-------------------------------------------------------- From: "William Engdahl" To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: some short subjects... Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:09:45 +0200 RICHARD; Thanks; I can only say I find it extremely enjoyable to read your lucid summaries or interpretations of what I wrote. I am in the fledgling stages of building a website if you want to link it anywhere. The URL is http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/ ------- Hi William, I'm honored that you find my summaries acceptable. Your material is very important. I've added your URL to my signature, which shows up at the bottom of most postings. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Meria Heller" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Analysis: London bombings & coverup Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0700 well written. I sent it out. Meria "THE MERIA HELLER SHOW "- Now in it's 6th Year On The Net- #1 on Net! http://www.Meria.net -------------------------------------------------------- From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:48:15 EDT Subject: Re: Analysis: London bombings & coverup To: •••@••.••• richard, i have a column in today about this<including terror exercises, giuiliani, fake suicide bombers etc) and here's a letter i got. Maralyn, Interesting article but you either forgot to mention or did not know that Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security secretary was in London the day before the bombing and flew home the morning of the explosion. He was on the "No Spin Zone" the next day talking about his, amazing, timing regarding the event. Open the windows and turn on the fans... -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:42:31 +0200 (W. Europe Standard Time) From: "Earl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Analysis: London bombings & coverup Hi Richard, I agree with you here; I also posted it at my blog (which I moved): http://politicsinternational.web-log.nl/ Good essay and documented, also. It seems to me this false flag operation stuff is starting to wear thin.......thanks to internet. Earl -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:19:02 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Howard Ward To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: Analysis: London bombings & coverup Hello Richard - I'm curious, who do you feel is behind the UK bombings? Do you think Tony Blair is in on the planning? Here's my personal problem with these suggestions that the governments are planning and executing attacks which they know will lead to mass death: What I did in the over a decade that I've participated in dialogue groups is "know myself", which to my understanding was about understanding human behavior. I mention that because it's clear to me now that all human action is basically "doing what makes sense to the person in conjunction with how how they are perceiving the situation in question." Another way to say that is: They intend to do "good". The reason why alot of behavior doesn't seem to fit the catagory of "good" is because the person is somewhat confused in their thinking and understanding. It's also clear to me that ideologies can often override intelligent responses, like people believing the "Ends justify the Means". But here's the problem: Mass killing is so extreme, I feel it would be difficult for most any human to justify. A few people maybe, but not many. So, I have difficulty believing that alot of people could be knowledgeable of such horrific actions without speaking out. So why is no one coming forward to 'out' these people? I understand that groups like 'The Council on Foreign Relations' and its British counterpart are actually the wealthy-elites who are really running things, but even those groups have many business members who wouldn't tolerate such behavior. If indeed some government group is doing this, I would doubt that even Blair knows about it. Who do you think is doing it, and how many people do you feel actually would be 'in on it'? -------- Hi Howard, Perhaps the best answer to your general line of questioning was given by Herr Hitler: The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their heart tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil...therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. -- Adolph Hitler, as quoted by William Blum in Rogue State, A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, p. 11. The basic psychology of top elites is very pseudo-Darwinian: they believe that someone must always be top dog, and if it's not you it will be someone else, and then you'll be a slave. "Us or them" is more than a propaganda phrase. In terms of the Enneagram, these folks, functionally if not psychologically, are 8s. "Mass killing"? Are you talking about the puny London bombings, with less than a hundred casualties. The people who planned that operation are the same kind of people who arranged the Iraq war, where over 100,000 civilians have been killed - not to mention World Wars I and II, where they also sacrificed millions of lives of 'their own' soldiers. They are the same kind of people who put HIroshima and Nagasaki off limits to wartime bombing so that they would be available for testing the first atomic bombs. Kissinger, who speaks for such people, has declared population reduction as the most important U.S. security issue. "Coming forward" to whom? Do you imagine someone showing up at the doors of The Guardian with a secret memo, and some editor eager to publish, "Blair did it!" ? There is plenty of evidence of all kinds, but it will not be presented in a meaningful way in the mass media. The media is one of the primary means of social control & disinformation. The Council on Foreign Relations is a multi-level organization. Many of the top-level members are involved in top elite circles. But the CFR itself, in terms of its broad membership, is primarily a propaganda channel, as exemplified by their Foreign Affairs journal, aimed at middle-level members of the Establishment, in large type with simple articles. > Who do you think is doing it, and how many people do you feel actually would be 'in on it'? Well, first of all, there is whatever clique is at the top levels of planning. People at the level of the Rockefellers, Kissinger, Sharon, top elites in Wall Street and The City, guys who are on the Boards of several multinationals. Security at that level is not an issue, as these people see themselves, basically from birth, as different from you and me. They are the anointed ones, the preservers of Western Civilization. "You never spend your capital; you never tell secrets in front of the servants; you never talk seriously to the peasants." This is what they learn at bedtime, rather than, "Jesus loves me this I know, because the Bible tells me so." Once an operation is approved in principle at the highest levels, there are Intelligence operatives, separated by compartmentalized security procedures, who have decided to devote their careers to the clandestine, and who have been tested in previous operations as regards their reliability and discretion. Only a minimum number of individuals at the operative level need to be "in the know," and for such an operation the most reliable would be chosen, most likely with wives and children. How sad if the family vehicle were to meet with an unfortunate road accident on the way to school. Such eventualities never even need be mentioned. In that way, Intelligence security is no different than Mafia security. So with that background, let's look at the London bombings in detail, as regards number of people "in the know". I'm not claiming here to know the exact truth, but rather to give one plausible scenario. . . No one in the security exercise, for example, had any "need to know." There would be one infiltrator, posing as a recruiter for civilian participants, who would pick out the Muslim fall guys. There would be someone who was in a position to substitute real bombs for dummy exercise bombs. There would be a control team, who we might imagine in a black van, who monitor everything going on, and who control the detonators. There would be a few operatives who take out strategic CTV cameras in advance, and take care of similar details. All of this is stuff you can see in the standard spy film genre, and is nothing more than elementary project planning. Apart from that, there need to be people in a position to "stop the presses" so to speak, to somehow shut down communications, if something goes terribly wrong. Just as a last resort. . . "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you a special civil defense message Please do not leave your house or attempt to use your phones..." Finally, there's the PR crew, headed by Blair, who must learn their lines for when their cue comes. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:20:35 -0500 Subject: Re: U.S. forces behind deadly children bomb: Iraqi experts From: Maureen & Frank <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Hello Richard, I don't challenge the veracity of these and other "conspiracy theories", and I don't begrudge you for posting these things, but somehow these "false flag" theories undermine the reality that Muslims and Arabs are really angry at the attacks by the West. Portraying these attacks as cold blooded manipulation by Western interests seems to me to be a somewhat racist perspective, as it downplays the real and appropriate anger of the victims. Exploring these theories may serve a purpose (to understand the depth of depravity of colonial interests), but their depravity is already well known. Any honest reading of history will show that the exploiting class will do just about anything. I just think it is offensive to "use" these theories to press your point, while the truth is that the oppressed are fighting back. The Al Jazeera article is a propaganda piece intended to villify the Americans. What it says may be true, or may not. The Sunnis are trying to provoke a civil war. There are lots of powers pushing in different directions in the vaccuum left by the invasion. Let's not lose perspective. Frank Van den Bosch ------------ Hi Frank, I appreciate and respect your comments, particularly because I've heard similar sentiments from many other people. There must therefore be a sense in which I am the one who is "wrong", rather than all of you being "wrong". Nonetheless, I have a very difficult time (admittedly, my limitation) making sense of what you're saying. You seem to want to put all of "these attacks" into one category: either we're doing them all or they're doing them all. Why? I think we all understand that when a humvee gets blown up by a roadside bomb, that is an expression of the "appropriate anger of the victims". The problem, from a Western propaganda point of view, is that ordinary citizens understand this as well. It tends to encourage people to want to "bring our boys home, out of harm's way". So our leaders create a few incidents of their own, aimed at Iraqi civilians, because that encourages the public to want to "stay the course" and "bring democracy to the Muslims." I think it is very important to know who is responsible for different incidents, to the extent we are able to find out. Certainly it matters who was responsible for 9/11, for example. Why do you use the term "conspiracy theory" to describe anything that differs from mainstream propaganda? Why do you refer to the Al Jazeera report as "propaganda", without challenging its veracity? Do you think the subject was not newsworthy? What makes you so sure the Sunnis are trying to provoke a civil war, because Fox says so? The more solid evidence is that the U.S. strategy is to stir up a civil war, so that Iraqi's will fight each other instead of the occupiers. After that the plan is to divide Iraq into separate, more easily managed, provinces. I believe there are deeper feelings, a "deeper truth", behind your words that may be difficult to express in a public email forum. If we were in a face-to-face gathering, with time to dig deeper, I think we would understand one another better. My apologies for the combative tone, which I find hard to avoid in this kind of communication. rkm -- ============================================================ If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to: •••@••.••• You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website, provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and this disclaimer. Richard Moore (rkm) Wexford, Ireland blog: http://harmonization.blogspot.com/ "Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html _____________________________ "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire." - Srdja Trifkovic There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs. _____________________________ cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog _____________________________ Informative links: http://www.indymedia.org/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/ http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm http://www.MiddleEast.org http://www.rachel.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/ http://www.zmag.org http://www.co-intelligence.org ============================================================
Share: