Dancing Jews keep on Dancing

[georgephillip]

"From its first days in office in January of 2001 the Administration of George W. Bush meant to launch military attacks against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons had nothing to do with terrorism.

"This is beyond dispute.

"The mainstream press has either ignored the story or missed it completely, but the Administration’s congenital belligerence is fully documented elsewhere.

"Attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, directly violates the charter of the United Nations. It is an international crime. The Bush Administration would need credible justification to proceed with its plans."

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

The only way to settle these questions is with full, independent, public investigations of these alleged crimes BEFORE those who perpetrated them die of old age.

 

[Mr. Jones]

"From its first days in office in January of 2001 the Administration of George W. Bush meant to launch military attacks against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons had nothing to do with terrorism.

"This is beyond dispute.

"The mainstream press has either ignored the story or missed it completely, but the Administration’s congenital belligerence is fully documented elsewhere.

"Attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, directly violates the charter of the United Nations. It is an international crime. The Bush Administration would need credible justification to proceed with its plans."

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

The only way to settle these questions is with full, independent, public investigations of these alleged crimes BEFORE those who perpetrated them die of old age.

Great link, the more one applies himself to searching behind the propaganda the more one learns. It is really shocking to learn how they applied the tactics to overwhelm the American public's minds with BS...The major obstacle is making people aware of these things, and that must be done and started at the local level. The same holds true as the issues regarding the infiltration of Zionism in all levels of the American government and 9-11.
The strength of the propaganda machine is firmly imbedded and controls the executive branch, congress, both houses, and both parties, and the MSM and any effort to confront it at these levels will be met with defeat. Efforts to challenge it must start at the local levels, in small towns and cities, their papers, and in VFW halls etc..
Once Americans notice what has been done, word will spread, prospective candidates at the local level will be held to applying America first policies,and the ball gets rolling and hopefully spreads a message that the people demand its government to do what is right and good for America, and not bow to foreign influence and money..
The Hagel nomination hearings are a prime example of senators placing the demands of Israeli and its lobby first, over the interests of the nation they are supposed to be representing.
We witnessed 40 Israeli senators grill an American Veteran and patriot, on behalf of Israel, without so much as giving a shit how treasonous it is or appears, because they are not held accountable...This has to be changed by exposing the things that the vast propaganda machine has so far kept from view from people.


On Friday, forty allegedly American Senators blocked Hagel’s nomination with a filibuster. Their message was loud and clear: “We are not United States Senators. We are Israeli Senators.”
Alan Hart, former lead BBC Mideast correspondent, expressed his disgust at the Israeli Senators’ vote on my radio show, Truth Jihad Radio, this Friday: “This is treason. Serving a foreign nation, rather than one’s own, is not just wrong - it is treasonous.”

One of the traitors, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Israel), mentioned Israel sixteen times while grilling Hagel. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Israel) mentioned Israel ten times. Altogether, Republican Senators mentioned Israel 64 times during their hostile cross-examination of Hagel. The war in Afghanistan - supposedly America’s most pressing military issue - was only mentioned four times.

Those forty Senators don’t care about US troops stuck in the Afghan quagmire, the place empires go to die. They don’t care about the US economy - which, like the US troops sent to Middle Eastern quagmires, is bleeding and dying in wars dictated by Israel, imposed on America by Israel… wars whose only purpose is to serve the interests of Israel, at the expense of the interests of the United States.

Chuck Hagel has pointed out that US interests and Israeli interests don’t always coincide. That is a massive understatement. The truth is that in today’s world, US interests and Israeli interests are in stark opposition to each other.

Benjamin Netanyahu created the “war on terror” in 1979 at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT). As scholar Nafeez Ahmed writes, the JCIT “established the ideological foundations for the ‘War on Terror.’” Participants at the conference included George H.W. Bush, Richard Pipes, Sen. Henry M. Jackson, Shimon Peres, and many other high-level Israeli and US military, intelligence, and political personalities. Netanyahu’s JCIT proposed to deceive the American public, and the world, by wildly exaggerating the dangers of “international terrorism” and even manufacturing a nonexistent “terrorist threat” to mobilize Western populations behind aggressive policies.


In 1996, Netanyahu, as Prime Minister of Israel, commissioned a paper entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper’s lead author was neoconservative Zionist extremist Richard Perle. Co-authors included such neocon Israel-first fanatics as Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - the same folks who would lead the War on Terror propaganda campaign after 9/11.

The “Clean Break” document proposed redrawing the map of the Middle East on behalf of Israel. Iraq would be invaded and shattered into pieces, in accordance with Israel’s Oded Yinon plan to balkanize the Middle East. Other Middle Eastern countries would follow. And though the “realm” that needed to be “secured” was Israel, it would obviously be American troops who would be bleeding and dying.

The same neocons who wrote the 1996 “Clean Break” paper for Netanyahu produced an even more damning document in September 2000: The infamous “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper published by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which openly called for a “New Pearl Harbor.” Exactly one year later, PNAC’s avidly-desired “New Pearl Harbor” arrived in the form of the 9/11 false-flag attack. The war on Islam for Israel went into high gear.

Today, more and more Americans are agreeing with Chuck Hagel: It’s time for the US to stop being Israel’s slave. The 9/11-triggered wars-for-Israel are massively unpopular. Voters sent powerful antiwar messages in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2012 elections. Mitt Romney, Netanyahu’s hand-picked candidate, was soundly defeated, despite the overwhelming support he received from Israel and its Zionist Power Configuration.

Regardless of whether Hagel is ultimately confirmed, the battle between the Senators from Israel and the Senators from America is educating the American people about who really runs their country.

PressTV - Israelis see their ownership of US government in jeopardy

Vultures Feast on Purple Heart | Veterans Today

Traitors in U.S. Congress Setting Pace Again | Veterans Today

9/11 PNAC perps still whining for US to fight Israel?s wars | Veterans Today

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/06/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/

 

[SAYIT]

"From its first days in office in January of 2001 the Administration of George W. Bush meant to launch military attacks against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons had nothing to do with terrorism.

"This is beyond dispute.

"The mainstream press has either ignored the story or missed it completely, but the Administration’s congenital belligerence is fully documented elsewhere.

"Attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, directly violates the charter of the United Nations. It is an international crime. The Bush Administration would need credible justification to proceed with its plans."

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

The only way to settle these questions is with full, independent, public investigations of these alleged crimes BEFORE those who perpetrated them die of old age.

The claim that the Bush Admin intented to attack Afghanistan and Iraq from its first days in office is a silly, self-serving statement that has no validity. Afghanistan offers no tactical or strategic advantages and a far easier way to justify attacking Iraq would have been to simply plant evidence of WMDs.
As always, the America-hatin' CT's imagination is far more active than the rest of his mind.

 

[SAYIT]

"From its first days in office in January of 2001 the Administration of George W. Bush meant to launch military attacks against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons had nothing to do with terrorism.

"This is beyond dispute.

"The mainstream press has either ignored the story or missed it completely, but the Administration’s congenital belligerence is fully documented elsewhere.

"Attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, directly violates the charter of the United Nations. It is an international crime. The Bush Administration would need credible justification to proceed with its plans."

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

The only way to settle these questions is with full, independent, public investigations of these alleged crimes BEFORE those who perpetrated them die of old age.

Great link, the more one applies himself to searching behind the propaganda the more one learns. It is really shocking to learn how they applied the tactics to overwhelm the American public's minds with BS...The major obstacle is making people aware of these things, and that must be done and started at the local level. The same holds true as the issues regarding the infiltration of Zionism in all levels of the American government and 9-11.
The strength of the propaganda machine is firmly imbedded and controls the executive branch, congress, both houses, and both parties, and the MSM and any effort to confront it at these levels will be met with defeat. Efforts to challenge it must start at the local levels, in small towns and cities, their papers, and in VFW halls etc..
Once Americans notice what has been done, word will spread, prospective candidates at the local level will be held to applying America first policies,and the ball gets rolling and hopefully spreads a message that the people demand its government to do what is right and good for America, and not bow to foreign influence and money..
The Hagel nomination hearings are a prime example of senators placing the demands of Israeli and its lobby first, over the interests of the nation they are supposed to be representing.
We witnessed 40 Israeli senators grill an American Veteran and patriot, on behalf of Israel, without so much as giving a shit how treasonous it is or appears, because they are not held accountable...This has to be changed by exposing the things that the vast propaganda machine has so far kept from view from people.


On Friday, forty allegedly American Senators blocked Hagel’s nomination with a filibuster. Their message was loud and clear: “We are not United States Senators. We are Israeli Senators.”
Alan Hart, former lead BBC Mideast correspondent, expressed his disgust at the Israeli Senators’ vote on my radio show, Truth Jihad Radio, this Friday: “This is treason. Serving a foreign nation, rather than one’s own, is not just wrong - it is treasonous.”

One of the traitors, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Israel), mentioned Israel sixteen times while grilling Hagel. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Israel) mentioned Israel ten times. Altogether, Republican Senators mentioned Israel 64 times during their hostile cross-examination of Hagel. The war in Afghanistan - supposedly America’s most pressing military issue - was only mentioned four times.

Those forty Senators don’t care about US troops stuck in the Afghan quagmire, the place empires go to die. They don’t care about the US economy - which, like the US troops sent to Middle Eastern quagmires, is bleeding and dying in wars dictated by Israel, imposed on America by Israel… wars whose only purpose is to serve the interests of Israel, at the expense of the interests of the United States.

Chuck Hagel has pointed out that US interests and Israeli interests don’t always coincide. That is a massive understatement. The truth is that in today’s world, US interests and Israeli interests are in stark opposition to each other.

Benjamin Netanyahu created the “war on terror” in 1979 at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT). As scholar Nafeez Ahmed writes, the JCIT “established the ideological foundations for the ‘War on Terror.’” Participants at the conference included George H.W. Bush, Richard Pipes, Sen. Henry M. Jackson, Shimon Peres, and many other high-level Israeli and US military, intelligence, and political personalities. Netanyahu’s JCIT proposed to deceive the American public, and the world, by wildly exaggerating the dangers of “international terrorism” and even manufacturing a nonexistent “terrorist threat” to mobilize Western populations behind aggressive policies.


In 1996, Netanyahu, as Prime Minister of Israel, commissioned a paper entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper’s lead author was neoconservative Zionist extremist Richard Perle. Co-authors included such neocon Israel-first fanatics as Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - the same folks who would lead the War on Terror propaganda campaign after 9/11.

The “Clean Break” document proposed redrawing the map of the Middle East on behalf of Israel. Iraq would be invaded and shattered into pieces, in accordance with Israel’s Oded Yinon plan to balkanize the Middle East. Other Middle Eastern countries would follow. And though the “realm” that needed to be “secured” was Israel, it would obviously be American troops who would be bleeding and dying.

The same neocons who wrote the 1996 “Clean Break” paper for Netanyahu produced an even more damning document in September 2000: The infamous “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper published by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which openly called for a “New Pearl Harbor.” Exactly one year later, PNAC’s avidly-desired “New Pearl Harbor” arrived in the form of the 9/11 false-flag attack. The war on Islam for Israel went into high gear.

Today, more and more Americans are agreeing with Chuck Hagel: It’s time for the US to stop being Israel’s slave. The 9/11-triggered wars-for-Israel are massively unpopular. Voters sent powerful antiwar messages in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2012 elections. Mitt Romney, Netanyahu’s hand-picked candidate, was soundly defeated, despite the overwhelming support he received from Israel and its Zionist Power Configuration.

Regardless of whether Hagel is ultimately confirmed, the battle between the Senators from Israel and the Senators from America is educating the American people about who really runs their country.

PressTV - Israelis see their ownership of US government in jeopardy

Vultures Feast on Purple Heart | Veterans Today

Traitors in U.S. Congress Setting Pace Again | Veterans Today

9/11 PNAC perps still whining for US to fight Israel?s wars | Veterans Today

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/06/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/

That you scour the fetid bowels of the Internet for BS which satisfies your hate says waaaay more about you than it does about the targets of that hate, Princess.

 

[georgephillip]

"From its first days in office in January of 2001 the Administration of George W. Bush meant to launch military attacks against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons had nothing to do with terrorism.

"This is beyond dispute.

"The mainstream press has either ignored the story or missed it completely, but the Administration’s congenital belligerence is fully documented elsewhere.

"Attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, directly violates the charter of the United Nations. It is an international crime. The Bush Administration would need credible justification to proceed with its plans."

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

The only way to settle these questions is with full, independent, public investigations of these alleged crimes BEFORE those who perpetrated them die of old age.

The claim that the Bush Admin intented to attack Afghanistan and Iraq from its first days in office is a silly, self-serving statement that has no validity. Afghanistan offers no tactical or strategic advantages and a far easier way to justify attacking Iraq would have been to simply plant evidence of WMDs.
As always, the America-hatin' CT's imagination is far more active than the rest of his mind.

"The Administration’s campaign of propaganda has been a notable success. The characterization of today’s war as a “fight against terrorists and states that support them” is generally accepted, rarely scrutinized, and virtually unchallenged, even by opponents of the war.

The fraudulence of the “War on Terror,” however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:

1. In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist..."

"2. In Iraq, when the U.S. invaded, there were no terrorists at all.

"3. Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.

"4. The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff, and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.

"5. A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11.[2] If the 'War on Terror' is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure."

Not unlike your pathic posts on USMB...

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

 

[SAYIT]

"From its first days in office in January of 2001 the Administration of George W. Bush meant to launch military attacks against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons had nothing to do with terrorism.

"This is beyond dispute.

"The mainstream press has either ignored the story or missed it completely, but the Administration’s congenital belligerence is fully documented elsewhere.

"Attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, directly violates the charter of the United Nations. It is an international crime. The Bush Administration would need credible justification to proceed with its plans."

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

The only way to settle these questions is with full, independent, public investigations of these alleged crimes BEFORE those who perpetrated them die of old age.

The claim that the Bush Admin intented to attack Afghanistan and Iraq from its first days in office is a silly, self-serving statement that has no validity. Afghanistan offers no tactical or strategic advantages and a far easier way to justify attacking Iraq would have been to simply plant evidence of WMDs.
As always, the America-hatin' CT's imagination is far more active than the rest of his mind.

"The Administration’s campaign of propaganda has been a notable success. The characterization of today’s war as a “fight against terrorists and states that support them” is generally accepted, rarely scrutinized, and virtually unchallenged, even by opponents of the war.

The fraudulence of the “War on Terror,” however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:

1. In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist..."

"2. In Iraq, when the U.S. invaded, there were no terrorists at all.

"3. Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.

"4. The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff, and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.

"5. A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11.[2] If the 'War on Terror' is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure."

Not unlike your pathic posts on USMB...

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

None of which supports the claim that the Bush Admin intended to attack Afghanistan and Iraq from its first days in office. It is typical of you to respond to challenges to your BS by posting deflections. Typically lame, that is.

 

[georgephillip]

Starting with Afghanistan...

"The issue in Afghanistan was the strategically invaluable location for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets. Whoever built the pipeline across Afghanistan would control the Basin, and in the 1990’s the contest to build it was spirited."

Obviously, a pathic troll like yourself won't accept my source, so why not try something different and offer one of your own that counters my arguments?

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

 

[SAYIT]

Starting with Afghanistan...

"The issue in Afghanistan was the strategically invaluable location for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets. Whoever built the pipeline across Afghanistan would control the Basin, and in the 1990’s the contest to build it was spirited."

Obviously, a pathic troll like yourself won't accept my source, so why not try something different and offer one of your own that counters my arguments?

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

No prob.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.

But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.


BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

 

[Toro]

Starting with Afghanistan...

"The issue in Afghanistan was the strategically invaluable location for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets. Whoever built the pipeline across Afghanistan would control the Basin, and in the 1990’s the contest to build it was spirited."

Obviously, a pathic troll like yourself won't accept my source, so why not try something different and offer one of your own that counters my arguments?

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

No prob.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.

But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.


BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

It's also pure bullshit.

The pipeline story is one of the most asinine rationales out there. It's a perfect example of how conspiracy nutters look at the world in the most uncritical manner possible. They take their theory and try to find rationales to justify their theory no matter how ludicrous or far-fetched.

I get that foreign policy is driven by self-interest, but if you think we're going to spend a couple hundred billion on a war for a $4 billion pipeline, you are an idiot of the highest order.

Edit - And BTW, even if you accept that the government would use nefarious tactics to support the oil industry, the easiest way to do it is to bribe the dictators of the Stans, which we already do. A couple hundred millions of dollars wired to a Swiss bank account is much cheaper and less disruptive than killing thousands of Americas, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and plunging the world into chaos.

Twoofers as skeptics? lol You couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[SAYIT]

Starting with Afghanistan...

"The issue in Afghanistan was the strategically invaluable location for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets. Whoever built the pipeline across Afghanistan would control the Basin, and in the 1990’s the contest to build it was spirited."

Obviously, a pathic troll like yourself won't accept my source, so why not try something different and offer one of your own that counters my arguments?

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

No prob.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.

But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.


BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

It's also pure bullshit.

The pipeline story is one of the most asinine rationales out there. It's a perfect example of how conspiracy nutters look at the world in the most uncritical manner possible. They take their theory and try to find rationales to justify their theory no matter how ludicrous or far-fetched.

I get that foreign policy is driven by self-interest, but if you think we're going to spend a couple hundred billion on a war for a $4 billion pipeline, you are an idiot of the highest order.

Edit - And BTW, even if you accept that the government would use nefarious tactics to support the oil industry, the easiest way to do it is to bribe the dictators of the Stans, which we already do. A couple hundred millions of dollars wired to a Swiss bank account is much cheaper and less disruptive than killing thousands of Americas, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and plunging the world into chaos.

Twoofers as skeptics? lol You couldn't be further from the truth.

Hammer on nail. GP, like most of our CT loons, begins with his conclusion and works backwards.

 

[georgephillip]

Starting with Afghanistan...

"The issue in Afghanistan was the strategically invaluable location for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets. Whoever built the pipeline across Afghanistan would control the Basin, and in the 1990’s the contest to build it was spirited."

Obviously, a pathic troll like yourself won't accept my source, so why not try something different and offer one of your own that counters my arguments?

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

No prob.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.

But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.


BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

Your link:

"Afghanistan has been proposed by more than one western oil company (the US-based Unocal is often mentioned, but it is not the only one) as the best route by which to export the Central Asian republics' important output of oil and gas

"Given the increasing importance of finding and exploiting new sources of fossil fuel, governments like those of the US and the UK are enormously keen to gain influence in the Central Asian region in order to secure those supplies for the West

"In order to achieve that, and get those energy supplies moving out of Central Asia, they need to set up a pro-western government in Afghanistan."

Mission Accomplished.

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

 

[georgephillip]

Starting with Afghanistan...

"The issue in Afghanistan was the strategically invaluable location for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets. Whoever built the pipeline across Afghanistan would control the Basin, and in the 1990’s the contest to build it was spirited."

Obviously, a pathic troll like yourself won't accept my source, so why not try something different and offer one of your own that counters my arguments?

The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda | War Is A Crime .org

No prob.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.

But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.


BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

It's also pure bullshit.

The pipeline story is one of the most asinine rationales out there. It's a perfect example of how conspiracy nutters look at the world in the most uncritical manner possible. They take their theory and try to find rationales to justify their theory no matter how ludicrous or far-fetched.

I get that foreign policy is driven by self-interest, but if you think we're going to spend a couple hundred billion on a war for a $4 billion pipeline, you are an idiot of the highest order.

Edit - And BTW, even if you accept that the government would use nefarious tactics to support the oil industry, the easiest way to do it is to bribe the dictators of the Stans, which we already do. A couple hundred millions of dollars wired to a Swiss bank account is much cheaper and less disruptive than killing thousands of Americas, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and plunging the world into chaos.

Twoofers as skeptics? lol You couldn't be further from the truth.

Depends on how you define "we", doesn't it.

When you claim "we're (not) going to spend a couple hundred billion on a war for a 4 billion dollar pipeline" you're confusing who pays for the war with who profits from the pipeline. It's probably easier to grasp the distinction if you're not serving those who get rich from wars that other people die in. In other words, it has more to do with chicken shit than bull shit.

 

[holston]

Given his obvious hatred of Jews, I'm sure if there was any real evidence, our current pro-Islamic president would have been all over it.

 

[holston]

Typical Nazi disinfo. No one denies the attack was deliberate. What multiple investigations found was it was a tragic fog-of-war friendly fire incident. For all who have experienced that fog the findings make perfect sense.

Typical Zionist disinfo. Israel knew it was an American ship. Israel lied the same way they lied in the Levon Affair.

 

[holston]

What he brings up is the fact that the same lame CT BS is still being spewed here 11 years after the attack and the message is clear: Get out of your Mommy's basement and get a life, Princess. Your BS has gotten you nowhere.

That's the same thing you said to me. What is thing of yours about wanting to call men "Princess"? It sounds like you have some devious wish or something. Do you?

 

[georgephillip]

"The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954.

"As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets.

"The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists' with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2]

"The operation caused no casualties, except for those members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured."

Lavon Affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[holston]

Or perhaps they were released because, as even your source notes, "the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks." Those same FBI findings establish that there is no evidence that the cameras were set up and rolling in anticipation of the attack.
Finally, you offer nothing which supports the charge you level against "Bush Justice Dept."
All in all what we have left is the shrill and desperate half-truths and fabrications of a hate-filled scumbag. Have a nice day, Princess.

9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11 (Network News Reports)

The FBI came to the conclusion... that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission
and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front. -Forward (A Jewish Magazine) March 15, 2002

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." --US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report (that was later erased from the Fox News website) on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Who gives the FBI their orders?

"I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now."

Words of US Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in an interview on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, December 11, 2002

The Israeli Spy Ring | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

 

[SAYIT]

Or perhaps they were released because, as even your source notes, "the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks." Those same FBI findings establish that there is no evidence that the cameras were set up and rolling in anticipation of the attack.
Finally, you offer nothing which supports the charge you level against "Bush Justice Dept."
All in all what we have left is the shrill and desperate half-truths and fabrications of a hate-filled scumbag. Have a nice day, Princess.

9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11 (Network News Reports)

The FBI came to the conclusion... that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission
and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front. -Forward (A Jewish Magazine) March 15, 2002

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." --US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report (that was later erased from the Fox News website) on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Who gives the FBI their orders?

"I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now."

Words of US Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in an interview on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, December 11, 2002

The Israeli Spy Ring | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

As always, your anti-Semitic diatribes are laced with distortions, half-truths, innuendo and outright fabrications. Here's the whole truth:

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html

 

[georgephillip]

Naturally you would be willing to add your voice to the call for an immediate investigation into all of those "significant questions (that) remain unanswered"?

 

[SAYIT]

Naturally you would be willing to add your voice to the call for an immediate investigation into all of those "significant questions (that) remain unanswered"?

Same old silliness over and over.
Once more for the Terminally Dense One.
I do not nor have I ever opposed independent studies and gov't investigations into 9/11. You have long had the opportunity to repost anything of mine in which I do so. You have always failed, Princess.