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