9/11 investigitation : "stranger than fiction"

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Djarums

Ergo, the suggestion for a specific ATS research team to address a number of the unanswered questions of 9/11, and deal with the matter available scientifically to support or debunk either wholistic or partial theories.

ktpr had an excellent suggestion for a topic, to do with a specific examination of the Stock Exchange and Futures Markets in the days prior.

I listed half a dozen topics also.

I am happy to be a team leader or "Scholar"-ly researcher on these when the time comes. I have not submitted a proposal to William in relation to this, because I am still on U2U hunger strike - a pointless statement of principles, and yet, I hunger more each day, with U2Us going unanswered and unsent.

Another member (besides ktpr and myself) who has expressed interest in such a thing is infinite.

Other obvious choices are Peace and Seekerof, and also yourself as an eyewitness to what occured on 9/11.




[Edited on 11-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

You can count me in.

There has been a huge fuss here in the UK about the Neo-Conservatives in Washington being too dominant in Washington. People here are hoping that the bad calls on the Iraq war will weaken their influence on policy decisions. Richard Perle is the leader of this group of Neo-Cons. Is Perle a zionist? I would say yes. But i don't think he is evil. However he is "The Prince of Darkness" and seems to have apocalyptic views of the future (not a good man to have influence with the most powerful government in the world).


www.guardian.co.uk...

"Mr Perle's close friend and political ally at AEI is David Wurmser, head of its Middle East studies department. Mr Perle helpfully wrote the introduction to Mr Wurmser's book, Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein.

Mr Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, is co-founder, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence - of the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), which specialises in translating and distributing articles that show Arabs in a bad light."


I think Richard Perle is crazy and paranoid. He is a draft dodger who makes the case for war from his office, but to make matters worse, he is unelected.

He is a member of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA)

Perle serves, also, on the Board of Advisors of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD)


www.thenation.com...


"The Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.")"


Is the fact that Richard Perle wants regime change in most Arab countries because he is pro democracy and hates dictatorship or because he sees these countries as threatening to US/Israeli interests. I think we all know the correct answer and because of this it is possible that Richard Perle is a zionist, he wants to weaken the Arabs in the region and reduce the threat to Israel, by doing this though, the Israeli's would undoubtabley expand the jewish state, and someone with the these objectives is what I call a zionist.

Before people start calling me racist though i should be clear. I like jewish people, one of my best friends is jewish, one of my girlfriends best friends is also jewish. I actually tend to get on really well with jewish people for some reason. I also don't think Zionism is evil. I think these people are paranoid, maybe power hungry but mainly they are religios extremists, and religios extremists from all backrounds make the world a more dangerous place, whether they are arabs or jews, it really makes no difference.


www.amconmag.com...

"In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote �A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,� for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq�an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right�as a means of foiling Syria�s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria�s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.""


www.dawn.com...

If Mr. Perle is not doing things in the best interests of our country I think he would have been removed a long time ago and noticed by far more people than one prick writing an article and a couple of message board users. Nothing personal against anyone here but don't you think that if a guy in the pentagon was #ing the US over someone other than you guys would've noticed it?

www.politics-bushwhacking.com...

"New York Times Editorial
Monday, March 24, 2003


As chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle has been an influential architect of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and war plans. At the same time, it turns out, he has signed on to represent a major telecommunications company that has a strong financial interest in lobbying the Defense Department. This is a conflict pure and simple, and Mr. Perle should immediately drop one of his two roles."


Djarums, I'm not 100% sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saddened that Richard Perle was forced to resign as chairman of the Defence Policy Board?
If so, why?
If not, then what is your point?
Perle is a paranoid fool, who will serve the US's best interests if he stays the hell away from the Pentagon.

I think Djarums you are missing the point.

I don't like Richard Perle, but there are many reasons i don't like him, none of which have anything to do with his race or religion.

Let me start with Hollinger International, Conrad Black's media monster, owners of the Daily Telegraph, Mr Perle sits on Hollinger's board, The Daily Telegraph is nick-named the Daily Televivigraph by Private Eye and not without cause, it is easily the most pro Israel daily in this country, while also being the most popular broadsheet.

Here is a link detailing Perle's connection with Conrad Black and Hollinger.

www.casi.org.uk...


In the build up to the Iraq war, over here in the UK, we weren't really taking the bait that war in Iraq was such a good idea, so Richard Perle was thrown into our living rooms every evening to scare us to death about what might happen in the middle east if Saddam was not overthrown, and soon. Perle's consistant stance was that once Iraq was democratised, the rest of the middle east would follow. I take issue with the need to democratise the region, not because i think it is a bad idea, but because Richard Perle was only in his position at the Defence Policy Board because Bush and co made a mockery of democracy and stole the Presidency in the USA. How can Richard Perle, someone appointed by the fake President Bush, preach the values of democracy?



Richard Perle is also a Director at the Jeruasalem Post:

www.indymedia.org.uk...



Finally this article was written by the man himself in 1996:

www.israeleconomy.org...

"Benjamin Netanyahu�s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation�s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:


Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat�s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

Forge a new basis for relations with the United States�stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform."

Peace, I'm actually not upset at all about him not being in that position anymore. In fact, that is what I was getting at all along. If the man was not doing his job the right way, or things were interfering with his job, then it was the responsibility of those above him to notice that and take the appropriate action against him. I just don't think that taking the example of Mr. Perle having issues in his position and using it as an example of "those zionist sons of bitches are running the pentagon" to be a very valid argument.

If the guy's an ass, the guy's an ass. Not everything has to have undertones to it. If he was not serving our country properly as he had to take an oath to, then I'm happy he is no longer there.

There have been some great articles on zionism and anti-semitism in the guardian/observer the last couple of days:

1:
observer.guardian.co.uk...

"The right to voice strong views

An American newspaper recently labelled the Observer Judeophobic. It is not

Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer

When Israel was born in 1948, David Ben Gurion said that the Jewish people had become 'like other nations'. That was the great dream of Zionism, intended by Theodor Herzl to 'answer the Jewish question', to 'normalise' the Jews so that they could become as obscure as the Danes or the Dutch; a nation like all others."


2:
observer.guardian.co.uk...

"Richard Ingrams
Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer

Now two writers, Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski, have attacked me in the International Herald Tribune. They describe me (wrongly) as the proprietor of Private Eye - 'a satirical magazine with a decades-long history of sarcasm and vitriol vis-�-vis the Jews'.

They quote with approval remarks made about me in the Independent by the columnist, Johann Hari who, deliberately or not, altered the sense of what I had written to suit his argument. If Kosmin and Iganski read Private Eye instead of libelling it, they would know that Johann Hari is not best known for accuracy. These two commentators, one of whom, Iganski, is a lecturer at the University of Essex, deplore the fact that 'a quality newspaper like The Observer' should print my opinions, and go on to accuse my colleague, Christine (sic) Odone of anti-Semitism in an article she had, in fact, never written.

We might just as well ask why a quality paper like the International Herald Tribune should print the ill-informed and defamatory opinions of Kosmin and Iganski. All critics of Israel are used to being dismissed as racists. But such supposedly prestigious American newspapers should not be allowed to get away with it."


3:
www.guardian.co.uk...

"The end of Zionism

Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy

Avraham Burg
Monday September 15, 2003
The Guardian

The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly."

I'd like to include a link to a story written by the author of your second link. I will excerpt the part I wish to point out.

Richard Ingram's Week

If you go towards the bottom you will read the following...

I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.

Interesting stuff...
And then he complains about being classified an anti-semite because of anti-Israel views?
His statement isn't anti-Israel here. The man is a newspaper editor, and he outright ignores letters from people with "jewish sounding names" because he has decided in his infinite wisdom that all jews have one thought process.

Let's call a spade a spade shall we? This man has nothing to complain about.

[Edited on 9-15-2003 by Djarums]

I'm sure that there is someone good here at restoring photos, perhaps that original original image could be brought in focus and cleaned up a bit. I'm no good with photos myself so I don't know the limits.

"LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT"

Your spinning the story Djarums, he says
If you knew Richard Ingrams, you would understand. Read his column every week, it is my favourite part of a Sunday morning.


Djarums, can you buy the Private Eye in New York?

Ask around, you will be a lifetime subscriber if you can find it.

If your easily offended, don't bother.


Richard Ingrams is certainly not anti-semitic, he is actually pretty well known in this country, i will say it again, read his column every week before you judge him.

I hope it is ok to print Richard Ingrams article in full to make sure he is not taken out of context

"Amiel's animus

I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.

Too few people in this modern world are prepared to declare an interest when it comes to this kind of thing. It would be enormously helpful, for example, if those clerics and journalists who have been defending Canon Jeffrey John, the so-called gay bishop, were to tell us whether they themselves are gay. Some do, but more don't.

The issue arises partly because, in both cases, these people are often accusing the other side of being prejudiced and biased - we are either homophobes or anti-Semites.

The other day, for example, the Canadian journalist Barbara Amiel wrote a long denunciation of the BBC in the Daily Telegraph, accusing the Corporation of being anti-Israel in its Middle East coverage.

Many readers of the Daily Telegraph may have been impressed by her arguments, assuming her to be just another journalist or even, as she was recently described in another newspaper, an 'international-affairs commentator'.

They might have been less impressed if the paper had told them that Barbara Amiel is not only Jewish but that her husband's company, in which she has an interest, owns not only the Daily Telegraph but the Jerusalem Post .

In other words, when it comes to accusing people of bias on the Middle East, she is not ideally qualified for the role."


Why do you think he has developed this "habit" Djarums? and don't say because he is racist.

To be fair, anyone jewish who supports Ariel Sharon's policies needs their head examined, this is the point Mr Ingrams is trying to make. Ariel Sharon is a bad leader for Israel and any jews who support him are mis-guided. Sharon's policies only hurt Israel and their global reputation.

Sharon is an evil war criminal who hopefull, after he has finished his role as president, should be charged for his crimes. I agree with what you are saying Peace. I mean it's like at any kinda of council of any kind. If somebody has a serious interst in the chosen topic (for example if the topc were about can drinks and one of the members brothers ran a can drink factory) then that person would be excluded from discussion because of the biased opinions they may have on purpose or maybe not on purpose.

I just don't understand how someone having interest in an area makes them unacceptable to have their views considered. If you feel this is the case, then I wonder if Mr. Ingrams throws out letters from any "arab sounding name" as well because, as you and I know, that group has a pretty big interest in the issue too.

Correct?

Originally posted by Djarums
I just don't understand how someone having interest in an area makes them unacceptable to have their views considered. If you feel this is the case, then I wonder if Mr. Ingrams throws out letters from any "arab sounding name" as well because, as you and I know, that group has a pretty big interest in the issue too.

Correct?

I agree. Would he ignore Cuban-American opinions on Castro? Black-American opinions on civil rights? Catholic-American opinions on issues involving the Church? A womans opinion of the ERA?

Having a personal interest in an issue that leads a person to follow the news and stay informed leads to a more educated opinion, more worthy of consideration. Blocking opinions from a segment of the population that has reason to be concerned only seems reasonable to someone who holds an opposing view.

Originally posted by Djarums
I just don't understand how someone having interest in an area makes them unacceptable to have their views considered. If you feel this is the case, then I wonder if Mr. Ingrams throws out letters from any "arab sounding name" as well because, as you and I know, that group has a pretty big interest in the issue too.

Correct?

I agree. Would he ignore Cuban-American opinions on Castro? Black-American opinions on civil rights? Catholic-American opinions on issues involving the Church? A womans opinion of the ERA?

Having a personal interest in an issue that leads a person to follow the news and stay informed leads to a more educated opinion, more worthy of consideration. Blocking opinions from a segment of the population that has reason to be concerned only seems reasonable to someone who holds an opposing view.

For Americans, you guys sure do take things seriously!

It wasn't meant as an insult. The fact that the article was full of errors doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Djarums you defend Richard Perle and attack Richard Ingrams! Need i say any more.

And Mycroft, you are missing the point. Does Ariel Sharon represent the jewish people? I don't believe he does. So when Richard Ingrams says "In this column in August, I wrote in favour of more people declaring their interest when they sent letters to the papers. When I saw letters in support of Ariel Sharon, I said, I looked to see if the writers had a Jewish name and, if so, tended not to read them."


The Guardian/Observer is seen by many (right wing) observers as biased in its reporting of Israel. It is obviously not. But the point Mr Ingrams makes is that people should declare an interest when they send letters. The same could be said about Cubans under Castro or black people on civil rights. It is not that their opinions don't matter, in fact they matter more, just that they have a personal interest in the matter and cannot be expected to have an neutral opinion.

Djarums you defend Richard Perle and attack Richard Ingrams! Need i say any more.

Not to be rude, because we all know I hate to be rude, but if you READ what I wrote regarding Perle you would see I said if he was doing something inappropriate he should be removed immediately. What I disagreed with was pathetic whining about the horrible zionist working for the Pentagon.

If he sucks, take him out, don't cry about it and blame it on everyone else. If he sucks, it's him who sucks. It's called accountability.

That was my point. If you consider that defending him you're not reading.

Originally posted by Peace
And Mycroft, you are missing the point. Does Ariel Sharon represent the jewish people? I don't believe he does. So when Richard Ingrams says "In this column in August, I wrote in favour of more people declaring their interest when they sent letters to the papers. When I saw letters in support of Ariel Sharon, I said, I looked to see if the writers had a Jewish name and, if so, tended not to read them."

If you want to talk about Sharon representing the Jewish people or not, that�s a different topic, we can discuss that at another time. As far as people declaring their interest when writing a letter to the editor, they do. Their interest is declared in the body of their letter. They are either for or against a subject.

Originally posted by Peace
... It is not that their opinions don't matter, in fact they matter more, just that they have a personal interest in the matter and cannot be expected to have an neutral opinion.

People with neutral opinions don�t write opinion letters. The very act of writing such a letter shows that a person is concerned enough to have formed an opinion, and thinks that opinion is important enough to share with everything. There is nothing neutral about it.

Originally posted by goregrinder

This is very disturbing. Scumbags! I am at a loss for words, although I shouldn't be. This world will never rid itself of filth.

It still amazes me how people on this board can be so leadable and easily convinced. The picture on the right shows a much more thin, light skinned Osama. He's been on the run (weight loss). He's been in hiding (skin pigment). You guys seriously crack me up sometimes.

And GG himself belives all that is said on CNN or by 'Mr.'Bush..
who of us is the one who belives all the lies? You or the rest of us?

I just hope you see that this anti-semitism business is a load of nonesense, you people are way too politically correct. Because the jewish people were used as an example, people make a fuss, if it had been Cubans under Castro the message would have been the same and i doubt it would have offended anybody.

Djarums, i understand you don't like people blaming Zionists for the worlds ills, nor do I. I understand you don't like racism towards any race, nor do I.
But I hate Richard Perle, he makes my blood boil, he is a zionist, he is pro Israel and anti Arab. He is still very influential in the Pentagon. He opitimises everything i don't like about American politics today.

"Well that's just the thing. Any employee of the United States government who happens to be a Jew is classified by this butthole as an evil zionist controlling the US government. Proof is not offered of the people he mentioned doing anything inappropriate in their positions, or showing any allegiance to a country other than our own.

Yet another example of allegations without proof. I could sit here and allege that mycroft is really a 3 headed goat from Pluto. No proof offered. But if you don't believe it you're just falling into what "they" want you to think."


You see Djarums, i have the proof that Richard Perle is an arse in my head, through my own personal encounters with him through the media, I don't need to prove this to you. You should have your own opinions on him. You say proof is not offered of any inappropriate behaviour. I beg to differ.

The proof is called the PNAC.

Everything that I already thought and more...

Brilliant post, and NO RACISM...

Zionists should start to think of a better put down.