FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 Without Tinfoil 3: The Next Level
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always add that it was NOT to fight the Russians, he said it was to LURE the Russians in. AND that he said he'd do it all over again, that Orrin Hatch agreed, creating Al-Qaeda was a good idea. Sometimes I quote laughing Brz, "Regret What?!" "there IS NO GLOBAL ISLAM". And there isn't, he's right, except what the CIA funds.

I also add that not only did we fund Iran and ran BCCI (Al-Qaeda Bank of Pakistan set up by CIA), funding and support continued through the late 90's during the Clinton era. Not "Path to 9/11", joint military operations with Al-Qaeda, with private mercs MPRI and Pentagon officials working alongside Al-Qaeda. That's according to the United States Senate, but nobody knows about it, because the Repub leaders suppressed that. Look up Senate Republican Kosovo Report.

(Whether they look it up or not, it's a show stopper. It blows Blowback.)

I like to lean into the statement that Repubs chose to hit Clinton w Monica Lewinsky instead. I say it with a sneer. This is the opposite approach most libs have --- when Clinton lied, nobody died. Not true.

In other words, telling them the exact opposite of what they expect a liberal to say.

I've memorized roughly what I say about the Magdy Elamir case of an Al-Qaeda operative who got off free after embezzling govt money and sending $6 M offshore to Osama, because his defense lawyer was Whitewater prosecutor Michael Chertoff. (It was in the news, like the Univ of Texas paper and maybe a few others. Google Chertoff Magdy)

Anyhow, most people cannot argue much. I'll only throw in "no terrorists in planes" at the very end, if it goes that far, depending on the person. Like Fintan said, they expect you to argue buildings and controlled demo. Towers "Blown to Kingdom come" is one good remark from Morgan Reynolds, but I rarely get to that face to face.

I'd rather destroy the lies, than try to convince the truth. If interested, they can learn themselves. I link my Loose Change comments to wtc7.net but that's mostly too detailed to explain physics. I'd rather demand that THEY explain to ME how we supported Al-Qaeda for 25 years, after they were a known terrorist group, up to the Summer of 2001.

I guess it's a style that combines Chossudovsky and Jones, informed by the humor of B4N and the knowledge of psyops, and the fact that NPR is run by the CIA as well as all the others.

I tried to think about what I could explain in 30 sec or so, strong suit. The fact that the Pgon was hit after 90 minutes says a lot, even to military types. I would begin there, and maybe discuss other things later.
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary said:
Quote:
I always add[....]

I think that you're dialling-in a really good approach there - I reckon that this approach to the issues of, and surrounding 9/11, is exactly the one that the PTB *don't* want ppl to take - they'd rather have us all bickering about no-planes, or controlled demolition, or holograms and other such endless, quite often woo details.

I'm wondering now whether they'd get away with pulling off another 9/11, 7/7, WTC93 or Waco-type incident again. I'm thinking that with 'groups 1+2' already more awake to these issues than they prolly ever have been, that any more would just tip them over straight into 'group 3', straight away.

It's great when you can confront someone with something that sounds really unbelieavable, and even a bit woo to the uninformed, and then be able to back it up straight away with official records, MSM material & the like. This really can get through to ppl, far more than blue-sky speculation about things that haven't really been documented properly - it's a sad fact, but most ppl still living in sleepy-world will only take something seriously that you're trying to tell them if it's been on TV, or in the paper, or printed in an official-seeming document somewhere.

Good approach, man - keep it up - I think that you're really getting somewhere with that. Wink

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
indigitydogdignation



Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

small correction: I had meant to say The Nation and Fox News were sometimes joined at the hip, though Mother Jones might be as well, for all I know.

Gary, I like your approach, especially now that I've heard some more details. Many of the people I'm speaking with wouldn't know where to find Kosovo on a map, so I tend to stick with things people can wrap their minds around, though I can see the shortcomings in pummeling educated types with wtc7 and all the up-in-the air physics.

Quote:
Gary: I always add that it was NOT to fight the Russians, he said it was to LURE the Russians in. AND that he said he'd do it all over again, that Orrin Hatch agreed, creating Al-Qaeda was a good idea. Sometimes I quote laughing Brz, "Regret What?!" "there IS NO GLOBAL ISLAM". And there isn't, he's right, except what the CIA funds.


If I were going there, I'd also mention U.S. funding for the Soviet's highway to Afghanistan, built before the war started - another path to glory with Zbig's name on it. I'm sure many neo-cons have been secretly puzzeling over that one for quite some time, scratching their heads - liberals too. Maybe they'll finally see that it wasn't just some crazy act of unilateral appeasment. The rest of the story, as you tell it, puts this and other little factoids in perspective quite well. In the meantime, the left-right divide still allows these scoundrels to spin the most conspicuously screwed up actions, past, present and revers....; Of course, the neo-cons will defend early U.S./Mujahedin provocations on the grounds that the Soviet-Afghan war was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union - at least in their unchangable view - ..and then they'll acuse you of 20/20 hindsight. (Blowback wins round one.) The continuing support for Al Queda in the Balkans will always be 'Clintonian' on first hearing. Finally the meat hits the table - slap - when you expose the Republican's attempts to hide the bitter pill, showing all the mutual interest and pure deviousness across the isle. Finally, they liquidate any hint of bi-partisan dirty dealings with the Lewinsky scandal, ....and U.S. support for Al Qaeda carries right on up to the day of infamy.
You can make these arguments better than I can, but I'll be researching your quiz questions for a more well-rounded approach than what I've been using.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James The Baker Boy III was the guest on The Daily Show tonight, because he's flogging a new book, "Work Hard, Study... and Stay Out of Politics", titled after advice his father gave him.

Notable quotes:

On his allegiance to the Bush admin: "I'm not a government employee."

On whether the Iraq Group can be trusted: "We're bi-partisan committee."

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
bulletin



Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The patriotism of the "leaders" is off the table and they get to classify whatever they want for "national security reasons."

Traditional propaganda themes help make this possible:

Shared nationalism: For example when a politician says something like "We are winning in Iraq." The use of such a phrase implies that all Americans are on the same team and share the same goals. This simplification is effective because it suggests that political leaders do not have agendas contrary to those of the public.

Conflation: Supporting the civilian command is the same thing as supporting soldiers. Thus, failure to support the civilian command is the same thing as failure to support soldiers.

Authoritarianism: Failure to support the policies of the leaders is indicative of flawed citizenship and/or lack of patriotism.
Quote:

I have a section in the book about how lies in a fascist shift serve a different purpose than they do in a democracy. In a democracy, people lie to deceive. In a fascist shift, lies serve to disorient. Lies in the service of a fascist shift make it hard for citizens to trust their own judgment about what's real and what's not. Once citizens don't know what's real and what's not real, they are profoundly disempowered. The Bush administration seems to have learned that lesson, and they regularly name things the opposite. And there's a long historical precedent for making people feel that there is no such thing as truth.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/077


This is an important audio program for anyone who wants to remain sane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.