Earwicker and Skronk...

you are somehow missing my point. I understand you believe that the people at the top of al Qaeda and the CIA don't believe what they say, and what the rank and file of their organizations say and believe.

What I'm asking is how, over the long haul, could the leadership of those organizations remain purely non-true-believers. Don't you think accomplished true-believers would wonder why they are never promoted? And how would an up-and-coming non-true-believer find out that those above him are, in fact, non-true-believers.

"Um, my dearest Osama, I suspect that we have something secretly in common. I suspect neither of us actually believe America is the great satan. I suspect we both would like to cooperate with the CIA in support of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy. I suspect we both actually don't hate Jews.

So, um, can I have that promotion?"

Obviously the above dialog is stated partly in jest...but do you see my point here?

But here's the problem I see. Whenever someone talks about the ills of the Banking Establishment, someone will inevitably bring up "anti-Semite", or call them Nazis. This is simply not the case. The majority of people that speak out against the banking establishment are thoughtful and intelligent, and have nothing to do with antisemitism. It's others that feel threatened by this discussion, and by labeling the nay-sayers anti-semites, ground the talk to a halt. Some point to antisemitism to divert the discussion, but that is just a cheap cop-out.

I don't know what it will take for the average person to recognize bankers cause major problems in the world, and directly benefit from the pain and misery of a nations people. To say all bankers are Jews is ridiculous, and reduces whatever point they're trying to make to utter garbage. The point of a discussion about bankers actions is to shed light on a very secretive subject, and hopefully enlighten the few who choose to accept it.

galanter wrote:Earwicker and Skronk...

you are somehow missing my point. I understand you believe that the people at the top of al Qaeda and the CIA don't believe what they say, and what the rank and file of their organizations say and believe.

What I'm asking is how, over the long haul, could the leadership of those organizations remain purely non-true-believers. Don't you think accomplished true-believers would wonder why they are never promoted? And how would an up-and-coming non-true-believer find out that those above him are, in fact, non-true-believers.

Galanter, the heads of these organizations are just a cog in the overall scheme. These agencies are heavily compartmentalized, and bureaucracy is the norm, as it is in the world. I think very few of them actually know what is going on. They do what they believe is right, and because of that, the government exploits it when they feel it can help them. In any organization where information is power, there's always a hierarchy, and top members don't interact with the bottom tier, they only give them the orders. Most agents are probably viewing it as just another job, all the while these things go on above their heads.

To comment on your constant Zionist points, don't you see it's a tactic to keep people quiet? It's been used to silence opposition by labeling people nut jobs and wackos, even if they aren't actually anti-semites. If you can discredit your opposition, then you've won the argument.

Skronk wrote:But here's the problem I see. Whenever someone talks about the ills of the Banking Establishment, someone will inevitably bring up "anti-Semite", or call them Nazis. This is simply not the case. The majority of people that speak out against the banking establishment are thoughtful and intelligent, and have nothing to do with antisemitism. It's others that feel threatened by this discussion, and by labeling the nay-sayers anti-semites, ground the talk to a halt. Some point to antisemitism to divert the discussion, but that is just a cheap cop-out.

I don't know what it will take for the average person to recognize bankers cause major problems in the world, and directly benefit from the pain and misery of a nations people. To say all bankers are Jews is ridiculous, and reduces whatever point they're trying to make to utter garbage. The point of a discussion about bankers actions is to shed light on a very secretive subject, and hopefully enlighten the few who choose to accept it.

Skronk, I understand what you are saying about bankers and cop-outs.

But Bob, I mean Rick, seems to believe in *Zionist world bankers*. I say "seems" because Rick, I mean Bob, seems reluctant to come out of the closet and explain exactly what he believes in this regard. Which, as I explained, makes him even more suspect, not less. It is the conjunction of those descriptors, not just banker, and not just world banker, but Zionist world banker, that should at least set off some alarms I would think.

Perhaps Bob, I mean Rick, will someday gift us with a full and explicit revelation of his belief system.

Galanter, you seem to be under the impression that Anti-Zionism is the same as Anti-Semitism. Are you?

I'd like to ask, again, exactly how Rick is different than Bob.

Or maybe I should ask the question this way.

Is there a difference between name calling and performance art?

Unrelated point of clarification -

I don't consider 9/11 an Islamic conspiracy. I consider it an al Qaeda conspiracy.

Unrelated point of hilarity -

*I've* conflated 9/11 with Zionism?

Skronk wrote:Galanter, you seem to be under the impression that Anti-Zionism is the same as Anti-Semitism. Are you?

Of course not, but that's not the issue.

People referring to themselves in the third person: CRAP.

People referring to their past user names in the third person: HILARIOUS.

galanter wrote:you are somehow missing my point. I understand you believe that the people at the top of al Qaeda and the CIA don't believe what they say, and what the rank and file of their organizations say and believe.

Do you believe what they say?
If so which bit of what Bin Laden says do you believe? The bit where he says he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or the bit where he did?

galanter wrote:What I'm asking is how, over the long haul, could the leadership of those organizations remain purely non-true-believers. Don't you think accomplished true-believers would wonder why they are never promoted? And how would an up-and-coming non-true-believer find out that those above him are, in fact, non-true-believers.

I imagine wealth has a lot to do with it and I imagine funny hand shakes has a lot to do with it. Probably on both sides of the equation.

I think world history, and especially 20th century world history, is a mush of some real information some counter information then some disinformation hiding more disinformation which is all hiding political chess moves.
Then people (unconnected people) try and look through this smog of confusion and maybe sometimes hit on a truth but maybe most of the time just end up adding another layer to that disinformation.
The modern version of this started during the Napoleonic wars and by World War Two had been developed by us Brits into the double cross system which apparently confused the Nazzis so much that even though some of their agents had found out about the Normandy landings the commanders had no idea which agents to believe because so many were known to be double agents and they didn't know how many others might be.

Now, given that this is how these intelligence/secretive agencies operate how can anyone trust what anyone in those agencies is really allied to.
I know I wouldn't. You'd think some members of Al Qaida would at some point have said to Bin Laden - 'hey, Bin, what's all this about your family being intimately connected with the rulers of the great Satan and the dollars you've inherited from the filthy infidel funding our operations?'

Maybe someone has said that. Maybe they fell off a cliff shortly after.

I haven't got a clue how recruitment of these organisations works but I think it reasonable to be very skeptical of how any of them - 'goodies' or 'baddies' - operate.

You talk about conspiracies being incoherent but how are Bin Laden's contradictory statements on the whole issue coherent but how can you not see that there is incoherence on both sides of the argument?

You just seem to believe anything that, at least, 'the goodies' say and that strikes me as hopelessly naive.

galanter wrote:I don't consider 9/11 an Islamic conspiracy. I consider it an al Qaeda conspiracy.

Well, given that Al Qaida was as good as invented with the assistance of the American Intelligence Services is it too unreasonable to suspect they might still be connected to them?