View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Icke knows the score New Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: Bloody good message this! |
|
|
9/11 message of an ex-Marine to the anti-war movement - one it's about time they bloody listened to ...
'It saddens and angers me that so many people in the antiwar movement refuse to examine the evidence of 9/11. We should ask them to do at least one thing. Watch the movie we just saw, 911mysteries. And if after watching it, they still want to continue believing the official BS, so be it.
But for people to say that they want peace and at the same time adamantly deny the direct connection between 9/11 and the current wars is irresponsible. Many anti-war people unquestioningly accept the official version, without even looking at the overwhelming evidence which the 9/11 Truth movement has laboriously collected over the years.'
Hallelujah |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IKTS,
In fact, many individuals in the StW movement support what we say. The leadership is however, very antagonistic towards us. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
insidejob Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 475 Location: North London
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: StW |
|
|
Wokeman wrote: | IKTS,
In fact, many individuals in the StW movement support what we say. The leadership is however, very antagonistic towards us. |
that's interesting. I'm a member of Islington Stop the War. We haven't had a meeting for some time and so I haven't discussed 911 with anyone. I'd be interested in hearing what you've heard from StW individuals.
I've witnessed some 911 sceptics try to "hijack" a StW demo that did annoy demonstrators. One reason why StW organisers are antagonistic. But not the only reason.
I think the 'false flag' model of 911 is a rival to the Marxist analysis model of the Left. Very few prominent people on the Left actually articulate the 'conspiracy model'. They will, therefore, seek to undermine it. This is apart from the fact that the Left has agents of right-wing influence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1919 Location: Derbyshire
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had a (slightly unexpected) brief encounter with Derby Stop The War people earlier this year. I gave about 5 or 6 members DVD's. I've never heard from them since (my e-mail address was on each DVD). _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hampton Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005 Posts: 310 Location: London
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
i find less hostility from the members recently.
they seem to at least listen now.
especially if you use the 'facts they dont know' approach.
if they then call you a conspiracy theorist you can say 'you're jumping to conclusions, i'm just stating facts'
they carry banners saying 'george bush - world's no.1 terrorist', but he wouldn't hurt his own people. he only likes to kill foreigners. but wait a minute america's full of foreigners...
i wonder why the stw management is hostile?
they're either stupid, scared that people will find out they're stupid or agents of darkness.
besides they only want to stop this war.
they think war is ok if the un approve it.
so i think the latter is more likely.
any movement, that large, which doesn't have regular demos has got to be questioned.
it's just a valve to let off steam. it gives people the illusion of freedom & democracy.
and you've only got to look at the events of 9/10/06 at parliament sq to see we don't have either. _________________ Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
insidejob Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 475 Location: North London
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: Left and 911 |
|
|
I'm now going to argue that:
i. in supporting the British Intelligence Service position of stating that radicalised Muslims want to use terrrorism to revenge Western actions in the Middle East, the Left is supporting the Neo-Con agenda. The elite is not offering their public a change in their policy and actions, they are offering attacks against Muslims and attacks on civil liberties. The public will accept this.
ii. the Left protest strategy is not working. Despite their hard working in organising the largest march in the UK, the Iraq war still happened and was recently followed up with Blair supporting the attack in Lebanon. The only way to stop what's happening is to discredit 911.
insidejob |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: Re: StW |
|
|
insidejob wrote: |
that's interesting. I'm a member of Islington Stop the War. We haven't had a meeting for some time and so I haven't discussed 911 with anyone. I'd be interested in hearing what you've heard from StW individuals.
I've witnessed some 911 sceptics try to "hijack" a StW demo that did annoy demonstrators. One reason why StW organisers are antagonistic. But not the only reason.
I think the 'false flag' model of 911 is a rival to the Marxist analysis model of the Left. Very few prominent people on the Left actually articulate the 'conspiracy model'. They will, therefore, seek to undermine it. This is apart from the fact that the Left has agents of right-wing influence. |
If you're a Stop the War supporter, but also a campaigner for 9/11 truth and you go to a Stop the War event and raise questions about 9/11 you get accused of being an outside organisation trying to hijack the event. In fact, you and your friends are Stop the War supporters who have a different take on 9/11 from the StW leadership. But you have a right to express your view and a right to express your anger when you get ignored or ridiculed.
I see no contradiction between doubting the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and the marxist model. According to Marx the capitalist class will get up to all sorts of dirty tricks in order to increase their power and control. What we are witnessing with false flag terrorism is the upper echelons of the capitalist class doing their damnedest to increse their power and control.
Where is the contradiction?
Noel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1616
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | If you're a Stop the War supporter, but also a campaigner for 9/11 truth and you go to a Stop the War event and raise questions about 9/11 you get accused of being an outside organisation trying to hijack the event. |
I find that very inconsistent. At every stw demo I've ever been to, I've been handed flyers by, seen banners for, been approached by, people from all kinds of movements. Strictly speaking:
What has enviromentalism got to do with stw?
What's the SWP for that matter - (they've tried to hijack numerous protests over the last fifteen years, so any comments by them is particularly hypocritical)
What has 'ending capitalism?'
I'm not saying they shouldn't be there or promoting their ideas - I like the opportunity protests provide to engage with all manner of 'alternative' political ideas, and the first and third of my examples I totally support. It just grates if the truth movement is singled out. Like 911 had NOTHING to do with building up the 'dangers' of Iraq.
I'll tell you why they don't like it - it's because
a/It's 'conspiracy theory'
b/The truth movement has grown in popularity- one guy handing out fliers for a zany, 'conspiritorial' cause no-one believes in would be happily ignored
I may be 'unsure' about MIHOP, but I'm damned glad I've encountered truthers at protests (given me much to think about, they have) and I think it's appalling that one movement out of literally hundreds that promote their cause should be singled out.
I'm really irritated by the way as soon as anything becomes a 'conspiracy theory' it automatically gets dismissed. Those who class themselves as at all 'radical', for free speech and for respect and understanding should know better.
Beware the conservatism of the left. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not by chance that the stop the war group is a lot bigger than 911 truth.
They are a controlled opposition, just as friends of the earth greenpeace etc are. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wobbler wrote: | It just grates if the truth movement is singled out. Like 911 had NOTHING to do with building up the 'dangers' of Iraq. |
I'm not sure that it is singled out. There are a lot of peripheral groups that come out on StW demos and I don't know how StW responds to them.
wobbler wrote: | I'll tell you why they don't like it - it's because
a/It's 'conspiracy theory'
b/The truth movement has grown in popularity- one guy handing out fliers for a zany, 'conspiritorial' cause no-one believes in would be happily ignored. |
Yes, I think a lot of people have been taken in by the 'conspiracy theory' ploy. We have to keep hammering away at that point, reminding folk that 'conspiracy theorists' are those who have a theory about a conspiracy; that a conspiracy is by definition a crime which was planned by two or more people; that certainly there was a conspiracy on Sept 11th 2001 and the government has produced a theory (which they maintain is incontrovertable truth) about what happened. So clearly the government are by definition 'conspiracy theorists' while the truth movement (who do not advance any particular theory but want a proper investigation to discover the truth) are therefore not 'conspiracy theorists'.
I think another problem that StW coalition leadership have is that questions raised about 9/11 show up their ignorance of the topic. They use various tactics to parry questions about 911. I have experienced the following reactions:
- saying it's an irrelevance how the war was started
- saying it's an issue for Americans to sort out, not us Britons
- saying it's poor tactics to deflect campaigners' attention away from stopping the war
- claiming to have studied the issue in depth and coming to the conclusion that there is no 'empirical objective' evidence which suggests a 'conspiracy' (the guy who told me that swore blind he had read New Pearl Harbor but when I questioned him further revealed he had never heard of WTC 7)
- taking a whole lot of questions from a public audience together and then 'forgetting' to answer the one about 9/11
- falsely claiming that I had made a statement rather than asked a question and therefore needed no answer
- total flummoxed silence until a friendly SWP activist came to the rescue by changing the subject.
I think the StW leadership feel that their current leadership of the peace movement is challenged by the emergence of a body of opinion, of which they are largely ignorant, that there are major factors of importance to stopping the War on Terror which they have not considered. I would advise any StW leader who wishes to retain their leadership to study the evidence about what happened on 9/11. At least then they would be able to argue from an informed position against the Truth movement's contention that a thorough investigation is needed.
Are they not suffering from a sneaking suspicion that, though they maintain they have the answers to how to stop the war, these Johnnie-cum-lately truth campaigners do in fact have an important point that they have overlooked? Moreover, any approved StW platform speaker who was thinking of breaking ranks, as David Shayler did, knows that they will be dropped like a hot potato and called a 'conspiracy theorist', as David was.
wobbler wrote: |
I may be 'unsure' about MIHOP, but I'm damned glad I've encountered truthers at protests (given me much to think about, they have) and I think it's appalling that one movement out of literally hundreds that promote their cause should be singled out. |
Be true to yourself, Wobbler. If LIHOP rather than MIHOP seems true to you, don't be afraid of that position. All who doubt the official conspiracy theory are welcome here, even if they only doubt it a tiny bit.
wobbler wrote: |
I'm really irritated by the way as soon as anything becomes a 'conspiracy theory' it automatically gets dismissed. Those who class themselves as at all 'radical', for free speech and for respect and understanding should know better.
Beware the conservatism of the left. |
Yes! And of course the conservatism of the right.
Noel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Light Infantree Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 300 Location: Ipswich, Suffolk
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To use the Ickeberg's wonderful way of illustrating people's behaviour: this whole issue is to do with individuals living in the 'Hassel-Free-Zone'. From within this 'zone' (which is simply a state of mind) anything said or done outside of 'normal' get quashed, people are very aware of this and don't step outside the zone through fear.
Those who are involved with the StW and have who have issues with dealing with the real 9/11 information have got wake up on two seperate levels. Firstly it is nesessary for them to understand that they are putting up barriers to anything other than information that they deem as 'safe' so that the the people around them will still buy them a pint and secondly they have then got to make up their own minds about the actual information. That is quite rightly up to them. But this information must be viewed or read free from any outside influence or pressure (like any information should be)
Some people are like bloody birds of paradise mating, one feather out of place and nothing going to happen. Catch them at the right moment though, and new eggs will surely follow
The laugh here, (its an ironic one ) is that without confronting this information the whole issue of the war is a complete and utter pile of pants. By denying themselves the chance to learn and make an informed choice these guys are wasting an awful lot of energy and playing into the hands of the very people who they are campaigning against. The emperor has no clothes but if I stare with these shades on it looks like hes wearing underpants. Mmm much more respectable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John White Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And this reminds me of another "Ickeism"
Quote: | I'm really irritated by the way as soon as anything becomes a 'conspiracy theory' it automatically gets dismissed. Those who class themselves as at all 'radical', for free speech and for respect and understanding should know better.
Beware the conservatism of the left.
|
A perfect description of the "Robot Radical" _________________ Free your Self and Free the World |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1616
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Xmasdale -
Quote: | I think another problem that StW coalition leadership have is that questions raised about 9/11 show up their ignorance of the topic. They use various tactics to parry questions about 911. I have experienced the following reactions:
- saying it's an irrelevance how the war was started
- saying it's an issue for Americans to sort out, not us Britons
- saying it's poor tactics to deflect campaigners' attention away from stopping the war
- claiming to have studied the issue in depth and coming to the conclusion
that there is no 'empirical objective' evidence which suggests a 'conspiracy' (the guy who told me that swore blind he had read New Pearl Harbor but when I questioned him further revealed he had never heard of WTC 7)
- taking a whole lot of questions from a public audience together and then 'forgetting' to answer the one about 9/11
- falsely claiming that I had made a statement rather than asked a question and therefore needed no answer
- total flummoxed silence until a friendly SWP activist came to the rescue by changing the subject.
|
Have you really experienced all this? I was a bit disconcerted reading that paragraph. I mean, people may have heated arguments with 'critics', but they know their stuff. Dismissing the whole area without even knowing what it's about is the kind if ignorance these people supposedly stand against.
Quote: | Be true to yourself, Wobbler. If LIHOP rather than MIHOP seems true to you, don't be afraid of that position. All who doubt the official conspiracy theory are welcome here, even if they only doubt it a tiny bit. |
Thanks for that. I've been struck by how many truthers have said exactly the same thing to me (100% and counting). So much for paranoid, raving, 'tin foil hatters'...
Quote: | Yes! And of course the conservatism of the right. |
Oh, goes without saying.
T
HETRUTHWILLSETU3 -
Quote: | They are a controlled opposition, just as friends of the earth greenpeace etc are. |
What evidence would you cite for that? I mean, they've got inevitably more 'corporate' over the years as they've grown. Isn't that the way of the major charity? I don't see anything to suggest they're "controlled". I mean they've never been as 'radical' as Earth First!, but Greenpeace activists have done some fairly interesting things over the years. I'm just slightly confused over this notion that the enviromental movement is 'bad' I keep coming across. I simply don't get that. Should I not be concerned with pollution, entire species being eradicated, nuclear waste, climate change (yes I know people like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson think that's a non-issue, curiously siding with the view of large multinational corporations and pretty much no-one else) and the use of a finite resources as if they were infinite? I know governments tend to want to exploit the issue by throwing 'green taxes' at us plebs while failing to tackle the corporate world; that's governments exploiting the issue rather than against the issue itself.
I don't get it . _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hampton Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005 Posts: 310 Location: London
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wobbler wrote: |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 -
Quote: | They are a controlled opposition, just as friends of the earth greenpeace etc are. |
What evidence would you cite for that? I mean, they've got inevitably more 'corporate' over the years as they've grown. Isn't that the way of the major charity? I don't see anything to suggest they're "controlled". I mean they've never been as 'radical' as Earth First!, but Greenpeace activists have done some fairly interesting things over the years. I'm just slightly confused over this notion that the enviromental movement is 'bad' I keep coming across. I simply don't get that. Should I not be concerned with pollution, entire species being eradicated, nuclear waste, climate change (yes I know people like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson think that's a non-issue, curiously siding with the view of large multinational corporations and pretty much no-one else) and the use of a finite resources as if they were infinite? I know governments tend to want to exploit the issue by throwing 'green taxes' at us plebs while failing to tackle the corporate world; that's governments exploiting the issue rather than against the issue itself.
I don't get it . |
unfortunately it's probably true. these groups give people an outlet for their frustration
but they are controlled by the same shadowy groups that did 911 & are polluting the planet.
they are there to capture opening minds.
eg. in my personal experience greenpeace is undemocratic and the management are slimy.
their successes are probably negotiated with the corporations and they only give you legal support
if you follow their instructions to the letter (eg. where to stick your stickers).
they say they encourage questions but they just fob you off.
having given the election to bush, al gore is now talking environment.
this is a way of handing vast tracts of land to the un or other unaccountable bodies.
it also generates a lot of fear. and they use fear to control people.
dr david bellamy (remember him?) was censored off the telly for saying that humans were not causing global warming
(it's a natural cycle).
charities are more of the same with people on fat salaries effectively stealing taxpayers money
for something which the government should provide (eg. help the aged/disabled kiddies)
and squandering it with other unethical companies.
it makes people feel better and they can forget about the problem if they put a quid in the tin.
the world wildlife fund's patron is the racist criminal prince philip who likes to go shooting baby elephants
in front of their mothers (this came from a former senior manager). also it seems that many trouble spots
around the world (uganda, rwanda, etc) are very close to wildlife reserves.
could it be that the terrorist training camps are located in these reserves, surely not. _________________ Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1616
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hampton:
Quote: | unfortunately it's probably true. these groups give people an outlet for their frustration
but they are controlled by the same shadowy groups that did 911 & are polluting the planet.
they are there to capture opening minds.
eg. in my personal experience greenpeace is undemocratic and the management are slimy.
their successes are probably negotiated with the corporations and they only give you legal support
if you follow their instructions to the letter (eg. where to stick your stickers).
they say they encourage questions but they just fob you off.
having given the election to bush, al gore is now talking environment.
this is a way of handing vast tracts of land to the un or other unaccountable bodies.
it also generates a lot of fear. and they use fear to control people.
dr david bellamy (remember him?) was censored off the telly for saying that humans were not causing global warming
(it's a natural cycle).
charities are more of the same with people on fat salaries effectively stealing taxpayers money
for something which the government should provide (eg. help the aged/disabled kiddies)
and squandering it with other unethical companies.
it makes people feel better and they can forget about the problem if they put a quid in the tin.
the world wildlife fund's patron is the racist criminal prince philip who likes to go shooting baby elephants
in front of their mothers (this came from a former senior manager). also it seems that many trouble spots
around the world (uganda, rwanda, etc) are very close to wildlife reserves.
could it be that the terrorist training camps are located in these reserves, surely not.
_________________ |
I agree you can argue the 'outlet' idea - though you can argue that about many forms of protest
I agree they can be undemocratic and slimy - management in any organisation can be, I currently work for the NHS and there's some 'characters' in the management of our trust - but that doesn't mean what we do as an organisation is necessarily bad overall. The boss is a w&nker - that's a given.
I agree executives can be overpaid. Though salaries do tend to be lower than in the private sector. Unfortunatly, there's this belief that you have to attract a 'the best' executives (ie someone to sit in fruitless meetings all day, ignore the ground troops and make bizarre and ill-informed decisions based on some idea you had randomly) to avoid them all being in big business. Consequently they get paid quite a bit. That's a result of the twin curses of greed and hierarchy our society regretfully idolises. It's ubiquitous. You'll find similar dynamics in the SWP.
I agree government uses charity to fill the gaps they should fill. That's their fault.
I also agree it helps defer responsibility. Though that homeless guy is glad of the night shelter he got from that quid. It's all our responsibility for the foul reality that we allow appalling situations to exist in 'civilised' society.
I agree the WWF are rubbish. I've never liked them. Anything associated with the Royals is suspect in my book. Like they care about wildlife, the fox hunting b&stards.
I don't know if David Bellamy was 'censored'. It's news to me. It's true you don't see him any more. I assumed he just got old.
But I remain to be convinced of 'shadowy groups' controlling them. Who exactly are they? What do they want? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hampton Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005 Posts: 310 Location: London
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
if you do detailed research into most areas of corruption and criminality you see the same names popping up again and again.
you must ask yourself why society is cursed by greed and hierarchy.
this is compartmentalisation. you can't keep 6 billion+ people in physical chains so you create a mental & emotional prison.
keep them so busy they don't have time to think. give them endless choices (shades of grey) & celebrity gossip
to give the illusions of personal & press freedom.
this is a system that has been perfected over 100s of years, coodinated by secret societies.
therefore the systems we see all around us, even those that seem democratic, have been created to the same agenda.
it's difficult to name these people & groups because they prefer to remain in the shadows.
wouldn't you if you were up to no good?. ask yourself, why would criminals stay out of government?
as to what they want: total control over their human slaves who they are desperately trying to reduce in number, using
wars, disease, pollution, etc. before enough of them realise what's going on.
a few facts:
between 800,000 to 2 million freemasons in britain alone;
george w bush & john kerry both members of skull & bones (video evidence available);
federal reserve (usa central bank) is a private banking cartel;
bilderberg group has a steering group including ken clarke (uk conservative & always on the telly)
& henry kissinger (war criminal extraordinaire who i've heard was supposed to stand trial on 911)
who was, incidently, appointed by bush to head the 911 commission until he had to resign;
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=kissinger+trial+911&meta=
tony blair & thatcher attended bilderberg before becoming pm (on the parliamentary record);
and to think, people who mentioned the bilderberg group 10 years ago were labelled crazy conspiracy theorists;
cocacola, ford & ig farben buildings in nazi germany were not bombed;
donald rumsfeld used to work for searle pharma before helping to approve their aspartame poison;
fluoride first used in drinking water in nazi concentration camps & it wasn't to keep their teeth healthy
(it's a by product of the aluminium industry);
cocacola are literally killing people around the world (they've been banned from several universities) but are still allowed to trade;
the eu hasn't had it's accounts audited for years and is ruled by the undemocratic european council;
the un is controlled by uk/usa. they have their hq in new york on land which used to be a slaughter house,
donated by the rockerfellas;
the carlyle group (arms dealers) was setup by george bush (senior) and has john major (ex uk pm) on the payroll;
the bush / bin laden business connections;
george bush (senior) said on Sept 11, 1990 "out of these troubled times...the new world order can emerge"
i could go on, but i hope you get the point. _________________ Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq)
Last edited by hampton on Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:43 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Icke knows the score New Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Until we all unite under the fact that all these events are connected we won't get anywhere. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|