PDA

View Full Version : Zionist control of the western geo-political narrative



Peter Presland
09-27-2009, 03:04 PM
A couple of things have been gnawing away at me this last week, both of which fit this threads heading and neither of which has been discussed here yet - or if they have I've missed it and apologise. So here goes:

1. The UN General assembly meeting; specifically Ahmadinejad's address and the response to it. A number of Western representatives - mainly from the Echellon countries and their surrogates - walked out on cue. The Daily Telegraph reporting of the matter was typical - "Britain walks out of Iran's Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic speech at UN" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6224954/Britain-walks-out-of-Irans-Ahmadinejads-anti-Semitic-speech-at-UN.html)was the headline. A US State Department spokesman accused Ahmadinejad of using “hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric”. Stephen Harper said Ahmadinejad had said “absolutely repugnant” things about Israel.

Whereas the speech did not contain the words 'Jewish' or 'Holocaust' at all. the word 'Jews' appeared just once as in "....preparing a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony...”

Here is the 'hatefully repugnant' part that prompted the walk out:

"How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peacelovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists. How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenceless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine. They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure. It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions."Raw anti-semitism eh? Talk about Orwellian doublespeak! Do these guys actually believe their semantic inanities I wonder?

2. The furore at the G20 opening over the Iranian "hidden" Uranium processing facility. Gordon Brown said: "The scale of the Iranian deception is breathtaking .... The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.” Similar rhetoric poured ad nauseam from Obama, Harper, Sarkozy and others. And not a word about Israel's quarter century long defiance of international law on nuclear matters. No mention of her nuclear weapons or the fact that the country is neither a signatory to the Nuclear NPT or the IAEA, with pretty much exactly the same to be said about those other Western Allies Pakistan and India. The double standards are so damned IN-YOUR-FACE as to be near unbelievable!

And of course Iran has broken neither international law NOR IAEA rules. It is required to report the existence of any nuclear facility only 180 days before nuclear material is introduced to it - which is exactly what it has done. The fact that the facility has been built in relative secrecy - though no doubt known to Western SIS's all along - is hardly surprising in view of Israeli threats to bomb Nantaz on an almost weekly basis for the past 3 years or more.

The facts simply do not appear to matter to a Zionist dominated western geo-political narrative, intent as it is on demonising any country that declines to see things its way. And Western populations give every appearance of lapping it all up. It really is a desperately sad and deeply worrying state of affairs.

Paul Rigby
09-27-2009, 04:26 PM
A couple of things have been gnawing away at me this last week, both of which fit this threads heading and neither of which has been discussed here yet - or if they have I've missed it and apologise. So here goes:

1. The UN General assembly meeting; specifically Ahmadinejad's address and the response to it. A number of Western representatives - mainly from the Echellon countries and their surrogates - walked out on cue. The Daily Telegraph reporting of the matter was typical - "Britain walks out of Iran's Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic speech at UN" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6224954/Britain-walks-out-of-Irans-Ahmadinejads-anti-Semitic-speech-at-UN.html)was the headline. A US State Department spokesman accused Ahmadinejad of using “hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric”. Stephen Harper said Ahmadinejad had said “absolutely repugnant” things about Israel.

Whereas the speech did not contain the words 'Jewish' or 'Holocaust' at all. the word 'Jews' appeared just once as in "....preparing a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony...”

Here is the 'hatefully repugnant' part that prompted the walk out:

"How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peacelovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists. How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenceless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine. They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure. It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions."Raw anti-semitism eh? Talk about Orwellian doublespeak! Do these guys actually believe their semantic inanities I wonder?


Israel is a flag of convenience for the Anglo-Americans, Peter. The quo for the quid is the Israeli downplaying of who enabled and financed Hitler. The silence of the Zionist lobby on this subject permits state propagandists from both countries -in the UK, for example, Andrew Roberts, the equally ludicrous Christopher Andrew etc - to manufacture a narrative which has the Anglo-Americans claim they fought totalitarianism of both shades, red and brown, throughout the 20th century.

When Israel has served its purpose, the Anglo-Americans will shed Israel with all the sentiment of a snake contemplating an old skin.

As for Brown's speech-reaction to the non-revelation, the man is a joke, and his words without a shred of credibility. But then you know that.

Peter Presland
09-27-2009, 05:00 PM
Israel is a flag of convenience for the Anglo-Americans, Peter. The quo for the quid is the Israeli downplaying of who enabled and financed Hitler. The silence of the Zionist lobby on this subject permits state propagandists from both countries -in the UK, for example, Andrew Roberts, the equally ludicrous Christopher Andrew etc - to manufacture a narrative which has the Anglo-Americans claim they fought totalitarianism of both shades, red and brown, throughout the 20th century.

When Israel has served its purpose, the Anglo-Americans will shed Israel with all the sentiment of a snake contemplating an old skin.

As for Brown's speech-reaction to the non-revelation, the man is a joke, and his words without a shred of credibility. But then you know that.
I'm about 2/3 through Guido Preparata's 'Conjuring Hitler' right now (thanks for the heads up on it a few weeks ago). I've read enough to know that you are spot on with the 'who financed and enabled Hitler' quid pro quo.

The book really is a revelation. So many things become crystal clear in light of it - and all of them absolutely damning to the UK/US 'Valiant and noble struggle against Fascists and Commies' narrative. The narrative that is so fundamental to how the populations of both States see themselves and thus the 'patriotism' necessary to maintain continued support for all the ridiculous bullshit we are expected to believe.

The depth of UK/US duplicity (and complicity) through the 1920-30's, together with the single-mindedness of its intent to manufacture a fascist regime in Germany to wage war on Russia (whose Bolshevik revolution was being similarly enabled) in order to forestall their greatest fear - that of a genuine alliance between Russia and Germany. The whole damned charade is so utterly damning to the US/UK populations self image that, in similar fashion to the realities behind 9-11, JFK etc, they must be hidden, or as fall-back positions, obfuscated and/or ridiculed, at almost any cost.

Paul Rigby
09-27-2009, 05:36 PM
I'm about 2/3 through Guido Preparata's 'Conjuring Hitler' right now (thanks for the heads up on it a few weeks ago). I've read enough to know that you are spot on with the 'who financed and enabled Hitler' quid pro quo.

The book really is a revelation. So many things become crystal clear in light of it - and all of them absolutely damning to the UK/US 'Valiant and noble struggle against Fascists and Commies' narrative. The narrative that is so fundamental to how the populations of both States see themselves and thus the 'patriotism' necessary to maintain continued support for all the ridiculous bullshit we are expected to believe.

The depth of UK/US duplicity (and complicity) through the 1920-30's, together with the single-mindedness of its intent to manufacture a fascist regime in Germany to wage war on Russia (whose Bolshevik revolution was being similarly enabled) in order to forestall their greatest fear - that of a genuine alliance between Russia and Germany. The whole damned charade is so utterly damning to the US/UK populations self image that, in similar fashion to the realities behind 9-11, JFK etc, they must be hidden, or as fall-back positions, obfuscated and/or ridiculed, at almost any cost.

Delighted you've at last got hold of Preparata's tour de force - stunning, isn't it? And you're right, so many loose ends are suddently united and rendered coherent by it. Preparata offers a priceless paradigm, not least through his dusting off of the Veblenian concepts of the "clubs" and "stewards." This language has such explanatory power.

I was sorting out a file of clippings earlier today on the subject of the BBC. In the course of this laborious plod, I rediscovered the best mainstream piece on it I have yet come across. In "Thanks for the cultural capital, Dad," (The Guardian, Monday, 13 May 1996, p.13), Ros Coward conceived of that dreadful organisation in terms any attentive student of Veblen/Preparata would instantly recognise:


"...it has always been dominated by Reithian notions of broadcasting as a ruling-class instrument for educating and influencing the lower orders. This ethos persisted right through to the 70s with the BBC's graduate training scheme...it is still run like a village. Only a handful of courses provide any real working knowledge of the industry, so how do the powerful make their selections? By recommendation, by networks, and by trusting the 'good' families."

Earlier in the same piece, she wrote that "Everybody knows about the aristocratic dynasties of the media like the Dimblebys." In his coverage of Dachau, Dimbleby senior offered the stewards of British inter-war policy, most of them still in power despite being among the most murderous and cynical in human history, cover-story, alibi, and future pretext.

Don't forget Radio 3 on Mackinder tonight. The sound of whitewash over the airwaves is confidently anticipated!

Paul

Magda Hassan
09-28-2009, 04:09 AM
Should this book be in the definitive book list Paul and Peter? I haven't read it but it sounds good.

Paul Rigby
09-28-2009, 06:00 AM
Should this book be in the definitive book list Paul and Peter? I haven't read it but it sounds good.

Absolutely, but do make the effort to read it, M. Last I heard, Preparata is working on the post-WWII follow-up. His section(s) on the CIA support for Castro, and much else besides, should be fascinating.

Paul

Peter Presland
09-28-2009, 06:51 AM
Should this book be in the definitive book list Paul and Peter? I haven't read it but it sounds good.
Magda

As you might expect, I agree with Paul. The narrative it presents, of determined, persistent Machiavellian scheming and its agreed objectives as between the US and UK in particular is almost the diametric opposite of the 'Victors' narrative that has become the unquestionable received wisdom. In itself that is not conclusive evidence of its accuracy of course, dealing as it does with well hidden and unspoken motives to such an extent. However, it is the way that masses of otherwise mysteriously inexplicable events fall into place that clinch it for me. Things like ostensible Western assistance to the the White Russian forces when the unequivocal objective was to thwart them and ensure their defeat by the Bolsheviks. The detailed evidence for this is extensive and very impressive. Same applies to lots more otherwise 'coincidental' things too - and of course I abandoned 'coincidence theory' ages ago - there is almost always a non-coincidental explanation involving deliberate, conspiracy and so it is with this book.

IMHO a 'must read' for anyone who believes that Deep State agendas were as operative and decisive through the early part of the 20th century as they are today and who wants to know the real story behind the fairy tale of Hitler's rise to power.

Mark Stapleton
09-28-2009, 09:37 AM
A couple of things have been gnawing away at me this last week, both of which fit this threads heading and neither of which has been discussed here yet - or if they have I've missed it and apologise. So here goes:

1. The UN General assembly meeting; specifically Ahmadinejad's address and the response to it. A number of Western representatives - mainly from the Echellon countries and their surrogates - walked out on cue. The Daily Telegraph reporting of the matter was typical - "Britain walks out of Iran's Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic speech at UN" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6224954/Britain-walks-out-of-Irans-Ahmadinejads-anti-Semitic-speech-at-UN.html)was the headline. A US State Department spokesman accused Ahmadinejad of using “hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric”. Stephen Harper said Ahmadinejad had said “absolutely repugnant” things about Israel.

Whereas the speech did not contain the words 'Jewish' or 'Holocaust' at all. the word 'Jews' appeared just once as in "....preparing a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony...”

Here is the 'hatefully repugnant' part that prompted the walk out:

"How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peacelovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists. How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenceless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine. They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure. It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions."Raw anti-semitism eh? Talk about Orwellian doublespeak! Do these guys actually believe their semantic inanities I wonder?

2. The furore at the G20 opening over the Iranian "hidden" Uranium processing facility. Gordon Brown said: "The scale of the Iranian deception is breathtaking .... The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.” Similar rhetoric poured ad nauseam from Obama, Harper, Sarkozy and others. And not a word about Israel's quarter century long defiance of international law on nuclear matters. No mention of her nuclear weapons or the fact that the country is neither a signatory to the Nuclear NPT or the IAEA, with pretty much exactly the same to be said about those other Western Allies Pakistan and India. The double standards are so damned IN-YOUR-FACE as to be near unbelievable!

And of course Iran has broken neither international law NOR IAEA rules. It is required to report the existence of any nuclear facility only 180 days before nuclear material is introduced to it - which is exactly what it has done. The fact that the facility has been built in relative secrecy - though no doubt known to Western SIS's all along - is hardly surprising in view of Israeli threats to bomb Nantaz on an almost weekly basis for the past 3 years or more.

The facts simply do not appear to matter to a Zionist dominated western geo-political narrative, intent as it is on demonising any country that declines to see things its way. And Western populations give every appearance of lapping it all up. It really is a desperately sad and deeply worrying state of affairs.

Agreed. Top post, Peter.

Mark Stapleton
09-28-2009, 09:53 AM
Israel is a flag of convenience for the Anglo-Americans, Peter. The quo for the quid is the Israeli downplaying of who enabled and financed Hitler. The silence of the Zionist lobby on this subject permits state propagandists from both countries -in the UK, for example, Andrew Roberts, the equally ludicrous Christopher Andrew etc - to manufacture a narrative which has the Anglo-Americans claim they fought totalitarianism of both shades, red and brown, throughout the 20th century.

When Israel has served its purpose, the Anglo-Americans will shed Israel with all the sentiment of a snake contemplating an old skin.



Maybe.

However, its hard to dispute the case for Israel being totally out of control at present, whether their role is as a flag of convenience or not. Israel, and Israel alone, is responsible for the genocide in Gaza. Israel pushed hard for war in Iraq and is pushing even harder for war in Iran.

The Anglo-Americans can't even dissuade Israel from their illegal settlement expansion. So I think your last sentence has it back to front.

Magda Hassan
09-28-2009, 12:12 PM
A couple of things have been gnawing away at me this last week, both of which fit this threads heading and neither of which has been discussed here yet - or if they have I've missed it and apologise. So here goes:

1. The UN General assembly meeting; specifically Ahmadinejad's address and the response to it. A number of Western representatives - mainly from the Echellon countries and their surrogates - walked out on cue. The Daily Telegraph reporting of the matter was typical - "Britain walks out of Iran's Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic speech at UN" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6224954/Britain-walks-out-of-Irans-Ahmadinejads-anti-Semitic-speech-at-UN.html)was the headline. A US State Department spokesman accused Ahmadinejad of using “hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric”. Stephen Harper said Ahmadinejad had said “absolutely repugnant” things about Israel.

Whereas the speech did not contain the words 'Jewish' or 'Holocaust' at all. the word 'Jews' appeared just once as in "....preparing a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony...”

Here is the 'hatefully repugnant' part that prompted the walk out:

"How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peacelovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists. How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenceless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine. They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure. It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions."Raw anti-semitism eh? Talk about Orwellian doublespeak! Do these guys actually believe their semantic inanities I wonder?

2. The furore at the G20 opening over the Iranian "hidden" Uranium processing facility. Gordon Brown said: "The scale of the Iranian deception is breathtaking .... The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.” Similar rhetoric poured ad nauseam from Obama, Harper, Sarkozy and others. And not a word about Israel's quarter century long defiance of international law on nuclear matters. No mention of her nuclear weapons or the fact that the country is neither a signatory to the Nuclear NPT or the IAEA, with pretty much exactly the same to be said about those other Western Allies Pakistan and India. The double standards are so damned IN-YOUR-FACE as to be near unbelievable!

And of course Iran has broken neither international law NOR IAEA rules. It is required to report the existence of any nuclear facility only 180 days before nuclear material is introduced to it - which is exactly what it has done. The fact that the facility has been built in relative secrecy - though no doubt known to Western SIS's all along - is hardly surprising in view of Israeli threats to bomb Nantaz on an almost weekly basis for the past 3 years or more.

The facts simply do not appear to matter to a Zionist dominated western geo-political narrative, intent as it is on demonising any country that declines to see things its way. And Western populations give every appearance of lapping it all up. It really is a desperately sad and deeply worrying state of affairs.

Yes. The media is in a sorry state indeed. Yes, Iran has complied with all the IAEA requirements. France is pissed off because the Russians got the job. The Europeans and the Yankees received billions from Iran during the Shah's time as payment for the nuclear reactors and peripherals that they were meant to build and never delivered. They never refunded a cent. I wonder whose banks accounts that ended up in? Brown wants Iran to comply with UN resolutions while never requiring the same standard of compliance from Israel and going back to 1948. Weapons inspection of Dimona? I don't think that's ever going to happen. I am amazed at their ability to keep a straight face :smokin:

The facts simply do not appear to matter to a Zionist dominated western geo-political narrative...
I am constantly reminded of Dimitry Orlov's observation on the differences and similarities of the USSR and USA. He said something to the effect that while the USSR handled dissidents in a heavy handed manner he marveled at the strategy of the USA where people were 'permitted' to shout at the top of their lungs and be ignored totally.

Carsten Wiethoff
09-28-2009, 07:35 PM
I was not aware of a book implying British/US interests in financing and enabling Hitler, with all the unspeakable crimes on humanity that have been committed.

BUT I PERSONALLY WAS PRETTY SURE OF THAT ANYWAY.

Many people have asked, how Hitler could come to power so quickly and control the minds of the population so completely. In this regard it is certainly no accident of history, that the west german BND was headed until 1968 (!!!) by Gehlen himself (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Gehlen in German). You will find CIA documents regarding BND/Gehlen, that have been declassified.
I would be more interested in the classified ones.:D

If Hitler really came to power by the money that US/Brits had stolen in the first world war, or wherever, that would likely be the bloodiest black operation ever, with the revealing and commonly used ending that the Operative Hitler (aka Patsy) is betrayed after the deed and treated as the bad man (aka Terrorist) and brutally brought to death by his creators.
How many people would have believed Hitler near the end, if he had said or written the truth about his alleged role as an operative of US/Brit interests.

A question for the experts: Did Hitler actually try to say something like that or try to write (eg in his diaries) something to this effect? I would tend to believe him in this case.

If we logically follow that through to the world of today, applying the same MO, what would be more logical than this scenario:
Osama bin Laden and all the other Mujaheddin are operated and financed by the US to expell the Russians from Afghanistan. Once they achieve their goal, they are betrayed and hunted down, to kill any credible witnesses for direct US involvement. But, after all, this was Charlie Wilson's war and there was not so much reason to be ashamed about US involvement, in fact it was felt to be a great victory over the Russians, at least by Brzezi?ski.
Still, the Mujaheddin are betrayed from their share of the victory, and so they are really pissed off.
Osama bin Laden has the intellectual potential to see through this plot and realize how he and the whole Arab world is used as Patsies on the Grand Chessboard, and all of them are used and then betrayed and thrown away, with the help of other patsies, that are then.... (you get the picture).

Osama bin Laden realizes this deadly machinery going on and starts to organize resistance against it. He openly declares war on the US. (Who else did that in history ever, as the head of a resistance movement?)
At least Osama is not of the faint hearted variety.

On this, of course, the US is pissed off mightily, because, alas, the man is speaking the truth, and if allowed to continue, someday this man might stand in front of the United Nations and tell his story. And, shock horror, he might be believed.
So, disinfo sets in. False Flag operations attributed to bin Laden create the false impression that this is about killing someone, not about speaking the truth. Then of course, this is intolerable to US interests, and quickly Osama is branded a Terrorist and a "search" conducted for him. Under the Clinton administration he is pictured as a bad guy and Clinton reluctantly authorizes targeted killings, which fail. (Sidenote: for this, Clinton should have been impeached, not for Levinsky).
When Bush takes over, he has no idea. His trusty Vulcans, of course, know exactly how the killing machine works and that Osama can not be allowed to live. So someone has the ingenious idea, to use this image of the terrorist, to set him up as the patsy for the largest controlled demolition in the heart of an unsuspecting city, solving the nasty problem of asbestos and Enron at the same time, financing the whole operation with foreign insurance money and thereby making a profit at the same time.

Good plan, shabby execution.

Everybody who mentioned the name Osama bin Laden on September 11 should be arrested on the spot and forced to reveal his sources.

Ahhhh, and yes, this can be wonderfully used to execute the remaining Mujaheddin remembering the original plot in Afghanistan, get the poppy seeds going again and as an additional bonus by some quirked disinformational logic imply Saddam Hussein in the plot, who is also one of these operatives being betrayed into a paty and then executed.
PLEASE, for humanity's sake, show us the original writings of Hussein in prison. I, for one, would like to read them word for word.

The best part of it is that Bush jr. is also a patsy. I am SURE that he did not know what was really going on. He was given this disinfo bullshit called presidential brief on August 6, warning that bin Laden wants to attack the US.
Condoleeza Rice, would you like to make a statement on it, before I make a sworn affidavit before the attorney general?:rock:
And then, of course, after it all came down and poor Bush sitting in the classroom with this quizzical look, realizing that he, too, is set up for the fall if he does not go along, has absolutely no choice but to comply with the Vulcans and his father, of course.
I am pretty sure that his incomprehensible statement that he saw the first plane hit the tower, is multidimensional whistle blowing. First it was not American 11 hitting the first tower. Everybody who checks out Ronni Chowdry's clumsy attempt to get rid of flying evidence knows that. And then of course, the only way that Bush could have seen a plane hitting that building was that he was shown prefabricated snuff films.

OK.
Enough is enough.

I am willing to defend each and every single statement of mine. Please do inform all mentioned persons still alive and invite them to the forum. I'd like to have a real discussion on this, for one.


I said, I was much calmer after my holidays. But much more determined.

So I publicly invite Osama bin Laden into the forum, for a comment on my statements. Please, administrators, check his id carefully.

Carsten Wiethoff, in a revolutianary mood.

Carsten Wiethoff
09-28-2009, 08:17 PM
For the record: I do not longer trust Barrack Obama to be able and willing to really affect change and bring down this gargantuan chain of events.

It would be so easy. Just investigate my claim, that Yesh M. Tembe did not die on 9/11.

As long as I do not see results, positive or negative, I will prepare for A hit squad coming to me.

Carsten Wiethoff

Carsten Wiethoff
09-28-2009, 08:19 PM
I think, some chicken shit misunderestimated me.

Raging...


Carsten