[political-research] Thinking like a conspiracy planner
Thinking like a conspiracy planner If we accept the fact that the American military had to be behind the September 11 attacks, at least to the extent of arranging not to shoot down any of the attacking planes, we have to assume that somebody associated with the Pentagon was involved in the creation of the conspiracy. The planning of American conspiracies tends to be meticulous, with the problems arising in the execution of the plans (the kind of people you have to hire to do these things aren't good at following orders). Conspiracy planners have two issues: Create a plan that will accomplish the goals of the conspirators; and Don't get caught. In this case, the goal was to create a casus belli for a series of wars which would benefit the Pentagon generals (who thrive in wartime), materially benefit the military-industrial complex,... Source: http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/09/thinking-like-conspiracy-planner.html __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Intelligence Social network Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
[political-research] Fwd: [SPY NEWS] Why was bin Laden never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?
Mario Profaca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]From: "Mario Profaca" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:36:51 +0200Subject: [SPY NEWS] Why was bin Laden never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticlecode=20060917articleId=3246Osama bin Laden, among the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives": Why was he never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?by Michel ChossudovskySeptember 17, 2006GlobalResearch.caOsama is classified among among The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.However, on the Usama bin Laden page on the FBI website, there is no explicit statement to the effect that he might be wanted in connection to the Septmber 11, 2001 attacks. Osama bin Laden is wanted in relation to the 1998 African Embassy bombings. "USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."On first reading the web page seems to be out of date, a pre-9/11 page, which the FBI forgot to update.The FBI, like most organizations, updates its website periodically, when new information, concerning a "wanted fugitive" becomes available. On closer examination, the original posting, which dates to June 1999, was updated: in November 2001, at least three weeks after the US invaded Afghanistan. (Click here to go to FBI Usama page)The decision to go to war was taken without a indictment by the US Justice department and corroborating statements by the FBI to the effect that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda was behind the attacks. It was taken without an indictment issued by the Justice Department. At eleven oclock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation conducted by the FBI..The FBI confirmed in a recent statement (July 2006) that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on the Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (See the Muckracker Report, See also Enver Masud, FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11? The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11', Wisdom Fund, June 2006). Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy stated in this regard thatThe FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troopsThe war on Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11. On September 20th, the Taliban government had offered, "to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington." (George Mombiot, The Guardian, 11 Nov 2003). This offer which was repeated by the Taliban government on October 1, 2001, six days before the beginning of the bombing: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time." (Ibid)To this date, the Justice department has not formally indicted and charged Osama bin Laden for the 911 attacks: The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11."The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." (Washington Post, 28 August 2006)Original Text and Links to the Usama bin Laden page on the FBI website click belowhttp://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Intelligence Social network Your email settings:
[political-research] The Carbonite Solution to Online Backups (Michael Arrington/TechCrunch)
The Carbonite Solution to Online Backups (Michael Arrington/TechCrunch) The Carbonite Solution to Online Backups — We've been tracking online storage for nearly a year, and for good reason. As the PC becomes the center of our digital lives, having backups of email, photos, videos and music becomes increasingly important. Solutions like Foldershare … Source: http://www.techmeme.com/060917/p33#a060917p33 __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Intelligence Social network Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
Re: [political-research] Open Letter to BYU President re Steven Jones
Interesting note: Chip Berlet has apparently promoted Robert Goldberg and his book "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America":http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_goldberg.htmlBerlet and Goldberg strongly give the impression that they would like to derail any honest investigation into what really happened on 9/11. Why are they so fearful of open discussion and debate about one of the most momentous events in American history? What is so objectionable about seeking truthful answers to the many unanswered questions about 9/11? What kind of authentichistorical scholar would be not only incurious about such matters, but actively hostile to following the evidence wherever it leads? Goldberghimself, while railing against conspiracism, seems to have organized his mental world around the threat of a grand conspiracy against his own interests:"According to Robert Alan Goldberg, antipathy toward Jews as a religious and ethnic group has been a pernicious periodic theme within European Christianity for two millennia." [From the opening sentence of Berlet's article.]You know, these folks have tied themselves up in the most remarkable intellectual knots. Daniel Pipes is another obsessed opponent of conspiracism who is equally obsessed with a grand conspiracy against Israel which includes not only all of Islam, but any non-Muslim who doesn't hate Islam with sufficient intensity.In any case, I wonder just how spontaneous has been Robert Goldberg's attack on Steven Jones, and what, precisely, is the full range of his political connections and associations.What do you want to bet that Goldberg has absolutelynothing useful to contribute to a factual and rational discussion of 9/11? tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: September 17, 2006Dr. Cecil O. Samuelson President Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 USAOpen LetterDear President Samuelson,I'm writing to you regarding your ongoing review of professor Steven Jones, who has been placed on administrative leave. I am very concerned that a fine scientist and human being seems to be the victim of a serious injustice in this case. I am one of the millions of Americans (36% according to a recent Scripps-Howard poll) who join Professor Jones in raising the most serious questions regarding the involvement of US Government insiders in the attacks of September 11, 2001. A glance at professor Jones' CV will tell you that he is an exceptionally distinguished scientist, a professional of the highest order whose presence honors your institution. A five minute chat will reveal him as the most reasonable, decent and kind hearted individual imaginable. It is difficult to conceive of how a development like this could possibly have occurred. My understanding is that the problem stems from a brief interview with professor Jones on KUER radio. After listening to a recording of the interview and the lengthy commentary that followed I am astounded that the baseless accusations leveled at prof. Jones by the invited commentators could possibly have led to such a serious move by the University, if this is indeed the case. The deadly serious accusation of racial scapegoating and antisemitism was made by prof. Goldberg on the basis of the flimsiest kind of pseudo-psychological analysis. To my knowledge, Professor Jones has never mentioned the Jewish people let alone implied that they were responsible the attacks or for anything else. Four of the five callers responding to the radio show rejected Goldberg's analysis, and did so most articulately, in my opinion. Has prof. Goldberg's absurd slander really led to such drastic action against prof. Jones by BYU?The absurdity of the situation is highlighted by prof. Goldberg himself. He claims that "conspiracy thinking" has "entered the mainstream crossing all racial, class educational and religious lines." He supports this remarkable claim by correctly pointing out that over 75% of Americans have rejected the conclusions of the Warren Commission, and believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy and a coverup. The implications are clear. If you really intend to adhere to prof. Goldberg's standards of ideological purity, then the Steven Jones case is barely the tip of an iceberg of titanic proportions. You will be forced to investigate and remove the vast majority of your administration, faculty and staff. No one's words and actions can be taken at face value; everything will have to be interpreted by an expert in Conspiracy Thinking such as professor Goldberg. In all probability, you yourself will be hounded, disgraced and ruined. Please stop this madness. Professor Steven Jones must be completely cleared and reinstated, as a matter of simple human decency, for the good of your university, and for the good of the country.Sincerely, Tim Howells, Ph.D. (US Citizen) Research Scientist Uppsala University
[political-research] Re: Open Letter to BYU President re Steven Jones
A couple of associations: One concerns a mytube video Dann Dobson sent links to on CRTL not long ago. Good video on the history of the Protocols. They interviewed Daniel Pipes, who as we know is an expert on conspiracy thought. As I remember his statement: If you want to convince people, he says, the best you can do is to present it as a secret, something uncovered by chance. What place do the Protocols have in this discussion? This is the big problem: Selective choices. Or should I believe Berlet and Goldberg would ever deny this was a bloody real conspiracy??? Two: one of the most interesting posters on CRTL reminded people of Laurie Mylroie, and her conspiracy theory not long ago. Of cause we have almost forgotten that Saddam was the ultimate Hitler, now that we have an even better new candidate. I found it interesting that her book was initially published in 2000, heavily backed by AEI, and reissued in 2001. A conspiracy??? Three: I do not have much time to watch these matters. But not long ago I came across an article that uncovered strange religious ties of Jones. I think the focus was on the religious/theologian background of some of the 911 skeptics. Which indeed brings us back to the larger field of ethics. And I am admittedly still a bit puzzled by the selective historical view the pope took concerning Hellenism and the West. After all it were the Arabs who preserved Aristotle for us and his translations probably influenced the West much more (remember who brought us the numbers?) than the ties of the Catholic church fathers maintained with the mythological part of Greek thought (see - Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, ?1930, especially the idea of the divine soul, that is closely related to Greek mythology). The German Pope no doubt may be an important theologian, but he was always a hardliner. That's why I am slightly puzzled by the shift in perception. His speech in Regensburg for me was reminisent of the main feature of the neocons an enormous Western arrogance. Not such a good position to start a dialog. Four is my favorite number, add whatever you think would fit into this context. -L - Interesting note: Chip Berlet has apparently promoted Robert Goldberg and his book Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America: http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_goldberg.html Berlet and Goldberg strongly give the impression that they would like to derail any honest investigation into what really happened on 9/11. Why are they so fearful of open discussion and debate about one of the most momentous events in American history? What is so objectionable about seeking truthful answers to the many unanswered questions about 9/11? What kind of authentic historical scholar would be not only incurious about such matters, but actively hostile to following the evidence wherever it leads? Goldberg himself, while railing against conspiracism, seems to have organized his mental world around the threat of a grand conspiracy against his own interests: According to Robert Alan Goldberg, antipathy toward Jews as a religious and ethnic group has been a pernicious periodic theme within European Christianity for two millennia. [From the opening sentence of Berlet's article.] You know, these folks have tied themselves up in the most remarkable intellectual knots. Daniel Pipes is another obsessed opponent of conspiracism who is equally obsessed with a grand conspiracy against Israel which includes not only all of Islam, but any non-Muslim who doesn't hate Islam with sufficient intensity. In any case, I wonder just how spontaneous has been Robert Goldberg's attack on Steven Jones, and what, precisely, is the full range of his political connections and associations. What do you want to bet that Goldberg has absolutely nothing useful to contribute to a factual and rational discussion of 9/11? tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: September 17, 2006 Dr. Cecil O. Samuelson President Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 USA Open Letter Dear President Samuelson, I'm writing to you regarding your ongoing review of professor Steven Jones, who has been placed on administrative leave. I am very concerned that a fine scientist and human being seems to be the victim of a serious injustice in this case. I am one of the millions of Americans (36% according to a recent Scripps-Howard poll) who join Professor Jones in raising the most serious questions regarding the involvement of US Government insiders in the attacks of September 11, 2001. A glance at professor Jones' CV will tell you that he is an exceptionally distinguished scientist, a professional of the highest order whose presence honors your institution. A five minute chat will reveal him as the most reasonable, decent and kind hearted individual imaginable. It is difficult to conceive of how a development like
[political-research] Re: Open Letter to BYU President re Steven Jones
Sorry Tim, seems I mixed up your mails concerning this reply. Sorry. But can you sent the link you mentioned - the interview - I'd like to listen to it. I only know this one: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4395179434521008566 Good letter, by the way. -L A couple of associations: One concerns a mytube video Dann Dobson sent links to on CRTL not long ago. Good video on the history of the Protocols. They interviewed Daniel Pipes, who as we know is an expert on conspiracy thought. As I remember his statement: If you want to convince people, he says, the best you can do is to present it as a secret, something uncovered by chance. What place do the Protocols have in this discussion? This is the big problem: Selective choices. Or should I believe Berlet and Goldberg would ever deny this was a bloody real conspiracy??? Two: one of the most interesting posters on CRTL reminded people of Laurie Mylroie, and her conspiracy theory not long ago. Of cause we have almost forgotten that Saddam was the ultimate Hitler, now that we have an even better new candidate. I found it interesting that her book was initially published in 2000, heavily backed by AEI, and reissued in 2001. A conspiracy??? Three: I do not have much time to watch these matters. But not long ago I came across an article that uncovered strange religious ties of Jones. I think the focus was on the religious/theologian background of some of the 911 skeptics. Which indeed brings us back to the larger field of ethics. And I am admittedly still a bit puzzled by the selective historical view the pope took concerning Hellenism and the West. After all it were the Arabs who preserved Aristotle for us and his translations probably influenced the West much more (remember who brought us the numbers?) than the ties of the Catholic church fathers maintained with the mythological part of Greek thought (see - Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, ?1930, especially the idea of the divine soul, that is closely related to Greek mythology). The German Pope no doubt may be an important theologian, but he was always a hardliner. That's why I am slightly puzzled by the shift in perception. His speech in Regensburg for me was reminisent of the main feature of the neocons an enormous Western arrogance. Not such a good position to start a dialog. Four is my favorite number, add whatever you think would fit into this context. -L - Interesting note: Chip Berlet has apparently promoted Robert Goldberg and his book Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America: http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_goldberg.html Berlet and Goldberg strongly give the impression that they would like to derail any honest investigation into what really happened on 9/11. Why are they so fearful of open discussion and debate about one of the most momentous events in American history? What is so objectionable about seeking truthful answers to the many unanswered questions about 9/11? What kind of authentic historical scholar would be not only incurious about such matters, but actively hostile to following the evidence wherever it leads? Goldberg himself, while railing against conspiracism, seems to have organized his mental world around the threat of a grand conspiracy against his own interests: According to Robert Alan Goldberg, antipathy toward Jews as a religious and ethnic group has been a pernicious periodic theme within European Christianity for two millennia. [From the opening sentence of Berlet's article.] You know, these folks have tied themselves up in the most remarkable intellectual knots. Daniel Pipes is another obsessed opponent of conspiracism who is equally obsessed with a grand conspiracy against Israel which includes not only all of Islam, but any non-Muslim who doesn't hate Islam with sufficient intensity. In any case, I wonder just how spontaneous has been Robert Goldberg's attack on Steven Jones, and what, precisely, is the full range of his political connections and associations. What do you want to bet that Goldberg has absolutely nothing useful to contribute to a factual and rational discussion of 9/11? tim_howells_1000 timothy.howells@ wrote: September 17, 2006 Dr. Cecil O. Samuelson President Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 USA Open Letter Dear President Samuelson, I'm writing to you regarding your ongoing review of professor Steven Jones, who has been placed on administrative leave. I am very concerned that a fine scientist and human being seems to be the victim of a serious injustice in this case. I am one of the millions of Americans (36% according to a recent Scripps-Howard poll) who join Professor Jones in raising the most serious questions regarding the involvement of US Government insiders in the
[political-research] A Worst-Case Scenario for Global Warming
http://billmon.org/archives/002743.html And People Call Me a Pessimist Apparently on the theory that misery always appreciates good company, several readers have directed me to this article about British scientist James Lovelock and his warning that catastrophic global climate change is both imminent and unstoppable: Within the next decade or two, Lovelock forecasts, Gaia will hike her thermostat by at least 10 degrees. Earth, he predicts, will be hotter than at any time since the Eocene Age 55 million years ago, when crocodiles swam in the Arctic Ocean. "There's no realization of how quickly and irreversibly the planet is changing," Lovelock says. "Maybe 200 million people will migrate close to the Arctic and survive this. Even if we took extraordinary steps, it would take the world 1,000 years to recover." C'mon Jim, you can give it to us straight. We can take it. It would be easy to view this as just another kooky end-of-the-world theory, if it weren't for the history of some of Lovelock's other kooky theories -- like the time in the late '70s when he hypothesized that chlorofluorocarbons wafted high into the stratosphere would eat great big holes in the ozone layer, exposing first the polar regions and then the rest of the earth's surface to increasingly harmful ultraviolet radiation. What a nut. As far as I can tell, Lovelock's latest crackpot (or should I say "crockpot"?) idea is still the minority opinion among climatologists, most of whom seem to believe we have perhaps 70-100 years before the seriously disasterous greenhouse effects kick in -- although Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist, has suggested that unless major cuts in Co2 emissions are made within the next decade, the process will become every bit as irreversible as Lovelock claims it already is. But the evidence that the human species is in a whole heap of trouble keeps piling up, like the research work in Amazonia (referenced in the Lovelock article) that suggests the world's largest rain forest is extremely sensitive to drought, and that many of its tree species probably can't survive more than three years of it. (Most of eastern Amazonia is currently in the second year of the worst drought on record). If trees start to die en masse, the ground will be exposed to direct sunlight, which will dry out the soil, which will cause the understory to die, which will, within a very short period of time, create either an African-style savanna or a moon-like desert, depending on the amount of aluminum silicate in the soil. If Amazonia dies, the enormous carbon reserves currently trapped in its biomass will be released -- adding, perhaps, to the enormous quantities of methane being untrapped in the arctic as the permafrost melts and vast, prehistoric peat bogs start to decay at an accelerated rate. This, in turn, could accelerate the melting of the north polar ice cap, allowing darker water and rock to absorb more of the sunlight that snow and ice reflect back into space, warming the permafrost even more, releasing more methane, heating the earth even more, causing cause more tropical rain forests to dry up and/or burn, releasing more Co2.We're talking, in other words, about a cascade effect, in which various natural processes all feed into each other in a series of massive positive feedback loops, quickly driving the global mean temperature higher -- much more quickly and far higher than most existing ecosystems can tolerate or adapt to. Voila! A couple of decades of that and we'll have the biggest mass extinction in the history of the planet. Human, meet Mastodon. Mastodon, Human. Charmed, I'm sure. This is the kind of news that really tempts me to give up blogging, quit my job, abandon my family and go look for a good Zen Buddhist monastary in which to contemplate eternity while awaiting the end. Or, at the very least, maybe I should put a disclaimer at the beginning of each Whiskey Bar post saying something like: "While the political and/or economic topics discussed herein could be very important, it's also possible that they don't matter jack squat because the world as you and I know it is about to be parboiled." I mean, why get agitated about a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran if we're all going to die in a decade or two anyway? Well, not all of us, maybe: "I'm an optimist," [Lovelock] says. "I think that after the warming sets in and the survivors have settled in near the Arctic, they will find a way to adjust. It will be a tough life enlivened by excitement and fear." I realize Lovelock is just trying to console us here, but it's hard not to be reminded of a bit of dialogue from this end-of-the-world black comedy: Dr. Strangelove: Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. Space could be made available at bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts. . . President Muffley: But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus
[political-research] Max Blumenthal on Christian Zionism
Max Blumenthal on Christian Zionism Max Blumenthal is a Puffin Foundation writing fellow at the Nation Institute, based in Washington, D.C. His work has appeared in various publications, and he is a research fellow at Media Matters for America. He has written extensively about the conservative movement, and the Christian right. His recent article in The Nation is Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism. Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6097359 __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Intelligence Social network Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
[political-research] Pope Provoked Muslim Rage To Help Bush and Republicans
Pope Provoked Muslim Rage To Help Bush and Republicans Ratzinger is not stupid. Including the reference to the passage that has incited Muslim anger was no accident. It was a calculated, intentional strategy designed to help George Bush and the Republicans in the 2006 elections, just like the Catholic church systematically helped Bush and the Republicans in the 2004 elections, through Cardinals and Bishops who attacked Kerry Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_060918_pope_provoked_muslim.htm __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Intelligence Social network Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
