Used the wrong button again I wanted to add this: Admittedly the term pro-Israel militants perfectly fits lady Atlas Shrugs the shrieking harpy from hell (as you call her) and the larger pro-war-anti-camel driver-attack-crowd. Eventually they made me change my mind. With a little help by our friend Wolcott. Admittedly I had to adapt my mental navigation systems to this new phenomenon.
I have the impression a couple of people besides me seem to be fighting confusion in this context. I can see that with your main suspects thesis many pieces of the puzzle seem to fall into place, as far back as the urgent need to win the election, to be in the right place at such an important time. A time so important not much attention could be paid to the annoying democratic routines. ****if**** But concerning Tenet: He sat behind Powell at the UN, but the paper Powell presented came from Britain and wasn't prepared by the CIA, Have you thought about that? Maybe the process did not work as smoothly as hoped since there were more minor obstructive practices going on than we are aware of. And if there hadn't been we would have wondered much less: What the hell is going on? I am have to get my ass down to work otherwise I will get into deep trouble, so I'll return to lurking mode for a while again. But I would be interested in a short comment about: Michael Savage. --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "LeaNder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I were a "Pro-Israel militant" already the term you use to > categorize me would trigger a standard chain of associations. No one > but ..., would use this term, it probably would feel. > > >> Think about it: if you were a pro-Israel militant, and if youtruly > believed the 9/11 official story, wouldn't you be pushing hard toget all > the facts about 9/11 out in the open and to put to rest all > theconspiracy suspicions?< > > No, since to me "believing the official story" would only mean I > accept that 20 Islamic perpetrators committed 9/11. And the government > can't tell us everything, since if it did, all the bad islamofacist out > there would know it too, and could then act accordingly. We must respect > that the government can't tell us all it knows, so it can prevent the > bad Muslims from attacking us again. > > capice? > > > > > > --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride smcbride2@ > wrote: > > > > Let me expand a bit on this. > > > > *If* 9/11 was an inside job, the number of conspirators would have > been kept to an absolute minimum -- perhaps no more than 100 -- perhaps > even fewer. (And I keep using the word *if*, even though I am quite > certain that 9/11 required collusion from some members of the > military-industrial complex, because we don't have absolute and decisive > evidence that this is so. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence does not > constitute absolute proof.) Most of the pro-Israel militants who have > been ringleading the campaign to obstruct a thorough and honest > investigation into 9/11 were certainly not conspirators in the > commission of 9/11. What is happening, I think, is that they strongly > *suspect* that the neocons and some elements of the Israeli government > may have been involved in 9/11, and that the operation went very badly > and is on the verge of being exposed. They are witting participants in > the cover-up of 9/11, but not necessarily in the planning and execution > of 9/11. > > > > Think about it: if you were a pro-Israel militant, and if you truly > believed the 9/11 official story, wouldn't you be pushing hard to get > all the facts about 9/11 out in the open and to put to rest all the > conspiracy suspicions? I know I would. Obviously they don't believe > the official story themselves, and they are worried that some neocons > and Israelis may have been involved in a 9/11 false flag op, in the > tradition of the Lavon Affair and the USS Liberty attack. They are > closing ranks and constructing a bodyguard of lies around the op. > > > > What I still can't wrap my mind around is this: how could anyone, no > matter how fanatical and mentally challenged, ever believe that one > could conduct an operation like 9/11 without being caught, with the eyes > of the entire world on every minute detail of what occurred? But then I > think about the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty attack, Iran-Contra and > the Iraq War, and I go, oh yeah.... There really are people in the > world with judgment that impaired. It could happen. The psychology of > messianism can propel one into committing spectacularly self-destructive > acts, and these folks wrote the book on messianism. > > > > > > LeaNder l.l.hahn@ wrote: On Sean's List of evidence: 11. > Pro-Israel militants and neocon sympathizers have been the most > conspicuous and frenetic apologists for the 9/11 official story. > > > > That's true, and something easy to check, but does that make them > insiders concerning the 9/11 plot automatically? > > > > What keeps coming to mind concerning the neocons as pulling 9/11 > strings, wouldn't we have witnessed a much more smooth execution of the > WWW III/IV enterprise? > > > > Isn't the fact that "the whole world" suspected, knew and watched the > manipulations - that's what makes Zbig a favorite of us now, since in > this context he is one of us - the best evidence that the neocons were > caught by surprise but didn't want to let the chance slip to execute > what they had planned all along?? > > >
