False Flag Terror Events

[Megz]

Despite what you learn in history Lincolin was not very liked in his time. He wanted a central government, and although he launched a "war on slavery" it was really all about making the USA more like one country than a union of states. Think about it. We are the united STATES of America. Each state was ment to fall uner the rule of a de-centralized govenment, with "ten commandment" like princibles that couldn't be infringed upon. Each state was free to make its own constitiution, to create its own laws, and to deem what was right within them. Each state carried its own identity, its own rules and its own mindset. States were already working on aboloshing slavery within themselves. The hate created from the civil war (the idealation of evil plantation owners) still has affects today. Not all slaves were beaten and mistreated, and in actuality it was a small portion. Not that I condone slavery, but I do think that how its presented, as beaten and starved children, represents as much a whole of ameriaca as the terriorsts do islam. I'ts importatn also to look at how the people of the time lived, including pioneers and factory workers when examining these issues.
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418"]http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham...y/dp/0761536418[/url]
He made many people suffer at the hands of a hyped up war becuase of this. The north had everything, factories, money, people, cities 5 or 6 times as much as the south...if you look at the demographics of all the north had when they went to war...its ridiculious to picuture why it happened. Yet, becuase of one man's agenda and his "war against slavery" it occured.

In 150 years Bush could be just as hailed as Lincoln. Now that would be intresting wouldn't it?

[Jaime]

What I learned in History class is that the South [i]seceded from the Union[/i]. Lincoln acted to restore the country and in light of that fact, the rest of what you say about Lincoln just falls away. It wasn't "his agenda" . As opposed to Iraq which was completely Bush's agenda.

The rest of the differences between Lincoln and Bush are staggering. Lincoln was an amazing orator. Bush likes to make up words.

And Lincoln wore a hat

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Megz' post='1215407' date='Mar 18 2007, 10:21 AM']Despite what you learn in history Lincolin was not very liked in his time. He wanted a central government, and although he launched a "war on slavery" it was really all about making the USA more like one country than a union of states. Think about it. We are the united STATES of America. Each state was ment to fall uner the rule of a de-centralized govenment, with "ten commandment" like princibles that couldn't be infringed upon. Each state was free to make its own constitiution, to create its own laws, and to deem what was right within them. Each state carried its own identity, its own rules and its own mindset. States were already working on aboloshing slavery within themselves. The hate created from the civil war (the idealation of evil plantation owners) still has affects today. Not all slaves were beaten and mistreated, and in actuality it was a small portion. Not that I condone slavery, but I do think that how its presented, as beaten and starved children, represents as much a whole of ameriaca as the terriorsts do islam. I'ts importatn also to look at how the people of the time lived, including pioneers and factory workers when examining these issues.
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418"]http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham...y/dp/0761536418[/url]
He made many people suffer at the hands of a hyped up war becuase of this. The north had everything, factories, money, people, cities 5 or 6 times as much as the south...if you look at the demographics of all the north had when they went to war...its ridiculious to picuture why it happened. Yet, becuase of one man's agenda and his "war against slavery" it occured.

In 150 years Bush could be just as hailed as Lincoln. Now that would be intresting wouldn't it?[/quote]

It's true that Lincoln was not nearly as universally admired as he is now. However, most historians consider him the best president of the United States in history simply because of the [i]magnitude[/i] of his accomplishments, not taking into account the right and wrong of them. His actions were in many respects very constitutionally murky to say the least.

But I really don't think anybody is still bitter about the Civil War. Except for maybe old-line plantation families in the South? There is so much migration in the United States that I imagine a large part of the Southern population is now Northern transplants.

I also have to say that I think the war was justified on the abolition of slavery alone. Although you are correct in that many slave owners did not mistreat their human "property," nevertheless the mere act of buying, selling and owning another human being is itself an act of incredible violence. Slavery was the foundation of the Southern economy, and it needed to go, period. If the South was not willing to adapt its social and economic structure on its own, then I think the North was perfectly justified in using force.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1215412' date='Mar 18 2007, 02:35 PM']What I learned in History class is that the South [i]seceded from the Union[/i]. Lincoln acted to restore the country and in light of that fact, the rest of what you say about Lincoln just falls away. It wasn't "his agenda" . As opposed to Iraq which was completely Bush's agenda.

The rest of the differences between Lincoln and Bush are staggering. Lincoln was an amazing orator. Bush likes to make up words.

And Lincoln wore a hat[/quote]

Yeah, same here. And I'm from a part of the US that taught it as the "War of Northern Aggression", so it would be surprising for them to leave that out. I'll have to do more research.

A lot of it was about the issue of state's rights versus federal rights, and it didn't start with Lincoln, really. It was also about the economy, and it's quite true that very few people owned slaves.

I personally think Lincoln was an amazing tactition, both in the military and politics. I don't see where he went looking for a war, but had it put upon him when SC started the wave of secession. He wanted unity, because, as he quoted from Scripture, "a house divided against itself cannot stand". And that helped make him unpopular as well. Of course, the war wouldn't have been as much of a contest had Lee joined Lincoln, instead of Lincoln having to put with McClellan for so long. But that's another story

[Megz]

the south started separating from the union BECAUSE Lincoln wouldn't let them do their work.

[quote]It's true that Lincoln was not nearly as universally admired as he is now. However, most historians consider him the best president of the United States in history simply because of the magnitude of his accomplishments, not taking into account the right and wrong of them. His actions were in many respects very constitutionally murky to say the least.[/quote]


This sais it ALL. Think about 100 years from now and put Bush's name.

[Sojourner]

Lincoln did do some questionable things during the Civil War, among them suspending habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a means by which a prisoner petitions for release from unlawful imprisonment. Lincoln suspended it in parts of the country because of rioting and other unrest. His actions were found in a Supreme Court decision (Ex Parte Merryman) to be unconstitutional, but Lincoln ignored the order and continued to suspend habeas rights in many parts of the country. It was not nationwide, as far as I know, but I can't remember which geographic areas specifically were affected.

Habeas challenges, btw, are central to the claims of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and to others who have been arrested in the course of the war on terror, esp. American citizens arrested as enemy combatants. The gov't's rationale is much the same as Lincoln's was during the Civil War -- violations of constitutional rights are OK as long as order is maintained.

Not that Lincoln didn't do great things during the Civil War, but he wasn't as well-loved then as he is now.

I guess I am learning something in constitutional law after all ...

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Megz' post='1215422' date='Mar 18 2007, 02:51 PM']the south started separating from the union BECAUSE Lincoln wouldn't let them do their work.
This sais it ALL. Think about 100 years from now and put Bush's name.[/quote]

I would maintain that it was about the economy (a nice way of putting it). Most of the CSA seceded after Lincoln's election, but before his inauguration, so he hadn't actually done anything to them. He did say he would not condone the [i]expansion [/i]of slavery, though he said nothing about getting rid of it altogether at that point, if I remember correctly, while he did later support complete emancipation, as well he should have. (Although, even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't do that; it only freed the slaves in the CSA, a different country, and freed no slaves within the Union.) He also wanted tariffs, which wasn't exactly the best thing for the southern economy. Since the southern states didn't believe the federal government truly had the right to do that, they left.

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1215426' date='Mar 18 2007, 03:00 PM']Lincoln did do some questionable things during the Civil War, among them suspending habeas corpus.[/quote]

And yes, that is quite true, and something a lot of people either forget or gloss over. I admire Lincoln for many things, but I know he was far from perfect.

And maybe we should just start a Civil War thread, since we're talking about that now.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[Jaime]

[quote name='Megz' post='1215422' date='Mar 18 2007, 07:51 AM']the south started separating from the union BECAUSE Lincoln wouldn't let them do their work.
This sais it ALL. Think about 100 years from now and put Bush's name.[/quote]

Nothing that Lincoln did justified seceding. Lincoln's action subsequent to their secession is what makes him the greatest president in US history. He literally brought the country back together.

Comparing Bush to him is just silly.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1215431' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:26 AM']And yes, that is quite true, and something a lot of people either forget or gloss over. I admire Lincoln for many things, but I know he was far from perfect.

And maybe we should just start a Civil War thread, since we're talking about that now. [/quote]
Just to clarify (I just went back and read over some of the cases): the right of habeas is suspendable with proper cause, and actually there's a constitutional provision that explicitly provides for this. Lincoln's exercise of executive power in suspending it was what was at issue ... the court found that he overstepped his authority by imprisoning people without giving cause (typically when someone is arrested, there must be probable cause for said arrest); here, Lincoln did so without first seeking the approval of Congress, which prior administrations had done. Two years after the 1861 Merryman decision, Congress passed an act permitting executive suspensions of habeas rights.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1215435' date='Mar 18 2007, 03:45 PM']Just to clarify (I just went back and read over some of the cases): the right of habeas is suspendable with proper cause, and actually there's a constitutional provision that explicitly provides for this. Lincoln's exercise of executive power in suspending it was what was at issue ... the court found that he overstepped his authority by imprisoning people without giving cause (typically when someone is arrested, there must be probable cause for said arrest); here, Lincoln did so without first seeking the approval of Congress, which prior administrations had done. Two years after the 1861 Merryman decision, Congress passed an act permitting executive suspensions of habeas rights.[/quote]

Thanks for looking that up.

[Urib2007]

Ok...... What happened to staying on topic? Start a new thread if you want to talk about the Civil War, Lincoln, etc.
Sheesh!

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1215610' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:41 PM']Ok...... What happened to staying on topic? Start a new thread if you want to talk about the Civil War, Lincoln, etc.
Sheesh![/quote]
Megz is a good at marketing. I suggest she go into PR, because she totally spun this post around.

From The Bush's having Ties with the Nazi's and the possibility of them planning 9/11 to Lincoln is like Bush.

When I was taking Journalism in College, we called such tactics 'THE DARK SIDE' of media.

Edited March 19, 2007 by FullTruth

[Socrates]

While I'm not going to waste time with the conspiracy-theory nonsense, I just thought I'd point out some facts regarding Lincoln and the War Between the States. The individual states [i]did[/i] have a right to secede from the Union, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and most American statesmen and constitutional lawyers saw it that way prior to the War (including Lincoln himself, based on a writing of his from 1848). In fact before the war, there was a move by abolitionists for some [i]Northern[/i] states to secede.

The war was [i]not[/i] started to free the slaves - it was, as Lincoln repeatedly stated - to "preserve the Union". Lincoln's granting of freedom to slaves in the Southern States was only introduced late in the war - as a measure to disrupt the South.
Lincoln himself repeatedly made statements showing contempt for black people, whom he regarded as inferior creatures.

The war began when Lincoln sent troops to the Southern states which had seceded to quash the "rebellion" by military force. It was this act of aggression which prompted the states of Virginia, Tennesee, North Carolina, and Arkansas (formerly loyal to the Union) to secede.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Socrates

[TruthSeeker777]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1215648' date='Mar 19 2007, 05:15 AM']While I'm not going to waste time with the conspiracy-theory nonsense, I just thought I'd point out regarding Lincoln and the War between the States. The individual states [i]did[/i] have a right to secede from the Union, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and most American statesmen and constitutional lawyers saw it that way prior to the War (including Lincoln himself, based on a writing of his in 1848). In fact before the war, there was a move by abolitionists for some [i]Northern[/i] states to secede.

The war was [i]not[/i] started to free the slaves - it was, as Lincoln repeatedly stated - to "preserve the Union". Lincoln's granting of freedom to slaves in the Southern States was only introduced late in the war - as a measure to disrupt the South.
Lincon himself repeatedly made statements showing contempt for black people, whom he regarded as inferior creatures.

The war began when Lincoln sent troops to the Southern states which had seceded to quash the "rebellion" by military force. It was this act of agression which prompted the states of Virginia, Tennesee, North Carolina, and Arkansas (formerly loyal to the Union) to secede.[/quote]

Start your own thread with your own 'nonsense' then.
Can't you hear a little bell ring by now when you hear about the[b] NWO/Illuminate???[/b]
It seems like there's 2 sets of rules on the forum.
u Like what you hear and its o.k even when hijacked
,don't like what you hear ' scream 'hijack'
BTW. False flag terrorism is happening now!
LINCOLN is dead.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1215660' date='Mar 18 2007, 11:35 PM']Start your own thread with your own 'nonsense' then.
Can't you hear a little bell ring by now when you hear about the[b] NWO/Illuminate???[/b]
It seems like there's 2 sets of rules on the forum.
u Like what you hear and its o.k even when hijacked
,don't like what you hear ' scream 'hijack'
BTW. False flag terrorism is happening now!
LINCOLN is dead.[/quote]

I don't think there are two sets of rules on the phorum, I just think that, honestly, nobody takes the Illuminati stuff seriously. Lincoln might be dead but his standing as a moral or political leader is more interesting (for most people) to discuss. The conspiracy ideas are stuff you either believe or you don't, and if you don't, you are not going to be convinced by postings on an Internet forum. Trust me on that one.

[Budge]

I would like to know if this is legit....


[quote]
etter of Jefferson Davis to 'pope' Pius IX

Source: United States, Naval War Records Office
Title: Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. / Series II - Volume 3: Proclamations, Appointments, etc. of President Davis; State Department Correspondence with Diplomatic Agents, etc.
Publisher: Government Printing Office
Publication date: 1922
Pages: 910 - 911

Copied from: Cornell University's MoA Multivolume Monographs, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion (1894 - 1922)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
Richmond, September 23, 1863.




Most Venerable Chief of the Holy See and Sovereign Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church,

The letters which your Holiness addressed to the venerable chiefs of the Catholic clergy in New Orleans and New York have been brought to my attention, and I have read with emotion the terms in which you are pleased to express the deep sorrow with which you regard the slaughter, ruin, and devastation consequent on the war now waged by the Government of the United States against the States and people over which I have been chosen to preside, and in which you direct them, and the clergy under their authority, to exhort the people and the rulers to the exercise of mutual charity and the love of peace. I as deeply sensible of the Christian charity and sympathy with which your Holiness has twice appealed to the venerable clergy of your church, urging them to use and apply all study and exertion for the restoration of peace and tranquillity.

I therefore deem it my duty to offer to your Holiness in my own name and in that of the people of the Confederate States the expression of our sincere and cordial appreciation of the Christian charity and love by which your Holiness is actuated, and to assure you that this people at whose hearthstones the enemy is now pressing with threats of dire oppression and merciless carnage are now and ever have been earnestly desirous that this wicked war shall cease; that we have offered at the footstool of Our Father who is in heaven prayers inspired by the same feelings which animated your Holiness; that we desire no evil to our enemies, nor do we covet any of their possessions; but are only struggling to the end that they shall cease to devastate our land and inflict useless and cruel slaughter upon our people; and that we be permitted to live at peace with all mankind under our own laws and institutions, which protect every man in the enjoyment not only of his temporal rights but of the freedom of worshiping God according to his own faith.
[b]I therefore pray your Holiness to accept from me and from the people of these Confederate States this assurance of our sincere thanks for your effort to aid the cause of peace, and of our earnest wishes that your life may be prolonged and that God may have you in His holy keeping.[/b]

JEFFERSON DAVIS,
President of the Confederate States of North America[/quote]

[Urib2007]

[quote name='Budge' post='1215783' date='Mar 19 2007, 08:18 AM']I would like to know if this is legit....[/quote]

Are you kidding me? Seriously stay on topic here. You are known for starting lots of threads, why don't you just start a new thread?

[Urib2007]

[color="#000000"][size=3]False Flag Terror Of The New World Order[/size][/color]
[b]Methods used to facilitate staged attacks[/b]

[i]Paul Joseph Watson[/i]

The fact that states, intelligence and security agencies engage in false flag staged terror to further political agendas is documented throughout history, but it's too naive to simply characterize every act as an "inside job." Different methods are utilized to facilitate attacks using three different basic templates.

[b]1) Unwitting Dupes[/b]

In this case, role players are used to test "security responses" by being told they are part of an exercise for a dummy terrorist attack, an operation that will help the state prevent similar attacks in future. The controllers tell the unwitting dupes that no harm will come to them and that their help will be greatly rewarded.

[b]- London Bombings[/b]

The 7/7 bombings are a prime example of the unwitting dupes method. [b][color="#8B0000"]Mohammed Siddique Khan, the alleged ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings, was working for British intelligence agency MI5 as an informant at the time of the attacks.[/color][/b] Family and friends described the accused bombers as friendly, westernized and having no interest in politics. Metropolitan police career experts in criminal psychology concluded that the bombers' behavior clearly indicated they did not know they were about to die. In an impossible coincidence, the attack paralleled a security drill that targeted the exact same locations at the exact same time. This is a clear example of where unwitting dupes were told that the operation was a security test and yet were strapped with real bombs and a real attack took place.

[b]2) Provocateurs & Patsies[/b]

This is by far the most used method. In this case, radicals with past ties to terrorist groups are hired as informants to infiltrate mainly Islamic political groups and encourage them to carry out acts of terror. In almost every case, the materials required to carry out the attack are directly provided by intelligence agencies or via the hired provocateur. [b]Agent provocateurs also take the guise of undercover government agents, who radicalize otherwise harmless groups over a long period of time and provide financial and material support and safe passage for the group to carry out the attack.[/b]

[b]- 1993 WTC Bombing[/b]

The first [b][color="#8B0000"]World Trade Center bombing was provocateured by the government.[/color][/b] In 1993 the FBI [i]planted their informant,[/i] Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center's twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand. The FBI's failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs"]RARE TV NEWS report about WTC bombing FBI Foreknowledge[/url]

[b]3) Complete Complicity[/b]

Acts of complete complicity, where the [b]state controls and dictates the attack every step of the way,[/b] are only used for major bellwether terrorist atrocities with clearly defined and planned outcomes. Pre-arranged patsies are set-up to take the fall for the attack, but they play very little or no role whatsoever in actually carrying out the attack.[color="#8B0000"][b] 9/11 is the obvious example, but another major case where this method was first used dates back to the 1950's.
[/b][/color]
[b]- Bombing Campaign Against Mossadegh's Iran[/b]

[color="#8B0000"][b]Kermit Roosevelt admitted on NPR radio that in 1953 the CIA and British intelligence carried out a wave of bombings and shootings in Iran to overthrow the democratically elected Premier following Mossadegh's declaration that he would nationalize foreign oil holdings. [/b][/color]He then went on to brag about how they subsequently blamed the bombings on Mossadegh himself. The CIA's own account of the overthrow, reported on by the New York Times in April 2000, states that the agency "directed a campaign of bombings" as part of the coup d’état.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzw-jHrck"]10 MINUTE VIDEO of False Flag Examples[/url]


-----

[url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216"]Terror Storm (A video that will impact your life)[/url]