"The Observer is a broadsheet newspaper of the United Kingdom published on Sundays. It takes a liberal/social democratic line on most issues and is the world's first Sunday newspaper (first issue published on December 4, 1791)."
Yes, please read the Observer/Guardian instead of abovetopsecret and informationclearinghouse. Even if biased (often anti-U.S. government), you will get more truthful, mainstream news than the hardcore kook sites.
I never changed my story about who was involved. As this thread evolved and grew so did the cast of characters. The Illuminati and the Bildergerg group are essentially the same thing. The top officals of the U.S. government includes the top officials of the CIA, FBI, and FEMA.
And as the cast of characters grows, you should start to realize how many people would needed to have been involved. Yet, you downplayed earlier comments about 'too many people would have needed to be involved', and that you said 'hundreds' of people would not have been needed.
Look at how many of Bush's advisors went off and wrote books slandering Bush in regards to the Iraq war and warning signals about 9/11, yet not one single person has done the same for the actual 9/11 plot.
However she was attacked by the media as "Jihad Cindy", and "dumber than rock salt and more repugnant than Yasser Arafat's three-week-old underwear".
Well, a politician accusing the president of being involved when SHE HAD NO PROOF, deserved what she got.
There is much more to the story of why she was labeled 'Jihad Cindy' than just asking for proof against the taliban and Osama:
Remember, this is the same McKinney who practically tackled Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal when New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani turned down the prince's offer of $10 million following the 9-11 attacks. McKinney criticized Giuliani and U.S. policy in the Middle East, and grotesquely offered to find appropriate charities for the Saudi's munificence.
Since making her radio comments, McKinney has backtracked a few steps. "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11," she said. "A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
"Might" is a mighty big word when you're accusing the president of the United States of being a mass murderer and of otherwise helping kindle World War III.
McKinney has a strong record of hating America....saying the White House is "just full of latent racists."
Take McKinney's pandering letter to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she apologized for the valorous actions of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Talal, nephew of Saudi King Fahd, recently visited New York to see the World Trade Center remains and gave Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts. Then, the prince released a statement full of moral equivocations, rationalizing the murder of 6,000 innocent Americans and blaming U.S. foreign policy, "suggesting" it be changed.
It's hard to ignore a $10 million dollar suggestion, no matter how ridiculous and immoral.
But not for the valiant Giuliani. In the highest act of moral and civic courage, he promptly returned the check with a statement: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered 5,000, 6,000 innocent people ... Not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem." Giuliani is an American hero.
Back to the American villainess. Last Friday, McKinney, in a ludicrous letter, apologized to the prince for Giuliani's actions, accusing Giuliani of denying the prince's "right to speak and make observations about a part of the world you know so well."
"Your Royal Highness, the state of Black America is not good." McKinney wrote, "There are many people in America who desperately need your generosity," making the false assertion that a black baby born in Harlem has a worse life expectancy than one born in Bangladesh.
McKinney's new buddy, Prince Alwaleed, is the sixth richest man in the world, according to Forbes. Giuliani showed him that even the wealthiest of scoundrels cannot buy respectability with their blood money. Unless they're buying Congresswoman McKinney.
At an Oct. 3 House Committee on International Relations Hearing on al-Qaida and the Global Reach of Terrorism, McKinney had a temper tantrum when Oliver "Buck" Revell testified. Revell, associate director of the FBI in charge of Investigative and Counter-Intelligence Operations from 1985-1991, attempted to show segments of the 1995 documentary, "Jihad in America."
McKinney wanted to censor it, so that Americans watching on C-SPAN would not see evidence of the extensive Muslim terrorist network in America documented in the film, including that of Islamic Jihad front-man and University of South Florida Professor, Dr. Sami Al-Arian. No complaints from her about denying Revell's right to speak.
We're in the middle of war. But atop her tax-funded website, alongside a photo of her in leopard-print accents, are "news briefs," including "COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story," an attack on the U.S., which she and the Black Caucus presented to the U.N. World Conference Against Racism. Hello! COINTELPRO took place under Nixon, three decades ago. And the victims cited in this 78-page diatribe by America-hating leftists Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are guys like Dhoruba Bin Wahad aka Richard Moore, a Black Panther who machine-gunned police officers, and convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal.
And she should be looked up to as a role-model or 'crusader of the truth'?
That includes the government, Osama, Saddam, or anybody else.
So let's catch Osama and hear his side of the story. The rest of the world believe he was involved and authorized the invasion of Afghanistan....well, of course the taliban said there was 'no evidence', but that is to be expected coming from them.
But aren't you the one that was convinced there was a 'mid-east connection' to the OKC bombing? And now you point your fingers at everyone EXCEPT mid-east connections. Just have to always take the position that disagrees with the government, right?
John Doe #2 from OKC bombing and Jose Padilla:
Here is a well done Dutch documentary done on the Carlyle group:
Seriously, you need to stay away from informationclearinghouse and abovetopsecret, they will rot your brain. The file doesn't work for me. Is it supposed to be in .ram format?
They are talking about how they are preparing for an attack,
if it happens!. They said "we assume" (it will happen). First you slam them for being unprepared for an attack, and now that they prepare for an attack you imply this means they are going to be staging/plotting an attack.
'we won't be like Spain,'
Sounds like wishful thinking, rather than a plan to abuse the masses. Also, because the Spanish government had at first blamed ETA, when it had Al-quada written all over it, played a role into the government being voted out.
Girl scouts and PETA do not have any influence over your life.
My point is, would they ever kill thousands of people for their own interests, even if they thought they could get away with it?
However we all know of programs such as MK-ULTRA that show a total disregard for citizens of this country.
Yeah, a program in the 50's that killed 1 person. Some knowingly took part in the experiment and some CIA agents themselves took the drugs.
It is important to mention that the US military had plans in the 1960s to conduct terrorist acts on its own citizens and then blame it Cuba to provoke a war with that country.
We don't know the full context that it was written in. They write scenarios for all kinds of situations but don't necessarily act on them. It's important to note that this plan was indeed rejected and the person who came up with this idea was demoted. So, this plan was rejected and they put it away for 40 years until they used it?
And it would not have mattered even if someone did expose it.
Yes it would. It would help convince some people.
Remember what happened to Bill Maher? His comment about the hijackers being braver than American soldiers caused him to be the target of much criticism.
Anyone portraying terrorists in any positive light should be criticized. I don't care if you feel differently.
This is extremely obvious with Bush the second, who was an alcoholic cokehead
It is possible to get a DUI, without being a 'full-blown alcoholic'. But I will give you that one. Where you get the 'cokehead' garbage, I don't know. That sounds like abovetopsecret/informationclearinghouse speak.
They groomed Clinton and Blair.
I will not deny that they attended or spoke at the meeting. 'Groomed' is speculation.
cabinet of people with corporate connections.
Duh! What do expect in a capitalistic society? While I may accuse/suspect corporations of being greedy in regards to worker abuses, I will not accuse them of master-minding the death of thousands of Americans.
Its true that many of Bushs choices for his incoming cabinet and top White House posts come from former Republican administrations, going all the way back to Gerald Ford.
^Another comment from same article.
Or Reagan the actor. Or Clinton the smooth talking southerner.
No, politicians can never get the vote of fellow Americans through their own charisma.
So every former/future president is 'evil' and out to get us? What benefit would these 'conspirators' have to put Reagan in office? Reagan felt government was getting too big, just like you feel.
The Illuminati and the Bildergerg group are essentially the same thing.
The illuminati is such a broad term, though. Find any group that involve 2 or more politicians and they can be considered in the 'illuminati' category whenever it is convenient. You are including in this conspiracy the Bilderberg group and the Carlyle group. When you want to pick on Kerry, you bring up the Skull and Bones and say that fraternity is 'evil' and full of conspiracies. Heck, you already used the broadest group of 'corporate connections'. So all these groups are 'in on it'?
Among the 100 or so invitees to the annual Bilderberg conference
Maybe the bolded part will help put things into perspective. Your list of 'perpetrators' includes people who attended the conference
IN THE PAST. 100 different people every year for 10 years would be 1,000 people. Now, I'm sure people like Gates may go there every year or two, so these wouldn't all be new people every year, so for the last 10 years, there would still be hundreds of names on this list.
A long list of names to choose from and throw into whatever conspiracy you want.
Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden bought into the theory that the Bilderberg group decided the World's fate.
It does not matter where I was or what I was doing on 9/11/01
True. Most of the conspirators would not have needed to be anywhere near Washington or New York at all on 9/11 or any other date. Yet, you make a huge point about it if any of your suspects were at these places.
because I have no influence or power over masses of people. Top world leaders and business fat cats do.
So let's just accuse the leaders of every country and the owners of every corporation. That will solve everything.
It begs the question of who were these guys, and who did they work for.
Unless whoever was involved starts coughing up the answers we will never know. How could the FBI ever find out their real names, otherwise? There is actually a precedent for this. D.B.Cooper was a hijacker, and that wasn't his real name, but the FBI still calls him by that, because they do not know his true identity. Does that mean there was a conspiracy?
Please, further explain this 'boogey-man'/hijacker thing. By 'boogey-man', do you mean they did not exist at all? Was the plane flown by remote, then? I find it hard to believe that CIA agents would be the hijackers and commit suicide so that others can benefit economically. And do you believe that the phone calls were somehow faked?
I admit I screwed up that information with the speed of the planes and the black boxes.
But if the government makes a mistake, then that is 'proof' of a cover-up/plot? You have explained that you made a mistake and that is your version of the story. Whether it was a deliberate lie, a simple mistake, or a result of faulty information, I do not know, I can only take your word for it or speculate. Do you want me to be like the conspiracy thoerists and speculate?
