- Sep 16, 2012
- 59,621
- 53,492
- 3,605
What was the topic of this thread? Was it Saudi 9-11 connection or Mr. Bean's antisemtic Nazi conpiracies? Ha ha ha, what a fucken' moron.I'm not being "racist."
I am simply making the logical deduction that since you are a Zionist, you are not familiar with Matthew 6:24 or Luke 16:13. I've also reached the conclusion that you think it is in America's interest to have a strong middle eastern foreign policy, even if that means sacrificing American families.
Most folks here would tell you to fuck off if that is the case. Go frequent Israeli, Jewish or Zionist forums if that is your belief; I don't think you are welcome here if that is your POV.
(Just an aside, this claiming victim-hood status to try to win an argument you are clearly losing is getting old. Do you need a hanky or a safe space now?)
The state of Israel was a Rothschild project that had it's origins starting back in 1917....the state of Israel is not what people think it is.......not at all.
Yeah, you're going WAY back in history. Careful, for the laymen, your starting to sound a bit. . . .
You do know that the current Pope is the first Jesuit Pope, right?
Does Vatican control the Rothschild's or do the Rothschild's control Rome?
The Rothschilds are Jesuits
The Rothschilds are Jesuits
See the SMOM cross?
Interestingly enough, it was at the Treaty of Verona where Lincoln's fate was sealed because he was issuing debt free currency. I tried to explain that to Odium, but that twerp is so "white supremacist" he can't see past the nose on his face.
Sure, we all hate Lincoln for destroying State sovereignty, but the fact is, Lincoln fought against Rothschild's "Jews" and the Jesuits.
Disclaimer: You should look for secondary sources, as a lot of the information contained in that source comes from folks that may not be reliable.
The only thing I can say for sure is the many paintings and photos of Rothschild members wearing SMOM regalia. So those are FACTS. "Jews" wearing Catholic regalia?
Tell me, do you even know what the Safari club is, or are you just here to act like a stupid ass millennial?
A New Biography Traces the Pathology of Allen Dulles and His Appalling Cabal
A New Biography Traces the Pathology of Allen Dulles and His Appalling Cabal
In February 2002, Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until September 1, 2001, traveled to Washington, D.C.
While there, Turki, who’d graduated from Georgetown University in the same class as Bill Clinton, delivered a speech at his alma mater that included an unexpected history lesson:
In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies, it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran … so, the Kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe when the United States was not able to do that. That, I think, is a secret that many of you don’t know.
Turki was not telling the whole truth. He was right that his Georgetown audience likely had never heard any of this before, but the Safari Club had been known across the Middle East for decades. After the Iranian revolution the new government gave Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, one of the most prominent journalists in the Arab world, permission to examine the Shah’s archives. There Heikal discovered the actual formal, written agreement between the members of the Safari Club, and wrote about it in a 1982 book called Iran: The Untold Story.
And the Safari Club was not simply the creation of the countries Turki mentioned — Americans were involved as well. It’s true the U.S. executive branch was somewhat hamstrung during the period between the post-Watergate investigations of the intelligence world and the end of the Carter administration. But the powerful individual Americans who felt themselves “literally tied up” by Congress — that is, unfairly restrained by the most democratic branch of the U.S. government — certainly did not consider the decisions of Congress to be the final word.
Whatever its funding sources, the evidence suggests the Safari Club was largely the initiative of these powerful Americans. According to Heikal, its real origin was when Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, “talked a number of rich Arab oil countries into bankrolling operations against growing communist influence on their doorstep” in Africa. Alexandre de Marenches, a right-wing aristocrat who headed France’s version of the CIA, eagerly formalized the project and assumed operational leadership.
. . . And you are a fucking naive kid if you think these non-state actors have ceased their operations. Hell, we saw with the Iran-Contra affair that they haven't. How do you think those hostages got released the day Reagan was sworn in?
You don't know shit about how the world works because you are a dumb kid.
Bullshit "The Onion" type conspiracy sites, posing as legit news sources, do not count. The Intercept
It's a garbage website for ignorant, illiterate morons like you.
Now run along, Mr Bean.
Erik Wemple, writing at The Washington Post, noted the conspicuous refusal of The Intercept to use the term "targeted killings" to refer to the U.S.'s drone program, instead referring to the drone strikes as "assassinations". Wemple included Greenwald's explanation that it is "the accurate term rather than the euphemistic term that the government wants us to use"; Greenwald further noted that "anyone who is murdered deliberately away from a battlefield for political purposes is being assassinated."[23] TechCrunch referred to the story as clear evidence of "unabashed opposition to security hawks".[24]
In May 2014, journalist Ed Pilkington of The Guardian asked Greenwald whether it had been "wise to leave The Guardian, an organ with no owner, run by a trust, in order to embrace a billionaire tech tycoon waving a $250m cheque? And was it, given his scathing critique of big business, true to his own values?". "Maybe my judgment was a bit impaired", Greenwald reflected. "I didn't predict how people would see it. Pierre [Omidyar]'s not just a funder. He's the 100th-richest person in the world. He has $9bn, which is an unfathomable sum, and he's from the very tech industry that is implicated in the NSA story. I probably paid insufficient attention to those perceptions." Greenwald nevertheless insisted that he and The Intercept remain editorially independent of Omidyar. "I know in my mind that the minute anybody tries to interfere with what I'm doing, that is the minute I will stop doing it."[25]
In February 2015, having resigned after nearly 14 months, Ken Silverstein contributed an article on Politico about his time at First Look and The Intercept. "I went to First Look to do fearless journalism," Silverstein wrote, "but I found I couldn't navigate any journalism, fearless or not, through the layers of what I saw as inept management, oversight and editing."[26]
Juan Thompson scandal
In February 2016, the site appended lengthy corrections to five stories by reporter Juan Thompson and retracted a sixth, about Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof, written over the previous year, focused on the African American community. Shortly afterward, a note from editor Betsy Reed indicated that Thompson had been fired recently after his editors discovered "a pattern of deception" in his reporting. According to Reed, he had "fabricated several quotes in his stories and created fake email accounts that he used to impersonate people, one of which was a Gmail account in my name."[27]
The site's investigation into Thompson's reporting had found that he had, on multiple occasions, attributed quotes to people who said he had not interviewed them or did not remember him doing so, people who they could not reach to verify the quote or whose identity could not be confirmed[27] In the retracted story, Roof's family said they did not know of a cousin whom Thompson had quoted as saying Roof's interest in white supremacy took off after a woman he to whom he was attracted began dating a black man.[28] He also used "quotes that we cannot verify from unnamed people whom he claimed to have encountered at public events." To prevent his fabrications from being discovered, she continued, he lied to editors about how he had gotten the quotes and in one case created an email account in the name of one of his sources. When editors discovered his actions, she added, he stood by his published work and, while admitting to creating the email accounts, refused to assist in the review otherwise.[27]
Reed apologized to readers and to those misquoted. She noted that some of Thompson's work, most of it using public sources, was verifiable. Editors alerted any downstream users of the affected stories, and promised to take similar action if further fabrication came to light.[27] After the note was published, the site amended Thompson's online biography when an editor at Chicago public radio station there said that while Thompson had indeed worked there he had no involvement in the station's news reporting as he had claimed; his past tenure at DNAinfo in Chicago, where one editor tweeted in response to the story that she could have seen it coming, was also edited out.[29]
In an email to Reed he shared with various news outlets, Thompson said he was being treated for testicular cancer and for that reason had not had access to his notes when the site had asked to review them. He explained his methods as "writing drafts of stories, placing the names of [people] I wanted to get quotes from in there, and then going to fetch the quotes .. If I couldn't obtain a quote from the person I wanted, I went somewhere else, and must've forgot to change the names—clearly." While he admitted this was "sloppy", he faulted The Intercept for lacking "a sustained and competent editor to guide me," alluding to the site's managerial turnovers.[29]
He suggested that the greater problem was racism in the media field. He had made up pseudonyms for some of his sources, whom he described as "poor black people who didn't want their names in the public given the situations" and would not have spoken with a reporter otherwise. "[T]he journalism that covers the experiences of poor black folk and the journalism others, such as you and First Look, are used to differs drastically," he argued. He also claimed he had felt a need to "exaggerate my personal shit in order to prove my worth" at The Intercept given incidents of racial bias he said he had witnessed there. When Gawker published his email, Reed said those allegations had not been in the version he sent her.[29]
Fine, what ever.
The Intercept just covered the release of a book.
David Talbot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But this is a well known story. I have posted so many other links in this thread to the well known professor at UC Berkley who was a former Canadian diplomat, Peter Scott Dale. If you had bothered listening to those videos or reading those posts, you would have run across the machinations of the Safari Club.
What is important here is NOT the just one internet site called The Intercept. Don't get caught up on inconsequential details. You're critical reading skills and reasoning skills are a joke. You know that?
Safari Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Have you ever heard of Mike Lofgren? He is a former Republican staffer. He has covered the same topic.
More on this same topic. This is not a left or right issue. Folks on both side of the aisle are concerned about this. . . at least REAL Americans are concerned about this. Ones that don't give two fucks about what happens in the middle east.
Sorry buddy. Saudi Arabia, the Arabs and Israel will have to solve their own problems, we have bigger fish to fry here at home.
Deep State: Inside Washington's Shadowy Power Elite
Deep State: Inside Washington's Shadowy Power Elite | Zero Hedge
Deconstructing America’s ‘Deep State’
Deconstructing America’s ‘Deep State’ – Consortiumnews
How about this source, is this one good enough for you?
Deep State America
Democracy is often subverted by special interests operating behind the scenes.
Deep State America
