| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jose Jones
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1758 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2007 : 14:10:24
|
KoK,
it's not the fact that you are skeptical of government that makes you a boarderline conspiracy nutcase, it's that you search out this stuff and tell it to everyone who will listen, all the while proclaiming you're not a conspiracy nut and that this stuff is serious (which turns out to be THE definition of conspiracy nut).
-----------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
 |
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 17:29:32
|
There are complete conspiracy nutcases into mind control, aluminum hat, underground bases with hybrid alien children, etc. As soon as you decide to believe 9/11 you are instantly thrown into that category.
Now don't get me wrong I've progressed further down the rabbitt hole than I like to admit but once you believe one try not looking at some others. There is something to this stuff. Not all but some.
Why don't you watch 911 mysteries and see what all the commotion is about.
Linked below.
------------------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries&total=696&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 10:49:46
|
September 6, 2007
Nuclear Hypocrisy in the Middle East
Bush, Iran and Israel's Hidden Hand
By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA Analysts
The internet is loaded these days with reports of the inevitability of a U.S., or a U.S.-Israeli, attack on Iran. Some writers allege that the attack is imminent. Others, including the writers of this article, argue only that the attack will happen sometime before January 2009, when the Bush administration leaves office. Many of these stories have by now been picked up by the mainstream media. In fact, it is probably safe to say that today a majority of the traditionally cautious and so-called respectable foreign policy experts in the U.S. think it is at least possible that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.
Such is the power of recollection with respect to how Bush bulled his way into invading Iraq in 2003 that many people simply accept that he might gamble on doing it again. He has made it clear that in this "War on Terror," victory means everything to him. He might also believe that a win in Iran could reverse current setbacks in Iraq and also bring victory closer for the U.S. and Israel in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. And he has already shown that he is willing to accept the killings of hundreds of thousands or even a million people in the hope of going down in history as a great commander-in-chief.
The people of the United States are the only ones with a chance of stopping him, and it can only happen if a powerful majority of voters will join in a maximum effort to impeach both Bush and Cheney right now. This has to happen before the U.S. and/or Israel undertake any expanded military efforts against Iran.
All of this will be difficult, and many will think it impossible. We citizens of the U.S. who do not want our country to become involved in a greater war with Iran will not have most of the print and TV media with us, nor the military-industrial complex that wants more wars. The Israel lobby will desperately oppose efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, because it will recognize instantly that the two top U.S. leaders are the lobby's strongest backers of war with Iran. At the same time, most of the Democratic Party leadership and all but one or two of the Democratic presidential candidates will be reluctant to support impeachment because they are competing with the Republicans in an effort to show that each party supports Israel more strongly than the other.
But the people of this country have plenty of power to defeat all these forces if they will use it to support justice, particularly in the Middle East, which is today the highest priority area where U.S. and Israeli foreign policies play a major role, and the area where those policies are the most unjust. We believe it will be by no means impossible to persuade a majority of American voters, given their already established distaste for U.S. failures in Iraq, to rip off the cocoon of pleasant but apathetic consumerism in which they have encased themselves, and participate more seriously in the political processes of our country than they ever have in recent years.
The impeachment itself will have more to do with the past than the future, since a legal action can only indict (impeach) and then convict a person for past actions, not for actions that may be likely in the future. So impeachment will concern Iraq and domestic policies of the Bush administration, not Iran. But at the same time, once we get their interest, people should have a heightened awareness of future planned acts as well as of past policies of the government. If we can move fast, we will have time to show how the plans to attack Iran create a greater need than ever for an impeachment effort to succeed, and to succeed now.
The first point to make in persuading people is that Iran itself claims it has no nuclear weapons now, and no intention to produce them in the future. The first part of this statement is true; the supporting evidence is overwhelming. But Iran's claim that it will not in the future develop nuclear weapons is subject to doubt, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence to the contrary. The other nations in the Middle East and South Asia that have been developing nuclear weapons over the last 50 years -- Israel, India, and Pakistan -- all lied to the U.S., the U.N., and other countries, claiming that they were not building nuclear weapons when in fact they were. Iran might well do the same.
More important is the sheer logic of the situation. As one nation-state in a world of nation-states, Iran knows that it has every bit as much right to develop nuclear weapons as the U.S., Israel, and other present nuclear powers. Compared to Israel, Iran has both a population and a land mass that are much larger. So why is it permissible for Israel to have several hundred nuclear weapons and impermissible for Iran to have any? The answer given by Israel supporters that Israel never signed the NonProliferation Treaty of 1970 while Iran did, is spurious. The NPT is, for practical purposes, a dead letter. Under the treaty, the U.S. and other signatory states already possessing nuclear weapons promised to begin serious negotiations to eliminate their own weapons, but they have never done so, or even tried, in the years since 1970. If Iran were in fact discovered to be developing its own weapons, Iranian officials could say, hand on heart, that they would be pleased to quit violating the treaty when the U.S. did.
Since the U.S. right now is embarking on a program to upgrade its nuclear weapons and delivery systems capabilities, and shows absolutely no intention to negotiate toward eliminating those capabilities, Iran would seem to have quite a strong legal case. Iran might also argue that the situation has so changed in its region of the world (with Israel, India, and Pakistan all now having their own nukes) that it must withdraw from the treaty and obtain its own deterrent force. It has not done that yet because it still claims that it does not want any nuclear weapons, but that option is always, and quite legally, open to it. By the way, any argument that Israel is a more moral and "better" country than Iran -- and thus more deserving of nuclear weapons -- is a bit of sanctimony worthy only of being rejected out of hand.
The key point here is that Iran's nuclear capabilities are not now, and will not be at least for a few more years, a significant threat to the U.S., although over the same period they could be seen in Israel as a somewhat greater threat. Therefore, to the extent that Iran's nuclear weapons potential is at all a real cause of present U.S. and Israeli aggressive policies toward Iran, these aggressive policies are being carried out more to benefit Israel than the U.S. It is actually likely that the main motive behind U.S. and Israeli policies (as was the case in Iraq) has nothing to do with nuclear weapons but is rather to bring about regime change in Iran and strengthen the joint dominion of the U.S. and Israel over the entire Middle East. This raises the broader question of whether such joint dominion is truly in the best interest of the United States, or whether it is favored in Washington mainly because it is being pushed by the Israel lobby.
Another point needs to be made that should also help persuade U.S. voters to oppose a war against Iran with all their strength. Bush is fond of saying that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Of course, when he says this, he never tells his listeners what his definition of terrorism is. In fact, we cannot recall any occasion or speech since the so-called War on Terror was launched in which Bush has spelled out what he means when he uses the word.
The best definition of terrorism is "the use of violence against civilians for a political purpose." If one buys this definition, which is widely used, Bush's statement that Iran is the leading state sponsor is plainly false. Using any criterion you choose that covers all civilians -- killings, destruction of homes, shootings or beatings or mistreatment of the sick at checkpoints -- what governments would you say were the leading purveyors of terrorism in the last five years? Hint: creating "shock and awe" is a good definition of at least one form of terrorism using aircraft, modern bombs, and missiles. Sniper shootings of children in Gaza is another. Destroying the olive trees that provide basic income for an entire family and then forcibly confiscating the land on which the olive trees stood is yet another form. But then, there are numerous others, including the use of torture on prisoners.
It is so easy, yet so reprehensible to list Iran as the number-one terrorism culprit. At a minimum, we Americans must understand that many others around the world regard us as far worse terrorists than any in Iran. For pushing "terrorism" as a justification for waging war against Iran when the U.S. is just as guilty of even greater terrorism, Bush and Cheney must beyond question be impeached and convicted with all possible speed, so that they can never start that war.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.
Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
------------------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries&total=696&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 11:05:27
|
Outside View: A Sept. rollout for Iran war
Published: Sept. 5, 2007 at 12:44 PM
By DAVID ISENBERG
UPI Outside View Commentator
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (UPI) -- White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card once famously said of the administration’s 2002 campaign to get support for the invasion of Iraq, ''From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.''
Now August is behind us, and -- right on schedule -- marketers both in the White House and among their supporters outside are rolling out their newest product, a public relations blitz urging a U.S. military adventure in Iran.
Consider the recent speech by President Bush to the American Legion. In it he said, “Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
“Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions.
“We will confront this danger before it is too late,” he concluded.
Of course, President Bush’s speech, not for the first time, stood in 180 degree contrast to reality.
The day before, while making public the recently completed agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program, Olli Heinonen, deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "We have in front of us an agreed work plan. We agreed on modalities on how to implement it. We have a timeline for the implementation."
But however distorted their relationship to reality, Bush’s words have impact.
"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities," he said. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. military in Iraq arrested and detained eight Iranian energy experts meeting in Baghdad with the Iraqi government, handcuffing, blindfolding and interrogating them.
They were only released when the Iraqi government protested.
On Sept. 10 the American Enterprise Institute, a sort of neoconservative administration-in-waiting, will debut the newest book by its “Freedom Scholar” Michael Ledeen, one of the foremost proponents of the military adventure in Iraq.
Titled “The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction,” it is a rehash of neocon arguments for “regime change” -- by military force, if necessary -- in Tehran. Although he calls for supporting and funding the regime’s domestic opposition, Ledeen concludes that this “administration or the next will likely face a terrible choice: appease a nuclear Iran, or bomb it before their atomic weapons are ready to go.”
Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service renowned for his coverage of the neoconservative influence in the Bush administration, notes that the rollout of Ledeen’s book comes just four days after AEI will launch its Sept. 6 “All or Nothing” campaign to “save the surge” in Iraq. He wrote:
“The chronological juxtaposition of the Surge panel Sept. 6 and the rollout of Ledeen’s book Sept. 10 underlines the balance that AEI and other hawks (including the vice president’s office) are trying to achieve between their two top priorities at the moment -- sustaining the surge well into next year and rallying Congress and the public behind an attack on Iran before the end of Bush’s term, if by then “diplomacy” does not achieve the desired results of 1) freezing its nuclear program and/or 2) halting Tehran’s support for its Shia allies (including the al-Maliki government) in Iraq.”
Meanwhile, Kimberly Kagan, who directs the Institute for the Study of War, has written a lengthy report titled "Iran's Proxy War Against the United States and the Iraqi Government" that was posted on the Web site of neoconservative organ the Weekly Standard.
Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, an AEI scholar and one of the intellectual architects of the Iraq surge. She is also listed as one of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with the idea for the surge in the first place.
Of course, there are also exceptions to the “don’t do rollouts until after Labor Day” strategy.
One was at the end of July, when the State Department unveiled a series of arms sales in the region to contain Iran. In her July 30 announcement of the potential sale of $20 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and the other five members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the arms will "support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran."
However, the exact nature of the Iranian threat or how these U.S. weapons transfers will counter it was never spelled out.
The other was in August when the Senate unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, I-Conn., accusing Iran of acts of war against the United States -- a resolution with no purpose other than to strengthen the case for war against Tehran.
A third was the White House decision to designate at least elements of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, using the president’s authority under a September 2001 executive order. Robert Baer, a former high-ranking CIA field officer in the Middle East, wrote recently in Time Magazine that:
“Reports that the Bush administration will put Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways: It's either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months.”
--
(David Isenberg is a senior analyst with the British American Security Information Council. He is also a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, and a U.S. Navy veteran. The views expressed are his own.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
------------------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries&total=696&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 16:35:44
|
Israeli Jets Run Iran Attack Drill
NY Post | September 08, 2007
JERUSALEM - Israeli warplanes may have been testing air routes for a possible attack against Iran when they were fired on by Syrian forces, experts said yesterday.
The official Syrian Arab News Agency Thursday quoted a military official as saying that Israeli jets broke the sound barrier flying over northern Syria earlier in the day, then "dropped munitions" onto deserted areas after being shot at by Syria's air defenses.
Israel's air force may have been testing an air path to Iran, in case it decides to carry out an attack against that country's nuclear facilities, analysts said.
The corridor of northern Syria over which the aircraft allegedly flew is the closest straight line from the Mediterranean Sea, where Israel has easy access, to Iran.
Israel says it prefers to let the international community confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, but a lone Israeli attack is not out of the question.
"Of course Israel wants to let the Americans do that," said Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
"But if we are left alone, the Israeli army is preparing to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat - if the political level allows it to - and this could have been a part of that."
------------------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries&total=696&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 05:44:54
|
The Bush administration tried to hit me, but Iran away.
<Rimshot>
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 15:40:16
|
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/
CENTCOM Commander’s Veto Sank Bush’s Threatening Gulf Buildup
by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon’s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.
The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.
Admiral Fallon’s resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and last January, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the U.S. conflict with Iran.
Explaining why he recommended Fallon, Gates said, “As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job.”
Bush administration officials had just leaked to CBS News and the New York Times in December that the USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships would be sent to the Gulf in January six weeks earlier than originally planned in order to overlap with the USS Eisenhower and to “send a message to Tehran”.
But that was not the end of the signaling to Iran by naval deployment planned by administration officials. The plan was for the USS Nimitz and its associated vessels, scheduled to sail into the Gulf in early April, to overlap with the other two carrier strike groups for a period of months, so that all three would be in the Gulf simultaneously.
Two well-informed sources say they heard about such a plan being pushed at high levels of the administration, and Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari reported Feb. 19 that the deployment of a third carrier group to the Gulf was “likely”.
That would have brought the U.S. naval presence up to the same level as during the U.S. air campaign against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, when the Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk carrier groups were all present. Two other carrier groups helped coordinate bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.
The deployment of three carrier groups simultaneously was not part of a plan for an actual attack on Iran, but was meant to convince Iran that the Bush administration was preparing for possible war if Tehran continued its uranium enrichment programme.
At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran’s leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.
“He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it,” says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon’s message from a Pentagon official who had read it.
Fallon’s refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.
Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”
Fallon’s opposition to adding a third carrier strike group to the two already in the Gulf represented a major obstacle to the plan. The decision to send a second carrier task group to the Gulf had been officially requested by Fallon’s predecessor at CENTCOM, Gen. John Abizaid, according to a Dec. 20 report by the Washington Post’s Peter Baker. But as Baker reported, the circumstances left little doubt that Abizaid was doing so because the White House wanted it as part of a strategy of sending “pointed messages” to Iran.
CENTCOM commander Fallon’s refusal to request the deployment of a third carrier strike group meant that proceeding with that option would carry political risks. The administration chose not to go ahead with the plan. Two days before the Nimitz sailed out of San Diego for the Gulf on Apr. 1, a Navy spokesman confirmed that it would replace the Eisenhower, adding, “There is no plan to overlap them at all.”
The defeat of the plan for a third carrier task group in the Gulf appears to have weakened the position of Cheney and other hawks in the administration who had succeeded in selling Bush on the idea of a strategy of coercive threat against Iran.
Within two weeks, the administration’s stance had already begun to shift dramatically. On Jan. 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had dismissed direct talks with Iran in the absence of Tehran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment programme as “extortion”. But by the end of February, Rice had gotten authorisation for high level diplomatic contacts with Iran in the context of a regional meeting on Iraq in Baghdad.
The explanation for the shift offered by administration officials to the New York Times was that the administration now felt that it “had leverage” on Iran. But that now appears to have been a cover for a retreat from the more aggressive strategy previously planned.
Throughout March and April, the Bush administration avoided aggressive language and the State Department openly sought diplomatic engagement with Iran, culminating in the agreement confirmed by U.S. officials last weekend that bilateral talks will begin with Iran on Iraq.
Despite Vice President Dick Cheney’s invocation of the military option from the deck of the USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf last week, the strategy of escalating a threat of war to influence Iran has been put on the shelf, at least for now.
Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam“, was published in June 2005.
------------------
MIT Engineer Says WTC Demolished http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries&total=696&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 20:59:03
|
"Conspiracy theory" huh?
As I posted last week - and we are now seeing - we are starting to see the propaganda increase in the media until maybe even you yourself think attacking Iran is justified.
Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170188,00.html
You doubters are getting your butts kicked today.
------------------
 BELIEVE! |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 21:02:10
|
In case you forgot.
Cheney Orders Media To Sell Attack On Iran
Fox News, Wall Street Journal instructed to launch PR blitz for upcoming military strike
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran from today, according to Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University.
The New Yorker magazine reports that Rubin had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.
"It will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects, writes Rubin, "It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”
Rubin subsequently confirmed with a second source that the propaganda coup had been launched and the individual, another top Neo-Con at a major think tank, had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”
(Article continues below)
An organized mass media campaign to propagandize for a military strike on Iran mirrors exactly what happened in late 2002 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq and would be seen as par for the course in anticipation of an attack that presidential candidate Ron Paul amongst other expert observers fear will take place within 12 months.
President Bush met directly with talk radio idealogues at the White House last year to push the Neo-Con agenda. Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and Michael Medved (pictured below) amongst others all attended and received their talking points straight from the President's mouth.
Considering the history of the sordid "fake news" scandal, where millions of dollars were used to create pre-packaged government press releases disguised as news, along with the Armstrong Williams farce, it should surprise no one that such "instructions" are now being handed out to prepare the public for another military invasion.
The issuance of orders for Neo-Con mass media arms to push for an assault on Iran also puts the U.S. on red alert for a terror attack, whether real or manufactured, which Dick Cheney has already promised will immediately be blamed on Iran no matter who the real culprits are.
On August 1st, 2005 the American Conservative reported that Cheney had tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan involved a massive air strike on Iran which included the use of nuclear weapons.
The publication reported that, "The response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," meaning that any such attack will immediately be blamed on Iran and any evidence to the contrary will be buried.
The London Times reported on Sunday that the Pentagon had finalized plans for a 3 day blitz designed to annihilate 1,200 targets in Iran and destroy the country's military capability.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past week, with President Bush having warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.
In a speech last Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad subsequently stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, he claimed to have proof that the U.S. were not planning to attack, bizarrely citing his mathematical skills as an engineer and faith in God.
A January poll by Ipsos found that 40% of Americans thought it likely that Iran would be attacked by the end of the year. The U.S. has stationed three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier.
The U.S. government is openly funding and supporting the activities of Jundullah, a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, to carry out bombings in Iran and destabilize Ahmadinejad's power base.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard military was recently declared to be a terrorist organization by the White House, another ominous sign that an attack is being readied.
------------------
BELIEVE! |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
|
|
Carl
- A 'Fifth' Catholic -
Ireland
11546 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2007 : 15:39:38
|
Read this sentence:
We Are Going To Hit Iran.
Thought there were four 'I's in it?
There's only three!
"I hate how the reptile dreams it's a mammal. Scaley monster: be what you are!!" - Erebus. |
Edited by - Carl on 09/16/2007 15:41:16 |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 14:15:08
|
Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/280907_b_attack.htm
Okay, so where are we with the predictions?
Iran attack imminent.
Global carbon tax imminent
What's the other?
Oh yeah, depression imminent.
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
Edited by - The King Of Karaoke on 09/28/2007 14:15:42 |
|
|
|
thermoplastics
- FB Fan -
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 15:56:12
|
I want to know why Jimmah Carter (PBUH) has a license to steal, literally, with a federal peanut growers license? You think these inbreeds could of supported themselves honestly? Did you know that it illegal to import peanuts into the US? And, has been since the 1930's? That since FDR's time it is illegal even to grow and sell peanuts with out a federal permit, which have been limited and frozen since FDR? And those close eyed, tiny teethed Carter clan have had one since old grand dad put down his Klan hat. That's why a bag of goobers cost so much even if they are a weed that grows in useless dirt pulling nitrogen out of the air.
Which brings me to Iran.
Remember, then President Carter let I'mADinnerJacket commit an act of War by entering a Embassy, kidnap and Islamic torture and kill Americans? And did nothing but beat off. A rabbit with a canoe paddle. Right?
But he did ban Pistachios from Iran.
I like Pistachios.
Iranian Pistachios are the best. Creamy, soft, oily flavorful.
I get them in Amsterdam (cough cough, wink wink)
So, there see, you can start new conspiracies. You don't have to be an Internet slug and a passive conspiracies consumer! Get a life. I expect better from Frank Black net. Lock step leftist shuffling is the most pathetic of shuffling. Climb the concrete steps and open the Bilco door into the sunlight of Reason. Or not.
Lastly, Carter and ImADinnerJacket are both engineers, both president, both unliked but look alike. Coincidence? I think not.
Bush Rules, kneel down! We know who you are.
|
|
|
|
pioneers parrot
- FB Fan -
18 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 16:10:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by thermoplastics
I want to know why Jimmah Carter (PBUH) has a license to steal, literally, with a federal peanut growers license? You think these inbreeds could of supported themselves honestly? Did you know that it illegal to import peanuts into the US? And, has been since the 1930's? That since FDR's time it is illegal even to grow and sell peanuts with out a federal permit, which have been limited and frozen since FDR? And those close eyed, tiny teethed Carter clan have had one since old grand dad put down his Klan hat. That's why a bag of goobers cost so much even if they are a weed that grows in useless dirt pulling nitrogen out of the air.
Which brings me to Iran.
Remember, then President Carter let I'mADinnerJacket commit an act of War by entering a Embassy, kidnap and Islamic torture and kill Americans? And did nothing but beat off. A rabbit with a canoe paddle. Right?
But he did ban Pistachios from Iran.
I like Pistachios.
Iranian Pistachios are the best. Creamy, soft, oily flavorful.
I get them in Amsterdam (cough cough, wink wink)
So, there see, you can start new conspiracies. You don't have to be an Internet slug and a passive conspiracies consumer! Get a life. I expect better from Frank Black net. Lock step leftist shuffling is the most pathetic of shuffling. Climb the concrete steps and open the Bilco door into the sunlight of Reason. Or not.
Lastly, Carter and ImADinnerJacket are both engineers, both president, both unliked but look alike. Coincidence? I think not.
Bush Rules, kneel down! We know who you are.
No war for oil...y pistachios. Yup, no war for oily pistachios. Nosiree, Bush is going to hit the pretzel-makers instead.
Polly want a cheeto? Damn straight I say, my good man! Why, squawk, I say. |
|
|
|
thermoplastics
- FB Fan -
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 16:31:41
|
I f you take a pretzel, and open the four "legs" as it were, they form a Swastika. Try it, spin it around, you’ll see.
……Caution….Drive Slow…Conspiracies At Work…..
Conspiracies? We don’t got no conspiracies? We..don’t…need …no …stinking…conspiracies!
Well, at least no cut and paste, been posted a billion times boring articles. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 17:13:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by thermoplastics
I f you take a pretzel, and open the four "legs" as it were, they form a Swastika. Try it, spin it around, you’ll see.
This is why I only eat pretzel sticks. No irregular-'B'-shaped ones for me, thank you. The sticks are shaped like the pipe (|) on your keyboard, symbolizing infinite streaming of data from one ostrich to the next.
Plus... what happened to Mr. Salty? There is only one explanation: He was the #1 proponent of pretzel sticks and Nabisco made him disappear.
 |
|
|
|
thermoplastics
- FB Fan -
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 17:36:26
|
I like salt.
Salt often is mined from deep underground salt dome. Oil is often found near these mineral anomalies.
Bilco doors are used for stairs to basements. Basements are often suggested as expedient bunkers.
Salt domes, basements, bunker, Bush, looking back turned mushroom cloud turned into salt.
Nothing can touch Pynchon's Rainbow. We need to do better.
|
|
|
|
pioneers parrot
- FB Fan -
18 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 21:24:25
|
Actually, we all remember Bush's famous episode of choking on a pretzel. Supposedly, Cheney and the Secret Service Heimliched him up the wazoo. Now, we all have seen that video of Blackwater folks driving up and down the street and gunning down those untwisted pretzels. And Henry Judah Heimlich? Jewish? Protocols of Zion? What? Evangelist/Jewish conspiracy to obliterate the Middle East? No wonder why this "I'mADinnerJacket" fellow is freaking out. Pretzels are delicious!
Polly want a cheeto? Damn straight I say, my good man! Why, squawk, I say. |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 03:00:30
|
Why the hell are pretzels so hard to find over here? I have been looking for them a lot lately (when I have not been eating bread pudding), but can't seem to find them in many places.
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
|
|
|
thermoplastics
- FB Fan -
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 08:21:12
|
| We all know pretzels are beer delivery vehicles. They are a gateway food. First you have a few pretzels and the next thing you are three hundred miles away from home, puking in a ditch to Ian Dury from the cheap door speakers of a oil burning Mitsubishi and wondering when the liquor stores open up. |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 09:03:05
|
I wonder if Mister Salty met the same fate as Twinkie the Kid.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
|
|
|
pioneers parrot
- FB Fan -
18 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 17:22:16
|
Didn't I hear something about some health food mob offing the Sugar Smack frog, too? And what did happen to Twinkie the Kid? He was riding high for so long, so full of deliciousness. By the way, thermoplastics, your "gateway" explanation is brilliant, in the Guiness sense of the word.
Polly want a cheeto? Damn straight I say, my good man! Why, squawk, I say. |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 20:22:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by thermoplastics
I want to know why Jimmah Carter (PBUH) has a license to steal, literally, with a federal peanut growers license? You think these inbreeds could of supported themselves honestly? Did you know that it illegal to import peanuts into the US? And, has been since the 1930's? That since FDR's time it is illegal even to grow and sell peanuts with out a federal permit, which have been limited and frozen since FDR? And those close eyed, tiny teethed Carter clan have had one since old grand dad put down his Klan hat. That's why a bag of goobers cost so much even if they are a weed that grows in useless dirt pulling nitrogen out of the air.
Which brings me to Iran.
Remember, then President Carter let I'mADinnerJacket commit an act of War by entering a Embassy, kidnap and Islamic torture and kill Americans? And did nothing but beat off. A rabbit with a canoe paddle. Right?
But he did ban Pistachios from Iran.
I like Pistachios.
Iranian Pistachios are the best. Creamy, soft, oily flavorful.
I get them in Amsterdam (cough cough, wink wink)
So, there see, you can start new conspiracies. You don't have to be an Internet slug and a passive conspiracies consumer! Get a life. I expect better from Frank Black net. Lock step leftist shuffling is the most pathetic of shuffling. Climb the concrete steps and open the Bilco door into the sunlight of Reason. Or not.
Lastly, Carter and ImADinnerJacket are both engineers, both president, both unliked but look alike. Coincidence? I think not.
Bush Rules, kneel down! We know who you are.
Not sure I fully understand this post so I won't be too harsh.
Reagan's boys delayed the release of the hostages until after he was elected so Carter would remain unfavorable and that would help to have him loose the election.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=reagan+and+the+iran+hostage+crisis&btnG=Google+Search
Next..
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 20:30:12
|
You dual personality, pussies on here are spineless fags.
You have to start a fake forum member name to respond to my posts?
Boring? Lets see how boring you find WWIII.
Stick your swastika shaped pretzels up your stretched out ass holes.
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
Edited by - The King Of Karaoke on 09/29/2007 21:50:51 |
|
|
|
coastline
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3111 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 21:50:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by The King Of Karaoke
You dual personalities pussies on here are spineless fags.
You have to start a fake forum member name to respond to my posts?
Did I miss something?
 Please pardon me, for these my wrongs. |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 21:52:41
|
Thermoplastics and gay pirate's parrot are pissing me off.
Not really but I'm pretending they are for fun.
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 21:57:29
|
Some good news?
Kucinich 'seriously thinking' about forcing vote on Cheney impeachment
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Kucinich_seriously_thinking_about_forcing_vote_0928.html
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
|
|
|
coastline
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3111 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 22:06:15
|
Kucinich is like your local gadfly who raises a stink at the city council meeting every week -- except he's less influential. This will go nowhere. And what kind of story is it that some congressman is "seriously thinking" about something?
I wouldn't mind seeing Cheney go down, but I think you're being a bit optimistic, KOK.
Please pardon me, for these my wrongs. |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 22:38:06
|
No, I really don't expect anything to happen. Just dreaming I guess. You're right, it's all fluff.
I'm reading a book from 1973 that outlines what is going on today in amazing detail. I read something interesting today in it. The goal of the multinational corporations is to get more power to the executive branch and as a result have a relatively weak congress.
And here we are today with that exact scenario.
It's so far out of our control I don't even know why I bother anymore. I'm just venting I guess.
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
Edited by - The King Of Karaoke on 09/29/2007 23:47:12 |
|
|
|
Little Black Francis
> Teenager of the Year <
3648 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 22:42:48
|
Hey Kok, will you please start a topic about the John Lennon conspiracy. I'm too lazy but I want to read it.
f(x) = ex |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 22:56:15
|
I don't really know much about the Lennon deal. There are some that think he was killed by a Manchurian candidate.
The US vs John Lennon - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=777046699234389996&q=the+US+vs+john+lennon&total=476&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
The Robert Kennedy assassination, Lennon and the Reagan attempt are all believed by some to be done by mind control assassins.
Sirhan Sirhan - after his initial guilty plea - claimed he had no recollection of shooting Kennedy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 23:02:12
|
The scene outside New York's spooky old Dakota apartment building on the evening of December 8, 1980, was as surreal as it was horrifying. John Lennon, probably the world's most famous rock star, lay semiconscious, hemorrhaging from four flat-tipped bullets blasted into his back. His wife Yoko Ono held his head in her arms and screamed (just like on her early albums).
A few yards away a pudgy young man stood eerily still, peering down into a paperback book. Moments earlier he had dropped into a military firing stance - legs spread for maximum balance, two hands gripping his .38 revolver to steady his aim - and blown away the very best Beatle. Now he leafed lazily through the pages of the one novel even the most chronically stoned and voided-out ninth grader will actually read, J. D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye.
The Dakota doorman shouted at the shooter, Mark David Chapman, "Do you know what you've done?"
"I just shot John Lennon," Chapman replied, accurately enough.
It was a tragedy of Kerkegaardian pointlessness. There was only one apparent way to squeeze any sense from it; write it off as random violence by a "wacko."
"He walked past me and then I heard in my head, 'Do it, do it, do it,' over and over again, saying 'Do it, do it, do it,' like that," Chapman, preternaturally serene, recalled in a BBC documentary several years after going to prison. "I don't remember aiming. I must have done, but I don't remember drawing a bead or whatever you call it. And I just pulled the trigger steady five times."
Chapman described his feeling at the time of the shooting as "no emotion, no anger dead silence in the brain."
His unnatural tone sounded all-too-familiar. British lawyer/journalist Fenton Bresler took it as a tip-off. Chapman was a brainwashed hit man carrying out someone else's contract.
"Mark David Chapman," writes Bresler, "is in many ways as much the victim of those who wanted to kill John Lennon as Lennon himself."
Prosecutors, as a loss for motive, opted for the cliché: Chapman did it for the attention- the troublesome American preoccupation with grabbing that elusive fifteen minutes of propels many a daily-newspaper-journalist-cum-pop-sociologist into raptures of sanctimony. But Arthur O'Connor, the detective who spent more time with Chapman immediately following the murder than anyone else, saw it another way.
"It is definitely illogical to say that Mark Committed the murder to make himself famous. He did not want to talk to the press from the very start. It's possible Mark could have been used by somebody. I saw him the night of the murder. I studied him intensely. He looked as if he could have been programmed."
O'Connor was speaking to Bresler, and publicly for the first time. Bresler's book Who Killed John Lennon? Offers the most cogent argument that Lennon's murder was not the work of yet another "lone nut."
Conspiracy theories abounded after the Lennon assassination, many rather cruelly fingering Yoko as the mastermind. Another focused on Paul who, by this line of reasoning, blamed Yoko for engineering his arrest in Japan on reefer charges. The Lennon conspiracy turns up on radio talk shows with some frequency, where hosts fend off callers with the "Why bother to kill that guy?" defense.
Only Bresler's thesis, that Chapman was a mind-controlled assassin manipulated by some right-wing element possibly connected to the newly elected (and not even inaugurated) Reagan apparatus of reaction, transcends the confines of pure speculation, extending into the realm of actual investigation.
Even so, Bresler's book a little too often substitutes rhetorical questions ("What does that steady repetition of a voice saying 'Do it, do it, do it,' over and over again in Mark's head sound like to you?") for evidentiary argument. We can forgive him for that failing. Bresler tracked the case for eight years, conducted unprecedented interviews, and extracted a ream of previously unreleased government documents. But unlike researchers into the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, he did not have volumes of evidence gathered by any official investigation, even a flawed one, to fall back on. The New York police had their man, the case was closed the very night of the murder - and, anyway, what political reason could possibly exist for gunning down the composer of "I Am the Walrus"?
In building his case, Bresler established some key points that put the lie to any "Who would want to kill an aging rock star?" brush-off.
Richard Nixon, his administration and other right-wing politicians (including ultraconservative ancient Senator Strom Thurmond, who personally memoed Attorney Gerneral John Mitcell on the matter) were fixated on what they saw as the Lennon problem. To them, the politically outspoken singer-songwriter was an insidious subversive of the worst kind, the famous and beloved kind.
J. Edgar Hoover shared their concerns. One page of Lennon's FBI file bears the handwritten, block-lettered, under lined words, ALL EXTREMISTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS. The government went all-out to deny Lennon his longed-for permanent U.S. residency, and more than that, to deport him altogether (that was the subject of Thurmond's memo).
Lennon's FBI file - at nearly three hundred pages as chubby as Hoover himself - reveals that he was under "constant surveillance." Nor did the G-men keep a particularly low profile around the ex-Beatle, apparently attempting to harass him into silence or at least drive him nuts, similar to the tactic they had used on Martin Luther King, Jr., a few short but eventful years earlier.
In late 1972, when the "surveillance" was at its peak, Lennon told humorist Paul Krassner, "Listen, if anything happens to Yoko and me, it was not an accident."
The FBI and the CIA tracked Lennon at least from his "Free John Sinclair" concert in 1969 until 1976 - even though by then Lennon had won his immigration battle and dropped out of not only political activism but public life altogether into what turned out to be a five-year period of seclusion. His apartment was watched, he was followed, his phone was tapped.
Placing a person under "constant surveillance" and ordering that person executed are admittedly two different things. Nevertheless, Bresler's point is that the government did not consider John Lennon a harmless rock 'n' roller whose awkward entrance into the world of political activism often carried a high cringe factor (as in his Montreal "bed-in").
He was viewed as a dangerous radical who needed to be stopped.
And in a way that official paranoia might have been justified, because as embarrassing as Lennon and Ono's political publicity stunts occasionally became, John Lennon was always capable of seizing the spotlight and speaking directly to millions of young people who venerated him.
With unfettered access to the media, his power was immense, at least potentially so, and recognized by more experienced radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, who linked themselves to Lennon, clinging to close that they made the rock star uncomfortable.
Lennon was killed just four years after the intense FBI/CIA surveillance ceased. In those intermittent years, Jimmy Carter was president - a Democrat who kept the two gestapo-ish agencies more or less in check.
But in December 1980, when John Lennon's first album in half a decade was high on the charts, Carter was a lame duck chief executive, having lost his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan. Reagan's campaign was managed by career secret agent William Casey, who under President Reagan became the CIA's most freewheeling chief since Allen Dulles. The new far-right administration would reassemble the intelligence services and grant them a cheerful carte blanche.
The forces that tried desperately to neutralize Lennon for at least seven years lost power in 1976. Lennon's government dossier ends in that year. In 1980, as those forces were preparing to retake control of the government, "dangerous extremist" John Lennon emerged from retirement. Within a few months he was murdered.
The paper trail that might support the conspiracy theory is a little thin, however. It doesn't extend much beyond the airline ticket found in Chapman's hotel room; a Hawaii-New York connection departing December 5. But Chapman had actually purchased a Hawaii-Chicago ticket to depart December 2, with no connecting flight. The ticket found after his arrest had apparently been altered. None of his friends knew that he traveled on to New York. They thought he went to Chicago for a three-day stay.
Bresler concludes that the Lennon assassination, which, as Chapman himself noted in a rare interview, "ended an era," bears similarities to another assassination that took place twelve years earlier: the murder of Robert F. Kennedy.
RFK's apparent lone killer, Sirhan Sirhan, and Chapman (coincidentally?) shared a defense psychiatrist. But while Dr. Bernard Diamond couldn't skirt the obvious fact that Sirhan was under hypnosis (Diamond wrote it off as self-hypnosis), he labeled Chapman a "paranoid schizophrenic."
The court disagreed. Chapman even now has never had more than routine psychiatric care since entering his guilty plea. He was not sent to a mental hospital, but to Attica State Prison. He was judged legally "rational."
Bresler clears up a few widely disseminated misconceptions about Mark David Chapman:
While any mention of his name is now accompanied by the phrase "deranged fan," Chapman was anything but. He was no more or less ardent a Beatles/Lennon fan than anyone of his generation. His real rock hero was Todd Rundgren, a cynical studio craftsman who could not be further from Lennon in artistic sensibility. Notwithstanding Chapman's announcement months after the murder that he "killed Lennon to gain prominence to promote the reading of The Catcher in the Rye," Chapman never exhibited strong feelings about the novel until shortly before the shooting. (Catcher, Bresler muses, may have been used as a device to trigger Chapman's "programming.")
After the murder, major media ran bizarre stories of Chapman's supposed growing identification with John Lennon - at one point he even "re-baptized" himself as Lennon, according to Newsweek. These stories were all quite fascinating, but there was no evidence to back any of them up. (It is true that when Chapman quit his last job he signed out as "John Lennon," then crossed the name out, but Bresler interprets this, reasonably, as Chapman saying, "John Lennon, I am going to kill you," rather than "John Lennon, I am you."
Chapman was not a "longer." He was for most of his life a normally social individual and a camp counselor who had a special rapport with kids.
Bresler also notes that when Chapman signed up for a YMCA overseas program, he selected an odd destination: Beirut - a perfect place, says Bresler, for Chapman, a once gentle soul, to be "blooded," that is, desensitized to violence.
A final note to the mystery of Mark David Chapman: As he was ready to go to trial and his diligent public defender was winding up six months spent assembling Chapman's defense, the accused killer suddenly decided to change his plea to guilty. His lawyer was perplexed and more than a little perturbed. But Chapman was determined. He said he was acting on instructions from a "small male voice" that spoke to him in his cell.
Chapman interpreted it as the voice of God.
------------------
“As civilizations become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, even instantaneously, across the whole of America.” - Edward Bernays |
Edited by - The King Of Karaoke on 09/29/2007 23:06:20 |
|
|
|
Little Black Francis
> Teenager of the Year <
3648 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 23:06:01
|
"C all we are G saying is C give peace a chance" I love that tune.
f(x) = ex |
Edited by - Little Black Francis on 09/29/2007 23:07:53 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
We Are Going To Hit Iran.
Topic Locked
