Companies, etc. are a bunch of nice guys that would never indulge in death, destruction, chaos, coups, and other documented stuff. Come on, please, show me the positives and the democracy building of the above mentioned folks. And while you're at it, justify your refutations of the evidence against them, preferably one by one.

Ted, you're about as backwards as a football bat.

>Build a case

In the USA, we pride ourselves on "Innocent until proven guilty." See, since it's you (or your kindred) making all these off the wall accusations, it is you that must must build the case.

>You aren't proving anything, just trying to discredit.

Exactly. That, of course, IS the job of the defense.

Personally, I've heard 95% of these rantings about Bush, Enron, oil, blah, blah, blah...a lot of conjecture and hearsay. Not much of a case.

But nice attempt at trying to turn the tables. Better luck next time. Tell Bill I said hi!

Party on, dude!

Here is Part 2 of Portland IMC's interview with Mike Ruppert. Ruppert is a former LAPD narcotics investigator who discovered CIA trafficking in drugs in 1977 and is now one of the most prominent investigators of the events surrounding the September 11th attacks. Part 2 is here.

Eric,
The case has been built. The job of the defense is to PROVE innocence, not discredit. It is the job of THUGS to discredit, especially when what they are defending is indefensible.
All you are proving, is that you are a THUG. And you still haven't DISPROVED anything.
Sorry.
In the words of Abe Lincoln: Be excellent to each other,
and Party on Dudes!

> as an analogy: it's possible that the Pyramids COULD have been built by space aliens.

This is an invalid analogy.

To learn more about logic, click here:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

> as an analogy: it's possible that the Pyramids COULD have been built by space aliens.>

This is an invalid analogy. >

You're right. The Pyramid theory is much more credible. Here's an analogy for you:

9/11 could have been planned by the U.S. Therefore, prove it wasn't.

God could exist. Therefore, prove he doesn't.

Remember: Sunlight! Baths! Fewer Star Trek novels!

Absolutely amazing, Mr. Man Who Yada Yada Yada.
I went to the logic site suggested and found that your latest "argument" meets the following logic fallacies you may want to reference:
Fallacies of Distraction - From Ignorance
Changing the Subject - Attacking the Person
Inductive Fallacies - False Analogy, Slothful Induction, and Fallacy of Exclusion.
Ruppert suggests that the Bushies new the terrorist attacks were coming and did nothing to prevent them, not that they engineered them, and builds his case from there. It's actually a pretty good case. You should check it out. And if you do some background research on this administration, you might wonder: Who benefits?

Stop fighting each other!
The real enemy is the Illuminati.

I use to be an average patriotic drone, one of those who beleived everything he was told. Stuff like your vote counts, capitalism=democracy and the sickest of all of the lies, we are free. Truth be told I don't know what is the truth anymore, the U.S government is a shadow government it has done stuff in the past that would make Satan blush with envy. It is a proven fact that its involved with coups of democratically elected governments, drug trafficking and sponsoring of some of the 20th centuries worst war criminals and dictatorial regimes. It sent 57,000 young American men to die in Vietnam, 500 to die in the Gulf and has been directly resposible for millions of dead in poor countries around the world. I think it is definetly plausible that they would not care if 3,000 innoccent mostly foriegn people died to further it's Imperialistic cause. I am not gullible though I beleive 1/2 of what I see and nothing of what I hear, but like JFK the truth will come out eventually no matter how hard the evildoers try to cover it up in lies.

<Fallacies of Distraction - From Ignorance
Changing the Subject - Attacking the Person
Inductive Fallacies - False Analogy, Slothful Induction, and Fallacy of Exclusion. >

I think the biggest fallacy I've committed is the Fallacy of Arguing With Morons. Lotsa fun, though. Next!

The idea that the Bush administration knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks is just as ridiculous as the idea that it planned them. If Rumsfeld knew the attacks were coming, what was he doing in his office that day? Sheesh!

The only thing more ridiculous is the idea that FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, or that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK--in short, any of the other crackpot theories that take the place of analyzing structures of oppression and devising means of overthrowing them.

        

Here is the above 'part 2' reencoded for slow connections - enjoy.

Eric ol' buddy .... you just never quit do ya?....
It seems your main method of attack is chararcter assassination.

Well, just remember, your failure to be informed doesn't make Mike Ruppert a Whacko.

For the rest of you folks who have been visiting this post, before you start taking him too seriously, you might want to check out Eric's contributions to another topic on this site -

[video] VisionTV: Reasonable Doubts: the truth about 9/11-- featuring Mike Ruppert

A few other contributors over there suspect he may be a CIA/FBI plant deliberately disrupting any intelligent discussion of this topic. I would ask you to judge for yourselves.

There are indisputable FACTS to this case which Eric and a few others REFUSE to acknowledge.

Rather than going into it all again, I will include an excellent post from Paul Walker for all of you who think that Mike Ruppert is out to lunch on this one.

============================

by Paul Walker • Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 11:21 PM

Fact: Carlyle Group directly benefits from an eternal Orwellian war against the "Evil Ones".

Fact: The bin Ladins and the Bushes have been in bed financially raking in hundreds of millions together on big oil, construction and defense contracts for decades.

Fact: The "War on Terrorism" has been planned for several years in the back rooms of the Council on Foreign Relations as a pretext for control of the Caspian Basin oil reserves (see Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard).

Fact: The CIA supervises the Pakistani ISI intelligence who are instrumental in funding and training terrorists all over the Eurasia and the Middle East.

Fact: Clinton had numerous opportunities to nail bin Ladin and refused to do it.

Fact: Bin Ladin was, and still is a CIA-ISI pointman/asset.

Fact: The CIA put the murderous Taliban into power (a specialty of theirs) in 1996 and funded them (and bin Ladin) right up through last summer.

Fact: The CIA met with bin Ladin in July in Dubai (Le Figaro)

Fact: The US government had not only prior knowledge of the attacks of September 11th, but deliberately created all the necessary conditions for it to happen. For historical precedents see, National Security Archives for the Operation Northwoods document and Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnet.

Fact: The media is chockfull of gutless, spineless shills, operative minions, and cheerleading propagandists who are lying to the people, complicit in the attacks on both the WTC and on our Constitutional
rights and couldn't whip up an honest investigative piece to save their souls.

So get your facts straight and start telling the truth if you have any
patriotism, humanity, guts or integrity left.

I challenge any of you journalist shills out there to refute any of the points I have made.


Paul Walker
Santa Barbara, CA

---------------------------
And thank you Paul! I rest my case.

Ten Four, Good Buddy!

Gerry

<Fact: The "War on Terrorism" has been planned for several years in the back rooms of the Council on Foreign Relations as a pretext for control of the Caspian Basin oil reserves (see Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard).>

Don't you want to say "smoke-filled" back rooms? That has a much more sinister overtone. I've heard that smoking is still allowed in the back rooms of the Council, although not anymore in the front rooms, which is too bad because they are air conditioned and thus much nicer places to plot World Domination.


<A few other contributors over there suspect he may be a CIA/FBI plant deliberately disrupting any intelligent discussion of this topic. I would ask you to judge for yourselves>

If the purpose is to disrupt intelligent discussion of this topic, then you're fulfilling the role very well yourself Gerry boy, without CIA-FBI help. I hate to break it to you, dude, but you're not the brightest light bulb in the forest yourself, as evidenced by your susceptibility to all this Ruppert 9/11 stuff. It's nothing to be ashamed of. We all have our weaknesses. I was never very good at sports, but I over-compensated with the ladies with my anatomical attributes, which were a wonder to the entire cheerleading squad that bright autumn day behind the bleachers......ah, but I digress......

Good to have your input Mike. Eric needed a rest.

Hate to disappoint you buddy, but Mike Ruppert is far from being my only source of information. If you took the trouble to read my postings you would know that.

Mike is only re-iterating what many others have been researching and writing about for years.

Do your reading and then come back to discuss it.

Ten Four Good Buddy!
Gerry

Good grief.

Gerry, you can't just make a statement into a FACT by prefixing it with "FACT:".

>For the rest of you folks who have been visiting this post, before you start taking him too seriously, you might want to check out Eric's contributions to another topic on this site -

Yes, please do. You'll find out that Gerry was the first to accuse me of being CIA, followed shortly thereafter by a few other idiots. You'll also find out that, amazingly enough, I claim that to be ridiculous and offer to have coffee with anyone that can't sleep at night over this accusation. By all means, let me put your fears to rest.

And Bill...

>The job of the defense is to PROVE innocence, not discredit.

is wrong. The defense only has to PROVE the prosecution is unsubstantiated. That's why we say "innocent until PROVEN guilty". The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution. And if ...

>The case has been built.

then I, as a member of the jury, say my verdict is Not Guilty. I have reasonable doubts about "FACTS" so many of you present and accept as such. Most Americans do. But, by all means, continue to try the case (long after the gavel has tapped and the courtroom has emptied) if you like.

And on the issue of where Ruppert was before 9-11, Nessie writes:

>He was spending his time exposing the government's complicity in the drug biz.

And before that? He was a discredited, unemployed, disgruntled policeman, fired from his job, and bankrupted. So he found a way out of that, like so many desparate con-men do. Through opportunism. And as legal as it may be for him to write his crap, and for you you buy it AND buy into it, is irresponsible by both parties. But nothing less should be expected.

Furthermore...

>I heard him speak in July, 2000, in Portland.

How much was the admission? If he didn't charge, I bet at a minimum he was peddling his book. So take those American made greenbacks and buy up! Read up! And spew up! And while you're at it, throw in a few more of those Star Trek books that the man who yada yada mentioned.

Bill says "The case has been built. The job of the defense is to PROVE innocence, not discredit. It is the job of THUGS to discredit, especially when what they are defending is indefensible.
All you are proving, is that you are a THUG. And you still haven't DISPROVED anything.
Sorry.


>The case has been built.

On what planet? No case has been built. You throw out a bunch of accusations and then say "Prove me wrong", and that's a CASE!?!

I agree w/ Eric re: Paul Walker. Because one places the word "Fact" in front of a sentence doesn't make it so.


>The job of the defense is to PROVE innocence, not discredit.

Where was your genius when OJ was on trail? Why weren't you on the dream team? Somebody, quick, call Johnny Cochran.


>It is the job of THUGS to discredit, especially when what they are defending is indefensible.

So, by saying the US Gov't official version of 9/11 is bullshit, they're not trying to DISCREDIT THE GOV'T are they?



>All you are proving, is that you are a THUG. And you still haven't DISPROVED anything.

It's not the job of Eric to "disprove" anything. It IS your job to prove your version of events, which you haven't. Don't place what is YOUR burden of proof upon someone else, call it "truth", then ask them to disprove when you have yet to prove.


>Sorry.

Yeah, you are.

The government has long since discredited itself. Remember Tonkin Gulf, Watergate, Iran-contra, Teapot Dome and all the (often fatal) experiments on unwitting human guinea pigs?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

i just read everything Mike Ruppert ever wrote, and I think it's all bullsh*t. now prove that it isn't.

Eric, my brother... I want to deeply thank you for your desperate but faithful comment posts. They have provided me with much entertainment and some deep feelings of sympathy. Not only are they immature in their tone, but the sheer number of times you personally feel compelled to respond reveals you to be a person with at least a percieved sense of duty (are you ex-military or current military perhaps?) and someone with few social skills (what's with all the Star Trek and shower busters?) Please continue with your rebuttals, man! They are a more far more powerful in their transparency than anything else I've seen posted. I have to say, I'm not totally convinced your govenment's complicity in the 9-11 attacks, but the lucid, relatively stable and fairly well researched claims above are a lot more convincing to me than your feeble and frankly childish attempts to refute them.
Oh, and by the way, I'd love to have coffee with you, guy. Name the time and place. I get the feeling you need some "other people time". Cheers, mate.

>I think it's all bullsh*t.

This is an Appeal to Authority, type #1.

The authority is not an expert in the field


To learn more about logic, click here:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

>I have to say, I'm not totally convinced your govenment's complicity in the 9-11 attacks, but the lucid, relatively stable and fairly well researched claims above are a lot more convincing to me than your feeble and frankly childish attempts to refute them.


It was once said that the sun never went down on the British Empire. Now, they are nothing but an impotent socialist state. With citizens like the above, should we even wonder why?

Ok Debate Coach, here's a quote from the logical fallacies BS you reference...

"In your day-to-day life you will encounter many examples of fallacious reasoning. And it's fun - and sometimes even useful - to point to an argument and say, "A ha! That argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma."

It may be fun, but it is not very useful. Nor is it very enlightened."

Perhaps you should read AND adhere to the guidance.

And for the Manchester Lackey: Don't weep for me, my brother. All is well where I live. And guess what else? It wasn't me that wrote the Star Trek and shower busters.
Perhaps you should REALLY read the posts before popping off at the mouth.

What entertains me most is the level of disinformation levied here on the IndyMedia forum. Most of you routinely wallow in it. How could anyone give ANY credibility to anything posted here with all this rhetoric and garbage. I, myself, on numerous occasions, have been misquoted, accused of posting things I didn't (as by the lackey above), accused of being CIA, FBI, or a disinformation agent....Christ! And that's just the libelous crap written here against me! God forbid I was the President of the United States of America! You guys would have me engaged in oral sex with an intern or something. Geeeez!

Just as entertaining is how so many people feel compelled to attack me! I love it! If I were such an idiot, why would all these folks feel it necessary to address me? I usually just ignore idiots and they go away. That's just me. Which is the bigger idiot, the idiot or the idiot that tries to convince the idiot that he's an idiot?

Personally, I don't really think any of you are idiots. Ok well, at least not most of you. I may have called some of you idiots, but I really didn't mean it. Right Gerry ol buddy? Ten Four!

Fortunately, there a few sane people here. Brigg, Mike, the man who yadda yadda yaddas, keep up the good work. I don't care if you're left or right wingers. Continue to speak intelligently and there will be people like me that listen.

And for the rest of you idiots (did I type that out loud?) you're still welcome to your opinion. Thanks and have a nice day.

I'm sorry but that idiotic (oh there I go again) Brit just compelled me to mention the point that:

If the American government is guilty of a conspiracy against it's people, then so is the British governement. The Brits have corroborated everything.

http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm

You've got that right .... the British Government is in this one up to their eyeballs ..... and they've produced no credible evidence about who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks either. Tony Blair is BP's PR Man ... and they also have a stake in the Caspian Basin oil reseverves.

Ten Four Good Buddy!
Gerry

And while we're on the subject...

If the American gov't and the British gov't are in bed together...what about all the other governments of the world? How come none of them have started independent investigations of their own on 9-11? The Saudis? The Chinese? The French? Canadians? Anyone? I guess either the American gov't is just so powerful as to be able to supress the entire worlds gov'ts, medias, people, etc... or the conspiracy is worldwide! Everyone is responsible! How can we trust each other? Maybe...maybe I shouldn't be discussing this. Big brother is watching, I just know it. Shssshhhh...did you hear that? What was it? I think I might be under video surveillance right now. What is this? Is it an ink pen or a highly sophisticated radio frequency transmitter used to monitor my thoughts? And the stapler...a closed circuit television camera? Where did they hide the resonant oscillator, capable of controlling my mind? Anyone have a mirror? Wait I have one in my desk. I feel something on my forehead. Feels like a marking. Let me see that mirror. Oh my God! I have 666 tattooed on my head!!! How did that get there? Wait there's something else!! It says Bush is the devil! Oh no! Oh here they come! They just came in the building! They're gonna take me away! Someone dial 911! This could be...aasdklajgdsak

NOW yer gettin it there, chief!
Smiles!

>The only thing more ridiculous is the idea that FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, or that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK--in short, any of the other crackpot theories that take the place of analyzing structures of oppression and devising means of overthrowing them.<

so you would be the only one that still thinks oswald killed jfk. and yes FDR did know about the bombing of pearl harbor, Mao told him(got that from the history channel) you really are a fool

Regardless of everything else, they're up to something.
Did you realize that the part of the pentagon that was struck just 'happened' to be evacuated for renovations where they just 'Happened' to have just put in shatter-proof glass? Sure, could be coincidence, but my point is that you claiming "The government would be attacking themselves" is false. They would only be blowing up a part of a building, nothing they can't afford.

Thanks for your time kids! [happy emoticon]

You think you're part of the left. You and the rest of the lame dimwits who believe the corporate media have you collective heads in the sand. Someone should lock you deniers in a room and require you to read the documented evidence that could fill a room. Oh, so now the Bush administration is so moral, they could not possibly have covered up foreknowledge - yeah right, and they had nothing to do with the election coup. I feel sorry for you. You have lost all sense of the truth. Go away "good Germans".

Several of the authors of postings have displayed what appears to be prideful ignorance. Little quarter is given to those whose ideas vary from their own. Whether this is by design or accident, only they can answer. The effect of disinformation is, in any case, the same. I have wasted precious time plowing through what can be described as juvenile duckspeak. Those of you who have reached this point with me, might be better informed if you listened to this interview with Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Vreeland.

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1033401

Background is available here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Delmart+%27Mike%27+Vreeland&btnG=Google+Search

The lessons of history need not escape us.

Several of the authors of postings have displayed what appears to be prideful ignorance. Little quarter is given to those whose ideas vary from their own. Whether this is by design or accident, only they can answer. The effect of disinformation is, in any case, the same. I have wasted precious time plowing through what can be described as juvenile duckspeak. Those of you who have reached this point with me, might be better informed if you listened to this interview with Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Vreeland.

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1033401

Background is available here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Delmart+%27Mike%27+Vreeland&btnG=Google+Search

The lessons of history need not escape us.

This interview absolutely discredits Vreeland. Vreeland claims to have entered the Navy as an E-3, going through NTC, and because of his unique weapons systems ideas he was summoned to Bethesda by the CNO and spot promoted to O-3! From Seaman to Lieutenant! I hate to tell you but this just doesn't happen. If this guy had been such a genius he'd have been brought in to the Navy as an officer right off the bat. I went through the exact same program (NTC) in 1988. It's intellectually one of the toughest programs in the military. It's routine for enlisted droppouts from NTC to be reclassified as security specialists. I bet if the truth were investigated, Vreeland was a Nulear Pipeline Training School dropout, that was reclassified as a security specialist. And that's certainly not unique. If anyone can provide any proof of his "spot promotion" I'd love to see that. This guy shows absolutely none of the supperior intellect he claims to have in this interview. This guy is a fraud and if you believe any of what he says you are a fool.

Ruppert is running a con to fill his pockets with your cash. What a joke.

All you 9/11 conspiracy freaks are nothing more than losers with tons of time to sound off on unrelated message boards. Don't you have anything better to do than spam our newswire with this trash? (This goes to Portland IMC too)

a big raspberry for the both of you. because you all seriously need a lesson in the dialectic. law somehow made analogous to logic? what utter bullshit. get your acts together.
peace to the doves, fuck you eric, thanks for the information Jim. rock on.

Terrorism: Theirs and Ours
By Eqbal Ahmad
(A Presentation at the University of Colorado, Boulder, October 12, 1998)

http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Ahmad.htm

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Jewish underground in Palestine was described as “TERRORIST.” Then new things happened.

By 1942, the Holocaust was occurring, and a certain liberal sympathy with the Jewish people had built up in the Western world. At that point, the terrorists of Palestine, who were Zionists, suddenly started to be described, by 1944-45, as “freedom fighters.” At least two Israeli Prime Ministers, including Menachem Begin, have actually, you can find in the books and posters with their pictures, saying “Terrorists, Reward This Much.” The highest reward I have noted so far was 100,000 British pounds on the head of Menachem Begin, the terrorist.

Then from 1969 to 1990 the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, occupied the center stage as the terrorist organization. Yasir Arafat has been described repeatedly by the great sage of American journalism, William Safire of the New York Times, as the “Chief of Terrorism.” That’s Yasir Arafat.

Now, on September 29, 1998, I was rather amused to notice a picture of Yasir Arafat to the right of President Bill Clinton. To his left is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netan­yahu. Clinton is looking towards Arafat and Arafat is looking literally like a meek mouse. Just a few years earlier he used to appear with this very menacing look around him, with a gun appearing menacing from his belt. You remember those pictures, and you remember the next one.

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men. These bearded men I was writing about in those days in The New Yorker, actually did. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans looking like they came from another century. President Reagan received them in the White House. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards them, I’m sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers”. These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!

In August 1998, another American President ordered missile strikes from the American navy based in the Indian Ocean to kill Osama Bin Laden and his men in the camps in Afghanistan. I do not wish to embarrass you with the reminder that Mr. Bin Laden, whom fifteen American missiles were fired to hit in Afghanistan, was only a few years ago the moral equivalent of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson! He got angry over the fact that he has been demoted from ‘Moral Equivalent’ of your ‘Founding Fathers’. So he is taking out his anger in different ways. I’ll come back to that subject more seriously in a moment.

You see, why I have recalled all these stories is to point out to you that the matter of terrorism is rather complicated. Terrorists change. The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today. This is a serious matter of the constantly changing world of images in which we have to keep our heads straight to know what is terrorism and what is not. But more importantly, to know what causes it, and how to stop it.

The next point about our terrorism is that posture of inconsistency necessarily evades definition. If you are not going to be consistent, you’re not going to define. I have examined at least twenty official documents on terrorism. Not one defines the word. All of them explain it, express it emotively, polemically, to arouse our emotions rather than exercise our intelligence. I give you only one example, which is representative. October 25, 1984. George Shultz, then Secretary of State of the U.S., is speaking at the New York Park Avenue Synagogue. It’s a long speech on terrorism. In the State Department Bulletin of seven single-spaced pages, there is not a single definition of terrorism. What we get is the following:

Definition number one: “Terrorism is a modern barbarism that we call terrorism.”

Definition number two is even more brilliant: “Terrorism is a form of political violence.” Aren’t you surprised? It is a form of political violence, says George Shultz, Secretary of State of the U.S.

Number three: “Terrorism is a threat to Western civilization.”

Number four: “Terrorism is a menace to Western moral values.”

Did you notice, does it tell you anything other than arouse your emotions? This is typical. They don’t define terrorism because definitions involve a commitment to analysis, comprehension and adherence to some norms of consistency. That’s the second characteristic of the official literature on terrorism.

The third characteristic is that the absence of definition does not prevent officials from being globalistic. We may not define terrorism, but it is a menace to the moral values of Western civilization. It is a menace also to mankind. It’s a menace to good order. Therefore, you must stamp it out worldwide. Our reach has to be global. You need a global reach to kill it. Anti-terrorist policies therefore have to be global. Same speech of George Shultz: “There is no question about our ability to use force where and when it is needed to counter terrorism.” There is no geographical limit. On a single day the missiles hit Afghanistan and Sudan. Those two countries are 2,300 miles apart, and they were hit by missiles belonging to a country roughly 8,000 miles away. Reach is global.

A fourth characteristic: claims of power are not only globalist they are also omniscient. We know where they are; therefore we know where to hit. We have the means to know. We have the instruments of knowledge. We are omniscient. Shultz: “We know the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, and as we look around, we have no trouble telling one from the other.”

Only Osama Bin Laden doesn’t know that he was an ally one day and an enemy another. That’s very confusing for Osama Bin Laden. I’ll come back to his story towards the end. It’s a real story.

Five. The official approach eschews causation. You don’t look at causes of anybody becoming terrorist. Cause? What cause? They ask us to be looking, to be sympathetic to these people.

Another example. The New York Times, December 18, 1985, reported that the foreign minister of Yugoslavia, you remember the days when there was a Yugoslavia, requested the Secretary of State of the U.S. to consider the causes of Palestinian terrorism. The Secretary of State, George Shultz, and I am quoting from the New York Times, “went a bit red in the face. He pounded the table and told the visiting foreign minister, there is no connection with any cause. Period.” Why look for causes?

Number six. The moral revulsion that we must feel against terrorism is selective. We are to feel the terror of those groups, which are officially disapproved. We are to applaud the terror of those groups of whom officials do approve. Hence, President Reagan, “I am a contra.” He actually said that. We know the contras of Nicaragua were anything, by any definition, but terrorists. The media, to move away from the officials, heed the dominant view of terrorism.

The dominant approach also excludes from consideration, more importantly to me, the terror of friendly governments. To that question I will return because it excused among others the terror of Pinochet (who killed one of my closest friends) and Orlando Letelier; and it excused the terror of Zia ul-Haq, who killed many of my friends in Pakistan. All I want to tell you is that according to my ignorant calculations, the ratio of people killed by the state terror of Zia ul-Haq, Pino­chet, Argentinian, Brazilian, Indonesian type, versus the killing of the PLO and other terrorist types is literally, conservatively, one to one hundred thousand. That’s the ratio.

History unfortunately recognizes and accords visibility to power and not to weakness. Therefore, visibility has been accorded historically to dominant groups. In our time, the time that began with this day, Columbus Day.

The time that begins with Columbus Day is a time of extraordinary unrecorded holocausts. Great civilizations have been wiped out. The Mayas, the Incas, the Aztecs, the American Indians, the Canadian Indians were all wiped out. Their voices have not been heard, even to this day fully. Now they are beginning to be heard, but not fully. They are heard, yes, but only when the dominant power suffers, only when resistance has a semblance of costing, of exacting a price. When a Custer is killed or when a Gordon is besieged. That’s when you know that they were Indians fighting, Arabs fighting and dying.

My last point of this section – U.S. policy in the Cold War period has sponsored terrorist regimes one after another. Somoza, Batista, all kinds of tyrants have been America’s friends. You know that. There was a reason for that. I or you are not guilty. Nicaragua, contra. Afghanistan, mujahiddin. El Salvador, etc.

Now the second side. You’ve suffered enough. So suffer more.

There ain’t much good on the other side either. You shouldn’t imagine that I have come to praise the other side. But keep the balance in mind. Keep the imbalance in mind and first ask ourselves, What is terrorism?

Our first job should be to define the damn thing, name it, give it a description of some kind, other than “moral equivalent of founding fathers” or “a moral outrage to Western civilization”. I will stay with you with Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “Terror is an intense, overpowering fear.” He uses terrorizing, terrorism, “the use of terrorizing methods of governing or resisting a government.” This simple definition has one great virtue, that of fairness. It’s fair. It focuses on the use of coercive violence, violence that is used illegally, extra-constitutionally, to coerce. And this definition is correct because it treats terror for what it is, whether the government or private people commit it.

Have you noticed something? Motivation is left out of it. We’re not talking about whether the cause is just or unjust. We’re talking about consensus, consent, absence of consent, legality, absence of legality, constitutionality, absence of constitutionality. Why do we keep motives out? Because motives differ. Motives differ and make no difference.

I have identified in my work five types of terrorism.

First, state terrorism. Second, religious terrorism; terrorism inspired by religion, Catholics killing Protestants, Sunnis killing Shiites, Shiites killing Sunnis, God, religion, sacred terror, you can call it if you wish. State, church. Crime. Mafia. All kinds of crimes commit terror. There is pathology. You’re pathological. You’re sick. You want the attention of the whole world. You’ve got to kill a president. You will. You terrorize. You hold up a bus. Fifth, there is political terror of the private group; be they Indian, Vietnamese, Algerian, Palestinian, Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade. Political terror of the private group. Oppositional terror.

Keep these five in mind. Keep in mind one more thing. Sometimes these five can converge on each other. You start with protest terror. You go crazy. You become pathological. You continue. They converge. State terror can take the form of private terror. For example, we’re all familiar with the death squads in Latin America or in Pakistan. Government has employed private people to kill its opponents. It’s not quite official. It’s privatized. Convergence. Or the political terrorist who goes crazy and becomes pathological. Or the criminal who joins politics. In Afghanistan, in Central America, the CIA employed in its covert operations drug pushers. Drugs and guns often go together. Smuggling of all things often go together.

Of the five types of terror, the focus is on only one, the least important in terms of cost to human lives and human property [Political Terror of those who want to be heard]. The highest cost is state terror. The second highest cost is religious terror, although in the twentieth century religious terror has, relatively speaking, declined. If you are looking historically, massive costs. The next highest cost is crime. Next highest, pathology. A Rand Corporation study by Brian Jenkins, for a ten-year period up to 1988, showed 50% of terror was committed without any political cause at all. No politics. Simply crime and pathology.

So the focus is on only one, the political terrorist, the PLO, the Bin Laden, whoever you want to take. Why do they do it? What makes the terrorist tick?

I would like to knock them out quickly to you. First, the need to be heard. Imagine, we are dealing with a minority group, the political, private terrorist. First, the need to be heard. Normally, and there are exceptions, there is an effort to be heard, to get your grievances heard by people. They’re not hearing it. A minority acts. The majority applauds.

The Palestinians, for example, the superterrorists of our time, were dispossessed in 1948. From 1948 to 1968 they went to every court in the world. They knocked at every door in the world. They were told that they became dispossessed because some radio told them to go away - an Arab radio, which was a lie. Nobody was listening to the truth. Finally, they invented a new form of terror, literally their invention: the airplane hijacking. Between 1968 and 1975 they pulled the world up by its ears. They dragged us out and said, Listen, Listen. We listened. We still haven’t done them justice, but at least we all know. Even the Israelis acknowledge. Remember Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel, saying in 1970, ‘There are no Palestinians.’ They do not exist. They damn well exist now. We are cheating them at Oslo. At least there are some people to cheat now. We can’t just push them out. The need to be heard is essential. One motivation there.

Mix of anger and helplessness produces an urge to strike out. You are angry. You are feeling helpless. You want retribution. You want to wreak retributive justice. The experience of violence by a stronger party has historically turned victims into terrorists. Battered children are known to become abusive parents and violent adults. You know that. That’s what happens to peoples and nations. When they are battered, they hit back. State terror very often breeds collective terror.

Do you recall the fact that the Jews were never terrorists? By and large Jews were not known to commit terror except during and after the Holocaust. Most studies show that the majority of members of the worst terrorist groups in Israel or in Palestine, the Stern and the Irgun gangs, were people who were immigrants from the most anti-Semitic countries of Eastern Europe and Germany. Similarly, the young Shiites of Lebanon or the Palestinians from the refugee camps are battered people. They become very violent. The ghettos are violent internally. They become violent externally when there is a clear, identifiable external target, an enemy where you can say, ‘Yes, this one did it to me’. Then they can strike back.

Example is a bad thing. Example spreads. There was a highly publicized Beirut hijacking of the TWA plane. After that hijacking, there were hijacking attempts at nine different American airports. Pathological groups or individuals modeling on the others. Even more serious are examples set by governments. When governments engage in terror, they set very large examples. When they engage in supporting terror, they engage in other sets of examples.

Absence of revolutionary ideology is central to victim terrorism. Revolutionaries do not commit unthinking terror. Those of you who are familiar with revolutionary theory know the debates, the disputes, the quarrels, the fights within revolutionary groups of Europe, the fight between anarchists and Marxists, for example. But the Marxists have always argued that revolutionary terror, if ever engaged in, must be sociologically and psychologically selective. Don’t hijack a plane. Don’t hold hostages. Don’t kill children, for God’s sake. Have you recalled also that the great revolutions, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Algerian, the Cuban, never engaged in hijacking type of terrorism? They did engage in terrorism, but it was highly selective, highly sociological, still deplorable, but there was an organized, highly limited, selective character to it. So absence of revolutionary ideology that begins more or less in the post-World War II period has been central to this phenomenon.

My final question is - These conditions have existed for a long time. But why then this flurry of private political terrorism? Why now so much of it and so visible? The answer is modern technology. You have a cause. You can communicate it through radio and television. They will all come swarming if you have taken an aircraft and are holding 150 Americans hostage. They will all hear your cause. You have a modern weapon through which you can shoot a mile away. They can’t reach you. And you have the modern means of communicating. When you put together the cause, the instrument of coercion and the instrument of communication, politics is made. A new kind of politics becomes possible.

To this challenge rulers from one country after another have been responding with traditional methods. The traditional method of shooting it out, whether it’s missiles or some other means. The Israelis are very proud of it. The Americans are very proud of it. The French became very proud of it. Now the Pakistanis are very proud of it. The Pakistanis say, ‘Our commandos are the best.’ Frankly, it won’t work. A central problem of our time, political minds, rooted in the past, and modern times, producing new realities. Therefore in conclusion, what is my recommendation to America?

Quickly. First, avoid extremes of double standards. If you’re going to practice double standards, you will be paid with double standards. Don’t use it. Don’t condone Israeli terror, Pakistani terror, Nicaraguan terror, El Salvadoran terror, on the one hand, and then complain about Afghan terror or Palestinian terror. It doesn’t work. Try to be even-handed. A superpower cannot promote terror in one place and reasonably expect to discourage terrorism in another place. It won’t work in this shrunken world.

Do not condone the terror of your allies. Condemn them. Fight them. Punish them. Please eschew, avoid covert operations and low-intensity warfare. These are breeding grounds of terror and drugs. Violence and drugs are bred there. The structure of covert operations, I’ve made a film about it, which has been very popular in Europe, called Dealing with the Demon. I have shown that wherever covert operations have been, there has been the central drug problem. That has been also the center of the drug trade. Because the structure of covert operations, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Central America, is very hospitable to drug trade. Avoid it. Give it up. It doesn’t help.

Please focus on causes and help ameliorate causes. Try to look at causes and solve problems. Do not concentrate on military solutions. Do not seek military solutions. Terrorism is a political problem. Seek political solutions. Diplomacy works.

Take the example of the last attack on Bin Laden. You don’t know what you’re attacking. They say they know, but they don’t know. They were trying to kill Qadaffi. They killed his four-year-old daughter. The poor baby hadn’t done anything. Qadaffi is still alive. They tried to kill Saddam Hussein. They killed Laila Bin Attar, a prominent artist, an innocent woman. They tried to kill Bin Laden and his men. Not one but twenty-five other people died. They tried to destroy a chemical factory in Sudan. Now they are admitting that they destroyed an innocent factory, one-half of the production of medicine in Sudan has been destroyed, not a chemical factory. You don’t know. You think you know.

Four of your missiles fell in Pakistan. One was slightly damaged. Two were totally damaged. One was totally intact. For ten years the American government has kept an embargo on Pakistan because Pakistan is trying, stupidly, to build nuclear weapons and missiles. So we have a technology embargo on my country. One of the missiles was intact. What do you think a Pakistani official told the Washington Post? He said it was a gift from Allah. We wanted U.S. technology. Now we have got the technology, and our scientists are examining this missile very carefully. It fell into the wrong hands. So don’t do that. Look for political solutions. Do not look for military solutions. They cause more problems than they solve.

Please help reinforce, strengthen the framework of international law. There was a criminal court in Rome. Why didn’t they go to it first to get their warrant against Bin Laden, if they have some evidence? Get a warrant, then go after him. Internationally. Enforce the U.N. Enforce the International Court of Justice, this unilateralism makes us look very stupid and them relatively smaller.

Q&A

The question here is that I mentioned that I would go somewhat into the story of Bin Laden, the Saudi in Afghanistan and didn’t do so, could I go into some detail? The point about Bin Laden would be roughly the same as the point between Sheikh Abdul Rahman, who was accused and convicted of encouraging the blowing up of the World Trade Center in New York City. The New Yorker did a long story on him. It’s the same as that of Aimal Kansi, the Pakistani Baluch who was also convicted of the murder of two CIA agents. Let me see if I can be very short on this. Jihad, which has been translated a thousand times as “holy war,” is not quite just that. Jihad is an Arabic word that means, “to struggle.” It could be struggle by violence or struggle by non-violent means. There are two forms, the small jihad and the big jihad. The small jihad involves violence. The big jihad involves the struggles with self. Those are the concepts. The reason I mention it is that in Islamic history, jihad as an international violent phenomenon had disappeared in the last four hundred years, for all practical purposes. It was revived suddenly with American help in the 1980s. When the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan, Zia ul-Haq, the military dictator of Pakistan, which borders on Afghanistan, saw an opportunity and launched a jihad there against godless communism. The U.S. saw a God-sent opportunity to mobilize one billion Muslims against what Reagan called the Evil Empire. Money started pouring in. CIA agents starting going all over the Muslim world recruiting people to fight in the great jihad. Bin Laden was one of the early prize recruits. He was not only an Arab. He was also a Saudi. He was not only a Saudi. He was also a multimillionaire, willing to put his own money into the matter. Bin Laden went around recruiting people for the jihad against communism.

I first met him in 1986. He was recommended to me by an American official of whom I do not know whether he was or was not an agent. I was talking to him and said, ‘Who are the Arabs here who would be very interesting?’ By here I meant in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said, ‘You must meet Osama.’ I went to see Osama. There he was, rich, bringing in recruits from Algeria, from Sudan, from Egypt, just like Sheikh Abdul Rahman. This fellow was an ally. He remained an ally. He turns at a particular moment. In 1990 the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia with forces. Saudi Arabia is the holy place of Muslims, Mecca and Medina. There had never been foreign troops there. In 1990, during the Gulf War, they went in, in the name of helping Saudi Arabia defeat Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden remained quiet. Saddam was defeated, but the American troops stayed on in the land of the kaba (the sacred site of Islam in Mecca), foreign troops. He wrote letter after letter saying, Why are you here? Get out! You came to help but you have stayed on. Finally he started a jihad against the other occupiers. His mission is to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia. His earlier mission was to get Russian troops out of Afghanistan. See what I was saying earlier about covert operations?

A second point to be made about him is these are tribal people, people who are really tribal. Being a millionaire doesn’t matter. Their code of ethics is tribal. The tribal code of ethics consists of two words: loyalty and revenge. You are my friend. You keep your word. I am loyal to you. You break your word, I go on my path of revenge. For him, America has broken its word. The loyal friend has betrayed. The one to whom you swore blood loyalty has betrayed you. They’re going to go for you. They’re going to do a lot more.

These are the chickens of the Afghanistan war coming home to roost. This is why I said to stop covert operations. There is a price attached to those that the American people cannot calculate and Kissinger type of people do not know, don’t have the history to know.



Eqbal Ahmad, Professor Emeritus of International Relations and Middle Eastern Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, also served as a managing editor of the quarterly Race and Class. A prolific writer, his articles and essays have been published in The Nation, Dawn (Pakistan), among several other journals throughout the world. He died in 1999.
Courtesy: University of Colorado

<and yes FDR did know about the bombing of pearl harbor, Mao told him(got that from the history channel) you really are a fool >

Mao told him? What did he do, call FDR by cell phone from his cave in guerilla occupied China? Very prescient of FDR to take the call.

If FDR did know about Pearl Harbor in advance, and did nothing, that was a good thing because it got us into the war and helped save humanity from Hitler.

Or would you rather we all be speaking German and Japanese in the "North American Occupied Zone of the New Order"?

Heil!!!!!!

However, we must not construe that to mean he is right about everything he says. He is, at heart, a rabid racist. It clouds all of his judgements. By the same token, we must not assume that becaus this "ex" Klansman opposes Israeli agression that all who oppose Israeli agression hold his other views as well. It is just as likely that this was posted here to discredit, by guilt through association, those who oppose Israeli aggression, as it was to discredit Israel. This tactic has been common around here lately.

Duke raises no interesting points. Duke is an anti-Semitic piece of s**t who discredits the struggle for Palestinian rights.

"biz" is a walking turd. Right wing fascists are scumballs. And anybody who posts articles this long is a nimrod.

"Duke raises some interesting points"? F**ck you.

<and yes FDR did know about the bombing of pearl harbor, Mao told him(got that from the history channel) you really are a fool >

Mao told him? What did he do, call FDR by cell phone from his cave in guerilla occupied China? Very prescient of FDR to take the call.

If FDR did know about Pearl Harbor in advance, and did nothing, that was a good thing because it got us into the war and helped save humanity from Hitler.

Or would you rather we all be speaking German and Japanese in the "North American Occupied Zone of the New Order"?

Heil!!!!!!

. . . an anti-Semitic piece of s**t who discredits the struggle for Palestinian rights.

Hitler was a scumbag, too. Does that mean that everything bad he said about Stalin was wrong?

The David Duke's of this world and those who support the "struggle for the rights of the Palestinian people" have been kissy-kissy for years. That's no secret. They aren't in complete agreement, but they have common goals. Sometimes that's enough.

<Hitler was a scumbag, too. Does that mean that everything bad he said about Stalin was wrong? >

What Hitler said about Stalin is of no importance in and of itself since everyone knew it already. What David Duke says about anything is not part of real debate because he supports genocide against Jews, blacks, etc.

<The David Duke's of this world and those who support the "struggle for the rights of the Palestinian people" have been kissy-kissy for years. That's no secret. They aren't in complete agreement, but they have common goals. Sometimes that's enough.
>


By this dopey logic, all Jews supported South African apartheid and Argentine fascism because Israel gave support to these two regimes in the 80s.

Anyone who says "David Duke is right about......." is a de-facto racist, anti-Semite moron. Period. End of discussion.

"The David Duke's of this world and those who support the "struggle for the rights of the Palestinian people" have been kissy-kissy for years...they have common goals."

"David Duke...supports genocide against Jews,.."


I think we found the common goal.

(In Kuala Lumpur, a futuristic and lush tropical city of hospitable Malays, the Foreign Ministers of the Islamic States convened the Conference on Terror. I attended it as an observer. The following is A Talk I Never Gave at the Conference or)


UFO AND TERROR
By Israel Shamir

“My wife has been raped by a Martian”. It was a favourite and frequent headline in 1950s, when the power was not concentrated to a present extent, and journalists had to do with UFO stories. With years, veracity of the opinion-makers did not change, but their malice grew considerably. Millions of newspaper copies, billions of TV frames and zillions of words postulate Islamic Terror as the latest scourge of mankind. It is not strange, Your Excellencies, that your defensive reflexes took precedence over your common sense, and you try and justify, renounce or explain Islamic Terror – by the persecution of Palestinians in the Apartheid State of Israel, or by the US siege of Iraq and colonisation of Saudi Arabia. You gave some pretty good reasons, but, as a PR professional, I’ll tell you: one can find good reasons for anything.

In the fervour of explanations, you forgot to ask yourselves the first question of a scientist: does it exist? Is there such a phenomenon, Islamic Terror? Yes, there is a lot of spin, and the media takes it for granted. But a say-so would not suffice as a proof of existence. In 18th century, good people of Salem in New England carried out a crusade against witches. Whoever would doubt the very fact of the female alliance with Devil, would surely be marginalised or presented as a Satan’s stooge. For centuries, there was a spin about Jews who consume Christian children’s blood for Passover. Hundreds of books and articles were published on the subject; England still has a child saint supposedly martyred by bloodthirsty Jews.

But now we disregard this silly spin. It is a right time to do the same with the latest Witch Hunt, the newest Blood Libel, so-called Islamic Terror.

In my opinion, it exists in the same way and to the same extent as the Jewish Conspiracy and Yellow Peril. There is a scattering of few disjointed and unconnected guerrilla movements in the world, that of Basques (ETA) and South Lebanese (Hezbollah), Corsicans and Mindanao (South Philippines), Irish and Columbians, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, UNITA in Angola and HAMAS in Palestine. There is no way or reason to select a few of them on a spurious ground of some religious affiliation and ascribe them to Islamic Terror Network.
People of South Lebanon, South Philippines, Corsica, Basque country, or Palestine have their legitimate grievances, but their connection to their religion is just a question of colouring. In the same vein, the war of Iran and Iraq could be (but should not) be described as the war between Sunni and Shiite Islam, but we know that the religious factor was not an important one in the decisions of Saddam Hussein and the Iranian leaders.

Practically nowhere one can find an Islamic terror organisation per se, fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state. Before the collapse of Communism, the Palestinians preferred a left-wing ideology to fight their oppressors. Among Palestinian militant leaders, a place of honour was held by a Christian, George Habash. HAMAS of Palestine grew as the only movement expressly permitted by the Zionist Apartheid state, while non-religious FATAH was suppressed. Thus, the feelings of the oppressed Palestinians were channelled by the Jews into this quasi-religious movement.

Hezbollah fighters of Lebanon fought against Israeli and American occupation, not for the Islamic rule. They are similar to the Irish Republicans, not famous for their Islamic beliefs. Chechens continued their two-hundred year long war against Russian rule, building temporary alliances with America, Germany and Turkey. Their biggest alleged achievement, explosion of Moscow high-rise buildings, was actually performed by an Israeli citizen Mr Anatoly Chubais, it was disclosed last month by another Israeli citizen, Dr Boris Berezovsky.

Could we select the ‘Muslim terrorists’ by their methods? Surely not. IRA bombed London pubs well before Hamas discovered Tel Aviv café. The Tamil Tigers, non-Muslim militant organisation, trained by Israeli Mossad, is the world leader in suicide bombings. There is no case to presume existence of Islamic Terror at all. Until we come to 9/11, when President Bush proclaimed its existence and announced the World Wide Muslim Conspiracy of al Qaeeda.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 are still unknown to us. The instant recovery of a hijacker’s passport intact on the place of jet crush should be counted among the most spectacular miracles of all times, well ahead of Daniel’s trip into the fiery furnace. The old Babylonian furnace surely did not develop the temperature of burning jet fuel. Arab-language flying manuals in the trunk of a car, inaudible videotapes and other conveniently recovered exhibits make Moscow trials of 1937 a bright example of justice incorrupt. The prisoners of Afghani war have been kept away from prying eyes, in the limbo of Guantanamo, lest they disclose the greatest secret of all: their innocence.

On the other hand, there is an accumulating evidence of Israeli Connection. Warning messages on the Israeli network INIGO were sent to Israelis on Manhattan, in real time, when the planes left their airfields. In all airports utilised by hijackers, one Israeli company ICTS attended to security. Jewish financial companies made forward insurance stock deals that enriched them.

Israel utilized the 9/11 events to its full capacity: present massacre in the Palestinian cities is described as ‘the war on terror’. The Muslim neighbours of Israel were terrorised into passivity by the American rage. Destruction of Afghanistan raised the threshold of the world sensitivity to horror, and made possible the present invasion of Palestinian cities. Probably it is not enough for the verdict, but the same can be said about al-Qaeeda’s alleged involvement.

There is no Islamic terror, but there is an Israeli-American terror of Dar al-Islam. You have not sinned; but you were sinned against. Thus, when the US President and his media question you, “what do you do about the Islamic terror?’, I suggest, Your Excellencies, a good Jewish reply, ‘What terror?’

>What Hitler said about Stalin is of no importance in and of itself since everyone knew it already.

No, they did not. A lot of them still don't.

This is subverted support. See:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/subsup.htm


>What David Duke says about anything is not part of real debate because he supports genocide against Jews, blacks, etc.

The debate is not about David Duke. The debate, like all debates, is about it's topic and not the debaters.

This is changing the subject. See:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/subject.htm

>© 2000-2002 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy


Anyone see the word "debate" in there?

Changing the subject.

If you honestly believe that what Delmart Mike Vreeland, Michael Ruppert, (True) independent media and press are saying is factual, you are nuttier than a squirrel turd. I would also suggest that, anyone of any intellect (or marginal wisdom), who honestly researches the events with an open mind and critical thinking could easily discern that this was an allowed event. If not a complicit one.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! You idiots parroting their propaganda, need to turn off the television, and... Oh, I don't know... read, maybe. Why do you think they wanted to get rid of nightline? Ted Coppell has always been the ABC late night standard. It wouldn't be because he aired the story that, the current misadministration didn't want you to hear would it? Don't believe me? Then go to http://www.thelastamericanwarriors.com/WarriorWeb/Current%20News%20Clips.htm and watch the report yourself. Grow up, you mindless sheep.

You who blindlessly go along with the new mantra of Resident Bush, do not want to know the truth. I understand that it is scary to believe that such evil men supposedly govern you, but that does not change what the actuality of reality is, now does it?

Prescott Bush (Grandpa) funded Hitler with the Kennedy, Rockefeller, Warburg, and Rothschild families. Great humanitarians, huh?

George H. W. Bush (Poppy) was former director of the CIA, who by the way is the leading importer of illegal drugs into the U.S., according to the Inspector Generals' own admission. In short he's a drug lord.

George W. Bush (Junior), has an IQ of about 90, was given a stolen election (even though he has a felony record that was pardoned by Reagan), was a (hopefully) former cocaine user, and absolutely knew what was going to transpire in September 2001.

I could go on, and on, and on, about these so-called "Patriotic Americans". This isn't theory, it is Public Record. According to their own definition, anyone who espouses what I have just told you is a terrorist. Benjamin Franklin once said, those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security. Suffice it to say, "Nazi Germany, never lost the war. They just had to move.".

The first sentence above should say "do not believe". Vreeland, Ruppert, and the free press of BBC, France, etc. are much more credible than the media bubble here in the U.S.

The first sentence above should say "do not believe". Vreeland, Ruppert, and the free press of BBC, France, etc. are much more credible than the media bubble here in the U.S.

debate coach: I get what your saying. Just because David Duke said something, doesn't make what he said neccessarily wrong. How does that saying go, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day"?

I've seen arguments about vegetarianism, in which the dubious fact that Hitler was supposedly a vegetarian was mentioned by anti-vegetarians as a way to make vegetarians seem evil. Even though I've giving it some consideration, I'm not currently a vegetarian. But still, pointing out Hitler's diet seems pretty stupid in that particular debate/argument, if meant seriously. Following that line of absurd reasoning, I suppose if Hitler wiped his ass after taking a shit, that makes all who wipe their asses Nazis?

But yeah, on the other hand, referencing Duke when arguing about Israel, Zionism, etc., still seems like a lousy tactic, for obvious reasons (also, see: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm ). There are plenty of assuredly non anti-semitic critics of Israeli gov't policy out there, who don't have a history of involvment with the KKK and Nazi groups, if somebody wants to make a reference and/or use argumentum ad verecundiam to help make/bolster a point. Hell, there are even some prominent Jewish Israeli citizens, who are critics of the current Israeli administration and its policies (sure, an Israeli of the Fascist Zealot persuasion might call such a critic "self-hater" and/or a traitor, etc., but thats beside the obvious point I'm belaboring).

---------------------------
blah blah blah, and, on the other hand (since there's a "logic and reasoning" tangent topic), here's another viewpoint ....

"The path of analytical reasoning is precise and acute— But it's just more delusion, good for nothing goat-shit." -- Patrul Rinpoche

True enough, but that's a separate issue.

Hi,

Have any of you heard of a man by the name of Myron Fagan? Back in the 60's he recorded an expose on a group that was known as the Illuminati.

Before you say anything, go to the following site and download the six MP3's containing this expose, and listen to them. Some of the information that I have heard Ruppert disclose is found in these recordings, if that helps to incite any curiosity.

Go to the section entitled: The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations

http://100777.com/nwo/

"so the u.s. government engaged in a secret plot to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon? in the case of the Pentagon, that literally means that the government plotted to blow itself up.
do you really believe something this complicated could be pulled off without somebody blabbing?"








it doesn't matter if people find out - it only matters if the perpetrators suffer any consequences...

and the neo cons regardless of who finds out - most likely won't.