[Admin: Tread spun off and re-titled, starting with a question about what could be considered evidence]
Interesting and insightful answer. You make a good point about the suspicion being a precursor to the proof.Originally Posted by Mick
Would you agree that such criteria as motive, opportunity, ability and pre statement of intent would have bearing, at least as far as suspicion?
Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
They are relevant in identifying suspects. But then you've got to see if there's any actual evidence.
The thread is really about if the physical evidence is consistent with the official story. I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate, but people ask the questions, so the questions get answered. So far I've not seen any place where the physical evidence is inconsistent with the official story. I don't think the molten metal is a big deal either way.Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?
Ok, so would you agree that the Bush admin had the motive, opportunity, ability and at least 'in part' the pre statement of intent, (in terms of PNAC but also other statements), that place them as 'possible suspects', either indirectly or by direct involvement for the events of 9/11?
I think if we can at least agree that 'they were viable suspects at one time', even if you have since discounted that, it would be helpful in reaching a mutual understanding, (in terms of pro OS camp v pro CT camp) and to then see where the divergence, if any, took place and why.
Even the most pro OS supporter must have at some point at least 'wondered' if the Bush admin had any hand in it; the same as even the most devoutly religious must have at some point in their lives 'at least wondered' if there really is a God.
I think these are key questions in establishing why the CT's have gathered such traction for so many people and goes right to the heart of the problem of why so many people distrust governments in general but particularly in this instance the Bush admin.
When I asked "Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?", I meant do you think it is worth opening a new thread to explore this issue or are you happy for it to form part of this thread. It just seems a bit off topic, that's why I asked.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Jumping in for the first time, but elaborate on this, please. What is the motive of the Bush administration to do this? I've tried to stay out of this stuff for the longest time because it always ends up becoming a giant mess but this got me curious.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
A lot of people feel a powerful motive could be, a justification for war/invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S military expansion, American hegemony in the Middle East, regime change, the militarization of space etc as set out in the PNAC white paper which came into effect virtually in whole following 9/11 and the Neocon architects of same, became key players in the Bush admin. i.e. the ends justify the means.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Here is a bit more fleshing out:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...435170883.html
The global 'war on terror'
After six years of a failing counter-insurgency effort in Iraq, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric identification and electronic surveillance to pacify the country's sprawling cities. It then built a biometric database with more than a million Iraqi fingerprints and iris scans that US patrols on the streets of Baghdad could access instantaneously by satellite link to a computer centre in West Virginia.
When President Obama took office and launched his "surge", escalating the US war effort in Afghanistan, that country became a new frontier for testing and perfecting such biometric databases, as well as for full-scale drone war in both that country and the Pakistani tribal borderlands, the latest wrinkle in a techno-war already loosed by the Bush administration. This meant accelerating technological developments in drone warfare that had largely been suspended for two decades after the Vietnam War.
Launched as an experimental, unarmed surveillance aircraft in 1994, the Predator drone was first deployed in 2000 for combat surveillance under the CIA's "Operation Afghan Eyes". By 2011, the advanced MQ-9 Reaper drone, with "persistent hunter killer" capabilities, was heavily armed with missiles and bombs as well as sensors that could read disturbed dirt at 5,000 feet and track footprints back to enemy installations. Indicating the torrid pace of drone development, between 2004 and 2010 total flying time for all unmanned vehicles rose from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours.
Under Presidents Bush and Obama, defensive digital surveillance has grown into an offensive "cyberwarfare" capacity, which has already been deployed against Iran in history's first significant cyberwar. In 2009, the Pentagon formed US Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), with headquarters at Ft Meade, Maryland, and a cyberwarfare centre at Lackland Air Base in Texas, staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees.
In 2012, after years of ground warfare in both countries and the continuous expansion of the Pentagon budget, the Obama administration announced a leaner future defence strategy. It included a 14 percent cut in future infantry strength to be compensated for by an increased emphasis on investments in the dominions of outer space and cyberspace, particularly in what the administration calls "critical space-based capabilities".
By 2020, this new defence architecture should theoretically be able to integrate space, cyberspace and terrestrial combat through robotics for - so the claims go - the delivery of seamless information for lethal action. Significantly, both space and cyberspace are new, unregulated domains of military conflict, largely beyond international law.
And Washington hopes to use both, without limitation, as Archimedean levers to exercise new forms of global dominion far into the twenty-first century, just as the British Empire once ruled from the seas and the Cold War American imperium exercised its global reach via airpower.
This is in stark contrast to Kennedy's aspirations in his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech:
We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
http://www.sudvarg.com/spacerace/wechoosemoon.htm
Currently, as was the case for years in Iraq, Iran is in economic meltdown due to sanctions which amount to economic warfare: In Iraq, prior to the 2003 invasion, it is estimated that as many as 2 million people died as a direct result of the sanctions, many of them children. The infrastructure was devoid of function as it was smashed in the Gulf War and unable to be rebuilt due to the sanctions. When you consider the second heart transplant in the world was carried out in Iraq, it just shows how it was devastated and how the people suffered.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/9038..._rt_mc_focus_0
Checks are bouncing all over Iran today. Police in Tehran -
fired tear gas and tried to disperse the protesters, who rallied outside the capital's central bazaar. Many left their businesses and shuttered their shops.Indeed.
"Our checks bounced, our businesses are ruined," said a businessman who gave his name as Ali. "How shall we earn a living?"
The sanction-driven devaluation of the Iranian rial against the USD appears to be causing the same inflationary agony that the South experienced during the waning years of the Civil War.
The Grand Bazaar, the economic hub of Tehran, was shut down, as merchants, unable to determine what the rial was worth, effectively went on strike. U.S. and EU led sanctions against Iran have led to unrelated shortages as nervous banks ban all transactions with Iran rather than risk the ire of Washington and Brussels.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
They didn't have the motive. The PNAC was fixated on WMD being deployed by Saddam Hussein on Israel and US forces. Even after 911 they were so fixated. That suggests they were surprised.
9=11 wasn't the only terrorist attack. Indeed it had been attacked before. Either another attack, or the previous 9=11 attack could have been used at any time as justification of war. The only strong reason for the successful attack, it seems to me, would be the previous failure of the perpetrator.
The reasons the terrorist conspiracy worked were a) minimum involvement with any other organizations b) foreknowledge of enemy movements c) a very minimum of equipment d) minimal time to completion e) utter simplicity. Only b) would be natural common ground in the West, except perhaps for the Seals who took out OBL, and their plan suffered from being over-equipped.
Any additions to the features of this plan would have brought complications, barriers, postponements, whistleblowers, and reduced the plan's functionality. It didn't need all, or even any, of that crap. Occam ruled completely, and Sun Tzu would have approved.
Last edited by Jazzy; January 20th, 2013 at 05:52 AM.
Jazzy, I really love your absoluteness and assuredness.
The PNAC document/plan was about American supremacy on all levels and how to achieve it both on Earth and in Space.
Everyone knows Saddam had no WMD's. Iraq was a well known absolute wreck, infrastructure such as water supplies, hospitals, education, agriculture, trade ... all wrecked and unable to be rebuilt because of the ongoing sanctions from 1st Gulf War. 80% of the people were surviving on food stamp rations handed out by the government. It is estimated 2million died through malnutrition and disease directly attributable to the blockade/sanctions. It got so embarrassing that the U.N stopped counting the deaths at 500,000 many years before the end of sanctions.
Virtually the only reports of WMD's came from a convicted fraudster and this was well known by the Bush admin which preferred to rely on this rather than the many verified reports which contradicted this.
I suggest you please take the time to read the whole piece to get a good idea of what was happening, although to be honest this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I hope you seriously research the reality of what I stated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi
An arrest warrant for alleged counterfeiting was issued for Chalabi on August 8, 2004, while at the same time a warrant was issued on murder charges against his nephew Salem Chalabi (at the time, head of the Iraqi Special Tribunal), while they both were out of the country. Chalabi returned to Iraq on August 10 planning to make himself available to Iraqi government officials, but he was never arrested. Charges were later dropped against Ahmed Chalabi, with Judge Zuhair al-Maliki citing lack of evidence
9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions... it was all pre planned and 9/11 simply allowed it all to go full speed ahead rather than take decades. It's all in the PNAC.
But I guess that is not a motive for at least allowing it to happen?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Reciprocated.
That actually makes no difference to the utility of the plan.The PNAC document/plan was about American supremacy on all levels and how to achieve it both on Earth and in Space.
Those facts actually make no difference to the utility of the plan.Everyone knows = the only reports of WMD's - an arrest warrant - charges were later dropped - 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions
I can't accept there to be any common ground between arab men quite prepared to die in service of their god and hatred of their devil (WASPs) and WASPs determined to go to war to protect Israel and their common interests, stay in business, and make money. I'm sorry I can't see any sort of linkage or deal struck - ever.But I guess that is not a motive for at least allowing it to happen?
There are no evidential signs of the foreknowledge of the scope of the attacks even after twelve years, and those that would have had to be complicit lack the competence or the courage to have achieved such a successful cover-up. They are afraid of death.
OBL wasn't.
I cannot understand how you can possibly make such a statement.
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) a closed group of high-status Americans mostly of English Protestant or Germanic or Nordic ancestry. The term implies the group controls disproportionate social and financial power ...
have made deals with anyone and everyone who it best serves their interests to deal with, including Saddam, Gadaffi, Shah of Iran, OBL, Chalabi, Von Brown to name but a few. Middle east tyrants, or any other tyrant for that matter, is fine so long as they are 'friendly' to the U.S.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Many of the scientists involved in Unit 731 went on to prominent careers in post-war politics, academia, business, and medicine. Some were arrested by Soviet forces and tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials; others surrendered to the American Forces. It has been postulated that one reason the scientists were not tried was that the information and experience gained in the studies of the biological warfare was of a great value for the United States biological weapons development program
It is well known that virtually all those listed on 'the database'/Al Qaeda were funded by and assets of the CIA before they fell out over politics, (similar to Chalabi until he managed to worm his way back into the fold and another cushy position courtesy of the U.S.A.).
Again, I ask that you thoroughly read the link and think about your viewpoint.
http://www.atholbooks.org/archives/i...icles/iraq.php
Why has the invasion inspired from on high worked out so badly? After two years of being in denial of obvious facts and of obvious causative connection, he recently conceded that facts are facts—a few days after the White House downscaled democracy and upsized security. And he spoke as follows: It was put to him, on Al Jazeera television, that the invasion of Iraq has "so far been pretty much a disaster". He replied:"It has. You see, what I say to people is, 'Why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning. It's difficult because there is a deliberate strategy—al Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other—to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for War" (17 Nov).But the Shia are the majority people of Iraq and the Sunni are the second largest. And it is not the Kurds who are resisting the Occupation. And Al Qaeda only got into Iraq because Bush and Blair destroyed the state which kept them out. So one is left with a picture of Iraq in which the will for peace and the will for war are the same will—or the same wills.
You make them sound, (intentionally I presume), like crazed barbaric idiots who are jealous of Western success and happiness. That is what TPTB want people to think. They do not like people to research and know their dirty secrets and plans.
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 20th, 2013 at 08:01 AM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Can the above criteria also be applied to Al Qaeda?
Fatwa signed by OBL, Feb 3rd, 1998
On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all
Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual
duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it
Mick (January 20th, 2013)
Well, look into your mirror. That may be the way you see it, but it isn't mine.
Success and happiness are fleeting phenomena, and more so in the west. Happiness needs no material aid beyond daily sustenance to exist - in my experience.
Anyone that believes in "imaginary friends" IS crazed. "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war", and all that.
I shall pay more attention to you in the future. You're obviously a PTB. How would you know such stuff about them otherwise?That is what TPTB want people to think. They do not like people to research and know their dirty secrets and plans.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/news/osama.htmCan the above criteria also be applied to Al Qaeda?
Fatwa signed by OBL, Feb 3rd, 1998
On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all
Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual
duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it
Yes, undoubtedly would agree they are suspects. What I am proposing is they are not the 'exclusive' suspects.
Perhaps they had a hand in it or were the sole perpetrators but were 'allowed' to succeed or perhaps they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all and were 'set up'... I don't know. Perhaps the Bush admin were just totally incompetent in protecting America from the attack. Let us just rationally discuss how suspect they are in all this instead of mindlessly chanting 'America good, terrorists bad'. (NB obviously I don't mean that personally)
Certainly American foreign policy and interventions were the cause of the hatred toward America and the West. Should this be looked at... I think it should.
What I object to, is the portrayal that they are simply 'evil mindless religious extremists who declared war on America and allies for no good reason'. Religion does not come into it other than, as is usual, all sides think God is on their side. This is about politics; it's about abuse of power and people over decades and dis empowered/marginalised people who have nothing left to lose, fighting back.
I have never seen this fatwa before so thanks for that. What I find very interesting about it is, OBL appears to be complaining about the same things that alarm me and many others, including Ron Paul; that is the systemic abuse of the people of Iraq, (the civilians that is) and the manipulation of the M.E states for the profit of the West and Israel. It is outright abuse of power and imperialism along the lines of the Romans and the British. In this day and age we should not be operating like this, IMO.
Apparently he says, and I highlight the most telling part (IMO), although all of it is a sad indictment:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
As I read it, it seems clear that he believed a further attack on Iraq was imminent, whatever happened.
Make no bones about it... I cheered as much as anyone else when Hussein was driven out of Kuwait in the early 90's. He was a tyrant and a murderer a self gratifying abomination but we, and I mean the West, had no right to punish the people of Iraq to that extent. We are supposed to be the good guys. And BTW let's not forget that the Kuwaiti's and Saudi's are not the nicest of rulers either.
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 20th, 2013 at 12:26 PM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
You lost me
Very philosophical... But?Success and happiness are fleeting phenomena, and more so in the west. Happiness needs no material aid beyond daily sustenance to exist - in my experience.
You lost me againAnyone that believes in "imaginary friends" IS crazed. "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war", and all that.
Yeah... nice try!! LolI shall pay more attention to you in the future. You're obviously a PTB. How would you know such stuff about them otherwise?
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 20th, 2013 at 12:36 PM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
There is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that "they" perpetrated the events of that day. Any belief of complicity on the part of the US government is based on nothing more than extremely weak circumstantial evidence at best and/or distrust of the US government.
This one of the most naive/misguided comments I have seen you make...Considering that "they" base their entire ideology on their religion, and that they justify killing based on their religion, that they use their religion to recruit soldiers for their "holy war", it is very much about religion for them. The underlying power politics help stir the pot but the drive for "jihad" goes deeper than that.
That you sympathize with Osama Bin Laden and his world view does not bear evidence that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the attacks of 9/11.
Last edited by SR1419; January 20th, 2013 at 01:12 PM.
Then answer me this, why do so many people in the West, (let alone the rest of the world), believe there is likely Bush administration/CIA complicity. Why do these CT's have so much traction from politicians, senior intelligence personnel, journalists, firefighters, engineers, scientists, pilots, military personnel.... Why do so many people distrust the government and especially the Bush regime? Let's face it, criminal actions by the President are not without precedent.
I am sorry you feel that way but I disagree. You suggest this is all about religion but there is absolutely nothing to substantiate that. Did you not read what OBL apparently said.... millions killed and suffering... political pressures in the M.E... threats of invasions. I have every sympathy for the victims of 9/11 but I also have sympathy for the Middle East families that have lost their lives and suffered. I have yet to see anyone on this site even acknowledge... let alone express regret for the suffering that has been inflicted on these people. I find that very telling. And BTW, you conveniently fail to mention the multiple times that GWB refers to 'crusades' which is the western equivalent of Jihad.This one of the most naive/misguided comments I have seen you make...Considering that "they" base their entire ideology on their religion, and that they justify killing based on their religion, that they use their religion to recruit soldiers for their "holy war", it is very much about religion for them. The underlying power politics help stir the pot but the drive for "jihad" goes deeper than that.
I did not say that I sympathised... there is a huge difference between understanding and sympathising. This demonising M.E Countries needs to stop. I do not agree with all that Ron Paul stands for but I do agree America should cease it's aggression and concentrate on defense and that includes not backing other nations into corners and pillaging their natural resources by force or installing puppet governments or cowing the peoples by force and threats or starvation just simply on the basis that they are big enough and powerful enough to do it. The only way it will stop is when the American people get up enough steam to stop it.That you sympathize with Osama Bin Laden and his world view does not bear evidence that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the attacks of 9/11.
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 20th, 2013 at 01:42 PM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
I think though that there is a large variety in the degree of complicity that people suspect. Many of them might simply be thinking that Bush (et al) de-prioritized counterterrorism because a terrorist attack of some kind would be useful. This does not then mean they knew anything about the 9/11 attacks.
Of it could mean that they think political forces were involved in the 9/11 commission report, which is hardly a controversial position.
Why do people distrust the government? Really? It's because the government is comprised of politicians.
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt
CREW’s eighth report on congressional corruption names 20 members of Congress – 12 members who engaged in serious misconduct and 8 members whose misdeeds earned them a dishonorable mention. Most members on CREW’s list violated the law and all flagrantly ignored the rules. For the majority, there have been few consequences.There was no shortage of candidates for CREW’s list this year, and 11 of the 20 members are joining it for the first time. In addition, one member, Rep. David Rivera (R-FL), has been under investigation by no fewer than six separate authorities – quite the rap sheet for a freshman. Others, including Reps. Michael Grimm (R-NY), Greg Meeks (D-NY), and Vern Buchanan (R- FL), are also fending off inquiries on multiple fronts. Nine members violated campaign finance or personal financial disclosure rules.
At least 14 members apparently are or have been under investigation either by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the House or Senate ethics committees, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or law enforcement agencies. Members on the list have steered campaign donations and taxpayer money to themselves and their families, concealed the source of campaign funds, traded campaign contributions for official action, and abused their positions.
The 2012 list arrives as Americans’ contempt for Congress appears to be reaching all-time highs. A July 2012 Gallup poll found reducing corruption in the federal government was the second-highest priority for the next president to address. It followed only creating good jobs, and ranked higher than other significant concerns such as reducing the deficit and dealing with terrorism. Meanwhile, the lack of ethics enforcement is fueling a loss of confidence as voters grow weary of seemingly endless scandals. By highlighting congressional misdeeds, CREW hopes to bring about change and help rebuild the public trust.
People always distrust the government in some way or another - there is no single one government out there that is trusted without a doubt. I don't see your point, unless you're suggesting suspicion is not normal, or if there was more suspicion than normal (if that's even measurable).
And I agree, criminal actions are not without precedent, especially by the President of the United States. That being said, the basis and evidence of criminal actions by the Bush administration (at least regarding 9/11) is weak at best.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Cairenn (February 4th, 2013)
Your "so many" is likely a small percentage of the whole. Moreover, that suspicion does not substitute for lack of evidence.
Let me get this straight....OBL issues a religious edict based on the teaching of the Koran justifying the killing of people..and you say there is "nothing to substantiate" the role that religion has played in this? Fascinating. Not sure how to respond to such blatant disregard for the facts. Religion is, in fact, the prime motivating factor- or at least the underlying tenet- in suicide bomber missions.
For record- I did NOT say it was "all" about religion- but to suggest it does not play a major role and or is the prime moral justification used by jihadists is just flat out wrong.
Jazzy (January 21st, 2013)
Yes quite, but we are not talking here of the 'usual' distrust such as Berlusconi or the U.K, M.P expenses etc, (disregarding that they have been proven), we are talking about major distrust verging on paranoia in that people think Bush et al are responsible or complicit in 9/11 and that there are plans to depopulate the World, including America. This is not normal IMO and yes I would argue that degree of mistrust is highly measurable, specifically in terms of the numbers who distrust and the degree of 'the crime' that politicians are thought capable of.
Plane says:Apart from noticing that yet again, the issue of America's foreign policy and it's affect on anti American feeling is totally ignored; if the evidence is weak at best, which I do not agree, then why are so many people convinced they had something to do with it. It does not make sense... people are generally patriotic and will not go against their government without good reason for suspicion, especially when their Country is the victim.the basis and evidence of criminal actions by the Bush administration (at least regarding 9/11) is weak at best
There are numerous accounts of prior warnings from divergent sources, including OBL himself. 'The Dancing Israelis' "documenting the event", (9/11) are just one instance of apparent foreknowledge and you state earlier that you consider 'high level whistle blowers', as evidence but you failed to comment on that when I offered video testimony from Susan Lindauer previously on another thread.
I am guessing you will say she is neither high level or a whistleblower, but put it this way, how is she so knowledgeable and connected and is it unsurprising that the authorities would want to discredit anyone revealing such secrets. They would hardly say "Oh, ok, we are caught, we own up".
She talks about pay offs, foreknowledge, planting explosives, the state of Iraq and the people who died as a result of U.S foreign policy, plans for regime change etc etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer
Lindauer claims she was conducting peace negotiations with representatives of Muslim countries (including Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, and Yemen) in New York. According to transcripts Lindauer presented to the New York Times in 2004, these included meetings with Iraqi Muthanna al-Hanooti, another peace activist later accused of spying. Lindauer also says that the U.S. intelligence community was aware of these meetings and monitoring her.[2] (She also discussed them directly in communications with Card.)[13]
Richard Fuisz met with Lindauer weekly since 1994. He said that he had banned her from her office after September 11, 2001, when her ideas became "malignant" and "seditious".[2] Lindauer later claimed that she had been a CIA asset during this period.[14
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 20th, 2013 at 03:33 PM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Not normal? It's perfectly normal! Haven't you read Paranoid Style?
http://paranoidstyle.com/
Dancing Israelis:
http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html
Lindauer does not seem at all credible. She offers no actual evidence.
Except her verbal evidence of a certain degree of general foreknowledge of some form of imminent attack on the WTC. Absolutely true. The rest was opinion, and the technical part didn't ring true at all.
I like this: "the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque" from Paranoid Style. How accurate is that?
We are all against sin, Oxymoron. I accept her honesty and support much of her stance (except for the above considerations!), but there is no evidence of direct involvement with the PTB here.
I hope she gets on a lecture circuit and tells everyone her story. But it's a back story involving only a limited circle of names somewhere down the pyramid from an isolated individual's point of view, revealing only what it reveals. The rest of the pyramid may have been entirely placid, and yet the same story might unfold. That's assuming it to be true in the first place.
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters”
― Albert Einstein
Last edited by Jazzy; January 21st, 2013 at 02:23 AM.
That is an interesting interpretation IMO. Perhaps you would offer some specific examples of the 'type' of 'actual evidence' you feel she, (or someone in her position), could have offered to make her/their verbal and written evidence 'credible', just so we know exactly what type of evidence is lacking and therefore are looking for?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Documents
Recordings
Photos
Evidence that she was where she says she was, tickets, reciepts
Corroborating testimony, independently obtained.
Financial records
Cairenn (February 4th, 2013)
And you find it strange that she is unable to produce such documentation after being held for four years under The Patriot Act or that it would be inappropriate to tape or steal documents in her position as an asset?
Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed classified material to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. He was charged with a number of offenses, including communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and aiding the enemy, a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty.[1] He was arraigned in February 2012 at Fort Meade, Maryland, where he declined to enter a plea. The trial is expected to begin in June 2013.[2]
Even though prosecutors say they are not seeking the Death Penalty, many are calling for it!
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 21st, 2013 at 05:49 AM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
I find that there is no such documentation. Now you can posit reasons as to why there would not be documentation, but regardless that does not make her story MORE credible, it's still the same level of credibility.
Reasons why evidence would not exist does not meant that the evidence likely did exist at some point.
And on top of this, her well documented history of mental illness does not reflect particularly well on her testimony.
46046645-US-v-Susan-Lindauer-NYSD-448-F-Supp-2d-558-2006.pdf
At the instance of her attorney, Lindauer was examined initially in January 2005 by Sanford
L. Drob, Ph.D., a psychologist. Thereafter, in May and July 2005, she was examined by Dr.
Stuart B. Kleinman, a government-retained psychiatrist. In September 2005, she agreed to go
voluntarily to the Federal Medical Center, a Bureau of Prisons facility in Carswell, Texas, to
undergo examination and, if necessary, treatment. There, she was examined and/or her
records and other documentation reviewed by at least two psychologists and two
psychiatrists on the staff of that facility. In addition, her records and other documentation
were reviewed by Dr. Robert L. Goldstein, a psychiatrist retained by the defense. Whatever
their differences in diagnosis, or as to the efficacy of forced medication, all agreed that
Lindauer suffers grandiose and paranoid delusions
[...]
Dr. Kleinman
describes a history of psychotic phenomena and episodes going back to defendant's
childhood, possibly as early as the age of 7, including purported gifts of prophecy and
spiritual visitations (Kleinman 9/13/05 Report at 8-11; 5/4/06 Tr. at 93) as well as mood
disturbance (id. at 12-14) and three varieties of hallucinations (Kleinman 9/13/05 Report at
14-21). He then cites five examples of Lindauer's own writings as reflecting delusions of
grandiosity: she suggests that she reported 11 bombings before they occurred, suggests that
she speaks with divine inspiration, places herself at the center of events in the Middle East,
and declares herself to be an angel. Further, he cites seven of her writings as evidence of
paranoid delusions: that she was under government surveillance from hidden cameras inside
her apartment; that the CIA and FBI were after her because of difficulties in this country's
relationship with Syria; that the Egyptian government had made an attempt on her life; that
the intelligence community was subverting her, including by blowing up the modem on her
computer; that men next door had videotaped her on instructions of President Clinton; and
that other threats and surveillance had been carried out against her (id. at 26-32). As a
further example of both grandiosity and paranoia, he cites evidence that Lindauer has
believed that objectively neutral environmental stimuli— such as lights going on or off, or a
statement by a radio announcer—refer specifically to her (id. at 32-33).
[...]
Dr. Drob, the defense psychologist, based his conclusions solely on interviews with Lindauer,
and reported only grandiose delusions, although he did report her claim that the government
fabricated documents in connection with the current case. (Drob Report 2/28/05 at 7) He
noted that defendant is adamant that she is in fact "an important government operative and
that all her actions were in fact sanctioned by the intelligence branches of the United States
government." (Id. at 5) She was, she claimed, a "back door channel between the U.S. and
Iraq." (Id. at 6) He said that she insisted also she is owed and was cheated out of millions of
dollars for negotiating with Libya, apparently to secure reparations in connection with the
1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. (Id. at 5, 6) Although Dr. Drob
was resolutely agnostic even as to claims by Lindauer about her involvement in the Lockerbie
negotiations, her role in getting weapons inspectors into Iraq, and her involvement in getting
President Clinton to prevent a nuclear terrorist act in the United States in 1995,
characterizing such claims only as "extremely unlikely" (id. at 13), he did conclude that "when
Ms. Lindauer begins to speak about her psychic powers it becomes eminently clear that she
is delusional, and that the grandiose claims she makes about her participation in government
affairs (although they may contain kernels of truth) are in all likelihood largely the product of
her own psychotically disturbed imagination." (Id. at 14) He dismissed her claim that she had
prophesies about the Iraq war when she was a little girl, and knew days in advance of every
specific target in Iraq and every assassination, as "delusional on its face." (Id.)
Dr. Goldstein, the defense psychiatrist, was somewhat less tentative, dismissing as "classic
examples of the grandiose variety" her claims that she was "a preeminent government
operative who was not sufficiently appreciated" and had contact with high-level government
figures, and was possessed of psychic powers. (Goldstein Report 5/20/06 at 3) He reported
also that "many of Ms. Lindauer's delusions are classic examples of the persecutory type".
(Id.)
There's lots more.
Hey Oxy
Stick this in your PNAC basket, just for good measure
- Philip Zelikow | Foreign Affairs
www.foreignaffairs.com › Authors
25+ items – Foreign Affairs Focus: Homeland Security Since 9/11 With ...
Philip Zelikow and Jonathan D. Tepperman Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age
Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger | Foreign Affairs
www.foreignaffairs.com › Features › Essays
By Ashton B. Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow ... Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response ...
Philip D. Zelikow | Foreign Affairs
www.foreignaffairs.com › Authors
Philip D. Zelikow. The executive director of the 9/11 Commission argues that American defenses against terrorism have been improved, but he says politics and ...
Philip D. Zelikow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
Here he has been working on his newest book U.S. Foreign Policy: An Interpretive History. ... He was adjunct professor of national security affairs at the Naval ...
Education - Career - Works written or co-written - Miscellaneous
A Conversation with Philip Zelikow - Council on Foreign Relations
www.cfr.org/united-states/conversation-philip-zelikow/p25860
Sep 12, 2011 – Just recently the Council on Foreign Relations actually published a ..... ZELIKOW: It does make us -- it does make us somewhat more secure.
Philip D. Zelikow - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs ...
belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu › Experts
"Almost from the beginning, a central theme of U.S. foreign policy has ... Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Philip D. Zelikow, ...
Shadow Government contributors - Shadow Government - Foreign ...
shadow.foreignpolicy.com/node/10652
He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group. ... He coordinated the U.S. government's foreign assistance programs in .... (Dr. Philip Zelikow), as a Strategist in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, ...
Bush regime retread, Philip Zelikow, appointed to Obama's ...
911scholars.ning.com/.../bush-regime-retread-philip-zelikow-appoint...
3 posts - 3 authors - 19 Sep 2011
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, Phillip D. Zelikow co-authored an article with Ashton B. Carter, and John M. Deutch ...
Philip Zelikow | Corcoran Department of History
www.virginia.edu/history/user/58
Modern world, 20th century US, American foreign policy. Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History and also leads the University's Graduate ...
Zelikow: 9/11 Master Criminal Appointed By Obama | My Catbird Seat
mycatbirdseat.com/.../zelikow-911-master-criminal-appointed-by-ob...
Sep 21, 2011 – Zelikow has admitted that the US public has been terrorized by ... Zelikow co-authored a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs speculating on the likely ...
Zelikow, the executive in charge of the 911 Commission Report; friend of Condoleezza Rice, the 'former' board member of, er, Exxon wasn't it - one of those big oil thieves (they also co-authored a book); Zelikow's college thesis - Creating Public Myths; Zelikow's Foreign Affairs white paper (co-authored with John Deutch and Ashton Carter - I recommend a quick look at these two charming characters for more context) - Catastrophic Terrorism: [...] Imagining the Transformative Event (1998), lucky for Z, D and C they didn't have to imagine it for very long; Zelikow's a professional liar and worse. And Obama appointed him, all liars together then.
But obviously, here in Meta world, that will gain no traction. It's 'irrelevant', didn't you know? The usual band of ardent denialists, astroturfers and the so totally committed that they spend the best part of their waking life running two websites designed to 'stay around'. For whatever reason, these people have backed themselves into a corner over this, there'll be no mind changing, just more digging in. I don't mean this in an inciteful way - it's just obvious.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the gangsters in charge enjoy support in places like this. In the end, none of this chit chat means anything in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, no stone unturned, no-one above the law (anymore). It's clear that hasn't taken place yet. That should be the aim, I reckon.
Last edited by lee h oswald; January 21st, 2013 at 09:46 AM.
Its interesting to note that Zelikow's paper "Catastrophic terrorism" was entirely about being prepared for nuclear, chemical, and biological terrorism....and was not about conventional terrorism of hi-jacking planes and blowing up buildings.
But whatever...it has a catchy title so it must damning "evidence"- don't let the facts get in the way of your screed of insults and bitter ranting.
Philip Zelikow | Corcoran Department of History
www.virginia.edu/history/user/58
Modern world, 20th century US, American foreign policy. Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History and also leads the University's Graduate ...
The philosopher, Albert Camus, said: While waiting to dominate space, the empire sees itself also compelled to reign over time. In denying every last truth, it is compelled to go to the point of denying the very lowest form of truth - the truth of history.
Seems apposite.
^ grandiose but empty.
The philosopher Dr. Seuss once said: "I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
seems apposite.
Cairenn (February 4th, 2013)
I disagree. I think the discussions about physics and what-not are quite important. Because it primarily the incredulity surrounding the physical events that fuels the calls for "truth". The physics informs the type of inquiry. A world in which progressive collapse of the WTC is impossible without explosives is vastly different from one where it is not.
Qed
This is apt also:
I realise it is not the same but out of interest, are you suggesting that a witness' testimony on oath is not credible without photo's, tapes, or suchlike. Or if Susan Lindauer were to be the sole witness of a murder tomorrow, she could not give evidence or identify somone or relay a conversation without she produced corroborating evidence?
Accepted but under the circumstances, your argument seems to imply 'if the evidence is removed it is a fait accomplis' Not sure why but the term "Burn Notice" comes to mind.Reasons why evidence would not exist does not meant that the evidence likely did exist at some point.
Yes but is it not very convenient and strange how the paper trail for her 'delusions' start in 2005, with government appointed psychiatrists.[/EX]And on top of this, her well documented history of mental illness does not reflect particularly well on her testimony.
The FBI did really well though... it only took them 5 years to catch onto what she was doing:
Lindauer repeatedly violated U.S. law beginning in 1999 by meeting with Iraqi diplomats at the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York and with agents of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Intelligence Service (I.I.S.)
I would expect no less... BTW will you please provide a source for your previous extract as I cannot locate it. ThanksThere's lots more.
Out of interest and obviously not qualifying as 'proof', there are other takes on her mental state of health.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00263.htm
The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial
After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.
Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense.
Today's testimony was limited to what is known as "lay" witnesses. Lindauer's expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she's competent to stand trial.
More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O'Meara
Dr. Godfrey's testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer's defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer's personality and behavior. He said that she was "mercurial," subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he'd never seen her as having any mental impediments.
Kelly O'Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer's behalf. O'Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She's a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.
When examined by the prosecution, O'Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O'Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O'Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.
Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill's Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, 'O'Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O'Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Oxymoron, this could simply be a back story of a CIA operative who disagreed with the actions of her government, and its desperate attempts to keep her from public view.
There is no link except her premonition. Can't you see that the above proposition is at least of equal weight?
Last edited by Jazzy; January 21st, 2013 at 11:50 PM.
I reckon one gets the politicians one deserves.
Honi soit qui mal y pense, old boy.But obviously, here in Meta world, that will gain no traction. It's 'irrelevant', didn't you know? The usual band of ardent denialists, astroturfers and the so totally committed that they spend the best part of their waking life running two websites designed to 'stay around'. For whatever reason, these people have backed themselves into a corner over this, there'll be no mind changing, just more digging in. I don't mean this in an inciteful way - it's just obvious.
That must have been a comfort to you.It shouldn't be a surprise that the gangsters in charge enjoy support in places like this. In the end, none of this chit chat means anything in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, no stone unturned, no-one above the law (anymore). It's clear that hasn't taken place yet. That should be the aim, I reckon.
Oxymoron (January 22nd, 2013)
But is it not the case that a CIA asset who disagrees with the actions of their government and who raises those issues at a high level, (only to be arrested and incarcerated for 4 years), and who then goes on to publicise why they disagreed with the actions of their government, qualifies as a legitimate 'whistle blower' under the definition of a whistle blower? Should such a person who has risked life and liberty not be given due regard, public support and an open investigation of the allegations made?
And if the information made public by that whistle blower includes specific foreknowledge of a devastating attack and the government deny knowledge that they had been forewarned about this specific foreknowledge which could likely have averted the attack; should this not be openly investigated and every effort made to get to the truth?
And if a government, willfully falsifies involvement of and manufactures reason to go to war with a foreign power, should this not be thoroughly and openly investigated and the truth ascertained?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Thank you very much for that video Jazzy. That is an exceptionally well presented dissertation on a well coined philosophy IMO.
If you don't mind my saying, I thought your comment above was not really in the spirit of the message, perhaps a slightly negative interpretation of a positive?
Would you agree with what he says though?
Last edited by Oxymoron; January 22nd, 2013 at 03:46 AM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Just a bit more information which debunks your flawed to the core above statement.... there is lots more.... far wiser to retract IMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.
Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."[7][20] Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith.[15
He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[22][23]
Whoah... hang on a minute, was this not one of the reasons why Iraq needed to be invaded? But America was behind it? Something a bit fishy here?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks