Conspiracy theorist are dangerous and irresponsible

[ConspiracyKiller]

I have sadly noticed that the majority of “INSANE” conspiracy theorist still believe and support the mad ravings of an obviously deranged lunatic and they have sadly not realized how they have been misled or the dangers (which can be deadly) of promoting such a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

If they could only see the dangers of conspiracies maybe they would not be so eager to just blindly except such foolishness. But even when presented with historical examples of how such conspiracies have been responsible for much hatred and death (eg; A distinctive feature of Nazi antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory). But when presented with such historical references they simply insist this time is different because the conspiracy is true even though they have NO EVIDENCE to support it.

Unfortunately these pitiful and mentally unstable fools (whom were easily duped) still believe that the following statements from a criminally insane lunatic regarding an unfounded conspiracy theory (that was debunked the moment it was conceived) are true:

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,

The worst part about it is how these HORRIBLY INSANE conspiracy theorist continue to believe and SUPPORT the above PROVEN LIES even after the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and by the US troops combing through Saddam's computers which have turned up “NO” evidence supporting Bush’s ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theory.

And sadly these ignorant and foolish conspiracy theorist continue to cling to this repeatedly debunked conspiracy despite the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history --- chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people —- have been unable to show “ANY” operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.

Worse is that the majority of these INSANE conspiracy theorist believe that all the individuals whom provided intelligence for The 2001 President’s Daily Brief, 2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations, 2002 DIA reports, 2002 British intelligence report, 2003 CIA report, 2003 British intelligence report, 2003 Israeli intelligence Report, 2004 Carnegie study, 2004 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, 2004 CIA report, 2005 update of CIA report, 2006 Pentagon study, 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report, 2008 Pentagon report, 2008 Senate report, including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence were all involved in a massive conspiracy to undermine Bush and embolden the enemy by concluding in ALL the above reports that there were NO operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.
Joseph Goebbels said “...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, ‘and this will always be the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology… Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals.”

The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire was supposed to serve as a signal launching the (Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy) Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign for nothing unites a people more than when they believe they are constantly under attack and fighting a common enemy. The Jews were convenient enemies.

Just as the Muslims have now become a convenient enemy of conspiracy theorist. Like in Nazi Germany when many hardline right wing circles talked about a supposed ‘Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy we now have crazed conspiracy theorist who believe in a massive Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world. Here are some of their recent quotes;

“Muslims attacked us because we were not Muslims.” “Muslims want a Muslim world.” “If we did not support Israel at all and had never been in Saudi Arabia, they would still attack us. Why? Because we are Westerners.” “I am referring to history and the known (but not widely understood) nature of Islam.” “Muslims wish to have a fully Muslim world.”

“Fast forward a little while and see the new way that the Muslims are taking to attempt world domination. They are not a country so it is easy to miss. They have a two pronged attack this time. One is to commit acts of terrorism and get the world in part to submit to their wishes to get them to stop (and ironically to generate sympathy for their cause in spite of them being the ones to kill others). The other is to emigrate and have children in selected countries in order to become a political power in those countries.”

“I simply speak the truth about what is happening in the world and how the Muslims are moving in it.”
Why do these conspiracy theorist fall for the oldest trick in the book? So many of them excepted the ridiculous conspiracy theory that "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" that they went as far as to support torture and willingly gave up their civil liberties.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”—Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Are we doomed to have history repeat its self because simple minded fools will always fall for the oldest propaganda trick in history which is of course conspiracy theories?

[LightinDarkness]

Are we doomed to have history repeat its self because simple minded fools will always fall for the oldest propaganda trick in history which is of course conspiracy theories?

No, we are far more likely to have history repeat itself because partisan political hacks can't seem to stop themselves from frothing at the mouth and acting hysterical when someone not of their political ideology is in power.

You need to seek help friend. You have a very severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is especially concerning because its been months since Bush has been in power and those who align themselves with your ideology are now in complete control. But of course you can't critique them for the countless disasters they've had complete control over, because then you wouldn't be suffering from BDS. :)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

OMG! You've turned the terms around and called US "conspiracy theorists"!

How original and clever!





Or not... (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/064.html)

[malcolmxwarrior]

I have sadly noticed that the majority of “INSANE” conspiracy theorist still believe and support the mad ravings of an obviously deranged lunatic and they have sadly not realized how they have been misled or the dangers (which can be deadly) of promoting such a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

If they could only see the dangers of conspiracies maybe they would not be so eager to just blindly except such foolishness. But even when presented with historical examples of how such conspiracies have been responsible for much hatred and death (eg; A distinctive feature of Nazi antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory). But when presented with such historical references they simply insist this time is different because the conspiracy is true even though they have NO EVIDENCE to support it.

Unfortunately these pitiful and mentally unstable fools (whom were easily duped) still believe that the following statements from a criminally insane lunatic regarding an unfounded conspiracy theory (that was debunked the moment it was conceived) are true:

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,

The worst part about it is how these HORRIBLY INSANE conspiracy theorist continue to believe and SUPPORT the above PROVEN LIES even after the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and by the US troops combing through Saddam's computers which have turned up “NO” evidence supporting Bush’s ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theory.

And sadly these ignorant and foolish conspiracy theorist continue to cling to this repeatedly debunked conspiracy despite the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history --- chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people —- have been unable to show “ANY” operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.

Worse is that the majority of these INSANE conspiracy theorist believe that all the individuals whom provided intelligence for The 2001 President’s Daily Brief, 2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations, 2002 DIA reports, 2002 British intelligence report, 2003 CIA report, 2003 British intelligence report, 2003 Israeli intelligence Report, 2004 Carnegie study, 2004 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, 2004 CIA report, 2005 update of CIA report, 2006 Pentagon study, 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report, 2008 Pentagon report, 2008 Senate report, including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence were all involved in a massive conspiracy to undermine Bush and embolden the enemy by concluding in ALL the above reports that there were NO operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.
Joseph Goebbels said “...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, ‘and this will always be the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology… Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals.”

The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire was supposed to serve as a signal launching the (Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy) Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign for nothing unites a people more than when they believe they are constantly under attack and fighting a common enemy. The Jews were convenient enemies.

Just as the Muslims have now become a convenient enemy of conspiracy theorist. Like in Nazi Germany when many hardline right wing circles talked about a supposed ‘Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy we now have crazed conspiracy theorist who believe in a massive Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world. Here are some of their recent quotes;

“Muslims attacked us because we were not Muslims.” “Muslims want a Muslim world.” “If we did not support Israel at all and had never been in Saudi Arabia, they would still attack us. Why? Because we are Westerners.” “I am referring to history and the known (but not widely understood) nature of Islam.” “Muslims wish to have a fully Muslim world.”

“Fast forward a little while and see the new way that the Muslims are taking to attempt world domination. They are not a country so it is easy to miss. They have a two pronged attack this time. One is to commit acts of terrorism and get the world in part to submit to their wishes to get them to stop (and ironically to generate sympathy for their cause in spite of them being the ones to kill others). The other is to emigrate and have children in selected countries in order to become a political power in those countries.”

“I simply speak the truth about what is happening in the world and how the Muslims are moving in it.”
Why do these conspiracy theorist fall for the oldest trick in the book? So many of them excepted the ridiculous conspiracy theory that "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" that they went as far as to support torture and willingly gave up their civil liberties.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”—Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Are we doomed to have history repeat its self because simple minded fools will always fall for the oldest propaganda trick in history which is of course conspiracy theories?

Good post.

However I'll have to agree with lightindarkness. You do come off a little partisan.

Obama is gonna try to do what alexander couldn't. Conquer afghanistan!

[1337m4n]

I have sadly noticed that the majority of “INSANE” conspiracy theorist still believe and support the mad ravings of an obviously deranged lunatic and they have sadly not realized how they have been misled or the dangers (which can be deadly) of promoting such a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

If they could only see the dangers of conspiracies maybe they would not be so eager to just blindly except such foolishness. But even when presented with historical examples of how such conspiracies have been responsible for much hatred and death (eg; A distinctive feature of Nazi antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory). But when presented with such historical references they simply insist this time is different because the conspiracy is true even though they have NO EVIDENCE to support it.

Unfortunately these pitiful and mentally unstable fools (whom were easily duped) still believe that the following statements from a criminally insane lunatic regarding an unfounded conspiracy theory (that was debunked the moment it was conceived) are true:

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,

The worst part about it is how these HORRIBLY INSANE conspiracy theorist continue to believe and SUPPORT the above PROVEN LIES even after the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and by the US troops combing through Saddam's computers which have turned up “NO” evidence supporting Bush’s ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theory.

And sadly these ignorant and foolish conspiracy theorist continue to cling to this repeatedly debunked conspiracy despite the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history --- chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people —- have been unable to show “ANY” operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.

Worse is that the majority of these INSANE conspiracy theorist believe that all the individuals whom provided intelligence for The 2001 President’s Daily Brief, 2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations, 2002 DIA reports, 2002 British intelligence report, 2003 CIA report, 2003 British intelligence report, 2003 Israeli intelligence Report, 2004 Carnegie study, 2004 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, 2004 CIA report, 2005 update of CIA report, 2006 Pentagon study, 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report, 2008 Pentagon report, 2008 Senate report, including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence were all involved in a massive conspiracy to undermine Bush and embolden the enemy by concluding in ALL the above reports that there were NO operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.
Joseph Goebbels said “...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, ‘and this will always be the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology… Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals.”

The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire was supposed to serve as a signal launching the (Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy) Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign for nothing unites a people more than when they believe they are constantly under attack and fighting a common enemy. The Jews were convenient enemies.

Just as the Muslims have now become a convenient enemy of conspiracy theorist. Like in Nazi Germany when many hardline right wing circles talked about a supposed ‘Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy we now have crazed conspiracy theorist who believe in a massive Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world. Here are some of their recent quotes;

“Muslims attacked us because we were not Muslims.” “Muslims want a Muslim world.” “If we did not support Israel at all and had never been in Saudi Arabia, they would still attack us. Why? Because we are Westerners.” “I am referring to history and the known (but not widely understood) nature of Islam.” “Muslims wish to have a fully Muslim world.”

“Fast forward a little while and see the new way that the Muslims are taking to attempt world domination. They are not a country so it is easy to miss. They have a two pronged attack this time. One is to commit acts of terrorism and get the world in part to submit to their wishes to get them to stop (and ironically to generate sympathy for their cause in spite of them being the ones to kill others). The other is to emigrate and have children in selected countries in order to become a political power in those countries.”

“I simply speak the truth about what is happening in the world and how the Muslims are moving in it.”
Why do these conspiracy theorist fall for the oldest trick in the book? So many of them excepted the ridiculous conspiracy theory that "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" that they went as far as to support torture and willingly gave up their civil liberties.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”—Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Are we doomed to have history repeat its self because simple minded fools will always fall for the oldest propaganda trick in history which is of course conspiracy theories?

0/10.


You need trolling lessons. Please attend the Encyclopedia Dramatica School of Trolling (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page) for about year, then return here and we'll see if your skills have improved.

[ConspiracyKiller]

No, we are far more likely to have history repeat itself because partisan political hacks can't seem to stop themselves from frothing at the mouth and acting hysterical when someone not of their political ideology is in power.

You need to seek help friend. You have a very severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is especially concerning because its been months since Bush has been in power and those who align themselves with your ideology are now in complete control. But of course you can't critique them for the countless disasters they've had complete control over, because then you wouldn't be suffering from BDS. :)

Not all of us conservatives agreed with Bush's war or spending. And speaking of spending only Mr. "change" could make Bush's spending look like pocket change.

March 31 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.
The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Good post.

However I'll have to agree with lightindarkness. You do come off a little partisan.

Obama is gonna try to do what alexander couldn't. Conquer afghanistan!

Could someone explain why Mr. "Change" thinks we need to conquer Afghanistan or how that is some kind of change. It just seems like more of the same to me? I certainly don't buy the "we there to get Osama bin Laden" lie.

Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 9/16/2002]

This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 10/22/2001]

At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 10/26/2001]

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]

One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002]

Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”[Salon, 9/16/2002]

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” [BBC, 2001]

In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.”

The Guardian reports that “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.”

MSNBC Reports that President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days before Sept. 11

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden" [Guardian 10/2001]

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.

General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that “the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.”

Now tell me why I should belive "we are there to get Osama bin Laden".

[kookbreaker]

So, its been how many years? How is that pipeline coming along?

[ConspiracyKiller]

So, its been how many years? How is that pipeline coming along?

Its going along just as well as the war in Afghanistan is.

And before anyone thinks I'm suggesting the war is all about a pipeline I'm not. I was just pointing out that those in power obviously felt there were enough reasons for military action in Afghanistan despite bin laden and I'm sure most of those reasons we don't know about but apparently the pentagon feels there is a strategic benefit to us being there.

Though its clear that what ever their reason (assumed strategic geo political positioning for some influence with Iran and Russia) its easier for Mr. Change to invoke the "were there to get bin laden" BS and declare it the "good war" to justify continued military action.

[dudalb]

We have a whole batch of new Tin Foilers, but no new ideas.
And this makes about the 10'000 time somebody has tried the "Official Theory is a Conspiracy Theory" ploy on us.
And the pipeline ....that is so old and tired.
BTW, congratulations, Conspiracy Killer. You have fournd one supporter here, and this guy the guy is a Jew Hating Loon.

[ConspiracyKiller]

We have a whole batch of new Tin Foilers, but no new ideas.
And this makes about the 10'000 time somebody has tried the "Official Theory is a Conspiracy Theory" ploy on us.
And the pipeline ....that is so old and tired.
BTW, congratulations, Conspiracy Killer. You have fournd one supporter here, and this guy the guy is a Jew Hating Loon.

Let me get this straight, Your labeling me a tin foiler because I have pointed out how only insane conspiracy theorist believe that all the individuals whom provided intelligence including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence were involved in a massive conspiracy to undermine Bush and embolden the enemy by concluding in ALL the above reports that there were NO operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda are "OBVIOUSLY" to anyone but you a conspiracy theorist.

Ok, then could you please show some EVIDENCE to support that the conspiracy theory of operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda are a fact and not some crazy wingnut theory. I think to support your position it would be better to attack the message (All the above intelligence reports I posted) instead of the messenger.

OMG! Your also claiming that President Bush was never expected to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days before Sept. 11? Let me guess it was made up by the liberal/joooish media right?

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]

One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002]

Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”[Salon, 9/16/2002]

Let me guess you also think Tom Simons was slipped something in his drink probably by the liberal/joooooish media so he would confirm Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik's story while under the influence am I right?

Sorry if I got it wrong but its hard to tell when you attack the messenger and not the message.

[malcolmxwarrior]

Could someone explain why Mr. "Change" thinks we need to conquer Afghanistan or how that is some kind of change. It just seems like more of the same to me? I certainly don't buy the "we there to get Osama bin Laden" lie.

Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 9/16/2002]

This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 10/22/2001]

At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 10/26/2001]

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]

One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002]

Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”[Salon, 9/16/2002]

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” [BBC, 2001]

In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.”

The Guardian reports that “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.”

MSNBC Reports that President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days before Sept. 11

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden" [Guardian 10/2001]

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.

General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that “the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.”

Now tell me why I should belive "we are there to get Osama bin Laden".



You have all these guys like michael savage and glenn beck who only took the iraq war cause out of pure partisan politics.

It's sick. These guys aren't pro-war or chicken-hawks. They're republican party Whores(I hope I can say that), You hear savage and others saying that the afghanistan/pakistan war is un-winnable! No way! THESE guys are making sense now?!?! All part of the left-right paradigm.

No empire has ever conquered that area in 6000 years no one has! What makes THe American empire any different? they are already on their last legs. They go into the graveyard of empires and end up like The soviets. It's a shame that people in charge don't learn from history.

So obama thinks that he can spend his way to salvation?:eye-poppi What a retard!

He thinks, "ok, we'll spend billions of dollars in afghansitan, billions of dollars maintaining the embassy in Iraq, spend billions of dollars on universal health care, billions of dollars to israel and egypt and jordan, and THEN, we will spend trillions of dollars propping up zombie companies??!?!?!!?

WTF?!?!?!

Where is the money gonna come from dude? Somebody please tell me! Are the American tax-payers sittin' on a gold mine? America is bankrupt! IS china gonna finance all these atrocities? Come on! All they're gonna do is print the money out of thin air and create zimbawe style hyperinflation. It's comin'!

[malcolmxwarrior]

We have a whole batch of new Tin Foilers, but no new ideas.
And this makes about the 10'000 time somebody has tried the "Official Theory is a Conspiracy Theory" ploy on us.
And the pipeline ....that is so old and tired.
BTW, congratulations, Conspiracy Killer. You have fournd one supporter here, and this guy the guy is a Jew Hating Loon.

Oh really?

You really want to associate yourself with the stupid neocons that lied the american people into war with Iraq which resulted in the death of a million Iraqis and over 4000 american military deaths?

You take that side? Conspiracykiller although may be partisan has taken the right side of the issue. I hope you are not defending the neocons that were straight out wrong on everything.

[1337m4n]

This is not the Politics forum.

[fullflavormenthol]

This is not the Politics forum.
Agreed.

[JihadJane]

Good post.

However I'll have to agree with lightindarkness. You do come off a little partisan.

Obama is gonna try to do what alexander couldn't. Conquer afghanistan!


:)

[ConspiracyKiller]

This is not the Politics forum.

You are correct in that this is not a Politics forum but it is a forum about conspiracies and I thought "ALL" conspiracies were fair game including far right crazy wingnut conspiracies that were based on "ZERO" evidence.

To be honest I thought more posters here would come out in support of exposing (effectively killing) this massively destructive conspiracy theory as it has already caused enough damage and death in the world. Including marginalizing the republican party because of a few lunatic wingnut who still cant except they were lied to and therefore continue to insist that despite there being "NO" evidence for it they continue to push this absurd conspiracy which is now evolving into nazi like insanity were by theses mentally defunct loons are now insisting that Muslims want to dominate the world.

If this insanity is not stopped it will continue to fester and grow until we are faced with another "Holocaust" that also began by the growth of a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Remember A distinctive feature of Nazi antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories were spread by extreme right-wing politicians in Nazi Germany in the same way that right-wingnuts are spreading crazy unsupported Anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

I say Kill the conspiracy before it spreads and more lives are taken because of it. It should be the duty of all sane rationalists and intellectuals stop the insanity for the sake of humanity.

[sleahead]

From the Salon article:

On that point, Niaz Naik backs his American counterparts. Speaking from his home in Islamabad, Naik says the pipeline was never discussed during the July meetings. When asked if the pipeline came up at any point in the Track 2 discussions, his answer was quick and clear: "No, absolutely not."


I'm not sure why you bring the pipeline issue up. It has zero credibility.

[ConspiracyKiller]

From the Salon article:




I'm not sure why you bring the pipeline issue up. It has zero credibility.

Please take note that I said; "And before anyone thinks I'm suggesting the war is all about a pipeline I'm not. I was just pointing out that those in power obviously felt there were enough reasons for military action in Afghanistan despite bin laden..."

Because you quoted Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik I assume you feel that he is a reliable witness and I assume you would feel he is even more reliable because his story is backed up by Tom Simons and others.

One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002]

Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”[Salon, 9/16/2002]

So please tell me why was the threat made and how much or what was the offer for because Bush already gave the Taliban $43 Million Four Months before 9/11 (and more specifically why was the U.S. willing to follow through with the threat before 9/11).

The point I'm making is that the Bush administration had already decided on military action in Afghanistan before 9/11 and it was not to go after bin laden.

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden" [Guardian 10/2001]

The "Good war" line and the "we are there to get bin laden" line are BS and used simply to gain public support for a military action that was already decided but "NEVER" explained.

I seriously doubt that Mr. change is after bin laden. Many intelligence reports suggest bin laden is dead. Do you think he is alive and if you do could you please share any information that helped you come to that conclusion.

[thought_fugitive]

ConspiracyKiller, take into consideration the vernacular you're using: how are the people you're trying to "fix" supposed to respond to being called pitiful unstable lunatic wingnut mentally defunct fools? Do you expect them to ever see it your way? How ought the people you're trying to appeal to here at JREF respond when you've offered little more than angry rants rooted in personal prejudice? And further, how do you expect them to respond when you imply disappointment in them for not responding with the acclaim you were anticipating?

The oft-regurgitated citations you've provided are obviously not in short supply, but beyond the Bush administration and its policies, who exactly are you trying to castigate? Is it American soldiers? Civilians repeating misinformation from Bush apologist radio hosts? "Some Puerto-Rican guy?"

Being the Monday morning quarterback and admonishing the old administration's failures is nothing new, but they're not in control anymore, their influence is minimal. Moreover, few and far between are people publicly expressing belief that the original premises for the Iraq war are "fact." Such a conspiracy theory is more of a fringe than 9/11 Truth and I'm certain its growth rate is nothing to be threatened by.

So, what does calling for the killing of such conspiracy theories accomplish? Are you intentionally suggesting that we ignore the responsibility the current administration inherited from the mistakes of the old one? Do you think efforts to withdraw from the conflict would have ever begun if the goal is still to occupy for their oil? Is Holocaust prevention really the most pressing domestic issue America is currently facing?

It should be the duty of Chomsky emulating truthers to apply critical thought to their own beliefs. It should be the duty of all sane rationalists and intellectuals to avoid arguing a position through acrimony and sensationalism.

[ConspiracyKiller]

I received a message welcoming me to the JREF forum in it it said that posters at JREF "share a passion to get to the facts and let the evidence guide our conclusions -- in other words, facing the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be."

Well thats a passion that I share as well and to prove that I'm willing to face the "FACTS" or world as it REALLY is I'll go ahead and post the evidence that guided my conclusions away from falling for an absurd, unfounded, crazy, right-wingnut conspiracy theory. I'm even including rebutels to make it as unbiased as possible. So if anyone thinks the following is biased please let me know because I bent over backwards to make this "MORE" than fair.

2001 President's Daily Brief
Ten days after the September 11 attacks, President Bush receives a classified President's Daily Brief (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."

2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations
After the allegation surfaced that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was seen in Prague in 2001 meeting with an Iraqi diplomat, a number of investigations looked into the possibility that this had occurred. All of them concluded that all known evidence suggested that such a meeting was unlikely at best. The January 2003 CIA report Iraqi Support for Terrorism noted that "the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility" that such a meeting occurred.
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet released "the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue" in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2004, stating that the CIA was "increasingly skeptical" any such meeting took place.

John McLaughlin, who at the time was the Deputy Director of the CIA, described the extent of the Agency's investigation into the claim: "Well, on something like the Atta meeting in Prague, we went over that every which way from Sunday. We looked at it from every conceivable angle. We peeled open the source, examined the chain of acquisition. We looked at photographs. We looked at timetables. We looked at who was where and when. It is wrong to say that we didn't look at it. In fact, we looked at it with extraordinary care and intensity and fidelity."

A New York Times investigation involving "extensive interviews with leading Czech figures" reported that Czech officials had backed off the claim. Both the FBI and the Czech police chief investigated the issue and came to similar conclusions; FBI director Robert S. Mueller III noted that the FBI's investigation "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The 9/11 Commission investigation, which looked over both the FBI and Czech intelligence investigations, concluded that "[n]o evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001." The Commission concluded that "The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting." (p. 229)

2002 DIA reports
"Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."
In April 2002, the DIA assessed that "there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.

2002 British intelligence report
“We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction.”

2003 CIA report
“The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." Michael Scheuer, the main researcher assigned to review the research into the project, described the review and his conclusions: "For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials.... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

2003 British intelligence report
In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report says “al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq.”

2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been established between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to the AP story, "A senior Israeli security source told the AP that Israel has not yet found evidence of an Iraqi-Palestinian-Al Qaeda triangle, and that several investigations into possible Al Qaeda ties to Palestinian militias have so far not yielded results."

2004 Carnegie study
In January 2004, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, and George Perkovich publish their The study WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which looked into Saddam's relationship with al-Qaeda concluded that "The most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."

2004 9/11 Commission Report
“We have seen no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
Looking at pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examined "the quality and quantity of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;" and "the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community". In Section 12 of the report, titled Iraq's Links to Terrorism, the Senate committee examined the CIA's "five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism." The report focused specifically on the CIA's 2003 study. After examining all the intelligence, the Senate committee concluded that the CIA had accurately assessed that contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and members of al-Qaeda "did not add up to an established formal relationship."

In a subsection titled Iraq's Relationship with al-Qaida, the report states the following:
The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike, but continues to pursue all leads.

Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaeda.

2004 CIA report
In August, the CIA finished another assessment of the question of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. This assessment had been requested by the office of the Vice President, who asked specifically that the CIA take another look at the possibility that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constituted a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, as Colin Powell had claimed in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime harbored Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Reporters called the CIA study "the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

2005 update of CIA report
In October 2005, the CIA updated the 2004 report to conclude that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Two counterterrorism analysts told Newsweek that Zarqawi did likely receive medical treatment in Baghdad in 2002, but that Saddam's government may never have known Zarqawi was in Iraq because Zarqawi used "false cover." An intelligence official also told Newsweek the current draft of the report says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. According to Newsweek, "The most recent CIA analysis is an update—based on fresh reporting from Iraq and interviews with former Saddam officials—of a classified report that analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence first produced more than a year ago."

2006 Pentagon study
In February 2006, the Pentagon published a study of the so-called Harmony database documents captured in Afghanistan.[88] While the study did not look specifically at allegations of Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda, it did analyze papers that offer insight into the history of the movement and tensions among the leadership. In particular, it found evidence that al-Qaeda jihadists had viewed Saddam as an "infidel" and cautioned against working with him.

2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress". The reports concluded, according to David Stout of the New York Times, that "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

DIA conclusions
According to the SSCI report:
The initial DocEx review focused on searching for WMD related documents, but the DIA also examined the documents for material related to Iraq's link to terrorism. DIA officials explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq's links to terrorism. During an interview with Committee staff, the lead DIA analyst who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qa'ida noted that the DIA "continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations."

Senator John Rockefeller, noted that "Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks." But the head Republican on the Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, charged, "The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years."

Administration response
After the release of the report, Condoleezza Rice told Fox News Sunday that she did not remember seeing that particular report and asserted that "there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report
In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's Office of Special Plans, an office in the Pentagon run by Douglas Feith that was the source of most of the misleading intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, had "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers."

The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

Nevertheless, Feith stated that he "felt vindicated" by the report's conclusion that what he did was only inappropriate and not "unlawful."

2008 Pentagon report
In March 2008, a Pentagon-sponsored study was released, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, based on the review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 US invasion. FOX and Friends only allotted 19 seconds to the announcement that the Pentagon has confirmed that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The report, by fox, said in full, "There's no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, this according to an exhaustive study by the Pentagon. More than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2002 inva, 2003 invasion, were reviewed. The study is scheduled for release later this week."

The report, which was to have been released on March 14, 2008 was not be made available on-line and can only be had by written request, due to being "too politically sensitive."

ABCNews Jonathan Karl reports
"The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."

But ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism by way of thousands of concerned citizens whom had requested the report and forwarded it to the Media. This was because the report makes the all-important conclusion, which the Bush administration does not want made widely public, that Iraq was not in league with Al Qaeda and was not a threat to the US or our interests. After reviewing the report ABC stated “... this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.”

2008 Senate report
In June 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the final part of its Phase II investigation into the intelligence assessments that led to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; this part of the investigation looked into statements of members of the Bush Administration and compared those statements to what the intelligence community was telling the Administration at the time. The report concluded that "Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence."

[ConspiracyKiller]

ConspiracyKiller, take into consideration the vernacular you're using: how are the people you're trying to "fix" supposed to respond to being called pitiful unstable lunatic wingnut mentally defunct fools? Do you expect them to ever see it your way? How ought the people you're trying to appeal to here at JREF respond when you've offered little more than angry rants rooted in personal prejudice? And further, how do you expect them to respond when you imply disappointment in them for not responding with the acclaim you were anticipating?

The oft-regurgitated citations you've provided are obviously not in short supply, but beyond the Bush administration and its policies, who exactly are you trying to castigate? Is it American soldiers? Civilians repeating misinformation from Bush apologist radio hosts? "Some Puerto-Rican guy?"

Being the Monday morning quarterback and admonishing the old administration's failures is nothing new, but they're not in control anymore, their influence is minimal. Moreover, few and far between are people publicly expressing belief that the original premises for the Iraq war are "fact." Such a conspiracy theory is more of a fringe than 9/11 Truth and I'm certain its growth rate is nothing to be threatened by.

So, what does calling for the killing of such conspiracy theories accomplish? Are you intentionally suggesting that we ignore the responsibility the current administration inherited from the mistakes of the old one? Do you think efforts to withdraw from the conflict would have ever begun if the goal is still to occupy for their oil? Is Holocaust prevention really the most pressing domestic issue America is currently facing?

It should be the duty of Chomsky emulating truthers to apply critical thought to their own beliefs. It should be the duty of all sane rationalists and intellectuals to avoid arguing a position through acrimony and sensationalism.

You are cvorrect and I apologies for the words I used. I had carried over to this forum some emotions that had surfaced from another debate (some comments from that debate are included in my OP) but that does not excuse my poor and impolite choice of wording. I thank you for taking the time to point out what should have been obvious.

Mmm... I think that was what others were trying to point out but I had taken it wrong. I assumed they thought I was a liberal partisan (I'm not) because I attacked a right-wingnut conspiracy.

Because I'm a conservative I often frequent conservative forums but I have been finding myself more and more getting into debates over the INSANE conspiracy that Muslims are trying to dominate the world and etc.. Its sick and it has started to ware on me.

I'm watching people whom (IMHO) cant handle the fact that they were lied to and now they are desperately trying to excuse what happened with this new prejudice against Muslims as a whole.

As soon as I can post links I'll show you the debates I have been in at a few sites that were not known for such talk. I mean their tip toeing around saying we need I final solution like the Nazis had done. They will end a long rant about Muslims with something like "there is only one solution but dare I say it." and so on.

Anyway after your post I realize I need to cool it a bit. Thanks, and will do.

[Caustic Logic]

CK - good opening post. Maybe dated, heavy-handed, but a valid point that there was a conspiracy to play up the danger of Saddam's iraq in order to get the foot in the door with the war, which we're still dealing with. However, people were not as fooled as you pretend - it never needed to be 100% accepted, just enough that congress and everyone would go along for the time being. I don't think much of the public has acquiesced in torture - it happened, and most people really don't like it. Any curtailment of civil liberties we've actually experienced is negligible. There's a potential for further loss, and most people are a little concerned, maybe not enough, different story.

I think when people here say this is conspiracy theories, not politics, they are basically saying there's no theory here, it's conspiracy fact - the Bush admin lied us into war, and that's the #1 reason the US public voted his party and ideology out of Washington. Some might disagree still, but if that's the point you're trying to make, that there was such a conspiracy, you shouldn't be getting so much flak.

Glad you've chilled. I think that will help things along. Oh, and welcome to the forum.

[sleahead]

Please take note that I said; "And before anyone thinks I'm suggesting the war is all about a pipeline I'm not. I was just pointing out that those in power obviously felt there were enough reasons for military action in Afghanistan despite bin laden..."


It wasn't in any way about a pipeline.

Because you quoted Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik I assume you feel that he is a reliable witness and I assume you would feel he is even more reliable because his story is backed up by Tom Simons and others.


Well, they all say there was no discussion of a pipeline. That's good enough for me.

One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002


Now here you quote a couple of Frenchies selling a book. This snippet from the Salon article is quite telling as to what their agenda is:


The Americans who attended the July meeting dispute Naik's account. Though Brisard and Dasquie chose not to look for them, all were easy to track down.


It is inexcusable that they should not at least try interview all concerned if they had any ambition to produce a serious work. It is also of interest that they were claiming the 9/11 attack was a pre-emptive strike in response to the US military threat. In the light of a welter of evidence that 9/11 was planned long before the July 2001 talks, they have backpedaled from this position.


So please tell me why was the threat made and how much or what was the offer for because Bush already gave the Taliban $43 Million Four Months before 9/11 (and more specifically why was the U.S. willing to follow through with the threat before 9/11).


The Salon article again:


"The military threat, as I recall it, was absolutely confined to statements by people on our side that the U.S. government was still examining evidence with regard to the Cole and that if the government satisfied itself that Osama bin Laden was responsible, you could predict a military response almost with certainty," Simons says. "Nothing more was said in the meetings, and I was in all the meetings


The $43 million was humanitarian aid. Bear in mind the Taliban were under a UN sanctions regime at that time.


The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development



The point I'm making is that the Bush administration had already decided on military action in Afghanistan before 9/11 and it was not to go after bin laden.



You have not shown that the Bush administration had decided upon military action. I'm sure that the Bush administration would have seen this as a possiblity. After the embassy bombings in 1998, the Clinton administration had made it quite clear to the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any future Al Qaeda attack agains US interests, and that all sanctions, including military, would be used against them.



I seriously doubt that Mr. change is after bin laden. Many intelligence reports suggest bin laden is dead. Do you think he is alive and if you do could you please share any information that helped you come to that conclusion.


I've no idea about Bin Laden's current status. I think President Obama is more interested in the future of Afganistan. He could withdraw, the Taliban takes over, Afghanistan returns to being an Al Quaeda training camp, and attacks against US interests resume. Probably not a good idea. What do you think?

[Caustic Logic]

It wasn't in any way about a pipeline.


How could a real-world plan involving US companies and strategic interests and stuff not have at least SOME influence on our decision to either go there or stay there? There's a connection, there always is - the real question is the kind and degree of connection.

And that's one to grow on.

[sleahead]

How could a real-world plan involving US companies and strategic interests and stuff not have at leas
t SOME influence on our decision to either go there or stay there?


Which plan are you referring to?

[ConspiracyKiller]

It wasn't in any way about a pipeline.




Well, they all say there was no discussion of a pipeline. That's good enough for me.




Now here you quote a couple of Frenchies selling a book. This snippet from the Salon article is quite telling as to what their agenda is:





It is inexcusable that they should not at least try interview all concerned if they had any ambition to produce a serious work. It is also of interest that they were claiming the 9/11 attack was a pre-emptive strike in response to the US military threat. In the light of a welter of evidence that 9/11 was planned long before the July 2001 talks, they have backpedaled from this position.





The Salon article again:





The $43 million was humanitarian aid. Bear in mind the Taliban were under a UN sanctions regime at that time.










You have not shown that the Bush administration had decided upon military action. I'm sure that the Bush administration would have seen this as a possiblity. After the embassy bombings in 1998, the Clinton administration had made it quite clear to the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any future Al Qaeda attack agains US interests, and that all sanctions, including military, would be used against them.






I've no idea about Bin Laden's current status. I think President Obama is more interested in the future of Afganistan. He could withdraw, the Taliban takes over, Afghanistan returns to being an Al Quaeda training camp, and attacks against US interests resume. Probably not a good idea. What do you think?


When a decision for military action is made it is often based on at LEAST a dozen reasons which should out way (according to the "decider") the dozen reasons for not doing it.

Having the support of the people is not as big a priority as having cooperate support. Besides cooperate support can always be used to help influence the people. Use Iraq as an example since it is now a conspiracy fact as Caustic Logic has pointed out.

Remember all those Halliburton commercials where they paid huge sums of money to the media for commercials that did more to support the war then to motivate consumers toward Halliburton.

If Americans were truly informed we would have a much different foreign policy that would eliminate billions of dollars from the war profiteers coffers who's wealth is the largest influence of the MSM and therefore effects what does and does not get reported. The MSM only reports just enough to appear credible to the uninformed public whom are still unaware that the MSM is nothing more than a tool to influence the masses.

look how the media both left and right leaning had under "cooperate" influence supported a propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public. And notice how the media had profited enormously from this "cooperate" sponsored propaganda campaign.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see! (cant post .gov link) The most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times.

One of the complicit news agencies exposes the Pentagon's propaganda program but fails to mention their own "documented" support of the very same propaganda program: The New York Times reports about the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand (cant post nytimes link)

In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators concluded that the Bush administration’s secret policy to pay off influential journalists to plant fake news was illegal and that the “administration had disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.”

(cant post nytimes link)

They billed someone for "paying off" (or getting a favorable story from) a NYT reporter! But It didn't stop there as the Washington Post reports:

(cant post washingtonpost link)

Pentagons Office of Strategic Influence, was in operation before 9/11 and exploited legal loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers like the BBC that would later be picked up by U.S. news wires.

(cant post BBC link)

JSOU report states "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering." "Hacking the site and subtly changing the messages and data—merely a few words or phrases—may be sufficient to begin destroying the blogger’s credibility with the audience." Words and phrases such as the label Conspiracy theory, read page 35.

(cant post jsoupublic link)

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the road map is its acknowledgment that information put out as part of the Pentagon's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

(cant post BBC link)

Pentagon Will “Catapult the Propaganda” Via U.S. Media Military, government indoctrination wing formally declares psychological warfare on the American people.

(cant post BBC link)

The U.S. will engage in propaganda and indoctrination by using the Internet and media to “catapult the propaganda,”

(cant post washingtonpost link)

Paid by the administration eSapience promises to "leverage our relationships with important and highly credible channels including AEI, AEI-Brookings, Hoover Institution, MIT, University of Chicago Law School and the Federalist Society, among others.

(cant post dockets.justia link)

Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives in news divisions around the U.S.!

(cant post fair link)

FAIR speculated that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American people via CNN and also potentially to allow the “military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself,”

(cant post fair link)

The Information Operations Roadmap will take the propaganda to the computer and television screens of Americans.

(cant post gov/psyops.pdf)

$300 million for lies and propaganda to be feed to the American people.

(cant post washingtonpost link)

Burson-Marsteller‘s BKSH & Assocs., has been hired by The Lincoln Group, one of three firms selected last month by the U.S. Special Operations Command to wage psychological warfare on behalf of the Pentagon.

(cant post sourcewatch Burson-Marsteller link)

(cant post sourcewatch BKSH_&_Associates link)

(cant post sourcewatch Lincoln_Group link)

A company that was paid to misdirect and/or change the very CONVERSATIONS that our leaders are having! Also to create a favorable story or block media attention from story's that can be damaging to their neo-CON goals.

(cant post tnr. link)

Col. James Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, said TLG was selected to develop ‘cutting-edge types of media,’ including radio/TV ads, documentaries, text messages, Internet spots and podcasts for the U.S. military. The Pentagon expects to spend $3M in the first-year as a ‘test,’ and could spend up to $300M over five years if the ‘psyops’ operations conducted by TLG, SYColeman and Science Applications International Corp are deemed successful.”

(cant post sourcewatch SYColeman link)

A program on behalf of CENTCOM is also underway to help “catapult the propaganda,” on blogs and message boards.

(ant postink)

CIA enlists Google's help for spy work.

(cant post timesonline link)

Google and the CIA are involved with one another and are censoring information.

(cant post dailytech link)

This isn’t the first time the search giant has been suspected of wrongdoing.

(cant post googlewatch link)

most claims of Google censorship involve the search engine being censored.

(cant post googlewatch link)

A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is “in bed with” the intelligence agency and the U.S. government.

(cant post arstechnica link)

The Google help page used to state that it did not censor search results. This policy has now changed and Google now carried that proviso that, “in response to local laws, regulations, or policies,” it may censor certain content.

(cant post theregister link)

Google’s censorship policies in China and even those directed against US websites that are mildly critical of China prove that the company that was founded on the principle “don’t be evil,” is slowly beginning to resemble the very controlling Big Brother image it claimed to despise.

(cant post BBC link)

Lou Dobbs show
DOBBS: Roger, let me turn to one journalism question for all of you. As you know, the Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon used a number of—well, sources, if you will, for misinformation campaigns, including this network. What is your sense as to what should be both the reaction of the media, to being used by—for psyops operations by the Pentagon and what should be the reaction of the American people?

(cant post cnn link)

Americas News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency

(cant post cia press link)

In the annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index the U.S. ranked 53rd which is bellow several dictatorships. The U.S. press is controlled as a tool for the dissemination of propaganda.

(cant post wpfi/us link)

I could go on but to some it up, Bush declared a war on terror because of 9/11 while at the same time failing to hold those most responsible for 9/11 “THE SAUDIS” who according to U.S. intelligence reports played a direct role in funding as well as providing intelligence and logistical support for the 9/11 hijackers whom 15 of were Saudis, and they have had an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market plus the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld.

Yet the U.S. chose to attack Saddam's secular regime even though it was hostile to Islamic extremists.

An example of the influence of money can be seen by the many high ranking Americans that were paid off by Saudi Arabia to work as agents for Saudi Arabia.

Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions, commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission or the Pro-war-PNAC agents who were working for Saudis lackeys the Neo-cons and the white house such as Kissinger's replacement Philip Zelikow who was taking orders from Rove, and of course the revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker’s appointment on the Iraq commission. Same goes for the father of all the “dime a dozen generals”, Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new prot’s, General Joseph Ralston.

With “dime a dozen” generals on their boards of directors, numerous high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the “K Street Lobby Quarter,” tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government.

U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. And nearly "ALL" of the shoot downs in Iraq were by Sunni insurgents and Sunni Al-Qaida factions.

The Saudi funded Sunni insurgency has caused 90% of the American casualties and has cost the U.S. Taxpayers over 98% of total costs do to damages/destruction of military equipment that are in the billions. Second place is the normal wear and tear + desert sand. Third place is the Shiite insurgents.

Who was sued by the 9/11 victims family members for complicity in the attacks with a funding network that went directly to the terrorist?

The Saudi Royal Family!

The Saudi Royal Family also has very strong ties to the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation’s 10th largest defense contractor with ties to Enron, Global Crossing, among others.

Who helped arrange the evacuation of members of the Bin Laden Family after 9/11 and defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims family members?

Osama bin Laden and a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group!

Carlyle has profited immensely from the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. Its legal matters are handled by Baker, Botts---James Baker’s law firm in Texas. Mr. Baker also has a personal interest in Carlyle, amounting to some $180 million. Another client of Baker, Botts is Exxon-Mobil.

Who else has direct financial ties to an oil, energy and weapons investment group which has raked in $Billions as a result of this War?

The Bin Laden family!

The bin Laden family has very strong ties in the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based investment company focused primarily in the arms, security, and energy industries.

Who on the morning of September 11th had a investor conference with members of the familys incontrovertibly tied to 9/11?

The Carlyle Group held an investor conference in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC on the morning of September 11th, 2001 with members of the Bin Laden family and ect, tied to 9/11.

The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.

So now lets get back to Afghanistan. Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban—including Osama bin Laden—up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack.

The deal in Afghanistan was part of a desperate last-ditch “end run” to bail out Enron.

Unocal had the largest share, the “Central Asian Gas Pipeline” (CentGas) consortium had six other partners, including companies in Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil Company—the next largest shareholder.

The U.S. looked for other options, and the Trade and Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for an improbable east- to- west route that would cross the Caspian Mountains and end at a Mediterranean seaport in Turkey. The company hired for that study was Enron. If that pipeline were to be constructed, Turkmenistan signed an agreement that it would be built by Bechtel and GE Capital Services—the same American companies that were Enron’s business partners in the Dabhol power plant.

No matter which direction the Central Asia natural gas would eventually flow, Enron would profit. Should it go south towards ships waiting on the Pakistan coast, it would be still only a few hundred miles at sea to Dabhol. The trip from the Mediterranean would be farther (and thus more expensive for Enron to buy gas), but it was also the least likely route to be constructed. Estimated costs were almost $1 billion more than the route through Afghanistan, and engineering plans had not even started. No, the only practical route for the Caspian Sea gas was through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the border of India. All that was lacking was the political will to make it happen.

Bush’s long and personal relationship with Enron’s former CEO Kenneth Lay is now well known, as is his generous contribution of over $600,000 to advance the political career of the man who once held the White House. Not so well known is how Bush has helped Enron.

Scarcely a month after Bush moves into the White House, Vice President Cheney has his first secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives on February 22, 2001. Other meetings follow on March 7 and April 17. It is the details of these meetings that the Bush Administration has been attempting to keep private.

It’s clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney’s selection as Bush’s Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers.

It is a FACT that there was a specific time frame for invading Afghanistan on the table before 9/11.

Enron had one last card to play, and that was selling the Dabhol plant for quick cash—if it could. If Enron could get its asking price of $2.3 billion, then maybe the company could pull out of its bankruptcy nose dive.

In late August, Lay appeared to threaten India in an article in the London Financial Times. We expect full price for the plant, he warned; if they received anything less, there could be backlash: “There are laws that could prevent the U.S. government from providing any aid or assistance to India going forward if, in fact, they expropriate property of U.S. companies,” he said. When Indian officials called these statements “strong arm tactics,” an Enron statement claimed Lay “was merely referring to U.S. laws.” Again Lay appeared to threaten India in a Sept. 14 letter to the Prime Minister, insisting that the $2.3 billion price was reasonable because they had a “legal claim” of up to $5 billion.

But the house of cards collapsed dramatically on November 8, when Enron disclosed that it had overstated earnings dating back to 1997 by almost $600 million. That same day, an e-mail (“Importance: High”), whose sender and recipient are blacked out, warned, “President Bush cannot talk about Dabhol as was already mentioned.” The memo also said that Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey could not discuss Enron either. Lindsey had been an Enron consultant.

But it was not over for everyone. There were still some players left in this war for profit.

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.

The Afghanistan President, and both the Afghan and Iraqi Ambassadors - all former Unocal Consultants. Coincidince? I think not.

“So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.” Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

To say that that it had nothing to do with the FACT that President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days before Sept. 11 is a bit naive.

[Ohnoes]

I have no interest in involving myself into this conversation, but I just want to say that is one massive yet committed wall of text :eye-poppi

[ConspiracyKiller]

I have no interest in involving myself into this conversation, but I just want to say that is one massive yet committed wall of text :eye-poppi

I apologies for the long post but at this time I'm unable to post links to the evidence that supports my conclusions. Therefore I'm forced to to post the FACTS in text instead of linking to to them.

I thought it best to avoid getting into a debate about something that has already been overwhelmingly proven by simply presenting some of the FACTS. My post barely even begins to touch on the massive amount of evidence thats out there. (Still cant post links grrrrrr.)

But again I'm sorry for the long read and hope that you and others will find it informative and inlightning since it touches on areas that sadly are avoided by the MSM even though most of the information is from government documents. (It also explains why the MSM avoids it which is in the same government documents.)

[Ohnoes]

I believe after 15 posts you can post links, so maybe check out some of the other boards here and contribute then come back and post your links. However, as I said I doubt I'll just interject myself into this already deep discussion, but just thought I would offer some friendly advice because I'm in a good mood today!

[ConspiracyKiller]

I believe after 15 posts you can post links, so maybe check out some of the other boards here and contribute then come back and post your links. I know I would be more inclined to read it with links.


Good idea, I'll look around at some of the other boards (there seems to be more than I originally thought).

Oh and thanks for helping me knock off a couple more of those needed posts.

[Caustic Logic]

Sleahead, I was referring to the pipeline.

Saw some stuff about the Saudis in there - They are quite corrupt and some of them do harbor irrational enthusiasm for Wahabbi revolution. Otherwise, their villain role has been over-amplified for some political concern. Not so bad now, but witness Fox News eg adopting "Wahabbi" as the code word for all Sunni extremism and terrorism back in 2002/2003, the same time they ran the "Sara Saga" story, and many other points - it was an anti-Saudi campaign, plain as day, just as the Iraq war was starting.

[sleahead]

So now lets get back to Afghanistan. Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban—including Osama bin Laden—up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack.


Yes, let's get back to it. It's the only part of this that is of interest to me and the only part I have commented on.



Unocal had the largest share, the “Central Asian Gas Pipeline” (CentGas) consortium had six other partners, including companies in Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil Company—the next largest shareholder.


This plan was backed by the Clinton administration but no-one was interested in financing it and so it was abandoned. How do you protect a 1000 mile long pipeline in a country such as Afghanistan? The embassy bombings put paid to any interest the Clinton administration had in it.

The U.S. looked for other options, and the Trade and Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for an improbable east- to- west route that would cross the Caspian Mountains and end at a Mediterranean seaport in Turkey. The company hired for that study was Enron. If that pipeline were to be constructed, Turkmenistan signed an agreement that it would be built by Bechtel and GE Capital Services—the same American companies that were Enron’s business partners in the Dabhol power plant.


The discovery of gas in Azerbaijan scuppered this plan. Azerbaijan then had no reason to host a pipeline to sell Turkmen gas.


No matter which direction the Central Asia natural gas would eventually flow, Enron would profit. Should it go south towards ships waiting on the Pakistan coast, it would be still only a few hundred miles at sea to Dabhol. The trip from the Mediterranean would be farther (and thus more expensive for Enron to buy gas), but it was also the least likely route to be constructed. Estimated costs were almost $1 billion more than the route through Afghanistan, and engineering plans had not even started. No, the only practical route for the Caspian Sea gas was through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the border of India. All that was lacking was the political will to make it happen.

Bush’s long and personal relationship with Enron’s former CEO Kenneth Lay is now well known, as is his generous contribution of over $600,000 to advance the political career of the man who once held the White House. Not so well known is how Bush has helped Enron.

Scarcely a month after Bush moves into the White House, Vice President Cheney has his first secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives on February 22, 2001. Other meetings follow on March 7 and April 17. It is the details of these meetings that the Bush Administration has been attempting to keep private.

It’s clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney’s selection as Bush’s Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers.

It is a FACT that there was a specific time frame for invading Afghanistan on the table before 9/11.

Enron had one last card to play, and that was selling the Dabhol plant for quick cash—if it could. If Enron could get its asking price of $2.3 billion, then maybe the company could pull out of its bankruptcy nose dive.

In late August, Lay appeared to threaten India in an article in the London Financial Times. We expect full price for the plant, he warned; if they received anything less, there could be backlash: “There are laws that could prevent the U.S. government from providing any aid or assistance to India going forward if, in fact, they expropriate property of U.S. companies,” he said. When Indian officials called these statements “strong arm tactics,” an Enron statement claimed Lay “was merely referring to U.S. laws.” Again Lay appeared to threaten India in a Sept. 14 letter to the Prime Minister, insisting that the $2.3 billion price was reasonable because they had a “legal claim” of up to $5 billion.

But the house of cards collapsed dramatically on November 8, when Enron disclosed that it had overstated earnings dating back to 1997 by almost $600 million. That same day, an e-mail (“Importance: High”), whose sender and recipient are blacked out, warned, “President Bush cannot talk about Dabhol as was already mentioned.” The memo also said that Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey could not discuss Enron either. Lindsey had been an Enron consultant.


All very interesting, but even if true I don't see a reason to invade Afghanistan here.



But it was not over for everyone. There were still some players left in this war for profit.

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.


Great. I'm sure Unocal are chomping at the bit.


“So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.” Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


Afghanistan is not in the Middle East and we're talking about gas, not oil.


To say that that it had nothing to do with the FACT that President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days before Sept. 11 is a bit naive.


Not just Afghanistan according to MSNBC's anonymous sources:

WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 - President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

I have to confess that I would have had a similar plan in place too. Gas pipelines would not have entered my thinking. You missed out Unocal's proposal for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. No backing from the Clinton administration for that one - they backed an alternative plan for a pipeline not in Afghanistan. That pipeline was constructed. (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=no_war_for_oil)

[ConspiracyKiller]

Sleahead, I was referring to the pipeline.

Saw some stuff about the Saudis in there - They are quite corrupt and some of them do harbor irrational enthusiasm for Wahabbi revolution. Otherwise, their villain role has been over-amplified for some political concern. Not so bad now, but witness Fox News eg adopting "Wahabbi" as the code word for all Sunni extremism and terrorism back in 2002/2003, the same time they ran the "Sara Saga" story, and many other points - it was an anti-Saudi campaign, plain as day, just as the Iraq war was starting.

Something that I think I should point out is that I in no way in support of any war of aggression. Defense yes aggression no. I'm just trying to show how a said cause like the the "war on terror" declared because of 9/11 was BS. It was simply a marketing ploy. For if said cause was truly to get at those whom attacked us on 9/11 then it the US would have been in Saudi Arabia and not Iraq.

You said: They are quite corrupt and some of them do harbor irrational enthusiasm for Wahabbi revolution. Otherwise, their villain role has been over-amplified for some political concern.

Senator Graham said;
“Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.”

Senator Graham said;
“We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

According to public accounts, both Al-Mihdhar and Hazmi were in San Diego, not Los Angeles, contrary to the Commission’s report.

Why did the Commission use an alternate source for the whereabouts of the two men, when the FBI’s own timeline said they were in San Diego by Jan. 15, the same day as their arrival in the US?

It was to obscure official Saudi ties to the hijackers because Omar al-Bayoumi, who lived at the same location was an employee of the Saudi defense contractor Dallah Avco. According to a 2002 Newsweek article about Bayoumi, Dallah Avco is “an aviation-services company with extensive contracts with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, headed by Prince Sultan, the father of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar.”

The hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar received money from Saudi Arabia’s royal family through two Saudis, Omar Al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan. Newsweek bases its report on information leaked from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry in October.[Newsweek, 11/22/2002; Newsweek, 11/22/2002;New York Times, 11/23/2002; Washington Post, 11/23/2003]

Bayoumi returned to Saudi Arabia, where he was interviewed in October 2003 by the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, and Senior Counsel Dieter Snell. Several staff members working under Snell, “felt strongly that they had demonstrated a close Saudi government connection,” based on “explosive material” on al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy, a “shadowy Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles.” Who just happened to pick up the hijackers at the air port and take them to al-Bayomi's where they were given money to open bank account and who helped them get credit cards all in their real names. They were even listed in the phone book at that address under their real names while the FBI was looking for them.

In his book, “Intelligence Matters,” Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

“The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured. The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

Senator Graham’s Revelation
It has been established that the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer in the Middle East said. “Among other questions [I have]: Why did [Prince] Bandar's wife sent money to Bayoumi? What are Bayoumi’s links to the Sultan? How were the 15 Saudis [among the 19 hijackers] selected to carry out the attack? Who fed the credit card used by Abu Zubayda? What happened to Abu Zubayda's telephone bills? Who was he calling in the U.S? None of these questions are unreasonable nor would answering them violate intelligence sources and methods."

If you look into it you will see that the evidence is overwhelming and that what I have posted is not even a fraction of the incontrovertible evidence proving without any reasonable doubt the Saudi Royal family's complicity in the 9/11 attack.

[Alareth]

Pardon me, but I need to derail the discussion for a moment.

People, when the op is roughly the length of War and Peace, do you really need to QUOTE THE WHOLE DAMN THING when making a one or two sentence reply?

I'm on a phone browser and it took 5 minutes to scroll through the thread.

Thank you for your time.

[ConspiracyKiller]

You said; "Yes, let's get back to it. It's the only part of this that is of interest to me and the only part I have commented on."

Sorry I thought it was a good example as it relates to the discusion. Remember we are talking about at least a dozen reasons that are considered for wich to justify an invasion. This is but one that would serve the cooperate interest of those in powerer. I scratch your back you scratch mine.

The Unocal Corporation had lobbied Congress to have the Taliban overthrown.


You said; "This plan was backed by the Clinton administration but no-one was interested in financing it and so it was abandoned. How do you protect a 1000 mile long pipeline in a country such as Afghanistan? The embassy bombings put paid to any interest the Clinton administration had in it."

You protect it with bases!

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.”

Mosul-Haifa pipeline has three US military bases protecting it and placed exactly where the pumping stations are going up.

H-3 has a combat regiment and an air wing

Camp Korean Village is located in a remote stretch of Iraq's western desert, close to the Syrian-Iraq border, and near the highway that connects Jordan with Baghdad. Ar Rutbah is the closest town to Camp Korean Village, also dubbed "Camp KV". Camp Korean Village is believed to be located at one of the H-3 facilities.
1st Marine Division's Regimental Combat Team 7, which help the Iraqis run checkpoints along the Syrian and Jordanian borders and patrol western Iraq.

H-2 is an Airbase

H-2 Airbase is located in Southern Iraq approximately 350 kilometers West of Baghdad. The airfield is served by two runways 12,600 and 8,800 feet long. H-2 occupies a 41 square kilometer site and is protected by a 26 kilometers security perimeter.

H-1 is an airbase

H-1 Airbase is located in Southern Iraq. The 2d Air Defense Sector, also known as the Western Air Defense Sector, had a SOC at H-3 Airfield, with IOCs at H-1 Airfield, H-3 Airfield, and Ar Rutbah.
The US Army's 75th Ranger Regiment captured H1 airfield in a night-time parachute assault on 25 March 2003.

Also they were verry interested thats why UNOCAL lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.

But Osama bin Laden advised the Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas.

Thats when Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation had implored Congress to have the Taliban overthrown.
He then becomes the first U.S. envoy until he was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant.


You said; "The discovery of gas in Azerbaijan scuppered this plan. Azerbaijan then had no reason to host a pipeline to sell Turkmen gas."

If there is no reason then why did Afghanistan signe a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, (the Taliban keep blowing it up) once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by US theTurkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west.


You said; "All very interesting, but even if true I don't see a reason to invade Afghanistan here."

Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers and is but just one at least a dozen reasons.


You said; "Great. I'm sure Unocal are chomping at the bit."

You know they (UNOCAL) are.


You said; "Afghanistan is not in the Middle East and we're talking about gas, not oil."

The Caspian Basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100–200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers.

From Washington’s viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.


You said; "Not just Afghanistan according to MSNBC's anonymous sources:"

As former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. VP Dick Cheney stated in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and for the sake of Israel.

The cover story for Iraq or (usuported conspiracy theory) was weapons of mass destruction & Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11 / al-Qaida and the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989.

The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former UNOCAL"consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.

As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the US military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."

You said; "I have to confess that I would have had a similar plan in place too. Gas pipelines would not have entered my thinking. You missed out Unocal's proposal for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. No backing from the Clinton administration for that one - they backed an alternative plan for a pipeline not in Afghanistan."

See above comments

[NobbyNobbs]

Joseph Goebbels said “...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, ‘and this will always be the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology… Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals.”

The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire was supposed to serve as a signal launching the (Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy) Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign for nothing unites a people more than when they believe they are constantly under attack and fighting a common enemy. The Jews were convenient enemies.




Godwinned in the OP. Congratulations, I think you just set a record.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Godwinned in the OP. Congratulations, I think you just set a record.


Does it still qualify if it was specifically meant to counter Godwin's Fatwa?

[JihadJane]

Godwinned in the OP. Congratulations, I think you just set a record.

Was Nazi Germany, then, an aberration whose politics, strategies and tactics have no contemporary relevance?

Liquid war: Welcome to Pipelineistan (March, 2009)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KC26Ag01.html


Pipelineistan's biggest game begins (May, 2005)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE26Ag01.html

[stateofgrace]

Since this thread is entirely copy and paste, I'll have my pennies worth


Conspiracy Theories About Jews and 9/11 Cause Dangerous Mutations in Global Anti-Semitism


New York, NY, September 2, 2003 … Two years after the horrific 9/11 attacks on America, hateful conspiracy theories claiming the attacks were actually carried about by Israelis and Jews continue to gather force around the world, causing dangerous new mutations of global anti-Semitism.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), concerned at how such rumors continue to find acceptance despite two years of intensive efforts by watchdog groups and democratic governments to combat them, today issued a report coinciding with the second anniversary of the attacks, documenting the continuing spread of 9/11 conspiracy theories and the potential for this "Big Lie" to rationalize and fuel global anti-Semitism.

According to the League's report, Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf), the canard of Jewish or Israeli involvement in 9/11 has gained widespread acceptance in the Arab and Muslim world, parts of Europe and even in the United States.

"The 9/11 attacks have fueled an entire new genre of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories leading to an environment where rumors about Jews are finding acceptance in the mainstream," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "As we gather to commemorate the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Big Lie shows no signs of diminishing. In fact, it is finding new acceptance every day. That is not just disturbing, but tragic, because we cannot win the war against terrorism without first winning over the hearts and minds of people in the Arab World who accept anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracies as fact. What's really needed is a concerted effort by democratic nations to reject anti-Jewish conspiracies."

Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories documents how anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon spread around the world with lightening speed, ushered along with the help of global electronic communications, especially the Internet and satellite television.

According to ADL, the rumors, while finding expression in the media, speeches and in public statements, have also brought together a disparate group of Jew-haters who are using the Big Lie to fuel anti-Semitism.

"Never in the history of the Jewish people has one terrible lie about 'Jewish control' spread so quickly and with such power, captivating not only those on the extreme fringe but the educated elite, particularly in the Muslim and Arab word," said Mr. Foxman. "The Big Lie has been repeated by imams, the press and government officials in the Arab world, and is contributing to disturbing and dangerous mutations in global anti-Semitism."

The League's report documents the spread of the Big Lie from the first whisperings of blame against Jews in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, to more recent manifestations and permutations. Among the ADL's conclusions:





The Big Lie has united American far-right extremists and white supremacists and elements within the Arab and Muslim world that are exchanging and repeating information, ideas and conspiracy theories.


The 9/11 conspiracy theories are essentially updated versions of classical anti-Semitic canards, claming that Jews are inherently evil and intent on manipulating and controlling world events to their own benefit. It is essentially a modern manifestation of the anti-Semitic, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the infamous 19th century Russian forgery that purported to map out a Jewish conspiracy for world domination.


September 11 conspiracies have spawned an entire industry that includes anti-Semitic books, pamphlets, videotapes, Web sites and speakers.


9/11 conspiracies have laid the foundation for the proliferation of similar conspiracy theories about other global disasters. For example, some conspiracy theorists claim Israel was complicit in the destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia and suggest that shuttle astronaut Col. Ilan Ramon was actually a "spy" for Israel. Others blame Jews and Israelis for "pushing" the U.S. into war against Saddam Hussein.


The accusation that Jews plotted the attacks has fueled more traditional canards about Jews, including those claiming that Jews have a "master plan" for world domination, and that Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make holiday breads and pastries (blood libel).


http://www.adl.org/presrele/asint_13/4346_13.htm

Wow, that was really easy to not think for myself, google search and copy stuff .

[JihadJane]

Since this thread is entirely copy and paste, I'll have my pennies worth



http://www.adl.org/presrele/asint_13/4346_13.htm

Wow, that was really easy to not think for myself, google search and copy stuff .

Why did you waste such a golden opportunity by copy/pasting off-topic rubbish?

[stateofgrace]

Why did you waste such a golden opportunity by copy/pasting off-topic rubbish?

I thought that was the entire point of this thread, to copy and paste rubbish.

[JihadJane]

I thought that was the entire point of this thread, to copy and paste rubbish.

Have you read the thread?

It's one of the most intelligent and well-informed that I've seen on the forum in a long time.

[stateofgrace]

Have you read the thread?

It's one of the most intelligent and well-informed that I've seen on the forum in a long time.

I have read it but if I ever needed a reason not to read it, thank you, you have just provided it.

[ConspiracyKiller]

I have read it but if I ever needed a reason not to read it, thank you, you have just provided it.

So far you have demonstrated that you have nothing to add but ad hominem arguments (attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument) and want nothing more than to assert your authority, or establish a position of superiority over everyone else by suggesting that the current discussion is "rubbish" and intellectually inferior to you as you attempt to derail it.

I was under the impression that if one were to find a point in the OP or preceding thread that they disagree with they would state what it is and how and why they disagree with it. This is how one advances the discussion by sharing information that either goes against or supports the previously made post(s). In this way everyone benefits from the information gained and the quality and depth of the discussion improves with the increase in knowledge on the subject(s) being debated.

Basically those opposed to my posts must attempt to destroy the arguments I have made. If I have assumed wrong on how the JREF forum works please let me know.

[WildCat]

Well as it turns out the asshat who killed 3 cops in Pittsburgh was a fan of Alex Jones, believed that Jews secretly control everything, that the troops were coming home to oppress Americans, and was also a member of Stormfront.

Need more proof that conspiracy asshats are dangerous?

[stateofgrace]

So far you have demonstrated that you have nothing to add but ad hominem arguments (attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument) and want nothing more than to assert your authority, or establish a position of superiority over everyone else by suggesting that the current discussion is "rubbish" and intellectually inferior to you as you attempt to derail it.

I was under the impression that if one were to find a point in the OP or preceding thread that they disagree with they would state what it is and how and why they disagree with it. This is how one advances the discussion by sharing information that either goes against or supports the previously made post(s). In this way everyone benefits from the information gained and the quality and depth of the discussion improves with the increase in knowledge on the subject(s) being debated.

Basically those opposed to my posts must attempt to destroy the arguments I have made. If I have assumed wrong on how the JREF forum works please let me know.


Is that so ? You mean this OP ?

I have sadly noticed that the majority of “INSANE” conspiracy theorist still believe and support the mad ravings of an obviously deranged lunatic and they have sadly not realized how they have been misled or the dangers (which can be deadly) of promoting such a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

If they could only see the dangers of conspiracies maybe they would not be so eager to just blindly except such foolishness. But even when presented with historical examples of how such conspiracies have been responsible for much hatred and death (eg; A distinctive feature of Nazi antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory). But when presented with such historical references they simply insist this time is different because the conspiracy is true even though they have NO EVIDENCE to support it.

Unfortunately these pitiful and mentally unstable fools (whom were easily duped) still believe that the following statements from a criminally insane lunatic regarding an unfounded conspiracy theory (that was debunked the moment it was conceived) are true:

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,
?



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.



The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.



There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News.


ect, etc, etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Sorry, what rubbish did you say in your OP ?Let me remind you


Unfortunately these pitiful and mentally unstable fools (whom were easily duped) still believe that the following statements from a criminally insane lunatic regarding an unfounded conspiracy theory (that was debunked the moment it was conceived) are true:


They are not true, it is well documented they are not true and only a pitiful mentally unstable fool imagines that statements made in 2003 and later proven to be incorrect are relevant to anything. There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda or the events of Sept 11th for that matter. It is well documented, it is well publicised
Do you imagine that from 2003 everybody suddenly stopped reporting world events and that everybody stopped reading the news reports ?

A word to the wise, calling people INSANE and pitiful mentally unstable fools based upon you own ill preconceived notions is not the way to attract reasonable debate, it attracts contempt. If you wish to receive some level of respect, then maybe just maybe you should practice what you now appear to be preaching.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Is that so ? You mean this OP ?










ect, etc, etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Sorry, what rubbish did you say in your OP ?Let me remind you


They are not true, it is well documented they are not true and only a pitiful mentally unstable fool imagines that statements made in 2003 and later proven to be incorrect are relevant to anything. There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda or the events of Sept 11th for that matter. It is well documented, it is well publicised
Do you imagine that from 2003 everybody suddenly stopped reporting world events and that everybody stopped reading the news reports ?

A word to the wise, calling people INSANE and pitiful mentally unstable fools based upon you own ill preconceived notions is not the way to attract reasonable debate, it attracts contempt. If you wish to receive some level of respect, then maybe just maybe you should practice what you now appear to be preaching.


You said; "A word to the wise, calling people INSANE and pitiful mentally unstable fools based upon you own ill preconceived notions is not the way to attract reasonable debate, it attracts contempt. If you wish to receive some level of respect, then maybe just maybe you should practice what you now appear to be preaching."

Trust me I was expecting plenty of contempt from the conspiracy theorist. And I looked around the forum to make sure that it was ok (even promoted by some members) to call conspiracy theorist insane, and pitiful mentally unstable fools. There are "FAR" more comments in this forum calling conspiracy theorist "MUCH" worse than that!

You said; "There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda or the events of Sept 11th for that matter. It is well documented, it is well publicised
Do you imagine that from 2003 everybody suddenly stopped reporting world events and that everybody stopped reading the news reports ?"

Despite one official finding after another,"DEBUNKING" the absurd conspiracy theory of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, nearly one in four Americans continue to embrace that notion.

Late 2007 poll shows Number Of Americans Who Believe Saddam-9/11 Ties "RISES" To 41%
41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

85% Of Troops In Iraq Think Saddam Was Involved In 9/11, 77% Think Supported Al-Qaeda
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/7541767/detail.html

That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.html
Poll: Nearly A Third Of Americans Still Believe Saddam Personally Involved In 9/11
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060919_poll_results_sub.pdf

Americans Still Believe Saddam Had Strong Links To Al-Qaeda, Planned 9/11, Had WMD
Quote: "These new poll findings and trends show how slowly most people change their minds once they believe something to be true."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240417&EDATE

Survey Shows Misinformation On Iraq Endures
A Gallup poll, found that 39% still believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Shortly before the war began, 51% held that view, but that was before the many official, and media, reports to the contrary. Yet a high number still cling to the view.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp

Do you not think that these conspiracy theorist helped support an invasion of IRAQ which resulted in the death of a million Iraqis and over 4000 american military deaths?

How many children do you think they helped slaughter by promoting such an insane conspiracy theory?

Are you not concerned that such a large number of insane conspiracy theorist can help to shape foreign policy? What about the fact that this "INSANE" conspiracy theory is evolving into a Nazi like hatred for Muslims?

These people already supported the mass murder of many Iraqis so how can you justify ignoring them? I don't think its a good Idea to allow such a dangerous conspiracy theory to continue evolving into the hatred of Muslims.

[JihadJane]

Well as it turns out the asshat who killed 3 cops in Pittsburgh was a fan of Alex Jones, believed that Jews secretly control everything, that the troops were coming home to oppress Americans, and was also a member of Stormfront.

Need more proof that conspiracy asshats are dangerous?


Yes.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Well as it turns out the asshat who killed 3 cops in Pittsburgh was a fan of Alex Jones, believed that Jews secretly control everything, that the troops were coming home to oppress Americans, and was also a member of Stormfront.

Need more proof that conspiracy asshats are dangerous?


I think we should list all the conspiracy theories in order of most dangerous to least dangerous.

How to determine a conspiracy theory's level of danger should be determined by the number of persons the conspiracy theory is promoting to be killed. Is it country, race, religion or political affiliation and how many in that country/race/religion/political affiliation are potential victims.

I think Alex Jones should most definitely be on the list for promoting the killing of "cops".

I admit I don't know about the conspiracy theory that involves police or killing them so it must not be popular, "thankfully", but should still be on the list.

[stateofgrace]

:words:.

That have zero relevance or meaning.

What part of "Iraq has zero connection to Al Quada" don't you understand?

What part of "Iraq had zero to do with Sept 11th" don't you understand?

What part of "the vast majority of the planet understands this" don't you understand?

Why do you imagine that because I don't buy into your insane theories that I agree with the Iraq war? Is this yet another ill conceived presumption you are making?

Let me ask you something killer, do you honestly imagine that you are the only guy on this planet that can see the world’s injustices? Do you imagine that the rest of the planet is blissfully unaware?

[ConspiracyKiller]

That have zero relevance or meaning.

What part of "Iraq has zero connection to Al Quada" don't you understand?

What part of "Iraq had zero to do with Sept 11th" don't you understand?

What part of "the vast majority of the planet understands this" don't you understand?

Why do you imagine that because I don't buy into your insane theories that I agree with the Iraq war? Is this yet another ill conceived presumption you are making?

Let me ask you something killer, do you honestly imagine that you are the only guy on this planet that can see the world’s injustices? Do you imagine that the rest of the planet is blissfully unaware?



So your suggesting we stop "DEBUNKING" deadly conspiracy theories?

Or are you just suggesting that we stop "DEBUNKING" all conspiracy theories?

Or are you suggesting we stop "DEBUNKING" the most "BELIEVED" and wildly excepted conspiracy theories and just debunk the smallest least relevant and least excepted conspiracy theories?

[stateofgrace]

So your suggesting we stop "DEBUNKING" deadly conspiracy theories?

Or are you just suggesting that we stop "DEBUNKING" all conspiracy theories?

Or are you suggesting we stop "DEBUNKING" the most "BELIEVED" and wildly excepted conspiracy theories and just debunk the smallest least relevant and least excepted conspiracy theories?

I have not stated any of this nor did I suggest it. I actually suggest that you take a deep breath, relax and try to engage in rational debate.

Or you could keep doing exactly what you are doing, keep posting ignorable rubbish.

Unlit you establish one way or the other exactly what you wish to do on this forum, I will leave you to it. Feel free to PM me and let me know when you wish to engage in rational debate. Until then, there is plenty of places for me to go that does not involve trying to reason with the unreasonable and trying to debate with the irrational.

Cheerio.

[ConspiracyKiller]

I have not stated any of this nor did I suggest it. I actually suggest that you take a deep breath, relax and try to engage in rational debate.

Or you could keep doing exactly what you are doing, keep posting ignorable rubbish.

Unlit you establish one way or the other exactly what you wish to do on this forum, I will leave you to it. Feel free to PM me and let me know when you wish to engage in rational debate. Until then, there is plenty of places for me to go that does not involve trying to reason with the unreasonable and trying to debate with the irrational.

Cheerio.




I am assuming that what you are suggesting is to stop calling conspiracy theorist insane, and pitiful mentally unstable fools.

If thats what your suggesting I already said I would tone it down. Hopefully others on the forum will do that as well but I doubt it as they have been doing it for so long its obvious that its become a habit. Maybe they'll use this thread and my op as an example of why they should also tone it down. Since you and others have clearly pointed out that it does not contribute to a rational debate.

And could you please explain what "INSANE" theories you are referring to when you said; "Why do you imagine that because I don't buy into your insane theories that I agree with the Iraq war? Is this yet another ill conceived presumption you are making?"

I don't recall ever saying or even thinking that you supported the war because you seemed to be pretty well informed that it was all BS. But I did notice that you kept saying it was debunked in 2003 and that is incorrect as it was debunked in 2001 in regards to the Al-Qaeda connection and WMDs were debunked by Colin Powell in June 2001 (though Powell did start going along with Bush later) and there were many others who had come forward, inspectors etc,.

[Ohnoes]

Well as it turns out the asshat who killed 3 cops in Pittsburgh was a fan of Alex Jones, believed that Jews secretly control everything, that the troops were coming home to oppress Americans, and was also a member of Stormfront.

Need more proof that conspiracy asshats are dangerous?

Man...I was unaware of that.

Jones really takes it to another level...It's one thing to tell people the government is out to get them, but encouraging people that cops are the bad guys is another. I have a couple of friends who are cops and they are great guys and have families as I imagine these guys did as well. Weren't they just responding to a domestic issue...Something about a dog peeing on a neighbors lawn or something?

As I said in another thread..Why does everyone have to "work for the government"? Why couldn't these guys be just regular cops who responded to a DD and were killed by a man who was convinced that they were their to take his guns and his rights? I'm sure Jones will turn it to his advantage to convince more people that the shadows are ever more watchful.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Man...I was unaware of that.

Jones really takes it to another level...It's one thing to tell people the government is out to get them, but encouraging people that cops are the bad guys is another. I have a couple of friends who are cops and they are great guys and have families as I imagine these guys did as well. Weren't they just responding to a domestic issue...Something about a dog peeing on a neighbors lawn or something?

As I said in another thread..Why does everyone have to "work for the government"? Why couldn't these guys be just regular cops who responded to a DD and were killed by a man who was convinced that they were their to take his guns and his rights? I'm sure Jones will turn it to his advantage to convince more people that the shadows are ever more watchful.



What?

Ok I assumed that wildcat was pointing out how Alex Jones was spreading a conspiracy theory that was promoting the killing of cops or Jews or Jewish cops. But it appears (from your post) that I was mistaken.

In light of this revelation I remove Alex Jones from the list of most dangerous and deadly conspiracy theories until I have evidence that he is promoting the invasion/killing/murder of any country, race, religion, political affiliation or Job such as civil servant etc,.

I tried to Google man kills cops under orders from Alex Jones but all I got were a bunch of hits about cops killing people.

[Ohnoes]

What?

Ok I assumed that wildcat was pointing out how Alex Jones was spreading a conspiracy theory that was promoting the killing of cops or Jews or Jewish cops. But it appears (from your post) that I was mistaken.

In light of this revelation I remove Alex Jones from the list of most dangerous and deadly conspiracy theories until I have evidence that he is promoting the invasion/killing/murder of any country, race, religion, political affiliation or Job such as civil servant etc,.

I tried to Google man kills cops under orders from Alex Jones but all I got were a bunch of hits about cops killing people.

I never said he ordered anyone to kill police, but he does encourage people that the police are out to suppress your rights. Also, if you read his comments sections you will see plenty of people that post that they would have no issue with killing cops in situations like that.

The fact that he doesn't remove those posts or ban the people that say it screams plenty IMO.

[ConspiracyKiller]

I never said he ordered anyone to kill police, but he does encourage people that the police are out to suppress your rights. Also, if you read his comments sections you will see plenty of people that post that they would have no issue with killing cops in situations like that.

The fact that he doesn't remove those posts or ban the people that say it screams plenty IMO.


I have been doing a lot of research on this case in regards to Alex Jones and I thought the best place to get dirt on Alex would be from left wing sites that are openly trying to shut down conservative sites.

You know sites were posters say:

"I hope and non-pray that the current DoJ gets *********** serious about these well-armed right-wing militia/UN invasion nutjobs who have slithered out from the anti-Clinton 90s to spew and kill again."

"They were driven by pro-military, gun loving, right wing white racist, zionist conspiracy paranoids who look to GW Bush, O'Reilly, Beck, et al, as heroes.

If the government had just rounded up all the militant white wingnuts after Oklahoma City, and then invaded Texas with a "shock and awe" campaign, killing, imprisoning, and torturing a few hundred thousand people there, we might have avoided this horrible event. But no, these right wing bleeding heart conservatives want to protect the "rights" of these nuts to kill whoever they want. Thank goodness we have a REAL American as president now, who will protect us against these terrorists."

But to my surprise I found posts and blogs on the left wing sites that defended Alex Jones! They said;

"I have reason to doubt the information reported by the ADL with respect to Alex Jones and Infowars or PrisonPlanet. In fact, evidence points to the contrary; that Alex Jones has spoken strongly against hate speech similar to that spoken by Richard Poplawski."

Looking into the comments of places like Raw Story, Daily Kos, Huffington post and etc, I have been surprised to find posters arguing in defense of a conservitive like Alex Jones.

Instead of going after Alex Jones these people are suggesting they have found enough evidence to establish culpability for civil suits against Stormfront & Glenn Beck .

They are also suggesting they may have enough to go after Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Don Black, and Greenberg based on a several cases simular to the Poplawski case do to the fact that the other killers like Poplawski, David Adkisson, James G. Cummings, Raymond Zareck, and etc, owned books writen by, and were known to be big fans of Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Don Black, and Greenberg.

But it appears to me that people are just using this horibile tragity to attack those that do not support their agenda.

Their even saying that the Scientist who sent the anthrax letters was a big fan of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity and that the FBI supports that conclusion.

Do you think that this terrible tragedy is simply being used as a tool to attack others and that this guy was simply a nut no matter his race, religion, political affiliation, or where he is from?