The Other Shoe Dropping: What is Behind Some Fake Truthers' Obsession With Pakistan?
What planet exactly is this "Jon Gold" on? Is he seriously suggesting that the Taliban had something to do with 9/11? To fixate so obsessively on a fantastical Pakistani link to 9/11 for which there is absolutely NO credible evidence and moreover to make those allegations because someone in the media has linked Pakistani intelligence to the Taliban (hello, the US supported the Taliban before they didn't!) as if the Taliban now had something to do with 9/11 is pretty much the equivalent of writing I HATE RAGHEAD MUSLIM TRASH on your forehead--it is equivalent to hate speech in the strict sense of the laws that denote hate speech as speech that incites hatred of a group.
Why do some 9/11 truth sites (truthaction.org in this case) allow such venom to continue to be spewed on their servers? It is time for the truth movement to take out the racist trash in its midst. It is bad enough that the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan are attacked by the American military under the false pretense of a bogus war on terror. We cannot allow accusations to continue to be made based on a storyline that every honest truther by now knows is 100% BS. Lies that those telling them know full well will lead to justifications made for further assaults on innocents are simply beyond the pale--especially on a supposed "truth" site. Jon Gold is a disgrace to the 9/11 truth movement.
The U.S. Government "Finally" Discovers The ISI's Link to Terrorism
Jon Gold
3/30/2009
On March 25th, 2009, the New York Times reported that the Taliban gets "direct support from operatives in Pakistan's military intelligence agency" [...] ACCORDING TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (emphasis mine).
According to President Obama, these revelations "aren't new." As it turns out, he's right.
Over the years, there have been so many reports about the ISI's connection to 9/11, and to terrorism. The U.S. Government has been confronted on this issue on more than one occasion, and yet, NOW they are miraculously discovering this connection.
Are people like Paul Thompson, the makers of 9/11: Press For Truth, and myself, just that much smarter, and better researchers than your average CIA analyst whose job it is to know these kinds of things? The answer to that question is no. And if your average CIA analyst knows of this information, then so does their boss, and their boss, and their boss, and eventually even our elected officials know this. So why then have they ignored this relationship?
In 9/11: Press For Truth, Paul Thompson asks a very pertinent question. "The question to me is, who else was involved with Al-Qaeda? Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool? Just as in the 1980's the Mujahadeen were used by the U.S. Government?"
On April 3rd 2007, ABC News reported that "a Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News." [...] "Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February."
Knowing that, knowing about the allegations of bribery, knowing about Danny Pearl, knowing about the CIA's connection to the ISI, and knowing everything else that has been reported over the years, it's not hard to figure out why the ISI's involvement with terrorism has been ignored. At least, it's not hard to "theorize" about why it has been ignored.
Because the relationship between the ISI and terrorists is advantageous to elements within the U.S. Government, and to other Governments as well.
As Paul Thompson asked, I wonder if anyone took advantage of that relationship for 9/11? In my opinion, it's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
What is Jon Gold smoking?
How can he bring himself to write this and quote from this ridiculous book with a straight face? Who does he think he's kidding??
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=14
Excerpts From “A Mighty Heartâ€
Daniel Pearl, Mariane Pearl, Pakistan, Pakistani ISI
I highly recommend everyone buy this book. It seems to be very good. - Jon
Pages 27 - 30
Khawaja is a fascinating but dubious character, one of those people who seems to know everybody, at least in militant Islamist circles. A former Pakistani intelligence agent and air force officer, Khawaja loves nothing more than to entertain journalists, especially Americans. He loves to watch their faces when he tells them he is friend of Osama bin Laden. Danny and I have interviewed Khawaja several times, as has Asra, and found him to be, in Danny’s blunt terms, “Nice guy, but a bit of a psycho.â€
Danny and I met with him in Islamabad shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and more recently in early January, in an office he uses in a relatively empty house in a gated district apparently reserved for military. Asra visited him at his real home in September, when she was staying at her paternal aunt’s house. “You might want to interview our neighbor,†her aunt had said helpfully. “He’s a religious man, a friend of bin Laden’s and the Taliban. He fought with the Afghan resistance.†And so, escorted by her aunt and uncle, Asra paid a call to Khalid Khawaja, and the three of them sat and listened politely as he ranted and raved about the righteousness of the Muslim jihad against America.
Asra would watch him every morning as, after prayers, he headed down the street, hands clasped behind his back, for a daily stroll around the little local park. One day she joined him, and as they walked, he described how he, along with the influential Pakistani-American businessman Mansur Ejaz and former CIA chief James Woolsey, had tried to hammer out an agreement that would have averted war between the United States and the Taliban. The effort failed.
Khawaja spun a similar story to Danny and me, and while we were never able to nail down all the facts, we were inclined to believe a part. But much of what Khawaja told us was total and ugly fabrication:
“You know who was behind the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?†Khawaja asked us in September. “The Jews did it, the Mossad, it can only be them.â€
That was not the first time we’d been exposed to “the Jew theory.†We’d heard it the day before from Hamid Gul. The director of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistani Intelligence, from 1987 to 1989, Gul is considered the architect of the Afghan jihad, the man who masterminded the war financed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and waged by the mujahideens against the Soviet occupiers. A decade ago, Gul was the most powerful man in the region; some called him the “godfather of the Taliban.†But power, like an unfaithful mistress, had left him without turning back. New alliances had been formed, and Hamid Gul wasn’t part of them.
I could feel the bitterness behind his assured diatribe. Gul manifested the same fanatical exaltation we saw in Khawaja, and in so many others we met in the days after September 11. It was a craving for revenge that had been unsatisfied for too long. It was a dominating and burning desire.
After an hour-long monologue during which Gul insisted that Osama bin Laden couldn’t have had anything to do with the attacks, he had leaned in toward us conspiratorially. “Do you know,†he said, “that the four thousand Jews who normally worked at the World Trade Center were all absent that day?â€
To the day I die, I will love the cool with which Danny responded. “Really?†he said, without any perceptible trace of irony.
The “theory†was that the perpetrators had secretly notified all the Jewish workers in the Twin Towers so they would fail to show up for work and hereby be spared the terrible fate. The allegations apparently originated on Al Manar, the TV channel of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist party, not long after 9/11. Once the ugly rumor hit the Internet, it found dedicated converts throughout the fundamentalist world.
In an article Danny filed just ten days after the attacks, he wrote, “A theory that Jews or Israelis engineered the September 11 attacks on the United States is gaining credibility among Muslim intellectuals, in a disturbing sign of how little globalization has bridged gaps in perception.â€
In Pakistan, Danny reported, pilots, scientists, and experts had gathered for analysis, and they had all concluded that the attacks could not have succeeded without the help of American intelligence services or the Israelis. “Pakistani air force officers casually opine that ‘Mossad is the only one that could do it.’ Respected newspapers in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates run news items suggesting authorities suspect some Israelis of involvement in the attack… One Pakistani commentator told the BBC Friday that America’s belligerent attitude ‘gives credence’ to conspiracy theories spreading on the Internet.â€
Here is the same old hatred, the kind that makes you wonder if humanity will ever draw the lessons of its own history. Still, Danny and I refuse to let it defeat us in our work as journalists. We see ourselves as tightrope walkers, careful and insistent in our quest to bridge the world. In his work, Danny struggles to keep free of dogma and allegiance. It’s not easy to remain impartial, but it sharpens Danny’s vision and independence. He doesn’t represent a country or a flag, just the pursuit of truth. He is here to hold up a mirror and force people to look at themselves. What better way is there to respect humanity?
Pork chops
Ooops, I posted this in the thread on racism while you were busy posting here:
It's everywhere, man!
Submitted by casseia on Mon, 2009-03-30 17:50.
I smell porkchops... oh wait, that's just the one millionth iteration of disingenuous truther finger-pointing at the ISI, made especially repugnant by the fact that Pakistan is clearly under attack -- both militarily and via false flag terror.
I remember, back in the old days, when most of y'all were just young whippersnappers >creaky rocking chair noise< many of us were pointing out how effective a weapon of propaganda that alleged wire transfer might be. OMFG Pakistan did 9/11! Certain parties at 911blogger and elsewhere could not be bothered to give a fuck about the effects that propagating this tale might have, sometime in the future, when it might be time for Pakistan to take a bow according to the real perps.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5179&start=0&postdays=0&pos...
But wait, there's more.
Someone has taken the Goldster to task over there... let's see how long it takes for his special protective service to kick into action:
Anaphora
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 6
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:41 am Post subject: Re: The U.S. Government "Finally" Discovers The IS Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
Jon Gold wrote:
Over the years, there have been so many reports about the ISI's connection to 9/11 [...]
I am not aware of evidence linking the ISI to the events of September 11. The assertion that the ISI sent money to Atta is meaningless, since no one has been able to show what that money might have been used for or, more importantly, that Atta was guilty of the crimes of that day. See http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf
It seems to me that the endgame many of us have been predicting since 2006 or earlier -- that ultimately a contrived "connection" between Pakistan and 9/11 would be used against Pakistan by the actual perpetrators -- is closer than ever before. We are at war not only with Afghanistan but with Pakistan as well, or so it would seem from Obama's inability to construct a sentence that does not include both. If or when a propaganda boost is needed to get Americans behind a war in Pakistan that extends beyond the "tribal regions," you can expect that the canard about the wire transfer will be front and center.
right on!
good to know SOME people over at T&A still have their heads screwed on straight!
Interesting discussion ensues
over there... Gold not happy, threatens to quit the
movementthread.I think I get it...
Jon Gold blogs on several different sites, and tailors his message somewhat depending on the nature of the other people on the site. If they promote controlled demolition he will temper his Patsystan vendetta with token nods to Steven Jones. This is basicaly his deal on 911Blogger and Truthaction. On Visibility911 he pimps much more LIHOPpy stuff. Ostensible diversity masking actual uniformity all wrapped into one family-loving broken record of recorded cliches...
Visibility 911
home of the "comments turned off" option for every one of his blogs.
he also tries to have it both ways...
If you press him on the significance of the alleged transfer to Atta he says "it doesn't matter what the money was used for" to satisfy those who realize Atta didn't hijack anything, BUT he insists that he is 100% sure, and always has been, that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon. To Jon Gold, Atta and by extension whoever allegedly wired him some pork chop money are guilty until proven innocent, while (and he most certainly has said this before) Larry Silverstein should not even be *suspected* of involvement in 9/11 until it is proven beyond a doubt. So what is the difference between Larry and Mohammed? Silverstein and Sheikh? Hmmmm...
Kidney Failure Undead
Death from kidney failure followed by a persistent media presence is apparently an occupational hazard for scary mooozlim bad guys.
http://www.legitgov.org/dead_taleban_leader_lahore_attack_310309.html
The "Pakistani Taliban" leader who has taken credit for recent attacks in Lahore is either
a) dead since October of last year
b) able to give a phone interview to the BBC in March of *this* year
c) both of the above
But rest assured, just because we're all using the term "Pakistani Taliban" now does not mean we're being softened up for an attack on Pakistan... er, at least not beyond the attacks by unmanned drones that are already taking place.
we're attacking Pakistan? who knew!
glad you got me up to speed cause otherwise some big attack against Americans might have happened in reprisal and I would have been assuming that they were just lashing out at our freedom again!
If ya ask me, this sounds like a war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/pakistan-afgan-border-foreig...
UK backs Pakistan offensive
Defence secretary insists Britain has to back American plans to hunt down al-Qaida leaders across the Afghan border
* Mark Townsend, defence correspondent
* The Observer, Sunday 29 March 2009
Britain has offered its full backing for a renewed military offensive inside Pakistan, as UK ministers confirmed the country was now "part of a single campaign" alongside Afghanistan.
Defence secretary John Hutton said the UK supported targeting Pakistan-based Taliban and al-Qaida positions and urged Europe to begin offering assistance to eradicate insurgents in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.
Confirming that Britain was being drawn into a widening regional conflict, Hutton said the time had come to target Taliban and al-Qaida havens inside Pakistan. In his most explicit statement of intent against Afghanistan's troubled neighbour, Hutton said that the military objectives in the region must now have "an equal focus on both countries".
He added: "AQ [al-Qaida] is in retreat, scuttling across the border into Pakistan. Trying to buy time. Desperate to regroup. That is why there must be no let-up ... there can be no escape, no hiding place."
He indicated that Britain, which has deep historical ties with Pakistan and remains its largest trading partner in Europe, must play a principal role in supporting the American military effort in the region.
The defence secretary said: "In Europe, we can no longer offload the tough questions about how we deal effectively with AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan to the US.
"The political burden of dealing with the Pakistan side of the border must be shared. And there are many European countries with strong ties to Pakistan that can more effectively share that burden with America."
However, the US tactic of targeting senior al-Qaida figures using drones inside Pakistan has drawn international condemnation and undermined public support in Pakistan. The country's Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit warned recently that Islamabad regarded "drone attacks on our territory as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and definitely counter-productive".
An MoD spokesman said that Britain was ready to offer military, political and diplomatic support to a renewed offensive in Pakistan's tribal lands, but what precisely that entailed was dependent on the resources other Nato members were prepared to offer. However, the initial aim would be to support the Pakistani government, rather than place British forces on the ground inside the country.
US officials yesterday indicated that attacks along Pakistan's western frontier, apparently by unmanned CIA aircraft, would continue, amid speculation that coalition ground units may begin crossing into Pakistan's borderlands at some point. A Pentagon spokesman, lieutenant-colonel Mark Wright, told the Observer that the US had already offered to launch "joint-military operations" with Pakistan's Frontier Corps in the tribal areas.
The most recent evidence that Pakistan was becoming an increased focus of concern surfaced last week when Gordon Brown pinpointed al-Qaida in Pakistan as the greatest threat facing the UK in his national security strategy. Two thirds of terror plots uncovered by British intelligence agencies have a Pakistani connection.
Additional military resources are also likely to be deployed to the region once Britain withdraws its 4,000-strong force from Iraq this July, with moves to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8,300 to potentially above 10,000 within a year.
The new-found focus on Pakistan will dominate Nato's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg this week, in which Britain and the US will attempt to drum up more support for the twin Afghanistan and Pakistan - AfPak - mission. President Obama has promised an extra 21,000 troops for Afghanistan on top of the 38,000 US troops already there. By contrast, Nato has sent 32,000, with Germany so far sending just 3,640, France 2,780 and Spain 780. These three countries will, say Nato sources, be under pressure to increase their contingent.
Defence officials in Whitehall are increasingly exasperated that, even as the conflict broadens, prominent Nato members are not pulling their weight. Hutton condemned "the massive leadership imbalance" between Europe and the US in Nato. He added: "It's an imbalance set to grow in the coming months as America commits vastly more resources of every kind to the mission in Afghanistan."
Sigh...
Now Gold is imagining that the threat from dead dude Mehsud is "Obama's August 6 memo."
all I have to say is
he better not ignore it and let the Taliban strike Washington on purpose (LTSWOP)! what he needs to do is declare martial law and destroy Pakistan, otherwise he'll be responsible for whatever happens and a whole new group of families will descend on him with inconvenient questions.
--* ***--- --- ** --?
***----- **-- --** -*-***.
hey Casseia
burn any MIMES lately? nyuk nyuk. Anyway, I must be doing something right to have everyone attack me like this. Aw screw it, why bother? I'm quitting the movement unless people beg me not to!
actually, Mime 11 is right on the money.
It *is* strange that Benazir Bhutto named the new Pakistani Taliban terrorist as someone who might attack her, shortly before she was "assassinated". And she had said she'd be attacked because she, and only she, could stop terrorism? Yeah right. Mime 11 is right that she seems to be (still) using every trick in the book to take over Pakistan, most likely in cahoots with Israel.
Taleban: We will launch attack on America that will amaze world!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6011879.ece
and, of course, more at http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news
Pakistan is so dead
what happend to Iran?
who knows!
It's been interesting to see some conciliatory gestures with regard to Iran recently. Maybe this map has something to do with it? I really don't know I just think it helps now and then to remember where these countries are in relation to one another...
iraq of course is snuggled up to Iran on the left
not included in this map but important to note I would think. and a tad farther west would be country A. Just sayin'... :)
A Simple Guide To
A Simple Guide To Pakistan’s Enemies
A Pakistani bureaucrat learned from a senior Polish diplomat in 1969 why Pakistan will be destabilized by three major countries at all costs. Sounds as true now as it did forty years ago. A stunning read.
By SAFDAR ALI
This article names India, US, Russia and Israel as Pakistan's enemies. The source is from way back in 1969.
maybe too simple guide?
I mean , I don't disagree as far as it goes, but there is a lot of detail lacking. Also I don't know how I feel about the Editor's Note which advocates a dictatorship...
Yes it lacks details, it
Yes it lacks details, it only shows that the roots of this crisis stretches long ago, way before the Obama administration which is now pressing for the expanded war.
The pro dictatorship comment of the author is shortsighted. I think he has given up on electoral democracy since all the parties that run in Pakistan are just as bad as one another, kind of like how it is here in Manila and there in the US. But I would rather advocate reforms that would allow the non rich to compete in politics rather than advocating dictatorship. We have been there and it did not help us either.
reconciliation with Iran?
What do you see here?
Obama may cede Iran's nuclear rights
By M K Bhadrakumar
Obama may cede Iran's nuclear rights
By M K Bhadrakumar
...
In bits and pieces, a stray thought has been surfacing in the recent months in the US discourses over the situation surrounding Iran. It sought a rethink of Washington's insistence on Iran jettisoning its pursuit of uranium enrichment as a pre-requisite of commencement of direct talks between the two countries. This was borne out of a growing realization that the US insistence was no longer tenable. A logjam has indeed developed as it became clearer by the day that within the fractious Iranian opinion there is virtual unanimity when it comes to the continuance of the country's nuclear program, and effecting a regime change in Tehran didn't necessarily alter Iran's policies.
The Obama administration faces the reality that unless the impasse is broken somehow, the standoff continues. The standoff worked to Iran's advantage only insofar as the country speeded up its nuclear program ever since the series of United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions since 2006 began forbidding Iran from enriching uranium. Iran today has installed over 5,500 centrifuges and built up a stockpile exceeding 1,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.
It now appears that the US might cede to Iran's nuclear program. The Wall Street Journal reported last Friday that as part of a policy review commissioned by Obama, "diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran's insistence on carrying out the [enrichment] process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade material". The newspaper assessed that the Obama administration's message to Tehran is increasingly shaping up as "Don't develop a nuclear weapon" - a nuanced stance that would not rule out a deal accepting Iranian enrichment as such. It pointed out that Obama's articulations on the subject have become much less specific than those of former president George W Bush, who never minced words in crying a halt to Iran's enrichment.
...
Pakistan obsession
gretavo says: "The Other Shoe Dropping: What is Behind Some Fake Truthers' Obsession With Pakistan?"
I'm afraid it could have something to do with setting Pakistan up for the next 9/11 false flag operation. If a truther is convinced that 9/11 was an (Israeli supported) inside job, which it was, then we should face the fact that the purpetrators are up to anything.
Justin Raimondo has written an excellent piece on the basis of observations made by Sibel Edmonds:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12166
I consider this story as the equivalent to setting up a fake trail to Rudy Dekkers flight school. Preparations are made to put the blame for a possible coming false flag nuclear attack on Pakistan, which has nukes. This will be used to finish the job that started with the Patriot Act, namely to justify martial law in the US and create a new Soviet Union on American soil. People like Gold are helping to prepare the ground for such a scenario.
Regards,
Hank
Hi Hank, Raimondo was in
Hi Hank,
Raimondo was in denial about 9-11 as an inside job. I do not know if that has changed, but he is not regarded well in here for that. Sibel is similarly not viewed with a lot of credibility because her testimony seem to point more towards Islamic terrorists doing the planning and execution of 9-11. While she may be honest with what she knows (a very generous benefit of the doubt there) her info could have been planted by the perps as well, the information being allowed to leak out to mislead investigations of 9-11. In any case my simple test is if her testimony is consistent with a controlled demolitions of the WTC and the consequent inside job element. What I have read from her has either been inconsistent or irrelevant to my theory of events on 9-11.
Putting the two persons together in an article as author and subject makes me doubly suspicious of the intent and message of both of them.
Raimondo
Juan,
I would not say that Raimondo is in 'denial'; after all he was one of the first who wrote a booklet about 9/11 and the Israel connection as early as 2003:
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Enigma-11-Israeli-Connection/dp/0595296823
But I think he stopped because his primary field of interest is foreign policy not 'conspiracy theories'. I think he found himself in a dead alley and we all had to wait until prof. ones came along to breathe new live in the truth-movement.
Here is an update from sept 11, 2006 by Raimondo:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9683
"Bin Laden? 9/11? Forget it, buster – that was just a pretext, a catalyzing event that allowed a well-organized network with a preexisting agenda to move quickly and with determination to implement its plan."
Sounds like Justin believes in an inside job as well. Mind you, he was on the Mearsheimer and Walt trail even before M&W themselves!
Obviously nobody beats bishop Williamson who was the first who in many writings/speeches implicated the US and Israel as the "real" culprits behind the Al Qaeda terror attacks in a October 1, 2001 newsletter (only 3 weeks after the event!!!). Raised as a protestant I'm not very deeply involved in Christianity. However I fully share his interpretation of 9/11 as an attempt to erect a global slave state, starting in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooGBMFShUVo
Bishop Williamson is actually kind of an ass...
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Nov/nov14lit.htm
And I can't find a copy of his October 1, 2001 claim. Do you have a link?
http://fringewatcher.blogspot
http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/politics-of-bishop-richard-wil...
"US and Israel to Blame for 9/11 - The first of many writings/speeches implicating the US and Israel as the "real" culprits behind the Al Qaeda terror attacks: October 1, 2001 newsletter."
911Investigator
that's not the primary source...
And its link to the alleged primary source is broken. What it does say is pretty unremarkable, as many others were saying the same thing...
US and Israel to Blame for 9/11 - The first of many writings/speeches implicating the US and Israel as the "real" culprits behind the Al Qaeda terror attacks: October 1, 2001 newsletter.[broken link] Initially, like so many other fringe spokesmen, Bishop Williamson denied that al Qaeda had anything to do with the attacks. In a speech in Bordeaux in October 2001 he stated that "the bombing of [the Taliban] Afghanistan is not intelligent... it is not just to bomb these countries.... Nobody has proven that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, no one has shown proofs, Bin Laden denies it." Left-wing terrorist sympathizer William Blum has gained attention as "Osama's Pen Pal." Yet there is little noticeable difference between his treatment of al Qaeda's actions (and America's "guilt") and those of Bishop Williamson, who actually made conspiracy theory literature (e.g., Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot) part of seminary reading at Winona.
It would seem that this is an attempt to make it seem like Bishop Williamson somehow invented or founded the 9/11 truth movement. I have seen people (see the Alternet thread C455 linked to) start to say that Eric Hufschmid created the truth movement. It's pretty clear that there is a campaign afoot to paint 9/11 truth as the invention of "holocaust deniers".
Finally, however kind and avuncular the Bishop comes across in his interviews or sermons, the fact remains that he has extremely backward views on race and religion. While he is a valid subject for study (as an example of the principled, if misguided, anti-Judaism of the traditional catholic church) he is hardly someone to be overly praised or admired.
Raimondo does call attention
Raimondo does call attention to the Dancing Mossad which is great. But if you carefully read the link you gave, he still believes in or peddles the LIHOP version of 9-11 truth (disinfo). He claims through previous articles that 9-11 happened because the US government was incompetent, or allowed the event to happen even after Israel informed them. If you read the later part of http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9683 you will see he even criticizes controlled demolition advocacy.
"Instead, they prattle on about "controlled demolition," a missile striking the Pentagon, and other wild "theories" that only discredit all attempts to examine and revise the official 9/11 narrative."
The problem with this line of thinking is that it contains its own get out of jail free pass for the Israelis later on. If an investigation happens and this is the narrative that predominates, then the Israeli agents would be able to claim that they informed the US of what they knew and the US did not do anything so it is not their fault.
If controlled demolition is acknowledged, then the US government, the Israeli agents who filmed it along with the entire chain of command of Mossad going up to the PM, the Zionist WTC lease holder, etc. are all implicated as co-conspirators in planting the demolition charges, and coordinating the aircraft hijacking (whether human, electronic or switched aircraft) and their impact into the towers.
Recognizing controlled demolition really cuts through the fog of what happened on that day. With the recent studies by Jones, Harrit, and other CD advocates, there is really no excuse for Raimondo to deny that CD happened - which means an inside job happened.
Raimondo cntd
Juan,
That article was from 2006, before the nano-thermite research by Jones. Justin has a position of being one of the top anti-establishment foreign policy commentators; I don't blame him at all for not engaging in 'conspiracy theories' and harming his position. He just writes about what he is certain about and is very effective in that and he should continue to do that. There are enough truthers around who write books and give presentations. Let Justin stay where he is until others finish the job. I believe that in the end 9/11 will be solved by the 'global community' as a sort of investigative amateur journalism effort, quit comparable with IT open source project. Although 9/11 happend after the dot-com bubble burst, the perpetrators of 9/11 probably did not fully previse the blogging and internet forum phenomenon, this Philipino-Dutch converstation being a nice example. Now it is possible to circumvent the MSM and to pick up testimonies from diverse people like Elizabeth Newton or colonel Donn de Grand-Pre (although with a lot of disinfo added to the equation).
Raimondo is a pretty obvious anti-truth shill
One can reasonably assume he is entirely "in the know" and actively supporting the cover-up. You say: "He just writes about what he is certain about" but that isn't so--he writes about controlled demolition and the Pentagon on 9/11, which he knows nothing about (or perhaps knows all too much about?) He, like everyone else who has been actively supporting the cover-up, will be brought to account. If he's innocent he need not worry. But if he has been knowingly assisting the cover-up he should read this:
http://www.briancuban.com/dejamjuk-one-step-closer-to-facing-alleged-naz...
He could be an 89 year old man and still be brought to trial for his role in the cover-up of the worst crime against humanity of the 21st century. The real truth movement is not going anywhere, is only growing larger, and has all the time in the world to pursue justice.
I am not going to give
I am not going to give Raimondo the benefit of doubt on 9-11. I do not know who he works for, but I cannot believe he can write so much on the topic yet miss out on the obvious demolition of WTC-7. It took me less than an hour of investigation on the web to be convinced about it.
As David Chandler has demonstrated, it only takes high school physics to prove it. While I did not have Chandler's tools to compute acceleration at the time, a very simple intuition on how a building is constructed and how it may fall due to fire was enough to disprove the official narrative.
Even if Raimondo was not confident about his own knowledge of buildings, there were a lot of good discussions covering the topic, enough I am sure to convince a person of average intellect to comprehend that WTC7 cannot have gone down any other way except to have been demolished. I am quite sure he knows this anyway, but his profession requires him to dismiss it.
And another thing, it took me some time to appreciate how Gretavo seems to be over cautious, and paranoid about disinfo agents. This was until I read his and other people's accounts of how the peace movement was penetrated by pro-Israel operators. Also we have had quite a few disinfo agents enter the forum starting out as very knowledgeable, at first truthful and quite likeable fellows who later turned out to have ulterior motives and a hidden agenda.
Pakistan the next false flag patsy?
"What is Behind Some Fake Truthers' Obsession With Pakistan?"
I can't escape the feeling that Pakistan will be blamed for the next false flag attack, likely nuclear.
And since this seems to be a Justin Raimondo thread anyway, I keep refering back to this article by him from jan 2008:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/01/07/nukes-spooks-and-the-spect...
About smuggling of nuclear secrets and material from the US via Turkey/Israel to Pakistan.
Pakistan is the only muslim state with nukes. So this country could be blamed for a nuclear attack without anyone admitting to it.
To story by Raimondo could be interpreted as the equivalent of Rudi Dekkers flight school story. Laying a trail in advance.
Regards,
9/11-investigator
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com
http://911notes.blogspot.com/
Personally I don’t think
Personally I don’t think so...
I think the Pakistan connection serves a dual purpose:
Firstly for western audiences to keep Jon Gold & hopefully (for them) the entire truth movement in pork chop transfers for the next decade.
Secondly for Pakistani audiences (predominately anti US) to give the impression that their government whilst on face value a US puppet, is in actual fact duplicitous and has been aiding Al Qaeda all along, propping up their own credibility domestically.
To this end, my prediction is that the Pakistan angle is a mutually beneficial smoke screen that will lead to very little consequence.
My reasoning is that, knowing the towers were demolished, Bin Laden whoever he was and whenever he died was obviously part of the smokescreen, and Pakistan had to be complicit
at every step in keeping up the illusion. (Including of course verifying all the likely faked details of Al Qaeda &,Bin Laden' s recent assassination, and faked mutual distrust and indignation.
I see Pakistan as Kato to the US (as Inspector Clouseau) in the entirely fake war on terror.
I don’t see any advantages in the US forming a premise to attack or invade Pakistan. It would be the mother of all quagmires with very little to gain from it,
Other Quagmires however like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were strategically planned, and had exactly the desired outcome, division, destruction, neutralisation, theft of assets, and prolonged conflicts to justify theft from the tax payers to profit the military industrial complex and all it's cronies.
The main target in the medium term is Iran IMO (along with Syria either before or after).
The now openly fascistic oligarchy and Zionists don’t seem to be easing off the gas in their insane agenda one iota.
Also IMO, the biggest threat they face to their success is still the people pulling the plug on them, and IMO the greatest chance of that happening was through 911 truth with its emphatic proof of their tyranny.
To counter that threat, they control the entire western media with an iron fist, using it as their mouthpiece and censor with only the illusion of free press.
They have obviously made an extraordinary effort on infiltrating, undermining, and neutralising the truth movement, With Bin Laden's 'death' played as a trump card.
There is one thing that bugs me though about the recent developments, and Gretavo, Scott/Willy Loman and others I would really appreciate opinion/speculation on this,
Why did they make such a pigs ear of the Bin laden Death story, with faked video(nose),and a completely contradictory mess of conflicting statements about the 'incident'?
was it because:
a) It is a honey trap for 'conspiracy theorists'
b) It was a botched PR Job that went wrong/got out of control through lying.(From the same outfit who brought you the most sophisticated deception and propaganda stunt of all time)
c) Someone stitched up Obama's re election stunt and more fishiness will be forthcoming until the blackshirts replace the brownshirts in 2012.(Maybe someone is annoyed Obama pissed on their Osama fireworks?) I.e. there is actually a difference (& power struggle) between republicrats!?
d) They like to keep it all loose to give conspiracy theorists a field day, just as long as they keep barking up the wrong tree (Pakistan)
e) Something else?