Yes the Iranian delegate says it was an inside job, and 30 plus others did not.
I'd tend to believe the one from the country with a deep seated hatred of anything western / white / christian etc
Not
Are people in caves developing nails of mass destruction? Is my local tradie actually a suicide bomber in disguise? Maybe these nails also have listening devices in them, and if thats the case im a little worried because my house does have quite a few of them. Im sure we will soon all know whats going on with these nails as today tonight or aca will certainly do an UN-BIASED report on these seemingly harmless pieces of hardware...........in any case, im carrying my hammer with me at all times..............
It is all very well for you guys to have a **** stir. One can understand that.
But do you actually understand the symbolism of the nail?
I don't understand most of this,but if after 10 years no one has found an old guy who gets around on a donkey dragging around a dialysis machine and living in a cave ,what chance do we have of finding this nail and bringing it to justice
Is Ahmadinejad "Controlled Opposition" ?
September 26, 2010
by Anthony Migchels
in Arnhem, Holland
www.henrymakow.com/
Of course, it is always pleasant to hear a prominent politician speak some truth about 9/11 and even more so when these words are spoken near the crime scene. It provides a little justice to the 3000 victims of the Mossad/CIA/Globalist mass murder. At least someone seems to speak for them.
It is also fitting that Ahmadinejad would mention the fact that these 3000 dead have been used as an excuse to murder hundreds of thousands, and probably millions more.
That it is ridiculous to keep wailing about a few thousand Americans, when they kill a few hundred times more Arabs and other Muslims as revenge.
The dead are not to blame. It is their legacy that is besmirched by 'Enduring Freedom', 'Shock and Awe' and all the other wonderful word constructs devised for wholesale slaughter.
However, the real story about the Ahmadinejad speech is the fact that it is a textbook example of the Hegelian Dialectic. He shows himself a cynical whore on equal footing with his supposed Zionist adversaries.
He is a typical example of controlled opposition: two sides struggling towards the desired synthesis.
Because the real core of his speech is this:
"For years, the inefficiency of the capitalism and the existing world management and structures has been exposed and the majority of States and nations have been on a quest for fundamental changes and for the prevalence of justice in global relations. The cause of the United Nation's ineptitude is in its unjust structure. Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar of the Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized.
In the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the Security Council has always been a party to the disputes. The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; How could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?
Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?
Dear Friends,
The United Nations is the key center for coordinating the common global management. Its structure needs to be reformed in a manner that all independent States and nations [are] able to participate in the global governance actively and constructively.
The veto privilege should be revoked and the General Assembly should be the highest body and the Secretary-General should be the most independent official and all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the General Assembly and should be directed towards promoting justice and eliminating discrimination.
The Secretary-General should not come under pressure from powers and/or the country hosting the Organization for his stating the truth and [the] administration of justice. It is suggested that the General Assembly should, within one year and in the framework of an extraordinary session, finalize the reformation of the Organization's structure. The Islamic Republic of Iran has clear suggestions in this regard and stands ready to participate actively and constructively in the process."
So everything is clear. No, the struggle is not against globalist controllers and their coveted World Government. The struggle is how the power will be divided between the remnants of the Nation States. Ahmadinejad is not defending his country's sovereignty; he wants a bigger piece of the pie for Iran.
So the current Thesis vs. Antithesis = Synthesis in this particular instance reads: US/UK/Zionism vs. Iran = World Government.
There is no reason for us to have any illusions about Iran's leadership. They are solid allies of the World Government Agenda.
In 2008, Ahmadinejad said "mankind's gravest need today is a global government."
Proposing that the rule of single law in the entire world is a bare necessity for the mankind, he said, "The existence of a thousand laws in the world, and then expecting that the global society would reach a status of equilibrium, justice, and tranquility is wishing for the impossible."
He added, "It is not possible to observe global justice under such conditions that each country is ruled based on a different set of laws."
The Iranian leadership are the typically cynical henchmen that will lead their own people to the slaughterhouse. The fact that they will take the Zionist Entity along with them is not quite enough to consider them our friends.
Let us not fall for the old adage that our enemy's enemies are our friends.
Ahmadinejad is a truth teller when it comes to 9-11, but when it comes to world government, he is a traitor and a liar.
So doc are you saying Where'smydinnerjacket didn't say those things about the US causing 9/11?. Are you saying the media elites are misreporting the speech? If you are, and you are right then the whole credibility of the reporting of the Western/world media is under a cloud, it brings into question charges of collaboration and may unearth a whole layer of deceit perpetrated on the citizens..........or....the translation on your vid may be wrong.......or ....this may not be the speech that was reported,........or......the nasty parts of the speech have been edited out. If any of these last three possibilities have occurred, then it brings into question, YOUR credibility.
I listened to the first 20 minutes, frankly I would suspect people started walking out because of boredom. Half the speech seems to be simply pro-Islam.
The relevant bit is at the 10:30 mark
that added up but it was an interview with Alan Sabrosky that made my mind up. He is one of the many people who carry one hell of a lot of weight in terms of the understanding of the issue. These are just some of his credentials:
