Fiction by former intel agents/officials

Richard Clarke-The Scorpion's Gate

Robert Baer-Blow the House Down

Gary Berntsen/Ralph Pezzullo-The Walk In

All three books involve false flag attacks by the Iranian revolutionary guard. Both Baer and Clarke made all sorts of hints that they were able to tell more truth by way of fiction. The clear suggestion seems to be that Iran was involved in 9/11. It does not go unnoticed that such views mesh quite well with the Iranian nuclear program military solution advocates. OTOH, Baer wrote another book in which he made the case that a military solution was not a good idea.

Points to consider:

1) Iran Contra. The 1980 October Surprise (delayed release of hostages). The Cheney crowd doesn't seem to have a problem doing business with publicly stated enemies.

2) The Iraqi invasion was beneficial for Iran. Ahmed Chalabi has been ID'ed as an Iranian asset.

3) Research by Peter Lance:



Baer:

It's a pretty well established fact Iran sponsors terrorism.

Are the authors trying to explain by way of fiction the MO of 9/11? Or is this more smoke and mirrors from the intel community?

The Saudi's appeared complicit in 9/11. Iran had their bitter rival Iraq invaded by the US.

A mix of real life experiences and fiction. I have not read the books, but why do you think they were created to explain 9/11?

Could cluster bombs in civilian areas be defined as terrorism?

When a young child's limbs are blown off when he or she is playing is that young child terrorized? Is the mother of that child terrorized?

What about when we color aerial food drop packages the same as the cluster bomblets? In Afghan they had yellow cluster bomblets with black text, and they also had food drop packages the same size colored yellow with black text.

So the kids would see a bomblet and think it was food and get their limbs blown off or blinded or killed for wanting some food.

IS THAT NOT TERROR?

The ultimate result of "terrorism" is death. So if anyone is keeping score that's the ultimate marker. Who has killed more people?

Who has killed more people? The US or the N Vietnamese?

Who has killed more people? The US or the Iraqi insurgency?

Who has killed more people? The US or the Taliban?

Who has killed more people? The US or Al CIAduh?

Who's the bigger terrorist? The US Military Industrial Media Complex?

They not only sponsor terrorism, they are the terrorists.

I don't exactly have proof of it, but it's one of those anecdotes I trusted for some reason.
(Maybe I first heard of it from Fahrenheit 9/11?)

The woman with more courage in her little finger than the entire rest of congress

who dares to call the DEATH SKULLS on their SH*T.

SDude.

After all population control has to happen somehow. Man is too stupid to get educated and practice birth control.

And entities like the Catholic church (Rome) are too greedy for new members to fill their coffers to change their stone age stance on procreation.

And spaceship Earth won't survive if present consumption rates continue. So several million dead humans only helps even if it's not happening in a desirable "moral" manner.

If you are, you owe me an apology, dude.

Here's what you said:



Notice the use of the present tense "color"? That leads the reader to conclude you're claiming we're presently doing it. Cynthia McKinney hasn't been a member of congress for nearly 7 years. So, let me make my question clearer. Do you have any proof that the Obama administration is doing this today? Also, do you have any evidence that the practice was ever intentional or deliberate?

Of course I'm not implying that you would personally condone it.

And yes it should be past tense, I don't think it's happening now, I don't see any proof of it.

But I think the war in Afghan is pretty pointless, and whether Obama really personally supports it or not who can say.


"Also, do you have any evidence that the practice was ever intentional or deliberate?"

Well, let's see, in this instance they only drop two items from the air that land on the ground and stay there. Food and bomblets. What's the chances of both of them being the same size, color, and text? And it fits right in with everything else they do. After all the 911 inside job took a heck of a deranged killer imagination.

Why are you letting Obama off the hook? DO you really think Obama does not support the effort in Afghanistan but is somehow forced into escalation?

I think any president can be put in a position where he has to do things he doesn't personally agree with.

George Bush may have been put in positions he did not personally agree with?

Bush was happy to go to war. He pumped his fist when he saw we were finally taking down our tin pot dictator. The only time he could speak clearly was when he was talking about death and destruction.

I don't think Obama is in the "happy" category about war. But unfortunately, to a certain extent he has to dance with those that brung him.

I think any president can be put in a position where he has to do things he doesn't personally agree with.

Or does that mean any President other than Bush?

BTW, before you go down the shill for Bush road, I am merely pointing out you are inconsistent.

''Don''t despair, SDude''? Despair what? This is just another example of your fucking word games in which you try to tie your ''opponent'' to the Bush administration or the ''Death Skulls'' or the ''MIC''. It's a despicable tactic and all you do is poison the debate. You need to drop it, dude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Poking holes in goofy "truther" claims hardly amounts to defending the "OCT" (whatever that is).



Dude, I'm going to ask you politely one time to quit the false accusations that I defend killers. You really need to knock this crap off, dude.

OCT is
FEMA
NIST
the 911 Commission Report

and you know that, so stop pretending

You don't defend that SDude? So everything you've done on these forums is not for real?


"quit the false accusations that I defend killers"


It is my opinion that the OCT was written by killers

It is therefore my opinion that people who defend the OCT therefore, at least indirectly, defend killers.

What a strange theory. I'm going to ask you politely one last time to knock off the false accusation that I "defend killers". Your tactics are despicable.

""So, the people that worked at NIST, FEMA and on the 9/11 Commission were killers?""

No, their bosses where, the bush admin and their appointees. I know at least FEMA was headed by bush appointees during the so called investigation. You know, like the incompetent crony good ole boys that let Katrina happen.

And the bush vetted 911 Commission members reads like a who's who of the MIMC, all insiders, headed by the huge insider Zelikow.

You know I believe 911 was a MIHOP inside job. That of course implies that the perps in our government killed 3,000 of our citizens in cold blood.

And I believe the FEMA, NIST and 911 Commission Reports hides that cold blooded killing.

And do you not support the FEMA, NIST, and 911 Commission Reports?

Sorry I can't make it any more simple than that.

I of course didn't say you were a cold blooded killer or even that you supported them knowing they were killers.

It was my impression that all this has been understood for a long time, why are you all the sudden taking it so hard?

Why does my opinion bother you? If it's not true who cares?

and if this post gets deleted so be it

the truth will NEVER be deleted.

terrorism?

Just that the US MIMC practices "terrorism" on a much larger scale.

You can argue the definition of terrorism. But you can't argue the definition of the ultimate end result of terrorism, which is death.

By that measure we dominate the planet with our terrorism.

Of course then we might get into the tyrannical regime's unspoken point, our lives are worth more than theirs.

Then we could talk weapons production and distribution, the tools of terrorism and death. I don't think we'd even have to look to see who dominates again.

It is coercion.

coercion is just a goal of terrorism, it may or may not occur

death is a concrete result, it does most certainly occur. And it could easily be argued, the most significant result.

which of course can result in the death of innocents.

So does Iran export and support terrorism?

which of course can result in the death of innocents.

So does the US MIC export and support terrorism?

Your turn. Does Iran export and support terrorism?

Please pay closer attention Lared, I already answered that question.

So you don't think then that cluster bomblets terrorize little children and their mothers?

After all we need to "coerce" the fathers into "terrorism" so that our MIMC war machine will have a reason for existence.

Are you making the case that Iran does not export and support

terrorism?


Response to Reply #9
11. Not Neccesarily


Just that the US MIMC practices "terrorism" on a much larger scale.

yes or no? Perhaps with a bit of explanation.

Why should I continue to go round and round?

NOTHING IS BEING SAID.

I answered your question, it's just tough if you don't like the answer

you don't answer my questions so why should I care?

When children get limbs blown off by US cluster bombs, get blinded and killed, does that terrorize them? Does that terrorize their parents?

If someone came into this country and killed your children, WOULD YOU FIGHT BACK?

""All three books involve false flag attacks by the Iranian revolutionary guard. Both Baer and Clarke made all sorts of hints that they were able to tell more truth by way of fiction. The clear suggestion seems to be that Iran was involved in 9/11.""

If it's fiction then maybe the country "Iran" is being substituted for another country? Because there's no evidence Iran was involved with 911. Contrary even they helped us in Afghan.

""The Cheney crowd doesn't seem to have a problem doing business with publicly stated enemies.""

From every direction. They were/(are?) dealing with Iran during embargoes, and Iraq during sanctions all the while denouncing others for doing same. Hypocrisy is just a minor sideline when you're a deranged killer.

And there were very large ongoing cases of illegal trading with Iran, with large amounts of hard evidence stored in WTC 7. Big "coincedence" it was all destroyed in the "fire induced collapse" that "surprisingly" looked just like a controlled demo.


""The Iraqi invasion was beneficial for Iran. Ahmed Chalabi has been ID'ed as an Iranian asset.""

No doubt. Iraq was secular and Iraq was Iran's opposition, holding them in check. Now Islam is supported with Iraq going theocratic and Iran is supported by double, they lost an enemy and gained an ally. So if Israel was truly worried about Iran and Islam, they got the short end of the stick.

Did the Nazi Rummy know what was going to happen with Iraq? And intentionally do this to confound Israel? Or is this just the US MIMC building up an enemy so they have someone to fight? Knowing even with Iran strengthened they can still beat them.

Since Russia folded the MIMC really has had no reason to exist so why not create a reason?


""Are the authors trying to explain by way of fiction the MO of 9/11? Or is this more smoke and mirrors from the intel community?""

Since Iran wasn't involved and if you go MIHOP and say US rouge (deranged killers) pulled 911 then it's clearly just "smoke and mirrors" or more technically... disinformation.


""The Saudi's appeared complicit in 9/11.""

"appeared" is the correct word. In reality they were just false ID's for assumed identities. The fact the FBI never has had any hard evidence and the fact 7-8 of them were reported alive after the event are magnitudes more proof than the OCT can even dream of.

I believe Baer's theory in Blow the House Down was that Iran was sort of a silent partner with al Qaeda.

Something else to consider in relation to Ahmadinejad's comments.