This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
U.S. Counterterrorism Officials Insisted that Crotch Bomber Be Let Into Country
Undersecretary for management at the State Department, Patrick F.
Kennedy, told Congress that the State Department wanted to keep crotch
bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab out of the U.S., but that intelligence
agencies insisted that Abdulmutallab be let into the country.
Specifically,
on January 27th, Kennedy told the House Committee on Homeland Security
that intelligence agencies blocked revocation of Abdulmutallab's visa
because it would have foiled a "larger investigation" into Al Qaeda.
As noted by The Detroit News:
The
State Department didn't revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because federal counterterrorism officials
had begged off revocation, a top State Department official revealed
Wednesday.Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at
the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away
because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to
the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a
larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.
"Revocation
action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in
testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing
Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators
would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is
accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider
in that effort."
This is eerily similar to 9/11:
- One of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes, who was a very close associate of Bin Laden, was an American citizen who was an operative for the FBI, the CIA, and the Army (see this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this article
from the Globe and Mail). Indeed, while he was acting as an FBI
informant, he smuggled Bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, helped plan
the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and apparently played a pivotal
role in planning 9/11.According to a 1995 Boston Globe report, his entry into the country was made possible by “clandestine CIA sponsorship.” According to West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center, the terrorist was:
Given a visa waiver under
a “little known visa waiver program that allows the CIA and other
security agencies to bring valuable agents into the country, bypassing
the usual immigration formalities.” While perhaps “little known,” this
authority was granted to the Director of National Intelligence by the
Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and codified in 50 U.S.C.
§403h, which states that if “the admission of a particular alien into
the United States for permanent residence is in the interest of
national security or essential to the furtherance of the national
intelligence mission, such alien and his immediate family shall be
admitted to the United States for permanent residence without regard to
their inadmissibility under the immigration or any other laws and
regulations….”
- 11 of the hijackers received visas to the U.S. through a consular office where, according to the former head of that office, the
CIA routinely insisted that visas be granted to terrorists, even when
their visa applications should have been rejected under standard
operating procedure
Indeed:
- An Al Qaeda operative very close to one of the top Al Qaeda leaders was a CIA informant
- In an article on the nephew of the supposed key mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Newsday reported in 1995: “FBI
officials also are considering a probe of whether the CIA had any
relationship with [the nephew], who fought with the CIA-financed
mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980s.” A classified FBI file also reportedly indicated that the nephew had been recruited by the local branch of the CIA (pages 220-221)
- The president of Pakistan said that one of the masterminds of 9/11 was an MI6 (British intelligence services) agent
And U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. For example:
- In January 2001 -- the French intelligence services gave a report to the CIA entitled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals". Indeed, "foreign agents had infiltrated Osama bin Laden's network and were carefully tracking its moves" prior to 9/11. The original story from the leading French newspaper makes it clear that such infiltration went to the highest levels of Al-Qaeda's camps, and included listening to the hijackers' debates about which airlines' planes should be hijacked, and that allied intelligence services also listened into satellite phone conversations between the hijackers
- Moroccan intelligence penetrated Bin Laden's inner circle, and reported on Bin Laden's plans to the U.S.
- A longtime CIA officer says, “Egyptians, Jordanians, [and] Palestinians penetrated the bin Laden organization for us. It’s B.S. that we didn’t.” (page 143)
- Former CIA director George Tenet says that “a
group of assets from a Middle Eastern service”, working for the CIA,
penetrated al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan by September 2001.
Bin Laden was dropping hints about the upcoming 9/11 attacks to
training camp trainees in the summer of 2001, and US citizen John
Walker Lindh was told details of the 9/11 attacks within weeks of
joining a training camp that summer
- Indeed, in the summer of 2001, the CIA allegedly told President Bush that the highest levels of Al-Qaeda had been penetrated
In addition, U.S. and allied intelligence services followed the hijacker's every move:
- The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 discovered that an
FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and
that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI
refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a
high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken
under orders from the White House (confirmed here by the Co-Chair of the Joint Inquiry and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham)
- The Pentagon also tracked the hijackers before 9/11
- Israel tracked
the hijackers' every movement prior to the attacks, and may have sent
agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers. Israel, a very close ally of the U.S., presumably shared intelligence prior to 9/11
- And Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision" prior to the attacks. Saudi Arabia, like Israel, is a very close ally of the U.S.
Moreover, the U.S. intercepted many high-level Al Qaeda phone calls:
- The CIA and the NSA had been intercepting phone calls by the hijackers for years
- The National Security Agency and the FBI
were both independently listening in on the phone calls between the
supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the
FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on
the mastermind's phone calls. The day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker "tomorrow is zero hour" and gave final approval for the attacks.
The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also
monitoring the mastermind's phone calls. (The NSA claims that it did
not translate the intercept until September 12th; however, the
above-mentioned FBI translator said that she was frequently ordered to
falsify dates of translations regarding 9/11)
- Shortly before 9/11, the NSA also intercepted multiple phone calls from Bin Laden's chief of operations to the United States
- Only two days before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while.” US
officials later told CNN that “in recent years they've been able to
monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his
[step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone,
and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed,
before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would
occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother
Moreover, the financiers for Al Qaeda were not mysterious and unknown before 9/11:
- According to intelligence officials in India, Pakistan's military chief of intelligence wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker days before 9/11 (mentioned here in a news roundup). This is especially interesting because: That particular chief of intelligence was appointed to that position with the approval
of the U.S., and the intelligence chief had held "consultations" with
his U.S. counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior
to September 11. Coincidentally, the above-described military chief of
intelligence who wired the $100,000 to the hijacker actually met with the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the very morning of 9/11
Other facts point towards penetration of the highest levels of Al Qaeda:
- 9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza was told by whistleblowers that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets
- One of France's largest newspapers claims that the CIA met with Bin Laden in an American hospital in Dubai in July 2001
Did
9/11 - like the crotch bombing - also involve U.S. intelligence
services letting smaller terrorists into the U.S. so that they could
catch the "big fish"?
If so, this would be ironic, since the U.S. could have killed Bin Laden in 2001 and again in 2007, but chose not to do so.
»
- advertisements -
War is big money for the one's who know they will win. No one in their right mind would go up against our robots. The trick to war is enticing some fool to go to war against us. That is not an easy thing to do. First, you have to make the opponent think they can win. Second, you need someone stupid enough to fight on their own soil. Third, you need someone who will kill their own people when things get rough. Fourth, you need to convince the American people that the opponent deserves to die.
How many ways can you spell radical Muslims?
We do not need their oil. We do not need their drugs. We do not need them. However, our next generation of robots is about to be placed into the battle field. We need them to die. But before we kill them, we need for them to kill as many of their own as they possible can without using modern weapons.
Radical Muslims make the best test monkeys. They are easy to kill. They are fun to kill. And there are a bunch of them.
Interesting point. It works the other way around, too.
A very cheap terrorist strike provokes the massive response of the huge battle-robot machine that needs to do something to justify and generate revenue. Placing the next generation of robots in the field halfway around the world will cost enormous sums of money, while the "test monkeys" are nearly free of cost to produce and place in the field. If and when the money runs out, the invincible battle robots will lose their command and control. But the "test monkeys" will still be there anyway.
Both sides get what they want. Those who stand to profit from our robot industry get their cash. Those pushing radical Muslims into the gunsights of our battle robots get rid of a few (or a lot) of the friskier locals who would cause trouble, and bleed our economy dry. The only people who lose are all of us whose money went to the robot purveyors, and all of those whose families got killed.
+1
Radical Muslims make the best test monkeys. They are easy to kill. They are fun to kill. And there are a bunch of them.
They almost ran out of jews.
And gosh Muslims have never done anything to us so why are we going to war with them? Is that where you are going? So the fact that their entire religion is premised on overwhelming the entire globe by violence if required leaves you unimpressed?
fat-fingers make one dupe.
Social animals like bees, ants, and humans are hard-wired to sacrifice themselves when fighting to protect their homeland and access to their queen and survival. The suicide bomber is no dihfferent form the bee that stings and if successful dies in the act as his stinger pulls out his guts, or the ants that make a bridge across tangle foot to reach their aphid corral that they harvest for the tree juices the aphids suck out..no different, ordinary stuff. They see survival clearly; you perhaps live behind a wall of plastic crap made in China, well-insulated from the realities of life and experiencing the present in non-Tivo time.
So suicide bombers make sense to you? And you say I live in a plastic bubble? What sort of drugs are you on?
Step on a hornet's nest naked and you'll wish you lived in a plastic bubble and the juice of the coca bush and poppy plant would be God's gift to you.
Step on a honets nest naked and you'll wish you lived in a plastic bubble and the juice of the coca bush and poppy plant would be God's gift to you.
You're making assumptions (as usual, but only because you buy into the mass-produced propaganda).
After you've looked up Operation Northwoods another one to look up is "1985 Beruit car bombing."
BTW - Have you quit beating your wife?
Mass produced propaganda? Why, you couldn't get THAT from the "alternative media" that is "fair and balanced" could you?
Cause that's where he got his goofy bullshit. The Glenn Beck program.
Who else talks about the Weathermen?
It doesn't to you and me, but walk in their shoes and maybe you could understand where the hatred comes from. If you want to fix a problem look at the cause.
Mr. Legrand,
May I suggest that you read 1984 by george orwell, or read it again if you haven't. The book gives easy examples of how the government can benefit from a state of perpetual war. While I don't think the CIA was behind 9/11 I believe the episode has clearly been used for purposes that aren't kosher.
I have no problem with the idea of a government allowing things to happen to suit it's own ends. All you have to do is look at many countries and how their on government/or right wing counterterrorism officials commit crimes in the name of terrorists to justify certain behaviors.
Funny how you name right wing counter terrorism as some sort of threat. I am guessing that you missed all those hundreds of millions that the left has slaughtered in the name of progress? If you want to be afraid of a government then be very afraid of where Barry wants to go.
Listen to this interview with Larry Grathwohl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ
He talks about how the Weathermen wanted to treat folks like me.
Glenn Beck couldn't have drawn it any better on his goofy chalkboard.
OK, just exactly what are "folks like me [as in YOU]?"
What do YOU mean you people?
Mr. Legrand is not arguing against your logic. Quite the contrary. You, all of us, can accept the idea of self serving government without, by extension, having to celebrate every tin foil hallucination that comes down the pike.
We can choose to believe ONE thing, without being scolded for not believing EVERYTHING.
Look, y'all, the Rock is yankin' yer chain, yo.
Ever notice how in all his posts, he takes some contrarian argument and then throw a softball at the end?
Can't decide if he is a sophisticated CIA troll (60%...) v. a true believer who thinks it is her job to get us to think (26%...).
14% merde
Color me unimpressed. Compared to the damage and misery caused by Banksters, Muslims are little wussies. So a few people die; big deal. Unless it's you personally, or someone you know, it's a rounding error compared to the number of people killed by drunk drivers annually. The wars, ALL OF THEM, are ginned up directly or indirectly by the Bankers and Defense Contractors, whether as diversions or outright profit vehicles. Go on, Pierre, keep hating the brown people, the Lefties, the Union workers, whoever else they deemed 'Them' for you. Meanwhile, the people running the show will keep counting their coins and appointing their politicians under the guise of "Demokracy'.
Welcome to the Machine.
So exactly how did the Defense Contractors and Bankers convince a group of muslims to attack our country? Furthermore you laugh at the death toll in NYC while perhaps not understanding just how bad it could have been. Let's take the first attack in 93.
The largest car bomb in history to that point was ignited under the WTC and it blew a hole 6 floors big. The intention was to knock one building down into the other catastrophically. The toll would have been in the tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand.
Fast forward to 2001 and had the planes hit lower many more thousands would have perished. Had they had nuclear weapons do you doubt they would have used them?
If it is the Defense contractors who are training and arming them how come they just don't give them a couple or more nukes? Just think of all the fun.
All of these conspiracies so you dont' have to face the fact that a barbaric relgion is encouraging its followers to kill you.
"So exactly how did the Defense Contractors and Bankers convince a group of muslims to attack our country?"
Well, you start by giving a foreign policy blank check to their most hated enemy, the state of Israel. Oh, and support the corrupt, oligarchical petro-monarchies that prevent them from fully enforcing their religious beliefs on their countries. It wouldn't hurt to put some military bases near Mecca, their most holy site. And if you could get some military representatives to talk about renewing the Crusades and converting Muslims to Christianity, that would be a good step, too.
As far as why they don't give them more advanced weaponry, they don't have to. Look at the return on investment they've gotten on a dozen box cutters in 2001.
Your icon states: I LIE.
I believe you , but why do you use your M.O. under another man's picture?
Ignorance is bliss.
Two words for you: Timothy McVeigh
Clearly you've bought into the BIG LIE... Again, research on Operation Northwoods (take the Red Pill!).
yep trust the guys from washington .. the guys that reported the 9.8 unemployment rate ,, when in fact it is twice that
1.36 Million Jobs Knocked off December Payrolls; Depression’s Job Loss Increased by 19%
- January Unemployment: 16.5% (U-6), 21.2% (SGS)
- Serious Jobs and Unemployment Deterioration in Months Ahead
This always blows my mind. Why is it that some people have absolutely no problem believing their government when it's telling them something they want to hear (US government was taken by surprise and acted incompetently during the 9/11 attacks but neither the government nor its private contractors had anything to do with it) and complete distrust when it's telling them something they don't wish to believe ("real" unemployment at 9.7%, the recession has ended, GDP is hugely positive and has been for awhile, there is no manipulation through various banks and other financial entities, the Fed didn't see the bubbles, quantitative easing is ending, the list is endless)?
Might it have something to do with herd dynamics? There is little to no push back from multiple sources when calling the government a liar about unemployment and thus no social risk involved. But there's a huge push back involved when talking about the massive inconsistencies in the official 9/11 government conspiracy theory and thus a huge social risk. Why is there so much anger from certain people if you deviate from the official 9/11 story, yet these very same people have no problems deviating from other official stories? And who exactly is pushing back?
Just asking folks. Let's be consistent here. If we're going to be critical of some aspects of the government, why aren't we examining everything the government tells us? So you believe a government that is prone to lie, manipulate and even kill when it suits its purposes is going to be perfectly honest about a subject that could destroy countless government entities and private parties if anything but the official 9/11 story is believed by the masses?
People who don't wish to look closely at 9/11 are either in deep denial or enablers of the powers that benefit from the official story. Or just plain frightened that their government might not be acting in their best interest but rather may be trying to harm them. No one likes to recognize they might have been complicit, an enabler or that they are impotent.
If debunking alternative 9/11 investigations is so easy, why do the debunkers resort to Ad hominem attacks rather than fact based discussions? Because Ad hominem attacks use the social herd against your opponent and render any technical or logical discussion moot and abandoned because of the fear of ridicule. Ad hominem attacks are a form of guerrilla warfare, which is only used when someone is out matched when using conventional weapons and techniques, or in this case, logic and fact based discussions.
When you've lost the argument (or you can't even start the argument because you have no fact based argument to make) start calling the other person names in an effort to discredit the person, and by extension, that person's argument. Of course, regardless of what you do to the person, the facts don't change, only a persons willingness to look at the facts.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
CD said:
"Why is it that some people have absolutely no problem believing their government when it's telling them something they want to hear (US government was taken by surprise and acted incompetently during the 9/11 attacks but neither the government nor its private contractors had anything to do with it) and complete distrust when it's telling them something they don't wish to believe"
Both of those responses are conditioned responses and that conditioning is applied to all of us. Once you are aware of them you will start to notice the same responses to many different stimuli. Most of the audience desperately wants to avoid the rational conclusion that their condition is hopeless so they eagerly deny things which lead to that conclusion or accept without proof things which lead away from that conclusion. In short, most of the time, the mind can be conditioned so that it's rational processes can be overridden by it's emotional ones.
The Tavistock Institute is worth your attention.
flagging a well reasoned rational post like this is quite frankly pathetic.
my favorite is still that many (most?) folks now understand and accept that our "government" (in coordination with at least one other government) completely lied it's way into Iraq for nothing more than oil. Peak Oil education is helping that effort. So, whether they realize it or not they accept all of that murder. But as CD points out, the minute they are asked to believe that our government would kill its own, they shut down. Actually, as CD points out, they freak out and start calling the fact finders interesting names. I think it is because it crosses some innate threshold of security. Like rape of a child within the family. We all know it occurs. But the minute a family confronts it in their own, they shut down, the freak out, they blame the accuser. Another way to justify exploitation of course, is to call the locals anything but human. Worked for slavery, manifest destiny and other things. Sometime in the sixteenth century the pope finally had to make some official declaration that the american natives were humans. So these people aren't human, they're terrorists. For God's sake, they're not even christians, their "muslims, extremist muslims" And we all know extremist muslim with a gun and a uniform is the very antithesis of a born again with a bigger one.
My other favorite is that everyone accepts that we would have never "voted" to got to war without 911.
Geronimo and Crazy Horse: Homeland Security....Fighting Terrorism since 1492
"My other favorite is that everyone accepts that we would have never "voted" to got to war without 911."
Given enough rationalization and justification, we will always vote for the dictator (your dictator is worse) and vote to kill others in order to maintain our "way of life". This is only possible when we divorce ourselves from the consequences of our actions, when we label the "others" as less than worthy and thus expendable.
I've often asked people how they expect the world's population and it's unfettered use of finite resources (I hate calling anything a resource but will to be understood) to continue to grow exponentially. I often ask people how it is that they can blissfully continue to live a comparably healthy and comfortable existence in the developed world knowing that two thirds of the entire world lives in abject poverty and misery.
My point in asking is not to single myself out as better, more pure, because I'm thinking about these subjects. Rather I'm curious to see how they are not thinking about these subjects. The answers, when they're boiled down to their base, comes down to the fact that they......just.......don't....... think....... about..... it. For to do so, to personalize the basic unfairness of living in a throwaway society using the vast majority of the world resources for a very small minority, screams hypocrisy. Knowledge implies responsibility.
Better to not think about it, to claim that the problem is unsolvable, that if only this or that were different things would change, to paint ourselves as victims of the situation and thus powerless to change. After all, if you're as much a victim as the other two thirds, there's nothing you can do but sit back and watch the show, in comfort of course.
Didn't you know??? Terrorists hate our freedom. You're living in a pre 9/11 world. And besides... how dare you question our commander in chief in a time of war? Freedom isn't free, you know.
Don't be silly. Now the President is a Democrat, so all that stuff is kosher again.
How can we live without caring about other's plights? There are so many levels of discomfort in the world. Is money the only factor? How about health, love or happiness? Do you gauge any of that?
We are all finite.. and most likely our souls run through new bodies like water goes through clouds and back to liquid. Experiences are the only currency of the soul. Hundreds of years ago most people never knew how bad other parts of the world may be living.. their lives didn't care about it. I think that is one reason why we had so many different languages.. it allows an easy border to forgive yourself not to care
CD, you're obviously someone who knows what the human mind truly is for. I'm grateful to have been able to read this last string of posts.
Thank you for your excellent input into this discussion, Cognative Dissonance. The depth of your analysis, well pas the red/blue bullshit, is refreshing.
You're absolutely right in that the psychological factors involved in the grand deception cannot be overemphasized. It is the fuel that runs the machine and has been the grease that keeps the wheels moving. Propaganda and Psy/Ops, no doubt.
I submit that it was much easier in the fifties and the early to mid-sixties to manipulate the media than it is today. There once was a thick veneer of obfuscation that could be relied on by the government but now that coating between the people and real knowlege has gotten thinner and thinner. The more we know, it seems, the easier it is to see how poorly we are being manipulated nowadays.
One day, this may become known as the Internet Uprising. Thanks to the freedom to exchange open information and opinion guaranteed to us by the Founders, we have come to a point in our country's history that it may become necessary to call upon the Divine Right, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, that we dissolved this tyrannical government either by the ballot box or by the box of bullets.
The truth is out. It is bubbling slowly to the surface. Destiny will be served.
Good ole Dick Cheney said "the american way of life is not negotiable"
It only hurts when I think about it
You may be on to something here. It seems a lot of people think of "Government" as being the things about government they don't like, and "Security" or "Defense" as being the parts of government they do like. So people can complain about "Government" issuing flagrantly false statistics and wasting money, but they have faith that "Security" or "Defense" would never collaborate in a terrorist attack, or at the very least concoct a ludicrous story to cover up catastrophic failure.
Perhaps similarly, the same people who complain about $800 dollar hammers for the Pentagon angrily resist any suggestions that we cut the "Defense" budget, but want to cut "Government" spending; as if the military and intelligence communities somehow weren't "Government."
That area between the two poles is huge and a no mans land, a playground, for both the person creating it and anyone wishing to manipulate the person. In this area normal rules of logic and critical thinking are suspended, as if it were a dream world, which in so many ways it is.
By creating this dissonance, the person can bend the world to his/her own liking, often satisfying a need to support an extremely ridgid worldview. It allows that person to alter realty in ways that allow him/her to conduct his/her affairs mostly divorced from the emotional consequences of reality. It is our safe room, our make believe area, where things are as they should be, at least from our point of view. Where we can sit down and have tea and crumpets with the beautiful princess, the dashing knights and the rabbit with the reading glasses and all is as it should be if we were running things around here. A place where our ego is fully in charge.
This cognitive dissonance is actually encouraged by the powers that be so that it becomes a control mechanism. Once you begin to lie to yourself, once you begin to accept others' lies as your own, you become a slave to maintaining that lie. Rather than accept that you're participating in a massive self deception, it's easier, emotionally safer, to continue to participate, even defend, the lie that you're so intimately linked to.
Thus seemingly contradictory facts are not contradictory at all but simply part of the fabric of the lie. Your enemy becomes the truth, great harm is threatened if you allow others around you to practice truth, you become not only a passive enabler of the lie but an active participant in maintaining and even spreading the lie to others.
This is how small lies grow into huge involved and complicated deceits and subterfuges, requiring more and more energy to maintain than it's worth, at least from an outside point of view. But for you, it's continue the lie or face yourself and your participation in the lie. So first you deny that you are lying and then you deny you're in denial.
From an emotional point of view, this makes you extremely vulnerable to manipulation, blackmail if you will, though not in the strictest sense of the word blackmail, because you understand intuitively that it's much easier to go along with the blackmail than to fight it. These are not "conscious" decisions and thoughts per say but rather an extremely complex weave of delusion, self deception, emotional dependency and blissful ignorance.
I've often asked people what it is exactly that they think the CIA/NSA does in other countries, leaving alone any concept that "they" might also do "it" in this country against us. I often hear answers like "spying" or "manipulation" or even "propaganda". But when I ask them how these objectives are actually carried out, they are often tragically clueless and completely unaware of the psychological weapons used to carry of these covert operations.
And there lies our Achilles Heel, for a population largely unaware of psychology (many educated people indulge themselves in the fantasy that they understand the basic concepts of psychology and thus they're immune) is a population wide open to psychological operations. It's very easy to con a dishonest man.
Very deeply thought out. I've thought along these lines myself. Not sure where I end up.
Your last sentence rings true; in fact, in the truest sense, the old expression "You can't con a con" is exactly false; you can only con a con. Someone has to want something for nothing and know the game is rigged for it to be a true con. Otherwise it's just a garden-variety ripoff, not a con. Like Madoff. His victims all had enough financial savvy to know he was up to something. They just thought the "something" was insider trading, and they'd be the beneficiaries. They were fine with that. When it turned out he wasn't actually doing anything at all, just spending (or otherwise "disappearing") their money, well, that was a different story.
We all have to maintain our self-image and our mythology. It's easier to deviate in increments, gradually widening the gulf, than it is to make a big leap. Which is why now, after all this time, so many people can't even consider the possibility of alternate explanations. It threatens their entire personal narrative.
It's a beautiful thing. Their Elders (Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and the Mitzvah Tank crew) would be ashamed that so many of the next generation of their tribe fell for the old Gypsy trick: "Partners in Crime."
I'd like to commend that last several posts as being very clairvoyant.
That power corrupts should never be questioned.
The "something for nothing" rings very true when you look around and see that the biggest FALSE story that has been embedded into our psyche is that "growth is good" (followed by "<fill in the blank> will overcome the problems associated with/caused by growth"). We're all living THE BIG Ponzi Scheme- growth; and, the "cons" all know it (it's how They feed off of of everyone else); if people stop believing in this myth then they die...
case in point: Matt Taibbi
This sort of conspiracy crap makes the other conspiracy crap look bad...makes this site seem less like a news site and more like a fucking bunch of paranoid loonies.
What WOULD you call a bunch of people that say that the world will end tomorrow so stock up on gold bullion and ammo and seeds, and arable land?
I don't know. I was hoping somebody could fill in the blank for me.
That icon you employ is too tiny to read:
is that "HOPE", DOPE" or "NOPE" under the iconic painting of the former Senator from Illinois? It makes a difference; yes, it does.