In Praise of Putin

[11:11]

I'm not convinced about the apartment bombings, so I don't know about that.

Putin came up with the communists and the KGB. He was a spook. Plenty there to be suspicious of.

That said, he threw out an international criminal and he doesn't seem to be in favor of global thermonuclear war.

[8bitagent]

Only in the neocons' fevered dreams:

Hardly. FSB's involvement in the bombings is established without any intervention from Litvenenko. I'm not surprised to see an attempt to discredit Litvenenko in the Moscow press, or that Raimondo would accept it at face value.

Watch Disbelief for the story on the Moscow bombings.

Yeah it's one of those rare cases where an "intelligence inside job" claim is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It'd be akin to if New Yorkers caught Mossad agents running out of the world trade center planting a bomb, and then they try and claim it was just to "test security" after it blows up.

No, Putin does not "preside" over this little group of ex-KGBers; Berezovsky does. The Russian tycoon even has a connection with the prime suspect in the Litvinenko murder case, the elusive Andrei Lugovoi, who had a hand in busting Berezovsky's buddy, Nikolai Glushkov, out of jail. Glushkov, former head of Aeroflot, was convicted of embezzling millions and funneling the cash into a Swiss bank account controlled by none other than our old friend Berezovsky. The common link here is the Russian oligarch, not the Russian president.[/url]

Whatever the case is, Chechyn blamed terrorism including 9/99 as FSB inside jobs are open and shut cases.

Disbelief(2004 award winning documentary)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7655738553

[smiths]

i agree with anti, i am glad putin is there doing what hes doing,

i am convinced that americas actions would have been even worse without the restraining influence of russia,

having said that its quite clear hes prepared to get rid of anyone that presents a threat and i am convinced he gave the green light for the moscow apartment bombings to solidify his power,

as for full scale confrontation, i am sure that like the others he'd be up for it if he thought he could win it,

that belly kissing incident was bloody weird

[8bitagent]

I'm not convinced about the apartment bombings, so I don't know about that.

So...

1. A team of FSB agents caught red handed trying to plant explosives on a fourth apartment complex in Ryazan, whose REAL bomb(despite claims it was a dummy to test security) linked directly to the other bombs used...

2. FSB officials coming forward to say it was an inside job...

3. Journalists and whistleblowers being killed who exposed this scandal...

4. The head of Chechyn rebels who have no problem owning up proudly to operations they genuinely were apart of, said no Chechyn had a hand in that operation

I mean there's so many literal smoking guns in this case, that unlike 9/11 theories, are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And in the documentary Disbelief, a top Russian judge quietly admits to a family member the government was behind it.

There is no doubt it was not even a provocatuered action or sting operation involving paid off Chechyns, but a through and through inside job by FSB.

[Jeff]

There is no doubt it was not even a provocatuered action or sting operation involving paid off Chechyns, but a through and through inside job by FSB.

All that anyone here needs to see that is the same skeptical measure they bring to the 9/11 official story. But because Putin is something of a counterweight to Bush, some have a Putin-sized blind spot.

[8bitagent]

There is no doubt it was not even a provocatuered action or sting operation involving paid off Chechyns, but a through and through inside job by FSB.

All that anyone here needs to see that is the same skeptical measure they bring to the 9/11 official story. But because Putin is something of a counterweight to Bush, some have a Putin-sized blind spot.

Well I don't know if Putin knew of the 9/99 plan, but it was clearly Putin's FSB.

Thing is I like to differentiate the different types of false flags:

provocatuered/sting operations gone live(like many IRA bombings)
this is where informants or agents will pose as terrorists and get real or would be terrorists to blow stuff up

allowals: where a plot is known about, and all measures to stop it are prevented

piggy back: where a genuine plot is known about, but intelligence secretly piggy backs it. Maybe adds a millitary grade bomb(Bali 10/12/2002 perhaps?) and allows it to go through

drills: sometimes grafted onto a sting operation about to go rogue

total inside job: where actual agents do the bombing.

Usually its done through proxies like Strategy of Tension/Gladio(the Masonic/NATO/fascist brigade terror campaign)

Thats why I reserve using the word "inside job" or "false flag"...because often times, its not "false"...often times, terrorists are alllll too willing to take part and take blame. Not caring that the very government theyre trying to blow up just helped them for their own selfish business


About the Chechyn war...how come noone talks about how many innocent Chechyns Russia killed? I heard the numbers are astronomical.

As a note, most the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were spose to go fight the Russians in Chechnya.

[Jeff]

Thats why I reserve using the word "inside job" or "false flag"...because often times, its not "false"...often times, terrorists are alllll too willing to take part and take blame. Not caring that the very government theyre trying to blow up just helped them for their own selfish business

I think that's an important distinction, too. Those terms have become so popularly debased in recent years that they're little more than jargon now.

[smiths]

8bit,

on the subject of bali, what good material or links do you know of to study this further,

i am still interested to know wether my hopefully ougoing prime minister is just a stooge, or wether he himself was complicit and fully briefed about the bali bombing in advice

[11:11]

8bit, I'm not disputing your opinions, I jst haven't read the links you've posted. Too worried about BushCo, I guess! I also haven't read up on Chechnya.

[Joe Hillshoist]

8bit,

on the subject of bali, what good material or links do you know of to study this further,

i am still interested to know wether my hopefully ougoing prime minister is just a stooge, or wether he himself was complicit and fully briefed about the bali bombing in advice

I dunno about howard being complicit in the bali bombing. (Although Australia does have a history of govt false flag terror ops).

Anyone who saw that SBS doco that was on in 05(with its claims of Indo military involvement - made by former president Wahid), and then noticed how quickly the transcript disappeared from the site might suspect elements in the Indonesian govt of being complicit or even organising the thing tho.

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: They can say whatever they want but we are here, we live here, we know them. But I won't say who.

REPORTER: But you know who it is, you think?

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: No, no, I don't know. When I said that I meant we cannot know - we cannot know the truth about that. That is the problem always.

REPORTER: But that bomb has been blamed also on Jemaah Islamiah.

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Yeah, I know but you don't have any kind of proof. The proof is that the bomb is similar to that belong to the police. It's a problem for us then. Every bomb there until now it belongs to the government.

Today is the third anniversary of the first Bali attack that saw 202 people killed, including 88 Australians. Abdurrahman Wahid now has questions about that attack as well. While some regard him as an Eccentric, he is the former president and is often described as the conscience of the nation, revered by tens of millions of moderate Muslims. As such, he's one of only a few people publicly prepared to canvass the unthinkable - that Indonesian authorities may have had a hand in the Bali atrocity. He believes that the plan for the second, massive at the Sari Club, which caused the majority of casualties, was hatched way above the head of uneducated villagers like Amrozi.

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Amrozi was involved in the lighter bomb. That's a problem always. Even though I agree that he should be given a stiff punishment, but it doesn't mean that he is involved. No, no, no.

REPORTER: So you believe that the Bali bombers had no idea that there was a second bomb?

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Yeah, precisely.

REPORTER: And who would you suggest planted the second bomb?

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Well, it looks like the police.

REPORTER: The police?

ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Or the armed forces, I don't know.

Wahid's speculation is chilling and again there's no evidence to support it. But there's no doubt that he's a barometer of how many Indonesians view the whole terror campaign.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00223.htm

[11:11]

On Oct. 12, 2002, the night of the first terrorist attack in Bali, Paridah binti Abas was four weeks pregnant. She was living in Gresik, a mid-sized Indonesian city where factory workers occupy small two- and three-room houses along crowded streets of dirt and gravel. Paridah's neighborhood mosque was silent. The day's fifth and final prayer had concluded hours before. The air was muggy and still.

Paridah was lying on a thin, satin-covered mattress on the floor of the shack she shared with her husband and five children. One of her relatives was listening to the radio. Paridah sat up when she heard news about an "accident" in nearby Bali. The report, she later told me, described explosions and fires. Sirens wailed in the background. Tourists from Australia and Europe shouted their stories to reporters. A Saturday night at two popular nightclubs had ended with friends ripped to pieces and burned to death. Dozens, maybe hundreds, were dead, and an entire block of buildings was gone. Police said it was the work of terrorists.

Paridah was vomiting. Morning sickness had made her so nauseous that she found it difficult to rise. "Most of the time I was just lying down, trying to keep myself from throwing up," she later told me. "It's not nice to vomit. I was in so much pain." She says she was too sick that night to think about the explosions, that the news did not hold her attention.

She says this, despite the fact that her husband, Ali Gufron bin Nurhasyim, who is best known by his alias, Mukhlas, has since confessed to, and been convicted of, planning, overseeing, and financing that attack in Bali; despite the fact that he is a senior figure in Jemaah Islamiyah, an affiliate of al-Qaida that has staged more than 50 attacks in Southeast Asia since 1999.

Before Bali, Jemaah Islamiyah struck local targets. After Bali, the group pulled more high-profile jobs: the 2003 suicide car-bombing at the Marriott hotel in Jakarta that killed 12, the 2004 suicide car-bombing at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta that killed nine, and yet more suicide bombings in Bali last month that killed 23 and injured 150 more at two beach-side cafes and a downtown restaurant.

Four part series: http://www.slate.com/id/2128835/entry/2128836/


Something very odd about this. I've pulled up this article a few times, always Googling the title, The Terrorist's Wife. It's always come up with those words in bold. Just now, no hit. So, I added 'Bali" to the search criteria, and it came up, but without the key words. WTF???

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=th ... tnG=Search (top link)

[8bitagent]

8bit,

on the subject of bali, what good material or links do you know of to study this further,

i am still interested to know wether my hopefully ougoing prime minister is just a stooge, or wether he himself was complicit and fully briefed about the bali bombing in advice

I had a few mainstream ones, forget where they are.

But it was intelligence/security linked to Indonesia's government, not Australia.

Indonesia previously was used by Rockefeller/Kissiner/US government to stage not one, but TWO massive genocides.

1965: killing one million in Indonesia for corporate interests
1975: east timor, 250,000 dead

[Joe Hillshoist]

Don't forget West papua 8bit.

[antiaristo]

There is no doubt it was not even a provocatuered action or sting operation involving paid off Chechyns, but a through and through inside job by FSB.

All that anyone here needs to see that is the same skeptical measure they bring to the 9/11 official story. But because Putin is something of a counterweight to Bush, some have a Putin-sized blind spot.

Putin is a counterweight to Queen Elizabeth. But because (insert reason) some have a Queen Elizabeth sized blind spot.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.

What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries.

Bush has nothing to do with the OSCE. In any case Bush is no longer relevant.

Do you think things will be different under Lady Clinton?

From Iraq 1953 and Suez 1956 to Iraq 2003 the criminals have all sworn the same oath to the same Queen Elizabeth.

The Oath of a Privy Counsellor

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s Majesty as one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty’s Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty
SO HELP YOU GOD

You see parliament doesn't come into it.
Hence
Iraq 1953
Suez 1956 all the way through until
Iraq 2003.

ALL based on lies to parliament.
Fifty years of mayhem and murder.

So maybe I do have a Putin sized blind spot.
But that's as nothing compared to those who have the Queen Elizabeth version.

It's a question of proportionality.

And a balance of power.

Because, at the end of the day, all that matters is how we can get rid of them.

There is no legal way to rid ourselves of Queen Elizabeth. Because it is illegal to get rid of her - you know...

"...to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom..."


Now Bush the father swore something similar to the privy council oath when he joined the Order of Bath.

But Clinton is worse.

She was there, along with Chelsea, when her husband swore the same in January 2001.

She accepted the title of Lady Clinton when her husband became Sir William Clinton.

[antiaristo]

Russia attacks UK over British Council refusal
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 7:47pm GMT 14/12/2007

Russia cast Britain as a global pariah after accusing the Government of violating international law and seeking to destroy relations between the two countries.

In a withering tirade that underscored the Kremlin's determination to demonise Britain, Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, described the British Council's refusal to suspend all operations outside Moscow as illegal.

"Our British colleagues are trying to manipulate international law, which they violated themselves just like they have violated Russian laws," he said.

Simmering Anglo-Russian tensions burst into the open this week when the Kremlin ordered the British Council to close two outlets in an escalation of the row over Alexander Litvinenko's murder in London last year.

Gordon Brown denounced the order as "unacceptable", but the Kremlin sought to place full blame for the crisis on Britain, which, Mr Lavrov said, had "systematically" attempted to damage relations by expelling four Russian diplomats from London last year.

"Such things are not tolerated in diplomacy and as a countermeasure we ordered the suspension," he said.

After ignoring Britain for several months, the Kremlin resumed hostilities two weeks ago after elections that gave President Vladimir Putin's party a resounding if questionable win.

Government-backed youth groups renewed their harassment campaign against Sir Anthony Brenton, the British ambassador, and BBC journalists.

Some commentators suggested the outburst of Anglophobia was an attempt to rally the Russian people against "foreign enemies", thereby ensuring their support for Mr Putin's plans to retain power.

The president has dodged a constitutional requirement to stand down next year by becoming prime minister instead.

Dmitry Medvedev, a pliant cipher accused by critics of lacking the ability to think for himself, was named prospective president.

The revelations, however, have failed entirely to quell speculation of just how Mr Putin will remain Russia's most powerful man.

The president, who will hand over to Mr Medvedev after a rubberstamp election in March, was in Minsk to resume negotiations on a possible union between Belarus and Russia.

Some analysts have suggested that Mr Putin could retain power by becoming president of the new union, conjecture that both the Kremlin and Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarus president, vigorously denied.

Dozens of demonstrators, protesting at plans for what they called an "Anschluss" of Belarus, were beaten and detained.

Facing international isolation, Mr Lukashenko could - despite personal hostility between him and Mr Putin - be persuaded to sacrifice his country’s sovereignty in exchange for the blanket support of his powerful neighbour.

Mr Putin revealed that hefty new loans would be pumped into his host's threadbare government.

Mr Lukashenko hinted that he would approve a Russian military plan to station missiles on his country's border with Poland.

http://tinyurl.com/2tyezd
(Daily Telegraph)


Hmmm.

Perhaps they will name the new union the United Tzardom.

Then they can pass a law which makes a felony of any opposition to "our Most Gracious Lord the Tzar". Perhaps they will call this new law the Treason Felony Act.

It will then be the sum and total of the "unwritten constitution" of the UT.