The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
A Tale of Two World Orders
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_192607253

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Two historical summits are taking place this week: the crisis talk in France and Germany about the Greek crisis and the simultaneous meeting of the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) countries in Ufa, Russia. These two meetings could hardly be more different.

ORDER IT NOW

The Eurobureaucrats are scrambling to prevent a domino effect in which Greece would leave the Eurozone and set a precedent for other Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Spain or even France. But there is really much more at stake here than the comparatively small Greek debts, the solvency of European banks or even the future of the Euro. What is really at stake is the credibility and future of the entire “Euro project” and thus the future of the oligarchy which created it.

The EU elites have put an immense amount of political and personal capital into the creation of what one could call a “Bilderberger Europe”, one run by the elites and on behalf of the USA promoted New World Order. Just like the US elites have put their full credibility behind the official 911 narrative against all empirical evidence, so the European have put their full credibility behind a “grand EU” project even though it was obvious that this project was not viable. And now reality is coming back with a vengeance: simply put, the EU is way too big. Not only was the expansion of the EU to the East a huge mistake, but even the western EU is really the artificial assembly of a Mediterranean Europe and a Northern Europe as Nigel Farange so aptly put it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94UcyJnRcGU . Finally, it is pretty obvious that the current EU was built against the will of many, if not most, of the people of Europe. As a result, the Eurobureaucrats are now fighting to keep their dying project alive as long as possible.

What we are witnessing these days in Ufa, Russia, could not be any more different. The simultaneous meeting of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the SCO countries ( China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) marks the gathering of a future world order, not one directed at the USA or the West, but one simply built without them, which is even more humiliating. In fact, the BRICS/SCO ‘combo’ is a real nightmare for the AngloZionist Empire (for the precise reasons for the use of this term, please see here: http://thesaker.is/terminology/ ).

It has already been announced the India and Pakistan will become full members of the SCO. So the full list of BRICS/SCO members will now look like this: Brazil, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The BRICS/SCO will thus include 2 Permanent UN Security Council, 4 countries with nuclear weapons (only 3 NATO countries have nukes!), it’s members account for a full third of the world’s land area, they produce 16 trillion dollars in GDP and have a population of 3 billion people or half of the global world population. The SCO population stands at 1.6 billion people, or one fourth of the Earth population which produces $11.6 trillion in GDP. Furthermore, the BRICS/SCO countries are already working on a new development bank whose aim is to create an alternative to the IMF and World Bank. But most importantly, the SCO is growing even further and might soon welcome Belarus and Iran as full members. And the door is wide open for more members, possibly even Greece if the Grexit happens).

The core of this alternative New World Order are, of course, Russia and China. Without them, neither the BRICS nor the SCO would make any sense. The most amazing feature of this Russian-Chinese ‘core’ is the way it was formed. Rather than creating a formal alliance, Putin and Xi did something which, as far as I know, has never been done in the past: they have turned their two super-countries (or ex-empires, pick your term) into symbionts, two separate organisms which fully depend on each other. China has agreed to become fully dependent on Russia for energy and high technology (especially defense and space) while Russia has agreed to become fully dependent on China economically. It is precisely because China and Russia are so different from each other that they form the perfect match, like two puzzle figures, who perfectly fit each other.

For centuries the Anglo-Saxons have feared the unification of the European landmass as a result of a Russian-German alliance, and they have been very successful at preventing it. For centuries the major sea powers have ruled the world. But what no western geostrategist had ever envisioned is the possibility that Russia would simple turn East and agree to a symbiotic relationship with China. The sheer size of what I call the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership (RCSP) makes not only Germany, but even all of Europe basically irrelevant. In fact, the AngloZionist Empire simply does not have the means to influence this dynamic in any significant way. Had Russia and China signed some kind of formal alliance, there would always have been the possibility for either country to change course, but once a symbiosis is created, the two symbionts become inseparable, joined not only at the hip, but also at the heart and lungs (even if they each keep their own separate “brains”, i.e. governments).

What is so attractive to the rest of the world in this BRICS/SCO alternative is that neither Russia nor China have any imperial ambitions. Both of these countries have been empires in the past, and both have paid a huge price for that imperial status. Furthermore, they both have carefully observed how the USA has arrogantly overstretched itself over the entire planet resulting in a dialectical anti-American reaction worldwide. While the White House and the corporate media keep scaring those still willing to listen to them with tales about the “resurgent Russia” and the “assertive China”, the reality is that neither of these two countries has any desire at all to replace the USA as the world hegemon. You will never see China or Russia covering the globe with 700+ military bases, or fighting elective wars on a yearly basis or spend more on “defense” (i.e. aggression) than the rest of the planet combined. They will not build a 600 ship navy or even a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers to “project power” worldwide. And they will most definitely not point a “space gun” at the entire planet with megalomaniacal projects such a Prompt Global Strike.

What Russia, China and the BRICS/SCO countries want is an international order in which security is truly collective, according to the principle that “if you feel threatened then I am not safe”. They want a cooperative order in which countries are allowed (and even encouraged) to follow their own societal development model. Iran, for example, will not have to cease being an Islamic Republic after joining the SCO. They want to get rid of the comprador elites whose loyalty lies with foreign interests and encourage the “sovereignization “of each country. Finally, they want an international order ruled by the rule of law and not by the “might makes right” principle which has been the hallmark of the European civilization since the Crusades. And the key thing to understand is this: they don’t want that because they are so kind and noble, but because they sincerely perceive this to be in their pragmatic self-interest.

So while the European ruling plutocracy is trying to find a new way to further dispossess the Greek people and keep southern Europe subjugated to the rule of international bankers and financiers, the participants of the double summit in Ufa are laying the basis of a new world order, but not at all the New World Order predicted by George H.W. Bush. One could say that they are building an anti-New World Order.

Predictably, the western elites and their corporate media are in a “deep denial” mode. Not only do they not comment much about this truly historical event, but when they comment about it they assiduously avoid discussing the immense implications which these events will have for the entire planet. This borders on magical thinking: if I close my eyes hard enough and long enough this nightmare will eventually vanish.

It won’t.

What will happen is that the US dollar will gradually be pushed out of the BRICS/SCO zone and that US military power will not be challenged, it will be made irrelevant by a completely changed international environment in which even 700+ military bases worldwide will make no difference and, thus, no sense.

The meeting in Ufa will be remembered as the moment in history when the so-called “West” began being irrelevant.

 

The Saker is a recovering ex-military analyst who was born in Europe in a family of Russian refugees and who now leads the life of a “legal alien” in Florida. He blogs at http://thesaker.is/ and is the founder of the Saker Community of Blogs which currently includes the following members: French, Russian, German, Latin American, Oceania, Italian and Serbian.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, BRICs, China, Russia 
Hide 334 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Don Nash says:

    Eurobureaucrats should be shortened to ‘eurocrats’. I’m just saying…

  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    It all sounds good on paper, but most of these nations have terrible governance.

    South Africa? Pakistan? India? Brazil?

    Etc.

    They have potential but won’t get very far unless they clean house and develop proper national character.

    They need to Prussianize.

    • Replies: @wortherthorth
    , @Jeff77450
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    Western powers are Ziombies.

  4. Kiza says:

    “They want a cooperative order in which countries are allowed (and even encouraged) to follow their own societal development model. Iran, for example, will not have to cease being an Islamic Republic after joining the SCO. They want to get rid of the comprador elites whose loyalty lies with foreign interests (sic: this means opposite to the EU leaders and politicians) and encourage the “sovereignization “of each country. Finally, they want an international order ruled by the rule of law and not by the “might makes right” principle.”

    Well, this is why unz.com exists, to give insights missing from the MSM. Propaganda is not only lying, it is also not telling.

    I can only write – the Saker’s write up reads fantastic, let us see if it works.

  5. Well written and interesting on v important matters. But the tests I apply at the outset of a first acquaintance with an intelligent well informed opinionated person required me to attend immediately to two matters. First the casual reference to 9/11 as if there was some great conspiracy we are wilfully blind to. Please set out your case. My understanding is that the supposedly mysterious failures of the buildings’ structures (so someone must have planted bombs!) has been explained by the amount of aviation fuel which the aircraft were carrying. And it surely is clear that Osama bin Laden’s disciples carried it out and he claimed credit (except initially to Mullah Omar).

    Second, I turned to your justification of your “Anglo-Zionist” usage. Well informed certainly, but then Himmler was too, and so were your co-religionists who concocted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I see you are a believer, which I am not. So you accept as true matters which are unsupported by evidence, on faith presumably. But let me try a little factual probing. The most influential 1 per cent one would expect to be people with a combination of relatively high IQ and prestigious education to a high level, plus inherited wealth and/or success in business or professions. That’s not prima facie a group of people who are going to get together in a singleminded way to pursue the nefarious purposes you posit. One per cent of the American population that might be of the right age is at least 1.5 million so there has to be some selection principle you have in mind. I wonder what it is and whether it is supported by evidence. Obviously not the Davos Forum people – indeed many of the piously great and good who attemd might have to be combatted or circumvented. The 0.1 per cent, not least the 0.01 per cent people I know are strongly individual. Imagine training George Soros, Silvio Berlusconi, Jim Wolfensohn and Larry Summers all trained to perform together in your herd of cats…..And would they even stay in the same room with Sheldon Adelson without a gun at their heads? Well Silvio might be persuaded in other ways but….

    Real evidence please.

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The “might makes right” principle which has been the hallmark of the European civilization since the Crusades.”

    Hm, are here some deeper historical grudges at play?

  7. Wally says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Second, I turned to your justification of your “Anglo-Zionist” usage. Well informed certainly, but then Himmler was too, and so were your co-religionists who concocted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

    That moronic crap is based upon the pathetic notion of “Holocaust Inc.”, which is now being tossed into the dust bin of false history

    Every debate with a Jew ends up in the Auschwitz Disneyland, hence the reason for concocting the world’s biggest fraud in the first place.

    Follow the money.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @annamaria
  8. Rurik says:

    US military power will not be challenged, it will be made irrelevant

    good luck with that ~

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/carl-levin-james-inhofe-give-ukraine-the-weapons-it-needs-to-defend-itself/2014/10/16/06da647a-4fe2-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html

    a bully (Fiend) doesn’t need to be challenged to be a threat

    These are two US Senators telling lies and trying to stir up a war with Russia

    “When Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko spoke to a joint session of Congress last month, he thanked the United States for its assistance in confronting Russian aggression,..”

    There has been no Russian aggression, Russia’s posture has been defensive. This whole conflict was foisted upon the region by the US State Dept. and Victoria Nuland in particular. (please check out Nuland’s husband and her brother in law and sister in law)

    “We believe now is the time to add defensive military aid, including weapons, to our support of Ukraine.”

    defensive = aggressive

    just read this tripe, it’s nothing but lies and blaming the victim

    “It’s important to remember what sparked Russia’s intervention: the peaceful, democratic protests of the Ukrainian people that unseated a corrupt, Putin-friendly regime. Supporting Ukraine’s desire for peace, freedom, territorial integrity and democracy supports values Americans hold dear.”

    The demonstrations weren’t peaceful, there were snipers shooting people on both sides of the conflict, deliberately taking it to it’s next level, whereupon Nuland (from a regime thousands of miles away) could imperialistically decide (on a recorded phone call) who the next president of Ukraine would be. That’s the kind of “democracy” these rotten liars are talking about.

    “Ukrainian military have shown great restraint in resisting Russian provocations, declining to fire back at artillery coming from Russian territory and making it clear their only objective is to defend their own territory.”

    These lies are off the charts. They have zero shame. They even mention MH17 that was riddled with 30mm machine gun bullets from what only could have been a Ukrainian fighter jet. But just like with 911, since they control the narrative in the west, they feel they can force-feed their lies onto a put-upon and submissive world. They think they have us all in a psychological Gitmo, and have their force-feeding tubes always at the ready.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  9. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Real evidence please.

    Forget the avalanche of other evidence, from the video of Building Seven imploding (in an obvious controlled demolition) to the destruction of the crime scene evidence of the worst crime on US soil in history (not to mention the evidence of a structural, architectural engineering impossibility)

    All we need to know is that the BBC reported on the implosion of Building Seven before it happened. That is advance knowledge. There is your “real evidence”.

    It would be just as if the BBC reported on the first plane hitting the tower a half an hour before it did. People in a sane world would want to know how they knew.

    But we don’t live in a sane world. We live in a world where our navy ships can be under cowardly attack and our president and Commander in Chief recalls the jets that were scrambled to assist the ship, twice. And the whole affair is hushed up and covered up for decades, so as not to embarrass our gallant little ally who is our bestest friend ever. (and whose Mossad knew the attacks on 911 were going to happened and didn’t warn us. They figured it would be “very good” for the attacks to happen with maximum casualties. Isn’t that quaint?)

  10. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Quite simply, for every action there’s a reaction. Because of America’s worldwide aggression and bullying other countries are forced to band together for protection even if they have little in common otherwise. I suppose the foreign policy experts of the US never thought of what the long term effects of their policies would be but then that might be expected. The entire leadership class of the US have always been businessmen, going from Wall street to government and back, and are used to thinking in terms of quarterly profits rather than what would be good for the country as a whole in the long run. The goodwill that the US enjoyed at one time has largely been squandered and there’s a great amount of dislike for us now all around the world, a fact that the average American is too insular to understand.

  11. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    [This is why we strongly (but vainly) encourage regular commenters to select at least somewhat distinctive handle. To avoid confusion, and unless you object, we'd prefer to attempt to locate and change all your previous "Bob" comments to "Rurik" comments]

    I have to change my name. Someone else is using Bob

    My name is now Rurik

  12. Rurik says:

    The entire leadership class of the US have always been businessmen, going from Wall street to government and back

    That describes the leadership of the klepto-crony-capitalist troika of Wall Street/Goldman Sachs, The US Treasury/SEC, and the Fed. They’re all in bed together to loot the country dry. But there is another class of ideologues whose job it is to steer foreign policy. They’re the neocon Straussians, and their job is to put a military and economic death grip on the world on behalf a crazed dream of enslaving all of humanity. In so doing, they’re the ones forcing unlikely alliances between countries like Russia and China and Brazil. imho

    • Replies: @masterslave
  13. @Wally

    Your bewildering rant may something about you and nothing else though what you say and how you say it gives one no reason to find it profitable to spend more time on that.

    “Moronic”! To be entitled to use that word you need to demonstrate non moronic cerebral ability. You fail in limine by using as an initial quote on which to hang your comment words which have *absolutely no relationship” to the substance of your rant.

    I presume you do not deny that Himmler was very anti-Jewish??? Not critical but it does occur to me that you might have some such mad view.

    So how could the fact that anti-Semites like leading Nazis or Czarists knew a lot that was in fact true about Jews and Jewry possibly or the knowledge or statement of it have a causal connection with some false story you allege is propagated about the Holocaust?

    Who’s talking about a “debate with a Jew” or Auschwicz? Do you just take every faint reference to the subject of your seething obsession as an occasion to explode with incoherent irrelevancies?

    About 40 years ago I mentioned the figure of 4 million which I had read somewhere to a subsequently distinguished Jewish lawyer and was quickly corrected. It didn’t seem to make much difference to the fact or quality of the crime but it now seems that deniers want to go on about the “6 million”. Why? Isn’t it clear that there were large Jewish populations in Eastern Europe in 1939 which (unlike any other population proportionately, including gypsies, were almost completrly eliminated with a lot of the killing starting long before gas chambers are said to have been first built, often by shooting carried out by local auxiliaries under German command but also including the use of carbon monoxide and burning buildings)! Who needs to make up Auschwicz?

    So, what’s the “fraud” and as you seem to connect it to money please explain the nature and magnitude of that connection?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  14. @Rurik

    Just let me get this clear. The US fosters opposition to the obscenely corrupt Russia oriented President of the Ukraine and Russia reacts

    1. by providing the armed strength in the Crimea (where it had troops and bases already) to detach the Crimea from the rest of the contry and make it effectually part of Russia,
    2. by providing “volunteers” (compare US advisers in Vietnam) and weapons so that Russian majority areas of the country can revolt violently against the Kiev government

    and you say this is just Russia being “defensive”. Didn’t Orwell have an aprt description for that kind of perversion of language?

    You might even have a case against the US and for Putin. Why spoil it with overblown nonsense?

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Realist
  15. Biff says:

    700 military bases in 100 countries across the globe? and for what reason begs the question? War Inc? Or just an organism that grew on it’s own without conscience?

    It’s getting pretty obvious that Washington’s delineate enemy number one is not a nuclear tipped massive military that could challenge them, but a larger economy that is ruled by someone else.

    Empires come and go and that is a fact of life, but this time we have an empire that is stubborn, aggressive, and armed to the teeth with some of the most destructive weapons ever designed. Will it go quietly or exit with a big bang?

  16. Biff says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    1. by providing the armed strength in the Crimea (where it had troops and bases already) to detach the Crimea from the rest of the contry and make it effectually part of Russia,

    You should learn the history of Crimea before you leave no doubts that you know nothing about the place.

    2. by providing “volunteers” (compare US advisers in Vietnam) and weapons so that Russian majority areas of the country can revolt violently against the Kiev government

    Volunteers, and weapons? You need evidence were there is none.

    And for the record – don’t tell us to not look behind the curtain.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  17. Rurik says:

    Just let me get this clear. The US fosters opposition to the obscenely corrupt Russia oriented President of the Ukraine and Russia reacts

    They didn’t just “foster opposition”. They spent five billion dollars fomenting a violent putsch against a democratically elected (if admittedly corrupt) government. How would we feel if Russia spent five billion dollars agitating (the overtly and obscenely corrupt) Miami to violently break off from the United States? And then set about burning people alive in buildings where pro-Americans were trapped. I don’t think we’d be too amused.

    1. by providing the armed strength in the Crimea (where it had troops and bases already) to detach the Crimea from the rest of the contry and make it effectually part of Russia,

    Crimea has been a part of Russia for hundreds of years. In fact the ‘break-away’ parts of Ukraine that we’re talking about were part of Russia too until the 1950s when (Ukrainian) Khrushchev incorporated them in into the Ukraine. They’re Russians and speak Russian and as soon as Nuland installed the neo-Nazis in Kiev, they passed laws against the Russian speaking peoples forcing this madness upon those pitiful people.

    2. by providing “volunteers” (compare US advisers in Vietnam) and weapons so that Russian majority areas of the country can revolt violently against the Kiev government

    They are providing humanitarian aid to those people who are being used as pawns in a geopolitical game of raw power being brought to Putin’s door step to make the Russian bear put on a tootsie and ride a circus bicycle around in a circle for the amusement of the Fiend. Who more than anything else demands submission to its will. Just as the people who died in Waco, TX what happened when you thumb your nose at the Fiend. Oh, you can’t.

    and you say this is just Russia being “defensive”. Didn’t Orwell have an aprt description for that kind of perversion of language?

    yea, it’s called newspeak. The irony is that he was talking about the Bolsheviks and today it’s the west that talks in that language.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @AP
  18. viking says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    And while I too am a skeptic we have things we can not explain like why would the elites work so hard to replace white nations population with low IQ violent illiberal irrational low future time orientation barbarians while at the same time teach them to hate whites and western civilization,do they seriously believe in a few decades these apes will allow them to rule if so what do they know perhaps that by then resistance will be futile? why would these titans of commerce support this and socialism generally, what can they be thinking about the 1.2 quadrillion dollars in credit default swaps a result of QE to make the unequal seem equal?Why does every thing seem to work out to their benefit could we possibly have had this police state without 911we had spent the previous 50 years dismantling the police state and just when technology might make government irrelevant they are suddenly able to know what temp our fridge is at our porn taste and our comments on political articles and if we are cheating on our wife

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  19. @Rurik

    I did a search for the BBC reporting of the WTC 7 collapse which you proffered as the compelling “real evidence” that 9/11 was – well what? – apart from some dark deed that the US government and maybe Israel had something to do with for reasons known only to little green men from Mars?

    I hate to think Ron is giving space to people whose mad warped view of the world is like that of the obsessives I found blogging on the BBC page where conspiracy was denied. Such people either have a very limited tunnel visioned understanding of the world and their fellow humans or have got so carried away with finding and proving some very special limited set of facts for which they go digging the whole ever deeper that they lose whatever grasp they had of common sense and everyday probability.

    Suppose the BBC reporter who found herself in NYC that morning with an extraordinary story to understand and to try and tell on TV did say 20 minutes before WTC 7 came down that it had collapsed. So what?

    The precise words matter. Was she saying “it’s not just the great north and south towers collapsing: there are others too; building 7 for one”. So someone has told her something which she doesn’t remember the precise words of or which was ambiguous and causes her on the run to nominate WTC 7 as already collapsed. No conspiracy and nothing puzzling or sinister. And it is you that has to explain why it is sinister if the building could be seen still standing behind in the TV picture. No conspirator would want such a stuff up.

    But suppose someone knew that WTC 7 was coming down. Maybe it was obvious to a technically qualified person. If it was known because of being party to a conspiracy why would the BBC be told? And why before it happened? If it was by an unwilling witness to the conspiracy why have we heard no more? Was he, after choosing to tell just the BBC, quickly detected by the conspirators and killed so that no one noticed?

    Might it not have been a good idea btw to finish off WTC 7 with a controlled demolition?

    As it happens I first knew of 9/11 by being woken from the other side of the world by one of my children who was a senior producer for the BBC – also married to another one – telling me to turn on the TV. They dealt with the neocons (whom they didn’t like), objected strongly to Tony Blair’s lies, and they would have known if there was something seriously interesting in the BBC’s coverage and inferences to be drawn and I would have been told – but not a word.

    Against the simple story of an effective Al Qaeda operation what do you offer that hangs together and makes sense. The planes with full tanks of fuel flew into the two buildings. Why would anyone risk blowing the whole enterprise by stacking explosives on occupied floors of the two main towers? Why would they want to anyway?

    Common sense and clear joined up thinking can be quite good cures for fantastical thinking. Try finding yourself a sensible wife and before you next get too carried away take a deep breath and actually listen to her when she says “now dear, don’t get so excited; mightn’t the answer be really quite simple”.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @masterslave
  20. @Biff

    I am not sure about your disability that severely disables you from making a case effectively. It could be a problem with logic or it could be that you don’t attend to what others say (or both, which seems likely).

    There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Crimea with which I am as far as I can infer quite as familiar as you which has any bearing on the issue. The land of the Krim Tartars became part of the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union, before, under Kruschev it became part of the Ukrainian S.S.R. from which it followed that it became part of the independent Ukrainian nation on the break up of the Soviet Union. No one it seems thought that some sort of restorative justice was due to the Tartars. So…?

    Volunteers. Well off duty soldiers and soldiers on leave I think the Russians call them – quite openly. And you haven’t seen the film weapons (and of course closed trucks) moving from Russia into the Ukraine? Give me a break, do you ask me to believe that an original barely armed militia from eastern Ukraine factories got all the heavy weapons that they now use to fight the Ukrainian army to a standstill from the Ukrainian army. Anyway why would you give Putin anything like a free pass after what the Russians have done to the Chechens who actually live in the Russian Federation. Or is it your line that Putin is such a stickler for international law and order that he woul only use brutal violence against his own people who upset him? Pull the other one!

    • Replies: @Realist
  21. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Hello Wizard
    Once more, I find myself in a position to applaud your efforts at the rational, coherent and indeed the human.

    I find most of the articles here, a mixture, containing equal parts good research and a curious anti westernism. (There are exceptions, Razib K and Fred R and Sailer share the common trait of being very readable, with RK being mostly very informative) .

    This edition from Saker is quite good and topical, but fails to refrain from the obligatory slanted reference to “Zionist malfeasance” and the related “chilling” undertones of a 9/11 conspiracy. Well, one supposes that the readership demands it.

    I will be rather pleasantly surprised, should your attempt to offer a rational view of the Holocaust not wake the bestiary into action.

    In hope therefore…..

    • Replies: @Numinous
  22. Max Payne says:

    I’ve had the unfortunate experience of working in half of those countries mentioned (South Africa, China, Brazil, Pakistan) and I’m going to tell you right now they aren’t a threat. Together they aren’t a threat.

    Their people are missing something that prevents them from attaining their true potential. As if they have many more generations to go before they break out of their mental loop of petty goals, Western-mimicking and predictable dreams.

    You think America has problems? You think Europe has problems? Go to these (BRICS + SCO) countries and you’ll see REAL problems. Foundational problems. Problems that other Western civilizations have solved and re-solved time and time again. The level of corruption, the gross incompetence on almost all levels (I once banged up my shin pretty bad; the Chinese local hospital doctor diagnosis: “Oh we have to cut the leg off”; the private American-operated German-staffed clinic cleaned it and stitched it up… incompetence or what? Don’t even get me started on the basic banking that takes 2 hours…), the ludicrous crimes, the nepotism and entitlement… it would stun any Westerner not familiar with those nations.

    If they can’t get their own house in order how are they going to work this out?

  23. annamaria says:
    @Wally

    There was the Holocaust of Jews during the WWII. There were horrible atrocities committed against the Jews, including mass executions of Jewish population in Eastern Europe.
    The problem of applying Never Again for Israelis only is the existence of Gaza “Disneyland” complete with collective punishment, humiliation, tortures, theft of natural resources, and other signs of treating others as subhumans. It does not help that some of the leading US neocons (the bloody warmongers on a global scale) are also the leading Zionists.

  24. Numinous says:
    @Sam Shama

    (View from someone outside the bubble)

    The readership of this website is obsessed with the topics of immigration and race, and cannot conceive of the possibility that someone outside the echo chamber is not similarly hung up on these issues. The readership views the recent changes in the West as a calamity. Since those outside the bubble (liberals, capitalists, some Christians even) view these events with equanimity, or even express happiness at the demographic changes, the readership considers them to be traitors. Benign neglect (arising from a lack of obsession over racial differences and immigration) is assumed to be conspiracy. And if the powers-that-be are conspiring to undermine the white race of the West in so dastardly a manner, might they not be responsible for other crises that have murky events associated with them? Like 9/11 or the Holocaust?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  25. @Rurik

    You may want to say all those things but how they are related to what I had to say I find hard to discern. You remind me of the country jury trying a man charged with stealing a bull “Not Guilty as long as he gives the bull back”. So you clearly know that Russia hasn’t been merely defensive but you think it has all sorts of justifications. That’s a different discussion.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  26. jb says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The minute I hear someone say something like “the US elites have put their full credibility behind the official 911 narrative against all empirical evidence,” I lose all confidence in their judgement. It’s lunacy on the same order as “All empirical evidence proves that the moon landing was faked.” Once someone says something like that, the jig is up. Nobody with any sense is going to take anything else they say seriously, even if some of the other things they have to say are perfectly reasonable and even insightful.

    So it really, really bothers me when Ron publishes something like this! The thing is, I’m actually quite sympathetic to much of what is published here, and I wish that many of the writers were more widely read. But I can’t really say I want the site to be more widely read, because it publishes too many articles by crackpots who threaten, simply by their presence on the same site, to discredit the authors I support. All of which makes me question Ron’s judgement, and the judgement of the writers who choose to be associated with him. Please Ron, lose the crackpots!

  27. @viking

    May I suggest that if you have so much trouble understanding and being satisfied that you understand how the world works without invoking a kind of modernequivalent of witchcraft explanation you should loosen up your imagination by examining the greatest stuff ups by “elites” since 1900.

    1. Outbreak of WW1
    2. 1929 crash and Great Depression
    3. Japan’s bubble, bust and lost decades
    4. “When geniuses failed” LTCM 1998
    5. Creation of the Eurozone on impossible terms for success
    6. Failure to prevent 2008 Global Financial Crisis….

  28. 5371 says:
    @jb

    Who set aside the comments for this blog in particular as a playground where slow-witted, self-important concern trolls could frolic and disport themselves to their hearts’ content?

  29. American insistence on treating all non-vassals as enemies is pushing them together. If America felt seriously threatened she could turn on the charm and do a lot to win over many of these nations, but their lack of aggressive intent discourages that. It is the lack of aggression by Russia, China etc that allows America to continue to treat them all aggressively, and thus ensure their continued partnership.

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Numinous

    Yes, but Russia’s geostrategical interests may then not be so important to them after all as they are for you.

  31. I’m thrilled to see the Saker on here! I’ve been reading him pretty much daily for close to two years, because he discusses issues that are unknown in the west, cultures and history that are completely opaque to non-Russians, and features guests, like PKR that are anathema to the mainstream, including one Andrew Korybko that has written the single best essay on the Great Game (current edition) I’ve ever read:

    http://thesaker.is/eastring-vs-balkan-stream-the-battle-for-greece/

    If you want to know all about celebrities, read the msm. If you want to know that, for instance, that the Ukrainians are shelling their own civilians at this moment, read the Saker. I realise there is a battle of propagandists raging, and “we” are losing badly, because a turd can only be polished so much. If you can’t stand the crackpots to the point of ignoring anything true that they write, by all means, proceed back to Yahoo or little green footballs where ignorance is bliss, war is peace, and there is no Fourth Way.

  32. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I did a search for the BBC reporting of the WTC 7 collapse which you proffered as the compelling “real evidence” that 9/11 was – well what? – apart from some dark deed that the US government and maybe Israel had something to do with for reasons known only to little green men from Mars?

    The reason was for a pretext to get Americans willing to go to war against Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. They needed a “new Peal Harbor”. It also had tones of ancillary benefits like removing our freedoms and increasingly making Americans more and more like Palestinians, with check points and surveillance and even assassinations when they want to do that too.

    I hate to think Ron is giving space to people whose mad warped view of the world is like that of the obsessives I found blogging on the BBC page where conspiracy was denied.

    You’re not suggesting my voice be silenced are you?

    Suppose the BBC reporter who found herself in NYC that morning with an extraordinary story to understand and to try and tell on TV did say 20 minutes before WTC 7 came down that it had collapsed. So what?

    would you say the same thing if she had reported on the first plane hitting the Trade Center before it did? The collapse of Building Seven even today can not be explained. How could she have anticipated something that today structural engineers are saying is an impossibility?

    No conspiracy and nothing puzzling or sinister. And it is you that has to explain why it is sinister if the building could be seen still standing behind in the TV picture. No conspirator would want such a stuff up.

    No, they wouldn’t, would they. It proves advance knowledge, and it wasn’t Osama bin Boogey man who was handing her the script. It was someone very high up in the BBC.

    You seem sincere in your naiveté. I’ve talked to other people who are of good will and told them of the BBC reporting on the building and the implications. They too seemed incredulous. It is quite something to wrap one’s head around if you haven’t given all of this a lot of thought and research. Since I’m a natural skeptic, I’ve been looking behind the curtain now for a while, so even tho this was a hard leap for me as well, I can only imagine what it’s like for most people who’ve been sincerely following the official script as if it was the truth.

  33. Rurik says:
    @jb

    Is there to be no discussion about the veracity of the official 911 narrative?

    Are all people, including the thousands of architects and engineers, physicists and those who lost loved ones on that day, and have serious questions about the government official version, including members of the 911 commission itself who now say the report was a whitewash, are they all to be dismissed as ‘lunatics’?

    Do you feel the same way about the JFK assassination?

    The Golf of Tonkin incident?

    Are the people who point out that the government and media lied about the Gulf of Tonkin ‘lunatics’

    The next time our government lies about WMD, should we all click our collective heals and goose step into another catastrophic war because to doubt the media and government would be “lunacy”?

  34. Art says:

    This is a brilliant article – it clarifies – it gives us the big long term picture.

    The point that the Russia/China relationship is a symbiotic economic one is most instructive. The idea that Pakistan and India are in the same economic association is major.

    The idea that the Western governments are controlled by the Anglo-Zionist central banking cartel – whereas the BRICS are still controlled by their governments, says everything about our current situation. It is so bad that the Western governments can NEVER pay back the Zionist central bankers – because of that debt, Zionism owns the people of the West.

    The US having military bases all over the world is so last century – nobody wants a world war – only the crazed Zionists. Why are we antagonizing and attacking and killing the most backward people on the planet? We have been sucked into doing stupid.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @masterslave
  35. Alieu says:

    After Wizard of Oz’s first comment my zio-radar went off and this was then confirmed a few comments later. It’s really quite easy to tell the trolls apart. They’re not having much success, God love them. Their arguments are so weak it takes incredible cognitive distortions and double think to fall for them.

    • Replies: @wortherthorth
  36. Realist says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “The US fosters opposition to the obscenely corrupt Russia oriented President of the Ukraine and Russia reacts”

    Your silly little euphemisms…. fosters opposition….for the US overthrowing a duly elected government proves that you really are from the land of Oz.

    The US has no business in the Ukraine period.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  37. Realist says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    As I remember the Wizard of Oz was a frightened little man standing on a box behind a curtain pretending to know everything.

    You have chosen your pseudonym well.

    You are a sycophant for the hegemonic US government and power elite who prosper from it’s actions.

  38. Albert says:

    Just another wacko anti-Semite fanatic. I was expecting the Rosicrucians or the Illuminati to make an appearance. Shame that Ron allows this kind of crackpot on….

    • Replies: @Art
  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I don’t believe your reply and request for evidence is honest. But for the sake of other readers:

    Burning jet fuel that melts steel has been one of the attempted “explanations”. I have a solid background in chemistry, structural engineering, materials science, and mathematics through advanced calculus and applied analysis.

    Steel structures simply do not collapse that way. This is why there are thousands of engineers and architects who have gone on record as saying the official story is wrong.

    I don’t believe your comment is honest because samples from the whole area were analyzed and found to contain thermite with particles in nanometer range, not necessarily a detonating explosive but nearly so and easily able to cut through structural steel instantly.
    This analysis was published in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal, freely available and widely reported on the internet. The evidence is clear and freely accessible. Anyone who wants to know can find it. which means you could easily have found it but didn’t.
    Why is that? I assume by your writing that you are intelligent enough to research these things, so you must have some other agenda. What would that be?

  40. nemo says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It is the writers belief that is really in Oz’s sites. As for the 911 reference there is plenty of testimony from architects, engineers, and demolitions experts available online to prove the naysayers lazy.

  41. Just have a look at the map of all the Shanghai Cooperation Organization members now that Pakistan and India signed the paperwork today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

    Isn’t this precisely what the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment has dreaded since the days of Halford Mackinder? More than a few times in the last 12 years I’ve had my doubts about the competence of the Anglospherical foreign policy experts we have working on our behalf. Well they sometimes say they’re working on our behalf …

    In other Eurasian news, the delightful Prosecutor of Crimea and internet sensation, Natalia Poklonskaya has come out strongly as a Czarist. From an official Russian Orthodox website:

    Natalia Poklonskaya: the blessed virgin leads our Russia
    Simferopol, July 10, 2015

    In an interview with “KP” Natalia Poklonskaya answered the question, why is she so kind to Holy Royal passion-bearer Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich and also asked “do you believe in a return monarchy?”

    “A terrible crime was committed when Tsar Nicholas Alexandrovich was deposed, ” replied the Prosecutor of the Crimea, “and a brutal murder of his whole family was committed. What is better and what will be is monarchy, the Republic is not really my thing.

    Run the link through the translator of your choice: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/news/80565.htm

    Other stories linked at the bottom are:
    Natalia Poklonskaya: We must keep sacred the memory of the Victory
    Natalia Poklonskaya: Unique weapons Russia – the power of the spirit of our people
    Natalia Poklonskaya proposed to erect a monument to Nicholas II in the Livadia Palace
    Natalia Poklonskaya gave Livadia Palace photo collection of the Royal Family

    There’s a video of her playing piano in the old Czar’s palace in that last one:

    http://www.pravoslavie.ru/news/74546.htm

  42. annamaria says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Russia hasn’t been merely defensive…”
    Well, it would be great if you elaborate on your statement. What would you do if the empire’s vassals were encircling your country? This is a childish question that you have provoked. It is hard for the neocons’ apologists to deny the fraternization of the US State Dept. with east-European neo-nazis and the US active involvement in selecting head of state in Ukraine. Should the RF be sheepishly defensive in response to the crazy and bloodthirsty speeches of NATO’ big shots and in response to the US-orchestrated coup-d’etat in a country that borders the RF?
    Here is a succinct statement re the problem we face today because of the RF/US conflict in Ukraine (thousands miles away from the US borders, by the way): “American insistence on treating all non-vassals as enemies is pushing them together.” And here is an expression of the “vassalage” doctrine: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Bush the Lesser, 2001).
    Surely, the Russian Federation has its own problems, some of them quite nasty. But how come that the US has discovered – and then often bombed to smithereens – so many “enemies” during the post-WWII period? Would you qualify the US stance as not “merely defensive?”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  43. Art says:
    @Albert

    “Just another wacko anti-Semite fanatic.”

    Now now – little hasbara lemming – that is not nice!

    Hearing the truth is good thing – particularly for little lemmings who will follow their leaders anywhere.

  44. Germany will be a major supplier to Russia and China of high quality manufactured goods and scientific instruments. Russia and Germany are already building high speed rail lines to connect Berlin with Moscow, and eventually on to China. This is happening now.

  45. This explains the Ukrainian/Russian problem perfectly:

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  46. Seraphim says:

    @justification of your “Anglo-Zionist” usage. Well informed certainly, but then Himmler was too, and so were your co-religionists who concocted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    “Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for “reduction to Hitler”, with Hitlerus serving as a Latinized form of Hitler’s name), is a term coined by philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.
    According to Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam, a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something’s or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term reductio ad absurdum.
    Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called “playing the Nazi card.” According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent” (Wikipedia).

    @you accept as true matters which are unsupported by evidence, on faith presumably

    No facts? “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”.
    If it looks as an Anglo, speaks Anglo, is a worshiper of Israel, marries Jewesses, wants to re-build the Temple on Zion, considers his religious duty to send as much money as he could to Israel (like the Temple tax!), denounces any criticism of Israel (equated with antisemitism) as thoughtcrime and demands harsh punishment for the offenders, covering them with insults, never adressing the substance of the criticism, but answering by changing the subject and turning the blame on the questioner, then probably he is an Anglo-Zionist (I suspect that he actually is, albeit pretending to be just an “unbeliever”).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  47. Good stuff, Mr. Vineyard (do you grow grapes in FL?)

    But this statement is problematic:

    re “Terminology: Anglo-Zionist: http://thesaker.is/terminology/

    “Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”). Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.”

    No they are not they are Cain and Abel, and Nazism, like Abel, is dead.

    Max Hastings is Britain’s preeminent historian of the Great Wars. I think he’s a propagandist but he’s been knighted for his work writing about the bravery of the British in fighting Nazis, and one must defer to the queen.

    Hastings said this in a 2013 interview:

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?312130-1/book-discussion-max-hastings

    @ 5 min:
    Slen (Interviewer): “Do we know enough about Russia’s role in the war?”

    Hastings: “ . . . Nowadays we are getting more grown up about understanding that the Russians did most of the heavy lifting.
    But they do not deserve most of the credit because one of the awful truths is that Roosevelt and Churchill constructed this great legend of this grand alliance, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. And yet the truth was that Stalin’s tyranny was every bit as evil as Hitler’s tyranny. The only thing that makes Stalin that much less wicked than Hitler was he had no single enormity to match the holocaust, the massacre of the Jews. But in every other respect Stalin’s Russia was an equally dreadful place.

    As Wally said, above,

    “That moronic crap is based upon the pathetic notion of “Holocaust Inc.”, which is now being tossed into the dust bin of false history.
    Every debate with a Jew ends up in the Auschwitz Disneyland, hence the reason for concocting the world’s biggest fraud in the first place. “

    The holocaust tale is as fabulous as the 9/11 lies; both were conceived by the same Anglo-Zionists to perpetuate their regime.

    If that is so, that the holocaust is a fraud, then Hasting’s calculus is fundamentally flawed: Nazism/Hitler was/is not the “most wicked” entity of all time.

    I argue that the German NSDAP story is the least-told story, and the most lied-about story in modern history.

    It’s time to tell that story fully.

    The Anglo-Zionist wars against the Ottoman empire and the Germans (and other assorted Europeans) in collusion with the Jew-vs-Jew civil war that played itself out on European soil, have not been fully and truthfully explored.

    Russians, and especially Americans and the British share the zionist need to maintain the holocaust fantasy in order to keep the full horror of that story from being told.

    Early this year Robert Cohen wrote on Mondoweiss:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews.

    We know the why and how “today’s school children” got that zany idea. The question most school children — or adults — cannot answer is Why DID Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin (and zionists) go to war against Hitler?

    It’s time to start telling the truth, dammit.

    —-

    below is more of Hastings’ declamations about the “wickedness” of Stalin.
    Hastings was not capable of seeing any wickedness at all in FDR and Churchill (and zionists) who, fully aware of Bolshevik Russia’s genocidal acts well before Hitler was on the horizon, employed Stalin as their Orca.

    Ivan Karamazov suffers a psychological break-down over the thought that he incited his half-brother, Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov, to kill their father. Ivan spends the rest of his life attempting to free his brother Dmitri, who was convicted of the crime.

    FDR died in the company of his mistress, and Churchill lived on fat and happy at Chartwell, his brow uncreased by fears that he had set in motion mass murder of an unprecedented scale.

    Who is the psychopath?

    As for Max Hastings, he appears not to have thought through the moral implications of a leader and nation that would “ally” with a genocidal maniac as “wicked” as Stalin.

    In 1941, when Russia cam into the war, at that time, Stalin had killed far more people than Hitler. Stalin had massacred millions upon millions of his own people in purges and famines and all the dreadful things that had gone on in his rule in the 13 years before the war came.

    But on the other hand we had cause to be very grateful to the Russians. An awful lot of young Americans and young British men survived the second world war who wouldn’t ‘ve done if a lot of Russian soldiers hadn’t died. . . . So the Russians did a lot of the heavy lifting but I don’t think we have any reason to be terribly grateful to Stalin; Stalin was an unbelievably wicked man. .”

    One thing that’s very scary today — If you went to Berlin and you saw a taxi driver had a picture of Hitler on his windscreen you would think it was something terrible, it’s unthinkable that that would happen. But in Moscow they’ve still got a lot of pictures of Stalin on the taxi driver’s wind screens. Putin, Vladimir Putin goes around saying that Stalin was a wonderful man! He still thinks that ! Many Russians are taught in school that Stalin may have got a few things wrong but he was basically a good man.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  48. I just found a video at YouTube with 1.3 million views that is Sheikh Imran Hussien speaking in English (with Russian subtitles) about how Putin’s intervention in Crimea was the hand of Allah at work. He describes it as the first great victory against the Zionists in a hundred years. Sheikh Hussien has a European speaking tour planned this summer on the topic of “Islam, the petrodollar and Russia’s rendez-vous with it’s destiny”. He’s going to be speaking in Athens and in Geneva, along with the alt-right author Piero San Georgio. The Geneva talk is being promoted at Alain Soral’s site.

    I bring all this up just to point out the evidence that brand new coalitions and friendships are forming amongst all sorts of people with “issues” when it comes to the Euro-Atlantic consensus. The SCO/BRICS summit in Russia is a massive shift but there are also these little shifts and changes happening in the West as well. Interesting times ahead.

    The video is at YouTube with the title: Шейх Имран объясняет непонимающим ситуацию на Украине очень доходчиво He’s speaking in English though.

  49. @Priss Factor

    Why? Their internal governance is irrelevant. Do you demand that your grocer have polite children, keep his lawn just the way you would, and go to church before you buy vegetables from him? That is what the US/EU hegemon does. They insist on political, labor and environmental control of countries they do business with. (allow to profit)
    BRICS says business is business and security is security. It is not a merge or alliance. it is an infrastructure for live and let live development. People control their own polity.
    Busy body control freak USA just can’t get their head around that.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  50. @Alieu

    But, they waste people’s time.

  51. @annamaria

    Well you don’t appear to be one of the maddies shut in their bedrooms with earphones on and connected to the world since adolescence by computer only. Still it would help to read what I said and what I was replying to. It was the absurd suggestion that Russia did not engage in aggression but was only acting defensively. Trolls who say such ridiculous things should surely be exposed if one has the energy should they not?

    As it happens I have just been talking to an old very Australian friend who listens to the news in Ukrainian and Russian every morning and has a son who has just started a specialised publishing business in Kiev instead of SE Asia (because the collapse of the currency makes his costs very low). There is no one I have read on the Unz Review who comes anywhere near their knowledge of what has been happening in the Ukraine. Indeed when I raised the question of the US’s part in the Maidan affair he told me he actually knows the Afghan born journalist (a young refugee in the Ukraine) who organised the original demonstration as soon as he heard that the President was backsliding on the agreement with the EU. What happened next was that the army or police beat them up and the reaction to that all over the Ukraine was to bring out more protestors. What about the idea that the President was “democratically elected”. Rubbish. He named one oligarch owned company with 300,000 employees who were required to vote (any old fashioned trade unionist will know how that works) for Russia’s man. That was apparently typical.

    Russian weapons? Well the area in eastern Ukraine now under rebel control has lost half its population including a million leaving for Russia but this enclave of 1.5 million people has 750 tanks – more than any western European country I understand though the figure itself says enough.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @5371
    , @annamaria
  52. @wortherthorth

    I have never been an enthusiast about international law or worthy multistate treaties on human rights but I wonder what you think about all those human rights, refugee and other treaties which were madein the aftermath of WW2. Did they not clearly presuppose that pressure at least would be applied to backsliding governments. And what about the international criminal jurisduction including the innovations of the last two decades? (Of course the typical American reaction to these has been not to sign up in case American soldiers were caught up in proceedings which might be merely political or just embarrassing.)

  53. @Seraphim

    It would be agreeable when people use any old hook to give them the excuse for a rant on their usual obsessional lines if they at least did others the courtesy of a fair reading. My point about Himmler and the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was simply a way of moderating the gratuitous compliment I had just offered to Saker, no more no less, and could not reasonably be regarded as an attack on him. It said that being knowledgeable wasn’t enough to enable an opinion to be formed beyond the fact that he was knowledgeable.

    And you took up the wrong end of the stick on my reference to his standards of proof. I was simply drawing attention to the logical inference to be drawn from his being (Orthodox) Christian. Perhaps he doesn’t believe that Jesus was the son of a virgin. But I presume he is asserting belief in the divinity of Jesus, that “he was crucified, dead and buried… on the third day he rose again from the dead…”. If so I question his reasons for believing other asserted facts.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  54. joe webb says:

    Punditry, punditry, punditry…sounds like a Thomas Friedman editorial, only from a slightly different orientation.

    The Sacker has a picture of MLK on his website, hates racism, and loves Everyone, as long as they join up with Russia.

    Russia and China as two peas in a pod, with convergent economic interests is only slightly true. The Chinese are not human, Russians are human, but with some yet to be ironed-out kinks given their corruption by communism…the usual cronyismj and gangsterism. Of course in this respect the Chinks and the Russians can understand one-another. for now.

    As time goes by, the racial differences will drive them apart, but the sacker thinks there are no racial differences, that we are all Equal, and other childish fancies. But he IS a pundit who thinks Big.

    Joe Webb

  55. @Art

    The ultimate give away in your fantasy posts is in the expression “Zionist central bankers”. Please don’t waste our time with stuff that you know nothing about. You obviously don’t know even what the central banks are. The most important central banks are the Fed, the Bank of England, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Chinese central bank. Can you name a single Zionist with any influence in any of them? And if they did have great influence what central bank policies would assist the Zionist cause?

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Sam Shama
  56. Sam J. says:

    “…Just like the US elites have put their full credibility behind the official 911 narrative against all empirical evidence…”

    Thanks for this. It is imperative that this is pointed out repeatedly. The evidence for building #1 and #2 being demoed are huge but building #7 is just completely undeniable. Building #7 fell the same speed as a bowling ball dropped in mid air for roughly 108 feet. This is impossible. Even molten steel has some resistance to slow the fall. Any person with any common sense can see this. It’s shows just how screwed up our country is that they’ve so far been able to get away with it.

  57. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You really want us to believe THAT rubbish?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  58. 5371 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Bazaar gossip regurgitated as if it were gospel truth? Watch out for the Scarecrow, idiot! You are infringing to a really quite unacceptable extent on his privilege of not having any brain.

  59. @Seraphim

    @ Annamarina, Seraphim, Realist Why should I suppose you know what you are talking about when you say that the US spent $5 billion “fomenting a violent putsch” against a democratically elected government? Have you been to the Ukraine? If so, when and for how long? Do you speak Russian and/or Ukrainian?

    When you say “democratically” elected (“duly elected” is Realist’s description though with no indication of how he knows) what qualifies by your standards? Were there election monitors from other countries as in quite a number of elections around the world in recent decades? If so, what did they report?

    Do you deny that the election was in fact a heavily corrupted one with many people forced to vote for the candidate favoured by the oligarchy employer? Does that still leave the label “democratic” in place and, more important, does it still carry the moral weight that you seem to attach to “democratic”.

    As I said in reply to Annamarina

    “As it happens I have just been talking to an old very Australian friend who listens to the news in Ukrainian and Russian every morning and has a son who has just started a specialised publishing business in Kiev instead of SE Asia (because the collapse of the currency makes his costs very low). There is no one I have read on the Unz Review who comes anywhere near their knowledge of what has been happening in the Ukraine. Indeed when I raised the question of the US’s part in the Maidan affair he told me he actually knows the Afghan born journalist (a young refugee in the Ukraine) who organised the original demonstration as soon as he heard that the President was backsliding on the agreement with the EU. What happened next was that the army or police beat them up and the reaction to that all over the Ukraine was to bring out more protestors. What about the idea that the President was “democratically elected”. Rubbish. He named one oligarch owned company with 300,000 employees who were required to vote (any old fashioned trade unionist will know how that works) for Russia’s man. That was apparently typical.

    Russian weapons? Well the area in eastern Ukraine now under rebel control has lost half its population including a million leaving for Russia but this enclave of 1.5 million people has 750 tanks – more than any western European country I understand though the figure itself says enough.”

    To which I see Seraphim has made the clever and euphonious response “You really want us to believe THAT rubbish?” Well no actually. I was simply pointing out that, on a subject on which I have no emotion involved I have just found someone who has credentials for knowledge of and credibility about the Ukraine that I have not perceived in anyone on this blog, and who tells me those things – and another item which I shall add next.

    He happens to be a 60 year old successful management consultant, formerly full professor at a respected university, published author on WW1 related matters and someone who is as kind, sunny and honest as anyone I have ever met. No doubt he might have some trouble firming up every item of evidence as for a cross-examination but I have no reason to doubt what he told me. As to the Malaysian airliner brought down by the rebels in mistake for it being a Ukrainian air force plane he said he has seen – and says they are easily findable – the half hour apart news reports on a Moscow TV station in which the news by the same presenter in the first said the rebels had just brought down a Ukrainian air force plane and in the second said the Ukrainian air force had just shot down a civil airliner!!

    I trust your research skills are up to finding that. What do you make of it?

    And by the way to those who are shocked that some organised neo-Nazis might have allied themselves to the anti-Russian side, apparently there was a 100 strong Jewish contingent too, of whom 6 were amongst the 100 heroes commemorated as killed in Maidan square.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @5371
  60. @Wizard of Oz

    There is still something odd about Ron’s software that I haven’t mastered. That last post was meant to be addressed to Rurik, Realist, Seraphim and Annamarina…..

  61. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    @the logical inference to be drawn from his being (Orthodox) Christian.

    The logical inference you draw is that Orthodox Christian equates Hitler/Himmler. His belief in the divinity of Jesus is “the reason for believing other asserted facts”. Other “asserted facts” being the ones that irked you so much.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  62. And by the way. My knowledgeable friend of Ukrainian descent cited opinion polls in which 80 per cent of Ukrainians but only 20 per cent of Russians said they identified with Europe (or maybe it was “regarded themselves as Europeans”).
    That seems to me worth considering especially when some people are trying to attach weight to the fact that the Ukraine was once part of the Czar’s empire…

  63. @jb

    And by the way. My knowledgeable friend of Ukrainian descent cited opinion polls in which 80 per cent of Ukrainians but only 20 per cent of Russians said they identified with Europe (or maybe it was “regarded themselves as Europeans”).
    That seems to me worth considering especially when some people are trying to attach weight to the fact that the Ukraine was once part of the Czar’s empire…

  64. 5371 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have a friend, the kindest, warmest, most wonderful human being I have ever met in my life. He says he has seen – and says they are easily findable – videos in which you rape a choirboy! I trust your research skills are up to finding that. What do you make of it?

  65. annamaria says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    ” …I have just been talking to an old very Australian friend who listens to the news … he has a son who has just started a business in Kiev because the collapse of the currency makes his costs very low… he told me he actually knows the Afghan born journalist….”
    Sorry if this sounds offending, but how old are you and have you been told by an MD about age-related cognitive problems?
    The former president of Ukraine was an oligarch and thief, but he was indeed elected. The current president is a oligarch and thief that had been “elected” when a bug chunk of Ukrainian population did not participate in the voting. Why they did not vote? – because these east Ukrainians wanted federalization (you know, like in the US). For this wish, the east Ukrainians were attacked by the west Ukrainians; this civil war was initiated, most likely, on a strong advice of Poroschenko’s main benefactors at the US Depart.; the US “representatives” have been entrenched in Kiev since the Maidan Revolution.
    In case you do indeed have problems with your memory, there are the direct evidence of the US involvement in the revolution on the border of the Russian Federation, including the recorded obscene conversation of Nuland-Kagan with Pyatt; the visit of the Director of CIA to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine (this visit was supposed to be covert); the participation of the paramilitary from Lviv during Maidan; these thugs fired indiscriminately to make more mess (listen to Ashton conversation on this matter); and – the cherry on a pie – the US cooperation with neo-Nazis. Here you can see the progeny of east-European jews, Nuland-Kagan, fraternizing with the neo-nazi leaders. Another “cherry” has been Israeli citizen Kolomojsky (actually, this oligarch and thief has acquired triple citizenship), a sponsor of the neo-nazi Azov battalion.
    Are you really surprised that Russia could consider measures that are more than defensive when the US have been fomenting disorder on the RF border? Do you believe that the insane Breedlove (caught on his lies again and again) and a score of opportunists like him at NATO are the trustworthy partners for the RF? You may benefit by looking on a map showing the territory of NATO activities. For now, the Russian Federation has been showing a lot of restrain considering the stupidity and mendacity of the neocon-infested US government.
    Next time you invoke the memory of Holocaust victims, think about the sponsor of Azov battalion (Mr. Kolomojsky, the president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine). The warriors of this battalion have a distinction of burring people alive, while laughing. And do not forget to look at smiling Nuland-Kagan (from the family business of warmongering) in a company of the Ukrainian me-nazis.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    http://rt.com/usa/white-house-confirms-cia-ukraine-448/

    http://rt.com/usa/266869-conyers-azov-training-amendment/

    http://freeukrainenow.org/2015/04/27/the-key-man-behind-the-odessa-trade-unions-building-massacre-his-many-connections-to-the-white-house/

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Wizard of Oz
  66. Rurik says:
    @annamaria

    Thanks for all of that. Saved me the trouble.

    I don’t know if the ‘wizard’ is a sincere dupe or a completely dishonest ideologue, but it makes for a good foil

    I posted this somewhere else, but it’s a video of Kolomoysky laughing about how his mercs tried to shoot (apparently) Putin’s jet out of the sky and shot the Malaysian jet by mistake. Not to worry, it’s a “trifle”. Just image if a Russian official had made this video, how the west would be apoplectic.

  67. Please stop babbling about “Russian Weapons”; virtually all the arms in use by both sides are Russian. The ukes would like to have more modern American arms, but somehow they’re all going to ISIS.

  68. The second-most important thing the Saker touched on is the extent to which the Anglo-Zionists are “in denial.”

    Wiz of Oz’s and fellow travelers desperate attempt to divert reflect that state of denial.

    There’s a serious question where Israel will go and what Israel will do.

    Yossi Alpher recently discussed his book, Periphery Doctrine, with Bruce Reidel at Brookings. In the discussion Alpher said:

    “And I identify from Ben- Gurion’s day, from the ‘50s, four grand strategies, which is really quite extraordinary. I mean, you have a country that’s just been born, a leader who is totally self taught in the military and strategic arts, and we have four grand strategies —
    [1] periphery doctrine is one,

    [2] a nuclear deterrent is another,

    [3] a great power, or super power ally, is a third. In the War of Independence, it was briefly Russia via Czechoslovakia, then Britain, then France, and that intermeshed with the nuclear issues, and since ’67, the United States.

    [4] And the fourth was the ingathering of the exiles. Mass immigration, and here Ben-Gurion radically slashed military budgets. Yigael Yadin, the second chief of staff, resigned in protest and Ben-Gurion said, I need the money to bring hundreds of thousands of holocaust survivors, Moroccan Jews, Iraqi Jews, and give us critical mass. “

    Where will Israel go now?

    With whom will Israel form a superpower alliance?

    Will Israel keep its arms wrapped around the USA neck as the USA goes down, or (more likely) will Israel kick USA as the superpower’s military life jacket deflates, and Israel puts into play the strategy Shalom Wald drafted on Israel-China relations for the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute under the direction of Dennis Ross?

    Alpher said that, in the absence of Iran, formerly one of its three periphery pillars, Israel was establishing a periphery relationship with Saudi Arabia. What’s fascinating about this is that Periphery Doctrine’s raison d’être was protection against the surrounding, hostile Arabs!

  69. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The official narrative of 9/11 is a physical impossibility.

    Commercial airliners cannot be flown at or near sea level at – according to the claims of the NTSB – air speeds well above their maximum operating capacity at cruising altitude (approximately 35,000 feet).

    Amateur pilots (one was not even allowed to rent a single engine Cessna because he was unable to control it in flight) could not perform miracles of aviation which experienced airline pilots with time in type could not duplicate in a professional simulator with crash logic enabled.

    A light, hollow, mostly aluminum and fiberglass fuselage and light aluminum wings cannot withstand impact with fourteen inch wide perimeter box columns consisting of four sides of one quarter inch structural steel, much sturdier steel spandrels and concrete floor pans. Most of the aircraft would have been shredded and fallen to the street below the point of impact; the jet fuel would likely have ignited on the outside of the building.

    The alleged flight path of UA 77 (which is claimed to have struck the Pentagon) is a physical impossibility. A Boeing 757 cannot be flown at such high speeds a few feet above ground level due to ground effect; there is no evidence whatsoever that a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

    A gravity collapse due to hydrocarbon based office fires could not possibly account for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Most of the Towers were literally disintegrated and blown across lower Manhattan in a dust cloud.

    All indications point to small nuclear devices planted in the sub basement levels: electromagnetic pulse – vehicles not struck by debris or close to any fires burst into flame while pieces of office paper did not combust. There were seismic events consistent with underground explosions; there was a mushroom cloud and a fireball (look at the videos of the collapse of WTC1) which is identical to that produced by a small tactical nuclear explosion. In addition, there were fires raging for months after 9/11, fires so hot they could not be cooled by water.

    (There are small nuclear weapons which produce very little fallout.)

    These are just a few of the reasons the official story cannot possibly be true.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  70. Ex Machina says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    “Will Israel keep its arms wrapped around the USA neck as the USA goes down, or (more likely) will Israel kick USA as the superpower’s military life jacket deflates, and Israel puts into play the strategy Shalom Wald drafted on Israel-China relations for the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute under the direction of Dennis Ross?”

    I’m not sure if this is any indication, but I always took it as such: Formerly a reader of The New Yorker, I would see the occasional article over the years discussing Jews cuddling up to China, from kosher inspectors of Chinese food to Jewish businessmen working with China. I think once the US has successfully been transmogrified into a 3rd-world cesspool, we’ll be thrown to the curb like the cheap whore we are.

  71. @Mulegino1

    Well that’s a relief. After being cslled from the other side of the world late on 11th September 2001 my time I have this memory of seeing airliners fly into the twin towers. Thank G it didm’t happen.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  72. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Nice to see government trolls (or paid subcontractors) RE: 09/11.

    All the information on the topic by engineers is here:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/05/important-ae911truth-seeks-aia-call-911-investigation/

    &

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/

    According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, the vaunted National Security State of the World’s Only Superpower was defeated by a few young Saudi Arabians armed only with box cutters. The American National Security State proved to be totally helpless and was dealt the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on any country claiming to be a power.

    That day no aspect of the National Security State worked. Everything failed.

    The US Air Force for the first time in its history could not get interceptor jet fighters into the air.

    The National Security Council failed.

    All sixteen US intelligence agencies failed as did those of America’s NATO and Israeli allies.

    Air Traffic Control failed.

    Airport Security failed four times at the same moment on the same day. The probability of such a failure is zero.

    If such a thing had actually happened, there would have been demands from the White House, from Congress, and from the media for an investigation. Officials would have been held accountable for their failures. Heads would have rolled.

    Instead, the White House resisted for one year the 9/11 families’ demands for an investigation. Finally, a collection of politicians was assembled to listen to the government’s account and to write it down. The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission have said that information was withheld from the commission, lies were told to the commission, and that the commission “was set up to fail.” The worst security failure in history resulted in not a single firing. No one was held responsible.

    Washington concluded that 9/11 was possible because America lacked a police state.

    The PATRIOT Act, which was awaiting the event was quickly passed by the congressional idiots. The Act established executive branch independence of law and the Constitution. The Act and follow-up measures have institutionalized a police state in “the land of the free.”

    Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset dying of renal failure, was blamed despite his explicit denial. For the next ten years Osama bin Laden was the bogyman that provided the excuse for Washington to kill countless numbers of Muslims. Then suddenly on May 2, 2011, Obama claimed that US Navy SEALs had killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Eyewitnesses on the scene contradicted the White House’s story. Osama bin Laden became the only human in history to survive renal failure for ten years. There was no dialysis machine in what was said to be bin Laden’s hideaway. The numerous obituaries of bin Laden’s death in December 2001 went down the memory hole. And the SEAL team died a few weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier from which bin Laden was said to have been dumped into the Indian Ocean wrote home that no such burial took place.

  73. AP says:
    @Rurik

    Man, so much nonsense in one post. You’ve hit all the fake-news talking points that Russians transmit.

    They spent five billion dollars fomenting a violent putsch against a democratically elected (if admittedly corrupt) government.

    The five billion dollars alluded to was the sum total of all foreign aid since independence in 1991. The full quote was “Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991 the United States have supported Ukrainians to build democratic skills and institutions as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are pre-conditions for Ukraine to achieve the European aspirations. We have invested over 5 bn dollars to assist Ukraine in these goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous democratic Ukraine” That includes stuff like funding for hospitals, capital investments, grants to schools, etc. Over 20 years. I don’t think they were planning to overthrow Yanukovich in 1991.

    Crimea has been a part of Russia for hundreds of years.

    So was Poland, Finland, and the Baltics. Ireland was British for far longer. How long did Serbia belong to the Ottomans?

    Crimea was annexed in 1783. As late as 1897 only about a third of its people were ethnic Russians (feel free to google the Russian census of 1897). It was a hotbed of the White movement, so many of the native Russians there were probably slaughtered by the Bolsheviks. Thus, Crimea’s Russian-ness is a 20th century Soviet phenomenon and most of Crimea’s native ethnic Russians are the descendants of Soviet-era settlers. It’s a place where their people have lived for decades, not centuries.

    Currently the majority of Crimea’s people are Russians and prefer to be part of Russia, but don’t pretend that this situation is ancient or historical, rather than quite recent. Kosovo has been majority-Albanian much longer than Crimea has been majority-Russian.

    In fact the ‘break-away’ parts of Ukraine that we’re talking about were part of Russia too until the 1950s when (Ukrainian) Khrushchev incorporated them in into the Ukraine

    Nope. Khrushchev gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s. Not the rebel regions.

    This is fairly basic history.

    They’re Russians and speak Russian

    They speak Russian (as does Kiev, as Dublin speaks English) but the population in Donbas was less than half ethnic Russian. Donetsk oblast was 38% Russian and Luhansk oblast 39.1% Russian in the last census. The urban, rebel-controlled parts may be around 50% ethnic Russian.

    Nuland installed the neo-Nazis in Kiev, they passed laws against the Russian speaking peoples

    I assume you are alluding to the infamous language bill that were never signed and thus never became law.

    Soon after the revolution the post-revolutionary Ukrainian parliament passed a bill that cancelled the 2011 language law, reverting Ukraine’s linguistic situation to how it had been prior to 2011. That would have given Russian the same status in Ukraine as Spanish has in the USA. Are Spanish-speakers persecuted in the USA?

    Of course, the law was never signed so it never became a law in Ukraine. It just became fodder for hysterical and ignorant enemies of Ukraine’s new government.

  74. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The most important central banks are the Fed, the Bank of England, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Chinese central bank. Can you name a single Zionist with any influence in any of them?

    Hey Wiz – how about Greenspan et al – the Fed has been run by Jews for over 30 years straight.

    You hasbara lemmings are a joke!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Wizard of Oz
  75. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The principles of ballistics and simple physics, such as Newton’s Third Law do not succumb to the claims of mass media, however authoritatively proclaimed.

    Some flying objects probably hit the Twin Towers – but they were not passenger airliners. Have you ever seen the damage even a collision at high speeds with a large bird – a light bunch of feathers, thin skin and a hard beak – can cause the fuselage of a passenger airliner? Now imagine a collision with the massive perimeter box columns and concrete floors of the WTC.

    There is an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance among the demographic that accepts the official version. Even when shown an abundance of evidence that the official version is a manifestly ludicrous fairy tale, they simply cannot comprehend how their government – and its affiliated media – could lie to them on such a monstrous scale.

    Tell me that this is not a huge explosion:

  76. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    …You obviously don’t know even what the central banks are. The most important central banks are the Fed, the Bank of England, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Chinese central bank. Can you name a single Zionist with any influence in any of them? And if they did have great influence what central bank policies would assist the Zionist cause?

    I can’t wait for the delicious concoctions that might be served as answers to the question at the end! The abject ignorance on display on this forum, regarding the major CBs is quite unmatched.

    Recently, I had on another thread written about the Fed and other CBs, to the chagrin of the gatekeeper of the UR, who proceeded to charge me with the crime of pushing the MSM view and “ideas that anyone can find on the Web”! Actually, the odd thing – naively I thought at the time – was that the internet being chock full of these bats-in-the-belfry theories of monetarist conspiracies, I was simply offering a more internally consistent read. It was not to be accepted as such. For logic and reason, so decided here seminally, are afterthoughts, and not the necessary and sufficient conditions Western tradition demands.

    It further struck me (similar to your own suspicions, and those of @Numinous, @jb), do these denizens actually ever reflect on their unflinching raison d’etre, and wonder about the world, which by all indications of time spent posting endless, putrid, miasma of Holocaust denialism, central bank conspiracy, etc., seems to be offering them no toil at all, and therefore might actually offer a measure of insight?

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  77. Art says:
    @Sam Shama

    Oh my – the little Jew hasbara lemmings are busy again – aren’t they cute. Today’s screech.

    “Jews have nothing to do with money, banks, or the Fed – you Gentile people are just too stupid to even be thinking about it.”

    “Why do you think a Jew has been in charge of the Fed for over 30 straight years?”

    “We are the chosen ones to run your society – look at what a good job we are doing.”

    “Just shut up!”

  78. Boy, the comments for this article went off into the long grass and never came back out. It’s supposed to be about Russia, its friends, neighbours and rivals. Here’s a YouTube video with 7.3 million views to get the conversation back on track:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65SwzHAbes

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  79. Seraphim says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    @Where will Israel go now?

    It was all spelled out in detail (no secret, conspiracy theory whatsoever) in:

    “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East”
    Translated and edited by Israel Shahak

    The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

    In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
    Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

    from Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982
    @http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

    For updates consult: ‘From the “Yinon Plan” to the “Ya’alon Strategy”‘, by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme @http://www.voltairenet.org/article186019.html

  80. Seraphim says:
    @Art

    @Can you name a single Zionist with any influence in any of them?”

    Rothschild?

  81. @Rurik

    It is the iLLuminati Hegelian Dialectic in operation where

    thesis = anglo/american world hegemony

    antithesis = eurasia world hegemony

    synthesis = One World Luciferian Satanic Government

  82. @Cagey Beast

    There’s an even better video by the same team made last year explaining to Russian keyboard warriors why Putin cannot invade Ukraine and why the US/NATO gang want him to. It’s at YouTube under the title: ” Что ждёт Россию, если Путин введёт войска | Why Putin won’t send troops to Ukraine “.

  83. @Wizard of Oz

    My company just informed me that you are fully qualified to buy our wonderful little bridge in the middle of the Sahara desert .

  84. @jb

    You also are fully qualified to buy that bridge in the middle of the Sahara desert .

  85. MarkinLA says:

    A light, hollow, mostly aluminum and fiberglass fuselage and light aluminum wings cannot withstand impact with fourteen inch wide perimeter box columns consisting of four sides of one quarter inch structural steel, much sturdier steel spandrels and concrete floor pans. Most of the aircraft would have been shredded and fallen to the street below the point of impact; the jet fuel would likely have ignited on the outside of the building.

    I don’t have any dog in this fight but this claim is not reality.

    The idea that an airliner could not break the usually thin skin of an office building doesn’t make sense. Once the nose broke through the rest of the fuselage would continue to burrow in doing damage as the kinetic energy is translated into heat.

    The plane has a mass and as this mass hits something there is a huge pressure increase at the point of impact. This raises the temperature extremely high. The idea that temperature of the fire due the jet fuel not being high enough means that the building has to stand doesn’t take into account the damage done via kinetic energy to the columns. They could be shot through with holes or have so many deformities that it would have come down eventually without the fire.

    The US military anti-armor round for the M-1 tank has no warhead. It is a depleted uranium dart surrounded by a sabot so it can be shot out of it’s smooth bore cannon at a very high velocity. It has a lot mass and velocity at around 7000 fps. It burns through armor and spawls that molten metal onto the tank crew inside. When it hits the armor the pressure is enormous and melts the armor. The mass not in contact pushes forward keeping the pressure on and forcing its way through the armor that can be many inches thick. As the dart moves forward more metal is melted and it is pushed forward as well as to the side as the heat from the impact point spreads out.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  86. @Art

    “” Western governments can NEVER pay back the Zionist central bankers – because of that debt, Zionism owns the people of the West. “”

    Not exactly . Zionists own Western sheeple because the sheeple are inveterately obsessed with a vast reservoir of ignorance about the judeo-masonic iLLuminati criminal money monopoly .

  87. @Mulegino1

    A major problem is actually the lack of cognitive dissonance among the sheeple demographic . The main theory for the lack is that most of the sheeple have been successfully psychologicly lobotimized by the fedgov via brainwashing by the education establishment and the msm .

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  88. Sean1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Yeah, you didn’t really seem to interpret the 9/11 reference all that well. While there was no choreographed “inside job” all the truthers, armchair internet conspiracy buffs, and other people with no significant background (and usually no formal education derived from) in engineering, aviation, physics and chemistry, sure thought it was. He way he U.S. handled 9/11 and subsequent military maneuvers around the globe, it may as well have been a massive conspiracy, it certainly fed a lot of fuel to the crackpots.

    It was around 2005 I remember the sabre rattling between the U.S. and Iran was particularly heated. I was serving in Afghanistan at the time and it really looked like either side was looking for any flashpoint to start a shooting war. You have to remember, Iraq was still under American occupation, as was and still is Afghanistan.

    You can’t tell me some every blowhard who gets their kicks off divining Illuminati symbols in American money was salivating at a confrontation.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  89. @AP

    Excuse me. What do you think the popular will of the people of the Crimea is? There was a referendum in which the vast majority voted to rejoin Russia. There were international observers who confirmed the honesty of the vote.

    Why do you believe that the popular will of the people of Crimea should be ignored?

    • Replies: @AP
  90. @MarkinLA

    the building has to stand doesn’t take into account the damage done via kinetic energy to the columns

    Excuse me, I think you do not have a very good conceptual model of these things — in particular, the nature of a steel framed skyscraper, and the relative scale of the physical objects involved. The steel frame of each of the twin towers had a mass of about 100,000 tons of steel, very hard, strong structural steel. Each Boeing passenger plane that allegedly crashed into the respective buildings had a mass of about 100 tons. The idea that a 100 ton thin aluminium tube can crash into 100 thousand tons of structural steel and cause the whole thing to disintegrate in short order is, in fact, preposterous.

    Regardless, there was a third building, the one whose collapse was reported by the BBC half an hour before it took place, that was definitely not hit by any airplane and the official story is that this third, steel framed skyscraper collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical way as a result of randomly spreading office fires. Think about that.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  91. annamaria says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The Chinese alia to Israel in action:

    Looking for a new host: http://jfjfp.com/?p=67891
    Cost of Israel for the US taxpayers: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34485.htm

  92. @Sam Shama

    endless, putrid, miasma of Holocaust denialism, central bank conspiracy, etc.,

    Hmm, on the face of it, what do these things have in common? Holocaust revisionism on the one hand, and on the other hand, a desire to bring the Fed and these other central banks under democratic accountability?

    Prima facie, the two things would seem to have about as much to do with one another as a fish and a bicycle…

    So.. why would one conflate the two things into a single “putrid miasma”? You are saying in essence that the very same people who believe there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz also believe we should audit the Fed…

    So… I mean to say, hold on… if you are saying that the belief that the Fed should be audited and under democratic control is an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” comparable to “holocaust denialism”, then aren’t you tacitly admitting that the Fed IS under judaeo-zionist control? Or what is going on here….

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  93. annamaria says:
    @AP

    Could you be more on point? Have you tried to convince the readers that the US State Dept. has nothing to do with the coup d’etat in Kiev, with the installment of a set of corrupt oligarchs that suit the US in the Ukrainian government instead of the previous set of corrupt oligarchs? If this was your goal, you failed, since there are too many facts supporting the narrative that the US government has been fomenting a military conflict on a border of the Russian Federation. If you are not aware about the dangers of nuclear war, please google the pertinent information.

    • Replies: @AP
  94. @masterslave

    The main theory for the lack is that most of the sheeple have been successfully psychologicly lobotimized by the fedgov via brainwashing by the education establishment and the msm .

    Yes, the “hidden elites” have been systemically mind-manipulating not only the American people but the world, at least since the Creel Commission and Edward (Freud) Bernays ** coordinated Hollywood, the PR biz, and war profiteers, through Woodrow Wilson’s governmental agencies to heat up hatred of the Hun to get USA into WWI so that Chaim Weizmann could deliver on his side of the bargain: US in WWI in exchange for Palestine for Jews.

    Warner Brothers and all the other Hollywood studios at the time were run by Eastern European Jews. Federal government collaboration gave them a tremendous boost.

    James Risen just exposed another major participant in that industrial complex,
    the American Psychological Association provides cover for the work of psychologists who design torture programs — er, interrogation techniques.

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg, and the NYTimes limited exposure to torture techniques.

    To what extent is the US government collaborating with the psychology industry, coordinating it with Hollywood and infotainment/MSM to systematically torture — condition the body politic into hating some designated Other?

    The Saker treats of three of the US’s enemies, meaning targets for overthrow, Russia, China and Iran. I listen to C Span a lot. No program or congressional hearing that mentions Iran fails to attach to Iran the words, “cannot be trusted.” It’s become automatic, now it’s all one word: IranCannotBeTrusted. But the historical reality is that truth-telling is a value as deeply embedded in Iranian culture as lying is in zionism — Israel operates by way of deception; Zoroastrianism, the core of the Iranian psyche, is all about reverence for Asha, truth.

    Similar memes have been propagated to denigrate Russia and China.

    Who dreamed up those memes? Is there a Psych Ops Central within the US government that coordinates with Hollywood and MSM to condition the American people to hate some designated other, and does the American Psychological Association give it cover? Robert Aumann at Israel’s Institute for Rationality performs such functions for Israel; is this one more source through which Israeli deviance has been infiltrated into US culture?

    If the American people want to change their distorted culture, then they need to plunge a hemlock stake in the heart of the psy ops elites who are running it.

    ** History as a weapon
    ORGANIZING CHAOS

    THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
    We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
    Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
    They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

  95. @Mulegino1

    This must be some misguided practical joke designed to make people cross because they don’t see the leg-pull. After all I was alerted by a telephone call to watch BBC TV late on 9/11 when it was morning in NYC and I saw the aircraft flying into the towers as well as the street scenes and vox pops. On top of explaining what I saw you would also have to explain what happened to four airliners and their passengers.

    Please stop wasting people’s time and demeaning a website with the potential to make a valuable non MSM contribution.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Mulegino1
  96. @Art

    You display the usual deficiencies which leave only the puzzle “knave or fool?”.

    What evidence have you that Greenspan, Bernanke, or any of the other Jews on the Fed boards are influential Zionists? Answering that would be the closest you came to a relevant response. However it is more telling that you haven’t said anything about the other central banks I mentioned. And, the big one as Sam Shama pointed out, what central bank policies could further the Zionist cause?

    • Replies: @Art
  97. Hunsdon says:

    I am thrilled to see The Saker here at the Unz Review. The comment sections on any article dealing with Russia tend to go, ahem, thermonuclear. I don’t mind that, so long as we keep it in the comment sections.

    All we need now is for HA and Matra to show up, to explain to us how evil all Russians are.

  98. […] originally written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/ […]

  99. @annamaria

    Thank you for your consideration. Hitherto I had been inclined to give you the credit for being an earnest, if not very bright, mildly obsessive person anxious to achieve some sense of significance in an unsatisfactory life (probably unemployed rather than retired to explain the time you can give to something you care about without having any expertise for either factual research or analytical thinking). Now I see the problem goes further, extending to an inability not just to read and understand much of what others right but to discern what kind of discouse they are engaged in when they have no barrow to push but merely a distaste for people carrying on with pretentious or ranting nonsense when such people wouldn’t get a second interview (even if their written work got them a first) for admission to one’s few spots for PhD by thesis supervision. I’m afraid you are one that I have heard enough from but will do you the courtesy of supposing that you might take time to consider

    on how the Maidan affair was started, and

    which was obviously far beyond the CIA to fake effectively so must have been contracted out to Mossad – or gee, might be as convincingly true proof that Putin lied about Russian soldiers being in the Ukraine. Not very smart to use Siberian troops of Asian appearance who post dozens of selfies on social media!

  100. @Wizard of Oz

    After all I was alerted by a telephone call to watch BBC TV late on 9/11 when it was morning in NYC and I saw the aircraft flying into the towers

    Yeah, on 9/11 someone in the office had a TV and we watched the video pictures — moving pictures, i.e. live, real-time pictures of the planes flying into the tower.

    Never thought about that before.

    Who took those real-time moving pictures?

    Amazing coincidence that someone was at the right place at the right time with the right equipment to take real-time video of the plane flying into the first tower.

  101. @Realist

    I withdraw what you call a euphemism. On a subject on which we are probably equally ignorant but on which I have fewer prejudices I see that someone has made a case on this blog for the $5 billion being for humanitarian purposes over about 10 years. If a CIA officer happened to turn up on a particular date what evidence is that of anything? What did this one person do FFS? What did he do or find out that couldn’t have been done on the field telephone or pedal wireless?

  102. @Wizard of Oz

    Citizens of the Russian Federation and other foreign volunteers have been fighting and dying alongside the ethnic Russian and Ukrainian rebels in Donbass; no one has ever claimed otherwise. Have Russian Federation troops fought in Ukraine? That’s another question. Putin and the rest of the Russian Federation has to walk a tightrope with World War III on one side and the massacre and mass expulsion of the citizens of the Donbass region on the other. People should be glad the RF is playing cute on this matter; they’re saving us in the West and Ukraine from the malpractice of our own political class.

    I suppose they could entirely restrain themselves and send no assistance to their fellow Russians on the other side of a badly drawn, twenty-something year-old international border but I guess they’re still not westernized enough to sell their countrymen down the river the way we can.

  103. @SolontoCroesus

    As you think that is important no doubt you have taken the trouble to identify which were the first video pictures. I don’t remember whether anyone with serious commercial video equipment captured the first tower being hit (a tourist’s could-have-been accidental video doesn’t count for the conspiracy obviously). Doing a quick search I find on the first page a reference to Pres Bush lying when he said there was live video of the first tower being struck. You conspiracy theorists really are the people who should get your stories straight. After all it is you that are under suspicion of being mad in the MSM and half the blogosphere. BTW if anyone was forewarned so the video clips could be good quality why wouldn’t it be Osama bin Laden’s team that gave the tip off? In short, even if tip offs were proved what would that prove?

  104. Hitherto I had been inclined to give you the credit for being an earnest, if not very bright, mildly obsessive person anxious to achieve some sense of significance in an unsatisfactory life (probably unemployed rather than retired to explain the time you can give to something you care about without having any expertise for either factual research or analytical thinking).

    Wizard of Oz – originated posts, The Saker article: 19 make that 20

    annamarina – originated posts, The Saker article: 5

    I’d do the word-count but there’s a stack of essays to correct for grammar and syntax. bizzee bizzee bizzee.

    Now I see the problem goes further, extending to an inability not just to read and understand much of what others right [sic] but to discern what kind of discouse [sic] they are engaged in when they have no barrow to push but merely a distaste for people carrying on with pretentious or ranting nonsense

    not to mention ran-on sentences.

    when such people wouldn’t get a second interview (even if their written work got them a first) for admission to one’s few spots for PhD by thesis supervision.

    Sounds like some personal problems working themselves to the surface.
    Say — also sounds just like Sam Shama; s/he is an arrogant sob who affects Britishisms, and s/he’s got a PhD, so s/he has told this forum (although, are you hinting that even though your righting was good enough for a first not even your nepotic network could get you into the PhD program you pined for?) Perhaps you & Sam know each other? Work for the same outfit?

    I’m afraid you are one [or two] that [we all] have heard enough from

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @Wizard of Oz
  105. AP says:
    @annamaria

    My point was quite clear. Rurik regurgitated a bunch of false statements. I corrected those inaccuracies. Shame on the pro-Russians who knew better but refused to do so.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  106. AP says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Excuse me. What do you think the popular will of the people of the Crimea is?

    I wrote it clearly. You should have read more carefully, sorry:

    “Currently the majority of Crimea’s people are Russians and prefer to be part of Russia, but don’t pretend that this situation is ancient or historical, rather than quite recent. Kosovo has been majority-Albanian much longer than Crimea has been majority-Russian. ”

    There was a referendum in which the vast majority voted to rejoin Russia. There were international observers who confirmed the honesty of the vote.

    The referendum was with North Korea-style results. A majority would have preferred Russia (I’d estimate it would have been 65%-70%) but ran a fake one with 97% supporting union.

    The observers were largely a collection of neo-Nazis and Stalinists, with a few non-extreme and decent Euroskeptics thrown in. There’s a list of them here, feel free to google the names yourself to corroborate:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/03/pro-russian-extremists-observe.html

  107. KA says:
    @AP

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/17/ukraine-war-spreads-across-russian-border/

    Nazi and anti nazi demarcation is written on the sand of this unnecessary conflict .

  108. @Wizard of Oz

    I watched the Vice News video and it’s reasonable and most likely truthful except in two spots near the beginning and then at the end. Simon Ostrovsky’s voice-over editorial (starting around the 22.12 mark) is inaccurate. He assigns motives to the Russian government I don’t think it has and suggests a pro-western consensus in Ukrainian that’s clearly not there. In brief, he’s blaming the Russian Federation for the mess.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    , @Wizard of Oz
  109. @AP

    The referendum was with North Korea-style results. A majority would have preferred Russia (I’d estimate it would have been 65%-70%) but ran a fake one with 97% supporting union.

    Steve Sailer pointed out at the time that such landslide wins are quite common in such cases:
    Secession Referendums That Win, Win Big
    Steve Sailer • March 21, 2014

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/secession-referendums-that-win-win-big/

    It’s an interesting quirk of mass psychology, I guess.

    • Replies: @AP
  110. @Cagey Beast

    I should have typed: “… suggests a pro-western consensus in Ukraine“.

  111. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Both Holocaust denial and Zionist-Fed, are products of feverished minds searching for the “conspiracy drug”, in a manner of speaking.

    On Central Banks: The U.S. Fed is the most important CB for the world economy. It belongs to the member banks, acts as a Federal regulator of financial institutions, conducts monetary policy and most importantly assumes the role of the lender of last resort to the US economy, and indeed arguably to the western bloc (as evidenced by dollar swaps entered with the ECB during 2008-2010). The BoE, ECB, BoJ and to some extent the Chinese Central Bank co-ordinate their actions with the Fed to maintain stability in global markets.

    The Fed – to disappoint the conspiracy aficionados – is for all intents and purposes “audited” by the member banks and its financials (balance sheet, flow statements and OMOs) are openly available for all citizens to view, with weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual updates (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst.htm ) . This is in fact more transparent than any private or government entity. So what does further “audit” by Congress mean? For most purposes, it accomplishes nothing beyond what is already practised. The reality of such action, reduces most likely, to a detrimental bureaucratic interference from a body (Congress), which is perennially caught in impasse, and has little comprehension of monetary policy. It will be a disaster. (What global savings mismatches have wrought in recent years, and the role of the Fed/BoE/ECB/BoJ to counter these is a separate discussion)

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  112. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It’s you who are wasting people’s time with your regurgitation of mainstream media propaganda, fit only for very low information infotainment consumers.

    You didn’t see anything “real time” or “live”. If you will do a search on Youtube for “Chopper 4 9/11″ you can see for yourself that no large commercial airliner hit WTC 2; it clearly shows some small indeterminate flying object descending steeply into the building.

    Think about it – all those news helicopters aloft over lower Manhattan yet not a single one of them managed to convincingly cover the approach- which should have been visible miles out – and impact of a large commercial airliner, yet a bunch of amateurs managed to capture the approach and impact from numerous locations. And these same amateurs – even from the same vantage point, managed to have entirely different objects – including one that looks like a hybrid of a goose and a B-52 bomber, and another with its left wing vanished – not only striking the building but maintaining constant speed, which is not possible according to Newton’s Third Law.

    You think you saw commercial airliners fly into the buildings because that’s what you were told you saw by authority figures in the mainstream media. You have traded in your critical thinking skills for a flat screen.

  113. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “What evidence have you that Greenspan, Bernanke, or any of the other Jews on the Fed boards are influential Zionists?”

    Can you tell a bigger lie – no Zionist has hurt America more the Bubbles Greenspan. The junk bond takeover of the American corporation, the saving and lone debacle, the internet bubble, the housing bubble – were all financed by the ease credit policy of Bubbles. He put America in debt. They all transferred established wealth to the Jews. They all have powered the Jewish takeover of our establishments.

    As for you Wiz –– you are just another little lemming Jew proudly blurring the truth and lying for your tribe – doing your best to intimidate and cower honest America – digging your people deeper and deeper in the abyss of hatred. Shame on you.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  114. Rurik says:
    @AP

    I guess what you’re suggesting is that the people of Crimea should be forced to suffer the persecution of the illegal and violent putsch that installed a regime far more corrupt than the one it ousted. Porky and his crew are OBVIOUSLY a quisling operation of the beast from DC, Tel Aviv and London and Porky’s job is to foment war on their behalf. I guess you’re an apologist for this pathetic and murderous state of affairs, eh?

    I don’t have to live in Ukraine to know how corrupt and contemptuous of international law, (or any laws) that our current government in DC is. And so when we send some revolting hag over there to haughtily decide who is going to be in their quisling government, as it burns people alive in buildings, bombs civilians and blows passenger jets out of the sky, all the while blaming Putin for all of it, even if I may be mistaken about a detail or two, I sure the hell am not mistaken about who the bad guys are. (Nuland and her Kagan family and the western war mongers of every stripe who bombed Serbia in order to break that country apart but then act like Crimea needs to always and eternally stay in Ukraine’s hands no matter what. They’re completely corrupt liars and murderous fiends.

    Ukraine is a unique place. The citizens of the West look (tragically at a completely corrupt, banker controlled) West as their cultural brothers, whereas those in the East, tend to look East to Russia, where they’re more connected ethnically and culturally.

    It’s that fault line that the banksters are cynically manipulating by using the Ukrainian neo-Nazis as their thugs. They want to punish Putin for not letting them bomb Syria into the stone age just like they did Libya. That’s what this is all about. Getting Putin to submit to their demands. They demand that none dare question their domination of the entire planet.

    Personally since I believe in self-determination for all people, I think the best thing for all involved would be for those in the east to split with those in the west and let them all go their separate ways, no matter what Nuland or Putin said. People have a right to decide for themselves what kind of government and culture they want. imho

  115. @Seraphim

    Perhaps I should invite Annamarina to prove that she is at least half as bright as she seems to think she is by finding a way to get through to “Seraphim” that this is a cretinously stupid reply to what it purports to be responding to. I can’t be bothered wasting my time any longer. Indeed the sooner Ron gets round to providing the personal filter one needs to exclude in one click all the maddies one has identified the happier I shall be.

  116. Mulegino1 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Stalin was a “wrench in the works” to the Atlanticist-Zionists; he was undoubtedly a brutal man, but he rose to power in a brutal system dominated by Jews, to whom he became increasingly wise, and eventually hostile, which most likely led to his death by poisoning.

    The origins of the Cold War, in my opinion, are not to be found in the aftermath of the Second World War but in the struggle for power between Stalin and Trotsky-Bronstein. There is no doubt in my mind that the latter would have exceeded Stalin’s brutality a hundredfold. Trotsky wanted the destruction of traditional society – the family, religion, traditional morality, etc. Stalin, who desired to build socialism in one state, was smart enough to realize that to accomplish this a stable society was required. Once Stalin prevailed, the hostility of communist Jewry to Stalin was immediate and manifest.

    Once the great preemptive strike (Operation Barbarossa) began against the Soviet forces staging for the invasion of Europe in the summer of 1941, and the Red Army was in full retreat, Stalin realized that his men would not fight for the abstractions of dialectical materialism. This was the inspiration for the “Great Patriotic War” theme, which, ironically, leads straight to the heart of present day Russia and Vladimir Putin. Stalin restored the Orthodox patriarchate and opened the churches. The struggle now took on an entirely new dimension of defense of “Mother Russia” and Orthodox civilization. (At least that is how it is perceived in most of Russia today.)

    As for Churchill and F.D.R., there is no doubt that they and their cohorts bear the lion’s share of guilt for the Second World War itself, not to mention the destruction of Europe. Both men knew that the coming war had nothing to do with German aggression or “freedom” but was to be fought to eliminate Germany as a rival to Anglo-American commercial and financial supremacy.

    Much is made – rightly so – of Red Army brutality in the occupied countries.

    However, the introduction of area bombing – including the Lindemann Plan to deliberately target the more dense working class housing in order to increase the number of victims – is one of the most ghastly crimes imaginable. It is a documented fact that Hitler wanted to limit aerial bombing to combat zones. It was Churchill who implemented this horrendous and criminal wave of destruction – with his characteristic “gusto”. He would delight in his bombers destroying a city and killing tens of thousands of men, women and children as he would delight in gobbling caviar or drinking his snifters of brandy.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  117. @Art

    And that is meant to answer the question?

    And a bit more than BTW what did Bernanke have to do with the savings and loan debacle? Do you even know when it occurred?

    What evidence have you that I am Jewish? I have no such evidence even of Jewish genes going back to about 1400 AD anyway. But you just swing words round wildly don’t you?

    I shall presume that you are not actually certifiably mad and on that basis ask whether you cannot feel or simply don’t feel shame when you should. Your abysmal ignorance of banking, especially central banking, on which I called you should have you hiding your face and, on this blog perhaps, changeing your name and trying a fresh start.

    • Replies: @Art
  118. @Mulegino1

    Would you care to provide reference to the parts of the well documented correspondence and reports of conversations between Churchill and Roosevelt or their correspondence or diary noted discussions with others which supports your assertions in the par about them and WW2?

    And specifically would you deal with the awkward fact that WW2 began in September 1939 so your evidence about R and C has to pertain to a time earlier than that according to your own choice of words about “the coming war”.

    Then you might attend to what anyone with an old fashioned traditional good education might notice as odd. You don’t actually say that the war was started by Churchill or Roosevelt or “their cohorts” but that they knew it would be fought to eliminate Germany as a rival etc. Don’t you see something odd about the assertion that Germany and Russia agreed to carve up Poland (while they each plotted to attack the other) in order to protect the US and Britain from business competition?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  119. annamaria says:
    @AP

    To reiterate: Are you trying to convince the readers that the US State Dept. has nothing to do with the coup d’etat in Kiev?

    • Replies: @AP
  120. @Cagey Beast

    Congratulations on emerging from the asylum (most blog comments that have latched on to this article) with wit intact to accept that Putin lied about Russian soldiers not being in the Ukraine!

  121. @Wizard of Oz

    Please set out your case. My understanding is that the supposedly mysterious failures of the buildings’ structures (so someone must have planted bombs!) has been explained by the amount of aviation fuel which the aircraft were carrying

    2,200 certified architects & engineers have set out the case already:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/12/1617/

    ^ The fuel could net generate the necessary heat

  122. annamaria says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In your response, you have not addressed the main points in my post:
    1. The former president of Ukraine was an oligarch and thief, but he was democratically elected.
    2. The current president is a oligarch and thief that was “elected” without the participation of east Ukrainians.
    3. The east Ukrainians wanted federalization; for this wish they were attacked by Kiev junta. The civil war was initiated, most likely, on a strong advice of Poroschenko’s main benefactors at the US Depart.; the US “representatives” have been entrenched in Kiev since the Maidan Revolution.
    4. There are the direct evidences of the US involvement in the Maidan revolution in Kiev, including the recorded conversation (laced with Cheneyesque obscenities) of Nuland-Kagan with Pyatt; the visit of the Director of CIA to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine; the participation of the paramilitaries from Lviv during Maidan to create a mess (listen to Ashton conversation on this matter), and the betrayal of the memory of the WWII by using European neo-nazis against the east Ukrainian federalists and supporting the presence of Ukrainian neo-nazis in Kiev government.
    5. The behavior of the US Zionist re Ukraine is a grave insult to the memory of Holocaust. Nuland-Kagan (a progeny of east European Jews) has been personally supporting the neo-nazi leaders in Ukraine. An Israeli citizen Kolomojsky has been a sponsor of the neo-nazi Azov battalion that committed unspeakable atrocities in Odessa; yet Kolomojsky was praised in the Wall Street Journal’ article.
    MSM had been denying any information about US/neo-nazi cooperation in Ukraine until the US Congress finally denounced the cooperation: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/12/u-s-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine/

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-training-neo-nazis-in-ukraine.html

  123. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    When a person writes extemporaneously, valiantly producing succinct output over the opposition – for we are debating, are we not? – a few negligible typos are inevitable. It falls on you @Anyanonymous (?), to observe cretinishly, the obvious, unintended slips of @Wizard. By way of proffering your own (dis)abilities, you predictaby hurl ad hominem , the typical resort of the knave. No wit, or readable prose to temper the rubbish either!

    Naturally, the gatekeepers are free to filter any comment they so wish. One does gather that comments from my like-minded readership are rudely interrupting your drug intake. So do just consider our actions, attempts to keep society, drug-free. That might be the thin end of the wedge for you, but nevertheless it is good public policy!

    Conspiracy theories are attractive, and one becomes used to this “….stolid, complacent return of serve: so apparently grounded in reason and scepticism, but so often naive and one-dimensional. In one way, these theories need be no more than the mind’s needful search for an explanation, or for an alternative to credulity”. Consider this carefully before the addiction becomes irreversible. Also, respond with objectivity (Or perish the thought?!!)

    • Replies: @Art
    , @SolontoCroesus
  124. For all you Mafia-buffs in the crowd, I think I can succinctly summarize The Saker’s main argument here by way of analogy:

    After the end of Cold War 1, Washington decided to transform itself into capo di tutti capi; they decided to establish their ‘New World Order’ which has led to endless wars and chaos. But now Russia and China have had enough and have jointly decided to put together a ‘Commission’ like Lucky Luciano’s, so as to jointly handle security issues, reduce the level of chaos and maximize industrial growth and profits.

    Pretty simple, isn’t it!

  125. AP says:
    @annamaria

    US State dept. had, perhaps, about as much to do with the “coup d-etat” in Kiev as the French had to do with the “coup d-etat” in Britain’s American colonies.

  126. @AP

    If you’re referring to a French Fleet bottling up the British during the siege of Yorktown, a large French loan to the Americans to keep the ‘coup d etat’ going, inclusive of French troops disembarking in what became the USA, all well and good. There could even be a case made the French were supporting gangsters if one takes the criminal Sam Adams into account, never mind we rewrote a professional criminal’s history because he sided with the victors. But at the end of the day your comparison is one of apples to oranges when considering the criminality of the regime the CIA midwifed (with ample German help) in Ukraine:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/08/17/ukraine-for-dummies/

    ^

    • Replies: @AP
  127. 5371 says:

    Svidomite vermin are going to devour each other like hungry rats in a cage. Get popcorn.

  128. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I’ll make some brief points:

    Hitler’s attitude to Great Britain was initially quite friendly, and it resulted in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which gave Britain a 3:1 advantage in warships.

    Hitler clearly had no designs on France, as he renounced territorial claims upon Alsace and Lorraine – and he built the Westerwald, whose purpose was purely defensive. His numerous proposals for disarmament were dismissed, with the exception of the naval agreement with Britain.

    Hitler did not want war with either France or Great Britain, and certainly not with the U.S.

    F.D.R. hated Hitler; no doubt in part due to the fact that National Socialist Germany was prospering due to Hitler’s economic policies and the U.S. was still in the throes of the Great Depression. And that hatred was exacerbated by Hitler’s public exposure of F.D.R. as an international ignoramus in his reply to the latter’s telegram urging Hitler to pledge to avoid invading a list of countries many of which were allies of the Germans and in one case, Palestine, which, Hitler noted to the laughter of the Reichstag, was occupied by British, not German troops.

    F.D.R., through is roving ambassador, William Bullit, urged the British, French and Poles to wage war against Germany and pledged that the U.S. would later involve itself in the conflict. Before the war, the President also engaged in illegal secret correspondence with Churchill when the latter was Lord of the Admiralty – behind the back of the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The correspondence involved getting America into the war.

    F.D.R. waged an illegal naval war in the Atlantic against the Kriegsmarine and German merchant shipping before America’s official entry into the war. Even in the face of this, the U-Boats were ordered to only respond if attacked.

    F.D.R. implemented Captain McCollum’s memorandum which involved how to provoke Japan into “firing the first shot” and thus, facilitate America’s entry into the European war, which a majority of the American public opposed:

    Make an agreement with Britain and the Dutch to use their bases in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    Grant all possible aid to the Nationalist Chinese.

    Send heavy cruisers and submarines to the Western Pacific.

    Keep the Pacific Fleet based in Pearl Harbor. (Against the vociferous objections of Admiral Richardson, who knew it was vulnerable to air attack).

    Insist that the Dutch reject all Japanese demands for oil.

    U.S. and Great Britain would completely embargo all trade with Japan.

    Roosevelt himself stated that the objective was to get into the war by getting the Japanese to fire the first shot without “doing too much damage to ourselves.”

    It was the British “war party” (Churchill, Vanistaart, Cooper, Hore Belisha, Eden, inter alia) who urged Chamberlain’s government to provoke a conflict with Germany.

    Churchill wrote the following to Lord Boothby:

    “Germany’s most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.”

    Hitler’s proposal to Poland was quite moderate:

    Danzig, 95% German, would return to the Reich. The Poles would retain rights of usage to the Port itself, in addition to receiving a port at Gdniya.

    Poland would retain sovereignty over West Prussia (this was a huge concession in itself, which none of his Weimar predecessors would have dared to propose – it would have been political suicide).

    Germany would receive a transportation corridor through West Prussia which would connect East Prussia to the rest of Germany.

    A military alliance with Poland.

    The Polish regime of “Colonels”, emboldened by the British and French promise of military assistance, rejected these proposals out of hand, and engaged in a series of provocative actions – including attacks on ethnic Germans, flak batteries firing on Lufthansa passenger aircraft going to and from Konigsberg – and bellicose rhetoric.

    Interestingly enough, the Polish General Staff had drawn up its plans for war against Germany, Operation West, before Hitler ordered his own General Staff to draw up a plan against Poland.

    Hitler waited until late in the evening of August 31 for a Polish plenipotentiary to arrive in Berlin to continue negotiations.

    Britian and France declared war on Germany thereby turning a German – Polish border dispute into another major European conflict.

    Hitler even offered to withdraw from all of Poland – except for Danzig and the areas taken from Germany under Versailles, but was rebuffed.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  129. annamaria says:

    “Perhaps?” … The coup d’etat in Kiev was the result of joint efforts by different players, including the State Dept.:

    http://www.sott.net/article/292842-Euromaidan-Anatomy-of-a-Washington-backed-coup-d-etat

    And the next act has began, with the US propped neo-Nazi big shots having their own “opinions.” Perhaps Nuland-Kagan and the whole Kagan cabal are not so good for humanity as they imagine. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/ukraine-government-armed-standoff-right-sector-militia

  130. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “BTW what did Bernanke have to do with the savings and loan debacle?”

    Hey Wiz – you poor boy – I never even used the word “Bernanke” – my post was about Bubbles Greenspan and the evil he put on America and how he made his Jew tribe so filthy rich.

    I think your hasbara handlers are working you and Sam to hard. Tell the bastards that Art is unhappy with them.

    I prayed to Jesus for you two lemmings – take care – Art

  131. @AP

    The referendum was with North Korea-style results. A majority would have preferred Russia (I’d estimate it would have been 65%-70%) but ran a fake one with 97% supporting union.

    Okay, a couple of points:

    First of all, if the pro-Russian faction was winning the referendum 65-35 or 70-30, why would they fake the 90%+ result?

    Second of all, if you yourself concede that easily two thirds of the Crimean population prefers to be part of Russia, given the choice, why do you want to deny them that choice? That is the question I asked you and you did not really answer.

    As far as I can see, the U.S.A. supports democracy if democracy gives them the results they want, and if it doesn’t give them the desired result, as in this case, to heck with democracy!

    The observers were largely a collection of neo-Nazis and Stalinists, with a few non-extreme and decent Euroskeptics thrown in

    So, in other words, their political sympathies were all over the place. What do I make of this sort of innuendo? Not much, really. You insinuate that the observers had a political axe to grind. Maybe, but so do you obviously. If the observers included neo-Nazis and Stalinists and everything in between, and all of them said the vote was honest and the vast majority of people in Crimea did want to rejoin Russia, then why should I doubt this?

    Look, I’m actualy a pretty simple minded guy. The aforementioned people were “observers” –> Ergo, they observed. –> Ergo they were there.

    You were NOT there.

    So who am I supposed to believe? A variety of people who run the gamut in their political sympathies who were there said the vote was honest. You, who were not there, say the vote was not honest. I opt to believe the people who were there.

    Regardless, you concede that a large majority of people in Crimea prefer to rejoin Russia. So whatever point you’re trying to make is moot. You’re just blowing smoke.

    • Replies: @AP
  132. Art says:
    @Sam Shama

    “the typical resort of the knave”

    Hey Sam – BORING – did your Jew hasbara handlers give you a new word – you have been using “knave” way too often – it is getting old.

    Samie – you are over worked – your posts used to have a little sparkle to then – now they are just long. To much cut and paste.

    You little lemmings need to be chipper and cute – pick it up boy — Art

  133. @Sean1

    It was around 2005 I remember the sabre rattling between the U.S. and Iran was particularly heated. I was serving in Afghanistan at the time and it really looked like either side was looking for any flashpoint to start a shooting war.

    Sometimes you run across things like the above that show the psychotic rupture with reality that most current-day Americans suffer from. In your view, there was all this tension between the U.S. and Iran and both sides were trying to start a war. This is like claiming that there is tension between Mike Tyson, say, and some 97 pound weakling and “both sides” were trying to get something going.

    Can’t you at least understand that a third world country with very very modest military capabilities is not eager to get into a shooting war with the planet’s number 1 superpower? Are you visualizing what you are talking about? What is amazing is that you are describing a situation from 2005, so you have had ten entire years (!) to think about this and…

  134. @Sam Shama

    There’s a Jewish fellow who participates on the Mondoweiss blog.

    He protests vehemently against the zionist hijack of Judaism.

    He has patented the Ziocaine ® brand ( /s ), the drug of choice for those addicted to zionist cant.

    It’s amusing that so much energy is perforce expended to enforce the holocaust dogma, and that any deviations from the dogma — by deviations one means facts and logic, of course — are called “addictions” or a “drug problem.” Wiz Oz, your sidekick or alter ego or alternate avatar speaks of opponents to his/her pov as worthy of an asylum. Sam Shama speaks of opponents to his/her pov as beasts and brutes.

    ad hominem?

    Herr doktor heal thyself.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  135. AP says:
    @Cagey Beast

    Thanks for the link, Cagey Beast. A difference is that while Norway was rather ethnically homogeneous, Crimea is not. According to the latest census it was 59% ethnic Russian. This makes the “referendum” result of 97% in favor not very realistic, and the pre-referendum polls showing 65%-70% support more realistic.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  136. @Sam Shama

    Both Holocaust denial and Zionist-Fed, are products of feverished minds searching for the “conspiracy drug”, in a manner of speaking.

    So, you reply by simply repeating your point, such as it is…

    Let’s see… what are you saying here exactly? You obviously believe that both Holocaust revisionists and the people who want to do something about the Fed are mistaken.

    Okay, fine. You can definitely argue that.

    BUT… you go further than arguing that the aforementioned people are mistaken. You say, not only that they are mistaken, but that they are mistaken DUE TO mental illness. “Feverished minds”

    MOREOVER… you seem to believe that the aforementioned mistaken ideas (mistaken in your opinion at least…) are SEPARATE manifestations of the SAME underlying mental illness, “searching for the ‘conspiracy drug’”….

    Now, as I recall, in the Soviet Union, it was quite common to commit political dissidents to mental hospitals. I remember reading a fascinating article on this quite a few years ago. An American psychiatrist visited the USSR and tried to bring up this issue with his Soviet counterparts, the psychiatrists there. There was a real communications barrier. The Soviet psychiatrists did not think there was any particular problem apparently.

    What I found fascinating in this was that the American psychiatrist ended up coming to the conclusion that the Soviet psychiatrists (at least by and large) were acting in good faith! They genuinely believed that the political dissidents in question suffered from a mental illness and were being “treated” for their own good. I initially was skeptical that those mental health professionals could really believe this. However, now, it increasingly rings true to me.

    You see, for people who are heavily indoctrinated in a certain belief system, it actually is quite easy for them to believe that anybody who believes otherwise must be mentally ill. So people fall for this whole “conspiracy theorist” discourse whereby anybody who has a different interpretation of key events is considered to suffer from some sort of mental illness. Well, this is very convenient, because it frees you from the obligation of refuting what the other person is saying. You simply catalogue the people as mentally ill and then you don’t have to address anything they say at any factual or logical level. Yes, very convenient, so some of this is intellectual laziness. But also, there really is that many (or even most) of the people echoing this “conspiracy theorizing as illness” line really believe in it. They really believe that people with dissenting views must be mentally ill!

    So, okay, I take it on face value that you really believe what you are saying.

    HOWEVER… regardless, the idea that somebody believes that the Fed should be under democratic control must be mentally ill — to me, this is transparently preposterous. Moreover, the basic argument you are making, that there is no need to audit the Fed because the Fed basically audits itself… by the same token, I suppose there was never any need for the L.A. police to investigate O.J. for maybe having murdered his ex-wife. Surely O.J. could be counted on to investigate himself! What a waste of taxpayer funds to investigate the Mafia. The Mafia can be counted on to investigate themselves and then report on any wrongdoing…

    So, here we are, 7 years after the great financial mess of 2008, and you argue that all these Central Banks know what they’re doing and it would be catastrophic to have democratic control over these institutions. So you mean that, okay, the mess in 2008 was a big mess, BUT it would have been even messier (catastrophic in your terms) if we had a Fed under greater democratic accountability. You seem to be saying that, right?

    Well, okay, that’s a counterfactual history proposition, fine. So, we understand that it is hard to demonstrate this one way or the other. But, okay, you believe this apparently and you have the right to believe what you want.

    BUT… can you provide me any kind of reasoned argument (one that makes no reference to purported mental illnesses) for why anybody else should share your belief that the financial mess would be far worse if the FED were under democratic control?

  137. AP says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Well, Western military forces weren’t involved so French involvement was greater in Britain’s North American colonies, than Western involvement in Ukraine.

  138. AP says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    First of all, if the pro-Russian faction was winning the referendum 65-35 or 70-30, why would they fake the 90%+ result?

    Because if you look at Crimea’as demographics, you see that in certain regions ethnic Russians are a minority. There was a good chance that those parts of Crimea would have chosen to stay in Ukraine (at least, the vote would have been too close for comfort). For strategic purposes Crimea going all-Russia everywhere was preferable.

    Second of all, if you yourself concede that easily two thirds of the Crimean population prefers to be part of Russia, given the choice, why do you want to deny them that choice?

    When have I denied them that choice? My preference would have been for Crimeans to elect pro-Russian parties, then hold an actual referendum, with regions (populated by Tatars plus Ukrainians) choosing to stay in Ukraine getting that option.

    As far as I can see, the U.S.A. supports democracy if democracy gives them the results they want, and if it doesn’t give them the desired result, as in this case, to heck with democracy!

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. Kosovo was wrong, so was Crimea.

    So, in other words, their political sympathies were all over the place.

    No, there were three types among observers: Eurosceptics, neo-Nazis, and Stalinists. Only the first group could be considered normal, and this group represented only a small subset of observers. Moreover this group was very anti-EU, and the referendum was an act against a pro-EU government. So none of the observers were impartial.

    If the observers included neo-Nazis and Stalinists and everything in between, and all of them said the vote was honest and the vast majority of people in Crimea did want to rejoin Russia, then why should I doubt this?

    So if neo-Nazis and Stalinists agree on something, it must be true? Are you a big fan of Molotov-Ribbentrop?

    Look, I’m actualy a pretty simple minded guy. The aforementioned people were “observers” –> Ergo, they observed. –> Ergo they were there.

    You were NOT there.

    Stalinists have gone to North Korea and have written wonderful things about it. I was never in North Korea. By your logic, I should believe them.

    Regardless, you concede that a large majority of people in Crimea prefer to rejoin Russia. So whatever point you’re trying to make is moot.

    Just because in all likelihood a majority preferred the result doesn’t mean that faking it was okay. It was rather obvious Obama would have beaten McCain, would you have been okay with just running a fake election that year?

  139. @Jonathan Revusky

    marvelous step-by-step argument, Jonathan Revusky. Thanks.

    The community college’s librarian is a very nice Jewish man. Some years ago I was looking for a copy of Wilhelm Marr’s pamphlet on antisemitism (before Kevin MacDonald provided a translation on Occidental Observer http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Marr.html ).

    While searching, the librarian and I discussed the topic. The librarian said that Marr invented the term “antisemitism.” I replied (in my indoor voice) that the term was much older, having been used to describe Muslims and Jews who were expelled from Andalusia.

    The librarian swiveled his head and got a look on his face that suggested he was unable to process the information.

    He truly believes — his neural wiring is programmed to believe– that antisemitism was a term invented by Marr in the 19th century, just as Sam Shama avers to be unable to process facts disproving the holocaust narrative that his neurotransmitters are set to uphold.

    I still think the librarian is a very nice Jewish man. In the scheme of things, what he is wired to believe about Marr is irrelevant.

    What people are wired to believe about the holocaust (and the Fed) is a far different proposition: people’s lives are ruined and vast numbers of people are killed in service of a particular, egregiously false wiring diagram about the holocaust.

    Croesus lost his empire because his neural wiring induced him to misinterpret the Delphic oracle.

    American legislators are chomping at the bit to wage war on Iran based on falsely wired information about Iran. Israel has played a major role in producing that neurological short-circuit.
    —–
    To paraphrase Streicher, Bad holocaust wiring is our misfortune.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  140. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    you write:

    can you provide me any kind of reasoned argument (one that makes no reference to purported mental illnesses) for why anybody else should share your belief that the financial mess would be far worse if the FED were under democratic control?

    First, do you disagree when I note that Congress, a body so paralysed by its own membership, with no expertise in monetary policy cannot possibly run monetary policy directly?

    Second, what precisely do you mean by “democratic control”? The Federal Reserve system was created by and Act of Congress in 1933. It has a unique public-private partnership structure, with its Board of Governors elected by the POTUS. The Federal Reserve System is “an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.” is the provision of its establishment, and for very good reason: politics should not be guiding the monetary policy of the realm.

    I am sure you realise that a counterfactual cannot be answered, yet I strive to provide you with some facts. Better still, here is an article that takes one through the corrective actions of the Fed on and after the financial crisis:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/upshot/quantitative-easing-is-about-to-end-heres-what-it-did-in-seven-charts.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

    and it notes:

    The good news is that the economy has been growing remarkably steadily since the middle of 2009. There were several moments when pundits warned that a dip back into recession was looming, but none materialized. Fed policy is quite possibly a reason for that; every time a risk of recession seemed to pick up, Mr. Bernanke & Co. cooked up another round of Q.E. that helped avert it.

    Please refer to all the charts in the article, and its balanced conclusion, and tell us why you think a direct running of the Fed by Congress would be better.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  141. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Ad Hominem?

    Herr doktor heal thyself.

    iumentorum non hominibus. Therefore…….

  142. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    in the Soviet Union, it was quite common to commit political dissidents to mental hospitals. I remember reading a fascinating article on this quite a few years ago. An American psychiatrist visited the USSR and tried to bring up this issue with his Soviet counterparts, the psychiatrists there. There was a real communications barrier. The Soviet psychiatrists did not think there was any particular problem apparently.

    What I found fascinating in this was that the American psychiatrist ended up coming to the conclusion that the Soviet psychiatrists (at least by and large) were acting in good faith! They genuinely believed that the political dissidents in question suffered from a mental illness and were being “treated” for their own good. I initially was skeptical that those mental health professionals could really believe this. However, now, it increasingly rings true to me.

    Fascinating

    I know people of good will that can’t possibly entertain some ideas, like the truth regarding the events of 911 for instance. Here’s a nice theory as to what’s going on in their heads.

  143. @Cagey Beast

    That is really hilarious, Cagey! Got any more?

  144. Rothbard has a very nice discussion of the interwar monetary system where he calls attention to the barter agreements between Germany and central European countries like Hungary that posed an obvious threat to Anglo-American finance capitalism/pound-dollar imperialism:

    https://mises.org/library/history-money-and-banking-united-states-colonial-era-world-war-ii

    The parallels between then and now are pretty clear, with the US instead of Britain being the dying imperial power desperate to maintain its parasitical financial hegemony, to the point of fostering pointless and self-defeating conflicts contrary to its long-term interests. (It remains to be seen if Putin, like Hitler, has too naïve a view of the forces arrayed against him.)

  145. @AP

    According to the latest census it was 59% ethnic Russian. This makes the “referendum” result of 97% in favor not very realistic, and the pre-referendum polls showing 65%-70% support more realistic.

    How can you be so daft, AP? It’s obvious what happened: the antis knew they were going to lose anyway, so they simply decided to boycott the election. Additionally, there is also the possibility that at least some non-Russian Crimeans also voted to secede.

    In any case, when a sovereignty referendum was held in Crimea in 1991, the result was almost identical: 94% yes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991)

    So this vote was definitely not a one-off.

    • Replies: @AP
  146. @Mulegino1

    Concerning your “huge explosion” per the BBC’s Stephen Evans on YouTube I was surprised that you weren’t trying to make something of his first confused reporting from a newsagency across from the South Tower where he had been sitting at ground level when the North Tower was hit because he said he heard “explosions” after the sound of impact which was like a great concrete block hitting the ground (a thud anyway). Presumably he heard explosive sounds. But, if you are a serious person who accepts a responsibility to treat serious issues seriously you would I assume have followed up with, at the very least a Google search such as I did for “Stephen Evans BBC towers”. You get lots of interviews extending for many years after 9/11 and not the slightest hint that there was anything to be doubted about the official account. Not even a question like “well Stephen your earliest interviews during the fog of battle must have given some material for the doubters who think the towers were blown up from within. Any doubts yourself? Any attempts by the truthers to enlist you?”
    Now if you are a serious person with serious issues to which Stephen Evans’s reports are relevant why don’t you be the one who asks him the critical questions? His email address, even if he has moved on from the BBC, wouldn’t be hard to obtain – unless of course you are one of those people who live in a fantastical online world detached from real people in the flesh living ordinary lives.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  147. AP says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    How can you be so daft, AP? It’s obvious what happened: the antis knew they were going to lose anyway, so they simply decided to boycott the election

    Except the official turnout was over 83%. That’s too high to involve a significant boycott; indeed it’s the highest turnout in any Crimean election/referendum. And according to the official results about 97% voted to join Russia. You really believe it was so?

    Additionally, there is also the possibility that at least some non-Russian Crimeans also voted to secede.

    Sure, and some small number of ethnic Russians probably preferred to stay in Ukraine. Crimea is 58% Russian, and I estimated that about 65%-70% of its people would have voted to join Russia (numbers in previous polls).

    In the 1994 Crimean election the pro-Russian candidate got 72% of the vote. Since then the Russian population has declined considerably, as a % of the population. Yet somehow joining Russia shot up to 97%. Sorry, that’s not very believable.

    In any case, when a sovereignty referendum was held in Crimea in 1991, the result was almost identical: 94% yes.

    Sovereignty isn’t the same thing as “seceding and joining Russia.” There is a lot of overlap between supporters of each, but it isn’t the same thing.

  148. @Mulegino1

    I am sorry to say that I can keep my definitive answer very short because my first of many possible areas of focus in your unsourced stream of words was the Churchill to Boothby purported quote which is from pure crank territory. 2 minutes search and you would have found that it was manufactured in 2001.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  149. @SolontoCroesus

    Too clever by half. If I said there was a video film of the first plane crashing into the North tower then it seems I was wrong (together with Pres GW Bush which is bad company) about that unless some amateur happened to have a camera out at the right time as the plane came into view. So your attempt to make a point just looks silly.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @SolontoCroesus
  150. @SolontoCroesus

    Aha, now I see what Mr Anonymous (one of them anyway – one wonders whose embarrassment Ron is bending his rules for – who is to be allowed to be covered up for) wrote that evoked Sam Shama’s objection to his pettiness.

    But yes you/he got me. People like you and too many others blighting Ron’s latest contribution to the public good do set off my arrogance. It’s actually a defence against the spoiling of my happy condition of having no negative emotions. I just have this slight concern that contempt could erupt.

    But I am not a “sob”(sic) about anything but brains and the way they are used. I had some very good English teachers (three Oxford graduates who read Greats were particularly good) so I would not look down on you for being the English teacher you appear to be – unless stricken by pomo “theory” that is.

    As Ron has explained his rules against sock puppetry (which you must know would exclude me and Sam Shama being the same person unless paying attention to detail is not part of the 2015 English teacher’s brief) I would be interested to hear what excuse you have for being “Anonymous”.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Sam Shama
  151. @AP

    Well made point about the faking. But JR’s question is more naive than you have shown. Not only would reality have probably shown that self-determination logic demanded a split of territory which looked like today’s West Bank, Russia would want to be able to say that lots of non-Russians supported the change. Obviously much better than confirmation of a pure ethnic division.

  152. @SolontoCroesus

    Are you the only “Anonymous” in these comments? I mean you of the pop-psych pseudo-science neural wiring crap which must be the insiders’ language of grandees in the community college library.

    Of the well known facts that Jews were savagely discriminated against under Hitler, and indeed attacked in a country where obedience to the government was famously high, that many millions of Jews were deported and died, of which many, deported or just where they lived, were deliberately killed, that Nazi policies towards Jews were evinced in massive theft of Jewish property and in the destruction of a much higher proportion of the Jewish population than that of any other, that they were forced to wear a yellow star, etc. etc – how do these not add up to a perfectly adequate Holocaust narrative which Jews could rationally regard as meaning that even in the modern world they are so threatened that they need to have a country they can call their own?

  153. Context appears to not be Wizard’s strong suit.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  154. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Hi Wizard,

    One of the videos that were made of the first plane hitting the tower was made by the Mossad agents that were arrested after being seen ‘dancing and high-fiving’ after the plane hit. They went on Israeli TV (after having been cut loose from federal custody by Federal judge at the time Michael Chertoff) and explained that they were there filming to “document the event”.

    Perhaps that was the feed that George Bush was watching when he saw the first plane hit the tower. He said that as he watched it, he just figured it was just bad piloting, being as he is a pilot himself.

    Did you know that?

  155. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You miss the point of the video entirely. Notwithstanding what Stephen Evans claimed about an explosion, an explosion is heard and there is a seismic event ON THE VIDEO.

    Anybody with any common sense knows that above ground explosions rarely cause seismic events, but underground explosions often do.

    The explosive force travels upwards and there is a fireball which can be seen near the top of the North Tower, not to mention an upwardly ascending mushroom cloud – its plumes are identical to that caused by the underground detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon.

    If you believe that all these events were caused by jet fuel and a “gravity” collapse, you are simply a hopelessly brainwashed establishment groupie.

  156. @Wizard of Oz

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1005291

    quoth the raving Wizard to annamarina:

    “Hitherto I had been inclined to give you the credit for being an earnest, if not very bright, mildly obsessive person anxious to achieve some sense of significance in an unsatisfactory life (probably unemployed rather than retired to explain the time you can give to something you care about without having any expertise for either factual research or analytical thinking).”

    at which time the proportion of “time spent” was as follows:

    Wizard of Oz – originated posts, The Saker article: 19 make that 20

    annamarina – originated posts, The Saker article: 5

    Wiz o Oz has pulled out all the stops, put in lots more time:

    Stats update (incl. #158):

    Wizard of Oz – originated posts, The Saker article: 19 make that 20 31

    annamarina – originated posts, The Saker article: 5 8

    somebody’s either got too much time on hands (perhaps the day campers are at nap time?) or is paid by the word.

    iumentorum non hominibus. Therefore…….

  157. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    in the modern world they are so threatened that they need to have a country they can call their own?

    I think that’s what the Naizs wanted. Wasn’t that the battle cry of the Nazis? “Germany for Germans’? Isn’t that what (‘xenophobic/racist’) Germans (and all white countries) are demanding today? A country of their own? Isn’t that why there are the troubles in Ukraine today, because the ethnic Ukrainians don’t want to be dominated by ethnic Russians in their ‘own’ country? And vice versa?

    and I suspect that the same thing is a dream for the Palestinians too eh?

    Do they too deserve “a country they can call their own”?

  158. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “one wonders whose embarrassment Ron is bending his rules for”

    Hey Wiz – you are always attacking your host – you are not a nice man.

    You hate free speech. You are un-American. But then a Jew is never loyal, is he!

  159. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The quote wasn’t manufactured in 2001, but I’ll stipulate that it may have been manufactured in 1938. So I’ll agree to disregard it.

    What exactly is your counter-narrative? The laughingly childish “Hitler as bloodthirsty madman who desired world conquest and the extermination of all the Jews and Slavs”? Or perhaps the ridiculous “Hitler danced a happy jig at Compiegne” after the French surrendered? Would it be the nonsensical alleged Obersalzberg speech where Hitler spoke about his “skull squads” ordered to kill Polish women and children, whereupon Goering gleefully jumps onto a table top and dances a happy jig in front of the General Staff? Virtually all these were taught to us as genuine historical facts instead of Manichean nonsense.

    There is, however, no question that Churchill (as leader of the British war party) and F.D.R., wanted a war against Germany. And there is no question that Hitler’s economics were a threat to both the British Empire and Anglo-American financial hegemony.

    The fact is that Hitler did not want war. As one who fought in the First World War and knew well the horrors of war, Hitler wanted to reclaim Germany’s rightful role as dominant power on the Continent and to undo the injustices of the treaties of Versailles and St. Germaine. And he did not start major rearmament until 1937. As I wrote before, all of his proposals for major disarmament – with the exception of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (very advantageous for Britain) were rebuffed.

    If Hitler had managed to establish a barter trade bloc of nations including the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey, as well as much Latin America it would have been a death blow to the economic hegemony of Wall St. and the City, as it would have eliminated those nations’ needs for international reserve currencies and for parasitical middlemen.

    Much the same thing is happening now with the BRICS countries – which I believe to be the real cause of the conflict in Ukraine, which is to create conflict between Russia and the EU, in order to prevent the economic integration of Eurasia. The Atlanticist-Zionists know that such a Eurasian Union would be a death blow to Wall St. hegemony, and to the dollar itself – since its only real value now is as an international reserve currency.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  160. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It’s quite odd that someone attempting to be so condescending to others cannot differentiate between discrete facts and vague, nebulous narratives such as the “Holocaust” and the official cartoon show of 9/11.

    In the first place, a true narrative must be constructed around real physical facts – discrete facts. Virtually all of the establishment arguments about 9/11 center upon quite the opposite reality – the physical evidence is twisted to fit the narrative; e.g., the Towers clearly exploded outwards, and most of them were turned into fine dust; the concrete and steel experienced molecular dissociation – disintegration. Of course, a precocious third grader could conclude that the Towers did not “collapse” and no hydrocarbon based office fires could have done this – absolutely, categorically impossible. Ditto for most of the other fairy tales of the story – the miracle working amateur pilots, the impossible flight path of UA77, the impossible video footage showing a steel and concrete skyscraper swallowing an airliner whole, etc.

    Using the trauma caused by the event, the establishment launches its counter-narrative immediately. Authority figures and “experts” from the media, government, academia, etc. make pronouncements which the public immediately swallows because most of its critical thinking skills have literally been turned off because of the horrors it sees before its “eyes”.

    Then the counter-narrative hardens into irrefutable mythology, and is no longer (in most people’s mind) seen as a series of events occurring in real time and real space, events which can be scrutinized in an empirical manner, but rather, irreducible from a vague, nebulous, pseudo-religious meta-historical event. The Official Cult of 9/11 is now an indispensable part of the American Civic Pseudo-Religion. You have the 9/11 Memorial, the ritualistic memorializing of the victims with the bells and the silence, the bagpipes, and the “Remember 9/11″ and the “Let’s Roll” mantras. The official version of 9/11 is actually America’s own “Mini-Holocaust.”

    In the same way, the Holocaust is essentially a myth. People make vague claims about “mountains of evidence”, “millions dead”, “gas chambers”, and of course the “most documented event in history”, but once reduced to a factual level, the hoax breaks down entirely:

    The authorized version of the Holocaust is that National Socialist Germany had a policy of murdering all of the Jews of Europe. When asked for proof of this, “Holocaustians” can only produce snippets of rhetoric from Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels, but not one single official document which unambiguously orders or sets out the extermination policy. So now, the “Holocaustians” claim that the National Socialist leaders communicated this policy via a “secret code” involving euphemisms, e.g., “special handling” becomes “execution via gassing”. As a matter of fact, Raul Hillberg, the dean of Holocaust historians, claims that the Holocaust came about due to a “meeting of the minds” in a “far flung bureaucracy”.

    The authorized version claims that most of the Jews who were murdered were gassed at six easily identifiable locations: Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka II, Majdanek (Lublin), Sobibor, Chelmno and Belzec. Yet, there are nothing like any traces of human remains or “cremains” approaching even hundreds of thousands of dead, let alone 3-4 million, at these locations. There is no evidence at all of any of the gigantic mass graves at Treblinka II, which were claimed to have contained well upwards of 700,000 bodies. As a matter of fact, the whole Aktion Reinhardt Camps gassing and cremation claims are rubbish. They are technical and logistical absurdities.

    The very “Holy of Holies” of the Holocaust legend is the alleged “gas chamber” at Birkenau. It has been demonstrated that this room was actually an underground mortuary and was never used for gassing anyone.

    That Hitler never had any plans for murdering all of the Jews of Europe is demonstrated by this document, the “Luther Memorandum” of the German Foreign Ministry dated August, 1942 (when the “gassings” were claimed to have been in full swing) which states – among other things – “…after the war, the Jews will have to leave Europe. This is the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer…” It stands to reason that if the Jews would have to leave Europe after the war, they would still be alive, no?

  161. @Wizard of Oz

    and Wizard of Oz to Mulegino1

    re W o O’s mention of Bush:

    This morning (13 Jul 2015 / Doshanbeh: 22. Tir 1394 ) Katrina vanden Heuvel was a guest on C Span Washington Journal. @ 39 min a caller asked why no one had been brought to justice for the US invasion of Iraq, after “12 years of sanctions and Iraq having complied with everything demanded of them.”

    vanden Heuval’s response is significant:

    “You raise a fundamental question. . . the lack of accountability for those who misled us, may I say lied us into this war in Iraq is staggering.

    And we saw it in the last year where in the desire to instead of negotiating and finding a deal with Iran which would be not only the most sane outcome — there is no long-term solution to the problems in the Middle East other than a diplomat-political one, a military one is insane.

    But we see people — I do preview with Bill Kristol often — but the architects of that debacle, taking us into war in Iraq, are back on TV, back talking about how we have to go to war. . . This is a recipe for disaster. . . .
    But the death and end of accountability in our system, for the Wall Street financial crisis; for the war in Iraq — I think we need to think hard about what it says about a system that doesn’t value accountability. And that to me is one of the central questions of our time.

    Phil Giraldi raised the same issue here: Where Are They Now?

    vanden Heuvel was speaking off the cuff, but it’s worth noticing that she did not condemn Bush for causing the deaths of so many people, she mentioned only that Bush lied to involve USA in a war of aggression against Iraq. She said it was shameful there had been no accountability, and further that a accountability ought to be part of a well-functioning system.

    If Bush & ice should be held to account for lying the USA into a war of aggression, so should FDR.

    Irving Kristol himself has stated, on the record, that “FDR lied and manipulated to involve the US in war against Germany.” In a round table on Western Values and World War II convened by Norman Podhoretz,participants vigorously defended the proposition that the Allies’ carpet bombing of Germany represented the first-ever use of “Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorize a civilian population.” (in Commentary Reader, Norman Podhoretz, ed.)

    In an interview with Brian Lamb about his book, The New Dealers War, Thomas Fleming states that his research in the diaries and memoirs of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Henry Wallace, and Harry S. Truman, in addition to a week spent interviewing Truman, paint a stark picture of Franklin Roosevelt as an inveterate liar; a man so disposed to lie and manipulate that he was called “the Juggler:” his right hand did not know what his left hand was doing.

    Further, and in support of the version of actual history as outlined by Mulegino1, rather than this tedious perpetuation of propaganda that, among other flaws, lacks basic chronological verity, Fleming stated that “Germany . . . was the country that FDR wanted to get US into war with,” even tho he had just won election on the repeated promise that he would not send Americans to fight in foreign wars.

    In response to Lamb’s question, “Why would FDR want us in a war?”, Fleming said:

    “Because he was convinced that the future history of the world was swinging in the balance, and if Germany won, the war …with England and Russia, they would become so powerful that they would really, truly threaten the ability of the United States to defend itself.

    Now a lot of people–and I quote them in the book–did not agree with this analysis. We felt–a lot of the–the best thinkers on the military side felt that–that we had the strength to defend ourselves whether or not we got involved with Germany and Japan. . . .
    I focus on the simple fact that Roosevelt thought this way and then took steps, which I think were not the kind of steps that we think a president should take, to provoke another power into going to war with us. . .

    And the polls–the really dramatic thing was for all Roosevelt’s powers of persuasion, he could not budge these polls. Right up to the day before Pearl Harbor, 75 percent to 80 percent of the American people said they did not want to go to war, unless Japan or Germany attacked us. “

    Charles Lindbergh was correct in his Sept. 11, 1941 speech in DesMoines, Iowa: “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. ”

    Hitler did not want war; Norman Finkelstein acknowledged in 2006 what Herbert Hoover tried unsuccessfully to communicate to the Roosevelt administration in 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  162. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Wiz

    I am fairly certain who this @Anynonymous is. There’s only one commenter who uses the tell tale strikethrough and double blockquotes. It has not escaped me that he also points frequently to Mondoweiss.

    To you therefore SolontoCroesus, I level the charge of producing the largest volume of tripe and then changing your handle, midsummer. It matters little to me that you changed handles, but it simply reveals what I alluded to earlier: that you are hopelessly addicted to conspiracy theories of the Holocaust. Add to that the zionism of the Fed.

    More importantly, I direct your attention to the comment I posted earlier to Jonathan Revusky (http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1005831), with whom I am sure you agree, and pen an objective rebuttal.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Art
  163. @AP

    Because if you look at Crimea’as demographics, you see that in certain regions ethnic Russians are a minority. There was a good chance that those parts of Crimea would have chosen to stay in Ukraine

    So, you are saying that there are basically some enclaves of Ukrainian national support within Crimea. I don’t know. I don’t know the Crimean situation at that level of detail. Maybe such enclaves exist. Could you tell me where they are?

    But, okay, for the sake of argument let’s say that such enclaves exist. Now, the EU slapped sanctions on Russia based on Russia having “illegally annexed” Crimea. Correct? So, if the issue is these enclaves within Crimea that did not want to join Russia, then why is that never mentioned? It is only mentioned that Russia annexed Crimea, ALL of Crimea — that is the issue that is supposedly at hand.

    This message of yours that I am replying to is the very first time that I ever heard anybody suggest that the issue was that Russia had annexed the “parts of Crimea (unspecified so far) where ethnic Russians are a minority”. No, the issue is apparently that Russia annexed ALL of Crimea, including places that were 90%+ ethnic Russian and where 90%+ of the people really did want to rejoin Russia!

    All of the discourse just speaks of Crimea as a unitary entity. So, by that logic, again, if a large majority of the people in Crimea as a whole wanted to join Russia, again, what is the issue?

    But more importantly, if you apply this logic, that there were enclaves within Crimea that did not want to be part of Russia, fine, why not apply this same logic to the Ukraine situation as a whole? When we look at this whole Maidan protest that was engineered in Kiev, it is well known that this did not have the support of very significant regions of Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbass. But that apparently is not an issue! I mean, you guys can’t burn the candle on both ends constantly, saying that one thing is an issue in one case, but not an issue in the other case. It is the most utterly transparent intellectual dishonesty!

    But, anyway, one can get tired of arguing with people like you. I mean, what’s going on here? In 2003, the U.S., the U.K. and the rest of their “coalition of the willing” attacked Iraq and the result was almost certainly a million or more dead Iraqis, millions displaced as refugees internally and externally… they dropped so much depleted uranium on one place, Fallujah, that there is now 4 times the level of birth defects there that there were in Hiroshima after the atomic bomb.

    These same people who perpetrated the aforementioned nightmare, a veritable holocaust, are trying to tell us that Putin is the epitomy of evil because he annexed Crimea, an operation in which not a single person so much as hurt their little finger, and which corresponded clearly to the popular will of the people there!

    WTF is this? Some kind of sick joke? What standing do these people have? This is like a serial murderer telling me or you what terrible people we are because we ran a red light or nicked a candy bar at a convenience store!

    I mean, people like you with your pathetic quibbling are just such a joke, man. Such a total joke.

    So if neo-Nazis and Stalinists agree on something, it must be true? Are you a big fan of Molotov-Ribbentrop?

    Oh, for crying out loud! The question of whether the vote there was honest is basically a narrow factual question. You ask me about Molotov-Ribbentrop. It’s got basically nothing to do with anything here, but, okay, fine, I’ll answer the fool in the terms of his own folly. Okay, suppose I had a time machine and could go back in time to where this meeting occurred, and I went up to Herr Ribbentrop and asked him what time it is and the man looked at his watch and said it was 5 o’clock and then I walked up to Comrade Molotov and asked him what time it is and he told me it was 5 o’clock and then I walked up to a couple of observers from neutral countries and asked them what time it was, and they told me it was 5 o’clock. I would conclude that it is PROBABLY FIVE O’CLOCK!

    These are different observers, they observed, and said that the vote was honest. You tell me it wasn’t. I believe them and I do NOT believe you. (As a matter of fact, if you told me it was five o’clock or that the sky was blue, I would immediately get a second and third opinion. You, my friend, are one sick joke.)

    Just because in all likelihood a majority preferred the result doesn’t mean that faking it was okay. It was rather obvious Obama would have beaten McCain, would you have been okay with just running a fake election that year?

    I cannot really conceive of what thought experiment you are proposing. It would be better, of course, for the elections to be maximally fair and transparent. Of course.

    But the real thought experiment is that if there is a vote on something in the U.S. and there are these vote irregularities (but not enough to affect the result anyway) then what do you think when some country or countries on the other side of the world use this as a pretext to declare economic war on the U.S.A.? Would that make any sense?

    • Replies: @AP
  164. @Mulegino1

    Enough. In your parallel universe you can calmly admit to relying on a false quote and expect to remain part of a conversation. So, no more.

    BTW
    If you have now taken the elementary trouble to discover the 1938 date you should also have found the assertion that the 1938 edition didn’t contain the false quote.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Mulegino1
  165. I typed a comment linking comments made this morning by Kristina vanden Heuvel with research by historian Thomas Fleming but the comment disappeared.

    ???

    A quick peek at the archive for “Anynonymous” shows that handle in use at least in March 2015. If you wish instruction in how to search the archive I’m sure someone will oblige. I’m not that adept at all this highfalutin’ technology.

    Ron Unz has used double block quotes. No offense to Mr. Unz, but it’s not that difficult.

    Similarly, the strike-thru html is not that complicated. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that underline follows a similar process. EDIT: looks like underline HTML does not work.

    I’m not the least bit interested in responding to your cockamamie claims about central banking. I think you’re just showing off. Not interested. Not impressed.

    I do endorse the sane, sober, objective and fact-based comments of participants such as Mulegino1. I do most certainly think that the dogmatized holocaust narrative must be debunked and the truth of the extent of culpable involvement of all parties — FDR, Churchill, and Jews — be fully explored and that the guilty parties be called to account, just as vanden Heuvel (and Phil Giraldi) have stated that the Bush administration must be called to account for their crimes against humanity in the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

    The Thomas Fleming material that I had included in the disappeared comment quoted Fleming’s realization, affirmed by the writing of his friend and colleague, Michael Kammen, in “Mystic Chords of Memory,” in which Kammen

    “speculates on the impact of memory in history, and . . .maintains that it takes about 100 years for somebody . . .a generation or a country to get to the point where they can look back on a gigantic experience, like World War II or the Civil War, objectively.

    Fleming said that that was the process he attempted in “The New Dealers’ War;” to move from memory to history.

    There are dozens of reasons pointing to the inauthenticity of the holocaust narrative, not least of which is that the very same assertions were published as early as 1900 in propaganda items, and in the 1930s and 1940s in the attempt to gin up a war against Germany and to incite hatred of Germans among the American people to gain their acquiescence to war, as is now posted as the “history” of the holocaust.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  166. @Sam Shama

    First of all, you did not address the principal points I made. I asked you why you profess to believe that people who want the FED to be under democratic control and people who believe that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz are mentally ill AND suffer (according to you, apparently) from the SELF-SAME mental illness!!??

    Well, granted, it’s understandable that when pressed, you apparently walk away from that. After all, it’s just pathetic psychobabble blather. C’mon, we all know that! But, by the same token, it should be clear that this kind of thing does cause people to tend not take you very seriously in a conversation.

    Now, as for what counter-arguments you did make, okay, out of a sort of feigned politeness, I’ll pretend that I still take you seriously and respond to your points.

    First, do you disagree when I note that Congress, a body so paralysed by its own membership, with no expertise in monetary policy cannot possibly run monetary policy directly?

    The men and women in Congress, as well as other elected representatives at the various branches and levels of government, do not, INTRINSICALLY have any expertise in ANYTHING, monetary policy or otherwise.

    The argument you are making, thus, does not specifically apply to monetary policy, but rather, any sort of policy — foreign policy, transportation networks, health care, ANYTHING…. Any specific branch of government policy is, at this stage of history, highly specialized in nature, and thus, by your argument, Congress should not have any say over it.

    There is, however, a little problem, this little document called the U.S. Constitution…

    In any case, the argument you make above is not specific to monetary policy, it would imply that Congress should not oversee ANY policy really.

    Now, getting back to monetary policy specifically, the ability to create money out of thin air is really quite a privilege. I believe it was a Rothschild (or one of their minions) who said: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” The idea that this kind of incredible power to create money should not be under any sort of democratic supervision is really quite extraordinary. To suggest that people who see a problem with this suffer some sort of mental illness — this is really preposterous.

    On youtube, you can watch various Q&A sessions with Ron Paul or Alan Grayson trying to get a straight answer out of Ben Bernanke on various things. It’s just excruciating to watch…

    Moreover, the general line of argumentation that these mostly unaccountable technocrats at the FED are doing such a great job — this does not stand up to much scrutiny. If there really is an economic recovery that has been taking place since 2009, or whenever, it is so anemic, that basically nobody on Main Street believes that it exists.

    Even if said recovery does exist, well, the norm after such a steep recession is that there is a recovery. Now, the question is what happened in 2008? Ben Bernanke, when questioned about the housing bubble in 2006 (pretty much at its height) expressed doubt that there even was a housing bubble, maybe a few local markets were getting a bit “frothy” he said… If you’re at the peak of a nearly unprecedented bubble, and your top central banker doesn’t think there’s a bubble, well… that should not really be very confidence inspiring…

    So, if the incompetence of the FED is what caused the great financial crisis of 2008 and after such a huge recession, you get a bit of a recovery, this is akin to a medical treatment in which the doctor beats you on the head with a stick repeatedly and then when he stops, says he is a great doctor because now that he stopped beating you, you are starting to feel better.

    This is hardly convincing. If there were such a doctor with such a miracle treatment, the question would not be why anybody wants to oversee what he does. The question would be why anybody continues to let this quack practice medicine!

    In general, we have an ongoing situation in which there is seemingly endless money for bailouts for financial crooks, endless money for wars of aggression waged on false pretexts, yet no money for health care, education, maintenance of infrastructure…

    Now, okay, you apparently don’t see anything wrong with this system, and believe that people who think there is something wrong with it are obviously mentally ill. What I am wondering about is this: I assume you do not see yourself as fundamentally the same as those Soviet era psychiatrists I referred to in the last message.

    But what is the difference between your stance and theirs?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  167. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I stipulated that the quote could have been spurious. I was intellectually honest enough to do so; the quote was not the core of my argument.

    I could find many other such quotes which can be sourced and authenticated, by individuals as diverse as J.F.C. Fuller, Bernard Baruch, Basil Liddel Hart, David Hoggan, Charles A. Beard, Gerde Schultze-Rhonhof, James Forrestal, Neville Henderson, Jerzy Potocki, inter alia, but you would simply change the subject.

    You don’t have a credible alternative based upon facts that would indicate that Hitler wanted war and the Allies only reluctantly went to war in the face of mad German aggression. The facts and the historical events put into context and rightfully interpreted, demonstrate that it was the Allies – particularly the British and the Roosevelt Administration, not the Germans, who wanted war in 1939, and that they used the regime of the Polish Colonels as willing dupes to achieve it.

    You have bought in to a historical narrative fit for impressionable 4th graders, but totally unsuited to someone who is constantly harping on about “education”, which in your case calls to mind Ezra Pound’s quote comparing much of formal education to the herding of sheep.

  168. Mulegino1 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The Wizard is not interested in facts, authentic documents, or physical evidence.

    He has mortgaged his intellectual honesty and his critical thinking skills to false official narratives and Sorelian myths.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  169. AP says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So, you are saying that there are basically some enclaves of Ukrainian national support within Crimea.

    I am saying there are some Crimean raions (like counties in American states) where ethnic Russians are as little as 1/3 of the population, and we will not know what these people would have preferred because rather than a real referendum there was a fake one with North Korea-style results.

    Now, the EU slapped sanctions on Russia based on Russia having “illegally annexed” Crimea. Correct? So, if the issue is these enclaves within Crimea that did not want to join Russia, then why is that never mentioned?

    Because it is irrelevant with respect to the illegality of the annexation, which triggered the sanctions.

    But more importantly, if you apply this logic, that there were enclaves within Crimea that did not want to be part of Russia, fine, why not apply this same logic to the Ukraine situation as a whole? When we look at this whole Maidan protest that was engineered in Kiev, it is well known that this did not have the support of very significant regions of Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbass.

    So in your world, if parts of the population dislike something that happens in the capital, it becomes open season on that country’s territory? So if Texas goes majority-Mexican while the US elects some patriotic president whom Mexicans don’t like, would the Mexican army have the right to march in, run some fake referendum, and annex the whole state (including areas where Mexicans are a minority)?

    But, anyway, one can get tired of arguing with people like you. I mean, what’s going on here? In 2003, the U.S., the U.K. and the rest of their “coalition of the willing” attacked Iraq

    I don’t know why you bring up Iraq. I was opposed to it from the beginning. You write like an early 2000s Foxnews consumer who has discovered the Russian media and who has made it your new “Foxnews.” Were you one of the 70% of Americans who believed Saddam was somehow behind 9-11?

    Putin is the epitomy of evil because he annexed Crimea

    Who claimed Putin was “the epitomy of evil?” He took advantage of a good opportunity to grab a strategic piece of real estate, during which he managed to cleverly deflect Russian anger against him for turning ethnic Russians into second class citizens in their own country by fomenting conflict with a foreign country, that has cost a few thousand European lives. Bush was worse of course, but people who consider themselves some sort of conservatives or pro-European nationalists who see in Putin a hero are ignorant dupes. Useful one for the Russian state, to be sure. It used to attract naive Western leftist tools, now it gets right-wing ones. Have you heard of Stephen Cohen. He manages to straddle both of those worlds. A rare bird.

    Okay, suppose I had a time machine and could go back in time to where this meeting occurred, and I went up to Herr Ribbentrop and asked him what time it is and the man looked at his watch and said it was 5 o’clock and then I walked up to Comrade Molotov and asked him what time it is and he told me it was 5 o’clock and then I walked up to a couple of observers from neutral countries and asked them what time it was, and they told me it was 5 o’clock. I would conclude that it is PROBABLY FIVE O’CLOCK!

    The time is a trivial matter. Geopolitical events are not. If you asked the Nazi and the Stalinist whether Poland ought to exist and they both agreed that it should not, you would evidently agree with the Nazi and the Stalinist.

    In Crimea’s case, you have neo-Nazis and Stalinists agreeing that the referendum was fair. And you will take their word for it. Good to know what kind of person you are.

  170. @AP

    If you asked the Nazi and the Stalinist whether Poland ought to exist and they both agreed that it should not, you would evidently agree with the Nazi and the Stalinist.

    If Molotov and neutral observers said that it was 5 o’clock but Ribbentropp disagreed, what time would it be?

    In Tehran, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed with Stalin that Poland ought not to exist. The opinion of Ribbentropp became irrelevant. Poland ceased to exist.

  171. annamaria says:
    @Mulegino1

    I think we all should be easy towards the wizard of oz; there is something not quite right about his long posts and his logic.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Wizard of Oz
  172. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Quite a well composed piece of not obviously paranoid or fraudulent stuff that you linked but I see that it is published by the leading holocaust denialist organisation if Wikipedia is right so I suppose I should consider that “context” too.
    Unfortunately you have engaged in the typical tactic of assertions or implications which are barely more than harrumphing grunts so, making the assumption that you are capable of joined up argument, I invite you to spell out which aspects of the “context” are those you think I should factor in and what your reasoning leads to.

  173. @annamaria

    Well you had better show it quickly because I am about to start the process of using Ron’s device for blocking commenters and you are high on my list even if not one of the angry obsessives who communicates with nod-nod-you-know-wink-wink-grunt-grunt who threaten to put people off whom one directs to the Unz Review.

  174. @Sam Shama

    Thanks for that insight. In return I draw your attention to one of Ron’s happy innovations in the shape of a button at the head of the Comments which allows one to block particular commenters from one’s screen. Obviously Ron doesn’t want the reputation of the Unz Review ruined by readers not being able to avoid the deranged or illiterate so has made it possible to enjoy his creation without having to smell the sulphur from the nether regions.

    I don’t know whether it will automatically save one from their intrusion on all subsequent blogs. And it won’t prevent some sneeking past Ron’s sock-puppetry defences but it should allow one to find a quiet place to chat in civil tones for some time at any rate.

    I am going to do this slowly though I shall have to merely imagine the screams of the damned. SolontoCroesus by whatever name can wait as he sometimes shows signs of having read stuff that might be interesting but I think 5371 can go for starters. The number is too short for an Auschwicz tattoo. I think it must be SS.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  175. @AP

    I am saying there are some Crimean raions (like counties in American states) where ethnic Russians are as little as 1/3 of the population, and we will not know what these people would have preferred

    Well, now we have something over a year in which to examine the concrete results of what happened with the annexation of Crimea. We can compare what happened in Donbass, which was not annexed into Russia, with what happened in Crimea, which was.

    Donbass is a hellhole. The people have been massacred, bombed, shelled. Thousands dead. Hundreds of thousands displaced.

    The Crimea is peaceful and orderly. Now, it strikes me that very very few people, given the option of what happened to Donbass, would have chosen that over what happened in Crimea.

    Now, it seems to be that that a bunch of anglozionists, with their pathological fear and loathing of all things Russian, would have preferred that Crimea become like what Donbass is now, and are angry that those people escaped that fate. Fine, but I am happy that these psychopaths, at least in this case, did NOT get their way.

    If there are indeed concentrations of anti-Russian fanatics in certain raions in Crimea, that would have preferred to be bombarded rather than join Russia, and nobody heeded their opinion, well, I’m sorry, I am not going to lose any sleep over that, and certainly not feign that I care that their voices were not heard.

    because rather than a real referendum there was a fake one with North Korea-style results.

    Well, you claim that the referendum was fake. I have not seen any proof of that. It appears that the vast majority of people in the Crimea are very happy that they rejoined Russia, and thus saved themselves the fate of the people in the Donbass. Again, if there are some concentrations of people in certain areas of Crimea who literally would prefer to die rather than become Russian citizens, I am not terribly concerned if their voice was not heard.

    Because it is irrelevant with respect to the illegality of the annexation, which triggered the sanctions.

    Look, it seems pretty clear that the annexation of Crimea SAVED LIVES. The best bet as to what Crimea would look like without that, is that it would look like Donetsk or Luhansk do now.

    So, to be harping about the technical illegality of an operation that saved human lives is really to show a lack of concern about the value of human life. For example, if I dashed across the street to save somebody’s life, and in so doing, committed an infraction such as jaywalking, and you were to scream and holler that I committed said infraction, what would this say about you?

    Well, what does it say about you? You’re an anglozionist troll, and basically a psychopath. It’s rather nauseating to even talk to you.

    I don’t know why you bring up Iraq. I was opposed to it from the beginning.

    First of all, my gut reaction to the above is that you are lying. However, I cannot know for sure. Since I have catalogued you as an anglozionist troll, my assumption would be that you were in favor of that anglozionist war. And you are now lying about that, because you do not wish to discredit yourself. But I cannot know for sure.

    As regards your saying that you don’t know why I bring up Iraq, there I think you are definitely lying. You know perfectly well why I brought it up. (My interaction with you has led me to classify you as a clever little piece of excrement…) You know that I brought it up to highlight the pure hypocrisy of the critics of the Crimea annexation. The anglozionists have waged wars of aggression and destroyed entire countries, yet they now believe they have the standing to criticize the Russians for a completely peaceful operation that corresponded to the popular will of the people of that area.

    If you asked the Nazi and the Stalinist whether Poland ought to exist and they both agreed that it should not, you would evidently agree with the Nazi and the Stalinist.

    Well, surely you know you’re engaging in sophistry. This is getting tiresome, but okay, let’s try again…

    Suppose I had the time machine and I went back in time and walked up to Hitler and asked him what time it is. And the man looks at his watch and says it’s 5 o’clock.

    I conclude it’s almost certainly 5 o’clock. So, Hitler said it’s 5 o’clock and I believe that it is indeed 5 o’clock. Ergo, I must be a Hitler supporter, a die-hard Nazi.

    Wow! What a brilliant piece of deductive reasoning. (NOT.)

    So, by the same token, if I believe that the various international observers in Crimea are telling me the truth when they say that the vote was honest, that means that I support whatever their political views are.

    NO, it does not mean that! It simply means that I do not believe that all the international observers, running a gamut of various political views, were all UNANIMOUSLY lying, claiming that the referendum was honest when it was not. Again, given the choice between believing them and an anonymous anglozionist shill, I believe them.

    Now, in closing, while I am grateful for this opportunity you have provided me to thoroughly spank you in this debate, understand there is no guarantee that I will reply to any more of your nonsense, since… believe it or not… I do have a life…

    • Replies: @AP
  176. MarkinLA says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The mass of the steel structure is 100,000 tons. That has nothing to do with causing the failure of the building. What is the mass of the structural components at the point of impact? It is the main columns for about a floor or two – hardly more than the mass of the airliner. This is what matters as that is the cause of the collapse. The airliner was likely traveling around 200 miles an hour as various pieces of the aircraft slammed into the columns including some fairly massive ones like the landing gear.

    The building didn’t just disintegrate into little pieces. The part above the failure point slammed into the part below and continued floor after floor.

    If I was you I wouldn’t be accusing others of not having a good conceptual model of things.

    There are other considerations. Were the landing gear wheels magnesium or were there other magnesium components? Magnesium ignites easily and burns very hot.

    The whole false flag scenario to get us into the Iraq war has a lot of holes. The biggest being that GWB was using any excuse to get us into Iraq. He didn’t need to go that big to get what he wanted. Simply, creating the radio traffic of Islamic jihadists taking an airliner and claiming to want to crash it but diving into the Hudson River would have been enough to get the Iraq war started.

  177. Rurik says:

    Donbass is a hellhole. The people have been massacred, bombed, shelled. Thousands dead. Hundreds of thousands displaced.

    The Crimea is peaceful and orderly. Now, it strikes me that very very few people, given the option of what happened to Donbass, would have chosen that over what happened in Crimea.

    Now, it seems to be that that a bunch of anglozionists, with their pathological fear and loathing of all things Russian, would have preferred that Crimea become like what Donbass is now, and are angry that those people escaped that fate. Fine, but I am happy that these psychopaths, at least in this case, did NOT get their way.

    Me too

    But I don’t put it down to a ‘pathological fear and loathing of all things Russian’, but rather a pretext to use as a bludgeon to force Putin to their will. That is the crux of the conflict- that there are people on the world’s stage unwilling to do their will. Putin went along with their misadventure in Libya when they said it was for humanitarian reasons, but today we all know that was all lies and that they destroyed Libya for the same reason they destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan- to destroy them. If Putin would go along with their agenda to destroy Syria and Iran, then in two seconds flat our entire media and all the western world leaders would be singing his praises as a great statesman and our bff. Just look at the way they treated Iran when it was suffering under their quisling leadership of the Shah, (who was installed in much the same way Porky was installed in Ukraine). Here’s an ad that ran in the West promoting and lauding Iran’s nuclear energy program. Wiki states that ‘In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world’s oil supply would run out, and declared, “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn … We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants.” U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business in Iran.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

    When Iran was run by a brutal CIA quisling who did the will of Israel and Washington (redundant), Iran was our bestest buddy ever. When Putin was on board with George Bush’s war on terror, Putin was a man with a soul who could be trusted. So long as he went along to get along. But as soon as you thumb your nose at the regime, it’s Hitler of the month for you. And the Danzig, oops, I mean Crimea treatment.

    When you hear all the leaders in the west and all the pundits and shills talking about how Putin aggressively seized Crimea (with an overwhelmingly popular referendum and not one shot fired), while at the same time they are exact same people who’ve been the agents and apologists for the slaughter of over a million innocent souls in Iraq and elsewhere, their gushing ‘humanitarian’ concerns and ‘outrage’ over breaking International Law- rings a little hollow, to say the least.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  178. AP says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    We can compare what happened in Donbass, which was not annexed into Russia, with what happened in Crimea, which was.

    Indeed. We can compare Crimea, which was annexed to Russia with no resistance from Ukraine’s forces, with Donbas, which was the site of armed rebellion supported by Russia and where the Ukrainian government chose to defend its territory, which is a hellhole.

    Or we can compare Czechoslovakia, which did not resist Hitler substantially and which was relatively peaceful during world War II, with Poland, which did, and which became a hellhole with millions dead.

    In both cases, it seems that your preference is for a state to offer no resistance when attacked by a stronger state that wants to annex its territory..

    So by your logic, all those Iraqi deaths are the result of the Iraqi people resisting the invasion of their country.

    The Crimea is peaceful and orderly. Now, it strikes me that very very few people, given the option of what happened to Donbass, would have chosen that over what happened in Crimea.

    And I’m sure someone in Prague in 1944 was grateful not to be living in Warsaw.

    So, to be harping about the technical illegality of an operation that saved human lives is really to show a lack of concern about the value of human life.

    If you were concerned about human life you would have opposed pro-Russian separatists, many of whose leaders were non-Ukrainian citizens crossing the border into Ukraine, from taking over government buildings within Ukrainian territory and waging a rebellion against the government from populated areas against a Soviet-style military that lacks the type of precision weaponry that would minimize civilian collateral damage.

    Instead, you place the blame for the bloodshed on a government for daring to resist the invasion of its own territory.

    And then you invent fantasies about my being an anglozionist troll. As if it takes an anglozionist troll to oppose invasions and theft of national territories, whether they be in Iraq, Serbia, Georgia, or Ukraine. I’ve been writing on Karlin’s blog for many years, I’m sure I condemned the Iraq war someone in one of my posts there, feel free to check.

    Suppose I had the time machine and I went back in time and walked up to Hitler and asked him what time it is. And the man looks at his watch and says it’s 5 o’clock.

    I conclude it’s almost certainly 5 o’clock. So, Hitler said it’s 5 o’clock and I believe that it is indeed 5 o’clock. Ergo, I must be a Hitler supporter, a die-hard Nazi.

    I already addressed this. Apparently you failed to read it, or didn’t understand. I suggest you ask a grownup to read it for you. The time is trivial. Geopolitical events are not. Suppose you went into a time machine and asked Hitler whether Poland ought to exist. He would say no. You would then ask a Bolshevik official whether Poland ought to exist. He would also say no. You would then ask dozens of other Nazis and Stalinists, and fellow travelers such as pro-Stalin radical union leaders, or bitter anti-Polish Ukrainian nationalists allied to Hitler, whether Poland ought to exist. They too would all say no. Joshua Revensky would then conclude, ” I do not believe that all the international observers, running a gamut of various political views, were all UNANIMOUSLY lying. Poland ought not to exist.” Just like the Crieman referndum was free and fair, cause all those Nazis and Stalinists and a few bitterly anti-EU Eurosceptics were unanimous.

    That, in a nutshell, is Revensky’s way of “thinking” and a demonstration of Revensky’s morality when it comes to political events.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @annamaria
  179. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan you wrote:

    First of all, you did not address the principal points I made. I asked you why you profess to believe that people who want the FED to be under democratic control and people who believe that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz are mentally ill AND suffer (according to you, apparently) from the SELF-SAME mental illness!!??

    I shall attempt to give it another go. First, let me address the addiction/mental illness portion, by asking you, if in your opinion (as a mental health professional, which it appears you are), is it at all possible, for those Soviet patients to have been actually sick? We seem to be struggling with a divergence of professional opinions in this instance at best, yet you were implying a certitude in your position. Mine on the other hand, was a speculation of sorts – I did say “in a manner of speaking”, did I not?

    The notion of conspiracy theory addiction, is not at all implausible or conjectural. In fact it has been empirically researched by academic psychologists. One such study is the work of Karen Douglas and R.M Sutton, at the University of Kent, Canterbury U.K. , titled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories”

    Abstract:
    Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: a self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even endorsement of mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated. In Study 1 (n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general

    Michael Shermer In the Scientific American references the above paper, and discusses his own tête-à-tête s with those addicted to conspiracy theories: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies/?page=1

    Over the years, my own observation (as a layman of course), is quite consistent with the notion that individuals who unquestioningly believe highly implausible stories – such as a massive government-neocon complex arranging 9/11, untroubled and unafraid of discovery and consequences of the small holocaust to follow – are loathe to accept as true, the ordinary, logical and the mundane. It is as if the simple truths of daily life, the quotediens assault their senses!

    So I speak from experience and a bit of exploratory reading on the subject.

    On the matter of the Fed being subject to Congressional oversight. In many ways it already is. All the governors are nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the senate. All the financials of the Fed are published, updated and made available for the public at large to view. The Fed Chair, Vice Chair, members of the FOMC and others routinely present to congressional committees, expounding on activities and noting the concerns of the elected members of the nation. The Humphrey Hawkins Testimony the most noted, is presented semi-annually to joint senate and congressional committees by the Fed Chair. The Fed Chair meets regularly with many members to form her decisions.

    If you are suggesting, that Monetary Policy (including the weekly OMOs and emergency actions) be debated, voted, and directed by Congress, I would suggest, that that, would be great folly. The consequences would be disastrous. To wit, Congress’ deliberations and gridlock have been utterly ineffectual in crafting much needed, economically attractive and obvious fiscal spending on infrastructure. Do you not fathom what an absolute hash it would make of the economy if a similar process were to be instituted for monetary policy?!!

    Going further, it sounds to me as if you are a proponent of the Gold Standard. Suffice it to say that the world has already benefited from blood letting in the past! I would have been more open to persuasion if instead of gold, microchips were suggested as the standard. A gold standard forces the adopters to engage in pro-cyclical policy: when the economy is in distress (as e.g., the Eur is now), it requires more contractionary measures. No thank you!

    Most importantly (and this is where one should pay attention to what Ben Bernanke was saying in that Q&A, and trying his utmost to be polite, as he always is), having monetary policy available as an article for congress to manipulate would render it utterly political! The party in power would use expansionary measures to boost the economy just in time for elections, and then reverse it after the win. An entirely plausible scenario.

    I hope this addresses your concerns.

    P.S.: I find your assertion that congress is designed to be inexpert at everything, rather unconvincing. It is supposed to be constituted by expert lawmakers, and we should elect them as such and hold them to it.

  180. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Thank you, function duly noted and to be used as required. I agree with you that SolontoCroesus is a well-read and smart individual, even though he attaches to me the sobriquet “arrogant s-o-b” .

  181. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam Shama

    Do you not fathom what an absolute hash it would make of the economy if a similar process were to be instituted for monetary policy?!!

    I have no comment on the rest of what you say but if this is your defense of the Fed and it’s operations for the last 30 years, I would think again.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  182. Re. Poland, Hitler entertained the idea of retaining a Polish rump state as late as a week into the war, but was opposed by Stalin, doubtless because of the implications for Ukrainian nationalism (Interwar Poland, like many post-Versailles states in east/Central Europe, was an unstable multi-ethnic hodgepodge.)

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  183. Sam Shama says:
    @MarkinLA

    You wrote:
    I have no comment on the rest of what you say but if this is your defense of the Fed and it’s operations for the last 30 years, I would think again.

    I have no objections to the performance of the Fed being evaluated over the past three decades. It is possible to be quite critical (I am of the attitude that it has been remarkably successful at the full-employment mandate but has failed at the price level or inflation mandate). Yet that does not at all compute to a reasonable argument in handing over weekly Open Market Operations to the Congress! (Yes, what a picture one can conjure, with the Paul & Paul & Paul debating if T-bills should be sold, when the pensions need to sell as well!)

    On your previous comment to Revusky:


    The whole false flag scenario to get us into the Iraq war has a lot of holes. The biggest being that GWB was using any excuse to get us into Iraq. He didn’t need to go that big to get what he wanted. Simply, creating the radio traffic of Islamic jihadists taking an airliner and claiming to want to crash it but diving into the Hudson River would have been enough to get the Iraq war started.

    I entirely agree

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  184. AP says:
    @AP

    Heh, I just realized I got Jonathan Revusky’s name wrong in my post. Well, it is a trivial matter.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  185. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Regarding the controlled explosive collapse of the twin towers + the others.
    I do not subscibe the false flag theory.
    BUT… You need to ask yourself a question. In the case of very tall buildings in very close proximity to other large (and tall) buildings; if they are hit and/or there is a major fire, has anyone thought through how to prevent an uncontrolled collapse, perhaps snapping the middle and falling sidewise onto many other buildings, causing a disastrous domino series of further collapses?

    I believe that this has been thought about and acted on long since. I suggest that ALL tall building are already wired to be brought down by controlled explosions on their footprint (or as near as possible to within their footprint) in just such an eventuality. Those trying to manage the disaster had to face terrible choices: let the buildings burn on and risk a sideways collapse or make the decision to bring them down. Either way people were going to die as a result. But which would result in more casualties? And time was running out. Decisions had to be made. Someone had to make the call, “Pull it” – meaning, blow it up.

    Clearly the idea that tall buildings can be brought down like this ‘at the press of a button’ is not exactly going to be made public knowledge – not for sinister reasons, but for obviously sensible reasons.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  186. Mulegino1 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    That is a very interesting quotation.

    Indeed, the legend of the “Good War” and its symbiotic partner “the Holocaust” represent ideological underpinning of Atlanticist-Zionism, NATO, Israel, and the domination of the western mind by a narrative of one Jewish fable after the other.

    The strength of this narrative is served by limiting it to vague and nebulous generalizations or unprovable claims such as:

    “The Nazis were scrupulous record keepers.”

    ” There are mountains of documents.”

    ” It was the most documented event in history.”

    “My aunt’s entire family was wiped out in the Holocaust.”

    The narrative must also cloak itself in the pseudo-sacral:

    “After Auschwitz, Calvary no longer has any meaning.”

    “The sacredness of memory.”

    “The silence. Only the silence is sufficient; to speak of the Holocaust in terms of time and space is to violate its own uniqueness.”

    “An attack on God’s chosen people; an attack on God himself!”

    Or, in the case of the French “intellectuals” a tautology:

    “The gas chambers did not exist because they were technically possible; they were technically possible because they existed.

    So, when faced with this vague nonsense, a revisionist brings up empirical facts or specific documents, e.g., “Why is there no evidence of any mass grave at Treblinka II?” or “Why does the Luther Memorandum say that Hitler has decided that the Jews will have to leave Europe after the war? Doesn’t that demonstrate that he had no plans to kill them all?”, that does not equate to revisionism, but to the loaded term, “Holocaust denial.” The revisionist is not updating history, he is committing blasphemy against the quasi-official state religion of the EU and the U.S.

    Ukraine is kind of a fault line for the clash of two competing narratives: “The Good War” and “Holocaust” narrative – which is fundamentally a Jewish one, and the “Great Patriotic War” narrative which has very Russian nationalist (and even Orthodox) implications. Even though both were fighting against Germany, the conflict is perceived very differently by both sides.

    Ironically, the Novorossiyans are in essence fighting the same enemy as the Germans were fighting on the Western Front. It’s a truly bizarre situation: you’ve got kosher “Nazis” (more like criminal gangs who have appropriated Waffen S.S. symbols) fighting for Jewish Oligarchs on the one side, at least up till now, and you’ve got Novorossiyan Orthodox “communists” fighting for their families, their homes and their altars on the other.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  187. Rurik says:
    @Anonymous

    Hey Anon,

    (I had to change my ‘name’ to Rurik)

    I actually had never even considered your theory. Wow, what a game changer!

    When Lucky Larry said “pull it”, he was just activating a clandestine program whereupon all steel-frame skyscrapers are all secretly wired for a controlled demolition from day one. Who’d a figured those sneaky geniuses would have done that?

    And I guess that goes for towers one and two also huh? That explains all the squibs and the way all that concrete and steel and everything was all turned into pulverized dust! It explains why and how the beams were cut.

    I have to ponder this brand new possibility. Lucky Larry’s call to the fire chief takes on a whole new meaning now.

  188. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Over the years, my own observation (as a layman of course), is quite consistent with the notion that individuals who unquestioningly believe highly implausible stories – such as a massive government-neocon complex arranging 9/11, …

    Care to explain the contents of this video?

    http://youtu.be/rStJ5BgadPs

    Here are a couple of the highlights:

    1. Investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. The investigators said there were “tie-ins.”

    2. One of the five dancing Israelis who went on TV back in Israel was quoted as saying: “Our purpose was to document the event.”

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  189. Mulegino1 says:
    @Rurik

    I agree with your main point, the Towers were demolished with explosives.

    But the Towers were not only blown up, most of their contents were literally disintegrated, including the steel and concrete cores.

    Thermite, or nano-thermite, could have been used to cut some of the columns, but it is obvious (at least to me) that there had to have been a very powerful explosive technology involved, for the following reasons:

    The electromagnetic pulse (the metal and engine blocks of cars not hit by any debris or close to any fire simply burst into flame).

    The disintegration of most of the steel and concrete.

    The core of WTC6 was missing completely, as if it had never existed.

    Plumes and a mushroom cloud which looks exactly like those caused by the detonation of a tactical nuke.

    A fireball – you can see it in some closeups of the top of the building during the collapse of the North Tower.

    Underground fires which burned for months which could not be put out with any amount of water, or any other fire retardant (self generating).

    A high incidence of testicular cancer among the recovery workers.

    There are quite a few good reasons to suspect mini or micro nukes planted in the sub basement levels.

    That having been said, it should be obvious to all (as it was to Danny Jowenko) that WTC 7 was (or at least resembled perfectly) a classic controlled demolition.

  190. @Rurik

    But I don’t put it down to a ‘pathological fear and loathing of all things Russian’,

    Uh, yeah, on consideration, I’d concede that you’re right. They just hate anybody who doesn’t submit to their arrogant bullying. In this case, it’s the Russians. They hated Charles de Gaulle back when for the same reason they hate Putin. But that wasn’t any real hatred of French culture or anything.

    In any case, we’re hardly in significant disagreement about anything.

    When you hear all the leaders in the west and all the pundits and shills talking about how Putin aggressively seized Crimea (with an overwhelmingly popular referendum and not one shot fired), while at the same time they are exact same people who’ve been the agents and apologists for the slaughter of over a million innocent souls in Iraq and elsewhere, their gushing ‘humanitarian’ concerns and ‘outrage’ over breaking International Law- rings a little hollow, to say the least.

    Yeah, amen. When you step back and look at this, it really is extraordinary, is it not? Finally, I guess it’s like an overall psychotic rupture with reality that you observe. You’ll see some general get on CNN or somewhere and basically claim that they incinerated some remote village in the Hindu Kush in order to make air travel in North America safe.

    Just pondering things out loud, I’ve been wondering of late whether this kind of psychotic rupture with objective reality is symptomatic of empires in a stage of irreversible decadence, like late Roman empire or something. But I honestly don’t know. I wasn’t there, after all. A human life span is short. I guess the only late stage collapsing empire I will ever get to experience first hand is this one.

  191. @AP

    Heh, I just realized I got Jonathan Revusky’s name wrong in my post. Well, it is a trivial matter.

    I don’t care about that. You got far more important things wrong.

    • Replies: @AP
  192. @Sam Shama

    On your previous comment to Revusky:

    The whole false flag scenario to get us into the Iraq war has a lot of holes. The biggest being that GWB was using any excuse to get us into Iraq. He didn’t need to go that big to get what he wanted. Simply, creating the radio traffic of Islamic jihadists taking an airliner and claiming to want to crash it but diving into the Hudson River would have been enough to get the Iraq war started.

    I entirely agree

    Quelle surprise! You believe the official story! None of us would ever have guessed that! (Okay, in case you don’t get it, that’s sarcastic…)

    But, okay, sarcasm aside, a quick question. You presumably believe the official government narrative about the nineteen hijackers and how all this was orchestrated from some religious fanatic off in Afghanistan. (Correct me if I’m wrong…)

    What specifically is the evidence that this story is actually true? Actually, come to think of it, I anticipate that you’ll start waffling and just claim like: c’mon, there is a mountain of evidence! So, in that case, could you just maybe tell us what, in your opinion, is the very strongest piece of evidence that the U.S. government story is true?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  193. @Rurik

    I actually had never even considered your theory. Wow, what a game changer!

    When Lucky Larry said “pull it”, he was just activating a clandestine program whereupon all steel-frame skyscrapers are all secretly wired for a controlled demolition from day one. Who’d a figured those sneaky geniuses would have done that?

    What is funny about Anon’s theory is that it is the most preposterous conspiracy theory one can ever imagine, isn’t it?! Every last steel framed high-rise is secretly wired from day one with explosives for a controlled demolition??!!

    What about all these conspiracy debunkers who claim that anything that involved a large number of co-conspirators could never be kept secret???!!!!

    So, I mean, here you have somebody proposing the most outrageous conspiracy theory ever and all the people who are self-styled “conspiracy debunkers” say nothing!!!

    Funny, that, eh?

  194. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    At first I thought you were taking the piss, asking my opinion on this. I’ll say this: the Brits, Israelis and the Egyptians all warned their U.S. counterparts, regarding an imminent attack. What happened after that is purely speculative, since all of those reports are classified.

    Many years ago I had watched similar videos, gleefully produced and consumed by the conspiracy crowd, most of these put their obvious spin on the “evidence”. Most of them ask stupid leading questions. Its actually pathetic.

    That interview by Yair Lapid, of the 5 Israelis that were detained is completely spin doctored. The 3 were actually saying in Hebrew (not audible in the short segment and voice over) that being accustomed to terror attacks they wanted to rush over to document the event. It was scoop for them, something they could bring over and show in Israel. This is what I remember from when I saw the original (the clip here is such an obvious hatchet job by the conspiracy theorists, that I think I am going to take a quick trip outside for some fresh air).

    I won’t be commenting on these CTs any further.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @geokat62
  195. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Quelle surprise! You believe the official story! None of us would ever have guessed that! (Okay, in case you don’t get it, that’s sarcastic…)

    All I can say is that your rapier wit has re-kindled my dormant sarcastic side. For an odd reason, a Beatles tune plays in my head at the moment. It goes like this “Day after day/Alone on a hill……”.

    Quid Pro quo, Revusky. Why don’t you first, attempt a repartee to my earlier, and far more important post, addressing your concerns on the Fed, which you so earnestly asked me to do.

    I shall then consider answering the present, paltry, tuppence worth.

  196. @Sam Shama

    First, let me address the addiction/mental illness portion, by asking you, if in your opinion (as a mental health professional, which it appears you are)

    So it appears to you that I am a mental health professional. Uh, no, I’m not. I’m not going to bother to rise to the bait and ask you how you came to that conclusion, because, on reflection, I don’t really care. After all, anybody who seriously believes that advocating that the FED be under democratic control is a symptom of mental illness is obviously somebody quite given to drawing conclusions based on very tenuous reasoning!

    is it at all possible, for those Soviet patients to have been actually sick?

    Well, a few of them might have been. In particular, I would bet offhand that people who hate the society they live in have a greater tendency to be suffering depression. (But that is just a layman view… again, I am not a mental health professional.)

    The real issue though is that if you try to tell me that they all suffered from the SAME illness and that the main symptom of said illness was a tendency to criticize the Soviet government… then….

    Though, granted, it’s true that if you define a critical stance towards the government as an illness, then they were all sick by definition. But such an “illness” is politically defined, and I would very much doubt that it is a legitimate medical condition.

    But, anyway, here’s the real crux of the matter, in my view: all the self-styled experts on this supposed “conspiracy pathology”, like Michael Shermer or Douglas and Sutton, as far as I can ever tell, the only people they think are crazy are the people who do NOT believe whatever the establishment narrative is.

    Isn’t that something? I mean, just for example, there are millions of people who watch FOX news every day and read the various local Rupert Murdoch owned publications and, no matter how absurd what they are told is, they believe it! Does Michael Shermer ever suggest that these people who literally believe ANYTHING they hear on FOX news suffer from a mental illness? Or is this EXCLUSIVELY the people who hold beliefs that are anti-establishment?

    By the same token, in Soviet times, there were surely regular folks who read Pravda every day and watched the State TV channels and believed everything the authorities told them. And all those same regular Ivans and Natashas surely also believed that the USSR was the very best country in the world to live in.

    I wasn’t there, but I’m sure there were MANY MILLIONS of such people.

    Did any of these Soviet psychiatrists who diagnosed dissidents with mental illnesses ever say that these regular gullible people suffered a mental illness?

    And getting back to the “conspiracy theory” shibboleth, well…. we now know that the official narrative on all kinds of key events has been false. The blowing up of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the babies taken out of the incubator in Kuwait, Saddam’s WMD…. Just to name a few…. Do any of these people like Shermer ever claim that people who believe all these stories suffer a mental illness? Or again, is it exclusively the people who refuse to believe the official story about whatever key event?

    Now, back to the Holocaust revisionism issue… when I was much younger, it was constantly claimed that those evil Nazis made soap and lampshades out of Jewish cadavers. It now appears that all of those stories are false. All the official historians of the Holocaust (I mean the ones who defend the canonical narrative, the gas chambers and the whole nine yards) have distanced themselves from the soap and lampshades. This is because it has become apparent that that never really happened. Go look at the Yad Vashem website even.

    Now, again, you apparently think that people who DOUBT the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz are mentally ill (you know, they suffer from this as-yet unnamed mental illness that causes people to want to audit the FED…). I would bet that it would be a cold day in hell when you ever say that the people who believed for so many years that Jews were turned into soap and lampshades also suffer from a mental illness! Heck, I believed that story for years myself. I must have been suffering a mental illness! Or was I?

    Look, if a mental illness is ALWAYS manifested by the person disbelieving the establishment narrative, and NEVER involves them believing it, could we possibly be really talking about a genuine medical condition?

    Of course not! C’mon. This is all obviously NONSENSE of a very high order, is it not?

    Now, let me address some of the lower order nonsense:

    Going further, it sounds to me as if you are a proponent of the Gold Standard.

    In this whole dialogue, I never expressed an opinion on the Gold Standard one way or the other. Of course, I never claimed to be a mental health professional either. It was you who were expressing opinions about various people suffering some sort of mental illness, not I. So, here, yet again, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    P.S.: I find your assertion that congress is designed to be inexpert at everything, rather unconvincing. It is supposed to be constituted by expert lawmakers, and we should elect them as such and hold them to it.

    Again, I never claimed what you are saying I claimed. I said that the Congress was not inherently made up of EXPERTS in any given field. I did not say that they were expressly mandated to be INEXPERT. That is a completely separate proposition and a twisting of what I said.

    I would like to believe that these kinds of continual distortions and fabrications regarding what I said (like that I support the gold standard etcetera) are accidental. However, I am not sure. But, whether intentional or not, having people continually twist what you say does get awfully tiresome. But, more importantly, when people constantly resort to this sort of thing, it does kind of suggest that they don’t have a very strong argument!

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  197. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Israeli operatives carried out the attacks in Lower Manhattan via Mossad front moving companies; one such company was Urban Moving Systems, where the three “Dancing Israelis” were employed.

    According to police radio, a van with a painted logo of airliners crashing into the New York City skyline exploded on King St. between 6th and 7th Streets. The explosion was also reported by Rick Sanchez on CNN, who was in the vicinity.

    A van filled with explosives was stopped near the Lincoln Tunnel, and another nearby the George Washington Bridge – and all the occupants were Israelis. *

    No Arabs or Muslims were arrested in the U.S. in connection with the attacks. Dozens of Israelis were, and were subsequently deported under orders from Zionist Jew Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal Justice Division at the Department of Justice.

    Virtually every single major figure in New York City who was involved with the WTC and the transfer of the WTC from the Port Authority to private ownership- Larry Silverstein, Frank Lowey, Ronald Lauder, inter alia, was a Zionist Jew.

    The Israeli messaging company Odigo, sent out a warning to its subscribers to avoid the Towers. Only one Israeli died in the attacks (although quite a few Jews did) and just happened to be in the vicinity by chance.

    Jerome Hauer, Zionist Jew, and one of the originators of the “Bin Laden did it” story, had the President, and his Cabinet on Cipro weeks before the Anthrax attacks.

    *Interestingly enough, subsequent to the attacks, two Israeli nationals armed with explosives were arrested attempting to blow up the Mexican Chamber of Deputies.

    False flag terror is an Israeli specialty. Just think King David Hotel, the Patria, the Lavon Affair, the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty, etc.

  198. annamaria says:
    @AP

    it is rather curious how selective you are in the matters of “democracy on the march.”
    Crimea did have a referendum, showing decisively the peoples’ will, and a bloodless exit from the US-provoked mess in Ukraine. Perhaps you are not aware, but east Ukrainians wanted federalization. One more time: the US-installed thugs in Kiev started the civil war in Ukraine because east Ukrainians wanted federalization. What is wrong with the idea of federalization? Have not the US had a glorious history of federation? The same goes with some European countries, see Switzerland. If Kiev’ junta was serious about becoming “European,” the question of federalization would be a trivial one. But a peaceful Ukraine could not be accepted by the DC strategies: they wanted Iraqization of Ukraine so that RF would have a grave problem on its border. For the sin of desiring democracy, the thieving oligarchs in Kiev deprived the east Ukrainians of all social services (are you aware about penniless pensioners and the cutoff of all med services in east Ukraine?) and allowed the neo-nazi bands to terrorize civilians. Note that the Ukrainian neo-nazis had been encouraged (till virtually yesterday) by the very distant supporters in Canada and the US, whereas you found it wrong that the Russian relatives of east Ukrainians might cross the border to defend the civilians against the military assault by Kiev, Kolomojsky’s battalions infested with neo-nazis, and now by the ISIS thugs.

  199. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    I won’t be commenting on these CTs any further.

    Is this how your redoubtable Balliolites win the debate? They run off before their opponents even get a chance to challenge their feeble “arguments”?

    I’ll say this: the Brits, Israelis and the Egyptians all warned their U.S. counterparts, regarding an imminent attack.

    I like how you roll in the Brits and Egyptians to make it appear that the lil’ ole Israelis were no more involved than the others were, when you know that is not true!

    What happened after that is purely speculative, since all of those reports are classified.

    Not quite. As you well know, there is more, much more, to this story!

    You are no doubt familiar with the name of Dominick Suter, aren’t you? You know, the owner of Urban Moving Systems who fled to Israel after being investigated by the FBI? Well according to a former CIA chief of operations for counterterrorism Vince Cannistraro:

    there was speculation that Urban Moving Systems may have been a front for an intelligence operation investigating fund-raising networks channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad..

    The Forward, that hotbed of CTs, claimed that:

    the FBI had concluded that the van’s driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America “spying on local Arabs”

    Here are more details:

    Together with the other three men, the group of five Israelis, now widely known as the “dancing Israelis”, were spotted in multiple locations filming, and celebrating the attacks.

    The men were detained by NYPD. The police and FBI field agents became suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers allegedly used), $4,700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told a New Jersey local paper, The Bergen Record, that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (emphasis added)

    http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

    Hey, but this more or less describes the extent to which the Brits and Egyptians were involved, right?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  200. Art says:
    @Sam Shama

    “hopelessly addicted to conspiracy theories of the Holocaust. Add to that the zionism of the Fed.”

    Samie Samie – you are a hopeless purveyor of the giant Zionist Jew lies of the six million holocaust and that Jews have no say in the Fed when they have run it for the last 30 years. You are so funny.

    If you weren’t such a cute little hasbara lemming, people could be very upset with you. Getting in peoples face and lying like that is not nice.

    p..s. Wiz – you too!

  201. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Calm down.

    (1) You pointed to the video of Ron Paul questioning Ben Bernanke. In that video and many others, it is quite well known, that Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of the G-S. Therefore, it plausibly follows that you would be a proponent as well. If you are not, then please don’t invoke Ron Paul when criticising the Fed, since Ron Paul stands for either abolishing the Fed or instituting the G-S.

    (2) Addiction to conspiracy theories, critically the ones that involve major events, are treated as an addiction, by Douglas et al. I did not imply (and certainly did not mean to), that proposing a “democratic control of the Fed”, whatever you mean by it (and you did not define it), is either an addiction or a sign of any malady. I simply argued against the terrible idea of making monetary policy a process similar to fiscal policy, given what a gridlocked nightmare that has become. I have objected elsewhere, that the charge of the Fed being a zionist entity, a baseless one.

    (3) I have been to the Yad Vashem at least 10 times. I don’t think I need any more evidence of the Holocaust or revisionism to “balance” my opinion. Have you actually visited it Yonatan?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  202. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    By the by, is this comment spurious as well?

    “The battle still rages round the question: are we fighting the Germans or the Nazis? One day historians will rub their eyes, and wonder how such silly questions could be discussed at the end of 1941. No one was fool enough to pretend that we were fighting anything but the Germans in 1914. Indeed, all these fallacies about ‘Hitlerite Germany’ calmly overlook the last war altogether. The story of German aggression is a perfectly simple and consecutive one. If the world chooses to close its eyes again both to story and warning, Germany will succeed in reducing the world to slavery at her third attempt. Hitler has shown what that slavery means. Yet there is no material difference between his New Order and Naumann’s Mittel-Europa a quarter of a Century earlier. The German claim to be the Master Race is a very old one, and the method of enforcement has been consistently inhuman. It is strange that I should still have to be pointing to these facts; but I must continue to do so till they are accepted.”

    November 1941(Lord Vansittart, Black Record, Hamish Hamilton London, 1941, p.ix)

    It is a bit more subtle than the Churchill quote, but in its own way, quite more damning – if- it is authentic according to the Wiz!

  203. AP says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You got far more important things wrong.

    Says the guy who actually thinks neo-Nazis and Stalinists got things right.

  204. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    I’ll get to this tomorrow, mate. Cheers

    • Replies: @geokat62
  205. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    First thing, I trust!

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  206. @Sam Shama

    Calm down.

    I’m perfectly calm. I’m calmly pointing out that you are making bizarre conjectures, like that I am a “mental health professional”. I never said that. Or that I “obviously” support the Gold Standard. I never said that either.

    The really bizarre one is the claim that I said that the Congress is MANDATED TO LACK EXPERTISE ON ANY SUBJECT, when what I actually said was that people elected to Congress are NOT MANDATED TO POSESS SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ANY GIVEN FIELD. There is such a world of difference between what I actually said and what you claimed I said that it is really kind of extraordinary…

    But, anyway, I’m calm. I just, quite calmly point out that you engage in these misrepresentations.

    (1) You pointed to the video of Ron Paul questioning Ben Bernanke. In that video and many others, it is quite well known, that Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of the G-S. Therefore, it plausibly follows that you would be a proponent as well.

    Uh, no, Simon, it does not “plausibly follow”.

    No, for future reference, let me explain… My mentioning Ron Paul specifically means that: I mentioned Ron Paul. In other words, the following reasoning is NOT valid:

    Person X mentioned Ron Paul. Ergo, Person X supports the Gold Standard.

    Of course, there is another fool loose here who signs his drivel “AP” who seems to think that if Hitler tells you it’s 5 o’clock and you believe he might be telling you the truth, that this makes you a Nazi. So your believing that if I simply mention Ron Paul, I must favor the Gold Standard, that’s hardly sui generis

    Really, though, you should stop this. I mean, some of the goyim here might figure out that not all Jews are geniuses and ruin it for all of us…

    (2) Addiction to conspiracy theories, critically the ones that involve major events, are treated as an addiction, by Douglas et al.

    That’s their claim. But, oddly enough, none of these people seem to think that the person who believes everything they hear on FOX news is suffering from a mental illness. Why is that?

    I did not imply (and certainly did not mean to), that proposing a “democratic control of the Fed”, whatever you mean by it (and you did not define it), is either an addiction or a sign of any malady.

    So when you said in message #79: “putrid, miasma of Holocaust denialism, central bank conspiracy” you did not mean to conflate the two things. Well, maybe that is so, but if that is the case, you should work on expressing yourself more clearly.

    (3) I have been to the Yad Vashem at least 10 times.

    Wow, that’s quite something. Why? Did you actually learn something the tenth time that you hadn’t learned on the previous 9 trips? Or is it that it is a good place to pick up Jewish girls? (Or maybe it’s a good place to pick up German girls. They must be feeling awfully guilty… you could ask them for some reparations.)

    I don’t think I need any more evidence of the Holocaust or revisionism to “balance” my opinion. Have you actually visited it Yonatan?

    No, not even once. I guess I’m just not the party animal you are…

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  207. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You proclaimed:
    I’m perfectly calm.

    I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, although you must know, that in a written discourse, capitalisation is tantamount to screaming, and plausibly (a word that you should ponder the meaning of, especially when it gets conditioned) signals perturbation or distress. You hurled 19 capitalized words, compared to my 2 (POTUS and FOMC), which reasonable people would actually agree, is 19 compared to zero. The conclusion is inevitable.

    Closely to follow, you said:
    Uh, no, Simon, it does not “plausibly follow”.

    No, for future reference, let me explain… My mentioning Ron Paul specifically means that: I mentioned Ron Paul. In other words, the following reasoning is NOT valid:

    Person X mentioned Ron Paul. Ergo, Person X supports the Gold Standard.

    Once again it is quite plausible, which is not to say that you actually do. In fact since you declare that you have no position on the G-S, I take you for your word. However, “Person X mentioned Ron Paul” and “Person X mentioned Ron Paul questioning the Fed Chair” are quite different, in that the second implies the intersection of events consisting of (a) Ron Paul and (b) the Fed being questioned, leading once more, to narrower implications (abolition of the Fed and the G-S). If you do not see the difference, some might conclude that you are being dishonest or that conditional logic is not your strong suit.

    Careful (even jocularly), bandying around a myth that ‘goyim’ consider jews intellectually superior.

    In comment #79, I wrote:
    It further struck me (similar to your own suspicions, and those of @Numinous, @jb), do these denizens actually ever reflect on their unflinching raison d’etre, and wonder about the world, which by all indications of time spent posting endless, putrid, miasma of Holocaust denialism, central bank conspiracy, etc., seems to be offering them no toil at all, and therefore might actually offer a measure of insight?

    Surely, it says exactly what it is meant to say, and should you not glean what meaning you wish? The beauty of the English language, its subtleties, intricacies, simplicities and double entendres,, such as in the sentence “Surely, no sentence beginning with the word ‘surely’ can validly contain a question mark at its end?” is precisely why it is such a joy!

    Wow, that’s quite something. Why? Did you actually learn something the tenth time that you hadn’t learned on the previous 9 trips? Or is it that it is a good place to pick up Jewish girls? (Or maybe it’s a good place to pick up German girls. They must be feeling awfully guilty

    You should know that the Yad Vashem is a current research institution as well, and therefore the knowledge is cumulative.

    For a fellow who has never visited, you appear to have a certain view about girls who visit Yad Vashem. Care to share the source of your insider knowledge?

  208. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Hello there!

    I concede the debate without further ado, finding myself in a position not dissimilar to Carroll’s white rabbit, confronted by the King:

    “Begin at the beginning,” the King said, very gravely, “and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”

    In all honesty, I fear I really have not studied the 9/11 conspiracy deeply enough to engage you in debate.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  209. @Sam Shama

    In all honesty, I fear I really have not studied the 9/11 conspiracy deeply enough to engage you in debate.

    Well, you claim that you believe the official U.S. government story. Presumably you believe it because you believe there is strong proof, no?

    If so, then what is that proof? I asked you before and you did not answer. What is the strongest evidence, in your opinion, that the U.S. government version of what happened on 9/11, is actually truthful?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  210. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Well since you insist, I did say earlier that I agree with @MarkinLA’s thoughts, didn’t I? (and you expressed surprise?!!)

    comment #184

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1008206

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  211. @MarkinLA

    You’re aware that even NIST dismisses the pancake theory of the building collapse that you lay out here, yes?

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @MarkinLA
  212. geokat62 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    You’re aware that even NIST dismisses the pancake theory of the building collapse that you lay out here, yes?

    No! Here’s what I found when I visited NIST’s website. In the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS section, a number of study objectives are enumerated, including Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft. It states:

    The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
    In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
    In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
    The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
    In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
    NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. (emphasis added)

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  213. @geokat62

    Yeah, that’s the point: NIST claims the buildings were weakened from the impact, THEN pancaking proceeded, contrary to what MarkinLA asserted (better characterized as a domino theory). I’ll leave it to others to evaluate whether NIST’s assessments of what caused the weakening in the first place are believable, but the point is, even NIST felt the need to address the unsupportable pancaking theory that originally made the rounds in the official discourse.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  214. See here:

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

    NIST says the buildings were going to come down anyway, pancaking was just an effect, not a cause.

  215. MarkinLA says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Did you see the video? It clearly shows the building coming straight down floor by floor. There are going to be points of resistance along the way so that some parts come down at different speeds. As each floor makes contact with the floor below the falling mass is adding kinetic energy due to the additional mass so that it can counter the effect of the resistance of the next floor below. There is no visual evidence that the lower floors gave way until the falling mass hit them.

    I didn’t see anything like the type of small explosives used when a building is demolished. In a typical explosive demolition the explosives aren’t timed to match the building coming down they just weaken the main supporting structures and gravity does the rest. They usually have some type of internal connections made so as the inner structure falls down the outside walls are pulled into the middle.

    However, I don’t want to get into that argument about whether it was a false flag or anything else. My main comment was about some belief that the airplane should have just went splat against the side of the building like a bug. Such a situation is likely if a small personal aircraft hit something like the Empire State Building with it’s stone outer walls but not an airliner and a modern steel and glass skyscraper.

    An airliner has a significant mass and it will do damage to the internal supporting structures. In addition the floors below the impact point have an inertia and the floors above the impact point have an inertia such that the shock felt by the supports on the impacted floors will be mostly isolated to the impact point and not spread out to the rest of the buildings superstructure making to total mass of the building insignificant.

    What I mean by that is have you ever seen a samurai sword cutting through bamboo to determine its sharpness. The top half of the cut just sits there for a brief moment until gravity takes over and pulls it straight down. If the aircraft had enough kinetic energy it could have simply sheared the support sections of the building off completely leaving the top half suspended until it too fell straight down. Obviously, it had nowhere near this amount of energy but to say it had no effect on the ability of the columns to support the floors still above the impact point makes no sense.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  216. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Thanks for this study. It greatly helps forming an understanding of the actual collapse. I recall being glued to the box all waking hours….

  217. MarkinLA says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Then you didn’t read what I said. Nowhere did I say that the impact brought the building down alone only that the support structure had to be affected by the crash as opposed to some people suggesting that the plane should have been like a bug smashing into the side of a a window.

    The building didn’t just disintegrate into little pieces. The part above the failure point slammed into the part below and continued floor after floor.

    That’s all I said about the collapse.

  218. @Sam Shama

    Well since you insist, I did say earlier that I agree with @MarkinLA’s thoughts, didn’t I? (and you expressed surprise?!!)

    FIRST of all, I did not express surprise that you agreed with @MarkinLA. Quite the contrary. You should go look up the word “irony”.

    SECONDLY, the comment that you link, saying you agree with it, is itself idiotic. @MarkinLA seems to think that if there is some local damage to a 100,000 ton steel frame that the entire steel frame can disintegrate as a consequence. No, it can’t, and you needn’t trust my judgment on this. Just go to ae911truth.org and you can watch a myriad of experts explain ad nauseam why this is simply physically impossible. And it is explained in such a manner that, certainly any high school graduate ought to understand it perfectly well.

    You see, finally, the official 9/11 story, on the physical level, is like believing that you could fire a single bullet (that weighs about 10 grams) at a George Foreman outdoor grill (that weighs about 10 kilograms) and this could cause the entire George Foreman grill to simply disintegrate into some unrecognizable form. Of course, our intuition about everyday objects of this size is that this is absurd. If you had a gun and fired a single bullet at a George Foreman outdoor grill, it would just cause a dent and the grill would almost certainly be intact and even useable afterwards.

    But, THIRDLY, and most importantly, I posed the question of what the proof is that the official 9/11 story is true — you know the 19 Arabs with boxcutters and the religious fanatic in Afghanistan…

    None of @MarkinLA’s idiotic comment that you reference constitutes any proof that this story is true.

    What, in your opinion, is the evidence that this story, on the basis of which multiple wars were launched, is actually true? You really ought to be able to answer this question.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @MarkinLA
  219. @MarkinLA

    What I mean by that is have you ever seen a samurai sword cutting through bamboo

    Surely you mean the other way round, bamboo cutting through a samurai sword, no?

    Because, after all, the frame of each tower is made of steel, super-hard structural steel. The airplane is a hollow aluminium tube, comparatively much weaker.

    Anyway, speaking for myself, the answer to the question is no: I have never seen bamboo cutting through a samurai sword.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  220. […] le Saker Original – Le 10 juillet 2015 – Source thesaker.is via unz Deux sommets historiques se déroulent cette semaine : les débats entre la France et […]

  221. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Aren’t you getting a bit carried away with the diatribes? (I’d be careful calling others idiotic, since you telegraph all the qualities that, in fact, mark you as one)

    There is little need for me to solicit the opinions of others, with whom I have been corresponding rather regularly, to verify my sense of irony, which happens to be intact. What did the following mean to you when I wrote, immediately after you said “Quelle surprise!” (or something equally awkward):

    All I can say is that your rapier wit has re-kindled my dormant sarcastic side. For an odd reason, a Beatles tune plays in my head at the moment. It goes like this “Day after day/Alone on a hill……”.

    Perhaps the subtle irony escaped your radar.

    So let me say this: as I noted in my previous comments to you, and your subsequent literalistic reactions, you do appear somewhat obtuse and in need of improving your reading comprehension and absorption of passages; as note when I posted my agreement with MarkinLA on the following passage,

    The whole false flag scenario to get us into the Iraq war has a lot of holes. The biggest being that GWB was using any excuse to get us into Iraq. He didn’t need to go that big to get what he wanted. Simply, creating the radio traffic of Islamic jihadists taking an airliner and claiming to want to crash it but diving into the Hudson River would have been enough to get the Iraq war started.

    It was meant to imply the following (for the benefit of the obtuse): That there was no need to engage in such a massive mayhem in order to achieve his overt and obvious desire to go to war with Iraq. Much less would have sufficed.

    It matters little how many engineers say whatever you are alluding to. There are likely many more engineers who support the official version. It reduces to what one is rationally willing to agree with. Period.

    I also noticed that you have stopped word capitalisation. Do make sure that the gasket does not blow.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  222. Hibernian says:
    @AP

    Which is to say, quite a lot.

  223. Hibernian says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    “(Interwar Poland, like many post-Versailles states in east/Central Europe, was an unstable multi-ethnic hodgepodge.)”

    Were they more multi-ethnic than the United States?

  224. Hibernian says:
    @Mulegino1

    “‘After Auschwitz, Calvary no longer has any meaning.’”

    Who ever said this?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  225. MarkinLA says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    [email protected] seems to think that if there is some local damage to a 100,000 ton steel frame that the entire steel frame can disintegrate as a consequence. No, it can’t, and you needn’t trust my judgment on this.

    Again you misquote so as to have your strawman. Who ever said the collision caused the building to disintegrate in an instant. The top part fell due to gravity onto the bottom part (which I have said repeatedly). The many collisions as the mass of upper floors make contact with each succeeding lower floor caused the disintegration. What do you think the mass of that 20 or so stories above the impact point is compared to a still standing floor as they make contact?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  226. MarkinLA says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I am guessing you never studied physics. I am no physicist but did take the series most science majors take. The velocity of a moving object is an important consideration in how much damage is done as well as the mass. You keep mentioning the entire mass of the building as though that means anything. All it means is that the damage due to the impact will almost be entirely localized to the impact point and not cause the building to topple over from the impact alone.

    You keep mentioning that the structure is steel (structural steel is not really very strong – really strong steel is brittle) and that the plane is mostly aluminum as though that means everything. Yes if I shot an aluminum ball at a plate of steel it is less likely to penetrate than if I shot a steel ball with the same mass at the same velocity because the less dense aluminum has a larger surface area to plow though. However, if I change the shape of the aluminum to something like a spitzer bullet the difference in the damage to the steel plate will be quite noticeable compared to that of the ball. If the ball is shot fast enough the aluminum ball will blow right through the steel.

    The fact that the impact was about 2/3 up the building meant that the weakened part was still supporting a mass equal to about 1/3 the building. If the pilot had hit the top 5 floors the building would have likely shaken severely and swayed much more than in any storm New Yorkers had ever seen but it would still be standing because there would not be enough mass to start the cascading failure.

    The Jihadis do have people with advanced degrees (many from US and British universities). They knew what they were doing in where to hit the building.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  227. Mulegino1 says:
    @Hibernian

    It’s kind of a summation of teachings of liberal “Christian” theologians such as Gregory Baum, who teach drivel such as we are no longer in the “anno Domini” period but in the “anno Auschwitz” period, or that in light (or darkness) of Auschwitz, it is no longer Jews who must convert to Christianity, it is Christians who must convert.

    It’s simply a matter of Jewish supremacists lording it over liberal Christians who grovel and wallow in their masochistic rituals of self-inculpation and apologies for the sins of their coreligionists of the past.

    My point was that the Holocaust Industry uses such pseudo-mystical terminology to obfuscate the fact that the “Holocaust” (6 million Jews killed, mostly in gas chambers) is not an objectively true historical event, because it is a technical and logistical impossibility and there is no physical evidence for it. On the other hand, as an unquestionable pseudo-religion, it becomes off limits to impartial empirical scrutiny.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  228. @Mulegino1

    On the other hand, as an unquestionable pseudo-religion, it [holocaustism] becomes off limits to impartial empirical scrutiny.

    If it is a “religion,” it may not be taught in US taxpayer-funded schools, unless it is taught in a way that can be subjected to “impartial empirical scrutiny.”

    The San Rialto School District debacle demonstrates that holocaustism is not taught with “impartial empirical scrutiny.”

    In case Abe Foxman forgot:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  229. @Hibernian

    Given the language differences and more importantly the degree of political centralization, the heterogeneity in these states was much more prone to conflict than the U.S. at the time.

    @MarkinLA

    No one is failing to read you properly. You keep switching between pancaking as a cause and as an effect as it suits you. You have very little credibility.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  230. @MarkinLA

    Again you misquote so as to have your strawman. Who ever said the collision caused the building to disintegrate in an instant.

    Not in an “instant”. In about an hour or so. So what? It’s still obviously impossible.

    The top part fell due to gravity onto the bottom part (which I have said repeatedly).

    And then fell straight down through the rest of the building — through the path of greatest resistance!

    What do you think the mass of that 20 or so stories above the impact point is compared to a still standing floor as they make contact?

    I don’t recall ever saying that. It’s all irrelevant anyway. The impact of the airplane cannot sever something like 80 steel columns anyway. And even if it did, the upper part of the building would NOT fall straight down through the path of GREATEST resistance.

    But, let’s leave all this aside for a moment. Even if this account regarding the physics of the collapse were true, it is not decisive proof that the official story is true, i.e. 19 Arab religious fanatics armed with boxcutters, orchestrated by a religious nut on the other side of the world.

    I assume you believe this far-fetched story. What specifically, in your opinion, is the strongest hard evidence that this story is true?

  231. Mulegino1 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Indeed.

    To paraphrase conman and windbag Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust must be “kept from our prying eyes and our imagination”, thereby giving it the status of a sacred mystery.

    I think it is appropriate to call this pseudo-religion Shoahism. It has become the official inviolable pseudo-religion of the kosher western world, particularly in Western Europe where Shoahite heresy is routinely punished by the Liberal Inquisition. Perhaps I am being unfair to the Inquisition itself, since its rules of evidence where not as restrictive as those of the Liberal Inquisition. At least Galileo was allowed to present his physical evidence. Evidence which contradicts the official creed of Holocaustianity is not permitted by the Liberal Inquisition. Germar Rudolf’s thorough chemical analysis of the brickwork of the alleged “gas chamber” at Birkenau, approved by the Fresenius Institute, was not allowed to be presented in his defense.

    What Shoaism boils down to is the goyim worshiping the Jewish collective.

  232. @MarkinLA

    I am guessing you never studied physics. I am no physicist but did take the series most science majors take.

    I daresay that whatever tuition you paid was wasted.

    The velocity of a moving object is an important consideration in how much damage is done as well as the mass.

    Oh, really? That’s what you learned in college? Before that, you must have believed that if you jumped off a two foot high chair and jumped off a twenty foot high wall, you would hurt yourself equally. It’s amazing you survived to college age.

    Yes if I shot an aluminum ball at a plate of steel it is less likely to penetrate than if I shot a steel ball with the same mass at the same velocity because the less dense aluminum has a larger surface area to plow though.

    But so what? Suppose it does a poke a hole. Why should poking a hole in a huge steel structure cause the entire structure to globally disintegrate?

    The Jihadis do have people with advanced degrees (many from US and British universities). They knew what they were doing in where to hit the building.

    So let me get this straight. These alleged jihadis, after wresting control of the cockpit, certainly their adrenaline off the scale by now, took the controls, and this, remember, is the very first time they are ever flying the plane for real. (They had booked an hour or two in a simulator, apparently, it is said… but this is the first time for real.) And then they are able not only to hit the building, which is a feat many seasoned pilots say they could not do, but they were accurate enough to hit the building in the exact “sweet spot” where it is necessary to hit to cause the global collapse. (I am not sure this sweet spot even exists, but you say it does, and for the sake of argument, I’ll pretend to believe it…)

    Just think about this. The very first time you fly the plane for real. You just violently took over the cockpit, your adrenaline is off the scale, there is possibly blood all over the place… Think about this! Try to visualize this! JUST THINK!!!

  233. @Sam Shama

    Aren’t you getting a bit carried away with the diatribes? (I’d be careful calling others idiotic, since you telegraph all the qualities that, in fact, mark you as one)

    Fine, this idiot asked you a question. I asked you what specifically was the strongest evidence, in your opinion, that the government’s conspiracy theory was true.

    By that I mean the tale of the of the nineteen Arab muslims armed with boxcutters, sent by a religious fanatic on the other side of the world, which was used to start a myriad of wars, suspend the constitutional rights of the citizenry.

    What, specifically, is the strongest proof, in your opinion, that this story is true?

    You wrote a whole bunch of verbiage but did not answer the question. Why?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Sam Shama
  234. Mulegino1 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    That’s the so called “debunkers” weak spot. They cannot provide a factual, credible narrative, so they hide behind straw man arguments, ad hominems, hand waving, tautologies and appeals to authority to discredit those who challenge the ludicrous official version of 9/11, which is actually less credible than a conventional fairy tale. Their only argument, in the end, consists of calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” (a term invented by the CIA in 1967 to discredit those who expressed doubts about the Warren Commission’s Report to the President) or say “twoofer” as if giving a negative connotation to “truth” is not actually undermining their arguments.

    The official Osama Bin Laden 19 Arab hijackers version is physically impossible. It cannot have happened in the world of physical reality. It violates the laws of basic physics, the principles of construction engineering, firefighting engineering, ballistics, forensic investigation, aviation and airline protocols, air defense, and simple common sense.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  235. MarkinLA says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I am not switching anything. You just read what you want to read. I initially stated the basic failure mode. Then tried to expand on it to people who misquoted me. Who cares what you believe.

  236. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I am sure you have a great deal of information/theory which I have not studied. What I saw (I was in the U.K at the time), was the burning Tower1, with the commentary flowing around half past twelve or half past 1 (I am estimating). I then saw about a full 20-30 seconds of an aircraft flying towards Tower2, hitting it and causing a massive explosive orange plume to light up on what must have been the other side of the building. So is it the claim that this footage was a part of a massive conspiracy, and it was not real time at all?

    What about Bin Laden afterwards bragging about Mohammed Atta’s accomplishment? (I am sure there is another titillating story here)?

    I am willing to change my mind, if the evidence is airtight

  237. Sam Shama says:
    @Sam Shama

    “around half past twelve or half past 1 ”

    is incorrect, I should have said 2:30-3:00 or so

  238. Sam Shama says:
    @Mulegino1

    The official Osama Bin Laden 19 Arab hijackers version is physically impossible.

    I simply wish to make sure that I understand what you are saying. Is it that these hijackers were a totally fictional construct, or are you saying that their act of crashing the planes could not possibly have brought the buildings down? If they did exist, and the buildings were brought down by controlled explosions, then the implication is that these jihadis were a part of the elaborate plan that involved demolition experts. This is mind boggling, and one would have to suspend logic and reason, consequences if exposed never a concern etc……

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  239. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sam Shama

    No, the 19 Arab “hijackers” really existed. They constituted what, in the intelligence community is called (or at least used to be called) a “legend”. That is why they – and the Mossad agents who were undoubtedly managing them – were persons of interest for the F.B.I. They constituted the core of the cover story of 9/11, namely 19 amateur pilots who, armed only with box cutters, were able to crash two large commercial airliners into two buildings and knock down not one, not two, but three steel and concrete skyscrapers, and also make the core of a fourth – building 6 of the WTC complex – vanish entirely.

    Not only that, one of these “hijackers”, Hani Hanjour, who according to his own flight instructor was not able to successfully maneuver a single engine Cessna – managed to take a Boeing 757 passenger airliner and fly an absolutely impossible flight path – which included collision with light poles and the aircraft’s engines being UNDERNEATH the Pentagon’s lawns – achieving a perfect strike into the side of the Pentagon that had already underwent reinforcement against bomb attacks, penetrating the Pentagon exterior and making a perfectly shaped hole in an interior ring of the Pentagon – something absolutely impossible in the real world.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  240. @Sam Shama

    I am sure you have a great deal of information/theory which I have not studied. What I saw (I was in the U.K at the time), was the burning Tower1, with the commentary flowing around half past twelve or half past 1 (I am estimating). I then saw about a full 20-30 seconds of an aircraft flying towards Tower2, hitting it and causing a massive explosive orange plume to light up on what must have been the other side of the building. So is it the claim that this footage was a part of a massive conspiracy, and it was not real time at all?

    Excuse me, the question I posed is what is the evidence that the story of Osama Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers is true? How is the above any sort of evidence of that?

    This is like if we were discussing the JFK assassination and I asked you for proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, and you pointed to the Zapruder film. How would that be proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did it? (AND acted alone…)

    Well, it’s not. Obviously. It’s basically just proof that the man was shot. And nobody is disputing THAT!!??

    So, how is the footage you describe having seen on that day any sort of proof of the “Al Qaeda did it” theory? Well, again, obviously, it’s not, so why do you even bring it up? To me, it looks like padding, to distract one from the glaring fact that you cannot produce any evidence that withstands the laugh test.

    What about Bin Laden afterwards bragging about Mohammed Atta’s accomplishment? (I am sure there is another titillating story here)?

    First of all, nobody who has studied this seriously believes that the video you are referencing is authentic. An obviously right-handed Bin Laden, who is known to be left-handed… and there are a myriad of giveaways. The video was miraculously found in some house in Kandahar…

    But, regardless, this is your best evidence that the story is true? I mean, by the same token, if I put up a video saying I did it, using the same reasoning you would have to accept that as evidence, no? Or, more to the point, if there was a grainy video on youtube with somebody who vaguely looks like me saying he did it…

    I had to ask you the question 3 times. You kept dodging it. “What is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence that the official story, Osama Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers, is true?” Is this really the best you can come up with? This is game over, point, set and match, my friend.

    Look, I’m going to give you another chance. Maybe you were off your game, having an off day. So, last chance… Do you rest your case and say that this is the best evidence available for the official story? Or do you have something else? I give you another chance. I’m bending over backwards to be fair to you.

    So again: is that all you got? Have you got something else?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  241. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I am natural skeptic of all CTs. As I said earlier to geokat62 and Mulegino, I have not studied this one, except the reference in Shermer’s general study. To have a fair view of it, I will need to pursue it for a time.

    It is really inconsequential what anyone, yourself included thinks. (I have to do my own research). If it tickles the pleasure centre of your brain, then fine, its game set and match for you, and you can go back to playing your video games. There is one about dinosaurs on some island apparently, that might interest you.

    Additionally, it should fall on you to prove the charge of “guilty” on the official story, until you do so the official version is innocent and true.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  242. Sam Shama says:
    @Mulegino1

    That is why they – and the Mossad agents who were undoubtedly managing them – were persons of interest for the F.B.I. They constituted the core of the cover story of 9/11, namely 19 amateur pilots who, armed only with box cutters, were able to crash two large commercial airliners into two buildings

    I hope that my questions are not too bothersome.

    The Mossad agents, “managing them” ……to commit suicide?

    Also, if as you say, these 19, having only superficial training in Cessna flights, actually managed to crash large commercial aircraft into two buildings. Or did they? If they did, that must have been incredibly fortuitous for them, correct? So it was therefore a combination of luck, and what must have been a massive and elaborate planning over many months defying security in the buildings that accomplished the job. It tests credulity to say the least.

  243. @Sam Shama

    I am natural skeptic of all CTs.

    We’re not talking about any “conspiracy theory” here. Granted, I am never sure I really know what the meaning of the term “conspiracy theory” is anyway. If the government claims that Saddam Hussein has WMD, and I ask for some proof of this claim, is my asking for proof a “conspiracy theory”? It seems by your definition, skepticism about government claims, EVEN when no evidence has been offered, in itself constitutes a “conspiracy theory”!!??

    How we got here is that I simply asked you what the strongest evidence was that the government story was true. I had to ask you three times because you kept trying to squirm away. Then you finally gave an answer that demonstrated that you had no evidence.

    Now, does this not give you pause? A massive war is launched in which hundreds of thousands of innocents are killed and it is based on a narrative for which there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL??? People are kidnapped and tortured endlessly in black sites… again, based on a narrative for which there is NO PROOF???!!! The civil liberties in the constitution are suspended based on this story, and when asked what the proof for the story is, you cannot answer???!!!

    That does not give you any sort of uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach???!!!

    Additionally, it should fall on you to prove the charge of “guilty” on the official story, until you do so the official version is innocent and true.

    Oh, my God… you really are a sad case…

    NO, NO, AND NO. (And yes, there, it’s not pure emphasis, consider that I am shouting.)

    If the government (or any other people or entity) claim that somebody is guilty of a crime, the onus is on THEM to provide the proof of guilt. You are claiming that people are guilty of a crime simply because the government and media says so, even if there is no evidence at all. (EVEN 14 YEARS LATER!)

    This, you know, is contrary to Jewish law. Okay, just for some Judaism 101 here… A Jew is to strive to obey 613 commandments and hardly anybody can, of course… we know that… But at the very least, a Jew is supposed to obey the ten commandments, of which the ninth is: “Though shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor”. There is a clarification of this is Exodus 23:2 which says: “Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause, following many, to divert judgment.”

    In other words, if you simply say that these people are guilty of the crime because everybody else seems to be saying it, “following the many” — this is like saying that Osama Bin Laden and the nineteen alleged hijackers did 9/11 because evrybody else is saying it. In other words, to be saying that people are guilty of a crime and then, when asked, you cannot produce any proof that withstands the laugh test — this is CONTRARY to the basic rules of conduct in the Torah and Talmud.

    And then you continue with this pathetic drivel about how people demanding proof, thus following the tradition of the Torah and Talmud, are somehow mentally ill. I just realized something. You are not a Jew. You belong to some much newer death cult that has largely replaced Judaism. Yad Vashem and the various holocaust museums are the temples of this cult. People like you should consider returning to real Judaism.

    Though, granted, you don’t need to return to Judaism to realize that those who accuse others of a crime must produce proof. That is core Judaic teaching, but it’s also the basis of our secular legal system, presumption of innocence and so on.

    But, currently, you really are a piece of work, trying to insinuate what a great Jew you are because you went to Yad Vashem 10 or more times. In reality, you don’t understand anything about Judaism and are a complete moral degenerate besides that.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @SolontoCroesus
  244. @Sam Shama

    The Mossad agents, “managing them” ……to commit suicide?

    When you manipulate a patsy, like a Lee Harvey Oswald, who will be framed for a crime, this amounts to manipulating the person (or in this case persons) into a position where they can be framed. So you make sure that Oswald is near the scene of the crime with a rifle nearby that they say he used. Ditto for James Earl Ray and other famous and not so famous patsies.

    The actual operation is carried out by technicians who are completely separate people. Usually the patsies are mentally unstable, flaky individuals, who nobody in their right mind would trust to carry out an operation like this.

    Also, if as you say, these 19, having only superficial training in Cessna flights, actually managed to crash large commercial aircraft into two buildings.

    No, YOU are the one saying this, since you are the one saying you believe the official government story. Your interlocutor is (as I am) declining to believe this.

    Or did they?

    OF COURSE NOT!!!

    It tests credulity to say the least.

    Yes, it does. But I am sure your credulity is up to the task.

  245. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Additionally, it should fall on you to prove the charge of “guilty” on the official story, until you do so the official version is innocent and true.

    : D

    Exodus 23:2 which says: “Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause, following many, to divert judgment.”

    my complements to you for your insights

    and all the others here pointing out the devil’s lies

    it’s nice to see the worms squirm

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  246. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sam Shama

    I should have been more specific: the 19 “hijackers” were stage managed props drawing attention to themselves in order to provide a cover story of reckless “Muslim” Jihadists in flight training. Incidentally, the ring leader of these “Jihadists” lived with a stripper, snorted cocaine and ate pork – hardly the actions of a devout Muslim.

    There is no physical evidence that commercial airliners hit any building on 9/11.

    The speeds claimed by the official version are impossible at or near sea level.

    Amateur pilots could not have carried out the alleged maneuvers, which experienced airline pilots with “time in type” were unable to duplicate in a professional simulator with crash logic enabled.

    The nose and fuselage of a Boeing 767 is made of light, thin aluminum and fiberglass and is mostly hollow. The perimeter columns of the WTC were made of structural steel 1/4 inch thick, which means that the planes would have had to have penetrated 1/2 of an inch of structural steel (the spandrels which connected the perimeter columns were even thicker and there are also the concrete floor pans to take into consideration).

    What would have happened if an airliner had really struck the WTC? The fuselage and wings would have been turned into confetti like wreckage and fallen to the street below, along with the seats, passengers and luggage. The titanium engines would have been badly smashed, but would have been easily identified and recovered. The jet fuel would have ignited on the outside of the building at the point of impact. None of this happened.

    What did happen? Explosion high up in the building with a spectacular fireball. This no doubt was staged to cover up the massive explosion underneath the buildings.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  247. @Jonathan Revusky

    But at the very least, a Jew is supposed to obey the ten commandments, of which the ninth is: “Though shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor”.

    and

    Exodus 23:2 which says: “Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause, following many, to divert judgment.”

    Very well, and especially well done to include the Exodus 23 mandate.

    Should one assume the two are intimately connected?

    If so, I submit that the key concept has less to do with refraining from deceiving or from “following the multitude to do evil,” and everything to do with Luke 10:29, “Who is my neighbor?”

    “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
    “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
    He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
    “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
    But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” “

    Jesus responded with a parable, the story of the Good Samaritan, who showed mercy toward the man who had been beaten and robbed.

    As Amy Jill Levine explains, even at the time of Jesus, Jews and Samaritans had an eons-long adversarial relationship, that is, they hated each other.

    Levine has also explained that all of the Judaic laws enjoining that certain things be kept separate — milk from meat, for example — are intended to enforce at a profound level that Jews are a people apart; their obligations are to their ungroup; they are their neighbors, but non-Jews are not their neighbors.

    So for the Expert in the Law to be challenged to acknowledge that a Samaritan had acted in a way to “inherit eternal life” is a bit galling.

    It’s like a zionist admitting that Iranians are decent people.

  248. @SolontoCroesus

    damn the auto-correct tikun loam (autocorrect insists that o l a m = loam)

    “ungroup” was intended to read “in group”

  249. Sam Shama says:
    @Mulegino1

    I should have been more specific: the 19 “hijackers” were stage managed props drawing attention to themselves in order to provide a cover story of reckless “Muslim” Jihadists in flight training. Incidentally, the ring leader of these “Jihadists” lived with a stripper, snorted cocaine and ate pork – hardly the actions of a devout Muslim.

    There is no physical evidence that commercial airliners hit any building on 9/11.

    The speeds claimed by the official version are impossible at or near sea level.

    All this is very intriguing and somewhat unsettling, tbh. @Geokat62 had linked to the NIST website, which I have started to read, and there I find nothing that contradicts the sequence of events, building collapse and the results of the subsequent investigations that I broadly knew and relied upon.

    So thanks for the insight to both.

    Also, for some reason @Jonathan Revusky, insists on responding to my queries to you. It is allright, but a bit strange, nevertheless. Perhaps you share handles. So on that presumption, Jonathan, you do give the distinct impression of being a troubled person, incessantly judgmental, pronouncing others idiots, questioning their “jewish values” etc. You are zealously married to your own narrative, thus rendering it unfalsifiable in your own mind, and then using that to childishly conclude that the opposing pov is axiomatically flawed! I have seen this before, among muslims bellowing at Hyde Park.

    So Jon, may I trouble you to read a bit of Zohar, especially the interpretation of Haqdamat sefer Zohar and Parashat Be-reshit. There you will find the meaning of Khokmah, Khoshekh and Or.

    Other than that I transliterate: Anakhnu lo khoshvim she’ata ben zona, aval kulam be safekh ima shel kha lo Yehudia.

    At the rate at which you are going, you will likely start doubting the circumstances of your own existence. Not at all a good progression.

  250. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sam Shama

    No, I’m not Jonathan.

    The NIST report provides no explanation for the collapse itself; it only provides a very implausible scenario – hydrocarbon based fires weakening the lateral trusses in the concrete floor pans, causing a collapse of a few floors. (So far as I know it does not even take the transverse trusses into account – but I may be mistaken on that detail as I am writing from memory.)

    The fact of the matter is that there was never any gravity collapse to begin with. The Twin Towers exploded outward due to an explosive force in which temperatures higher than the surface of the sun (non hydrocarbon based fires burned in the basement and subbasement levels for months after 9/11) turned most of the steel and concrete of the buildings into a fine powder; these materials experienced molecular dissociation, i.e., they were disintegrated into the dust or powder which blanketed lower Manhattan. This required energy of a magnitude which would dwarf that generated by a gravity collapse.

    It looks like a tactical nuclear explosion due to the mushroom cloud (visible at a distance from WTC 1) and the fireball (visible in close ups of WTC1).

    An electromagnetic pulse was generated in the vicinity which set the metal parts of automobiles while leaving sheets of office paper untouched.

    There was a high level of testicular cancer among many of the clean up workers (indicating radiation traces under the rubble – remember that “white smoke” coming up from the ground? It was most likely coming from undestroyed radioactive material – which would explain the underground fires as well.)

    No, no gravity collapses occurred on 9/11.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  251. Sam Shama says:
    @Mulegino1

    It was most likely coming from undestroyed radioactive material – which would explain the underground fires as well.

    Yes I was reading about the cancers. It is very plausible that toxic exposure had everything to do with the cause of it, yet there are accounts of sophisticated nano-thermite as well (which is not radio active, am I correct?). Simply put, there is a great deal of pot boiler material that is circulating the internet and it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to know what is true.

    If the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, using nano-thermite, it had to be planned for quite a long period of time with full access to the building structures. That would suggest that the security company of Silverstein’s property was fully embroiled in the conspiracy. Do we have any proof of this? (I am just asking questions as I read material)

    furthermore Revusky in comment #252, seemed to suggest that no planes actually flew into the buildings. So what did we see in live footage for the approx 20 secs when the 2nd plane flew into Tower2? A pre-recorded video? So the networks were also in the conspiracy!

    Revusky also dismissed my allusion to Bin Laden videos where he essentially bragged about Mohd. Atta’s actions and his 2nd video in Al Jazeera about the degeneracy of the U.S, etc. prompting 9/11, as being unauthentic (so Al Jazeera is a conspirator as well, according to Revusky), since UBL was left-handed! Revusky’s conclusion re: inauthenticity is very flimsy, UBL used his right hand when he spoke instructively (e.g., look at his 1997 video interview with Hamid Mir):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQwnqjA-6w

    Mulgino, I find myself not disinclined to discard the notion that hydrocarbon fire was the cause, but I need to study it further. Revusky’s implied grand unifying theory of Silverstein security+Media including Al Jazeera+ Neocon Washington+ Zionist theory, at least for now, remains in a Reality Distortion Field for me.

  252. @SolontoCroesus

    Very well, and especially well done to include the Exodus 23 mandate.

    Should one assume the two are intimately connected?

    the two things being… on the one hand, the ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” and the “not following many…”

    Well, yeah, I think they’re pretty connected. I mean, “following the many, to divert judgment”… that, to my ears, is about these kinds of nasty slanderous whispering campaigns, spreading slanderous rumors about other people. Yeah, I’d say that’s pretty intimately related to the “bearing of false witness”…

    Now, frankly, just to be clear about this, I don’t believe this stuff is specifically Jewish or even specifically Judaeo-Christian or biblical. I mean, any half-decent moral or ethical system is going to say something very similar. So, while I have never studied Buddhism or Confucianism, I would bet anything that Buddha and Confucius both have something to say about this kind of thing — repeating slanderous rumours because everybody else is repeating them, this is obviously something highly problematic morally and ethically.

    Now, in talking to this Simon Shama character, that I make a point of quoting the Torah at him… well… that, between you and me (and the peanut gallery) is of course to fix his wagon. When he started this crap about whether I had visited Yad Vashem and he had already been there 10 times or more, he really pissed me off and I decided to take off the kid gloves.

    I hate hypocrites. Somebody’s going to start this crap about being a better Jew than thou and he deosn’t even understand that you’re not supposed to be accusing people of things when you have no proof… the most basic moral ideas in the ten commandments for crying out loud, and he doesn’t even understand that…

    “Who is my neighbor?”

    Well, I think your “neighbor” is basically just your fellow man at this point, in a globally connected world. I mean, in biblical times, anybody you were ever going to ‘bear false witness” against was somebody in fairly close physical proximity. You weren’t going to start talking shite about some guy off in China… people’s world was very localized.

    their obligations are to their in-group; they are their neighbors, but non-Jews are not their neighbors.

    I remember I was involved in a private debate with some old acquaintance who is an extreme ultranationalist and he was defending the torture program saying that the things in the bill of rights prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment” only applied to U.S. citizens. So torturing these Ay-rabs in Guantanamo and other black sites was okay. I have noticed that commentators express outrage that the president feels he has the right to kill a U.S. citizen without due process. (So they think he has the right to kill a non-citizen with no due process???!!!)

    I think we have a tendency to think that we have progress when morality becomes more universal. Yes, the good Samaritan story is about this basic idea.

    So, again, as for “who is your neighbor”. It means your fellow man. (And woman…) You’re not supposed to bear false witness or spread slanderous unfounded rumours about your fellow human beings.

  253. @Sam Shama

    Jonathan, you do give the distinct impression of being a troubled person, incessantly judgmental, pronouncing others idiots,

    You have that distinct impression, eh? Well, I have the distinct impression that you are reduced to attacking me in personal terms because you have no response to what I was saying. And I doubt I am the only person here who has that impression…

    It is true that it was unfair of me to pronounce you an idiot. Not unfair to you. It is unfair to garden variety idiots, who are, by and large, perfectly nice, harmless people, who by no fault of their own just happen to have a low IQ. You are something far far worse than that.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  254. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Simply put, there is a great deal of pot boiler material that is circulating the internet and it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to know what is true. (emphasis mine)

    You’re a very patient man!

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  255. @Sam Shama

    furthermore Revusky in comment #252, seemed to suggest that no planes actually flew into the buildings.

    I expressed doubt, yes, but it is not that relevant to the point at hand. I asked you for proof of the official story, i.e. Osama Bin Laden and the nineteen hijackers. As I said, the Zapruder film of JFK being shot, yes, is proof that JFK was shot, but it is not proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did it! If we assume for the sake of argument that the video of the plane hitting the building is authentic, not faked, that, in and of itself, still is not proof that the whole thing was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden from the other side of the world.

    So what did we see in live footage for the approx 20 secs when the 2nd plane flew into Tower2? A pre-recorded video? So the networks were also in the conspiracy!

    Well, if somebody managed to plant a faked video and have it be shown on the air, that does not mean that the entire TV network was in on it. It is well known that the CIA has numerous moles throughout the U.S. and entire western media. This was originally called “Operation Mockingbird”. Also, it is well known that the Israeli Mossad has an informal network of “sayanim” or “helpers” in key positions who can likely be called upon to do such things.

    Revusky also dismissed my allusion to Bin Laden videos where he essentially bragged about Mohd. Atta’s actions

    Everybody who has investigated this minimally knows the video in question is fake — for a whole variety of reasons.

    However, even if it was not fake, what kind of proof is that? Suppose an airplane crashes into a building in China tomorrow and the very next day, I put up a video on youtube announcing that somehow I made this happen. So what? I can also put up a video saying that I ran the Boston Marathon. Is that hard evidence that I ran the Boston marathon?

    Just think a second. Is this the level of proof that you should have to launch a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocents die??? Just think. Like, WTF is really wrong with you anyway? Why don’t you just stop and THINK???!!

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  256. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sam Shama

    There is an important distinction between “no planes/flying objects hit the buildings” and “no commercial airliners hit the building”.

    Look at this live footage taken from Channel 4 News Helicopter:

    There is an object flying downwards and diagonally which either strikes WTC2 and causes an explosion on the other side of the building or causes the explosion – but it is certainly not a Boeing 767.

    The images we were shown of the planes hitting the buildings were not shown live; many of them show aircraft which look nothing like a 767.

    The notion that out of all of those news helicopters aloft and focused on the WTC not one would have captured the path of approach of a large passenger jetliner is rather unbelievable.

    With regards to the Nano-thermite argument: Nano-thermite may have been used as a cutter charge, but it does not have the kinetic potential to literally disintegrate most of the buildings’ steel and concrete cores.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @geokat62
  257. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Well, I have the distinct impression that you are reduced to attacking me in personal terms because you have no response to what I was saying.

    Your own impressions, as I have shown you in the past, are found wanting due in part, to lack of reading comprehension:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1009440
    and comment #229, http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1010486

    Those are objective assessments based on your words and loose logic. It is not an attack on a personal level. In fact it is you, who is rather free in bandying about jewish intellectual superiority, calling others “idiotic”, “degenerate”, “immoral” and belonging to “a death cult”. Show me one instance where I disparaged you personally. Read what I have said. Everything. Very carefully. Taking off your kid gloves, should, I suspect, reveal little more than a weak hand.

    To reiterate, my position is quite simple. I happen to believe every bit of the 9/11 official report. There is no single piece of evidence or argument that I need to isolate in order to provide a deus ex machina for your narrow understanding. (otoh in one our always civil correspondences, I pointed out to Mulegino1, some of your flimsy potpourri).

    So once again, since you my dear fellow, call all of the official report false, you are burdened to prove the falsity. I can then respond.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  258. Sam Shama says:
    @Mulegino1

    Thx. Just finished watching it.

    Certainly from this angle, it was not clear that it was an aircraft. So I suppose the inference it that the airplane that many saw clearly (from a different angle) might have been a planted video.

    Ok so the nano-thermite OR nuclear material is something quite uncertain (has no definitive proof).

    Many things remain unanswered. The question of WTC security company collusion (for how long and why???), network complicity (including Al Jazeera) require a quick leap of faith at this juncture, w/o proof. Simply tossing ‘someone in the network must have planted it’ according to JR is anything but convincing.

  259. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    :-) Indeed, I strive to be patient. Jumping to quick conclusions on matters this important, is likely to result in addictions, which at the moment does not have a stated name in the DSM. Yet I have a suggestion for the organisation. The [...y] syndrome?

  260. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You wrote:
    I expressed doubt, yes, but it is not that relevant to the point at hand.

    “OF COURSE NOT!” is expressing a doubt? May I suggest a bit of understatement and subtlety? Also, it is very relevant to the point at hand, as I reflected earlier.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  261. geokat62 says:
    @Mulegino1

    “no commercial airliners hit the building”.

    I’ve been biting my tongue trying to avoid getting dragged into this fruitless debate. I even advised Mr. Shama, the man with the 204 IQ, to avoid chasing his tail! But, alas, as I’ve indicated to Mr. Shama in a previous post in response to his accusing me of being “slippery”, I have a passion for the truth and justice. That passion is driving me to ask the following question:

    Are you suggesting that all the passengers and crew on United Airlines Flight 175 did not slam into WTC2 on September 11? If so, how do you explain the testimony of a) the eye witnesses who worked in that tower and survived the attack; and b) the loved ones who spoke to their kin just moments before they were killed (see link below)?

    The images we were shown of the planes hitting the buildings were not shown live; many of them show aircraft which look nothing like a 767.

    While it is true that there is no live footage of American Airlines Flight 11 slamming into WTC1, this is not the case for UA175. There is plenty of live coverage of this commercial airliner slamming into WTC2, as it came after the first attack (see link below).

    http://youtu.be/eFNMPk4b_48

    Finally, rather than debating whether the whole thing was staged, which like the JFK assassination is something that can never be definitively determined one way or the other, wouldn’t all of our energies and efforts be better spent refuting and challenging current and future government actions in which we have a slightly higher degree of confidence that they are indeed falsifiable?

  262. @Sam Shama

    OF COURSE NOT!” is expressing a doubt?

    I just looked at this again and it is pretty clear that when I said “OF COURSE NOT” I was referring to the story of the novice pilots, who had never actually flown these large planes before, managing to fly the planes into the buildings.

    If planes did hit the buildings, I am pretty sure it must have been via some sort of electronic hijacking. I, unlike you, have seriously thought about this, and have concluded that no plotters — irrespective of who they were, muslim jihadists or anybody else — could have based their plan on human pilots going through with this. And certainly you would never base such a complex plot on the ability of people who had never even flown the planes before to do this.

    Also, it is very relevant to the point at hand, as I reflected earlier.

    Au contraire. It is NOT relevant. I asked you what the proof was of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/19 hijackers story. A video showing a plane flying into a building is not proof of that any more than the Zapruder film of JFK being shot is proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter.

    Again, I asked you for proof and you pretty clearly could not provide any. On a logical level, you thus conceded the debate really, so there is not much point in continuing.

  263. @Sam Shama

    To reiterate, my position is quite simple. I happen to believe every bit of the 9/11 official report.

    Well, the central thesis of the 9/11 commission report is that some shadowy organization called “Al Qaeda” was behind this. I asked you what the strongest evidence for this was and you could not really provide any. You told me basically that you saw a video of a plane hitting a building. That obviously is not proof that Al Qaeda did it. And you also said that you saw a video of Bin Laden saying he did it. That is also not really proof. I could put up a video saying I did it.

    I pointed out that these things you listed as proof were not proof of anything. AND I gave you another chance. Can you provide me any proof? And you couldn’t.

    So you conceded the debate. It’s OVAH.

    It’s over, but I would just pose a little question as an addendum here… Sam, (sorry for calling you Simon earlier, easy mistake), are you aware that much of the narrative in the 9/11 commission report, stuff like “so-and-so went to Afghanistan in early 2001 and met with OBL and blah blah”, is based on testimony extracted from torturing people in Guantanamo and other black sites?

    Surely you must be aware of this, no?

    Does this not give you pause? Suppose the Gestapo tortured a bunch of Jews in 1940 and those Jews, under torture, affirmed that there was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy — you know, along the lines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion…

    If somebody pointed to this Gestapo report based on testimony extracted from torturing Jews, and said that he believed every bit of it, how would you react to this person?

    Probably quite negatively. However, is there any fundamental difference between that and your stance here?

  264. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Yes I realised that you were attempting to short-circuit a fruitless debate, and I was involved in a bit of multi-tasking between this forum and reading Piketty’s “Capital”. I ought to have listened.
    btw I don’t think I called you “slippery” (the argument maybe). Anyway you are among the few that does not hurl disparagements. A sign of intellectual maturity.

    As I pointed earlier, I had not studied this controversy extensively at all. The points you make here need to be answered by Revusky as well.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  265. @Rurik

    my complements to you for your insights
    and all the others here pointing out the devil’s lies

    Hi, Rurik. Thanks for the encouraging words! Yes, you and various other people are fighting the good fight. Definitely.

    I just thought I’d say that if you or anybody else wants to contact me outside of this site, my email is my last name at gmail.

  266. @Sam Shama

    The points you make here need to be answered by Revusky as well.

    Excuse me, Shama, what specific points were made just now that I need to address? I wasn’t paying too much attention because my impression was that the debate was over. I asked you pointedly to present the strongest proof available that the 9/11 commission report narrative is true and you obviously were unable to produce anything!

    You even tried to claim that the video of a plane hitting a building was proof that Osama Bin Laden was responsible!!!???

    I gave you another chance to produce some real proof and, rather than produce any, you just argued that the 9/11 commission report should be accepted, that you believe it. So I feel that you just completely discredited yourself and the debate is over.

    That said, it occurs to me to ask you another question. Let’s make a conceptual experiment. Suppose the U.S. government report, rather than fix the blame on “Al Qaeda”, had said that the culprits were 19 ultra-orthodox Yeshiva students (with typical Jewish names) and the ringleader was a fanatical rabbi living somewhere in Israel.

    Note also that the report’s narrative was made up of testimony extracted from various Jews by torturing them.

    In this case, would you make the same argument that the report’s findings should be simply accepted? Or maybe you would be taking the exactly opposite position: the alleged culprits, in the absence of any real evidence, have to be considered to be innocent of the crime, that it is (as the Torah and Judaic law says) the onus of the accusers to provide the proof.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  267. @geokat62

    Someone — perhaps a combination of private parties and fed and state governments, have attempted to create a ‘memorial’ at the site in Shanksville, PA where, on 9/11/2001 “brave Americans” said “let ‘er roll” then stormed the boxcutter-wielding Muslim hijackers who had commandeered the plane with the intention of attacking the White House, 150 SE (hey, they were just learning to fly), thereby crashing it in a field in rural Pennsylvania, apparently with such force that no bodies remained for the coroner to pronounce Dead.

    The memorial site consists mostly of a long asphalt roadway — almost 4 miles to a building where one can look out toward the non-place where the plane non-crashed (first responders said it looked like someone spread miscellaneous debris over a wide range of the landscape near a pre-existing excavated hole/depression. The location is adjacent to coal-mining on one side, and a massive junkyard just down the highway.)

    Nobody goes there.

    Presidents don’t lay wreaths at the site of the American Heroes Who Saved the White House. No ceremonies take place on the sacred holiday of 9/11 — the day that has been reserved for Mooslims to deploy some nefarious scheme like killing US ambassadors in Benghazi.

    Isn’t that strange?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  268. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    1. The government did not engage in your hypothetical. I am aware that you have you have a withering view on torture, which I share, but that is not the basis of the 9/11 Commission’s nor the Senate Select Committee’s reports.
    2. All government documents, including the 9/11 report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, The FBI’s report and the Senate Select Committee’s report are all there for citizens to view. I find those reports convincing and balanced.
    3. You are saying that these reports do not constitute proof. I say that they more than do.
    4. You are content to airily dismiss UBL as an erstwhile goatherd operating in a far flung backward territory, which is the farthest thing from the truth.

    5. I invited you to look at @geokat62′s questions which are straightforward and therefore difficult for some to answer: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1013389

    specifically:

    Are you suggesting that all the passengers and crew on United Airlines Flight 175 did not slam into WTC2 on September 11? If so, how do you explain the testimony of a) the eye witnesses who worked in that tower and survived the attack; and b) the loved ones who spoke to their kin just moments before they were killed (see link below)

  269. Mulegino1 says:
    @geokat62

    Eyewitness testimony is right above hearsay as the least reliable form of evidence.

    There is no clear live footage of a commercial airliner hitting any building. There are numerous videos showing different objects striking WTC2 – one appears to show the nose of the aircraft emerge intact from the other side of the building – an absolute impossibility – one with its left wing missing, one that appears to be a hybrid of a B-52 and a goose.

    All of these so called airliners maintain constant speed as they strike the building as if they were encountering no resistance from the massive steel perimeter columns, spandrels and concrete floor pans – another impossibility.

    If you watch the Chopper 4 footage, you will notice that the object headed towards the building is not a passenger airliner.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  270. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Isn’t that strange?

    Very strange, indeed! But stranger still is the dispute about whether all 40 passengers (excluding the 4 hijackers) were actually aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and whether they perished in that crash. What are we to make of the direct testimony of all the loved ones (see link below) who seem to appear heartbroken and sincere as they describe the last moments. Are we to assume they are all actors and that all those who were abroad the flight have presumably gone into a witness protection program so as to not raise suspicions?

    http://youtu.be/GUrUQN0m79o

  271. geokat62 says:
    @Mulegino1

    Eyewitness testimony is right above hearsay as the least reliable form of evidence.

    Fine, you’re not a big fan of eyewitness testimony. What about the direct testimony of the victims’ loved ones?

    As I responded to S2C, is there any dispute about whether all 51 passengers (excluding the 5 hijackers) were actually aboard United Airlines Flight 175 and whether they perished in that crash? What are we to make of the direct testimony of all the loved ones (see the link I already provided) who seem to appear heartbroken and sincere as they describe the last moments. Are we to assume they are all actors and that all those who were aboard the flight have presumably gone into a witness protection program so as to not raise suspicions?

    As I’ve indicated before, I am extremely skeptical of official government pronouncements designed to exonerate their crimes and misdemeanours, but everything has its limits… and when speculation starts bordering on the fanciful, that’s where I draw the line!

  272. @Sam Shama

    1. The government did not engage in your hypothetical.

    Uh, yeah, genius. That’s why it’s a “conceptual experiment”.

    I am aware that you have you have a withering view on torture, which I share, but that is not the basis of the 9/11 Commission’s nor the Senate Select Committee’s reports.

    I think, yet again, you are misinformed. The basis of just about everything that was said about the internal operations of Al Qaeda and their alleged preparations for the attack is testimony extracted from torture. What is truly amazing and horrifying is that much of this testimony was extracted from somebody, Al Zubaydah, who apparently, was not even an Al Qaeda member!!!???

    Here is a very important article, in my opinion, and shows you that the government story on Al Qaeda has basically completely unravelled: http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html

    Now, I guess it is a relief that you state your opposition to the use of torture. I take that on face value. Good, you disapprove of torture….

    But there is something odd here. You realize that the U.S. government kidnapped and viciously tortured people, sometimes to death, yet you also believe that the U.S. government’s story on 9/11 must be accepted by default, i.e. the U.S. government is, to you, inherently trustworty. So, you seem to be arguing that these are people who WOULD torture but they WOULD NOT tell a lie???!!!

    Just think about that. Is that not rather odd??? The government tortures but does not lie??? Isn’t that like saying that Bernie Madoff would cheat you out of your life savings but whatever he writes on a financial report must be believed???!!!

    Do people like Michael Shermer and Karen Wood say that people like you suffer from a mental problem? I mean, you accept that the government tortures and murders but still believe that we should believe anything they say, simply because they say it…

    (No, as far as I can tell, the only people who they think are mentally ill are the people who question the government…)

    2. All government documents, including the 9/11 report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, The FBI’s report and the Senate Select Committee’s report are all there for citizens to view. I find those reports convincing and balanced.
    3. You are saying that these reports do not constitute proof. I say that they more than do.

    You know, this is getting really quite pathetic. You are basically in the position of somebody in a poker game who is trying to continue a bluff after everybody has already seen his cards and knows for a fact that he has NOTHING! I asked you what was the strongest evidence that the 9/11 commission report narrative is true, i.e. that Bin Laden/Al Qaeda did it. You obviously could not answer.

    So your bluff was called, we’ve seen your cards and here you are trying to resume the same bluff!!! This really seems like completely pathological behavior to me!

    Are you suggesting that all the passengers and crew on United Airlines Flight 175 did not slam into WTC2 on September 11?….

    For the nth time, Shama, a plane hitting the building does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that the event was orchestrated by a religious fanatic in Afghanistan. Yet again, this is like, when somebody asks you what the proof is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, and you point to the Zapruder film. How does that prove that Oswald did it?

    How does the testimony regarding a plane crashing into a building constitute proof that the event was orchestrated by Ussama Bin Laden on the other side of the world? I asked you what the proof of this was and you VERY OBVIOUSLY could not provide any!

    Now, at this point, I’ve got better things to do than to keep answering you, and if you don’t come up with anything new, and just keep repeating nonsense, like the government must simply be trusted even if they kidnap and torture people, or that a plane hitting a building is proof that Ussama caused it… if you keep repeating this ridiculous nonsense and don’t even add anything new, I’m just going to stop replying.

    Now, I was going to say that, when I finally stop replying to you, you should not dance your victory dance. However, on second thought, who cares? Claim victory. Dance your victory dance. What do I care?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  273. Mulegino1 says:
    @geokat62

    Injecting the victims’ loved ones into the conversation is an appeal to emotion; it does not constitute hard physical evidence that a Boeing 767 struck the WTC or that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

    Not one single titanium engine from a Boeing 767 or 757 was found at any of the crash sites. The one recovered in Lower Manhattan did not come from a Boeing 767 as its cooling duct was not manufactured by Pratt and Whitney.

    Passenger airliners could not fly at speeds (official NTSB estimates) 100+ mph in excess of their maximum operating speed at cruising altitude (app. 35,000 feet) due to the fact that the air at or near sea level. The air at cruising altitude is six times thinner than that at sea level; the engines could not generate sufficient thrust to maintain those speeds at or near sea level.

    Also, Consider this from a common sense perspective of ballistics: the fuselage of a 767 or 757 is a hollow, light thin aluminum and fiberglass tube. The wings are made out of light aluminum and are mostly hollow as they serve as fuel tanks for the jet fuel.

    The perimeters of the WTC at the alleged point of impact were ringed with massive box columns with four 1/4″ steel sides, held together by much thicker steel spandrels. Also, one must consider the concrete floor pans.

    Now try to imagine a mostly hollow, light aluminum can penetrating 1/2″ (the two 1/4″ sides were 14″ apart in the box columns) steel.
    Compare an aluminum can with a 7.62 x 54r armor piercing round – which can penetrate 1/2″ steel plating – the bullet has a hardened sharp nose, a tungsten jacket and a solid steel core.

    If a Boeing 767 had crashed into the WTC, most of the aircraft would have been turned into confetti like shreds of metal and fallen to the street below the point of impact. The jet fuel would have ignited on impact and the fires most likely have been confined to the perimeter itself and perhaps a few offices close to it.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  274. @geokat62

    Fine, you’re not a big fan of eyewitness testimony. What about the direct testimony of the victims’ loved ones?

    I, for one, also do not consider this hard evidence. Call me a cynic, but there are always people who will say anything for a few bucks. And besides, most anybody can be intimidated into giving whatever testimony, if necessary.

    In terms of what most people think of when they think of 9/11, the twin towers, the real hard evidence, the forensic evidence from the crime scene, was shipped off to China almost immediately before a proper investigation could be done. WHY IS THAT?

    So they remove the hard evidence, all the steel beams and whatnot, and then you’re supposed to just accept this hearsay level stuff, testimony that would be very easy for the conspirators to elicit via bribes or intimidation. (The carrot or the stick.)

    Now, regardless, you’re here debating over whether a plane crashed where they said it crashed. Fine. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this part of the story is true. The plane did crash where they said it did. Fine. How is that proof that this was orchestrated by some man off in Afghanistan?

    THAT is the important point! Because that story is the basis for that whole war in Afghanistan, which has now been going on for nearly 14 years! As I asked Sam Shama, what is the strongest evidence, in your opinion, that this story of the attacks being orchestrated by some religious fanatic in Afghanistan is true?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  275. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    All government documents, including the 9/11 report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, The FBI’s report and the Senate Select Committee’s report are all there for citizens to view. I find those reports convincing and balanced (emphasis added).

    I don’t!

    The biggest issue I have with the 911 Commission report is that they refused to come clean on the motivation behind the attacks. Rather than relying on the testimony of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that it was the US’s unconditional support for Israel (“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”), the best the authors of the report could do was write: “America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…” (emphasis added). That’s because they didn’t have the courage to refer to the 500lb gorilla in the room! They were content to allow the meme of “they hate us for our freedoms” to masquerade as the real reason!

    • Replies: @geokat62
  276. geokat62 says:
    @Mulegino1

    Injecting the victims’ loved ones into the conversation is an appeal to emotion; it does not constitute hard physical evidence that a Boeing 767 struck the WTC or that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

    Fine! Let’s ignore the testimony of the loved ones. You still have to explain what happened to all those passengers? Where are they? How do you think you’re coming across to their loved ones by denying their existence? What if you had a relative on one of those flights and they never returned? Would you still hold to the same opinion?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  277. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    THAT is the important point! Because that story is the basis for that whole war in Afghanistan,

    I thought the basis for all the wars in the ME was spelled out by Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as well as PNAC’s A Clean Break and Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.

    If you’re referring to the need for a pretext to justify these wars, then yes the attacks on 9/11 provided that pretext. Now, to what extent 9/11 was a gov’t manufactured pretext versus something that was provoked by U.S. Foreign Policy, it is difficult to say. What’s not difficult to say is the extent to which the Bush Administration lied to justify its invasion of Iraq. Thanks to the following senate report, however, these lies have been exposed and have been clearly documented for posterity:

    The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence – Phase I

    https://fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf

    NB: I tried linking to the Phase II report, but was unsuccessful. Perhaps someone else will have better luck doing so.

  278. Mulegino1 says:
    @geokat62

    It is a tragedy when anyone dies in the manner alleged, and especially painful for the loved ones of the victims, of course. But talking about the victims – whatever their fate – is not debating facts.

    As for the passengers – I can’t say one way or another what happened to them. It’s pretty obvious to me that the Flight 93 story was created out of thin air, as a kind of propaganda narrative – “Let’s roll!” – since there was no commercial airliner found in Shanksville to begin with. Take a look at the wreckage of MH-17 in Donbas/Ukraine. Wreckage, luggage, seats, engines and bodies were readily visible. That is what a real airliner crash looks like.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  279. geokat62 says:
    @Mulegino1

    As for the passengers – I can’t say one way or another what happened to them.

    Tell you what, let’s conduct a little hypothetical exercise. What if we were able to interview all of the dead passengers’ loved ones and they were able to positively confirm that their loved ones had boarding passes for all of those flights that day but never returned. Would that be sufficient evidence to convince you that these people boarded commercial airplanes that either slammed into the world trade towers, the side of the pentagon, or crashed into an empty field near Shanksville, PA?

  280. @geokat62

    I thought the basis for all the wars in the ME was spelled out by Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as well as PNAC’s A Clean Break and Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.

    I meant (and I assumed people would understand what I meant) that the 9/11 narrative was the way these wars were sold to the general public. The man in the street believed that the reason we were going off to Afghanistan was 9/11. A year and a half later, the man in the street also believed that 9/11 was somehow the reason for attacking Iraq.

    Of course, that was not the real reason for the wars. I’m sure the documents you cite above provide some real information about this. But that is a separate matter. The general public does not read this stuff. In fact, most of the general public does not read ANYTHING.

    Now, to what extent 9/11 was a gov’t manufactured pretext versus something that was provoked by U.S. Foreign Policy, it is difficult to say.

    Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext. There was this 1000 page “Patriot Act” that was all ready to go and was passed soon after 9/11. The planning for an invasion of Afghanistan had already begun some months prior to 9/11. To argue that the cabal that wanted these wars were just sitting around passively waiting for some bona fide religious fanatics to manage to topple a couple of skyscrapers so they could start their wars and that it happened serendipitously at just the right moment — this is really a crazy thing to believe. They had all the machinery ready to go and their plans were not going to be dependent on a handful of suicidal fanatics managing to get incredibly lucky.

    The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence – Phase I

    I’ll admit that I have not read this (there are only so many hours in a day) but I think you are being terribly naive. Basically, you are falling for some sort of “good cop, bad cop” routine. The routine goes like this:

    1. The bad cops, the warmongers, say that we must attack Iraq because big bad Saddam has WMD.

    2. The good cops, who really don’t like war and violence and so on, are tricked by the bad cops into going off to war. Reluctantly… but big bad Saddam must be stopped…

    3. The information later comes out that Saddam did not have WMD. So the bad cops were lying.

    4. The good cops are now shocked, shocked, shocked that the bad cops lied to them and tricked them, the good cops, into the war.

    5. They convene hearings, write reports, like the one you cite, and say basically: “You bad cops tricked us good cops into the war. You are bad, bad, bad cops, tricking us into this war this way. Shame on you! Shame on you!

    In particular, think about this. If the above is not all just theater, as I say, why is there no punishment of ANYBODY for lying the country into a war? And I mean, even punished to the extent that they lost control of foreign policy!!!??? NO!!

    Or, did any of the “good cops” consider tabling articles of impeachment against Bush for this? Thousands of dead U.S. servicemen, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (though who’s counting), the reputation of the U.S. in tatters around the world…. No consequences. (They impeached Clinton over a bit of illicit fellatio.) Again, as I pointed out above, Neocons who brought us all these splendid little wars did not even lose control of U.S. foreign policy!

    Think about it honestly and I think you will have to agree with me. This is all just an elaborate “good cop, bad cop” routine.

    Frankly, if you cannot realize this is just theater, and still take it seriously, it is because you lack criteria, basic judgment about these matters. Thus, by the same token, apparently, you seriously entertain the possibility that these warmongers had all their wars and their Patriot Act ready to go and the perfect “enabling” event, 9/11 just happened to happen for them at just the right time!!!???

    Just how gullible does somebody have to be to believe this?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  281. @geokat62

    Go to YouTube and search for “9-11 VicSims”.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  282. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Again reading comprehension: “hypothetical” refers to you hypothetical. The Yeshiva student bit. I am beginning to fed up with obtuseness.

  283. @geokat62

    listened to the first several minutes of the sob story Shanksville video.

    All of the deceased were the best human beings the human genome factory produced, kind, caring, loving, a people person, devoted to family, baked great apple pie and adopted abandoned puppies.

    Right.
    “What a lucky break the bastard is dead and I get to collect on his life insurance and don’t have to put up with his morning breath” did not make it into the script.

    One of the problems the endless, multiplying ocean of holocaust survivors has created is that by keeping the issue in the spotlight for so. very. long. they increase exponentially the possibility that some people will say, Wait a minute: “I lost my whole family at Auschwitz.” Really? How do you know? Just because you never saw them again? Maybe they wanted to lose you, ever think of that?

    Abe Foxman was on Diane Rehm the other day and re-re-re-told the (increasingly implausible, Swiss-cheese) story of how his parents left him with his Catholic nanny but his mother and father were nearby and he interacted with his mother, calling her Auntie; that his Catholic mother baptized him and sued to keep him but his parents got custody…..

    The whole yarn reeks of bogus.

    It was war and anything’s possible, but not all motives were pure, not all women were heartbroken that their husbands never returned, not all of those husbands who never returned to their wives were killed, captured, or otherwise constrained by the enemy; they took advantage of the opportunity to leave the nagging b*&ch — or to abandon the mewling puking runt of a kid who was a mistake from the get go.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @geokat62
  284. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I meant (and I assumed people would understand what I meant) that the 9/11 narrative was the way these wars were sold to the general public.

    I realized what you meant, I was merely making the distinction between the basis for the wars (securing the villa in the jungle) that ensued and the pretext (9/11) that was used to sell the wars.

    I’m sure the documents you cite above provide some real information about this. But that is a separate matter. The general public does not read this stuff. In fact, most of the general public does not read ANYTHING.

    Is it safe to infer from this that you too, along with the general public, have not read the entirety of these documents? I strongly encourage you to do so as they are a treasure trove of information.

    Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext.

    So rather than agreeing with my suggestion that it is difficult to determine the extent to which 9/11 was gov’t mfged, you feel that “it’s pretty clear” that it was gov’t mfged. And on what basis do you make this claim? It appears that you have inside information that both the Patriot Act and the planning for the invasion of Afghanistan were already prepared before, not after September 11, 2001! Here are your words:

    There was this 1000 page “Patriot Act” that was all ready to go and was passed soon after 9/11. The planning for an invasion of Afghanistan had already begun some months prior to 9/11. (emphasis added)

    I’m prepared to accept your assertion, if you can manage to produce a shred of hard evidence that supports it.

    In particular, think about this. If the above is not all just theater, as I say, why is there no punishment of ANYBODY for lying the country into a war?

    Just because no one has been held accountable for lying the nation into these wars, doesn’t prove your point that 9/11 was mfged by the gov’t. You are guilty of committing a logical fallacy by making this point.

    Just how gullible does somebody have to be to believe this?

    So I am gullible for being somewhat skeptical about 9/11 being gov’t mfged when faced with a lack of hard evidence that demonstrates this, but you are sensible for believing it is so? Do I have that right?

    Or, did any of the “good cops” consider tabling articles of impeachment against Bush for this?

    Regarding articles of impeachment, you are right to point out that Pres. Obama refused to bring them forward against the previous administration. He felt the country needed to “look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” which I completely disagreed with. But once again, this does not prove your point that 9/11 was gov’t mfged.

    Frankly, if you cannot realize this is just theater, and still take it seriously, it is because you lack criteria, basic judgment about these matters.

    Instead of lacking criteria, I think I made it clear that my criteria are the requirement that someone produces hard evidence that supports your case. And with respect to basic judgement, I suggest that having a little skepticism when faced with a lack of solid evidence is a sign of good judgment, not gullibility!

    In sum, if you can prove your claims that both the Patriot Act and the planning for the invasion of Afghanistan were prepared prior to the events on 9/11, you will have won me over. Until then, you are just blowing smoke!

  285. @SolontoCroesus

    PS. There are no picture-perfect red barns and white steepled churches around Shanksville.

    There ARE (or were) coal strip-mining operations on the field adjacent to the non-crash site; there’s an enormous — maybe 20 acres — junkyard a mile or two down the road. It’s hard-scrabble country, where the landscape is more likely dotted with scruffy houses with log stacks outside and smoke from the chimney; a rusted hulk of a car in the front yard rather than the picturesque and orderly German farmland that one sees further SE in Maryland.

    Shanksville is very near to Somerset, PA, and its large array of windmills. A character in the video says he’s not sure where they are, he “sees fields.” If the plane had been within 50 miles of Shanksville/Somerset he would have seen the windmills. They are big and numerous.

    The area around Shanksville has not seen an economic boom since 9/11; no restaurants and hotels to service the throngs of patriots, tho the custard stand has a new coat of paint on its plywood signboard.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  286. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Wait a minute: “I lost my whole family at Auschwitz.” Really? How do you know? Just because you never saw them again? Maybe they wanted to lose you, ever think of that?

    So to my query – Are we to assume they (the loved ones) are all actors and that all those who were aboard the flight have presumably gone into a witness protection program so as to not raise suspicions? – you are basically responding in the affirmative? Do I have that right?

    Ok, but what if the loved ones can produce death certificates for their next of kin? Would that suffice?

  287. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Ok, but where did all the passengers and crew aboard all four flights disappear to?

    As per my previous comment, if their loved ones can produce death certificates for their next of kin, would that suffice?

  288. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    I wish to point out to @Jonathan Revusky and others, that I have argued with @geokat62 on other matters in the past. In every instance, I have found his arguments clean and logical. In some instances, when I saw that his arguments were critically convincing, I changed my mind. With reference to the topic being discussed, I have pointed out that JR considers his positions axiomatically true, with the axioms apparently derived, from some manner of physical or self-evident truth. They are not at all, and a great helping of skepticism is indicated. Until such evidence is available, the 9/11 story remains what it is.

    Again, debating the current actions of governments, organisations , and implications for the world going forward is perhaps much more productive.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  289. geokat62 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    If you care to provide a link to a specific video you think presents the most convincing evidence that 9/11 was gov’t mfged, I’d be more than happy to view it and provide my feedback.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  290. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62

    For completeness, I should have included an equally important shortcoming of the 9/11 report. In addition to motivation, the report failed to investitgate Israel’s role leading up to, including, and shortly after that day:

    You are no doubt familiar with the name of Dominick Suter, aren’t you? You know, the owner of Urban Moving Systems who fled to Israel after being investigated by the FBI? Well according to a former CIA chief of operations for counterterrorism Vince Cannistraro:

    there was speculation that Urban Moving Systems may have been a front for an intelligence operation investigating fund-raising networks channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad..

    The Forward, that hotbed of CTs, claimed that:

    the FBI had concluded that the van’s driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America “spying on local Arabs”

    Here are more details:

    Together with the other three men, the group of five Israelis, now widely known as the “dancing Israelis”, were spotted in multiple locations filming, and celebrating the attacks.

    The men were detained by NYPD. The police and FBI field agents became suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers allegedly used), $4,700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told a New Jersey local paper, The Bergen Record, that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (emphasis added)

  291. @geokat62

    If you care to provide a link to a specific video you think presents the most convincing evidence that 9/11 was gov’t mfged,

    The U.S. government as a whole did not perpetrate 9/11. In fact, that is preposterous. No, it was perpetrated by a criminal cabal and some high-ranking members of the U.S. government were part of the cabal, yes. Also, that criminal network doubtless has moles in key positions in the U.S. mainstream media and the media in other countries. This stands to reason, since, without a significant degree of control over the MSM, the overall operation would never work, since there had to be the means to plant their version of events in the public mind very quickly — principally OBL, OBL, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, to the exclusion of considering any other possibility.

    Now, as for recommending a video for you to watch, I do not know what to recommend because I do not know what is your current level of knowledge. First tell me which videos you have already seen and outline why you find them unconvincing. On that basis, I could maybe recommend something. Have you read any of the independent research on the issue, for instance, the New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin?

    Now, the same thing goes the other way. Could you provide some evidence that the government narrative is true? Al Qaeda, Osama, the nineteen hijackers… Shama seems to think that a video of somebody who vaguely looks like Bin Laden saying he did it is hard proof. Do you share that view? Or do you have something better than that to offer?

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @geokat62
  292. @Sam Shama

    Shama, I feel you are now trying to goad me into a reply. I decline to reply to any of your most recent nonsense. I feel there is still an onus on you to provide some real evidence that the government story is true.

    So here is the state of the debate between us.

    I asked you what the strongest evidence available was that the government’s story of the 19 suicidal hijackers directed by OBL from Afghanistan was.

    I actually asked you the question 3 times and the first two times you avoided the question. The third time, finally, you attempted an answer. You claimed that the video of a plane hitting a building was proof of the government story, i.e. that Al Qaeda was responsible. This is obviously ridiculous. The video does not prove that Bin Laden or Al Qaeda caused this any more than the Zapruder film proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter. You also said that you had seen a video of somebody who was ostensibly Bin Laden, claiming he did it. I pointed out that this is hardly much proof. I could put up a video saying I did it. Aside from that, independent researchers have established that said video is fake for a whole host of reasons.

    So this was the totally of the “proof” that you could offer that the U.S. government’s official story is true. I made a point of asking you then whether you had any other proof. You did not answer that. You were obviously unable to do so.

    I felt, at that point, that your inability to offer any real evidence was so devastating that you were effectively conceding the debate.

    Apparently you did not think that. (Probably because you’re delusional.) At a later point, you stated your conviction that everything in the 9/11 commission report was true. I pointed out that much of what was in there was based on testimony extracted from torture. You said, no it wasn’t. I presented a link pointing out that clearly it was and you never responded to that.

    You made a point of saying that you abhor torture and implicitly recognized that the U.S. government had run a torture program. However, you also stated that the U.S. government claims about OBL and Al Qaeda must be believed, even though it had already become clear that you couldn’t produce any real proof that they were true. I pointed out that your position was that you believed that the U.S. government would viciously torture people but would not lie! This is akin to believing that old Bernie Madoff would cheat people out of their life savings but any report written by him must be believed even with no proof. This is of course obviously ridiculous and you had no rebuttal to my point.

    I also separately pointed out that your position, repeating accusations, yet not feeling any need to offer any proof, were contrary to the Torah and Judaic law. You were quite clearly unable to respond to my point.

    In a boxing match, when one fighter lands a series of unanswered blows on his opponent, and his opponent appears to be prone and unable to defend himself at all, any competent referee will step in and stop the fight. This debate has definitely reached that point. You’re not in the game any more, Shama, you have been thoroughly discredited. There is no need for me to respond to any more of your nonsense.

    That is the current state of the debate between us.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  293. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    With respect to your two comments:

    Now, as for recommending a video for you to watch, I do not know what to recommend because I do not know what is your current level of knowledge.

    and

    Have you read any of the independent research on the issue, for instance, the New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin?

    I would simply say all you need to do is suggest a video or provide passages from the above-noted book that address the challenge I put to you in my previous post, namely:

    In sum, if you can prove your claims that both the Patriot Act and the planning for the invasion of Afghanistan were prepared prior to the events on 9/11, you will have won me over. Until then, you are just blowing smoke!

    Unless, of course, you are now distancing yourself from your previous assertion that these two factors definitely establish that 9/11 was gov’t mfged!

  294. @geokat62

    Is it safe to infer from this that you too, along with the general public, have not read the entirety of these documents? I strongly encourage you to do so as they are a treasure trove of information.

    I have a large backlog of things that I want to read. Some turgid prose that came from a government committee is not high on my list.

    If, indeed, these documents are a treasure trove of information, as you say, and you have read them fully yourself, could you please save me some time by outlining a few of the most important pieces of information that are in there, in your opinion? If you tell me what you think is the most valuable information in there (that I probably do not currently know) I can then also make a better decision as to whether it is worth my time to read it.

    It appears that you have inside information that both the Patriot Act and the planning for the invasion of Afghanistan were already prepared before, not after September 11, 2001! Here are your words:

    What on earth are you talking about now? This is most certainly not “inside information”! This is completely in the public domain! Just use google! Type in the search string: “planning of attack on afghanistan 2001″ and see what comes up! You get so many articles from disparate sources saying that the attack on Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11. Here is one from the BBC, just a week after 9/11. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm Jane’s Defence of London, one, if not the most respected source of information on military affairs stated that Washington was planning the attack on Afghanistan as early as March of 2001!

    Now type in the string into google: “patriot act written before 9/11″ Again, a myriad of disparate sources all saying that the Patriot act was written well before 9/11. By the way, it’s not 1000 pages long, it’s “only” 400 pages long. (I was confused because Obamacare is like 1000 pages long!) Anyway, it was passed on 26 October 2001. Do you think all the lawmakers who voted for it had even read the thing? Or if they had, had they had the time to digest its implications and debate on it? Of course not! They had this thing written, ready to go, and then rammed it through in this climate of hysteria. This is not just my opinion, man. Everybody knows this! (Well, except you, it seems…)

    In any case, the fact that the Afghanistan attack was planned prior to 9/11 and the Patriot Act was written well before 9/11 is just there in the public domain. It does not seem to me that either proposition is debatable. Your characterization of these things as “inside information” is thus rather odd. Do you think that “Paris is the capital of France” is “inside information”???

    Just because no one has been held accountable for lying the nation into these wars, doesn’t prove your point that 9/11 was mfged by the gov’t. You are guilty of committing a logical fallacy by making this point.

    I never made that argument. I was making the argument that the congressional investigation into this WMD lie was an elaborate “good cop, bad cop” routine. And, yes, I referred to you as gullible because that is my honest impression. You cannot see through an obvious bit of political theater. Do you want me now to demonstrate to you that professional wrestling matches are fixed?

    Regarding articles of impeachment, you are right to point out that Pres. Obama refused to bring them forward against the previous administration.

    No, it was the democratic leadership in Congress prior to Obama becoming president that refused to bring forward articles of impeachment. By the time Obama was president, the issue of impeaching Bush (or Cheney or any of the rest of them) was moot, since Bush was no longer president.

    In sum, if you can prove your claims that both the Patriot Act and the planning for the invasion of Afghanistan were prepared prior to the events on 9/11, you will have won me over. Until then, you are just blowing smoke!

    Well, I assumed you had the research abilities to do a quick google search. It comes up immediately. Just search “planning of attack on Afghanistan 2001″ and “patriot act written before 9/11″ in google and you get this veritable orgy of information on these points.

    I’d like to believe that you are debating in good faith. I have no idea though. If you are acting in good faith, I really think you ought to raise the level of your game somewhat. This is cringeworthy. Demanding proof of things that are ascertainable with google in less than a minute! What next? Do you want me to prove now that Paris is the capital of France?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @geokat62
  295. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    And with respect to your final comment:

    Now, the same thing goes the other way. Could you provide some evidence that the government narrative is true? Al Qaeda, Osama, the nineteen hijackers… Shama seems to think that a video of somebody who vaguely looks like Bin Laden saying he did it is hard proof. Do you share that view? Or do you have something better than that to offer?

    you seem to be forgetting one thing: I was the one who had suggested that it was a difficult thing determining whether the events of 9/11 were gov’t mfged or whether they were prompted by U.S. foreign policy. It was you who disagreed and said:

    Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext.

    So the onus is on you, not me, to prove your case!

  296. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Read:http://iran911case.com/

    A May 14, 2001 memorandum from inside the Iranian government demonstrating that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was aware of the impending attacks and instructing intelligence operatives to restrict communications to existing contacts with al Qaeda’s Ayman al Zawahiri and Hizballah’s Imad Mughniyah. - Documents obtained from German federal prosecutors showing that 9/11 coordinator Ramzi Binalshihb traveled to Iran in January 2001 on his way to Afghanistan to brief Osama bin Laden on the plot’s progress. - Evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report that a “senior Hezbollah operative,” which the Havlish evidence identifies as Hezbollah terrorist chief Imad Mughniyah, coordinated activities in Saudi Arabia and was present (or his associate) on flights the hijackers took to and from Beirut and Iran. 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT at pp. 240-41. Mughniyah, a longtime agent of Iran, orchestrated a string of terror operations against the U.S. and Israel during the 1980s and 1990s. He was assassinated in Syria in February of 2008.

    and the court documents:

    http://information.iran911case.com/Havlish_Order_of_Judgment_Signed_12_22_11.pdf

    http://information.iran911case.com/Havlish_Order_of_Judgment_Signed_12_22_11.pdf

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  297. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I just realised, that you don’t have anything of evidentiary value, that would prove your assertion that 9/11 was government manufactured. Even when you are presented with so much global intelligence information (some of it listed here):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

    and I am sure that you will insist that Wiki is manipulated and worthless.

    I sincerely believe that you need a CT detox. The Dead Sea offers some attractive packages:

    http://ohr.edu/tw/weinbach/loveland/lland077.htm

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  298. @Sam Shama

    (paraphrase: bunch of total BS about Iran having something to do with 9/11)

    Shama, first of all, everybody who knows anything knows this is a bunch of BS.

    For starters, Islam 101: The Iranians are Shia and the Al Qaeda are Sunni. They hate each other.

    Secondly, we have established that there is no hard evidence of the claim that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. At the very least, it has been established that you, Shama, cannot provide any.

    Thirdly, how stupid do you think we are here? When they were trying to get a war going with Iraq, they claimed that there were all these connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were none, of course, just like there were no WMD. But they were trying to start a war with Iraq so they kept saying this. At that time, they never mentioned any connection between Iran and Al Qaeda.

    So you figure you’ll come back with the same BS. “What the heck? It worked before and all we’ve got to do is change a ‘q’ into an ‘n’!!! C’mon. Who is buying this bull? Back when they’re ginning up a war with Iraq they tell you that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. Now, they want to start the war with Iran and now they are claiming, 14 years later, that they suddenly have all this proof that there was a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda.

    What a slimeball you are, coming here and purveying this kind of garbage! How shameless you are! You degenerate. Trying to say what a great Jew you are because you visited Yad Vashem 10 times! And next you’re trying to tell us that we are supposed to believe accusations made against people with no proof, that’s your comprehension of the Torah and Judaism. What utter scum you are… Pure filth… Shameless…

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  299. @Sam Shama

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

    Shama, this wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the government story. I asked you for proof of the government story.

    Do you grasp that the government story does not constitute proof of the government story???!!!

    Well, you must realize that, surely, so… it’s just that it’s amazing that you would try to pull off such a sophomoric trick! You really are such an utterly pathetic piece of work…

    The Dead Sea offers some attractive packages:

    I think you should go there. It will prepare you for the very hot place where you will eventually end up.

  300. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Revusky bellows:

    What a slimeball you are, …….You degenerate. … What utter scum you are… Pure filth… Shameless…

    Well I knew that you had nothing of evidentiary value to prove your original assertion that 9/11 was manufactured by the government. The sources I posted extensively discussed, analysed and argued the AQ and its connections to Mugniyeh et al., the historical precedents of AQ, the motivations, UBL’s own declarations etc., etc., etc.

    But you hurled pure ad hominem. You conceded the debate: You failed to prove your original assertion that the government manufactured 9/11

    Shalom.

  301. It’s not “ad hominem”. It’s an expression of righteous indignation at the shameless lies that people like you spread.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  302. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    If I called you a Khazir and a ben zona, would that be the righteous truth?

    Shalom

  303. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    What on earth are you talking about now? This is most certainly not “inside information”! This is completely in the public domain! Just use google! … You get so many articles from disparate sources saying that the attack on Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11. Here is one from the BBC, just a week after 9/11.

    There’s a reason you’re getting all those Google search results, including the one from the BBC, saying the attack on Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11. That’s because OBL was already on the government’s hit list for a number of incidents for which they held him responsible. including the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. That’s when he was chased out of Sudan and established his new base in Afghanistan. As a result, it’s little surprise you were able to come across so many google hits. But to keep true to one of the two criteria you proposed that confirms 9/11 was gov’t mfged, you need to find proof that these plans to invade Afghanistan were being drafted to retaliate against OBL for the crimes he is alleged to have committed on 9/11 and they need to be drafted before the attacks occurred. Plans drafted to retaliate against him for crimes that occurred prior to 9/11 simply won’t do. This should help explain my reference to insider information. So you still got your work cut out for you regarding criteria #1.

    Again, a myriad of disparate sources all saying that the Patriot act was written well before 9/11.

    Now with respect to criteria #2, which I believe is the stronger of the two criteria for confirming your hypothesis, you claim that there is a “myriad of disparate sources” that prove that the Patriot Act was drafted prior to 9/11. But rather than providing a single link that presents definitive proof, you write:

    Do you think all the lawmakers who voted for it had even read the thing? Or if they had, had they had the time to digest its implications and debate on it? Of course not! They had this thing written, ready to go, and then rammed it through in this climate of hysteria. This is not just my opinion, man. Everybody knows this! (Well, except you, it seems…)

    So along with criteria #1, you still have your work cut out for you regarding criteria #2.

    No, it was the democratic leadership in Congress prior to Obama becoming president that refused to bring forward articles of impeachment. By the time Obama was president, the issue of impeaching Bush (or Cheney or any of the rest of them) was moot, since Bush was no longer president.

    Your right about the articles of impeachment. It was Nancy Pelosi who said that she was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it “off the table” immediately after the 2006 mid-term election. My point was that there was new hope when Obama was elected in 2008 that he would hold the previous administration accountable for all their misdeeds. But those hopes were dashed along with the people’s expectation for a change in direction in foreign policy. So I stand corrected on this point.

    Next point. In response to the following comment I made:

    Just because no one has been held accountable for lying the nation into these wars, doesn’t prove your point that 9/11 was mfged by the gov’t. You are guilty of committing a logical fallacy by making this point.

    You wrote:

    I never made that argument. I was making the argument that the congressional investigation into this WMD lie was an elaborate “good cop, bad cop” routine.

    But here is your original comment:

    In particular, think about this. If the above is not all just theater, as I say, why is there no punishment of ANYBODY for lying the country into a war?

    And you are accusing me of not debating in good faith?:

    I’d like to believe that you are debating in good faith. I have no idea though. If you are acting in good faith, I really think you ought to raise the level of your game somewhat. This is cringeworthy. Demanding proof of things that are ascertainable with google in less than a minute! What next? Do you want me to prove now that Paris is the capital of France?

    Given the foregoing, I think you’ll agree with me that providing legitimate proof will take much more than a minute using Google’s search engine, because your challenge isn’t to prove that Paris is the capital of France, it’s to prove that the gov’t mfged 9/11. It is going to take first class investigative skills that, if successful, will catapult you into celebrity status, as you’ll be the first to break this important news story. Good luck!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  304. Shama, you should go peddle your vicious lies somewhere else. I have my misgivings about some of the people here, but overall, this is actually a much higher than average web community intellectually. Everybody sees through you here and you’re something of a running joke.

    Like this attempted trick of pointing to the government story as proof of the government story… such transparent BS can’t trick people here.

    So go somewhere much lower end with your schtick. You’re really out of your league here.

  305. @geokat62

    There’s a reason you’re getting all those Google search results, including the one from the BBC, saying the attack on Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11.

    Yes, there is a reason. The reason is because the attack on Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11.

    That’s because OBL was already on the government’s hit list for a number of incidents for which they held him responsible. including the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

    I think the problem right here is that you lack a key analytical concept. That is the concept of “preparing the terrain”. OBL is basically just a manufactured bogeyman. So the fact that they were hyping this boogeyman, in the period prior to 9/11, who would then be blamed for 9/11 — this is, properly understood all perfectly consistent with what we’re talking about here.

    And note: OBL is on a “hit list” but is never hit. Presumably, they know he’s there, he’s not too hard to find, he’s threat numero uno, and they don’t do anything!!?? Think about that. Why is that?

    Well, isn’t it obvious? You can’t kill your fall guy before the operation that you’re going to frame him for, can you? In fact, we can assume that all these Jihadi groups are infiltrated by the CIA and/or Mossad. I wouldn’t even be surprised if some of his inner circle there were CIA or Mossad agents who were actually instructed to make sure that nothing happened to OBL! Really, I mean it. It was absolutely crucial in the lead-up that nothing happen to this guy! Think about it. If you’re going to frame him for this horrendous crime, the guy has to be alive!

    Plans drafted to retaliate against him for crimes that occurred prior to 9/11 simply won’t do.

    What you are arguing is utterly preposterous. You are saying that the U.S. was planning to invade Afghanistan in order to get Bin Laden because of the chickenshit stuff that he allegedly did before 9/11. Do you know how big Afghanistan is? If Afghanistan were in Europe, it would be the largest European country, not counting Russia. It is 30% bigger than France, and almost exactly the same size as Germany and Italy combined. The whole idea that they were making plans to invade the entire country just to grab this one guy, PRIOR TO 9/11, is just ludicrous!

    What is strange is that, elsewhere, you seem to be aware that the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was NOT to get Bin Laden, that Bin Laden was always just a pretext. Just off the top of one’s head, the reasons to look at would be things like:

    1. The presence of huge oil and gas reserves in central Asia, i.e. Kazakhstan etcetera and the ability to build a pipeline south down to the Indian Ocean and get to major markets without going through Russia.

    2. The fact that Afghanistan produces most of the world’s poppy for opium and heroin and the drug trade is the deep State’s way of getting black money for its off the books dirty tricks.

    3. The overall geostrategic great game, having bases there as part of a general encirclement/containment strategy of Russia and/or China.

    4. Making lots and lots of money for Haliburton and defense contractors generally…

    These are the kinds of things you look at if you want to know the real reasons for the war. But the fact that they were manufacturing their bogeyman that they would use for the fake narrative is just grist to the mill, you should understand. They wanted to get this war going and this Bin Laden cock and bull story was going to be the narrative to sell it to the sheeple.

    Now, regarding your quibbling about the Patriot Act having been written prior to 9/11, this is not a matter of legitimate dispute. Consider, for example: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Cthe-patriot-act-was-written-many-many-years-before-911-and-the-attacks-simply-provided-opportunity-for-some-people-to-do-what-they-wanted-to-do%E2%80%9D.html

    Whatever you think of Ron Paul, this is an honest man, he doesn’t go around telling lies. And he is in a position to know. He said this publicly. And did anybody denounce him as a liar? That the Patriot Act was already written and ready to go is not very controversial. They had their war plans against Afghanistan ready to go. AND they had their bogeyman, OBL, ready to go as well! That whole story!

    In particular, think about this. If the above is not all just theater, as I say, why is there no punishment of ANYBODY for lying the country into a war?

    And you are accusing me of not debating in good faith?:

    I was utterly confused by this. Surely you realize that the quote by me above refers to the Iraq war. Any discussion of impeaching Bush was about doing so over the WMD in Iraq business. So your reference to this makes little sense. I was just making the point that the Senate documents you were pointing to were just part of some elaborate political theater, a “good cop, bad cop” routine.

    Given the foregoing, I think you’ll agree with me that providing legitimate proof will take much more than a minute using Google’s search engine, because your challenge isn’t to prove that Paris is the capital of France, it’s to prove that the gov’t mfged 9/11.

    You seem to be conflating various things. I would tend to be careful about making a broad statement like “the U.S. government did 9/11″. To me, that is a very sloppy, imprecise statement. The U.S. government is this huge leviathan that, as a whole, does not, operationally speaking “do” anything. To say that the U.S. government, as a whole, killed JFK, is similarly problematic. However, the cabal that plotted and carried out the assassination was basically made up of government insiders — that has been demonstrated by independent researchers, yes.

    Anyway, here we are, 14 years after the 9/11 event, and there has been a huge amount of independent research on this subject. I mentioned, just as an example, the books of David Ray Griffin, which, I am confident, demonstrate very very rigorously that the government story of what happened on 9/11 simply cannot be true. So we have now all the relevant agencies of the government, participating in a coverup. That is also demonstrable.

    Now, when you have this massive coverup going on, this pretty much tells you that there was government insider complicity. Otherwise, what are they covering up?

    Now, on the question of acting in good faith, I see the basic game that you seem to be playing and it doesn’t correspond to a good faithed debate. Elsewhere, you asked me whether I had read certain material, and I said, no I had not. I later asked you whether you had read David Ray Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor, and you simply declined to answer the question. You are trying to set up a situation, it seems, where there is no onus on you to answer any question, and you will just ask me questions. Is that a fair situation?

    For example, if I ask you, as I asked that Shama wanker: “What, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks?” what would be the justification for your refusing to answer the question? You think you can ask me all kinds of questions….

    So, as a matter of fact, I now ask you that question. Again: What, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks?

    Please answer. I cannot fathom, for the life of me, what would be your justification for refusing to answer this. It is the most central, basic question that can be asked, no?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  306. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Now, regarding your quibbling about the Patriot Act having been written prior to 9/11, this is not a matter of legitimate dispute.

    The link you provided included two quotes, one by Ron Paul, the other by Richard Clarke. First, Ron Paul:

    “The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Paul said. The attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do,” he said.

    Next, Richard Clarke:

    The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

    I recall you had taken issue with my citing the direct testimony of eye witnesses who said they saw UA 175 crash into WTC2 as proof that a commercial airliner did indeed crash into the towers. I think you said that “I, for one, also do not consider this hard evidence.”

    So the quotes by Paul and Clarke now qualify as hard evidence? I’m not convinced and neither, I think it’s safe to say, would a jury in a court of law.

    Please answer. I cannot fathom, for the life of me, what would be your justification for refusing to answer this. It is the most central, basic question that can be asked, no?

    Finally, even though it is you who disagreed with my assertion that it is difficult to definitively establish whether 9/11 was indeed gov’t mfged by insisting “It’s pretty clear” that it was, as I’ve indicated before, the only other plausible explanation is the same one that Ron Paul provided in your link above:

    … conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries. (emphasis added)

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Rurik
  307. @geokat62

    So the quotes by Paul and Clarke now qualify as hard evidence?

    Let me put it this way: both Ron Paul and Richard Clarke going on record saying that the legislation was written well before 9/11 is enough that a reasonable person would not care to dispute this. Also, nobody, given the chance has disputed it!

    Now, as for the witnesses who say they saw this or saw that, can you name any of those people? Surprise me if you can, but I assume not. You think a court of law will accept: “I heard that somebody said X”. “Can you name that person.” “No, but somebody said it.” Real, identifiable people saying things, as in the case of Ron Paul and Richard Clarke above, is not comparable.

    In any case, much of the 9/11 narrative seems to be physically impossible. If somebody testifies that they saw something happen that is physically possible, violates the established laws of physics, then whom should I believe, that person, or Isaac Newton?

    The Patriot act being written well before 9/11 is not problematic in this sense, because the legislation being written in advance does not contradict any law of physics! Moreover, once you know that this 400 pages long, it kind of stands to reason they already had the thing written! Again, a reasonable person would not dispute this. The onus would be on you to tell me how on earth they wrote all that and debated it and voted on it in such a short period of time! The default assumption would be that it was already written.

    Okay? Got it?

    Now, I asked you what, in your opinion, was the strongest evidence available that the government narrative on 9/11 was true. Could you please answer that question so as to focus the discussion rather than engaging in silly quibbling?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  308. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Hello geok,

    I’ve been reading the exchange between you and some of the others here and for what it’s worth, just wanted to chime in.

    One of my main reasons for believing the gov had something to do with it was because who but the gov could order a stand-down NORAD and SAC (and virtually every other law enforcement and military defense protocol for a hijacking) so that the hijacked planes would have unmolested free reign of the skies on that morning?

    And then cover it all up afterwards with no one so much as getting a wrist slap.

    Who but the government would know that Bush was in no danger as it was clear that our country was under attack from the air and they, (the Secret Service) let Bush sit in that classroom for 20 minutes. If they didn’t know exactly what was going on, the SS would have whisked him out of that room in no time flat.

    Who but the government would have the authority (and motive) to destroy all the evidence of that day’s crime?

    I shouldn’t just say the gov, because it’s much deeper than that. It is the regime, and they’re not just in control of the government, but the media too. That’s why they can cover up crimes (and acts of war) like the attack on the USS Liberty with near perfect symbiosis. They are one and the same.

    Who else would have the power to lock away all the black boxes and confiscate all the films from the Pentagon so that we’ve seen no video of the plane crashing into it.

    Who else besides the regime could have written the script that the media used to explain the controlled demolition of building seven as the result of office fires? Not to mention the script for the entire rotten affair.

    And it wasn’t just criminals in our own government, but Israel’s also who were very much involved.

    As for the passengers on flight 93, I can basically guarantee you that they’re not in any witness protection program. That’s for sure. But where they are and what happened to them I try not to think about too much. Our government tortures people to death for the fun of it. They drone weddings and give chemical weapons to sub-human savages to use on children to advance their agenda. They destroy entire countries and slaughter millions without blinking an eye. They talk about over a half million children dying horribly for lack of medicine and clean water that our government has denied them as “worth it”, when calculating their agenda vs. the lives of those children. I hardly doubt they’d have any reservations whatsoever about lining up some average Americans and machine gunning them, or renditioning them to some off-shore CIA ‘black site’ for God knows what reasons, never to be heard from again, I guarantee you. (Like I say, I try not to think about it)

    From waging illegal wars of aggression on innocent countries to assassinating American citizens to running a torture camp, these things could not be done without the will and desire of the highest levels of government and its propaganda wing the media.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  309. Ellen Tauscher’s appearance on C Span to simultaneously pile on to the “Iran is evil” campaign and endorse the Iran nuclear deal, spoke before the Commonwealth Club of California in 2011.

    http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/ellen-tauscher-us-under-secretary-arms-control-and-international-security-728

    In the course of that talk Tauscher mentioned that the heart of the NATO agreement was that NATO would defend any member state should it come under attack. The intent of that clause was to defend European states against Russian “aggression.”

    But, Tauscher continued, the only time that clause was invoked was on Sept. 12, 2001, when from NATO headquarters in Belgium came the command to scramble NATO planes to protect the skies over New York City and Washington, DC.

    The spouse of neoconservative Обергруппенфюрер Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland

    “was United States Deputy Permanent Representative to NATO in Brussels, Belgium from July 2000 to July 2003. She was instrumental there in NATO’s historic invocation of Article 5 of its charter – “an attack on one ally is an attack on all” – in support of the U.S. after September 11, 2001.
    She also worked intensively on the enlargement of the Alliance to include 7 new members, the creation of the NATO-Russia Council, NATO’s first deployment “out of area” to Afghanistan and its defense of Turkey during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She was awarded the State Department’s Superior Honor award for this work and the Cross of Merit from the Government of Lithuania.**

    The neoconservatives who promoted war against Iraq were deeply embedded with those who created the “Pearl Harbor” event necessary to gain US demos buy-in to the war.

    ** The Kagan Klan’s אב, Donald Kagan, was “Born into a Jewish family from Kuršėnai, Lithuania.”

  310. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    One of my main reasons for believing the gov had something to do with it… (emphasis added)

    I like your choice of words, because accepting that something is true without a preponderance of evidence to support it shares a lot of commonalities with all faith systems.

    At the risk of repeating myself, the only point I was trying to make is that proving whether 9/11 was gov’t mfged is something that is difficult to do, rather than it being self-evident… as some seem to suggest. Supply the evidence and if it’s convincing, I’ll accept it. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that is sufficiently convincing. And believe me (no pun intended) I am not someone who takes what the gov’t says at face value. As my previous posts clearly demonstrate, I am typically a vociferous critic of gov’t policy, especially when it is flawed and does damage to the national interest. But I will not compromise on the standards required to reach sound conclusions on the basis of solid facts. This is something for which I will not apologize!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  311. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Now, I asked you what, in your opinion, was the strongest evidence available that the government narrative on 9/11 was true. Could you please answer that question so as to focus the discussion rather than engaging in silly quibbling?

    Again at the risk of repeating myself, I’m the one who said that establishing whether 9/11 was gov’t mfged or provoked by U.S. foreign policy was a difficult thing to do, remember? You’re the one who argued that it was “fairly easy.” As a result, I do not have to provide the evidence. That burden falls on you!

    Simply put, all your assertions do not meet the preponderance of evidence threshold. Your “proofs” are tantamount to sheer speculation… and you know it, or, if not, you should know it!

    For a fuller explanation of my position, see my response to Rurik.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  312. @geokat62

    Again at the risk of repeating myself, I’m the one who said that establishing whether 9/11 was gov’t mfged or provoked by U.S. foreign policy was a difficult thing to do,

    Hold on, why would it be difficult to establish this if there IS hard evidence that the Government narrative is true? It sounds like you are tacitly admitting that there is no real proof of the government claims, i.e. what is in the 9/11 commission report.

    The question I posed was this: what is the strongest evidence available that the government story — Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the 19 hijackers — is true?

    This is OBVIOUSLY a central question. I cannot see any justification for your refusing to answer this question. A legitimate answer to the question is: "No, there is no real evidence that the government story is true."

    It seems that is what your position is. Is that your position? Yes or no?

    Now, if this is NOT your position, and you are thus claiming that there IS evidence, then yes, you have to outline what that evidence is! OBVIOUSLY! You keep asking other people to defend their position with evidence. You cannot continually ask people to do something that you are unwilling to do. (Well, okay, you can, but it would be an A-1-A sign that you are not engaging in the discussion honestly.)

    So, again, is your position, as I inferred, that there is no hard evidence of the government claims regarding Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etcetera? Note that this question admits a simple yes or no answer. What is it? Yes or no?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  313. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    I will not compromise on the standards required to reach sound conclusions on the basis of solid facts. This is something for which I will not apologize!

    Indeed, you shouldn’t. And I have no quarrel with your high standards for deciding what ultimately is the truth.

    How do you feel about the attack on the USS Liberty? Israel says it was a tragic case of mistaken identity. Do you consider that there’s an adequate preponderance of evidence to believe they’re lying?

    Or that JFK was assassinated by Oswald?

    Building Seven is all the proof I need to know that they’re lying through their teeth. Building Seven did not plop into its footprint due to office fires. No, it did not. It was wired for a controlled demolition, and if it was, then so too were the other towers, which upon examination of the subsequent videos showing the molten steel pouring out of the building and the squibs and the way all that steel and concrete was turned into powder, seems now self-evident.

    Building Seven is the smoking gun IMHO.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  314. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Here are my responses to your queries regarding how I feel about:

    the attack on the USS Liberty?

    Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it was a deliberate attack.

    Or that JFK was assassinated by Oswald?

    I have not studied this too closely to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence supports or refutes this hypothesis.

    Building Seven… It was wired for a controlled demolition, and if it was, then so too were the other towers…

    I think I’ve adequately addressed the validity of this hypothesis in my previous posts.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  315. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Here’s what I initially wrote, so long ago:

    Now, to what extent 9/11 was a gov’t manufactured pretext versus something that was provoked by U.S. Foreign Policy, it is difficult to say.

    You seem to be convinced that you have definitive proof that it was the former. I have to say that based on the evidence that has been made available to the general public, up to this point in time, I’m leaning toward Ron Paul’s position that it’s the latter (which was noted in the link you previously provided):

    … but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries (emphasis added).

    So Ron Paul believes the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attacks, which implies that he doesn’t believe the U.S. mfged them. And you do remember what you said about Ron Paul?:

    Whatever you think of Ron Paul, this is an honest man, he doesn’t go around telling lies. And he is in a position to know. He said this publicly. And did anybody denounce him as a liar?

    This is going to be my final post on this thread. I think I have clearly laid out my position as to why I think proving the 9/11 attacks were gov’t mfged versus something that was provoked by U.S. foreign policy is a difficult thing to do. Unfortunately, I have nothing further to add.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  316. @geokat62

    This is going to be my final post on this thread.

    Okay, so, when I ask you a simple question that admits a yes/no answer, you refuse to answer. The question is: “Do you believe that there is strong evidence that the government narrative in the 9/11 commission report is truthful?”

    Straight yes/no question and you refuse to answer. So you’re a troll. This is classic troll behavior. The troll just asks you to prove anything and everything. And then you ask him a straight simple question, in this case, something that admits a yes/no answer, and he refuses to give an answer.

    It was already obvious you were a troll. You pointedly asked me whether I had read some report from some Senate committee, something that no ordinary person has read, and I answered straightforwardly that, no, I hadn’t read it. (No normal person reads such things!!!) I then asked you whether you had read any of the indepedent research on 9/11, specifically the New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. And you refused to answer the question.

    “Have you read X book?” It admits a yes/no answer and you refuse to answer. This, after asking me whether I had read some other thing, and I answered you.

    This is just classic troll behavior and you’re exposed.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  317. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So you’re a troll.

    LOL, you obviously haven’t taken the opportunity to peruse the extensive cache of comments I’ve posted here at UR. You should take a gander and tell me if you still think I’m a troll!

    Oh, btw, you might like to read Phil Giraldi’s latest article, Turning Swords Into Plowshares, especially the comments section, as I think this debate has been transferred, in part, over there.

  318. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Building Seven… It was wired for a controlled demolition, and if it was, then so too were the other towers…

    I think I’ve adequately addressed the validity of this hypothesis in my previous posts.

  319. Rurik says:

    Building Seven… It was wired for a controlled demolition, and if it was, then so too were the other towers…

    I think I’ve adequately addressed the validity of this hypothesis in my previous posts.

    OK, but you could save me the trouble of looking back into the thread if you’d just give your reasoning for discounting the obvious controlled demolition of building seven. I doubt you believe the official version that it fell because of some office fires.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  320. […] Par le Saker Original – Le 10 juillet 2015 – Sourcethesaker.is via unz […]

  321. @Rurik

    Hi, I just looked back here to see if there was anything new. Nope. You try to get a straight answer out of this guy on this key issue, WTC7, and it’s just the sweet sound of silence! Exeunt Geokat stage right…

    The guy’s an evident shill. Do you think we should keep talking to a shill and pretend that he is anything but that?

    OK, but you could save me the trouble of looking back into the thread if you’d just give your reasoning…

    LOL. That was a dodge, of course. He never had addressed the question in any previous posts!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  322. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Do you think we should keep talking to a shill and pretend that he is anything but that?

    I don’t know. Most of the people I know don’t give the matter much if any thought, and so most of them are in the sheeple camp, and believe what ever CNN or Faux News tells them. They aren’t shills or provocateurs, they’re just too busy trying to survive to dedicate much energy to truth seeking. They lack a skeptical bent I suppose.

    In the case of our mutual friend, I just don’t know. Obviously if he’s genuine, then he’s clearly yet another member of the human race condemned to lemmingry.

    I’d say the biggest thing going to point to him as a shill is his obvious intelligence.

    I’ve already asked him if he’s being deliberately obtuse. I just don’t know.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  323. @Rurik

    In the case of our mutual friend, I just don’t know.

    It’s true that there is overlaps between the tactics of real shills and just the behavior of deluded people who refuse to consider that the government is lying. So it can be hard to know.

    With this guy, though, I think there are some pretty clear giveaways, the continual refusal to answer a straight question, even things that just admit a yes/no. Like, I asked him straight out whether he had read any of the 9/11 independent research community literature, for example The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. And he refused to answer! This, after asking me whether I had read the Senate Committee Report on something or other.

    So, you know, somebody who will ask you whether you read something and you answer, and then he won’t answer a straight question on whether he has read something — this is not an honest person. Obviously, he’s trapped to some extent. If he says he has read David Ray Griffin, he’s under some onus to explain what is wrong with the general argument. And if he admits that he hasn’t read it, then it kind of suggests that, for all his representations, he doesn’t really want to know. He hasn’t read the most basic literature on the topic.

    So he just refuses to answer. And if you ask him a straight-out question like “Is there, in your opinion, strong evidence for the government’s official story?” he just refuses to answer. I asked him that question several times. He claims that it is up to me to demonstrate that the government did 9/11. Well, maybe I can’t demonstrate that outright, but it’s not relevant if the government is pushing a story for which there is zero proof?

    And look at the song and dance when you start asking him about building 7. He says he already addressed that earlier. No he didn’t!

    The guy’s dishonest for sure. Whether he is part of an overall disruption campaign, I don’t know for sure, but dishonest definitely.

  324. […] le Saker Original – Le 10 juillet 2015 – Source thesaker.is via unz Deux sommets historiques se déroulent cette semaine : les débats entre la France et […]

  325. […] my very first column for the Unz review entitled “A Tale of Two World Orders” I described the kind of multipolar international system regulated by the rule of law Russia, […]

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.