View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Question for "Truthers"

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Question for "Truthers"

Postby ProfWag » 09 Jan 2015, 18:34

What is your take on the current situation in France? I mean, since you don't think that Muslim Extremist flew planes into the WTCs, do you think that the murders in France is some big French government cover-up? Just curious...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby FatFreddy » 11 Jan 2015, 00:34

If I'd read your post first, I wouldn't have started this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3557

I don't rule out a false flag operation but it's still too early to tell.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Jan 2015, 18:20

Might have been. Looks suspiciously similar to the suspicious '2 brothers from Chechnya' Boston Marathon 'bombing'. There are a few fishy aspects to that one as well, to do with unusual activity from 'Craft' on the day, pictorial evidence, and the fact the kids were not radicalised at all, stayed at home back in Chechnya, etc -- looks to me as though they were paid a small sum by the CIA to be 'budding intelligence operatives' with a cover story, and they would have appreciated the extra money, and then of course they were turned into patsies.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby ProfWag » 13 Jan 2015, 20:21

You people are unfreakinbelievable. Total disrespect to the families and shamefully ignorant to the real world. If we all listened to what you had to say, the murderers of radical Islamist terrorism will continue to terrorize the world. It's time you wake up and realize that what's happening is a travesty and we need to do something to stop it right now and stop pretending that these events are not what they really are.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby SydneyPSIder » 14 Jan 2015, 18:55

Who knows? I'm hearing ISIS is a fake, Al Qaeda is a fake. There are reasons they could be false flag organisations. The 'beheading' videos look faked, the supposed journalists and aid workers supposedly beheaded seem like military intelligence spooks to me, and we know they just 'got out' of military service to become journos and aid workers for some reason, and were oft captured. Lucky or unlucky to be captured and let go and recaptured so often? Even orgs like USAid and World Vision are half intelligence operations.

Anyhow, the ISIS/IS/Daesh thing came out of nowhere, it's a highly unlikely scenario. US intelligence thick on the ground everywhere had no idea they were massing and organising for 12 months? And yet these were supposed to be 'Syrian moderates' recruited by John McCain of all people? al Baghdadi snapped wearing a very expensive western wristwatch under his robes. Faked beheading videos. Their videos are too polished, complete with rotating logos. The beheading videos look like they're green screened. Everyone wearing masks, the PLO never used to do that, the last legitimate middle eastern protest organisation I'm aware of. 'ISIS' threatening and provoking superpowers like the US and UK and even Australia rather than keeping their heads down and forming a legitimate state and avoiding attacks -- it's as though they are just begging ppl in western countries to join their respective armies and attack them, they couldn't do a better recruitment job if they tried. Iraqi soldiers were solidly trained by US forces for some 8 years, then just dropped their weapons and ran. They are trained to destroy any materiel rather than have it fall into enemy hands, but they left it all behind. ISIS just happen to be conveniently trained on US weapons also. A tiny ISIS force has somehow routed a much larger and well trained Iraqi army force. Western powers have just been standing by and watching for some reason. The occasional supposed air sortie hits buildings unoccupied for 2 weeks every time. Surely ISIS' greatest enemy in the world would be Israel right next door, but they have said hardly a word against Israel, choosing to bait western superpowers instead to provoke incidents and interventions. All too convenient. Just happens to be the areas the West would like to control, and set Sunnis and Shias off against either with a newly partitioned Iraq and Syria. Just happens to conveniently threaten the Assad regime by other means. All fits into the US plan for middle eastern destabilisation and control.

The Murdoch disinfo machine is talking exactly like profwag about this, creating sensationalist headlines and multi page spreads, turning the deranged actions of a single nutter in Sydney into an organised ISIS attack etc. There's no question in my mind that Murdoch is fully in bed with the Republicans and those who gain to benefit from this, including now his own oil interests in Israel -- he very much got in on the ground floor there somehow...

There's never any aim to these disjointed 'terrorist' attacks, no message, no demands to free X or get out of country Y, nothing. The whole point of 'terrorising' another population is to get them to somehow stop what they are doing in your own sovereign country -- we are seeing no such messages or demands with this current crop of events, going right back to the very obviously faked events and inside job of 9/11.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jan 2015, 08:51

SydneyPSIder wrote:
There's never any aim to these disjointed 'terrorist' attacks, no message, no demands to free X or get out of country Y, nothing. The whole point of 'terrorising' another population is to get them to somehow stop what they are doing in your own sovereign country -- we are seeing no such messages or demands with this current crop of events, going right back to the very obviously faked events and inside job of 9/11.

Perhaps the below will help you Syd?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/al-qaeda-yemen-charlie-hebdo-paris-attacks-201511410323361511.html
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby SydneyPSIder » 17 Jan 2015, 09:46

Yeah, terrific. The sock puppets speak. Charlie Hebdo went out of its way to publish insensitive racist anti-Islamic comics and insulting portrayals of Mohammed. Given the very large middle eastern population of Paris, that is a very 'courageous' thing to do, no matter how detrimental to everyone getting along in a tolerant multi cultural society. Those publications would probably be illegal in Australia under the (Federal) Racial Discrimination Act, S.18c, as per the article below.

And Pope Francis happens to agree with me -- as he pointed out recently, you don't attack people's strongly held beliefs that do no particular harm to anyone via so-called 'satire' under so-called 'freedom of speech' protections, it is just not civil. He pointed out if he insulted his colleague's mother, why wouldn't his colleague punch him in the nose as a matter of honour regardless of any legal consequences of doing so? And there's plenty of good ol' boys in the US who would of course do the same, the US is hardly a stranger to violence and death. Imagine if you will publishing one insulting caricature after another of Jesus Christ or indeed 'hillbillies who follow Jesus Christ' in a widely circulated publication in all the religious backwaters of the US, and wait to see who attacks the offices of the publishing house. It's enough that Christians in the US already kill doctors who perform abortions and bomb abortion clinics etc -- this is exactly the same principle -- acting out on lethal impulses to stop something you don't like based on a particular belief, religious or otherwise. The current US Tealiban angling towards a theocracy and intolerance of others' beliefs and religions is not much different.

So here we are with a strange race-baiting publication that seems almost contrived to draw the ire of the people it insults, and no other useful purpose. We are told they were all killed in an attack. But then I've been told 4 planes were hijacked with around 200 lives lost, and it's transparently obvious that didn't happen. Who knows what this setup was about.

SATIRICAL French publication Charlie Hebdo could not be printed in Australia under existing restrictions on free speech, despite its cartoons being embraced across the world as a symbol of Western liberties after the massacre at its offices.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson told The Australian the restrictions contained in section 18c of the Racial Discrimin­ation Act would “ensure it would be shut down”; he was supported in this position by media law ­experts.

The carnage in Paris has also encouraged two Liberal MPs to publicly call for the debate about changes to section 18c to be re-opened after the government last year unceremoniously dropped its planned reforms following a fierce public backlash.

Mr Wilson, dubbed the “freedom commissioner”, has taken aim at opponents of the 18c changes who are now rhetorically embracing free speech, warning that words needed to be backed up with concrete action.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/

Conservatives here are trying to stoke the flames by making a Charlie Hebdo incident or similar efforts at vilification more likely in this country -- potentially a useful geopolitical tool for fanning the flames of war and creating pretexts for invasion of other sovereign territories for resources, it seems. They want to set up the conditions for similar confrontations and abuses (whether false flags or real, as it can be hard to tell the difference) here also under the guise of 'liberating free speech', where 'free speech' can be any bigotry, calumny or defamation you like as long as it targets a helpless minority.

Here's a couple of articles from Crikey! wondering where the 'jesuisCharlie' movement came from, and why people are immediately embarassed for joining it so promptly. Then other 'conspiracy theory' writings wondered why the 'jesuisCharlie' placards in France were printed and available for circulation quite so promptly.

Charlie Hebdo attack was not an assault on free speech - www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/16/charlie-hebdo-attack-was-not-an-assault-on-free-speech/

Rundle: Charlie Hebdo, terrorism and the distortion of popular memory - http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/08/rundle-charlie-hebdo-terrorism-and-the-distortion-of-popular-memory/

Rundle: after Hebdo, the world enters political limbo - http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/14/rundle-after-hebdo-the-world-enters-political-limbo/

RAZER: JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE - http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/razer-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie/17180

Editors who actually got a look at the Hebdo covers before publishing them — for Freedom! — suddenly realised what puerile provocations they were, sometimes funny, sometimes just lame. The crisis has pushed them further from the sort of public culture they would want to restore — the sort of culture they need to restore as a cover for an unrestrained neoliberal capitalism that has taken apart every aspect of social life.

The magazine had received violent threats before, from both Islamist groups, nationalists and a French zionist terrorist group called the “Jewish Defence League” (not the US group) — which objected to some low-taste “holocaust humour” cartoons which might be an unpleasant surprise to many of Charlie’s newfound friends. Other threats followed republication of the Danish Muhammad cartoons in 2008. In 2011, it produced an issue ostensibly guest-edited by Muhammad — “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter” — after which its office was firebombed and obliterated. It was back in action immediately with rising sales, and ever more brio, until this.

American neocons issued effusive words of support, perhaps unaware that several Charlie Hebdo cartoons had ended up in Iran’s “Holocaust Humour” exhibition of a few years ago issued statements. French politicians, some of whom had tried to close down the magazine using draining legal assaults, now had to stand in solidarity — including President Francois Hollande, last seen on the cover with his dick hanging out of his pants, the membre petite with a speech balloon saying “Moi, Presidente”. All of them had, years earlier, asked Charlie Hebdo not to publish the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Now, with the act done, they were suddenly supporters in retrospect.

Queen Elizabeth II, whose family have variously been depicted as vibrators, tampons, and everything else, issued her condolences.

There is a real threat to free speech, and it could be seen marching in the “Unity” rally that followed, and could be heard loudly affirming that this assault to free speech could not be allowed to stand unchallenged. As journalist Sharif Nashashibi put it: “The solidarity rally in Paris was attended by a who’s who of enemies of free speech and independent journalism.”

Peak asinine was reached when people gleefully remarked that the killers had only served to make Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons more widespread, declared that they had not won, and intimated that they were too stupid to have done so.

This was ridiculous. Of course the terrorists had won. They set themselves a narrow operation — they harmed no one when they initially barged into the wrong office — which was to obliterate the magazine’s staff, and they did it. The suggestion that there was anything “medieval” about such an operation was simply drivelling self-congratulatory liberalism on autopilot. What’s “medieval” about killing people who traduce your idea of the truth? Europe spent most of the 20th century doing that. That’s not an exception to modernity — it’s most of what modernity has been. The shock in France relates in part to the very, well, French character of the event. Exemplary political terror is more or less a Parisian invention after all — indeed the liberal republic from within which the right to free speech is intoned, was founded on terror. By 6pm, on BBC Radio, someone was quoting Voltaire “I disagree with what you say, but …’ etc. Voltaire never said that, but he did express hope that the last king would be strangled with the guts of the last priest, so he appears to have had a soft spot for terror too. All very confusing, isn’t it?

The message is clear and as unified as the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag that appends it: the civilised people of Paris find creative ways to settle disputes. Well, that is, apart from the Terrors. And the May riot of 1968. And the June Rebellion of 1832. And the Paris Commune. And the Resistance of 1944.

We are at war. Of course, it’s a disordered, post-modern war with all the focus of a puppy in a pile of turds. The ongoing conflict between the illiberal East and the “civilised” West makes Vietnam seem like a game of checkers and many of its manoeuvres and players on both sides are illicit, concealed and unwillingly detained in battle.

It’s not just “them” opposing “our way of life” and refusing to sort out their problems in the fashion of Paris intellectuals. One does not simply hold up an art nouveau mirror to a pseudo-soldier whose family has been minced by Lockheed Martin and say “this is the way we do things in the West” with any hope of success. Militant Islamists don’t become militant Islamists because they have no good cartoonists. They become militant Islamists because they have their cultural and social roots in nations where pencils are even harder to come by than clean water.

In Australia, the situation is much worse, since we have been willing to wear down the resilience that our culture once prided itself on, with a ceaseless performance of public emotionality, and a weird celebration of fear as a form of collective being. Our culture is so atomised and so depresso-genic, that a mainstream media desperate for public events takes any occurrence, wraps it in overkill, and then puts a Beyond Blue message at the end of it. Having spent two weeks mourning a cricketer killed in a freak accident, we then tried to turn a blank hostage taker — whose complaint was that the High Court would not recognise his loyalty to Australia — into a terrorist mastermind. What will we do if we have to face a Charlie Hebdo situation on our own soil? The systematic undermining of our self-possession — done for the most obvious political purposes — suggests that we would be consumed by it.


And of course we see Profwag, in his usual neocon kneejerk reaction (nothing to do with his avowed scepticism on other matters), choosing to use the opportunity to fan the flames of war in a region which just happens to have a lot of mineral and hydrocarbon resources, ripe for the taking, and heading off access by superpower competitors such as Russia, China and India which geographically surround it. Europe and the US want those resources ahead of anyone else, or at least the opportunity of being able to sell the resources to Chinese manufacturers and take a large cut rather than have China obtain them wholesale and direct from the supplier -- this is how the UK and the City of London have survived deindustrialisation on its own shores for 100 years now. This is also a direct repeat of some of the main causes of WWI, with Churchill trying to head off German access to middle eastern oil resources and other important industrial riches, in order to remain the #1 European superpower back in the day. Kind of ironic that the power bases have shifted so Europe is now a single bloc of former enemies and competitors trying to stiff other competitors like Russia, China and India in particular. In particular, it's quite possible France and the UK would join forces in staging false flag operations as a joint exercise -- I note little or nothing has happened in Germany yet which is financially fairly comfortable, potential GFC excesses and losses aside for the moment.

It's ironic that WWI pretty well started once Germany signed a claim to underground resources with the heavily indebted Ottoman Empire, and were in the process of building a Baghdad to Berlin railroad to start shipping stuff straight to German industry. The invasion of Afghanistan was predicated mostly on controlling oil pipelines, with the aim of setting up the TAPI pipeline from Turkmenistan to Europe, essentially, which the Taliban had rejected in meetings in 2000 with Unocal in Texas, facing a syndicate of Texas oilmen and neocon operatives from Washington. This prevents the flow of oil to near neighbours such as Russia, China and India.

History may not exactly repeat, but it certainly rhymes. Wait a sec, it's repeating.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Question for "Truthers"

Postby FatFreddy » 22 Jan 2015, 06:03

The invasion of Afghanistan was predicated mostly on controlling oil pipelines, with the aim of setting up the TAPI pipeline from Turkmenistan to Europe, essentially, which the Taliban had rejected in meetings in 2000 with Unocal in Texas, facing a syndicate of Texas oilmen and neocon operatives from Washington. This prevents the flow of oil to near neighbours such as Russia, China and India.

That was probably part of it. The lithium deposits in Afghanistan were probably a major part of it too.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=lithium

Of course there's also the oil in Iraq.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=iraq+oi
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron