Thursday, October 16, 2008

David Icke at the Million Dollar Theater in LA


I posted a blog about this event over on my MySpace page. I thought you guys might like to read it.

--Mike

6 comments:

Crispy said...

Mike, I love all of your posts and visit this blog frequently. I tend to see eye to eye with you (and Richard) on most the stuff you guys put out.

Now, can you honestly tell me you believe 20 muslims hijacked 4 planes and hit their targets at relatively the same time? Do you really believe a man in a cave (once a prize CIA asset) could actually have orchestrated the entire thing?

I am also taken back by how you could justify pre-emptive attacks on countries who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Yes 3,000 died on that day, but is that equivalent to the now over 1 million innocent iraqis and thousands others in afghanistan and now pakistan?

I hope you don't take any of this personal. I consider you to be a highly intelligent person and I respect your views... I'm just curious as to how you still maintain your point of view especially throughout your extensive research of government deception and lies?

Mike Bara said...

Crispy,

I won't take it personally. You are much nicer about it than Jim Oberg... :)

In short, yeah. We know who they were, we have them on security camera footage, we have their voice recordings, and we have the radar tracks of the plane's flight paths. We know who trained them, and Kalid Sheik Mohammed is not some "man in a cave." He is a very competent engineer who was educated in the United States. He did all the operational planning for 9-11, not bin Laden.

As to OBL being a "prize CIA asset," that's just false. Bin Laden was never in Afghanistan when we were supplying the Mujahaden, he didn't go there until much later after the US was long gone.

As for justifying pre-emptive attacks, no problem. First of all, Saddam and his cronies were up to their eyeballs in various terrorist activities, including a close relationship with Al Qaeda, I don't care what the 9-11 commision says. Second, Germany didn't attack us WW2,and we still went to war with them (thank god). Iraq was and is the front lines in the war on terrorism, which was part of the strategery all along.

As to casualties, I don't believe those numbers for a second, and whatever the numbers are, Al Qaeda has killed more than their fair share of them, not us. And the point is, war is always a bad thing. Lots of innocent people die. That's why it should be avoided. I'm really sorry the Islamic world didn't think about that before they attacked us on 9-11, but we all know what paybacks are like, don't we?

Meanwhile, new schools and business are springing up all over Iraq, and the country has a fighting chance to emerge from this dark period in their history with a renewed national spirit and a place alongside the other civilized nations of the world. That's a lot more than you can say about the country before 2003.

One last point:The invasion of Iraq led directly to Libya abandoning it's nuclear ambitions. Keeping nukes out of the hands of a nutjob like Khadaffi is worth everything it has cost both them and us, IMO.

Adrian said...

Yo Mike...

Have you been swallowing to much PCP's lately....PCP's being Political Correctness Pill's??

by Jove man..have you lost it? Together with RCH so professionaly and scientifically on all things concerning NASA etc. Yes, I have read your work and that of RCH...

So you must be joking right? And then you put the cherrie on the cake by stating

"Keeping nukes out of the hands of a nutjob like Khadaffi is worth everything it has cost both them and us, IMO."

Nukes in the hands of a nutjob like GWB is oke then....and by all accounts it seems this nutter's father really used at least one during the first war overthere.

Not to mention turning this country into a depleted uruanium waste land...and we could go on and on and and on

So Mike...since your always so adament on saying and stating things like ...it's only true if you can proof it and/or repeat and experiment...

So...proof your statements...

and Mike..what is this when you're stating

"I'm really sorry the Islamic world didn't think about that before they attacked us on 9-11, but we all know what paybacks are like, don't we?......."

Is this really who you are???

Because if your answer turns out to be a well confirmed yes then it really puts all your work like Dark Mission and co-ops with RCH in a completely new light..one of disbelief and discredit

Mike Bara said...

Again,

Between Bush and Khaddafi, Khaddafi is the bad guy.

I'd respond to the rest of it, but you really didn't say anything specific. And BTW, the soil in Iraq is naturally full of uranium. At far higher levels than can be produced by "depleted" uranium. That's why we use the word "depleted" to describe it.

Adrian said...

Well Mike...since you asked :-)

on your remark:

"As for justifying pre-emptive attacks, no problem."

There is something out there called International Law and Sovereignty of States which have exclusivity of jurisdiction. Maybe that is a hard one to swallow but that means that there is no justification in a so called pre-emptive strike...the argument of just such a justification is...well...pre(tty)-empty(ve)
Is is an act of war, an act of agression, an act f terrorism if you will. One cannot call an actor of violence a terrorist to justify an act of violence and call it a rightful act. As a nation, being the new selfproclaimed Pax Romanum (Pax Americanum) hence...we have the bigger guns and stick's (boys will be boys kind a retoric)is in no way a justification for deciding who's the bad guy. Calling someone or something bad is by no means an automatic decree that the one who's doing the calling is right...right. The Romans did it and history tell's us how that story progressed

On your remark:

"Meanwhile, new schools and business are springing up all over Iraq, and the country has a fighting chance to emerge from this dark period in their history with a renewed national spirit and a place alongside the other civilized nations of the world."

Another sore argument I am sorry to say...First one cluster- and carpetbombs a soevereign state and there peoples back to the Stone-age and then one hauls in companies like Blackwater, Halliburton and the like...or let the Pentagon and DoD do the awarding of contracts. Most of them American to be sure. Furthermore...if there had been no "let's bomb them to kingdom come" there would not have been a reason to build new schools now would it. And as for your "...alongside the other civilized nations of the world."
Who are you to decide that these people were not civilized before? And that all these innocent people needed to be cruise-missiled out of there homes only to give them a wake-up call and a lesson how to become civilized?

I must say I fully agree with your words "...and the country has a fighting chance to emerge from this dark period in their history with a renewed national spirit..."
but certainly not in context you have put it I'm afraid.


On your remark:

" I'm really sorry the Islamic world didn't think about that before they attacked us on 9-11, but we all know what paybacks are like, don't we?"

the Islamic world didn't think about it..the ca. 1.8 / 1.9 bilion muslims around the world were doing simply the same thing as you and I basically...So where's the point of accusing them like this?

Or do you think that, in Europe, the filing of warrant's to arrest for warcrimes (Herr von) Rumsfeld was a bad Halloweenjoke...and that he fled to Germany being afraid he would be arrested in france during his visit in 2007?

So...wreak havoc around the world and in case something goes wrong...well..that's where the "American Service-Members' Protection Act" a.k.a. "The Hague Invasion Act" comes into place now doesn't it? I think our global history has a lot to say about nations who place themselves above and beyond the law.

Its almost Southpark"ian" isn't it...like in the the movie..lets blame the Canadians...lets blame someone...all in all that's seems to be the mayor gameplay..a few to win and gain and millions to loose and suffer

Mike Bara said...

There is something out there called International Law and Sovereignty of States which have exclusivity of jurisdiction. Maybe that is a hard one to swallow but that means that there is no justification in a so called pre-emptive strike...the argument of just such a justification is...well...pre(tty)-empty(ve)
Is is an act of war, an act of agression, an act f terrorism if you will. One cannot call an actor of violence a terrorist to justify an act of violence and call it a rightful act. As a nation, being the new selfproclaimed Pax Romanum (Pax Americanum) hence...we have the bigger guns and stick's (boys will be boys kind a retoric)is in no way a justification for deciding who's the bad guy. Calling someone or something bad is by no means an automatic decree that the one who's doing the calling is right...right. The Romans did it and history tell's us how that story progressed

First of all, no nation that threatens another has a right to expect that nation to sit back and wait to be attacked, no matter what idiocy like “international law” says. I mean really, we’re supposed to sit back and wait for the Iranians or the Chinese to nuke one (or all) of our cities before we act to defend ourselves? Really? What an absurd position.

Further, no state that is run by a dictator without the authority and consent of its people can be considered sovereign, in any context, morally or legally. The Hussein regime was not a sovereign state in any way, shape or form.


On your remark:

"Meanwhile, new schools and business are springing up all over Iraq, and the country has a fighting chance to emerge from this dark period in their history with a renewed national spirit and a place alongside the other civilized nations of the world."

Another sore argument I am sorry to say...First one cluster- and carpetbombs a soevereign state and there peoples back to the Stone-age and then one hauls in companies like Blackwater, Halliburton and the like...or let the Pentagon and DoD do the awarding of contracts. Most of them American to be sure. Furthermore...if there had been no "let's bomb them to kingdom come" there would not have been a reason to build new schools now would it.

The point is, the people of Iraq are far better off now than they ever were under Saddam – that is an objective reality despite what geniuses like Keith Olbermann and Bill Ayres might think – and it is all thanks to the United States. Add Iraq to the list of nations who have the United States to thank for living in peace and freedom.


And as for your "...alongside the other civilized nations of the world."
Who are you to decide that these people were not civilized before? And that all these innocent people needed to be cruise-missiled out of there homes only to give them a wake-up call and a lesson how to become civilized?

Who are we? Uh, the greatest, most moral nation the world has ever seen. Other than that, we’re nobody.

I must say I fully agree with your words "...and the country has a fighting chance to emerge from this dark period in their history with a renewed national spirit..."
but certainly not in context you have put it I'm afraid.

Interesting opinion. Baseless, but interesting.

On your remark:

" I'm really sorry the Islamic world didn't think about that before they attacked us on 9-11, but we all know what paybacks are like, don't we?"

the Islamic world didn't think about it..the ca. 1.8 / 1.9 bilion muslims around the world were doing simply the same thing as you and I basically...So where's the point of accusing them like this?

Gee, I’m sorry, that must have been thousands of Coptic Christians dancing with glee after 9-11. My bad.

Or do you think that, in Europe, the filing of warrant's to arrest for warcrimes (Herr von) Rumsfeld was a bad Halloweenjoke...and that he fled to Germany being afraid he would be arrested in france during his visit in 2007?

Sorry this statement is completely incomprehensible to me.

So...wreak havoc around the world and in case something goes wrong...well..that's where the "American Service-Members' Protection Act" a.k.a. "The Hague Invasion Act" comes into place now doesn't it? I think our global history has a lot to say about nations who place themselves above and beyond the law.

Its almost Southpark"ian" isn't it...like in the the movie..lets blame the Canadians...lets blame someone...all in all that's seems to be the mayor gameplay..a few to win and gain and millions to loose and suffer

Hmm, except in the South Park movie, the Canadians were innocent. The Iraqi government under Saddam was a major force for terrorism and evil in the world. Again, between Bush and Saddam, Saddam was the bad guy. Anybody who can’t see that is too stupid to converse with, I’m afraid.