 |
|
|
|
 |
George Smiley
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: 9 Bywater Street, Chelsea, London
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And why the fuck would any Islamic terrorist want to set a bomb off in "the most insignificant town in the country" ? To "promote fear" ? You know that's pretty fucking retarded for an answer, and you also know most people are fucking retarded (when it comes to anything to do with politics or power structures)... so, the logic of "why" was in your initial post in this thread. |
Mi5 get nothing out of mounting an "attack" like this, in fact, I feel pretty silly continuing to discuss this at all!
| quote: | | With more rational peole like yourself, it's only going to propagate the fear of "Islamism" and with less rational people, which is a much larger group, it's going to go beyond that. And it adds to their paranoid perception of "radical Islam" having tentacles reaching all over society. |
Nah, I think all the bombs that went off in London and killed all those people are what people look to when they want evidence of whether or not there is a real threat from "radical Islam"...
|
|
 May-27-2008 19:30 
|
|
|
|
|
shaolin_Z
Hei Hu Quan
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas, USA: TXTA #102
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Mi5 get nothing out of mounting an "attack" like this, in fact, I feel pretty silly continuing to discuss this at all! |
First of all, intelligence agencies are merely just one of the institutional extensions of the state, not the state itself. Are you purposefuly trying to make the idea sound so incredibly ridiculous? Or is it because your conscious mind is trying to maintain your social programming? Is that why you feel silly?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Nah, I think all the bombs that went off in London and killed all those people are what people look to when they want evidence of whether or not there is a real threat from "radical Islam"... |
7-7 has bullshit written all over it just like 9-11.
___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller
|
|
May-27-2008 19:45 
|
|
|
|
|
shaolin_Z
Hei Hu Quan
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas, USA: TXTA #102
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, must be why russia and jordan and singapore have such draconian anti-terrorism laws, because they've never ever had problems with militant islam. |
Because they have authoritarian regimes.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
in your world shaolin, is there such a thing as islamic terrorism? or are entire sections of political islam just willing patsies for western domination and false flag operations? |
I believe I already answered that:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Interesting, I don't remember that being specfic to any one brand of religious fanatics. Last time I checked, the evil, violent and descructive influence of organized religion was dwarfed by the state in conjuction with intelligence agencies. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what about iraq? Is there a real struggle occurring there or is it just america making trouble for itself so it can force itself to stay in the country, because the US is getting oh so much out of the war in iraq at the moment? For example, what benefit does the US get from tying its army down (and killing it off) in terms of extending its regional hegemony? what long term economic-elite-driven false-flag-instituting goals are being achieved right now in iraq and/or afghanistan? |
Hmmm, let's see... the reason for war was a complete fabrication from the beggining... except state apologist are naive enough to defend that action with "no, you see... they actually believed their own bullshit!" The reason in order:
- Weapons of Mass Destruction <--- Lie.
- Links to Al-Quaeda <--- LOL, absolute horseshit.
- Sadaam is a brutal dictaror who kills and tortures innocent people <--- Yes, put in place by the US. From a CIA trained assasin to a bathist dictator. Oh, you kill and torutre innocent people too.
- He gassed the Kurds. <--- Not only with the US reestablishing diplomatic ties with Iraq shortly there after, but with US support as well... with weapons provided by the US.
- We're establishing a democracy <--- Oh yes indeed, that's very believable considering the US has a history of supressing democracy and supporting brutal dictatorships. Only a retartd would believe such a blatant lie.
So, since none of those reason was legitimate enough... there needed to be enough chaos to justify US military presence in Iraq, which is achieved by a contrived civil war. Ironically enough, you'd have to be an complete dolt to believe the same war mongering hypocritical pack of pathological liars would maintain military presence to help establish order... when the US has a history of the quite the opposite... you know, like toppling goverment and undermining democracy... all this while they undermine democratic values at home as well, with authoritarian unconstitutional legislation. So back to our bullshit contrived civil war now:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
So I orginally posted this here, but yesterday ended up deleting a whole bunch of my post and threads. Don't ask why. All I'm going to say is that I'm seriosuly considering leaving this place for good. Luckily, there's still a copy of this in a thread by Opus. So I'm posting it here once again:
What I find interesting is the fact that all this sectarian violence didn't really start or atleast escalate (and was close to non-existant) before the burial site of Imam Hussein, his family, tribe, and companions was supposedly blown up by some crazy Sunnis according to the mainstream media (after the Iraq invasion began). It makes absolutely no sense for any sect, regardless of how fanatical and insane, to do that. Let me explain why by giving you a brief history of the Shia Sunni divide.
When Muhammad was near his dead, he expressed his wish and will of Ali, the first young male converts to Islam, a close campanion, cousin, and son-in-law, to be his successor (Caliph i.e spiritual leader of the Muslim world). Now Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who was a prominent and powerful tribe leader before he converted to Islam (and also an important leitenant), didn't want this. He claimed that Muhammad was too old and ill for his decision (and will), of Ali being his succesor, to be taken seriously.
[Backround knowledge:
Muhammad's father died six months after his birth and his mother when he was only six years old. He was taken in and looked after by his uncle Abu Talib, the leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraish tribe, the most powerful in Mecca. He started preaching Islam while he was still alive but was left alone becuase of who his Uncle was, a feared and respeceted tribe leader of the most powerful clan of the Quraish tribe. Muhammad and early convert to Islam had to migrate from Mekkah to Medina in the early days of Islam due to ever increasing and severe presecution. It got to the point where torture, muredering new converts to Islam (who were mostly slaves and the poor), and assanination attempts on Muhammad by the pagan tribes of Mekkah became common place. What you have to know to make sense of this is the fact that paganism, tribal conflict (which usually didn't end for generations once started), slavery, burial of new born daughters, the status of women as mere property, theft, murder, and hedonistic excess was common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Mekkah, before Islam, was a center of pagan worship, as it contained the sacred well of Zamzam and a small ancient temple, the Ka'aba. The Ka'aba was filled with pagan idols at that point. All sorts of pagan ritutals, worship, sex orgies, sacrafice, and other pagan activity took place there. A hand full of few power tribes known as Banu Quraish owned the Kabbah, which at that point was a center of paganism. Pagan pilgirims from all over the Arab world came there to worship who payed large sums of money to them to be able to gain access to the Ka'aba. Their wealth, status, and power largely depended on the status quo, which was total paganism. Muhammad's preaching of the belief in one God and Islamic values was a threat to all of it. Muslims were heavily persecuted in early Islamic history and basically had to constantly be on the run from persecution and annihalation in order to practice their religion freely.
...skip a bunch...
Later when Islam spread and Muhammad returned to Mekkah, he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba and it became the most holy mosque in Islam, in the direction of which Muslims face when they pray. And it became the center of Muslim pilgramidge.
In order to make things a little easier to follow for late and reference, these are some subclans of Banu Quraish:
- Banu Abd al-Manaf — sub-clan of Quraish
- Banu Hashim — sub-clan of Banu Abd Manaf, clan of Muhammad and Ali.
- Banu Taim — sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Abu Bakr (somtimes confused with Banu Tamim)
- Banu Adi — sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Umar ibn al-Khattab
- Banu Asad — sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr and Khadijah ]
After Muhammad's death, the differences that had previously lain dormant amongst the Meccan immigrants (the Muhajirun) and the Medinan converts (the Ansar), threatened to break out and split the Ummah (Muslim Nation). This sparked great controversy over who should be Muhammad's successor. Umar apparently lost it (wheater genuine or disingenuos) and became hysterical when Muhammad passed away, delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Calioh. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot) returned from some business trip or something. There was a huge controversy over who should become Caliph. Umar apparently lost it when Muhammad died and refused to allow his barial. He became hysterical (wheater genuine or disingenuos), delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Caliph. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot before converting to Islam) returned from some business trip or something.
The Ansar met in Medina to discuss whom they would support as their new leader. When Abu Bakr was informed of the meeting, he, Umar and a few others rushed to prevent the Ansar from making a "premature decision." During the meeting Umar declared that Abu Bakr should be the new leader, and declared his allegiance to Abu Bakr. After the meeting at Saqifah, the Muslims who were not present had to be informed of the decision taken by the group. Many of them refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, as did Ali, as they (rightly) believed (in accordance with the Prophet's will) that Ali, was the obvious choice for leader. They became to be known as the Shi'at Ali (the party of Ali) by their enemies. It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr. Umar roamed the streets of Medina with his warriors to coerce people into submission. Being a hothead, he even threatened to burn down Fatima's house (the Prophet's daughter and Ali's wife) unless Ali came out and submitted to Abu Bakr. Ali refused and requested his privacy to be respected. Umar pushed his way into the house. Fatima, who was heavily pregnant, and trying to prevent Umar from breaking in, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son.
At one point, there was even a civil war. Eventually Ali reluctantly gave in to prevent Muslims loyal to him and the Prophets will from being persecuted, and to not detroy the unity of the Ummah right after the Prophet passed away, pretty messed up state of affairs. So Abu Bakr became first Caliph, succeeded by Umar as second Caliph, Uthman as third, and finally Ali as forth. But Ali's caliphate only lasted five years, ended with his assasination and then the assaination of his eldest son, Hasan ibn Ali.
So basically, this is what lead to the Shiia Sunni divide, although they didn't call themselves Shiia and Sunni at the time.
Mu‘āwīyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, engaged in a civil war against Ali and met with considerable military success, including the seizure of Egypt. He assumed the caliphate after Ali's assassination in 661 and reigned until 680.
...skip some more...
His son Yazid succeded him in the line of the Umayyads dynasty of caliphs, who was also fairly tyranical and corrupt. The persecution of Shi'iat al Ali continued. At one point, it became so severe that they were basically being denied water (and it's pretty damn hard to survive in a desert without any). The divide between the two groups was intesified when he was opposed and criticized by the Ali's son, the Prophets grandson, Imam Husayn bin Ali. Yazid responded to criticism with force, killing many of his campanion, family members, and Muslims loyal to him. This started the battle of Karbala (which is in Iraq), where he Imam Husayn was martered, including lots of his friends, followers, and family. Him and his followers were burried there.
The terms Shiia and Sunni as sectarian labels came in to use much later. The Shiias believe Ali to be the rightful successor of Muhammad and Yazid to an illegitimate tyrant responsible for murdering Imam Husayn. The Sunnis, on the other hand, are the passive masses submitting to power and accepting status quo. Sunnis condemn the killing of Imam Husayn, being the Prophets grandson and all, but still recoznige Yazid as a legitimate Caliph and make excuses like "he wasn't responsible for it, his generals were."
...
Anyways, now that you know all that and understand the nature of the Shiia Sunni divide, which is basically political and not really religious, since Islam as a religion was already complete and fully revealed before Muhammad died, it makes absolutely no sense for any Sunni group or splinter sect, no matter how fanatical and crazy, to go desecrate the burial site of the Prophet's grandson. That's fairly sacreligious for them too. I guess it's analagous to Christians, Jews, or Muslims blowing up Jerusalem; not going to happen, it's a holy site to all of them. So my money on whoever was responsible for it are on the CIA/MI-5/6/other intel agency payroll, if not one of the groups themselves; a false flag opertaion to fuel endless sectarian violence, which is what's taking place rightnow. That gives an excuse to keep troops there and build permanent military bases. And it's not like false flag ops are anything new when it comes to how modern states such as Russia/former Soviet Union, the US etc. and their intelligence agencies. Before the Iraq war, no one cared if you were Shiia or Sunni. But now Shiia and Sunnis are getting shot and blown up at check point by militia men for belonging to the wrong sect, given away by their last name (which makes their tribal origin obvious, and hence if they're Shiia or Sunni).
So, I hope that helped shed some light on the issue.
But in case some of you don't know what a flase flag op is:
| quote: | From Wikipedia
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. |
You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history:
1953, Opertaion Ajax (CIA coupe in Iran workring in tandem with MI6):
Overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq via multiple staged terrorist attacks on mosques (bombimg) & gunning down civilians, demonstrations, propaganda, and provocations branding Mossadeq as a communist, including a false flag op which where the home of a prominent Sheiks was bombed. The weirdest propanganda operation included handing out phony bills during while the choas ensued which read "Up with Mossadeq, Up with communism, Down with Allah." This ofcourse happened after Mossadeq attempted nationalized Iran's oil which British pertoleum wanted to monopolize. Then ofcourse we all know who came into power... that's right, the Shah, who was a brutal dictator with his secret police (SAVAK, again thanks to CIA) and torture chambers etc.
1943 - 1983, Operation Gladio, NATO's "stay behing operation" (funded mostly by CIA, a key figure being in Operation Gladio being the CIA founder Allen Dulles):
This is really an umbrella name for multiple false flag ops in non just Italy, but around the world, including Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, which was blamed on the communists during the 'Red Scare.' The target where mostly civilian and public areas, including trains, bubes, schools, school buses etc. A particularly bloody incident was the Bologna Massacre in Italy on August 2nd, 1980 after which some Italian official broke their silence about it.
I'm sure many of you already know about he Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 where an American destroyer was attacked. Well, phone conversation tapes between President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara realeased by LBJ Presidential Library in 2001 reveal how they were openly discussing using it to expand the War in Vietman after which congress authorized the Tonkin Resolution. In 2005 the NSA declassified it's official history on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which revealed how CIA and intelligence agency officers deliberately falsified intel blaming Vietnamese partol boats for attacking the ship when in reality the didn't eventhough they where being fired on by US forces.
October 6th, 1976 Cuban Flight 455 (passanger airliner planted with C4): Declassified CIA document reveal that the bombers of the flight were given US visas days before the bombing and were employed by guess who. Luis Posada Carriles, who was involved in the bombing, was a CIA agent.
Those are the only ones that come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure you guys can dig up numerous more examples.
Anyways, point is, false flag ops are standard procedure so I seriously doubt it wasn't a false flag op, as it makes absolutely no sense for any group, no matter how fanatical and extereme, to decesrate the Prophets grandson's and companions graves and bomb the mosque. No, I obviously can't prove this. Neigther were any of those examples known or proveable until years (more like decades) after when internal documents were declassified.
EDIT: One decalssified document that some of you should be familiar with by now, Operation Northwoods discusses in great detail of conducting false flag ops in order to go to was with Cuba. Here's some of the content listed on wikipedia:
| quote: | The suggestions included:
- Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
- Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming it on Cuban forces.
- Firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base — reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War — or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using unmanned drones and fake funerals instead.)
- "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
- Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees
- "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute sic to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."
- Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his Body of Secrets thus:
“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
|
Guess why this didn't take place or go through, Kennedy objected and didn't allow it. |
Yes, I find your reasons for trusting the system to degree you do very compelling indeed.
___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller
|
|
|
May-28-2008 12:43
|
|
|
|
|
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion
Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Hmmm, let's see... the reason for war was a complete fabrication from the beggining... except state apologist are naive enough to defend that action with "no, you see... they actually believed their own bullshit!" The reason in order:
- Weapons of Mass Destruction <--- Lie.
- Links to Al-Quaeda <--- LOL, absolute horseshit.
- Sadaam is a brutal dictaror who kills and tortures innocent people <--- Yes, put in place by the US. From a CIA trained assasin to a bathist dictator. Oh, you kill and torutre innocent people too.
- He gassed the Kurds. <--- Not only with the US reestablishing diplomatic ties with Iraq shortly there after, but with US support as well... with weapons provided by the US.
- We're establishing a democracy <--- Oh yes indeed, that's very believable considering the US has a history of supressing democracy and supporting brutal dictatorships. Only a retartd would believe such a blatant lie.
So, since none of those reason was legitimate enough... there needed to be enough chaos to justify US military presence in Iraq, which is achieved by a contrived civil war. Ironically enough, you'd have to be an complete dolt to believe the same war mongering hypocritical pack of pathological liars would maintain military presence to help establish order... when the US has a history of the quite the opposite... you know, like toppling goverment and undermining democracy... all this while they undermine democratic values at home as well, with authoritarian unconstitutional legislation. So back to our bullshit contrived civil war now:
Yes, I find your reasons for trusting the system to degree you do very compelling indeed.
|
i have no idea what sent you on that tangent or what weird inner meaning you think was hidden in my words, but i basically just wanted to know whether or not you believed that violent islam existed, independently and autonomously from the US.
but to be honest, i dont see what the government has gotten out of iraq but thousands of casualties, a bogged down military, higher oil prices, trillion dollar pricetags, and no way of getting the fuck out. i think if you offered bush et al the perfect solution to get themselves out of iraq and afghanistan, they'd be overjoyed to take it.
the idea that they are deliberately trying to prolong their stay just doesn't make any sense. what benefit is the US currently getting from being tied down in iraq?
___________________
|
|
May-28-2008 13:24 
|
|
|
|
|
XaNaX
I <3 global warming
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: 1000 Miles too far North
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i have no idea what sent you on that tangent or what weird inner meaning you think was hidden in my words, but i basically just wanted to know whether or not you believed that violent islam existed, independently and autonomously from the US.
but to be honest, i dont see what the government has gotten out of iraq but thousands of casualties, a bogged down military, higher oil prices, trillion dollar pricetags, and no way of getting the fuck out. i think if you offered bush et al the perfect solution to get themselves out of iraq and afghanistan, they'd be overjoyed to take it.
the idea that they are deliberately trying to prolong their stay just doesn't make any sense. what benefit is the US currently getting from being tied down in iraq? |
Yeah, I agree. It isn't like we are getting free oil for them and gas is $1 a gallon here right now. To this point we have spent $500 billion+ and what do we have to show for it except some dead GIs and a fucked up Iraq torn by civil war. Yeah, Saddam was a brutal dictator but shit the world is full of them and honestly I don't think it is worth in excess of $500 billion to get rid of each one of them. That money could be much better spent back here at home on programs to end our dependance on foreign oil.
This shit makes about as much sense as the conspiracy loons saying WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The building was empty when it fell hours after the attacks, what reason was there for blowing it up? Iraq is a big black hole for US tax dollars, we have no reason for prolonging our stay there we are getting nothing for it.
|
|
|
May-28-2008 14:38
|
|
|
|
|
shaolin_Z
Hei Hu Quan
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas, USA: TXTA #102
|
|
|
You brought up Iraq, not me.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i have no idea what sent you on that tangent or what weird inner meaning you think was hidden in my words, but i basically just wanted to know whether or not you believed that violent islam existed, independently and autonomously from the US.
but to be honest, i dont see what the government has gotten out of iraq but thousands of casualties, a bogged down military, higher oil prices, trillion dollar pricetags, and no way of getting the fuck out. i think if you offered bush et al the perfect solution to get themselves out of iraq and afghanistan, they'd be overjoyed to take it.
the idea that they are deliberately trying to prolong their stay just doesn't make any sense. what benefit is the US currently getting from being tied down in iraq? |
Clearly you haven't read PNAC, although you claim to have done so. But PNAC is nothing more than a public statement of NeoConservative agenda which is by no means the "head of the serpent." It's a blatant expression of "neo-emperialism." The pursian gulf region is an invaluable strategic area to control for obvious reasons, kind of like a vitual monopoly on power once you control the the one main nonrenewable resource the enitre world is dependent on. That also a big part of maintaining hegemony. The state operates at the tax payers expense, and corporation reep benefits from it, a clever little externatlity if you will (although thouroughly disgusting and outraging). It's been bought and payed for by the corperate interests quite a while ago, although it is recent phenomenon in historical context. Who fucking pays for presidential campains? Uh-huh, and it's not some kind of benevolent donation eigther. Anyways, that's only one aspect of a very multifaced issue. If by the US you mean America as a nation and a people, ofcourse no one is benefiting from it! That doesn't even require much though, just observation and little common sense. The threat of "terrorism" has only predictabely and exponentially increased, wheather real or contrived. That was a no brainer well before the Iraq war, even fucking Dick Cheney will admit to that much, or awefully close to it... if you go back not too far in time. Don't forget that war is very profitable, and I'm not even refering to the "military industrial complex" right now. I forget the details, but basically how one of the Haliburton contracts works is essentially increased public spending = increased profit. Yeah, I know it sounds fucking absurd, I'm not an economist and I don't remember any of the details anymore... but it was from one of your "respected" sources (you know, the types all 'intellectuals' and wannabe-intellecuals approve of, like NY Times, WPost etc). I'm sure you won't have much difficulty finding it with a few google searches though.
___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller
|
|
|
May-30-2008 02:30
|
|
|
|
|
shaolin_Z
Hei Hu Quan
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas, USA: TXTA #102
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
PNAC was a private think tank, not a government document. |
... and?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And it certainly wasn't a mandated policy, though aspects of their agenda did permeate the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. But PNAC is more or less defunct today (unless you count Freedom's Watch as a continuation of sorts). |
It's actually even more blatantly pro-Zionist than the NeoCon's PNAC.
EDIT: Thanks for being civil and not attacking me instead btw Leb, appreciate that.
___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller
|
|
|
May-30-2008 04:30
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:30.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
