I have been reading this forum for some time but this is my first comment. Your reasoning is sound, though it is impossible to know exactly what happened due to the fact that we get nothing but lies and subterfuge from this administration, and I refer to both the left and right halves. Quick minds and passionate debate have opened this can of worms to the light.
We do not need to know EVERYTHING, we very rarely ever will know everything about anything. We are only human beings, not omniscient. But we can know ENOUGH, and we have enough to go on to realise that 9-11 was, is, will always have been an inside job. We also can count on sound common sense applied with sharp reasoning that is reality-based in order to realise that more than only one party was involved at the highest levels of the 9-11 and plenty of other, prior, as well as since, false flag operations and other black ops of the U.S., U.K., and other govts.
We know enough to realise that there is NO sound reasoning with claims like the planes striking the WTC Towers on 9-11 and the fires these crashes caused in these buildings constituted the cause of the demolishment of those super-structures; for another example, along with the above.
Yet another example is that the warring on the Middle East never has been for, of and by the Zionists; it's rather always been for, of and by the BIG OIL, though also somewhat, in part for protecting Israel, as Dr John Coleman states in his book 'Diplomacy by Deception', apparently published in 1998. A download link for the free PDF copy of his book is available as the sole results of this Google.ca
He explains a LOT of U.K. and U.S. history in terms of their wars and other acts of aggression against Iran and Iraq, and starting in the 19th century, and very much without Zionists' objectives being the concern in the motives for these extreme acts of aggression which have always been MOSTLY about NATURAL RESOURCES.
In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein's govt represented somewhat of a threat to Israel, but this was rather for only a short period of time. We know that Israeli govt has been the real threat against Israel all along. F.e., we know what the U.S.S. Liberty incident, in which Israeli forces criminally attacked the Liberty in 1969, was an event that happened because Israel's work of aggression against Egypt had been picked up on by the crew of the Liberty, and that, somehow, Israel learned of this and attacked the Liberty, massacring or trying to massacre plenty of its crew. We know that President L.B. Johnson treasonously acted towards the crew of the Liberty and, therefore, rather the whole U.S. military, and the U.S., in protecting Israel from U.S. Navy intervention, by stopping it before it happened but when it would have otherwise happened.
We don't know that Johnson did that for the sake of Zionism or Zionists, but we can be certain that what he did sure was profitable to them.
We can do things without it being for the objectives of another party that is really or at least mostly apart from our own objectives, but while what we do works out to be profitable to this other party. And it can be multiple parties that profit, while all of them may profit in different ways; not necessarily all of them profiting identically. F.e., one party might profit financially or economically, while another may profit not at all in this manner, but strategically, like becoming stronger than the aggressed party(ies) that lose out in the aggression.
We can certainly realise that the Zionists are often very wealthy and that this means that they are capitalist pigs, usurers, etc., so they profit big time from investments in the military-industrial complex, the intelligence-industrial complex (spy tech., etc.), and surely in the oil and automotive industries; not just investing in newspapers and other media, as well as Hollywood. But these are not pure Zionist objectives; just that Zionists are pigs in every way humans can be. Their historical objective has been establishment of the state of Israel, but they have done far more and worse than only this. Israel has a population of roughly 7mn, and these are NOT all Jews.
The Zionists, with extreme and absolutely needed support from the U.K. and the U.S., and then all countries that "play along" with all of the crimes involved, have established en masse of a state of Israel, and already had done so by or before 1967. 7mn population does NOT need larger area. But the Zionists are PIGS and very much like in the Babylonian Talmud sense.
I don't know what's literally true, vs not, about that BT(almud), but having read enough of what it is purported to say is enough for me to realise that people of such beliefs as reflected in the BT most definitely exist and operate big time today over our world. The Israeli leadership has often spoken in identical theme manner, as found in the BT. We got strong examples of this being true in Israeli leadership's public statements about the Palestinians and last year's U.S.-israel war of aggression on Lebanon.
What it really reflects is EVIL, and that is found among Zionists alright, but also among plenty of other peoples or groups of people, as well as among individuals acting alone. EVIL covers ALL evils, of which Zionism is only [one] example; an extreme one, but still only one example.
Anyway, JOHN COLEMAN's book provides very serious historical accounting about the U.S. and U.K. against Iran and Iraq, but also the U.S. govt and Rockefeller in the case of Mexico. I've read up to and including chapter six and there are twelve altogether, but while the first five chapters strike me as very important, must reading, I don't know about chapter six; or maybe it's seven. When he starts getting into the Tavistock Institute, then I don't know enough about this to be able to have an opinion on the chapter or what he says about the institute. However, what he says on that topic is found en masse in other institutes, etc., so perhaps he's very right about the T.I.
He mentions, always briefly, the Illuminati, but in the first six or seven chapters, this reference appears very few times, and it's always just a one-word reference. He, so far as I've read now, never goes on even for a paragraph on this topic.
Why he mentions it at all, I don't know; he doesn't explain, only presenting one-word references. From what I've read, the Illuminati did exist like back in the 18th or 17th or 16th century, long enough ago, but for very short period of time. What I read said that the group had to close down shop, that is, to cease to exist as a group under the name of 'Illuminati'. NOTE, however, that that did not put an end to the members, at least some of whom continued to exist and surely operate for ... what? The rest of their earthly lives, I guess; unless they came to convert to being strictly of good will and ways, which I doubt happened with more than maybe one or two individuals of the Illuminati.
Their mentality and dark ways have continued to exist and can be found among people of groups going by other names; but it's like EVIL, an umbrella for all evils. It does not matter what each group is called; what matters is whether a group is of evil or good will and ways. What then subsequently matters is how powerful a group is. One evil individual is obviously not of equal power with a group of individuals who are evil and conspire together, form armies of killing soldiers, develop police state dictatorships while pretending to be leading democracies, etc.
Coleman refers to the Illuminati very little, and refers much to the crimes of the U.K., U.S., Israel, and other states' govts, as well as surely NATO, and rich and powerful elites, including the Rockefellers and Rothschild(s?), among others. The first chapter is on the U.N. being established and its predecessor, the League of Nations, both of which he describes as really being for, of and by the ruling power elites of the world, and the govts manipulated or controlled by these people. Etc.
So Zionists and the Mossad being invovled in the 9-11 attacks and the subequently evolved, expanded, not new but expanded GWoT, should be of no surprise. However, to believe that these events are happening for, of and by the Zionists is to rather infer that thousands of years of history have all been fictional; that, f.e., even the Roman Empire operated for conquest and domination, as it did, as if for Zionists. We can't go around erasing and ignoring history as if it is irrelevant today.
History is definitely relevant. For one thing, it tells us a LOT about govts, and we know that over just a little, very little more than one century, the U.S. was victim of not one or two false flag incidents, acts of treason, and war of aggression, but even considerably more times. We know of USMC Major General Smedley's 34 years of service and in several war contexts, and of his book, 'WAR IS A RACKET', which Zionism very much is about, racket, but while the wars he had served in were not racketeering for, of and by the Zionists; although some of them likely profited, as well as helped promote false flag acts of treason as if actual attacks by foreign states or groups against Americans.
But Americans have always been rather no better than the Zionists and the populations of the state most controlled by Zionists. After all, we only need to be truthful about what U.S. national history really has been and will always remain. So Zionists were certainly bright enough to know that they could easily find allies in evil kind among Americans, and the Zionists did.
Just because EVIL is evil, this does not mean that it has no intelligence, that it does not realise when it meets another evil, that evils profit each other, etc., etc. They love to work together whenever it is profitable to do so, and the Zionists wanting to establish Israeli state sure realise that they could not achieve this alone. They knew and always have continued to know that they need foreign allies, and they zeroed in where they realised they had the greatest chances of forming strong relationships of evil ally kind.
A GOOD article illustrating strongly enough what I have been saying all along here and everywhere else I've written on all of this Zionism vs neocons vs neoliberals, which is what Bush et al, Zionists et al, really are, as liberal as the great Satan kind of EVIL, and conservative about maintaining this liberal way and preventing the same from being done to themselves; well, a very good article is the following.
"The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader Middle East Military Road-map",
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a research analyst for Global Research, Sep. 10, 2007,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6659
He's in a very good position to know very much what he's talking about, for he lives in the Middle East; Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, ... area.
However, I want to make a suggestion, and I hope you won't take offense, it is intended to help, not tear down. I re-posted this on a Myspace bulletin but had to spend considerable time correcting spelling. ...
Perhaps I haven't read all of the posts in this discussion thread or forum, Saladin, so I don't know what you're referring to as spelling mistakes. If anything in my posts, then you'd need to state some examples, which would have been good for you to do in posting the above additional comment; for, f.e., you might then be referring to when I use not American English spelling but Canadian and/or British. F.e., Americans drop the 'u' in 'our' endings, so we'll have Americans writing 'harbor', 'behavior', etc., while Canadians and Brits will write 'harbour', 'behaviour', etc. Those aren't spelling mistakes, although are examples of how pigheaded Americans are; because they are the ones who went and redefined the English language to again discriminate between themselves and others, as Americans have done throughout U.S. history. Of course they're not the only people to discriminate and to alter language, though.
So those examples are mistakes by Americans in two ways. First, they redefined the spelling of words when there was absolutely no need to do so and at times when there were far more English-speaking people outside of the U.S. than in it. Secondly, it's a mistake to be so damn pigheaded as to always seek to try to pretend that oneself is better than another just because of some differences in viewpoints, and only worse when those have nothing at all to do with the spelling of words.
French does have mispellings in French dictionaries though. That's not always true, not for every word, but is true whenever words are not spelled phoenetically (aka phonetically), that is, as the words are officially declared for pronunciation. There's no point in spelling words in ways that don't match pronunciation; it is dumb to spell in any other way, and makes a language a little longer to learn, and more difficult to remember precisely, over time.
An added benefit for Americans to respect the other English spellings is that they are truer in spelling to the origins of the words. F.e., a lot of the words in the English language originate from French, so if the English words were kept similarly or indentically spelled as in French, then it would make it easier for English-only speaking Americans to learn French.
People who treat language differently than above are folks who are either pinheaded idiots, or they are powermongering elites trying yet again to create division when there'd otherwise be none or less. I am pretty certain that both of those reasons apply, though not that the pinheaded people are aiming for power and forming division, while also not while the people with the latter motives are pinheaded; although the latter probably are both, pinheaded and powermongering divisionists. After all, powermongering divisionists rather necessarily are also pinheaded, as well as putridly, pervertedly, evilly self-centered, conceited, etc., etc.
ANYWAY, I strongly recommend reading John Coleman's book, the article by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (among other articles I have bookmarked but won't bother looking for right now), and 'WAR IS A RACKET' by USMC Maj. Gen. Butler; before people want to blankly claim that "oh, ALL the evil going on today and with the U.S., U.K., NATO, U.N., E.U., this is all of, by and for Zionists". NO ONE can argue such a claim credibly. Nazemroaya gives a surely not unique but still and very strong example of why blaming only the Zionists is something that cannot be done in a credible manner.
To claim that the Zionists and Mossad are not involved is not credible,; but neither is blaming only or even mostly them.
Another good example article or at least topic should be the following. Although I haven't read the article yet and also have never read anything by the author, the title alone tells me that at least the topic definitely is about REALITY that the U.S. is very guilty in and for; without it being any fault of the Zionists. Anti-Zionists, the puritan ones, will again try to blame the following ALL on the Zionists, eh? Good luck; ya ain't got a leg to stand on for arguing.
"Is George Bush Restarting Latin America's 'Dirty Wars'?", by Benjamin Dangl, Alternet.org, Sep. 8, 2007, originally Aug. 31st,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6713
WHO ON EARTH WANTS TO BOTHER WITH MYSPACE, though? After all, it's owned by evil pinhead, powermonger, warmonger, usurer, fascist, corporatist, etc., so sociopath extreme enough to be borderline psychopath, MURDOCH.
That he'd blame Zionists as if solely responsible for the GWoT on the Middle East and WORLD today (of course, so far primarily the Middle East, Iraq, Lebanon, potentially Iran and Syria, and of course neighbour to the M.E., Afghanistan) and Sudan and Somalia, among other African countries, now I could picture him making such a claim. And that would most likely, as [usual], be accompanied by Zionists going along with Murdoch. Why not the combination? After all, the Zionists know that they need the strength of their allies in EVIL and that they'll protect the Zionists; therefore, they know that they can be publicly faulted as if solely guilty and all while this will have very little if any real bearing on or against them at all; nothing effectively harmful to them anyway.
After all, it is clear that they do NOT care about the population of Israel, which is only or at least mostly being used in deceitful, etc., ways. The economy is NOT good at all for many enough of Israel's population, incuding among the Jewish segment.
Don't try to find sane reasoning among the psychopathically insane, which Zionists and their foreign-Zionist and non-Zionist allies ARE.