The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does Carlson know what  False Flag operation even is?

Northwoods was an example.  That was completely sponsored by the JCS and run by them and then painted over.

That is not what happened on Jan 6th. That was recruited and organized and then fomented by Trump and his followers. 

If someone is going to argue that it was allowed to happen, that is not a False Flag operation. 

 

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

 

We should fear the cult leader who sent him there. I believe the number of Americans who voted for this narcissistic would-be autocrat was 70 million, and they don't wear buffalo horns. At the state level they are presently busy passing laws to suppress the vote across the land for their leader. And he has turned one of our two major parties on Capitol Hill into a band of cowardly sycophants. We had better fear him and his "rabble."

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Ron Ecker

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

We should fear the cult leader who sent him there. I believe the number of Americans who voted for this narcissistic would-be autocrat was 70 million, and they don't wear buffalo horns. At the state level they are presently busy passing laws to suppress the vote across the land for their leader. And he has turned one of our two major parties on Capitol Hill into a band of cowardly sycophants. We had better fear him and his "rabble."

 

Ron E.--

Obviously, we have different points of view, and that's fine. 

I will say this: Someday Trump will be gone (I hope sooner rather than later), but the globalist-national security state and its allies in an increasingly concentrated, pervasive and censored media, will be here and stronger than ever. 

We might even agree what are the root causes behind the BLM movement, and the Trump movement. I think it is declining living standards for people who work for a living.

There is some culture-war stuff, and some race stuff, but at bottom is the globalists crapping on the employee class for 50 years running. And then playing ID politics to the hilt. 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

 

 

Benjamin,

       To clarify.

       The only FBI arrests of potential terrorist suspects on 9/11 were the "Five Dancing Israeli" Mossad agents arrested by the George Washington bridge, after witnesses saw them filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions from Liberty State Park.  They were quietly detained by the FBI for 70 days before being released to Israel.

       The list of 19 alleged Muslim "hijackers" which Robert Mueller referenced on national television on 9/12/01 (Mueller's first day on the job as the new FBI Director) was obtained from documents conveniently planted in a rental car at Logan Airport.  Yet, many of these alleged Muslim "hijackers" were known to be alive after 9/11, and none of them were ever filmed at airports, or boarding airplanes on 9/11.  Nor were they listed on any of the 9/11 flight manifests.

       Additionally, the alleged AA #77 phone calls on 9/11 from Fox News commentator Barbara Olson to Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson describing Muslim hijackers with box cutters never happened-- according to the FBI's own expert testimony in the Moussaiou trial.

       Robert Mueller later testified to Congress that, "the FBI never found a single scrap of paper" linking Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.  Dick Cheney, similarly, told Zelikow's 9/11 Commission that evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 was not "forthcoming."   And Bin Laden, himself, told journalists at Al Jazeera and in Pakistan shortly after 9/11 that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

       As for Brian Sicknick's death, it's causal linkage to the January 6th riots has not been "debunked," in my opinion-- as I explained in two of your previous threads on the subject.

[W. Niederhut]

Addendum: Blaming Osama Bin Laden for 9/11 was the sole U.S. government pretext for starting the longest war in American history, which finally ended this week...

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Benjamin,

       To clarify.

       The only FBI arrests of potential terrorist suspects on 9/11 were the "Five Dancing Israeli" Mossad agents arrested by the George Washington bridge, after witnesses saw them filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions from Liberty State Park.  They were quietly detained by the FBI for 70 days before being released to Israel.

       The list of 19 alleged Muslim "hijackers" which Robert Mueller referenced on national television on 9/12/01 (Mueller's first day on the job as the new FBI Director) was obtained from documents conveniently planted in a rental car at Logan Airport.  Yet, many of these alleged Muslim "hijackers" were known to be alive after 9/11, and none of them were ever filmed at airports, or boarding airplanes on 9/11.  Nor were they listed on any of the 9/11 flight manifests.

       Additionally, the alleged AA #77 phone calls on 9/11 from Fox News commentator Barbara Olson to Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson describing Muslim hijackers with box cutters never happened-- according to the FBI's own expert testimony in the Moussaiou trial.

       Robert Mueller later testified to Congress that, "the FBI never found a single scrap of paper" linking Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.  Dick Cheney, similarly, told Zelikow's 9/11 Commission that evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 was not "forthcoming."   And Bin Laden, himself, told journalists at Al Jazeera and in Pakistan shortly after 9/11 that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

       As for Brian Sicknick's death, it's causal linkage to the January 6th riots has not been "debunked," in my opinion-- as I explained in two of your previous threads on the subject.

W Niederhut:

I am not disputing anything you say, save our disagreement on the Brian Sicknick affair. OK, we disagree on Sicknick, and that's fine. 

What I am referring to are FBI efforts after 9/11 to find domestic terrorists, often through enticement and entrapment. In some cases it looked like the FBI manipulated half-wits into possibly compromising statements, and then prosecuted, all in the heated emotions of the time.  

My bigger point is that national security state is a lot more fear-inducing than the guy in buffalo-horn hat. 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W Niederhut:

I am not disputing anything you say, save our disagreement on the Brian Sicknick affair. OK, we disagree on Sicknick, and that's fine. 

What I am referring to are FBI efforts after 9/11 to find domestic terrorists, often through enticement and entrapment. In some cases it looked like the FBI manipulated half-wits into possibly compromising statements, and then prosecuted, all in the heated emotions of the time.  

My bigger point is that national security state is a lot more fear-inducing than the guy in buffalo-horn hat. 

 

 

 

My apologies, Benjamin.  I thought you were referring to alleged FBI interviews of 9/11 suspects.

I understand what you're getting at with FBI informants involved in subsequent domestic terrorism incidents.

As for the Brian Sicknick case, it's worth watching the new, synchronized 40 minute NYT video of the January 6th attacks on the Capitol.

The Capitol Police were, obviously, severely under-manned on January 6th, and they were getting physically assaulted and repeatedly hosed with toxic aerosol sprays.

I simply consider it highly improbable that a young man like Brian Sicknick would have abruptly died of unrelated, "natural," causes (basilar arterial thrombosis) shortly after being viciously assaulted and sprayed with toxic chemicals.

[Kirk Gallaway]

17 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

 

 

There's a lot of stuff here. Let me just start with 2 areas that I've gathered from reading your posts that you've seemed most obsessed about. But now I see you and W. are talking about Sicknick,. So I'll start with that in in this post..

Benjamin: We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

This Brian Sicknick again. I know you have quite a sense of mission about this, Benjamin. I think the general reaction on this forum was to not to jump to conclusions about the riots other than a general disgust that these misdirected losers seized our capital and a greater astonishment that that was allowed to happen. I never saw one mention of Sicknick's death here until you mentioned it the next dozen times. I had no resistance to the fact that you were pointing it out that there were still unanswered questions.

I guess your overall message is that " pervasive and censored media', was trying to misinform us. I tend to think that's BS. It was probably another case of a profusion of information all at once, and different witness testimony and people jumping to conclusions to come out with a story , and like all such stories, it was eventually ferreted out and exposed. In the final analysis, isn't it going to be known if Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher or not?

 

Are you aware of the existence of the film where a protestor hurls a fire extinguisher at the standing cops heads, below, and actually hits 2 of them in the head? You can access it if you're so inclined.

There was confusion at first, and some thought Sicknick  was one of the cops. It's probably that simple, no media conspiracy. But while we're on the topic of media conspiracies, as you might know 6 people died! It was actually a few months after the riots that they determined that a woman was trampled  by the rioters. They literally killed their own! Was the fact that it took months to find that out really as a result of a Trump coverup media conspiracy? heh heh

 

In the final analysis, I don't know what your point is to keep driving home.  You're not actually asserting Sicknick died of natural causes, are you? What does it matter if Sicknick died directly from blunt force trauma or stress trauma as result of weathering the  riots? He still died defending his country and doing his job. How well do you think you'd hold up to this,  being beaten by clubs and flag poles, Benjamin? These are some big dudes. This ain't Chiang Mai!

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of hearing about Trump and his corruption!  ( move his hands over his ears) I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING.

 

Glen Greenwald 2016-21

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

55 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

There's a lot of stuff here. Let me just start with 2 areas that I've gathered from reading your posts that you've seemed most obsessed about. But now I see you and W. are talking about Sicknick,. So I'll start with that in in this post..

Benjamin: We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

This Brian Sicknick again. I know you have quite a sense of mission about this, Benjamin. I think the general reaction on this forum was to not to jump to conclusions about the riots other than a general disgust that these misdirected losers seized our capital and a greater astonishment that that was allowed to happen. I never saw one mention of Sicknick's death here until you mentioned it the next dozen times. I had no resistance to the fact that you were pointing it out that there were still unanswered questions.

I guess your overall message is that " pervasive and censored media', was trying to misinform us. I tend to think that's BS. It was probably another case of a profusion of information all at once, and different witness testimony and people jumping to conclusions to come out with a story , and like all such stories, it was eventually ferreted out and exposed. In the final analysis, isn't it going to be known if Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher or not?

 

Are you aware of the existence of the film where a protestor hurls a fire extinguisher at the standing cops heads, below, and actually hits 2 of them in the head? You can access it if you're so inclined.

There was confusion at first, and some thought Sicknick  was one of the cops. It's probably that simple, no media conspiracy. But while we're on the topic of media conspiracies, as you might know 6 people died! It was actually a few months after the riots that they determined that a woman was trampled  by the rioters. They literally killed their own! Was the fact that it took months to find that out really as a result of a Trump coverup media conspiracy? heh heh

 

In the final analysis, I don't know what your point is to keep driving home.  You're not actually asserting Sicknick died of natural causes, are you? What does it matter if Sicknick died directly from blunt force trauma or stress trauma as result of weathering the  riots? He still died defending his country and doing his job. How well do you think you'd hold up to this,  being beaten by clubs and flag poles, Benjamin? These are some big dudes. This ain't Chiang Mai!

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of hearing about Trump and his corruption!  ( move his hands over his ears) I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING.

 

Glen Greenwald 2016-21

 

Kirk G-

Well, we have different viewpoints, and that is OK. 

I believe the Washington DC medical examiner's report on Sicknick, and so be it. Maybe I am wrong. 

Actually, I am not as obsessed with the Sicknick story as the Wuhan lab-leak story (or the JFKA for that matter).

Egads, what would you call the prolonged active censoring, and de-platforming, of people who properly considered a Wuhan lab leak a real possibility? And the mainstream media with its "debunked conspiracy theory" antics regarding Wuhan?

The national security state has formed an alliance with media and the Democratic Party.  

Caveat emptor.

PS You know who is best pals now with the D-Party? 

Liz Cheney. 

The are volumes of information in that one small answer. 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Benjamin Cole
small add on

[Kirk Gallaway]

Actually I live here so I have a more comprehensive understanding. So you're interested in the Democrats evil  ties to Liz Cheney? I'm more interested in your ties to Fox news. You've wheeled out Tucker Carlson for guidance on an occasion or 2.

Benjamin said"There is some culture-war stuff, and some race stuff",

You do sound more nuanced now. When you first came here, you came off as a blazing  Fox cultural warrior who was obsessed with his disgust for "identity politics", stating it over and over again."I hate identity politics." Which told me this guy watches a lot of Fox culture warrior stuff or similar online sources.

 

To demystify this for you Benjamin. When people get over their thin skinnedness,  All these demarcations can be explained in terms of interest groups. The Democrats have a loose coalition of groups, the international elites and business class people and then there's a coalition of "identity"  minority groups vying for their civil rights that you're upset about, Blacks, Native Americans, Asians LGBTQ. But I would think since you have "a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered.", you'd sympathize. But apparently that's just for disaffected whites? Among the other groups that are in the Democratic interest groups are the environmentalist groups and consumer protection groups. Do you have any sympathy for them? 

 

Then on the other end of the ledger, you have the Republicans who, like the Democrats favor the international global elitists and business class people, and the majority of the Defense industry, though not exclusively,and the Religious right. That's pretty much it. That's their coalition., To some of us, it's sort of arbitrary to insist that racial, ethnic, gender injustice is somehow second tier, and the religious right isn't?.

 

The" identity politics" card is really just a buzzword phrase that Fox news and Breitbart and other right wing groups   have seized upon to appeal to white people who are concerned about losing their majority status. It's a disguised race card. At the time, my feeling was upon hearing of your disdain was, if he falls for this primary stuff, he'll pretty much fall for anything. JMO.

Is there some unfairness  in the way all these interest groups try to seize their agenda?, yes. But your fervent adoption of the fox message that pits  white disenfranchised against the minority disenfranchised is just music to the elites ears. Anything to get the attention off them. After all, there is a class of people who have strongholds on both sides of the Republican Democrat ledger! To strongly adopt the "I hate identity politics" banner is just another bandwagon to corporate  shilldom. You came off completely misdirected.

At least that was my opinion.

I know, we have different viewpoints,  and that's ok! 😀

*****

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

35 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Actually I live here so I have a more comprehensive understanding. So you're interested in the Democrats evil  ties to Liz Cheney? I'm more interested in your ties to Fox news. You've wheeled out Tucker Carlson for guidance on an occasion or 2.

Benjamin said"There is some culture-war stuff, and some race stuff",

You do sound more nuanced now. When you first came here, you came off as a blazing  Fox cultural warrior who was obsessed with his disgust for "identity politics", stating it over and over again."I hate identity politics." Which told me this guy watches a lot of Fox culture warrior stuff or similar online sources.

 

To demystify this for you Benjamin. When people get over their thin skinnedness,  All these demarcations can be explained in terms of interest groups. The Democrats have a loose coalition of groups, the international elites and business class people and then there's a coalition of "identity"  minority groups vying for their civil rights that you're upset about, Blacks, Native Americans, Asians LGBTQ. But I would think since you have "a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered.", you'd sympathize. But apparently that's just for disaffected whites? Among the other groups that are in the Democratic interest groups are the environmentalist groups and consumer protection groups. Do you have any sympathy for them? 

 

Then on the other end of the ledger, you have the Republicans who, like the Democrats favor the international global elitists and business class people, and the majority of the Defense industry, though not exclusively,and the Religious right. That's pretty much it. That's their coalition., To some of us, it's sort of arbitrary to insist that racial, ethnic, gender injustice is somehow second tier, and the religious right isn't?.

 

The" identity politics" card is really just a buzzword phrase that Fox news and Breitbart and other right wing groups   have seized upon to appeal to white people who are concerned about losing their majority status. It's a disguised race card. At the time, my feeling was upon hearing of your disdain was, if he falls for this primary stuff, he'll pretty much fall for anything. JMO.

Is there some unfairness  in the way all these interest groups try to seize their agenda?, yes. But your fervent adoption of the fox message that pits  white disenfranchised against the minority disenfranchised is just music to the elites ears. Anything to get the attention off them. After all, there is a class of people who have strongholds on both sides of the Republican Democrat ledger! To strongly adopt the "I hate identity politics" banner is just another bandwagon to corporate  shilldom. You came off completely misdirected.

At least that was my opinion.

I know, we have different viewpoints,  and that's ok! 😀

*****

 

Kirk G-

 

Actually I live in Thailand now, so I do not see US cable news, or any TV news. I read Google News, and then Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald and a lot drab economics-financial stuff that would probably bore you. 

True, I loathe identity politics. My take is that ID politics is divisive, and intentionally so.  

There is a great book out there, "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Michael Pettit. Give it a read.

Anyways, you have your views, and I do not dismiss your views. They are simply different from my views. 

Good luck in DC. About this time of year, we have something in common: heat and humidity. 

 

 

[Dennis Berube]

Is there any opposition to Biden's nightmare from the left at all? What will it take? Would environmentalists (or any human being) get upset if he backed a plan to dump a million gallons of toxic waste into the ocean causing even more cancer and disrupting a vital ecosystem even further? How about making "Mr. Monsanto" Secretary of Agriculture and allowing more cancer causing chemicals to get into American (and Colombian) bodies? I guess as long as he's not the Orange guy that didn't actually conspire with Russia then its fine.

https://www.insider.com/japan-radioactive-water-release-usa-support-protests-from-region-2021-4

 

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

The case for ending judicial review (msn.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

 

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Have Laid the Groundwork for the Devastation to Come (msn.com)

[Bob Ness]

I'm curious. Whatever happened to the requirement that didn't allow sock puppets to create profiles and comment?