posted on October 17, 2001 12:20:20 PM new krs posted a link to this article a few days ago in an unrelated thread. I suggested at the time that it deserved a thread of its own. As he's not yet chosen to create one, I'm going to take the liberty:
Many of us have "reservations" about the way America is "eliminating terrorism from the face of the earth". The facts set forth in this article go a long way toward justifying any suspicions one may have... IMO.
posted on October 17, 2001 12:25:00 PM new
No offense, but I always get suspicious of "news" stories that begin "although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media..."
Is it a conspiracy, or are we just making things up? We'll never tell!
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 17, 2001 12:34:14 PM new
No offense taken, Barry. The corporate stranglehold on our mainstream media has led individuals with some investigative acumen to attempt to get "the rest of the story" for decades now. The fact that JFK-assassination researcher and author Harold Weisberg had to publish his own books on the subject in no way negates the evidence he was able to uncover -- he had to sue the government numerous times to get it, too. Even the FBI has acknowledged that Weisberg knows more about the assassination than they do.
I am not so ready to dismiss the findings of someone simply because they don't wear a CNN (or other) hat...
posted on October 17, 2001 12:40:36 PM new
It wasn't even uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media. I, and, I'm sure, plenty others, have heard that there was a pattern of pre Sept. 11th trading that was going on, and I had to have heard that through the mainstream media. I also think I remember hearing (not sure though) that Deutsche Bank figured into it.
Apparently, the only uniform ignoring by the mainstream media has been the CIA connection.
Whether this web-story has any credibility, I can hardly say, as my eyes began to glaze over when an article stopped to explain to me what "selling short" means. I don't know much about stock stuff, but what little I do know I don't want an article to stop to explain to me again.
posted on October 17, 2001 12:49:47 PM newplsmith: I didn't say that I dismissed it, simply that it makes me suspicous. I don't happen to believe that all of the "mainstream" press is in cahoots with the government, and it always raises a red flag when somebody claims to know something that has been purposely ignored by every reputable news outlet. Usually, if the "facts" in question have been uniformly ignored, it's because they were either not true, not credible, or not relevant. But yes, it's certainly possible for a non-mainstream publication to pick up something the rest of the media miss. Heck -- even the National Enquirer scored a victory when it was the first paper to report that artifical heart recipient Barney Clark was hating life after his operation.
I'll admit I'm even more skeptical when I read that "the firm used to place the 'put options' on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency." To me, the fact that a CIA director managed the firm three years ago isn't particualr relevant.
donny: Yes, I heard a lot about that as well, but I think that the CIA connection is the part he is referring to as being "ignored".
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 17, 2001 12:51:55 PM new
Yeah, Donny, that part (stock-option explanations) was very numbing. I have no means of proving or disproving the disturbing government/terrorism connections alluded to in the article. I'm also nowhere near being able to say that they're not possible...
Hepburn, nothing in this world is black-and-white, alas...
edited to add: Barry, you'd be surprised how many "scoops" the National Enquirer accumulates in a year. Unfortunately, most of them focus on which celebrity got drunk while in rehab... I do strongly believe that our mainstream media does, routinely, fail to report news in depth. And that stories which ought to be widely reported are cloistered on back-pages or ignored. The media's sometime response to this charge is that we (the American public) cannot stomach much detail, and since the news sections of broadcasting networks are expected to show a profit, we get soundbites, multi-layered "busy" screens -- all very catchy in a make-you-watch sort of way, but not ever the whole truth, imo...
posted on October 17, 2001 01:03:33 PM new
"One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11."
The last paragraph is quite telling. I don't see any proof or evidence of wrong doing. I don't, even, see any specific allegations. What I do see is a bunch of garbage.
posted on October 17, 2001 01:16:00 PM new
Tex, quite honestly, I'd like nothing better than to find out it is garbage. Years of CIA dirty-dealing have made me suspicious of that agency, however, and I am not at all disposed to give it the benefit of the doubt -- about anything...
posted on October 17, 2001 01:23:32 PM new
Here is my theory:
The "wonderful" economy during the Clinton years was falsly created by the terrorists to lull us into complatency. They bought up stock, causing the stock market to climb. Our citizens bought in further advancing the stock market and economy. Many, many people put all their retirement 401k into stock market, thinking they would retire as millionaires. All the dot.com companies were going gangbusters.
Then 6 months before Clinton left office, the terrorists started selling off their stock, partly to bring the stock market down, and partly to finance their operation. This caused citizens to also sell off, compounding the problem.
It has been proved that in the week prior to 9-11 stocks in airlines and hotels and even Disneyland were sold off because the terrorists knew those stocks would fall.
I feel it will be only a matter of time before we find out the intensity and scope that the terrorists wove themselves into our country and economy. Not only did we lose three vital, major financial buildings with tremendous loss of life, we lost tourism in New York and many people are afraid to fly anywhere. This causes our government spending to escalate beyond anything we ever imagined (tearing down rubble, rebuilding pentagon and WTC,) including military buildup. The terrorists have caused a monster that is feeding upon itself.
Our good economy for the past 6 years was no accident. It was created and it was brought down as part of the terrorists' plan.
posted on October 17, 2001 01:33:35 PM new
plsmith,
Covert operations are by their nature DIRTY. If they were not, they wouldn't be secret. No matter, if we agree with what has been done in the past, or not, the CIA has always acted in what someone has thought was in the best interests of the country. What is suggested in the article would be treason. Even the CIA's worst detractors have never suggested treason.
posted on October 17, 2001 02:21:39 PM new
Some have, Tex... ever heard of Harrison Edward Livingstone and Robert J. Groden?
President Harry S. Truman thought the perpetuation of the CIA was a big mistake -- the difficulty I have with it is that time and time again, operatives within the CIA have reshaped foreign governments by directly fomenting and funding coup d' etats.
I have a genuine problem with our elected officials espousing one thing (in foreign policy matters) and (possibly) green-lighting operations that run 180 degrees to the contrary -- implemented by an agency which has no obligation to account for itself, its budget, its activities, because to do so would breach National Security. Or so we're told.
It's this presence of a "shadow government" that has (and always has had) me so concerned about our latest activities in other parts of the world...
posted on October 17, 2001 02:23:05 PM new
Ah, yes Michael C. Ruppert, a top notch reporter. I believe if you'll search the internet you'll find him to be a wealth of information that the other news media has over looked, like the CIA's control of the drug market, the CIA's planning of the Oklahoma bombing, and it would only be reasonable for the CIA to be behind the WTC attack also. Truly an excellent reporter uncovering stories the Washington Post, NY Times, CBS, CNN, Reuters, etc. have failed to match with their resources. Oops, I just remembered the mainstream media are part of the conspiracy.
You'll be ignored if you stand on a street corner and say the sky is falling, nobody will listen to you. Get a web site and write that the scientist have been suppressed from reporting that the CIA is lowering the clouds and you'll have your web site used as a link to support their paranoia.
posted on October 17, 2001 02:38:08 PM new
The problem with "always acted in what SOMEONE thought was the best interest of the country" is that the question "WHICH best interests, and WHO thinks so.
Even cursory searches reveal that the CIA has been, and undoubtedly still is involved in operations that are not in the interests of any democratic drive nor of any protection of the interests of the American people. The interests of american corporations is another matter though.
Since you, Tex1, have already expressed your belief that the interests of american corporations ARE the interests of the American people, there is little point in discussing the matter with you.
posted on October 17, 2001 02:51:44 PM new
Here's a little history for fun and edification on the author of the article krs submits as evidence. Steve Kagas
History has many version, each writer will have a different one.
posted on October 17, 2001 02:56:26 PM new
"...the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships."
posted on October 17, 2001 03:03:09 PM new
Uaru, wasn't Steve Kangas's "apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head" one of those "suspicious" suicides wherein the gunshot was delivered to the wrong side of the head, given his right- (or left-, can't remember) handedness throughout his life?
posted on October 17, 2001 03:06:16 PM new
You really don't need to go further than the senate investigation of the contras drug money funding of the CIA, now do you, uaru? Money paid by US drug users, many of whom might have been your neighbors who are dead now, or their children are, all in the interests of the good ol' Ronnie Captain America. John Kerry headed it up, and you know all about him, don't you? Why, even the CIA admits that they have behaved badly and should go to their room. But no, you read that here, not in your favorite biased and paid for news source so it couldn't be true.
posted on October 17, 2001 03:11:15 PM newUaru, wasn't Steve Kangas's "apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head" one of those "suspicious" suicides
There is no proof that the boogeyman didn't kill Steve Kangas. Remember the boogeyman is supect by default, the only function of proof is to clear the boogeyman of wrong doing. While the mainsteam media didn't pick up on the assasination of Steve Kangas by the boogeyman you'll find a wealth of web sites that point to damning evidence against the boogeyman.
posted on October 17, 2001 03:22:49 PM new"Remember the boogeyman is supect by default",
unless the subject is that poor fellow who was Bill Clinton's something or other and committed suicide. In THAT instance the boogyman wasn't involved, right uaru? Clinton DIDIT!, of course.
