Theories and Opinions

[Barker]

I have opened this thread and the invitation of the moderator, in 'suggestions'. hoping that if will be used by people who have thoughts and ideas an have not yet found a suitable space to express them.

When I first saw/heard about the 911 attack I thought the World Trade Centre was the headquarters of the World Trade Organisation, and that the attack was a reaction to the exclusive policies of the WTO, rather like an over-blown version by radical Muslims, of the riots in Seattle against the WTO the previous year. However it turned out that the WTO don't even have an office there, and the WTC was just a commercial office building. There are other buildings called 'World Trade Center' elsewhere, one in Boston and I believe one in Quatar.

Since then, more and more evidence has emerged showing that the 911 event preceded a militaristic foreign policy by the US aimed at subduing threatening and invading Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Many of us thought [I know I did] that the third millennium would bring world peace and universal harmony, and the end of the Berlin Wall, the
Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union itself, indicated this as a real possibility.

We then had the appointment of the Bush administration and then 911.
It appears that our political leaders are committed to a policy of perpetual war. GWB said as much soon after 911, say that this was a war on terror, and that it would be going on for a long time. how long? some say generations. After such an optimistic time in the '90s, why would this be? one can only deduce vested interest and financial gain.

Ever since WW11 the British and Americal governments' economies have been based on armaments, and arms only have one function and that is to kill people. Killing people is only socially acceptable in a war zone. hence wars are necessary to keep the military and armaments machine
in operation. the involvement of members of the Bush Administration in Haliburton and the Carlyle Group is well known. I think I've said enough for now, I'll finish with a quotation:

'In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its
taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest,
would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that
wars were raised to carry on taxes'. - Thomas Paine

[John White]

I had this thought tonight, which I found quite illuminating

[MiniMauve]

Interesting thought, JW.

It would fit with another possibility I'd been mulling over the last few months. The ongoing violence in Iraq has been largely tit-for-tat sectarian strife. Both Sunni and Shiite death squads, often in military or police uniforms, are carrying out these attacks, yet who does it benefit? Not the population. So how are these death squads allowed to continue if the populations don't support them? Which the more I read the more I believe they don't. Where do these death squads get their armaments? Their safe areas? The military/police uniforms? Who could provide all that? Everything points at the US and allies. What would they gain? It would perpetuate the need for a large military budget. The worst thing that ever happened to the military-industrial complex was the end of the cold war. They needed a new war and now they have it. They need american forces in foreign nations to generate markets for their military products. The US administration does not want the strife in the mideast to end, quite the contrary. It's too good for business.

Thoughts?

[AntiZionistAntiNeocon]

My opinion is that they want to split Iraq into 3 pieces (along the lines of the Bernard Lewis map http://www.daanspeak.com/IranAttackBernardLewisMap.html ) - classic divide and conquer.

They can do this by formenting a civil war, then saying that "Oh well, for the safety of the Iraqis, we should split the country into 3 pieces" when that is what they wanted in the first place.

See this article:

http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2006/181006Iraq.htm


Also this article which is very important and shows what they are doing to set one group against the other:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/200905stagedterror. htm
________
Mercedes-Benz M123 engine specifications

[chek]

The Iraqi violence does not take the form of massed battles between different sides, but has all the hallmarks of 'black ops' and death squads as practised in Central America in the Contra era.
'Qui bono' indeed.

[zappasearcher]

some of my thoughts (with no constraints)

Plane Theory
Holes were blasted as the two planes flew into towers 1 + 2. they were flew by pilots and they are alive. they had certain tasks to do once inside the building and then escaped before collapse. the planes were not your bog-standard planes but built to look like airliners and to protect the pilots flying into the towers. (far-fetched, I know)

Palestine
Palestine is a prison, The previous and current leaders of Palestine are Governors of a prison. They have no plans to close down the prison.

Iran
The neocons know they have no chance of winning a ground war but it will not stop them as they are profit even if they 'lose'.

Ahmedinijad & Chavez
They are both part of the elite, as well as Jong-Il and every other world leader. The elite are planning these wars against us. Whether there is Rothschild banks in these countrys makes no difference at all.

The elite have played mind games with us for many years. The elite knew the earth wasn't flat, knew of America, India, Australia before they were 'discovered', have set up wars for their own entertainment, ritual games, and power ego trip. They have an intention to stripmine the planet and look for somwhere else in the universe to plunder.

[suspecta]

[catfish]

[suspecta]

Occasionally a leader gets in who really is on the side of the angels. Think of Mandela and Vaclav Havel. I think Chavez is one of those. Yes the corruptors will be in there like a shot but occasionally a leader manages not to succumb.

Suspecta

[chek]

[catfish]

Putin's Russia is less corrupt than USA? Can I believe what I'm reading? Can anyone say (or google) Politkovskaya? Putin is a bad man, make no mistakes folks.

As for Mandela when they let him out of prison his brain was fried. Anyone moving to South Africa? Nope didn't think so, that place is out of bounds, no matter what colour you are.

My point is don't be surprised when Chavez takes sides in the big and stupid global aggression show, telecasted live to the plastic window cube in your home soon.

[chek]

[blackcat]

[Barker]

John Pilger wrote further about the Salvador Option in the New Statesman earlier this year, shedding light on the origins of the plot:

"The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. "

The confirmation that the Salvador Option had been invoked came quite publicly just over a year ago when British SAS were caught dressed in Arab garb and attempting to stage a terror attacks on Iraqi police. the soldiers were "rescued" by British troops using extreme force and a media blackout ensued. [note: according to some accounts these were not SAS but were MOSSAD Agents; this was covered up by the British Army]

In addition to the Salvador option, we have also exposed other US and Israeli policy documents stating that it would be beneficial to the overalk strategy to engender strife in the region.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

That agenda was again underscored recently when Daniel Pipes, a highly influential Straussian Neo-Con media darling, told the New York Sun that a civil war would aid the US and Israel .

[chek]

Cheers Barker, interesting post. I hadn't realised others where thinking along the same lines. (Shades of my awakening to the 911 Truth movement).

I think I changed my mind about the war on terrrr.
Let's get behind it as long as it's about rooting out the terrrsts in our so-called 'security services'.

[Mark Gobell]

That's why it's more apposite name should be The War of Terror

[catfish]

That reminds me, it was originally called The War Against Terror.

But was quickly changed to The War On Terror when tabloids realised that abbrevieted it was T.W.A.T.

[conspiracy analyst]

with the end of the ex-USSR and the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism a new threat had to be found. An empire cannot exist without threats, real or imagined. The 'war on terror' replace the 'war against communism'.

Better to have one clown in charge than two. At least people can now see that the Emperor has no clothes.

Whatever happened to the talk of a hyperpower?

It must have ceased on Baghdads backstreets. If Vietnam humbled America, Iraq will bury it.