Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

The resting place of threads that were very valid in 2004, but not so much in 2024. Basically this is a giant historical archive.


Locked
User avatar
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

Post by CGW »

And it's safe to say that you haven't read this book?

This is getting boring, and I notice that at least one part of the 16 part series went by and you didn't say a thing.

ICONOPHILI
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon 28 November 2005 2:52 am

SO CGW What's your Input on This?

Post by ICONOPHILI »

Look at both: what Professor "Yuri Slezkine", AND Secretary of State "John Foster Dulles", said so according to you both of them are nuts? RIGHT? YOU (CGW) Know much more than them Right? : http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4358

ICONOPHILI
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon 28 November 2005 2:52 am

EVEN Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says 9/11 FALSE!!

Post by ICONOPHILI »

OH Let me guess he's a NUT ALSO RIGHT? http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article ... uspect.htm

AndyHolland
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue 1 November 2005 5:43 pm

Post by AndyHolland »

Think about it, if they really wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext for war and were so smart as to pull it off, why where they so lethargic in pursuing war? Even the French were suprised by the US restraint.

The devil is not inept and uses people for his purposes, including terrorism and paranoia.

andy holland
sinner

User avatar
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

Post by CGW »

Dulles is an endlessly controversial figure. His comments, however, have a note of exaggeration. They came on the heels of the Suez Crisis, which in spite of Israeli involvement was essentially a Anglo-French campaign against Egyptian nationalization of the canal. Israeli involvement (which was controversial in that country, too) was based upon Egyptian sponsorship of Fedayeen conmmando raids upon Israeli territory. Dulles was primarily interested in keeping the Russians out of the MIddle East, and (correctly, for once) understood that the abortive war would serve to drive the Egyptians into the arms of the Russians.

After this remark was made, adminstration policy began to shift. The policy of confrontation with Israel and support of Arabs in general became more complex. In that light, Dulles's comes to sound more like a one time expression of exasperation over being unable to control congress-- a timeless administration frustration-- rather than a considered analysis.

Selkine's remark is taken wildly out of context, as this summary indicates.

Next?

User avatar
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

Post by CGW »

BTW: It took maybe fifteen minutes to dig up the info about the Dulles remark. It took maybe two minutes to pull up info on the Selkine book and determine that it was being misrepresented. Next time, Iconophili, do your own fact-checking.

AndyHolland
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue 1 November 2005 5:43 pm

Post by AndyHolland »

...

Locked