  |
|
Re: The CIA's 'Founding' of Al Qaeda.......
Posted by **Johnny D** on Apr 24, 2013 at 8:59:30 AM:
In Reply to: Re: The CIA's 'Founding' of Al Qaeda....... posted by **No Flies On Frank** on Apr 23, 2013 at 12:41:27 PM:
********Documented
********
********Le Nouvel Observateur�s Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
********
********Originally published 15-21 January 1998
********
********Translated by Jean Martineau
********
********(Editor�s Note: The following article and interview have been suppressed by Google, now a �black-ops� contractor. The background on US backing for the Chechen rebels totally debunks attempts to assign blame for the Boston Marathon bombings to any group other than American security agencies and their domestic and foreign contractors who were very obvious at the scene, before and after the attack we believe they staged. Without adequate background on how we got where we are, real information can easily be �shaken off� as conspiracy.
********
********Posted for those who believe rather than think
********
********Spiggy
********
*******
*******Funny, for being a "black ops" contractor, google is doing a really shitty job at suppression...
*******
*******Think
*******
*******Think Again
******
******Yeah, 553,000 results is a great job of suppression. Is available a synonym for suppressed?
******
******Oh, irony at its finest as always. Just let her continue to believe, thinking definitely is not her strong suit.
*****
*****Respectfully to Spiggy and others of similar thoughts, as they do have good intentions, they are just locked into taking anything authority says and instantly believing the opposites. So, with that, it is then easy to believe ANY source of opposite claims of any FBI or other authoritative figure. They have been sold a ton of such stories though all the sites of those having a business model for themselves. Even the bogus guy Tony C, for example, is one of NO Credibility. HIDES behind his real name. And writes form getting info on the internet, from another country, rather than being on the scenes. BOGUS and NO credibility. BUT they buy into his theories as if they actually happened that way! Amazing how people can be lead by such scum writing. They will mix facts with made up BS, to tie it all up nicely for their followers. But the readers of them won't ever see it that way, and will take ALL of it as fact. THAT is NON thinking! That is just being a follower.
*****
*****When there isn't a need for credibility, (while having instant, cynical conclusions), convictions will be locked in tight.
*****
*****
*****It may be good to have extreme, cynical people shouting out their claims though, for it could make doing such things as claimed by them even more difficult to keep in-house. With the FBI and others already knowing that, I find it unlikely that they would want to deal with such instant viewpoints, for fear of being exposed. When something doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true.
*****
*****Thanks for reading all that!
*****Johnny D
*****John Daubert
*****(Credible opinion guy), right or wrong.
*****
****
****I think you make a credible case for your point of view but I would like to take a couple of exceptions.
****Here in the U.S. per our constitution authority is DEFINED as the just consent of the governed and not the other way around.
****Therefore the people themselves are the authority and their government the servant of that authority which must always be held strictly accountable. It would be an error to outright believe anyone on anything until and unless proven BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT" not intended as yelling but just making it clear the basis of my argument. My best suggestion, as I was just mentioning to Frank, is to disregard the bulk of information as possible disinformation until an actual case has been presented and tried by the actual authority that being the people themselves. I think it a bit careless to outright dismiss the other guys POV simply because it is inconsistent with your own belief system. I tend to look at who has the most to gain and in what ways do they gain and what object is obtained before I consider an argument one way or the other. All I'm saying.
****
****
***
***That makes sense.
***
***A lot of people are out for blood up here in Boston but I think this guy deserves a trial and that just because the TV stations and the cops say you are guilty still doesn't make it so. There has to be due process.
***
***All this stuff about treating him like a terrorist and not having a trial is bullshit. We start going down the road, we won't stop.
***
***It's going to be harder than usual to find 12 impartial jurors if this case gets a jury...but it still needs to be done.
**
**First, to OFT: Good points David. All taken into great consideration, as usual.
**
**Frank, yes, a trial, (especially for any US citizen), as that is the law of course.
**
**NOW,,,IF,,,,,IF there is just cause to revoke his citizenship as a result of it being under false pretenses, (has to be proven at that time though, but that action is written in law), THEN,,,he could be treated as a non-citizen, after a judge declares so, and would be sent to Guantanamo Bay, to have a whole other process happen.
**
**I doubt that will be the case. For the timing of his being declared a citizen might not be when it could be proven he had terrorist desires. (Getting "citizenship under false pretenses"). It would have to be proven in court by a judge that he had terrorist desires at the time of his citizenship.
**
**NOW, a moot point, but one just for comparison and to make a point for any future events by new citizens: IF the older brother was alive, there would be more of a possibility of his citizenship being stripped by a judge in a court case. All depending on exact dates of his planning or training activities known by the Russians and then the FBI, and "when" he was given his citizenship. BUT, we'll never know of course.
**
**For US citizens, no matter what they are accused of doing: They are guaranteed their day in court. So far, he process is as should be. Miranda rights, attorney appointed if he can't afford one, and charges, and soon to be an indictment, etc. But, if there is a case to be presented to seek removal of his citizenship, and the people win, then kiss his butt goodbye forever. He would then be considered a foreign terrorist, and would be shipped to that camp right after that trial by judge.
**
**Either way, I don't think he's going to be able to make, distribute and activate bombs anymore. Everyone called him a real nice guy. If so, he was also a very stupid guy for listening to his older brother, if that is how it all went down.
*
*Personally, I think even non-citizens deserve trials too. And I don't think any judge should be able to strip your citizenship...and I don't think it's that simple legally either.
*
NON citizens can have a trial,,,,depending, I guess. But, they will be in the NON US citizenship justice system. NOT the one we know of with district courts and the Supreme Courts. THEY are for US citizens. ALL others are placed in a whole other system, which can have them being sent to Guantanamo Bay for starters, like it or not. NOT a good place to be, as it seems.
Followup Messages:
- no followups have been posted yet...
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Apr 24, 2013