|
|
|
Tiger Tiger The picture emerging tonight of the attempted double bombing in London’s West End looks very like both the Barot and the Bluewater gang plans of attack. The leader of the Bluewater gang, it should be noted, was never caught. In any event, I find it strange and interesting that these, of course, deeply religious young men should wish to dismember and incinerate “slags” in a London nighclub - Tiger Tiger, the club in The Haymarket, was running a ladies night when the car-bomb was parked thoughtfully outside and the occupant sprinted away into the night. According to one BBC report:-
We’ve seen Islamic terrorist attacks on nightclubs before, most notably and unforgettably in 2002 in Bali. But then it was possible to see this as an economic attack on the Indonesian government as well as a punishment for John Howard’s support of Bush’s War on Terror. Certainly as regards the former, Islamic terrorists had bombed the Jakarta Stock Exchange attack a full year before 9/11. The next landmark attack was the double hit in Istanbul in November 2003. This time there was no question that the targets were political and economic: the British consulate and the HSBC bank headquarters in Istanbul. Obviously, there is no shortage of potential political or economic targets in London. There are American targets. There are Israeli and Jewish diaspore targets. One would think that the destruction of one or other of these would resonate well enough with the Ummah ... always assuming that the Ummah was moved by revenge attacks for the indignity of Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine. But here we have nothing of that sort but, apparently, a third large-scale attack on the decadence of the West. Why? Remember, the first of these failed attacks predates 7/7 by sixteen months. They have nothing to do with the way in which Moslems in Britain have been treated since that event ... nothing to do with the row over the veil, for instance. They are, one is drawn to conclude, an enduring and sincere expression of a deep cultural hatred. In the aftermath of 9/11, when George Bush was telling the world that Al Qaeda, whatever that means, “hated the freedom of the West”, I instinctively started looking around for a more appropriate explanation. The one that looked good to me was that AQ sought to kick and punch America into launching an invasion of Islamic soil. That would then galvanise the Ummah and unify it behind AQ’s demand for the removal of American military bases from Saudi soil as a preliminary to the bringing down of the hated, “corrupt” House of Saud. But America announced the removal of its bases almost a year before the Bluewater gang was rumbled. So we are left with the alarming prospect that ol’ George - so hapless and dense one can only feel contempt, pity or embarrassment for him, depending on one’s humour - was right all along! But that’s just not an acceptable argument. Sorry George. So let’s look at the pattern of attacks again and see if we can marry things up without George’s inept assistance. Excepting 9/11, AQ attacks fall into three categories. There are punishment attacks, such as the appalling Madrid train bombings and 7/7. There are attacks on Western political and economic targets, occurring thusfar only on Islamic soil - from which, presumably, Western government and Western business must be expelled. Then there are these strange and heartless attacks on our hopelessly debased Western culture. Well, we must assume these morality attacks to be serious in design. We must assume that the groups of would-be mass murderers who plan them are not seeking blood and conflagration for its own sake. Ergo, we must assume that the young kids out clubbing really are a strategic target. That is to say:- 1) In the extremist mind they can be sent to hell without detracting from said extremists’ own moral purity. 2) In the Western mind they, being our sons and daughters, are precious beyond everything else and, naturally enough, their killing would strike us to the very core of our being. 3) Our hearts would be hardened, our forgiveness turned to dust. Knowing that the killers came from within the Ummah in the West, we would blame them and it and Islam, and never, never give any of them the benefit of the doubt again. Now, it happens to be the Establishment’s policy post 7/7 to give Moslems the benefit of every doubt and, indeed, to encourage them by every means to integrate with us. AQ could not possibly desire to see such an un-Islamic outcome. But, as I have already noted, the targeting of nightclubs precedes the advent of integrationism. So my conclusion is that AQ has consistently sought the means to polarise Western societies and the Ummah and create an atmosphere of permanent antipathy. The latest outrage is predicated on the same general reasoning as 9/11 itself. All the hateful noise about “Western slags” is just to motivate the next little crop of nice Moslem boys happily bagging up their 600kg of fertilizer. TIGER, tiger, burning bright - William Blake (1757-1827) Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:31 | # James, the police have said that both car-bombs contained significant quantities of nails. 3
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:00 | # Guessedworker, This event is curious. One of the cars was parked in a no parking zone. It is as if they had wanted the thing to be discovered before any harm resulted. Besides, what “bright” terrorist would use gasoline as an explosive? Looks like the Zionists are up to something. Some corrections: Zionists not Muslims were behind the Bali bombing: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm or http://www.vialls.com/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm Zionists not Muslims were responsible for the Madrid train bombings: http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/madrid.html Al Qaeda is a Zionist fiction, and Zionists, not “Al Qaeda” terrorists were responsible for 9/11: http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_ZionSummary.html I haven’t looked into the 7/7 bombings, but if I’d wager the Zionists did it, too. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:01 | # The Cockspur Street car-bomb must have been parked very close to the Albannach Restaurant. It takes its name from a 12th century Scots poet who wrote, naturally enough, in Gaelic. Here’s a translation to be found online of his poem which begins, “Mithich domh triall gu tigh Pharais”:-
Just a coincidence. Of course. What “Islamic soldier” has a sense of humour? 5
Posted by Peter North on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:25 | # ‘Hatred of our freedom’ ? Hmmm. Have you ever seroiusly considered thathe posibility of it being sheer racial hatred, nothing more, nothing less, aimed at Whites? 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:43 | # JR, AQ terrorism benefits AQ. Racial/religious polarisation creates more AQ terrorists. It is a “virtuous circle” from the AQ perspective. This is a fact of terrorist life, and has been proven over decades of “successful” atrocity.
7
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:47 | # Peter, I am not making the point that it is hatred of our freedom that underlies AQ actions. I do not think it is racial hatred, either - unless culture can be taken purely as a proxy for race in this case. I think AQ is focussed on power issues within the Islamic world. The Great Satan is useful to touch off the right kind of revolutionary dynamics for AQ. We are not really the enemy. We are the tool. 8
Posted by GT on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:51 | # For a terrorist network that was able to collapse three buildings into their footprints at free-fall velocity with only two commercial airliners, the amateurishness of this latest attack is astonishing. 9
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:57 | #
And more pro-whites, too. 10
Posted by mens rea genocide on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:26 | # “AQ” didn’t exist outside of Afghanistan in 2001, and it does not exist today at all except in Judenpresse propaganda (every day, some news of an “Al Qaeda in Iraq” bombing)... A “war on terror” never existed. Pure jewish propaganda. There is a dual Jewish war to lock down the US into a police state and steal what little oil in the ME that they don’t already control. That’s occam. The 9/11 affair, I’m afraid to say, is Jewish. After analyzing the evidence what seems ridiculous initially (and certainly did to me) is reality. You can bet on it. The West doesn’t have an Arab problem. It never will. Arabs are like a common cold virus easily defeated by the natural immune system. It’s the immune system destroying jews who are the problem. While WNs and idiots like Von Hoffmeister worry about Islam the real enemy Judah’s cleaning house. 11
Posted by mens rea genocide on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:30 | # Perhaps I am too anti-conspiratorial by nature to entertain the Zionist/CIA/evil Bush explanation for AQ attacks. Cross out CIA and Bush. Just Zionist Jew. Perhaps Guessedworker has never sacrificed a pawn in a chess game before? That’s 9/11. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:32 | # James, the police have said that both car-bombs contained significant quantities of nails. Unlikely to be thermobaric then. After having read a bit more on what they found—a propane tank and some other tanks—along with the nails, my guess is that they’re setting up a propalox explosive antipersonnel weapon. I did some work on a propane/lox rocket engine in which a main engineering challenge is to avoid propalox detonations. Propalox is essentially a stoichiometric mixture of propane and liquid oxygen. It isn’t stable (which is unfortunate for rocketry because it would make a great simple monopropellant rocket). Since the boiling point of lox is above the freezing point of propane, they can be in intimate contact both remain liquid (although the viscosity of the propane increases). They aren’t normally very miscible but when put under pressures well in excess of 100psi, the temperature of the LOX can rise to the point that they do mix and become a very energetic, and unstable, high explosive. Some colleagues of mine played around with propalox, as part of the experiments with the rocket engine, but were run out the their northern Michigan county by the sheriff after neighbors complained. I had severed my ties with them prior to their setting up shop to do the experiments because we didn’t have enough money to conduct the rocket experiments safely. They were courageous enough to continue with the rocket experiments and were not doing anything nefarious. Their propalox fun was just that. Propalox or other liquid-oxidizer explosives are not a strategic problem for civilization. Thermobarics are. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:59 | # GT, Amateurisher and amateurisher
Probably, these idiots’ wanted to be big AQ guys, and got all overheated by the failure in London. Now they’ll spend fifteen or twenty years in Dartmoor. 14
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:07 | # I just noticed the diversity on television myself. The timing of this is suspicious with Blair stepping down. 15
Posted by PF on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:03 | # Mens rea Genocide wrote:
This is an interesting idea that I first came across in a BBC documentary called ‘The Power of Nightmares’, available at: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5489478727209899114 about the rise of the Neocons. It goes like this: Al-Queda never ceased to be a CIA intelligence ‘resource’, it never broke away, it never established itself independently. Even in its modern, “international network of men working in the shadows” incarnation, it is simply providing an artificial opponent to the modern American empire. One piece of evidence which supports this view is Bin Laden’s stay in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan- a place that Michel Chossudoski (Jew) thinks is so full of CIA operatives that Bin Laden could not have escaped attention there. The argument seems plausible, at any rate our information about everything in the region is so filtered, I would strike out anything as impossible. Regarding the thinking behind the nightclub bombing- I just want to suggest an alternative possibility, which depends on the number of men involved. If the number of men involved was small and they dont have a political/religious manifesto, then a motivating factor could be simple blind rage at the host society. The psychology of the Virginia Tech shooter gives an inclination into how much strain these people are under, multi-culti is hard for them too, although in a different way. They develop for example a love-hate relationship with white women, they feel constantly burdened by their ‘otherness’ yet often not able to be accepted as ‘authentically wog’ amongst their countrymen in the homeland- for them their ways have changed and become alien. Its a schizophrenic position and the natural stupidity of these people make them live out their frustrations at being in such an awkward historical position. Just an idea. 16
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:59 | # Guessedworker wrote: Perhaps I am too anti-conspiratorial by nature to entertain the Zionist/CIA/evil Bush explanation for AQ attacks. If I were conspiratorial by nature, I’d propose that the kooky Zionist explanations for Muslim terrorism that occasionally appear on this board are part of a skillful campaign by philo-Semites to discredit serious criticism of Jewish power. What rational person would want to associate himself with eccentrics who believe in the non-existence of Al Qaeda? 17
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:01 | # This is an interesting idea ... Which has the disadvantage of being untrue. 18
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:08 | # a place that Michel Chossudoski (Jew) thinks is so full of CIA operatives that Bin Laden could not have escaped attention there. No need therefore to discuss American support for Israel. No need either to discuss the suicidal lunacy of multiracial immigration, which allows angry Muslims to flood into the West. A helpful conspiracy theorist - viz. Michel Chossudoski (Jew) - has conclusively demonstrated, to your satisfaction at least, that a bunch of amorphous White guys working for the CIA are the real source of Muslim terrorism. 19
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:31 | # “They have also described seeing two Asian men, one of whom was on fire, who had been in the car.” Some good news in the midst of the bad. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:56 | # Never mind geopolitics, the clash of civilisations, assymetric warfare and jihad. The gun-toting, forty-something, critical-rationalist schoolboy Perry de Havilland has concluded that the latest gifts of our precious diversity (which diversity, yes, he does actually celebrate) are all down to ... the knighthood for Salman Rushdie. Of course. That’s what the literary references are telling us. But then Perry did somewhat rashly predict in April 2004 that “We will bury you”. Guess he’s just a liberty dingbat after all. 21
Posted by *44*** on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:40 | # Someone here may remember and have a link for the news story I read re the Tel Aviv bar-bomber Omar Khan Sharif, a ‘British’ public school boy whose entirely ‘assimilated’ family registered his birth 10 or 12 times in slightly different variations. There are plenty of news stories still web-posted about his exploits, but none I can find which mention how his well-off, middle-class parents created multiple identities around his birth which were presumably sold to co-ethnics whose cousins were already married to ‘Brits’ and who couldn’t get a visa. I know I read it, and I think the example is important if anyone has a link or quote. 22
Posted by mens rea genocide on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:23 | # It goes like this: Al-Queda never ceased to be a CIA intelligence ‘resource’, it never broke away, it never established itself independently. That’s BBC red herring, possibly intentional disinformation. (What would make the BBC think that Bin Laden, an “Islamic nationalist”, remained a CIA asset after the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan? The coincidence of interests ended there.) The evidence merely indicates that “Al Qaeda” is overrated by the general public due to Judenpresse puffery. If it ever had a regional network (and probably thoroughly penetrated by the Mossad if it did) it no longer exists today. 23
Posted by Matra on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:31 | # J Richards, Do you plan on responding to reader‘s last comments on the “Cosmic ants” thread? It’s been about 60 hours since he asked you about your ethnic background and questioned your credibility yet you decided to come to MR but not respond to his last post. That you have no problem with the Reade Seligmann photoshops makes it strange that you would expect readers to take your links seriously. 24
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:21 | # Very Silly: [Al Qaeda] does not exist today at all except in Judenpresse propaganda (every day, some news of an “Al Qaeda in Iraq” bombing)... Slightly Silly: The evidence merely indicates that “Al Qaeda” is overrated by the general public due to Judenpresse puffery. You’re improving, but you’ll notice the inconsistency: Not existing at all and being overrated by the general public are substantially different ideas. 25
Posted by mens rea genocide on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:57 | # Alrighty. Where’s this Al Qaeda today? Give me some evidence that Bin Laden isn’t dead or in a cave virtually cut off. Ever consider the difficulties in managing a trans-national network of any sort? That his non-human communications are intercepted by US military intelligence? That Bin Laden hasn’t any funding? (No, he can’t print up Afghanis, Fed-style, or hit the ATM.) That the Mossad and CIA operatives could rather easily compromise a ME network of any size? Surely an effective opponent of Zionism like RNL appreciates these basic operational issues. Myself, I’m guessing Binladen has ten trusted associates and nothing else at this point (if he isn’t already dead). You can call that Al Qaeda if you want. To me that’s fairly described as either organizationally nonextant or wildly overrated. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:13 | # I think most observers concluded a long time ago that AQ is a brand name rather than a centrally-driven organisation. It replicates the Islamic pattern of a total but ideologically narrow religious affiliation imposed upon widely differing racio-cultural audiences. Its strategy is to devolve terrorist action down into the hands of local “soldiers”, thereby employing on a global scale the sort of cell structure that frustrated the British Army in its efforts to control IRA terorism. These local groups are invariably tasked with what the IRA used to call “spectaculars”, which are what is required for the task of awakening and radicalising the Ummah. 27
Posted by Calvin on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:34 | # We seem to have two basic tenets of belief here. 1. No one can organize a terrorist campaign without the go-ahead of Israel. Can one of the Judeomaniacs please name the Jews behind the IRA and the Jews behind the Islamic medieval expansion? 28
Posted by Anon. on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:47 | # If, in the event of assisting a police officer in restraining a failed suicide bomber (victim group) could you be charged and arrested for racial attack (oppressor group) or is this another area of Liberal inconsistency? 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:51 | # I would say that you are quite safe. Of course, if the suicide bomber produces a gun or knife and does you in, he will immediately be transformed into a “youth” whose ethnicity is not material to reporting of the incident, if indeed any reporting at all of the incident is now deemed worthy ... given that Paris Hilton will almost certainly have broken the terms of her parole by then and been put back into her cell amid floods of tears and photoflashes. 30
Posted by Peter North on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:57 | # I realise that there is a persistant strand of anti-Semitism amongst the main players on this forum, but I wish to make the following point which I hope will be taken into consideration. 31
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:14 | # Larry King had an exclusive interview with Paris Hilton the night “comprehensive immigration reform” went down in the Senate. I had the television on searching for informed post-amnesty commentary. It was a poignant reminder of how frivilous and self-absorbed Americans are; how our own individualism is more of a problem than intimidation by ethnic pressure groups. OTOH, I was heartened by the spectacular job NumbersUSA and talk radio did in Georgia. They set the whole state on fire and forced Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson to back down against their own preferences. In the end, this was decisive; the lopsided rout at the end masked a much narrower victory. It just goes to show that when White America overcomes 1.) its own solipsistic individualism and 2.) its fear of being tarred with “racism” nothing can stop us. For a single spectacular moment, signs of life — signs of raw instinct — shot through its corpse. Big Business, Big Jew, Big Ag, Hispanic activist groups, the Catholic Church, tens of millions of illegal aliens, “civil rights” groups, the entire political establishment in Washington — all stood united against us — and all were slapped down. The opposition to this single bill reached such a crescendo that the Senate phone system had to be shut down. From what I gather, more angry Americans called their representatives over “comprehensive immigration reform” than during the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment of Bill Clinton that followed. Congress has an approval rating ten points lower than Richard Nixon did at the height of Watergate. In my rather short lifetime at least, immigration has never been such a pressing issue as it is today, and seems likely to dominate the 2008 election cycle. Surely, this is significant. It could be a turning point here in North America (the pessimist in me dithers otherwise). What about the U.K.? I’m grossly misinformed about the situation on your side of the Atlantic. If any parallels to American talk radio and NumbersUSA exist in Britain, I am unaware of them. While British racialists are better organized as a political force, the mainstream British media appears more hegemonic than its American counterpart. I suspect this is related to the “incitement to racial hatred” laws that muzzle free speech (Americans would laugh off ridiculous accusations of “Islamophobia”), but it also probably cultural in nature. I have observed that the English are more deferential to authority than Americans. As you pointed out a few weeks ago, the one time you really “let loose” here on Majority Rights your English commentators took you to the woodshed. In America, with its rougher and more egalitarian frontier heritage, uncouth loudmouths (dittoheads) vent their feelings through conservative talk radio and are less abashed about making their opinions known to their representatives. This rather unsavory Yank cultural trait — the “you ain’t no gooder’n me” feeling — probably saved American civilization this past week. It also clearly shows to me that blogs and the radio dial — harnessing our own individualism and egalitarianism, and putting them to positive collective use — will be the decisive tools used in re-socializing White America into racial consciousness and cracking Jewish hegemony in the mass media. Pace gongstar, a few more cocksure, gum-chewing, English loudmouths wouldn’t be such a bad thing, especially in light of the diversity blowing up your trains and airports (Slay Those Who Insult Islam). Undoubtedly, the mainstream media and the anti-hate squad in the U.K. is already in full spin mode recycling the usual clichés and canards. Without a strong alternative media to undermine their efforts, they will probably succeed in defining the parameters of the debate, too. Just my two cents. 32
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:25 | #
Peter North, See here, here, and here. That’s why we feel the way we do about the Jews. Sob stories about “Poor Little Israel” fail to resonate with us when the organized Jewish community devotes so much of its time to demonizing racialism and pushing third world immigration in our own countries. 33
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:31 | # Also, I find your choice of a username suspicious. 34
Posted by wjg on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:01 | # “...but point to the assuaging of an actual blood-lust fuelled ethnic hatred of the most elemental and bestial type - the desire to see your perceived enemies literally blown to pieces and slaughtered by the hundreds to satisfy the hatred and sheer lust for revenge.” Peter, Far from a decades old critique of the enemies of Judah, this fits as an eternal description of the relationship between Judah and the Goyim. Perfectly written as a matter of fact. The Jew cries in pain as he kicks you. You may want to return to banging Christy and Ginger; Philo-Semitic apologetics is starting to lose its lustre. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:34 | #
This year, although I didn’t blog about it and perhaps should have, was the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War. When the troops were shipped south on board the QE2 there was a certain disquiet about the fighting qualities of this generation of servicemen. Youth had had a bad name for twenty years, and one could see that some unflattering generational analysis was being prepared for them in the event of failure. Too much narcissistic individualism would have been the least of it. What the country then witnessed was a display of soldiering the equal of that in any period in Britain’s long acquaintance with warfare. And it was a remarkable thing to witness, even from 8,000 miles away in the safety of one’s own living room. From it I took the lesson that the qualities which make us what we are as a people do not suddenly disappear in one or even two generations. The manliness and independence of the frontiersmen, the energy and creativity of the great 19th century city-builders, the sense of duty and the courage of the GIs on Omaha Beach or Guam ... these sorts of thing are still in the blood, and if the times demanded them they would be offered. But it is a nice question as to whether there exists a median point at which the natural character of a people re-exerts itself, free of both the sickly, sapping, Weimar-esque excess of today and the heroic but still abnormal and not really desirable high dramas of the past. The point in question is whether the people are ever sufficiently free of the zeitgeist to express their essentiality. I am inclined to the view that the demands of an urbanised, highly artificial life probably increase our suggestibility in direct proportion to our disconnectedness from Nature. With suggestibility comes self-alienation: the lived narrative is not that of the liver. So no ... only something very special - like the Falklands campaign - or very revolutionary can lift him out of his dreams. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:46 | # Where this leads, of course, is: How bad’s it got to get before the people pick up their burden? There is the argument that Ron Paul is tapping into a flow of sorts. He thinks it’s the popularity of “freedom”. We wonder whether it is a revolt against the times. Even if it is - and it probably is - the power of the zeitgeist and the suggestibility of the human mind will conspire against a profitable outcome any time soon. I think it’s got to get much worse before the European American chooses to live. It might help if the moves now afoot to unite the splintered factions of WN in protest in Kalamazoo went further, towards the establishment of a single political movement that undertakes to normalise itself in mainstream terms so as, one fine day, to meet the turning electorate half-way. I fear that may be too difficult for the present crop of “leaders”. 37
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20 | # The defeat of the Senate amnesty came as a surprise to me. A similar bill made it through the Senate during the 109th Congress. I was overly pessimistic and concluded that Bush would get his way before the end of the summer. Some encouraging new numbers I came across today. From the LA Times: “A Gallup Poll in 2000 found that only 15% of those surveyed worried a great deal about illegal immigration; that jumped to 45% this year. What’s more, polls indicate that the issue is figuring more prominently in how voters size up political candidates. In a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press last month, 54% said a presidential candidate’s stand on immigration would be very important in their decision on how to vote; 34% said it would be somewhat important. As recently as 2004, immigration was not even in the top 20 issues.” 38
Posted by TJ on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:42 | # Muslims = “Al Qaeda” and vice versa. If you have muslims committing acts of terror, you have active Al Qaeda members. If you have muslims and no terror (yet) they are simply waiting for the opportunity. This is what muslims do, they attack and try and kill infidels wherever they feel they can. The UK has a critical mass of these loons, but the UK gov’t can’t face that (neither can the idiots in Washington DC). 39
Posted by wjg on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:03 | # TJ, Why do you think the UK and US regimes “can’t face” the issue of murderous Muslims in their midst? The Muslims may be a symptom but they sure as hell aren’t the disease. 40
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:13 | # Guessedworker,
How successful are these atrocities? For the few Westerners they kill, the West kills a lot more Muslims. What kind of success is this?
The “official” explanation is itself a conspiracy theory: mad Muslims hell-bent on killing others. The question is which “conspiracy theory” to believe? Evidence for and against different “conspiracy theories” should be evaluated. You should at least go through the materials at the webpages I cited.
Occam tells us that the Zionists are responsible. Ask yourself what did the Muslims have to gain from 9/11 and what did the Zionists have to gain from it? Ask yourself what did the Muslims actually gain from perpetrating 9/11? If the Muslims were responsible for 9/11, did they not learn the lesson that for any major terrorist act against the West, the West would retaliate and Muslim casualties would be at least an order of magnitude higher? Why then did the Muslims go on to commit the Madrid train bombing and 7/7? I would like to paraphrase a comment by GT. Think it over in reference to Occam’s Razor:
41
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:08 | # Rnl,
How could one discredit serious criticism of Jewish power by arguing that Zionsist have the means and power to commit mass murder and blame it on Muslims? Are you insane?
Huh? If Israel is committing terrorist acts and blaming it on Muslims, then there is an immediate need to discuss American support for Israel, especially in light of a long history of Israeli crimes against the U.S. (Lavon affair, USS Liberty attack, etc.). You also need to read up more about this Al-Qaeda myth. ———————— Matra,
I did a short while ago. I am amused that you have kept track of the number of hours since his post and my not responding to it; there are some comments that I need to respond to that were posted months ago. “Reader’s” questioning my ethnic background is completely irrelevant to the discussion, though I answered it.
Altering the nose does not amount to doctoring the “facts” of the case like the Zionists did to the WW2 photos. The alteration is also along the lines of a joke. Besides, I am not defending the Duke case as JI has portrayed it. “Reader” created a bunch of straw persons to mislead readers, and ignored serious issues…just what you would expect from a Zionist disinformation agent. You shouldn’t be taking my links seriously or ignoring them based on how credible you think I am but by going through the contents of the articles cited. All links that I posted above regarding Zionist criminality could easily have been replaced by links to Judicial Index where they are discussed, too, but I posted more scholarly references since I am addressing very specific incidents. It won’t take you long to go through the articles. ————————- Calvin,
Straw man.
Another straw man. Muslims dislike, many strongly so, Western culture, and Muslims desire to dominate the whole world. The question is whether the following impression is right about Muslims:
After learning about Zionists committing mass murder and blaming it on Muslims, I decided to look up Islamic literature on the circumstances when it is permitted to kill non-Muslims. The circumstances pertaining to this thread are defending Islam and Muslims from harm and sometimes expanding Islam/dominating other religions…the clear theme is that the behaviors must at least maintain the interests of or benefit Islam and Muslims. 9/11-type acts cannot achieve any of these goals. There is simply too much of a power differential between the West and the Islamic World. The large scale deaths of Afghans and Iraqis should be a clear indication that it is futile and stupid to commit terrorist acts against the West. So why would the Muslims go ahead with the Madrid train bombings and 7/7 or this new incident? Think about this and read the links I cited. 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:57 | # The problem with that position is that neither Afghanis nor Iraqis committed large scale acts of terror against the West. 9/11 purportedly was Saudis; 7/7 were mostly Pakistanis; Spain was Moroccans/Algerians and Bali was Javanese. None of those Muslim nations/ethnies faced retaliatory action from the West. 43
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:52 | # J Richards wrote: How could one discredit serious criticism of Jewish power by arguing that Zionsist have the means and power to commit mass murder and blame it on Muslims? The charge that Israel was responsible for 9/11 or the Madrid bombings is so preposterous that it discredits serious criticism of Jewish misbehavior. It’s like alleging that Jews are responsible for global warming. They aren’t responsible for global warming, and they were not responsible for the Madrid bombings either. Lunatic criticism of Jews discredits serious criticism of Jews. That’s why Jewish organizations are so fond of the Protocols. Are you insane? Since you’ve brought up the subject of insanity, I wonder what’s happened to you lately. When I first read your recent posts I assumed you must be some other J. Richards, not the MR blogger who writes so knowledgeably on other subjects. You also need to read up more about this Al-Qaeda myth. I encourage everyone to read the link Richards has supplied. While you’re at it, you can also read MORE FEARMONGERING RUBBISH FROM AUSTRALIA’S ISLAMOPHOBIC AND RACIST GOVERNMENT, another of Damian Lataan’s contributions to the immigration debate. I have a strong suspicion that Richards knows next to nothing about Islamic terrorism, and I introduce as evidence for my suspicion Mr. Lataan’s fact-free essay on the al-Qaeda myth. No informed person would cite this nonsense as though it were a serious discussion of al-Qaeda. So why would the Muslims go ahead with the Madrid train bombings and 7/7 or this new incident? The simple answer is that they don’t like us. In the case of Madrid the practical motive was clear. They wanted to punish the Spanish government for its support of the Iraq invasion. They were successful. The Spanish government was defeated and its successor took Spain out of the coalition, a result that no militant Zionist would have hoped for. 44
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:04 | # mens rea genocide, Your argument earlier was that Zionists are responsible for Muslim terror attacks, including 9/11. J. Richards has surprisingly come to the same conclusion. With due respect, that proposition is too misguided to discuss, as is your belief that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a Jewish front organization. Some White nationalists have difficulty accepting that our race and our civilization can have more than one enemy. Let’s pretend we could wish into existence news stories that convey racialist political meanings. Could we do much better than the failed London nightclub bombing? No one died this time, so an important political meaning was painlessly conveyed. That meaning would not be improved by the addition of shadowy Mossad agents secretly orchestrating the operation. Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, among the most famous terrorists in the world, were both still legally in the US six months after they crashed planes into the WTC. That landmark piece of immigration incompetence would be hard to beat. It would be a challenge to invent anything better. Similarly, fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were in the country illegally. If you believe a sovereign nation should have secure borders, 9/11 reads like a script written by an immigration reformer. Adding a few Zionists to the story-line wouldn’t improve it, and removing Atta and al-Shehhi from history, as some conspiracy theorists do, would eliminate the message. INS Approved Hijackers’ Visas Six Months after Sept. 11 Visas that Should Have Been Denied Myself, I’m guessing Binladen has ten trusted associates and nothing else at this point That’s a common opinion, expressed often in mainstream sources. It hasn’t been suppressed by anyone. It may be true. It may be false. But it’s not a secret. We don’t face only an enemy located far off in Waziristan. The most dangerous terrorist enemy exists in Western cities. It exists in Muslim populations. It exists in Muslim populations in Western cities because Western governments permitted Muslims to flood into their nations, and a significant number of the Muslims who flooded in hate us, hate us so much that they’re eager to kill us. If anyone is desperate for conspiracies, the failure of the mainstream media to focus on these glaringly obvious facts would provide the best material. All speculation that Muslim terrorists are really Zionist operatives only places a barrier between the apolitical public and the obvious. It’s all just distracting noise, and that would be the case even if the various conspiratorial claims were true, which they clearly aren’t. If anyone wants an especially imaginative conspiracy, let’s conjecture that all those crazy URLs Richards keeps citing have been produced by multiracialists hoping to distract the public from the reality sitting about an inch from their nose. That certainly is the effect, even if it isn’t the intention. We should stick to the obvious. Third World immigration makes our nations worse. It doesn’t improve them. Muslim terrorism is the clearest case in point, clear enough that even Freepers are beginning to see it. Muslims, with their penchant for rioting and blowing up public transport, supply the most compelling argument against Third World immigration. 45
Posted by Anon on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:31 | # Does the Mails’s Littlejohn read MR? (see Mail 03.07.07) Littlejohn says…... “My favourite moment was the interview with the have-a-go hero at the airport who helped apprehend one of the would-be bombers. His account went something like: “I saw this Asian guy running towards me shouting ‘Allah’ — so I battered him.” Go on yerself, big man. I’m surprised he hasn’t been charged with racially-aggravated assault.” 46
Posted by mens rea genocide on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:01 | # No one can organize a terrorist campaign without the go-ahead of Israel. (—Calvin) All speculation that Muslim terrorists are really Zionist operatives only places a barrier between the apolitical public and the obvious. (—Rnl) Merely consider that it might have been either Muslims or Mossad in the event of any “Muslim” terrorist event, especially ones with obvious geopolitical benefit for Israel. The very point of a black flag is to exploit the naivete of the world’s many well-meaning Rnls and the knee-jerk reaction of the masses. They fall into the trap. Nick Griffin has pointed out that even if these operations are Mossad false flags, party platforms should exclude mention of them as such. To do so is to stand on the wrong side and get the knee-jerk kick in the face. as is your belief that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a Jewish front organization Judenpress labels resistance to the Judeo-American occupation as “terrorism”. Occasionally, it fingers “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” as the guilty party. Rnl believes such a Bin Laden-affiliated exists. Excuse me for my skepticism. 47
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:13 | # The charge that Israel was responsible for 9/11 or the Madrid bombings is so preposterous that it discredits serious criticism of Jewish misbehavior. Wow. It’s amazing that you could think that. How can you conclude it’s preposterous that the Mossad was involved in 9/11? Israel’s our number one foreign enemy, as well as an enemy of the people blamed for the attack. The US government is full of Israeli agents in influential positions with access to intelligence reports. Some of these agents even spoke in advance of the benefits that could follow from an attack like 9/11. Israel had a motive and a lot more of an opportunity than any Muslim terrorists who may also have had a motive. And there is convincing evidence that some Israelis knew of the attacks ahead of time. There’s plenty of reason to suspect Israeli involvement. And, as far as I know, there’s no evidence that points to anyone else. 48
Posted by second class citizen on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:32 | # “The very point of a black flag is to exploit the naivete of the world’s many well-meaning Rnls and the knee-jerk reaction of the masses.” Why do you assume Rnl is naive and not malicious? He is significantly intelligent (judging from vocab, error frequency, skill at writing), and yet uses the term conspiracy theory as a pejorative. In addition to the frequent use of strong adjectives and strawmen rather than substantive arguments to make his claims. Is a false negative better than a false positive? And how much so? 49
Posted by Matra on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:58 | #
I didn’t keep track of it I just looked at the time of his last post and at my watch after noticing that you’d been posting on MR in between those times but didn’t respond.
If they’re doctoring photographs then their integrity is gone already.
Obviously another Mossad agent conspiring with the Zionist Scottish police who arrested those innocent Muslim doctors! 50
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:25 | # ben tillman wrote: there is convincing evidence that some Israelis knew of the attacks ahead of time. Revise this sentence and you’ll have a serious point: There is some evidence that Israel may have had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. ‘Israeli Art Student’ Files What did Israel Know? What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks? On the other hand, there is no evidence that Israel organized the attacks or conducted the attacks. There is, on the contrary, overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was exactly what it appeared to be: an attack on the United States by Muslim terrorists. It is a fact beyond dispute that Jewish neoconservatives exploited the 9/11 attacks for the benefit of Israel. But that fact is much different from the preposterous claim that Mossad agents crashed planes into the WTC. as far as I know, there’s no evidence that points to anyone else. How about the bombers themselves? Their names and personal histories are known. Their movements are known. Their motives are known. Their leaders are known. The planning of the attacks is known. 9/11 is a not mystery requiring the skilled speculations of conspiracy theorists to unravel it. 51
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:28 | # second class citizen wrote: [Rnl] uses the term conspiracy theory as a pejorative. That’s because conspiracy theories distract people from crucial racial issues, most of which are not secret but clearly visible to anyone willing to look seriously at the world. 52
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:04 | # How about the bombers themselves? Their names and personal histories are known. Their movements are known. Their motives are known. Their leaders are known. The planning of the attacks is known. How are these things “known”? What credible sources confirm the government’s official story? And even if these things truly were known, how would that negate an allegation of Israeli involvement? There are lots of ways Israeli agents could have facilitated the success of a plan independently hatched by Islamic terrorists. 53
Posted by Proofreader on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:57 | # This job looks like it was done by Mossad: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6262302.stm I´m suspicious because it quickly followed this attack on UN soldiers: And the current Spanish government is not kosher enough for the “International Community”. 54
Posted by second class citizen on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:31 | # Rnl: “That’s because conspiracy theories distract people from crucial racial issues, most of which are not secret but clearly visible to anyone willing to look seriously at the world.” More kosher tactics: omit defense of valid criticisms, instead choosing to focus on something that he thinks he has a chance of persuading the average sheep with. Conspiracy theory is a pejorative word coined in the 1920s but entering popular usage in the 1960s, along with most other tenets of cultural marxism aka political correctness. It is a piece of reflexive magic created through repetition in the media to make the average person recoil in horror, much like the terms “racism”, “white supremacism” etc. The connotations attached to the latter are those of mindless belligerence and Evil, the connotations attached to the former are gullibility, “wasting time” and paranoid schizophrenia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Terminology It’s very interesting that you like to point out that we are “wasting our time” discussing such things. I suppose humans wasted thousands of years of history in the years prior to 1960 discussing important events and the causes behind them. Stupid people. How double plus ungood of them! They should have been focusing on treating the symptoms and not the causes of their problems! To others at MR, again (and let me know if this has been discussed in private, it should at least be discussed), why is the moderation policy so lenient? Perhaps the pedagogical purpose in letting the commentariat debate such people is deemed worthwhile. If so, good, at least it has been considered. Otherwise we as a race tend to be too trusting and not paranoid enough. And this is at a face to face level, not at the level of media consumption (where we take at face value speeches read by our rulers and written by other people), and not at the level of the internet (where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents). 55
Posted by mens rea genocide on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:02 | # Why do you assume Rnl is naive and not malicious? He is significantly intelligent (judging from vocab, error frequency, skill at writing), and yet uses the term conspiracy theory as a pejorative. Because the default and highly intuitive position is that Arabs did it. (It was mine as well, it took me a few months after 9/11 to conclude partial Mossad involvement [I had thought they merely tracked the operation let it take place], and only in the past year after examining mountainfuls of evidence that the ordinary busy professional doesn’t have time to did I finally conclude the operation was Jewish-conceived and Jewish directed beginning-to-end, and could not be otherwise. This is not an easy conclusion to reach, both psychologically and in terms of evidence requirements. I do not expect anyone who has not given the evidence due diligence to conclude thusly. Also, most Americans are like Rnl. The liberal worldview teaches them that all are well-intentioned friends, none are enemies, and “conspiracies” do not happen. It is designed to create a defenseless, easily exploited Eloi populace. That’s because conspiracy theories distract people from crucial racial issues, most of which are not secret but clearly visible to anyone willing to look seriously at the world. We have two audiences: the general public, and the back room operators. The back room operators must know the full truth. (Gee, if they race-replace entire countries, itself a massive deception operation, wouldn’t you think a minor false flag is in play?) 56
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:57 | # 9/11 is a not mystery requiring the skilled speculations of conspiracy theorists to unravel it. Which should have read “not a mystery ...” I maliciously upped my error frequency just to confuse SCC. It’s one of my many kosher tactics. 57
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:08 | # ben tillman wrote: How are these things “known”? What credible sources confirm the government’s official story? You should read something serious on the subject. Joe Vialls doesn’t count. Credible sources are abundant. If you don’t know that, you should choose some other topic for your comments. And even if these things truly were known, how would that negate an allegation of Israeli involvement? The fact that Muslim jihadists planned and conducted the 9/11 attacks doesn’t negate an allegation of Bulgarian involvement either. But the absence of proof isn’t proof, except in the wacky world of conspiracy research. Richards is making the strong (i.e. extremely dumb) conspiracy case: Jews were physically responsible for Muslim terror attacks like the Madrid bombings. Hence “Israel is committing terrorist acts and blaming [them] on Muslims.” You’re making, I take it, the weaker case, which is more difficult to address: Jews are lurking behind the scenes and secretly guiding Muslim terrorists. There is no evidence for either case, but the weak version can’t be easily rebutted. A successful secret conspiracy leaves few traces of public evidence. I’ll just point out that any apolitical Britons dropping by this thread for information on the latest Muslim threat to their nation’s security will conclude that this board is populated by eccentrics who believe that Israel set off a nuclear device in Bali and that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was either a Mossad agent or a Zionist fiction. Proponents of the weak conspiracy case, who acknowledge that acts of Muslim terrorism are indeed committed by Muslim terrorists rather than by Jews, should realize that their idle conspiracy speculations confuse a political issue that should be remarkably clear: If you have a large number of Muslims on your nation’s soil, then you also have a large number of potential Muslim terrorists. If you value your safety, you should reduce the reservoir of potential terrorists in your midst. At the very least you should end the immigration flood that is steadily increasing its size. In politics the clearest and simplest truths are usually the best. 58
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:11 | # MRG wrote: the operation was Jewish-conceived and Jewish directed beginning-to-end ... Please list the names of the Jews who conceived and directed the 9/11 attacks. 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:35 | # Even if you assume Mossad direction, it still does not negate Rnl’s basic position; If you have a large number of Muslims on your nation’s soil, then you also have a large number of potential Muslim terrorists. It also portends a large child-equivalent loss which is even more significant than the acts of terror. Regardless of Mossad influence Islam is a threat, in both a proximate and ultimate way because Islam and its M/Eastern and South Asian proponents are here. Cue Enoch Powell. 60
Posted by mens rea genocide on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:18 | # Please list the names of the Jews who conceived and directed the 9/11 attacks. I would answer that the same as if you asked who specifically is behind the race-replacement deception, by following the trails as best I could. But to responsibly throw out possible names and such requires citations, documentation. I have no interest in writing a 5,000 word comment, especially not to convince someone who isn’t even in the ballgame, i.e. have difficulty believing the Mossad might conspire a false flag. Suffice to say that if I were Homeland Security Secretary I’d know at least some of the people to grab to torture the full story out of. 61
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:28 | # You should read something serious on the subject. Joe Vialls doesn’t count. Credible sources are abundant. Who’s Joe Vialls? And who are these credible sources? You’re making, I take it, the weaker case, which is more difficult to address: Jews are lurking behind the scenes and secretly guiding Muslim terrorists. I’m not making any case, and your reference to “guidance” is a very uncharitable interpretation of my words. I trust you understand that “guide” and “facilitate” have quite different meanings. The point is that Israel has a history of terrorism and had a motive and a better opportunity to commit an attack like 9/11. And even if the plan was cooked up and implemented by the accused Muslims, Israeli intelligence was more or less aware of the plan and could have chosen to attempt to remove obstacles to its success. The official story seems to have been asserted, not proven. Tellingly, Rnl declined the opportunity to provide citations of independent confirmatory sources. 62
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:04 | # Desmond Jones,
Think of Muslim losses, not the nationality of the Muslims. When it is Muslims vs. others, Muslims do not emphasize nationality. Even if 9/11 was allegedly mostly carried out by Saudis, the mastermind (Bin Laden; Saudi) and his organization were based in Afghanistan. —————— Rnl,
And what the government is telling us is not preposterous? Backward Muslims outfoxing NORAD, flight-school-failing pilot Hani Hanjour flying a Boeing 757 a few feet above ground level in downtown Washington D.C., three steel-frame buildings collapsing into their foot prints at near-free fall speeds because of fire (one not even hit by a plane)...? Isn’t it also preposterous that the brilliant organization that could engineer these remarkable feats, AL-Qaeda, is currently being blamed for the shockingly amateurish terrorist attempts that are the subject of GW’s entry? So lunatic criticism of Jews discredits serious criticism of Jews? What exactly is lunatic about the assertion that Zionists were responsible for 9/11 and the Madrid train bombings? Haven’t you heard of the USS Liberty incident? Why couldn’t the Zionists have also carried out 9/11?
The essay isn’t fact free. It is full of numerous citations. You on the other hand need to cite credible evidence of Al Qaeda like mens rea genocide asked you to.
Are the Muslims so insane that they would go around killing people a lot more powerful people than they are and risk much greater retaliatory losses?
You got it wrong. The Zionists knew that Aznar sent Spanish troops to Iraq against the wishes of most Spaniards and elections were around the corner. They wanted to convince the Spanish people that Muslim terrorism is a grave threat and hoped to make the Aznar government win. The attacks occurred shortly before the elections. The result was the opposite of expectations. Spaniards held Aznar responsible for bringing terrorism home, and he was ousted. Can you not see the copy of the Quran conveniently found near the tracks as an obvious frame up? Please go over these details.
This is absurd. I don’t believe there is any such white nationalist. Muslims are clear enemies of the West and have been for a long time (e.g., Moors, Ottoman Turks).
Another absurdity. No one seriously believes that all Muslim terrorists are really Zionist operatives. The argument is that some very specific terrorist incidents blamed upon Muslims have been orchestrated by Zionists. In the case of 9/11, people like Mohammad Atta were patsies. It is a very easy matter for Zionists to recruit Muslims who hate the West, supply them with training/materials to carry out terrorist attacks and then to clear the path for these fools to commit terrorism…Muslims get blamed but the orchestration of the event was by Zionists.
Obviously. But who has flooded the U.S. with tens of millions of non-whites since 1965? The Zionists. Who refuses to tell the American people what massive legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. is doing to America? The Zionists in control of the mainstream media. Which ethnic group has voted as a bloc to legalize illegal aliens in the U.S. and increase Third World immigration to the U.S.? The Jewish group. Do you see that Zionism is a problem?
Who is claiming that Mossad agents crashed airplanes into the towers? Why would the Mossad have its agents commit suicide if it can avoid it? Muslim patsies were supposedly in charge, but in reality the planes that crashed into the towers were hijacked by remote control and brought toward the twin towers by a homing signal coming from an especially reinforced command center in Building 7, which is the reason why Building 7 was brought down by explosives hours later…to destroy evidence. I am pleased that you acknowledge that Israel had foreknowledge, but how can you not see Zionists being fully responsible for it? The WTC towers had been leased to a Zionist, Larry Silverstein, who quickly changed the maintenance and security personnel after he acquired the lease. Silverstein is on record accidently slipping out that Building 7 was “pulled.” There is no way that Building 7 was rigged up with explosives to bring it down on its footprint in a matter of hours…this rigging would have taken weeks, and if they could rig Building 7, they could easily have rigged Buildings 1 and 2, too. Who could have made NORAD stand down? Zionists or Muslims? The person with ultimate authority over NORAD was Cheney and the second-in-command was Zionist Paul Wolfowitz. Go carefully over the evidence here.
The two articles by Joe Vialls were not cited because they came from Joe Vialls, but because they list detailed evidence justifying the contentions. Joe Vialls was not right about everything, but most (90%) of what he wrote was true, and the cited pages are suitable as evidence.
Well then, the “9/11 conspiracy” was not successful…currently most Americans do not believe the government version, but only a few have woken up to Israeli involvement. The public evidence is in the form of videos of WTC buildings being bought down by explosives, Silverstein accidentally admitting that Building 7 was pulled, no evidence of 80 tons of wreckage that would be expected from a Boeing 757 with passangers and luggage crashing into the Pentagon in the photographs released by the military, etc. ———————
Doctoring noses does not amount to doctoring the facts of the case; it is a joke suitable to the tabloid-style arguments at JI targeting people with a limited attention span. ———————-
We don’t moderate comments. The idea is to maximize freedom of speech. On the other hand, some seriously damaging comments or extreme nuisances have had to be removed, but fortunately we have not been flooded by many such comments. 63
Posted by Proofreader on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:43 | # About the Madrid bombings: there´s every reason to believe it was an inside job by the socialists or an ETA/intelligence cover-up:
We were told 11 lies about the terrorist attack. 1. We were told the perpetrators of the massacre were fanatic islamists enrolled in Al Qaeda, but the prosecuted turned out to be mainly just ordinary criminals, almost all of them being either security forces informers or controlled by them. 2. We were told the terrorists left a bag containing explosive in a Renault Kangoo van found in Alcalá, but the EOD dogs that inspected it did not find anything unusual. 3. We were told several items proving the implication of the terrorists in the massacre turned up in the van, but the Police saw none of those items when they first inspected the vehicle right in Alcalá. 4. We were told a bomb that did not explode was found almost 20 hours later in a police station, but several evidences lead to suspect that bomb was never in the trains. A mobile phone found inside the fake bomb allegedly pointed the police inquiries toward the then-arrested suspects. 5. We were told the bomb did not go off due to a mistake made by the terrorists, but evidences lead to suspect the device was deliberately designed so as not to explode and therefore constituting a forged incriminating evidence. 6. We were told the terrorists left a Skoda car in Alcalá the very same day of the attack. It was found 3 months later, but there are evidences that prove the car was not there on March 11th. 7. We were told the terrorists used the Skoda car to commit the attacks, but there is no evidence they were ever inside that car, but for some clothes and other items that were found inside the car in a certainly suspicious way. 8. We were told a group of islamists put the explosive backpacks in the trains, but, unlike New York or London, the security cameras did not get to record the image of any of them. 9. We were told a long and heavy shooting between the terrorists and the Police took place in Leganés, but after the explosion (as a result of which the terrorists and one policeman were killed), only 5 cartridges were found, and not a single bullet hole in the whereabouts. 10. We were told Leganés terrorists provoked the explosion in an attempt to carry out a typical terrorist suicide and therefore another massacre, but, after killing 192 in the trains, they were kind enough as to wait till all the neighbours left the building before blowing it up. 11. We were told the case was clear and solved, but day after day new information questioning the veracity of the official version is being published. http://www.fondodocumental.com/press/ More info: 64
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:53 | # Proofreader, You are right, Muslims were not responsible for the Madrid train bombings, but the Socialists or ETA were not involved either. It was a Zionist job. 65
Posted by second class citizen on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:19 | # You can make a very good case for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings without resorting to disinfo of Vialls. Vialls sees a micro-nuke in every closet. Just search through his page. It’s classic ridiculous disinfo to mask a more prosaic explanation, much like planted stories of aliens to discredit study of classified Air Force programs, or History Channel conspiracy specials on Nostradamus and “the paranormal” to discredit analysis of official stories in general. A better explanation of events is provided by Utah physics professor Steven E Jones. Controlled demolition. The rest of the site appears pretty good too. 66
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:32 | # Second class citizen, I haven’t cited Vialls on 9/11. Vialls got the 9/11 perpetrators and some other aspects wrong. It is debatable whether he was a disinformation agent since most of what he wrote is fine. Disinformation agents would come up with fewer truths. Given the topics he addressed, he wouldn’t be expected to get it 100% right. Endorsing a webpage does not imply that all other webpages within the site are endorsed, too. 67
Posted by mens rea genocide on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:34 | # The surest way of determining structural failure or controlled demolition is to examine contortion patterns in the steel beams. Unfortunately this was melted down about a month after 9/11 before examination, even though the Staten Island landfill to which debris was trucked to had sufficient storage space. This evidence destruction I had found odd at the time because FEMA meticulously collected and analyzed every debris in the nearby TWA 800 crash in 1996, in a probe that took years to complete. (Btw, I’m not just some guy sitting in Argentina or Iowa solely relying on Internet-downloaded evidence, but have spent three pre-911 years day-in and day-out just two city blocks away from the WTC complex. This background knowledge is immensely useful, for instance being familiar with the interior space of the towers, having acquaintances who witnessed the second plane crash, and so forth, which is useful in separating fact from fiction in a way not possible with Bali or 7/7, events in locales I’m completely unfamilar with.) 68
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:42 | # Desmond Jones wrote: Cue Enoch Powell. Exactly. But you can’t cue Enoch if you accept Richards’ eccentric theorizing. Muslims, Richards believes, would not be committing acts of Islamic terrorism without the active assistance and direction of Jews: “Israel is committing terrorist acts and blaming it on Muslims.” Third World immigration has not imported Muslim terrorism into the UK, since Muslim terrorism would not exist in the absence of Mossad connivance. Eliminate Mossad connivance and you’ll have only an obnoxious but peaceful group of Muslims, enriching Europe with their diversity rather than blowing up its citizens and putting blood on the streets. That’s wrong factually, and it’s also stupid politically. This thread reveals unmistakably the political wisdom of Nick Griffin. Too many racialists are incapable of talking about Jews without descending into absurdity. “I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood, all of it spilt by Mossad agents and their dupes.” 69
Posted by reader on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:53 | # Too many racialists are incapable of talking about Jews without descending into absurdity. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. “Talking about Jews” has no logical connection to paranoid “anti-Zionist” conspiracism. 70
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:56 | # ben tillman wrote: your reference to “guidance” is a very uncharitable interpretation of my words. But then in your next sentence you say Israel “had a better opportunity to commit an attack like 9/11.” _Commit_ is a strong word, stronger than _guide_ or _facilitate_. The point is that Israel has a history of terrorism and had a motive and a better opportunity to commit an attack like 9/11. The Muslims who conducted the 9/11 attacks did have an opportunity, witness the fact that they succeeded. And even if the plan was cooked up and implemented by the accused Muslims, Israeli intelligence was more or less aware of the plan and could have chosen to attempt to remove obstacles to its success. It’s possible that Israel had prior knowledge of the 9/ll terror attacks and withheld its knowledge from the American government. That’s a reasonable charge with some evidence that can be adduced in its favor. But discussions of that possibility are substantially different from the embarrassing nonsense being tossed around here that Israel conducted the attacks or directed the attacks. The official story seems to have been asserted, not proven. Tellingly, Rnl declined the opportunity to provide citations of independent confirmatory sources. You’re requesting that I provide sources for the mainstream account you reject. That’s your job. If you don’t believe the mainstream account, then you should have first familiarized yourself with its content before you rejected it. Apparently you haven’t. You disbelieve something you don’t know. If you want to know the mainstream account, having not troubled yourself with it before, read Lawrence Wright’s _Looming Tower_. Read the _9/11 Report_, which is freely available online. Read any account of al-Qaeda written by a non-moron. Read the Testimony of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11 and the uncle of the first WTC bomber, if you want to learn about the genesis of the plan and his own important role in its development. Google al-Qaeda if, like Richards, you doubt its existence. None of this material has been concealed. It’s all easily available and, as far as I’m concerned, thoroughly convincing. There’s an informative Wright essay online at the _New Yorker_ site. I see no reason to doubt his account, which is consistent with many other accounts. His essay is well worth reading for anyone who hasn’t succumbed to the conspiracy virus. But for those who have, it will merely be more Zionist propaganda about the travails of non-existent jihadists. The Master Plan 71
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:16 | # J Richards wrote: The Zionists knew that Aznar sent Spanish troops to Iraq against the wishes of most Spaniards and elections were around the corner. They wanted to convince the Spanish people that Muslim terrorism is a grave threat and hoped to make the Aznar government win. The attacks occurred shortly before the elections. The result was the opposite of expectations. Spaniards held Aznar responsible for bringing terrorism home, and he was ousted. The Madrid bombers, entirely without the assistance of any Jewish orchestrators, correctly anticipated the result - the defeat of a Bush ally. Their deliberations about the timing and the expected effect of their planned bombing campaign are mainstream knowledge, which you would know if your research included intelligent sources. (El Chino: “We should make the utmost use of the upcoming Spanish elections.”) Chino’s shock and anger at what he regarded, with some justification, as a criminal assault by the Spanish state on the Muslims of Iraq is also known. His mother-in-law has testified to that effect. The connection between the Madrid bombers and the Casablanca bombers is known. Plans for further attacks were discovered. The terrorists, following the advice of an online al-Qaeda strategy paper, expected the result that predictably did transpire, the defeat of the Aznar government. I know that. You don’t, because you’ve been filling your head with conspiracy nonsense. The result was the opposite of expectations. These Zionists orchestrators must have been pretty dumb. The Spanish police and the Aznar government initially assumed that the Madrid bombers were Basque separatists. When they learned that they were Muslims, they suppressed knowledge of their discovery because they understood well, as did the terrorists themselves, what would occur in the coming election. They understood, though your mythical Mossad handlers didn’t, that the 3/11 bombing would be a political defeat for the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. The Iraq war had not been an issue in the campaign, despite its unpopularity. After the bombing it became an issue, and the incoming Zapatero government withdrew Spain from the coalition. That was not a result that any sensible Zionist would have troubled himself to orchestrate. It was a defeat for the coalition and a victory for jihadism. Can you not see the copy of the Quran conveniently found near the tracks as an obvious frame up? You’re giving us a good sample of a conspiracy theorist’s mind in action: Evidence indicating that the terrorists were Muslims must really be evidence that they were not. The Spanish police found audio cassettes of Arabic prayers in the bombers’ van. From that they drew the reasonable conclusion that the bombers were Muslims, as did President Aznar, but he and his interior minister prudently concealed the discovery for as long as they could, hoping to avoid punishment by the Spanish electorate. By your account Aznar should have loudly announced the truth. The Madrid bombing was intended as a public demonstration. The bombers wanted their identity as Muslims to be known. Their violent demonstration against Spanish support for the illegal Iraq invasion would have been worthless if their Islamic motives were not manifest in their exploit. They were disappointed at the initial assumption that their successful attack on Atocha had been conducted by Basque separatists. That was bad news from their perspective. It briefly robbed their crime of its propaganda message. Hence the video they released claiming responsibility. *** A minor point about your incoherence. You’re assuring us now, despite the explicit meaning of your earlier comments, that Muslims do indeed conduct Muslim terror attacks, though under the direction or orchestration of Jews. “No one seriously believes that all Muslim terrorists are really Zionist operatives. The argument is that some very specific terrorist incidents blamed upon Muslims have been orchestrated by Zionists.” Why then would you find it surprising that the 3/11 terrorists would leave a Koran at the scene of their crime or Arabic cassettes in their van? Presumably your theory requires that the Muslim terrorists guided and directed by Zionists be unaware that their terrorism is really for the benefit of Israel. So even on the basis of your own very silly theory, there should be nothing surprising about duped Muslim terrorists leaving evidence that they are Muslims. They are, after all, Muslim terrorists. They just don’t know that Zionists have been skillfully orchestrating them. You should really start over again and forget all the worthless conspiracy research you’ve internalized. Read something serious. The man who dismantled Alon Ziv shouldn’t be humiliating himself and degrading his mind with all this trash. 72
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:22 | # reader wrote: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. “Talking about Jews” has no logical connection to paranoid “anti-Zionist” conspiracism. It doesn’t, but unfortunately they tend to correlate, as this thread demonstrates. I meant only that a political leader must jettison anti-Semitism if he hopes for electoral success. Set someone like Richards loose on campaign trail and the only BNP voters would be Muslim imams, all of whom share his view of Muslim terrorism. 73
Posted by mens rea genocide on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:25 | # I’ll depart this thread with the note that any 9/11 job pales in comparison with the decades-long deception operation of flooding the West with mass immigration. The mossad and the jewish neoconservtives and those who adhere to radical Talmudism are perfectly capable of a relatively minor work like 9/11. Having been around the WTC for many years, I’m quite familiar with the Jewish mindset. No, they’re not all connivers, the same way not all blacks are out-of-control criminals. But scheming, especially at the goy’s expense, is ingrained in their culture in a way alien to an innocent corn-fed like Rnl. 74
Posted by reader on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:06 | # Rnl, It doesn’t, but unfortunately they tend to correlate, as this thread demonstrates. The correlation exists at this site because posters are largely pre-selected for interest in the Jewish question. If you look at “911 truthers” in general, most have no interest in discussing Jews. Even many of those concerned with “Zionist” conspiracies will tell you they have no problem with Jews qua Jews (Richards himself has said as much in another thread). I meant only that a political leader must jettison anti-Semitism if he hopes for electoral success. Personally, I think as long as words like “anti-Semitism” and “racism” are allowed to stifle debate, there is not much chance of electoral victory. I agree views like those espoused by Richards don’t help our cause. But you will find people with equally strange beliefs all along the political spectrum. Perhaps because our cause is currently marginalized it attracts a higher proportion of these types, but hopefully the cause won’t remain marginalized forever. 75
Posted by jimbo!! on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:50 | # ‘mens rea genocide’: I’ll depart this thread with the note that any 9/11 job pales in comparison with the decades-long deception operation of flooding the West with mass immigration it’s more than possible that all this ‘al Qaeda’/‘war on terror’ stuff is simply a ZOG smoke-screen to distract attention from the looming race war that is going to make any al Qaeda/al Mossada ‘incident’ look like a Saturday arvo’ pub’ brawl! when the SHTF with black/white, black/spic’ & spic’/white conflagarations, it’s my bet that 9/11, the London, Madrid & Bali bombings, Iraq & Afghanistan will just dis-appear down the memory hole….white people will be more interested in surviving rampaging hordes of enraged muds than worrying about mostly bogus ‘terrorist threats’ ! 76
Posted by Proofreader on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:46 | # rnl: 77
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:43 | # But then in your next sentence you say Israel “had a better opportunity to commit an attack like 9/11.” _Commit_ is a strong word, stronger than _guide_ or _facilitate_. Unbelievable. The use of “commit” is part of an explanation of why Israel must be considered a suspect in the absence of facts such as those you have allleged. The distinction between “guide” and “facilitate” has to do with my point that the facts that you alleged do nothing to rule out Israeli involvement. Again, even if Muslims conceived of and carried out the attack, that does not mean that Israeli agents did not act to facilitate it. 78
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50 | # The Muslims who conducted the 9/11 attacks did have an opportunity, witness the fact that they succeeded. That begs the question. You’re requesting that I provide sources for the mainstream account you reject. That’s your job. If you don’t believe the mainstream account, then you should have first familiarized yourself with its content before you rejected it. Apparently you haven’t. You disbelieve something you don’t know. Your reading comprehension is appalling. I know the official story. What I am asking for is a reason to believe it is true. 79
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:15 | # Proofreader wrote: First of all, the Coranic tape was planted later in the car. The chain of custody of the eeidence was broken at some point ... What you’re really saying, Mr. Cochran, is that members of the Madrid bomb squad have testified that they found Arab-language cassettes in the bombers’ van, and since you don’t believe Muslims were responsible for the 3/11 bombings, therefore the TEDAX officers must be lying. Or if they’re not lying, then some Zionist must have planted the cassettes. I could take the same evidence (i.e. non-evidence) and say that socialists or CIA operatives planted the cassettes. Keep in mind that the conspiracy theorists you’re reading believe that ETA actually carried out the 3/11 attacks, just as Aznar and Acebes said. The conspiracy to frame Muslims for a Basque attack was designed to discredit the Aznar government and its support for the Iraq war. The conspirators are now suppressing evidence to legitimize Zapatero’s victory. There are no Zionists in this conspiracy. All the alleged evidence of conspiracy that you and Richards cite in the belief that it will somehow implicate Zionists can also be directed against other targets and already has. In this case the bad guys are socialists, not Jews. You can plug anyone you choose into most of these conspiracies, since (as MRG showed us) the conspirators are nameless. 9/11 conspiracists plug the CIA or the American government generally into their preferred conspiracy. They aren’t interested in getting at Jews, as their fans here on MR mistakenly assume, and they certainly aren’t interested in defending the West from the immigration invasion. Most are anti-racists. Many are concerned about the horrible xenophobia directed against the religion of peace that all these bogus Muslim terrorist attacks has so tragically stirred up. Conspiracy research is a PC enterprise both in its effects and in most cases its intentions. 80
Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:56 | # The difference with 911 is primarily PNAC (it’s at least 50% kosher), with member of the tribe Silverstein (who made the decision to pull the building) earning a financial payout as well. I think they used a German insurer from memory, too. They got their war, they got some additional shekels, and as an added bonus, those shekels came from a tribal enemy! http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/01/pnac-behind-911.html The evidence as to who planned the event all points to PNAC. And of course, just as the SPLC gets a compliant goy to front their organization, PNAC has Bush/Cheney/Giuliani as puppets. I don’t especially care who is behind the remaining 2-bit terrorist operations. Copy cat crimes, or false flags for wavering electoral support. I can understand why a Jew would look to start cultivating friends among the WNs his tribe’s actions have created into being. That’s a big tiger he’s riding, and the dismount sure can be a doozy! And I suppose it’s only natural to want to maintain the control you have by directing attention at the symptoms and not the cause of the problems. But there is a credibility gap. If you are truly worried about the situation, there is plenty you can be doing to rectify the situation, without attempting to subvert WNs. For one, take responsibility. Admit culpability. Apologize. Attempt to feel out what would be appropriate reparations, some sort of equitable truce. Another thing you might do is write some articles or contribute money for something like VDare, I’m sure they would take articles or money. There are also those you might reach within your tribe who have influence. Persuade them. I doubt that the support of WN sites would be a tenth as strong if your tribe hadn’t flooded European cities with hordes of third worlders, if your tribe hadn’t orchestrated events such as 9/11, and if your tribe had not attempted to subvert ours by encouraging miscegenation and dysgenics. Those are the main problems, and they can be fixed. 81
Posted by Rnl on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:35 | # SCC wrote: The evidence as to who planned the event all points to PNAC. Try to grasp this. It will be a challenge, but do your best: Profiting from an event and causing an event are significantly different actions. Jewish neoconservatives were pleased with 9/11 and hoped to profit from it. That fact is much different from the claim that Jews planned or physically caused the 9/11 attacks. Now read the URL you’ve provided with that important distinction in mind. I don’t especially care who is behind the remaining 2-bit terrorist operations. This thread is explicitly devoted to one of those 2-bit terrorist operations, so you’ve picked an odd place to express your lack of interest. On the other hand, I can understand your disdain for all those small-change acts of Muslim terror. Even a conspiracy researcher might have difficulty accepting the proposition that Zionists have planned and/or conducted dozens of your 2-bit “false flag” terror attacks, with the active cooperation of police forces around the world busily concealing their crimes and presenting innocent or duped Muslims as the alleged perpetrators. It’s better, from your perspective, simply to ignore the problem. The initial subject of this thread was the failed London nightclub bombing. Muslim physicians have been arrested. Do you think PNAC Zionists are responsible for this latest episode of apparent Islamic terrorism? You say you don’t care, but I’m just wondering. It wouldn’t hurt you to venture an opinion. My opinion is that the Muslim physicians are indeed Muslims, not Jews, and that not a single Mossad agent orchestrated their botched attempt to murder British citizens. I can understand why a Jew would look to start cultivating friends among the WNs his tribe’s actions have created into being. Which Jew do you have in mind? There will be no “dismount” if fools like yourself continue to vocally associate racial nationalism with lunacy. 82
Posted by Rnl on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:37 | # An apology to Proofreader: I mischaracterized your position on the 3/11 attack. I didn’t remember that you had expressed your opinion earlier that ETA was responsible. I thought you agreed with Richards. 83
Posted by Proofreader on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40 | # Rnl: 1) ETA did it, and the Socialists arranged to hide the evidence so as to win the elections. Spanish Intelligence was still in their hands despite not being in the government anymore. (Google GAL Vera Barrionuevo) 2) Spanish intelligence and police did it al by themselves. The coup was masterminded by the Socialist Party. 3) The Socialists asked ETA to stage a small attack, with them fabricating the Al-Qaeda spin. It went wrong, because ETA pulled out their biggest massacre to date. ETA betrayed the Socialists. At this stage, theories 2) and 3) are more likely. As you see, I only agree with Richards in that I strongly believe Muslims were not behind the 3/11 attack. 84
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:20 | # My favourite moment was the interview with the have-a-go hero at the airport who helped apprehend one of the would-be bombers. His account went something like: “I saw this Asian guy running towards me shouting ‘Allah’ — so I battered him.” Smeaton Fan Site Smeaton too unPC for BBC 85
Posted by JB on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:56 | # JRichards:
would you please stop speaking like some patriotard on RBN ? The appropriate word is not ‘zionists’ but ‘jews’. J-E-W-S Zionism is jewish nationalism and 95 % of jews are zionists. It’s completely normal for jews to be nationalists and even fascists for themselves and be anti-nationalists and promoters of social and racial dissolution for others. (can somebody confirm that this JRichards is the JRichards ? his tone and words seems different)
Zionism is a good thing in theory and in a sence I’m a zionist too: I want all the jews out of the West and into some shitty little country like Israel or Madagascar. These parasites don’t belong among us under any circumstance. But as someone famous once wrote:
so we will have to be the ‘zionists’ who expulse the jews once again somewhere else because they won’t leave by themselves. They wanted a homeland ? Then they should all move there and we should fund the construction of a big security fence around Israel, to protect us from them. 86
Posted by JB on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:58 | # Rnl:
conducted the attacks I don’t think so but helped the terrorists succeed that’s a possibility. That they knew in advance what was going to happen is obvious when you take into account these israeli movers in the white van (Urban Moving Systems / Dominik Suter) but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they did a little more than spy on the kamikazes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=txh4I-J_f-E he has a gut feeling terrorists are going to attack the US yet he doesn’t give money to Arizona to protect its wide opened border with Mexico. a government that really wanted to secure its nation would have built a fence on the southern border right after 9/11. It would only take a tiny fraction of the war budget to build it : Do We Want A Border Fence—Or 14 Days of Iraq War?
one does not have to be a big conspiracy theorist or a cynic to conclude that if “our” governments let in all these towelheads in our countries it’s because they think they’ll benefit from it at some point. More terrorism risks is an excuse for the government to take more of our liberties and privacy away to supposedly protect us. Yet they never suggest reducing the numbers of muzzies in our midst and the media never points the finger in that direction. More problems = more government. How convenient 87
Posted by JB on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:00 | # meanwhile, a brave BBC reporteur infiltrates the dangerous Manchester police to prove that it has been infiltrated by big bad ‘racists’. http://www.fdesouche.com/Videos/The-secret-policeman.html it’s good to know that there are still some good men in the police though
88
Posted by JB on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:04 | # to borrow a line from the ‘Line in the Sand’ documentary : you don’t make anything better by adding a million pakis to it, do you ? 89
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:11 | # Rnl,
I don’t see how you can come up with something this ridiculous. I previously mentioned the Moors, Ottoman Turks and Islamic scriptures allowing Muslims to use violence to promote the cause of their religion and community, proof enough of Muslim ill intentions toward the West.
Muslim terrorists had no opportunity to commit 9/11 on their own. There is no way they could have made NORAD stand down or rigged even one let alone three WTC towers with explosives.
I found this repository of news exposing the Al-Qaeda fakes. It is surprising that the whatreallyhappened site hosts this, but plenty of good reading anyway.
Ignorant, not dumb. The Zionists just didn’t know enough about Spaniards and assumed that the most likely outcome would be Spaniards rallying behind Aznar to crush Islamic terrorism.
How? Aznar knew that he had gone against the Spanish electorate in supporting Bush, and if it became clear that Muslims were responsible for the train bombings, then he would be held responsible for bringing their wrath to Spain and ousted.
I don’t waste my time with silly theories. I cited a link full of evidence against Muslim involvement and you don’t discuss any of the points there, just call it silly and other names. After heavy Muslim retaliatory losses following 9/11, Muslim terrorists are naturally expected to have been reluctant to carry out a big terror attack against the civilian population of a nation that had its military already killing Muslims in Iraq. The evidence was planted like one of the alleged hijacker’s passport being found close to the WTC wreckage.
I am not a fan of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. 9/11 conspiracy theorists behind most 9/11 truth websites are Zionists or useful idiots for them, busily working toward making sure that anything but Zionists are blamed for 9/11. Obviously, Zionists have no interest in defending the West from mass non-white immigration.
There are non-PNAC Zionists too. You have ignored the amateurishness of the events. Is this the same Al-Qaeda that carried out 9/11 and which, as Chertoff told us recently, has acquired the ability to commit sophisticated deadly attacks inside the U.S.? The arrest of Muslim physicians doesn’t mean they planned and carried it out all by themselves or even that they are guilty.
There is plenty of evidence, which you sadly refuse to address and therefore it is not possible for this discussion to go anywhere. I tried to get Eric Hufschmid to come up with a 9/11 report for MR wiki, but he was too busy. I have been able to find someone else to work on it and hope that you will read it when it is posted. ——————— JB, I don’t see how my tone is different. I have never blamed Jews in general for the West’s problems, and have taken flak for it (someone angrily suggested that I am a Richardberg). Post a comment:
Next entry: Neocons Luck Out With Terrorist Distraction From Their Des Moines Disaster
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:30 | #
What I’m wondering is whether this was the first example of a thermobaric terrorist assault or not. If so, it signals the beginning of the end.
If so, it signals the beginning of the end…